Hey guys;
I’ve been working on a mix and I have it sounding really pretty good. However, it still doesn’t quite sound as good as a commercial CD mix. It doesn’t have that glossy sheen that a commercial CD does. I’ve tried messing with some EQing, but it ends up sounding tinny or unbalanced. There still could be room for improvement in the EQ area (and others too probably) but I’m not sure when to quit here, as I have no idea what a mix should sound like before it’s mastered. Does that professional sounding sheen that a commercial mix has come from the mastering stage, or should it sound that way in the mix? The mix I have has benefitted from some multi band compression and a few EQ tweaks in the master channel, which I suppose is kind of into the mastering stage. I wouldn’t mind mastering it on my own if i can get that sound, but I may be out of my league.
Any one else have this problem?
Thanks
Great post - great questions. I gave up trying to get that CD sound. It’s very unlikely you have the tools to get it in a home studio. I know I don’t. If it’s something for you to produce commercially I would suggest having a pro do it for you.
Thanks for the reply Poppa.
I guess that’s part of my question - if its not possible to do it at home, then how far do I go with the mix before I let the pros sweeten it?
Obviously, the best I possibly can, but at what point do I give up and say, I can’t get the sound I need here, time to give it to someone else?
Thanks
I’ve never had to use a professional mix master, but from what I’ve read over the years, if you’re going to use a pro, then it is better to send the guy all your tracks/recordings ‘raw’, i.e. exactly as how they were recorded through the mikes, instruments, VST’s, etc. without any FX, compression/expansion, et al, that you would normally put them thru post-recording.
That way he/she can start from the basic audio waves and then manipulate them anyway required.
Sure you can send him one of your own mastered mixes, so that you can give him an idea of what you want. During the process with the pro, always communicate your idea and also get feedback (pun?).
Anyway, I’m sure someone can elaborate further.
I believe Bubbagump is looking for something/someone to master, so you might want to contact him.
If you know “a guy” and you trust him to know what he’s doin’ and he also mixes - then I would agree with sending raw material. Otherwise I would just do a mix that sounds good to me and send the mix only. The mastering is where the glass comes in (in more ways than one) that you mention. I personally don’t care for most masters I hear these days - the dynamics are sucked and crunched and it’s all “How loud can I get this?” - Just from reading Bubbagump’s posts over the last year and hearing his work I can say he’d be one of the first guys I’d ask to mix and/or master anything I thought needed a ‘pro’ touch.
It all depends on what sound you’re going for too tempus. You may want it compressed out the wazoo.
Care to give us a link to a listen?
Just for the sake of argument -
What if I had a mix of my song called '2 Sine Waves’
which is just a song with a 300hz sine wave on the left track
and a 800hz sine wave on the right track. (Both contiuous @ 0db)
Being that they are already at max amplitude, it seems the only
thing a mastering studio could do with my song is to ramp up
the harmonic components with EQ/Compression to achieve the maximum
(spl)? loudness that is recordable without distortion.
Well, I could do that, but then that would change the sonic quality of
my mix. Not what I want.
So - my feeling is, if the apparent increase in loudness is at the expense
of the tonal balance of MY mix - then forget it.
I think this super compressed over-equalized mish-mash is for lazy DJ’s
who don’t want to mess with a volume slider. So their mixes are all at
super pumped up levels. Great for clubs, not for listening.
Can you imagine a jazz set compressed and eq’d like that?
Utter disaster.
90% of that sheen comes from the tracks themselves…High end recording chains in good rooms with top scale converters…prosumer gear can get you 90% of the way there…the last 10% is very expensive. It is something that on individual tracks is very subtle…What the pro gear does is shine thru when you have 32 tracks…No amount of mastering or eq can add it back…it needs to be there from the start. You don’t send raw tracks to a mastering house. You send finished 2 track mixes. What the ME does is give the project a cohesiveness…In the simplest terms tracks are compressed,eq’ed (with gear and monitors that cost more than your house!), dithered down to 44.1/16 and placed in order…a good ME is worth his/her weight in gold and can take good mixes to the next level…
Ray
Thanks for all the replies guys.
Just to clarify: I’m not so much concerned with making my mix super loud (I know how to do that myself), I’m trying to get the sheen (sorry to keep using that word, but I can’t think of anyway else to describe it) that every commercial CD has, regardless of style. One of the reasons I would like to be able to do the mastering myself is so that I have control over the sound of the finished product; so that I don’t get a squashed crapped out recording that for some reason seems so popular these days…
I’ll keep playing with it anyway and see what I can come up with.
Any other thoughts?
If you got the tools, you can (sort of) do it yourself.
One good tools is Ozone.
It’s a suite of tools used in mastering.
Start with a pre-set and experiement.
Of course, nothing can polish a turd, so make sure your mix is as good as you can make it.
Mastering only pumps up whats there.
Here’s a review of Izotope’s Ozone in ProAudio Reviews - Page 31 - ProAudio Review E-zine October 2008
Any one else have this problem?
Everyone has that problem.
Take a look at this app and try the demo. Even if you don't get it the demo can be used to help.
http://www.har-bal.com/
Most "need for mastering" issues are because tracks are EQed to sound good when soloed. When they are all put together they get muddy. I'd say most tracks aren't bright enough to start with, but that's probably over simplifying. Much of this can be helped during the mastering phase.
