Greetings,
So I have a workflow that follows the historically established method of making the mix, then mastering the mix. If there's a problem with the mix during master, go back and fix the mix.
I am a small one man shop, so I do it all. Not the best approach, but it's where I'm at.
I use Ozone to Master. I like the results I get, but at times, there is a significant change in how the song sounds when I put it through Ozone, causing me to go back to the mix. If I go with the idea that mastering is really only meant to make minor adjustments, my model breaks. Ozone is a mastering tool right? So my above statement seems to make at least some sense.
So here's where I'm starting to rethink things. Once I get the mix done, I add Ozone to the master buss of the mix session, and process the song, When it come time to master, it can be aligned to the other songs in the project and adjusted accordingly during a project mastering session.
I know at the end of the day, I need to create great music.
Am I on an island all by myself with this re-think?
I'm re-thinking how I Mix/Master
-
- KVRian
- 1372 posts since 9 Jan, 2018
No, I don't think you're alone at all. The "historically established method" made a lot of sense all through music production history up until a few years ago. You had to do it that way, because no one could master their own music to get it ready for printing onto vinyl and cassette, and later CD. So you had to have the mix 100% perfect.
Today, you can easily still do it that way, of course.
But there's definitely an ability--only in the last few years, I think--where you can pre-master as you're mixing. When I'm putting a project together, I've got the master in mind as I'm setting things up very early. Then, like you, when I use Ozone I'm not terribly surprised by the results I get because I was expecting them. And with Ozone, it's easy to adjust it afterward for getting it right. Ironically, I spend *less* time than ever before by spending that time upfront getting it ready. Mastering was a chore, but now it's easy because I'm starting to pre-master while still mixing. I think you'd find our respective methods are far more similar than different.
Not to say this is right and all others are wrong: mastering developed as a formal process because of the nature of physical media distribution. Today, with everything moving toward streaming, you're not as locked into a traditional method--even though the traditional method works 100% of the time.
I'd say if you're only interested in streaming music, you've got a ton of ways to get there yourself, and new rules can apply. If you're interested in music that sounds great on CD, over the radio, in a car, in a TV show or movie, then a mastering engineer with a formal process is still the best way to go. But not the only way.
Today, you can easily still do it that way, of course.
But there's definitely an ability--only in the last few years, I think--where you can pre-master as you're mixing. When I'm putting a project together, I've got the master in mind as I'm setting things up very early. Then, like you, when I use Ozone I'm not terribly surprised by the results I get because I was expecting them. And with Ozone, it's easy to adjust it afterward for getting it right. Ironically, I spend *less* time than ever before by spending that time upfront getting it ready. Mastering was a chore, but now it's easy because I'm starting to pre-master while still mixing. I think you'd find our respective methods are far more similar than different.
Not to say this is right and all others are wrong: mastering developed as a formal process because of the nature of physical media distribution. Today, with everything moving toward streaming, you're not as locked into a traditional method--even though the traditional method works 100% of the time.
I'd say if you're only interested in streaming music, you've got a ton of ways to get there yourself, and new rules can apply. If you're interested in music that sounds great on CD, over the radio, in a car, in a TV show or movie, then a mastering engineer with a formal process is still the best way to go. But not the only way.
Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube, and even Deezer, whatever the hell Deezer is.
More fun at Twitter @watchfulactual
More fun at Twitter @watchfulactual
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2030 posts since 22 Jan, 2005 from Back in the Country
-
- KVRAF
- 7364 posts since 9 Jan, 2003 from Saint Louis MO
The first rule should always be: if it sounds good, it is good.
Personally, for me the "mix" is done live as part of the performance/recording -- I'm riding faders, bringing stuff in with an expression pedal, switching sequences etc. manually as well as usually playing on controllers. The recording I end up with has everything baked in, there are no individual stems to work with. I find it's a great way of committing and keeps the creativity flowing. I can and do edit a bit later, mess with overall dynamics and EQ and do some cleanup, but there's a lot less opportunity to muck around and second-guess what I've already done. So some of the standard advice applies to that and some really doesn't.
Mastering for me is kind of a "make it louder" and "make it match the rest of the album/set" process, and also a final chance to listen in great detail and fix harsh resonances, clicks and glitches that I didn't want, etc. But I might have already used "mastering" tools during that editing phase to get things closer to where I wanted them.
Personally, for me the "mix" is done live as part of the performance/recording -- I'm riding faders, bringing stuff in with an expression pedal, switching sequences etc. manually as well as usually playing on controllers. The recording I end up with has everything baked in, there are no individual stems to work with. I find it's a great way of committing and keeps the creativity flowing. I can and do edit a bit later, mess with overall dynamics and EQ and do some cleanup, but there's a lot less opportunity to muck around and second-guess what I've already done. So some of the standard advice applies to that and some really doesn't.
Mastering for me is kind of a "make it louder" and "make it match the rest of the album/set" process, and also a final chance to listen in great detail and fix harsh resonances, clicks and glitches that I didn't want, etc. But I might have already used "mastering" tools during that editing phase to get things closer to where I wanted them.
-
- KVRAF
- 5512 posts since 2 Sep, 2019
Don’t do stuff just to do stuff. If you don’t have a very good, specific reason to do something, with a predetermined result you’re aiming for, don’t do it. If you’re doing something because you think you’re supposed to, or simply because you have some tools (toys) you want to play with, don’t do it.
