BBE: Pre or Post-Mastering ? Both !??

[sonick]

Greetings,

I wanted to put a question out there that i seem to be getting mixed and unsure answers on locally from other engineers.....

I use various setups for mastering, none incredibly pricey or complex; usually a 3630+normalization, if necessary+BBE (through powered 20/20s); and lately i've been getting very interested in trying out the T-RackS software.

Anyhow, as my signal path becomes more and more complex, i've been confused while going over my potential signal path in my head if I were to buy a dedicated mastering virtual 'rig' such as T-Racks and where the BBE would fit into the signal path:

A) Would the BBE be applied on general instrument/channel mixdown prior to committing to a .wav or DAT of a stereo mix, PRIOR to mastering....... or:

b) Should the general mixdown stereo mix be WITHOUT BBE, at which time it would be mastered and then the VERY LAST step would be to run the mix through the BBE and then commit to final master ?

Prior to considering T-Racks, my mastering setup was not sophisticated enough to really concern myself with BBE pre or post mastering (and have done both, usually based on the least amount of signal re-routing to do at the particular step); but since the tools available will be much more capable in mastering sessions with t-racks, i'm wondering what the 'Preferred/Official/Best-Practice' location is of the BBE within the signal path ?

I can make arguments for either in my mind, since a post-BBE signal could be considered 'colored' by some, though in my opinion I like to think of it as an aurally 'de-colored' by way of unmuddying and timing-correction, and therefore my HYPOTHESIS is that I would want to do at least a 'minimum effective threshold' amount of BBE processing PRIOR to moving to mastering. I'm hypothesizing (and have experienced) that it's easier to EQ when multiple waveforms in the same vicinity are not muddied; eliminating potentially extreme EQ paramaters versus heading to mixdown with a 'minimum significant' degree of BBE prior to mixdown.... at which point the EQ seems to be more applicable to the exact bandwidths/instruments of concern. Then of course if necessary for certain genres, the mix can be ran through the BBE again for a hotter process level for bass-guitar or bass-drum driven tracks, etc. I have only doubled up in this fashion (minimalist for phase correction / instrument separation prior to mastering, then heating up the master prior to committing it to media at ~0.0db.) Both times seemed to result in a highly listenable mix, but my brain has a very very sensitive quantization threshold and I would almost swear that dual-bbe'ing of the signal produced noticable and unnatural (ONLY to an engineer's ear) phase shift on certain bandwidths. Or I may have just been fatigued, i'm not sure. Client reaction is positive regardless of the position in the signal path, though I'm conflicted over the pre-mastering merits (proper separation/phase prior to EQ, avoiding radical corrections); and the post-mastering merits (more 'presence' of BBE processing). I'm torn.

I'm sorry for the babbling and roundabout way of asking a mostly linear question, but I'm horrendously AD[h]D (if you want to call it that) and I also feel that the nuances are worth discussion in general, and wanted to see what everyone was doing with their mastering/bbe signal path (and why.)

Thanks for any input you can provide, I do appreciate any and all comments.

Best Regards,
Jayson

 

[Farview]

You seem to be assuming that you need to use the BBE. If you have done your job, you won't need it. If you get something like T-racks, you might not need it at all. The 3630 is a pretty crummy compressor. When pushed past 2db of reduction, it gets muddy. The BBE can counter-act that, but if you were using a more appropriate compressor for the job, you wouldn't need it.

The BBE, when used correctly, will brighten up something that is muddy sounding. If you can avoid the mud, you won't need it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Jason once again has it nailed.

That said, I'd postulate that if something like the BBE is needed, for whatever the cause, it's because of mud introduced in the tracking process. Put another way, the BBE re-engineers waveforms. Therefore if the problem is loss of transients or waveshape distortion, that distortion is going to be on the individual waveforms, not a problem caused by the act of mixing itself (though the summation of mud across tracks by mixing can make the mud more apparent.)

Beased upon that reasoning, I'd be tempted to apply the "maximization" far earlier than you're considering. If you're mixing in the digital realm, while it would be nice to apply it to individual tracks in the box, coming out of the digital box to BBE iron and back in again may be more trouble than it's worth. Given that (if it's true), then the answer would be to track through the BBE.

But Jason is right, the BBE is designed to be a "corrector". Far better not to have a problem that needs correction to begin with. The best way to address that would be to track as cleanly as possible.

G.

 

[Massive Master]

Word. Up. (10 characters)

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

BBE = added distortion.

If you do the mix right you don't need it. In fact, if you do your mix right you'll understand why you wouldn't use it even if you did need it.