What you don't want to do it get into a war undoing what was done during mixing.
Another issue is ear fatigue. After a very short while (short at 30 seconds of so) your ears get accustomed to what you are hearing, no matter what it sounds like. That's not so much of an issue while mixing because your still working with relatives, but it is a huge problem when mastering. (and that statement will cause a few "whoa hold on there bud" comments). What I'm getting at is that if you find you are doing a lot of the same EQs to every track you may want to put an EQ in the mastering channel, and that's generally not a good idea. If
it's needed then there is probably something else that needs working on, and it's very likely it should be done when the tracks are laid down. (If all tracks need highs boosted during the mix, then why not record them brighter in the first place?)
A link to a sample would be very nice.
Most "need for mastering" issues are because tracks are EQed to sound good when soloed. When they are all put together they get muddy. I'd say most tracks aren't bright enough to start with, but that's probably over simplifying. Much of this can be helped during the mastering phase.
In my experience, your mix will simply sound like garbage in this case and won't even make it to the mastering phase.
As far as sheen, air, whatever... a lot of that is in the recording, and a fair amount is in the mastering phase too. However, EQ is only one tool for that job. Just cranking up the high end will not necessarily help anything. It may just make things harsh. Also, the type of EQ used makes a difference. A standard high shelf versus a sloped high shelf sound and operate very differently.
Great topic! I fully agree that most of the sound is created in the original recording. It’s awfully hard to get the sheen or transparency that we can hear in some really good recordings.
That said, I’ll echo what couple of people have mentioned here.
I use Har-bal when I can’t figure out exactly what’s wrong any particular track. The program scans the wave file and gives you an average picture rather than a moving target, of the recordings/sounds EQ. The program also has templates (or you can create your own) to compare what you have and what someone else might have thought that style of music should look like when EQ. You can also use the program to “balance” the sound energy of the different songs in an album. All helpful tools. However, it’s also a great way to muddy up what was already a pretty good track. More than anything, I think it’s been a training tool for me to get an idea of where the various problems show up in my recordings.
The Ozone is a great mastering tool. It can go a long way toward tweaking recording that you have made. It is not very difficult to use. Even if you don’t want to buy the program, you can get some great information on their website. Go to www.izotope.com, and download their help guides. I think they are listed under Support > Downloads > Help Documentation.
Bax
90% of that sheen comes from the tracks themselves..High end recording chains in good rooms with top scale converters...prosumer gear can get you 90% of the way there..the last 10% is very expensive. It is something that on individual tracks is very subtle..What the pro gear does is shine thru when you have 32 tracks..No amount of mastering or eq can add it back..it needs to be there from the start. You don't send raw tracks to a mastering house. You send finished 2 track mixes. What the ME does is give the project a cohesiveness...In the simplest terms tracks are compressed,eq'ed (with gear and monitors that cost more than your house!), dithered down to 44.1/16 and placed in order...a good ME is worth his/her weight in gold and can take good mixes to the next level..
Ray
RS has this absolutely correct. There is no way for most of us here to get pro sounding recordings, and the truth is I would not try for it. The usual rule for order of importance is:
1. great players
2. playing great instruments
3. with a great arrangement
4. in a great room
5. with great mics and preamps
6. recorded properly by a great engineer
7. mixed well
8. mastered well
No doubt one could dispute the order here, but the general idea is correct, seems to me - mastering is not where you should be looking to get the sheen. Most of that happens before the signal "hits the tape." My solution, FWIW - and it may not be worth much, but I am more satisfied lately - focus on the performance and the coherence of the sound you do get with what you have - lots of great music is "lo-fi."
Number ONE should be GREAT SONG… IMO of course. I’ve heard many, many fabulous recording/engineering/mastering jobs of some really lousy “songs”. Sort of the antithesis of the really great lo-fi songs… A great tune is a great tune is a great tune.
That’s why all my stuff SUX! 
D
There is no way for most of us here to get pro sounding recordings, and the truth is I would not try for it.
I don't agree at all. People at home simply cut a lot of corners and over look so many fundamentals I find. how many people actually suck it up and pay the $100-200 or so to treat their room? Not many and that can make a huge difference. Though they will anguish over a zillion cheap Chinese mics for $100 a pop then screw up the placement of the mic in a crap sounding room and slap a junky sounding reverb on the whole mix. Mic placement and reverb (there are plenty of great free reverbs out there) are free, but they can screw the pooch. There are just lots of folks who settle for good enough. Also, folks don't spend the time. A pro drum recording has hours of prep before the actual recording to make sure the mics are in the right spot, the drums are tuned just right, the drums are in the best location int he room they can be, etc. For instance, home guys often skip all this, throw up some mics, and wonder why their drum recordings sound like poo. They don't get on their hands and knees to hear from the "mics eye" where to place a mic on an acoustic guitar or mess with a hard floor under the player versus a carpet versus the player in the corner facing into the corner, out of the corner, versus the middle of the room versus ad naseum. Just my 2 cents.
Bubba? You mastered The Slang’s EP yourself right?
D
Well there goes the “You can’t do this at home crap…” 
You selling your ‘new’ place already?
D
That’s the old place. Seems I chose a great time to buy, and a not so great time to sell the old place. Sigh.