That’s really not a FAQ only, but also a Knowledge Base!
There’s content over here, that you may not easily find elsewhere!
If you are not able to find answer to your question below do not hesitate to ask us via CHAT (it’s disabled temporarily because of incompatibility issues) or our CONTACT form.
Weʼre always happy to support you!
Why Sonic Science Lab? We have all the assets in terms of skills, mindset, knowledge, room and equipment to be your mastering trusted party! Please take a quick route over our website, services and products to find out that youʼre are dealing with real, experienced engineer!
And last, yet not least, do not forget to ask for a sample/snippet! It’s free! That’s the best way to find out whether our mastering services works for you!
Why should I pay you if I can use automatic service? We feel particularly qualified to answer such question as we have consulted companies in AI land!
First and foremost ‘AIʼ is a buzz word! Hugely hyped today, because everybody wants to have AI due to some Gartner reports. But the truth at the time being is brutal. We as humanity, can only address (we intentionally use ‘addressʼ instead of ʼsolveʼ) few of the issues AI has to solve in order to be able to truly self deduce and make decisions not based on statistically collected data.
Todayʼs solutions just do statistical analysis in a more or less sophisticated way. How does it apply to mastering? In exact same simple way. If you want to sound as statistically as thousands people next to you, go for it, taking into account that every aspiring artist/producer/engineer actually wants the opposite :).
Where you want to be is a question you need to honestly answer yourself.
Are there up to date references on your site? Please visit our ABOUT page and discography section for references.
Please note:
– We only put those references that are *particularly* worth checking out, because of either good production, mix or mastering work itself. Categorization is planned in the future.
– Something worth particular emphasis! Soon after opening mastering studio for public, we won remastering project of huge catalog of classical music, with big restoration part in it. This is what takes almost entire effort up to date. The catalog includes songs and music by Josepth Achron, Mikhail Gnesin, Bernard van Dieren and Mieczyslaw Weinberg composers. Beautifully and very musically interpreted by Sofie von Lier (voice) and Paul Prenen (piano) duo. You can check some of work already done here: Achron Opus 52 and Achron Opus 53. More to come!
This project is possible due to consistent quality we were delivering during test mastering period and as a result we had pleasure to win over big, well known mastering studio, specialising in classical music!
– Btw. some note important as to our approach. We don’t take all work! We don’t promise so called ‘pro’ quality when it cannot be delivered. In most cases mixes need to meet certain quality criteria for mastering to make sense.
In case of doubt if your work is ready for mastering- please send it with a short message using the UPLOAD link in menu above. We will get back to you shortly.
We just don’t take money because we can. This is where our high ethics standards come into play. This is our differentiator!
We don’t treat any work transactionally. Our clients get extended care, help and support, and as least compromises as possible toward, as best final outcome as possible.
I am interested in attended session, do you provide such? Definitely! Weʼre happy to meet you in person at our facility!
Why there is no full address (incl. street) provided? Itʼs for security reasons. We however provide full address upon booking an attended session.
Thereʼs only office email provided, how do I contact Artur directly? Artur receives all the communication through any of our addresses.
When he is called to the table, he responds immediately!
[Note from Artur]: I read this FAQ too :)!
Are there before/after samples of work available? No. The reason is simple and straightforward. In vast majority of cases the work that has not yet been mastered is considered not finished/not done yet. Not many producers, mixing engineers and bands/artists want to have their mixes published in any way before they’re ready to do so. For a reason!
We strongly encourage you to ask for one, based on your own mix. It’s free!
You can listen to what can be done and how your mix can be enhanced!
As an added value you will receive info on some improvement areas in the mix.
Because each music is different! Song, performance/performers, production, mix, all reasoning behind. It all affects the final mastering outcome! We, mastering engineers, are also super respectful to every aspect above.
On top of that, there are many ways we can accomplish our mastering duties! And it is essential for proper assessment to know each time what assumptions were made, what requests were issued (sometimes they’re odd, really!), and what were some other circumstances why we perform mastering in this or that way.
For example. Consider Metallica’s Death Magnetic, that was already heavily distorted at mixing stage and then there was demand for more- to be extremely loud record at that time.
Consider some U2 records, that sound remarkably thin, cluttered and lifeless. However, at that time there were some technical limitations.
And so on.
Were these bad masters? No. They were professionally done, by highly respected and known engineers, just record companies and/or people in charge wanted them to sound that particular way (sometime for what we call ‘political’ reasons).
And this is why samples of someone else work do not necessarily show mastering engineers skills and abilities at the first sight. Cases/examples like above can give completely false impression on that!
It’s just a few clicks away! Get your mix ready, then click UPLOAD and voila!
If you don’t want to take a chance and ask for sample, you can check Discography section here for mastered work. Btw. it’s going to be redesigned soon for better user experience.
What genre you are specialized in? Genre specialization in mastering is a myth. We find it spread across boards and forums, based on some tales rather than facts. They likely originate from misunderstanding of what mastering is and why it is being performed.
There are multiple (with emphasis on multiple) genre independent sound facets and its characteristics we, mastering engineers, mostly work on. We aim at the very straightforward, but also genre independent, goal- the best listening and engaging aural experience. Genre specifics are production and mixing thing.
To put it short. Every mastering engineer should be able to work on any genre and achieve an exceptional results as long as recording and mix allow him/her to do that.
[General] Do you charge for intermediating partner services? Definitely NO!
Weʼre happy to just help you reach the right people for your needs.
[General] Do you provide mix review/check service? Such kind of review/assessment is being done when you send your material prior to booking the session. This is yet another reason why it is worth to do that.
[General/Mastering] Why contact you prior to trying or ordering any service? This is the most efficient way to prepare for the mastering session, technically- wise and cost-wise.
If we have a chance to listen for material prior to session, weʼre able to spot earlier some issues that might impact costs of the service and requested deadlines.
On the other hand this way you receive charge-free input from us that can be invaluable when youʼre on a learning curve. Why not make yours benefit from that?
[Mastering] Do you master ITB? Yes, we do!
There is a lot of program material that can benefit from not passing DAC/ADC converter loop.
Where thereʼs demand for the most transparent duties, ITB is the only way.
