|
1st Call Mastering |
|
|
Here's to..."the start of a beautiful friendship!" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
Ok, so you
found us. Wonderful! NOW WHAT?, you ask. Well , let us first take a
look at where you are at. You have just finished up at the studio, you
have probably been there for a while (weeks, months, maybe even a year
or two), and you have been meticulous in every detail of the recording,
from every guitar lick, bass lick, keyboard part, and drum take...even
scrutinizing the vocalist to the point despair! All are in place, not
a note out of tune, nor a lick over or underplayed. This is the best
representation of your artistic vision. But wait, we are not done yet.
The same focus you put in the recording, you have also put in the mixing
of your songs…every delay, every reverb, not too wet, not too
dry... and the panning of the instruments, you can close your eyes and
practically see the band in all their respective positions in your mind's
eye. Hopefully, you at least took your engineer and producer out to
dinner. God knows you made them sweat. And all for this final goal.
Fast forward to now (you're still with me right?). You take home a reference
copy of your mix, pop it into your stereo, your boom box, car stereo,
headphone stereo/iPOD, even your friends high dollar audiophile system,
but you notice a few things that are unnerving. First, all the songs
are at different volumes from each other. Second, all the songs have
differing EQs and tonality…some are bass heavy, while others sound
thin and bright. Third, the overall volume of your whole mix is low,
weak, and anemic sounding compared to even the faintest of your commercially/store
bought CDs. WHAT IS WRONG HERE!?......Well, the good news is that NOTHING
is wrong. It's just that your CD is not FINISHED yet. It hasn't been
MASTERED yet. So now back to the original question…WHAT IS MASTERING?
That is a two part answer…the short summary and the elaborately
detailed explanation. The short summary is this: Mastering is the process
of turning a collection, or group of songs into a concise and flowing
project that has a complete sense of continuity from beginning to end,
in volume, tambour(EQ), distance between songs, an overall pleasing
tonality, and most importantly, the ability to be played on a variety
of playback systems with similar, as well as accurate sound reproduction
of your original recording session. That is referred to as being able
to "translate" to a variety of systems. The elaborate explanation is
more involved. This details the ''how it's done'' part, with a breakdown
of the different tools, components, and methods used in order to achieve
the whole desired result summarized in the above paragraph. Please note,
that the explanations given here, albeit detailed, are given in layman
practical terms for the single purpose of understanding the ''concept''
of each step. For those who desire to know about Hz., DBs, compression
ratios, EQ feathering, and so forth and so on, are advised to look at
the ''mastering resources'' link for the listing of excellent books
on the scientific end of the topic. |
|
|
|
So, with that in place
here's the steps taken to master your work:
Listening...and
making notes of changes to be made.
EQing (individual
songs, and then the whole final mix)
Normalizing,
compression ,limiting (controlling and altering volume and dynamic range)
Gating or expansion
(if needed to eliminate noise)
Final re EQing
(if necessary) of the whole project as well as adjusting the stereo
spectrum and making necessary adjustments. Also checking for phase correlation.
Creating fade
ins and outs for songs, doing cross fades between songs, adding correct
distance between songs and so forth. (all done exactly to the specifications
of the artist or producer)
Final assembly…pq
codes, subtexts , etc. etc. as well as following the protocol of presenting
the replication/duplication plant with the proper format needed to create
mass produced consumer/retail ready CDs. |
That is the general template for what is done. Now let's take a look
at each step and it's subsequent steps involved.
|
|
|
First thing we do is adhere to the opening of the Hippocratic oath which
basically states ''DO NO DAMAGE OR HARM TO THE PATIENT '' I'm kind of
paraphrasing, but you get the idea…''the patient'' being your project,
and the fact that under no circumstances is your artistic vision to be
damaged. On the contrary, only IMPROVED and ACCENTUATED! Then we LISTEN,
to the whole project at first,and then to individual tracks. After becoming
familiar with the material, notes are made. Things that need correction
or adjustment are documented. Mastering is often referred to as the art
of listening, and with good reason. Even the most minute adjustments to
the overall ''sonic picture'' yield huge results. Small inconsequential
anomalies in your audio can signal the difference between a sweet, balanced
final project, and an unprofessional sounding let down. Hence critical
listening is paramount. So, you need good ears. ''BIG #**&%$#$% DEAL!
