If you can make your mixes sound tighter when you are mixing, then I can take it the next level when mastering.
If you listen to the old vinyl “sound” that everyone loves, one of the reasons it sounds so pleasing is that it is mixed to accommodate the boundaries of disc cutting. When I first started out, mastering was disc cutting… That is, the master you would deliver to the factory would come back as a vinyl LP or single. As well as the mastering engineer, mixing and recording engineers always worked with the finished vinyl at the back of their mind. So, with the technical boundaries that vinyl had, engineers were watching all the peaks, controlling everything that jumped out (inevitably causing problem on vinyl) – and that’s why everything sounded so nice, round and tight.
(We also used more de-essing when we were cutting to lacquer, because the medium wasn’t very friendly to top end and would cause “sibilant” distortion, especially on vocal s’s, high hats and anything with an excessive amount of top end. So not only did you have limiters controlling the sound for tightness and roundness, you had de-essers which were giving the mix a nice rounded top-end.)
In order to achieve nice tight mixes nowadays, these techniques from working with vinyl still apply, and this is where VU Meters come in. A VU meter is like a rev counter in a car, it gives you a feel for what the car is doing, and the VU gives you a feel for the song, and how tight and “round” it is sounding.
What are VU Meters?
VU (Volume Unit) Meters essentially display an average of what we hear, rather than the very fast peaks that we don’t. Average level is important, as controlling this will make the mix sound tight. For example, with a kick drum, if you have a VU meter, you can see if the kick drum is adding kick and punch to the mix, or if it’s adding a lot of wooliness and getting in the way of everything else. If the VU meter is moving radically, just working on the kick drum, then you know by looking that you are losing tightness.
In the particular instance of a kick drum, (or other low end elements in your mix) your room acoustics might be deficient in low frequencies – and this is also where VU meters are indispensable. They are like your third ear – they will show you the energy in the low end, and if there is radical movement, then you probably have an issue with frequencies that you aren’t hearing.
Leon’s custom VU Meters built by Stephen Crane.
Watching the VU Meters move.
In order to achieve mix tightness, VU meters should “dance” smoothly and in a gentle manner, usually in time with the music, rather than in big jumps and erratic, out of time movement. This erratic movement implies that there are drastic level changes, which will be hard to control in mastering. A common, but undesirable, scenario when I’m mastering a track is when the tom fill comes in, the VU’s have excursions of 10dB. I can go in and fix that in the stereo mix, however at that point it is going to effect the rest of the mix, because when I push the toms back down, everything else in the mix will also be pushed down.
When I get mixes from the great engineers, I usually only add a little, if any, peak limiting in mastering because it’s all been taken care of during the mix. 9 times out of 10, this was done on the individual channels of the mix (as opposed to a buss output compressor). In this instance, VU meters will show you when levels and compression are adequate in the mix.
Don’t confuse limiting or tightening with squashing. In this manner, limiting should just be controlling the peaks rather the squashing the entire signal, and your mixes will by default sound louder. Again, this is where VU meters come in – they help you see the erratic movement caused by peaks and will help you apply just enough dynamic control.
Choosing your VU Meters.
There are different types of VU meters out there, and I have spent many hours experimenting to find the ones I liked best. I encourage you to do the same – some will move faster, some slower, and you should find the ones that behave the best for your individual preference and purpose. On top of this, VU meters can usually be calibrated for both speed and volume level, and these settings are essential for getting the best out of them, though again, the particular settings are very much personal taste. The VU meters I use are custom built by Stephen Crane at Studios 301.
As far as software meters go, there are many options out there and I’m still experimenting with them. The main stumbling block I have found is finding software meters that behave how I want to “see” the signal, and are adjustable for the right reference level. So far, my favourite is the PSP VU2 meter plugin.
Everything is important about the gear and the studio you use it in, but if I had to pick my essential tools, they would be my monitoring – and my VU meters.
The Dangerous BAX EQ was released in 2009 and is based on the famous “Negative Feedback Tone Control” by P. J. Bandaxall designed in the 1950s. This circuit is used in many hi-fi equipment bass and treble “tilt” controls. The advantage of these curves is that they of a constant shape, being very gentle and do not “flatten off” at the limits of their audio range. It is similar to using a standard shelving equalizer with an extremely wide “Q”.
