If a label asks u for -3dB tracks to master?

[acos1]

If a label asks u for -3dB tracks to master them does that mean u apply no compression, eq etc. and they do all the mastering from there. or does it mean they just bring up the overall level and u can eq and parralell compress certain elements as u would if u were mastering yourself but u just give them the -3dB audio?

[Barely Human]

Most labels want no mastering done to the tracks. It means they want your final mix at a normalised level of -3db. If you are using master effects to get a certain sound, then it may be a good idea to send them a version that you have done with this on to say that is how you kinda like it sounding. But its usually better to get a fresh set of ears from a good mastering engineer to get your mix sounding as good as possible. Mastering engineers hate compressed/limited tracks to work with as it leaves them very little room to play with.

[acos1]

Most labels want no mastering done to the tracks. It means they want your final mix at a normalised level of -3db. If you are using master effects to get a certain sound, then it may be a good idea to send them a version that you have done with this on to say that is how you kinda like it sounding. But its usually better to get a fresh set of ears from a good mastering engineer to get your mix sounding as good as possible. Mastering engineers hate compressed/limited tracks to work with as it leaves them very little room to play with.

cool man cheers! and would it be common for u to send them all the parts of the track so they can individually treat them or would it just be the whole track itself?

the reason why im asking cos my method of producing/mastering is to parallel compress every element in the track then mix the track down to -3db and then just bring up the overall level from there with compression etc.

[Barely Human]

cool man cheers! and would it be common for u to send them all the parts of the track so they can individually treat them or would it just be the whole track itself?

Not a good idea, they wouldnt deal with mix downs, thats up to you to get sounding right im afraid.



the reason why im asking cos my method of producing/mastering is to parallel compress every element in the track then mix the track down to -3db and then just bring up the overall level from there with compression etc.

Over compression can be a very bad thing, it sucks the life out of your tracks by destroying the dynamics. I believe compressors should only be used for a reason and not as a neccessity, and usually decent subtractive EQing will do wonders for a track as opposed to squezing it to death with endless compressors and limiters.

I will usually use a sidechain on my kick and bass with some compression for the pump effect. But i rarely use compressors on anything in the mid to high range unless there is a reason to. Subtractive EQing and Stereo placement really make the difference in the higher ranges, and then you can ruin all this by wacking a brickwall limiter on it and killing all your good work. As long as your track sounds clean, balanced and defined, then you really should have no problem. Oh, and make sure sub bass is kept in mono if its getting pressed to vinyl.

[dirty_bass]

cool man cheers! and would it be common for u to send them all the parts of the track so they can individually treat them or would it just be the whole track itself?

the reason why im asking cos my method of producing/mastering is to parallel compress every element in the track then mix the track down to -3db and then just bring up the overall level from there with compression etc.

Well I have to agree with IQ here.
Compressing everything?
that`s very very bad production.

Ask yourself this.
Why?
Whenever you apply any effect to a sound always justify it.
Some of the best producers in the biz will tell you, 80% production comes from the choice of sound in the first place. And to not even EQ at all is better, by just choosing sounds that fit together well.
anyway, I`m wandering off the point.

So why are you parallell compressing all the elemtns in your trakc?

Compression increases the size of a sound, by reducing dynamic differences and peaks. You are flattening the sound out.
You can`t have every sound wide and phat and loud.
It just doesn`t work like that.
You will end up with a loud mashed up mess, lacking in any dynamics and clarity.

Are you just using compression to get the level of all your tracks up?
that`s also terrible practice.
Good Subtractive EQ allows you to increase volume, by reducing unwanted frequencies.

Compression should be used sparingly.

[acos1]

Well I have to agree with IQ here.
Compressing everything?
that`s very very bad production.

Ask yourself this.
Why?
Whenever you apply any effect to a sound always justify it.
Some of the best producers in the biz will tell you, 80% production comes from the choice of sound in the first place. And to not even EQ at all is better, by just choosing sounds that fit together well.
anyway, I`m wandering off the point.

So why are you parallell compressing all the elemtns in your trakc?

Compression increases the size of a sound, by reducing dynamic differences and peaks. You are flattening the sound out.
You can`t have every sound wide and phat and loud.
It just doesn`t work like that.
You will end up with a loud mashed up mess, lacking in any dynamics and clarity.

Are you just using compression to get the level of all your tracks up?
that`s also terrible practice.
Good Subtractive EQ allows you to increase volume, by reducing unwanted frequencies.

Compression should be used sparingly.

cheers man i never thought of it like that. i wouldnt say i compressed everything in the track but i did compress kick, bass, lead and percussion. but i can see your point definitely. ill try just letting the elements stand out.

when u say good subtractive eqing lets u boost the level of the track do u mean it lets u take out unwanted frequencies which in turn lets u boost the level yourself, or do u mean by removing unwanted frequencies that audio actually sounds louder itself?, (probably a stupid question but i couldn't resist asking).

