Jump to content

Standardize music dynamic range of audio recordings like they did in the Movie Business?


WRGKMC

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Its good to see someone taking an active approach. This company even supplies a free DB meter rating system plugin which can be used to rates your recordings for its dynamic range.

Even if you don't believe this is needed or feel it doesn't apply, their website is worth reading. back in the day Studios limited their dynamic ranges based on cutting LP's and what sounded best on the radio. Today we have all the dynamic range we could ever use recording digital, yet we often crush the hell out of the music to compete with other white noise being played. Putting some standards of acceptability back into play may be something we all have to participate in, if only to end the loudness wars and bring back some sanity standards back.

 

I'll at least give their meter a try and see ho it matches the standards I use. http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/en/our-aim

 

The Pleasurize Music Foundation began operations in January 2009 and is a nonprofit organization based in California, USA.

 

Our aim is to re-establish dynamic as essential part and most important means of expression of all genres of music.

Our aim is to improve the sound quality of music in its various recorded formats – including data compression methods such as MP3 – as well as music destined for radio broadcast.

Only music that provides a positive musical listening experience has real market value. The Foundation's aim is to increase the value of music within the creative production process for the entire music industry. The objective is to revive the willingness to pay for music and therefore to create a healthier basis for all creative participants within the music industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

Bob Katz introduced us to this concept years ago with his K-System of meter calibration. I'd like to play with their dynamic range meter but I don't use Foobar 2000 and don't want yet another music player. I'm sticking with Winamp until it won't run any more. Do they have a VST plug-in (so I can use it with the audio programs that I use) and I missed it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'll at least give their meter a try and see ho it matches the standards I use. http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/en/our-aim

 

The Pleasurize Music Foundation began operations in January 2009 and is a nonprofit organization based in California, USA.

 

Our aim is to re-establish dynamic as essential part and most important means of expression of all genres of music.

Our aim is to improve the sound quality of music in its various recorded formats – including data compression methods such as MP3 – as well as music destined for radio broadcast.

Only music that provides a positive musical listening experience has real market value. The Foundation's aim is to increase the value of music within the creative production process for the entire music industry. The objective is to revive the willingness to pay for music and therefore to create a healthier basis for all creative participants within the music industry.

 

I've been a member of the foundation for several years and used the meter when it first came out, but my mixing/mastering technique was already in line with the foundation's stance on the "Loudness Wars" so all the meter did was tell me what I already knew... that my technique is kosher. ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But...but...I thought the little red light was supposed to be on all the time!

 

I aim for a DR of 10. I'm working on assembling an album now (a whole other story in itself, which might make for an interesting thread) and 10 seems about right for the kind of electronic/rock type stuff I do. Bringing it up 8 is bearable, but 10 has a goodly amount of dynamics. Of course, when played back to back with other "modern" material, it sounds wimpy. However, my assumption is that anyone who likes my music probably is aware of a new human interface device called a "volume control." Actually the choice of names is unfortunate, because it doesn't increase the cubic dimensions of the music, but rather, the level. Once people understand that, though, they realize they can use this "volume control" to set the music as loud as THEY want! They are no longer dependent on the extent to which the musicians made the mastering engineer turn the waveform into a sausage.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Bob Katz introduced us to this concept years ago with his K-System of meter calibration. I'd like to play with their dynamic range meter but I don't use Foobar 2000 and don't want yet another music player. I'm sticking with Winamp until it won't run any more. Do they have a VST plug-in (so I can use it with the audio programs that I use) and I missed it?

 

Mike (and anyone else interested) I have the latest VST plug-in for the DR Meter, Version 1.4a. I downloaded it several years ago from their site before they put it in the active (paying) members only area. They used to have it as a free download. I believe it's the latest version and it works great. I will be happy to send it to you if you like. It's in a a zip file that includes the manual and the whole zip file is just over 4 MB. It has the same PDF manual as v1.3, but they did fix a couple small things and added a feature in 1.4a.

 

From the readme in v1.4a

 

---------------------

Fixes in 1.4a:

---------------------

 

- Support of wav-files containing additional data (e.g., marker) added

- DYMANIC -> DYNAMIC (spelling mistake)

- Installation folder opened upon successful installation

 

The last feature allows easy access to the DR-Meter folder (to move it

to the VST directory).

