Post by: J.J. Blair on January 02, 2008, 06:23:38 PM
Have any of you tried this approach, or are any of you currently doing this? I for one am skeptical.
Post by: jdg on January 02, 2008, 06:26:57 PM
Post by: J.J. Blair on January 02, 2008, 06:34:41 PM
Post by: TotalSonic on January 02, 2008, 06:36:06 PM
| 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
Post by: Bob Boyd on January 02, 2008, 07:00:59 PM
Post by: jfrigo on January 02, 2008, 07:21:56 PM
| 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!
Post by: compasspnt on January 02, 2008, 07:33:24 PM
| 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.
Post by: cerberus on January 02, 2008, 08:27:49 PM
jeff dinces
Post by: djwaudio on January 02, 2008, 08:39:53 PM
| 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.
Post by: Andy Krehm on January 02, 2008, 08:41:11 PM
| 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!
Post by: jdg on January 02, 2008, 09:23:55 PM
| 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.
Post by: Bob Boyd on January 02, 2008, 09:27:12 PM
| 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...
Post by: bblackwood on January 02, 2008, 09:31:24 PM
| 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.
Post by: J.J. Blair on January 02, 2008, 09:42:14 PM
Post by: carlsaff on January 02, 2008, 10:41:30 PM
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.
Post by: Ed Littman on January 02, 2008, 10:44:03 PM
| Quote: |
jdg wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 21:23 i dont mind ITB... for me, its just whatever gets me where i want to be the quickest. |
When I master 100% in the box 5% of the time it's 95% of the time to save time.
Ed
Post by: compasspnt on January 02, 2008, 11:38:11 PM
I'm with you 110%.
Post by: Larrchild on January 03, 2008, 12:51:36 AM
Post by: J.J. Blair on January 03, 2008, 03:38:10 AM
Post by: lowland on January 03, 2008, 05:46:18 AM
Post by: masterhse on January 03, 2008, 06:44:20 AM
| 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. |
Since the switch how does his work compare to when he was going outside the box?
There are definite advantages as far as convenience and repeatability, but they have always been outweighed by better sound in most cases by using a hybrid approach. As you know there are cases when even running a digital source through a 1/2" is an advantage even though it didn't start there.
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 03, 2008, 07:44:07 AM
| masterhse wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 12:44 |
As you know there are cases when even running a digital source through a 1/2" is an advantage even though it didn't start there. |
Would that "advantage" not simply be to insert a cultural reference? Take an extreme example: Amy Winehouse. The sound of her recordings tries to recreate all the muck from mediocre 60's singles. Yet, the majority of her fans are twenty or thirtysomethings, on whom certainly this kind of nostalgia must be lost. To what extent hasn't it been more about producers and engineers trying to push the sensitive buttons of their own personal cultural background? For lack of perspective audiophile consumers might believe that old audio gear is truly superior to contemporary stuff, but pro people must certainly know better, since they're explicitly adding the old (or old-style) electronics on top of an otherwise modern chain, and getting what they want.
Post by: Tomas Danko on January 03, 2008, 07:49:54 AM
It is definitely great enough to make a solid career.
Now, staying inside the DAW completely and only using plug-ins... It's getting better every year, but it's still not there.
Post by: Gold on January 03, 2008, 07:58:16 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 07:44 |
Would that "advantage" not simply be to insert a cultural reference? |
I like the good old days when everyone was smarter and prettier. The future is great too, where everyone will be smarter and prettier. How come everyone today is dumb and ugly?
Post by: masterhse on January 03, 2008, 10:02:03 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 07:44 |
Would that "advantage" not simply be to insert a cultural reference? Take an extreme example: Amy Winehouse. The sound of her recordings tries to recreate all the muck from mediocre 60's singles. Yet, the majority of her fans are twenty or thirtysomethings, on whom certainly this kind of nostalgia must be lost. To what extent hasn't it been more about producers and engineers trying to push the sensitive buttons of their own personal cultural background? For lack of perspective audiophile consumers might believe that old audio gear is truly superior to contemporary stuff, but pro people must certainly know better, since they're explicitly adding the old (or old-style) electronics on top of an otherwise modern chain, and getting what they want. |
In some cases that may be true. There are also technical reasons. Tape softens transients and adds a small bit of compression and harmonics to the sound of a track. In some cases where a track is harsh there can be benefits beyond cultural reasons. That is unless one considers harsh part of today's culture?
| Gold wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 07:58 |
How come everyone today is dumb and ugly? |
Hey I take offense to that Paul. I'm very pretty!
