studiofreak
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 357
- Joined: 2003/12/26 15:07:42
- Location: New Jersey
- Status: offline
RE: Is this a good mastering solution?
2005/08/10 10:58:44
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: SteveJL
Most mastering suites offer all the bells because people put out so many bad mixes. IMO, it is better to hone one's Mixing skills so that Mastering effects are barely needed.
I agree with you about optimizing mixes. Obviously, the better the mix, the easier the mastering will be. It's still a necessary skill and a revered art, regardless of the mix quality. A great mix will be that much better with superlative mastering. It explains why people like Bob Ludwig are in such high demand to master mixes from the likes of Lillywhite, Rubin, O'Brien, etc... Just my 2.25 cents...
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
RE: Is this a good mastering solution?
2005/08/10 12:02:12
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: BlueSwan
1. LinEQ for applying eq.
2. C1 comp/gate for controlling the bottom end.
3. LinMB for multiband-compression
4. L2 for limiting
I wouldn't master with a consistant 'chain' of EFX or EFX presets/settings. Each scenario will be a bit different. Thus requiring different processing. Some tunes might benefit from multi-band compression to tighten up the low end. Some tunes won't need any additional compression... If you're mastering contemporary music, you'll probably use a peak-limiter on a consistant basis... but each tune will require slightly different settings. You want to achieve a consistant *average* level from tune to tune. The same thing goes for overall tone, you don't want the frequency balance jumping around when listening from tune-to-tune.
|
j boy
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2729
- Joined: 2005/03/24 19:46:28
- Location: Sunny Southern California
- Status: offline
RE: Is this a good mastering solution?
2005/08/10 12:14:19
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: UnderTow
ORIGINAL: j boy
ORIGINAL: UnderTow
The output level is the maximum level that the signal can reach. You should never have the Elephant output set above 0 dB or it can cause clipping. If you want more gain, increase the input level.
Personaly I set the output at -0.4 dB to avoid inter sample peak clipping: if two samples have a value of 0 dB, there can still be a peak between these samples that goes above 0db FS.
UnderTow
Alexey at Voxengo says that the output gain isn't a ceiling-type control, more just another gain stage after the limiter.
Sure but if you have that above 0 dB, you can still cause clipping in the DA's (see below).
AFAIK there's still quite a bit of headroom between 0.0 dB on the Elephant and 0 full scale, which would be the maximum digital signal strength.
I think there is headroom because it works with floating point maths. When you go to fixed point 24/16 bit for CD, you loose that extra headroom.
In any event, I always check my finished file in Wavelab and have never exceeded 0.0 dB no matter what - so the Elephant (in EL-3 mode anyway) is a true brickwall. As far as clipping, yes, the Elephant indicates clips but truthfully there are no artifacts that I can detect, so I go on the premise that if it sounds good...it is.
AFAIK you can't see inter sample peaks that go above 0 dB FS in Wavelab as the sample values are not above 0 dB FS. The waveform between these samples _can_ go above 0 dB FS. The problem occurs when the digital audio is played back by cheap converters (those in some consumer CD players for instance) that have no or not enough headroom in the D/A converters themselves. You would have to measure this in the analogue domain. You might never have problems with the converters in your own system but that doesn't mean that the signal coming from the final CD will never clip on another (cheaper) system.
Admitedly this is nit picking ... but it is so easy to just set the output of the limiter a little bit lower. :) And back to my original point, if you have enough headroom to set the output at +0.5 dB, you can just as well set the input 0.5 dB louder instead. :)
UnderTow
For the record, I contacted Aleksey at Voxengo and asked him about the output gain at +0.5 dB issue. This is what he had to say: "Hello, Having +0.5 dB output can generally create some small amount of clipping. This may not produce distortion, but it is nevertheless a 'dangerous' setting. However, sometimes mastering engineers add digital clipping after normal limiter just to have 1 dB more of loudness. They are not dialing it this gain in the limiter because this can cause pumping because limiter tries to lower the distortion. Digital clipping is a compromise. Best regards, Aleksey" I guess my formula puts me in the camp of the "1 dB more of loudness" crowd. Sort of like Nigel in Spinal Tap and the amp that "goes to eleven" (LOL). Seriously, I find it frustrating to attain sufficient loudness AND clarity using pro-sumer tools. last night I listened to the re-mastered Capitol release of the Beach Boys' first two albums. It was significantly louder than anything I've "mastered", and... clean as a whistle, completely uncompressed sounding. We're talking vintage music style here, not System of a Down or something. How the heck do they do that?
|
kylen
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 578
- Joined: 2003/11/25 19:30:06
- Location: Southern WV, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Is this a good mastering solution?
