bblackwood wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 04:37 |
So, what's your typical chain? Is it too much? Not enough? How often do you change it up? Are you looking to change any part of it? Discuss. |
jazzius wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 17:44 |
My chain seems to have settled on the following for most jobs: Plugins - maybe Weiss EQ1mk2 Weiss DS1mk2 D/A (Benchmark DAC1) STC8 Thermionic Culture Phoenix Lundahl L/R to M/S Cranesong Ibis Lundahl M/S to L/R Cranesong Hedd A/D Cranseong Hedd processing Limiter plugin Obviously not everything is used all the time. I'd like to add an analog router like the Crookwood or SPL. Darius |
jtr wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 18:04 |
Guess now I need to name names on my minimalist setup. Oh well. I'll edit my post. |
Ged Leitch wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 17:53 | ||
Now your just showing off Darius! |
jazzius wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 21:03 | ||||
Hey Ged, good thing i didn't mention the Massivo, C2 and manley-mu sitting idle in the rack most of the time! |
Ged Leitch wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 10:07 |
Intersting to see you pro's approach to processing and by how much / little etc. |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 07:37 |
So, what's your typical chain? Is it too much? Not enough? How often do you change it up? Are you looking to change any part of it? Discuss. |
Oldfart wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 23:26 |
In the box here too. I know I need better one then the generic in WL5, so I'll either upgrade to WL6 or find another plug. Any recomendations??) Oldfart |
Ged Leitch wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 19:00 | ||
Voxengo R8 brain Pro. http://www.voxengo.com/product/r8brainpro/ Get the pro version, and check out their forums on it. It's apparently up there next to the new Weiss SRC in the tests. |
Oldfart wrote on Sat, 24 June 2006 00:18 | ||||
Can it operate as a plug-in ? Or only as a file converting tool? Thanks in advance for your reply, Oldfart |
Bob Boyd wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 21:25 |
Where's Brad? Didn't he start this? |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 22:25 | ||
I'm here... I was hoping to see folks discuss not only their chains, but why they have them the way they do (more on that later). I can share mine if it means anything to anyone, but it's nothing special... |
zetterstroem wrote on Sat, 24 June 2006 00:27 |
either most people are using too much "gear".... or i'm using to little..... |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 06:37 |
So, what's your typical chain? |
Quote: |
Is it too much? |
Quote: |
Not enough? |
Quote: |
How often do you change it up? |
Quote: |
Are you looking to change any part of it? |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Sat, 24 June 2006 00:55 |
p.s. Good topic Brad, a welcome change from the volume wars & ice cream truck threads. |
Bob Boyd wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 22:23 |
Crane Song STC-8/M (due in any day!) |
hnewman wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 18:35 |
Lynx AES out >> Mytek DAC >> Massive Passive >> STC8 >> Vari-Mu >> Mytek ADC >> Weiss EQ >> L2 >> Lynx AES in Sometimes the Weiss gets dropped in before the Mytek DAC instead. Monitoring off the Lynx card (L22). |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 06:37 |
So, what's your typical chain? |
Quote: |
Is it too much? |
Quote: |
Not enough? |
Quote: |
How often do you change it up? |
Quote: |
Are you looking to change any part of it? |
bblackwood wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 06:36 |
To continue the thought process... How does your chain sound? How does that sound influence your decision regarding the order of the processors? Is that something you consider, or is it a matter of what needs to happen where to achieve your desired goals? Does more = better or does more = more? It's fascinating to me so far that there seems to be very little middle ground - folks seem to have either tons of gear or somewhat simplistic chains... Discuss. |
bblackwood wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 09:36 |
To continue the thought process.., Does more = better or does more = more? It's fascinating to me so far that there seems to be very little middle ground - folks seem to have either tons of gear or somewhat simplistic chains... Discuss. |
bblackwood wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 09:36 |
To continue the thought process... How does your chain sound? How does that sound influence your decision regarding the order of the processors? Is that something you consider, or is it a matter of what needs to happen where to achieve your desired goals? |
Andy Krehm wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 00:40 |
However, we own Logic and a second sound card being used for SpectraFoo (in the same Mac). My tech guy is working out a system where we will be able to output PTs to the Lavry Digital Optimizer and into the second sound card and record into Logic Audio (which I own). I'll then be able monitor the 16b/44.1 dithered masters as I'm mastering a high rez session. He says it works fine but wants to make sure there is little or no lag time when playing back Logic controlled by Pro Tools. If that doesn't work smoothly enough, I'll probably go for a second computer |
Andy Krehm wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 08:05 |
