Masterhse wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 13:12ammitsboel wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 08:06rdolmat wrote on Sun, 01 May 2005 23:23And I guess all the small.2dB EQ fine tuning can be done in the DAW (just to catch something, or to make tracks consistent)? With UAD or some kick arse plugs.NoWhy?Do you really need a 0.2db eq change? Do you really need to put on that extra process? Why not just do it right in the first place, you will safe time and safe the music? The only thing your plugs will kick is your own arse.The idea behind processing like this sounds a little paranoid to me!
Ammitsboel wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 14:13masterhse wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 13:12ammitsboel wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 08:06rdolmat wrote on Sun, 01 May 2005 23:23And I guess all the small.2dB EQ fine tuning can be done in the DAW (just to catch something, or to make tracks consistent)? With UAD or some kick arse plugs.NoWhy?Do you really need a 0.2db eq change?
Do you really need to put on that extra process? Why not just do it right in the first place, you will safe time and safe the music?The idea behind processing like this sounds a little paranoid to me!I certainly can't hear less than a 1/4 db difference - and more like a 1/2db if I'm not in the sweet spot.But - here's a hypothetical situation - what if you realize towards the end of the session during playback that on the verses for one track a 1 db increase at around 3k would do a nice thing of lifting the presence up? But the client's budget is tapped and they want to get their refs asap because they have to catch a plane in a few hours?
(which has indeed happened in one of my sessions). Do you make them late by doing another pass throguh the process chain and splice sections together, leave it alone even though you know it could be better, or use a DAW processor (that you know is actually up to the task) to fix it?Best regards,Steve Berson. Ammitsboel wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 09:13masterhse wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 13:12ammitsboel wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 08:06rdolmat wrote on Sun, 01 May 2005 23:23And I guess all the small.2dB EQ fine tuning can be done in the DAW (just to catch something, or to make tracks consistent)? With UAD or some kick arse plugs.NoWhy?Do you really need a 0.2db eq change? Do you really need to put on that extra process? Why not just do it right in the first place, you will safe time and safe the music?The idea behind processing like this sounds a little paranoid to me!The amount of the reduction is kind of irrelevent yes?My interpretation of the question was really aimed at can I make additional changes via plugs after loading.
Dianne’s Creature Feature. The terrible, horrible, no good, very bad fathers. By DIANNE RUSSELL. In the animal kingdom, much like the human kingdom, not all fathers resemble Att.
As Steve pointed out, you may want to automate some of these changes at points in the track, in which case I find plugs very useful over having to do this with MIDI or manually during load-in.For those of us that process on loadout from a digital source, it will be 'in first place' anyway. Bblackwood wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 14:07For perspective, can we request you point us to some release we can purchase that you have done (sans Finalizer) so we may hear how good records really should sound?Thanks for reminding me Brad.If some one wants my credit list they are welcome to PM me about it.But to be honest, I haven't heard a CD in my life that sounded great(no matter who did it or how they did it), I've only heard some that sounded ok and almost good.I guess that's why I'm moving on to vinyl.Best RegardsHenrik.
It is ridiculous to totally dismiss the Finalizer, or the L2, or any other such box or software out of hand. All of these things are excellent tools WHEN IN THE RIGHT HANDS. I have personally seen a Finalizer in the chain in at least two of the biggest and most famous mastering engineers of all time.
These boxes worked fine for them, because they knew how to use them, and knew not to totally abuse and destroy the music by overdoing it.Guns are necessary tools in the hands of RESPONSIBLE law enforcement officers, or soldiers faced with terrible consequences to society as a whole if criminals or someone such as Hitler is on the loose. But we ALL know how awful a gun can be in the wrong hands. I am not a gun lover by any stretch of the imagination (in fact, one of the reasons I moved to The Bahamas was because guns are basically not allowed here), but I would surely use one (if I had one) to defend my children, wife, or home from an intruder with murderous intent.Automobiles are wonderful things; we all use them every day. But in the hands of a drunken or crazy person, a car can destroy lives and property with quite ill effect.Likewise, I would (and have) CAREFULLY used a Finalizer, or an L2 or L3, or other such device, in the proper instance. Steve B's comments above are 'right on' in this respect.
I much prefer my analogue mastering chain, and indeed do most of the work in that domain. But when a very small (perhaps last minute) change is necessary later, or if one tiny spot needs attention (via automation), there is no better way to do it than with a well designed software or digital hardware piece, after the fact.The whole key here is taste, knowledge, and experience. Taste cannot be taught, in most cases. But knowledge can certainly be acquired, perhaps even here in this Forum. It is a disservice to those attempting to learn to just rudely dismiss gear which CAN be very useful. I agree that probably the best starter kit is a good DAW with Waves plugins. Waves have done a good job on those.
