I am finishing a simple 8-Track student demo, mostly live instruments, but want to sauce it up the best I can. Regarding the Pre-master FX . . .
What should be included?
What should be removed?
What should be added?
What order?
1. Intelligent EQ
2. Special EQ, like the Maag Audio EQ4 for overall upper sparkle
3. Fairchild 670 compressor
4. Inflator
5. Finalizer Plugin, like Kilohearts Grand Finale, Softube Drawmer S73, or intelligent options like iZotope Ozone.
6. Analogue Vibe Warming FX, like Kiive Audio Tape Face and XLN Audio RC-20 Retro Color
7. Hard Limiter
Help w/2-bus processing (Pre-Master FX)
-
- KVRAF
- 2719 posts since 2 Jul, 2010
Ideally one would mix the tracks without any master bus effects and then send to another engineer.
If you must do mastering yourself, it's a good idea to wait a few days after mixing to revisit with fresh ears. Use reference tracks to get an objective idea of how it compares to other stuff. That doesn't mean you have to make it sound exactly like the other stuff, but if you then decide to push it or "sauce" it some way or another then it can be done with purpose.
Use gain-matched bypass and A/B features to make subtle changes that push things in the direction you want. If the effect sounds better bypassed, remove it and think about why it didn't work as expected.
If you must do mastering yourself, it's a good idea to wait a few days after mixing to revisit with fresh ears. Use reference tracks to get an objective idea of how it compares to other stuff. That doesn't mean you have to make it sound exactly like the other stuff, but if you then decide to push it or "sauce" it some way or another then it can be done with purpose.
Use gain-matched bypass and A/B features to make subtle changes that push things in the direction you want. If the effect sounds better bypassed, remove it and think about why it didn't work as expected.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1095 posts since 12 Jan, 2011
My experience with mixing/mastering is mostly pre-DAW. It was a much different, simpler process using a Tascam 8-track studio.imrae wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2023 8:53 pm Ideally one would mix the tracks without any master bus effects and then send to another engineer.
If you must do mastering yourself, it's a good idea to wait a few days after mixing to revisit with fresh ears. Use reference tracks to get an objective idea of how it compares to other stuff. That doesn't mean you have to make it sound exactly like the other stuff, but if you then decide to push it or "sauce" it some way or another then it can be done with purpose.
Use gain-matched bypass and A/B features to make subtle changes that push things in the direction you want. If the effect sounds better bypassed, remove it and think about why it didn't work as expected.
Then, I did it all in a sampler and mixed down to a DAT and sent it out for mastering and printing CDs. Now, it's a whole other game. If I leave the mastering to a pro engineer, what would you recommend I process at the individual track level and busses?
Last edited by tommyzai on Sun Aug 20, 2023 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 7718 posts since 2 Sep, 2019
Master buss processing is NOT the same thing as mastering. As a mix engineer, master buss effects are part of your arsenal.
I would avoid EQ on your master buss. You should get your EQ balance at the channels. Global EQ is for mastering for a particular physical medium. It’s used because some media, such as tape and vinyl, require compensational EQing to counteract the idiosyncrasies of the physical materials.
I would avoid EQ on your master buss. You should get your EQ balance at the channels. Global EQ is for mastering for a particular physical medium. It’s used because some media, such as tape and vinyl, require compensational EQing to counteract the idiosyncrasies of the physical materials.
THIS MUSIC HAS BEEN MIXED TO BE PLAYED LOUD SO TURN IT UP
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1095 posts since 12 Jan, 2011
Yeah, I'm not trying to master . . . just trying to get the stereo at the end (master buss?) to sound 90% there and make an .mp3s to share. I've heard many suggest putting Gullfoss at the end for some finalizing.jamcat wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2023 9:17 pm Master buss processing is NOT the same thing as mastering. As a mix engineer, master buss effects are part of your arsenal.
I would avoid EQ on your master buss. You should get your EQ balance at the channels. Global EQ is for mastering for a particular physical medium. It’s used because some media, such as tape and vinyl, require compensational EQing to counteract the idiosyncrasies of the physical materials.
-
- KVRAF
- 8708 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
In the real world, you do it all yourself nowadays, let's just admit it. And you can do whatever you want with as many or as few FX wherever you want them. So here's a purely subjective opinion that may not apply for you at all.
1. To me that's too many dynamics plugins. Why do you need a 670 compressor, then Ozone or whatever (which is mainly limiter) and then another limiter (and Inflator seems to work effectively as dynamics though debatable). No need for 2 limiters.
2. Eq->comp or comp->Eq is entirely subjective. Whatever suits your taste
3. Limiter should be last, so if you want analogue warming magic voodoo distortion on your carefully crafted master it should be before the limiter. That kind of distortion adds harmonics, so it will increase volume.
