Cubase Pro 12/14: Need Mastering Template - Will Pay USD $50

[Newsoniclight]

(The above is the screenshot of an exported .wav mix of one of my most recent pieces. I’ll explain the other one below.)

– My overall genre: quasi-cinematic, slow groove old school prog rock-ish.
– DAW: Cubase 12 and 14
– OS: Windows 10

Maybe because in part my age (70) and some hearing loss in the high frequencies and also the common producing problem for even serious amateurs like me of not having enough low end no matter what I do, the end result is always too bright overall in all of my stuff.

I’ve used ChatGPT and applied some of the suggestions such as using a Limiter, paying attention to LUFS (my only platform is YouTube). It’s been useful since one can upload screenshots with the Plus version - plugin settings, whatever can help within Cubase, etc.

BUT… LLMs can’t actually hear anything as we humanoids can. It’s data, not ear driven. So figured I’d ask for some help from a fellow human…

Due to my overall genre, keeping dynamics intact is important. I don’t upload to Spotify or any other streaming service, and so not into brickwalled loudness wars. I don’t make music for money or even a following.

I even tried to take a shortcut such as getting Tim Exile’s Finalist mastering plugin but the presets and so on are too drastic. Fun stuff but not a good fit for me. I do have Ozone 11 Standard but get a bit lost using it - my aging brain overloads faster these days.

Here is a screenshot of my attempt to master the below linked YouTube video of one of my longer more complex tracks:

The blue audio is the imported mix, the yellow is my attempted mastering (brought back into the mastering .cpr). It beefed up the overall presence but the end result was still too bright and not enough lows.

ANOTHER WAY – 7:08 min.

---

The best fit would be someone with extensive if not some level of pro mixing/mastering experience who could do this in no time - maybe even using a template s/he has and adapting it for my particular general issues. The resulting .cpr would need to be in Cubase Pro 12 or 14.

This request is probably a shot in the dark, but figured I’d try, and if there is anyone here who would have the time to do this…

It would probably be best to do this through private messaging where I can also provide more links to a handful of my compositions on YouTube.

I’m also not rich - I live on only a small fixed Social Security income with no other assets. But I do have PayPal.

Thanks.

[fese]

I have listened to the track you provided, and tbh, I don’t think that it is too bright, at least not in a way that would make me tear off my headphones in agony ;).

I would say that something could be done about the cymbals (maybe simply choosing a lower velocity level, or lower the volume), or the guitar lead (but that would be more in the 5k area usually). The low end could need more attention, bass could simply be louder for my taste. But these are all things that should be better solved at the source.

(I am not the youngest either and anything above 12k is probably lost on me (apart from my tinnitus sitting at 11k), but what it perceived as “bright” is often below 10k anyway…)

Could it be your monitoring setup? How do you determine that the results are “too bright” anyway?

[Newsoniclight]

@fese - Thanks, will consider. However upon further reflection, I think I need to go in a different direction even though I do eventually need to create a master .cpr for each composition:

In short, something I have not applied enough:
Reference tracks.

I have Ozone Audiolens as part of my Ozone Standard 11 that can be useful in that one lets it analyze a reference track, and then Standard applies what it senses as a similar overall master to one’s own work.

This could be useful instead of driving myself nuts with noodling with individual plugins such as limiters, etc. However I have a problem:

My so-called quasi-cinematic, slow groove melodic old school prog rock genre where my influences range from 19th century romantic classical and Hans Zimmer (i.e. “Time”) for the classical-ish parts through Vangelis, mid-70s Pink Floyd, Genesis and the like.

Unfortunately even something like Zimmer’s “Time” was recorded and then boosted according to the higher loudness of 2010 when CDs were still being sold. And worse yet, even remastered Vangelis, Pink Floyd, etc. are just that - remastered, and so still rely heavily on the original recordings.

So what I need is more recently recorded reference tracks that are in my sonic genre. But I have not actively searched out or know of more current composers or artists whereby I could hear and then go “Ah, OK, this could work as a reference track, I’ll buy the mp3.”

I think Audiolens can also map off of playing a Spotify or other streaming track without having to purchase the mp3 - though I like to support artists by buying instead of streaming.

