Undertow,

I just read your entire snotty response to Bitflipper's post.  I don't have a problem with people posting erroneous information on this forum, free speech and all, but if I were you, demonstrating a real lack of knowledge as you are, I would not be critiqueing anyone else's posts.  You may think your a real hot-rod professional, but you are certainly not the only one. 

Poco

P.S. before doing this again, how about you list your credits.  Be sure it's associated with something or someone we have heard of.

Place your bets please, the wheel has been spun.

Poco


Undertow,

I just read your entire snotty response to Bitflipper's post.  I don't have a problem with people posting erroneous information on this forum, free speech and all, but if I were you, demonstrating a real lack of knowledge as you are, I would not be critiqueing anyone else's posts.  You may think your a real hot-rod professional, but you are certainly not the only one. 

Poco

P.S. before doing this again, how about you list your credits.  Be sure it's associated with something or someone we have heard of.

 
 
I can't speak to who is actually technically correct here, but I didn't see Undertow's post as snotty, or even condensending. 
 
My two  cents.

...wicked


Certainly if I were to critique Undertow's top ten snotty posts I don't think this would make the list. I do think he was going for the gold ring in trying to torpedo a Bitflipper post, he easily being one of the most technically astute forum members. And, as usual, his tact is seemingly always suspect for someone of such acumen.

But hey, when you've got 10Ten as one of your cheerleaders can you go wrong? Er.....

Ultimately this one comes down to knowing how the Sonitus multiband parameters are implemented and I definitely do not. I would generally trust Bitflipper's ears about his technique over someone who may just be trying to prove him wrong but ultimately they're both quite adept so I don't care. If I were that deep in the muck I suppose I could try both and choose the one that did the trick but "meh", when you're dropping a nuke does a few microns matter in either direction? Either way you've obliterated the target.

+1

Danny Danzi

gefitch

DSProductionz


Hello everyone,

I just finished recording, mixing and editing my friends album and I am ready to start the mastering process. I was wondering if anyone can share some effects processing chains I can use for mastering?

I know that this isn't the preferred way to master but the project is on a $0 budget right now... Hehehehe!

I am mastering for the hip-hop listener so I want the drums to hit hard with a lot of warmth and presence. All the mixes sound good but in comparison to professional masters they are far off in the following way:

Level - Not as loud and up front (punch, warm and present) as the professional mixes.

I want to use what I have in Sonar X1 Producer Edition to do this and was hoping for some guidance.

Should I use to following chain:

EQ>Multiband Compression>Limiter ???

I feel like my chain is a little limited and is lacking something that can bring a bit more punch into the mixes.

Again! The songs all sound good in the studio and we are satisfied with the mixes, we would just like to make it louder and warmer. HELP!!!!

Thanks in advance!

 
 
I think this echos some of the helpful suggestions you've already received, but what the hay, more info from a different perspective is always good.
 
I like this particular video because he gives you two methods of trying this technique. The second technique of creating a second track is fast and less confusing if you've never done this before. Of course, you don't have to process the entire kit like this guy does, could just do the kick or whatever...even the bass. 
 
I first heard of this method in The Mixing Engineer's Handbook. It can work great! 
 
Cakewalk SONAR: Boosting A Drum Sample With Parallel Compression In Sonar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZalApzev5zo&playnext=1&list=PL826A98CA38E1E5E7
 
Hope it helps you!
Gary

Gary, good post and information...but if you don't mind (I hope you won't mind?) in my opinion, I don't think that's a very good representation of parallel compression. That's no offense to Dan that made the video...as he was close, but missing the most important ingredient. To my ears, all he did was make the signal louder. If he were to match the compression level with the actual level of the drum loop, you would hear 0 difference and there SHOULD be a difference. The object of p-comp is to completely compress part of the signal to where it alters things drastically due to the compressor giving artifacts and a little dirt. A good example of this (other than I do not like boost 11 because it seems to dirt up a bit too much for my liking) is in that Cory Yarckin tune the Cake staff produced. If you haven't downloaded that mix for Sonar X1, definitely grab it as they really did a nice job showing various techniques.
 
But the way it should work is, you mix in that dirty over-compressed sound with the regular sound and it gives you a bit more punch. There is no need for the doubling of the loop file. All he needed to do was to use his first example and literally run the compressor so it compresses with different attack and release time. All he did was boost to my ears. You should hear the compressed bus giving off compression artifacts and a slight amount of dirt to the file...then you mix that in moderation in with the original signal. I didn't even really hear that compressor kick in at all eventhough it showed a lot of gain reduction. P-comp is supposed to have compression artifacts to an extent and can even be a little dirty.
 
Not trying to be confrontational with you, honest, just trying to explain the technique a bit better which in this particular example, I felt needed a little help. Try what I'm saying and you'll see what I mean. Make that compressor work to where it gives you some compression artifacts and then mix it in with your regular drum signal using his first method. Then, eq the p-compression bus and it will have even more impact. :) That said, if the OP already has a good drum sound like he mentioned and is losing that drum punch after mastering, this is not going to help him due to the over-processing of the mastering procedure. Hope this helps and again, I'm not trying to disagree...just explain the technique a bit more in depth.