In order to further shape the upper and lower ends of the spectrum, the Dangerous BAX also offers transparent 12dB/Oct high pass and low pass filters. The designer of the Dangerous BAX, Chris Muth, spent many years on the prototypes in well-known mastering studios in order to get the most suitable frequencies. The Dangerous BAX quickly became renowned as a transparent and un-obstructive tone control, with turn over frequencies that were highly tuned for mastering.
Having owned the Dangerous BAX hardware since they became available in Australia, I can confidently say it’s the one piece of hardware that I could not do without. I would happily pay the price for the high pass filter alone. It’s one of the few equalisers that can instantly tighten the low end without affecting the punch of the kick and bass. The 12Hz and 18Hz works wonders on an 808 kick drum. Admittedly I use the BAX more for cutting rather than boosting, and mostly in the low end, although the high shelf boost can be very clean and can add that extra sparkle on mixes if required.
It also works very well after another parametric equalizer such as the GML or Sontec, as you can boost the low end in the sub region then use the BAX high pass filter to cut the extreme subsonic frequencies that may cause smaller speakers to distort. Conversely, you can use a high shelf boost on the BAX and use the low pass filter to smooth the extreme top end and make it sound more natural.
It looks deceivingly simple yet can be very powerful once you understand the depth of what the curves are capable of. I would describe the sound of the Dangerous BAX equaliser as quite transparent; it has a hint of the modern Op-Amp sound giving it a slight mid forward texture, and is fast with no loss of transients.
Now Universal Audio have released the Dangerous BAX on their UAD-2 platform. I’m a big fan of the Universal Audio emulations, especially the Massive Passive, which I used to own; so there is no “analogue is better” bias in this comparison – I’m approaching this with an open mind. The one caveat is that Universal Audio outsourced this emulation to Brainworx in Germany, so it’s not quite the same team that coded the Massive Passive emulation.
In order to make the comparison equal, my methodology was to use the same signal chain for the software as the hardware. The UAD BAX went through an analogue loop out if the DAW via the Prism DA-2, through the Dangerous BAX in relay hardware bypass, and into the Prism AD-2. Then the UAD BAX was bypassed and the hardware BAX inserted into the chain. This was all recorded into sequoia as a 24-bit 48kHz file. I used a variety of material that were all mastered using the hardware BAX, including folk, acoustic, electronic, and hip-hop from artists Ngaiire, Dustin Tebbutt, Flume and Suburban Dark.
The results were then compared in Studios 301’s Mastering Suite 2 on the Duntech Sovereigns and Adam S2X’s.
Listening to the results, my immediate impressions were that the UAD version did not sound as transparent as the hardware. The high frequency shelf needed more boost on the software to sound like the hardware, and the low boost was more exaggerated on the software compared to the hardware, so I had to dial in less low end on the software for an accurate comparison. The hardware had more open, silkier highs and more tightness in the low end, especially when using the filters. Whatever settings I used, the UAD plug-in had a tendency to sound darker and thicker than the hardware, with much less perceived depth.
This is one of the main issues that I encountered using the UAD for mastering; the front to back depth was flattened, something which I always aim to retain or even enhance with mastering grade hardware. The stereo width was quite close. It sounds like the plug-in has tried to capture the essence of using hardware, yet this is precisely why the Dangerous BAX is so good – it doesn’t really have much of a sonic footprint. On complex material the UAD almost sounds compressed compared to the hardware.
I’m going to give an elusive non-scientific opinion, but the software just doesn’t have the same subtleness or musical involvement as the hardware.
The UAD BAX does have some more tricks up its sleeve, as you can use the equaliser in mastering mode, enabling mid/side processing. This enables you to cut or boost the mid or side channels separately and opens up the BAX for many more possibilities, especially on problem mixes. For example, you can strengthen the kick or snare on the center channel without affecting the panned instruments in the stereo channel. Conversely, you can tame a panned high hat or sibilance in the out of phase whist not affecting the center channel. This is one advantage of the UAD BAX.
