Mastering Heavy Metal

[fcleff69]

I'm still fairly new at home recording but I can find my way around Reaper pretty well now. Some of the projects I have done in the past are fairly mild tunes with standard rock & roll leanings (distorted guitar, clean bass, drum, vocals).

I'm working on a project now that is much much heavier. It is along the lines of thrash/black metal. I have the general sounds dialed in and the initial mixes are sounding pretty good. So I'm thinking about mastering (kind of).

In the past I have used some advice gathered here on the forums regarding mastering. I'm using some compression, EQ, and limiter on the Master Bus track to help boost the overall volume of the mix. Does anyone have suggestions for doing this with a heavier style of music? Or should I just keep working with what I am doing?

f

[inertia]

I work pretty much exclusively deal with death, black and heavy metal material.

I think a lot of people who do mixing are not that clued up about what mastering really entails. It's about finialising the album as a whole.

I mixed a friends EP over several years and many of the songs started to sound different because of different guitar tones etc Even though the same mix template was used for the duration.

He had a professional mastering engineer do the final master and he did a much better job of it than I would have. He really got all the songs sounding much more similar and everything sounded just right.

I mix and master my own music because I don't usually get into trouble with inconsistencies between tracks. I'll do whatever sounds necessary to improve the overall sound. There's no bunch of presets or set ways to make a better master.

Since vinyl is now very popular people are starting to criticise metal music for being too fatiguing on the ears because of extreme limiting, so I try not to overdo the limiting but at the same time you want the material to sound powerful.

[fcleff69]

I have to admit that I am one of those people who doesn't really know all that mastering entails. That's why I put the 'kind of' disclaimer in my original post.

I had found the following advice in an old Reaper thread:
Try ReaEQ and put bands 1,2 & 3 @ 40hz, make all of them high pass (makes a sharper curve).
Then ReaXComp, maybe start with preset "griz:Supersolid bass, nice opto mids", and experiment.
Then JS:Loser/MGA_JSLimiterST - put stereo link @ 0, release at 100, then start pulling down threshold until it's loud enough for your taste.

These tips (and some light experimenting on my part)have given me good results in the past with just general rock & roll or light acoustic songs. While this may not be true mastering it works for getting a decent sound level for demos I have done. So I need to emphasize that point: I am just getting some demos put together. All we want to do with this band's recordings is get a decent representation of the sound. That way, when we send a link to someone for a potential gig, they can press play and get the idea without it sounding like it's in a tin can at a really low level.

f

[Valle]

Originally Posted by fcleff69

In the past I have used some advice gathered here on the forums regarding mastering. I'm using some compression, EQ, and limiter on the Master Bus track to help boost the overall volume of the mix. Does anyone have suggestions for doing this with a heavier style of music? Or should I just keep working with what I am doing?

Unfortunately, nowadays mastering is not as much "sound" as it is opti-/customization for different medias. And especially since the Broadcast Standards killed the annoying Loudness Warriors.

Mastering as a craft died in the 2000s and is now redundant.

If your mixes sound good already, go for the LUFS ...

[mlprod]

Originally Posted by Valle

Unfortunately, nowadays mastering is not as much "sound" as it is opti-/customization for different medias. And especially since the Broadcast Standards killed the annoying Loudness Warriors.

Mastering as a craft died in the 2000s and is now redundant.

If your mixes sound good already, go for the LUFS ...

Ok, good to know. That must be why many mastering engineers get loads of work these days...

[fcleff69]

In an attempt to steer the thread back on topic, does LUFS stand for something that I can use as a tool to achieve my end result?
f

[mlprod]

Originally Posted by fcleff69

In an attempt to steer the thread back on topic, does LUFS stand for something that I can use as a tool to achieve my end result?
f

LUFS is a loudness measuring unit. You can aim for a loudness target of your liking, use a LUFS meter and then adjust your mastering chain accordingly. If you feel your mix cant cope with it you might have to go back to the mix. This is what MEs usually call the "loudness potential" of a mix.

[Valle]

Originally Posted by mlprod

Ok, good to know. That must be why many mastering engineers get loads of work these days...

Read what I wrote and don't be such a wise guy!

Not nearly as much "loads of work these days" as they used to.

I take you are a "mastrare".

[James HE]

Originally Posted by Valle

Unfortunately, nowadays mastering is not as much "sound" as it is opti-/customization for different medias. And especially since the Broadcast Standards killed the annoying Loudness Warriors.

Mastering as a craft died in the 2000s and is now redundant.

If your mixes sound good already, go for the LUFS ...

Mastering certainly is not dead - look, a good mastering engineer can make a mix sound good on earbuds or some crappy laptop speakers, and also sound nice on a home audiophile setup. Just cause your mix sounds fucking sweet in your studio monitors doesn't mean you can normalize it to a certain LUFUS target and call it commercial release ready.

Heck, most people can't even master a mix so that it survives an mp3 conversion without it sucking ass.