ANYONE INVOLVED IN AUDIO NEEDS GOOD EARS!''…I can hear you say now.
Yes, but let me explain the seeming paradox involved in mastering. I'll
use an illustration…In the studio you are like a painter, making
sure every color and detail is just how it needs to be. This requires
you to stand right in front of the canvas, so you don't see the whole
accumulative effect of your ''painting and detailing''. This also applies
to mixing, although to a lesser degree, because it forces you to stand
back a little further and evaluate your ''picture''. BUT, in mastering,
one has to stand back far from the canvas and make overall improvements
and adjustments to the WHOLE picture. Remember, at this stage of the game,
any adjustments made to, let's say the bass frequencies for instance,
will invariably affect everything. So here's the paradox. As a mastering
engineer you need to take the holistic approach but still retain the painters
''up close'' perspective so not to alter the original vision. Needless
to say, simultaneously performing both of these seemingly opposite tasks
is an art in maintaining that precarious balance between the original
mix and whatever changes will make it all work and gel together! So, mastering
can also become the art of compromise to achieve balanced results across
the board. If, for example, there is a snare hit that's just driving you
nut's…be it too loud, or just EQed wrong, we can zone in with frequency
dependant compression to EQ and alter it, BUT, that adjustment will also
invariably affect everything else in that particular frequency range.
So that perfectly EQed vocal, could end up being compromised. These are
choices and decisions you need to make as an artist or producer…sort
of an order of priority. Using the above mentioned example, I would first
find out what the main focus of the song is. If it is a song centered
around, and features the vocals, then that, in and of itself becomes the
priority…so tweaking the snare at the expense of the main attraction
would not be a wise course of action. Remember, your target demographic,
in this case, radio, won't notice the imperfect snare. They are focusing
on the center of the song, which are the vocals, thus not paying attention
to slight inconsistencies that you see. Now obviously mastering can help
in some of these problems, but again, remember, every change affects EVERYTHING…So
we are back to the order of priorities. This brings us to the next point.
Ideally, the final mix before you leave the studio should be as close
to what you want as possible. Remember, there is a very strong correlation
between the quality of the studio mix and the final mastered CD. If you
take a look at the greatest mastered CDs, you will also find out that
the recording and mixing were also exceptional. There is NO substitute
for a well recorded mix. That will allow the mastering process to bring
out the best in your work. Mastering is NOT the place to fix a bad recording,
a bad mix, or to alter that chorus of vocals that are too loud. Of course
mastering can make small changes, but as stated above, every change affects
everything else. Mastering engineers will gladly make those tweaks for
you, but will also tell you what the compromises are, so it's up to you
to determine what you can live with, and what you absolutely need changed.
Also a good mastering engineer will be reluctant to perform an action
in which ''the cure is worse than the disease''. So, back to our starting
point. That is why we LISTEN to your project first, and determine if we
can contribute to it. If we cannot, we point out what needs to be addressed!
Please read the link for ''mastering guidelines'' for a surefire protocol
you can follow to allow the mastering engineer to be able to apply the
full spectrum of knowledge and techniques that will benefit your project
the most! |
|
Ok, we've discussed the details you want addressed, you are generally
happy with your mix, and now the mastering engineer is on his/or her own.
Now comes EQing. This is where each of your songs is equalized using specialized
equipment specifically made to alter the tonality of your work, WITHOUT
adding noise or other sonic artifacts not present in the original recording.
The bass, mids, and highs are carefully adjusted to sound balanced and
not out of place. Generally most mixes tend to have an excess of low end.
