1. Monitoring (room treatment especially) 2. Metering (visual feedback is useful) 3. Mindset (take your time, listen with fresh ears, listen on different systems etc.)
I like the idea of mastering in different s/w to your DAW to try and stop the iterative process I've found myself in when producing and mastering in the DAW - I'll give it a whirl.
You can do that indeed in every DAW , since Izotope Ozone has those , and more . But i wanted to say a thing on Acoustics treatment , that is very difficult because every shape and size will dampen certain frequency's , and how much of what you have took out is very hard , you cant hear it that is for sure ,you can use measurement devices that i have , but they will only give you a picture of where they stand and you usually move , i found differences within 1cm , so basically its very hard , you need to be educated in Electroacoustics with some XP to be able to address your room ... either that or dont do anything . Purchasing random stuff putting it randomly will do random stuff .
What do you think about mastering with analogs and not computers I have a tascam DP 24 and I'm going to buy a compressor and a preamp an equalizer , and a limiter. What else would I need? I also have some Yamaha hs8 monitors And I got the Sony mdr-7506 head phones
In two-channel Stereo (L/R) that's true, but not in Surround. In a Surround montage, "Mix to Mono" is still available, and folds all the channels down, and "Mid Channel Only" is disabled. There's also another extra option, though - "Mix to Stereo". So it's a subtle but technically accurate distinction, does that make sense ?
Stereo is two mono audio channels for the left and right and mono is a single audio channel, You can put anywhere it will always remain MONO. Accurate terms are MONOAURAL AND BINAURAL for sound production through loudspeakers.
Is it unusual to see that your RMS and your LUFS levels are pretty much the same number..? I'm doing mainly EDM stuff recently, and most of the tracks, when I think I have them sounding pretty good, seem to have an RMS of around -8, and an LUFS of around the same. For some reason (based on not very much at all) I had an expectation that the LUFS would be higher than the RMS number. Do you have any input on this..? Do you think the lining up of those 2 numbers is a good or a bad sign..? Thanks.
Great question. LUFS is actually based on RMS, it just uses different filtering and windowing to get a result that's closer to the way we hear things. So for material with balanced EQ it's not unusual for LUFS and RMS to be very similar, in fact it's to be expected - for pink noise you get almost exactly the same value. The difference comes when the EQ isn't distributed evenly across the frequency spectrum. For example, something bass-heavy will often read a higher RMS than LUFS value, and something with lots of upper mid will typically read higher in LUFS than RMS. That's because LUFS tries to reflect the way our ears work (most sensitive to mid-range) and in my experience it makes short-term LUFS more helpful than pure RMS, especially for people who are new to thinking about loudness. It's not perfect, obviously, but surprisingly effective. Having said that it's quite easy to mentally compensate for the differences - many pros still like to use RMS and in fact VU meters are even more sensitive to bass than RMS, but I still like using them.
RMS uses different Time Averaging than LUFS also, different weighting A vs C curves are employed. And RMS is PEAK Dependent, while LUFS is Independent. You can check the difference by sine tones and Null Tests. Use K 14 or K 20, Ignore PPM and VU. These are not accurate.
My thoughts on mastering is that it used to absolutely VITAL in the days of vinyl or the LP literally would not play (skip and jump on excessive bass notes) or sound awful. In these days of DAW, most folks just slap some compression, limiting and a bit of EQ on the master bus of the mix, render it to a stereo file and BOOM, mixing and mastering all done in one shot.
@@vib_di You're back peddalling now because you realised your stupid mistake lol- cut and paste your reply to the "sad loser pick up artists" video you were watching!
Your ears are crude tools , never use them , if you have device that will tell you what is going on , as far as measuring loudness Ozone also has those . Or ears are as bad as they come , people claiming golden ears are fools , no one can hear what he doesnt know is there , just like no one can see what he doesnt know its there . Kids play this game find a toy among some , and it take them a lot of time , and there are these for adults as well , also as far as Color goes , some pople dont even see it , and i see difrent colors in difrent eye , and also People can only see color if they have something to compare it to , very close , you would be blown away when people see blue dress from white dress , red dress when its blue . Its same with ears even worse . So never rely on your ears . That is the worst tool in existence for sound . Just imagine you walk around on the street and you dont hear cars , when you concentrate yes , but in a minute its gone . Because our brain filters it , so you have a filter in your head that you can not control . How can you use it then . You cant .