We’re also equipped with analog tools! Mastering session can be performed using our analog equipment!
Some sterile mixes benefit from that!
We go that way upon specific request too.
[Data archiving] Cloud is free today, why should I use and pay you? If you are:
– a highly organized person,
– you regularly update your catalog of all your files in easy to search ways,
you likely wonʼt get benefit from this service.
Otherwise it can be a real life saver!
[Quality preservation] What deas that mean, how do you achieve that? As the question refers to our Ethics (p. 6), we proudly note that this is what remarkably differentiates us from many others!
This is a result of extensive knowledge and listening tests we performed on lossy codecs. As flat conversions usually work, it does not automatically mean optimized conversions could not do better.
[Mastering] What are delivery file formats of mastered mixes? We always deliver lossless files at mix sample rate. In 24- and 16-bit versions by default.
If mix sample rate was higher than 44.1kHz, then we deliver all the common sample rates down to 44.1k. Of course, all in appropriate 24- and 16-bit versions.
That’s to assure that in any case one needs to have mastered mix at lower sample rates, it’s performed under full control and quality assurance of a mastering engineer.
Yes, unfortunately there are still sample rate converters out there that do mediocre job.
Also, unaware downsample process can produce overs that are to be avoided for numerous of reasons.
Why downsampling might produce overs is explained a little in this FAQ entry. Yes, downsampling uses low pass filtering.
[Mastering] Do you deliver lossless or lossy formats for revision purposes? We always deliver AAC lossy encoded audio for revisions purposes. These are 320kbps versions, that are very close to CD ‘quality’.
To put it into perspective where such quality is at. For example AAC @ 400kbps is pretty darn hard to distinguish from lossless formats in blind tests. Assuming encoding and decoding processes were performed with reputable codecs.
Please note however. While we use one of the bests algorithms (Fraunhofer) for encoding, still you might have chance to have audio to be decoded by mediocre codec.
In order to avoid sonic issues with decoding, we strongly recommend that you load the file into your DAW and listen that way, rather than use web browser to do that!
[Remastering] Can you take my old studio half tracks there and convert them to digital masters? I don’t have a half track machine. Not sure how much oxidation may have occurred yet. That’s perfectly doable! Might be quite price’y though. It cannot be fixed though (in time/costs), as during transfers many unexpected things happen.
We’ll ask for a couple of info, like:
– how old are these tapes and in what shape they are now (visual inspection for now please),
– how they were handled over the years,
– what tape recorder was used to record these tapes,
– what are these tapes (vendor, type),
– how many tapes/hours of music/tracks is on them,
– do these tapes contain alignment tones?
– do these tapes contain just masters, or there’s some other content?
Your own estimations on budget side of things would also help. It’s to determine what’s possible. And/or to find the best option if there are some budget constrains.
Please note, if these tapes are from 80’s, they might not be in great shape. On the other side, you might be surprised how much of the remaining quality they still could carry. We experienced tapes that were recoverable after 40 years. Some quality lost is of course inevitable, yet if there are no other quality sources it might occur the material is pure gold!
[Mastering] Do you always use the same tools for mastering, for example the same EQ hardware/software/plugin or do change after genres? (serious question) Always- no. In general- yes.
We, as mastering engineers usually have quite limited set of tools in relation for example to mixing engineers, that have tons more under their tool belt.
That determines that we use the same tools in general.
Yet, we use them differently, selectively, in different combination each time. That’s dependent a lot on a given programme. And not genre related.
Every tool has certain features that work just under certain scenarios. However, there are tools that are often used. For example de-essers. Yet again, even then, there are different de-essers, each working best under specific conditions.
Every case is different, that’s why it requires different approach, even for songs going for the same album.
[Mastering] When mastering, do you embed the ISRC at that stage? Can that go into standard WAV file metadata? There’s no room for ISRC codes in standard WAV file, but in its extension called broadcast wave file (BWAV) there is!
We can’t remember when we last time embedded the ISRC code into (b)wav file, however.
That’s a different case for duplication where codes are being provided, right along with audio, as the part of the delivery archive format for CD plant.
[Mastering] Why do you do 24 bit mastering when most outlets will just convert them to 16 bit? Or they’ll even get further dithered down or compressed after being uploaded for steaming? Please note, 24-bit (fixed) is the final delivery format. Similarly to 16-bit.
This is not the resolution of mastering session!
We perform mastering sessions at higher word lengths. For example 32-bit (float). At least, these days.
We dither mastered mix down. That’s to be real world compatible. Real world is fixed!
Streaming services encode to lossy formats in most common scenarios. Luckily, most services accept 24-bit files today.
Some services use pretty good codecs for encoding. Then quality loss is relatively low.
However. Please note that bigger quality loss is possible on the fly. For example when your network bandwidth is reduced/limited for some reason. Then music is being streamed at lower bitrates. You might sometimes have impression of pretty quality downgrade.
[Mastering] How do you determine the levels for a master track? Why not always just make them all as loud as possible to make our tracks stand out when broadcast against others for an advantage? Well, ‘as loud as possible’ takes many variables and has many facets.
…as far as things are meant to be on a safe side (for translation, future-proof, etc. reasons), levels are determined by what mix allows them to be. Such optimization is just one of the basic stuff we, mastering engineers, do.
In other cases levels are on request, and that becomes the determinant factor then.
Unfortunately, that usually means that the mix will be affected in some way (yet we still try to make this as transparent as possible, though!). When people ask for master to be loud, they really mean LOUD. Btw. in such case this is particularly important to get engineer who knows what they’re doing to make the damage as low as possible, while keeping mix impact and bringing it to competitive levels!
However, there’s growing number of requests for not squashed masters, to have things breathe-able. Btw. this is what we particularly welcome with open arms!!
Such masters especially benefit from streaming with loudness optimization turned on (unfortunately that’s not the default option yet). They sound way more attractive and bigger than their crushed counterparts then.
Btw. Recently, it seems like Recording Academy have been respecting less compressed music more!
When it comes to broadcasting (AM, FM), this is a bit different case. It’s nearly impossible to predict the sound, as broadcast processors process a lot, and this is really A LOT. Also processor configuration varies from station to station, big time. Loudness normalization is unavoidable part of the equation- processors do their own optimizations in this regard. Always.