That particular region dominates the mix, and makes it sound boomy and
flubby. Consequently, since so much energy is wasted in the bottom end,
getting a lot of volume out of your mix is nearly impossible. Now don't
panic. A good rule of thumb is, that it is better to have too much low
end, than not enough. See, the mastering EQ can easily trim down a bass
heavy mix with relatively no side effects. However, adding low end can
introduce sonic artifacts and harmonics NOT present in the original recording,
no matter how good the master EQ is. So, relax if you have to much low
end. Remember most studios have these mega high powered monitors that
can recreate these sub low frequencies that can really make you ''feel''
the music, but those are a far cry from what a balanced mix is supposed
to sound like on consumer systems, even high end, high dollar audiophile
systems. So, why do a lot of studios use those type of monitors? Well,
a lot of clients really want to feel the air move when recording. Thus,
megawatt monitors are employed. However many enlightened engineers and
producers like to mix on small to mid sized midfield monitors, to ensure
more of a realistically EQed mix. Those kinds of mixes practically EQ
themselves during mastering. So, another tip would be to mix with the
consumer's average playback system in mind. Yep, you guessed it. Those
100 watt midfield monitors might just be the ticket, as opposed to those
3000 watt soffit mounted behemoths. Also, the volume you mix at is crucial.
To loud, and the volume is so overwhelming, that you under-emphasize lows
and highs that your ear perceives at that high volume as being too much.
However, play that mix on a normal consumer system, at an average listening
volume, and all of a sudden the mix sounds anemic. Same thing if you mix
too low. Your ear barely perceives the lows and highs at that low volume,
so you over-emphasize them. Now, play that mix on the same consumer system,
at the same average volume, and all of a sudden, your mix sounds boomy,
bass heavy, and overly bright. That whole set of circumstances described
above is called the ''Fletcher-Munson curves''…It's an audio phenomenon
worth reading about. Again check the ''mastering resources'' link for
the scientific books on the topic. So, back to EQing. Even if all of the
above criteria are met, there will still be inconsistencies from song
to song. Those can range from a myriad of reasons. Here's a few. You might
have recorded different songs in different studios, mixed at different
studios, or used different engineers, or even different gear. Any of these
factors can result in an inconsistent tonal curve between songs. Mastering
corrects this! It gives all of the songs a smooth and consistent tonality,
as if the whole project was recorded and mixed in one uninterrupted take.
Consequently, as a side note you might consider that at the dawn of multitracking
a lot of artists, band leaders, and orchestras were reluctant to use overdubbing
and multitracking (both staples of today's studios) for the above mentioned
reason. They wanted to record in one pass, and chose to provide the mix,
or balance by themselves, to ensure that ''purity'' and continuous tonality
was in no way compromised. Now, in no way am I trying to start a debate
of live vs. multitracking. I'm simply giving some food for thought. So
now that all the songs are EQed to sound consistent in tonality, we need
to make them consistent in VOLUME ! |
| Now
comes, normalizing, compression , and limiting. In short, these are ways
to regulate and/or change the volume in your work. First let's get this
out of the way…this particular topic is the most widely debated,
discussed, and argued about over and over. It has spawned what mastering
engineers call ''the volume wars
''. I'll explain all this once you get a basic understanding of these
tools and techniques. So lets dig in. Normalizing is simply the process
of making the program material as loud as possible WITHOUT clipping or
distorting. It gives the engineer the most efficient signal to work with.
Now a lot of you out there who use any type of digital recording are aware
of this function. Now, remember, normalizing is NOT the same as compression.
Normalizing simply finds the highest peaks in the material and brings
up the volume to that peak, BUT keeps the proportion and ratios of all
the signals in tact. Thus, it is the loudest a signal can get ''naturally''…that
is without altering the waveform proportions. You will notice that a normalized
signal still is nowhere nearly as loud as a compressed one. Don't worry,
I'll get to that. Also as side note, some mastering engineers don't use
normalizing. They feel that every function performed on a mastering workstation
uses mathematical conversions, thus any step is yet another ''generation''.
So they avoid it all together to minimize even the slightest degradation.