2005/08/10 12:41:50
(permalink)
A little OT - concerning Voxengo Elephant brickwall (from the manual): "EL-2" mode introduced in Elephant v2.0 offers another kind of limiting. EL-2 mode is remarkable because it features a much easier operation - you do not have to adjust Shape and RShape controls when using this mode. Another useful feature of this mode is a true brickwall limiting performance meaning you can get sounds which do not exceed 0 dBFS instantly.
AIGC-3 and -4 modes implemented in v2.1 have the same brickwall limiting performance as the EL-2 mode, but at the same time they have the properties of the original AIGC-1 and -2 modes.
A new EL-3 mode implemented in v2.3 is an extension of the EL-2 mode and replicates its sound for the most part. At the same time it allows you to adjust Shape and RShape parameters.
I'm with the other 2-track rebalancers, need some serious plugs to bring tapes into the digital CD realm where detail becomes very obvious. Here's my current rebalancing chain: 1. dehum -> 2. rebalance general bass/mid/highs using EQ -> 3. EQ out any long-term bad resonances -> 4. compress out any short term bad resonances -> 5. "modernize" subbass/treble if needed -> 6. final polish EQ -> 7. final loudness adjustment -> 8. Export 1. dehum = Adobe Audition noise removal to snapshot the 60Hz (and harmonics) and remove - much better than a notch! I also used Kjaerhus GEQ7 to surgically remove a 15.1KHz tape artifact - a very surgical EQ for tight cuts so you don't need to notch - just cut out as much as is needed. 2. rebalance bass/mid/high = CurveEQ or Harbal to give me 'hints' concerning the relative balance of my favorite references - then I use GlissEQ to actually do the balance using either the reference guides and/or SPAN to set the approx visual signature I've come to like. This is both an ears & eyes operation for me. 3. EQ long term resonances = GlissEQ to pull out too much energy build up at 250Hz for example if it exists for most of the song. 4. Compress short term resonances = Soniformer MB to gently and smoothly take out any resonances like an overactive note on a bass guitar or a too passionate vocal note. Set the right way this thing is pretty invisible. 5. "modernize" subbass/treble if needed = LFMax/LFPunch to bring up the subbass smoothly and musically. I've been looking for this combination for years! For treble I'll try and bring up >12KHz and play around to see if there's anything good there using GlissEQ, HarmonicEQ or the new free posihfopit I found at KVR - very nice ( http://www.savioursofsoul.de/Christian/Plugins.htm ) 6. Final polish EQ - GlissEQ again to correct any general slop or shelf problems. 7. Final loudness adjustment = Elephant & SPAN to use K-12 reference levels. 8. Export out of Sonar4 at 24bit 44.1KHz, into a redbook editor to dither and write to a CD.
|
Tonmann
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 661
- Joined: 2005/07/27 06:59:22
- Location: Kiel, Germany
- Status: offline
RE: Is this a good mastering solution?
2005/08/10 13:42:45
(permalink)
Hm, just a small (offtopic?) question: What are these K-levels people often speak about here? Is there a comparison chart somewhere with the accordant dB levels?
I wonder if these K-values are common use in studios 'round the world or just in the US, 'cause I never stumbled across them yet here in Germany somehow?!
Thanks for the answers!
cheers,
Chris
...maybe I never realized the joy till the joy was gone...
|
kylen
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 578
- Joined: 2003/11/25 19:30:06
- Location: Southern WV, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Is this a good mastering solution?
