A guide to home "Mastering" of your own tunes

[Lost to the Void]

Tnx for the clear up guys!

@Mattias: Yess, I do this part in my track project, this way it's far more easy to go back to the mix if there are any problems...

@Lost: I was thinking about this idea because I have different instruments that cross the border of different frequencies. So let's say I want tape saturation on my low end (bass+kicks+toms+etc.), but I also have a lead + vocal that has some (not much, but still..) frequencies in the low end and I don't want to give them the same tape saturation in the mastering proces. or let's say I want it the other way around, give the lead + vocals + snare some tape saturation, within certain frequencies without giving the rest of the track the same vibe.

I see how it can be confusing, but I thought of it as an experiment as to create a different kind of vibe within my music during mastering.

None of what you are talking about has anything to do with mastering.
I repeat, this is not mastering.
More to that point I don't think k you really understand what mastering is if you think any of this IS mastering.

[ZenoSupreme]

Tnx for the clear up guys!

@Mattias: Yess, I do this part in my track project, this way it's far more easy to go back to the mix if there are any problems...

@Lost: I was thinking about this idea because I have different instruments that cross the border of different frequencies. So let's say I want tape saturation on my low end (bass+kicks+toms+etc.), but I also have a lead + vocal that has some (not much, but still..) frequencies in the low end and I don't want to give them the same tape saturation in the mastering proces. or let's say I want it the other way around, give the lead + vocals + snare some tape saturation, within certain frequencies without giving the rest of the track the same vibe.

I see how it can be confusing, but I thought of it as an experiment as to create a different kind of vibe within my music during mastering.

None of what you are talking about has anything to do with mastering.
I repeat, this is not mastering.
More to that point I don't think k you really understand what mastering is if you think any of this IS mastering.

Yess I understand that now, thats why I said: 'thnx for the clear up'

[Skullrattler]

Sorry guys, I'm sure this was mentioned on this forum but can't remember where: What Pultec-style EQ plug-ins would you recommend?

BTW these threads are great! thank you very much for sharing some of the secret sauce!

[Lost to the Void]

For mastering purposes I wouldn't recommend a pulltech at all.

[Skullrattler]

Ok, I won't use it for mastering ! but which one?!

[Lost to the Void]

Maybe try talking about it in a thread not dedicated to mastering dude.

[Mattias]

Sorry guys, I'm sure this was mentioned on this forum but can't remember where: What Pultec-style EQ plug-ins would you recommend?

BTW these threads are great! thank you very much for sharing some of the secret sauce!

DMG Equilibrium.

[DZM]

Thanks for all the wisdom gentlemen!

[DZM]

Thanks for all the wisdom gentlemen!

[mindstuff]

Love these masterclass threads Void.

Yeah pissing about with width is risky business on the 2 buss. You never know whether it will work in the club and be truly mono compatible. Best doing that kind of things in the mix, per channel.

If it works for the track, I like to do a tape style delay using iZotope Trash's separate feature which often widens the entire track...however I throw a utility mono'ing below 150Hz right after for that exact reason. If you have Equilibrium you can see the mono stereo images quite well.

[Jesse]

Most techno I can take to around - 6 to - 8 rms (roughly - 8 to - 10 lufs) without things getting too flat. But some minimal stuff with a lot of compression in the mix can go up to - 4 in rare cases and still sound fine.
Bare in mind this is all confirming to the new truepeak standard of --1dbtp

So no, no targets.

RMS -8 with SPAN set to DBFS+3 is the correct RMS reading. So it's within reasonable values (relatively speaking), however depending on certain factors (especially if your track is light or heavy on bass) the -8 RMS can either be a bit quiet or loud in perceived loudness. A balanced mix hitting -8 RMS is plenty loud.

Void, I just want to confirm your -6 to -8 RMS is RMS+3 as well. I use SPAN on RMS+3, and VUMT as well. I look at SPAN more often, as I try to mix while I'm building the song, and noticed SPAN gives me around .5db quieter readout than VUMT. I figure it shouldn't be too much of a difference as to gauging general readout.

