Psy Q or Optimaster or both...

Unitar · Post by **Unitar** » Mon May 20, 2002 10:36 pm

I got my first Pulsar DSP card over a month ago and I'm now starting to understand its potential. I've been recording some hard rock songs with two guitars, bass and drums. I think I'll have everything ready for mastering next month. From what I've read here it seems like Optimaster is the best tool for mastering, but when considering my simple instrument setup what do you think I would need? I'm very determined to get a great guitar sound on this record and I was wondering if the Psy Q would help to take it to new level? SO what should I be looking at - one of the mentioned or both? Or some other plugin? I want in your face loudness without making things sound too processed! Am I just dreaming...

Post by **garyb** » Mon May 20, 2002 11:25 pm

well........
maybe not dreaming exactly.even with those tools,it'll take practice and skill to get a great sound.i would recommend those tools as good and useful tho.

ernest@303.nu · Post by **ernest@303.nu** » Tue May 21, 2002 1:54 am

If you get both PsyQ and OptiMaster you'll have the tools to get very close to the Perfect Mix, but I agree that there's a learning curve for the OptiMaster. If you do understand however how multiband compression/expansion actually works I don't think you'll have loads of problems using the OptiMaster.

general tip: I've found working in 24bit/48kHz for the mastering stage giving slightly better results, even when the source material is 44.1kHz and the final master needs to be resampled back (of course using a Hi-Q resampling algorhythm) to 44.1kHz again. I think this has something to do with PsyQ adding harmonics beyond 22.05kHz and the stereo expander having better phase resolution at 48kHz... but then again I don't know for sure, just that it sounds better:)
Have not tried mastering at 96kHz yet, will do so next time.

PsyQ tip:
- don't overdo it!
- don't use the softclip if not needed, especially when OptiMastering after PsyQ

OptiMaster tips:
- don't overdo it!

- carefully check your low-end for 'wooliness'(hope that's a correct english word). IMHO the Wizard often overcompresses the low-end, which is not always audible on smaller speakers.
- so don't always trust the Wizard

- play around with the expander section

For maximum loudness without much dynamic compromise I recommend the Waves L2 as the final stage after Creamware's got it's job done (of course working on a 24-bit audio stream), it may be able to 'invisibly' add some dB, even when increasing the compression settings in the OptiMaster gives you that undesired 'overcompressed' sound.

Just trust your ears

Ernest

Unitar · Post by **Unitar** » Tue May 21, 2002 4:35 am

Useful info! Thanks! Making the final decision is giving me hell.

I wish there was a cheaper way... What will I miss if I only get the Psy Q? I really don't want the instruments to loose their natural charisma during mastering but I want the guitar to really explode out of the speakers like it does from my Fender Hot Rod Deluxe amp (with Mesa-Boogie V-Twin preamp).

[ This Message was edited by: Unitar on 2002-05-21 05:35 ]

ernest@303.nu · Post by **ernest@303.nu** » Tue May 21, 2002 7:29 am

Unitar: hard to tell.... if your mix is already perfect regarding dynamics and loudness (even compared to 'similar' artist's final CD's) and all you want is some more sparkle and detail for your mix, the PsyQ will do. My experience is that you can get wider 'perceived' dynamics from a mix, even while some parts/frequencies are compressed. Optimaster is very good at that, but like any other master tool (just like the Waves bundle) requires some skill in order not te *destroy* things. But I doubt you won't like the OptiMaster, and it's actually *extremely* fun to become more experienced at mastering

The Waves DX mastering tools are very good as well, but I haven't use the C4 (multiband dynamics) yet.... should be comparable though to the OptiMaster, if you can live without the Wizard.

You might consider getting the Waves L2 UltraMaxizer seperately or have it's effect added to your final mix at someone else's studio, I find it much more controlable than the 'normalize' function of the OptiMaster.
Also, if your mix already has the exact dynamics you desire, the L2 might push the mix closer to the 0dB spot with little audible effects.

Good luck with your buy, I wish I could be more specific, but mastering is a tricky business.... Hopefully some others will add their advices/personal experiences and give you heaven

sandrob · Post by **sandrob** » Tue May 21, 2002 7:40 am

hey, ernest! did you tried waves LinMB!? i think it's nice multyband?

ernest@303.nu · Post by **ernest@303.nu** » Tue May 21, 2002 10:47 am

Sandrob: not yet tried it! Will look into it asap, just read the pdf-manual and it all makes me sm:)le! I'm very curious how it compares to the Optimaster.... it's a pity Creamware doesn't provide nearly as much technical background information as Waves does in their documentation, but I'll let my ears be the judge...

I have this project running to create an album from a 6-years-old demo (mixed to 2 tracks on DAT from a 4-track DBX porta), which is a nice opportunity to compare LinMB and OptiMaster, as loads of dynamics processing is needed.