Post by: brethes on January 03, 2008, 10:34:07 AM
Like mixing ITB, mastering ITB can compete in quality with using outboard, but only in the right hands as it is definitely not the easy option (analog gear is so much more forgiving!)
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 03, 2008, 10:51:26 AM
| masterhse wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 16:02 |
That is unless one considers harsh part of today's culture? |
I'm saying quite the opposite. Analogue-tape-like "warmth" is part of today's music culture because engineers acquired a taste for it when they were younger and there was no other way to record stuff. Bet that 20 years from now some people will be inserting MP3 coding artefacts into their music because that's how they heard music when they were young.
If the music really sounds harsh there's probably something wrong with it that needs fixing. And then I wonder why the fix should consist of adding the imperfections of yesterday's gear, certainly if it is said to be done on technical grounds. If you know what's wrong with the signal technically, you have all the information you need to surgically correct just that and leave the signal intact otherwise. I just think it highly unlikely that a mix should have sonic problems that are the exact mirror image of an ATR's. That would be technical grounds for running it through one.
Post by: Kees de Visser on January 03, 2008, 11:17:43 AM
Could aliasing have been that seriously overlooked/neglected in most non-linear digital applications ?
I also wonder if this could be an explanation for the popularity of some outboard processors that use internal upsampling.
Post by: aivoryuk on January 03, 2008, 11:37:07 AM
I would love to go OTB but it would mean serious investment including new a/d etc.
My questions would be how much of a subjective improvement would i expect by going outboard?? From listening to a lot of the wumps and other things I've been involved in, I'm not sure if its a big enough difference to warrant the expense at the moment. Which makes me think its more about the user and the listening environment than the processing chain.
When the funds do come in I think I would rather spend it on my monitoring and room rather gear. If I did spend it on the I don't think my master would change all that much as I prob would be using the same freq.
One thing I do know is that I have lost mastering jobs on the basis that I don't have a outboard/analog chain and maybe not seemed as professional as someone that does have analog/outboard chain.
Post by: bblackwood on January 03, 2008, 11:52:22 AM
I personally never run things to tape (though I play stuff back off tape when it was mixed to it, and (generally) love it), but that doesn't mean I don't have methods of dealing with harshness that are non-linear.
Regarding intentional coloration in the recording/mixing/mastering process, I'd suggest it's often the artist who wishes for something to sound 'old'. Like it or not, most popular artists aren't trying to create timeless art, but are instead trying to cut through the mass of music available today. I couldn't count the number of times artists have confided that the original song they wrote was longer/heavier/different somehow (and they loved it that way) but was changed by the producer/A&R to make it more 'accessible' (industry-speak for 'we hope more people will buy more of it'). Pop music can be (and sometimes is) about uncompromised artistic vision, but most of the time, the focus seems to be on selling product, so they look for different methods to be different.
Do I choose analog processing because I was raised in a time when the music I loved was made that way, 'tilting' my ears in that direction? Could very well be. Does that mean that analog gear is less accurate? I bet someone could (or does) build an EQ that you can run a track through, then reverse the curve and get a perfect null of the track (to say, -90dBFS). Does that accuracy mean the EQ is 'better'? Not necessarily. Accuracy and transparency in processing are beneficial at times, but more often than not, I've found that the subtle coloration that my analog chain can add are euphonic. And the fact remains I've not heard a digital compressor that sounds as good as it's analog counterparts. There seem to be some good digital EQ's out there, but still nothing that makes me want to process digitally. And trust me, I could work faster (and bill more) if I were ITB - I'd save a good hour or so every session of just running the audio through the chain.
For me, it's all about the sound, and my clients seem to agree with me!
Post by: brethes on January 03, 2008, 12:21:56 PM
| aivoryuk wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 10:37 |
... I think I would rather spend it on my monitoring and room rather gear. If I did spend it on the I don't think my master would change all that much as I prob would be using the same freq. |
Yes, very good point!
| aivoryuk wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 10:37 |
One thing I do know is that I have lost mastering jobs on the basis that I don't have a outboard/analog chain and maybe not seemed as professional as someone that does have analog/outboard chain. |
This only happens with clients with no budget, poor mixes and misinformed ideas about the music business, so no great loss! My best clients come trough recommendations, repeat business or having seen my name on records they like the sound of. They are usually secure enough to understand that if they like what I do, my choice of tools is the least of their concerns...
