- Nov 19, 2005
- 3,730
- 0
- 36
I. Introduction
Hey guys, I'm happy to say that for the second time an album I've recorded and mixes has been mastered by the very talented and friendly mastering engineer Nathan James from The Vault Mastering Studios, New York.
Some of you may remember the previous thread and since it got so much attention and great replies I decided to make this follow thread which I am hoping will be of benefit to both beginners and advanced mixing or mastering engineers.
I shall start by providing samples of the material before and after mastering, as well as the maximized sample I sent to Nathan for Reference. I will then briefly share my opinion regarding the differences that can be heard. I'll ask a couple of questions related to those differences and the way they are achieved and Nathan will shed some light on the whole process as well as answer any, or at least some of the questions you'll add.
I will edit this post whenever there's a new contribution.
II. Clips
Mix Sample mp3 | wav
Reference Sample mp3 | wav
Mastered Sample mp3 | wav
My thoughts: On first listen I immediately noticed how much more alive and punchy the whole mix and especially the drums sound. It also felt as if it were more 3D as opposed to the relative flatness and stillness of the reference sample. Another important difference is that the vocals sound real and not like a recording. The low end in the mastered version is so much better in so many ways, too. The kick sounds quite powerful without being too intrusive and the bass is pretty solid. The brittle high-end of the reference sample gives way to one that's a lot smoother in the mastered sample. Overall, I'd say this is all that can be expected from an excellent master and any noticeable improvement would have to come from the previous stages (tracking, mixing, etc.)
III. Info
Photo of The Vault Mastering Studio
IV. Q&A
Q:I know with the right dynamics and eq you can make a mix sound punchy but how can you add this sense of extra depth and 3D sound? Usually you can't bring forward something that's not there so I assume these features of the recording exist but are somehow subdued. What parameters do you deal with to achieve this?
A:I get asked this question often and my answer usually starts with the often-cliched "Do no harm" response. It's not news by any means, but every link in the chain has the potential to diminish that sense of spaciousness and detail that already exists in a mix. From a mastering perspective, that (along with having a monitoring setup that accurately reproduces those details and your adjustments) has to be the starting point.
For well-mixed loud heavy guitar and drum based material, I'm almost always running my analog chain through a custom tube line amp stage which feeds my console. It sounds really great and can definitely give a mix breadth and smooth out some of the edges depending on how hard it's driven. This was a piece I had modified by Dave Smith over at Sony right before he passed away. There's a lot of love in that box so I suppose that would classify as a bit of a secret. That coupled with a little presence from the Avalon 2077 and some low sculpting from the Sontec....it just works for me.
Q:I mentioned the punchy drums - did you use clipping or have you achieved this by carefully choosing compression settings? Is there some secret or is it a result of experimenting? Any tips?
I'm very careful to avoid having any one piece do heavy lifting for any aspect of the process. So instead of leaning on one compressor for dynamic control, I might use 2 or more together (one to pass through for some color, another for added impact, perhaps another to bring a little more gel to the mix). I eq in the same manner....it's rare for me to apply more than 2.0 dB or so to any particular band on an eq. I'll usually divvy up those tasks if something needs a lot of work.
My Prism AD-2 also has to keep things in check coming back in to digital land. Depending on the material, and the goals of the client, I might push into it a little bit as well, especially if there are heavy drum tracks involved. Generally speaking though, I'm not a fan of clipping. So when I can get away with it I'll avoid it.
My Sequoia session template also loads up several bypassed peak limiting choices for me so it's very easy to sync them up and audition them to see which one (or combination) suits the end goal of the tune.
Q: I notice the vocals in your masters always sound spot on (or at least as good as the recording allows). Do you just follow your gut, tweaking till it sounds right? Doesn't your frequency perception get skewed at some point and if yes how do you counter this?
Thanks! I've been an instrumentalist for the bulk of my life so that's a nice compliment. Vocals are tricky for everyone involved. It really just comes down to listening and trusting my monitors and my ears. I know that's a non-specific answer but there really is no one way to go after them.
Hopefully the vocals come in sounding well-balanced with the instrumentals, in which case it's merely a matter of preserving what the mix engineer laid out and making the critical decision of whether an improvement can and should be made. In the absence of that, sometimes more is needed to strike the right balance. It's usually just a little bit of EQ to make things sit right but there are also occasions when a good M/S eq and a good M/S compressor can help in a way that they can't in the stereo domain. Both of my analog compressors are hooked up to run in M/S if needed. My M/S eq work is always surgical, and for that the Weiss EQ1-MKII is my go to.
As far as keeping things fresh, I take a break after every 3 or 4 songs and these days I generally don't do any eq work past 8:00PM. That keeps my brain and my ears fresh and ready for the next session in the morning. =) There's probably a bit too much coffee and too little sunlight thrown in there but whaddayagonnado?