 

No other changes to 1.3

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Bob Katz introduced us to this concept years ago with his K-System of meter calibration. I'd like to play with their dynamic range meter but I don't use Foobar 2000 and don't want yet another music player. I'm sticking with Winamp until it won't run any more. Do they have a VST plug-in (so I can use it with the audio programs that I use) and I missed it?

 

The download includes a stand alone scanner and a VST DLL plugin you stick in your effects folder. You can choose the options you want installed. I ran it as a stand alone after setting it up and it scans a file in about 2 seconds and gives you the dynamic level of your recording. It didn't play the song back like Winamp or any other media player. Haven't tried the meter within a daw yet because I have custom plugin files setup in Sonar and have to add it to my favorites first.

 

It may have a player but I didn't look for it yet. It may be one of the options you can select during setup.

 

I tested several of my recent recordings which I had finished mastering and was very surprised to find even the loudest songs came in between -12 and -15. Guess I must be mastering the songs properly to preserve the dynamic response.

 

I use an audio editor when I brick wall limit the final songs using waves L2. I select a threshold, usually between -4 to -6 which will bring the RMS level up and trims a minimal amount of the peaks if any. I'm able to see the results in the wave view and know what a properly mastered waveform should look like having done it so many times. If I mixed the music right the RMS value of the waveform should fill about 50~70% of the screen and the transient peaks above usually come up to the top. I set the Limiter for -.3 out so nothing goes above 0db, and I try and preserve most of the peaks.

 

The L2 is a hot limiter and if your song isn't mixed down at the proper level it doesn't function optimally. I usually mix down between -15~ -20db for the entire mix. If I go much lower, I have to crank the limiter more and it gets too gainy pushed above -10db. If the mix is too hot then the limiter doesn't have any headroom to operate properly.

 

I've worked my Mixes based on optimal mastering results in a reverse engineering method for a good 20 years now. I even mastered digitally before I recorded digitally. I'd mix down my multitrack tape recordings to the computer to burn CD's before I went full digital and used mastering tools to improve the mix downs. I know my mastering tools well enough to know when a mix isn't right and if they aren't I work back to the mix to correct things.

 

When I get the mix right I can usually gestimate how much limiting it will need just by looking at the waveform. I know the grid blocks in the wave view of the editor program I use are 2db each. I can simply count them and know where to set my limiter thresholds. Of course I listen to make sure it sounds right as well. Most of the time I only need mild limiting on even loud Rock song it make it as loud as any commercial recording. I actually could go lower if I wanted but it plays back fine on a car system. I can switch from Radio to the recordings and not touch the volume.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author
But...but...I thought the little red light was supposed to be on all the time!

 

It depends on the threshold of the red light. If the light comes on at -2 dBFS and has a fairly long release time, it could be on all the time and the music could still have some dynamic range. Or not,

 

I aim for a DR of 10. I'm working on assembling an album now (a whole other story in itself, which might make for an interesting thread) and 10 seems about right for the kind of electronic/rock type stuff I do. Bringing it up 8 is bearable, but 10 has a goodly amount of dynamics. Of course, when played back to back with other "modern" material, it sounds wimpy. However, my assumption is that anyone who likes my music probably is aware of a new human interface device called a "volume control."

 

I never had a problem with that, but then, when I sit down to listen to music, I'm not shuffling from song to song from different sources. When what you hear over a sustained time period is a variety of music drawn from several sources, having something too loud and the next thing be too soft becomes stressful.

 

I suppose you're famililar with what TASCAM calls "Level Align" in their DR-40 recorder. This appears to be a combination of normalization and sompression that does something that's fairly reasonable, and it does it in the playback path. With some refinement and a switch to turn it off (which the DR-40 has, but the DR-44WL doesn't), it could be a useful part of any personal playback system. But would that encourage producers to mix with full dynamic range? Probably not, because they know some people will turn it off.

 

 

Actually the choice of names is unfortunate, because it doesn't increase the cubic dimensions of the music, but rather, the level. Once people understand that, though, they realize they can use this "volume control" to set the music as loud as THEY want!

