Ableton Live Users-What do you "master" your tunes

[kidlogic]

Just curious to see what others are using to 'master' their tunes...

Do you use plugins within Live?

Do you use Live's plugs?

Do you master in something else altogether?



Ive been using the Ozone3 on the master of a fresh set, but I cant ever seem to get my stuff as loud as other things. Im not talking about compressing the shit out of it, I mean making it loud where it needs to be... it just seems Live isnt as loud as other DAW's output. So Im seeing what others do.

Whatcha got?

[james fox]

my mastering set up is quite simple - a CD, a marker pen, an envelope and a stamp

[kidlogic]

Where to?

Actually though, I didnt mean for a professional master, just for something playable asap...

I am looking for a decent mastering house though for future use.

[james fox]

i use tc native compressor, graphic eq, limiter in that order. but i am rubbish at home mastering

[surface_tension]

Where to?

Actually though, I didnt mean for a professional master, just for something playable asap...

I am looking for a decent mastering house though for future use.

Claw will hook it up extremely cheap and does a pretty damn nice job for the money. As for Mastering in general, I know Shiva prefers the Ableton DAW for that. Pretty sure she hits it with the 10band eq and goes to town.

[el hombre invisible]

Had been using Waves LinEQ, LinMultiband, and L2, but recently switched to T-RacKS 3...not bad emu's of Fairchild and Pultec. T-RacKS can be plugged into Live, but also comes standalone, which is cool since it's heavy. I do realize I should let someone else master my stuff, but enjoy giving it a go myself.

[macc]

I am looking for a decent mastering house though for future use.

Forgive the intrusion, but as it was mentioned...

You're more than welcome to give us a go sir. Free trials as standard, pure high-end analogue, conversion, etcera etceteraaa and pretty cheap (too cheap I'm told ) Worked for quite a few people round these here parts, and elsewhere in dubstep, dnb, electronica etc.

Sorry for the plug I try to be discreet but it still feels cheap

[kidlogic]

I am looking for a decent mastering house though for future use.

Forgive the intrusion, but as it was mentioned...

You're more than welcome to give us a go sir. Free trials as standard, pure high-end analogue, conversion, etcera etceteraaa and pretty cheap (too cheap I'm told ) Worked for quite a few people round these here parts, and elsewhere in dubstep, dnb, electronica etc.

Sorry for the plug I try to be discreet but it still feels cheap

No worries man, you guys are on my shortlist of places to try... I even have an accnt set up on the website already.

[surface_tension]

Heard nothing but good things about Subvert and Macc's service as well. If that is the route you wanna go, be not afraid.

[macc]

No worries man, you guys are on my shortlist of places to try... I even have an accnt set up on the website already.

Dagggggggggghhhhh

If I had known that I would have kept my fuckin cakehole shut instead of whoreing myself about

[kidlogic]

No worries man, you guys are on my shortlist of places to try... I even have an accnt set up on the website already.

Dagggggggggghhhhh

If I had known that I would have kept my fuckin cakehole shut instead of whoreing myself about

Its all good man, get your promo on!

[macc]

Word of mouth - from doing good work - is the best promo around

I hate doing this sort of thing and will shut my mouth as of.....

now.

[paradigm_x]

IMHO you should never 'master' on the output of the daw, but bounce down (ideally leave at least a night) and master in a sample editor eg soundforge/wavelab. Bounce at 24bit, 44k

They are much better set up for editing stereo files; do any processing you think it needs (eg eq and limiting), with the max processing power, in case your running your mix at the max of your pc; you can do your fades and that, dither down to 16bit 44 when your done.

Up to you; i find it invaluable to separate the mixing and 'mastering' stages. Too much going on. Youll notice certain elements in the mix jump out when mastering and will prob have to go back to the mix and correct a couple of parts.

That said, ive recently discovered mix bus comp - a couple of dB really helps things gel together, and can really improve your mixes.

[paradigm_x]

double post

[kidlogic]

IMHO you should never 'master' on the output of the daw, but bounce down (ideally leave at least a night) and master in a sample editor eg soundforge/wavelab. Bounce at 24bit, 44k

They are much better set up for editing stereo files; do any processing you think it needs (eg eq and limiting), with the max processing power, in case your running your mix at the max of your pc; you can do your fades and that, dither down to 16bit 44 when your done.

Up to you; i find it invaluable to separate the mixing and 'mastering' stages. Too much going on. Youll notice certain elements in the mix jump out when mastering and will prob have to go back to the mix and correct a couple of parts.

That said, ive recently discovered mix bus comp - a couple of dB really helps things gel together, and can really improve your mixes.

I totally agree about bouncing... I usually render the file in Live and then reload it back in as a single stereo track and process that. I found a copy of Cubase LE that I must have gotten for free with something today and re-mastered something Id been working on for a minute with great results.

And I also totally agree about taking a day (at least) between mixdown and mastering, although I usually get too excited about it and give it a go right away. I really need to remember patience.

[macc]

A note on that... I've done nothing but master (that is, not had time to make any music) for well over a year now. The other day I had to deliver one of my old tunes for a compilation and they asked me to do it myself.

It was horrible!! I hated doing it, found it very difficult and while I did an alright job (I think), it was really really really fucking hard and hated every second of it.

I finished that tune over 2 years ago ffs!!


You only get one chance to hear something for the first time, and that's a big part of what you pay for in mastering. Objective, experienced ears.