I'm by no means a real mastering engineer myself, but I have mastered a few things that are out there being sold on a small scale. They probably suck, but whatever - I tried really, really hard! lol!

It's not something you should be blase about, or dismiss the skill and art involved.


to the OP...

just keep at it. Keep trying. Check the mixes on every system you can get your hands on. Best we can do is to make educated guesses. Do what sound good to you. Don't get burnt out though.

[Multibomber]

A real mastering engineer can do in 8 minutes what would take you 8 years to figure out. Just fork over the dough for a professional.

[BenK-msx]

Originally Posted by James HE

Mastering certainly is not dead - look, a good mastering engineer can make a mix sound good on earbuds or some crappy laptop speakers, and also sound nice on a home audiophile setup. Just cause your mix sounds fucking sweet in your studio monitors doesn't mean you can normalize it to a certain LUFUS target and call it commercial release ready.

Heck, most people can't even master a mix so that it survives an mp3 conversion without it sucking ass.

I'm by no means a real mastering engineer myself, but I have mastered a few things that are out there being sold on a small scale. They probably suck, but whatever - I tried really, really hard! lol!

It's not something you should be blase about, or dismiss the skill and art involved.


to the OP...

just keep at it. Keep trying. Check the mixes on every system you can get your hands on. Best we can do is to make educated guesses. Do what sound good to you. Don't get burnt out though.

indeed - my view of mastering these days is primarily for 'translation' - if mix translates well everywhere that is well mastered imo - that 99% of the job done. call it a day and have an ice cream.

optional stage 2 is more 'taste aspects' of character/colour - if you want to sound tubey or tapey or gritty etc.
next would be the media specific tweaks - vinyl optimised, etc.
lastly for me would be any loudness targetting. i appreciate a client would expect that to compete, so can't be helped, but for my own material, low priority.
e.g current tune that is entering mastering phase, entirely designed to start quiet and build slowly.
if i limit/loudness target the fudge out it, entire point of the music is lost.

most of my favourite music - 50s 60s etc. had none of that going on and still survives the test of time.

problem is with ease of tech tools, reaper and sub projects etc. i keep hat-swapping from mastering to 'oh i want to change that keys part now' and its getting circular!

[DVDdoug]

I'm not a mastering engineer and I'm not a big metal fan...

Here is a list of mastering links that I post whenever the topic comes-up.

Moulton Labs - What's This Mastering Business Anyway?
Moulton Labs - Tips n' Tricks For Mastering
Izotope - Ozone Mastering Guide (This is written for Ozone but most of it can apply no matter what tools you are using.)
REAPER Forum - Discussion of a particular mastering job (The mastering discussion starts at post #8).

Mastered For iTunes

If you do your own mastering, the most important thing is that you don't mess it up! Well... The same is true if someone else does it... Don't foul-up the sound just for the sake of making it louder (unless loudness is the most important thing to you.) The mastered version should sound better-overall than the unmastered version.

I had found the following advice in an old Reaper thread:
Try ReaEQ and put bands 1,2 & 3 @ 40hz, make all of them high pass (makes a sharper curve).

Ignore any advice about "settings". Any adjustments/effects depend on how it sounds and how you want it to sound. Virtually every "professional" recording is going to require some compression and limiting, but not necessarily at the mastering-stage.

If you are the mixing engineer and you are the mastering engineer you probably won't want to change the EQ during mastering. Except, you might want to re-adjust/correct the EQ after compression & limiting. If someone with "different ears" and different monitors in a different room wants to tweak the EQ a bit, that's different.

[fcleff69]

Originally Posted by mlprod

LUFS is a loudness measuring unit. You can aim for a loudness target of your liking, use a LUFS meter and then adjust your mastering chain accordingly. If you feel your mix cant cope with it you might have to go back to the mix. This is what MEs usually call the "loudness potential" of a mix.

Thanks for this. I’ll look into it. Again, it is important to understand that I’m no looking for a world distribution here. It’s just a demo but my goal is twofold: I want to increase my ability to get a better, fuller sound than just the mix; and I want to get a demo worth sending out for possible gigs. A full recording and professional mastering will come later.

The one thing I’m hearing a lot in the responses is to listen to th mix. I’ll be sure and keep a focus on that. And I appreciate the links to other reading material.

f

[Not_Here]

I'll add this to the mix.
This guy is the real deal...
He's willing to share and talk to us normal folk too (his time permitting)
Check his site out.. His FAQ page, and consider getting his book too, can find it on Amazon
I came across Mr. Katz back in mid 90's on a SOS forum.

here is the search to just give it all at once....

[ashcat_lt]

1) There's no such thing as a demo. If you're recording it, and going to ask other people to listen to it, then it probably needs to meet their expectations. Much more importantly, if everybody goes into it with the attitude that "It's just a demo, not the real thing" you are setting yourself up for failure. A demo is like when you record a voice memo on your phone so you can bring it to your bandmates or work on it later. You are sending this thing out to people trying to convince them to book you? Don't half-ass it. Don't sell it short. You have to listen to this 10 years down the road without wincing!



