Mastering

[TechMouse]

Is it me, or is Mastering on tunes getting worse?

I wonder if more people are convincing themselves they can do a "good enough" job at home with software, and skimping when it comes to getting releases sound as good as possible?

I'm listening to more and more records which just don't have the same finesse and sparkle that tunes had a while ago. The tunes themselves are as interesting and inventive as ever. It's just the overall sound is sometimes a bit flat. (IMHO)

Just wondering what some of our more seasoned producing talent on here think... Do you guys splash out on proper mastering, or do you DIY?

[fresh_an_funky_design]

proper mastering is so important, unless you know anything about mastering to vinyl you should really leave it to the people who know their shit

or the other problem is the producers put far too much compression on when there making the tune or they master the tune themselves a little and then when the tune goes for mastering there's very little they can do.

[dirty_bass]

Is it me, or is Mastering on tunes getting worse?

I wonder if more people are convincing themselves they can do a "good enough" job at home with software, and skimping when it comes to getting releases sound as good as possible?

I'm listening to more and more records which just don't have the same finesse and sparkle that tunes had a while ago. The tunes themselves are as interesting and inventive as ever. It's just the overall sound is sometimes a bit flat. (IMHO)

Just wondering what some of our more seasoned producing talent on here think... Do you guys splash out on proper mastering, or do you DIY?

It can be down to 2 things.
Records sell sod all in techno these days, a lot of labels start on no money, and so therefor end up being cut by these cheap vinyl cutting places, that spend no time mastering. The record is just processed through a basic setting for vinyl and so comes out flat.
So there it is a question of money and not the producers skill.

also, to my ears, I can separate the above pretty easily from the just downright badly produced.

the availablility of the technology to produce is good because it stops music making being an elitist thing.
But it`s bad because any DJ or techno fan with a copy of reason suddenly thinks after a couple of months that they are good enough to produce.
So they send their stuff around, get no response and think "sod it, I`ll start my own label"

Hence loads of badly produced stuff on the market.

[Dustin Zahn]

There are a number of reasons for crappy masters these days. One of which I am just realizing now is that a place such as the Exchange specializes in that kind of "prime" sounding techno. Therefore, I've noticed a lot of records cut there that aren't prime techno don't sound as good as they could have. A lot of the minimal records are mastered pretty awfully mainly because of the artist's final mix down. A lot of those tracks are done with standard Ableton plug-ins and all those newbie producers don't know anything about mastering. I think most techno coming out these days sounds pretty well mastered though. Then again, I don't shop for records that much anymore too.

On the positive side of it all, it seems like bad mastering jobs sometimes make records even more raw than they already are. The old disco mania stuff was ****ing mickey mouse, but it still has a lot more attitude and style than most of the house/techno coming out these days.

[oldbugger]

But it`s bad because any DJ or techno fan with a copy of reason suddenly thinks after a couple of months that they are good enough to produce.



and aren't they? why on earth cant anyone do whatever they want? :eh:

[dirty_bass]

they can, and you have every right to buy badly produced guff.

[rhythmtech]

But it`s bad because any DJ or techno fan with a copy of reason suddenly thinks after a couple of months that they are good enough to produce.



and aren't they? why on earth cant anyone do whatever they want? :eh:

they can and are entitled to BUT we hear so much about the state of our "scene" all the time and this is partly the reason. look at what happened with prime (to bring up an old one), they flooded the market with techno and a lot of it was below par. it killed the business.

what we need is to be looking to top notch productions. making music that sounds as good as its meant to.

i know i didnt start sending out demos till middle of last year and i still hold back 90% of my tracks because they're not anywhere near release quality. i think i've too much pride to let someone release a sub standard production with my name on it.

its nothing to do with elitism (i certainly dont have all the best gear), i just want people to hear something with my name on it and think "thats shit hot!" not "suppose its ok"

[Dustin Zahn]

its nothing to do with elitism (i certainly dont have all the best gear), i just want people to hear something with my name on it and think "thats shit hot!" not "suppose its ok"

if only more people thought that way. :eh:
Most of the demos I get end up coming from people who think, "Well, this sounds as busy and funky as 'producer xyz' so let's start sending it out!"

