Hi,

I would like to take a course in audio mastering and I found several places that teach it but they all teach different software so I don't know what to learn. There is ProTools, Logic, Audition, I am editing using Final Cut X, what would be the most beneficial to learn?

Mastering for music and audio for picture are quite different. As are the target playback destination.. broadcast TV, DVD, theater, ect.
Many papers have been written on the subject.. I would start with "Advanced Television
ATSC Recommended Practice: Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television"
http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a_85-2011a.pdf

I am only interested in mastering audio for picture.

...There is ProTools, Logic, Audition, I am editing using Final Cut X, what would be the most beneficial to learn?
What audio software is being used by people you know and work with? It can be helpful to think about who you might be collaborating with in post production.

I find Audition fairly straightforward. PT has its own methods of media management, which I find irritating. Don't know anything about Logic. Lots of people are using all three of these products and making money, they're all capable.

But "mastering" is a slippery term. If you're wondering which of these products would serve you best, you might need the basics of post-sound for video. Mastering for distribution standards vary widely, what you should be doing for the web is very different than DVD/BR, theatrical, or broadcast. A good post-sound course should touch on mastering for distribution.

I used to use Samplitude for mastering but have found it just as easy to use Sony Vegas which has a surprisingly good audio engine. I use several plugins for dynamic control and EQ that aren't included in Vegas as the stock effects aren't good enough for professional mastering.

What audio software is being used by people you know and work with? It can be helpful to think about who you might be collaborating with in post production.

I find Audition fairly straightforward. PT has its own methods of media management, which I find irritating. Don't know anything about Logic. Lots of people are using all three of these products and making money, they're all capable.

But "mastering" is a slippery term. If you're wondering which of these products would serve you best, you might need the basics of post-sound for video. Mastering for distribution standards vary widely, what you should be doing for the web is very different than DVD/BR, theatrical, or broadcast. A good post-sound course should touch on mastering for distribution.

The thing is that I don't work with anyone else. I don't collaborate with anyone. I just want my audio sound better.

Mastering has more to do with a good room and proper monitoring than with software. This book is an excellent place to start. Bob is one of the masters.

Amazon.com: Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science (9780240808376): Bob Katz: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Audio-The-Art-Science/dp/0240808371)

Also recommended reading for learning and reference: The books on audio for video production and post-production by Jay Rose...

Amazon.com: Jay Rose: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle (http://www.amazon.com/Jay-Rose/e/B000APKOEM/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_3?qid=1374700660&sr=1-3)

Kathy, good audio mastering for video starts with great sounding voice tracks, well recorded. And that's up to you to record those first.
If you haven't got those, your final result will never sound the way you want it to.

So first, concentrate on using the right mic in the right position to get those good voice tracks. Then your recorded music and sound effects can be louder
under your voices to give your track some punch, without losing the voices diction. Bad, weak or thin sounding voice tracks mean you can't have your music 'loud' under the voices, it'll just drown them out.

There are other tricks with compressors and equalisers, but that comes first.

Cheers.

The principles of mixing & mastering apply across all the sound packages mentioned at the beginning of the thread - learn on any one of them and apply these skills on any other.

Although there are some things to pick up from books and internet forums, taking a course can be *very* helpful!

You should be learning in a good listening environment, getting some ear training under the guidance of someone who knows what she/he is talking about, as well as developing skills in eq, compression, mixing, and mastering.

To come back to Kathy's original question, I think the course and the teacher are way more important than the software. See if you can catch these instructors on the phone, maybe it will be obvious who you should be signing up with.

Probably Pro Tools and Pyramix are the top two for this.

A friend is the Sound Supervisor for "Later...with Jools Holland" which is sold worldwide - he uses Pyramix.

There is also SADiE and Sequoia (I use Sequoia).

