Page 1

I have gone to this guy to record 3 different times, and for some reason, we can't seem to get a decent sound from him. I'm really not sure if this is due to musicianship, or if it is just due to mastering/editing. -David
 
I would suspect 2 things: (1) The engineer's monitor system isn't revealing and accurate as it could be and (2) he isn't comparing his work to other commercial CDs often enough. What can you do? The same thing Michael Jackson did on one of his latest albums: insist that the engineer have current commercial CDs available to reference to the studio at all times.
 
When you track drums, reference to an awesome sounding CD. When you track guitars, reference to an awesome sounding CD. Insist that the time be taken to listen to other CDs at the same volume level at every step of the way. (Michael, by the way, constantly referenced to his OWN CD (The Wall) when he was tracking and mixing his latest record... and if Michael can do it.... what engineer on the planet would say you shouldn't do that?)
 
When you mix, spend at LEAST 1/2 to 3/4 hour (out of every 3 hours) listening and comparing other commercial CDs to your mix. Click -your mix - click - their mix - click - your mix - click - their mix... etc.

This eliminates 80% or more of the guesswork BEFORE you're in the mastering studio. When you go in to the mastering studio..... you may even consider the same method. Your master - their master... your CD - their CD - all on a level-matched mastering system. (The Nautilus DMC-8 is a monitor controller for all studios that easily facilitates this technique.)
 
Keep in mind that your engineer should NOT try to make the mixdown-copied-onto-CD as loud as a normal commercial CD. Trying to make a hot CD before the mastering process doesn't work in your favor. The volume is for the mastering engineer to create. The mixer should just make it sound great using good levels and good headroom, compressing within the mix. Mixes should stay 2 dB below clipping on digital meters. (Also check my articles on compression.)
 
I am just looking for some kind of suggestions to help [our engineer] master our recording better.
 
Your engineer is welcome to read my web site, but I can't give him 26 years of experience without the 26 years! Check the site map for a listing of the articles that may be helpful.
 
The problems that I seem to be having with him are the vocals being too low/soft, the kick being way too high, and the guitar being weird... kind of scratchy sounding, a lot of treble, not enough punch.
 
Aside from mix issues, it could be that the mics are too close to the speaker, or it's direct signals (not miked signals) so-so converters that aren't fat and wide (a key issue with any digital workstation). A "vacant" sounding mix usually means low-end converters, clock issues and more. Some big engineers like to transfer to analog from their digital workstation to give it the silkier, warm sound of analog.
 
When it comes to comparison referencing, sometimes it's a little intimidating for an engineer to put on the CD of a super group, and then put up the work he/she is doing for you in the studio. That engineer could think, "How can I possibly compete with that SSL or NEVE console - and all those tube mic pre's?"

Well, consider that record companies will compare your product with the biggies who did record on an SSL - so you might as well go through that discomfort in the studio where there is no label rep in the room. Get happier with the sound at "point A" and you'll be more confident of your product when you're in the A&R room. Your results stem very directly from your level of confidence.
 
What can help is if the artist lets the engineer know that they are willing to pay for the extra time that it takes to make these side-by-side comparisons. Often the engineer has good intentions for the session to go quickly. Realize that it may be more costly at the time, but look at the aggravation that it can save you later... everything has it's price, and we generally are at an advantage when we just decide to bite the bullet and put in some extra effort earlier on.
 
In the worst case, the engineer will get aggravated and claim artistic independence and not allow commercial CDs to be heard in his/her control room! Then you can simply request that your preference be honored - it's nothing personal - no one will make any negative comments if it takes some time to achieve your goals - and ultimately when the project is finished, everyone will know more than when they started. It happens to the best of us. In fact, that's how we become the best.
 
I just recently had a project mastered, and [the sound] seemed a little dull [before adding mastering EQ]. [Adding top end] was definitely able to help it, but do you have suggestions for getting more "air" in the mix stage? -Danny
 
Top end can definitely help a mix have clarity, immediacy and more "air." Other factors can be the A-D converters, the quality of cables you have going into your mixdown machine, the kind of mics and mic pre's used in tracking, the kind of chips (or lack thereof) in the console (there's plenty of guys out there who will modify any console with better chips, power supplies, or discrete blocks), heck, there's a bunch of things that help!
 
You can try using different EQ ranges for different instruments and vocals, in order to have a spread of frequencies that are accentuated. So if you're bringing out 2.5k in the vocals, lean more toward 1k in the guitars, and 3.5k in the keyboards, and 4.5k in the backup vocals. That's just an example. Wait to go wild on the parametrics - I've seen a lot of home studio guys with their computers with amazingly wild roller coaster EQ settings on stuff that just needs some gentle top, no compression and better panning. A buildup of frequencies in the same range doesn't make things more clear - it makes it more glaring or harsh. Then we have to cut very strategically to keep the clarity and lose the knarly.
 