But in reality, they've only looked at the surface of the music so you get a generic clone. Then again, I was sending demos out for years before I got a record deal. Now I understand why, and now I thank god that some labels held back from putting my early stuff out.

[nihilist]

ill agree mastering is an art and takes along time to, er master, and taking the point that people start their own lable because they get know response back from sent out demos this is allso true.

i had two tracks masterd by a very well known techno producer which made them sound far more supperior then my efforts but i still had no takers.

so i guess im saying unless lables are prepared to take a risk and release some stuff from unknown producer your still going to get poorly produced records.

[mattboyslim]

ill agree mastering is an art and takes along time to, er master, and taking the point that people start their own lable because they get know response back from sent out demos this is allso true.

i had two tracks masterd by a very well known techno producer which made them sound far more supperior then my efforts but i still had no takers.

so i guess im saying unless lables are prepared to take a risk and release some stuff from unknown producer your still going to get poorly produced records.but theres taking a risk, and then being cpmpletely stupid.

If its a good record, then it shouldn't matter that its by an unknown, and therefore, shouldn't be a risk

[rhythmtech]

"shouldn't" being the key word there matt.

[Pheeva]

When it comes to mastering Lawries the Daddy :clap:

[MARKEG]

this is all sooooo true. the mastering on so many more tracks is awful. and the mp3 revolution is just not helping. at least with vinyl, you send your tracks down to be cut and anything you haven't sorted gets sorted out nice by a bloke who knows what the hell he's doing. mastering is an artform, i've read books upon books on the subject and it'snot something that you can pick up overnight. the problem is people with all this cracked and freely available software is people think you can just pile on the limiting and that's it. distort the shit out of it and whooopie it's PHAT. well sorry to piss on your fire but it isnt.

add onto that the fact that the quality control is going out of the market and you're screwed.

there is good stuff out there but there's 20000000 millions time more shit than there ever was.

it will change for sure, but until then happy hunting - you're gonna be searching a hell of a long time! :)

[Evil G]

it's not just techno. the loudness wars are pushing producers in all genres to use too much compression. on first listen, a louder track is perceived as "better" than a quieter one, and the first listen is very important in terms of getting a track noticed, but on the 10th listen (or sooner), that over-compressed track starts to sound distorted, dull and flat. people need to stop competing for the attention of the distracted masses, relax and let their music be what it is. people who actually like music will appreciate it.

[rhythmtech]

just out of interest... every one has a go at mastering for themselves.. how do you all go about it?

i usualy just eq a little and mild compresiion and use a peak master to get it up to about -3/-4 but thats only for playin tracks on ableton.

[The Overfiend]

Mastering is the hardest part of producing.
Period.

[fresh_an_funky_design]

just out of interest... every one has a go at mastering for themselves.. how do you all go about it?

i usualy just eq a little and mild compresiion and use a peak master to get it up to about -3/-4 but thats only for playin tracks on ableton.

you got removing the resonant frequency as well

[nihilist]

ive tryed using a multiband compresser with a little peak master allso, but when i sent some tracks to be masterd i got my wrists slapped for using software to master, and had to resend them

[TechMouse]

Mastering is the hardest part of producing.
Period.

You're quite right, but there's no need to get menstrual.

[TechMouse]

ive tryed using a multiband compresser with a little peak master allso, but when i sent some tracks to be masterd i got my wrists slapped for using software to master, and had to resend them
Oh yeah, if you're getting stuff professionally mastered you want to leave them plenty of headroom to work with.

[massplanck]

Mastering is the hardest part of producing.
Period.

thats three periods you got there.

[The Divide]

it's not just techno. the loudness wars are pushing producers in all genres to use too much compression. on first listen, a louder track is perceived as "better" than a quieter one, and the first listen is very important in terms of getting a track noticed, but on the 10th listen (or sooner), that over-compressed track starts to sound distorted, dull and flat. people need to stop competing for the attention of the distracted masses, relax and let their music be what it is. people who actually like music will appreciate it.