B) Leave the mastering engineer nothing to do. The comment above that "a good mastering engineer can make a mix sound good on earbuds or some crappy laptop speakers, and also sound nice on a home audiophile setup" is not completely accurate. A good ME can HELP. A shitty mix of a poor recording of a half-assed performance through mediocre amps set poorly isn't going to sound good on anything anyway. Almost anything the ME wants to do to "fix" your mix would probably be dealt with easier and better at some point before he gets it. Control your dynamics and frequency spectrum and make your mix sound the way you want it to sound coming off the "album". Don't kick the can down the road.



III) LUFS is not functionally different from RMS. There are differences in the way they are calculated, but in most normal cases, they end up very close to the same. It's an average over time. And it tells us nothing useful by itself. Peak level is important. Every part of the system between your .wav file and your ears has an upward limit. No matter what the loudest bit on your CD is, the (sane) listener is going to set that to be (at most) just a little quieter than as loud as their system gets. Your "loudness" depends on how close your average level is to that. You can have a song that peaks at -6dbFS, with RMS/LUFS at -12, and another with peak at 0 and average at -12, and when you "normalize" those by grabbing the volume control the first will sound "louder" because it's DR is 6, compared to the other's 12. Either way, though, the DR 6 is probably going to sound squashed and fatiguing. You might not have squashed it that far, but you were shooting for -12 average...

[Valle]

Originally Posted by Valle

Unfortunately, nowadays mastering is not as much "sound" as it is opti-/customization for different medias.

Originally Posted by James HE

Mastering certainly is not dead - look, a good mastering engineer can make a mix sound good on earbuds or some crappy laptop speakers, and also sound nice on a home audiophile setup.

Well, that's kind of what I wrote, isn't it?

Originally Posted by James HE

Just cause your mix sounds fucking sweet in your studio monitors doesn't mean you can normalize it to a certain LUFUS target and call it commercial release ready.

Oh, thanks for making that clear!

Originally Posted by James HE

I'm by no means a real mastering engineer myself, but I have mastered a few things that are out there being sold on a small scale. They probably suck, but whatever - I tried really, really hard! lol!

Then maybe you are not the one to tell whether the mastering, as the craft it used to be, is dead or not. You "weren't there".

[James HE]

Originally Posted by Valle

Well, that's kind of what I wrote, isn't it?

No, it's not. Not even "kinda"

You went on to say that mastering is redundant, my point is a counter to that.

What are you trying to say?

[ajawamnet]

I do a lot mastering... mainly for metal...

Katz is badass - there's an old rant on my marketturd site where I quote one of the things he mentioned to me:
http://www.ajawamnet.com/ajawamnet/T...derfudder.html
"But when all the lights are lit on the peak, you win, right?"

Metal is about the only genre that I still need Wavelab for. I just upgraded to 9.x and it's OK - a bit different than the previous versions I've used.

But for authoring CD's for replication it's kinda a must have, unless you want the replicator to do it for you. Recall replicated CD's are stamped unlike duplicated CD's like CD-R/RW that are burned.

https://www.newcyberian.com/cd_duplication_howto.html
"Duplication refers to copying CDs to recordable media such as CD-R or CD-RW. This is normally used for short-run orders when you require to have the order completed in couple of days, or when your ordered quantity is less than 500. Once a CD is duplicated, we will print your artwork onto a glossy paper label with inkjet printer and the label will be applied to the non-data side of the CDs.

Replication, on the other hand, refers to making CDs from a glass stamper. Polycarbonate beads are heated to 350 degrees centigrade and the molten plastics is injected into the mold cavities of the glass stamper. The substrate disc is then galvanized with an aluminum reflective layer and a final laquer coating is applied to protect the aluminum layer from damage and oxidation. The laquer is then harden by UV light and the disc is now ready for silkscreen or offset printing. You should use the replication service if you can afford about 10 day lead-time and your ordered quantity is 500 or more. Replicated CDs look much more professional and are the disc you normally find in retail packages such as the CD of Madonna or Britney Spears. "

This is due to the PQ codes and other Rainbow Book standards for compiling a CD-R for replication. https://archive.li/20121209124333/ht...atbooks_cd.htm

For instance, last week the client wanted to do an index for a crossfade - you really need something like Wavelab to do that.

Wavelab used to require some specific hardware to allow disk at once:
http://www.cd-info.com/tech/rec/dao.html

https://steinberg.help/wavelab_eleme...writing_c.html

Note where it states:
"In Disc-at-Once recording, all tracks are recorded without ever stopping the laser, and the disc is closed. Hence no link blocks and no clicks."

For things like overlap sequencing, Adding ISRC, UPC/EAN Codes, and CD Text, and formatting for proper authoring of a CD-R for replication you really need something like wavelab or sadie:
http://www.sadie.com/applications/mastering.php

https://www.steinberg.net/en/product...mastering.html
Note where it states:

"WaveLab provides intuitive track assembly, audio editing, application of effects or crossfades, as well as accurate CD marker/PQ editing. With WaveLab you can create a CD image file and optionally compare the final CD to the master image for error checking and repair."

