How are you mastering?

[studiodekadent]

I use TC Electronic Powercore MasterX3 to do my mastering. If you dont have Powercore, you can use a TC Electronic Finalizer (Finalizer Express if 48khz is OK to you, Finalizer 96k if it isnt). Or, if you like analogue mastering but want to do it all in your DAW, you can use Focusrite Liquid Mix, or if you really really want pure real analogue mastering, use the Focusrite Platinum MixMaster.

I prefer digital production myself for its clarity, but I might get myself a Mixmaster some time.

[kyleknapp]

*sigh* I spend a LOOOONG day yesterday at Studio B having my disc mastered by Doug Van Sloun. He's highly renowned (does all the Bright Eyes, Cursive, and other Saddle Creek bands, as well as a wide diversity of folk and rock artists) both locally and nationwide, and I've been impressed with stuff I've heard that he's worked on, so I figured he'd be a good pick.

Now $500 poorer and feeling pretty conflicted... I don't know if it's just the "postpartum" letdown you sometimes feel after finishing something important, or if I really have reason to be disappointed, but I'm not really happy with the results.

2 major things happened: Doug felt all my songs except one (Barnswallow Dance) were much too "bass-light" (I'm pretty sure I boosted the bass a little on this song since I last posted it), so he used Barnswallow as a "model" and eq'd most of the other songs to bring out the low end to comparable levels. On some songs this sounded pretty good, I think, but on others it makes the bass sound artificial, or else overpowers the songs in ways that detrimentally affect their subleties.

The Other thing: he didn't like the vocal eq on most of the songs (in particular he called the vocal on Down the River Road "stuffy" (actually I had already brightened it a bit from my last post). On some songs, brightening the vocals negatively affected other things in the mix, on a couple songs it tended to make the bg vocals stand out more (not all that terrible a thing, but I mixed them low because I wanted them way).

I have an appointment tomorrow with an impartial studio engineer who I trust, to do an A-B comparison, so he can tell me if I'm just crazy.

To be fair, Doug did point out many legitimate weaknesses in my mixes which made mastering more of a challenge, but in retrospect I wish I'd hired him for a couple hours just to listen and tell me what I needed to do to prepare, then gone home and remixed before wasting a day and $500

I have high hopes for this project, so I may in fact do some remixing and shell out the bucks to master it again, but I'll likely miss the June 1st release date I announced...

[brandondrury]

We, as musicians, artists, mixers, producers, or whatever must accept the fact that mastering WILL CHANGE THE MIX...or it will be subtle.

It's tricky when you are the one performing and mixing. Perspective can be tough to maintain. Having said that, I liked your mixes...otherwise, I would have told you I didn't like them.

Some guys going for the "old" / "folky" sound go with bass heavy mixes. They often like "dull" sounds, in my opinion. I liked where your tunes sat.

So the big question comes up. If you are not sure about the mixes, there are a few possible issues that spring to mind.

#1 Did the mixes really need mastering? What were you not happy about?...or did you just want a pro's second opinion?

#2 Listen to the mastered version and the unmastered version on systems other than your studio monitors. Which one do you like better?

#3 Do you think the mastering improved the effectiveness of the music? If it didn't, it wasn't worth doing.

#4 Do you think the mastering engineering had the same vision that you did while mixing?

I've had mastering engineers get "creative" with my mixes. I HATE creative mastering engineers. I had GREAT luck with Eric Conn at Independent Mastering. He took my mixes for what they were and subtlely improved them. He didn't go too far this way or too far that way to make them fit some sort of mold...because that is not really what mastering is about.

#5 You were there in the same room when you were getting your stuff mastered. Did you like the sound of what he did to the tracks better on his monitors?

This is where it gets tricky. If you were 100% pleased with what he did to your mixes in the control room, than it stands to reason that you would be pleased with the mixes on other systems that sound similiar to the mastering guys. (Yes, I know that no one has as good of listening setup as a pro mastering guy....but if there was a dramatic difference between the sound of your monitors and his monitors that we can expect that dramatic different to exist on all sorts of systems).