 

Gosh! You mean that you don't really get a greater volume of air moving when you turn up the volume control?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I did some digging and found it straight from the source. They took the links out of the downloads list but left the files in the same folder. By the way it does work with Win 7 and 8 as well as XP and no problems with 64-bit. There's also one for the Mac, but I have to find it back.

 

Windows:

http://www.dynamicrange.de/sites/def...ter%201_4a.zip

 

EDIT: Found it... here's the one for the Mac...

 

MAC

http://www.dynamicrange.de/sites/def...er-for-MAC.zip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Of course, trying to talk labels, producers, and rogue engineers -- like Craig with his 8 dB RMS mixes... Dog-with-paws-over-ears-300x222.jpg... into mixing responsibly when the money is all on mixing loud is going to be tough...

 

wink.png

 

And even assuming you could get SOME kind of uniform adoption -- in the face of the industry conviction that loud outsells quiet -- you would still have more than a century and a quarter of music that isn't the standard level and you'd still be jumping up every song in shuffle/scramble mode -- and even on some poorly matered big label albums I've come across -- just to adjust the volume.

 

But there is ALREADY a post-facto solution (that, admittedly, can only be applied to one's own mp3, ogg, etc, collection), in the form of the ReplayGain system. In a nutshell, it analyzes the 'psychoacoustic' volume of the track and gives the track an index value that is then used in setting an 'equal' volume across tracks for playback. The only thing in the file that is changed are a few bytes in the header, no musical data.

 

And if that system were to be adopted by stream providers (with an override, since RG levelling can be turned on and off), it would remove one of the biggest vexations to eclectic music listeners like myself who utterly despise being slammed with single digit loudness in the middle of listening to music with real dynamics.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayGain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

^^ Seems like it would make sense to add that flag in the file itself. I can see it working on software players, but what about hardware players like Car radios? I do most of my listening off a USB drive in the car. You'd have to get all the manufacturers to recognize the metadata and install an option to recognize the tag. You still have all the CD's produced and air play too.

 

I think the source for fixing the loudness problem has to be fixed in the Mix/Master. The only tool you have to fix the problem after the fact is to use and expander to restore dynamics. From my experience they cant get the job done once a mix lacks dynamics because even an expander needs a change in dynamic levels to trigger it.

 

Loudness and dynamics are really two different things. I do think the solution can be eliminated to a great deal by giving the public the option of listening to the mix as squashed if they want to. Add a compressor to Car radios and the listener can flatten the mix as much as they want. Same thing for all the media players. Just add a software comp or limiter, or both.

 

This way the guys making the recordings can stick by a standard that sounds best on all those systems and will actually sound better if they back off the gas pedal. I know its unrealistic, but I believe in technical changes.

 

Someday, you'll have players that scan the files before they're heard. Then they will have customized user options to improve the sound of that file. You may have a button to auto optimize it or you may a list of have options you can select based on your listening habits or playback systems. If people see a file has more tonal options based on its dynamic range, an it actually sounds better because it has those qualities, allow for better sound, that may make those songs more popular and sell better then something that has the life crushed out of it.

 

People today are computer savvy. I think they'd like having a compressor or expander and even a normalization/limiter button on their Car radio or player if it makes for better sound quality or crushes the hell out of it if they want. I really don't believe the guys slamming their recordings are making more money because its crushed. They're making it because they are kissing their customers backsides. They are simply being tolerated in the industry the same way as many amateurs who do the same thing because they don't know any better.

 

I do believe the customer should have what they want, its just being given to them in the wrong way. Give them what they want in the playback system. You can even have that metadata kick on a big squeeze as a default. The thing is the mashed songs wouldn't sound as good compared to tamer versions with those options selected, but the older over compressed recording would not have the tag and fail to turn on those options automatically.

 

You could add allot of intuitive control to those options too. In a car, you often have radio controls on the steering wheel. Having another button that kicks on a comp or expander isn't a big deal and could make someone allot of money if they get wise and add them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
^^ Seems like it would make sense to add that flag in the file itself. I can see it working on software players, but what about hardware players like Car radios? I do most of my listening off a USB drive in the car. You'd have to get all the manufacturers to recognize the metadata and install an option to recognize the tag. You still have all the CD's produced and air play too.

 

[...]

