Mastering...

[Wes Mantooth]

I'm looking for a fairly cheap way to master some of my tracks for release so they sound more cohesive with each other. I'm not looking for anything too complex, I just want to take a few tracks, do some EQ tweaks and make sure the volumes levels for them are comparable, that's it.

Anyone have any tips on how to do this or any cheap software I could get to do so?

[ifeellikeatourist]

I am also interested in this...mastering is a total mystery to me...

[RR Bigman]

Assuming you want software, audacity is actually really good for mastering. in my limited experience eq is your best friend. But I usually add compression and echo during the recording, so I guess it depends on your methodology and what kind of sound you're going for.

[cheesecats]

i use sound forge. you can get the basic version for about $70.

[01010111]

I master the tracks the best I can on my recording machine, an old yamaha aw16g and give the resulting track to our drummer who uses audacity to put some fine touches on it.

Mastering is a tricky, tricky thing to do. If you do it right you have something that sounds amazing and if you do it poorly you're left with a jumbled sonic mess.

[Wes Mantooth]

Can anyone clarify exactly what the process is like?

What I want to do is take the tracks I've made, pour them into something, apply eq, maybe a little compression and make sure the volume of each track is similar and then render them again as separate tracks to be put on bandcamp, soundcloud, etc.

[RR Bigman]

I learned this trick from a friend; listen to them on every available device...if it sounds just as good on a shitty boombox as it does on a hifi home theater system, you're golden. If you're going for amazing and don't have a lot of patience then you're better off hiring a professional imo.

[tuffteef]

I learned this trick from a friend; listen to them on every available device...if it sounds just as good on a shitty boombox as it does on a hifi home theater system, you're golden. If you're going for amazing and don't have a lot of patience then you're better off hiring a professional imo.

yamaha ns10s

[RR Bigman]

I learned this trick from a friend; listen to them on every available device...if it sounds just as good on a shitty boombox as it does on a hifi home theater system, you're golden. If you're going for amazing and don't have a lot of patience then you're better off hiring a professional imo.

yamaha ns10s

This guy...I've never used them before though, do they actually live up to their reputation?

[rfurtkamp]

For basic stuff, you're going to want to:

-Compress/EQ to remove unwanted peaks and spikes and level out the signal, and do this without squashing the signal to flat ugly lifeless junk.
- Boost/cut EQ ranges to take into account your recording equipment/instruments/effects that you're always having to contend with (particular EQ on a particular cab or speaker for an example). Can add sparkle on the high end or particular frequency ranges as well if you're so inclined.
- Adjust levels etc on L/R channel (assuming stereo) unless you're going for a particular "This room is deaf" sound so they're not radically different.
- Normalize, set peak level, or however you prefer to do it, to a particular threshhold - you can go for the older quieter recording techniques with more dynamic range or gun for 0db distorting hell like the bad 2000s 'make everything loud in your car' remasters. This way your recordings have the same rough volume level if done correctly and someone's not always reaching for the remote.

My personal software choices won't be much help, I'm using an ancient version of Traktion 3 and the various Mackie plugins on my stuff, so I tried to stay general.

Most DAWs should have the basic tools to do everything listed above included.

[modernage]

Check out BIAS Peak. It's an industry standard for mastering.

[Chumley]

run it all through a stereo pair of klons

[valentine1]

i once read, and please correct me if i'm wrong, that the reasons behind why songs are mastered are because back in the 60's, radio stations kept wanting to be the loudest. no longer could tracks recorded in the studio be put straight to radio, they had to be 'jacked up' in volume but then mastered so that they didn't sound like shit, by limiting peaks and using compression etc as rfurtkamp said. nowadays it's a given that this will happen even after the amazing mixing is done. my band sent our mixed EP over to the US to get it mastered by the guy who did Brand New, and it sounds great. the differences are so slight between the mixed version and the mastered version, but i guess that's the magic, isn't it? getting it louder to the 'acceptable' level and making sure as little clarity is lost as possible.

anyone care to enlighten me on how i'm quite possibly wrong?

[tuffteef]

I learned this trick from a friend; listen to them on every available device...if it sounds just as good on a shitty boombox as it does on a hifi home theater system, you're golden. If you're going for amazing and don't have a lot of patience then you're better off hiring a professional imo.

yamaha ns10s

i use adam a7s or genelecs to mix depending what console im using
then reference the ns10s to check my mixes while im on the job

ns10s are okay stand alone lots of studios have em but i dont love em han solo to be honest

sall bout referencing

they also sound nice on kicks as a sub mic

[nightraven]

in my humble opinion the only reason to pay somebody else to master your work (after you've done the rest of the job recording and mixing) is if you want to get their name on your record. if you're going for a commercial sound stick a loudness maximiser across the whole mix and be done with it. if the mix is solid in the first place there won't be too much to do and there's certainly no magic going on.