DIY Mastering Clinic #1!!!!!

masteringhouse said:
G. everything was done in PT in with regards to M/S. It would take me a while to explain the technique and I would like to create a reference on my site rather than a post buried here for future use.

I PROMISE I'll write all of this stuff up and have a link for everyone. Just looking for feedback at the moment.
Click to expand...
Understood. I would love to learn more about this one as it as completly new to me (see, I TOLD you I wasn't an ME :) ) and sounds quite intriguing. But take your time, I know how the division of labor thing goes all too well.

G.
 
Reggie said:
For some reason, I didn't really want to do a fade-in in the beginning, I liked to hear the build of all the instruments from a cold start. Just my preference, not knowing the artist's wishes.
Click to expand...

My problem with the intro is the attack on the first note sounds chopped. Thus the fadein. Actually I would want to try it as a crossfade if that worked with the prior track.

It's funny Tom paid no attention to the fadein :o Yeah, I tried the simple no-fuss no-muss approach, again with no luck :(
 
I think by far, this has been the most informative thread I've had the pleasure of reading. I do have a question about the EQ stuff though, and forgive me if I'm out of line in nature of the thread.

You guys have mentioned several times the Q value in regards to EQ, I've read here and there about this, but it's still kinda grey to me. Anyone care to put it in terms a retard could understand? ;)
 
I'm sure someone is typing a detailed answer as I type this, but Q is basically how wide or narrow your EQ notch is. A lot of software EQ's have a graphical display of what you are doing, so watch that as you change the Q and see your mountain (or valley) get wider and skinnier. I have a couple EQ's that give the Q in a backwards way, so I won't bother going into it any deeper than that to avoid confusion.
 
Reggie got it started well, let me try and fill in a little more.

When talking about adjustable "Q" settings, one is referring to a parametric EQ, not a graphic EQ. Graphic EQs have fixed Q value characteristics that are not adjustable by the user.

As Reggie said, Q refers to the "width" of frequencies that an EQ control will affect. In other words, if you have your center frequency on your EQ control set to, say, 1kHz, the Q (sometimes referred to as "bandwidth") setting determine how wide of a frequency spread each side of 1kHz that control also affects. The narrower the bandwidth, the higher the Q value. A Q value of 1 is typically somewhere in the medium range, not real tight and not real wide.

As Reggie said, some plugins, however, do not measure the bandwidth setting of a control with a Q number; some of them instead measure it in actual number of musical octaves the control affects. In those cases, obviously, the narrower the bandwidth, the lower the octave value.

HTH,

G.
 
Interesting how some addressed the chopped first note of that guitar intro. I had considered cutting the intro short but felt compelled to leave it as the mix was originally. Cool to fade in though. :)

What about that section near the end coming out of the heavy guitar part? Was I the only one who felt like this needed to be brought down? I did a fader automation cutting about 8 db when that different lead guitar part started.
 
@ Reggie & Glen: Thanks guys, I don't think you could have made it any more clear. Any chance we can get you guys writting manuals for the manufacturers? Maybe an "Audio Processing for Dummies" book? :D
 
Haha, yeah I have a knack for seeing things from a "dummies" perspective.
Not sure what that says about me......
 
caryindy said:
Interesting how some addressed the chopped first note of that guitar intro. I had considered cutting the intro short but felt compelled to leave it as the mix was originally. Cool to fade in though. :)

What about that section near the end coming out of the heavy guitar part? Was I the only one who felt like this needed to be brought down? I did a fader automation cutting about 8 db when that different lead guitar part started.
Click to expand...

I started my long fade right then. The whole second solo was faded.
 
Creamyapples1 said:
@ Reggie & Glen: Thanks guys, I don't think you could have made it any more clear. Any chance we can get you guys writting manuals for the manufacturers? Maybe an "Audio Processing for Dummies" book? :D
Click to expand...
Nah, way too much competition. Just go to Amazon.com and do a search on "recording for dummies" and they'll come back with a couple of dozen titles (most of them fairly decent for beginners, BTW.) :)

That said, when I am through with my current audio project, I'm going back to finish a hyperdoc on compression 101 which will be availble for free download. I'm about 75% finished with it, but had to put it on the backburner a few weeks ago when real life hit me upside the head :P. I'll post a notice on this board when it is ready.

G.
 
masteringhouse said:
I just banged one out between sessions. See sample1 at the bottom of this page:
Let me know what you guys think of the above. There were other EQs/comps used as well. I'll give you the details on those if you guys like this, if not then it doesn't matter and they will change anyway.
Click to expand...
I think this is very good. Still has some punch, but is much cleaner. Vocals seem to sit much better also. Clean guitar has a good pocket. Link us when you have the details up please. :D
 
NickT said:
Hi all -

Thought I'd throw this out there.



Thanks,

NickT
Click to expand...
Nick, this seems to be pretty clean also. I think you did well with it. You seemed to have really fixed the harshness to the vox, without killing them. Something I haven't fixed yet myself. Good and punchy also.
 
Dogman said:
Nick, this seems to be pretty clean also. I think you did well with it. You seemed to have really fixed the harshness to the vox, without killing them. Something I haven't fixed yet myself. Good and punchy also.
Click to expand...

I agree, good on the punch. The hat and especially snare too bright for me. Sounds a little smiley-face EQ, still lots of low end energy on the synth (not that I'm one to talk), out of control in places.
 
NickT said:
Hi all -

Thought I'd throw this out there.



Thanks,

NickT
Click to expand...

I like the distinction in the bass guitar, but I'm only listening with headphones at my workplace right now. I'll listen later to see home this sounds at home.
Can you give us a little rundown on what you did?
 
masteringhouse said:
Interesting feedback so far.

One thing that stands out in the mix as a problem to my ears is how the distorted guitar, synth and bass interact. There seems to be a peak at the fundamental frequency of the chord whenever they come in (mostly because they are reinforcing each other at that frequency). What techniques can be used to fix this (without breaking out the multi-band compressor)?

Why might that technique be better than using MBC?
Click to expand...

Maybe automate a linear phase EQ with a narrow Q to dip that frequency (judge by ear, not by numbers) so there is no peak when the instrument's fundamentals meet?

Edit: whooops ... I must have been reading the wrong page lol
 
Thanks for the comments! My concerns were:

Muddy low end
Lacking mids
High end harshness.

My Chain:

Har-bal --> SoundForge 8 w/Waves Linear Phase EQ --> T-Racks (Yes, I use T-Racks!) :)

The smiley comment might be because when all was tweaked, I used the eq in T-Racks to pull -2 @ 135 hz. Hi-Q setting. I did allot of carving here. the 1-3.5K range was pulled back a little.

Most of my time was spent on the eq'ing.

That's about it!

Thanks,

Nick
 
That's funny, for some odd reason I downloaded the Har-Bal demo earlier today just to see what it would do. :o

It made the EQ a little better, but there was still so much work it left to do, I wouldn't have considered it worth the trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top