If your files have RG enabled but your car player doesn't do RG, the marker bits in the headers should simply be ignored.

 

In order to get your current collection to all play at consistent volume across tracks via production and mastering you'd have to count on the entire music industry to change the way it does things and THEN wait for them to remaster and re-release everything. How long do you have on that? Might take a while...

 

I'm all for the industry adopting sensible mastering guidelines -- that would make something like RG less necessary going forward -- but be 'compatible' with RG, as well, since a properly mastered, proper-level track should need little relative level adjustment during playback.

 

But adopting a forward-only solution across the industry is a) pretty unlikely and b) as noted, does nothing to 'fix' the problem with the 30 or 40 million tracks already flipping around the music sphere.

 

I don't know about you, but, while I listen to a fair bit of new music in a number of genres (but no rock or pop or Nashville 'country' to speak of), probably 90% of the music I listen to is more than five years old, maybe ten.

 

I want a practical solution that works now. RG for a personal collection works quite well. We just need an implementation in the stream-o-sphere. (Spotify has a dynamic compressor built in but it's hardly transparent! Not at all a good solution. I think iTunes had something similar at some point.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author
I did some digging and found it [DR-Meter]straight from the source.

 

Thanks. Got it. I wanted to check some of my live recordings, but it seems to have a problem with 24-bit files. I guess it was designed for CDs and MP3s. I converted one, a country band, and it gave me a DR reading of 13. I guess that's pretty listenable, particularly since they were even in tune.

 

Oh, and then I read the manual and saw that the off-line version only works with 16-bit files. The plug-in does indeed indicate peak, RMS and dynamic range of a 24-bit file. Not as educational as I had hoped, but fun for a while.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Of course' date=' trying to talk labels, producers, and rogue engineers -- like Craig with his 8 dB RMS mixes... [/quote']

 

Actually I aim for 10. But remember, the DR metering takes into account only the top 20% of loudness. The album I'm putting together has lots of transitions and low-level sections. So while the loud parts are relatively loud, the contrast is just that much more dramatic compared to the quieter sections. Also, a lot of the loudness isn't due to compression, but to my "micro-mastering" peak reductions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I master with a TC Electronic Finalyzer Plus. I can't micro master peaks in such a way. The first song in my thread Turnabout has some transients in the lead that are being contained somewhat by the dynamic EQ. I left it off when I first posted the song, but then listened through my Cambridge Audio computer speakers. Maybe it's because they're practically point source, but I heard the need there more desperately than through my JBL 4208s, or my Ultrasone 750 headphones. So, it's on there now. Not sure if it's enough.

 

I wish I could avail myself of these tools that have been posted, but, I spent the big bucks on the TC unit back when, and I like the familiarity I have with the unit at this point.

 

I sure did butcher things for a while though. Wahoo! Triple band compression and limiting! After having dropped the bass threshold to double that of the mids and highs, etc. I've learned to use a lighter hand, to mix with mastering in mind, and to enhance, hopefully, rather than manhandle. (I have the Katz papers on the unit too, btw.)

 

The second selection in the thread is compressed the most. 8:1 It's a mix from15+ years ago, and the rhythm violin seemed to me to be too far back, so...that's why. It's loud, but no red overload lights got to blink, period. Still, it's a bit strident, and may be partly what was bugging blue2blue. I'm not sure if anyone else in this thread has checked it out. Somebody said we like to listen around here. smiley-wink.png' alt='16x16_smiley-wink.png.ac1518ec0dabe458f31c1303ed9ec588.png' alt='smiley-wink'>.png'> Thanks, if you have!

 

I come from a world where critical review is normal, and while I may not exactly have thick skin, I can take the heat. smile.png It's old work in that thread except for the mastering, and I've learned a lot since then-but my new stuff is under wraps for now. cool.gif

 

Apologies, to the extent that I'm OT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

^^^ Mixing down through hardware either digital or analog sense to me back when I was still recording to tape and converting the recordings to digital. I do know allot of people bounce their mixes through hardware. I know its common place in the Broadcast and movie industries where quick and easy is the name of the game.