Another biggie is having a great monitor system so you can hear that air is needed. Often studio monitors have their own "air" and it's quite common that us mastering engineers have to add that back in. Even the kind of cables going to the power amp, the kind of cables going to the speakers, the placement of the speakers in the room, the acoustic treatment, etc. makes a difference. (More here.)
 
I'm often surprised when a studio owner won't bat an eye to get a $3,000 mic pre/compressor/EQ in order to get a great vocal sound, but resists getting a pair of $3,000 monitor speakers to get better sound on everything!

Yes, mastering experts can easily spot when a mix needs more clarity, but that's largely due to the time and money we've invested in the clarity of the "lens" we look through... and experience helps... pro's who have been in their room for 30 years can hear a fly land on the cone.
 
Are there major differences in the quality of CD-R's in different colors (i.e.- gold, silver, blue)? Is one type better for final masters than another? - Jeff
 
Absolutely. You get what you pay for. Unfortunately, the consumer market, and what the consumer will buy/pay is what drives the quality level of CDRs. If the manufacturers can shave off a penny here and a penny there, they will to cut the cost and increase profits. Quality isn't the priority.
 
The different color of ink (on the bottom) and the coating on top definitely makes a difference. I recommend Kodak gold on gold, BASF ceramic coated and Maxells. You can try Quantegy or Sony, but all of these brands change their formulas from time to time. I spend a lot of time testing different brands, and it's getting harder to be completely satisfied with what's out there. In a way, we're stuck with what they give us.
 
Has there been any study published on the shelf life of these different types of CD-R? Or is the jury still out? -Jeff
 
I haven't seen such a study, but the claim is a shelf life of 75 years. Ok. We'll see. We were surprised when analog tapes (mostly Ampex and some Agfa) started becoming sticky and unplayable. They can be salvaged via baking and other restoration techniques. Supposedly the manufacturers have fixed that. A huh. We'll see in another 20 years.
 
The jury is definitely out on how long DAT tapes will last. We already know that the compatibility of DAT tapes from machine to machine is *less* compatible than our analog counterparts, so keep your fingers crossed on those DAT masters you're making. Best, in my opinion, to make a CD backup of any DATs, and a DAT backup of any CD masters!
 
My mix seems good, but I have to turn the bass way down when I listen in the car. It seems to have a mid bass hump that needs to be corrected. Can you do that?
 
Yes, I can correct what you're describing. If you can turn down the bass in the car and still hear the guitars and vocals and they're still big, you're in good shape.
 
When played through my studio monitors it seems just fine. Which would you prefer to correct...the hotter bass signal or one that the bass appears to be weak in the mix?
 
I would probably rather you be conservative with the low end. That way I have more control over which particular frequencies I bring out. Make sure that you can still hear the bass, though! Better yet, keep trying to correct this at your place.
 
It sounds like you have a "hole" in your mixing position, like you're close to your speakers, say 3-5 ft??? If you stand farther back from the speakers, how is the bass response? Closer to what you hear in the car? How about if you stand in a back corner of the room? Try to get at least one other consumer thing like a boom box with some "mega bass" or something where you can listen to some top ten commercial CDs and feel like the bass/guitar/drum/vocal blend is really right. Then compare your mix with that commercial CD in the studio as well as in the car, the boom box etc. It's research time well spent.
 
I know not everybody has CDs in their car. Do you have a CD cutter to cut a CDR to play over a boom box or other stereo gear? Cassettes can be difficult, because the azimuth can be completely different in your car compared to on your studio deck.
 
Big key: If you're listening in the car, don't compare a cassette or CD of your mix with music on the radio! That's like apples and oranges. The equalization curve for radio signal is completely different internally inside the car units. Only compare CDs to CDs, and cassettes to cassettes. Commercial cassettes are usually pretty good, but remember there is still going to be an azimuth difference (slant of the heads in the deck) between the units that made those tapes and the tape you made. CDs are a more accurate way to compare sonics.
 
Look out for this!: When you are mixing to CD (or making a CD copy of your DAT), don't be bummed if your mix CD isn't as loud as a commercial CD! In fact, it's better if it isn't that loud! Some people are making the mistake of compressing and using digital brick-wall limiters and limiting programs in gear like the Finalizer so that their CD copy is as loud as commercial CDs are.
 