If you look at this image of the older Wavelab 6 you'll see what i mean:
http://www.ajawamnet.com/ajawamnet/deathmag-wholecd.jpg

What really sucks is that I only do bit-for-bit replication masters for metal - no other genre really gives a rats ass about CD's. Most cars don't even have CD players.

Thing is - the metal community really care about music and merch. I was asked why I play in metal bands. If you go to a gig it will be one of the few genre's where people actually listen - band goes on stage, people come up and ether watch or mosh.

As to LUFS - when services like Tunecore, CD Baby, etc submit audio to streaming services and Youboob, these services will normalize audio to whatever LUFS standard they currently use (this has changed a bit int he past) So if you pound the hell out of the crest factor (RMS vs Peal ratio) these services will take the the Tunecore, etc... audio and turn it down to match the LUFS they use.

But here's the catch - if you upload it to Youscroob yourself, they don't - here's an example:

This from their label -
uploaded Jan 20, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mMIPcsHsaA
reads -14. on the Orban; player cranked in browser

Now listen to this - same tune - uploaded by some guy named Retro Gamer (maybe a band member)
uploaded Jan 22 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALo2Ach01AI
Huh ...-9.3 .... hmmm....


Orban is a company I've used for years for broadcast FM. If you got to that old marketturd Turn it Up Mudderfudder you'll see video links to Orban and what started all this loudness crap - Texar 4 band comp/limiters I used to use back int he late 1980's for broadcast chains:
http://www.ajawamnet.com/ajawamnet/T...derfudder.html

links to orban/texar vids:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM8l0fJfM-4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXZioXlbu3s


Orban has a standalone free application called the Orban Loudness Meter

Meter https://www.orban.com/meter/
It runs standalone so you can use it when playing back (it grabs sound card audio) stuff from various services
It also has a batch function that will allow you to load up some files and have it quickly give you a report (win7 64 up)

Other LUFs metering
dpMeter from TBProaudio is a great plug in for real time RMS and LUFS readout - it matches Youlean quite well.

Youlean
https://youlean.co/youlean-loudness-meter/

Melda Loudness Analyzer
https://www.meldaproduction.com/MLoudnessAnalyzer

Both Youlean and Melda draw a loudness graph for both short and longterm integration.

Note that the last time I checked, Youlean will not run in Wavelab 9.x...

[Valle]

Originally Posted by James HE

No, it's not. Not even "kinda"

You went on to say that mastering is redundant, my point is a counter to that.

What are you trying to say?

No, you're wrong.

On the other hands, since you yourself made clear that you are "by no means a real mastering engineer" yourself, I see no point in repeating myself.

Go a head and believe mastering is still The Art. I don't mind. Neither do the "real" mastering engineers. It's OK!

[James HE]

Originally Posted by Valle

No, you're wrong.

On the other hands, since you yourself made clear that you are "by no means a real mastering engineer" yourself, I see no point in repeating myself.

Go a head and believe mastering is still The Art. I don't mind. Neither do the "real" mastering engineers. It's OK!

I don't get the gist of our disagreement here. at this point, i'm thinking maybe English isn't your first language, and maybe even though you write it extremely well, perhaps the subtleties of what we are trying to say are lost on each other. I dunno, or maybe you are just an ass.

You are the the only person I've ever heard utter the phrase "Mastering is dead" and the only one in this thread making such a claim, so the incentive to back up your claim is all on you.

I'm sorry something you once enjoyed is dead to you, does this make you feel like a useless person in someways?

Yeah I'm not a mastering engineer, an I'm artist and I do some production work for projects I'm passionate about. I'm your potential client - I would never compromise my projects hiring someone with your attitude.

I guess that's the bottom line here isn't it? the gap between "hobbyist" engineers, artists, and producers like myself and "pros" like yourself who "were there" is narrowing every year with advances in technology and the sharing of knowledge via the internet. And thus your skills are simply not needed as much. Is this what you were trying to say?

[fcleff69]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

1) There's no such thing as a demo. If you're recording it, and going to ask other people to listen to it, then it probably needs to meet their expectations. Much more importantly, if everybody goes into it with the attitude that "It's just a demo, not the real thing" you are setting yourself up for failure. A demo is like when you record a voice memo on your phone so you can bring it to your bandmates or work on it later. You are sending this thing out to people trying to convince them to book you? Don't half-ass it. Don't sell it short. You have to listen to this 10 years down the road without wincing!



B) Leave the mastering engineer nothing to do. The comment above that "a good mastering engineer can make a mix sound good on earbuds or some crappy laptop speakers, and also sound nice on a home audiophile setup" is not completely accurate. A good ME can HELP. A shitty mix of a poor recording of a half-assed performance through mediocre amps set poorly isn't going to sound good on anything anyway. Almost anything the ME wants to do to "fix" your mix would probably be dealt with easier and better at some point before he gets it. Control your dynamics and frequency spectrum and make your mix sound the way you want it to sound coming off the "album". Don't kick the can down the road.