 

Once I went strictly digital I did abandoned the use of outboard gear for mixing and mastering. I found the sound quality suffered more if I passed the signal back out through the converters, through some analog hardware then back in through converters to digital. I used decent PCI interface back in the late 90's when I switched over but my first 8 track card was only good for 16/48 sample rates. Preserving bits meant preserving transparency and it was always a challenge at CD quality.

 

I learned to do pretty much everything in the box and used hardware on the front end tracking. There were losses in analog too. I really hated giving up what I call "The Push" When you knew analog gear well you'd often push signals to the edge to get to that sweet spot between tame and aggressive and even over the edge if needed. You couldn't do that in digital so the learning curve for me was like being handcuffed, unable to use half the skills that took me 25 years to learn.

 

I latched onto this mastering process about 15 years ago http://hdqtrz.com/Files/Har-Bal_Mastering_Process.pdf and found it worked better then anything else I've tried up to that point including T-Racks and Ozone and several other mastering suites. It was a more scientific approach that set up baselines I could build upon. It was a stepped approach I could build upon and if one level of that build wasn't right I could step back verify the results in what I was getting and step it back and make changes along any of those stages. Of course I did apply some intuition and ears to those steps as well, but the difference was I knew where to make those focused corrections.

 

 

When I used T-Racks, I really didn't use this approach. I'd do much of the mastering by ear looking seeking sweet spots and going at it on instinct. As anyone knows, your ears can change on a daily basis. Add to that I was playing live with a band on most of those recordings, My ears were conditioned to getting high impact results and that's exactly what I got.

 

There is a time for that but I was trying to master like I Performed and Mixed and the results were highly inconsistent. I'd often push comps and limiters to extremes. When I analyze those attempts now I realize just how much damage I really did to those recordings. I put those tracks up in an audio editor and view the wave forms and the peaks of many are completely flat lined. Of course my gear has improved since then which has made it easier to hear what I'm doing, its still a matter of educating yourself in the process and knowing what you're trying to do at each step in that process.

 

I would have loved to have one of those TC units 25 years ago. Select a preset, run your mix through and be done with it. I didn't have that option however and seeing how I botched so many recordings using "all in one" software suites, I'm sure I'd wind up doing the same with a unit like that.

 

Well they weren't really botched, they just failed to make the high grade recording quality I was seeking. With what I know now, I could probably make a hardware unit like that stand up and do miracles because I'd use it in the same step by step method I use now to get specific results.

 

I realize the meter in this thread isn't going to fix anything. It simply gives you one way of judging your results. There many are others that can be used in each step of the process. I actually found a couple of tools yesterday you can stick on the mastering buss when mixing. If your goal is to get a loud mix, you use the tool when mixing and it detects things like sub lows or incorrect mids that will prevent you from getting a loud mix. You then remove the tool before you mix down and you should be able to get that loud mix mastering.

 

I have no idea if it works but its not an unfamiliar concept to me. I often stick a limiter in the mains bus to keep raw tracks in check when I'm tracking additional parts. I've even mixed with it there and when the mix is getting close to optimal, I may switch to bypass mode and see if any tracks jump up. If they all remain even, I'll remove it before mixing down. This way I know when I add a brick wall limiter I know I wont have dramatic changes to the instrument levels.

 

When I first started using that mastering method above, I didn't get great results at first. I know I should or could be however. I had to rethink things all the way back to the mix and beyond and fix elements back there just as much as I did in the mastering stage. I was doing many unnecessary things in the mix that produced poor mastering results.

 

Much or what I mix now has very few plugins being used. Much less compression for sure. I know the mastering tools are going to do all that so I only add what's absolutely needed in the mixing process. I've gone all the way back to the tracking to fix most of the issues. I can get great bass and Guitar tracks without any additional plugins added. If I do choose them they are the icing on the cake the way they're supposed to be.

 

I can practically master my material in silence and know I'll be close based on what my tools are telling me. Of course I do use my ears too but only after I know the basics are within a specific range. I can then go to the correct stage to get the exact results that are best for the completed recording. Of course quick and dirty works too. A Slower methodical approach to mastering has its benefits the same way as a quick and dirty one does. If you're on a roll and things are popping the way they should, go for it.

 

Which is better, I cant say. I just know if one isn't working you may want to try the other and get a balanced approach between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
^^^ Mixing down through hardware either digital or analog sense to me back when I was still recording to tape and converting the recordings to digital. I do know allot of people bounce their mixes through hardware. I know its common place in the Broadcast and movie industries where quick and easy is the name of the game.

