Do I need to "Master" my CD?

[Lunch Money]

Followed my own advice, and here's the list: Click ME. Funny, it's not quite as extensive as I remember, though the website itself has more than just this one page going for it.

[mrspecial]

Followed my own advice, and here's the list: Click ME. Funny, it's not quite as extensive as I remember, though the website itself has more than just this one page going for it.

thanks for digging that up, it was pretty interesting seeing a list like that. im not familiar with alot of those records, but the ones i have i never noticed any clipping or anything. led me to an interesting link thats a bit on topic: http://www.zwanmusic.org/newsarchive/145.html

its billy corgan talking about how he wanted to make the loudest record in the world...

[DevonB]

i think you mis understood me. i never said anything about squashing the f**k out of a track and squelching the dynamics, i simply said its important to get the parts of a track you want to be loud as loud as possible without it clipping. this doesn't entail setting the threshold of a limiter to -100 ... you are welcome to mix your record to -60db to prove a point if you want, but somewhere along the line someone is going to pop a limiter on it and set the output to -60db....
people always bitch about this, but who cares, really? since hardly no one is writing music with dynamic variation anymore (i actually do, though), whats the point of doing it in the mix? when something is written with dynamic variation, true it does get squashed sometimes, but the only people who complain are engineers.

All this with no consideration to the content? People do write more than just rock and techno/tarnce tracks. I try to avoid a limiter if I can. I want dynamics, and saying musicians want 'no dynamics' doens't help the problem either. People want music they can listen to, and tracks with dynamics are MUCH more pleasant to the ear than tracks with little to no dynamics. The movie industry has this down to a science. Why not music tracks?

Devon

[Lunch Money]

i have i never noticed any clipping or anything.

Right. They're not clipped, just hard limited, so you -won't- hear any clipping. Instead, you'll just hear everything at a uniform output of 0db. Since the whole album is usually at the same level the whole time, it gets tiring for the ears and mind.

Greg

[mrspecial]

Right. They're not clipped, just hard limited, so you -won't- hear any clipping. Instead, you'll just hear everything at a uniform output of 0db. Since the whole album is usually at the same level the whole time, it gets tiring for the ears and mind.

Greg

i was referring to the albums i was familiar with that had bits of distortion caused by clipping

[Lunch Money]

Ah, my mistake. Didn't notice that he also listed "distorted" discs in his list. I didn't really look at it after I dug it up.

[phatty]

what? distortion on a nin album??

[TVD]

OK, I'm ready to do the final mixdown of my first solo CD. I've done LOTS of critical listening, re-recorded all the parts with screw-ups, panned, compressed, adjusted, EQ'd, and generally tweaked each track until it's as perfect as possible (as I can make it, anyway). I still have to go back and de-ess some tracks, remove some transients that I didn't notice until the last few listen-thrus and do some volume curve adjustments on plosives like "tuh" and "puh," etc.

If everything's mixed to my liking, do I really need mastering software? I'd really like to be done with this project, and overall it sounds pretty good to me, although I suppose it's rough in spots (that only I can probably hear). What exactly IS mastering, anyway? The last few CD's I've burned sound good to me just about anywhere, although I'm sure that the pro recording engineers would probably cringe.

If you say I still need to "master," is there any inexpensive (read: "free") software to do it? Software that even I can understand?

I'm using Samplitude Pro V7.x. Any suggestions?

Buy Audition or Soundforge. And yes, you want one of these audio editing softwares to make master CDs.

And finally, if you don't own your masters, your masters will own you!

[blakereary]

I'm suprised that no one has mentioned this:

Mastering is not about the plugins or hardware you use. You could have a million dollars worth of plugins and equipment and still not be able to master an album properly.

Mastering, in regards to the sonic treatment of your product, is about the room. The room that you hear your final mix in. Dedicated mastering studios are acoustically tuned to as near a flat response as possible. The outcome of this is being able to hear problems, distortions, etc. that you could never hear anywhere else. It is only at this point that an engineer can make the appropriate decisions as to what needs to be done to finalize the product. Furthermore, a good mastering room and all of it's gear and plugins is absolutely useless without a good engineer.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify this. I know there's lots of 'mastering' software out there, but really that software will only get you so far on your own. If you want your final product to sound professional, take it to a pro mastering studio.

-Blake

[Lunch Money]

Yes, but luckily those of us who are really lazy and have no money can get satisfactory results with presets. <chuckle>

I know, it's the antithesis of what true mastering's all about, and I agree 100% that it's about the room, the monitors, and the ears. However, I'm not too upset about dialing up a preset in Final Mix and then tweaking it a bit to modify my needs.

Another thing that a true mastering engineer with never or rarely do is use visual analysis, but I have to admit that I do it all the time. My equipment can't handle sub bass, so I need to have a peek to see what's going on down there.

NOW, the kicker is--

What I do at home myself, I consider "final mixing", not "mastering". At best, it's "amateuring".

Greg

[chagzuki]

I believe that you can 'master' to a professional standard at home, and there are some good reasons to take this route, but it's not easy, and will inevitably involve a hell of a lot of trial and error.

[Lunch Money]

Agreed. Just to be clear, I only meant that what I personally do at home is "amateuring". Other people may very well be mastering at home.

[bewing77]

Thing is that the problem is not getting the disc to sound good on your monitor speakers, but to get it to sound good in as many different systems as possible. That's where experience and great ears comes into play. Unfortunatly alot of records today are mastered with a basic low end home stereo in mind, on wich dynamics sound bad and where the power of the system may not be enough to get decent volume if the disc isn't hot enough. It's reallt a bummer if you own a high end audiophile system though since the shiny new CDs you play still sound like a $100 boombox.

If you want your disc to sound great in different situations you probably need to hire a seasoned mastering engineer. The second benefit of this is that you get a second oppinion: someone experienced listens to your disc extensively and detects any flaws. It's a great reassurance. If you simply can't afford it try different settings and burn a bunch of different test discs. Bring theese to as many different systems as possible and listen, and try to get some other people to listen and give their opinion to.

[fishbowl.tucson.az]

Agreed. Just to be clear, I only meant that what I personally do at home is "amateuring". Other people may very well be mastering at home.

Speaking on behalf of those of us who remember when 78 RPM records were still being produced, and contemplate the current capabilities of consumer gear with a clear and continuous awareness of what has come before, this whole conversation is a bit silly. Of *course* you can get high quality results from prosumer gear in a home studio. There are degrees of quality, of course, and, as it is with any technology, it is utter folly to pursue the state of the art (this applies to pro studios as well!).

You might be surprised to peek in a commercial kitchen and find nothing that you don't have at home, and even a smaller, less ergonomic space. Or you might look in a kitchen and feel as if you've walked onto the deck of the Enterprise. Hmm, where am I going with this? Damn.

Point is, of course you can record, mix, and master to a high standard. Is it easier with an unlimited budget? Yes. Is a poor acoustic environment going to be a hinderance? Yes. But plenty of great tracks were recorded onto half inch tape with close dynamic mikes under atrocious conditions compared to what you no doubt have on your desk. I think you should ponder that before making any claims as to what can or cannot be done with the tools available. There is no doubt in my mind that many projects that were done using the state of the art consoles in the 70s would have switched IN A HEARTBEAT to my cheap ass ghetto DAW, even if it had meant moving into my garage to make it happen!

[Lunch Money]

Did you even READ the quote at the top of that post?

Good lord... people need a sense of humour.