2005/08/10 16:17:48
(permalink)
Tonmann - K-scale comes up in Bob Katz Mastering book and on his web site, that's where I first heard of it. SPAN incorporates the scale references to make it obvious when you've missed the K-20, K-14, K-12 loudness mark you're shooting for. It helps us not to squish stuff too much - or feel guilty when we do! Here's the long ans short of it (besides his book): http://digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=59
|
Tonmann
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 661
- Joined: 2005/07/27 06:59:22
- Location: Kiel, Germany
- Status: offline
RE: Is this a good mastering solution?
2005/08/10 16:41:33
(permalink)
kylen, thanks for the fast reply!  As I see, the "K-scales" are something different from my normal understanding of dB ranges as one has to deal with positive dB values here, which are normally impossible in a digital environment from my understanding. However, I'll dig trough all that texts and links there, it's quite interesting stuff there.  cheers, Chris
...maybe I never realized the joy till the joy was gone...
|
j boy
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2729
- Joined: 2005/03/24 19:46:28
- Location: Sunny Southern California
- Status: offline
RE: Is this a good mastering solution?
2005/08/10 18:22:38
(permalink)
|
j boy
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2729
- Joined: 2005/03/24 19:46:28
- Location: Sunny Southern California
- Status: offline
RE: Is this a good mastering solution?
2005/08/11 12:56:51
(permalink)
Not to bore anyone with my details, but... after the feedback recieved from some knowledgeable folks in this thread, and after some back and forth e-mails traded with Aleksey at Voxengo, I went back and re-mastered a couple of my songs last night, using settings of -0.1 dB on the output gain and cranking the input gain up to +7.8 dB. They came out cleaner-sounding, I'll admit. Not a clip in the bunch, typical peak reductions no greater than 1 to 2 dB.
I also did one other thing that changed dramatically for the better. Thanks to the ever-generous Jonas (jsaras), I checked out the .cwt Sonar template file he provides for download at his site, plunked a mastering EQ (Sonitus) down in my insert chain between the leveling compressor with his recommended settings and the Elephant and WHAM! A whole lot mo' bettah...
BTW I looked at one of those Beach Boys re-mastered songs in my Wavelab, and it was only peaking at -0.6 dB, no higher. Hmmm... I did see about two or three clips on transient peaks of the waveforms. I think the key to their loudness must be the EQ they're using....(?)... as well as the limiting taking place.
Thanks to all of you guys and keep the good stuff comin'.
|
wz061s
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 385
- Joined: 2004/04/19 14:22:11
- Status: offline
RE: Is this a good mastering solution?
2005/08/12 00:41:31
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: UnderTow
ORIGINAL: BlueSwan
A friend of mine works with the waves plugins. For his masters he uses a chain of:
1. LinEQ for applying eq.
2. C1 comp/gate for controlling the bottom end.
3. LinMB for multiband-compression
4. L2 for limiting
I think the results he is getting are very nice sounding. I'm considering getting just those four plugins so I can do the same. Would you say that this is a nice setup, or are there plugins that give you better results out there?
The Waves stuff is pretty good but I personaly like working with the Voxengo tools. http://www.voxengo.com/
They are about 1/10th the price of the Waves stuff and, to my ears, sound better. Here are some graphs of the harmonic distortion introduced by the Waves L2 and L3 limiters compared to the Voxengo Elephant 2:
http://home.casema.nl/ajohnston/limiting/
So they measure better too ... They also go further in depth than the Waves stuff. CurveEQ is my favorite linear phase EQ and Soniformer is my favorite multi-band compressor (32 bands or more if you need that ...). But as always, with powerfull tools you can make a serious mess of things. :) Use with care.
UnderTow
I love Voxengo Soniformer, even though chopping your master into 32 bands for processing should not be a good idea on paper! It works beautifully. If you don't mess with the envelopes is behaves like a simple single band comp. But you will mess with the envelopes - what a brilliant design! Nothing like it. spectral widening. Spectral Panning. Axis tilting. Wow. Voxengo Elephant - it's all been said here. Top drawer limiter / maximizer. Voxengo Curve EQ - great linear phase EQ, with fantastic EQ spectrum display and with lots of advanced featues to play with "year two" (overlay detailed EQ signature of classic gear, saturation, weighting, etc.) Just pick up the whole Mastering suite. All of the above For $259 plus a single band mastering comp and a transient modifier. You can't go wrong!
|