Post by: aivoryuk on January 03, 2008, 01:03:52 PM
| brethes wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 17:21 |
This only happens with clients with no budget, .. |
In this particulr case it was also partly due to the pound US dollar exchange rate.
Post by: masterhse on January 03, 2008, 04:44:31 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 10:51 |
I just think it highly unlikely that a mix should have sonic problems that are the exact mirror image of an ATR's. That would be technical grounds for running it through one. |
I don't disagree that it wouldn't necessarily be an exact inverse of the problem, but is there any tool that is? Most tools are our perceptions and approximations of the "correct" fix, heck, even our ears are approximations. How do you correct for an improper mic or mic pre?
It's all lipstick and rouge. Beauty is in the ear of the beholder. That's one of the reasons I'm so pretty
Post by: cerberus on January 03, 2008, 05:02:22 PM
| lowland wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 05:46 |
I've been seeing more mixes of late which require little or nothing done to them tonally, though maybe that's partly to do with my own development as an ME. |
yes. brad asked me about this on the forum about a year ago. his eqs are very special. mine are not.
but there could be other ways to get the "same" work done. i.e. make the client happy.
i believe that mastering eq was developed out of a need to compensate for the riaa
curve. it would be impossible to cut vinyl without employing eq. that is not
the case for a fully digital production. as time domain processes do
effect frequency balance and vise versa. there are ways to not
use any filters that roll off in the audio passband.
i try -never- to discuss frequency numbers with the client. it is always about
an instrument and how it sits in the mix. so we keep the discussion framed
around events in time and space. when numbers like "1khz" are raised,
i ask "which instrument do you mean?" if they say "all instruments", it
could mean a problem with the mix; in that case then maybe
i do need to eq...
| brethes wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 12:21 |
This only happens with clients with no budget, poor mixes and misinformed ideas about the music business, so no great loss! My best clients come trough recommendations, repeat business or having seen my name on records they like the sound of. They are usually secure enough to understand that if they like what I do, my choice of tools is the least of their concerns... |
jeff dinces
Post by: Oldfart on January 03, 2008, 05:48:33 PM
Even if I came into more money, a new room and monitoring change would be the first items on my lists.
The versitality and ease of ITB as me and my clients pretty happy.
As for the sound .....
I'm sure that an all analog chain does sound better. When I see IPODS and computer speakers becoming the listening reference standards, I seriously question if it all makes a difference?
Oldfart
Post by: compasspnt on January 03, 2008, 06:19:26 PM
| Oldfart wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 17:48 |
When I see IPODS and computer speakers becoming the listening reference standards, I seriously question if it all makes a difference? |
That means it's even more important to get it right.
Post by: Dave Davis on January 03, 2008, 06:35:55 PM
As far as ITB goes, recall matters to me, as do quick turnarounds, so I love it when I can work entirely ITB! Since coming to Sound Images, where ironically I have more OTB options than ever, I've managed to get most jobs done essentially "ITB" and have never felt I was sacrificing sound quality in any way.
The caveat here: I use MH +DSP hardware with some very "special" tools, and "roll my own" plugs for stuff I can't buy, running in soundBlade. I have a PT/TDM rig that I use daily for sound design, VO and commercial production, but TDM itself, even in HD, is more of an obstacle to great digital than an enabler, so it's rarely if ever used for mastering. If I were mastering in PT, I don't think I would be as confident about ITB sound quality, since it's becoming such a standard on the production side, it's worth noting in this conversation.
-d-
Post by: Sonovo on January 03, 2008, 06:39:22 PM
I find working this way is both faster and (for me at least) lets me get results quicker than if I were working strictly ITB.
Obviously, this won't apply to everyone.
Cheers,
Thor
Post by: Oldfart on January 03, 2008, 08:14:07 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 18:19 | ||
That means it's even more important to get it right. |
Really? Strange, I been finding the exact opposite to be true ! The better the speaker the more the "problems" stick out. The lesser the speaker, the more forgiving they are.
There is lots of music I can't stand listening to, thrue my reference monitoring, but is quite acceptable thru s***boxes.