III) LUFS is not functionally different from RMS. There are differences in the way they are calculated, but in most normal cases, they end up very close to the same. It's an average over time. And it tells us nothing useful by itself. Peak level is important. Every part of the system between your .wav file and your ears has an upward limit. No matter what the loudest bit on your CD is, the (sane) listener is going to set that to be (at most) just a little quieter than as loud as their system gets. Your "loudness" depends on how close your average level is to that. You can have a song that peaks at -6dbFS, with RMS/LUFS at -12, and another with peak at 0 and average at -12, and when you "normalize" those by grabbing the volume control the first will sound "louder" because it's DR is 6, compared to the other's 12. Either way, though, the DR 6 is probably going to sound squashed and fatiguing. You might not have squashed it that far, but you were shooting for -12 average...

Thanks for this reply. It is very helpful on many levels, especially point one. In this day and age of music production, with so much technology and information at our fingertips, there is no reason I should lower my standards. And there is every reason I should try to raise them.

I’ve been reading up on LUFS. It makes more sense now. So thanks to everyone who explained and encouraged. I also came across one of Kenny Gioia’s videos on the subject and that was a great help, too. Once I get these mixes tightened up I can use the LUFS meter in Reaper to really get the right levels for the release.

f

[fcleff69]

Originally Posted by ajawamnet

I do a lot mastering... mainly for metal...

Katz is badass - there's an old rant on my marketturd site where I quote one of the things he mentioned to me:
http://www.ajawamnet.com/ajawamnet/T...derfudder.html
"But when all the lights are lit on the peak, you win, right?"

Metal is about the only genre that I still need Wavelab for. I just upgraded to 9.x and it's OK - a bit different than the previous versions I've used.

But for authoring CD's for replication it's kinda a must have, unless you want the replicator to do it for you. Recall replicated CD's are stamped unlike duplicated CD's like CD-R/RW that are burned.

https://www.newcyberian.com/cd_duplication_howto.html
"Duplication refers to copying CDs to recordable media such as CD-R or CD-RW. This is normally used for short-run orders when you require to have the order completed in couple of days, or when your ordered quantity is less than 500. Once a CD is duplicated, we will print your artwork onto a glossy paper label with inkjet printer and the label will be applied to the non-data side of the CDs.

Replication, on the other hand, refers to making CDs from a glass stamper. Polycarbonate beads are heated to 350 degrees centigrade and the molten plastics is injected into the mold cavities of the glass stamper. The substrate disc is then galvanized with an aluminum reflective layer and a final laquer coating is applied to protect the aluminum layer from damage and oxidation. The laquer is then harden by UV light and the disc is now ready for silkscreen or offset printing. You should use the replication service if you can afford about 10 day lead-time and your ordered quantity is 500 or more. Replicated CDs look much more professional and are the disc you normally find in retail packages such as the CD of Madonna or Britney Spears. "

This is due to the PQ codes and other Rainbow Book standards for compiling a CD-R for replication. https://archive.li/20121209124333/ht...atbooks_cd.htm

For instance, last week the client wanted to do an index for a crossfade - you really need something like Wavelab to do that.

Wavelab used to require some specific hardware to allow disk at once:
http://www.cd-info.com/tech/rec/dao.html

https://steinberg.help/wavelab_eleme...writing_c.html

Note where it states:
"In Disc-at-Once recording, all tracks are recorded without ever stopping the laser, and the disc is closed. Hence no link blocks and no clicks."

For things like overlap sequencing, Adding ISRC, UPC/EAN Codes, and CD Text, and formatting for proper authoring of a CD-R for replication you really need something like wavelab or sadie:
http://www.sadie.com/applications/mastering.php

https://www.steinberg.net/en/product...mastering.html
Note where it states:

"WaveLab provides intuitive track assembly, audio editing, application of effects or crossfades, as well as accurate CD marker/PQ editing. With WaveLab you can create a CD image file and optionally compare the final CD to the master image for error checking and repair."

If you look at this image of the older Wavelab 6 you'll see what i mean:
http://www.ajawamnet.com/ajawamnet/deathmag-wholecd.jpg

What really sucks is that I only do bit-for-bit replication masters for metal - no other genre really gives a rats ass about CD's. Most cars don't even have CD players.

Thing is - the metal community really care about music and merch. I was asked why I play in metal bands. If you go to a gig it will be one of the few genre's where people actually listen - band goes on stage, people come up and ether watch or mosh.

As to LUFS - when services like Tunecore, CD Baby, etc submit audio to streaming services and Youboob, these services will normalize audio to whatever LUFS standard they currently use (this has changed a bit int he past) So if you pound the hell out of the crest factor (RMS vs Peal ratio) these services will take the the Tunecore, etc... audio and turn it down to match the LUFS they use.