I don't mind at all, and I appreciate your additional input on the subject. I agree that if you follow the video as presented you will get bigger/fuller drums, but you won't solve the lack of punch issue of the OP.
 
I will say that I do typically use the parallel method a bit differently than the video as well...for instance and simplicity, if I'm using the dupe track method, I compress that second track pretty hard by setting the Threshold, Attack and Release to mostly let the transients through so that there is a definite punch to it and it could not be used as a primary drum track anymore...it is much different than the source track. I may EQ it a bit then, and then I slowly raise it's volume until it adds punch to the original source track. I think this also is more in line with what I learned in The Mixing Engineer's Handbook.
 
I'm glad you chimed in to help flesh this out because it can really be a valuable technique...I think the goal of this technique is much clearer now.
Thanks,
Gary

...wicked

I do think he was going for the gold ring in trying to torpedo a Bitflipper post, he easily being one of the most technically astute forum members. And, as usual, his tact is seemingly always suspect for someone of such acumen.

*sigh* I really do think people read way too much into my posts. I am just dealing with the facts and couldn't be bothered sugar coating them. I assume people are adults and don't take differing opinions as some kind of personal attack. (Well for most forum members. There are always the notable exceptions).

There were some inaccuracies in Dave's post about how compressors work so I addressed those. I took the occasion to repeat my advice of checking things level matched as we can easily be fooled to think a louder signal sounds better even when it doesn't. This has all been thoroughly researched and proven numerous times. There is absolutely nothing controversial about what I am saying. (A difference of 0.1 dB for two identical signals will give a statistical significant preference for the louder signal. That is how sensitive we are to level differences).

There was no torpedoing involved. I am just trying to educate people about audio and the tools and techniques to achieve good audio.

Ultimately this one comes down to knowing how the Sonitus multiband parameters are implemented and I definitely do not.

Not really. I explained clearly how people can prove to themselves how the attack and release settings of a compressor affect it's behaviour even when the compression is constantly engaged because the signal remains above the threshold. It is a very easy exercise that should not take more than 2 minutes to perform. So please if anyone has anything to add to this subject, first perform this simple exercise.

I would generally trust Bitflipper's ears about his technique over someone who may just be trying to prove him wrong but ultimately they're both quite adept so I don't care.

Don't trust anyone. Perform the exercise yourself.

 If I were that deep in the muck I suppose I could try both and choose the one that did the trick but "meh", when you're dropping a nuke does a few microns matter in either direction? Either way you've obliterated the target.

The understanding of how a compressor works applies to any use of it. Not just to multi-band compression on a stereo mix. It is pretty basic audio engineering. Doing the kind of exercise I describe with exaggerated settings gives a more intuitive understanding of it IMO.

UnderTow

Poco

As is the case with all acoustic environments, different frequencies from different instrument reach our ears at different levels and times due to the distance the instrument is from our ears, as well as absorbtion and reflection.

The speed of sound is the same at all frequencies. Delaying sounds at different frequencies is not something that happens in the real world. It can work, I believe Aphex were the first to do this with their aural exciter but I could be wrong, but it isn't the way sound behaves naturally.

The lows of a sax may bounce off something close to us, and the highs may bounce off something further away, providing three dimensional sound. With multiband effects, as the sax traverses the frequency regions, its sound can be treated in different ways.  In this case, its how much of that sound sounds like a reflection.

Not true. Some objects might be more or less reflective at different frequencies but there is no way you are going to emulate that by changing the inter-channel timing of a whole mix at different frequencies. The way to emulate a space and proximity/distance of sound sources to objects and walls is with good use of reverb during mixing.

Different frequencies create differently timed reflections (delays in this case) creating the effect of three dimensional sound, even in an anechoic environment.

Not true. Different frequencies might have different levels after being bounced off different objects or simply due to the damping of air but they will not have different timings. Of course different reflections from different objects will have different timings but again, that is best dealt with during mixing with judicious use of reverb.

It is remarkable how very small delays between the left and right channels can shift the perceived direction that the sound is coming from.  When applied to an entire mix, the sound seems to change the point from which it is emanating in a way that is similar to an acoustic environment with real, discreet sound sources.  It sounds like it is coming from all around you, which is of course, the desired trick.

And which of course is not natural at all and not in any way similar to a real acoustic environment. Changing the relative timing of the left and right channel might give an instant wow factor just like that those "Space effect" functions on cheap ghetto blasters in the 80's had but there is absolutely nothing natural about it and it will cause comb filtering and cancellation when summed to mono. It also removes focus and makes everything a bit of a spacial blur.

As this thread is about mastering one's own mixes, I suggest people try to get a wide stereo mix in the mix itself and not in the master. IMO it is best to make some elements wide through whatever technique (from the most conventional like double tracking guitars to whatever tickles your fancy) and use other elements to fill the whole sound stage from left to right. Some elements should be in perfect mono, some could be panned at 11 / 1 o'çlock, others at 10 / 2 o'clock etc. Not only can you get a wider spread this way, it will keep the mono elements much more focused and they will have more punch and impact.

