Quote from: Dr Alex on July 09, 2013, 04:31:19 PM
I guess...
L. White mastering is great, Steinklang is poor.
See the difference between L. White [up] and Steinklang [down] - track 7. Whitelines
(http://i39.tinypic.com/wbrsx2.jpg)
To me the Steinklang master definitely
looks better. I think that loudness and brutality definitely suffer from heavy master limiting etc.
Just a few days ago I was thinking about starting a thread about mastering techniques used in noise but didn't really come up with a good opening. What kind of techniques are used, what is the role of mastering, and so on. I'm not sure if all people do any kind of "mastering" really, but some do. Sometimes it seems just blatantly overcompressing everything, but sometimes more adventurous techniques can be tailored for specific pieces. Personally, I think proper mastering is basically some kind of art form in itself, and find the philosophy and practice of it very fascinating.
So what do you think, and what kind of techniques have you devised? How big is its role and what are you after?
Quote from: Salamanauhat on July 09, 2013, 07:21:03 PM
Personally, I think proper mastering is basically some kind of art form in itself, and find the philosophy and practice of it very fascinating.
It indeed is, but it can also be adequately performed as a craft. What I mean is that a very few do turn it into an art, but it can also be served well like a decently skilled mason can build a solid brick home or a basic woodworker can build a good quality cabinet. We'd all prefer to use and buy from the artist, but they're in high demand and have limited time.
The problem in 2013 is that we are down to a few artisans, and then it drops off considerably in the craft realm. The craft sector has been replaced by automated cutting processes and younger ears that are accustomed, and directed to, compression, clipping, loudness, etc. There's very little middle-ground anymore. If you cannot afford and get in with the likes of George Horn, for instance, you're pretty much screwed if you want top shelf mastering, and even he makes mistakes and can do poor work; that artisan variable.
Maybe it looks better but sounds so poor.
I will put both for download later so you can notice the difference.
Interesting thread, thanx. Will follow this. Personally I don't have a lot of experience in this field, but I find it highly interesting and an important part in the process towards the artistic expression one have in mind. One cannot deny it. Craftsmanship and consistency are important in all chains of the production.
It's important I think to get your masters done to your own satisfaction then request 'flat mastering' from your pressing plant without any extra automated compression or equalisation which may flatten out dynamic range.
Of course noise has different rules from much music. Technically something like Merzbow's infamously loud 'Pulse Demon' might be 'brickwalled' but it still sounds amazing.
I checked Jérôme Nougaillon's re-mastering for Genocide Organ - Remember and it's 'brickwalled' as you call it but still one of best re-mastering.
Here you can find both version of Sektion B - Whitelines
http://www.sendspace.com/file/lxjbk4 (http://www.sendspace.com/file/lxjbk4)
Let me know which one you find better.
L. White track sounds as original, Steinklang track sounds poor.
For one thing, basing on how something sounds based on how its wave file looks isn't going to help. Adobe Audtion, for example, can "zoom out" on waves that look totally hot until there is some distinction.
It would also depend on how digital everything is. Don't Macronympha tapes have everything pushed into the red, yet, given their style and the format, people tend to say that works? There might be those who disagree. But in any case, it's a possible example of how, with Noise, turning all knobs to the right is sometimes just the most desirable thing to do.
Going by the download provided, what you've got there, I would suggest, are two totally different versions of the same piece, and hardly comparable. The vocal performances certainly sound different. For mine, the Steinklang version has a nice, gutter-sounding feel that I would prefer, as well as a bit more modulation and variation, while the L-White version just seems indifferent (going for that "cold" sound a lot of people like with their PE, I suppose). Don't care much for the vocals overall, though.
It's pointless to be looking at, or comparatively listening to, MP3s. I'd request them ripped directly from the CDrs to wav and then not labeled other than 1 and 2.
And this is another modern problem with mastering. I've heard, and read, of "studio" schools working with MP3s as valid tools. It implies that people who are about to be the professionals in this industry are sold on MP3s being harmless and good working master files. I assume it stems from the bullshit they fed all of us long ago that 192 is CD quality. Yeah, I really want these types working anywhere near the music I value.
Quote from: Andrew McIntosh on July 10, 2013, 02:55:25 AM
It would also depend on how digital everything is. Don't Macronympha tapes have everything pushed into the red, yet, given their style and the format, people tend to say that works? There might be those who disagree. But in any case, it's a possible example of how, with Noise, turning all knobs to the right is sometimes just the most desirable thing to do.
Yep, but there is certainly difference in pushing to maximum limits in various formats or methods.
