Just for fun mastering challenge anyone?

[IrionDaRonin]

You should stick to your rule of free plugs only if you want this to be an educational thing. It'll be a mess otherwise.

Completelly agree.

If free vs non fx's are going to be restricted do it even further.
Only allowed to use an eq & limter. No comps, enhancers, tape etc..

That makes no sense. The mastering part of a track comes with some tools, EQ, Limiter, Compression, Stereo, etc. Not only EQ and Limiter.
This way, we could learn from others, compression, as i said, is a tricky bitch sometimes, and need to learned too.

I have some tricks for EQ. I will share when we will know al the plugins to start on.

Best Free EQs

Best Free Compressors & Limiters

Best Mid/Side and Stereo Manglers

With these, we can make nice stuff.
Have a good day guys

[Lenticular]

If free vs non fx's are going to be restricted do it even further.
Only allowed to use an eq & limter. No comps, enhancers, tape etc..

That makes no sense. The mastering part of a track comes with some tools, EQ, Limiter, Compression, Stereo, etc. Not only EQ and Limiter.
This way, we could learn from others, compression, as i said, is a tricky bitch sometimes, and need to learned too.

I have some tricks for EQ. I will share when we will know al the plugins to start on.

Best Free EQs

Best Free Compressors & Limiters

Best Mid/Side and Stereo Manglers

With these, we can make nice stuff.
Have a good day guys

That's my point.

Why limit yourself of just using certain plugins (only free) instead of just making the best master one can using all tools that are available - free or not.

Anyway I don't that all commercial plugins are necessarily expensive & would think most here already have basic tools.

-

[Aiynzahev]

So I've been thinking about this a little and here are my thoughts on it lately:

1) If we want to learn from this it would actually be beneficial if some people used their commercial plug-ins. We would then learn more about the capabilities of commercial plug-ins vs freeware.

2) This one is a little more ambitious but bear with me, I think with each track we decide to master we should finish it by sending it to a professional mastering house. Each time we will choose someone different depending on how much money we can raise.

If each person participating can contribute $5 or so (publicly and depending on the mastering house costs) then perhaps with enough people we can send the tracks to some big name houses. That will be very instructive.

Bearing in mind that there are some pretty cheap online mastering services now, we could climb the ladder so to speak and find out what professionals can do first hand. I will ask them if they don't mind writing a quick bit about what they did with the track and why.

Just possibilities but it sounds like it could be very instructive. And one lucky person will get to have their track mastered each time we do it.

[lotus2035]

We would then learn more about the capabilities of commercial plug-ins vs freeware.

That project is already in motion, here's where you can join in the fun: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/

[lfm]

You should stick to your rule of free plugs only if you want this to be an educational thing. It'll be a mess otherwise.

I think it's very educational either way if you present what you used.

If we get stuff from people only using free stuff:

a) you're not getting people with some experience interested, cause they bought stuff they like and usually use. They are hardly going to grab some free stuff they do not use and learn that and try make the best of it.

b) yes, you make it an equal chance to "win", but we said it'a about learning, not winning.

So to actually learn from each other, isn't what he/she used more interesting to know?

Then we can see for ourselves whether we like the versions from using commerial plugins better in general, or there is no truth in that commercial is better - skill is more important.

Then we really learned something - didn't we?

To some degree, it will allways be personal taste and what kind of music you are mostly into anyway.
- I like what #42 did the best, I will look into what he used
- I liked what #12 did, and will save up to get some of what he used
- I liked what #17 did, since it was free stuff, and I cannot afford more now

Everybody can learn what suites his wallet and I'm sure there will be a lot of new brand names and plugins we never heard of before.

If we only run free stuff - we will never know and can compare to what it might be able to do with that track.

What the final voting might be for best mastering is not really interesting. It's like looking at the top of the charts and you have to like that music the best.

If everybody states what they did, what they used, how they did it(settings) then we really would be able to learn something.

And nothing published until deadline is reached. Nobody should listen and then redo their version.


But OP owns the idea - so he rules.

[Aiynzahev]

You should stick to your rule of free plugs only if you want this to be an educational thing. It'll be a mess otherwise.

I think it's very educational either way if you present what you used.

If we get stuff from people only using free stuff:

a) you're not getting people with some experience interested, cause they bought stuff they like and usually use. They are hardly going to grab some free stuff they do not use and learn that and try make the best of it.

b) yes, you make it an equal chance to "win", but we said it'a about learning, not winning.

So to actually learn from each other, isn't what he/she used more interesting to know?

Then we can see for ourselves whether we like the versions from using commerial plugins better in general, or there is no truth in that commercial is better - skill is more important.

Then we really learned something - didn't we?