But just having those tools gives one neither the taste nor the knowledge to do good things with them. And because of the now obtainable 'brickwall' limiting possibilities, the threat of music-mangling is ever more omnipresent. The experience you will have to make for yourself. Best of luck. Compasspnt wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 14:50It is ridiculous to totally dismiss the Finalizer, or the L2, or any other such box or software out of hand. All of these things are excellent tools WHEN IN THE RIGHT HANDS.
I have personally seen a Finalizer in the chain in at least two of the biggest and most famous mastering engineers of all time. These boxes worked fine for them, because they knew how to use them, and knew not to totally abuse and destroy the music by overdoing it.I know i can't dismiss it like that, but at least I can say how i feel about it.BTW I'm not talking about the 'smashing' phenomenon in relation to the finalizer. That's just the top if the ice cake.I'm talking about the whole philosophy behind building such a device and what's involved in the process.compasspnt wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 14:50Guns are necessary tools in the hands of RESPONSIBLE law enforcement officers, or soldiers faced with terrible consequences to society as a whole if criminals or someone such as Hitler is on the loose. But we ALL know how awful a gun can be in the wrong hands. I am not a gun lover by any stretch of the imagination (in fact, one of the reasons I moved to The Bahamas was because guns are basically not allowed here), but I would sure use one (if I had one) to defend my children, wife, or home from an intruder with murderous intent.Automobiles are wonderful things; we all use them every day. But in the hands of a drunken or crazy person, a car can destroy lives and property with quite ill effect.Likewise, I would (and have) CAREFULLY used a Finalizer, or an L2 or L3, or other such device, in the proper instance. Steve B's comments above are 'right on' in this respect.
I much prefer my analogue mastering chain, and indeed do most of the work in that domain. But when a very small (perhaps last minute) change is necessary later, or if one tiny spot needs attention (via automation), there is no better way to do it than with a well designed software or hardware piece, after the fact.The whole key here is taste, knowledge, and experience.
Taste cannot be taught, in most cases. But knowledge can certainly be acquired, perhaps even here in this Forum. It is a disservice to those attempting to learn to just rudely dismiss gear which CAN be very useful. I agree that probably the best starter kit is a good DAW with Waves plugins. Waves have done a good job on those. But just having those tools gives one neither the taste nor the knowledge to do good things with them. And because of the now obtainable 'brickwall' limiting possibilities, the threat of music-mangling is ever more omnipresent.
The experience you will have to make for yourself. Best of luck.
Use caution.I understand what you mean by this. But to me this is not about taste, have you ever seen a guy in a studio that used a toy mic in front of the lead singer and claiming it was just as good as a U47 or at least just as good in a different way so the choice was about taste?Maybe it's because a good quality device that does exactly this doesn't exist? So the only ones we know of is these units and plugs.It all comes down to what we have as reference.Best RegardsHenrik. Compasspnt wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 14:50It is ridiculous to totally dismiss the Finalizer, or the L2, or any other such box or software out of hand. All of these things are excellent tools WHEN IN THE RIGHT HANDS.100% agree with thiscompasspnt wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 14:50I have personally seen a Finalizer in the chain in at least two of the biggest and most famous mastering engineers of all time.ted jensen i believe one of these in his mastering gear according to the sterling website. He's one of my favourite mastering engineers and from a previous forum i loved the sound of the greenday album.its a lot better then a lot of the modern rock records about.example The darkness permission to land album, very loud and distorted but not in a good way, great songs though.
Bblackwood wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 14:53ammitsboel wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 08:46Thanks for reminding me Brad.If some one wants my credit list they are welcome to PM me about it.I'd like to buy something, can you not just tell us some of them here? You have no issue telling us how bad our equipment is, so I think it a fair question to ask you about your work so we can hear what real mastering with real equipment and real monitors sounds like.The only thing that where real was the monitors and the cables, the processing wasn't developed yet! (I've now moved and won't be up for the next year or so).I will try to find some titles for you.
Dave Moulton's Golden Ears Dog
Ammitsboel wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 15:09TotalSonic wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 14:54Just a warning:Be prepared to do a heckuva lot of hiphop and dance records coming from ultra-limited digital sources if you want to pay off your lathe and cutting rack any time in this century.I knowI think that's where the money will come from in the start period which is probably a few years or maybe a decade.?While hi-fidelity projects going to vinyl appear once in a blue moon - i.e. I'm working on an album right now for Henry Threadgill's Zooid which is a pristine 24bit recording of acoustic instruments live in a room - the vast vast majority of what is going to vinyl these days comes from project studios and often needs surgery for it even to sound reasonable.
Dave Moulton Bikes
So the idea of focusing on vinyl mastering in order to be able to work on higher fidelity recordings is kind of laughable actually. I'm a huge lover of hiphop and dance music though so I actually really enjoy the music I get to work on - along with the joy from working with a mechanical art form that I came up with. But if you were interested in high fidelity I'd think that DVD or SACD would be the niche to head towards.Best regards,Steve Berson.