Pre Masters Query

[MCP_Music]

Hi,

I have been sent an email from a label asking for my songs in the following format:
16bit 44Khz, -3dB without mastering chain, uncompressed.

Obviously 44/16 I can do.

Does the -3db part mean the meters can't peak any higher than -3dbfs, and should I be aiming for that mark?

I also mix into a compressor which is a part of my sound, so when it says 'Uncompressed' does that mean I have to unbolt the compressor from my main mix bus or can I get away with using the compressor and just not slamming the [ ****** ] out of it?

And I'm assuming 'without mastering chain' means no limiter/exciters etc..

Thanks for your time,
_Luca

[narcoman]

If the compressor is for flavour and part of the sound then leave it on. If its for "loudness" take it off.

Peak at 3dB - yeah why not. Little high for me but still fine.

Without mastering chain - yes remove the limiter and enhancer. Anything that you're using to globally change your mix and makw it "more commercial" (because really your mix shoud do that on its own - the problem with relying on mix buss processing is that its the road to a quieter mix when you get up against the punchy stuff !)

Pre-master? We call it a mix (I dislike this - "pre mastering" phrase thats cropping up ).

[Jack Ruston]

Yep...All it is is them asking for your mix in the format that their mastering guy would prefer...ie no brickwall limiting, ozone or any of that sort of thing, little bit of headroom. As Narcoman says, if you've mixed into a compressor and/or eq leave those on.

J

[Jack Ruston]

One thing that seems odd...If you've mixed it at 24bit, I'd expect they'd want the 24bit/44.1kHz mix, rather than letting you add dither and go to 16bit, and then have the mastering applying processes and have to re-dither it. I'd check that.

J

[Bossman]

Pre-master? We call it a mix (I dislike this - "pre mastering" phrase thats cropping up ).

the way I understand it is: A 'Master' is the output from the mastering house. A 'Pre-Master' is what mix engineers send to the mastering house to be mastered.

So, when I've finished a mix I make a pre-master to be sent for mastering.

[Daniel Davis]

I still don't understand why they would want it -3dB (or any specified level). Don't they have an input gain control?
It almost begs the response of sending it back to you 3dB louder and claiming an improvement.

[Jack Ruston]

I suppose it allows them to send it straight to analogue without any risk of inter sample clipping and without adding any numbers.

[shufflebeat]

Just a niggling thought here - could the term 'uncompressed' refer to the audio format rather than the mastering section - as in 'uncompressed audio'. I realise they've stipulated no mastering toys but it seems funny they've specifically spelt compression out again rather than limiting.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I still don't understand why they would want it -3dB (or any specified level).

To make sure that you haven't clipped the mix (a problem they can't fix!). Furthermore, inter-sample peaks will exist whereby the fully reconstructed waveform will peak higher than the sample peak levels displayed on most DAW metering. 3dB of headroom will accommodate most, although tests have shown heavily processed material can have inter-sample peaks higher than that. I normally leave 6dB myself.

And yes, they do have a digital input and will probably use it... But by specifying a 3dB headroom margin they are hoping to receive a mix which isn't clipped and which they can do something creative with.

H

[Hugh Robjohns]

Just a niggling thought here - could the term 'uncompressed' refer to the audio format rather than the mastering section...

Yes, absolutely. It's amazing, but some people really do often send mp3 files for mastering!

H

[Wease]

The op is sending the stuff to a label....not a mastering house....

I suppose this justifies the 16bit request

I'm going to bow to conjecture and suggest that they want tracks for a "sampler" cd.....and they'll do a quick levelling master "bodge" to all the tracks so none stand out.....probably hammering them all with a cheap software limiter

[narcoman]

Pre-master? We call it a mix (I dislike this - "pre mastering" phrase thats cropping up ).

the way I understand it is: A 'Master' is the output from the mastering house. A 'Pre-Master' is what mix engineers send to the mastering house to be mastered.

So, when I've finished a mix I make a pre-master to be sent for mastering.

well - i'm sidetracking now - but you shouldn't be changing a mix. You send the mix. The term "pre-master" has arisen from the oodles of home users who re-eq their mixes and generally fek up the mix even more for the unfortunate mastering engineer to fix!

The term pre- master started cropping up about 6 or 7 years ago.