Oldfart
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on January 04, 2008, 08:58:06 AM
| Oldfart wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 20:14 |
Really? Strange, I been finding the exact opposite to be true ! The better the speaker the more the "problems" stick out. The lesser the speaker, the more forgiving they are. |
To some degree, lesser speakers are more forgiving (bass management is a moot point when the roll-off is well above the program low end!) but in other ways, perhaps more so in terms of depth of field (dynamic range and the tonal subtleties of quiet passages) as well as transient response (handling of peaks), they will be weaker links than in the case of higher end speakers. (And when I say speakers, of course, I mean room/speakers/amp/preamp/DAC/cabling..
) Glenn M. used to say that mastering was the link between good studio sound and audiophile or high end audio consumers' systems. Why earbuds are so forgiving must be that so little of what's really there is getting through. Because I suspect that when you play a low bit rate file through Duntech Sovereigns powered by Cello monoblocks, with just a Daven pot for monitor level attenuation, you're gonna hear a lot more nail on the proverbial black board mixed in with the thinner musical sheen that was extruded (shredded?) by the codec. Computer "whiz, bang" sounds that are part of the OS's alerts sound generally bad when monitored on studio systems, though they sound more appropriate from the built-in PC speaker, so you might have something there, O.
_andrew
Post by: Bob Olhsson on January 04, 2008, 09:24:35 AM
The right settings on a plug in beat the wrong settings on hardware every time.
Post by: bblackwood on January 04, 2008, 09:41:27 AM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Fri, 04 January 2008 08:24 |
It's important to get it right because the folks making decisions about the future of the CD and of the artist can't be counted on to base their decisions on any particular speakers. Peoples' careers often hinge on getting it right and making a great first impression. The right settings on a plug in beat the wrong settings on hardware every time. |
It's even more important to get it right because most artists are independent and need their art to sound as good as it can across a variety of playback systems. While label (and potential label) stuff might have to pass muster with the folks mentioned in Bob's post, our focus should always remain on helping the artist achieve their goals. In some cases, that's getting radio play and insuring the promo people at the label are excited about it, but other times it's about making it sound good everywhere it's played. Those two goals are not mutually exclusive, but I focus on translation and making stuff sound good.
Post by: aivoryuk on January 04, 2008, 01:18:29 PM
| Dave Davis wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 23:35 |
Coming from an all-analog-all-the-time world, I'm less sure analog sounds better. Good analog gear sounds great, but then so does great digital. As far as ITB goes, recall matters to me, as do quick turnarounds, so I love it when I can work entirely ITB! Since coming to Sound Images, where ironically I have more OTB options than ever, I've managed to get most jobs done essentially "ITB" and have never felt I was sacrificing sound quality in any way. |
I think that these are very interesting points. Although I don't have any analog gear I have no doubt that good analog gear really does sound great. I also think that well implemented digital can sound great. They are just different and one may work better than the other depending on the source material and what is trying to be acheived.
I find it quite interesting when i read that a lot of people use ITB more for its quickness and possibly not for its sound quality. If you have something that could potentially sound better then why not use it, or is it more that you're satisfing your clients by not presenting them with a larger bill for taking longer.
more thoughts would be appreciated
Post by: mastermind on January 04, 2008, 02:58:21 PM
With the analog stuff (in conjunction with both OTB and ITB digital) it's easy for some reason... don't know why.
If I could get by without the analog stuff, I'd post it for sale and go buy a helicopter or something....
t
Post by: cerberus on January 04, 2008, 06:10:24 PM
otherwise, mostly yes.
jeff dinces
Post by: Bob Olhsson on January 04, 2008, 06:37:57 PM
Some of the most important people to an artist's career are reviewers, financial backers, club owners, independent promoters and other artists who are looking for an opening act.
Post by: cerberus on January 04, 2008, 06:48:56 PM
the major label work i did in '07 was not my best work.
i did make the deadlines however, and the clients
were thrilled. there is more of that on the way
for me. i regret that those jobs were done
in one day or less. a taste of success as
it is often measured here? a high
per-hour rate. it was thrilling
to be making money like
that. the big league.
but it wasn't my
best work.
jeff dinces
Post by: Bob Boyd on January 04, 2008, 09:03:33 PM
| cerberus wrote on Fri, 04 January 2008 17:48 |
i find that signed artists tend to have deadlines which cannot be blown. the major label work i did in '07 was not my best work. i did make the deadlines however, and the clients were thrilled. there is more of that on the way for me. i regret that those jobs were done in one day or less. a taste of success as it is often measured here? a high per-hour rate. it was thrilling to be making money like that. the big league. but it wasn't my best work. jeff dinces |
Is that a haiku?