So by now you may have gathered that I’m rather fond of the Dangerous BAX hardware, and not so taken by the UAD BAX. I just don’t think Brainworx have nailed this emulation. After recording and comparing the files on a variety of systems, I would say that the average listener could probably not tell them apart. That may be good enough in online mixing situation. However, in a mastering studio you always want that 5-10% improvement, and this is where software emulation falls short.
Lynley, our Mastering Coordinator explains the what, why and hows on everything ISRC.
If you would like to obtain ISRCs, or book mastering, contact Lynley on mastering@studios301.com or 02 9698 5888
What is an ISRC?
ISRC stands for International Standard Recording Code, and is a unique 12 digit string of numbers that identifies a recording and the copyright contained within it. ISRCs are essential for uploading songs to iTunes, can be embedded in CD Masters and are used by broadcasters, record labels, publishers and organisations like APRA to track the playback and sale of music.
What is an ISRC code used for?
If you wish to make income from your recordings or songs, ISRCs make the tracking of sales and royalties more efficient. As well as this, ISRCs make life easier for the people cataloguing your recordings…. And we think it’s in your best interest to make those people happy!
How do I get ISRCs?
The easy way is to ask us… You’ll need to fill out a form, and pay $50+GST, which is a one-off project fee covering all ISRCs on your release. We can issue your ISRCs swiftly from there (usually within 1 business day).
OR… you get in touch with ARIA. They will issue you a “registrant code” which then allows you to make up your own ISRCs. This process takes a few weeks, but ARIA doesn’t charge.
BUT… If you are a record label, or an artists signed to a label, usually the label organises ISRCs internally. Check with them before accidentally having ISRCs issued twice!
I have my ISRCs, now what do I do with them?
ISRCs can be included with:
CD Masters, when we are making a final DDP or PMCD master for CD production. In this instance, we embed the ISRCs into the master disk or file.
WAV files, when supplying them to your label, iTunes or digital distributor. In this instance, no embedding of the ISRC into the audio file is required. Simply supply your ISRC along with the mastered track when you hand it over.
Do I need ISRC’s before I begin mastering?
No, not for us to master your tracks.
We recommend however you obtain ISRCs whilst we are mastering your songs. It’s recommended that you include them in your CD Master (which we make after the initial mastering session) and you’ll definitely need them to put your tracks on iTunes.
If you would like to obtain ISRCs, or book mastering, contact Lynley on mastering@studios301.com or 02 9698 5888 or book online.
It has been nearly two years since Apple launched “Mastered For iTunes” and almost as long since Studios 301 started mastering for the format. Over this time, Leon Zervos has mastered more releases for iTunes than most other mastering engineers combined, and as a result has a few thoughts about hi quality audio, good and bad mp3’s, and a bit of nostalgia for how it once was….
To book Leon Zervos for your mastering project, contact Lynley on mastering@studios301.com or 02 9698 5888
The beginning of mp3
When all the downloading started, everyone was making/taking 128 mp3s and as a result, there was almost half a generation that got too used to listening to bad sound. They were accepting that as how music should be listened to. I even remember getting some files for mastering and they’d converted from 128kb mp3 to 44.1kHz wav. You could hear it straight away.
So I think we have to thank Apple for taking the initiative, for effectively saying “No, no, we’re going to shoot for the stars here. We want everything to be as high-res as possible.”
The change in consumer headphones
At the same time that poor quality mp3’s were being used; people were listening to music on tiny little ear buds that were shocking. They weren’t even the slightly better quality ones from Apple we currently have. Now you look in the street and see guys walking around with big headphones – Beats, Sennheiser and many other higher quality brands. It’s taking music, and the listening experience, to another level. So now people are demanding higher standards of audio and people are getting used to it.
The difference between a 128kb mp3’s, 256kb AAC (iTunes) and a hi-res audio file
For a start, the stereo imaging is completely different. The imaging in a high-res file is true, It’s got depth and clarity. A 128 mp3 just sounds horrible.