Will drop comments on this boards, if any!

Unitar · Post by **Unitar** » Tue May 21, 2002 10:13 pm

I have used C4 and other waves devices with Cool Edit Pro but haven't really gotten the results I want. Maybe I'm just bad at mastering!

I think I'll have to do more research before buying anything. Please anyone inform me of any plugins or devices I should consider! Free ones are nice.

Does anyone know what happened to Phonoxone? Terminator demo seemed nice...

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Wed May 22, 2002 1:21 am

Interesting....

It seems to be the general consensus that a "multiband" compressor is often the right decision... Ofcourse you can achieve very hot levels whith a multiband and it can do wonders on things like "flamenco" guitar, when you are in a hurry! But I think it is important to always also consider a single band solution. "Single" band copmpressors have a bit more musicality than a "multi". All those "finalizers" (DBX, Drawmer, TC M5/6, TC finalizer) offer the option to also use one "single" band for final compression. Never forget to A/B your results! And when you "multiband" your finals, it´s really easy to overdo things... Most of the "finalizer´s" presets are targeted for single tracks/instruments. One of the target application is "De-essing". Nonetheless they can be aswell used for final "limiting/compression"!

Whith a multiband compressor it is possible to enhance or tame the energie at specific regions. One thing keep in mind, the more bands are activated, the more cross-over points do exist! So sometimes I prefer a single band compressor over a multi-band, depending of the source material! The problem whith a single-band compressor is, that pumping can occur caused by larger transients, and this can affect also your high frequency range. Whith a "multi" you can avoid such things, because only one single band reacts to a loud kick-drum, Timpani or what ever. When setting up a "multi", you should also consider "identical" attack and realease settings. The "attack" of all transients could be "smeared" by different settings of the bands. In "pop-music" the attack settings are generally faster than in "classical" music. The "threshold" should be -30db of the peak, when your mix needs to have more "control". If the Mix is already balanced the threshold can be set to -15 or -10, where it is easier to gain more loudness. Also after doing this -30db thing, one could try in second attempt to do the -15/-10 db thing. But everything also depends on the engineer, so there might be also some other opinions. There already were some good suggestions above.

Regards,
Sunshine

[ This Message was edited by: Sunshine on 2002-05-22 02:24 ]

spacef · Post by **spacef** » Wed May 22, 2002 2:23 am

A way to avoid overcompressed basses, is to change the band parameters (crossover section of optimaster). The use of PSYq which can add a lot of basses can be tricky.
Trust your ears, ok but, do you trust your monitors ?

Just test in different locations and see what has to be changed.

Another tip is to use several parallel optimasters on different parts of the mix, especially : your bass will fly over the mix, will be deep, not overcompressed (no saturation or dull stupid sound as you would usually get with 1 optimaster over the whole mix). This is before a final optimaster/L1/finalizer, that you will use at quasi-psychoacoustic values to boost the track rather than compress/expand things.

This technique allows to have a well compressed mix, and a warm bass for which you'll only have to set thye volume. The basse will be better defined. Plus it won't disappear when there are additional elements in a part of your mix, which deserves a different compression.

Since studio experiences, I always begin a song with a finalizer (and now with optimaster). So I mix with the optimaser, from the very start of composition and until thye final mix. Of course, I often change values with the wizard, but this is more efficient in terms of the coherent result of a quasi master track in a home or pro studio.

I don't know if it is a reference, but our sound engineers was very impressed with my mixes, especially the parts that he could not manage with only one finalizer

like an overcompressed bassy-bass which quickly became uninteresting and bad. That's the advantage of Optimaster (or softwares in general : you can load a lot for the price of one).

Also depends what you are looking for.

for the final master, we send it to someone whose job is only to do does master, and which tastes we trust. I wouldn't do it myself, but that's for a "major companies" sound.

good luck.

[ This Message was edited by: spacef on 2002-05-22 03:38 ]

sandrob · Post by **sandrob** » Wed May 22, 2002 3:07 am

So sometimes I prefer a single band compressor over a multi-band, depending of the source material!

agree! i like to use singleband on the drums (whole drums) when i want little pumpy sound. specialy i like to compres kick and hat together. then hat sounds more "musicaly" for my taste.

krizrox · Post by **krizrox** » Wed May 22, 2002 3:40 am

Unitar: the Optimaster is all you need for mastering. It works and sounds great. As far as a learning curve, I didn't find it too hard to learn at all. The wizard (automated setting) works just fine much of the time but the manual adjustments are easy to use and you can really fine-tune to your taste. I highly recommend it.

PsyQ adds some additional harmonic content to your mix which (if you did your job right up front) may not even be needed. I give my clients the choice to use it or not during mastering as some like the effect and some do not. If applied incorrectly, it can make a mix sound a little brittle. Less is more here.