Post by: jdg on January 04, 2008, 11:07:00 PM
Post by: Ed Littman on January 04, 2008, 11:24:11 PM
| Quote: |
aivoryuk wrote on Fri, 04 January 2008 13:18I find it quite interesting when i read that a lot of people use ITB more for its quickness and possibly not for its sound quality. If you have something that could potentially sound better then why not use it, or is it more that you're satisfing your clients by not presenting them with a larger bill for taking longer. more thoughts would be appreciated |
I almost always use some
digital stuff at the end of my
anaolg chain. so for me it's not
anaolg vs digital.It just seems that
for some lower budget projects I prefer
to go 100% in the box to save time.Yes this is haiku.
Ed
Post by: cerberus on January 05, 2008, 01:13:45 AM
time, money, results from
strategy and sweat.
endorphins.
jeff dinces
Post by: Glenn Bucci on January 06, 2008, 04:36:56 PM
Post by: twelfthandvine on January 06, 2008, 11:09:02 PM
98% analogue. Compilations and the like ITB.
Kind regards,
Paul Blakey
12th & Vine Post
Post by: cerberus on January 07, 2008, 01:49:16 AM
crosstalk and noise
and i.m. distortion
tiny little delays
and feedback
in proportion.
jeff dinces
Post by: quantumpsych on January 07, 2008, 02:06:27 PM
| cerberus wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 22:49 |
these are a few of my favorite "magical" things: crosstalk and noise and i.m. distortion tiny little delays and feedback in proportion. jeff dinces |
i second that! also, 99% itb. 1% hybrid for clients that have the budget for me to rent out time in a local studio that has a vari-mu... my favorite synthetic box.
Post by: johnR on January 07, 2008, 03:20:28 PM
| cerberus wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 06:49 |
these are a few of my favorite "magical" things: crosstalk and noise and i.m. distortion tiny little delays and feedback in proportion. jeff dinces |
I'd add a couple more: freedom from frequency response aliasing in HF EQs, and freedom from aliasing caused by the harmonic distortion produced by any compression process. The former is taken care of in the best digital EQs, but the latter still appears to be a problem in digital compressors.
Post by: cerberus on January 07, 2008, 09:00:01 PM
two; and be seduced by sirens. i don't know why anyone here thinks itb is easy...
jeff dinces
Post by: Podgorny on January 07, 2008, 10:25:46 PM
Post by: Glenn Bucci on January 09, 2008, 09:08:25 AM
Post by: compasspnt on January 09, 2008, 09:30:10 AM
| quantumpsych wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 14:06 |
1% hybrid for clients that have the budget for me to rent out time in a local studio that has a vari-mu... my favorite synthetic box. |
I agree the V-M is a geat box, but am confused about your logistics.
So, do you master ITB in one (your) location, but analogue in a different (not yours) location (different room/monitors)?
Post by: Viitalahde on January 09, 2008, 11:28:58 AM
Seriously, you would send tracks to them and tell that you want +1dB @ 700Hz on the GML eq and squeeze about 2dB with a Vari-Mu, slow settings.
Is it off-topic? Hell yes, it is!
Post by: bblackwood on January 09, 2008, 01:32:28 PM
| Viitalahde wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 10:28 |
What happened to that service that was supposed to have a load of analog outboard that you could rent on-line? I'm sure it was under discussion here 3 years ago or so. Seriously, you would send tracks to them and tell that you want +1dB @ 700Hz on the GML eq and squeeze about 2dB with a Vari-Mu, slow settings. Is it off-topic? Hell yes, it is! |
I'm fairly certain that guy came to his senses and realized how unbelievably crazy that idea was...
Post by: jdg on January 09, 2008, 02:55:16 PM
http://www.truetrackrec.de/MasterbandEU.htm
ftp->he runs it to tape -> u download your file
Post by: hnewman on January 10, 2008, 12:56:53 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 13:32 |
I'm fairly certain that guy came to his senses and realized how unbelievably crazy that idea was... |
I believe I bought his Vari-Mu, maybe 5 years ago? As far as I know he ended up liquidating his rig.
