#1
how does this work and how would one go about doing so?
i have a 'white guitar'
#2
Read and enjoy. It gives your sound a loudness and polish that gives each instrument a little bit more oomph that mixing cannot do alone.

To go about it, get a really good sounding mix, and save it as a lossless stereo file. Then open that separately in your digital audio workstation of choice and use this plugin (to save CPU resources and simplify matters) or dedicated software like Wave.
Quote by keiron_d
thank you sooooooo much for the advice Fast_Fingers...i would hug you if i could...i looooove you!


True love exists in UG. Can you feel it?

Recording Guitar Amps 101
#4
In the old days, mastering started off as simply applying enough compression so that the needle wouldn't jump while it was cutting the wax cylinder. Some EQ would be added if necessary, but that was about it.

As people discovered that listeners perceived something that was louder as sounding better, the loudness wars kicked in. Everybody trying to be louder than everyone else - or at least as loud. Funny enough.... if you put a heavily compressed track from the '90's/'00's up against a track from the '60's/'70's (WAY less compression) at the same perceived volume (you'll have to turn the second one up a ways to get it there), people will generally describe the older one as sounding better - more dynamic, more exciting, etc.

These days, mastering involves compressing and limiting the living f*ck out of your mixes so the meter at the end of your master bus just flickers at -0.0. No bouncing meters. Just flickering. A great mastering engineer will be able to pull that off and yet still have it sound like there is some dynamic range, when really, there isn't. A second or third-rate mastering engineer will just get a freakin' loud mix that is nothing more than tiring to listen to.

A mastering engineer will also EQ the tracks so there is a consistency of tone from one track to the next as they are sequenced on the album. If the material is well-recorded, it should be pretty consistent to begin with. These EQ adjustments should be minimal.

Keep in mind that 'mastering' plugins are fine for the beginner home recorder, as they are easy to get listenable results from in a short amount of time and with a limited amount of knowledge. No pro engineer will use them though. They will have their range of compressors and limiters and EQ's hand-picked, and will choose each according to the desired character they want in a mix. They will know what to use, and how to use it to their best advantage. Mastering is a whole other bag of skills beyond simply learning to record.

Also... one of the cardinal rules of mastering (and I broke it when I mastered our album) is to never master your own work, and never have your work mastered in the same room it was recorded and/or mixed in. If certain tonal characteristics need to be rebalanced, the problem in the first place was probably a result of some combination of the room it was recorded in, the room it was mixed in, and the monitors used to mix the track. You need to get away from all of those influences if you hope to make any serious corrections.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#5
Quote by Fast_Fingers
Read and enjoy. It gives your sound a loudness and polish that gives each instrument a little bit more oomph that mixing cannot do alone.

To go about it, get a really good sounding mix, and save it as a lossless stereo file. Then open that separately in your digital audio workstation of choice and use this plugin (to save CPU resources and simplify matters) or dedicated software like Wave.


Couldn't agree with you more... Ozone is the best for the price. *Please note I did say for the price - don't flame me. lol.
#6
Quote by axemanchris
In the old days, mastering started off as simply applying enough compression so that the needle wouldn't jump while it was cutting the wax cylinder. Some EQ would be added if necessary, but that was about it.

As people discovered that listeners perceived something that was louder as sounding better, the loudness wars kicked in. Everybody trying to be louder than everyone else - or at least as loud. Funny enough.... if you put a heavily compressed track from the '90's/'00's up against a track from the '60's/'70's (WAY less compression) at the same perceived volume (you'll have to turn the second one up a ways to get it there), people will generally describe the older one as sounding better - more dynamic, more exciting, etc.

These days, mastering involves compressing and limiting the living f*ck out of your mixes so the meter at the end of your master bus just flickers at -0.0. No bouncing meters. Just flickering. A great mastering engineer will be able to pull that off and yet still have it sound like there is some dynamic range, when really, there isn't. A second or third-rate mastering engineer will just get a freakin' loud mix that is nothing more than tiring to listen to.

A mastering engineer will also EQ the tracks so there is a consistency of tone from one track to the next as they are sequenced on the album. If the material is well-recorded, it should be pretty consistent to begin with. These EQ adjustments should be minimal.

Keep in mind that 'mastering' plugins are fine for the beginner home recorder, as they are easy to get listenable results from in a short amount of time and with a limited amount of knowledge. No pro engineer will use them though. They will have their range of compressors and limiters and EQ's hand-picked, and will choose each according to the desired character they want in a mix. They will know what to use, and how to use it to their best advantage. Mastering is a whole other bag of skills beyond simply learning to record.

Also... one of the cardinal rules of mastering (and I broke it when I mastered our album) is to never master your own work, and never have your work mastered in the same room it was recorded and/or mixed in. If certain tonal characteristics need to be rebalanced, the problem in the first place was probably a result of some combination of the room it was recorded in, the room it was mixed in, and the monitors used to mix the track. You need to get away from all of those influences if you hope to make any serious corrections.

CT


Hmm I like this post - very informative but I do not believe it is 100% accurate... I think the software pop-ing up these days are getting very similar to the hardware inside a huge piece of mastering equipment (but not there yet obviously)... I also master my own work and would like to say that you are ABSOLUTELY correct that no-one should ever go straight to mastering - it takes a great ear and you might want to do it in a different room with different speakers.... (hopefully a 2nd pair of monitors ... if not use different sources and see how they all sound) ... Anyways the real way to get great results is not relying on the mastering process the tracking process has to be recorded with such care that only a little bit of leveling is needed....

GOOD LUCK and you can do it! - Make sure you listen to your favorite **** out there and compare it to yours... why does theirs sound better - then listen to the eq's and get familiar with EVERYTHING then you can become better at mastering.

But honestly, the best recommendation is if you have a great song - get it mastered elsewhere... simple as that.
#7
Quote by ovdojoey
Couldn't agree with you more... Ozone is the best for the price. *Please note I did say for the price - don't flame me. lol.


THROUGH THE FIRE AND FLAMES WE'LL CARRY ON!

Nah, just kidding.

In any case, TS, Ozone is not free, but then the best plugins are never. Any of its plugins are actually competitive with professional specialized plugins (Waves for instance) that are 3x the price of the suite.

I do agree with Axeman's suggestion (if I'm not mistaken, it's from Tweak's guide) to leave your work to be mastered by someone else, since they'll always have a different view from yours, which may be too focused on one element that it misses the obvious. The next best thing, of course, is do other tracks then get back to what you plan on mastering a few days later. Ideally, you should also get a second set of monitors, like Avantone Mixcubes, that are meant to replicate bass deficient (ie most consumer) speakers to determine if the mastered recording also sounds good there.
Quote by keiron_d
thank you sooooooo much for the advice Fast_Fingers...i would hug you if i could...i looooove you!


True love exists in UG. Can you feel it?

Recording Guitar Amps 101
Last edited by Fast_Fingers at Apr 25, 2008,
#8
Quote by Fast_Fingers
(if I'm not mistaken, it's from Tweak's guide)


Generally considered 'conventional wisdom' passed on to me from a mastering engineer. Probably advice that is available in a variety of places.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.