Mastering choice. hardware or software

M

Modern_Talking

New member
hi . quick question. even though we give out our final mixes to be mastered, just wondering about these mastering tools. want to learn and experiment and maybe one day do our own.

is software mastering on pc a better choice or the hardware gear. i was looking at the aphex finallizer and the tc 96k finalizer and of course the 96k is alot cheaper than the aphex. but there are software mastering programs like the T-Racks 24 which is about $299 as compared to $1700 for the 96k.
i understand that experience matters too but for starters and getting into mastering which would be more sutiable. softeare or hardware.
 
FALKEN said:
I think you will learn more with hardware.
Click to expand...

^ that, and also if you are considering doing mastering professional, hardware is the way to go. But if its a home studio (recording) and you want to put some final touches on a demo, T-Racks, is obviously alot cheaper. Remembering that mastering usually makes or breaks an album.
 
I'm a hardware type - I *should* say that I'm an analog hardware type. Even a Finalizer is basically software - It's a digital box, running digital processing. The compressor is not an analog compressor and the EQ is not an analog EQ.

Not that there aren't some fine digital hardware pieces out there... Weiss, TC's "good" stuff (like the 6000), etc...

But yeah, the more I tried to go digital, the more I ended up embracing analog again.
 
The issue with mastering analog is that you need *really* good gear to do it properly. Great converters, top of the line compressors, eq, limiters, monitors, room treatment, etc. While some of that applies to digital mastering as well, the cost of home mastering is far less if it stays digital.

So, considering the cost factor, you can master better for cheaper if you stay digital. But that doesn't mean it's the best way to master, speaking in the ideal sense. If cost isn't a factor then I personally would want to master analog.

T-Racks is a pretty good program, but really that's probably not the best choice for overall mastering plugins. You might want to use a combination of plugins for different companies. Just a couple that come to mind is "FinalPlug" from WaveArts, and "MasterQ" by PSP Audioware. A limiter and an eq.

For an all-in-one box the Finalizer would not be a bad choice, as it has presets you could start with. Of course, you would hopefully take those only as a starting point and edit them to taste.

Another option would be to hire a professional mastering engineer and have them do the job for you. Depending on your project, that might be affordable. Everything is negotiable.
 
All great advice above. I would add that self mastering is deceptively difficult to ummm, master, but well worth the effort. It requires that you step away from your project for a few days, then come back to it with a different hat than the one you wore while mixing. Before investing a lot of money into it, start out with some software and see if you can wrap your mind around the concept of multiband compression and how it effects the song dynamically and spectrually at the same time. If you approach it as a completely seperate art, and not just an extension of the mixing process, you may have good success. If you just want to plug in a box or an all in one SW and select from a few presets, best save your money to send it out to the pros.
In addition to the above recommendations, check out some of the affordable plugins by Voxengo, digitalfishphones, and the more expensive DSP solutions by UAD and TC Powercore. Sony ports some of their Oxford EQ and dynamics to the Powercore platform, and that stuff is the real deal. UAD does great emulations of some of the classic analog greats. Also, you can't go wrong with the overpriced but very good Waves mastering plugins like the C4 Multiband.

Good luck,
RD
 
I'm all about getting experience with the tools, but let's try to avoid "band-aid" tools like maul-the-band compression...

I'm STILL wondering when multiband compression became a default mastering tool... Don't get me wrong - If there's something that's severely wrong enough with the mix that it would require MBC, I'm all about plugging one in.

But for smashing the crap out of a mix...

Sorry, venting again... :o
 
i am with massive on all his comments. I never master my own recording if there is any budget for mastering, but I would not hire a mastering guy if he did all his mastering with digital gear especially all plug ins.
 
Massive Master said:
I'm all about getting experience with the tools, but let's try to avoid "band-aid" tools like maul-the-band compression...

I'm STILL wondering when multiband compression became a default mastering tool... Don't get me wrong - If there's something that's severely wrong enough with the mix that it would require MBC, I'm all about plugging one in.

But for smashing the crap out of a mix...

Sorry, venting again... :o
Click to expand...


