EQ, compressing - in what order?

[BootCut]

I'm just about to master my bands demo. I'm going to do some compressing. limiting and maybe put some EQ on the tracks as well. In what order should they be placed to generate the best result?
perhaps: EQ --> Limiter --> Compressor --> normalize?

[Track Rat]

I'd limit first then EQ so the limiter won't trigger on whatever frequency you may have boosted.

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by BootCut
I'm going to do some compressing. limiting and maybe put some EQ on the tracks as well.

You meant to add "If needed, I'm going to...", right?

I mean, you're not just throwing compression, limiting and EQ in there just because the plug-ins are within reach, are you?

Especially at the mastering stage, you have to know exactly WHY you want to put compression on the mix, exactly WHAT needs EQ'ing, etc.... track analysis comes first, THEN decide if the track even needs anything......

If you put something in the signal chain, it should have a concrete reason for being there in the first place -- not just "I'm gonna stick comp/EQ/limiting in there - (please tell the best order) - because I heard somewhere that mastering involves compression/EQ/limiting!"

Ged'dit????

[BootCut]

You guys are fast. Do live in here or what?

Blue Be...whatever! I do know what mastering means. I'm not a pro, but I know that I can do a better job then the guy who mixed it did. And I'm getting better at it everytime I do it.
Two of the songs must be a little bit louder, but most important they must be more equal to each other in volume.
I will pbrobably not touch the EQ so I guess I'll go with compressing --> limiting.

well, thanks anyway!

[Gidge]

if I were you, id slightly limit it (if it HAS to be louder)....lay off the compression and EQ unless there are specific problems you are hearing that needs to be corrected (as Blue Balls stated) and once limited, normalization SURELY wont be needed.....

if you go blindly into this compressing, EQ'ing, limiting, and normalizing, Id like to introduce you to a new word ----CLUSTERFUCK.......



"I'm just about to master my bands demo"..... = FIRE

"I do not know what mastering means"...... = OIL

they dont mix

[Gidge]

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/article...256C2E005DAF1C

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by BootCut
Blue Be...whatever! I do know what mastering means.

Sorry... but the question you asked clearly demonstrates that you DON'T know what's really involved in mastering.... (and I don't say that to put you down, simply a statement of fact - there's no shame in being a beginner!)

Notice I didn't say you shouldn't do it, or that you shouldn't learn, only that you should know precisely WHY you're putting something in the signal chain before you put it there, rather than "just because that's what mastering is supposed to be about..."

Right?

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by BootCut
You guys are fast. Do live in here or what?

Actually, I'm in the process of breaking down the studio in preparation for re-location.......... so you guys here are my "coffee-breaks"!

[Gidge]

oh, he said he "DOES" know what mastering is.....(brainfart).......

coulda fooled me.....

[James Argo]

Let me tell you something man... having Track Rat, Bruce (Blue Be...whatever), Deputy Gidge, Ed (sonusman), and specially me in this thread is a high honour. You should be proud by this thread... talking about mastering, they just gave you all the hints you need. Specially Bruce & Ed. I'll post several links to article you might need to know...

http://www.soundconcepts.net/Mastering.htm

[James Argo]

http://www.epinions.com/inst-review-...3A166E91-prod2

[James Argo]

http://www.crmav.com/mastering/articles/

[James Argo]

http://web.oreilly.com/news/webaudio_1200.html

[BootCut]

James Argo: I'm in here every day. I know these people are good and respectable, I don't know about you though, don't think I have seen you around here before...but the links are great! Thanks!

I should have been more specific in my question. It's one track where the avarege volume is low but we have this drum loop with the peaks 10dB louder than the rest of the track. We should have taken care of that when mixing but now it's too late, and I don't know how to handle it.

Thank you all for helping, specially Ed.

[dachay2tnr]

I'm far from an expert on this stuff. But I might try using a multiband compressor on that particular problem.

BTW, why can't you fix the mix??

[BootCut]

Because it has already been recorded to two tracks. The tech-guy who recorded it, have already erased the original DAT tapes.

[chessrock]

Originally posted by dachay2tnr
I'm far from an expert on this stuff. But I might try using a multiband compressor on that particular problem.

Good man.

[dachay2tnr]

Whew!

Ed, while all of your points are valid, you ultimately didn't offer any solution (and maybe there isn't one). I agree, fixing it in the mix is the right solution, but it appears he doesn't have that luxury.

What could it hurt to try a multiband? It's certainly a better approach than compressing the entire mix. It's probably also a better approach than EQ - since the multiband would only be working when the threshhold is exceeded, while an EQ cut would be present on the entire material.

Depending on the style of music, what is sticking out from the drum kit, what else is in those frequencies, and what his attack and threshhold settings are, a multiband might help. That's all I was saying. Give it a try. He doesn't seem to have many other choices.

[littledog]

Like you, Sonusman, I don't tend to use multiband compression that much because it's not a tool that I have a ton of experience with. But I know at least a couple of mastering engineers that work wonders with them, so I think their value is directly proportional to the skill of the user.

If the peaks turn out to be fast transients that spike way above the average program, it shouldn't be that hard to fix. Any compressor should be able to do the job, once you find the right threshold (high enough so that the average program level doesn't trigger it) and attack-time setting (pretty quick). Use a fairly high ratio and you should be able to create a LOT of headroom fairly transparently. The advantage of a multiband is sometimes you can get even more transparent compression than with a full-bandwidth compressor. This is one of those situations where a spectrum analysis program can be very useful in spotting the problem frequencies, which, as you pointed out, may be in the harmonic overtones as well as the fundamentals.

