Mastering workflow, MS recording, Wavelab LE 7

J

JMac52

New member
Hi,

This is my first post, although I've been reading threads here for a week or two and I appreciate the info/advice/opinions I've gleaned so far.

A little back story before my questions - I've got a group of guys that get together about once or twice a month to jam. We started coming up with our own stuff, so I bought a Zoom H2n to record the sessions (primarily because we never wrote anything down and getting together so infrequently, we would forget). My thinking was actually to just be able to distribute MP3s to remember, and come up with improvements and changes to the songs. I was after just good enough quality for that purpose.

However as I learned through reading and experience about recording levels, mic placement, and the software capabilities I realized the potential level of "good enough" is much farther up the quality scale than I originally thought (understand my frame of reference for live recording is a cassette deck or my Dad's reel-to-reel in the 70s). So I am willing to spend the extra time to polish these tracks before posting - actually, the hook has been set and I am currently converting the home office and planning to buy gear and software to be able to do multitrack, strictly as a hobby, but that's a different story/thread...

Through experimentation with the session recordings, and learning about compression, EQ, etc., I've come up with a workflow of sorts that I'd like to ask about.

I'm recording at 24-bit/44.1kHz, mostly MS but I've done some XY (I don't remember if that was on purpose). Tomorrow, I'm going to try some 2-ch surround.

The process I'm following is:

1. Decode the raw MS wav file using the Zoom MSED plug in. I don't touch the sliders (change stereo separation) on the plug in.
2. Render that to a wav file (named <original filename> DECODED.wav
3. In the DECODED file:
a. Normalize (I suppose I could just as easily do that in step 1)
b. Insert stereo enhancement, EQ, compression. I'm using the Steinberg plug-ins that came with Wavelab LE 7
c. Render that to MP3 for posting for the other quys (and possibly to wav as well)

Using this process, I think the finished product has gone from bad to better - but I'm still learning EQ and compression...

So my questions are (finally!):

1. Is this a sensible mastering workflow? I realize I may be using the term "mastering" loosely.

2. Since Wavelab LE 7 only has three plug-in slots, is there a cost/penalty in terms of loss or noise for rendering the same material multiple times in order to have more than 3 effects plus the MS decoding? Or I suppose it depends on the "goodness" of the plug-ins?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

J
 
Welcome! This is a great forum. I have been eyeing a H2n for a while so I really can't give advice about that units setup. However I bet when using the MSED you could end up with some strange 2 track stuff when you mix (if you could call 2 track processing a mix). Someone else is sure to chime in on this but my.02. Give x/y a try as that is a well established technique for capturing a stereo (2 track) recording. If you are using MS the machine is doing some processing on its own. Like I said I am not familiar with that device. Also 2 track is not surround. Just trying to help you get the terminology right, no offense. Avoid normalizing if you can. Set your levels correctly and you will not need to normalize. What do you mean by stereo enhancement? If you are MS you are in effect "stereo enhanced". The mid/side process can be used to widen or narrow the stereo field, so if it is automatic you are going to have problems at mixdown if you want to change that. Typically MS is done later, not at tracking. That allows you to center the low frequencies and push the highs out. Hope this helps. Stick around this is a great resource. BTW read all the stickies they awesome. Be well. Oh BTW, you are now hooked so open the wallet it only gets worse.
 
Thurgood said:
If you are MS you are in effect "stereo enhanced". The mid/side process can be used to widen or narrow the stereo field, so if it is automatic you are going to have problems at mixdown if you want to change that. Typically MS is done later, not at tracking. That allows you to center the low frequencies and push the highs out. Hope this helps. Stick around this is a great resource. BTW read all the stickies they awesome. Be well. Oh BTW, you are now hooked so open the wallet it only gets worse.
Click to expand...

Not really....M/S is actually more accurate in many cases than X/Y...and no it's not "stereo enhanced"...it's just *stereo*.
The nice thing about M/S is that you CAN manipulate the width of the stereo image AFTER the fact because you can break it back into the separate Mid and Side components.
Using just a plug-in stereo enhancer on a basic stereo track is not the same thing.

You can track with M/S same as any other stereo mic technique, and as I said, it will always give you a really true image that is 100% mono-collapsible should you decide not to use the stereo tracks.

Read up on Bruce Swedien who uses M/S tracking substantially in his recordings and did it on a lot of the major Michael Jackson albums, with Quincy Jones producing.