Remember that mastering came about for a short list of specific objectives:
Music needed to be prepared for cutting to vinyl. Bass ate up disc real estate, which shortened the available playing time of a LP. Sharp transients could make the needle jump out of the groove. Records lose high frequencies and fidelity as the needle gets closer to the center. Mastering engineers had to compensate for all of this. Their objective wasn’t to make the record sound different from the master tape. Their objective was to get the record sounding as close to the original as possible, despite the idiosyncrasies of vinyl. The mix engineer already made it sound the way it was supposed to.
Songs packaged together as an album need to have uniform volume, dynamics, and balance, if they are to sound like they belong together as a coherent and cohesive listening experience. Mastering engineers’ secondary objective was to accomplish that as transparently as possible.
Today, music primarily just needs to be delivered at the correct LUFS and file format for the target platform. What else do you really need to do in 2024 that can’t be done right in the mix? (Hint: not much.)
Remember that mastering came about for a short list of specific objectives:
Music needed to be prepared for cutting to vinyl. Bass ate up disc real estate, which shortened the available playing time of a LP. Sharp transients could make the needle jump out of the groove. Records lose high frequencies and fidelity as the needle gets closer to the center. Mastering engineers had to compensate for all of this. Their objective wasn’t to make the record sound different from the master tape. Their objective was to get the record sounding as close to the original as possible, despite the idiosyncrasies of vinyl. The mix engineer already made it sound the way it was supposed to.
Songs packaged together as an album need to have uniform volume, dynamics, and balance, if they are to sound like they belong together as a coherent and cohesive listening experience. Mastering engineers’ secondary objective was to accomplish that as transparently as possible.
Today, music primarily just needs to be delivered at the correct LUFS and file format for the target platform. What else do you really need to do in 2024 that can’t be done right in the mix? (Hint: not much.)
THIS MUSIC HAS BEEN MIXED TO BE PLAYED LOUD SO TURN IT UP
-
- KVRAF
- 7877 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
Pretty well agree with all of above posts. Do it however suits. Processing power and digital methods mean there's no definite way you have to work, and I've found myself changing it up quite a bit over the years. Coming from way back when hw/MIDI was the way to do it, there are certain strictures, but ITB has radically freed that up. I still use majority hw but work radically different to how I did it 30 yrs ago. I've almost given up rendering mixes to separately master nowadays and do the whole mix/master thing in one go (though obvs I keep versions of final mix projects in case I ever want to redo, but they generally have mastering plugins on the stereo outs handily switched off ready to be be fired up for mastering). There's still a place for traditional mastering in terms of putting tracks together on albums, but for most people mastering now doesn't mean that and you can do it however you want.
So yeah, if it sounds good, doesn't matter how you get there.
So yeah, if it sounds good, doesn't matter how you get there.
-
- KVRAF
- 9802 posts since 18 Aug, 2007 from NYC
Sorry, but I think you’re skipping some things that are likely contributing to the problem.
If you need to go back to mixing often, then there’s likely an issue with your mixing. It’s not like nobody has never had an issue with a mix, but it sounds like this is happening often based on what you wrote so it’s worth digging deeper into AND…
Next, try mixing into a limiter. There’s lots of videos and unfortunately the last time I looked, there’s lots click-bait, look at me and my reaction, fuckwit type videos… so the gist of it is very simple. Mixing into the limiter allows you to hear the amplified problems at the mixing stage, so when you master there are no surprises.
Ozone - Might want to list your version and whether you’re using presets as a starting points for your master or not. Ozone by itself is not drastically changing the sound, but it absolutely can change things quickly, and definitely if you use the presets.
If you need to go back to mixing often, then there’s likely an issue with your mixing. It’s not like nobody has never had an issue with a mix, but it sounds like this is happening often based on what you wrote so it’s worth digging deeper into AND…
Next, try mixing into a limiter. There’s lots of videos and unfortunately the last time I looked, there’s lots click-bait, look at me and my reaction, fuckwit type videos… so the gist of it is very simple. Mixing into the limiter allows you to hear the amplified problems at the mixing stage, so when you master there are no surprises.
Ozone - Might want to list your version and whether you’re using presets as a starting points for your master or not. Ozone by itself is not drastically changing the sound, but it absolutely can change things quickly, and definitely if you use the presets.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2030 posts since 22 Jan, 2005 from Back in the Country
You list some good points. Allow me to shed some light
My mixing process puts a glue compression followed by limiter on the master buss, so I think we're probably in alignment there. There's usually at least 10db of headroom left for mastering. The mixes sounds just the way I want it by the time I get it zeroed in.
I have Ozone5, 8, 9, and 10. Don't use 5 and 8 too much any more. I don't use any presets. I use the automation to get me in the ballpark. . To start with, The maximizer and front end EQ are always wrong, but I've come to accept that. So yeah I know, automation. But I found once I fix the EQ and maximizer (Which usually takes very little time) it's a pretty good upgrade to the mix, but it does make changes to the way the mix sounds
Maybe this is a terminology/semantics thing, but, when I first started using Ozone it followed the old world practice and used it to master. Now with the automation in Ozone, I've come to use it more as the glue compressor/limiter on the master.
Make sense?
Bunch O Stuff