They get all the volume they want from their compression techniques. The
debate on normalization is best left up to personal preference and beyond
the scope of this article. Moving on to compression. Well, this is the
tool and technique used to really turn up the volume as well as alter
the waveforms' inherent ratios and proportions. Simply put, a compressor
works by analyzing a signal and making the weakest part of the signal
louder as well as making the loudest peaks quieter. This results in a
signal that is more consistent and even in volume. This is referred to
as reducing the dynamic range of a signal. You are reassigning that signal
to a ''smaller sonic real estate'' if you will. As a consequence, since
you've managed to contain the signal in a smaller area, you can now bring
up the whole thing and make it a lot louder over all. Now, all these parameters
found on compressors called threshold, ratio, attack and release, are
ways of manipulating how much, or even where the signal will be altered.
Thus giving you complete control over how much change…from subtle
all the way to an unrecognizable waveform. Again, refer to the "mastering
resources" link to learn the detailed scientific breakdown of all these
tools. Using compression can radically alter, not only the volume of the
audio, but alter the balance and ratio of what you hear. For instance
let's say your mix is really loud and heavy on the drums and bass, but
on certain passages the vocalist sounds faint. Well with compression we
can change the ratio of what is heard, so we can tame that overbearing
rhythm section and give equal volume to the vocal range, so everything
becomes clear and audible, even at low volumes where most things disappear.
There are even multiband compressors, which are 3 ,4 ,5 or even 6 part
compressors which break up the audio into user adjustable frequency bands,
which allow you to compress the vocal range for example, while leaving
everything else untouched. Or, assigning different "bands" to different
areas of the music, thus compressing the low end differently from the
mid band and the high band. All kinds of possibilities are available depending
on the needs of the music. With all the detailed control provided, multiband
compressors are often used as sophisticated equalizers because of the
dramatic alterations possible in both volume and tone. Again, as side
note, some mastering engineers do not like using multi band compression
because of the same reasons stated above in the EQ section regarding "purity"
and continuity. Again I say, leave it up to preference and the needs of
the project. Alright, so your music has been compressed, it's sounding
balanced, loud, punchy…all of the "audio buzz words" have been met….So
now what?.....Now comes limiting. Limiting goes hand in hand with compression.
Limiting, you guessed it, limits the maximum level your music can reach.
That's called a "ceiling". The reason for this is two fold. First, to
avoid clipping and distorting (in digital, these are ugly cracks and pops
and even dropouts…digital distortion is in no way even closely related
to the progressive saturating of analog signals which can yield a pleasant
effect…on the contrary, digital clipping is hideous. I'm sure you've
all experienced it at one time or another.) Second, to squeeze out even
a few more decibels of volume and density. Now this is where we get into
a lot of debating. I'll try and suss it out for you. We will also discuss
the "volume wars", as this is now relevant! Let's see how limiting is
used and in some cases, abused! As we compress the material and change
the ratios and proportions, as well as make the work louder, some of those
transient spikes in the audio can still hit "0" or the absolute digital
limit (redline), causing nasty clipping. Enter the limiter. This tool
in essence sets a maximum limit that the audio can hit, and no matter
how much you push it, will absolutely not reach past that. This ensures
no clipping, but also enables you to get more relative volume out of the
material. See, since the audio cannot exceed the preset barrier, it is
essentially trapped, because right behind it you have the compressor squeezing
the music, and altering it according to your settings. But with nowhere
to go because of the limit "ceiling", and the fact that you are reducing
the dynamic range, that limited space just gets crammed with more and
more information, making the overall sound much more dense, and as a consequence…louder!