ChatGPT has made some suggestions on what artists/composers to go check out, so got some homework to do…

[fese]

Yes, reference tracks an help lot, even or especially if monitoring (as with most of us hobbyists) is sub par. But I know the struggle to find references that are roughly in the same sonic area of your own music. (Although “Us and them” is in my reference tracks list, even if my music is nothing like it).

[Newsoniclight]

@fese

Could it be your monitoring setup? How do you determine that the results are “too bright” anyway?

Forgot to respond to your question.

I have PreSonus E5 near field monitors on my desk so that’s what Cubase goes through. I don’t own a car or TV so the only other test device is my Samsung Galaxy A15 smartphone using the PowerAmp app with no EQ where I test in two ways:

Wired AKG K240 headphones, and a mid-range Bluetooth in-ear buds.

The very old school AKG are pretty neutral but a bit lacking in low end, and the buds bump up the lows and can cram the mids. So I use the AKG for more accuracy, the buds for just enjoyment - and also useful in that it can show me that the lows are there, just not mixed in maybe as they should be.

But I’ve also had some feedback that my stuff is a bit too bright. But as we all know, we can’t control what devices (or their quality) other people use to hear our stuff. Which can be frustrating. So many people use smartphones for music these days and they definitely have their listening drawbacks.

[XLColdJ]

@Newsoniclight

But I’ve also had some feedback that my stuff is a bit too bright. But as we all know, we can’t control what devices (or their quality) other people use to hear our stuff. Which can be frustrating.

It sounds good to me. Have you used any analyzers and meters to look at the low-end?

[Googly_Shakespeare]

Just throwing this out there - feel free to throw it back (but not too hard…)
One trick I’m beginning to use is to import a favourite track from a CD into Cubase, and use a clean EQ plugin, such as Frequency, and make it sound “right”. In my case that would be whacking up frequencies from around the 4 kHz region. Once I have it sounding “right”, I save that preset. Using the Control Room, I then insert, in this example, Frequency with the preset I created. Tweak to taste.
Now everything in Cubase is nice and bright through my monitors, but the actual renders/exports are not quite the ear-drum-rippers they otherwise would be.

---

I recently had my ears tested (using a sound-proof booth) and it seems I have 54% of hearing in my left ear and around 70% in my right. Explains a lot about my productions, right!

[fese]

@Googly_Shakespeare

I recently had my ears tested (using a sound-proof booth) and it seems I have 54% of hearing in my left ear and around 70% in my right. Explains a lot about my productions, right!

I had my ears tested once, too, and the result was actually fine, so the depressing conclusion was that I simply suck at mixing…

[Reco29]

@fese

I had my ears tested once, too, and the result was actually fine, so the depressing conclusion was that I simply suck at mixing…

Don’t be so hard on yourself - there are mixes out there which do things the “wrong way” which turn out to be exactly right. Or as someone else put it (I believe it was Sylvia Massy, not sure though): “Sometimes the right amount of wrong is just right.”

[fese]

@Reco29

“Sometimes the right amount of wrong is just right.”

I’ll make sure to keep saying that to myself

[glennloopez]

my 2 cents:

a limiter will not fix or increase your bass. it will make everything louder and at worst squeeze your bass.

LUFS isnt really relevant to get a good “CD” mix. LUFS has been used for years and years in cinema/movies with the goal being they want to achieve/keep more dynamics in the mix for dialog and sound fx. music hasn’t cared about LUFS until the last decade, and the only reason was to make a more pleasant listening experience for the listener. but if you achieve a greatly balanced mix in regards to LUFS your mix will be louder on a streaming service than other songs even if your final LUFS level isn´t relevant - in the end Spotify will only gain/decrease you level to meet their standard -14. a thumb of rule is that bass/low frequencies eats the LUFS headroom way faster than other frequencies so in a simplified way the art is to balance out the frequencies.

all in all I think working more on your mix will give you better results than a “pro” mastering.

I have no real experience with your type of music and what would be a great reference, but from a quick listen I think your mix could benefit from using soft clipping, clean distortion like tape and so on to shave off peak in your sound and create more head room. also try bold eq moves to find fighting frequencies, and use EQ with all tracks - not in solo. In the end that will give you more headroom to push to louder levels.