Thus, it’s hugely important to have mix/master sound as least processed as possible. This is to avoid bringing and emphasizing processing artefacts (like distortion, etc.) during broadcast.
Only then master has chance to stand out against others for an advantage.
You can read a little more on this matter in this FAQ entry.
To pre-empt questions in this regard. Yes, we prepare different master version for broadcast purposes on request. Btw. this is what also differentiates us, as we know how processors like this work, and we have in-depth understanding of the process.
The goal is to have as clean and impactful sound on the radio. The master gives more room for processors to operate and make the music stand out with more clarity/dynamics.
[Mastering] What is your setup/processing chain for mastering? You can find some information about used tools HERE.
Setup/chain is highly programme dependent!
It varies a lot mix to mix, even for the same album, even with sound consistency in mind!
What are your recommendations to do better mixes? In the first place listen to a lot of music, and outside genres of your personal preferences! That helps to educate your ears and your listening intelligence. That’s pretty often overlooked part of learning process!
In our opinion people get too quickly into fiddling with plugins, putting too much of attention to technical side of things, forgetting a bit that it’s all about music that cannot be framed within just technical formulas.
On the other end, try to learn about audio foundation that would help you understand how things work and when there’re risks of falling apart and why.
Then practice, practice, practice. Repeat.
So, first try to learn to listen to the music, not certain frequencies, nor certain plugins either! The rest will come in time!
Did we mention to listen to the music more :)?
For those who expected formula: there isn’t one! All is really skills dependent and that requires some time, dedication and practice. There are no shortcuts!
You may find some additional advice in our blog post HERE.
What’s the deal with sending off mix to mastering without limiter on the mix/master bus, many mastering engineers ask for? We think that there’s a little general misunderstanding in what we, mastering engineers, sometimes might ask for.
If you use limiter for sound, be it, it’s the part of the sound. No reason to ask to take limiter away.
The different case, however, is when limiter is used to bring levels and its action is audible in the way that it takes life and energy from the mix. Then it might be the reason that ME asks for mix that’s not hurting audibly from limiting.
It’s worth to be noted, that limiters can get detrimental to the mix pretty quickly.
And that’s btw. the reason number one why mastering engineers do not use limiters in the way the internet thinks!
What do you think about analog summing? Is it worth it? The second question is actually hard to answer, because it depends. The first question is way more easy, as long as somebody is interested in what we think :).
So, we think that it’s great to have such an option. Some devices have a lot of headroom and that provokes different mixing decisions some mixes might benefit from. And that’s it. Nothing fancy, just more headroom to work within. Nothing more, nothing less.
Some devices have saturation options, etc. Sometimes it might be useful, sometimes not at all.
Many people might have ‘whether analog or digital is better’ debate behind such question, however.
Our response is that just every tool has a purpose in a given situation and when used consciously and purposely it might pay off.
What are some tips for the mixing process to make mastering better for you? Just a short note prior to tips below. Please take it to the heart- do not ever mix to any preconditions, targets, numbers (levels) nor mastering engineer preference, if they have so, either. Mix to make as best sonic experience as you can get, that will represent song and production in the best possible way. Then allow mastering engineer do the rest.
With that said, do not think you do anything in the mix for mastering engineer. Think you do everything to have a great mix!
General tips:
– First/foremost make the mix interesting. Prepare anchors via balance, contrast (level, dynamics relationship, specific filtering, etc.), change(s), specific effects, and a lot of automation. Allow mix to build tension from verse to chorus, then to release it. Mixes that are flat and unified are super boring!
– Do not think about loudness levels during mixing. This is not a mixing task, but it can severely impact mixing decisions at least. It tends to make mixes sound smaller/thiner with less impact (over compression!). Think a lot more about musicality, engagement and non-distracting listening experience!
– Use compression on purpose, not just for the sake of using it. Focus not on compression itself, but on how you can improve particular sound/instrument appearance in the mix. Improve- in terms of sound body and how live it can be, all in context of the mix.
– Make effects subtle, not audible as effects by themselves. This specifically apply to reverberation, and saturation/distortion. The latter requires particular attention as a lot of people think it’s cure for everything. It’s not at all! Make sure you’re able to hear when things fall apart.
– ‘Less is more’- stick it to where you look at the most often 😁.
– Use references not to follow frequency curve, but to follow dynamics relationships between different instruments in a mix, their impact and effects placement/usage. Yet be careful- for example I’d avoid to use as references a lot of remastered stuff from the last 10 years or so. Try to find original masters instead (might not be easy though).
– If not sure about the low-end do not wrestle with it. Send the mix in development to your mastering engineer for a consultation. It will save you both time!
– Don’t spend too much time on mixing as the more you’re listening, the more you’re imagining (bias!). Take frequent breaks, often change context you listen to the mix while working on it.
I read about your recommendations to mix at different monitor levels. Can you elaborate on this? Firstly. To save ears!
Secondly. It’s because our auditory system is more sensitive to different sound facets, depending on levels.
For example. Very low levels can expose distortion to our ears easily.
Monitoring drums at low levels gives indication whether they can cut through the other stuff. Also, if they are able still to play percussive role and/or provide solid rhythm foundation. On the other end, drums at high levels give indication whether they’re punchy enough or not.
And so on.
Some say that mixing at different levels will emphasise different frequencies.
Actually that’s the reason no. 1 to have calibrated monitoring. Not the reason to monitor at different levels!
What makes a good base to start mixing with? In our opinion a good base to start mixing with is a good recording!
Recording is an art on its own and requires as much dedication as anything else!
It’s a foundation that determines everything what happens later on!
People way to often look for sound in plugins, not so in recording. That’s one of the reasons why some corners are being cut early on. That limits potential of any given production!
On the other end. A good base is as best monitoring conditions as possible. This is your magnifying glass, that decides whether you are able to hear something subtle, yet impacting or not. Every mix is full of such subtleties.
And in between. There are skills. Not less important at all, quite the contrary! They help effectively to transfer song and its performance to recording/mixing realm.