OK, I am looking at taking classes online, here is one I think I could start with:
Critical Listening 1 - Berklee Online (http://online.berklee.edu/courses/critical-listening-1)

then this one (the reason I am leaning towards Logic is because it takes Final Cut X XML files)
Desktop Music Production for Mac - Berklee Online (http://online.berklee.edu/courses/desktop-music-production-for-mac)

And then there is Lynda.com
Watch the Online Video Course Audio Mastering Techniques (http://www.lynda.com/Mastering-tutorials/Audio-Mastering-Techniques/109358-2.html)
there are many different tutorials on Lynda.

Any suggestions?

I'd skip "desktop music production on the mac". Berklee is a great school, I've not looked at any of their online material, but music production isn't what you're about. Ear training from Berklee might or might not be helpful. It's probably music-oriented as well. I'd find it interesting, but not to the point.

Lots of students I talk to are using lynda.com. I think you can go by the month there? In your shoes I would subscribe and see what I can work through in a month or two.

However, these online courses are only going to be as good as your playback. I've taught in classrooms where it was impossible to hear fine differences in filter settings - very frustrating, and not helpful to students.

Step one of improving the sound you deliver is improving the accuracy of your monitoring. There are many threads on this topic in the forum... search is your friend! Here's a typical thread, found by searching on "monitors": http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-things-audio/100057-monitor-speaker-suggestions.html
Or this on "speakers": http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-things-audio/501282-best-desktop-audio-monitoring-solution.html

In summary, "good" speakers for entertainment are not "good" monitors for mixing, and headphones are impossible! Some rooms are going to be very difficult to finish your mixing in.

The good news is that quality monitors will last you for years...

I'd also suggest taking some of your best mixes to studios that have good monitoring. This can be very educational... and quickly reveal any weaknesses in your own monitoring.

OK. So let's assume, I recorded a video, an interview. It sounds "fine", levels are fine etc. I want to make it better. Like let's say post process it. Same way let's say, I record video in RAW format and it's a bit flat, colors need some adjustments etc. Can I do this sort of thing for audio? Last time someone posted an example of the recorded audio and it sounded very nice and then they they showed it "processed" or mastered. It sounded better. I want to know what to learn to make my sound better. The person who posted the examples used Izotope Ozone 5 Complete Mastering System. Maybe I should learn that? I am so confused.

Ozone is a *great* product. I am back on Ozone 3 (running as an audio filter in Vegas) and it outclasses what Vegas can do in a couple specific areas, and Vegas is no slouch when it comes to audio.

It has a multiband compressor, that is, it can compress the dynamic range of selected frequency bands differently.

Ozone has a stunning loudness maximiser, it sounds really great. This is probably what you heard. Loudness max is sort of an intelligent variant of dynamic range compression.

It has 4 or 5 other built-in filters that are all very good, but not as unique as above.

I highly recommend Ozone. Don't have any idea how it works with FCP-X, don't know anything about the audio tools in FCP-X.

But it does sound like you have some learning in front of you...

In music prod., mastering is typically done after the mix stage, I follow the same work flow for audio post for picture. If the mix is not good (or more important, the location recordings) the mastering process is just 'polishing a turd'.
I mix in Slo-tools, Nuendo or Vegas. (depending on the project) Final mastering and surgical fixes are done with Sound Forge... which BTW is now available for the Mac OS.

Just some thoughts, for whatever they are worth.

Mastering as a term can be applied to a wide range of sound types.

One might "master" a simple radio spot consisting of a voiceover and a music bed. In an example like that, you might be primarily concerned with making sure that the VO cuts through the mix and stays clear and dominant, regardless of what the music track is doing. (And even that simple example could be a very different deal if you're doing a VO against a heavy rock bed verses doing the same VO against a quiet harp background!) You might also apply dynamics processing such as audio compression or limiting to make sure that the overall sound of the spot remains robust and clear regarrdless of the type of playback system it's played on.

Another kind of "Mastering" is a little like "making stew."
You're generally taking a wide range of sonic ingredients and blending them together into a cohesive whole.
Music producers do this commonly. They might be looking at actually supressing specific frequencies in the recordings of one or more instruments to create a sonic space for a competitive sound. This is another way to make something like a specific vocal or instrument solo "stand out" from the overall mix.

As you can see, "mastering" isn't just ONE thing. It's a range of things.