 

Once I went strictly digital I did abandoned the use of outboard gear for mixing and mastering. I found the sound quality suffered more if I passed the signal back out through the converters, through some analog hardware then back in through converters to digital. I used decent PCI interface back in the late 90's when I switched over but my first 8 track card was only good for 16/48 sample rates. Preserving bits meant preserving transparency and it was always a challenge at CD quality.

 

I learned to do pretty much everything in the box and used hardware on the front end tracking. There were losses in analog too. I really hated giving up what I call "The Push" When you knew analog gear well you'd often push signals to the edge to get to that sweet spot between tame and aggressive and even over the edge if needed. You couldn't do that in digital so the learning curve for me was like being handcuffed, unable to use half the skills that took me 25 years to learn.

 

I latched onto this mastering process about 15 years ago http://hdqtrz.com/Files/Har-Bal_Mastering_Process.pdf and found it worked better then anything else I've tried up to that point including T-Racks and Ozone and several other mastering suites. It was a more scientific approach that set up baselines I could build upon. It was a stepped approach I could build upon and if one level of that build wasn't right I could step back verify the results in what I was getting and step it back and make changes along any of those stages. Of course I did apply some intuition and ears to those steps as well, but the difference was I knew where to make those focused corrections.

 

 

When I used T-Racks, I really didn't use this approach. I'd do much of the mastering by ear looking seeking sweet spots and going at it on instinct. As anyone knows, your ears can change on a daily basis. Add to that I was playing live with a band on most of those recordings, My ears were conditioned to getting high impact results and that's exactly what I got.

 

There is a time for that but I was trying to master like I Performed and Mixed and the results were highly inconsistent. I'd often push comps and limiters to extremes. When I analyze those attempts now I realize just how much damage I really did to those recordings. I put those tracks up in an audio editor and view the wave forms and the peaks of many are completely flat lined. Of course my gear has improved since then which has made it easier to hear what I'm doing, its still a matter of educating yourself in the process and knowing what you're trying to do at each step in that process.

 

I would have loved to have one of those TC units 25 years ago. Select a preset, run your mix through and be done with it. I didn't have that option however and seeing how I botched so many recordings using "all in one" software suites, I'm sure I'd wind up doing the same with a unit like that.

 

Well they weren't really botched, they just failed to make the high grade recording quality I was seeking. With what I know now, I could probably make a hardware unit like that stand up and do miracles because I'd use it in the same step by step method I use now to get specific results.

 

I realize the meter in this thread isn't going to fix anything. It simply gives you one way of judging your results. There many are others that can be used in each step of the process. I actually found a couple of tools yesterday you can stick on the mastering buss when mixing. If your goal is to get a loud mix, you use the tool when mixing and it detects things like sub lows or incorrect mids that will prevent you from getting a loud mix. You then remove the tool before you mix down and you should be able to get that loud mix mastering.

 

I have no idea if it works but its not an unfamiliar concept to me. I often stick a limiter in the mains bus to keep raw tracks in check when I'm tracking additional parts. I've even mixed with it there and when the mix is getting close to optimal, I may switch to bypass mode and see if any tracks jump up. If they all remain even, I'll remove it before mixing down. This way I know when I add a brick wall limiter I know I wont have dramatic changes to the instrument levels.

 

When I first started using that mastering method above, I didn't get great results at first. I know I should or could be however. I had to rethink things all the way back to the mix and beyond and fix elements back there just as much as I did in the mastering stage. I was doing many unnecessary things in the mix that produced poor mastering results.

 

Much or what I mix now has very few plugins being used. Much less compression for sure. I know the mastering tools are going to do all that so I only add what's absolutely needed in the mixing process. I've gone all the way back to the tracking to fix most of the issues. I can get great bass and Guitar tracks without any additional plugins added. If I do choose them they are the icing on the cake the way they're supposed to be.

 

I can practically master my material in silence and know I'll be close based on what my tools are telling me. Of course I do use my ears too but only after I know the basics are within a specific range. I can then go to the correct stage to get the exact results that are best for the completed recording. Of course quick and dirty works too. A Slower methodical approach to mastering has its benefits the same way as a quick and dirty one does. If you're on a roll and things are popping the way they should, go for it.