An iTunes AAC file (at 256kb) is a big step up. I still think a CD at 44.1/16-bit is better – much better. But will the regular guy or girl in the street hear the difference? I don’t know. But in a studio environment, you can hear it straight away. There’s no guesswork, you can pick it.
How we got used to 128kb mp3s.
I think a lot of people don’t know because they’re not in a professional environment like we are, where we can sit down and compare things. I think if they were, they’d go, “Wow! That sounds so much better,” then they’d use that, they’d always demand that. I mean, like I said, we’re always striving for the best.
In the days of vinyl, record companies were cutting discs and they would get test pressings first, they would listen to it as well as the producer, musicians and engineers. If it wasn’t right, they’d re-cut, there would be more pressings, then re-pressings if needed, until it was perfect. There was this safety net in the process and everyone signed off on it when they were happy with the record. Nowadays, probably because of tighter deadlines, this doesn’t happen and there is no safety net. And then it comes out and then it’s down-sampled or converted and it sounds different again.
Apple is now storing files at up to 24/96 on their iTunes servers.
As part of their Mastered For iTunes initiative, Apple receive the files from the label exactly as we mastered them, at up to 24 bit, 96kHz for storage on their servers. These files don’t get sold to the customer (they go through Apple’s codec to convert to AAC), however it is intriguing that they are keeping these files on their systems. Why are they doing this?
Maybe they don’t know themselves yet, perhaps they’re just future proofing. I think keeping everything at 24/96 is the best possible thing to do. In the future, when downloads become quicker and drive space is not an issue, perhaps we will be listening to everything at 96kHz. And that’ll happen, but you probably wouldn’t even need the storage space because you’ll be listening to something that’s getting streamed at 96kHz – which would be perfect.
Referencing mixes at 128kb
I get people occasionally sending me a YouTube link to “make it sound like this”. Streaming music from YouTube and Soundcloud (as opposed to downloading) is usually at 128kb and this is not desirable for me. When the client sends me a link, sometimes I don’t even go and listen to it because I’m just not prepared to reference lo-res audio, as a comparison to what I’m doing here in my studio. At full bandwidth and with the equipment I have – it just doesn’t stack up.
Comparing a 128k stream to a hi-res file is like comparing apples to oranges.
I think it’s really dangerous because, again, it’s going back to people getting used to a bad-sounding audio and thinking that’s how it should be. If they had the high-res file (or even a CD) of the song, they could use that as a reference, because that’s what was done at the final stage and that’s what was approved by the producer/artist/label. Anything else as a reference shouldn’t be used because it’s gone through some kind of data compression and the sound has changed.
I think if you’re going get to the point where you’re mixing, and you’re calling yourself professional, you should be doing it in a professional way. Streaming it on Soundcloud or YouTube is not professional. Buy the CD or find some way to get the best possible high-res file you can get of that song. I couldn’t listen to it streaming at 128kb and use that as the reference when I know there’s something much better out there.
“Mastered for iTunes is a marketing ploy by Apple”
I think, at a professional level, a company that wants to accept files that are only of a certain quality is very good. Let’s face it, Apple are a company, they’re in business to make money. And if this is a sales pitch and they’re making money off it, fine. But the upside for music lovers is that one of the biggest companies in the world is creating awareness of higher audio quality.
Hi resolution masters (24/44 and higher)
If I were the artist, I’d want to have in my possession the best possible master that could be done. And if it’s out there and it’s available at 24-bit, it might entice more people to download and listen to it.
As engineers, we’ve always wanted to better what we do in audio. Through the years, we had quarter-inch 15 IPS tape, then we had quarter-inch 30 IPS, then it was half-inch 30 IPS. Then digital came in and has been greatly improved over the years, particularly with better convertors – always advancing. So I think it’s only natural that the industry should move forward all the time, instead of settling for something that doesn’t sound good.
When cassettes came out, you had the choice of low-noise cassettes, chrome cassettes, metal cassettes, there were different brands, and you could go and get your preferred type. With mp3’s, it’s almost like the music that was coming out a few years ago was coming out on ordinary cassettes and Apple are trying to make everything come out on noiseless metal tape. So if I were an artist, I’d want my music to come out the best way possible.
