Mixing down and mastering with BBE - process?

A

akpcep

New member
Hi all,

I have a really simple question:

I track in Cubase SE, at 24bit, then mix it down to a wav. I put this into T-Racks to master it, which also (I think) dithers it down to 16bit, ready for CD audio. Then, I import that wav back into cubase (as a 16 bit project) and apply BBE Sonic Maximizer. Export it again (still 16bit) and burn to CD.

I'm having nice results, but I was wondering if I'm doing any of that in the "wrong" order??? Should I maximize the mix BEFORE mastering it? I can't tell any significant difference but if there's a "right" way of doing it I'd like to know?

Cheers!
 
If you are dead set on using the BBE, I would do it before T-racks. You want to do as much of your processing at the highest resolution, then dither it down.
 
Farview said:
If you are dead set on using the BBE, I would do it before T-racks. You want to do as much of your processing at the highest resolution, then dither it down.
Click to expand...
That is one very good reason.

I'll add that the BBE process has a sort of "expanding" effect to the audio. It has no compression or limiting. This will cause peaks that will be quite high, and possibly go over 0dbfs. Which is quite bad to have on the master.
You want compression/limiting/dithering last (ie "T-Racks"). I think any sort of BBE sonic maximizing is best suited for individual tracks, hardly ever for full mix.
 
Interesting, thanks guys - to my (albeit newbie) ears, the mixes sound better WITH the BBE (used subtly obviously), so I'll try it before T-Racks as the way you've explained it makes sense!
 
well i guess people getting tired of slaming others for using BBE :D

IT SUCKS!!!!!

Ok sorry i couldnt help my self :(
 
Well, it's like everything else isn't it - some people will be for it, others won't, and I'm sure everyone has their good reasons. I'm on a limited budget, with limited skills, so usually, if something sounds "better" to me on rather than off, I'll use it.
 
dont get me wrong,i dont hate it,but i used it once :)

I used a BBE plugin on one track, and used an EQ on the other identical track.

and....u guessed it :( i was able to simulate the sound of BBE with a normal eq pluging
 
I've always believed that if you've got a very strong desire for your mixes to completely and utterly suck ... and to literally disturb the listener in to a state of severe discomfort ...

Then the the BBE Sonic Maximizer is the perfect tool.
.
 
Garik said:
dont get me wrong,i dont hate it,but i used it once :)

I used a BBE plugin on one track, and used an EQ on the other identical track.

and....u guessed it :( i was able to simulate the sound of BBE with a normal eq pluging
Click to expand...
Maybe to your ear. BBE doesn't merely manipulate frequencies, it enhances harmonics to achieve a greater sonic range. The result is often less harsh than EQing.
 
chessrock said:
I've always believed that if you've got a very strong desire for your mixes to completely and utterly suck ... and to literally disturb the listener in to a state of severe discomfort ...

Then the the BBE Sonic Maximizer is the perfect tool.
.
Click to expand...

Surely anything used to extreme would affect the mix badly? Too much compression? Reverb? Isn't the key everything in moderation?
 
The BBE actually **cks the phase of any signal you send to it.
It also features a glorified EQ section that you can replicate using ANY EQ.
But the phase thing, you can't replicate.
Used WITH CAUTION (process les than 25% and other knob at minimum), it can be useful on individual tracks I agree.
But don't ever use too much process and other knob or it will turn your mix into the worst POS ever.
 
I have a question. I have never used a BBE, but I recall a lot of big name studios,capital, criteria etc. I think have them on there equipment list,or at least used to. They must have a use for something
 
jmorris said:
I have a question. I have never used a BBE, but I recall a lot of big name studios,capital, criteria etc. I think have them on there equipment list,or at least used to. They must have a use for something
Click to expand...
They are really good at putting the shine back on over-played or aging analog recordings. They are mostly used for tape transfers and the odd lifeless bass.
 
jmorris said:
I have a question. I have never used a BBE, but I recall a lot of big name studios,capital, criteria etc. I think have them on there equipment list,or at least used to. They must have a use for something
Click to expand...

I think they had them around, just in case one of their mixes sounded "too good," or something.

Engineer1: "Hey man, that mix sounds pretty good. Only one problem. It just doesn't SUCK ENOUGH. Any way we can make it suck more?"

