Use Master Track FX for Mastering

[Grendel]

If I want to try my hand at mastering using effects on the Master Track, is it better to render the project and start a new session using just the mixed down tack or is adding the mastering effects directly into my project OK? Barring CPU load, I am wondering if one process is better than the other. Thanks for your insight.

[Philbo King]

I always render first, then work on the rendered file.
It clearly separates mixing from mastering. It provides a concrete point that you can return to, if needed.

Rather than put effects into the master track, I render to a file, then drag the file into a new Master project where FX are put on the track the stereo mix is on.

For me mastering is a few EQ bands, no more than 1 or 1.5 dB each, and generally wideband. Any compression is done in the mix. I render that, load in the new file & mute the original.

If it's part of an album, I leave it sit that way till all the other songs are at the same stage. Then I load all of them into a master project. The only thing I do here is matching levels between songs and arranging song order.

By keeping each stage separate and simple it prevents you from chasing your tail and entering an endless mux/master loop that does more damage than benefit.

[jrk]

Originally Posted by Philbo King

I always render first, then work on the rendered file.
It clearly separates muxing from mastering. It provides a concrete point that you can return to, if needed.

-

Yes, that.
Also, it can be useful not to put yr "mastering" chain actually in the master track - makes it a bit simpler to have reference tracks alongside the tune yr working on.

[Dr Bob]

See the two processes as completely separate in your mind and ears!

Also, having reference tracks loaded up alongside your track you are mastering is a good way to go/think.

Ideally, keep all FX off the Reaper Master track, they work more efficiently when on a "normal" track. So, just make track 1 your "master track", and route the other tracks to this (or do it the "folder way". Chuck your mastering fX chain on this track, and let it route on to the Reaper Master Track as usual.

Of course, if you do manual routing to your Track 1, make sure you disable the master/parent send. If you do it via a folder, then the folder structure takes care of this for you.

HTH

dB

[Musical]

Can you define the term " Reference Tracks " please?

[Dr Bob]

A commercial track which is perhaps in the same genre as the one you are mastering and has similar audio characteristics to give you something to "aim at" within the confines of your "studio".

i.e. a well produced track to which you can refer, and measure your mastering skills against.

dB

[nofish]

From a purely technical point of view it makes no difference though. Reapers internal mixing engine uses 64 bit float by default so it would be the same if you put your mastering FX directly on the master of your project or rendered to 64 bit float first (which would be overkill anyway IMO) and master in a new project.

So as the others said, the decision is more of a workflow (and CPU usage) thing, usually keeping the mixing and mastering process separated.

[Magicbuss]

Originally Posted by Grendel

If I want to try my hand at mastering using effects on the Master Track, is it better to render the project and start a new session using just the mixed down tack or is adding the mastering effects directly into my project OK? Barring CPU load, I am wondering if one process is better than the other. Thanks for your insight.

I like doing it as a separate mastering session using a dedicated Mastering template. Its also helpful to wait a few days before self mastering a track so that you can reset your perspective.

[Grendel]

Thanks for all of the good info and quick responses! I kinda like the IDEA of keeping everything together in one project, but I can also see the value of separating it out. If the quality of SOUND is not affected. I will experiment with both processes.

[karbomusic]

Not sure if mentioned but "not" being able to adjust individual tracks when mastering is a very good thing. I'd also propose that when we know we can adjust them we end up changing them, and we listen slightly differently due to knowing we can; and we aren't truly mastering. That matters because it isn't a bad idea to be able to "sign off" on the mix then master.

Just a suggestion.