Macronympha case, as far as I know, has been analogue tape master pushed to maximum. This differs quite a lot from digital "hard clip" mastering. Certainly many do admire the crisp ultimate distortion of digital hard clip where there practically is no more "sound wave", but pure distortion. It does have some possibly good elements, like creating harmonies of sound layers. But for many people, including myself, things like dynamics and timbre are way more important than being loud and distorted.
In case of mentioned Genocide Organ remaster, it doesn't have the most amateurish "clipping at 0db all the time" brickwall so standard in noise. It is certainly compressed, but wave still includes resemblance to original signal. It's not the utmost flat cut-off at 0dB threshold. Therefore I guess, the mastering topic could be very useful. To know difference what it means to sound if you just put "all in red" from volume slide or use possibly some mastering skills beyond the "obvious".
Quote from: Andrew McIntosh on July 10, 2013, 02:55:25 AM
For one thing, basing on how something sounds based on how its wave file looks isn't going to help.
I find it very irritating how big the difference in loudness can be compared to how the waveform looks.
Grunt's "seer of decay" was always an interesting example to me.
Track1 looks well balanced out, good dynamic range, the overdriven sounds create the illusion of it being louder than it "should" be.
Then Track2 kicks in, full blast of harsh noise, sounds louder, yet there is still 0.4db headroom! Sure, heavily compressed, but not brick-walled
Track 3, ok, now we're in the red, hah.
Now I am guessing, the more layers you have in a track, the quieter each layer will become overall (not massive amounts) for it all has to fit in the limited space?
and I get into the geek-tech question:
your favourite mastering gear/software?
I have been using the wave bundle, but i am in no way expert of the field.
I think one of the easiest all-in-one is Izotope Ozone
Quote from: Human Larvae on July 10, 2013, 12:25:22 PM
I think one of the easiest all-in-one is Izotope Ozone
I agree with that.It's expensive but well worth it.To be honest, I don't know if you could use it for 'real' or 'true' mastering that a proper mastering studio could provide, but to give a finishing touch to a track or to have more control over it's final outcome it's great.A good idea is to be creative with putting these final touches on your recordings and so many people use the same methods and tools to achieve 'power' in recordings.
With regard to looking at how waveforms portray different levels of compression in certain recordings, the 'sausage creature' waveform does not just occur in noise,although of course you will see if very often in the genre of course.Put a recent rock/pop album into your editor and have a look, you'll be surprised just how compressed everything in the general music marketplace is these days.I sound like a miserable old fogey but it's true.Over the last few decades levels of this kind of compression have been rising at alarming rates.I used to work as a transfer engineer putting mixes to optical film for cinema and I was always reminded of the following by a Dolby engineer : "If you want it louder - USE THE FUCKING VOLUME KNOB!!! " You would not believe how many so called 'sound engineers' this has to be explained to.
Quote from: Human Larvae on July 10, 2013, 11:08:24 AM
I find it very irritating how big the difference in loudness can be compared to how the waveform looks.
Grunt's "seer of decay" was always an interesting example to me.
I often do mastering based on what you actually hear. Not by what the waveform looks like. As different sounds behave slightly different. Especially if one is able to remove unwanted frequencies and unwanted sound that's clouding the essence.
This leads to whole question about
recording noise being much more important than mastering. If one wants sounds to be loud, it should be recorded to sound loud, not assume any sort of "boost", like additional digital distortion, will save the final master. One can get all to be "at maximum", but still it's up to the material how strong it is. Like crushing some junk metal will never be "loud" if microphones didn't capture any proper sound, but entire blown-out sound wave is humming and hissing while the intended sound of object is thin and distant.
But certainly, again, sometimes just adding one more little dose of distortion on top of everything may improve overall feel.
Quote from: Hal Hutchinson on July 10, 2013, 01:09:56 PM
"If you want it louder - USE THE FUCKING VOLUME KNOB!!! "
That's my way when I recording my noise. I never do any mastering.
For most noise, mastering is unnecessary. Mastering sometimes can damage raw and nature quality of noise. I like raw and loud sound!
For pe, mastering is necessary.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on July 10, 2013, 01:31:00 PM
This leads to whole question about recording noise being much more important than mastering. If one wants sounds to be loud, it should be recorded to sound loud, not assume any sort of "boost", like additional digital distortion, will save the final master.
Obviously mastering itself should only be done to give the record a final touch, but whether one should record loud or not I guess depends on what sound your going for.
Concerning compression, I think it's the pop industry that sets the standards and nowadays the trend is to reach maximum loudness in a mix at the cost of dynamics.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on July 10, 2013, 09:48:07 AMYep, but there is certainly difference in pushing to maximum limits in various formats or methods.