Q. Regarding your EQ usage, how do you divide the tasks and do you use two or more instances or units of the same EQ or is it crucial that they are different in character?
The main factor for me is that when I EQ, I have to have confidence that any adjustments I make are enhancing the listening experience. However that's attained entirely depends on the material and how a project is sitting in my room. It's nice to have a few different EQ flavors to choose from but it's not necessary to make a good sounding master. One nice sounding EQ and one complimenting compressor can go a long way.
Q. If the mix you've received is far from ideal and aspects of it call for some serious intervention, how do you make the tough decision what to change and what's better left unchanged? Especially since in such mixes fixing one thing ruins another. Example: The overheads are too bright but the vocals are almost dull, you try an M/S EQ but every time the hi-hat is played there's way too much bleed on the snare track. Lots and lots of automation?
My first concern in the case of something being far from ideal would be to communicate my findings with the mixing engineer and make sure that he/she and I are on the same page. If the changes required are better suited to be adjusted at the mix stage (and the mixing engineer is available and open to that idea) then I can avoid having to make those compromises which will ultimately lead to a better end product. Also, the last thing you want to do is upset an artistic decision that was made by the producer/engineer/artist during mixing. This is why communication during the mastering process is so important....
In those cases where a mix recall is impossible and the engineer's response is "Do what you can", things can get quite surgical. I don't use a lot of automation in the traditional sense. I'm more inclined to work in sections and edit segments together. I might make those changes on the analog side and splice together, or split up the file into segments in Sequoia and make the changes I need there. Totally depends on what the best tool is for the job.
There will always be compromises when making even moderate changes to a stereo mix. One helpful thing that many of my clients will do is book an hour or so for me to listen through their mixes when they think they are 90-95% complete. If I can spot a problem area and an adjustment can be made to the mix before the actual mastering session begins, then the end result will always benefit from that.
Q. Do you usually use any kind of stereo widener/stereo enhancer?
Most of the width of a mix will come during the actual mix itself. Mastering may increase the perception of width, and yes some MEs do use stereo enhancers. You have to be very careful with this type of processing though as it can introduce a mess of problems (phase, mix imbalances, etc.). I usually don't recommend it unless you have absolute faith that your monitoring environment was nailing the reproduction of the stereo image, and even then....subtle subtle, especially if vinyl is going to be involved at some point.
Hey guys, I'm happy to say that for the second time an album I've recorded and mixes has been mastered by the very talented and friendly mastering engineer Nathan James from The Vault Mastering Studios, New York.
Some of you may remember the previous thread and since it got so much attention and great replies I decided to make this follow thread which I am hoping will be of benefit to both beginners and advanced mixing or mastering engineers.
I shall start by providing samples of the material before and after mastering, as well as the maximized sample I sent to Nathan for Reference. I will then briefly share my opinion regarding the differences that can be heard. I'll ask a couple of questions related to those differences and the way they are achieved and Nathan will shed some light on the whole process as well as answer any, or at least some of the questions you'll add.
I will edit this post whenever there's a new contribution.
II. Clips
Mix Sample mp3 | wav
Reference Sample mp3 | wav
Mastered Sample mp3 | wav
My thoughts: On first listen I immediately noticed how much more alive and punchy the whole mix and especially the drums sound. It also felt as if it were more 3D as opposed to the relative flatness and stillness of the reference sample. Another important difference is that the vocals sound real and not like a recording. The low end in the mastered version is so much better in so many ways, too. The kick sounds quite powerful without being too intrusive and the bass is pretty solid. The brittle high-end of the reference sample gives way to one that's a lot smoother in the mastered sample. Overall, I'd say this is all that can be expected from an excellent master and any noticeable improvement would have to come from the previous stages (tracking, mixing, etc.)
III. Info
Photo of The Vault Mastering Studio
IV. Q&A
Q:I know with the right dynamics and eq you can make a mix sound punchy but how can you add this sense of extra depth and 3D sound? Usually you can't bring forward something that's not there so I assume these features of the recording exist but are somehow subdued. What parameters do you deal with to achieve this?
A:I get asked this question often and my answer usually starts with the often-cliched "Do no harm" response. It's not news by any means, but every link in the chain has the potential to diminish that sense of spaciousness and detail that already exists in a mix. From a mastering perspective, that (along with having a monitoring setup that accurately reproduces those details and your adjustments) has to be the starting point.
For well-mixed loud heavy guitar and drum based material, I'm almost always running my analog chain through a custom tube line amp stage which feeds my console. It sounds really great and can definitely give a mix breadth and smooth out some of the edges depending on how hard it's driven. This was a piece I had modified by Dave Smith over at Sony right before he passed away. There's a lot of love in that box so I suppose that would classify as a bit of a secret. That coupled with a little presence from the Avalon 2077 and some low sculpting from the Sontec....it just works for me.