[dirty_bass]

when u say good subtractive eqing lets u boost the level of the track do u mean it lets u take out unwanted frequencies which in turn lets u boost the level yourself, or do u mean by removing unwanted frequencies that audio actually sounds louder itself?, (probably a stupid question but i couldn't resist asking).

Kind of both.
On the individual level, by removing conflicting frequencies between sounds, you can increase the volume of certian sounds without affecting the whole mix drastically, as when the volume is increased they aren`t conflicting and clouding over each other.

Then when it comes to getting to a good mastering engineer, if your subtractive EQ is good, and you haven`t used compression to try to make everything "stand out" then the engineeer can then begin to increase levels with compression and such, and not have to worry about sounds spreading together too much, and forming a mash. Thus with a quiter pre master, you can still end up with with a loud final mix that has that all important "punch" and clarity that will make it stand above something mashed and flat.

Kind of like comparing a carefully prepared recipe, using the best ingredients, that all complemenet each other, with a fine and subtle use of herbs and spices, to a huge microwave pizza with tomato ketchup and some chilli sauce to make it taste of something.

[Barely Human]

Kind of like comparing a carefully prepared recipe, using the best ingredients, that all complemenet each other, with a fine and subtle use of herbs and spices, to a huge microwave pizza with tomato ketchup and some chilli sauce to make it taste of something.

Hahaha, nice metaphor man. Does schranz come under the pizza catagory? Maybe minimal could be dry toast:laughing:

[holotropik]

ahhh...good advice here, thanks.

[BloodStar]

Kind of both.
... Thus with a quiter pre master, you can still end up with with a loud final mix that has that all important "punch" and clarity that will make it stand above something mashed and flat.
good advice, Steve.
as for the RMS. What RMS you advice as ok,?
I sometimes tend to make mixes which are not loud enough (lets say -12dB RMS and -5dB peaks), but to my ear it still sounds more comfortable and with more depth, than tracks peaking near to 0dB with RMS above -8dB., but in compare to other tracks, i hear mine are quiter, which is not a problem as far as I have a volume knob.
Was just wondering, what RMS on umasterd or lets say pre-mastered track you think is too loud and what is not loud enough?

[dirty_bass]

good advice, Steve.
as for the RMS. What RMS you advice as ok,?
I sometimes tend to make mixes which are not loud enough (lets say -12dB RMS and -5dB peaks), but to my ear it still sounds more comfortable and with more depth, than tracks peaking near to 0dB with RMS above -8dB., but in compare to other tracks, i hear mine are quiter, which is not a problem as far as I have a volume knob.
Was just wondering, what RMS on umasterd or lets say pre-mastered track you think is too loud and what is not loud enough?

Well, that`s a very case specific and subjective question.
I would say you can go some way to reducing unwanted peaks for sure.
A Low cut at 35hz won`t do much harm.
Some minor cuts in the top end as well etc.
As a rule, never go too hard on the EQ, cuts and boosts of more than 3db will introduce distortions to the sound, no matter what the EQ, so maybe go back and look at the choice of sounds you have made in the first place. Try not to be too precious about individual sounds, always look at the whole piece.

Basically, in answer to your question (as much as I can Vlasta) I would say if you are making music that sounds full and present and deep, and there is a large difference between peak and RMS, then so what, don`t worry too much.
If by reducing these peaks you are effecting your work and becoming unhappy, then you are obviously making the wrong choices.

I always work by my ears first and foremost. Any rules, techniques etc come second to my ears.

As a last point, it`s always good to run a analyser over your tune in premaster, get some detail on the areas where the big peaks are, and work out what is causing them. Then you can decide if you want to reduce these peaks or not, with more ease.

[RDR]

Some excellent advice there steve.

If i can be so cheeky as to add...

A/B your mix with already made tracks you think sound excellent and try to match the harmonic balance and levels.

dont treat it as the FINAL thing, but perhaps something to aim for and also be aware that these tracks have been mastered already. nothing wrong in trying to copy perfection in production. Copying mastering , particularly hammered final masters such as those from some people who limit and expand their tracks to death is a big NO NO.

NB... author is fairly drunk.

[BloodStar]

Really excellent advices, mate. Thanks mucho.

As for not cut or boost more than 3dB, it is true that over doing on EQ can lead to sounds with no character and definitions, so finding sound which will fit with almost no touch on EQ will be better choice.

Voxengo SPAN is my good helpful friend and I always use it on master bus. :) together with sonalksis freeG.
Ears are the best judge. It is very true. If it sounds good it is good.

With peaks, I have got mainly problems with kicks and snare sounds,. They use to have have very hi peaks in their fundamental notes.
Kicks can be compressed a bit, and same with sanres, but now I just have idea, that snares could be treated by moving its start from fundamental to 1st harmonic. hmm. but maybe it will sound weak,. i must try. or maybe not move its start, but just EQ the fundamental a few dBs down...

dodgy: A/B with already made tracks can help aswel. Can be very tricky with already mastered tracks, as you said...

Thanks both. Cheers.....

