This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Would I use the main mix from the standout track or would I use the already mastered track?
I think about mastering as mostly getting levels correct (for the release format) and making the songs work as a whole.
Yes. Typically subtle is the aim. I would also say, if you need big eq moves, go back and fix it in the mix. Some of this "cohesion" should even be happening during pre-production.
I mean, it's a semantics game at that point. If no other processing happens before it's distributed, then that last master bus processing is about as close to mastering as you're gonna get.
Welcome to the hard paert of mastering.
For various reasons a lot of people tend to see mastering as taking a max and "making it CD volume," and there's an element of that... but a HUGE part of it is making sure there's consistency from song to song, both overall EQ and "sound," and perceived volume. I don't think for this particular problem, differences in "sound" from song to song, a reference track while mastering is the answer, in part because your question kind of points to the right answer here - your best reference track to get all the songs sounding more consistent... is all the other songs.I'm hardly a pro, but one of the projects I've done was self-mastered and I put a lot of work into the mastering phase of the project as well. And, I guess I'd say, "to a degree, yes."
Yes and no. Again there's this attitude that mastering is "make it louder." If that's all youre doing, throwing a multiband compression plugin preset and then a limiter with like 5db of makeup gain, then that's not really mastering... but, also, it's not like you need special plugins or rack gear, special monitors, and a special space to master, any more than you need special plugins and rack gear, secial monitors, and a special space to mix. There are upsides to having a second set of ears on the project, sure... but that's just as true as going from mixing to mastering, as it is going from engineering to mixing, and most of us already do both there.Yes, but you should have been using reference tracks since the beginning. You aren't going to get your mix to sound like your reference tracks by just "mastering", but I guess it's a good way to control the highs and lows.
Anyway from what I've learned the last years none of us are "mastering" anything. The point of mastering is that someone else does it, with specialized space and equipment for that. What we bedroom musicians do is just mixbus processing. There is no mastering happening here
Welcome to the hard paert of mastering.
I'll also add that, if you really have pronounced differences from track to track... then one of the options you should keep on the table here is to go back to the mixing phase and work on getting a more consistent sound from your mixes.
I'm hardly a pro, but one of the projects I've done was self-mastered and I put a lot of work into the mastering phase of the project as well. And, I guess I'd say, "to a degree, yes."
How I handled it was added the final mixdown of every track into a project in Reaper as its own track, and then basically slip-edited them into how I wanted the album to flow, adjusting the space between tracks, etc. Any fades I programmed, not at the track level but with volume automation on the master bus. Then, I started by throwing an instance of ReaComp on every track, and iteratively adjusted (light!!!) compression settings and track levels until I felt I was at a point where all tracks were, at their loudest bits, peaking comparatively, but also all had comparable perceived volume. For the most part things sounded pretty consistent from track to track - no easy feat in the mixing phase, since this was recorded in multiple sessions over several years - but did some light tweaks there as needed too.