[Ap0llyon]

I understand the importance of the separation thing.. Especially considering the CPU usage is a lot higher. Found this out last night the hard way and needed to make changes to settings. Brand new PC btw... lol. I run a lot of pluggins for my death metal project. GGD, Neural DSP for both guitars and bass. And each track has compression / EQ added in.. Also has compression / EQ on the master.. and she was choking. I dont add anything to the master until I am completely satisfied with all of the mixing.. Then I'll lightly throw those in little by little. Really sounds amazing and last night was an affirmation that I have finally grasped the puzzle of mixing / mastering after trying for a few years now and failing. I am going to try this separation trick next track I make and see how it shakes out! Thank you for the advice!!!
Check out my band Replicas on all the streaming platforms if interested! (I don't record for my band) We are a mix between Meshuggah / LOG / ATB

[vanceen]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Not sure if mentioned but "not" being able to adjust individual tracks when mastering is a very good thing. I'd also propose that when we know we can adjust them we end up changing them, and we listen slightly differently due to knowing we can; and we aren't truly mastering. That matters because it isn't a bad idea to be able to "sign off" on the mix then master.

Just a suggestion.

Well said.

I used to master on a rendered stereo file using a separate Reaper template. These days I use a stand-alone instance of Ozone with Tonal Balance and Insight as plug-ins. Occasionally I realize I've got to do more mixing, and it's back to Reaper for that. It really helps to keep the processes separate.

[Cosmic Pig]

I do the opposite. I put the mastering plugs on the master track of the project. I mix with them off, but when mastering I like the option of dropping or raising the volume of a track.

Tracks can change when your mastering. Like when the kick is louder than you thought and the master compressor is kicking in too hard. Or a loud vocal might drop the master track too much. Tracks are the trees and mastering is the forest. I like having the option of trimming or growing a tree or two during the forest management.

as far as I know, once the tracks are summed and going through the master track there's no difference between that and a rendered stereo track going through... Is that a correct assumption?

[SonicAxiom]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Not sure if mentioned but "not" being able to adjust individual tracks when mastering is a very good thing. I'd also propose that when we know we can adjust them we end up changing them, and we listen slightly differently due to knowing we can; and we aren't truly mastering. That matters because it isn't a bad idea to be able to "sign off" on the mix then master.

Just a suggestion.

I beg to differ, karbo

Roughly 96.3762201 % of the time the raw mixes I'm getting are suffering in multiple regards which starts to become noticeable pretty quickly as soon as I start to apply even only mild amounts of mastering processing to them (guitar definitely too loud, too piercing or too boomy, too much reverb, etc.). Mastering shouldn't be the process of trying to master anything you get the best you can and then live with the compromises (which will definitely occur in most cases). Mastering should try to achieve the absolute best result for a given song whatever it takes to get there - at least for as long as you are noticing that something is still not optimal. This will most probably require various adjustments to the mix if the mix hasn't been done by a fairly experienced person. It's not a bad thing at all since you will learn a lot over time on how a raw mix has to be set up to actually work well right from the start when you begin adding your mastering processing.

Mastering processing can turn a mix upside down but it can't undo serious mixing errors which are very likely to happen to unexperienced mixing engineers.

I don't think that someone will change something in the mix only because he can if it sound ok in mastering. It's important to have a decent a/b-ing setup to be able to constantly compare your own master against a finished commercial production in a significant manner.

.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by SonicAxiom

I beg to differ, karbo

I'm not sure why. At least for me, I have to be careful if I'm mastering in the main project, as knowing I can just move a track fader anytime I want... can cause perception bias for me. I doubt I'm the only one.

I'm also hinting that when those who are doing both... try to have the mix, as mixed as it can be before mastering it. If one feels the need to go back and change the mix while mastering much at all, it wasn't done mixing. Rendering a mix, then mastering separately, is a good way evaluate if your mix really was done. One doesn't have to do it that way, but it can be useful.

[SonicAxiom]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

I'm not sure why. At least for me, I have to be careful if I'm mastering in the main project, as knowing I can just move a track fader anytime I want... can cause perception bias for me. I doubt I'm the only one.

I'm also hinting that when those who are doing both... try to have the mix, as mixed as it can be before mastering it. If one feels the need to go back and change the mix while mastering much at all, it wasn't done mixing. Rendering a mix, then mastering separately, is a good way evaluate if your mix really was done. One doesn't have to do it that way, but it can be useful.