4. Analogue warming magic voodoo is distortion. Remember that. You either like it or don't. It is absolutely NOT essential but many strangely seem to like it. Up to you. Personally I don't want to distort my masters. But if your style is old man guitar music then you might want dirt all over your master, and I get that.
5. Dynamic Eq does nothing for me, but it has its uses. Again, don't think you HAVE to use it. If it fixes something that's wrong with your mix then that's OK but as with any and every FX, just using it because everyone else say they do on the internet is the worst reason you can have for using it. A shitload of stunning mixes and hits have been made without dynamic Eq.
6. Eq - Whatever Eq you want. The choice is immense. Beware that quite a few of them do saturation, so think! Do you really want saturation on top of saturation? Your analogue magic voodoo distortion will potentially be doubling the already magic voodoo distortion your Eq might be doing.
Personally all I mostly use on my master is compressor -> limiter. The compressor varies, as does the limiter. Sometimes I'll use some Eq but mostly not. I used to use a hw BBE enhancer back in the day but I haven't found any sw ones that I really like that much. I particularly disliked the exciter type enhancers, because...you guessed it, they're analogue (real) magic voodoo distortion in a box and I have never wanted to distort my masters. But you might like destroying yours, just like loads of others do...
1. To me that's too many dynamics plugins. Why do you need a 670 compressor, then Ozone or whatever (which is mainly limiter) and then another limiter (and Inflator seems to work effectively as dynamics though debatable). No need for 2 limiters.
2. Eq->comp or comp->Eq is entirely subjective. Whatever suits your taste
3. Limiter should be last, so if you want analogue warming magic voodoo distortion on your carefully crafted master it should be before the limiter. That kind of distortion adds harmonics, so it will increase volume.
4. Analogue warming magic voodoo is distortion. Remember that. You either like it or don't. It is absolutely NOT essential but many strangely seem to like it. Up to you. Personally I don't want to distort my masters. But if your style is old man guitar music then you might want dirt all over your master, and I get that.
5. Dynamic Eq does nothing for me, but it has its uses. Again, don't think you HAVE to use it. If it fixes something that's wrong with your mix then that's OK but as with any and every FX, just using it because everyone else say they do on the internet is the worst reason you can have for using it. A shitload of stunning mixes and hits have been made without dynamic Eq.
6. Eq - Whatever Eq you want. The choice is immense. Beware that quite a few of them do saturation, so think! Do you really want saturation on top of saturation? Your analogue magic voodoo distortion will potentially be doubling the already magic voodoo distortion your Eq might be doing.
Personally all I mostly use on my master is compressor -> limiter. The compressor varies, as does the limiter. Sometimes I'll use some Eq but mostly not. I used to use a hw BBE enhancer back in the day but I haven't found any sw ones that I really like that much. I particularly disliked the exciter type enhancers, because...you guessed it, they're analogue (real) magic voodoo distortion in a box and I have never wanted to distort my masters. But you might like destroying yours, just like loads of others do...
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1095 posts since 12 Jan, 2011
kritikon, I don't know whether to thank you for taking the time to list some excellent points and unique perspective or curse you for the condescending, sarcastic tone . . . "old man guitar music" and "But you might like destroying yours [masters]..." Mostly, thank you. LOL Yeah, too much dynamic processing. BTW, I had the BBE Sonic Maximizer in a box back in the day, and at first it was amazing how it brought tracks to life. Soon after, I realized it was horrible . . . multiplying harsh high tones that shattered glass.
-
- KVRAF
- 8708 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
Yeah, if it sounds good. TBH for most of us nowadays the mix IS the master. Likely a large amount of people do their mastering the same time they do their mixing. Arguing about what a master is is just semantics. IRL you do the mixing with the faders/channels/buses etc and you then go over to the stereo out and put dynamics etc on it to do the mastering. I used to record a render then go back in to do finalizing, i.e. mastering, but TBH nowadays I do it in one go, like lots of people. It's neither right nor wrong. So if your mix/master or whatever some pedant wants to call it actually sounds good and sounds finished, then send it. No point "mastering" it just for the sake of it.
-
- KVRAF
- 2719 posts since 2 Jul, 2010
Do you expect that these tracks will be listened to together in a compilation, or always individually?
If compiling them together, a mastering step is helpful to give some uniformity in level, frequency balance and (optionally) "vibe" (i.e. saturation and audible compression).
If they are standalone and there is no external engineer then the benefits of a "mastering" step are greatly diminished and you might as well just mix into a brickwall limiter and (optionally) bus compressor.
I'd steer clear of multiband anything unless you have a specific problem to solve.
If compiling them together, a mastering step is helpful to give some uniformity in level, frequency balance and (optionally) "vibe" (i.e. saturation and audible compression).
If they are standalone and there is no external engineer then the benefits of a "mastering" step are greatly diminished and you might as well just mix into a brickwall limiter and (optionally) bus compressor.
I'd steer clear of multiband anything unless you have a specific problem to solve.