The reason this is a mistake is because the commercial CDs have been mastered, and they have probably used $30,000+ worth of gear just for the compression and EQ, listening over very sophisticated systems, and applying years and years of experience to achieve that sound. World class mixing engineers know to stick to making the mix itself sound great, letting the mastering engineer do his/her job of making the CD sound great. Just use commercial CDs as a guide - a reference place to compare your highs, lows, mids, hearability of the vocals, power and emphasis of the drums and guitars, spatial spread, transparency, warmth, etc.
 
Even if you have to "turn off the clock" to make a few extra comparisons, it's worth it because it only helps get things dialed in for future projects. Also be sure to check out my pages on Studio Monitor Madness and HotCD Disease.
 
Wouldn't you recommend light compression 2:1 or less before mixing to a Panasonic SV 3800 DAT recorder? -Bob
 
You know, there just isn't a "one-setting-does-it-all" answer to this question. On some things, 2:1 would be perfect... others... I wouldn't suggest it at all. I feel it's safest to not use compression on the stereo buss. It's one more piece of gear that adds stuff making it less pure signal-wise. A compressor is a long way from a straight wire in terms of signal purity. For instance, some compressors may have a slower slew rate that can cloud the precision of the mids and bass.
 
However, if it sounds better and really works for your ears, go for it! Without being in your mix room and comparing A-to-B, I just can't safely say it's the best way to go. Cool idea: Make two mixes - one with and one without the compressor - and let it be decided in mastering which sounds best within the context of your entire CD. If you change your mind, you have the other version ready to go. An excellent engineer once brought me material that was mixed two ways - with and without a Finalizer. Which did we use? The client and I picked the non-Finalized versions because it sounded more open and dynamic. But it was worth it to have the option.
 
If you are comparing your mix with other commercial CDs, you will be hearing those CDs with mastering compression. Best not to try to emulate that compression in the mix room, but simply use the commercial CDs as a reference to vocal level, over-all punch/vibe, highs & lows, etc.
 
Compression can vary from song to song in any one album. Every song somewhat effects the approach used on the other songs. (That's one of the advantages of having automated EQ - I can jump from the first song to the last song to the middle in a matter of seconds.) Therefore I think the less "unifying" one-setting-processors used, the more the character of each song is revealed within the context of the whole CD.
 
Do I mix to my DAT at 44.1 or 48k? I know CD is 44.1 but it sounds better at 48 to my ears. Am I gonna lose any sound quality when its recorded to CD? -KC
 
Good question! Mix to 48 if the mastering house you plan to use processes in the analog domain, as I do. If they strictly master in the digital domain, mix to 44.1.
 
I seem to be getting a lot of feed back (i.e. hiss) when recording how can I remove this noise? -DC
 
I love the Behringer de-noiser, a bargain and sounds great.
 
I run a project studio out of my basement. What would you say is my best option to gain more control over my sound? -Jordan
 
The bottom end should be terrific in there. For low end, cardboard boxes, or go to your local Home Depot and get the cardboard tubes for making concrete footers. Anything that vibrates turns sound energy into heat. Fill with free (used) foam from carpet places that are happy to give it away. Also, diffusers like CD cases, books in shelves, plants, just experiment! (More here.)
 
I hear many song recorded on CakeWalk Pro9, Cubase, Vegas, and ProTools and they all sound good if its done right. What's best? -Sean
 
I like Nuendo, Pro Tools, Digital Performer, Vegas Pro..... they all sound slightly different, but what's most important is that your music kicks. Get the best A-to-D converters you can afford and if possible, a good clock device like the Apogee Big Ben. Pick the DAW that bests suits your budget and functionality goals. (Here's my look at 30 different DAW summing systems.)
 
How important are near fields for mixdown? -Alan
 
That's a loaded question! Some people HAVE to have them. I don't like them at all. I say get the most expensive audiophile speakers/amplifier/cables you can responsibly afford that are full-range. Getting used to them is a world better than going back and forth between big and small... but it's purely a preference thing. If you can interpret NS10's correctly (oh gasp!), you're in there.
 
My levels are clipping on my computer workstation. Should I leave the master fader at zero and turn down the levels of each track considerably (-8 to -12), or leave the levels of each track up around zero and lower the level of the master fader to around minus 6? -Scott
 
It's best to keep the master fader at 0 and bring down the individual tracks. If possible, remove the master fader - it can be helpful to the sound. Keep your plug-in levels such that if you bypass them, the volume of that particular track stays the same. That way you can bypass the plug-in and really see - level-matched - if it's helping the sound.
 