Engineer2: "I think I know just what it needs."
 
jmorris said:
I think have them on there equipment list,or at least used to. They must have a use for something
Click to expand...
Equipment lists are very deceiving, for several reasons:

First, big budget studios often will buy equipment for the sole purpose of adding it to their equipment list. What's the big deal spending $500 or $1000 if it hooks even one $600/hr client who is impressed because you have a Maximizer on your equipment list and he thinks they're they're "k3wl".

Second, often times the studios don't even have to buy the gear. The manufacturer will work a quid pro quo with them; "We'll give you one of our widgets if you let us advertise the fact that you have one of our widgets." Usually this only happens if it's gear the studio really wants, but sometimes it's to get gear on their list for the first reason that they really don't want to spend the money for.

Third, just because a studio has gear on it's inventory doesn't mean they actually use it or that it even works. Read Bruce Miller's info on his website about the trashy condition of big studios these days when it comes to equipment not being hooked up, tape machines that don't actually work, and dead channels strips on seemingly big consoles, etc. because they don't even bother to keep a technician on-staff any more. Their Studer may not have worked since 1997, and their Maximizer may just be bolted in to a rack with no wires coming out the back of it, but that doesn't keep them from throwing it on their equipment list.

Fourth, sometimes people have equipment around not because it sounds good, but because it sounds bad. Chuck Ainsley has a Behringer dynamics processor in his travel rack, not so much because that's what he uses to get his signature Mr. Clean tracking, but more likely because that's what he uses to get a certain grunge/garage sound out of certain instruments when he wants it.

G.
 
Let me add a few points to Southside Glen's excellent list.

The BBE is tricky. The main problem is that it makes people think their mixes sound better - which is often a psycho-acoustic phenomenon. It is very similar to the "louder is better" problem.

For example, when you compare two different EQ or compression settings, if one plays back louder than the other, 90% of the people listening will prefer the louder track.

The problem becomes, if you adjust the volume so that both options play back at the same level, you may get a completely different set of opinions.

Same with the BBE. You add it to a mix,and all of a sudden everything gets all bright and sparkly. Then you take it off and the track now sounds dull by comparison. Naturally, you choose to add it back on. Even worse, as your ears adjust to hearing that un-natural brightness, you have to keep adding more and more to get the same "high". (Kind of like a junkie). Everything is great until - you listen back to your mix the next day and it sounds like someone is ramming an icepick into your ears.

Does that mean it is useless? No - as said above, sometimes material that has been rendered lifeless through age or multiple tape bounces needs some artificial sparkle. That's why I have one.

But in your own mixes, I think the real key is to ask yourself:
"How can I get some of the same high end air and sparkle that the BBE gives me, but in a more natural and organic way, that will also translate better to other speakers (and to next day listening.)"

Mastering the use of parametric EQ, and learning how to eliminate some of the elements that are masking the natural high end of your tracks from shining through will, in the end, give a far more elegant and rewarding result than slapping a BBE onto your mixes. Which is why most of the time, mine sits there unused.
 
The BBE and Aphex Aural Exciter can be useful tools on individual tracks. Used in the right situations they can really help out. They can easily be overused though, especially on whole mixes and especially by inexperienced engineers/home recordists. The people that turn up all the bands on an eq are the same ones that will abuse a BBE or Aural Exciter.

Both the BBE and Aphex units use a process that is not simply an eq. So it is a different tool. I own both the BBE and Aphex and I do use them from time to time on individual tracks.

The real trick to them is using just the right amount and not overusing them.
 
littledog said:
You add it to a mix,and all of a sudden everything gets all bright and sparkly. Then you take it off and the track now sounds dull by comparison. Naturally, you choose to add it back on. Even worse, as your ears adjust to hearing that un-natural brightness, you have to keep adding more and more to get the same "high". (Kind of like a junkie). Everything is great until - you listen back to your mix the next day and it sounds like someone is ramming an icepick into your ears.
Click to expand...


This is exactly, and to a "T" why those things are so evil.

They throw off your perspective, and turn your ears in to shit.

That's why most of the guys who like them so much are aging live sound guys or drummers who have significant high-end hearing loss.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top