99.4% outboard here, occasionally something might stay in the digital domain, but it still goes through the Weiss's and probably the HEDD. Anything that stays ITB is more of a sequencing gig (compilations) than actual mastering work.
Post by: bigaudioblowhard on January 10, 2008, 01:26:03 PM
I just spent a stupid ammount of money on gear to do it analog, so guess my vote?
I don't care what anyone else is doing, period.
bab
Post by: Sonovo on January 10, 2008, 02:40:30 PM
Thor
| bigaudioblowhard wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 16:26 |
I just spent a stupid ammount of money on gear to do it analog, so guess my vote? I don't care what anyone else is doing, period. bab |
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on January 10, 2008, 02:55:02 PM
| Kees de Visser wrote on Fri, 04 January 2008 00:17 |
Dan Lavry stated in a recent thread in the Gearslutz forum (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1723848-post76.html) that digital is great for linear processing, but "not so good" for non-linear processing like compressing. According to him all non-linear processors introduce aliasing unless specifically designed not to. Using higher sample rates will reduce the audible effects (but IMO that's only a workaround, not a solution). Could aliasing have been that seriously overlooked/neglected in most non-linear digital applications ? I also wonder if this could be an explanation for the popularity of some outboard processors that use internal upsampling. |
How can digital compressor-limiters cause aliasing problems? It is nothing more than a volume control, and if it is a multiband like my Weiss DS1mk2, the filter used is a phase linear one.
BTW, I master everything in the digital domain, but with outboard digital equipment, mostly Weiss and some Z-Sys. But I am in the classical music domain.
Schallfeldwebel
Post by: zmix on January 15, 2008, 01:59:21 AM
| Schallfeldnebel wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 14:55 |
How can digital compressor-limiters cause aliasing problems? |
There are several ways in which a digital limiter can cause aliasing.
The most common one happens when the attack time is set very short (for example in brickwall limiting), creating the potential for an instantaneous level change (which like any step function, generates harmonics).
A less obvious and yet more insidious problem is that some digital limiters exhibit aliasing in the sidechain and this causes amplitude anomalies in the audio path, unrelated to the input signal.
-CZ
Post by: Matt Winegar on January 16, 2008, 01:27:08 AM
Post by: bigaudioblowhard on January 16, 2008, 04:01:04 AM
delete
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on January 23, 2008, 08:06:49 PM
I assume when a pre-watch delay is build in you avoid that problem.
A less obvious and yet more insidious problem is that some digital limiters exhibit aliasing in the sidechain and this causes amplitude anomalies in the audio path, unrelated to the input signal.
But these are badly designed units I assume. I can imagine there is more digital equipment causing aliasing problems when not designed well.
Thanks for your explantion CZ.
Schallfeldwebel
Post by: zmix on January 23, 2008, 09:49:28 PM
| Schallfeldnebel wrote on Wed, 23 January 2008 20:06 |
The most common one happens when the attack time is set very short (for example in brickwall limiting), creating the potential for an instantaneous level change (which like any step function, generates harmonics). I assume when a pre-watch delay is build in you avoid that problem. |
No, because the "look ahead" is simply a delay inserted in the audio path so that the sidechain can react to the signal before it appears in the audio path. This does not affect time constants.
| Quote: |
A less obvious and yet more insidious problem is that some digital limiters exhibit aliasing in the sidechain and this causes amplitude anomalies in the audio path, unrelated to the input signal. But these are badly designed units I assume. I can imagine there is more digital equipment causing aliasing problems when not designed well. Thanks for your explantion CZ. Schallfeldwebel |
Badly designed, yes. You might not be too surprised by the poor performance of many digital compressor plugins, but Analog compressors can also have bizzare sidechain induced amplitude modulation if the design uses audio signal summing to feed a single detector in stereo link mode. There are several stereo Bus compressors on the market that have the potential for this issue.
Chuck Zwicky
Post by: cerberus on January 23, 2008, 11:34:13 PM
could start by recommending that mix engineers use a better
platform. an m.e. may select appropriate tools, but what
could be done to stem the tide of garbage coming in?
one can sort out a worthy itb chain. but one can only do so much
for mixes where the recordings were already butchered.
some braniac marketeers proffer the notion that one could take
tizzy aliased little square waves and smear them to
heaven by sticking a tube on the end. that kind
of dreaming can only take one so far.
jeff dinces