I recognize that the perception bias you are mentioning is a real issue for you and a few others. I'd recommend working on overcoming this issue and then benefit from the added flexibility of being able to access and tweak the mix for the better during mastering and most importantly avoid having to deal with compromises. I'm convincend the more often you try doing it this way, the sooner you will vanquish the annoying bias and enjoy the additional options and improved results. There's nothing to be afraid of. It can be learned and you can get accustomed to this procedure.

I've been mixing and mastering simultaneously since 1998 and I can't even imagine how anybody could do it any other way

Regarding the argument "Get your mix right first and then start to master it", I'd say yes, good idea. But if I sometimes bypass my mastering processing, the raw mix I'm hearing sounds fairly strange, as if I had to tweak it quite a lot to make it sound right on its own, yet, it sounds absolutely cool with the mastering processing engaged. It's like the phenomenon where you solo a track and you start thinking: "Wow, that sounds weird on its own.", yet it sounds just perfect in the context of the mix. Here, you are facing the same perception bias and have to learn (and have probably already learned) how to deal with it. I'd actually hesitate to deliberately create a weird-sounding raw mix because it's hard to imagine that it can eventually turn into a phenomenal mix after mastering. What I'm trying to say is that a rather strange-sounding raw mix can still have the potential to sound great in mastering.

.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by SonicAxiom

There's nothing to be afraid of. It can be learned and you can get accustomed to this procedure.

Oh, I'm not afraid in the least, I just noticed one day that I wanted to be aware of it. After 38 years of playing, performing, recording and mixing, fear isn't really in my vocabulary.

I've been mixing and mastering simultaneously since 1998

Same here as I switched to digital in 1998. I've only recently tried mastering as a second stage and honestly, I'll probably still do single song projects in one stage because my real habit is to slowly add mastering to the 2 buss as I go anyway.

Conversely, if I'm doing an entire CD or set of songs, I may decide to move the mastering to a mastering project for no other reason than song-to-song consistency, it just varies based on what I'm doing and what I'm creating. I've kind of done this so long (got my first recorder 50 years ago when I was 7), I'm fairly confident doing whatever I want.

Overall, it was more of an observation in a thread where people are asking questions about the subject in general and I thought both pieces of advice from us would be useful to readers.

[SonicAxiom]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Oh, I'm not afraid in the least, I just noticed one day that I wanted to be aware of it. After 38 years of playing, performing, recording and mixing, fear isn't really in my vocabulary.

Same here as I switched to digital in 1998. I've only recently tried mastering as a second stage and honestly, I'll probably still do single song projects in one stage because my real habit is to slowly add mastering to the 2 buss as I go anyway.

Conversely, if I'm doing an entire CD or set of songs, I may decide to move the mastering to a mastering project for no other reason than song-to-song consistency, it just varies based on what I'm doing and what I'm creating. I've kind of done this so long (got my first recorder 50 years ago when I was 7), I'm fairly confident doing whatever I want.

...

I'm absolutely sure you are. As with so many other things in audio engineering, everyone has to find the workflow he/she is most comfortable and efficient with. There's no single correct way of doing these things. I can't think of ever changing my workflow (mixing and mastering simultaneously) I'm used to work that way for so long and I appreciate the options it gives me. I also prefer to have the entire song creation process united in a single project for convenience instead of having to manage several projects for the same song.

OP now knows that he can do it both ways and will eventually pick his preferred method.

.

[Jorgen]

I'm in the mix and master as you go along club. When everything is tracked, I mix through the plugs on the master bus, setting levels and adjust eq's and stuff. Works for me.

I know my mixes don't always sound "professional", and I have no idea how they translate to different environments etc etc. I mix on cans. But (confession time): Sometimes I prefer my own mixes before professional ones. Mine sound more "lively" to my ears, less controlled and orthodox, as it were.

Of course, I only work with my own music. I've never aspired to be a mixer or a mastering engineer. The sound is what it is. It won't ruin a good song.