How can I tell if my music is really at the level it needs to be to sound good once professionally mastered? -Mike
 
Your music is the same as everyone else's in the sense that some people are going to love it, and some people won't. There's lots of big name artists with recordings that sound so-so, yet they have hits. There's artists with magnificent recordings that only sell a small amount, regardless of the mastered sound. Sometimes it's the look of the artist that matters, sometimes it's the promotion that matters.
 
Your music is just... your music! If you enjoy it, and others you play it for enjoy it, then chances are it can be put out there at the level you are. See what happens. Promote it to the best of your ability. Just START.

John Lennon was never satisfied with their recordings. If he had the chance to make them all perfect, it would have taken years longer for their classic music to come out, but promoters and record companies would have objected.
 
We deal with humanity's time-frame, and the infinite personality of the end-listener, who will find your music through whatever path is available for your kind of music. So if you expect night club-play to increase your exposure, you may want to consider that volume thing as an acceptable gain accompanied by an acceptable loss.

EVERY vinyl record contained those elements. It's just with digital, everyone can be SO picky because there's no scratches and warped records to make us ignore purist concerns like a "change with the stereo field."
 
I'm getting noisy CDs. Should I attempt to get the ambient hiss or "noise" out before or after mastering? -Phil
 
Use the Behringer de-noiser on tracks coming into the system. It's best if you can just hit "play" and everything's clean sounding before you go to CD.
 
Do mic pre-amps really make a large difference in quality? -Brandon
 
It may or may not seem subtle at first, but it all definitely adds up. Plus, a good pre can be used for anything, vocals, guitars, you name it. They are designed to replace the stock mic preamps in your board, which typically are chips, and don't sound as robust as tubes or discrete circuits. Ask your local gear dealer how they're set up - many engineers bypass the board altogether, avoiding the chips in the channel modules too.
 
I notice that on a lot of major label recordings the WAV is flattened out.
 
If you're referring to the musical waveforms having clipped table-tops, that's not a great goal. It's not musical sounding, though it can be acceptable.
 
Are these cut offs because if the wav goes any higher it will cause errors at the plant?
 
It's just the way digital clipping looks. It can come from hitting the A-to-D converters too hard. Slam it too hard and yes, the plant may not dig it - though in some cases I've seen commercial releases with a lot of digital overs. I don't recommend it!
 
I don't have the feature on cool edit pro to cut the wav off...
 
Good!
 
I wish we had the $ to get someone with experience to master it for us.
 
Mastering can be affordable (some will even say how can one afford NOT to master!).
 
We mastered 4 of our songs somewhere else, but they still weren't as loud as major CDs, would it be ok to just bring it up (normalize ) a little? -Tom
 
Normalizing either is or isn't - you can't really do it "a little." It probably won't hurt, but it's also possible your songs are already normalized! Try it and see if you get what you want. Otherwise great mastering gear (and experience) will help you achieve that level and still keep the quality.
 
I recorded and mastered my solo CD from my analog multitrack to digital. Sounds great in my studio but my local radio station won't play it because it sounds mushy over the air. I mastered at 44,100/16 bit stereo. Is this not proper for radio? What should I master at for radio? -Randy
 
44.1 isn't the issue for "mushy" sound. 44.1 is just the sampling rate, or how much resolution is occurring when the analog-to-digital converters are analyzing the sound. Mushy comes from some aspect of your recording, either the tracking, mixing, or *sonic* aspects of the mastering.
 
One of the advantages if an experienced mastering engineer is that he/she brings an objective ear to the project, on different speakers. If you've done all your work over the same set of speakers, you're compiling any problems or inaccuracies in the system, which are building up by the time it gets into their hands. Compare with commercial CDs, and then compare yours with commercial CDs over your system, and then keep comparing.

Should we not use any compression during the mix session and let you add Class-A compression? -Hilli
 
The approach I recommend is to make your mix sound as good as you possibly can right where you are, and do what it takes to get that sound. Do not "guess" what mastering compression will do for your mix, especially since the mastering engineer generally cannot compress separate tracks which may or may not need compression. I agree with not using compression over the stereo mix buss, because if it's overdone, it can't be undone in mastering.
 
Here's the deal - with the steroid-hot levels of today's CDs (to the point of smashing most of the dynamic range so it looks like table-top mountain) most of the time limiting is used, and compression is rarely used. Limiting is fast and deep, compression is slow and wide. Yes, you can say that limiting is a form of compression but it is more specific to the peak information that must be addressed in order to make a hot CD without going into tons of digital overs (which don't sound good... and are found on many records by the way... which I think is one of several reasons people turn off their music sooner than they did years ago....).
 