Macronympha case, as far as I know, has been analogue tape master pushed to maximum. This differs quite a lot from digital "hard clip" mastering.
Yea, that's what I meant when I mentioned how digital things are, compared to Macronympha who are analogue. The difference is often quite stark. However, I have gotten away with adding delay/echo filters in the mastering process that do, in fact, boost volume without getting that bullshit digital clipping. I've also fucked up otherwise good recordings back when I was getting used to using software.
At the risk of changing the subject - I was working on something today and I've got to say I LOVE how it's possible to cut and paste so easily in digital. Yes, yes, the old razor-and-tape craft issues, I know. But I've spent hours on pieces (I don't mean over a period of hours, I mean actual work hours) cutting, pasting and trying to get things right. It's more convenient in digital but it doesn't take away from the sheer pleasure of working on such things. There are very distinct advantages with mastering and mixing in the digital format and while it's cool if others don't want to, I know I've gotten a great deal out of those sorts of simple features.
Thinking about it, mastering doesn't have to be that hard. What needs to be learned, over time and with experience, is more what
not to do than what to do.
Quotehip-hop style of frequencies
:D haha what?
I use Barry's Satan Maximizer plugin for Audacity for 'mastering' sometimes, makes everything super loud without clipping, horrible.
A technique I sometimes use is mixing hard limited/distorted/clipping version of a track with a clean version..
My philosophy at some level is who am I to decide what frequencies are important in the noise that i've recorded? but I do tend to do the usual stuff like high pass sub-audio frequencies (usually I do it at 30 ish in case i ever get to play my recordings thru some serious soundsystem) etc. Pretty much I try and make everything loud.
Funny to hear this 'loudness war' talk on a noise forum. :D Accidental digital clipping is stupid but really you can use even simple free audio software to master stuff nice and loud without any supposed dreaded 'digital' sound very easily if you remotely know what you're doing.
Don't tell jliat I said so but if things aren't fairly hard clipping/distortion/squarewavey then it's probably not 'harsh'.
and re:looking at the waveform - if it's 'noise' but doesn't appear as more or less a solid rectangle on soundcloud I often skip it :)
Quote from: Dr Alex on July 09, 2013, 08:32:08 PM
Maybe it looks better but sounds so poor.
I will put both for download later so you can notice the difference.
I was trying to find few missing wav files from my "archives" of cdr's... Didn't find them, but instead I found Sektion B "Power is nothing without control" promo CDR. I was quite sure that when I open the file, I will find the Steinklang mix kind of less compressed one, but no. Original mastering on the promo CDR what was mailed before Sektion B had any releases out, is exactly that loud "everything at maximum" kind. Can't say much which sounds better, though..
Digital tech / mastering tools for purchase and demo versions. Worth a check.
http://www.waves.com/ (http://www.waves.com/)
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on January 22, 2014, 05:42:28 PM
Quote from: Dr Alex on July 09, 2013, 08:32:08 PM
Maybe it looks better but sounds so poor.
I will put both for download later so you can notice the difference.
I was trying to find few missing wav files from my "archives" of cdr's... Didn't find them, but instead I found Sektion B "Power is nothing without control" promo CDR. I was quite sure that when I open the file, I will find the Steinklang mix kind of less compressed one, but no. Original mastering on the promo CDR what was mailed before Sektion B had any releases out, is exactly that loud "everything at maximum" kind. Can't say much which sounds better, though..
I read somewhere that Steinklang fucked Dissecting Table's release with making tracks so quiet and poor. Maybe this is the same situation.
Peter confirmed me that louder one is right one.
i finally found and updated my old notes on compiling masters, here
http://www.umpio.com/?attachment_id=33
i included the screenshot cos maybe it looks like crapp on the pdf.
disclaimer: this is no ultimate tutorial, just some ideas for workflow in reaper.
Without a proper panning, EQ, and balance of different source sounds, the "all goes red" method not worth so much. Especially, when someone digital distorts a material - not analog, or not even at the gain section of the mixer - , what already contains a huge amount of high frequencies, what are not even the most sensitivite ones for the ear. White noise like, full mono recordings, even with a 98% RMS rate can't win over a bassy, panned, and well-equalized mastering... especially listening them on speakeres, even if it's more "noisy", doesn't really matter. Personally, when I master tracks what have this method, I always cut very high frequencies, becase they are take out the place from other, way more audible frequencies. Give a boost for bass, and mid ones. Thougth It's recommended to make loud sounding recordings with EQ by the Fletcher-Munson curve, I need to disagree with this in some cases. For example, if the rooms base frequency is around 120-130 Hz, and that artist's recording is full of feedbacks with EXACTLY this frequencies, it's SOUNDS (in reality not, but the room amplifies it) more loud, than a harsh, mid-high recording. So, it depends a lot of things.