There is no substitute for calibrated acoustic environment. If you want then please critique Bob Katz and Floyd E Toole and many others who knows the difference between HRTFs and IACCs. And one more thing headphones can never work below the Transition frequency range as wavelength is larger than the distance between driver and the tympanic memberane. Also there is a deep relation with planer vs cylindrical wave front, which is next to impossible for headphone driver to replicate. Also headphone almost always have In-Head localization, which is a serious drawback for mastering.
@@vib_di I prefer to work on speakers too, but that doesn't mean headphones can't give a valuable perspective. Glenn Schick is a well-known mastering engineer who works exclusively on headphones, for example, and has had Billboard #1 albums. Either way, this video is for people interested in "home" mastering, not advice for professional engineers :-)
@@ProductionAdvice Agree. That there is no substitue for a mastering Lab with calibrated acoustic environment, Also your advice for Home mastering is good if the production is well recorded and mixed.
This is kinda bad advice. Well, good and bad advice. But it paints the wrong picture. You should watch the pro guys speak about their rooms, like streaky etc. The truth is, your room has to be right. A person is never going to he able to match a perfectly correct room with a partially treated room(like yours or etc). Yes, it will make it better, but people need to understand how much money truly needs to go into this to actually get a pro result. For some genres, this doesn't count as much. But in order to get the results consistently across the board, the room really needs a lot of work into it and calculation. I've personally put an immense amount of money into my different rooms over the years, and I've only truly understood the gravity of all of this recently as I learnt more about acoustical science and how things are truly meant to be. Maths and percentages in room design and treatment and listening positions are so important. There's strange null points in bass depending on how close to the front wall you place your speakers. Theres literal caveats in so many different details.. Its NOT as simple as you're making it out to be and... People need to understand how much they really need to put into this. Thank you for the advice and thoughts on this, but I encourage you to truly portray the depth of what's actually needed to compete.
But this video isn't a training video for pro engineers, it's just (hopefully) some helpful advice for everyone else. Of course a professionally designed and treated space should sound far better than 'the room you have plus some treatment', but how many people can afford that ? The ideas and strategies in these videos will help people working at any level. Will they make you the best engineer in the world ? Nope. But if you want to try your hand at mastering and don't want (or can't afford) to go to a pro, you'll get better results following this advice. (And actually I've worked in some pretty poor-sounding pro rooms, over the years...)
Yes, many peoples forget that attenuating a resonant frequency in the room cannot fix the resonance. It can only make it less audible. Good Acoustics and Monitoring can separate the Goat from Sheeps.
Sure, why not ? Not everyone has Kii Threes, and the Shapes are great little speakers. These videos aren't intended as training for professional mastering engineers, just helpful concepts and techniques for people who want to try it for themselves.
1. Monitoring (room treatment especially)
2. Metering (visual feedback is useful)
3. Mindset (take your time, listen with fresh ears, listen on different systems etc.)
Not easy to explain this sorta info in such great detail, and in such a way just about anyone could understand. Nice one.
Gold! I wish I could find a series like this on mixing.
ruclips.net/video/ydbkZ1ZWQGM/видео.html
Sergiu is right. Check out Michael White, he is insanely good
@@SergiuMuresanMusic Thank you!
I've mastered both for other people and my own material, and it's always so much faster and easier when doing someone else's masters
Loving this series!
Brilliant Ian. Your perspective and approach is perfect uncomplicated and very instructive thank you so much
Great videos Ian I wrote a lot down. I'm not just beginning but always studying the craft. Peace Stay Up
Thank you Ian, your comments are very precise.., I like it..
Everything from Ian is amazingly helpful. Thanks for sharing your knowledge! =)
Great series. Cant wait to see the next tutorial. At what intervals will the further tutorials appear?
Every two weeks, roughly
I like the idea of mastering in different s/w to your DAW to try and stop the iterative process I've found myself in when producing and mastering in the DAW - I'll give it a whirl.
I believe TC electronics has a separate mastering app.
