For me, it's not a question of whether or not to master my own music. The way I see it, even if I wanted to, I literally can't.
In terms of mastering a single song, the mastering process is a chance for a second objective pair of ears, listening in a high end listening environment (some to a higher degree than others), to notice and correct mix imbalances and deficiencies. Hopefully you can see why, even though I'd like to, I can't master my own music. I would need four ears and two brains, and my second brain wouldn't be allowed to listen in during the mixing process.
I do, however, have audio processors on my master channel. Typically I'll have some compression, followed by EQ and finally a limiter. These are tools often used by mastering engineers, who may well use them in a similar way to myself. Just because it's a similar (or the same) process doesn't mean it's the same process from a second-set-of-ears perspective. When I use these tools, I'm still at the mixing stage. The mix just happens to sound the way it will sound when the song is released.
There is a lot of debate about mixing into a chain on the master bus. Many engineers leave their master channel empty and actively try to dissuade others from processing the master channel. I can totally understand this perspective, which I believe boils down to two main factors: firstly, taking responsibility for each individual sound and group in the mix. For example, the end result is generally much better if I fix problem frequency areas on individual sounds rather than subject the entire mix to drastic EQ processing. If the levels are slightly imbalanced, it's much better to adjust the individual faders than to try to correct the imbalance on the master channel. Secondly, depending on the compression applied to the master channel, mixing into it could well feel like mixing when drunk (I haven't actually tried that). Every new sound, every level adjustment, will change the overall balance. I used to mix into heavy compression when I started out mixing and it added immensely to my mix frustrations! I don't use heavy compression any more, but I occasionally hear other people's mixes which are treated to significant compression, and it's often quite eye-opening to hear the relative levels when the compressor is bypassed – they make no sense whatsoever!
Having established that there are very good reasons not to process the master channel, I'll happily admit that I process the master channel. The reason is pretty simple – I want to hear how the song will ultimately end up sounding, as early as possible. I just find it more inspiring to work on something which sounds more “finished”. As stated, my signal chain is typically compression – EQ – limiting.
The amount of compression I apply to the overall song is fairly minimal. I typically set the threshold very low (-40 dBs) and apply a very light ratio (1.10:1). The attack and release times are as fast as possible. This treatment means the song is always being compressed, with the overall dynamic range being reduced evenly rather than just the loudest parts being pushed down. There is no cutoff point where the compression kicks in and out – the loudest parts will be pushed down the most, the next loudest parts will be pushed down almost as much, all the way down to -40 dBs. The relative levels of the instruments will need to be spot on, with or without this treatment. In practice, this treatment will drive the average level up by a decibel or two.
The EQ I apply is (hopefully obviously) dependent on the song. Very occasionally I won't need to apply any EQ at all and that does feel satisfying. Having said that, I don't lose any sleep when I need to employ a few bands of processing. Whatever leads to the best end result is fine with me. More common EQ requirements are: a highpass filter to cut out excessive sub frequencies – under, say, 35 Hz. I can't hear these in my listening environment so I use a frequency analyzer which measures RMS levels to see whether the sub frequencies are over-represented. I prefer to apply this to my Kick/Bass group, but sometimes other groups also have low end coming through and it's easier to apply it to the overall mix. I'll often apply a broad boost centered around 3 to 6 kHz (it depends on the song), to bring out overall definition. The boost will only be a dB or two, and is applied when the relative high ends of the instruments/sounds are already balanced, that is, all the sounds benefit equally from the boost. Beyond these typical EQ treatments, it's wide open – whether small boosts or cuts anywhere in the frequency spectrum, it's entirely dependent on the mix. I don't take the decision to apply master channel EQ lightly. Where possible, I treat the individual instruments/groups, since that will almost always lead to a better result.
The limiting I apply is purely to bring the RMS level to a “competitive level”, so I can compare my song to the songs in my reference ballpark. I aim my level for the midpoint of this ballpark – usually I could drive the gain up further cleanly, but maximum level isn't my goal. I've heard a number of casualties of the loudness war and I'm happy to be well back from the edge!
At some point soon I'll address “real mastering”, in terms of getting music mastered by a mastering engineer. Not every song requires it – when I put songs up on the internet (or on www.InsideMixes.com) I don't get them mastered. If I had a bigger project, such as an album, or a song I knew would have a large audience, I'd be very likely to go to my local mastering engineer and sit with him while he masters my songs. For the most part though, I'm happy to take responsibility for the entire process.
Keep making great music!
Fabian
No comments:
Post a Comment