But here's the catch - if you upload it to Youscroob yourself, they don't - here's an example:

This from their label -
uploaded Jan 20, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mMIPcsHsaA
reads -14. on the Orban; player cranked in browser

Now listen to this - same tune - uploaded by some guy named Retro Gamer (maybe a band member)
uploaded Jan 22 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALo2Ach01AI
Huh ...-9.3 .... hmmm....


Orban is a company I've used for years for broadcast FM. If you got to that old marketturd Turn it Up Mudderfudder you'll see video links to Orban and what started all this loudness crap - Texar 4 band comp/limiters I used to use back int he late 1980's for broadcast chains:
http://www.ajawamnet.com/ajawamnet/T...derfudder.html

links to orban/texar vids:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM8l0fJfM-4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXZioXlbu3s


Orban has a standalone free application called the Orban Loudness Meter

Meter https://www.orban.com/meter/
It runs standalone so you can use it when playing back (it grabs sound card audio) stuff from various services
It also has a batch function that will allow you to load up some files and have it quickly give you a report (win7 64 up)

Other LUFs metering
dpMeter from TBProaudio is a great plug in for real time RMS and LUFS readout - it matches Youlean quite well.

Youlean
https://youlean.co/youlean-loudness-meter/

Melda Loudness Analyzer
https://www.meldaproduction.com/MLoudnessAnalyzer

Both Youlean and Melda draw a loudness graph for both short and longterm integration.

Note that the last time I checked, Youlean will not run in Wavelab 9.x...

A lot of useful info here. Thanks. I’m very much in agreement with you about the metal community, too.
f

[Valle]

Originally Posted by James HE

I don't get the gist of our disagreement here. at this point, i'm thinking maybe English isn't your first language, and maybe even though you write it extremely well, perhaps the subtleties of what we are trying to say are lost on each other. I dunno, or maybe you are just an ass.

You’re correct! English is actually my third language, technically speaking. AND – I am an ass.

What goes for the rest of your post:

You read what I write selectively. And you assume too much. Just because I talk about mastering as a lost “craft” doesn’t necessarily mean that I am a “pro” or ever was a mastering engineer. Neither does it mean it was something I enjoyed – actually, I always hated (OK, “hate” is a strong word ...) the “mastering” stage (first time I was in a mastering studio was back in 1996). One of many reasons was the ridiculously high amount of money I had to pay for something that any reasonably good mixing engineer could have done right away in the studio.

Remember, the concept of mastering developed and changed over the decades. And, if mastering is not yet dead – it IS dying. In the 70s and 80s, master engineers were skilled people that artists and music producers couldn’t do without, or else there would be no (good) LP’s out there, see. Then by the time CDs and computers blasted the music market, master engineers went off to start the Loudness War. Because, most of the “old” mastering concept was now either obsolete, redundant or simply something so easy to get done by anyone who owned a DAW.

And now even the Loudness War is being lost – by something called Broadcast Standards. What’s left is “not as much "sound" as it is opti-/customization for different medias”. And that was my very first sentence in this thread.

It’s completely understandable that mastering people defend their profession today. I mean, it’s not cheap equipment we are dealing with here ...

Now, if you still don’t “get” what I’m trying to say. I am sorry. I can’t do better. I don’t mean to be cocky or to “have an attitude”, I am just giving this thread my view on the mastering concept. After all, I have been in the music business since the late 70s.

[mlprod]

Valle, nothing wrong with your attitude=) Just happen to think that you are wrong in some things here.

Originally Posted by Valle

You’re correct! English is actually my third language, technically speaking. AND – I am an ass.

What goes for the rest of your post:

You read what I write selectively. And you assume too much. Just because I talk about mastering as a lost “craft” doesn’t necessarily mean that I am a “pro” or ever was a mastering engineer. Neither does it mean it was something I enjoyed – actually, I always hated (OK, “hate” is a strong word ...) the “mastering” stage (first time I was in a mastering studio was back in 1996). One of many reasons was the ridiculously high amount of money I had to pay for something that any reasonably good mixing engineer could have done right away in the studio.

Too bad that you had a bad mastering expeirence. For me mastering is not only about 2-bus processing, but mainly about getting a different pair of ears before release by hopefully someone with stellar monitoring and good experience and taste.

Originally Posted by Valle

Remember, the concept of mastering developed and changed over the decades. And, if mastering is not yet dead – it IS dying. In the 70s and 80s, master engineers were skilled people that artists and music producers couldn’t do without, or else there would be no (good) LP’s out there, see.

There are still loads of albums released on vinyl, and actually increasing. A new vinyl plant actually just started in Sweden due to high demand.

Originally Posted by Valle

Then by the time CDs and computers blasted the music market, master engineers went off to start the Loudness War. Because, most of the “old” mastering concept was now either obsolete, redundant or simply something so easy to get done by anyone who owned a DAW.

MEs were not the main driving force of the loudness war. When the brick wall limiters appeared it was mainly clients (back then labels mostly) that wanted their records to be the loudest ones. I am not saying MEs where innocent, but absolutely not the driving force.