You can do that indeed in every DAW , since Izotope Ozone has those , and more . But i wanted to say a thing on Acoustics treatment , that is very difficult because every shape and size will dampen certain frequency's , and how much of what you have took out is very hard , you cant hear it that is for sure ,you can use measurement devices that i have , but they will only give you a picture of where they stand and you usually move , i found differences within 1cm , so basically its very hard , you need to be educated in Electroacoustics with some XP to be able to address your room ... either that or dont do anything . Purchasing random stuff putting it randomly will do random stuff .
Thanks for this !
excellent stuff, SOS! thanks a bunch! have a jolly good holiday, my peeps
Like your style 🙌 I actually went and found Ian’s channel ... the more insight we can gain the more we can grow right . ✌️💚☯️
Great video! Thanks!
Great videos! thanks for teaching us!
Thank you Ian!
What do you think about mastering with analogs and not computers I have a tascam DP 24 and I'm going to buy a compressor and a preamp an equalizer , and a limiter. What else would I need?
I also have some Yamaha hs8 monitors
And I got the Sony mdr-7506 head phones
Great stuff, Ian. Really enjoying the series.
Fabulous information, thank you!
Great information... excellent series!
The Guide isn't available, doesn't show up on the page and all popup blockers disabled, is it still there?
Sorry you're having problems - yes, it's still available and the page is working here. Please could you try a different browser ?
Excellent ,merci !
This is great, when’s part 3 coming out?
It's out 🙂 ruclips.net/video/Jsxg11Yh3Ns/видео.html
love to Mr Ian. very good
What is the difference between 'mix to mono' and the 'mid' signal - Both should be L+R ?
In two-channel Stereo (L/R) that's true, but not in Surround. In a Surround montage, "Mix to Mono" is still available, and folds all the channels down, and "Mid Channel Only" is disabled. There's also another extra option, though - "Mix to Stereo".
So it's a subtle but technically accurate distinction, does that make sense ?
@@ProductionAdvice makes perfect sense
Stereo is two mono audio channels for the left and right and mono is a single audio channel, You can put anywhere it will always remain MONO. Accurate terms are MONOAURAL AND BINAURAL for sound production through loudspeakers.
Wow..really useful stuff..!
Is it unusual to see that your RMS and your LUFS levels are pretty much the same number..? I'm doing mainly EDM stuff recently, and most of the tracks, when I think I have them sounding pretty good, seem to have an RMS of around -8, and an LUFS of around the same.
For some reason (based on not very much at all) I had an expectation that the LUFS would be higher than the RMS number. Do you have any input on this..? Do you think the lining up of those 2 numbers is a good or a bad sign..? Thanks.
Great question. LUFS is actually based on RMS, it just uses different filtering and windowing to get a result that's closer to the way we hear things.
So for material with balanced EQ it's not unusual for LUFS and RMS to be very similar, in fact it's to be expected - for pink noise you get almost exactly the same value. The difference comes when the EQ isn't distributed evenly across the frequency spectrum.
For example, something bass-heavy will often read a higher RMS than LUFS value, and something with lots of upper mid will typically read higher in LUFS than RMS. That's because LUFS tries to reflect the way our ears work (most sensitive to mid-range) and in my experience it makes short-term LUFS more helpful than pure RMS, especially for people who are new to thinking about loudness. It's not perfect, obviously, but surprisingly effective.
Having said that it's quite easy to mentally compensate for the differences - many pros still like to use RMS and in fact VU meters are even more sensitive to bass than RMS, but I still like using them.
RMS uses different Time Averaging than LUFS also, different weighting A vs C curves are employed. And RMS is PEAK Dependent, while LUFS is Independent. You can check the difference by sine tones and Null Tests. Use K 14 or K 20, Ignore PPM and VU. These are not accurate.
especially when it comes to suwoofers
Great !
I've got HD450's that are about 25 years old. To me, they still sound fantastic. In reality........ Maybe they do, maybe they don't :D
M-M-M my guru!
💯
My thoughts on mastering is that it used to absolutely VITAL in the days of vinyl or the LP literally would not play (skip and jump on excessive bass notes) or sound awful. In these days of DAW, most folks just slap some compression, limiting and a bit of EQ on the master bus of the mix, render it to a stereo file and BOOM, mixing and mastering all done in one shot.