Individual tracks should be appropriately compressed, even when using non-Class A compressors! The bass usually needs compression that is very different from the vocals, and very different from other instruments. The mastering compression is a global effect that is like polishing the car - but it won't specify whether the car has automatic transmission or manual - you have to build the car that way. Compressing or limiting the bass is an important way to keep it from bulging out unevenly, causing the mastering engineer to have to reduce low end in ways that compromise the kick.
 
As far as drums, I don't recommend compressing them (limiting works well at times) unless you want to create a specifically altered sound with compression. It can be very cool, but it's a mistake to think that adding a compressor to a drum will make it punchier in every case. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. Remember, compressors are slow and drums have a very fast attack time. By the time you lower the threshold low enough to duck down the attack, you've smoothed out the snap in favor of that thwaak sound.
 
R&B and rap is really another discussion. Again, the loud CD wars have altered the way you arrange the music and the way you mix in order be competitive. On a super-hot R&B CD, the drastic amount of limiting needed to flatten out the kick drum attack literally changes the shape of the waveform. The limiting adds sustain to the kick and bass, which means your mix will sound muddy if there's to much sustain in the instruments and samples themselves.
 
Unmastered kick waveforms look like a triangle sitting on it's side - the wide end to the left, the point to the right. Mastered kicks look like a big box with a small triangle glued to the right. The box shape comes from the flattening out of the initial attack - the sound then sustains more vs. sounding instantaneous. The only way then to suggest an instantaneous sound is to shorten the sample more and put some air right after it, thereby recreating the impact.
 
Thus the arrangement of the music and the selection of samples has more to do with the punch than the mastering compression. If the bass, vocals, and other tracks are effectively compressed in order to keep their sound clean within the mix, then the other punchy sounds will come together in mastering and you'll have a great sounding record.
 
Do you have any tips for preparing a mix to be mastered on to vinyl? -Simon
 
Basically mastering for vinyl is the same with some extra care around sibilance and low end phase. You also need to know how long the total length per side is given the number of songs per side, and how hot you want it to be on the disk. The more compression and limiting (normally associated with making "hot" CDs) the more it's easy to cut a louder disk. But that doesn't make its sound better. It just puts a "safety" factor on the peaks.
 
Louder levels also mean more disk space is used by the lathe, so the number of songs, the speed 45 or 33, and what your competitive market is should be a factor. You want to compare your mix with other vinyl records - but compare not only the sound, but the length of the songs, how many per side, the arrangements of the actual musical parts, and the market you're appealing to. Basically, match up to the formulas on the best sounding disks, and you're in there.
 
Generally, I'd try to retain some dynamics on the vinyl because it will sound better and be a more lasting, pleasing experience. Yes, the DJ may have to turn it up a bit. Again, many of the answers are in comparable product that's already out there for you to listen to. Assuming the factors I've mentioned are a reasonable match, you should be able to take in a great sounding LP and play it for the mastering engineer and say "get me in the ballpark of this record."

How much of a difference should I hear in my ready-to-press masters? -Joshua

When something is excellently recorded and mixed, mastering shouldn't be a "night and day" difference. However, in many cases, mastering can and does make a night and day difference to the sound (particularly with Separations)! Each project is unique.

If your goals include retaining the musical integrity (not just going for blistering square-wave levels) you can probably still expect volume and balance enhancements - as well as widening of the sound stage, and a general smoother sound, more focused bottom and clarity. High-end mastering is superior to "mastering" plug-ins in every case we've heard.

We don't recommend "pre-slamming" your mix which can box us into a corner and possibly rob you of punch. Separations also helps in this area. Make your mix loud if that compliments your sound, but then leave the levels untouched and make Separations. With less content hitting your stereo limiter or compressor, the sound will open up in mastering - where added gain is easy. More dynamics and headroom at the mixing stage should be a concept that stays in balance with mega-slamming.  Now, keep in mind, a non-slammed mix will sound different when mastered to slamming levels.  Slamming changes the mix and the tone to a degree, so pre-slamming at the mix stage can give you insights into how the product will sound at an overall hotter level.

If I master my project with you, (and receive one master CD for duplication purposes) - I can than burn it at home to make copies, correct?

Yes. We can make you a Redbook audio CDR master that you can copy into your computer and make duplicates from, like you can with any commercial CD. There's no special CD plant coding that will mess things up. The main thing is that you can't play the master in a moving car or walkman - or do anything that could scratch or put dust or fingerprints on it. Your master CDR is very delicate and should be treated with the utmost care.

[If we master] directly from the computer, allowing us to bypass the Pro Tools master fader, do you feel that I would hear anything differently than I will in having you master from a bounced mixdown file?