Is mixing at lower levels a cure for room problems? Not so. That’s a myth!
In short, if you have a null(s), then you have a null(s). Amplitude does not change wave’s behaviour!
You can change, however, its effect on what you can hear, esp. when listening position is affected.
The direct impact on where nulls occur has sound source (speaker(s)) position.
That’s why it’s particularly important to have your speakers positioning right in the room, even before you do any room treatment.
This way you can improve ‘accuracy’ of what you hear.
Of course, there are way more issues possible, yet they’re still mostly wave related.
Mixing at lower levels have some other advantage, however. You may want to check this FAQ entry for example.
How to get cleaner vocal sound with a not so pro mic? In the first place please note, that there are always some limitations when it comes to all budget stuff.
It’s constantly getting better, however, still not all is possible to do in a cost effective way.
So, in the worst scenario you may want to revise your expectations.
On the other side, some even mid-priced mics sometimes also are not super clean.
You may want to read about it more in our blog post, where we encourage to look at microphone topic from a little different angle. There’s also a couple of information on (clean) vocal mixing.
Can the average listener hear the difference between a song that has been mastered and the same song that hasn’t? …before question can be answered to cover all experience levels.
First of all, song needs to be recorded/produced, then mixed, before it makes sense to send it off for mastering.
These steps, prior to mastering, have the biggest importance and impact on a final result.
Of course, song itself is the most important! When it doesn’t work, nothing can help. If it does, then all the next stages benefit from that to song, as a release, advantage.
….in general* yes. Assuming mix was mastered by professional. Mix hugely contributes to overall quality!
Listeners are not stupid. They can hear difference (and that applies to all production stages!). Even if they’re not able to tell why they prefer mastered version, they’re able to distinguish if something was done well, bad, or not done at all.
Mastered mixes have certain recognizable qualities. More thorough listeners easily catch that. They usually describe/comment on this that it ‘sounds like a record’.
*In general- because mixes happen to come with issues and their mastered versions are sort of compromise too (assuming mastering engineer decides to master such mix- that’s sort of ethical issue though). Although they still are able to carry so called ‘finished’ sound.
Mastering hugely depends on quality of all production stages.
Usually behind your question, there’s yet another one. And it comes down to this- how much value mastering can add?
And here it is. First of all, mixes are being sent off for mastering not for mastering engineer to let him do something on top of the mix. They’re sent off for quality control!
That’s of course is of lesser meaning when mixes are good/done professionally. Yet, in all the other cases, quality control is the big added value, that helps less experienced engineers extend their perspective and open their biased ears!
In majority of scenarios good mastering engineer will not only tell you what does not fully work. They will tell you why and point out possible origin/cause.
That’s the value itself that cannot be underestimated!
What are the advantages of analogue over digital mastering now days? We think that question is pretty broad. Thus, it cannot be answered in a sort of unequivocal way. Questions like this usually have some context they’re asked within.
We believe that many people have sonic benefits in mind behind such questions.
Our response for this question is:
a) we do not recommend to romanticize analog (we’re saying this, using analog as well!),
b) we are not aware of any technology/tool on the planet that always works best, no matter if it’s analog or digital.
All tools and their features might be an advantage and disadvantage. It hugely depends on the source. Yet, since Weiss has ‘revolutionized’ digital mastering in late 90’s of previous century, there’re not many reasons to look back.
There’s also another side of things. Not less important when you run a commercial studio! It applies to any gear, whether it’s analog or digital.
It’s maintenance/service topic.
In analog, when it comes to recall-ability, service, calibration, etc., it’s maybe not a nightmare, yet certainly not the effective way to spend time/money.
Digital is more reliable. It can be super precisely measured and revised. Still may need service, if it’s a gear.
Oh, there’s slowly growing analog with digital control. It sort of connects two worlds. And certainly has its own place. In this case, the advantage usually comes just from uniqueness of what a given device has to offer.
Yet again, sonically- it may match or not program material.
Technically- still may need service!
When we talk about mastering, let’s do not forget about restoration land!
In this case, digital shines all the way!
With that said, we can see a lot of other variables in the equation.
For example. The biggest advantage of digital in form of plugins is its affordability/price (which is disadvantage of analog). Another one (from creator/designer perspective) is pretty quick turnaround from an idea to a working stuff. There’s big, yet imo not well explored, area of uniqueness of digital. There are virtually endless possibilities, taking into account the above. For now, a lot of effort is being put into emulation attempts. Not yet fully successful in our opinion. But, there’s huge potential ahead, equally, in emulation and new areas of exploration.
It all comes down to do the right decisions for what mix asks for.
Whether these decisions are implemented using this or that tool has really secondary importance.
Do I really need a mastering engineer for my project? We think that actually you do!
You might simply miss/overlook some issues in your project. This is due to bias from working for extended hours on the same thing, or due to emotional connection. This makes you losing perspective.
It might come from monitoring/room deficiencies. Or even too little skills/experience.
And this is when/where good mastering engineer comes in handy.
All legit mastering engineers are able to hear most of issues easily thanks to listening skills and extraordinary listening conditions.
They are capable to point out even small issues, where they might be originating from and why.
That’s the power of experience.
That’s the power of added value good mastering engineer brings to the project.
Do not underestimate it!
And it goes way beyond that.
What is mastering in a nut shell? How important is it, if you already have a nice or good sounding mix? Take it as a quality control performed under as objective conditions as possible:
– if the mix translates well,
– if the mix sounds best to its potential,
– if it carries enough energy&impact when song asks for it,
– if nothing sticks out,
– and last yet not least- if it sounds attractive to listener, not only to creator, only in its environment, etc.
Every good sounding mix is capable of sound better.
And fresh perspective, mastering engineer has, helps achieve that, big time!
Mastering is the final step, making the track as loud as possible. That is my understanding anyway! Am I correct? That’s some oversimplification.
It’s not about making it as loud as possible, but about optimizing for a given medium. This might or might not involve loudness.
You may want to check recent R&B Grammy winning albums that are not loud. They’re below levels this genre used to be. Try Silk Sonic’s ‘Leave the Door Open’ for example.