[kyleknapp]

#1 Did the mixes really need mastering? What were you not happy about?...or did you just want a pro's second opinion?

I wasn't really unhappy with anything, but I thought mastering was considered pretty much a necessary preparation for replicating CD's, to set levels at something resembling an "industry standard" and make them consistent from one song to the next. I really didn't see a need for significant changes, other than overall volume. But I thought mastering was also where songs were set in order, gaps and fade-outs/ins finalized, ISRC codes embedded, and possibly some compression/limiting done.

#2 Listen to the mastered version and the unmastered version on systems other than your studio monitors. Which one do you like better?

I tried it on my car and living room stereos, and think my unmastered recordings sound better. I still want to try it on a couple others.

#3 Do you think the mastering improved the effectiveness of the music? If it didn't, it wasn't worth doing.

Effectiveness? no, other than removing the annoyance of having to manuallly turn the volume up and down to compensate for varying levels from track to track (but I thought this is what mastering was for)

#4 Do you think the mastering engineering had the same vision that you did while mixing?

we didn't talk about vision. He did do a bit of A-B comparison between my "Barnswallow Dance" and an Allison Krause recording with a similar vibe. So maybe he had a country/bluegrass vision, which really doesn't fit most of the project. Silly me, I just figured he knew what he was doing... If he'd asked me to suggest another recording with a comparable "feel" I probably would've offered Jackson Browne's "These Days" (from "For Everyman"), and compared it to my "Mercy on Me" ("yeah, can you make me sound like Jackson Browne and David Lindley?"), but he didn't ask.

I had GREAT luck with Eric Conn at Independent Mastering. He took my mixes for what they were and subtlely improved them. He didn't go too far this way or too far that way to make them fit some sort of mold...because that is not really what mastering is about.

this is what I was hoping for

#5 You were there in the same room when you were getting your stuff mastered. Did you like the sound of what he did to the tracks better on his monitors?

yes, I was there. He used several different sets of monitors. On one set, everything sounded great. Another set seemed to exaggerate the bass most of the time. I should have pressed him for more explanation of what he was doing, but I assumed the latter were "exaggerated bass" speakers to simulate what it would sound like to people who prefer ridiculous bass boosts. A few times I was just about to ask "is that what I'm gonna sound like?", when he switched to other speakers that sounded better to my ear, and I thought "okay, never mind..."

A friend (with experience engineering hip-hop music) this evening suggested I was "too close" to the project - that I should set it aside for a few days, then listen to it again and see if I still feel the same way. I'm thinking that may be good advice.

[brandondrury]

A friend (with experience engineering hip-hop music) this evening suggested I was "too close" to the project

Yeah well.....anybody who has every busted their butt trying to make something awesome is "too close" to the project. That's just how it is. Maintaining perspective is not easy...some guys say it's not even worth maintaining. Just do what you do...

First off, I want to say that Eric Conn did our 12 song album for under $800. He's Garth Brook's go to mastering guy, if that tells you anything. So he's not exactly cheap, but he's not expensive either. In the future, don't even think about it. Call Eric. There are few guys that I would recommend this highly with anything. I'd even trust my teenage daughter with Eric....if I had a teenage daughter (I'm 26).

It sounds like this mastering guy might be one of those mastering guys I hate. To be honest, there is only so much you can do on the 2bus. Once a song has been mixed, dramatic EQ causes dramatic problems. You have to be subtle. If he doesn't know that, he's an idiot and should go back hanging sheetrock or whatever.

I can see absolutely NO logical reason for a real deal mastering engineer to toss up another album. This is NOT what mastering is to me. If a person needs to "compete"... A) I think they are full of crap because any 2 given records in the same genre will sound dramatically different. B) Trying to impose X sound on Y record doesn't work. It's like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day where he had that one magical day where he almost slept with the chick. Of course, the next day he forced it and he looked like an asshole. This is what I think simulating a cd does. You look like an insecure dumbass trying to chase some kind of standard. Just make whatever you do....better. That's it.