Dynamics are another different thing. Non-stop wall of sound have that thing, that is oppress everything, and have a great "louder than anything" effect.. but a recording with big dynamics is maybe not so hurtful - if you think about the contant sound pressure, what was in the previous situation - but it' have a punch, and effect, that the ear can't acclimate to the sound. So, both methods have pros, and cons. I think it's hard to make a real 'standard' when we talk about mastering - in noise, or any other genre. Personally - thought there are a lot of exceptions, but - I more prefer recordings, what have less dynamics, and more non-stop noise loudness... but this is just my taste.
I just installed repaer v4.57 and I can open/import .wav files. Can someone help me to solve this problem?
(Yes, it's "torrent" cracked copy because I can't afford to buy original)
(http://i58.tinypic.com/eiujad.jpg)
I have use pedals, boxes, and stuff.
I did use a Mac Power book until the
mother board eat it self.
On the mac I was working with Reason alot.
Every thing from neural gutting to synaptic bliss.
I also recorded analog gear, utopian synth sleep drone
The incredible W.M.D. Geiger counter. I also us my trusty
Boss BR 12 recorder. As you can see I am a purest, in that I use anything that makes sound that I choose to use.
Really an impurist then, that's the way forward. :)
QuoteI just installed repaer v4.57 and I can open/import .wav files. Can someone help me to solve this problem?
(Yes, it's "torrent" cracked copy because I can't afford to buy original)
Uuuuuh the problem is that for some reason you've downloaded some dubious torrent of software that you can download from the official site and use for free in full unlimited 'trial' mode forever :) I mean it's not that much of a pain to click 'still evaluating' from time to time surely?
(to be fair there could be some other reason it's not working, sorry can't help you more specifically)
Quote from: Cementimental on April 23, 2014, 01:27:21 PM
Really an impurist then, that's the way forward. :)
QuoteI just installed repaer v4.57 and I can open/import .wav files. Can someone help me to solve this problem?
(Yes, it's "torrent" cracked copy because I can't afford to buy original)
Uuuuuh the problem is that for some reason you've downloaded some dubious torrent of software that you can download from the official site and use for free in full unlimited 'trial' mode forever :) I mean it's not that much of a pain to click 'still evaluating' from time to time surely?
(to be fair there could be some other reason it's not working, sorry can't help you more specifically)
Thank you!
Hum... what are the best and the cheapest programs i can use for made myself my own mastering?
Quote from: Leatherface on June 29, 2014, 01:14:09 PM
Hum... what are the best and the cheapest programs i can use for made myself my own mastering?
See earlier messages of this topic... Reaper. Free. Easy.
Can mastering death industrial/PE be done in Audacity or Wavosaur?. I would mind it sounding a little more clear.
Mine doesn't sound very "done" in concern to the quality of(it's not to do with how I've made the songs but the fact that they go straight from mixer to my PC).
Quote from: birthdeath on April 19, 2015, 07:45:05 AM
Quote from: birthdeath on April 19, 2015, 07:41:05 AM
Can mastering death industrial/PE be done in Audacity or Wavosaur?. I would mind it sounding a little more clear.
Mine doesn't sound very "done" in concern to the quality of(it's not to do with how I've made the songs but the fact that they go straight from mixer to my PC).
Suggestion:
iZotope + for instance REAPER.
https://www.izotope.com/en/products/mixing-mastering/ozone/specs/ (https://www.izotope.com/en/products/mixing-mastering/ozone/specs/)
what about references of great people doing mastering
Thomas Garrison of Control
Jérôme Nougaillon of Propergol
Simon Balestrazzi of TAC
I cannot recall the name of the guy who used to run Old Lady Driver who is working with many friends and does an excellent job.
recently I have been working a lot with Yvan Battaglia of LCHM, he's beejn doing several great work at the moment (like giving new life to old MB works). https://www.facebook.com/yvan.battaglia.multimediadesign?fref=browse_search
Quote from: birthdeath on April 19, 2015, 07:45:05 AM
Can mastering death industrial/PE be done in Audacity or Wavosaur?.
Mastering anything can be done in any software that can edit sound with basic effects like eq, compression etc etc so long as one knows how to use them. Reaper is definitely a better free way to start learning tho, Audacity is not ideal, intended more for editing wavs rather than non-destructive mixing and effects/mastering
Quote from: tiny_tove on June 10, 2015, 05:41:14 PM
I cannot recall the name of the guy who used to run Old Lady Driver who is working with many friends and does an excellent job.