 

Which is better, I cant say. I just know if one isn't working you may want to try the other and get a balanced approach between the two.

 

Sounds familiar. I've come across a learning curve or 2 myself. I must have spent an entire summer of beautiful days in my studio making little changes on my Finalizer and then listening, again. I think that's the hard part of doing your own mastering, at first, when you don't know what to do. Build the music, record it, mix it, and then master it...listening to it for the 500th time. And with no teacher, per se, there aren't any shortcuts if you want to do it yourself.

 

I can't say that my m.o. hasn't been working for me. It just took a while until I was fairly pleased with the results I was getting. These days I record to an Alesis HD24xr, mix through a Tascam M3500, (I do push it there sometimes, depending), most compression is parallel at the top 8 group, (wasn't doing that yet for anything posted here though) and I put the main xlr output from the board through the Finalizer with minimal compression and limiting, maybe the parametric EQ. Everything is digital from there on, to a Masterlink, and a Tascam DV RA1000. (They have mastering tools as well, but I use the Finalizer.) The mix is 24/48, and I use the SRC in the Finalizer to drop to 16/44.1

 

Hmmm... I'm typing at a fairly recent iMac. I suppose i could get it involved in production. I just haven't wanted to. My curiosity grows...even as I type.

 

I'm straight with that for now, as far as the tracks and board go. I can't justify the expense to upgrade further at this point. Would love me one o' them Shadow Hills units though. It'll no doubt fix whatever it is just by being in the room. :lol:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

^^ I thought you might be using some kind of outboard chain like that. If it works good for you that's all that matters, stick with it.

 

I was tempted to go that route and actually tried it for awhile. I have several friends who went that route and when I compare their results I'm just not impressed. I've even used their gear and besides being a major PITA to use, it showed no measurable benefits so I really couldn't justify that expense.

 

I did do many A/B comparisons as well. I really wanted to put a bunch of may analog gear to use when I switched over. I actually did mix drums for a good 10 years analog but once I upgraded to 24 tracks, even that went away. Mixers suck too much tone away for what I was getting back. I've have heard the quality of some newer Digital boards that do a wonderful job but that market seems to have stalled. Either they aren't profitable or they aren't as competitive. I don't want to get stuck in dead end technology. At least with a DAW its a matter of software updates. then you just need good preamps and interface.

 

I think, or at least hope the next generation will have the options I'm looking for. The Behringer X32 is fairly close but I really don't need 32 channels. I'd be fine with 16 or 24 but again, you're back to sliders and knobs that need regular maintenance. I'm tired of refurbishing gear, changing or cleaning pots and switches, rebuilding power supplies to make them quiet. At least with a computer you don't have to jack with all that stuff.

 

When I track straight through preamp, converter then to the drive I capture everything the mic hears without coloration or filtering. I can either remove what's unneeded in the box or I prevent what's unneeded from ever getting to the mic (or choose a mic that does the filtering) Its the shortest path and everything that occurs in the box is simply ones and zeros.

 

It surely wasn't easy doing things that way in the beginning. I used Cakewalk 8 and Cubase 32 for a long time. DAW's and plugins have gotten so much better now, plus the experience using them makes it doubtful I'd ever go back to a hardware based setup. If I expand My studio I may put that's stuff out just to impress customers but for actually putting it to use? Doubtful. I'm not that nostalgic to think there is magic hiding in those circuits having been an electronic tech all my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
^^ I thought you might be using some kind of outboard chain like that. If it works good for you that's all that matters, stick with it.

 

I was tempted to go that route and actually tried it for awhile. I have several friends who went that route and when I compare their results I'm just not impressed. I've even used their gear and besides being a major PITA to use, it showed no measurable benefits so I really couldn't justify that expense.

 

 

 

I think, or at least hope the next generation will have the options I'm looking for. The Behringer X32 is fairly close but I really don't need 32 channels. I'd be fine with 16 or 24 but again, you're back to sliders and knobs that need regular maintenance. I'm tired of refurbishing gear, changing or cleaning pots and switches, rebuilding power supplies to make them quiet. At least with a computer you don't have to jack with all that stuff.

