Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[OTR-jkl]

Check this out -
I pulled this off of a forum topic I found about using Graphic EQ for mastering. Ever heard of such a process?

"Sometimes, when i do a mastering on acoustic music (jazz or ethnics for example), i'm using only 3 process :
1 - control on alignement phase and stereo field
2 - 15-bands graphic EQ
3 - Multi-band compressor

i mean that i process the sound several times, with smooth values at each processing ... it's like to work with "layers on layers" ... i process the track, i save this one and after i repeat this with other values of compressing and EQ on the track already processed, and etc ... until i have the good sound  
Sometimes, i have to do 5 or 6 process to get a good result.
I prefer to do like that than to process in only one time with hard compressing and eq setup ..."


Sounds like alot of work to me. What if you get to the 3rd or 4th generation and realize you should've (or should not have) done something at the beginning...?

[Ronny]

OTR-jkl wrote on Thu, 29 April 2004 23:30

Check this out - I pulled this off of a forum topic I found about using Graphic EQ for mastering. Ever heard of such a process? "Sometimes, when i do a mastering on acoustic music (jazz or ethnics for example), i'm using only 3 process : 1 - control on alignement phase and stereo field 2 - 15-bands graphic EQ 3 - Multi-band compressor i mean that i process the sound several times, with smooth values at each processing ... it's like to work with "layers on layers" ... i process the track, i save this one and after i repeat this with other values of compressing and EQ on the track already processed, and etc ... until i have the good sound   Sometimes, i have to do 5 or 6 process to get a good result. I prefer to do like that than to process in only one time with hard compressing and eq setup ..." Sounds like alot of work to me. What if you get to the 3rd or 4th generation and realize you should've (or should not have) done something at the beginning...?

First off graphics are fine for instantly cutting a feedback freq. for FOH or stage mixing, but most don't have the narrow transition bandwidths that you need for many mastering apps. Second, he shouldn't automatically screw with the stereo image as he's altering the mix engineers pan trajectories. Only in dire turd polishing would I mess with the stereo image. Control on alignment phase, I have no clue as to what he's talking about. To answer your question, non destructive editing and he did mention that he saved each time. With nd editing, you can always go back on any printed process, you'll just have to repeat the latter ones again. Now in his favor, there are several processes that are beneficial to not doing it in one pass with some apps. One is noiseprinting, another is limiting.


Sounds more like computerese than masterese to me. ME's that use graphic eq in their normal processing, raise your hand.

[jfrigo]

OTR-jkl wrote on Thu, 29 April 2004 20:30

Check this out - I pulled this off of a forum topic I found about using Graphic EQ for mastering. Ever heard of such a process? "Sometimes, when i do a mastering on acoustic music (jazz or ethnics for example), i'm using only 3 process : 1 - control on alignement phase and stereo field 2 - 15-bands graphic EQ 3 - Multi-band compressor i mean that i process the sound several times SNIP Sometimes, i have to do 5 or 6 process to get a good result.

Well, that wouldn't be my first choice as to how to proceed. First, I use multiband compression only when I have a specific reason, not as an automatic choice. Second, I don't use graphic because you're limited to the chosen frequencies and can't zero in on a specific frequency, can't adjust the bandwidth of your filters, and because you have 15 (or more) undefeatable filters in line with all the noise, distortion, and group delay which that entails. Also, playing with phase and "stereo field" is another of those "just when you need it" processes. Compounding these problems by running through all of this 5 or 6 times really would not be the way I would personally proceed.

[bblackwood]

Sounds like a pretty horrid idea to me in almost every way, for the same reasons as pointed out above, namely:
- rarely does a fixed-Q equalizer do what I need,
- multiband compression is, imo, a fix-it tool, not the default mode of compression. Especially multiple passes.
- messing with the 'phase' (?) and stereo field are double-edged swords - for every positive there is a definite negative. This is true fro most any process, but seems to be magnified with processes like stereo width 'enhancers'.

You know, I don't think you should ever be automatically shoot down a new method of working without thinking through the possibilities, but there's a reason 99% of the great mastering engineers use good old stereo processing on load-in, one pass...

[dcollins]

bblackwood wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 14:02

Sounds like a pretty horrid idea to me in almost every way, for the same reasons as pointed out above, namely: - rarely does a fixed-Q equalizer do what I need,

The Davelizer is low Q. Not even one, what good is that in practice, I ask you? And B-rad has the schematics.....

Quote:

- multiband compression is, imo, a fix-it tool, not the default mode of compression. Especially multiple passes.

Agreed. Although multi-band is just "n>1" as they say in sports shows...

Obviously this will include de-essing, and that ocasional song where the bass needs its own compressor, because you can't hear the lead vocal....

Quote:

- messing with the 'phase' (?) and stereo field are double-edged swords - for every positive there is a definite negative. This is true fro most any process, but seems to be magnified with processes like stereo width 'enhancers'.

I had a client call me the other day with a problem.  He had to master his record in Nashburg for some reason, and he didn't like what he was hearing.  When he really got down to it, the engineer was using some fancy plug-ins to "enhance" the stereo.  

Bear in mind that they were happy with the mixes as presented, by a very reputable engineer.  When pressed, the mastering engineer claimed he was doing "only the latest mastering techniques" which we assume involves femtodynamic-enhancment and copious M/S manipulations.  As the mixer was obviously stone-deaf, and had no idea what he was really going for............

Quote:

You know, I don't think you should ever be automatically shoot down a new method of working without thinking through the possibilities, but there's a reason 99% of the great mastering engineers use good old stereo processing on load-in, one pass...

B-rad obviosly needs to read some books on modern mastering technics...

DC

[bblackwood]

dcollins wrote on Mon, 03 May 2004 02:48

The Davelizer is low Q. Not even one, what good is that in practice, I ask you?

Heh, Not sure it's fair to lump the Davelizer in with the generic 'graphic eq'.

Quote:

Agreed. Although multi-band is just "n>1" as they say in sports shows...

Saw that on ESPN just this morning, in fact.

Quote:

B-rad obviosly needs to read some books on modern mastering technics...

(chortles)

[jfrigo]

[quote title=dcollins wrote on Mon, 03 May 2004 00:48]

bblackwood wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 14:02

- rarely does a fixed-Q equalizer do what I need,

Quote:

DC responded: The Davelizer is low Q. Not even one, what good is that in practice, I ask you? And B-rad has the schematics.....

I love having the Davelizer around, but cool as it is, I don't think I'd want a 15 band Davelizer and no parametric EQ in the building. Having it next to the Millennia is kind of like the guys who have a 4 band API fixed Q or one of the 6 band NTI boxes from some years ago around to complement the main parametric in the room.

An interesting sidenote, but not really a modern mastering tool, is the cool Orban 10 band graphic/parametric. You had the ten pairs of graphic sliders (it was stereo) but there also were knobs to adjust the center frequency and Q of each band. It was neat.