I knew some mastering engineers that made it through my far too lengthy gear list post would be thinking, why use so much gear? For me the answer is simple. I started with plug-ins and slowly, over 13/14 years, added analog gear. Although plug-ins have come a long way since I started mastering, they and cheap converters weren't so hot back then so I just kept buying and upgrading my analog gear, mostly of the tube persuasion. |
bblackwood wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 09:36 |
To continue the thought process... How does your chain sound? How does that sound influence your decision regarding the order of the processors? Is that something you consider, or is it a matter of what needs to happen where to achieve your desired goals? Does more = better or does more = more? It's fascinating to me so far that there seems to be very little middle ground - folks seem to have either tons of gear or somewhat simplistic chains... Discuss. |
Bob Boyd wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 11:13 | ||
Andy, you may have better luck that I did but before buying my second Mac, I tried running both PT and Peak and it proved to be too much for the overall system (and I'm not using any CPU-based plugs). Far too unstable, even on a Dual 2.5 G5. I would recommend going with the second system when you can. Although you'll need to consider monitor placement, I have loved having more screen real estate - doing my work on the main system and having the analyzers/meters on the second screen making it easy to glance over at them. |
bblackwood wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 09:36 |
To continue the thought process... How does your chain sound? How does that sound influence your decision regarding the order of the processors? Is that something you consider, or is it a matter of what needs to happen where to achieve your desired goals? . |
Andy Krehm wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 10:54 |
With your dual computer setup, is there a reason why you didn't go for a monitor/keyboard switcher box as opposed to another monitor? My speakers, desk and single monitor (20 x 13 rectangle) are already very carefully designed and placed for mimimum reflections and there is simply nowhere to place another monitor without compromising the setup. |
Quote: |
On this fairly large monitor screen, I have room for PTs, Spectra-Foo and my TC 6000 software (yes, one can save about $2,000. by not keeping the fancy controller that makes no sound and the software works almost as well. Mind you, if I want to impress a client by saying I have a TC 6000, I have to point to the unit in the machine closet as I no longer have the cool looking fader box to show off!). |
Quote: |
Also, when you chose a second computer, what was your reasoning in choosing another Mac? My thought was, since PC has different things to offer and are generally less expensive, why not go with a PC, if one must have a second computer in order to do real time sample rate conversion? |
cerebrus wrote: |
but why would anyone add complexity if it didn't sound better? |
bblackwood wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 16:29 | ||
Interesting read thus far. It's especially interesting seeing the different philosophies and how they manifest themselves in people's gear choices and chain complexity... I'm a simple (minded) guy - over the years I have chosen gear that almost always improves the sonic characteristics of what's run through it. I've done flat transfers before that really made the mixers happy - they were asking what all I did to it. I don't consider my chain to be colored, but it does seem to impart a nice bit of depth and tone. I'm going to add one more EQ and then I cannot imagine adding anything else.
For some (not all), I would be willing to bet it's the whole 'gear slut' mentality, where the gear becomes the goal, not the tool. I've seen enough of this over the years to say with confidence it happens. Fact is, in my room, I always seem to find ways of achieving the sound in my head with my simple chain. Diff strokes and all that. Keep 'em coming, guys! |
cerberus wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 09:52 |
more = but why would anyone add complexity if it didn't sound better? jeff dinces |
jfrigo wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 01:02 |
...Though I have a fair amount of gear available, I pretty much stick to my NSEQ-2, Vari-Mu, Weiss EQ, t.c. 6000 (MD4 limiter usually), and L2. Sometimes the only thing in use is the NSEQ-2 to a custom ADC and one of the limiters (t.c. or L2). Source is usually Pro Tools to a Lavry DAC, and analog is either Studer A820, or Ampex ATR. (snip) The one thing that's been on my list for a while, but I haven't found the one to suit me yet, is a more neutral analog compressor, or if not neutral, at least a different color from the Manley. I've been through a couple, but none have stuck. |
jfrigo wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 02:02 |
In addition to the complexity of chains being discussed, the complexity of their use (M/S processing, multiband and parallell compression) is also an interesting, related subject. I wonder, are the people who love to have complex chains the same people who like complex processes? |
Quote: |
...we should call in hutch to tell us why he bothered to make it... |
jfrigo wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 23:02 |
