what is the difference between mastering and making a track/remix?

(related to dance music)

are they 2 separate processes requiring 2 separate programs?

if so can i do both these things on my own? or is it best to send to soemone else to get fresh perspective on it

what is the best program for mastering? are there any books or guides anywhere about how to do it for various types of track/ remixes/ song?

mastering is what you do after everything is recorded and the track is mixed (ie each individual element is eq'ed, at the right level, etc.). so anything done during mastering (compression, eq) is done to the whole song.

i wouldn't recommend doing it yourself. i mean, i've done quick & dirty "mastering" for a track i just want to put online, but for anything real i would pay someone who has the experience and gear to do it. it seems like it takes a pretty specific skill set to be a really good mastering engineer.

(related to dance music)

mastering 101 for the 21st century: take the track, open it in audacity, select all, go to amplify, and make it 150% louder. Export to AIFF.

thanks jordan. what im wondering about is why mastering is such a difficult process - isn't it just adjusting the EQ of the separate tracks until it all fits together well? what other aspects are fiddled with when mastering?

i understand ableton isn't so good for mastering, what do the pros use? is it out of the question to expect someone who'd just created a remix to then master it well enough for release?

are there any good books/guides out there for mastering or is it really something that takes years of practice? is the bob katz book worth reading to get an understanding of the basics or is that pretty advanced?

and how much would a pro charge to master one song? this process doesn't seem to be something talked about much, not as much as remixing at least - are most of the songs out there on blogs, myspace etc not actually mastered?

i think you should take baby steps and not worry about pro mastering. it doesn't really matter for posting mp3s on blogs/myspace, no.

Yeah, if you like the mix of one song then put it out there.

It matters more when you're putting several songs together like on a record,
and you want them to play well together, i.e. behave in a coherent and complementary fashion.

Even then, if all you want to do is even out the dynamics so the volume isn't radically different song to song, wull then yr average CD burning software can do that for you.

isn't it just adjusting the EQ of the separate tracks until it all fits together well? what other aspects are fiddled with when mastering?

jordan already said this, but it's about adjusting things on a song that's already mixed down. eq'ing, compressing, limiting, etc. giving the track a sonic signature: warm and round, airy, crisp, whatever

if you can get your hands on a copy of t-racks and really want to go the DIY route, it does a decent job. fairly simple interface - some eq, compression, limiter, a couple of other things.

part of the (professional) mastering process is also about running your tunes through very high-end gear. expensive gear obviously doesn't run itself, but it certainly makes getting good end results easier. however, once you get to a certain quality level, most people can't/don't notice the small gains that you are making anyway

xp

honestly I just throw apple's free multiband compressor tool behind the live's saturator driven about 2db with a soft curve and occasionally add a little tiny bit of white noise into the master output channel before I run the final render to AIFF

The idea of paying a "professional" to master tracks -- unless -someone else- is handling your recording and making it sure it gets promotion and into stores -- is hilarious. Unless you stumble across the equivalent of winning the lottery, you're just not going to get heard to any extent in the world ocean of web-posted MP3's, regardless of quality. So it's pointless. Any benefit you get from it is only incremental.

If you're the Jonas Brothers or Demi Lovato or Taylor Swift or Akon (or put in your favorite seen on an add in a bus stall], it makes a difference. For the sake of getting, at best, a couple of one- or two-paragraph reviews on blogs in 2008-2009 and selling a handful of copies to people at shows, nope.

uhh, someone's bitter. how about if you sell a few thousand copies at shows, is it ok to actually master your record then?

or if you just want your final mixes to sound better, like for your personal enjoyment and satisfaction?

I have paid around UKP40 per track before in Bristol and there is that dude who does it Chicago via email for like $200. I think he is more an indie rock guy though. I forget his name now (found him on this forum), but was very happy with the job he did.