Originally Posted by Valle

And now even the Loudness War is being lost – by something called Broadcast Standards. What’s left is “not as much "sound" as it is opti-/customization for different medias”. And that was my very first sentence in this thread.

People still want loud masters. It's not as bad as 15 years ago, but still there.
The thing about "not as much about sound" I dont understand. Are you saying that because there is loudness normalization people dont want good sounding masters anymore? And the second point you made that it is about optimasation for different medias: Uhm yes, that has always been the case. In fact, back in the 70s mastering was ONLY that (transfer engineers).

Its only in the last maybe two decades that mastering now also is about sound processing in a subjective/musical way.

Originally Posted by Valle

It’s completely understandable that mastering people defend their profession today. I mean, it’s not cheap equipment we are dealing with here ...

True, though I dont feel the need to defent the profession as I dont see any decline.
Lots of big recording studios around the world (2 out 3?...just guessing) have closed down. Though all the big mastering houses I can think of right off the top of my head are still there.
Why?
I think because mastering is a highly specialized field and with much lower budgets that 15-20 years ago people tend to skip things that cost money and do things themselves because now you actually can do great productions and/or mixes in the box etc etc etc. However, many bands/artists dont want to skip the last step before their baby goes public.

Sorry OP for contributing to the derailing of your thread!

[Valle]

Originally Posted by mlprod

Valle, nothing wrong with your attitude=) Just happen to think that you are wrong in some things here.

Some things! Hehe, you practically dissed me on all accounts!

Originally Posted by mlprod

For me mastering is not only about 2-bus processing, but mainly about getting a different pair of ears before release by hopefully someone with stellar monitoring and good experience and taste.

I agree, it’s more than a 2-bus processing thing; it’s also to make sure the material does not suck on this or that media. Getting a different pair of ears is also very important, yes. But to say that this is something that only a mastering engineers should do (to get the best out of it) is somewhat a paradox, since it’s really not rocket science (perhaps it was at some point in time, but not anymore).

Originally Posted by mlprod

MEs were not the main driving force of the loudness war. When the brick wall limiters appeared it was mainly clients (back then labels mostly) that wanted their records to be the loudest ones. I am not saying MEs where innocent, but absolutely not the driving force.

I know they (you guys ) weren’t the driving force. The producer/artist was, no doubt. Or perhaps the most aggressive ones: commercial producers. I myself was one of “them” who wanted to squash the living hell out of the material. But I got pretty annoyed by it by the end, because I began to miss the good old dynamics. But that’s only because I’m turning into an old fart who believes that the best music was written and produced in the 70s (I’m a diehard ELO and ABBA – well, Tretow, actually – fan).

Originally Posted by mlprod

The thing about "not as much about sound" I dont understand. Are you saying that because there is loudness normalization people dont want good sounding masters anymore? And the second point you made that it is about optimasation for different medias: Uhm yes, that has always been the case. In fact, back in the 70s mastering was ONLY that (transfer engineers).

Yes, of course, in the 70s you had to make sure, among many other things, that low(est) frequencies weren’t dipping to far on either left/right channel or it would mess up the engraving, and so on. Later on master engineers became very much that extra pair of ears you were talking about. Because they had the equipment. Today not so much. What was once the mastering engineer’s ears is today in many cases an audio spectrum analyzer plugin (now, don’t go bananas on me, I’m sure you know what I mean).

Originally Posted by mlprod

However, many bands/artists dont want to skip the [mastering] step before their baby goes public.

And I’m not saying they’re wrong in doing so.

Tack, i övrigt, för ett gott samtal.

[serr]

Originally Posted by fcleff69

I'm still fairly new at home recording but I can find my way around Reaper pretty well now. Some of the projects I have done in the past are fairly mild tunes with standard rock & roll leanings (distorted guitar, clean bass, drum, vocals).

I'm working on a project now that is much much heavier. It is along the lines of thrash/black metal. I have the general sounds dialed in and the initial mixes are sounding pretty good. So I'm thinking about mastering (kind of).

In the past I have used some advice gathered here on the forums regarding mastering. I'm using some compression, EQ, and limiter on the Master Bus track to help boost the overall volume of the mix. Does anyone have suggestions for doing this with a heavier style of music? Or should I just keep working with what I am doing?

f

"Fix it in mastering" is the new "We'll just fix it in the mix."
Finish your mix!

There may be examples of teamwork where someone else tweaked a mix and did good things. And this is always an option. But especially if you are the one working on this from start to finish - finish your mix from the multitracks. Much easier than trying to pull and tug on a mix to alter it.

Don't throw away your multitracks when you're done either. If someone with skills comes along who you trust, they'll have an easier and quicker time making alterations/additions form your multitracks than an already rendered mix too.

Mastering should just be putting the collection of final mixes together for an album with maybe some level matching. Restoration work or alterations on an already rendered mix should only have to happen when multitracks have been long lost.