Just thought it was relevant

[kidlogic]

No it definately is... even on tunes you've made ages ago, its all gonna come back to you in a listen or two. The main reason Im asking this is just to get an idea what others are doing to get thier stuff instantly (or within a few days) playable... I use Serato, and one of the reasons I bought it was to play my own tunes. For the most part they sound quieter than purchased downloads (although Im getting closer!) and I HATED the muffled difference. Then I was noticing for a while that I was overcompensating and my stuff was noticably sharper sounding than others, and Ive gotten a bit better at that since now as well (I hope).

When it comes time to really get these tunes out there, they will pass through someone elses hands before hand for sure.



Which actually brings me to a good question if you dont mind Macc...

What state do you like to get tunes 'to-be-mastered' in?

As in both what file format/sample rate/bitrate/etc...

and also as in, if you were prepping a tune yourself to be sent out, what would you do to the mixdown before sending it off?

[surface_tension]

You only get one chance to hear something for the first time, and that's a big part of what you pay for in mastering. Objective, experienced ears.

Just thought it was relevant

I agree with this. That is why I pay to have our tunes mastered instead of handling that, and my ears also aren't that trained. I think it makes sense to learn a bit about mastering though, so you can at the very least know how to do a better job of mixing down your tunes to begin with. At least basic knowledge of compression and some EQing should be mandatory to even call oneself a producer. For some types of music, no compression or mastering is really even needed. Less mastering is the best mastering. Less compression, etc.

But I mean you already know that. What I'm getting at is that say someone sends a tune to you and you do a job for them. For all they know, you might not have done anything at all to the tune if they don't know anything about sonic frequencies and the like. I've heard nothing but good things about you and what you do, and tested some of the tunes you've done on a system to good effect. But an untrained ear won't know what to listen for on their studio monitors, to judge how it MIGHT sound on a bigger system with better bass response, etc.

It will also tremendously help you out if people know exactly how to mix their tunes down so that your job is to load the tune up, listen and basically send it back with some minor compression. It'd make the whole process easier, and will have better tunes as a result. BUT DO NOT MASTER YOUR OWN TUNES, AS EVERYONE HERE HAS SAID.(not talking to you there, MACC.)

[macc]

Which actually brings me to a good question if you dont mind Macc...

What state do you like to get tunes 'to-be-mastered' in?

As in both what file format/sample rate/bitrate/etc...

and also as in, if you were prepping a tune yourself to be sent out, what would you do to the mixdown before sending it off?

12 kbps 24kHz mp3 please. That way whatever I do is BOUND to sound better

24-bit, whatever sample rate you were working at (no conversion).

I prefer no compression across it cos people 99% of the time overdo it (IMO), often with some cruddy plugin with a too-short release that leaves nasty little traces. If I see a file clipping I usually shout something like ‘you bloody idiots, what’s the fucking matter with you?’ or along those lines and develop a twitch in my left eye (a la Herbert Lom). I was going to put but I do

Back in the days where I used to have time to make music *violins*, prepping a mixdown would go something like this;

Step 1 – make it sound as good as I could
Step 2 - mix it down

For some types of music, no compression or mastering is really even needed. Less mastering is the best mastering. Less compression, etc.

Agreed – it should be pointed out that no matter what music, mastering is quite often MUCH less about compression than people seem to think. Very very generally speaking, I find my self doing ~0.5dB on average, if that. Even in housey stuff, the pumping and all that shit should be done in the mix (IMHO), or rather is much better done in the mix.

What I'm getting at is that say someone sends a tune to you and you do a job for them. For all they know, you might not have done anything at all to the tune if they don't know anything about sonic frequencies and the like. I've heard nothing but good things about you and what you do, and tested some of the tunes you've done on a system to good effect. But an untrained ear won't know what to listen for on their studio monitors, to judge how it MIGHT sound on a bigger system with better bass response, etc.

To be perfectly honest, I have read that a few times and I’m not sure what you’re getting at at all

All I can say is that trained ears or not, above a certain level of subtlety, pretty much anyone can listen to something and say ‘that sounds better than it used to’.

This is particularly true when they spent bloody ages on it, have heard it 743783290487 times and are sick to death of the thing. They send it out to someone cos they have had enough, or feel they have taken it as far as it can go. Often they have walked themselves down a sonic cul-de-sac, can’t see the wood for the trees etc etc and giving it to someone else frees them from that. Then it comes back sounding better, with no additional effort/time/emotional drain, for a little money. If you love something, let it go and all that bollix.

If they insisted on testing it on a rig every time then business would be bloody slow But if it can sound that much better on the same system they heard it on x amount of times, most people are willing to trust that it will sound that much better on a rig. And when they do hear it out… well, let’s just say you get nice emails from people

Anyway, it’s impossible to tell people ‘exactly how to mix their tunes down’. The individuality of these things makes it impossible. There’s not a list of instructions you can follow for a ‘boil in the bag perfect mix every time’ It has to be done on not only a producer-basis, but on a tune-by-tune basis.

This is why – and I am pretty sure that people who have come through here would verify this – I go out of my way to be as helpful and informative as I possibly can to anyone who sends work my way. It’s to the benefit of everyone involved.

[kidlogic]

Thanks Macc - much appreciated.

I know what you mean with no boil in the bag mixdown, I was just wondering if there was one lil touch you did (or wished more people did), or a certain volume you got it too, etc... but, I get what you mean. Get it sounding good and clean on a track by track basis, get the mixdown how you want, no clipping and no effects on the master output.

This is usually how I do it, then render it from Live and I was reloading it into a new project and running it through the Ozone3 plugin and adding eq, etc until it sounded fatter and crisper. Today I did essentially the same thing but in Cubase and it sounded way better just from switching progs, so for my quick masters Ill be doing that from now on and sending them out for a pro job when Im completely happy with the arrangement.