@@vib_di I think you replied to the wrong comment on a different video buddy!
@@vib_di You're back peddalling now because you realised your stupid mistake lol- cut and paste your reply to the "sad loser pick up artists" video you were watching!
@@TheMentalblockrock Sorry dear. You are right and I'm wrong, may you get Grammy For your Boom. All the best. And I apologise for my studpid answer.
Your ears are crude tools , never use them , if you have device that will tell you what is going on , as far as measuring loudness Ozone also has those . Or ears are as bad as they come , people claiming golden ears are fools , no one can hear what he doesnt know is there , just like no one can see what he doesnt know its there . Kids play this game find a toy among some , and it take them a lot of time , and there are these for adults as well , also as far as Color goes , some pople dont even see it , and i see difrent colors in difrent eye , and also People can only see color if they have something to compare it to , very close , you would be blown away when people see blue dress from white dress , red dress when its blue . Its same with ears even worse . So never rely on your ears . That is the worst tool in existence for sound .
Just imagine you walk around on the street and you dont hear cars , when you concentrate yes , but in a minute its gone . Because our brain filters it , so you have a filter in your head that you can not control . How can you use it then . You cant .
Headphones frequency response " Even More Even "😂😂😂😂😂😂.That's what companies use to sell their products.
I did say high quality headphones, possibly with correction software.
There is no substitute for calibrated acoustic environment. If you want then please critique Bob Katz and Floyd E Toole and many others who knows the difference between HRTFs and IACCs. And one more thing headphones can never work below the Transition frequency range as wavelength is larger than the distance between driver and the tympanic memberane. Also there is a deep relation with planer vs cylindrical wave front, which is next to impossible for headphone driver to replicate. Also headphone almost always have In-Head localization, which is a serious drawback for mastering.
@@vib_di I prefer to work on speakers too, but that doesn't mean headphones can't give a valuable perspective. Glenn Schick is a well-known mastering engineer who works exclusively on headphones, for example, and has had Billboard #1 albums.
Either way, this video is for people interested in "home" mastering, not advice for professional engineers :-)
@@ProductionAdvice Agree. That there is no substitue for a mastering Lab with calibrated acoustic environment, Also your advice for Home mastering is good if the production is well recorded and mixed.
This is kinda bad advice. Well, good and bad advice. But it paints the wrong picture. You should watch the pro guys speak about their rooms, like streaky etc.
The truth is, your room has to be right. A person is never going to he able to match a perfectly correct room with a partially treated room(like yours or etc).
Yes, it will make it better, but people need to understand how much money truly needs to go into this to actually get a pro result. For some genres, this doesn't count as much. But in order to get the results consistently across the board, the room really needs a lot of work into it and calculation.
I've personally put an immense amount of money into my different rooms over the years, and I've only truly understood the gravity of all of this recently as I learnt more about acoustical science and how things are truly meant to be. Maths and percentages in room design and treatment and listening positions are so important.
There's strange null points in bass depending on how close to the front wall you place your speakers. Theres literal caveats in so many different details..
Its NOT as simple as you're making it out to be and...
People need to understand how much they really need to put into this.
Thank you for the advice and thoughts on this, but I encourage you to truly portray the depth of what's actually needed to compete.
But this video isn't a training video for pro engineers, it's just (hopefully) some helpful advice for everyone else. Of course a professionally designed and treated space should sound far better than 'the room you have plus some treatment', but how many people can afford that ? The ideas and strategies in these videos will help people working at any level. Will they make you the best engineer in the world ? Nope. But if you want to try your hand at mastering and don't want (or can't afford) to go to a pro, you'll get better results following this advice.
(And actually I've worked in some pretty poor-sounding pro rooms, over the years...)
Yes, many peoples forget that attenuating a resonant frequency in the room cannot fix the resonance. It can only make it less audible. Good Acoustics and Monitoring can separate the Goat from Sheeps.
First
Is this for real? Focal Shape in a mastering video...?
Sure, why not ? Not everyone has Kii Threes, and the Shapes are great little speakers. These videos aren't intended as training for professional mastering engineers, just helpful concepts and techniques for people who want to try it for themselves.