To book Leon Zervos for your mastering project, contact Lynley on mastering@studios301.com or 02 9698 5888
Hi, my name is Harvey O’Sullivan and I’m the Mastering Assistant here at Studios 301.
The nature of 301 is very dynamic and being an assistant requires a “Jack-of-all-trades” attitude. My responsibilities cover the daily maintenance of our 3 dedicated Mastering rooms, as well as preparing production masters.
A typical day for me could be breaking out the Studer to transfer some 1/4 inch tapes, replacing a broken woofer driver in one of our monitors or helping our workshop technician, Steve Crane, test modifications to our custom built AES digital signal router, the DES. Every day has its own set of tasks, be it scheduled or unexpected.
With so many projects being worked on by our mastering engineers, on multiple computers, we heavily on our network to power the backup system, nicknamed ‘Captain Tom’. This means ensuring everything is always in sync and constantly backed up across the entire complex.
That said, a lot of the Mastering Assistant’s job is, quite frankly, plugging stuff in, and testing if stuff works. It certainly helps to have a good understanding of technology and knowing how to troubleshoot on your feet.
Here an example of the ever-expanding album of “photos I take at work”:
The core of my role however, is making up Production Masters. The majority of masters end up as one of two formats: a DDP or PMCD.
A DDP is a file format that is sent off to CD manufacturing plants to press. A PMCD is a standard audio CD that has been burnt under special conditions to avoid any errors during the burning process. Its a physical object that operates as the master disc.
DDPs offer a number of advantages over the PMCD format in that they are simply a file format, which can be stored, backed up and sent digitally. It’s a specialised format requiring special software to read and playback. It’s at this point I will also enter additional track information data such as CD-TEXT and ISRC codes (serial numbers for music files) into the DDP.
PMCDs have to be treated with care, though they do come with a reference audio CD for listening to. You wouldn’t want to be chucking your PMCD in the car stereo.
Before sending these to the client, I’ll listen over the entire project, whether it’s a single, an EP or a full album; listening for any small glitch that might have snuck its way through. This requires a keen ear for detail and a great deal of concentration. This task is the absolute last step in the mastering process and is a deadly crucial one – because failure here could potentially result in an audible glitch being present on thousands of CD that have just been manufactured at great expense!
At the end of the day, what I love is getting to work with music every day and being surrounded by creative and talented people.
[Harvey O’Sullivan has been the Mastering Assistant at Studios 301 since January 2013]
We have learnt that You, our audience, comprises of a very broad range of musicians and music lovers, from seasoned professionals, to those just beginning to exercise their passions and wanting to learn more about it all. This post aims to clear up some mysteries about the purpose of Audio Mastering for those less familiar with this process.
What is mastering?
At Studios 301, our mastering engineers work on diverse material, from classical, acoustic, electric and electronic music. More importantly, this work is produced in an increasingly wide variety of studios, from large scale recording complexes (not unlike Studios 301) and bedroom studios, to laptops and iPhones sitting on a beach.
As you can imagine, the end results also sound quite diverse in their “fidelity”. The mastering process aims to provide the finished recordings with a “polish” so that they sound as balanced and consistent as possible when played back on any sound system. It is the last step that’s done before playback, broadcast, replication and distribution.
Having an impartial set of ears on a recording also never hurts.
Here’s one way to think of mastering: When a farmer takes a fresh apple to the grocer, mastering can be seen as the process of cleaning that apple to a shine and wrapping it in vacuum packaging so that it remains fresh, leaving an attractive appearance to the shopper.
For those more familiar with film & video production, it is the audio equivalent of ‘grading’.
Is Mastering necessary?
There are many reasons that we need mastering. For example, when an album is made, it’s quite common for each song to have it’s own “sonic palette” or sound design. Similarly, groups of songs might have been recorded or mixed in different studios, and quite possibly by different producers – each with their own set of “ears”.
A side effect of a using different studios for recording and/or mixing is that irrespective of the equipment, every room has it’s own acoustic “sound”, and a mix engineer will make decisions based on what they hear. This could result in ‘resonances’ or ‘troughs’ in the frequency spectrum, causing the engineer to inadvertently boost or cut a particular frequency to compensate due to what they’re hearing.