To some degree, it will allways be personal taste and what kind of music you are mostly into anyway.
- I like what #42 did the best, I will look into what he used
- I liked what #12 did, and will save up to get some of what he used
- I liked what #17 did, since it was free stuff, and I cannot afford more now

Everybody can learn what suites his wallet and I'm sure there will be a lot of new brand names and plugins we never heard of before.

If we only run free stuff - we will never know and can compare to what it might be able to do with that track.

What the final voting might be for best mastering is not really interesting. It's like looking at the top of the charts and you have to like that music the best.

If everybody states what they did, what they used, how they did it(settings) then we really would be able to learn something.

And nothing published until deadline is reached. Nobody should listen and then redo their version.


But OP owns the idea - so he rules.

Those are some good points. I like the idea of a deadline and no one hears anything until the deadline is over.

Then I could bring in the "mastering house" version. What do you think about that idea, of me getting a professional mastering engineer version in just so we can all compare our work with the pros and see if they will their years of experience, high end listening gear and analog gear can make a difference worth the money. (I think most of them could)

And your right, we don't need to vote. It's too subjective and it would take more time and effort.

[lotus2035]

a) you're not getting people with some experience interested, cause they bought stuff they like and usually use. They are hardly going to grab some free stuff they do not use and learn that and try make the best of it.

Anyone capable of participating here shouldn't have to take more than a few minutes to adapt to an unfamiliar EQ, Compressor, Limiter Etc. And who says that good mastering engineers don't use cheap or free tools? What counts is the sonic result not the amount of expensive plug-ins in your folder.

And in terms of the educational goals of this idea the sonic differences between the plugs-in would be negligible.

[Aiynzahev]

hmm... I might just have to put this one to a vote to settle it.

Anyway, in the meantime check this out:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar06/a ... tering.htm

It's a mastering shoot out!

[lfm]

Anyone capable of participating here shouldn't have to take more than a few minutes to adapt to an unfamiliar EQ, Compressor, Limiter Etc. And who says that good mastering engineers don't use cheap or free tools? What counts is the sonic result not the amount of expensive plug-ins in your folder.

And in terms of the educational goals of this idea the sonic differences between the plugs-in would be negligible.

Well, first you have google around and find what is out there for free, and then try them out, and then decide which one works better. This for everybody using commercial ones - since they are banned.

I remember I ditched Ozone 3 limiter when I made a project 2007 because it made low end muddy, and found that Kjaerhus free Limiter worked better, despite it's coloring. Since then I bought some stuff that I'm ancious to put to the test. I don't feel one bit like using Kjaerhus and run around and see what might work better.

I fully agree with your sentence:
"What counts is the sonic result not the amount of expensive plug-ins in your folder."

But maybe I read it a little different than you do. It's not that interesting to see what the result is with free only - there is nothing to compare to what the professionals use.

Because we don't know if expensive really is better. And if that is the case, you can still find what those free ones are, that still sound good, by picking from the list and try yourself.

Wouldn't the really interesting result be if skill and time put into it is the most important thing - not the pricetag of plugins.

If commercial ones are not in there at all - the myth can continue to live on - that all you need is money and your masterjobs will shine. Mastering is a profession by itself - or is that a myth too?

I think it might be more interesting to see what we get when everybody use what they have. This would really be a sharing experience.

And the idea from OP to have one/several mastering houses throw in their version is really great(if they dare). Then we have the full range, some with only free ones, some mixed free/commercial and professional mastering to compare. Some will have hardware that does part of job and that would be great to see if that shines through the rest.

To have the same track handled by maybe dozens of people here and ability to compare would really be unique. There are mixing contests for sure - but just mastering and everybody share how they did. How much can you do with a normal stereo track for the final touch.

Maybe we should have 3 or more different tracks/genres:
- singer songwriter
- pop/rock
- Dance music

I don't know, just throwing ideas....but sometimes less is more as they say. And maybe original idea with just free appeals to the biggest crowd.

[Phase47]

Skill > Gear. Experience > Gear. Confidence > Gear.

Greg Calbi or Ted Jensen could master a better sounding track with a guitar amp and a cassette deck or two paper cups & some kite-string than most people could could do with $30,000 worth of gear and the best monitoring system in the world.

If you really want to learn some tips & tricks, just pick a track, have people master it however they want to, with whatever they want to, and then if you like what hear, ask them to deconstruct the process. One of the best ways to learn mastering is to hear what somebody else did with their gear, and then try to match it on your gear - that's one good way to get your ears going and learn your tools.

Placing too many conditions on these kinds of potentially good exercises is usually counterproductive.

Each mastering engineer I know has a completely different set of tools, different chain, different monitoring. There is some crossover, but for the most part, it's a very individual thing. Gear is chosen (or excluded) based on the philosophy of the engineer and the needs of any given project.

After you've been doing it long enough, the gear is almost irrelevant. You hear the unmastered track, your ears tell your brain what needs to happen, and you use your tools. After a while, this all happens so fast, you won't even notice the process. You hear, react, and go. If you're over-thinking gear at that point...