 

When I track straight through preamp, converter then to the drive I capture everything the mic hears without coloration or filtering. I can either remove what's unneeded in the box or I prevent what's unneeded from ever getting to the mic (or choose a mic that does the filtering) Its the shortest path and everything that occurs in the box is simply ones and zeros.

 

 

I've never done it any other way, and am loath to do it at a computer.

 

Almost all my gear troubles in the last 20 years were Adats, DAT machines, and 1 Aphex1100 mic pre, you might recall the thread. But the board has been trouble free since 1997, when I bought it used from Sweetwater. It was their B-room board at some point, and had been refurbished. The knobs, and faders in particular are quite nice. Computers have their own notoriety for fouling up the works, don't they?

 

I track through a preamp, convert at the HD24xr and then directly to it's drive, ones and zeros. That seems more or less the same to me as your chain. I could be recording digitally from the PODXT Pro to the HD24. I've made the attempt a few times, always some digital clicking, though everything seems right as far as matters of clock go.

 

The change to computer just seems like it's not at all necessary. And I can't see it making much difference to anyone but me, even if I did make the change smoothly. I'm still short a very nice mic pre, but if the muse swings by, I have all I need to entertain it. Speaking of which, I hear a knock at the door... wave.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I did some digging and found it straight from the source. They took the links out of the downloads list but left the files in the same folder. By the way it does work with Win 7 and 8 as well as XP and no problems with 64-bit. There's also one for the Mac, but I have to find it back.

 

Windows:

http://www.dynamicrange.de/sites/def...ter%201_4a.zip

 

EDIT: Found it... here's the one for the Mac...

 

MAC

http://www.dynamicrange.de/sites/def...er-for-MAC.zip

 

Thanks Beck. This looks like a useful tool.

 

Some miscellaneous meaderings:

I listen to music at work a lot, which is a fairly noisy environment (an open floor plan laboratory, with 12 to 15 other people who are usually engaged in talking to engineers for extended periods). Too noisy to listen to classical or acoustic jazz properly; the quiet stuff just gets buried even using my Denon noise cancelling headphones.

 

The ideal listening situation would be quiet, but that only happens at home, and even then when nobody else is home and no neighbors are mowing or using chainsaws or similar.

 

Interestingly, the Ford Edge we bought last fall has an auto-audio level adjustment feature that tunes the audio system up and down based on the vehicle speed. Sort of like a compressor that uses vehicle speed as the side chain input. It actually works pretty well most of the time. I don't deceive myself into thinking this is an accurate sound reproduction, but it does at least allow me to hear everything without constantly tweaking the volume control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I would have loved to have one of those TC units 25 years ago. Select a preset, run your mix through and be done with it. I didn't have that option however and seeing how I botched so many recordings using "all in one" software suites, I'm sure I'd wind up doing the same with a unit like that.

 

Well they weren't really botched, they just failed to make the high grade recording quality I was seeking. With what I know now, I could probably make a hardware unit like that stand up and do miracles because I'd use it in the same step by step method I use now to get specific results.

 

 

I suppose they still sell them for a reason. Mine is 48K not 96K like the newer ones. Maybe if everything I did via the Finalizer was as good as it gets that 96K might be worth having, but it's a $600+ upgrade from TC. Ummmm...no.

 

But what I wanted to say was, I don't think I ever just ran something through a preset and was done with it. I've used presets as starting points, but was never satisfied to the point that I could just leave it at that. Music triage. Presets for music mastering seems like microwave presets for tv dinners.

 

It's certainly cool to have user presets to return to, and refine as I learn more. Since my previous post I noticed the low bass in my song "Tarantelle" breaking up. I'd read somewhere that can be caused by too fast an attack time on the low band. So I slowed it down, and it's better. Now, the wizard probably would have had it close to right from the start. But.. if the wizard does everything, I won't learn nuthin. I'm supposed to be the wizard, anyway. Sorcerer's apprentice, I'm sure.

 

biggrin.gif

 

It's a good piece of gear though. I can make mixes with it that scarcely need mastering, I think. But right now I'm kinda into the light use of it across the mix just to push and contain things a bit. I save normalizing and EQ for mastering for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...