Aug 31, 2009 01:41 pm Me personally...
Warmer
MBC
Spatial
Verb
Limiter
Mastering effects chain
Posted on Aug 31, 2009 01:02 am
crux
Typo Szar
Member Since: Jul 04, 2002
I'm gonna be doing my mastering in the box and i have some plugins that i like in terms of giving me wat i want. I just want to confer on the best line up they should be put in both pre and post gain and on aux sends. I want to use a spatial processor, a warmer, a multiband comp, reverb, most likely a limiter to finish off and a dither device.
any suggestions on how i should line these up?
[ Back to Top ]
Aug 31, 2009 01:41 pm Me personally...
Warmer
MBC
Spatial
Verb
Limiter
Aug 31, 2009 04:24 pm Unless you absolutely need the multi-band comp I would switch to a normal parametric EQ and straight up comp pluggin's.
Aug 31, 2009 05:18 pm Quote:
I want to use a spatial processor, a warmer, a multiband comp, reverb, most likely a limiter to finish off and a dither device.
First, I'd go back to the mixes and find out why such radical processing would be necessary. Spatial processing? "Warmers" (always a good buzzword)? Multi-band compression?
Reverb...?
Okay, I can see the limiter (although I tend to not use one) and dither... Otherwise, +1 me on the parametric EQ & compressor combo. ESPECIALLY if these are your own mixes. All of that processing... I wouldn't even want to use MBC during mixing - I'd rather fix the core sound. But it always spooks me when people put on the "mastering" hat and start applying all sorts of "extreme" (for lack of a better term) processes during the point in the process where subtlety is almost universally at the top of the list.
It's a very rare case when I mix anymore. It's even more rare that I'll work on post-processing of those mixes. But this summer, that came up (long story - Very picky client - has a 'formula' that he wants to stick with). I mixed, I mastered (in the figurative sense of post-processing and then in the literal, actually "mastering" sense of assembling the actual replication master).
Here's a simplified list of the mastering chain that I used:
1) Gain.
I had those mixes - If I needed anything other than gain, there wasn't anything holding me back from adjusting the mixes.
Sep 01, 2009 01:36 am Yeah MM, ur comments (and many others on these boards) echo in the back of my head all through my mixing process and they are much appreciated. Ive really narrowed down wat i need for my final product and i can say with relative confidence that i really do need these plugs for the end result i want, ive been working and reworking my mixes for almost a year now and i still end up feeling they r lacking without some of these plugs.
i know the rep MBC's have and ive done as much as i can to refrain but to be honest i think from listening to wat these plugs do to my music it might just be (like the loudness war) a symptom of our times. I want my music to standup to the scrutiny of audio buffs, but i also have to have it stand up to the commercial "requirements" as well. I assure everyone im not just wantonly reaching for hot topic plugs and that im listening and relistening to the mixes and masters on a multitude of systems.
Quick run down to make sure this isnt a rant... the spatial processor solved a problem ive been hammering away at for about 4 months now where i just couldnt find the space for my guitars no matter how i panned and eq'd them. warmers (PSP vintage warmer) is mostly coz we didtn use ANY good preamps if in many cases a preamp during our recording process due to budget constraints, there is no warmth to speak of in the recordings or bite or any kind of saturation and it all just sounds dull no matter how i process it otherwise, i honeslty HATE how much limiting warmers use to do wat they do but again that unrealistic ideal...
The MBC seems to be the only way i can get the big fat bottom end im looking for, ive tried alot of parametric eqs, cutting away other areas and boosting the low end and its just wobbly even with a broadband comp.
anyhow, this is becoming a rant but yeah apart from answering the first question of how to line up teh effects more suggestions on tackling the mastering stage r welcome and appreciated, but again ive put alot of thought into my plug selections and am quite sure that they will give me the results im looking for and am just trying to see how best to combine them.
Sep 01, 2009 02:30 am I see your point - to an extent.