If you are dealing with full stereo mixes and don't have access to the individual elements, in my experience using M/S techniques is the best way to widen things naturally. (For instance EQing or compressing the side channel of an M/S encoded signal). This is perfectly mono compatible and keeps punch and focus.

UnderTow

chuckebaby


what no mention of me saying i like your posts???undertow??...hmmmmm????...lol..you know i do..i usually get a lot of usefull info from your posts.while others may agree or oppose.i apreciate the things ive learned from reading your stuff.thank man.

Hi Charlie,

Thanks for the support. It is always nice to hear one's contributions are appreciated.

UnderTow

ShermanSmelville


Hey Undertow,

I like your posts also.

One thing though. You like to do line-by-line refutations of peoples posts but the one question you actually get asked "what are your credits?" you ignore?

Because it is irrelevant to the facts being discussed. Having credits does not mean technical knowledge. Even great engineers can get the facts completely wrong. One example of that was an article by Roger Nichols (7 Grammys) about digital audio in Sound On Sound. Great engineer but got the facts all wrong about how digital audio works. On the other hand there are people that have vast technical knowledge and write books but have never worked with anyone famous. Nika Aldrich's (0 Grammys) book "Digital Audio Explained" comes to mind.

When discussing technical issues, the facts and logic of the arguments is all that counts. Especially when a way to test things oneself and make up one's own mind is provided. Who has done the little exercise I propose with the Sonitus compressor? THAT is much more important than anything anyone writes. Try for yourself. Listen for yourself. Make up your own mind.

UnderTow

ShermanSmelville


Well maybe you don't need to understand how it works as long as you can make it sound good like Roger Nichols (7Grammys). 

Indeed. I am addressing the factual aspects unless specifically mentioned. For instance I mention that multi-band compression doesn't sound natural. That is a fact. That doesn't mean it is forbidden to use it or anything. After all, most music is far from natural. Multi-micing in itself is not a natural thing. That is not how we perceive natural sound. (We only have two ears!) Anything electronic is obviously not natural but most rock or pop or whatever isn't natural either. Even many classical recordings are not natural... As long as people are aware of this, they can use the tools however they wish.

If Poco and/or his clients want that unnatural wow effect from tweaking the timing of various frequency bands then they should but if he then claims that it has anything to do with how sound behaves in a natural acoustic environment I will point out that that is absolutely not true.

I also like to point out when popular assumptions have been driven by marketing rather than sound engineering. (Like the idea that most mastering engineers use linear phase EQs. They don't. LP EQs have their own issues that can be detrimental to the sound).

So please don't read anything into what I write beyond exactly what I write.

UnderTow

UnderTow

ShermanSmelville


Hey Undertow,

I like your posts also.

One thing though. You like to do line-by-line refutations of peoples posts but the one question you actually get asked "what are your credits?" you ignore?

Because it is irrelevant to the facts being discussed. Having credits does not mean technical knowledge. Even great engineers can get the facts completely wrong. One example of that was an article by Roger Nichols (7 Grammys) about digital audio in Sound On Sound. Great engineer but got the facts all wrong about how digital audio works. On the other hand there are people that have vast technical knowledge and write books but have never worked with anyone famous. Nika Aldrich's (0 Grammys) book "Digital Audio Explained" comes to mind.

When discussing technical issues, the facts and logic of the arguments is all that counts. Especially when a way to test things oneself and make up one's own mind is provided. Who has done the little exercise I propose with the Sonitus compressor? THAT is much more important than anything anyone writes. Try for yourself. Listen for yourself. Make up your own mind.

UnderTow

 
Ok you convinced me, if I remember, I will test it tonight.

ShermanSmelville


OK Undertow.

I don't see why anyone need be "aware" of anything you are saying however. 

Because it affects the sound. For instance using a "stereo enhancer" that works with phase tweaks or timing tweaks also affects punch. If one is focusing on the stereo width of a mix while tweaking the settings, one might miss that the punch of the mix is being reduced. (The human mind is notorious for missing things it is not focusing on). Also one might not be aware of how it affects the sound when summed to mono. (As can happen in a club or on the radio). Once one is aware of these things, one can keep an ear open for them while using these tools (or quickly test a mono sum or whatever). Or maybe even seek out these properties for artistic effect.

If people are not interested in the technical aspects then they can just ignore them and my posts. But however you spin it, some of the things that have been written in this thread are simply not accurate. If you don't care then that is fine by me but I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't correct those inaccuracies. I can not think of many situations where ignorance is a better starting point than knowledge.

UnderTow

Bub


The one thing I've never been able to achieve is the "Out of Speaker" sound

This is a great thread...Lots of good ideas here to try.  I too am looking for that "Out Of Speaker" sound...Such a "Subjectice Science" ... kind-of like an Oxymoron.

 
I thank you all for all the good ideas here

Here's a personal secret trick: put the Sonitus Multiband in front of your master bus limiter.

bitflipper
bitflipper;
 
I have had so much fun with this post.  It has been a well-spring of ideas.
 
Thanks

PS: I do not want to achieve mastering greatness, just want to better the overall sound of my tracks. if i got something to go commercial, i have a mastering studio at hand.