Aside:
There are SO many crude low budget sounding heavy metal albums out in the world. Be one of the guys releasing something with fidelity and punch! Lots of opportunity to be a big fish in a small pond here.

[fcleff69]

Originally Posted by serr

"Fix it in mastering" is the new "We'll just fix it in the mix."
Finish your mix!

There may be examples of teamwork where someone else tweaked a mix and did good things. And this is always an option. But especially if you are the one working on this from start to finish - finish your mix from the multitracks. Much easier than trying to pull and tug on a mix to alter it.

Don't throw away your multitracks when you're done either. If someone with skills comes along who you trust, they'll have an easier and quicker time making alterations/additions form your multitracks than an already rendered mix too.

Mastering should just be putting the collection of final mixes together for an album with maybe some level matching. Restoration work or alterations on an already rendered mix should only have to happen when multitracks have been long lost.



Aside:
There are SO many crude low budget sounding heavy metal albums out in the world. Be one of the guys releasing something with fidelity and punch! Lots of opportunity to be a big fish in a small pond here.

Again, I appreciate the reply and notice the emphasis you have put on mixing. As for the multitracks, I save everything just for the reason you mentioned. We do have some teamwork opportunities on this project but I am primarily doing the lion’s share.
f

[James HE]

Originally Posted by Valle

You’re correct! English is actually my third language, technically speaking. AND – I am an ass.

Got it! I understand your points much better now. I figured two asses would eventually come to some sort of understanding - thus why I pressed you for clarification a bit. Cheers!

Things have changed for sure, there is some push for mastering to be done through AI with LANDR and eventually others. With that in consideration, I can understand having the sense that Mastering is a dying art.

But to me, all of this just opens up the process to be purely about the sound, more or less. Advances in technology making it a bit easier doesn't necessarily make it less of an art.

[mlprod]

Originally Posted by Valle

[i]
Tack, i övrigt, för ett gott samtal.

Tack själv!

[fcleff69]

I’m going to revive this thread in the hopes of getting some feedback. I’ll start by saying that, if you didn’t read the entire thread (can’t blame you if you didn’t) the I’ll offer some hindsight. I play in a metal band and am somewhat new to Reaper and home recording in general. I have learned a lot and have a lot to learn. The advice I picked up in this thread has been invaluable. Thanks to everyone who contributed.

My band just finished an EP. By and large I am pretty happy with the end result. In keeping with the spirit of this thread I’d love any feedback anyone has regarding the mix/master. You don’t have to like the music. It’s not for everyone. But if you can sit through it and have thoughts regarding the mix/master, good or bad, I’d love to hear. Thanks.

http://floodedtomb.bandcamp.com/album/vol-i-ep

[inertia]

Originally Posted by fcleff69

My band just finished an EP. By and large I am pretty happy with the end result. In keeping with the spirit of this thread I’d love any feedback anyone has regarding the mix/master. You don’t have to like the music. It’s not for everyone. But if you can sit through it and have thoughts regarding the mix/master, good or bad, I’d love to hear. Thanks.

http://floodedtomb.bandcamp.com/album/vol-i-ep

I think the mixing is very poor. You have a lot of problems. Here are a few off the top of my head

1. Drum overheads are unbalanced
2. The mix lacks some brightness
3. You seem to have some issues with heavy compression as well as distortion during loud parts
4. Everything feels like it's occupying the same space.
5. Bass guitar very loud
6. YOu need to bring the leads out on the guitars as they are buried and don't bring anything to the table

I wouldn't be worrying about mastering at this stage but getting the mix right.

Songs are good though. I could listen to this album a few times. There's a ton of potential here but the mix is currently too low-fi for my taste.

[Not_Here]

I goonna give it a serious listen tomorrow too.. I gave a quick scan tonight.. Just got done mixing myself... I bet You FN JAAAMMMM live, I can hear those cab's just freeekin poundin.. Melt them coils!

[fcleff69]

Originally Posted by inertia

2. The mix lacks some brightness
3. You seem to have some issues with heavy compression as well as distortion during loud parts
4. Everything feels like it's occupying the same space.
5. Bass guitar very loud
6. YOu need to bring the leads out on the guitars as they are buried and don't bring anything to the table
.

Thanks for this, inertia. Regarding the overheads, that is something specific that I can understand, listen for, and fix.
Compression is, to me, one of those tools I’m still learning and working with but haven’t fully gotten the hang of. I will look into this more.
How would one go about distributing the aural space, as it were?
I’m the bassist (oops).
On past recordings I have done just about everyone tells me to bring down the guitar solos as I tend to place them too high in the mix. I’ll use this to help find the sweet spot.

f

[fcleff69]

Originally Posted by Not_Here

I goonna give it a serious listen tomorrow too.. I gave a quick scan tonight.. Just got done mixing myself... I bet You FN JAAAMMMM live, I can hear those cab's just freeekin poundin.. Melt them coils!

Hahaha. Thanks man. I hope you find the time to reply.
f