Taking out the master fader (in Pro Tools) helps in mastering and when you bounce to stereo data files. You gain even more by bringing the computer here and having us re-clock it. Not to be redundant, but Separations are even better than bringing in the computer. Use your master fader to ensure that you're not going into clipping. Then whenever possible, remove the master fader. It sound better. (Some people even use different buss outputs instead of the stereo buss output when bouncing a stereo mix. Loop-back files also are an excellent way to go.)

[When I listen to our original bounced files] I still have this feeling that we lost something [vs.] how it sounds to me live on the speakers.

That's correct. By coming out of the mix session (instead of a bounced file) it will sound just like the mix session. Many people agree that the bounced (or rendered) stereo file doesn't sound as good as the original mix session. If you have a great monitor controller that lets you do level-matched A-B'ing, you can distinguish the difference - and therefore know what you're dealing with.

What should i be listening for in the masters i received from you?

A-B your masters with other commercial CDs. Start with the commercial CDs, get a nice sound on the consumer system, and then don't touch the system. Put in your CD and see how it sounds. Is it clear? Is it full? Is it smooth? Is it wide? Is the vocal where you want it? Do the lows sound good over the system when they sounded good with other CDs? If there are differences, check is it the sounds and arrangements themselves that are different, or is it an over-all difference - like clarity, presence, fullness, shimmer, etc. If you're goals are sheer level, then we have to approach it from that standpoint, and in all cases, the end result is primarily dictated by the sounds themselves, the mix, and the arrangement of the parts.

I would really like to find out what is causing a "cheapness" to my [studio's] sound. - Jim

It's like a pyramid. The most important location of great sound starts at the base, namely the source (ya know like the guitar strings, then the pickups, then the amp, then the mic, then the mic pre, then the compressor, then the console, then the machine..... how good the player is, tight the parts are played, the arrangement, the intonation, the musical layering, etc.),

The farther up the line you go, creating great sound involves more bandages. That's why I've put all this info on my site, to help people get it right from the start. Mastering can make a huge difference, but it's not really supposed to turn an apple into an orange. Whacked stuff will just sound like better whacked stuff. If a project is really right from the ground floor up, the mastering puts a gorgeous paint job on the car, but it doesn't change the performance of the engine.

It's like the band that cuts their tracks and then spends a month in Pro Tools correcting the drums so they're in the pocket. Sheesh! I say practice another month instead and play the parts right from the beginning! I know. It forces you to sweat and increase your discipline and skills... but then you get the benefit of that improved skill when you play live!

It seems like I'm hearing something different on CDR than what I'm hearing thru my monitors. I've heard you talk about a $350.00 SCSI cable (from computer to burner) - could that make the difference?

Actually I was referring to a digital cable from anywhere to anywhere, like from a DAT to CD burner, from a DAW into a DAT machine or CD burner, etc. I don't think there are any SCSI cables of a $350 caliber, but I don't think that's the problem anyway.

I Bounce to Disc my mixes using a Master fader with these inserts: a waves compressor, a Waves L1 Limiter, and finally a Digidesign Dither Plug. Could this be a weakness?

The mix engine used to render a stereo file is always a sore spot, which is why I recommend getting a Masterlink and a great digital cable. Come out of your mix session into the Masterlink at the same sampling rate and then render an audio CD from the Masterlink. Keep your high sampling rate files (CD24) for mastering.

The L1 and all those Digiwizgizmos over the stereo buss are all recalculating the signal, and may or may not be helping the sound. I say work a little more at making the mix smoke on its own... just be careful, many guys get carried away with stuff stuff stuff. When my clients bring in their computers for mastering, I spend more time taking off stuff than I do adding another plug-in to this or that....

Could there really be that much difference between a PT le mix engine and a TDM one?

I've found there are slight differences in different DAW systems.  The companies are improving their features and sound often.  64 bit systems will be interesting to watch! 

I burn my CDR's using Maxell 650's for sample mixes to hear on other stereos. Do different CDR's really make that big of a difference?

In some cases, yes.  Sometimes it's not noticeable on home systems, but we've heard differences here, and we use Maxell 700mb Music CDRs. The slower you can burn the CDRs the better, and be sure to use excellent digital cables when used to interface your gear.

Is there a difference between Vestman Mastering and Bernie Grundman Mastering?

There are differences and similarities! We both have different but similar backgrounds, experience, equipment... we definitely have different monitors... and a different rate. There are similarities and differences in our methods too. You may find that we're like the hot new kid on the block - perhaps more aggressive in some areas, perhaps just as conservative in others.

Key advantage: Our lower rate allows us to do more creative things that you might bypass in another studio.... such as Separation Mastering - the ultimate mastering solution.

