TC electronics Finalizer vs MTK

[Phosphene]

im still on this converter kick....

How much luck would i have if i got a good mastering piece (TC Electronics Finalizer.......how would you rate this?) and went from my 1880 into that and back again?

I have a rosetta 2 channel A/D converter. How much quality would i gain/lose if i went from the 1880 out to the Finalizer, into the converter and back into the 1880 (skipping the initial D/A conversion from the 1880 because i dont have that piece of equiptment yet) Is this worth bypassing the Mastering Tool Kit? I cant really even use the MTK, because i usually use more than 2 effects on my music at one time...

does this make any sense?????

also whats the best digital coax cable? Ive looked at Apogee Wyde eye and Zaolla silver digital cables.

www.mp3.com/phosphene

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by Phosphene
How much luck would i have if i got a good mastering piece

...it depends....

Considering that mastering is a process involving many steps, a high-calibre listening environment, a high-end 2-channel signal chain, an engineer with considerable skills and discriminating hearing ability - how much luck do you expect if you try and narrow that down to a single piece of gear??

[Phosphene]

Well....i mean would i loose more sound quality going out of the 1880 into the finalizer than just leaving it alone and using the MTK in the 1880? yea, i might also start shopping around for a mastering house that is within my budget..but id also like to try and get my skills on doing it myself (however mediocre it may be)

[Blue Bear Sound]

Before you buy any gear, can I suggest you pick up a copy of Bob Katz' excellent book -- Mastering Audio: The Art and The Science...

It's excellent and will give you some perspective to decide if Finalizer-type gear is even worth considering for your situation.

Plus you'll understand more about what's invovled in the intricacies of mastering.

[Simman]

I have to agree with Blue Bear. The mastering process is just that, a process. Most, if not all, mastering engineers have a whole litany of extremely expensive gear at their disposal. Not the least of which is IMO more valuable than their experience.

I have looked at the Finalizer as well as the DBX Quantum II but I’m not sure either would even get close to what a “budget friendly” mastering house could provide. Personally, I’d rather focus more on the quality of my final mix down since, that process (often confussed by many as mastering) yields the best product to send to a mastering house (even a budget house).

BTW - what would be your mastering budget? I have heard some clips from a place called Zen Mastering that were pretty good. I think their rates were ~$50.00 per song and they may have some package deals.

[SonicAlbert]

Ditto on that suggestion regarding Bob Katz's book it's a great one. I love it and use it as a reference all the time.

There's nothing wrong with attempting your own mastering, as a matter of fact it's a great thing to do as far as a learning experience and improving your technical chops and ears. However, just remember that what you are doing will be a learning experience, and if the tracks you are finishing will end up on the radio or in any public broadcasting or listening forum you would be well served by having the mastering done by a pro. Also, just because someone says they are a mastering engineer doesn't mean they do good work, so choose carefully and use recommendations of friends who had similar type albums mastered.

I bought a DBX Quantum recently on eBay for $500 in mint shape. For what you are talking about doing it would be a great unit to have. The presets are not always great, but if you get into programming it you'll find you can get it to do some good sounding stuff. The differences between the Quantum 1 and Quantum 2 are not that great. If you go for the Quantum 1 make sure it is version 1.5, the latest version. That adds MS processing and a few other enhancements.

As far as your question regarding going through the Finalizer into a converter and then back to the roland, why would you want to do a conversion? Much better would be to go digital to the finalizer, then digital back to the roland, bypassing any DA/AD conversions. As far as mastering tools in the Roland, the only way to know which would be better would be to A/B the results from the Finalizer/Quantum with results from mastering in the Roland.

There's no other way to know for sure other than doing the work and comparing. It's very time-consuming and detailed work, but if you make multiple masterings with different gear and then A/B them, your ears will get a lot sharper. And I don't mean pointy!

[Phosphene]

not knowing much about the finalizer, i didnt realize you had the option of going digi2digi....duh.... makes sense. as far as $$ to spend on a mastering house...who knows. im working on my 6th personal/solo album and they all have from 10-18 or so tracks on them (some tracks being short) so maybe i need to pick out just some songs to get mastered instead of a whole album. None of my stuff gets radio airplay, i just give them to friends and put them up on mp3 (which noone checks unless i give them the address)..... so who knows. $50 sounds like a good deal for a song, if it sounds better then what i give it to them.

[Sonic Misfit]

I have a Finalizer and frankly it is just another outboard processor with some nice capabilities. I use it in a mixdown chain for some specific functions like compression or as a noise suppressor. I might use it as an insert on a channel when I need multiband compression.

If that is what you are trying to accomplish, rather than compete with a Mastering Studio, then what you are proposing should work. As for digital cables, I use the Finalizer both analog and digital, depending on what I am working on. I just recently switched to the Monster cable ultras, they seem to work fine, but are a little pricey. I also have some homemade cables that seem to work just a well.