Print

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

[Roman Younger]

Hello, I wonder are there anything how you usually analyse your tracks as well as others?
I mean not just looking at spectrum and RMS, but maybe anything else concerning sound ?
Regards

[Viitalahde]

Well, I usually hit play and listen to see if I like it or not. A foot tapping is good, a nodding head is pretty good, too. Both together are really good.

I don't really look at any meters, to tell you the truth..

[tom eaton]

Hairs standing up is very good, though rare.

The only meters I use religiously are two Dorroughs, just level.

tom

[Roman Younger]

Well, I understood your points of view, sure me too use ears but not eyes hehe, but also it needs to be checked at spectrum.., so looking forward to read exactly about work in that field.

[bblackwood]

younger wrote on Sun, 24 August 2008 06:54

Well, I understood your points of view, sure me too use ears but not eyes hehe, but also it needs to be checked at spectrum.., so looking forward to read exactly about work in that field.

You'll find that most experienced mastering engineers use only their ears - I can't readily think of a mastering engineer whose work I've heard that uses anything other than his speakers (and maybe some basic L/R metering).

[Patrik T]

I analyze by ear and fear.

Occasionally I glance at some VU meters in the analogue chain.

The AD input meters are located close to my eq so I can see them flash around in the corner of my eye but I don't care what they actually are trying to show me.


Best Regards
Patrik

[Mark Wilder]

Most engineers that I know have great confidence in their monitors, their rooms and their processes, so it's easier than it sounds to make good decisions, consistently.

There are a few things that I do to get a consistent album.  As I start my day, I will often put on some music to listen to.  As I set up the room and check my email, I will play something that I've worked on in the past, maybe a similar style of music or previous albums I've done with the same artist.  This is a casual listen only.  I always listen at the same level when I'm mastering.  The only time I change the monitor level is when I am sequencing, since I feel I get a better flow of the music that way.  As I'm working, I will often compare to the songs I've EQ'd before, switching back and forth to have a more consistant sound in the album.  I like to get my levels correct, whether it's overall volume or vocal/lead levels, before I print them. I also listen to almost everything I master after I'm done.  I will rip a reference into my ipod and recheck everything on my next morning commute.  This morning after check allows me to refine my processes for the next record (if any).

I don't find metering to be very helpful.  

Good luck.

[MASSIVE Mastering]

Harball and a spectrum analyzer.  

I'm kidding...  Ears.  The whole "Foot tapping / head nodding / hair standing" thing is also a plus.  

[masterhse]

An analyzer will show frequency content, but nothing about the context in which the frequencies exist. An analyzer is good for checking equipment but not for "checking music".

[Alécio Costa - Brazil]

I occasionally check Waves PAZ and RMS level at Phase Scoop.

[Andrew Hamilton]

I use VU a lot, since DC hipped me to its use in a 0 VU = -8 dBFSD context.  "Virtually Useless" has become, as he put it, "Very Useful."   No need to have it set to 0 VU = - 14 dBFSD.  CDs would  peg the needle every transient, that way.  But at -8, it almost never pegs and the forte ball park is spot-on for pro masters of this (loud) Era.


Also, I use a DK Audio MSD-100 with the very useful stereo vectorscope.  It's like a LissaJous, but vertical, instead of angular.  Yes, many times the line is off to one side or other, but when you are hearing a passage that sounds like it's supposed to be centered and yet isn't, you can dial in a very thin line of correlation between channels and verify (with ears) that this is correct or not.  For tape reproducer azimuth adjustments, it's super precise and allows for quick work.

Yes, it's just a reassurance, but that's our line, after all.  Reassurance that all is well.

I also use SpectraFoo if something sounds weird and I want demonstrable proof. I tried using it for eq guidance, but I found that I was chasing my own tail.  We aren't trying to generate pink noise, folks.  Mostly, it's for checking the noise floor.  As it is, I can't see how I could possibly benefit from balanced power (in my present setup).  The noise floor of the analog chain is well below the quietest signal I am concerned about.  The chassis and some circuits are grounded to the cold water pipe via copper bus bar and solid core 12 AWG copper wire.  Pin 1 is also lifted on each input that doesn't specify not to (float it).



Andrew

[Mickey Tee]

Lol @ foot tapping and head nodding

If you want to have a really detailed look at a sound, or a series of sounds, Adobe Audition has a very good sonogram, which gives you a "true" picture of sound over time. As you say, if your sound has a very pronounced attack but less defined body then the spectral analyser won't tell you anything really about the body.

Plus Audition has a really nice analyser too.

For another look, try izotope Ozone - there's a nice manual which explains how one of their "lines" on the screen of the application will give you an idea of how well balanced your track is in comparison to some "industry standard" measurement regarding production (ie if it sounds as "bright" as commercial releases over the last 10 years etc).

However, as basically everyone is saying here, how something looks and how something sounds are incredibly different things, ymmv, though i think it's very useful to be able to check things with your eyes personally and learn about, for example, what 400hz sounds like


Mickey

[Patrik T]

Andrew Hamilton wrote on Mon, 25 August 2008 18:15

We aren't trying to generate pink noise, folks.

One of the best descriptions ever, really!


Best Regards
Patrik

[Roman Younger]

thank you very much for all your advices !