As far as LUFS versus RMS, what range would you guys say it's plenty loud enough for at home maximization and where would you guys start to say that it's too quiet and a bit dodgy? Still fairly new to producing so trying to squeeze out the last few db while maintaining a punchy and clear master has been a challenge. On the current song I'm trying to finish up, it's hitting -7.5 on VUMT/RMS+3 C weighted, and -11LUFS, on the loudest parts, with only soft clipping and limiter occasionally tickling the -1dbtp limiter. The RMS readout tells me it should be plenty loud, but the LUFS readout makes it seem dodgy as I've read here several times -8 to -10 LUFS is a good range. Not to mention these readouts are only the loudest parts/short term, and will definitely show a quieter on integrated.

[Lost to the Void]

-12 LUFS int (at -1 to -.5 trupeak) is a good "rough" of what is the new media standard.

Techno is still resistant to this. As hot as I go these days is generally -10 LUFS but I'm not recommending it unless you know what you are doing or don't mind potential distortion/flattening.

[Tom Sigmond]

I don't understand why everyone takes the word that you should put 'the glue compressor'on your whole mix, for granted. Every compressor put over your whole mix will change the tone and dynamic balance of your mix. If you have crafted your mix hours, days, weeks and are happy with it, why should you put, standerd, 'the glue compressor'over it? It's really silly.
You can mix into it if you want, that's something else. Then you make it part of your sound. But after mixing your track, and I assume you are happy with your mix ( tone, balance) putting it over your mix becausse it 'gives glue...., is silly.

Multiband compression as mentioned in the first post should be avoid becausse it can mess up your mix. Well, yes, YOU can mess up your mix but if you want to fine tune the tone and balance of your mix, it will do a better job then a 1-band conventional compressor. But you have to learn how to use it.

Using 1 compressor for catching the peaks, you are better off taking a simple clip plugin or a limter brickwall for only the peaks.

And what I miss here, everything below 175hz should be mono.

Oh, and -6 to -8 rms as a standard for in the clubs!? You will smash the limiters on the clubs system and your track will sound squashed... .


KR Tom

[Lost to the Void]

I don't understand why everyone takes the word that you should put 'the glue compressor'on your whole mix, for granted. Every compressor put over your whole mix will change the tone and dynamic balance of your mix. If you have crafted your mix hours, days, weeks and are happy with it, why should you put, standerd, 'the glue compressor'over it? It's really silly.
You can mix into it if you want, that's something else. Then you make it part of your sound. But after mixing your track, and I assume you are happy with your mix ( tone, balance) putting it over your mix becausse it 'gives glue...., is silly.

I don`t think anyone takes it as word do they?
there is an entire thread on this forum devoted to mixing in to a compressor, and there are more reasons to it beyond "glue".

f you have crafted your mix hours, days, weeks and are happy with it, why should you put, standerd, 'the glue compressor'over it? It's really silly.
You can mix into it if you want, that's something else. Then you make it part of your sound. But after mixing your track, and I assume you are happy with your mix ( tone, balance) putting it over your mix becausse it 'gives glue...., is silly.

KR Tom

This is in relation to mastering, where if your mix is so damn perfect that it needs no work, then you don`t need mastering..... But that`s a rare eventuality.
The whole point of this thread is a simple guide to just get some glue, some vitality and some dynamic control to your mixes, not a guide on how to actually master your own tracks (which is by the very nature of mastering, not really possible).

Using 1 compressor for catching the peaks, you are better off taking a simple clip plugin or a limter brickwall for only the peaks.

And what I miss here, everything below 175hz should be mono.

Oh, and -6 to -8 rms as a standard for in the clubs!? You will smash the limiters on the clubs system and your track will sound squashed... .


KR Tom

I disagree, clipping should really be something right at the end of the process. Compression and lower ratios is better for controlling (but not smashing) peaks.
Any discussion when regarding putting the bass in mono is arbitrary. 200 down, 60 down, whatever, it depends on the tune. Between 80 and 200 is a good general range to work in, but in terms of vinyl cutting, you can actually mono quite low, it depends on the tune and the desired result, and the amount of vinyl terrain available in proportion to loudness etc.

Oh, and -6 to -8 rms as a standard for in the clubs!? You will smash the limiters on the clubs system and your track will sound squashed... .


KR Tom

Absolutely not true.
People like Nilz and Lawrie were cutting some hot hot HOT levels in the early 2000`s, and a lot of minimal in the 2003-2012 was even hotter, going to as high as -4RMS (admittedly insane but not uncommon). There were no reports from clubland of club soundsystems tripping out limiters across the scene. Sure the music sounded wank, but that`s by the by.
Even post loudness wars techno is still remaining remarkably resistant to letting it go and we are still seeing common final levels of -6 to -8 RMS.
Actually some techno can sound find at those levels, it all depends how you get there really, not that I personally condone it.
Minimal stuff tends to carry those hot levels a little more readily.

