"FINALIZER"???

[chazba]

Does anyone remember a box called Finalizer that came out maybe 5 years ago? I read a review a few years back in one of the mag's about it, and the builders seemed to think that it could perform miracles. Was that hype or what? Anybody got one? ever used one??

chazba

[bennychico11]

TC Electronics has one
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Finalizer96/

I've only used it briefly (and I don't think it was the above model)...it was alright. But no, don't expect miracles. It's just like any other gear you use, it all depends on the music that's going through it and the experience of the guy running it.

[Bob Speer]

The T C Finalizer is a piece of gear that can be easily abused. I'd hesitate to recommend it unless the user has a reasonable amount of engineering experience. The Finalizer (through miss use) has contributed greatly to the loud, distorted CDs we hear today. If used with a conservative approach, it can be a useful tool. However, care must be taken.

[masteringhouse]

I have one but haven't used it in quite a while. It's an audio "swiss army knife" that has a lot of features, but isn't the best in any one particular area. The multi-band comp and M/S features are nice, but require a bit of playing around with.

You can get good results with the unit however if used correctly (forget about the "wizards"). Search for "WIMP" in Brad Blackwood's forum for an example.

If you're serious about mastering for a living, I would save for better dedicated units. If you're looking for a relatively inexpensive box that does a lot for demo masters it can be a good unit to have.

[djhead]

damn, I was hoping to sound cool and be the guy that knew the answer.
+1 to Bob's reply. But I hate you for being faster than me.

[Massive Master]

Originally Posted by chazba

Does anyone remember a box called Finalizer that came out maybe 5 years ago? I read a review a few years back in one of the mag's about it, and the builders seemed to think that it could perform miracles.

Yeah, that's pretty much how it was marketed...

Originally Posted by chazba

Was that hype or what?

I'd say so, yes.

Originally Posted by chazba

Anybody got one? ever used one??

As mentioned, it wasn't an "evil" box - It was only as evil as the engineer that was using it. That being said, I was based out of a studio that had one for quite a while and it was adequate for whipping things through if you really knew what you were shooting for. Easily abused, easily fooled if you weren't careful.

Bought one after I started out on my own and pretty much got sick of it after a couple weeks. Sold it cheap.

I'd say one of the major potholes of using such technology (presets, "wizards" and the like) is that it takes away from the most important skill - Listening.

Processing isn't about "Wizards" and presets and pee-wee-hermanizers... You should listen to a mix and have a clear "vision" for what it requires as far as processing is concerned (this is why it can be desperately difficult to master one's own mixes, as this was already done in the mixing stage).

Processors and plugs that try to "take a guess" for you can easily lead to "Sonic Maximizer Syndrome" - Where it changed, and it's louder, therefore it's better. 90% of the time, that's not the case.

But buying one... I'm not a big fan of a lot of digital processing - Finalizer included. But if was going to try to put together a decent digitally based, "budget friendly" system, I'd go with the UAD collection and sprinkle a few unique "problem solvers" in there rather than the "all in one" of the Finalizer (or the Quantum II, which I still have, and so rarely use, or Drawmer's unit, etc.).

Granted, if you need a set of converters *and* the processing HP, you probably aren't going to find a cheaper solution (although in that case I'd recommend the Quantum II - There's a reason I didn't sell that one).

[Reggie]

I agree with pretty much everything here. It has some fun stuff, it is OK as a de-esser, some decent peak limiting; but it is actually a pretty complex box as far as I'm concerned. Takes a lot of tweaking and studying and experimenting. Lots of menus to sort through. If you want to just push a preset and go, it will probably not sound great. It also gets annoying not having the option to use non-multiband compression/limiting. Multiband is NOT the be-all/end-all (whatever that means).

[chazba]

Thanks guys for the responses. I'm not wanting to buy one, I just remembered the name and was curious...


chazba

[Chip Evans]

I have used a Finalizer on some projects and would agree, in principle, to most of the above comments. My little mastering suite contains some events, hardware compression/eq/gate units, masterlink, and a computer. The computer only to title, final check and do a "visual". The masterlink is the most used piece of equipment. The Finalizer, in my opinion would be just as useful of a tool. This being said by a person that believes any two track buss going in the mastering chain is a 98 percent done deal.

I think many people are using these "mastering channel strips" as their talents allow. I use the masterink only because it is much less expensive and gives me the same tools. There are no presets on the masterlink.

Chip Evans

[Farview]

It was about 10 years ago, I got rid of mine about 5 years ago.

It was much cooler in the time before everyone had a DAW. Now with plugins, having a hardware unit that you can't easily automate, can't change the order of the effects, etc... is just a waste of time.