So with careful and repeated tweaking, program material can be made much
louder and much denser. Now, how much of this is desired, is entirely
up to the artist, or producer/record label. Here is where we get to the
"volume wars". In order to fully understand this we must take a brief
look at the history of mastering. (A very complete and detailed explanation
is provided in "The mastering engineers handbook" by Bobby Owsinski and
Sally Englefried.) Years ago, a mastering engineer was a media transfer
specialist. The engineer would take the master mix tape and transfer it
to lacquer master, from which the replication facility would take the
appropriate steps to create mass vinyl records. The engineer used what
is called a cutting lathe, to cut the original lacquer. That, in and of
itself required a great deal of skill, but once done, the engineer was
basically out of the picture. However, as time went on, mastering engineers
used higher and higher powered lathes, and as a result started to use
tube compressors to protect the cutting heads on the lathes from blowing
up! Needless to say the heads were pricey. As a result of this practice,
everyone started to notice something different in the audio as a product
of the compressors. The records were LOUDER. The higher volume was an
incidental byproduct of compression. Needless to say, the recording industry
as well as the public loved this. The recording industry noticed that
records played on the radio that were louder than their lesser volumed
counterparts, actually sold better. Obvious to say, the writing was on
the wall. Louder records were now demanded from mastering professionals.
No longer was a mastering engineer just a transfer specialist, now the
job required volume control. Volume addition to be exact! Now, as we discussed
above, compression alters a lot of things besides just volume. So to replace
and compensate for the tonality that was altered or lost during compression,
equalization was now employed. That corrected the tonal problems, but,
it too contributed an added boost in volume. Again, I don't have to elaborate
on the effect that had on the industry. So, more tools were added, things
became more sophisticated, and of course the desire for more and more
volume continued, and continues to this day. Now, the recording industry
actually did conduct studies to determine who was buying the records,
and what effect more and more volume had on sales. Suffice to say, volume
was, and is perceived as "better" and the record sales reflected that.
(For the full details of the studies, let me refer you again to "The mastering
engineer's handbook" by Bobby Owsinski and Sally Englefried. The actual
findings are rather fascinating…even details on what type of mixes,
and EQ curves men responded to, as opposed to women. Very informative
reading…Highly recommended.). So it goes…."MORE VOLUME PLEASE".
Unfortunately, there is a very negative side to the absurd quest for more
and more volume. The number one negative side, is the blatant disregard
for audio QUALITY and INTEGRITY. With this unbalanced obsession, comes
the sacrifice of dynamic range, the original balance of the music, and
ear fatigue from way too much density in too small of a space. Gone are
the subtle details, the build ups, the peaks and valleys, the rollercoaster
of soft, medium, and loud signals. The kind of dynamics that make music,
a tapestry of different colors. Nowadays, you pop in a CD, look at the
level meters, and see them glued to the max, not even budging. That's
an awful lot of music signal crammed into small quarters. That's why a
lot of CDs now cause ear fatigue. You can barely make it through a few
songs before you have to stop listening. The information is just to overbearing
and relentless. Now mind you, I'm not speaking of any particular type
of music, but rather the fact that it's all been crammed into a minute
sonic real estate, if you will. Your brain cannot process the overload.
Here, let me use an analogy. Say you own a 30,000 sq. ft. house. That
space can easily accommodate 4 or 5 families, IF, they utilize ALL of
the available space. With that amount of space, privacy is not an issue,
so the chances of domestic squabbling are slim to nil. The families might
not even see each other for weeks. BUT….take these 4 or 5 families,
and despite all of the available space, make them all live in 1 room in
that house. So you have now reduced 30,000 sq. ft. of space into, let's
say a 30 ft. by 30 ft. room to house 20-25 people. It doesn't take a doctorate
in astrophysics to figure out you'll have a full scale war within 15 minutes.
That's exactly what happens with excessive use of limiting and compression.
You have all of this dynamic range available, but you're using only a
sliver of it, and even that is pegged to the red at all times. So are
we to say compression and limiting are bad? NOT AT ALL !! What I AM saying,
and I believe most mastering engineers will agree, is that music today
is being pumped up to the point where it's all volume but nothing else.
There must be balance…loud and punchy, but not so loud that it loses
its musical value. Please see the FAQ section for the most common complaint
mastering engineers hear…and please, also read the answer to why,
unfortunately, you've been deceived. I believe if most consumers understood
this concept, it would end the volume wars. Again, that can be found at
the FAQ section. Trust me, it's worth your time. Anyway, with all that's
been said, mastering engineers will gladly perform whatever action you
want on your record. You just have to understand that there is a trade
off for anything…yes, back to that order of priorities and compromise
concept again. These are physics laws, and there's no way around them.
