Mastering with SBC X
Mastering with SBC X
I am trying to get the levels of my tracks similar in volume. I have a question about using SBC in my mastering chain I have heard that your track is only as loud as the quietest sound or part? So My question is if I boost the levels that are low with the SBC eq mixer will this help my mix my mastering chain in order is SBC, PSY Q, DNA EQ, Optimaster.
Re: Mastering with SBC X
I would think SBC is more about boosting or cutting particular frequencies. In the context of mastering a series of tracks it would be more about making thier spectral balance similar - so that if one track had too much bass in it compared to the others, you would use SBC to reduce the bass on that track.
Other suggestions / applications here :
http://www.hitfoundry.com/issue_17/sbc_mast.htm
Other suggestions / applications here :
http://www.hitfoundry.com/issue_17/sbc_mast.htm
Re: Mastering with SBC X
Thanks Dante ScopeRise is a very valuable source for all things Scope have visited it often on my quest for knowledge.
I have a lot to learn and read some books but it looks like its more of a hands on learning thing.
I am giving -6 db on all my tracks before mastering and yet still some tracks are lower in volume I guess an average for the RMS or perceived volume of each track is the way to go I think shroom posted a meter not long ago so will check that out.
One intresthing thing I found with the DNA EQ is it can boost the volume as much as a compressor can! the DNA stuff is fat there is a lot more going on then just an EQ.
Another thought while using Optimaster is will the Wizard normalize the output to the same level on all tracks.
Questions questions
I have a lot to learn and read some books but it looks like its more of a hands on learning thing.
I am giving -6 db on all my tracks before mastering and yet still some tracks are lower in volume I guess an average for the RMS or perceived volume of each track is the way to go I think shroom posted a meter not long ago so will check that out.
One intresthing thing I found with the DNA EQ is it can boost the volume as much as a compressor can! the DNA stuff is fat there is a lot more going on then just an EQ.
Another thought while using Optimaster is will the Wizard normalize the output to the same level on all tracks.
Questions questions
Re: Mastering with SBC X
Well I believe the Optimaster wizard works by sampling a section of the track you play through it so it would depend on whether you feed it a quiet section or a loud section.
But once the wizard has done its work no reason you cant apply same setting to another track - if the end result works.
When I was using Optimaster though, I tended to run the wizard seperately for each track because the material will vary from track to track.
I get fairly consistant levels and spectral content between tracks on a CD simply because I use the same Scope mastering section from track to track, rarely tweaking it.
Looks like this is similar to what you are doing as well, except I have DAS Brickmaster last, and push the entire mix so that it peaks (during a loud section) at around -1 or -2 db.
The chain remains the same, then normalizing the gain finishes the game.
The secret is with a mastering chain consisting of four devices is to use each one sparingly I guess.
But once the wizard has done its work no reason you cant apply same setting to another track - if the end result works.
When I was using Optimaster though, I tended to run the wizard seperately for each track because the material will vary from track to track.
I get fairly consistant levels and spectral content between tracks on a CD simply because I use the same Scope mastering section from track to track, rarely tweaking it.
Looks like this is similar to what you are doing as well, except I have DAS Brickmaster last, and push the entire mix so that it peaks (during a loud section) at around -1 or -2 db.
The chain remains the same, then normalizing the gain finishes the game.
The secret is with a mastering chain consisting of four devices is to use each one sparingly I guess.