[narcoman]

I still don't understand why they would want it -3dB (or any specified level). Don't they have an input gain control?
It almost begs the response of sending it back to you 3dB louder and claiming an improvement.

As others have said - it ensures no inter sample peaks above zero.

[Bossman]

Pre-master? We call it a mix (I dislike this - "pre mastering" phrase thats cropping up ).

the way I understand it is: A 'Master' is the output from the mastering house. A 'Pre-Master' is what mix engineers send to the mastering house to be mastered.

So, when I've finished a mix I make a pre-master to be sent for mastering.

well - i'm sidetracking now - but you shouldn't be changing a mix. You send the mix. The term "pre-master" has arisen from the oodles of home users who re-eq their mixes and generally fek up the mix even more for the unfortunate mastering engineer to fix!

The term pre- master started cropping up about 6 or 7 years ago.

No, I didn't mean to change the mix in any way, or re-eq the mix before mastering... Just that the name of the final mix that is going to be sent for mastering is called a 'pre master'. I saw this term mentioned in Bob Katz Mastering Audio book - a Pre master is what the mastering engineer receives, and a Master is what he returns.

[narcoman]

I know. I read it too. And it's "bogus" and a fine example of another "americanism". You mustn't say it in my place or i'll send you to the naughty corner.

I mentioned it to Bob and he just shrugged (he's a lovely man but not without faults and holes in his understanding of the biz).

[Jack Ruston]

Yeah, Bob's book is an awesome technical guide, and provides a very interesting and insightful look at the technical side of (some people's) mastering. But if you talk about 'pre masters' here in the UK people may misunderstand you and wrongly assume that you've done something more than just send a mix. Normally, you send a mix, you get a master.

J

[Daniel Davis]

I'm aware of inter-sampling peaks, and I didn't mean to advocate a high level. The same point presumably counts for the returned masters - and I don't see any mastering houses returning files which peak below -3dB. If the answer is brick wall limiting - well we can all do that.

And why would they specify 16-bit when most of us are quite capable of outputting 24-bit stereo mixes or stems?

Now if they had said... a stereo mix or stems of at least 16 bit uncompressed quality with no clipping or inter-sample peaks. Perhaps that is what they meant.

[Bossman]

I know. I read it too. And it's "bogus" and a fine example of another "americanism". You mustn't say it in my place or i'll send you to the naughty corner.

I mentioned it to Bob and he just shrugged (he's a lovely man but not without faults and holes in his understanding of the biz).

Ok, fair enough...

[narcoman]

I'm aware of inter-sampling peaks, and I didn't mean to advocate a high level. The same point presumably counts for the returned masters - and I don't see any mastering houses returning files which peak below -3dB. If the answer is brick wall limiting - well we can all do that.

And why would they specify 16-bit when most of us are quite capable of outputting 24-bit stereo mixes or stems?

Now if they had said... a stereo mix or stems of at least 16 bit uncompressed quality with no clipping or inter-sample peaks. Perhaps that is what they meant.

Most modern masters are damaged piles of rubbish - but you don't want to deliver a mix that way. The old mastering maxim of "first do no harm" no longer applies in a competitive loudness war.

There are plenty of re-construction peaks above zero in a hard limited master. It's not possible to have peaks under zero with a ceiling set near zero. Even un limited files make re-construct above zero. The maximum sample value is not the peak of the curve.

[SafeandSound Mastering]

Amongst other things I most importantly recommend the file should not be clipped. By using an appropriate gain structure during recording and mixing plenty of headroom can be built into the mix. As long as it is not clipped everything else is ultimately arbitrary excluding extremes. Working at around -12dBFS can make sense as a nominal level when working with analogue gear (unless you are driving it for sonic effect)

cheers

SafeandSound
High end online mastering

[MCP_Music]

Hi guys.

Wow I am always impressed at the wealth of information that pours from this forum.

I am working in the digital domain strictly at this point except for my mic pre.

I removed the limiter and had 12db of headroom. I am re balancing and as I go the level has crept up to -6db peak.

I will ad 3db of gain via gain plugin and I'm all set I think.

This is for a release of my songs and not a sample pack.

Thanks!!

[Jack Ruston]

You can use the master fader to trim the final level.

J