SO, if you want volume and nothing but volume, you must accept the fact
that you will have to sacrifice dynamic range and that the music WILL
ALL be dense. However, if audio quality and purity are the premium in
your work, well then, animal neutering volume will have to take a back
seat. We can also work with all the in between points until we come to
the point closest to what you want. Again, personally speaking, you are
the client, so I'll do my best to get the results you want, but it will
be a lot easier if you understand these concepts, so you can formulate
an educated decision. Remember, there's no way around the laws of sound
physics. |
|
Now we come to gating and/or expanding. This section will be quite brief,
because the concept is simply to clean up audio and reduce noise if it
is present. Gating and expansion are not used to alter the tone
or volume, like an EQ or compressor. Their job is rather subtle. So if
your recording is noise free, chances are we'll bypass this step. But
here is the general explanation anyhow. An expander works just like a
compressor, only in reverse. It basically pushes the noise floor low enough
to be inaudible. Of course you have the usual suspects…threshold,
ratio, attack, and so forth and so on. Expanders can also be multiband
to increase flexibility. A gate, or gating works similarly, by the user
adjusting and setting a threshold, in which any sound below that threshold
is simply cut off or "gated". It can be a very abrupt effect, and is really
good for special circumstances. Because of the sharp cut off, gates are
used a lot during recording to tighten up loose sounding drums and bass,
and to help that section really "lock in". In mastering, these tools are
used for noise control and to cut off unwanted sections, especially at
the head or tail of the song. |
|
So now that we have a working master in progress, it's time to listen
to the overall project again. If all is well, it's left alone. But, since
we have poked, prodded, speared and tweaked everything, chances are we'll
need a small tune up in the EQ. So we do final EQ tweaking, and we listen
yet again. Here, the stereo field is also examined and reduced, or expanded,
depending on the overall needs of the work. Also phase is checked. Simply
put, out of phase signals cancel each other, so hearing your song on the
radio with half the music missing is not the place for that kind of discovery!
Again details on phase can be found in the "mastering resources" link.
Finally, satisfied with the results, your project is now ready for final
assembly. |
|
This is where songs are arranged in the desired order of play, as well
as performing fade ins, fade outs, or cross fades…all according
to the artist or producer's request. |
|
Then, during final assembly, pq codes and sub indexes are encoded to the
final master. That, in simple terms, is all the information present on
a CD, from track indexes, numbering, even names and text. The final master
to be replicated/duplicated can be presented in a variety of formats,
ranging from CDRs , to exabyte, as well as many others. A reference master
is presented to the client for critical listening, and/or evaluation.
If it doesn't meet approval, changes are made. Upon approval however,
the final official master is sent out, with specific instructions, along
with a backup. At this point, the replication/duplication facility chosen
by the client, takes over and creates what is called a glass master. From
there, the required components (stampers) needed for mass replication
are produced. Duplication is a simpler process involving "burnt"
media. Again technical, in depth details are available in the fine publications
recommended in the "mastering resources" link. Also as a final note, please
understand that a lot of the mastering techniques are not always performed
in the order written here, but rather on a custom basis for the project
at hand. For instance EQ isn't always first. Some engineers like to edit
on their workstation first, then EQ and compress, or compress and EQ.
The variables are almost endless. Ultimately what counts though, is the
FINAL result being of the highest quality possible. I, myself, take a
pragmatic approach…use what works and discard the rest! Remember,
nothing is set in stone. Hopefully the above explanation will help you
understand a little bit more about this misunderstood trade. Also believe
this or not, as long winded as this seemed, it is but a mere layman's
summary of all the variations, techniques, and services provided by a
mastering engineer! For every concept and step I've addressed, there are
numerous others I didn't even touch on. If you feel the need to venture
deeper…yep, the resources mentioned will satisfy that thirst. |
|
|
|
| |
|