I haven't read all, or even most of this thread, so I'm not entirely clear on the goal here, but it's hard to get anything meaningful out of just one track to get the whole picture on mastering. If you sent just one track to five commercial mastering houses, you'd get five different sounding tracks back - some you'd probably like more than others. Just one track lacks context. It's taking that one track and making the nine other tracks that go along with it sound cohesive, and good, and having the whole thing sit well as a package.

If you do send a track out to a real commercial mastering house, be sure to let them know you'll be posting it on the internet to dissect and compare/contrast as a courtesy to the engineer.

[Aiynzahev]

Phase47 has some good points also.

I think it would be best to let people use whatever. After all, it would be pretty cool if someone used high end analog gear and we could clearly hear the difference.

Anyway lets say:

Any equipment may be used, including kite strings and paper cups etc

Engineer will know we will all be listening and I'd hope he could take 5 minutes to let us know roughly what he did.

Okay

We will need some tracks. And we may need some donations, If there are no donations there will be no professional mastering. But before anyone donates they should make it public so I can add it all up and find out what we can afford, get everyone's approval and then go for it.

Good idea?

[IrionDaRonin]

I could throw the first stone. I could upload an EDM/Housy/4 Floor style track i made yesterday to put here as download for free. I want to learn much about it, due i always wanted to master this style, specially.

Suggestions

-In what format should be the track to master? (I would suggest Wave format 48,0 Khz, Stereo, 24 Bits)
-How many headroom should be leave in the non-mastered track? (I would suggest between -5 dB to -3 dB)
-Should we to upload only one file (the track itself) or should we upload every channel separatelly?
(I would suggest each channel separatelly for more accurate and precise mastering, at least by type, LEAD, GUITAR, PAD, BEAT, BASS and EFFECTS)
-Should we upload the entire track, or just a little part of it it would be enough to learn? (This way, if we upload each channel separatelly, we wouldn't have +200 megabytes of waves to download)

About the donations, you know my economical situation and i can't donate money right now, sorry for that, guys.

About the free and commercial, ok, i think it would be nice then, if Aiyn is agree, i will agree too.
I'm very impatient to watch how is going this didactic project.
Too many things to learn.

Have a good day guys

[Aiynzahev]

Hi Irion

I think the format is fine as 44 or 48/24 bits.

If we are talking wave files definitely just the stereo mix, because otherwise the file sizes become huge, not only that but it becomes much more involved and complicated.

Right now I am considering on-line mastering which would start at about $30 or so, so it should be easy to raise the money, but if people can't that's fine too.

I think we will go for commercial and free plug-ins then!

And just to hurry it up lets go for Irions' track, unless anyone has any objections?

Once we have the track sorted out I will start a new thread.

How many days do we want for each project? I don't want to drag it out, a whole month feels like a long time, 2 weeks a little short perhaps..

[IrionDaRonin]

Hi Irion

I think the format is fine as 44 or 48/24 bits.

If we are talking wave files definitely just the stereo mix, because otherwise the file sizes become huge, not only that but it becomes much more involved and complicated.

Right now I am considering on-line mastering which would start at about $30 or so, so it should be easy to raise the money, but if people can't that's fine too.

I think we will go for commercial and free plug-ins then!

And just to hurry it up lets go for Irions' track, unless anyone has any objections?

Once we have the track sorted out I will start a new thread.

How many days do we want for each project? I don't want to drag it out, a whole month feels like a long time, 2 weeks a little short perhaps..

Nice.

About the time for making masters, i think between 2 - 3 weeks is enough.
I don't think a main channel bus mastering with some dropped plugins would take too much time. So 2 weeks i think it is perfect for people with enough free time.
Professional engineers almost has a nice stereo mix/master in a few of hours.
But yes, let's extend the time to 3 weeks, just in case people not having too much free time.

The stereo file to be mastered is ok. But time to time, a little tutorial for different kind of sounds and parts, for example, how to compress/EQ a bass line would be very nice.

My track is EDM, so i don't know if people will like it specially, it is not hardcore, but is a bit repetitive and agressive.
I don't have a problem dropping it here, i just need to re-render with the master channel plugins deactivated.
Anyway my track needs some FX and a little different re-arrange, but due this is only for didactic purposes, i don't see problem if the structure is not polished/finished yet.

I will upload here tomorrow in the evening.

Anyway, we should have prepared the list of plugins to use already, before doing anything.

Have a good day

[Tricky-Loops]

What would be more interesting is which online mastering services are worth the money and which are not. There are some inexpensive offers, but do they master with high quality?

As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't offer mastering or participate at a mastering competition - simply because I'm not a trained mastering engineer. Of course, I can do some kind of pre-mastering, but the REAL mastering should be committed by a (trained!) mastering engineer.