Is it a technical difference or reputation difference?

Both. The real question is "Is there a sonic difference?" While every project is unique and every engineer has their own approach, you'll find our results are competitive or better than anyone anywhere.  We beat other studios in "shoot-outs" quite often (including the multi Grammy-filled ones)!

While talent is the main ingredient in any studio, the right gear definitely helps. We both use 24 bit high-end converters, discrete-style electronics, we both have over 30 years of experience, broad musical tastes, and we both know how our monitor systems translate into the real world. Those similarities are key.

You could ask the question "Is there a difference between Bernie Grundman Mastering and Marcussen Mastering (or any other great mastering house)?" and the answer would be the same. There would be differences and similarities. If the talent, the background, the experience, and the monitor knowledge is about equal, the result will be equal in quality - with differences and similarities in taste and style.  It's all about references and preferences. 

Record companies ask the same questions you've asked (and they ask it all the time). To answer these questions, they simply have one or two or three places master the same project (it helps that they can afford it). Then they simply pick the one they like the best.

Would you be less involved with us, or more, creatively speaking?

In some cases, the more expensive mastering engineers won't go to the creative detail we will. Plus other engineers won't sit with you through the entire session. They'll listen to your songs, mark down the EQ settings, and then pass your job onto an assistant who may or may not assemble your tracks with you present. Sometimes other mastering engineers will send you back to remix because they can't help you more using traditional mastering.

Most of the time, we really will not send you home with a "do it over" slip because the Separations format allows us to work wonders on your project.  If you don't have the time for a possible remix, we seriously recommend taking a little extra time to make Separations, and then you're covered.

Will you master just one song so we can get an idea of your sound?

Certainly! We prefer, however, to do more than one song (demos are at no obligation).  One song doesn't take into consideration the influence that other songs in the album may have. For instance, if your one song needs some mids, but the rest of your project needs highs, you might not see the full advantage that mastering will bring to your project till it's all done. We like doing 2 songs (3 if we have the time) - we'll fully master them, and send you portions of the songs so you get the idea.

I have heard of people "slamming" (over limiting) a song. It sounds good on home stereos but when the same CD is played on the radio, certain instruments fall out - like during a chorus the guitar sounding quiet, then when there is a pause in the vocal, the guitar level comes back up again.

I would have a different description for that - I would say that what you're hearing is in the vocal pause, the guitar is coming UP because in the rest of the song has been flattened DOWN. When the vocal comes back in, the guitar really isn't going down, it's really going back to it's place that is VOCAL-DEPENDENT, meaning the level of the vocal is pressing into the station's limiters, ducking the whole mix down, not just any specific instruments.

Even if it sounds good on all home systems and as loud as major artist CDs I do not want it sound bad on the radio.

Dynamics can sound very good when played on a home system, and the radio station needs to overcome very poor signal-to-noise ratio. That's why those soft sections come "up" - so that the listener doesn't gag from the amount of air noise. They figure it's better to whack the music than loose the listener if they perceive the station as being too weak or noisy. Just give it your best, reference to other commercial CDs, or call upon an expert mastering facility with the experience needed to create a competitive (but not overdone) product.

Is it better to bring in a stereo mix or a multitrack recording? -Adam

We find Separations to be the best format in almost all cases.  2-track stereo (particularly analog tape!) still sounds great, particularly with large budget mixing engineers at the helm. 

If the vocal is too loud on the stereo mix can this be changed in mastering stereo 2 channels?

In some cases the blend can be evened out. If you have a song that you know you're unhappy with the vocal blend, make Separations.  Even if you only separate the instruments from the vocals, it's a great way to go and you have an instrumental mix already done! 

If the timing of kick and bass isn't tight, can this be corrected in a stereo 2 channel mix?

Yes in some cases.  However, it isn't an adjustment that is applied throughout the entire song (unless you've brought in Separations). In traditional stereo mastering, it's more at entrances to phrases or in certain areas of the song. It's an editing technique and can work well, but if there are timing problems all over the song, then it's time to go back to the studio and try Beat Detective, or make Separations and we'll see what we can do. 

Is the mixdown of Cubase SX or Pro Tools better?

DAWs are getting better sounding all the time - it will be interesting to see how 64 bit PCs will sound.  Check the big debate and an interesting comparison CD here. For mixing, I recommend making loop-back files (recording the mix back in to the DAW vs. a bounce) or dedicated CD burner (Masterlink is my favorite because it's 24 bit and makes 24 bit CDR files). If you're making Separations, it's best to record your mixes and Separations back into your computer.  Stay at the sample rate of your system (44.1k, 48k, 88.2k, 96k) and always make 24 bit (vs. 16 bit) stereo files.  Even more sonic improvement happens when you have better power chords going into your gear! 