In addition to the complexity of chains being discussed, the complexity of their use (M/S processing, multiband and parallell compression) is also an interesting, related subject. I wonder, are the people who love to have complex chains the same people who like complex processes? |
jtr wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 18:34 | ||
I'd suggest that once you find a technique that works for you on a given project, you'll use it again. There are many ways to get there from here. I don't think anyone loves complex chains, just adequate support for their favorite techniques. And some markets require a more diverse offering of solutions than others. It's worth noting that M/S isn't really a complex process, although many of the "mastering grade" pieces are now including support for it. This may give the illusion that it is complex. My first exposure was back in my live classical recording days. The ability to change the stereo image post recording was priceless. Really understanding M/S and it's value to preserving (or destroying) the final imaging is a skill useful to all mastering engineers- whether it's Mozart or earsplitting punk thrash bands. I don't use M/S on everything. It's just a tool that is available when you want to process the mono content or l/r content independent of each other. Parallel compression isn't all that complex either , although it isn't something I use very often in mastering. Some do. It's a great technique. Again, some manufacturers build in the functionality hence the perception complex process. |
chrisj wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 15:13 |
'mental chain' factor. |
carlsaff wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 15:39 |
What makes me not happy is knowing with certainty that analog processing is better for some things. |
cerberus wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 16:38 | ||
|
ammitsboel wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 17:42 |
There's no chain like no chain. |
ammitsboel wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 17:42 |
There's no chain like no chain. |
Mark Donahue wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 03:52 | ||
Then there really isn't much use for a mastering engineer either now is there At that point you're just the copy boy. |
ammitsboel wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 23:42 |
There's no chain like no chain. |
ammitsboel wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 09:13 | ||||
Or the project saviour! I hope that your excuse for using one is another than "otherwise I'm just the copy boy"? |
jazzius wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 13:15 | ||||||
Try doing nothing to the sound of your client's music and see how long you stay in business (unless you're in the copy business, in which case i'm sure you'll be very successful!).........D |
ammitsboel wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 17:41 | ||||||||
You give the impression that you don't understand me? Having a scientific discussion and enlightening every aspect is a way to achieve good results, do you not agree? Being able to accept and deal with the opposite opinion can be a great help. Best Regards H |
Andy Krehm wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 22:02 | ||||||||||
Perhaps Henrik is saying that once in a while one doesn't need to do any (or little) processing to a track to make it work in an album. I'll never forget a jazz album that I worked on early in my mastering career. My client didn't like any sonic manipulations that I tried on the first song I worked on. Not having a enough experience at the time, I felt inwardly resentful that my client didn't like what I was trying to do! Fortunately, I was smart enough to finally give in and just do what was essentially an as is transfer. What floored me in the end was that I had to use every resource and trick that I knew, at least at that time in my life, to match up the rest of the album to that one "as is" transfer! Also early in my career, I remember one other album where I did a full-blown enhancement of the mixes on a jazz album only to get a call from my client saying he didn't like the work and preferred the original mixes. And this after sitting through the whole day! So, he came back another day and I did a simple digital mastering job just slightly raising the volume while matching the volumes track to track and once in a while adding the most minute eq on the cymbals. When reviewing that experience, I realized I should have known not to mess with the mixes because this particular client had actually mixed the album at my studio with my house mix guy. He came back and touched up the album many, many times and in the process, must of grown to love the mixes that he had spent so much time shaping. Andy, Silverbirch Productions. |
TotalSonic wrote on Wed, 28 June 2006 09:55 |
I really love the smoothness of the NTP comps (recapped & modded with Triad input & Jensen output transformers) but they're not the easiest things to set as they work on a fixed threshold based on how much signal is sent into them - so I've been thinking of getting am active gain stage placed permanently before them |
EP wrote on Fri, 30 June 2006 21:11 | ||
given the typical levels in a modern mastering operation, don't you find that you need to turn the inputs down, not up, to get it just right? Seems like a passive attenuator option early in the chain would do it..... Please elaborate, if you have time, as I am soon to receive my -120's.... |
EP wrote on Sat, 08 July 2006 03:33 |