In a DAW system, you can even try drawing the peaks down with a pencil tool. But be real careful to work on a COPY of the file, since often that type of editing is destructive, and you may not like the results.

Personally, I've never met a "normalize" algorhythm I've really liked, so that's one step I'd avoid. There are plenty of other ways to get "louder" tracks.

[James Argo]

Originally posted by BootCut
James Argo: I'm in here every day. I know these people are good and respectable, I don't know about you though, don't think I have seen you around here before...

You took it too hard... I'm there at Dragon Cave.

Maaan... ed your story has touched my heart. My tears are drop by now. I can't believe I readed those post over and over. Anyway, I used Multiband compressor sometimes. And it does a good things for it's concept. Compressing an audio signal at certain range of frequency rather than the whole signal. If you can imagine and have a better picture of what it does exactly, then you'll probably have a better though about how to use it. I know it's kind of rare to find any engineer will have it on their studio. They don't get used to it, or they very seldom find a problem that should be fixed by this device. But hey... lets open our eyes man. It's there to help us. We just should take a curve to dig more about the advantage of using it. When, Where, and How. No, I'm not a mastering guy who knows everything I'm talking about. I go Shailat most of the time I get trouble with how the compressor will work anyway...

See, I remember about the mixed audio material and a picture shot and printed out. Once you take a shoot of photograph, printed on the piece of papper, there you go. You cant erase the picture of somebody there, to expect seeing what's on a table behind him. You simply can't. Photoshop either will do. You can manipulate 'em, but not actually see what's behind him. Same thing goes to mixed tape. Once it's put there, there you go. You can master it whenever you like, but MASTERING wont take a place of MIXING. Whatever should be done in the MIXING cannot be done in MASTERING with same result. ...aaah like ed has mentioned before. It's always better to make sure you make alternative backup of your DAT. I ALWAYS make at least two version of mixing whether I can. One version of what the producer like, one version of what I like. You can also make it three or four version, it takes only tape. Tapes are cheap now (compared to your valuable data). Put the "my taste" mixed DAT for myself. Whenever the producer /musician/ band realizing something was wrong with their mixed DAT, they can always contact me to see if "my taste" one can help. Send them one copy. I can't give any solving by now. But giving my oppinion leads you to be more carefull in future I hope has a meaning for you.

[dobro]

"If the peaks turn out to be fast transients that spike way above the average program, it shouldn't be that hard to fix. Any compressor should be able to do the job, once you find the right threshold (high enough so that the average program level doesn't trigger it) and attack-time setting (pretty quick). Use a fairly high ratio and you should be able to create a LOT of headroom fairly transparently. The advantage of a multiband is sometimes you can get even more transparent compression than with a full-bandwidth compressor. This is one of those situations where a spectrum analysis program can be very useful in spotting the problem frequencies, which, as you pointed out, may be in the harmonic overtones as well as the fundamentals."

'once you find the right threshold'

Well, how do you do that? These days, I'm compressing whole tracks, and I'd rather use a multiband sometimes. The way I judge how much I've compressed the track (I find it *really* difficult to hear compression) is to look at the peaks of the waveform. How do *you* do it?

[littledog]

Originally posted by James Argo


Same thing goes to mixed tape. Once it's put there, there you go. You can master it whenever you like, but MASTERING wont take a place of MIXING. Whatever should be done in the MIXING cannot be done in MASTERING with same result. ...

Logic says that's true, and in general perhaps it is. But then you run into a REALLY good mastering engineer and you hear the magic they can accomplish and you start to wonder...

[littledog]

Originally posted by dobro


'once you find the right threshold'

Well, how do you do that? These days, I'm compressing whole tracks, and I'd rather use a multiband sometimes. The way I judge how much I've compressed the track (I find it *really* difficult to hear compression) is to look at the peaks of the waveform. How do *you* do it?

This is where the Gain Reduction meter comes in very handy. They can be found on almost every hardware and software compressor. Often in hardware pieces there is a switch that toggles the VU meter function between output volume and gain reduction.

And then there is a strictly analog device you can use - your ears. Explanation follows:

To set a threshold in the situation I described earlier (reducing quick transient spikes that are much higher in volume than the average program material) using the gain reduction meter - watch the meter and set your threshold so that the "average" levels of the program are not triggering any activity on the meter (or maybe just a dB of reduction at most).Keep lowering it until the average program level starts to create activity on the GR meter. Then raise the threshold back up just enough so that the activity disappears. You have just set your threshold. Now only the spikes you are trying to control will set off the GR meter, assuming you don't have too slow of an attack time, and you have a greater than 1:1 ratio. Increasing the ratio will increase the amount of gain reduction on the spikes. You will want a quick release time so the compressor so that the spikes don't trigger the compressor into accidently compressing some of the "average" program that immediately follows a spike.

To do the same thing using your ears, you will need to use the bypass switch. As you lower the threshold, keep switching the bypass in and out until you hear the average program material get softer when the compression is engaged. Then slowly raise the theshold until you just get to the point where you can't hear the difference in the average program whether the compression is in or out. That's your threshold setting. Then continue as above.

GR Meters are a little easier and more accurate to use, but there's nothin' wrong with good old ears.

Any questions?

Any answers?

[pipelineaudio]

Call a multiband compressor a "multiband limiter " and all of a sudden you have a VERY useful tool. Call it a "de-esser" and you got a classic

[dobro]

Pipeline, I tried using my multiband for de-essing, but I found it really difficult to find the offending frequency. I know how to boost and sweep with a narrow Q, but I wound up having to cut most everything between 7K and 8K, and then it affected the sound a bit negatively, the way Ed described in a previous post. How narrow a range of frequencies do you typically work with using a MB for de-essing?

dobro