We have generally seen levels come down now in techno, I have to fight less and less to get more dynamics in to final masters with clients.
Streaming sites finally are going by loudness normalisation and not peak normalisation, which has helped loads, but RMS and LUFS don`t correlate, so something that reads -8RMS can have quite different LUFS readings.

I still like to use RMS, especially in VU terms, as it`s just something I used to and I understand how it translates, but these days everyone should be getting on to LUFS (which is what I use now for final levelling, especially when it comes to music outside of the dance music bubble) and paying attention to Truepeak values.

Ultimately techno is high impact music (generally) so massive dynamics are a little pointless.

[Jesse]

We have generally seen levels come down now in techno, I have to fight less and less to get more dynamics in to final masters with clients.
Streaming sites finally are going by loudness normalisation and not peak normalisation, which has helped loads, but RMS and LUFS don`t correlate, so something that reads -8RMS can have quite different LUFS readings.

I still like to use RMS, especially in VU terms, as it`s just something I used to and I understand how it translates, but these days everyone should be getting on to LUFS (which is what I use now for final levelling, especially when it comes to music outside of the dance music bubble) and paying attention to Truepeak values.

Ultimately techno is high impact music (generally) so massive dynamics are a little pointless.

Would you say RMS is a thing of the past but you're just used to it, so stick with it? Or would you suggest to still use RMS along with LUFS? I know LUFS is good for stuff like getting songs on an album to sit well, as it has to do with how humans perceive loudness, along with being the streaming standard. But since you say "especially when it comes to music outside of the dance music bubble" it seems like you still find valid reasons to use RMS within the realm of dance music. Is there certain things you use one over the for?

[m_mori]

Thanks! This is very helpful, I was struggling with mastering so this should help me getting a bit better at it. Thanks again

[Lost to the Void]

We have generally seen levels come down now in techno, I have to fight less and less to get more dynamics in to final masters with clients.
Streaming sites finally are going by loudness normalisation and not peak normalisation, which has helped loads, but RMS and LUFS don`t correlate, so something that reads -8RMS can have quite different LUFS readings.

I still like to use RMS, especially in VU terms, as it`s just something I used to and I understand how it translates, but these days everyone should be getting on to LUFS (which is what I use now for final levelling, especially when it comes to music outside of the dance music bubble) and paying attention to Truepeak values.

Ultimately techno is high impact music (generally) so massive dynamics are a little pointless.

Would you say RMS is a thing of the past but you're just used to it, so stick with it? Or would you suggest to still use RMS along with LUFS? I know LUFS is good for stuff like getting songs on an album to sit well, as it has to do with how humans perceive loudness, along with being the streaming standard. But since you say "especially when it comes to music outside of the dance music bubble" it seems like you still find valid reasons to use RMS within the realm of dance music. Is there certain things you use one over the for?

No RMS is useful as is good old VU ballistics. LUFS is not infallible. You can have 2 tunes that read at -10 LUFS but still sounds 2db different in apparent loudness. LUFS isn`t quite perfect, but when taken generically, as a whole, with a wide breadth of music, it is a good meter.
The Ballistics on LUFS meters are weird, I`ve tried to get a read of them in relation to the actual music for live metering, but the computation is odd, and often I use the movement on meters to judge certain things, and that`s when RMS metering and VU metering comes in handy.

So when it comes to specifics, if I want to read the ebb and flow of music, I use an RMS meter, if I am mastering for streaming/digital platforms, spotify, or DVD/TV authoring then I go with LUFS (Integrated, in some cases) for the final level.

[m_mori]

Thanks! Really helpful

[Careland]

Is the dynamic range expected to decrease and if so what is a ball park number? I understand that it most likely depends on the source material but I thought I'd ask anyway...I find it extremely difficult to not get around 2-3 dynamic range reduction, especially when applying limiting.

[Lost to the Void]

Is the dynamic range expected to decrease and if so what is a ball park number? I understand that it most likely depends on the source material but I thought I'd ask anyway...I find it extremely difficult to not get around 2-3 dynamic range reduction, especially when applying limiting.

In relation to what?