Finalizer

  • Thread starter Thread starter royalb
  • Start date Start date
I had one a long time ago. It was cool, but you can do the same thing with plugins now.
 
Sold mine cheap. 8 or 9 years ago, it was fairly cool...
 
I bought one years ago. It doesn't suck, but...

The way it was marketed tends to produce expectations it can't live up to. It's a 'cheap' implimentation of of several common mastering tools in a single box with some useable (but not stellar) converters. Quite frankly, you could get a better sound from a good EQ and compressor, if you know what you're doing. What most people are enthused by are the presets, which are great starting points (and some of which were taken from some VERY experienced mastering engineers) but again, if you were to use similar settings on the REAL DEAL mastering set-up, it would take it to another level.

Bottom line - it depends who you are, and what you want it to do. If you're a home recorder doing demos, and high school bands with self-releases, who doesn't really want to invest the time and effort into learning mastering for real, it will definitely give you an edge over other people in a similar postition. If you're a bit more ambitious than that, it can be a good learning tool - if you use it that way. If you think it's going to make you an instant mastering engineer - keep dreaming! :D
 
People would be surprised to see that even the best mastering engineers just put the mix through the Finalizer and is done with it. It's a GREAT box, but as any tool, you have to use it for the right job.

In my opinion, a good mastering engineer with more tools will have better chance to do the loudness job properly.
 
There he goes with that "loudness" thing again...
 
Massive Master said:
There he goes with that "loudness" thing again...
Click to expand...




You would think all the red chiclets mean, "just stop your brain from thinking", but lucky for us that's not the case.
 
The presets on the finalizer are only useful if your mixes are exeactly the same as the mixes the presets were designed for. What are the chances of that?
 
Massive Master said:
There he goes with that "loudness" thing again...
Click to expand...
Well you don't seem to like the fact that nowadays your job is MOSTLY to squash hit records.. :rolleyes:
This is what keeps you in business.
 
TheDewd said:
Well you don't seem to like the fact that nowadays your job is MOSTLY to squash hit records.. :rolleyes:
This is what keeps you in business.
Click to expand...
The final volume is only 1 small part of the ME's job. I think he is commenting on your attitude that volume is the only thing an ME does.
 
I wonder if TheDewd makes stereo recordings...




Because he seems to have a one-track mind - Ha! Get it? "One track?" "Stereo" - because you need two tracks to...



Oh forget it...
 
Farview said:
The presets on the finalizer are only useful if your mixes are exeactly the same as the mixes the presets were designed for. What are the chances of that?
Click to expand...

well yeah I suppose you're right BUT..................they are only there as a starting point.................from which you can tweak & twean untill your heart is content

I have a 96K & to be honest couldn't be without it. I don't rely on it to make my mixes wonderful as I get them as good as I can & then introduce the finaliser to the mix

It also has ominous EQ & de-esser which have rescued projects I've had given to me that were pre-recorded

OBVIOUSLY get things right before the mix comes & it will sound good. IMO when the 96K hits the sound it only gets better. Unless you don't know what you are doing

For the record, it took about a year to get to grips with the beast..........
 
Farview said:
The final volume is only 1 small part of the ME's job. I think he is commenting on your attitude that volume is the only thing an ME does.
Click to expand...
Well, from what I have read on John's page in the section where there are some masters to listen to, he wrote something like this for some of the samples :
" Again the mix was right with good dynamics and good EQ so all I had to do is make it louder".

That is suffient to prove my point that unless the mixer is a TURD, 99% of the ME signal processing job is to squash it to compete.

Of course, if the mix is poorly balanced and mixed..then the ME has to fix it. But this is NOT the way things should be, as it is the MIXING engineers responsabilty to make the mix, phase, balance and EQ perfect.
 
TheDewd said:
Well, from what I have read on John's page in the section where there are some masters to listen to, he wrote something like this for some of the samples :
" Again the mix was right with good dynamics and good EQ so all I had to do is make it louder".
.
Click to expand...
Where? I didn't see anything like that on the site.

There were some comments about being able to achieve a louder master if you don't horde bits. You might want to read it again, I think you missed the point.
 
I'm not saying he's lying, but there are 59 active pages in that site. I'm not even sure what they all say.

Can TheDewd pull that quote from a page somewhere?
 
If he can, I bet he can record in stereo, too.

Get it?







Uh... yeah... nevermind.

I had more than one mix cross my path that just needed to be leveled- as in with a volume knob. :rolleyes: Maybe louder just means louder?

And I didn't know you were squashing HITS, John! Congrats!!! :D

-Chris
 
You know the dewd is like the most brutally honest man on these pages. You've got to at least respect that :p
 
Massive Master said:
I'm not saying he's lying, but there are 59 active pages in that site. I'm not even sure what they all say.

Can TheDewd pull that quote from a page somewhere?
Click to expand...
About most of the samples you say something like this " the mix was dynamic and good so all I had to do is make it louder and give it a little polish".
I think the "little polish" should be there before the mix hits your desk.
Then all you'd have to do is make it louder.
Thus, if the mix is right and already polished (as it should be), all you need to do is make it louder...

I know, John, that you have to deal with all kinds of mixes, some very bad and some very good and that sometimes you have to polish more than "a little" but the guys at sterling are ALWAYS dealing with premium mixes made by superb mix engineers. I don't think they put much "polish" on those mixes...I think they smash it to bits and make it sound clean afterwards. That's where their job stops. Of course, on the lower level, you have to do more, but basically everything should be taken care of at the mixing and tracking stage.

I would also like to add that most of the bad mixing comes from people using only nearfield monitors as monitoring source. Using mid and far field will give you a much more precise idea of what's going on. Actually, I hate nearfields and prefer mid and far fields. Nearfields are good for checking what's going on when tracking, but I would rather mix on a nice monitoring system like they have at Sterling than on nearfields.
 
TheDewd said:
I would also like to add that most of the bad mixing comes from people using only nearfield monitors as monitoring source. Using mid and far field will give you a much more precise idea of what's going on. Actually, I hate nearfields and prefer mid and far fields. Nearfields are good for checking what's going on when tracking, but I would rather mix on a nice monitoring system like they have at Sterling than on nearfields.
Click to expand...
Okay then. I think we're actually in agreement there.
 
Someone give the Dewd a point for not being a dirty asshole for once.
Nah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top