Mastering

geoffd99 · Post by **geoffd99** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:07 am

Hi all
I have decided to output my P2 system to another PC for mastering at higher bitrates.

My set up is 3Ghz PC, 1 gig ram, P2/SRB
Analogue out

Into an Aphex 106 enhancer (this is new and has not been tried out yet)
going into an M-Audio Audiophile firewire into my laptop.

This will be recorded at max rate in stereo then Har Bal run on it to check it out, possibly then software to limit and make it 16 bit - maybe Sonar 6 which I have? It has a fancy dithering option.

I am thinking of getting a compressor/limiter to use in the analog chain, either before or after the Aphex. If after it can stop any peaks getting to the laptop interface. I can use vinco or optimaster on way out of Scope.

Possibly the Drawmer MX30 as it is *good price*

I use Vinco/Optimaster now but fancied trying a different method - a (very) cheap version of a proper analog studio!

So questions are:
has anyone used an Aphex 106? Comments?

has anyone used a Drawmer MX30 (or similar like TC C300, which has spdif output)? I have used and liked the LX20. Comments?

Is M-Audio Audiophile OK at high rates? It works fine on my laptop.

Har-Bal?

I have not used the BX mastering software on Scope. Could I use this on the files after they have been analogued into the laptop?

Sorry if this repeats some other posts/threads (ie BX etc) but any tips most welcome.

[Yes I know I can do it all in Scope, I just fancy a change of sound !]
G

siriusbliss · Post by **siriusbliss** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:13 pm

BX is great when used at the output of the mixer in SPB - record new file, and then use har-bal to balance it out some more.

I'm still trying out different configurations, but this is the one I've used with the best overall results.

Greg

geoffd99 · Post by **geoffd99** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:05 am

This is from other PZ post:
>>>
A typical mastering chain is:

Paragraphic EQ -> Harbal
Multiband Harmonic Exciter -> PSY Q
Multiband Dynamics -> Optimaster Normalizer/Comp stage
Multiband Stereo Imaging -> Waves or PSP stereo imaging tools
Mastering Reverb -> Masterverb Pro
Loudness MAximizer -> Waves L2, L3, UAD Precision Limiter or Optimaster Limiter stage

So Harbal is only for the EQ stage, Optimaster for dyanmics

<<<
But others say use Har-bal last, and add reverb in mixing.
It is very complicated, since everyone has different advice. Reverb is not usually added nearly last?

My chain is now:
Get EQ right in mix
Add reverb globally if needed (I like dry mixes)
Put through limiter for output from Pulsar stereo

Into Joe Meek C2 optical compressor
(to get some warmth etc)

Into Aphex 204
(mainly bass enhancement but it also has an exciter)

Record on other PC

Use Har-bal to balance overall EQ of file.
(this will affect levels a bit)

I have also used Sony Track Compression for max limiting of finished files.
Also T-Racks.

I am not sure if this is right and I am awaiting the Joe Meek C2 (which cost £65!) to experiment. Aphex is definately better than any Scope bass enhancement inc PsyQ, Optimaster.

One thing I have noticed with professionally mastered tracks of mine, is they can get an instrument such as a synth line, to stand out a bit, more clarity. I believe this is EQ, possibly with dynamics, such as DynPara from DAS. However this can also be done in the original mix.

Presumably this would be done prior to analog output (in my chain above). I will also try the Har-bal on the file before it goes to the C2 and Aphex.

faxinadu · Post by **faxinadu** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:37 am

i just basiclly use
psyQ-->optimaster

a lot also depends on the kind of music... if its electronic dance music for instance i don't thin you need the mastering reverb.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:26 am

well, about bass 'enhancements'...
one cannot polish sh*t - as I recently had to learn (though in slightly different circumstances).

I have (for quite some time) Celmo's Bassamp sim, which also has 'bass optimized' versions of some fx, but used it less and less, as it just didn't cut with my instrument (growing experience - growing demands...).
So I finally decided to give it a systematic approach - first things first - the input stage: added a Tonebone Bassbone pre-amp-di (stompbox type).
Ahhh... the bass began to gain shape, but still the tone lacked something, the obvious question: a new instrument or tune the existing one ?

Replaced a pickup by a Bartolini Humbucker ...ooohhh now that's nice, depending on coil switching it varied from a fat ooomphy to superdry, crisp attack.
The instrument took the test - buy new pickups, let the shop adjust it and still some cash spared - and it will be my custom plank

Now the funny part: fed the test setup into that formerly 'boring' Bass amp Sim.

What a difference a day makes

Suddenly I could bring the settings to life - it was a great addition, compressor and eq did what they were supposed to (but formerly lacked), and that cabinet sim (demo) that hadn't been convincing, all of a sudden turned out to be the best part of the package - and will be my next order...

bottom line: the obvious, yet often neglected sh*t in - sh*t out
only in rare cases the DAW tools/fx can (really) save the day...
if you tweak a good virtual amp, it simply does what it's real-world counterpart would do...

sorry, a bit long winded, but it's hopefully as illustrative (and educating) as it was for me.