A qualified sound mixer could well master the same content differently if they knew it was going to be played back on different devices. A simple example would be that if you knew your content was going to be played back in a movie theater with Dolby 5.1 surround sound and subwoofers, you'd spend a lot more time mixing for a powerful low end than you would if you were going to master the same content for a political spot that was going to be used via a telephone survey system.

There are standards - some of them already mentioned here. You ALWAYS want to concentrate on capturing clean, full spectrum recordings with the best possible signal to noise ratio. It's not always possible, but it's ALWAYS the goal in field recording. Thats the audio equivalent to shooting properly exposed properly color balanced field footage.

Then you want to stop and consider what your target audience will be and what their expectations might be.

To risk extending my cooking analogy. You should start with the basic stuff. Learn how common audio cooking tools like compressors, limiters, and equalizers work. This is kind of like learning to use heat in cooking, but the "heat" might be techniques like compression and limiting and reverb and noise gating. Slow simmering is useful - and so is flash frying. Different, but both very useful.

Then move on to experimenting with using those against a variety of content types. You'll learn things like applying heavy compression to a clean vocal track - has a VERY different effect than applying the same compression to a soundtrack with a poor signal to noise ratio.

What you'll learn here and on the net is essentially recipes. But all good cooks quickly go beyond recipes to an understanding of how cooking works at a broader level. What ingredients work with other ingredients. When to pull out the frying pan, and when to pull out the blowtorch.

Sorry to be so long winded, but I hope that helps a bit.

Just some thoughts, for whatever they are worth.

Mastering as a term can be applied to a wide range of sound types.

One might "master" a simple radio spot consisting of a voiceover and a music bed. In an example like that, you might be primarily concerned with making sure that the VO cuts through the mix and stays clear and dominant, regardless of what the music track is doing. (And even that simple example could be a very different deal if you're doing a VO against a heavy rock bed verses doing the same VO against a quiet harp background!) You might also apply dynamics processing such as audio compression or limiting to make sure that the overall sound of the spot remains robust and clear regarrdless of the type of playback system it's played on.

Another kind of "Mastering" is a little like "making stew."
You're generally taking a wide range of sonic ingredients and blending them together into a cohesive whole.
Music producers do this commonly. They might be looking at actually supressing specific frequencies in the recordings of one or more instruments to create a sonic space for a competitive sound. This is another way to make something like a specific vocal or instrument solo "stand out" from the overall mix.

As you can see, "mastering" isn't just ONE thing. It's a range of things.

A qualified sound mixer could well master the same content differently if they knew it was going to be played back on different devices. A simple example would be that if you knew your content was going to be played back in a movie theater with Dolby 5.1 surround sound and subwoofers, you'd spend a lot more time mixing for a powerful low end than you would if you were going to master the same content for a political spot that was going to be used via a telephone survey system.

There are standards - some of them already mentioned here. You ALWAYS want to concentrate on capturing clean, full spectrum recordings with the best possible signal to noise ratio. It's not always possible, but it's ALWAYS the goal in field recording. Thats the audio equivalent to shooting properly exposed properly color balanced field footage.

Then you want to stop and consider what your target audience will be and what their expectations might be.

To risk extending my cooking analogy. You should start with the basic stuff. Learn how common audio cooking tools like compressors, limiters, and equalizers work. This is kind of like learning to use heat in cooking, but the "heat" might be techniques like compression and limiting and reverb and noise gating. Slow simmering is useful - and so is flash frying. Different, but both very useful.

Then move on to experimenting with using those against a variety of content types. You'll learn things like applying heavy compression to a clean vocal track - has a VERY different effect than applying the same compression to a soundtrack with a poor signal to noise ratio.

What you'll learn here and on the net is essentially recipes. But all good cooks quickly go beyond recipes to an understanding of how cooking works at a broader level. What ingredients work with other ingredients. When to pull out the frying pan, and when to pull out the blowtorch.

Sorry to be so long winded, but I hope that helps a bit.
Thanks Bill for the explanation. I only want to make vocals sound better. I shoot interviews and then I put them in a 3 min video that is only played online.
I want to start learning basics. How can I find a class that teaches basics? What should I be looking for when reading class description to make sure they teach the basics stuff?