I always run Optimaster last in the signal chain, especially when normalizing.

As far as a bitching guitar sound, that starts up front with your guitar/amp combination and settings. Optimaster/PsyQ will not change a whimpy sounding guitar track into a great sounding guitar track. Start with a great guitar tone and then try layering the tracks for an even bigger guitar tone. That's the best trick.

Have fun!

[ This Message was edited by: krizrox on 2002-05-22 04:41 ]

Unitar · Post by **Unitar** » Wed May 22, 2002 3:59 am

This must me the most helpful forum I've ever visited. Thanks to all you great people! Lot's of useful info. I think I'll go for the Optimaster because it has so many features in one package. I can always get more stuff later.

krizrox: I always double the guitar tracks in the normal "one right and one left"-way. For my current project I'm for the first time thinking of recording the guitar direct from J-station and Mesa V-Twin. I get a very natural and dynamic rock and roll sound out of them. I use a Seymour Duncan custom SH-5 pickup and the signal goes through Yamaha TB-01 Tone Booster which brings out that metallic string noise that I'm fond of. The whole mic-placement and amp setup process is just so painful and time consuming, but I'm still recording the dry signal also just in case I want to play it back through my amps and record it later if I'm not happy with the digital sounds.

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Wed May 22, 2002 4:06 am

Yes SpaceF, I also would prefer the term "mixing" rather than "mastering" when using a "multiband". Mastering is mostly about perfectly "eq-ing" something rather than using some kind of tool that steals "transperancy" (like almost every compressor does)... Compressors have always been "correctional tools" to "control" and/or to "colour" things. Compression in mastering generally isn't done for level. I would avoid compression and just try limiting the signal, if I´m only looking for "loudness" not "control". Fortunately every compressor can be set up as a "limiter". 5db is easy with any good limiter and fairly transparant, sonically.

Personally, I fix all the mix problems with parametric EQ first (long story in many stages). Then I apply compression where needed and then do a final graphic EQ/Exciter to restore life to the mix. Compression could "cloud" the mid frequencies because the peaks are reduced (usually the treble end). Eq/Excite after compression will return clarity to the sound and also return a little of the depth that compression usually removes. So it might be preferable to use "PsyQ" after the compressor.... The type of music & source usually determines my sequence of tools.

Regards,
Sunshine

sandrob · Post by **sandrob** » Wed May 22, 2002 4:45 am

can somebody comment this picture:

that's how looks part of shaggy's song "hot shot" and every songs on album looks like that even more. every kick and snare is on fat-0db.
for me looks like "jack the ripper's work". like that jack use only knife for mastering

spacef · Post by **spacef** » Wed May 22, 2002 4:47 am

Yes Sunshine

, mastering is a job by itself. And for me too it is more about Eq-ing than compressing (i agree 200% with you). Also, me too i generaly prefer to use PsyQ after compression (like optimaster). It allows the aditional harmonics to be consistant over the whole track, not affected by a compressor. The only disadvantage of this, as i discovered lately, is that it can excite the "S" on vocals, but that was on tracks that were already mixed by the studio, without taking psyQ in consideration from the start, and I couldn't modify the vocal track because it was final stereo mixes. So I didn't use psyQ and prefer an eq to add a very slight bit of brillance at the frequencies that i found relevant.

In any case, all is a matter of taste, constraints of work etc... and i think there is no rule (especially if you want to claim that you have your own sound, which is also something listener (the people who buy music) are looking for).

In other cases, i like to use PsyQ as a single effect, especially on vocals, guitars, or whatever deserves such a treatment. I really love it as a final touch on a few single instruments.

[ This Message was edited by: spacef on 2002-05-22 06:08 ]

spacef · Post by **spacef** » Wed May 22, 2002 4:54 am

SandRob, the picture you sent looks like Waves-L1 treatment.
I would say that this allows to boost bass and limit snares (or drums, or whatever is the peak) while keeping a "soft" mix (close to the original unmastered mix, with a bit of limiting in order to boost volumes).

I recently worked on tracks by French psy-trance bands, and the masters are plain rectangles (no peaks, just draw a rectangle and you will see what i'm talking about).

sandrob · Post by **sandrob** » Wed May 22, 2002 5:20 am

chemical bros - let forever be

also jack the ripper's mastering!

_________________
got my mojo working, but it just won't work on you

[ This Message was edited by: sandrob on 2002-05-22 06:23 ]

spacef · Post by **spacef** » Wed May 22, 2002 5:36 am

yes, that looks more like electronic music to me

Unitar · Post by **Unitar** » Wed May 22, 2002 5:43 am

Purchased the Optimaster and Graph EQ's, but on the download page it says "must be generated". What the &"%"%!? Should I just wait or something. Please someone help me out! And is there really no manual for these devices on the manual page?! I hate problems.