For an album recorded with a majority of acoustic instruments, would there be an advantage in mastering at least partially with analog gear? Is this something that can help preserve the analog sound of the album? The answer is: it depends.
When preservation like this is the requirement, digital would likely be a preferred way. Surprised?
Good digital tools are just more transparent. Assuming all what was captured, was recorded to digital with analog to digital converter. Not all material would handle well yet another D/A and A/D conversion pass.
Things are a little different when it all went to tape. Then it might be beneficial to stay in analog.
It’s simply best to sometimes stay in one domain, whether it’s analog or digital.
And there are more cases like this. For example the entire mix performed in digital domain. Then it might (or might not!) benefit from going through analog.
So, again- it depends.
In our opinion it’s always best to ask your mastering engineer for opinion, assuming they listened to the mix. It’s always specific case/scenario.
This is because it’s usually just more variables to put into equation and experienced mastering engineer will quickly pick up the right tools for mastering.
This is yet another reason knowledgeable mastering engineer to be part of the project. Their experience and advice might be a pure gold.
I did get to hear my stuff on air and the radio processors compressed the c*** out of it in some spots. Made the recording sound almost defective. This seemed a disaster I trust you likely know how to avoid? I don’t know exactly what I did wrong. It sounds great here but… We always find it rather difficult to point to out specific issue, without hearing the mix.
First, we would like to note, that there needs to be some room to allow radio processors to work.
Program that is pretty compressed and already distorted, usually sounds way worse on the radio.
This is because what’s being put on air undergoes a lot of processing. And we really mean A LOT!
Under such conditions some program material has high chances to quickly manifest its weaknesses.
Things get even worse when processors were not set up by professional knowing what they’re doing. That’s pretty common in majority of local stations.
Then, very likely not much can be done about that. You might just call the station and discuss the issue…
The good news (if it can be called good, however!) is that every single material gets screwed up then.
Another good news is that there’s still a way to stand out. Program that’s less processed has more clarity, impact and depth than the rest.
This is when we come into play!
We deliver radio versions on request, because we know well how broadcasting works. This is particularly beneficial when program was mainly prepared for CD, what involves pretty high loudness levels. Our radio versions are less processed, and optimized for loudness normalization. Radio processors, having more room to develop loudness, do the rest to assure that given program will be as loud as other stuff, yet more punchy, less distorting, closer to original.
What’s the most important part of mastering, to you? Interesting question!
We think there are many important parts. Yet if we need to choose just the one thing, very likely it would be listening.
It all actually begins and ends on it!
Some mastering engineers, I worked with, asked me sometimes to do changes in my mixes and then I usually didn’t feel comfortable with this. I was 100% happy with my mixes. I am a bit confused. Are these legit requests? We think that every case like this is different and requires different approach respectively.
There are several questions to be asked in every scenario.
These preliminary ones below may help you.
If there’s strong (!) reason behind the request?
In this case make sure there is! If you have doubts, discuss, ask questions! Every reasonable mastering engineer will be able to backup their doubts, providing pretty details on their reasoning. This is how you can verify/revise their point of view.
If your intentions in the mix are super clear?
In this case try to be open for suggestions, maybe they work better, given the exprience of mastering engineer. Sometimes intentions are only clear to those who listened to the mix tens of times.
If you are able to hear after extended hours of work as much as mastering engineer hearing the mix for the first time?
In this case, if you can allow yourself to give mix (and yourself!) a rest for some time to gain perspective, it might help.
If there’s (or not) some mental block against change (from emotional connection, sticking with certain idea, etc.)?
In this case, make sure your ego does not stand in front of music/mix. If it might help- the more experience you have, the less it becomes an issue.
With that being said. There’s a grey area as well, also because it’s all art! You don’t mix to satisfy mastering engineer, yet to give song and production best representation. Even then the most experienced mastering engineer might not be able to get your idea without knowing the whole context, etc.
To sum it up. It’s great that you question things like this! Ask for reasons and make sure all engaged parties have enough broad perspective to make the best decisions for the mix.
In your opinion, what’s the importance of mastering? We recommend to look at it from a little different angle.
This is not entirely about what mastering can bring to the table (what sometimes allows to elevate mix even one grade letter up).
It’s about how mastering engineer’s experience and knowledge can work for you (your skills improvement) and your projects! As simple as it sounds.
Most of us, mastering engineers, have vast audio knowledge and listening skills, not to mention about great monitoring conditions, that you may not easily find elsewhere. And we are helpful.
Do not underestimate the power of this!
I read about your excellent room. How would you describe room like this contribution to the mastering result/quality? We think that it’s a bit hard to account something not super accountable.
Good room allows to work quicker, more effectively. It gives certainty, that you can hear everything accurately, and whatever you do, it will translate well.
To put things in perspective, and to showcase how room performs, here are some basic facts.
NE (non-environmental) rooms, having a lot of advantages, are first/foremost very quiet (what people confuse with deadness btw.). In the most demanding restoration/remastering work we did so far, we dealt with +3000 issues for ~30 minutes of material without touching headphones even once. Even in case of the very fine details of program material!
Of course, speakers need to be detailed enough to clearly expose for example even the most subtle clicks, distortion, etc. in complex/dense material. But, in NE rooms speakers and room are unity. That’s one of the reasons why rooms like this work so well.
NE rooms super perform in imaging department. That’s a derivative of clean, direct path from speaker to listener, non-distorted from any reflections.
Due to this we’re able to detect even slightest phase issues in stereo scenarios. The sound in the room is not color’ed in any way, what’s pretty common even in moderately treated rooms! This is often surprising for our critical listening clients (yes! some companies and individuals pay us for our ears/experience), that we’re able to point out quickly some, even small, image inconsistencies.
We also easily pick up those mixes during coaching that use some artificial widening and other imaging tools.
There are other advantages as well. Like super tight bottom end due to well controlled decay times at every frequency range.
For example, we can just within seconds detect inconsistent kick drum sound and clarity issues between bass and kick. This is what’s nearly impossible in old RFZ/LEDE rooms, that actually have things under control down to just only about 300Hz, not much below.