Hi Kathy,

This is kind of a tough one.

Generally, audio is more self taught than learned in a structured program. (There ARE programs, but they tend to be based on recording studio techniques, not just audio for video.)

If you're a self learner, I'd second the recommendation for Jay Rose's book. Some parts are technical and you can skip those at first it you don't want to know the science, but around that stuff is a LOT of practical knowledge.

Where you probably want to start is playing around with some simple compression. Compression (as the name implies) narrows the dynamic range of a signal - the difference between the loud and quiet sounds. That means it boosts the quiet and/or lowers the loud so that the entire signal is sonically more at the same level.

The "gotcha" with compression is that if your source sound wasn't recorded cleanly with a good signal to noise ratio - then compression will take quiet bad stuff like hiss or rumble or the sound of an air conditioning unit that you didn't hear much in the original recording, and make it WORSE since it's level will be raised by the compression.

With audio. Step ONE is always to learn how to LISTEN during the recording phase - so you learn to identify problems that will only get worse along the audio processing chain. You've got to school yourself to listen to the lows, mids and highs for both the signals AND the common types of noise that you find in those frequency bands.

If you have a clean signal to start with - then compression will make it sound more "up front" and more consistently "present" compared to the other sounds in your mix.

That's a simple start, anyway.

Good luck and feel free to ask more here if you run into more questions.

Thanks Bill for the explanation. I only want to make vocals sound better. I shoot interviews and then I put them in a 3 min video that is only played online.
I want to start learning basics. How can I find a class that teaches basics? What should I be looking for when reading class description to make sure they teach the basics stuff?

As Mr. Davis says, getting a great original dialog track is the starting point. How good are your raw tracks? Are they the very best they can be? What barrier(s) are there to getting pristine dialog tracks? I would consider "mastering" (or just post-production mixing) a second-order concern AFTER getting excellent tracks during shooting.

Using a crummy microphone, or bad technique can't be fixed with the very best post--production "sweetening" or "mastering".

Kathy - When Music Technology first became a proper UK exam subject in colleges, there was a huge demand for on-line training for teachers, but it failed pretty miserably. Your quest for remote training will almost certainly have the same problems. So much of the problem is not down to technical aspects but down to your ears, and your ability to hear the things that the 'experts' can. Your ears need training too!

A good example is compression. Can you actually hear it begin to bite? I know many people who simply cannot detect it - and gradually get the subtleties of what is happening. Trying to do this by remote is so difficult. You NEED to hear the knob being turned, not SEE it.

I suspect very much Kathy is trying to gain the skills too quickly - this aural training is not something everyone picks up speedily, and some never hear these things, ever!

One other difficulty is describing in words what you can hear - you recognise a defect, and wish to fix it, but you can't yet describe the problem in words.To make "Vocals sound better" - you have to explain what is wrong with it now. Did you use the wrong mic, the wrong distance, the wrong room, the wrong settings? We have no idea. You use the term 'mastering' - but what you seem to be talking about is not mastering at all, it's simply post-production in broad terms - we have mixing/balancing, and repair work. Fixing dodgy location sound is always a last resort. Wherever possible, the skills needed to not produce flawed material in the first place need to be present. Usually these then come in very handy later.

I suspect trying to gain 'repair skills' before you've let the real basics settle in will be futile. Best solution is to find somebody local to you who can show you, and let you hear what they do, rather than try to fix it yourself.

The software people are recommending is all perfectly great for the experts, but much is a VERY steep learning curve, and needs very good quality monitoring to be precise. Many people are mixing on compromised monitors in rooms with poor acoustics - and the skilled ones have learned how their setup compromises the integrity of the sound, and can make adjustments. Others do not realise how 'screwed up' their audio is and get a big surprise when they hear on in better equipment in good rooms and discover some really unpleasant sounds!