James Plotkin?
I am not familiar with the workflow of producing an album for vinyl and have read various things to care about like mono'ing the low frequencies, to be careful of excessive sibilance, etc. Yet, my knowledge and funds being limited, it is a bit like doing hazardous changes blindly.
So, firstly, is it something done/checked by the company who is cutting the vinyl ? And who ever used a de-esser on sibilance? Could sibilance really be a problem when pressing a LP (I read that this might cause unwanted distortion) ?
Quote from: eric faustus on June 13, 2015, 06:08:29 AM
Quote from: tiny_tove on June 10, 2015, 05:41:14 PM
I cannot recall the name of the guy who used to run Old Lady Driver who is working with many friends and does an excellent job.
James Plotkin?
that's the guy!
Reviving this old in favor of creating a new one...
Currently i'm investigating how to master my tracks (using Logic Pro at the moment) using the stock Logic plugins. I've been reading stuff and watching tutorials. I don't know a lot about this, and i'm just trying stuff on the go by what i read. Currently using a Multimeter to check levels, fiddling with EQ, .. But i was interested to hear what kind of basic mastering flows people here have ? Basic stuff you always need to check, how to export/bounce projects in the best way.. ?
Quote from: urall on September 02, 2017, 12:57:38 AM
Reviving this old in favor of creating a new one...
Currently i'm investigating how to master my tracks (using Logic Pro at the moment) using the stock Logic plugins. I've been reading stuff and watching tutorials. I don't know a lot about this, and i'm just trying stuff on the go by what i read. Currently using a Multimeter to check levels, fiddling with EQ, .. But i was interested to hear what kind of basic mastering flows people here have ? Basic stuff you always need to check, how to export/bounce projects in the best way.. ?
I am sort of at the same level as you.
I recorded this "jam" over the weekend.
https://soundcloud.com/soloman-tump/wounded-at-work/s-D27ZI
I monitor my recordings live as I go along and try to keep the EQ sweet with my mixer. If possible I try not to adjust anything afterwards (I only use Audacity these days for tweaking / clipping / adjusting files, it is free and is fairly flexible / robust).
That being said, I did run the above file through an EQ filter and a compressor in Audacity. I should probably upload the original recording for comparison purposes if anyone is remotely interested.
I currently record from vinyl through a loop pedal as well as my noise chain - therefore balancing the signals is pretty key to getting it sounding right. A work in progress, as I am sure you can hear.
Quote from: urall on September 02, 2017, 12:57:38 AM
Reviving this old in favor of creating a new one...
Currently i'm investigating how to master my tracks (using Logic Pro at the moment) using the stock Logic plugins. I've been reading stuff and watching tutorials. I don't know a lot about this, and i'm just trying stuff on the go by what i read. Currently using a Multimeter to check levels, fiddling with EQ, .. But i was interested to hear what kind of basic mastering flows people here have ? Basic stuff you always need to check, how to export/bounce projects in the best way.. ?
i use logic pro for almost 12/13 years....
My mastering chain (it s not always the same, but this is my most used when I use logic bundle)
Adaptive limiter
Multipressor / compressor
Linear eq
Stereo spreader
And a tape delay setted to 0 on feedback and 0 on delay, all way wet to give a tape saturator effect.
Possibly not mentioned, but something I find absolutely crucial:
The one thing I always have at the end of mastering chain (and/or mixbus) is a plugin for spectrum analysis, phase correlation and peak+RMS volume metering.
Good practice is to import "reference" tracks and compare graphs of overall frequency spectrum, mean volume etc.
I've used Voxengo Span since forever. Simple and free.
Other than that it's anything from stock Reaper plugins to summing mixer & hardware EQ, compression and saturation.
There's always a limiter plugin as well, set to -0.1 peak to avoid clipping, often not doing any volume boost.
Quote from: tiny_tove on June 10, 2015, 05:41:14 PM
what about references of great people doing mastering
Thomas Garrison of Control
Jérôme Nougaillon of Propergol
Simon Balestrazzi of TAC
I cannot recall the name of the guy who used to run Old Lady Driver who is working with many friends and does an excellent job.
recently I have been working a lot with Yvan Battaglia of LCHM, he's beejn doing several great work at the moment (like giving new life to old MB works). https://www.facebook.com/yvan.battaglia.multimediadesign?fref=browse_search
Add Eric Trude of Stress Orphan to that list. Man does top notch work.