Btw. Old designs are one of the reasons why at some point in time and space, a lot of mixes still came out pretty light, while there was no longer a reason for that. In vinyl era, low end ranges were determined by the size of the lacquer. CDs took these limits away. Control rooms did not follow.
And so on.
If you have a chance to build such a room we highly recommend to not look for anything else. These rooms are currently a standard for mastering, and perform well for mixing too, with a bit longer decay times (it’s a design/build decision).
To dither or not to dither? When, why, what to avoid? You hopefully should know when to dither and why. Hopefully, because thereʼs still a lot of misunderstanding on this topic among some even experienced engineers!
If you want to know a lot more about dithering topic, read an entire article on our blog page.
All you need to know is that there’s real world and virtual world. The real world, which is also the distribution one, works with fixed point arithmetics (usually 24- and 16-bit). That’s a derivative of digital equipment (like f.e. digital to analog converter) most used interface (AES/EBU), that has 24-bit word-length limit.
And there’s virtual world. It’s been using floating point math for some time now. This is DAWs world today. The exceptions are some old ProTools versions being still in use occasionally, that feature 32bit floating point engine with 24bit fixed point mixer (not a dithered one).
These worlds meet each other when you for example export your DAW work for distribution.
The export procedure requires your attention. DAW can automatically change format without any warning. This is where potential truncation might happen! It will do for example on 32-bit (DAW/float) to 24-bit (fixed) change.
This is when dithering needs to be applied. Why? To avoid truncation distortion. You can hear how something like this sounds on our blog page here.
The other scenario is when you for example check option in your DAW to record files in 16-bit instead of 24-bit. Please remember, your analog to digital converter will very likely produce 24-bit words.
If you prefer to record to 16-bit files for some reason, you need to apply dithering then too!
Yet another scenario, pretty common today, as collaborations and audio files exchange iterations are growing. People often save/export audio as 24-bit and/or 16-bit a little frivolously from their DAWs. With each save like this dithering needs to be used! When audio is being truncated numerous of times, truncation distortion stacks up quickly and becomes pretty audible.
If you often collaborate, please send this information within your team.
Link to this FAQ/info itself: https://www.sonicsciencelab.com/quick_faq/to-dither-or-not-to-dither/
With that said, it all comes down just maintain bit-depth/word-length across all you do with audio with awareness. in a conscious way.
#1: It is always best to deliver mix file at your DAW native bit-depth/word-length to your mastering engineer. So, check your DAW documentation. File sizes and network transfers are no longer an issue in terms of saving some space/bandwidth.
#2 (actually a small warning): It might happen that you find some engineers over the internet, discouraging from using dithering. In vast majority of cases opinions are coming from those who have no idea what dithering is, why it needs to be engaged and when. People naturally tend to ignore things they can’t understand. Be aware.
Some argue that dithering brings noise to audio. The fact is that dithering noise is being applied at very low levels. In order to have it becoming an issue, audio must have been undergoing a lot of iterations. A lot. Truncation distortion accumulates way faster!
44.1, 96, 192kHz or even higher? This is pretty broad question! It’s being often asked within mixing as well as mastering context.
People tend to often upsample tracks for mixing, sometimes for mastering. That’s in faith that it will do better. That’s unfortunately not always the case. If you’re particularly inquisitive about this- drop us an email! This is way too big topic to discuss that over here.
To put things short, in mastering context.
Whether mix for mastering should be upsampled to 96, 192 or maybe 384kHz or or just sent off in mix native rate?
Please always sent mix at your mixing session sample rate! Once mix is done, there’s no benefit to upsample it.
Therefore, try not to:
– up-sample, as it requires additional checks against high frequency intermodulation distortion,
– down-sample, as it usually requires pretty good down-sampler (pretty common today, still there are some doing mediocre job).
If you need different sampling rates for your mastered mixes, please let us know!
We will do whatʼs required with the least possible processing/side effects.
What bit depth for mastering – 16, 24 or 32bit? There are several discussions over the internet about bit depth for mastering…
What you should use when preparing your mix for mastering. Let us sum it all up in LT:
– recording: 24bit (fixed),
– processing: 32bit (usually float if not stated differently),
– publishing: 16bit (fixed) is fine when done in the right way and 24bit (fixed) – preferable.
It is (almost) that simple, isnʼt it?
As a side note, whenever you reduce bit depth, use dithering! More on this topic here.
Can I apply my own EQ after receiving mastered files? In general. Before you issue such question, try to answer this one- why would you like to do that?
And donʼt be surprised if mastering engineer will ask you exactly the same question.
We recommend, as we at Sonic Science Lab always propound quality over the convenience, that you ask your mastering engineer for something like this. They will be able to do that in a more transparent way. And before the master file is printed (before any final digital processing is being applied).
Doing it yourself might impact quality if you want to post-apply whatever you wish to.
Can you explain DC offset and is it just a thing we can easily measure and meter with new technology or did engineers used to identify this by ear or with a scope? Secondary question – does it really matter that much if there is a DC offset that you cannot hear? Is there an “acceptable” threshold if total elimination can’t be reached? It’s just a DC component in AC signal.
It cannot be heard. It can be measured.
Depending on whether it’s generated by equipment or it’s just in recorded audio, it requires different tool.
If it’s coming from equipment.
Likely it’s a sign of some malfunction. If the equipment works properly, there’s not much to worry about.
If it’s coming from a recorded audio.
There are tools that can check the audio against this. You can effectively eliminate that by using high pass filter. You need to cut off *all* frequencies slightly above 0 entirely (it might require different settings depending on filter steepness). As simple as it is.
Whether there’s acceptable threshold or not, we think that it’s important to have it eliminated.
You mentioned tilt EQ is something you use. I have no idea what situation it is used for, I have a tilt EQ plugin, but have never touched it. What would I need it for? It’s kind of EQ to balance highs and lows directly, without affecting midrange too much.
Actually we don’t use tilt part of our EQ very often, although the unit is very transparent. When used it’s hard to say something was being eq’ed.
We mostly use its extensions, however, because the device carries some of analog tape sound qualities and it comes in handy from time to time (not super often either!).
What exactly does a Limiter achieve? It depends on how it is used.
In general, it just prevents from signal peaking at the programmed output level. As simple as it sounds. That’s how it’s used most often (yet please read comment on it below).