We may be able to help, but you must explain in great detail - not just say the sound is bad. Some bad sound cannot be fixed. Other types can. Maybe we could even hear the problem audio - that helps as a general idea, but the most common problems can often only have one solution for a perfect repair - a re-recording!

OK,
what about starting with these lessons:
Watch the Online Video Course Foundations of Audio: Reverb (http://www.lynda.com/Audio-tutorials/Foundations-Audio-Reverb/89707-2.html)
Watch the Online Video Course Foundations of Audio: Delay and Modulation (http://www.lynda.com/Audio-DAW-tutorials/Foundations-of-Audio-Delay-and-Modulation/89708-2.html)
Watch the Online Video Course Foundations of Audio: EQ and Filters (http://www.lynda.com/Audio-DAW-tutorials/Foundations-of-Audio-EQ-and-Filters/86649-2.html)
Watch the Online Video Course Foundations of Audio: Compression and Dynamic Processing (http://www.lynda.com/Logic-Pro-tutorials/Foundations-of-Audio-Compression-and-Dynamic-Processing/85998-2.html)

Looks like lynda.com is weighted towards protools in their instruction.

If you subscribe, watch the first 10 minutes of this music mixing course, for info on your work environment, monitors, acoustics:
Watch the Online Video Course Audio Mixing Bootcamp (http://www.lynda.com/Audio-Mixing-Mastering-tutorials/Audio-Mixing-Bootcamp/87006-2.html)

Then I'd go with the compression and eq courses you found. Skip delay and reverb - commonly applied in music production, way less often in audio for video.

Then perhaps this overview of Audition CS6:
Watch the Online Video Course Audition CS6 Essential Training (http://www.lynda.com/course-tutorials/Audition-CS6-Essential-Training/97615-2.html)

At some point in the above classes, you'll want to be trying things out in FCP-X, discovering how these basic tools work there. You should be developing an overview of which post audio sw seems most accessible and valuable to you

Looks like lynda.com is weighted towards protools in their instruction.

If you subscribe, watch the first 10 minutes of this music mixing course, for info on your work environment, monitors, acoustics:
Watch the Online Video Course Audio Mixing Bootcamp (http://www.lynda.com/Audio-Mixing-Mastering-tutorials/Audio-Mixing-Bootcamp/87006-2.html)

Then I'd go with the compression and eq courses you found. Skip delay and reverb - commonly applied in music production, way less often in audio for video.

Then perhaps this overview of Audition CS6:
Watch the Online Video Course Audition CS6 Essential Training (http://www.lynda.com/course-tutorials/Audition-CS6-Essential-Training/97615-2.html)

At some point in the above classes, you'll want to be trying things out in FCP-X, discovering how these basic tools work there. You should be developing an overview of which post audio sw seems most accessible and valuable to you
Hi Seth,

Thanks for the info. I already have a Lynda.com subscription. I will start with the videos you suggested.
Can I upload a typical audio recording that I would considered good and see if anyone here can instruct me on whether I am doing something wrong when recording the sound and then how much improvement I could expect if I was to post process it?

Maybe this has been covered, but when taking raw audio tracks from a video shoot out of the project to make them sound better, you need to "Mix" them first, then "Master" them. The mix process is where you set the levels of each track so they go together nicely, adding music or whatever to the mix, making sure the voices are all at a level that matches the others. Then when you have a good mix, you Master the mix to add overall sweetening to the entire mix. In the mix, you might put individual compressors and EQ on each separate voice track. Then in the mastering you put compression and EQ and maybe Maximization onto the whole mix.

I mix in Cubase, then I use iZotope Ozone5 (a plug-in) in my master bus to sweeten the whole mix. It's a deep area, and it's harder than video to, ahem, master. Vegas actually started out as an audio app (DAW), then added video later, and you cpuld completely Mix and Master a project in Vegas. For a more simple approach if you're not working in Vegas, Adobe Audition is a popular and full featured DAW. It's designed more simply.

Like Chad, I prefer to mix in Cubase, and have used it since black and white Atari 520 days! However, I have experience of lots of others, BUT I'm most effective on Cubase, because I know it so well. Pro Tools is more widely used in video, and pro audio, but is now creeping up in the enthusiast sector too, and Cubase's integration with video is gaining converts. Logic, of course is also becoming popular too because more people seem to be getting Macs.