The other advantage of paying (aside from the high-end/reference hardware it goes through and the dude at the controls who is familiar with how stuff that sounds a certain way on his setup will sound on an iPod and a car radio and in a club and whatever) is that you get a new perspective. If you've been working on it a while you may not be able to tell what it sounds like any more.

i'm planning on using that guy for at least one and maybe two records i'm involved in (c4rl s4ff)

ha we have an appointment for him at the end of january to master some songs that a friend recorded for us that we're putting online for free and not really publicizing so f u gorge

oh hey he did ours, too

ha i see on his site that he did hurting's band too

s.rose: you were just asking the other day what program you should learn in order to do remixes. Don't worry about mastering yet! Learn to make music first! You can worry about mastering it once you've made it!

The last batch of 6 songs cost my band about $40/song for mastering. Cheap, definitely, compared to recording costs.

As far as I'm concerned, mastering is about getting a dude with fresh ears and a variety of audio gear to listen to yr mixes and to tweak them in ways the weary-eared engineer wouldn't think to do. A good mastering job sounds good both on a $20 boombox and a $10000 stereo.

It follows that no mere "software" alone is going to allow you to make a good plug-n-play master.

s.rose: you were just asking the other day what program you should learn in order to do remixes.

nabisco he asked all these questions on the same day

caek & lib totally otm about the fresh ears/perspective. we spent about 2 years time recording and mixing our last album and then during the final mixdown sessions, (dumping it to 2 inch tape through a nice board) we rushed some stuff and had to make some creative decisions that we hadn't anticipated. the mastering dude (r0g3r s3ib3l) we went with did a great job of saving a couple of the tracks that we had just about ruined. would have been quite a personal bummer to have dropped the ball at that point in the game.

gorge, we paid over a thousand bucks for mastering and y'know, i'm happy about it. we spent a lot of time/effort on the album and we all wanted it to sound really good. and it does. your comment comes off a lot like 'why pay a professional to frame that picture you just painted? it's just going to hang in your home, not the pompidou'

do not feed the troll

noted

Gorge is going easy on you guys this time- you should have seen the beatdown Steve Goldb3rg received on his tour spiel thread.

yeah that was excellent abuse

seems more like swinging and missing than going easy, but ok

Here's the other thread for reference Touring help

some really helpful answers here, thanks guys. so out of interest, when you send a track to be mastered what equipment will they usually use? is it all hardware or do some use software? and does that depend on the type of music being made? i've taken a look at this t-racks program, has anyone on here tried that?

gorge, we paid over a thousand bucks for mastering and y'know, i'm happy about it. we spent a lot of time/effort on the album and we all wanted it to sound really good. and it does.

Well yeah. The money does (or can) buy something, like satisfaction, which is certainly worth something if it's the glue which keeps the band together and enthusiasm going. But there must also be those cases in which mastering services were bought (or procided) with indifferent results.

your comment comes off a lot like 'why pay a professional to frame that picture you just painted? it's just going to hang in your home, not the pompidou'

Myspace or your website isn't exactly the same as hiding it away in your home. Look, I'm sympathetic to the predicament. Everyone wants to put their best foot forward and that's the 'pro' side of the argument, the one I've seen frequently on websites recommending it. However, you don't often see the tales of buyer's remorse.

What's yr position on the HIV causes AIDS theory, G? Hoax, gov't plot, or the science-industrial complex?

yeah it's all a mastering engineers' conspiracy to try and get musicians to spend more money

You should just check his blog for that one, libcrypt.

What's yr position on the HIV causes AIDS theory, G? Hoax, gov't plot, or the science-industrial complex?

Since you asked, see here or here.

But rhetorical question aside, you object to my opinion. What else is new here?

If I wasn't sufficiently sincere or diplomatic enough in my recognition of 6335's reasons for satisfaction with his mastering job, I apologize. Although I wouldn't do it, there are other reasons for having it which can be valid. For instance, if you're sending it out for review along with credits and a sleeve other than a no-label promo copy, then some reviewers/listeners may take note that you went to the trouble of having other professionals work on your art. It's an intangible but one of potential help.

fair enough gorge, fair enough. i have no expectations of 'making it' and we don't really tour - we really just wanted something we could be proud of. no regrets, man