Preparing a mix for a mastering engineer.

[tomdegrazia]

Hey all, until recently I would master all my own stuff using Waves L2 and other plugins, but a band is interested in going to a mastering engineer after I mix the song. Up until now I would actually mix with the limiting plugins on and that's pretty much the only way I know how to mix. How would I prepare a track for a mastering engineer because I heard you shouldn't use any type of limiting on the Stereo out bus. Any help is appreciated!

[Danny Danzi]

Tom, the first thing I would do, is contact the mastering engineer they will be using and speak to him about any and all questions. If he's a good guy he may even allow you to feed him a few test mixes in order to pinpoint certain issue areas before the project goes to be mastered.

Most mastering guys have their own set of rules as well as do's and don'ts. I'd give you mine but they might not be what the mastering engineer the band will be using would want you to do.

Ask him how hot he wants the mix to come out of your DAW, if he needs stems supplied, and if you're allowed to use your usual recording methods with limiting etc.

Me personally for what it's worth...do whatever you want to the mix, but I'd want nothing on your master bus. Depending on how good the mix is, I'd want it exported out in whatever format it was recorded at with no dithering at no hotter than -3dB if it's a good mix. -6dB if it's a mix that needs some work.

I'd want stereo stems of all instrumentation with effects applied onto the tracks in the event I need to fix something.

I'd ask that no master fade ins or fade outs be applied. I'd do them from here and would request specific times and musical landmarks in order to perfect the fades.

That's about it...call and talk to him about the above things and you should be in good shape. Best of luck!

[tomdegrazia]

Thanks a lot danny, that'd cleared a lot of stuff up!

[Bigduggieface]

Originally Posted by Danny Danzi

no hotter than -3dB if it's a good mix. -6dB if it's a mix that needs some work.

I'm curious why you would need the 3-6dB of headroom. I assume it would be to accommodate any eq boosts in the digital domain.

However, it seems to me that most mastering engineers would be more likely to attenuate eq curves than boost them. Additionally, they would be likely to strap compressors and limiters on the main bus.

Also, it would seem prima facie to me that mastering engineers who work with analog gear would want the best digital resolution and s/n ratio possible.

In other words, why not submit 24/96 masters that peak at say -0.2 dBfs? Why leave the headroom?

[Danny Danzi]

Originally Posted by Bigduggieface

I'm curious why you would need the 3-6dB of headroom. I assume it would be to accommodate any eq boosts in the digital domain.

Yep, that's correct. Some engineers ask for -10 to -12 but for the life of me, I have no idea why.

Originally Posted by Bigduggieface

However, it seems to me that most mastering engineers would be more likely to attenuate eq curves than boost them. Additionally, they would be likely to strap compressors and limiters on the main bus.

See that's not always the case though Dug. When we master, there are many times in which we do boost especially in todays times because so many people think that they need a w a r m mix. They go overboard and of course we cut the mids but just cutting them doesn't compensate for some of the "air" high end we may have to include. Also, most bass frequencies in mixes I get are all wrong. 120hz to 155hz for rock seems to be pumping out of control. So, I either have to control it, multi-comp it and then I have to add in the right bass for the tune. I won't strap a limiter on until the end. Everything is mastered using mulitple eq's maybe a multi-comp, a stereo imager if necessary and a good mastering compressor.

Originally Posted by Bigduggieface

Also, it would seem prima facie to me that mastering engineers who work with analog gear would want the best digital resolution and s/n ratio possible.

In other words, why not submit 24/96 masters that peak at say -0.2 dBfs? Why leave the headroom?

I don't quite understand? If the recording wasn't done at 24/96 you shouldn't upsample it to 24/96 for the sake of s/n ratio because you are adding stuff that wasn't there to begin with. However, there are engineers that believe in this method and use 2 DAW machines. They'll reporduce the source material at a lower rate and then feed an upsampling converter, high resolution DAC for analog processing and then into a ADC for digital processing. Then of course downsample and dither if need be for CD.

Me personally? I think that's overkill and unecessary but the reason for that method is pretty much due to the media being sent in to be mastered at 16/44 where it should be processed at a higher sample/bit rate. I do all my processing at the highest bit rate, then dither and limit last. It depends on how much of an impact the higher bit/sample rate will make. I've heard incredible 16/44 projects that to me, just didn't need to be processed at a higher rate and then downsampled once again. I have on the fly tools that allow me to play in all bit/sample rates as well as dedicated soundcards that will allow me to play things on the fly at different bit/sample rates. I experiment with everything when a mix calls for it. If I have to upsample, I will, but for the most part I try to stay away from it and still don't quite believe in it all the way other than for certain projects. Sounds a bit contradictory, I know. It's one of those catch 22 things really.