<EDIT>
Bruce Swedien actually used the Blumlein Pair technique the most, not M/S....which is two figure-8 mics at 90 degrees, while the M/S is just one plus a cardioid.
He apparently also used Omnis in a Blumlein Pair configuration....but the Omnis he used appear NOT to be true 100% omnis from what he's hinted in some interviews....so they were hand picked for their non-omni personality.
And he also used spaced pair on a lot of stuff too....not much X/Y, at least I didn't find any mention of it in his comments when he talks about stereo miking to be the cornerstone of his "sound".

I recently did a lead guitar track with the standard Blumlein Pair technique using two Cascade Fat Head mics, and I have to say, the track has a much better 3-D feel to it, even though the lead is dead center in the mix. It doesn't have any obvious L/R differences that make the stereo image obvious...but the track just stand out in a very interesting way, that I plan on using that technique more in the future.
 
Last edited:
JMac52 said:
1. Is this a sensible mastering workflow? I realize I may be using the term "mastering" loosely.
Click to expand...
Sure. If it gets you where you need to go then it's fine. Don't be afraid of normalize either. All it does is adjust the total level so that the loudest peaks hit some predetermined "optimal" level. Most of the knee jerk against it comes from folks normalizing to 0dbfs before the mastering stage, and leaving no headroom for further processing. In your case, you are at the mastering stage, and this sort of leveling is exactly what you want to be doing.

You might want to wait until after the EQ and compression though, for exactly that reason. If you're compressing afterwards, you might be reducing the maximum peak level, which kind of undoes your normalization. OTOH, if you're already up against the rail, and then add a bit of boost in the EQ, you'll end up clipping.

So, do the EQ and comp first, then normalize to your desired final level. Don't know if your normalize process allows you to set the peak level, or if it just assumes you want it at 0dbfs, but one way or another you should end up somewhere between a cut hair and a hair below - I usually go to -0.6 just out of habit - to a allow a little room for poorly designed converters, and to avoid "intersample overs", plus because mp3 compression can sometimes end up pushing things over somehow.

2. Since Wavelab LE 7 only has three plug-in slots, is there a cost/penalty in terms of loss or noise for rendering the same material multiple times in order to have more than 3 effects plus the MS decoding? Or I suppose it depends on the "goodness" of the plug-ins?
Click to expand...
There are a number of issues here. Some plugins/mix processes do add in a tiny bit of dither or denormal noise, which can add up with recursive processing, but I wouldn't worry about it at all in actual practice. If you're doing something stupid like compressing the fuck out of it over and over again, it might become an issue, but since you're actually trying to make these tracks sound better... Definitely make sure that you're rendering to 24 bit .wav every time though! Downsampling, dithering, and compression (rendering to .mp3) should be the absolute final step of the process, analogous to actually burning the CD, or pressing the vinyl record.
 
Thanks, this is very helpful. I will try normalizing after EQ and compression. The normalizer in Wavelab allows you to set the peak level. I can see now that what I've been doing - normalizing first - is just making compressing more difficult, and in some cases resulting in having to use a limiter.

I'm definitely staying in 24-bit wav until the end. One of the reasons I asked about possible issues with multiple passes is that I viewed a mastering tutorial that recommended two compression stages with smaller gain vs. one with large gain (although I wasn't sure why), and I thought if I needed to do that, plus maybe add a room effect or something, I would be out of effects slots in Wavelab LE. So it sounds like as long as I don't kill it I should be OK.
 
You guys are awesome. Let me get some sleep and I will respond (and try to clarify a bit). I still advise against normalizing. As to MS technique I use it frequently. My concern comes from the device's MS encoder/decoder. Ignorance pleaded here as I am not familiar with that device. I suggest investigating the parameters of the MS settings. Are they fixed? or can you adjust them? I stick by going with the x/y and MS later (because you can have more control over frequency and width etc). I would hate to be stuck with +3 middle and -1 sides. Granted that is a bit extreme but until you know what MS processing is taking place you could paint yourself into a corner. I do MS at the mixing stage or as pointed out the Blumlein tech. is truly awesome for tracking and does allow for adjustments of the "stereo" field. PS Huge Bruce fan here. Good luck and thanks for the informative posts. Nap time now. Ooops almost forgot, +1 on multiple compressors sharing the load. There are tons of posts out that on that topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top