Still - If you're going to use processors that will inherently damage the signal, use them on what's really broken. If you're using a spatial enhancer (which is undoubtedly going to cause havoc with the entire signal) just because of the guitars, use it on the guitar buss - Not on the entire mix. If you're having a "warm" problem (which is caused simply by tracking too hot 90% of the time), use the plugs on what has the issues. Subjecting the entire mix to it isn't the same... Just as adding a compressor to a buss isn't the same as adding compression to the elements of that particular buss.
As far as maul-the-band compression, I don't see the connection with (A) volume or (B) a "symptom of our times." It's rarely ever used during the mastering phase (no matter what several marketing people say) unless something is so spectrally imbalanced - *dynamically* spectrally imbalanced - that nothing else will fix it. It's a band-aid for a broken leg. It has been and will surely continue to be all but a necessity for live sound - But really doesn't have much use in recording, even less in mixing, almost none in mastering.
If you want a mix that can handle volume, a spectrally balanced *dynamic* mix with obscene amounts of headroom at every single possible stage (especially during tracking - nothing will fix something that's tracked too hot) is the way to get it. Adding MBC to an otherwise reasonably balanced mix *might* get a small amount of additional volume, but at the expense of the spectral balance of the mix.
Back to your final point: I couldn't begin to suggest how to chain the effects you're planning on using. The "put a lot of thought" and the logic behind the thought don't add up. Do you want to spatially enhance a compressed signal or compress a spatially enhanced signal? Do you want to warm a signal with reverb on it or add reverb to a warmed signal? Do you want that reverb signal fed into the compressor or do you want the reverb to react to the compressed signal (etc., etc., etc.)? If you've given the selection a lot of thought, you need to follow it up by thinking through the settings and thinking through the chain.
If you were talking about EQ & compression, it'd be easy - Correction first, dynamics second, shaping (if even necessary) subjectively. With the chain you're suggesting, it seems to be all about enhancement -- There's no clear line between where correction begins and enhancement ends. I'd be too concerned about correcting all the problems caused by the enhancement.
Sep 01, 2009 03:11 am all points duelly noted, and i really hope my post didnt come out as a rant, ill definitely try out those plugs in that way first as well as run through the chain in the most logical way possible
a point i want to throw just for the sake of throwing it in is that as an amateur alot of these r the plugs that kind of help me circumvent the learning curve, its an evil that i admittedly indulge in. some of them u plug in and it just some how does stuff that ive been trying to do myself for months, ofcourse its not good for the learning process but when ive been fiddling with the same fader for 5 months its tempting as hell to just leave that plug there.
Sep 01, 2009 11:47 am Going sideways on that -- I think everyone has been at that point where you're working on a mix over and over and over again for weeks (or months - or years) and it's not coming out like you're hearing it in your head.
Advice: Get over it and move on.
A recording project is like a "child" to a lot of people - But keep in mind that you can nurture a child, you can guide them, you can protect them, you can try to mold them to a certain train of thought, you can try to ensure that they eat right - But they're going to be who they're going to be.
A mix is going to be what it's going to be. You can guide it, you can tailor it, you can massage it into a certain train of thought - But the essence of the mix is going to be the essence of the mix.
That said - You can certainly do things with mixes that you wouldn't do to a kid. If there were VSTi's and whole instrument replacement for kids, you could change an overweight 15 year-old white boy with a patchy skin condition into Will Smith.
But with the typical mix - Let it be what it's going to be. If it's not pretty much "there" at "faders up" then something went wrong with the previous steps. A great suit fits pretty well before the tailor gets his hands on it.
Sep 01, 2009 04:34 pm Crux, I'll second MM on the moving on thing.
I am probably one of, if not the worst offender here. Or at least I was.
Now, I do still tend to put more time in and over think some things. But I am now trying to find the mindset that if I have 3 mixes done. I need to simply pick one and finish it.
That doesn't just include how it sounds here. For me it is the question of am I using the sounds that will do this justice. And I find myself spending 6 hours working on one single synth patch.