Very well said, I learned this the hard way

To add to that sometimes it’s that over compressed sound which makes a record what it is. It adds a little rawness to it which compromises the clarity/bandwidth. There is a line in there too, but where the line is, is subject. Example, I find so called schranze crosses the line with over compression, distortion I also find a lot of techno too polished (like a pop records) as I like dirty sounds and powerful mids. I mean listen to a wu-tang album and that grittiness and flatness adds a little character, listen to 2pac and it’s a completely different story. Some would argue that the mastering on a 2pac track is much better than a wu-tang yet they are two very different sounds. It’s all subjective personal preference. Should we really try to standardize everything? People already argue that everything is sounding too similar. I agree with all the points made, just offering a little bit of a different angle there.

Ive got a bit of beef with the amount of top end people use, everyone seems to add loads of it. Even at the start of a track there’s those bloody hihats. Like its somekinda rule, same with bass and rides

“I remember back in’t when 1st 17 bars was just a kick drum wiv a bit of reverb and some synth and not all these bloody hi hats everywhere” :lol:

[RDR]

Cursed hi hats. ruining everyone's fun.

By the way, does anyone have some little white mice? We appear to be drowning in a sea of periods.

Mastering? I have NO bloddy idea.

All i do is

Remove frequencies below 20hz
Check the DC offset
Top/ Tail
Little Boost here n there, no more than 0.5db max
Little Cut here n there, no more than -1db
Have a go at compressing, 1.5:1 max

Then i sack it all off and send it away.

[Jay Pace]

Mixdown
Run mixdown through outboard compressor on mild setting
Cut below 30-45hz depending on what the track is doing
Multiband compression
Multiband limiting

Then listen to finished product on as many systems, speakers and headphones as possible and keep amending until it sounds right, referencing a few well produced and similar track you know sound good already.

Had I the money and someone wanting to release my music I wouldn't even bother - would just stop at the mixdown and send it away. But, if you're sending stuff out a mixdown sounds rubbish, so you need to try mastering it yourself to get people's attention.

People dedicate their lives to being mastering engineers. A cracked copy of wavez is never going to put you on their level.

[RDR]

Mixdown
Cut below 30-45hz depending on what the track is doing
.

45hz???

I boost kicks at 45...

[dirty_bass]

Mixdown
Cut below 30-45hz depending on what the track is doing
.

45hz???

I boost kicks at 45...

thats madness

[Mindful]

the boosting or the cutting?

[loopdon]

the boosting :)

[massplanck]

Mixdown
Cut below 30-45hz depending on what the track is doing
.

45hz???

I boost kicks at 45...

thats madness

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Madness.jpg

[dirty_bass]

There are no hard and fast rules really.
Mastering depends on the tune, and unless mastering to compensate for the weaknesses/quirks of a certain medium, you really shouldn`t do any stock processes ie always boost at x frequency or whatever.

[RDR]

Mixdown
Cut below 30-45hz depending on what the track is doing
.

45hz???

I boost kicks at 45...

thats madness

Not according to chris mcormack.

straight from the horses mouth. It bloody works too. Coupled with a few other tricks...

besides i EQ em on big tannoy mid fields at work. Sounds like the world is ending.. beast.. :evil:

[dirty_bass]

But what if you bass sits at 45hz
if you apply the same rules to each time to different tracks, then you are just gonna **** some tracks up.
boosting your kicks at 45 on every track is just silly.

[Patrick DSP]

there are no rules, only guidelines. it takes years to train your ears. some people have it, most don't.

[dirty_bass]

there are no rules, only guidelines. it takes years to train your ears. some people have it, most don't.
what he said

[nihilist]

i wouldn't say i now it all but it seems ovious that each track should be masterd differently

[RDR]

Nice one. Cheers for that.

[RDR]

GOD!!!!

[MARKEG]

Mixdown
Cut below 30-45hz depending on what the track is doing
.

45hz???

I boost kicks at 45...


i'd say that was nuts too mate ;)

[mikehumphries]

Is it me, or is Mastering on tunes getting worse?

I wonder if more people are convincing themselves they can do a "good enough" job at home with software, and skimping when it comes to getting releases sound as good as possible?

I'm listening to more and more records which just don't have the same finesse and sparkle that tunes had a while ago. The tunes themselves are as interesting and inventive as ever. It's just the overall sound is sometimes a bit flat. (IMHO)

Just wondering what some of our more seasoned producing talent on here think... Do you guys splash out on proper mastering, or do you DIY?