[dirty_bass]

Well kicks can obviously have heavy compression if need be, as they are very important elements of techno.
I spend a lot of time EQing the kicks for each track I make, I think people don`t really dig into theiur kicks enough.
I know what you mean about over resonance in your kicks and to a certain extent, your snares.
With kicks, generally, EQ before compression, then compression, and then some post compression EQ to touch up, removing over resonant areas, works for me. Kicks are important, so I devote a lot of time to them.
With snares I pitch em around to tune in to the kick, so they play off each other more effectively, and again, I think any areas of troublesome resonant peaks can be cut out with EQ.
But, listening to your new stuff, your production is obviously well on the right track anyway, it`s all just down to honing in your ears to real fine tuning, in terms of EQ.
I do audio exercises to improve my skills.
Try learning to identify by ear, middle C, and then C octaves above and below. then go for other major notes.
Then you can apply these learned notes to the actual frequency each note corresponds to.
You can then begin to transfer this skill to looking at sounds, and then identifying the fundemental and trouble spots of a sound by hearing the note, and then applying effect to the corresponding frequency.

sounds complicated, but it`s a fundamental skill in mastering, and one that can apply to the production stage.
It really speeds up your working speed, and makes Eqing and sound choice much easier and more immediate.

[BloodStar]

With kicks I am mainly EQing after compression and I am cutting all below 30Hz before compression. So it seems I will have to EQ more even before kick goes to compressor as it will remove all unwanted resonances, etc. and only wanted signal will be compressed...

Excellent exercise, this identifying notes by ear. It make sense and I am sure it will be veeery helpful ones when learned (or when ear is trained) properly.

Usually when I am cutting on EQ and I found the fundamental frequencies by ear or with analyzer, I cut them and then I also check for multiple frequencies (harmonies). Hope it makes sense. I mean, lets say fundamental is 100Hz, so I check also 200Hz (1st harmonic), 300Hz (2nd harmonic) 300Hz (3rd harmonic) etc....

[Lag]

lets say fundamental is 100Hz, so I check also 200Hz (1st harmonic), 300Hz (2nd harmonic) 300Hz (3rd harmonic)
its not really like that
the sound scale is not linear
its rather 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc.

some good tips here.

[loopdon]

Good stuff in here.

[RDR]

its not really like that
the sound scale is not linear
its rather 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc.

some good tips here.

Aye

Where the harmonics are depends upon the tpye of waveform used.

within whole tracks it gets a LOT more complex as the harmonics change over time. A lot of fun can be gained by examining a frequency band and viewing what happens with it over a certain time base, then using the EQ to pick a frequency and give it a transient resonant peak over a rhythmic time base.

[dirty_bass]

Aye

Where the harmonics are depends upon the tpye of waveform used.

within whole tracks it gets a LOT more complex as the harmonics change over time. A lot of fun can be gained by examining a frequency band and viewing what happens with it over a certain time base, then using the EQ to pick a frequency and give it a transient resonant peak over a rhythmic time base.

I`ve been using a Beta copy of a new tracking EQ, and so far it`s fairly impressive, it goes some way to assist in the freq changes on instruments that happen in note/key changes.

[eyeswithoutaface]

woah guys

trust your ears more, they'l love you for it

and leave your master channel empty

that's all the advice i can give. Or actually know

[RDR]

woah guys

trust your ears more, they'l love you for it

and leave your master channel empty

that's all the advice i can give. Or actually know

:laughing:

[RDR]

I`ve been using a Beta copy of a new tracking EQ, and so far it`s fairly impressive, it goes some way to assist in the freq changes on instruments that happen in note/key changes.

What am that be calling itself my good man?

[BloodStar]

its not really like that
the sound scale is not linear
its rather 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc.

some good tips here.

I see I have typo there, it was meant to be, 100, 200, 300, 400. Which I think is good as harmonic note is based on what information is in fundamental note. and then it is multipled by 1, 2, 3, etc.
All depends on waveform as dodgy said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone

[Lag]

An 'overtone' is a partial (a "partial wave" or "constituent frequency") that can be either a harmonic or an inharmonic. A harmonic is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency. An inharmonic overtone is a non-integer multiple of a fundamental frequency.

An example of harmonic overtones: (absolute harmony)
f 440 Hz fundamental tone first harmonic
2f 880 Hz first overtone second harmonic
3f 1320 Hz second overtone third harmonic
4f 1760 Hz third overtone fourth harmonic

Not all overtones are necessarily harmonics, or exact multiples of the fundamental frequency. Some musical instruments produce overtones that are slightly sharper or flatter than the true harmonics. The sharpness or flatness of their overtones is one of the elements that contributes to their unique sound. This also has the effect of making their waveforms not perfectly periodic. Some instruments, such as tuning forks or flutes produce a clear or near perfect sound because their overtones are in very good approximation of "absolute" harmony with the base frequency.
tt

[Andy]

-3dB master would mean export your track so that it peaks at roughly -3dB (meaning you have 3dB of headroom)

Do not normalise or compress\limited the mix before sending to be mastered