The practical upshot is that you make a choice. Frankly, it makes little difference, because the real skill is the operator, and keen operators always find workarounds for every system's foibles.

I don't know if it makes sense to add to an old post, but here's what I like and use:

For spoken word, I use Steinberg's Wavelab as the host mastering program. For my job it is extremely powerful and efficient. In fact I have time to write this post because while I'm typing, it's processing 4 hour-long files, each into 4 different formats into 4 different locations.

For video production, Wavelabs built in spectral editor is very powerful. The the colorful tool that allows you erase noises such as car horns, cell phone, alarms, and other distractions as easily as you erase a pmiple on someones face in Photoshop.
Wavelab 8 also has some very powerful audio level metering to make sure you are compliant with current broadcast standards.

The other part, the "mastering" part, is the available plugins that you have to enhance, or as they say in the video world "sweeten" the audio.

The plugins I use are:
1. Waves Vocal rider - it's a simple automated volume fader that evens out the audio levels without making it sound compressed.
2. Waves Linear low band EQ to filter low frequencies. I adjust it as high as I can without affecting the talent's voice.
3. Waves V-Comp. It's vintage sounding compressor that make a voice bigger and louder.
4. Voxengo Curve-EQ, included in Wavelab 8 - that is a graphic EQ that has to ability to copy the EQ characteristics of a source file, and apply it to your file. It's also handy to make all of your own recording sound the same if you used different mics in different locations
5. Waves VEQ4 - a vintage sounding EQ that I think is an emulation of a Neve EQ. I use the to EQ a voice to taste. It's just a great sounding EQ.
6. iZotope RX noise reduction. There is almost always distracting noise that needs to be removed. I have not heard a better noise reduction plugin.
7. finally, Waves L2 maximizer. It is a limiter that also boosts the loudness of your material. I set the output limit to -.1 db because some digital to analog converters can't handle 0db without distorting.

Now here is what I would recommend to you, unless you REALLY want to learn audio.
I recommend that you just use iZotope ozone, and start with a preset that you think sounds good. As you learn more, you can continually fine tune Ozone to sound exactly how you want it to.
I'd also recommend iZotope RX for noise reduction.

I don't know if FCX can host plugins, if it cant, then you will only need those 2 iZotops plugins. If it can't, then I recommend you use Wavelab.

I use Vegas to edit video, and wavelab to master the audio. In Vegas it is very easy to open a clip in Wavelab - you just right click a clip, open a copy in external editor - then it opens in Wavelab. Make it sound great, click save. Go back to Vegas and the new, enhanced clip will show on on top of the old one.clicking on the letter T will toggle between the takes - enhances vs origional. does FCX do that? If it does then you are golden!

If you want to hear what I do, go to Grace to You (http://www.gty.org) and watch any sermon video. I master all the sermon audio. I don't touch the other audio, only the church sermon.

~Jay

Vegas is also a great DAW, and you can put mastering plug-ins right into the master bus. Vegas started out as a DAW, then they added video later. I wish all NLEs has as good of audio capabilities as Vegas!

No NLE has the audio capabilities of Vegas. Even without the video, it's a very intuitive feature rich DAW. .. doesn't support MIDI though, which is important to some.

Oh I didn't know there was no midi. But for video editors it's probably not a big deal. I use Cubase for all my audio, and love it.

didn't know there was no midi. But for video editors it's probably not a big deal.
Many audio projects don't need MIDI either.
Vegas Pro addendum: DX and/or VST plug-ins or multiple plug-ins (chains) can be inserted on events/clips, tracks, sub-masters and masters. Different audio formats and/or different sample rate/ bit depth audio can co-exist on the same track(s) as well and edited at the sample level. However I use Sound Forge for audio surgery as well as SCS's (Sony) new SpectraLayers Pro, all of which integrate nicely together.

My suggestion to you is to find someone who is doing exactly what you want to be doing and emulate them.