When grouped together as a single body of work, the album may sound disjointed and inconsistent due to each song’s disparate creation environments. Plus, they might also have vastly differing levels of “apparent loudness” depending on the style or genre of each song.
The ultimate aim of mastering is to give the body of work a cohesive listening experience – while always maintaining the mix’s original integrity.
Why is mastering so important?
Mastering is a process that involves both objective and subjective listening.
Every mastering engineer has their own “style” and personality that they’re renowned for. However, an objective point of view is generally taken before any subjective processing is applied.
Objective issues relate to aspects of the mix that are seen as imperfections. In most cases, these are not down to personal opinion, but rather, unmistakable blemishes that weren’t apparent or intended at the time of recording/mixing such as signal or data corruption. They could also be things that were caused as a result of the recording/mixing environment, such as poor monitoring.
Issues requiring “Objective” treatment:
mono / out-of-phase / widening
lacking definition in bottom end
mix is jumping around madly
unnatural changes in volume
unwanted noise/hum/glitches
frequencies that ‘stick out’
bass / top end imbalance
stereo imbalance
too dull / bright
muddy mix
hidden vocal
quiet overall
This objective treatment can be thought of as the corrective stage.
EQ, compression, multi-band compression, parallel compression, exciting, stereo widening/narrowing, and limiting are amongst the tools used here, some very sparingly, others not at all. The thinking here is to use these tools only if absolutely required, and when so, with a most delicate of touch. Again, this is not the time for aggressive processing – what you want to do here is to add some *sparkle*, but NOT alter the mix – one must always keep that in mind.
There are rare instances however, where mastering is needed to rescue a poor mixdown, or restore old mixes, in which case more heavy handed treatment is called for.
Next is the “Subjective” treatment.
The is the part where the mastering engineer’s personality comes into play. It is where they will apply their personal judgement to the colouration and balance of the audio.
Much like a songwriter’s style – what a mastering engineer “hears”, is what defines their character.
This is where the mastering engineer adds their value – and that value is entirely a matter of opinion – you may either like it, or you may not.
I believe this process should always be two-way conversation between artist and engineer, but sometimes creative opinions can differ, and may not always resolve. It is for this reason that some artists/producers/labels will take the time to seek a mastering engineer that understands their style and ‘fits’ their music – and then nurture that relationship.
Optimisation
After all sound processing has been applied, the final step is to optimise the audio signal for the intended output format.
This can be for any of the following:
radio
tv
wav/CD
vinyl
cinema
gaming
mp3 (hi / lo)
Mastered for iTunes
mobile phones
PC speakers
laptops
This largely objective process, is to ensure that the mix sounds as close to the intended recording, compensating for any added colouration that the medium it is being rendered to may impose on the recording, due to its own physical limitations.
For example, low bit-rate mp3s add a certain “sizzle” in the top end, so if the recording has a lot of high frequencies present, this will exacerbate that sizzle effect, so you may choose to compensate accordingly before rendering to that format.
Similarly, vinyl has a lot of physical issues one must consider. For example, anything below 300Hz should generally be in mono to ensure the cutting needle is able to cut the necessary groove. Any bottom end that is panned left or right, or even out-of-phase, will cause problems and not be able to be transferred to vinyl. Each side of vinyl also has limited duration, and if mastering for a long side, you may consider gently increasing the top-end towards the end of the recording, to compensate for the decreasing high frequencies you’ll hear on the inside tracks of most vinyl albums.
Another element that is oft debated by mastering engineers everywhere, is the stage that ensures your recording will sound as good as, if not better than (read: loud), other music played alongside it. This involves what is called “apparent loudness”.
This desire to sound louder than other recordings, started what is now known as the “Loudness War”.