Speaking of 24/96, I really don't see the need for ANYONE to ever record at 24/96 unless they are doing an orchestra or an all acoustic album. Anything that has a sonic field such as pop, rock, blues, jazz, metal....you won't notice a difference at 24/96...trust me. Your ears are playing tricks on you if you can. You may notice the headroom and a bit more crispness, but that's not always a good thing to have in a mix...especially for rock or dirty blues. But for acoustic type stuff and live orchestra or even a school marching band etc, there is something about the 24/96 realm to me that just makes that sort of stuff shine. But upsampling something that was not recorded in 24/96? I don't believe in it though I have that capability here without any artifacts.

It just doesn't do anything that the human ear can pick up on and I don't need the extra headroom. I have enough of that with 32 bit float. For the record 24/96 = unecessary hype to me. 24/48 is perfect. There is no need to tax a system to that extent for something that may look good on paper that will not drastically improve the quality where it is noticeable to most common human ears. I've been doing this a long time....I've done extensive testing at 16/44, 24/44, 24/96. I hear a difference from 16/44 to 24/48, but that's about it and I have really good hearing and pay attention to detail.

Loudness and who's making the call: See, another problem is HOW people get to -0.2dB. The mastering engineer needs full control and the client is taking that control away from him by messing with levels and excessive limiters. How do I treat a mix that's been limited with a Waves L-3 at -0.2 with a threshold setting of -10? I'd get this:

████████

████████

I don't think it should be up to the client to dictate what -0.2 should be, do you? My way of -0.2 and some dude wanting to squash the piss out of a mix at -0.2 are -0.2 different things. LOL!! I need to make that call....they just need to give me the cleanest mix possible and I'll worry about gradually increasing levels in increments the right way. At this point, they are out of their engineering realm and are interfering with my domain with how I can master the material to the best of my ability. I've got no problems giving them what they want, but I have to do it my way, in increments and while watching how this may affect the project.

I always seem to get the best results using a -3dB window. For myself on my own material, I go to -2dB but only because it's mine and I am in pre-mastering mode about an hour before I hit that "export audio" button. Bob Katz too practices the -3dB method and seems to get the best results there. I've used it way before I even knew who he was, but it was a breath of fresh air to send my stuff to be mastered by him to where he told me "-3dB on the mixes." Seeing it in his book years later was even nicer. But like I say, all mastering engineers have their own rules and guidelines for what works for them. I only share what has worked for me.

[TonyB]

You're correct, some MEs ask for somewhere around -12dBFS.

An ME I use quite abit asks for between -18dBFS and -12dBFS. I don't question him. He's got >$25K in mastering equipment (Crane, Manley, etc) and he does a good job.

[Danny Danzi]

Originally Posted by TonyB

You're correct, some MEs ask for somewhere around -12dBFS.

An ME I use quite abit asks for between -18dBFS and -12dBFS. I don't question him. He's got >$25K in mastering equipment (Crane, Manley, etc) and he does a good job.

See I know a little bit about this stuff T...not much, but a lil.

[TonyB]

Originally Posted by Danny Danzi

See I know a little bit about this stuff T...not much, but a lil.

DD, you're sandbagging! I know you know alot about this stuff!

BTW, when I get something needing independent mastering I'll come your way.

[Danny Danzi]

Originally Posted by TonyB

DD, you're sandbagging! I know you know alot about this stuff!

BTW, when I get something needing independent mastering I'll come your way.

Haha, I'm holding back a few things...but you know....I type freakin' novels as is, Brandon would say "dude, go haunt your own site you're killing us over here!"

Ah thanks for that bro...for sure you have my word I'll take good care of you and give you the "friend discount". If you have any questions about anything, feel free to pm me or email me anytime you want and if we need to talk by phone, it's no problem for me to give you a call. Worst case scenario you get to laugh at my funny accent in real time. Hahaha! Thanks man.

[Bigduggieface]

Originally Posted by Danny Danzi

I don't quite understand? If the recording wasn't done at 24/96 you shouldn't upsample it to 24/96 for the sake of s/n ratio because you are adding stuff that wasn't there to begin with.

Thanks for the detailed info, DD. Perhaps I wasn't clear about this.

I wasn't implying that one upsamples to 24/96 nor downsamples to 16/44.1. I understand that you would give the ME a 2-track mix at the sample and bit-depth that it was recorded and mixed at.

Similarly, when I said -.2dBFS, I wouldn't dream of overcompressing or limiting the 2-bus before giving it to the ME to master. I've given mixes to ME's in the past that were completely UNcompressed, yet they peaked at within -1 dB, and nobody complained. I just was curious about this 3dB (or especially 12dB of headroom).

But I understand your points and I'm with you all the way.