The idea is to take what you have and make it an album and maybe even out the humps. Of course, you've got to make the kids happy and get the levels up, unfortunately, but that's the easy part (if the mix allows it).

Dude, if you want I wouldn't mind taking a stab at mastering your record. If you don't like it, don't pay me. I mastered a buddy's album (done by a producer with platinum records on his wall) and the producer was very impressed.

The last thing I'd do would be to screw with your vision. And if you did a crappy job mixing, the only thing that is going to fix that is a re-mix...not mastering. If you did a good job mixing, mastering should subtlely improve it.

If you are interested in letting me get my paws on it, send me a PM. If not, no big deal. My plate is always too full anyway.

Brandon

[kyleknapp]

Dude, if you want I wouldn't mind taking a stab at mastering your record.

Thanks for the offer, I may well consider that. I just emailed Doug to see how soon and what he'll charge for a "re-master" session. Everyone I've spoken to since Monday says "he'll do it exactly how you tell him to", so I think a lot of the problem was I just didn't speak up enough (I was intimidated by the whole process, especially being in the presence of the "mastering guru")

If he says he has to charge me the entire day rate again I may be PMing you instead. I'll let you know.

[brandondrury]

No biggie either way. I hope this dude can work something out with you.

If this dude is the "real deal" than he was probably just having an off day. Eric Conn was EXTREMELY easy to talk to up front and made it very clear that if I didn't speak my mind, it was my fault for being a weuss.

Don't be intimidated by these guys. Mastering guys are pussies. (Okay, many of them are REALLY talented) but they completely avoid the REAL creative process. I feel like an asshole when I have to ask a singer to think about his friend that died last year. Oh well! Screw 'em! I'm trying to make music with substance. The mastering guys totally bypass all the "digging deeper within" crap.

Brandon

[kyleknapp]

Well, Doug had a cancellation on Friday, so I went back, after re-mixing 3 songs to improve their stereo spread (on Mercy I had almost everything panned dead center, and on Continue On I had the bass panned 75% to the left - how did I do that!?)

His reason for the EQ tweaking was to make the songs sound "consistent" (and I now see where some songs had much more low end than others, but I couldn't hear it on my monitors - guess I'm gonna get a subwoofer before I do this again), but he used the songs with heavy bass as a model, whereas I (if I were approaching it this way) would've done the opposite. We remastered most of the songs, removing most of his EQ tweaks. He complained a little ("I've only mastered 111,000 CDs, what do I know?") but he did what I asked. We were there 5 hours and he only charged me an additional $100, so I'm pretty happy.

Except I think I missed the target with my remix of Is This Heaven - I was never 100% happy with how the snare sounded, so while adjusting to create some stereo spread I also took some of the high end off the snare. It sounds better, but a side affect I didn't notice right away is that the cymbals don't sound as good. Plus the bass now seems louder (though I didn't think I touched it, possibly a byproduct of spreading the guitar tracks out, thereby reducing their overall punch?).

Now I have to decide whether to go back again with hat in hand (although I imagine he'll take this easier, since it's my fault). At any rate, I feel much better about the whole thing now. I'll keep you posted

[paligulus]

Glad to hear that your last mastering session went a lot better.
I think you should definately go back if you are not 100% satisfied. If only for your own piece of mind. Judging from your other posts during the mixing process, you have put an enormous amount of very hard work into this album so dont sell yourself short now when the finish line is so close!!

Dave

[kyleknapp]

I've recently discovered a number of places offering low-cost mastering by mail or online. For example:

www.hitmastering.com ($15 per song)
www.thebrainmachine.com ($30 per song)
scottL@popsmearrecords.com ($25 per song, found on Craigslist)
www.masterbymail.com ($15 per song, $99 PER DISC!)

They all appear to be legit, but are they any good?