Funny how those simple little projects get a bit bigger over time |
Quote: |
I have a pair of shallco passive attenuators (10db) that I plan to use for this purpose.....although I see your point on the coolness of having gain in the same unit. (not to mention m/s, although that can be a passive transformer circuit so not nesc. an active vs passive thing) One of these days pretty soon, Dan will have my 179-120's done.....I'm getting excited! |
TotalSonic wrote on Sat, 08 July 2006 07:20 |
The original NTP modules were a favourite with mastering suites because of their smooth compression action but their minimal controls don't apply them so well to modern bass-heavy music. Ex-NTP and local designer Trols Orland will modify modules, adding new control facilities, such as side chain, peak clip, de-esser, stereo link, metering and a new rack. Using the side chain with an LF cut of 6dB/octave below 300Hz they become more usable on dance music. |
Kris permeke wrote on Sun, 02 July 2006 13:42 |
I see a lot of you have two compressors in your chain. A softer / slower one (varimu) and a faster one (SSL type, ....). In what order do you hook them up ? Firdt the vari mu, then the fast one , or vice versa and why ? regards |
mastertone wrote on Thu, 09 July 2009 21:15 |
Hey Jaakko, did you ditch your opto? I liked what i heard from it, very brief but still. |
Viitalahde wrote on Thu, 09 July 2009 15:21 |
Yeah. I gave it to the mixing guys. I just began using it less and less, and eventually stopped. Chain evolution I guess.. |
TotalSonic wrote on Wed, 28 June 2006 04:55 |
Digital Source (SAWStudio DAW #1 w/ Lynx One AES outs, DA-20 or PCM2600 DATs, MD350 MD player. Denon or Philips CD players) -> Z-sys digital patch bay -> 2 Lavry Blue DAC's (1 direct to Coleman M3PHmkII for source monitoring, 2nd to chain) -> OR Analog Source (Sony/MCI JH110M / Sansui SR717 turntable / Denon cassette deck) -> |
Quote: |
Amek Medici eq -> API 2500 OR pair of custom modded NTP179-120 -> |
Quote: |
Mytek Stereo96 ADC -> Z-sys digital patchbay -> SAWStudio DAW #2 (w/Sydec Mixtreme192 & ibox AES4)-> |
Quote: |
RML Labs Levelizer &/OR Waves L3 -> |
Quote: |
Sonoris Dither (or sometimes Waves IDR dither if the L3 is the final processor) |
Quote: |
Of course a lot of times things aren't as "simple" in which case the above might get augmented on the analog side by: -> pair of Filtek MKIII eq's - if I need either a hardedged bottom or more bands than the Medici gives me, |
Quote: |
and sometimes a -> SPL Vitalizer (I have the original stereo version, the SX2) if dealing with something that has too much "M's" (i.e. Mono-ish, Muddy, Muted, overly Mid-rangey) |
Quote: |
& on the digital side (either patched into the playing DAW or receiving DAW depending on the processor) as needed of: (fully automateable 64bit processing SAWStudio native plugins) JMS Audioware Hi-res EQ Sonoris Compressor Sonoris Mulitband Compressor Sonoris M/S codec Sonoris Equalizer Sonoris Linear Phase EQ Sonoris Pitch/Time Brainspawn Stereo Panner |
Quote: |
(DX/VST plugins) Virtos Stereo Processor Virtos Noise Reduction Sony NR2.0 Click Remover Spitfish De-esser AIPL Warmtone (only used in rare cases to distort side channel) |
Quote: |
As far as things I'd like to change in the chain: * well, while the Filtek's usually work well as a secondary eq - I'd still like to find another option that could be a lot more subtle as the Filtek's 2dB steps tend to be overkil for most applications. |
Quote: |
* I had Dan Zellman open up my Medici and he's pretty sure he could open up the sound a little more by upgrading the caps in it. I'd like to replace the pots on the input gains (seems Neve doesn't see any problem with this as the same kind of thing is on the Masterpiece) with stepped switches in 1/2dB steps also. |
Quote: |
* I'd like to get either a Weiss DS-1 or a Maselec de-esser to hopefully better handle this chore than my current in-the-box options |
Quote: |
* definitely would eventually like another dynamic processor - the DW Fearn VT7 really caught my ear recently - but I'm open to other options |
Quote: |
* and definitely would like to get an analog M/S matrix. Think the Dangerous S/M box might be the ticket - but I'd be curious to see if I could just get some of the older Neumann or Telefunken "panorama" modules racked up to get the same functionality for less cash. |
Quote: |
* I downloaded the Voxengo Elephant 2.5 demo recently and, unlike the first version, was pretty impressed with it, so this will be my next digital processor purchase as another alternative to the other digital limiters I have |
Quote: |
* I'd like to look into possible upgrades beyond the stock repro amps for my JH110B |
Quote: |
* and finally thinking of getting a Lavry Blue ADC module added into my 4496 box as an option to my Mytek. |
Quote: |
...but at this point all these things are of lower priority than getting a few things sorted out in my monitoring - so at this point stands for the N802's and some more treatments for the room that will be my next purchases. |
compasspnt wrote on Thu, 09 July 2009 18:01 |
Steve, a (perhaps hypothetical) question... If you were called upon to recreate a master from two (or more) years ago, or to "just make this one little change" to such an "old" master, what would you now do? •Drag out all the old stuff (if possible) •Come as close as possible with your current chain •Start over and do it "my way today" •Other option ? |
TotalSonic wrote on Thu, 09 July 2009 17:50 |
Some things have in fact remained the same but lots of things have changed. |