On the other side- each limiter has its sound, that’s coming from implementation of its non-linear action.
Btw. A lot of people use it just to bring level of their mixes. This is what we strongly discourage to do. It’s one of these tools that help quickly destroy dynamics in the entire mix. We can hear that manifesting on thousands of recordings.
Mixing engineers hate it (for a totally legit reason!) when painstakingly created dynamics relationships, with a lot of time spent on it, gets killed later on.
This is why we, as mastering engineers, always try preserve that as much as possible (and in some cases even subtly enhance it!). That’s a bit tricky though, when level/loudness is one of variables in the entire mastering equation. And this is where experience of mastering engineer manifests particularly!
Luckily, there are better and more transparent options for getting levels (big topic itself!) than using limiters. So, we use them in different way than internet ‘thinks’. Most often just as some sort of safeguard rather than anything else.
Why my mix is clipping when converted to mp3? That’s because during conversion encoding algorithms use a lot of low pass filtering (LPF).
What LPF has in common with (peak) levels?
It might be surprising to you, as it is for many, but actually a lot!
You may want to read about the phenomenon on our blog here.
Explain multi-band compressors. Why multi-band? What’s the best usage for them? Is it for individual tracks or for mixdowns? Multi-band compressors help to shape things dynamically more precisely. Just in some frequency range. And that positions them among tools that are more destined to work on whole tracks (mixes, etc.). Yet, don’t get misled by this, see below.
In most common scenario they’re used to address specific dynamics issues in the mix, where access to individual channels/tracks is impossible. That’s mostly how mastering engineers use them if there’s no other way to deal with an issue. Thus, they’re sometimes called last resort tool (there are other reasons as well).
But, there are tools and tools. Take a look for example at Weiss DS 1, that’s definitely not a typical multi-band compressor.
We often use its unique capabilities creatively for example to subtly enhance dynamics in over compressed mixes.
But it’s commonly also used/known as pretty neat de-esser. Yes, de-esser is a some type of multi-band compressor!
On the other side. There’s also big room for compressors you ask about in broadly defined sound design, where creativity and imagination are the only limitations.
They can be also useful with some problematic recordings. Thus, they can be used in mixing scenario as well, when re-recording is impossible.
It’s worth to note, that they’re still compressors and this makes them not always easy/obvious to set up properly/efficiently.
This, when coupled with hearing compression topic and where compression may fall apart, categorizes multi-band compressors among those tools that quickly lead to over processing/compressing, with quite specific sound effects.
Why thereʼs no payment processing available? At the time we designed this website, we came across multiple issues to implement our open price policy.
Believe us, we verified the majority of available payment processors/platforms then. And we couldn’t find any that could satisfy us enough. Our goal was to make it as user friendly as possible.
We will do it definitely, but for now itʼs postponed.
Why there are mixed: hourly and fixed rates? We designed our pricing scheme based on our experience what worked best for particular service in the past.
It doesnʼt mean we stick to it. Quite the contrary- we are always open to discuss it, if you feel something different can work better for you.
Are attended sessions more expensive? Attended sessions take usually longer due to discussions, sometimes quite refreshing.
We calculate an effective time spent on the service, though.
According to p.7 of your ethics- does that mean that a fixed price can change? If we agree on a fixed price, it is fixed. Always!
That’s why we put a strong emphasis on sending in your material as soon as possible. This is to confirm that your expectations can meet a fixed price.
Thatʼs also why we put a strong emphasis on communication prior to booking a session!
As a side note, a fixed price usually can look pretty attractive for less experienced clients. But, thereʼs always risk involved and possible compromise due to time limits/constraints.
We at Sonic Science Lab promote non-compromise/non-shortcut approach. That’s why we prefer to transparently discuss every case and find an agreement that will be mutually beneficial!
Can I make mp3 by myself? Always ask your mastering engineer to do that. He/she has appropriate toolset to do that in the most transparent way. They are also able to verify the results under mastering listening conditions.
We, at Sonic Science Lab, always deliver lossy encoded, optimized version, along with lossless master file.
For your convenience.
Can I master myself? Virtually yes, assuming this is your hobby, and you have decent listening conditions and trained ears. However, the more serious in music you are, the bigger risk you are going to take with DIY approach.
There are more and more people with quite good listening equipment and rooms, clubs and dance halls are also getting constantly better. If your monitoring conditions does not tell you the truth and are constantly cheating your ears, the outcome you can get will be working to your disadvantage.
Also, many musicians have been already hiring pros. Are you able to compete?
Mastering is not expensive today. Why risk?
AI Mastering? Does it really work? We feel particularly qualified to answer such question as we have consulted companies in AI land!
First and foremost ‘AIʼ is a buzz word! Hugely hyped today, because everybody wants to have AI due to some Gartner reports.
But, at the time being the truth is brutal.
We, as humanity, can only address (we intentionally use ‘addressʼ instead of ʼsolveʼ) a few of the issues AI has to solve in order to be able to truly self deduce and make decisions not based on statistically collected data. Yes, todayʼs solutions just do statistical analysis in a more or less sophisticated way.
How does it apply to mastering? In the exact same simple way!
If you want to sound as statistically as thousands of people next to you, go for it. Take into account that every aspiring artist/producer/engineer actually wants the opposite :).
Where you want to be is a question you need to honestly answer yourself.
I am inexperienced in mixing, how can I know if my mix is ready for mastering? The answer really depends on your goals.
If youʼre just learning.
Ask somebody more experienced, preferably a mixing engineer, as likely you want to level your mixing skills up.
If you want to publish your work.
Actually a red light should come up immediately. As youʼre not fully sure, itʼs more likely that the work is not ready for publishing.
This might not be always the case, however. We heard some mixes from inexperienced engineers and they were actually quite good!
In general.
Always ask for consultation somebody more experienced than you. Even discussion with mastering engineer of your choice can help. Although he/she will not help you in mixing, definitely he/she can provide you some insight what to do in order to get better sounding mix.
Analog or digital mastering? Which one sounds better? Next question please :).
We have done enough double blind listening tests with reputable auditories to realize there’s no definitive answer.
Both technologies have their advantages and disadvantages. Both can excel as well as harm particular programme material.
The key is to chose the appropriate one for the job. As we always do at Sonic Science Lab.
As an additional comment. Such questions are usually ignited and stoked with strong cognitive bias underneath. Applies to mixing world even more.
Therefore, as professionals, we donʼt want to be a part of such discussions.
Please, do not believe in such stories that analog sounds better. In most cases opinions like that are biased. Their authors are not able to provide any verifiable proof for such definitive claim, other than just their subjective opinion.
What do you think about audiophile equipment? Is it suitable for studio work? Itʼs mostly coloured, sound-wise. Itʼs usually not suitable for the work, however there are exceptions.
For example we use, here at Sonic Science Lab, subwoofers from the brand considered as the audiophile one (Rythmik Audio). But thereʼs a reason why we and Sterling Sound use them day in, day out in our mastering duties.
Some mastering engineers use B&W 80x speakers successfully as well.
What do you think about Gullfoss or Soothe type of plugins? Are they any good for mastering? We think that these are really great tools! Not super useful in mastering, though. However, they can be certainly helpful in earlier production stages.
They provide a pretty innovative way to shape sounds during production and even mixing duties.
Unfortunately, they’re being marketed in the way that it promotes a certain use of them.
In our opinion this hugely limits their application!
To put things into some perspective, regarding mastering scenarios. We used Soothe commercially just once so far (for over a year of owning the licence).
Do you have a recommendation of a book that I can read for mixing and mastering, and some tutorials? We think that you can find pretty broad answer to you question in our blog post.
Is there a big difference in DAWs? What’s the best one for mixing? There is no difference in math. If there’s one (assuming it’s not just bit depth of mixing engine) then it very likely indicates just a bug.
All difference is just UX/workflow and maybe some additional stuff every DAW has just different.
Today, the best one is that one that will allow you to work just more effectively!
I want to improve the quality of my mixes. Can you recommend a piece of software or modestly priced hardware I might use to improve? We think that the biggest improvement in your mixes you’re going to find in skills, not in tools/equipment.
People often fall into this trap, believing that tools will do the job for them.
Don’t get caught!
If you can’t get where you want entirely with stock stuff, then you need to practice more. No software/hardware can replace skills!
What’s the best tape emulation plugin in your opinion? Ok, before we pick up one, we think that’s it’s important to give things some perspective/insight.
First of all, we assume ‘best’ means- ‘the most faithful’. That’s likely what majority of people have behind such question, don’t they?
Then, we grew up on tape and reel tape machines.
This sets the perspective.
With that said. To us, with all these years spent with tapes, there’s no yet technology available as of now that is able to emulate all (with emphasis on all) analog tape sound aspects.
So, to set expectations in this regard, right from the very beginning- they’re not quite there yet.
If you’re looking for this very sound, you need to reach for tape, no exception.
We certainly did not hear all plugins either. However, based on what we could do so far, there’s still some development ahead.
At this point many ask: well, maybe there are some hardware tools that get closer then?
What comes to mind is Anamod ATS-1 (no longer available). It has some ‘coloration’ pretty close. However, it feels more like a deck’s electronics with some cool tape qualities. Anyway, that’s the only gear we’ve known so far with an attempt to emulate tape thing so completely.
There’s some other stuff, that’s not entirely related to tape, yet we found it having some similarities in this regard.
Surprisingly, Gyraf XXIII Tilt EQ (tube version, we haven’t heard the solid state one though) with its extensions is capable of giving lows certain tape character, that’s pretty convincing! Not so for upper ranges, however
(they’re nice on their own, yet not tape alike)!
A good companions are Maselec MDS/MPL high frequency limiters. They’re capable of giving HF some interesting qualities, yet they imo miss some finer control than just threshold to get there. Anyway, with some program material they can get close.
Getting back to plugins.
We think that Softube’s Tape is worth considering, It has certain compression (subtle) similarities with tape (in B/C modes). And in our opinion it is the closest so far (although still relatively far away!).
Then Universal Audio (UA) ATR-102 comes second. On some program material it helps to make lower midrange a little more graceful.
Then UA’s Studer A-800. It’s close on a head bump.
All of them above feel not true to the source in their upper ranges though, esp. the latter two (and esp. the last one). Some qualities are there, yet not quite there.
A side note. We preliminarily investigated this topic some time ago and it appeared that tape emulation would need to involve pretty sophisticated multi-band compression with a lot of bands, way more than today’s room correction software implements EQ frequency ranges. It means that it’d be pretty resource extensive. Doable, yet not super practical.
With that said, certainly there are other plugins as well. Yet they bring more of their own individual character in chase for tape sound. It might be an advantage, like some uniqueness, or disadvantage- if you’re looking for that sound.
So, are they useless then? No! Absolutely no!
If you ask us, we’re after uniqueness :). For example, quite recently, we’ve just used noise generated by one of these plugins in order to support some reconstruction process during remastering.
Sometimes HF boost on UAD’s emulations can serve better than just the same on other EQs! If program might handle what they do in lower ranges however. So they’re more suitable/useful in mixing scenarios, rather than mastering.
Some bottom-end light mixes might benefit from esp. UA’s A-800 that is capable of fattening sometimes in pretty interesting way. Yet for mastering, it’s usually too big change.
And so on.
So, they all have their place.
Anyway, something worth to mention- do not loose the bigger picture!
Sometimes good EQ decision/move may do more good to the sound/mix than tape effect.
What’s the best High Pass filter in your opinion? We assume that the ‘best’ means the ‘most musical’.
In such case we would choose Dangerous Music BAX EQ (hardware).
Then, we would very likely reach out for Weiss EQ1 and PSP Master Q2.
We have not heard anything close yet.
Important note #1: We’ve certainly not heard every EQ available with high pass/low cut filters.
Important note #2: We’re spoiled a bit by mastering applications. In other scenarios, where there’s more demand for more thorough sound shaping, other EQ’s might work well too!
Yes, we do some!
Due to COVID and parts delivery delays, releases are postponed!
Please visit this page regularly and/or subscribe to our news list (top right corner/menu).
0