To pinpoint its exact beginning is difficult, but it was around the time recordings became widely available for purchase – around the days of vinyl. The war element of this is achieved through active participants performing in competition with each other trying to make recordings sound as loud as possible, and is the musical equivalent of an evolutionary arms race. It was borne out of the psycho acoustic phenomenon that occurs when you listen to two or more pieces of music that have different volumes compared to each other. The phenomenon is that the louder piece of music always sounds better than the quieter one (up until the threshold of pain).
New methods of imprinting a hotter signal on analog mediums kept evolving. Digital recording technology didn’t have the physical limitations of vinyl and tape, and could offer louder and brighter recordings from start to finish.
This process however, has it’s drawbacks, in that it can cause the music to sound “squashed”. The easiest way to explain this to think of the apple in vacuum packaging. If too high a vacuum is applied, the apple will simply crush , and while it’s still inside this neat little package, the apple no longer resembles the initial recordings. This is a personal choice – and every mastering engineer will have their own personal philosophy on it.
This is an example of how the loudness of masters has evolved over the decades:
How to prepare your tracks for mastering.
Before sending your finished works off to be mastered, there are a few very important things you should do.
It’s important not to forget these crucial steps, as it can easily undo all the hard work spent on the track in a matter of minutes.
Your checklist:
People often write and mix using mastering type plug-ins at the master buss stage. When using plugins that have several processing stages such as multi-band compression, EQ, and limiting (T-Racks, iZotope Ozone, etc) it can be a dangerous thing simply turning this OFF, because if you have been mixing “through” these plugins, then turning them off will affect the overall balance of the instruments/tracks, and the mix won’t resemble what you’ve been working on.
Just prior to the final bounce, turn OFF the brickwall limiting stage at the very end of these chains, leaving the rest ON to maintain your mix balance.
You may find that the level on master buss channel will now be in the red during playback. Skip to the loudest part of the track, and pull the output level back to a point where no signal goes past 0 dB, or into the red at all.
Then set your Left & Right locators so that they are just outside of all audible audio – be aware of any lingering reverb tails that may be present at the very end of the song, shifting your Right locator accordingly.
Set your output bounce parameters to 24-bit and at the sample rate of your project (44.1k/48k/96k/etc) and hit ‘Bounce’.
Once you’ve bounced it out, take a quick look at the final waveform.
** You want your waveform to resemble this, with visible peaks and troughs in the waveform:
**And NOT this, which resembles a brick:
this is an example of an overlimited waveform.
The reason is that a clipped or limited signal such as this, leaves very little room for the mastering process to be applied to your mix.
There is a lot of pressure from record labels, DJs and radio stations to provide mixes that are as loud as possible. While that is understandable, it is also important to note that the best way to do this is actually in the mastering process, not necessarily at mixdown.
The reason is this: a mix that has had the life squeezed out of it, like the above image, will have very little dynamics left, and may sound overly saturated. The signal will not benefit greatly from additional EQ that may be needed to balance the mix (the objective process) or apply any subjective treatment in order to make the track ‘sparkle’. The track will be muffled and already overtly loud, and may disappoint you when the master returns no louder, or even possibly a little quieter.
Going back to my previous analogy, another way to think of it is this: An overtly limited mix is like the farmer giving the grocer an apple, covered in spots of dirt but already sealed in vacuum packaging. The grocer now has what looks to be a dirty apple, and is unable to clean it due to the tight packaging, and no amount of cleaning the outside, will actually clean the apple inside.
While a grocer could remove the packing, clean it, and re-pack it, in the audio terms, once this packaging or ‘limiting’ has been applied, one cannot remove the packaging, or reverse the process. The audio is forever squashed, and anything the mastering engineer does, will only ever be on top of what has already been applied. Therefore, a dirty apple, within several layers of packaging.
Ultimately, the mastering process, as minor as it is, can also make or break your final recording. It is a crucial and important process that a mix can often benefit from when placed in the right hands.
If you are a musician, engineer or producer and you seek to know more about this process , you are welcome to send tracks for a free assessment to Studios 301 for feedback on the mix, should you be unsure of when a mix is ready for mastering.
While a lot of what is written here covers the general principles of mastering, I must stress that there is also a significant amount here that covers my own personal approach to mastering. Every engineer has their way of doing things, and that is why I personally find this area so fascinating!