Digital and analog both have their advantages... and surprises.  Here's an interesting story sent to me by email:

I once bought some memory for my sampler and noticed it was a different brand from my existing memory, not expecting any difference at all I loaded the new memory and proceeded to sample some drum sounds that I was very familiar with. Immediately I heard a difference in sound almost as if the frequency extremes had been stretched.

Unfortunately, because the supplier had sent the wrong type of memory, some of the available memory was disabled. I had to reorder the correct memory type. When I loaded the new correct memory into the sampler the sampler returned to its normal restricted frequency extremes sound, a kind of compressed sound that is typical of that model of sampler.

Up to this day no one can explain this and the manufacturer says it is physically impossible for memory to affect sound as it only stores digital 0s and 1s. I even did some research on the Internet to find out if any variable can affect the performance of memory e.g. heat, humidity, magnetism, cold etc...To this day it remains a mystery? - Quin

My mixes sound good in the studio, but not at home or in the car.

Sounds like Studio Monitor Madness!

For better sonic quality, you recommend mixing to a DAT machine or Masterlink instead of rendering (or bouncing) to a stereo data file in my computer. I have no idea how to work with DAT. What will I need?

Make a loop-back file. This is where you take the digital output of your DAW mix, loop it back into the digital input and record the stereo mix onto a new stereo track. Record these tracks at 24 bit, even if your recording is 16 bit. Burn those new stereo tracks onto a data disc. The mastering studio can then import those files as the source. This is as good as (or better than) a Masterlink - you just don't get the cool features of a Masterlink.

As far as a DAT machine, they are pretty much history.  Better to get an Alesis Masterlink. You can make CD copies on the Masterlink (with some basic DSP features) and keeps your master data at 24 bit. It's easy to use and will be around a long time, in my opinion. By the way, if you're not making Separations, and if possible, bring in the Masterlink to the session - the hard drive in the unit sounds better than the CDR files. But if you're making Separations on a Masterlink, the CD-24 discs are a great way to go and the width and definition of Separations adds a world of great sound quality to your product.

Make sure you buy the best digital cable you can afford when coming out of your DAW or stand-alone recording system. The Masterlink A-D converters are decent, but if you can get a higher quality A-D and go into the Masterlink digitally, that's better. 

Will the internal burner I already have work or do you prefer a mix on a DAT tape?

The internal burner in your computer (or Roland unit) could be one of the problems as to why your CDRs don't sound as good as what you hear when you're mixing. If the burner is burning at high speed, it make the sound more harsh. The rendered stereo file is another place of lost quality. That's why we recommend that you take the direct digital signal from your mixdown straight into a digital recording device. The cable, again, is important. Get the best you can afford.

We have recorded the drums in "flat" (no EQ) with a Finalizer. Did we screw up? -Clayton

If you like the sound you have now, that's the most important thing. It's not the method that counts, it's the results. I prefer to EQ to the multitrack master, some engineers prefer cutting all tracks flat and EQ'ing only at mix time.

Do we need to MIX at our studio or can you do it?

We can recommend talented engineers who work in Pro Tools, Nuendo, Digital Performer and more.

What is the preferred format for mastering - 1/2" reel-to-reel, DAT or audio or data CD?

After Separations, we prefer analog 1/2" or 1/4" reel-to-reel - 96k Masterlink 24 bit data CDRs - 24 bit DAT - AIFF files or WAV... loop-back files - but it's all good. Check out this chart.

I am interested in knowing what kinds of options are available, such as Dolby.

If you go analog for your mix, do not use Dolby. Just go elevated +5 or +6 at 30 ips. I have some cool secrets on alignment that your engineer may get into. Some people do like using Dolby SR at 15 ips, so that's something to consider, but it's not common.

Is it good for me to include info about my mics, size of room, processing equipment, etc.?

It's just helpful for us to know what the multitrack format is (2" tape, computer, DAW software, etc.) and the mixdown format (1/2" , 1/4", wav files, Masterlink, etc.) All the mics, room, and processing gear isn't important unless there's a specific problem that we find as we're going along.

Can you give more suggestions?

Probably the Site Map is the way to see if there are additional articles that might help.

Is it possible for us to be present during the mastering process? Even though we live in southern Mexico, we are willing to come to you.

I've had clients from Mexico, Brazil, New York, New Orleans and Israel come here to attend sessions. There are a couple reasonably priced motels close by the studio. I look forward to hearing your project!

Got a question?
Contact us and we'll answer your question.

 

FAQs - Page 1 | Top