John,
With all due respect, and I really do mean that, the assertion that someone who reaches for an MBC is going to smash the crap out of things with it is more than a little presumptive. Like any tool, it's how you use it, and MBCs can and should be used surgically, not in a band-aid, squash the crap out of it approach. It's amazing to me that finalizers and t-rax type wonder toys escaped your ire, and a once the exclusive realm of the mastering engineer tool like the MBC drew it. Did one fall on your foot and leave you forever bitter?
I raised it not because it's the default mastering tool, but because unlike high end EQ's and such, it's a tool that requires a different level of thought than the usual mixing tools, and someone who can understand and effectively use one is likely to grasp the concept of mastering. Conversely, someone who can't get past the presets on an MBC plug should not venture into these waters, and might realize it.
Have a better day,
-RD
 
I've never had luck with a mbc. I mean, using it correctly, which bands are you trying to compress more than others??
 
Robert D said:
John,
With all due respect, and I really do mean that, the assertion that someone who reaches for an MBC is going to smash the crap out of things with it is more than a little presumptive. Like any tool, it's how you use it, and MBCs can and should be used surgically, not in a band-aid, squash the crap out of it approach. It's amazing to me that finalizers and t-rax type wonder toys escaped your ire, and a once the exclusive realm of the mastering engineer tool like the MBC drew it. Did one fall on your foot and leave you forever bitter?
I raised it not because it's the default mastering tool, but because unlike high end EQ's and such, it's a tool that requires a different level of thought than the usual mixing tools, and someone who can understand and effectively use one is likely to grasp the concept of mastering. Conversely, someone who can't get past the presets on an MBC plug should not venture into these waters, and might realize it.
Have a better day,
-RD
Click to expand...
I'm sure John will have his response to this, but if I'm not mistaken he dislikes finalizers just as much if not more than MBCs. ;)

I have nothing against MBCs, but I personally find it equally as "presumptive" that one should commonly be used as a mastering tool. My pro specialty is mixing, not mastering (I don't have the top shelf gear for top shelf mastering), but tube for tube I can do a pretty good mastering job and have done so for some time now. I almost never use an MBC. Not because I don't know how, but because I have no need to.

If you and others use MBCs and get good results, more power to you. That great. But the idea that an MBC or a limiter should automatically be part of the mastering recipe for any recording is pablum that patronizes those who want this craft to be easier than it actually is, and does a complete disservice to those looking for the truth.

Around this forum when one mentiones "mastering", everybody immediately screams out "limiter!" and "MBC!" as if no matter what the mix sounds like you have to apply a certain minimal amount of either of those or you're just not a real mastering engineer. This is an extension of two basic and completly incorrect presumptions that are rampant among the crowd: that "louder is better" and that 90% of the music out there is some flavor of hard rock or heavy metal.

Sometimes those who work in factually deeper waters than that get tired of swimming against such tabloid riptides on our weaker days.

End of rant.

G.
 
Wow, those MBCs must have fallen on a few toes! And I must not be communicating very well. Glen, I don't do hard rock/heavy metal, and I don't take part in the level wars. Most of the music I work and play with is more acoustic natured, with instruments ranging from guitars (acoustic and electric), piano, various drums and percussion, mandolin, violin, violla, cello...........you get the idea. I never said that an MBC should automatically be part of mastering, why are you putting words in my mouth? I also never claimed to be a mastering engineer.
One more time........I raised MBC not because it's THE mastering tool, but because any fool can buy an expensive EQ or a maximizer and think he's mastering. MBCs take a lot more thought than that.

Sorry to piss you guys off,
RD
 
FALKEN said:
I've never had luck with a mbc. I mean, using it correctly, which bands are you trying to compress more than others??
Click to expand...

Falken,
that would entirely depend on the mix. The whole idea with a multiband comp is that if the bass is too dynamic you can tame it without affecting the mids and highs, or vice versa. With a single band comp, once any freq trips the threshold, all frequencies are gain reduced evenly. With a multiband, you can band center the main offending frequency, narrow the bandwidth to the necessary amount, and reduce the dynamics of the problem freq band, leaving the rest of the program unaffected. That's the surgical use. You might also just want different overall levels of compression or limiting on different bands. Or you might not need or want it at all.

-RD
 
Robert D said:
One more time........I raised MBC not because it's THE mastering tool, but because any fool can buy an expensive EQ or a maximizer and think he's mastering. MBCs take a lot more thought than that.