It's in the sources, not the post-processing, and if the Aphex works well, then why bother ? I also have an old Boss LM2B Bass limiter stomp box in the chain... (a recent discovery from the shop's we have it for ages and dunno shelf)

instead of 'overprocessing' the whole mix, I'd rather focus on the essentials and properly group the tracks to busses - in that sense I'd second Faxi's keep it simple approach

cheers, Tom
ps about levels: Scope's PEQ4 definetely clips without indicating it, a side result of the (endless) bass testing. I've observed it with low shelwing emphasis as with a single bass tone it's very easy to detect.

firubbi · Post by **firubbi** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:51 am

bx and optimaster works fine here. wish i buy a great preamp like manly.... that sure solve lot of problems. btw optimaster is a very useful tool

thanks

RA · Post by RA » Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:43 am

Hi,

there's no such way as a typical mastering....every track is different.
One might use a totally digital processing on one track, and
one may use analogue processing on the other track.
As long as you use good converters for this analogue chain.

Good compressor, Try the Tubetech mutliband.....or the manley elop...
The price is 'right'.

Still , real hardware gear does something special most of the times.
But that's only my opinion.

Try to avoid exciters in mastering.

Regards,
Ray

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:35 am

about compression:
some slight amount of d-mute comp does wonderful things on some tracks too.

But mostly I hate compressing music. In many cases it just takes away the dynamic you spend in time for when composing and mixing a track.

firubbi · Post by **firubbi** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:10 pm

hifiboom wrote:about compression:
In many cases it just takes away the dynamic you spend in time for when composing and mixing a track.

right

so what to do! mix again ???

thanks

alfonso · Post by **alfonso** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:27 am

firubbi wrote:
hifiboom wrote:about compression:
In many cases it just takes away the dynamic you spend in time for when composing and mixing a track.
right so what to do! mix again ???

thanks

If something can be solved in the mixing stage, yes, absolutely.

On my mixes I've only used Optimaster, in rare occasions some CWA graph EQ if it was just slight interventions, put before the Optimaster. Every time I suspected that remixing would fix the issue, I re-did it.

On a mastering job I took for something that was pretty bad mixed and bad tracked and substantially sounding like sh*t, I had amazing results using my MS insert device filled with two insert racks with exactly the same plugs on each part (where I didn't need it it was set at 0 wet) with separate PEQ's, Attackers and PsyQ's for the mid and the side, basically to recenter some lows and to give some air at the sides and some strength to the kick and snare, all going to Optimaster. The result has been so good that the guy couldn't believe it...The PsyQ's, Attacker and MS processing really shine with bad sounding mixes.

firubbi · Post by **firubbi** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:50 am

I found something is missing if i do mix a track than master it. like it looes some or transparency something... is it good idea if i do the mix sound like final one using max compression--eq.. etc?

alfonso · Post by **alfonso** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:35 pm

firubbi wrote:I found something is missing if i do mix a track than master it. like it looes some or transparency something... is it good idea if i do the mix sound like final one using max compression--eq.. etc?

Anyone has his preferred workflow...I much prefer to make the best possible sounding mix without any treatment of the master channel, seaching in the single tracks mix all the solutions and record the mix at the maximum bit depth. Only after that I like to load a new project expecially for mastering, with the main purpose of a level optimization and the slight shaping of the overall equilibrium, without squashing anything.

firubbi · Post by **firubbi** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:12 pm

it sound different when i start doing level optimization. maybe i overdo the whole process.
btw can you name some great mix/mastering song?

medway · Post by **medway** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:44 am

alfonso wrote:
firubbi wrote:I found something is missing if i do mix a track than master it. like it looes some or transparency something... is it good idea if i do the mix sound like final one using max compression--eq.. etc?
Anyone has his preferred workflow...I much prefer to make the best possible sounding mix without any treatment of the master channel, seaching in the single tracks mix all the solutions and record the mix at the maximum bit depth. Only after that I like to load a new project expecially for mastering, with the main purpose of a level optimization and the slight shaping of the overall equilibrium, without squashing anything.

This is good advice. I mix through a buss compressor (analog) and then track the stereo master into STS5000. This goes to Wavelab where peaks are limited (only a few db) to get RMS up to spec and intersample errors are prevented, that's it. The general loudness and compression effect is already achieved in the mix process.

Before I used an analog compressor I had the limiter on my stereo buss from the start and my final bounced file was the master, there was no second step.

You really shouldn't even have a "mastering" stage if you are doing this all in your own studio as anything that can be done in mastering can be done in mixing. The exception being that some mastering plugins take up a lot of cpu so in that case you might need to bounce in order to use them.

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:48 am

Is that the dbx blue on the mix buss Medway? I was a little perplexed that you would actually sell it because of the vinco! Especially after hearing the comparison demo's you posted up a long while back.