Print

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

[J.J. Blair]

I have a friend who is a well known, $350/hr mastering guy here in LA, who recently told me that he's doing everything in the box now.  He seems to feel that it sounds better to keep it digital, since he's not getting anything on 1/2" anymore, than convert to analog and then back to digital.

Have any of you tried this approach, or are any of you currently doing this?  I for one am skeptical.

[jdg]

there are plenty of times i just stay ITB, maybe 20%?

[J.J. Blair]

And?

[TotalSonic]

J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 18:23

I have a friend who is a well known, $350/hr mastering guy here in LA, who recently told me that he's doing everything in the box now.  He seems to feel that it sounds better to keep it digital, since he's not getting anything on 1/2" anymore, than convert to analog and then back to digital. Have any of you tried this approach, or are any of you currently doing this?  I for one am skeptical.

I did a recent compilation that came in as previously mastered tracks completely in the box - it was just a matter of level matching and some small eq trims for most - and then four tracks that were a little farther off worked well with heavier tweaks from the new Sonoris EQ2 (which is truly the best sounding digital eq I've yet to work with).  

But this is a pretty rare exception - about 90% tracks I receive end up with me using some form of analog processing on them.  I should also note that while I think digital eq's have improved a good bit to the point where for some tracks they can provide good results in mastering that I've still yet to hear a digital compressor that to my ear provides as satisfying results as my analog options.  

I also count myself lucky that I still regularly get in tracks on tape (more often on 1/4" than 1/2").

I'm sure Other's (including your guy charging 8x my rate) MMV.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Bob Boyd]

Never here.  The only exception would be when I'm touching up something that came to me already mastered and I'm dropping it into an EDL with new masters.

[jfrigo]

J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 18:23

I have a friend who is a well known, $350/hr mastering guy here in LA, who recently told me that he's doing everything in the box now.  He seems to feel that it sounds better to keep it digital, since he's not getting anything on 1/2" anymore, than convert to analog and then back to digital. Have any of you tried this approach, or are any of you currently doing this?  I for one am skeptical.

Even if I want to keep it all-digital, and occasionally I do, it is never "in-the-box." I'll use outboard, like Weiss and the t.c. 6000 with MD4, and perhaps a bit of Sintefex. There are very few ITB solutions that are willing to throw enough resources at the problem, preferring to allow 48 instances of just OK EQ rather than 2-6 channels of really good EQ. Algorithmix is a notable exception. Compression in the digital domain still is mostly uninspiring. Limiters work pretty well though, so at least there's that!

Besides, to hear the kids talk nowadays, it's all about clipping your AD converters!

[compasspnt]

TotalSonic wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 18:36

...while I think digital eq's have improved a good bit to the point where for some tracks they can provide good results in mastering that I've still yet to hear a digital compressor that to my ear provides as satisfying results as my analog options.

jfrigo wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 19:21

...There are very few ITB solutions that are willing to throw enough resources at the problem, preferring to allow 48 instances of just OK EQ rather than 2-6 channels of really good EQ....Compression in the digital domain still is mostly uninspiring. Limiters work pretty well though, so at least there's that!

As I mentioned on the phone today to JJ, I will agree exactly with the two quotations above.


So far, with very rare exceptions, I do the "heavy lifting," both EQ and compression-wise, in the analogue chain.

Any ITB work would be minor post-caoture EQ tweaks, usually .5 to maybe 1 dB, and final limiting.

[cerberus]

100%  itb. some good points, some bad points.

jeff dinces

[djwaudio]

J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 15:23

I have a friend who is a well known, $350/hr mastering guy here in LA, who recently told me that he's doing everything in the box now.

Is he using the Cube? I was pretty tempted by that system, and passed on it just because the user interface isn't big honkin' knobs. The sound was pretty good I'll admit.

I almost never do anything ITB. Though I did get a project today where the engineer did some "back-end" ITB compression and limiting. He supplied mixes with and without it. We unanimously picked the processed versions. The all analog mastering really helped though.

[Andy Krehm]

Bob Boyd wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 19:00

Never here.  The only exception would be when I'm touching up something that came to me already mastered and I'm dropping it into an EDL with new masters.

ditto!

[jdg]

J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 15:34

And?

and, i wish i could charge $350/hr 20% of the time

i dont mind ITB... for me, its just whatever gets me where i want to be the quickest.

[Bob Boyd]

jfrigo wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 18:21

Even if I want to keep it all-digital, and occasionally I do, it is never "in-the-box." I'll use outboard, like Weiss and the t.c. 6000 with MD4...

some of that here as well but by far analog is still my go to heavy lifter...

[bblackwood]

Bob Boyd wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 18:00

Never here.  The only exception would be when I'm touching up something that came to me already mastered and I'm dropping it into an EDL with new masters.

Same here, with the exception of mixes that are so hyper-limited that  they will 'fall apart' going through another round of conversion. I'd say 99% of my projects go through the analog chain.

[J.J. Blair]

He's using Cube Tec.  He's using all UA plug-ins, mostly, IIRC and outboard Weiss.

[carlsaff]

I was all-ITB for years (tho never was and never will be $350/hr.). The quality of my masters has improved dramatically since assembling my analog chain, and now the analog loop always plays at least some part. Usually, it's doing 80-95% of the processing. Sometimes less. But it's always in play.

I'm very comfortable with the ergonomics and workflow of mastering using plugins, as I did it for years, and still get work from people who are just now hearing records I mastered that way years ago. In many ways, it is easier and faster for me than using analog gear. But I would miss terribly the good things that come from the analog boxes if I couldn't use them.