Q:I mentioned the punchy drums - did you use clipping or have you achieved this by carefully choosing compression settings? Is there some secret or is it a result of experimenting? Any tips?
I'm very careful to avoid having any one piece do heavy lifting for any aspect of the process. So instead of leaning on one compressor for dynamic control, I might use 2 or more together (one to pass through for some color, another for added impact, perhaps another to bring a little more gel to the mix). I eq in the same manner....it's rare for me to apply more than 2.0 dB or so to any particular band on an eq. I'll usually divvy up those tasks if something needs a lot of work.
My Prism AD-2 also has to keep things in check coming back in to digital land. Depending on the material, and the goals of the client, I might push into it a little bit as well, especially if there are heavy drum tracks involved. Generally speaking though, I'm not a fan of clipping. So when I can get away with it I'll avoid it.
My Sequoia session template also loads up several bypassed peak limiting choices for me so it's very easy to sync them up and audition them to see which one (or combination) suits the end goal of the tune.
Q: I notice the vocals in your masters always sound spot on (or at least as good as the recording allows). Do you just follow your gut, tweaking till it sounds right? Doesn't your frequency perception get skewed at some point and if yes how do you counter this?
Thanks! I've been an instrumentalist for the bulk of my life so that's a nice compliment. Vocals are tricky for everyone involved. It really just comes down to listening and trusting my monitors and my ears. I know that's a non-specific answer but there really is no one way to go after them.
Hopefully the vocals come in sounding well-balanced with the instrumentals, in which case it's merely a matter of preserving what the mix engineer laid out and making the critical decision of whether an improvement can and should be made. In the absence of that, sometimes more is needed to strike the right balance. It's usually just a little bit of EQ to make things sit right but there are also occasions when a good M/S eq and a good M/S compressor can help in a way that they can't in the stereo domain. Both of my analog compressors are hooked up to run in M/S if needed. My M/S eq work is always surgical, and for that the Weiss EQ1-MKII is my go to.
As far as keeping things fresh, I take a break after every 3 or 4 songs and these days I generally don't do any eq work past 8:00PM. That keeps my brain and my ears fresh and ready for the next session in the morning. =) There's probably a bit too much coffee and too little sunlight thrown in there but whaddayagonnado?
Q. Regarding your EQ usage, how do you divide the tasks and do you use two or more instances or units of the same EQ or is it crucial that they are different in character?
The main factor for me is that when I EQ, I have to have confidence that any adjustments I make are enhancing the listening experience. However that's attained entirely depends on the material and how a project is sitting in my room. It's nice to have a few different EQ flavors to choose from but it's not necessary to make a good sounding master. One nice sounding EQ and one complimenting compressor can go a long way.
Q. If the mix you've received is far from ideal and aspects of it call for some serious intervention, how do you make the tough decision what to change and what's better left unchanged? Especially since in such mixes fixing one thing ruins another. Example: The overheads are too bright but the vocals are almost dull, you try an M/S EQ but every time the hi-hat is played there's way too much bleed on the snare track. Lots and lots of automation?
My first concern in the case of something being far from ideal would be to communicate my findings with the mixing engineer and make sure that he/she and I are on the same page. If the changes required are better suited to be adjusted at the mix stage (and the mixing engineer is available and open to that idea) then I can avoid having to make those compromises which will ultimately lead to a better end product. Also, the last thing you want to do is upset an artistic decision that was made by the producer/engineer/artist during mixing. This is why communication during the mastering process is so important....
In those cases where a mix recall is impossible and the engineer's response is "Do what you can", things can get quite surgical. I don't use a lot of automation in the traditional sense. I'm more inclined to work in sections and edit segments together. I might make those changes on the analog side and splice together, or split up the file into segments in Sequoia and make the changes I need there. Totally depends on what the best tool is for the job.
There will always be compromises when making even moderate changes to a stereo mix. One helpful thing that many of my clients will do is book an hour or so for me to listen through their mixes when they think they are 90-95% complete. If I can spot a problem area and an adjustment can be made to the mix before the actual mastering session begins, then the end result will always benefit from that.
Q. Do you usually use any kind of stereo widener/stereo enhancer?
Most of the width of a mix will come during the actual mix itself. Mastering may increase the perception of width, and yes some MEs do use stereo enhancers. You have to be very careful with this type of processing though as it can introduce a mess of problems (phase, mix imbalances, etc.). I usually don't recommend it unless you have absolute faith that your monitoring environment was nailing the reproduction of the stereo image, and even then....subtle subtle, especially if vinyl is going to be involved at some point.