It can be down to 2 things.
Records sell sod all in techno these days, a lot of labels start on no money, and so therefor end up being cut by these cheap vinyl cutting places, that spend no time mastering. The record is just processed through a basic setting for vinyl and so comes out flat.
So there it is a question of money and not the producers skill.

also, to my ears, I can separate the above pretty easily from the just downright badly produced.

the availablility of the technology to produce is good because it stops music making being an elitist thing.
But it`s bad because any DJ or techno fan with a copy of reason suddenly thinks after a couple of months that they are good enough to produce.
So they send their stuff around, get no response and think "sod it, I`ll start my own label"

Hence loads of badly produced stuff on the market.


well said mate.

and just to add to point 2. the distibutor only has to sell a couple of hundred to make a quick buck. and a few more labels like that and its beer money. :(

[RDR]

Mixdown
Cut below 30-45hz depending on what the track is doing
.

45hz???

I boost kicks at 45...


i'd say that was nuts too mate ;)

All that being said, it doesnt make it wrong, does it.

Anyway, i like doing it and thats that. besides no one has asked how much i boost by... or how...

Why not ask me ya'll before you assume.... sorry to be so pedantic - no dammit im not sorry... im not usually like this but i dont have to take it when people tell me im doing it wrong without hearing it first.

[RDR]

if ya wanna ask then PM me. i can provide audio examples and explanations.

If you're bothered.

[loopdon]

i suppose it's Ok if you're kick is doing the (sub)bass part. or you don't have them playing at the same time etc. etc.

Care to elaborate about the 'together with some other tricks' referring to Mr. McCormack :)

[holotropik]

I think it is clear from all this discussion that mastering really has nothing to do with the success or failure of a track and it is the content and the personality behind it that counts more often than not.

Yes, it is all part of track production and does hold weight but not as much as some think. Some are perhaps a bit elitist in their attitude and think that having the best mastered track wins everytime. That is putting the cart before the horse.

Content on the other hand is what is at stake here. Yes, there are dime-a-dozen tracks out there to wade through due to the nature of the industry and the formats available. But, that is why label reputation is the most important element to track success or failure. That comes down to the label owner(s) personality and ideals - collecting tracks that best represent the ideals of the label. This is a personal thing and requires a certain degree of timing and networking.

You could have the best mastered track in the world (and you may have one now you are unaware of) yet if you are not networking or connecting to your audience, community or labels then you will go un-noticed.

Its also important to know that mastering is part of the creative process and has the ability to be part of your track and overall sound in everything you do.

[Jay Pace]

Most minimal tracks would sound completely lifeless without decent mastering.

In fact, I'd warrant most techno would sound pretty hopeless without mastering.

Maybe jazz, or some other form of music can be musically rich, complex and interesting enough to shine through poor mastering, but a track made out of a load of drum machines samples needs a lot of life breathing into it to make it impressive.

OOOOH! A 909 clap! The last thing I was expecting and and and and NO WAY! A SNARE ROLL!

[dirty_bass]

snare rolls, in techno?

[Jay Pace]

Not just an urban myth.

Sometimes found near the mythical "rides" (Kids! Just add rides for extra "hands in the air" factor!)

[loopdon]

i like rides :eyes:

[RDR]

i like rides :eyes:

Not the ones at the fair ground LD... :lol:

"Scream if you wanna go faster girls!" The 909 agogo... lol.

As for the Mcormack comment, i sent some stuff for mastering to him and we had a few really long talks on the phone about various things, and to give the guy credit he took the time to point out some things he thought i should be doing, one of these was boosting kicks at 40hz... I boost at 45 by no more than 3db prior to them being in the compression chain, then spend time with judicious EQ cutting away bits i dont need in accrdance with where the bass is sitting. the bass is also Ducked slightly away from the kick too... It all depends on program material.

Anyway.. thats OT,

back On Topic, i certainly DONT do that in a mastering session. EVER. so if there was the impression that i do, then sorry. but no.

[RDR]

snare rolls, in techno?

I hope thats sarcasm. :lol: :cheese: