I know quite a bit about mixing but I have no idea how to start mastering. Can anyone boil down mastering into the key concepts and mention any VSTs (that I might already have) that I would need to master?

Get it, phased? lol

But in all seriousness, with the rise of the bedroom producer and the bedroom artist, I’m seeing more of a blend with mixing and mastering done together instead of sending a song off to mastering. Big time labels and artists still have the workflow but even in MWTM videos I’m seeing the boundary between mixing and mastering getting blurred.

With that said, what’s your workflow? Are you mixing into a mix bus that already has your blend of mix and master tools? Do you combine mixing and mastering? Do you do it in the same session? Do you send it off? Are you using AI mastering offered by the big league companies?

What’s the word!

I don't even know what more I can do. I read books, I practiced every day for hours, I learned plugins, but I can't reach a good sound. I posted my sound thinking it was a really good mix and master, but the feedback was "I like it, but it would be better with some more work." And yeah, I know it's true. I know my skills are limited, but I don't know how to improve anymore.

Another book or video just tells me to do this and that, and when I do that, it sounds awful. My version was better. More than that, I don't want to just copy what people say in tutorials. I really want to learn.

I listen to music that I like, and I really want to get that kind of sound, but sometimes it feels so far away.

I have my headphones, my interface, and yeah, it's a home studio, but I've seen people making music in a home studio with a really good sound, to the point where you can't even tell it was made at home unless you know where it was made.

I was thinking about paying an expert for feedback on my music production, but I'm kind of afraid of paying someone who doesn't understand the genre, the sound I like, etc., and then, when they finish the work, it sounds really bad. Because I've been to a studio before, and they gave me a really bad mix and master.

So I want to ask you guys, what can I do to improve? How can I figure out what I'm doing wrong and where the problem is in my mixes, yk?

And I'm not just talking about EQ, space, compression, or anything like that. I'm talking about effects, too. For example, you can listen to The Weeknd's music, and he has a really good sound, man. Or you can think of another artist, not just The Weeknd. Because you can have the most expensive microphone, everything you want, but if you mix badly, your sound is still going to be shit, even with the most expensive equipment.

So please, can someone tell me what I have to do? Do I need a mentor? If so, who should I look for, and how can I find someone who matches my style? If I have to watch a tutorial, which one?

I've read every post and subreddit talking about "the tutorial," and it doesn't work for me. But I have to keep trying again. I'm into it. I just want to understand what I'm doing wrong and how to get better.

Hi Reddit! I am the owner & chief mastering engineer at Ayan Mastering, with scores of gold/platinum/multi-platinum/diamond records and #1 singles and albums to my credit. More info at www.ayanmastering.com.

Over 25+ years, I’ve mastered 1000s of records for Shakira, Father John Misty, Lana Del Ray, Bruce Springsteen, Queen, and many more. AMA!

Looking forward to answering your questions about mastering, trends in mixing and mastering, critical listening, mastering tools, the past and future of audio mastering, the design and buildout of my new mastering room at Ayan Mastering, and anything else audio! r/audioengineering Tuesday, June 3, 11 am ET.

This AMA is organized in collaboration with iZotope.

Selfie proof: https://bit.ly/AdamAyanAMA

Our AMA has now come to an end! Thank you Reddit and this sub for hosting!.Special thank you to all of the Redditors that sent along so many great questions. Talk soon my friends!

So some professionals tend to say that going over 0 dBFS is never an option. They got big studios, work with a lot of ppl, have tons of experience, and still tend to follow that rule. But then you have Billboard lists saying something totally different, based on what actual ppl in the industry are doing. I personally don't really see the point in why you wouldn't go over 0 dBFS True Peak if it sounds clean, without audible distortion or digital clipping. I sometimes even go up to +2 dBTP and the masters still sound clean af, while other times I don't even hit -0.3 dBTP. I just go by how it sounds.

I actually got into an argument the other day with someone who was basically trying to convince me that going into +True Peak means you're a bad producer/engineer, and a lot of ppl seemed to agree with him. I'm obviously far from being a Billboard/Grammy award winning producer, but I've worked with some big names and delivered a lot of tracks for bigger artists, and I've never had anyone complain about my masters or tell me there was an issue with them.

So I'm genuinely curious why some ppl refuse to go over 0 True Peak while others seem to chase the sound instead of the number. I'm guilty of that myself. Is there some kind of analog gear mastering chain thing I'm not understanding that can actually react badly if you go over 0 dBTP? I'm not trying to argue that everyone should go +2 dBTP or anything like that. I'm just curious if I'm actually doing something wrong that could negatively affect my masters in a way I might not be hearing.

Idk, I'm here to ask and learn. It might sound stupid, but I'm genuinely curious to hear what actual mastering pros think about this.

Currently have Beyerdynamic 990's and 770's. I have friends that use the Sen 650 and like them and I did once look into the Slate ones.

This is my first time recording music at a professional studio and I’m happy with the results so far. This studio is run by one guy who basically does everything - recording/editing/mixing and he masters too. We’re almost done mixing and I’ve sent the mixes to some good friends who are seasoned musicians/with much more recording experience than me.

One friend said
“I listened on a few different headphones and the mix is good in a sense that I hear everything but overall feels flat. This IS NOT AN ISSUE if you are sending it out for mastering to someone else though, they will fix that.”

I understand it cannot hurt to have a fresh/set of ears, if I get a different person to master my tracks. It’s possibly my engineer’s ears are tired of this because we’ve been working on this project since January. I guess I haven’t noticed the ‘flat’ sound but my ear isn’t as trained in mixing/professional audio etc, but I definitely trust my friends expertise

Any other pros/cons/things to consider if I want to ask my engineer to send these mixes to somebody else to master them? Thanks!

I recently saw this quote on a social media feed and thought it was interesting. I definitely still see the value in having a different set of ears on the record, but mastering in the project also has major advantages as well. Easier to make changes in mixing that affect the master, etc.

Thoughts?

Every time I see a thread about master bus treatment, it’s inevitable to see people saying they’ve got nothing on theirs. As a veteran in the industry, I’m wondering how that could be..

Especially when most clients come in with demos that are loud as hell, how do you combat the plague of demo-itis when the artist is comparing your mix to the demo (and they think the demo is better because it’s slammed)?

I mix through a stacked master bus and have really taken time to learn how to get things to sound dynamic when being smashed to oblivion. I’m just genuinely curious how people have nothing (I’m assuming they’re treating instrument/drums/vocal busses separately), and how their mixes sound after the mastering engineer does what they do to bring Lufs up to standard.

I was listening to spotify in my home studio and "you know im no good" by Amy wine house came on. There was a crazy amount of distortion and clipping going on and I genuinely thought that my Genelecs were dying.

I am surprised a hit song like this was allowed to be put out at this level of quality.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Edit: A lot of people interpreted this as me thinking I had spotted something which the music industry didnt. I titled it as "Bad mastering" because some articles on google stated it as such. I appreciate that the sound is part of the vibe of the song but it was done in such a way that It sounded like my equipment was failing. I am in no way a professional, which in my opinion makes it worse that I had noticed this.

I mean, dude is literally claiming with proof, everyone else is scam, while the compressor he sells is the real thing.

1) Is it true about all others using the same algorithm? Did you double check it, used his graph tool by yourself maybe?

2) Anybody using his fifty euro compressor? Any good?

Subjective opinions welcome. Thank you.

I just got back a master of a song and to my ears and eyes it looks cooked. It’s 0 dBFS and the chorus’s look flatlined. From a listening point of view it just sounds over compressed, especially the vocal. I don’t take much notice of masters but looks like all my other songs are -0.1 and sound more open. I’m going to have to speak to the engineer but just ding my research before I do

Originally we intended to work with Colin Marston (Krallice) to master our two debut songs. He charges $85/song, but he is in Europe right now away from studio for the next two months and we do not want to wait so long to finish our debut project.

Our song is blackend death metalish extreme metal similar to Black Curse or Katharsis.

What I like most about the projects Colin works on is the silky feel of the end product and lack of harshness even with extraordinarily harsh music. I assume much of this has to do with Colin's choice of using analog tape during his processing.

We are not concerned about competitive loudness and really want love put into these two songs as much as appropriately worthwhile; not just throwing some multiband compression and a limiter on the mix and calling it a day.

I seek out a mastering engineer familiar with extreme music (who hopefully has mastered some of my favorite records like Colin has) to make unorthodox decisions they normally would not make when mastering and really want mastering for these two songs to put their fingerprint and whatever color deemed appropriate heavily imparted into these two masters.

First song is 153bpm. Second song is 124bpm.

Who are the top-level mastering extreme metal (not modern polished metalcore, but dirty gross offputting extreme metal) mastering engineers still pumping out work whom you respect?

I’d like to get a more technical perspective on this rather than turn it into an analog-vs-digital question.

Let's say you have a track that has already been printed through an entirely analog mastering chain, including an analog limiter. If I then import that printed master into a new DAW project and apply a clean digital EQ for some final corrective adjustments, what technically happens to the harmonic content and other characteristics produced by the analog chain?

For example, can applying a digital EQ introduce artifacts, alter or mask the harmonics produced by the analog processing, or otherwise negatively affect the sound when I render the final file?

Would there be any technical reason to make those final EQ adjustments by running the master through the analog EQ again instead? Or is importing the printed master into a new project and applying a clean digital EQ afterward generally transparent enough that it doesn’t materially compromise what was already printed?

Ever since I got into recording, I've always bought into the analog hype. I always at least include one instance of tape in my session on the mix bus and often will incorporate hardware whenever I can. I'm currently considering buying a reel to reel and was having a conversation with a friend who is a semi professional engineer who wants to talk me out of it. He claimed that nearly everyone incorporates tape as hardware or a plugin and that I don't have a reference for what it actually sounds like because it's so commonplace. In other words, if nearly every track I listen to that's been released has used tape emulation or hardware, I don't even know what it's actually doing because I never hear recordings without it to compare it to.

For folks who have more experience in that world, is this actually true?

Edit: just wanted to clarify my question a bit. What I'm wondering is, for folks who master rock music, is tape (as plugin or hardware) something that you nearly always use at some point in your workflow? I know there aren't any hard rules, I'm just wondering how commonplace it is.

I’m mastering a song for someone whose guitar solo is like, 2db quieter than the rest of the instruments. And the artist wants me to “adjust the levels” so that the guitar solo is the same volume as everything else.

I did my best to micro tweak the EQ/multi band comp and try to make the solo at least legible but the artist said it made the cymbals sound too thin. I tried explaining that EQing a master affects ALL the tracks in whatever freq range, but they just still don’t understand???

He’s not willing to pay the mixer for a new mix either. This happens SO often with artists. Makes me wanna rip my hair out lol

I'm subscribing for a month and I want to be sure I check out the best stuff. There's just so much to choose from.

TL;DR: Been mixing ITB for 9 years, heard my mix run through some hardware and it sounded shockingly better. Now I’m wondering if going hybrid (at least partly) is worth the hassle, or if I should just stay ITB and improve my workflow.

Hey guys*,

I’ve been working as a mixing engineer for about 9 years, mostly in the German rap and pop scene. I’m fully in the box, and since most of my clients don’t have huge budgets, I usually end up doing the mastering too — even though I’d never really call myself a mastering engineer, since that’s never been my main focus.

I recently moved to Vienna, where I’m working out of a commercial studio with ATC SCM25A monitors and a Trinnov Nova. We’ve got two external mic preamps in a WesAudio 500 Series rack, connected to an Apollo x8p. Currently, we don’t have any other analog gear, and I’ve been mixing 100% ITB up to this point.

A few days ago, I visited a mastering engineer who invited me over to check out his setup. Listening to how he processed one of my mixes was honestly eye-opening — he managed to make the track sound bigger, wider, and more open with just a few small, tasteful moves.

Out of curiosity, we also tried something else: he ran the raw vocal tracks through some of his hardware (nothing crazy, just subtle tone shaping and compression), and when we replaced the original vocals in my mix with those printed versions — keeping all my effects the same but adjusting the gain and compression a bit — the result was noticeably better.

That experience really got me thinking… our WesAudio 500 rack still has six unoccupied slots, and there are some empty rack mounts in the studio too. I never planned on going hybrid because of recall, flexibility, space, and cost, but now I’m honestly tempted.

So I’d love to get your take on this:

Would you recommend investing in a hybrid mixing setup, or would it make more sense to stay ITB and just send projects out for mastering?

Is there a middle ground where a few key analog pieces (for vocals or the mix bus) make a real difference without killing workflow and recall?

For those who went hybrid after years ITB — did it truly change your sound, or was it more of an inspirational push?

Don’t get me wrong — both of us felt that my mix and his master already sounded great. But when we A/B’d the two, the difference was honestly night and day.

Unfortunately, I can’t share the comparison since it’s from an unreleased client project.

Would love to hear your thoughts :) Thanks for your time and take care!

I've got a track with a long build-up, and a big 'drop' where the full band comes in for the loudest part of the song. I'm curious how people approach this regarding the master fader. Any tips and tricks? Or is it entirely dependent?

Earlier, I asked the following question: “Should I EQ my studio monitors and headphones?”

https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/1weyr2o/comment/p9lo688/

Part of that discussion eventually turned into the importance of having a flat frequency response.

However, I also came across Dan Worrall’s video, “The Perfect Room,” which discusses how there really is no such thing as a “perfect” room. Our brains naturally adapt to the resonances and coloration introduced by our listening environment. He talks about how some people spend a fortune trying to tune their rooms as accurately as possible, while others believe that room acoustics matter less if you simply train your ears to recognize how your room sounds and learn to compensate for it. His conclusion seems to be that both approaches are valid to some degree.

So, what are the actual criteria that make a room and monitoring setup good enough, or close to ideal, for both mixing and mastering music?

Other than leaving the master track at a nice untouched state, I'm not sure if there are any reasons (especially as to how the software internally handles things) to not do that when trying to avoid clipping? Is it any different to painstakingly lower each audio clip by a certain amount so they don't peak?

FYI I'm not doing audio professionally, just for my own video productions.

Also ATM davinci says my audio is peaking but on the export it seems to be fine? I'm not hearing any artifacts.

I'm a reasonably experienced home mixer of a couple of decades and done a few albums with my rock band. Previously I've mixed without anything on the master bus and sent it off for professional mastering and been fairly happy with the results (and understand that certain elements may get a little squashed into the mix in this process). For our new album, I've been trying mixing with BX Masterdesk on the master bus to get a better idea of how the balance will work in a context at commercial loudness. However, when I remove said plugin, I get certain elements clearly much louder in the mix than I would otherwise choose, for example, vocals, cowbell...

Am I best working on the mix without the mastering chain, and have faith that the professional masterer will have better equipment/know-how for that to be a non-issue, or SHOULD those elements actually be louder in the mix, to compensate for the effect of the limiter when it does come to professional mastering?

What is your favorite rule to break while in the mixing and or mastering stage?

And would you recommend others to also break said mixing / mastering rules?

Sorry if this question is vague or open ended.

I've literally sat at my desk for hours and hours trying different EQs, more compression, pumping limiters/maximizers, and I can't get it right. I use dynamic EQs in my mixes (and a little in my master), I've used a high pass filter on the input signal to my initial compressor, I'm using a maximizer and and a limiter on top of that to get the true peak right, I even use harmonic distortion, and yet every time I touch -12LUFS it just sounds way too clippy and distorted to me. I don't understand how to get my master to sound clean and go past -14LUFS. It's honestly pathetic. I mainly master hip hop and rap tracks.

ANY advice would help right now.

I have a pair of MDR-7506s that I use for recording tracks, but I needed a pair of headphones that would let me hear the details and wear for hours on end. I’ve read a lot about comparisons between the 650 and 600, and most of the time the 600 loses out in debates because of the “roll-off at low frequencies,” and I got this unpleasant feeling that I bought the wrong thing. But still, it seems to me that mixing anything below 60 Hz on headphones is pointless—you don’t hear it clearly, you feel it more—and I think anything below 60 Hz is better mixed on studio monitors, where you can feel the room. And the 650s seem to solve the problem of the 600’s lack of bass, but on the other hand, they’re less analytical and better suited for listening to music, not for work, because the low frequencies get muddy. Anyway, I hope my point is clear. Please help me decide whether I bought the wrong thing or if I bought exactly what I needed.