That my friend is WAY OVERKILL.
Sep 02, 2009 01:48 am When I first got Ozone I used to use everything in it pretty heavily, but these days I find I can get just as screwed up of a mix without using it. :P
But really with the exception of a maximizer I think you can get the mix you're looking for without using all those plugin's on the master buss.
The only things I still use in Ozone are the maximizer, eq, and sometimes a small amount of the exciter which I just like the sound of. I'm not against using the MBC in Ozone, but most of the mixes I've been doing now when I do have it on I end up setting everything so low in it that when I turn it off the mix still sounds the same so I leave it off. I guess I'm just mixing closer to the sound that the MBC was giving me, so in reallity I can't see where it makes a difference how you arrive at the sound you're looking for IF it sounds good to you.
I don't really understand the dislike for MBC's, it's just a tool like all the other plugin's at our disposal these days. Abused it will turn a mix to crap, just like any one of a dozen other effects, but I don't see any difference between it and using a straight compressor and EQ to achieve the same basic results. Used with restraint I think it's just as valid a way to get from point A to point B as any other.
I'll second the moving on thing, there comes time you just have to call it finished. I'm never really happy with my mixes but if I didn't just say enough is enough I'd never release anything. :)
Dan
Sep 02, 2009 07:50 pm I don't think its a dislike of MBC at all really. Its more the fact it is getting used in the wrong way more times then not.
I still use one at times, mostly on a track or track buss. Not on a master buss.
Sep 02, 2009 10:41 pm I feel like, the end result is the main goal. There may be ways that are more efficient to getting to the end result that you want, or there may be ways that are more accepted by those that do it on the regular. But for some of us, any way that you can get to the end result is a way worth exploring. In this case, if it takes several effects after the mix is done, than so be it. Well that's my thought on it anyway.
I'd prolly do something like the following, but to be honest, I've not used some of the effects you want to use, so I'm kind of guesssing...
Spatial
MBC
Warmer
Reverb
Limiter
Sep 14, 2009 10:56 pm mixing should take care of the spatial and reverb issues. If you have a chance to treat the stereo image in the mix do it. spatial processors and reverbs are rarely used in mastering.
The key is not to slam any of the processors, but just a bit on each. What is a "Warmer" plugin? basically distortion. so again, do it in the mix.
Stay away from MBC, I find it's good for real problem mixes, but typically it squashes the mix more then it's worth.
I'm a less is more type guy, so my typical chain is simple The key is to use the tools at hand wisely, not necessarily use more tools and the initial and post gain staging.
=CHAIN=
compressor (lite reduction)
EQ (maybe 2 eq's, one for LPF & HPF)
AD/DA converter compressor modes. OTB,
limiter (if needed)
Sep 15, 2009 11:20 am Hey thanx for that ondray, i really take every suggestion to heart and even though this post is a bit old at the moment, let me just say i have been messing around with all the ideas posted up
and yes i have fuodn ways around the MBC and have learned much, Muchos Gracias everyone
Jun 08, 2010 05:53 pm Distortion
Sonic Maximizer
Fuzz Box
Hard Limiter
3-band Graphic EQ
Multi-tap Delay
Anybody want to send me some pre-masters to work on?
:-D
Jun 08, 2010 05:57 pm Quote:
32 bands de-expander
Why?
Jun 09, 2010 08:33 am I prefer de-expansion to compression to manage the dynamic range.
Jun 09, 2010 03:39 pm Right on. So, in your opinion, who makes the best de-expander?
Jun 09, 2010 03:50 pm Mine is the best. But it doesn't exist as plugin. It isn't realtime. It's just avaible online.
If you need plugins:
FLUX > Alchemist
Voxengo > Sonicformer
Every company proposes a free test solution:
FLUX: www.fluxhome.com/download...d6e106052039b86
Voxengo: www.voxengo.com/files/Vox...inVST_setup.exe
MaximalSound: www.maximalsound.com/step1.php?lang=en
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.