Print

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

[Bender Mastering]

You should also demo the Softube stuff, mostly the Passive-Active Pack.

And you should also try out the DSM from Pro Audio DSP (Paul Frindle's new company). It's a problem solver!

[eightyeightkeys]

zenmastering wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 18:52

..... FWIW, I'm not a fan of the Xenon limiter at all. Graemme

Just curious Graemme, why you're not a fan of the Xenon limiter....I'm working with the demo right at the moment and liking it very much.

[twelfthandvine]

I have always been a Paul Frindle fan.

So, as well as the Sonnox products already mentioned, maybe have a look at the DSM from his ProAudio DSP.  You will probably need to ignore the pre sets.

Dr MS from Mathijs Indesteege aka Matthew Lane can be powerful and useful in a corrective or focusing context.  It is much more than a simple MS matrix code.

Have fun.

[OTR-jkl]

Couldn't find where to d/l it. Do you have a link...?
JL

[twelfthandvine]

OTR-jkl wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 12:42

Couldn't find where to d/l it. Do you have a link...? JL

Was this for me?

If so:

DSM is here:  http://www.proaudiodsp.com/products/dsm/

DrMS is here:  http://www.mathewlane.com/DrMSdownload.html

Best regards,

Paul

[Matt_G]

Patrik T wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 23:15

I get a feeling that people who commonly correct before an analog chain have analog gear that maybe ain't too suited for the purpose of mastering.

Not sure that I'd agree wit that statement entirely. I have a reasonable amount of analog mastering gear & a number of these pieces are considered among the best however quite often I find 'digital' more useful or less intrusive for correcting issues than using their analog counterparts as they can be dialled in more accurately with finer precision. Especially EQ bell cuts... Though I do find that shelves & HPF's for tilting a mix can be less intrusive on the Sontec or REQ 2.2. As for dynamic correction the Weiss DS-1 Mk3 & Flux Alchemist are also very useful 'transparent' corrective tools for pre-analog chain processing when needed.

Generally speaking, I find the strength of analog lies more in the 'enhancing' camp rather than the corrective one imo.

Hybrid processing is discovering best of both worlds...

 

 

[Andrew Hamilton]

Only analog gear is well-suited for the purpose of mastering (i.e., disk cutting) from analog sources.   Analog to Digital conversion before processing can work. But the best sounding lacquers are cut without a digital delay.  

For CD premastering, if there is to be load in from tape, or other analog source, it would behoove the premastering engineer to determine if the analog gear should or shouldn't be used to tweak the transfer, on a case by case basis, prior to Analog to Digital conversion.  When there are no tones, the tape should be tweaked by ear, which means possibly even using Sontecs and Pultecs and Davelizers, after first calibrating to MRL or equivalent.

Fortunately, most premastering auditoria are fairly neutral in terms of acoustics, so parametric equalization there shouldn't make things less "portable," even though Bob Ohlsson made a very wise comment recently about the tendency for signal processing to make a recording more idiosyncratic with the acoustics of the production suite, rather than more portable (to other auditoria).

If the mix is already digital, and the end product is to be a CD premaster, digital eq can sometimes seem to be more surgical (as in, less intrusive on parts of the signal that don't want alteration - due to the resolution of the switches, as Matt G implied).    Also, there may be more gained by eq'ing in the track's native domain, rather than in taking a hit in clarity for the mojo of analog, since a round-trip signal-jacking would be required.  

However, there is no low-level chaotic interaction with digital circuits, other than that old phantom, Dither .   The settings are mostly static.   There's no interaction with reluctance, hysteresis, memristance, thermionics, coil and magnetic saturation, and the infinite subtleties of the depletion zone of a transistor and its effect on the sheen of a track.  At best, computing mimics this, with predictable results

Listeners tend to want the sound to be right, rather than exact. You do the math. (;




Andrew

www.serifsound.com

[Geoff Emerick de Fake]

Andrew Hamilton wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 07:32

Only analog gear is well-suited for the purpose of mastering from analog sources.

Sounds very purist to me. The next step is if it was recorded with tubes it's gotta be mastered with tubes...
I think the right question is what processing is needed, EQ, compression, stereo image manipulation, frequency-conscious dynamics... and then one has to determine in his own arsenal which tools he thinks are the best suited for the task before him.
If I think I need to do de-clicking, de-noising or de-clipping on an analog source, I won't have a second of hesitation to go digital and use tools that work only in the digital domain.
Do you know a good analog denoiser or declicker? Me neither...

[Andrew Hamilton]

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 10:29

Andrew Hamilton wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 07:32 Only analog gear is well-suited for the purpose of mastering from analog sources. Sounds very purist to me. The next step is if it was recorded with tubes it's gotta be mastered with tubes... I think the right question is what processing is needed, EQ, compression, stereo image manipulation, frequency-conscious dynamics... and then one has to determine in his own arsenal which tools he thinks are the best suited for the task before him. If I think I need to do de-clicking, de-noising or de-clipping on an analog source, I won't have a second of hesitation to go digital and use tools that work only in the digital domain. Do you know a good analog denoiser or declicker? Me neither...

