Patrik T wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 03:55 |
TotalSonic wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 05:36 |
I disagree with this. Take the best sounding most versatile compressor in the world - and then apply it on a track that is already over-compressed. It doesn't make things sound better then, does it?
|
Better get it out of the signal chain at that specific moment then and happily conclude that the track does not need any compression.
|
Exactly!
Quote: |
Quote: | In general I agree with you but there are in fact expectations based on what is generally practiced for the majority of that (sub)genre that if not acknowledged will generally end up with more revision requests than not.
|
I think that (too) many tools in mastering is a good source for a constant flow of revision requests.
|
It certainly is a dangerous trap that one must be careful to avoid. Experience with mastering in general and the processor you are using in specific is the way of avoiding it.
Quote: |
Quote: | i.e. presented with a dubstep track the client is most likely going to want a heckuva lot more low end than a client presenting a typical cumbia would. And a client bringing in a chamber music track will generally want much more natural dynamics left in tact than your typical death metal artist would.
|
If a "tool" does "work" better for dubstep than chamber music what will happen if there is suddenly cellos and violas within a dubstep piece?
|
In this case then generally then these would be overdubbed elements and the essential character would still be of a dubstep track. i.e. big @ss synth bass, some organic and electronic elements cutting in and out, and vocals on top. Anyway - I was referring to a generally expected frequency spectrum balance particular to a subgenre and not to having specific processors in mind for a genre in my example.
Quote: |
Time for tool #3?
Which has to be compensated by #4? Which has to be adjusted by #5? Which has to................
|
It doesn't have to work that way and I myself never work that way.
Instead:
Ears are the guide. Sometimes an esoteric unusual processor will do some magic for very specific cases where a specific unusual problem is occurring in the mix. The other times then I agree with you that a minimum of simple tools does the job the best. What I disagree with is approaching anything with an absolutism as to what can or can not work. Open minds help in this case. Spending time outside of sessions investigating potential tools and then spending extra time learning the select few tools that have potential to be of actual use thoroughly before applying them in a session helps to eliminate potential faults of overprocessing or bogging down the session's work flow.
There are examples of tons of tracks I work on where there's just 1/2db tweaks from 2 bands on my "go to" analog eq and a db of limiting and it's done. Then there are less frequent examples of tracks where in order to get the client happy with the master I have to do tons and tons of processing - sometimes with unusual processor choices. Whatever works is all good by me.
Again - please don't misunderstand me - I most often use a small number of processors and I don't add new processors to my options very often. But there are indeed tasks like declicking, transient recovery, sibilance removal, etc, that I find are soemtimes necessary tasks in todays mastering sessions. I like to have tools available to do these things - and just an eq and a compressor will not let you do these.
Best regards,
Steve Berson