In this case you are invoking a signal conversion or two's layer of coloration in order to remove something that shouldn't have been there, in the first place.   There may be exceptions to this maxim as concerns other services, such as restoration - which is not straight pre-mastering.  But no one wanted a computer until they were invented, though many historically and economically significant masters were cut without a hitch - all analog.

Cheers,
    Andrew

[Andrew Hamilton]

I might add - in case it was unclear - that for CD premastering, I often employ signal processing in both domains, as Matt G and others have described,  even if the source was digital.  However, the extent of the dsp is segment gain, fades, NoNoise, RX, and the obligatory brick wall limiter.  



Andrew

[Geoff Emerick de Fake]

Andrew Hamilton wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 11:42

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 10:29 Andrew Hamilton wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 07:32 Only analog gear is well-suited for the purpose of mastering from analog sources. Sounds very purist to me. The next step is if it was recorded with tubes it's gotta be mastered with tubes... I think the right question is what processing is needed, EQ, compression, stereo image manipulation, frequency-conscious dynamics... and then one has to determine in his own arsenal which tools he thinks are the best suited for the task before him. If I think I need to do de-clicking, de-noising or de-clipping on an analog source, I won't have a second of hesitation to go digital and use tools that work only in the digital domain. Do you know a good analog denoiser or declicker? Me neither... In this case you are invoking a signal conversion or two's layer of coloration in order to remove something that shouldn't have been there, in the first place.   There may be exceptions to this maxim as concerns other services, such as restoration - which is not straight pre-mastering.  But no one wanted a computer until they were invented, though many historically and economically significant masters were cut without a hitch - all analog. Cheers,     Andrew

Not only restoration. All-analog recordings have a significant level of tape noise that can very effectively be minimised by proper de-noising. It's then a matter of choice between a better noise figure and whatever effects this double conversion imparts. Personally, I find tape noise bothering and the effects of conversion are inaudible for me. I've found out it's the case of many record-buying persons.
I agree, many analog records were produced and mastered without any digital equipment, and some are excellent and don't lack in terms of quality. This is not the case for a certain number, that would probably benefit from some kind of processing that can only be reasonably done in digital.
Ragards,
Geoff

[Jerry Tubb]

I don't mind a little tape noise, makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

Much less distracting than the negative effects of vibe sucking noise reduction.

To each his own.

JT

[Andrew Hamilton]

I do recommend proper de-coding of Dolby- or dbx- or other- NR-encoded tapes, which offer breathtaking results, if so desired, at 30 ips, using Dolby SR.  I find the level of remaining hiss to be quite benign. Of course it never bothered me much with pro width track formats and speeds, anyway, since I had occasion to multi-track to micro-cassette once or twice, using the rather low-fi, Fostex 4-track, with mixer.   You can repair the capstan belt with a small rubber band.  

15 ips 1/4" 2-track with no NR can sound great, as-is, to me, given the right recording techniques and 2-track mastering.  

If a singer is allowed to mask her voice with the telephone eq, I find the A 80, set open wide, to be ample on most material.  (;

I am not against LPCM, by a long shot.  I just thought that if no harm was to befall the master tape (on its way to disk (not CD)), it ought to be processed entirely in its own domain, such as is done at Salt Mastering, quite frankly.  


Also, this does not preclude we premastering-only rooms.  I think a premastering session in one room, followed by global eq mastering in another would be just right, since the mastering engineer wouldn't need to have 8 channels of everything, and incumbent acoustic deflections, just to deliver a custom (pre)mastered lacquer.  


Also, digital delay aint a deal-breaker for cutting pop and rock.   Although I kvetched that it sounded different from my digital premaster (big surprise?), it was largely because it sounded better on the bottom while being softer on top, once on vinyl, when our e-pal, Dietrich Schoenemann cut a well-received master for our mutual client, last year.  My one recourse to defend my CD's lack of head bump-like contouring was to point out that I had not wanted any more processing done.  (:  

It did give me more encouragement in bass exploration, though, for both media.

Andrew

[zenmastering]

Hi Dave,

I can 'hear it working' even at the relatively little amount that I use it (3dB or less). With the Elephant or Flux Pure Limiter, I hear way less of the sound of the plug, especially with the Flux. I own the Xenon, but haven't used it for quite a while.

I know of people who like it and get it to work for them, so it's just a preference thing.

Cheers,

Graemme

eightyeightkeys wrote on Sun, 13 February 2011 10:24

zenmastering wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 18:52 ..... FWIW, I'm not a fan of the Xenon limiter at all. Graemme Just curious Graemme, why you're not a fan of the Xenon limiter....I'm working with the demo right at the moment and liking it very much.

[Geoff Emerick de Fake]

Jerry Tubb wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 13:38

I don't mind a little tape noise, makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Much less distracting than the negative effects of vibe sucking noise reduction.

Certainly true for DynEx or DNR. I have daily experience of a digital DeNoiser that doesn't suck any "vibe"; on the contrary, the absence of noise makes the notes stand more intense and lively. Nothing distractive there. Because you've had bad experience with noise reduction is not a good reason to dismiss them all. Once again, you're throwing the proverbial baby.