Sorry to piss you guys off,
RD
Click to expand...
That's Mr. Fool to you ! :D
 
Robert D said:
Wow, those MBCs must have fallen on a few toes! And I must not be communicating very well. Glen, I don't do hard rock/heavy metal, and I don't take part in the level wars. Most of the music I work and play with is more acoustic natured, with instruments ranging from guitars (acoustic and electric), piano, various drums and percussion, mandolin, violin, violla, cello...........you get the idea. I never said that an MBC should automatically be part of mastering, why are you putting words in my mouth? I also never claimed to be a mastering engineer.
One more time........I raised MBC not because it's THE mastering tool, but because any fool can buy an expensive EQ or a maximizer and think he's mastering. MBCs take a lot more thought than that.

Sorry to piss you guys off,
RD
Click to expand...
Rob,

You didn't piss me off. :) What pisses me off (an a lot of other folks too) is the whole volume wars/compress everything to DC foolishness that is so pervasive on this forum. It's got some sensibilities so raw that when someone brushes against those sensibilities, we might admittedly overreact on bad days.

I have just re-read your post and I see now how I may have misinterpreted your identification of the MBC as "the default mastering tool" and "once the exclusive realm of the mastering engineer." If you meant that it's actually NOT "the default mastering tool", then it was my mistake.

And yes, of course MBCs have only in the past six years or so trickled down to the project level, before which they were pretty much the realm of the big houses, your'e right about that. When that phrase was combined with the inverse interpretation of the "default" statement mentioned above, however, that caused me to misinterpret further. I read the two together as saying "MBCs are the default tool for mastering which until recently were used as such mostly by professional mastering engineers."

And for the record, I never meant to accuse you of being a headbanger with tunnel vision. :) I was referring to one the root causes of the "compress to DC" phenomenon in general

The noise level with regard to the uses of compression is so damn high on this board that your signal had gotten distorted and buried. Sorry about that. :)

That said, however, if the trends on this board in any way accurately reflect what's going on the the home recording sphere in general, I'll maintain that there is WAY too much use of and dependance upon limiters and compressors (and any whizbang plugins in general, FTM) out there as crutches used in leiu of using good technique. And I'll continue to wax Quixotic about that.

And no, I'm not accusing you of that. :) You just unfortunately became a victim of the noise.

G.
 
Robert - I certainly didn't mean to sound like I think that everyone who grabs an MBC is going to smash their mixes - But in my experience, that's what most people do with them. There is SO little use for MBC's in mastering, and yet everyone has them very high on their list of "must haves" for some odd reason.

Of course, they have thier uses, rare as they are. But I have to disagree with your assertion of - "...because any fool can buy an expensive EQ or a maximizer and think he's mastering. MBCs take a lot more thought than that."

I think the average MBC user throws them on for the very reason that you can "hype" a mix easily with it with very little knowledge or thought of what's happening to the mix. They're easily the most abused processor around. Basically the same reason I'm not a fan of the Finalizer. I don't think the unit itself is bad - I think most people that have them abuse them. I remember getting one right off the bat when they came out. And while with careful use it was a decent tool, it seemed to be little more than a "loud-maker" box after a while.

But as far as taking "more thought" - If a band comes in and say "Hey, we need a mix to be 'radio-ready' in three minutes!" the first (and probably ONLY) thing I'll grab for is a MBC - Because I don't have to think about it. I can just ram it through, and tweak it for about 10 seconds. It won't be pretty, but it'll be "okay."

Just like instant soup.
 
good points from all

hi guys, and thanks for all the responses. very interesting debates on software vs hardware. i usually give my mixes out for mastering cause i have no clue how to do or get one done and of course want the final mix to sound as pro as possible when played on a home system.
but there's no harm in just starting to learn how mastering works and keep experimenting and doing stuff for myself rather than my clients. reading from all the post here in this forum i can see mastering to pro level isn't that easy as the "word" sounds.
but before i go and spend huge amount of $$ on something for a starter when pretty much the same thing could be accomplished for alot less with a software setup, i was just little confused. but i guess for starters the software seems to be the way to go as it doesn't cost too much and not much to loose in terms of $$. i guess we are a home recording studio that is jsust recording local talent so that they ccan have their songs on cd like the pro's and display them in their home or even make copies and distribute to friends and say, "see i have a cd released" ... heheheheheh~~~~~ :D
thanks guys for all the input and the great conversations.
 
A person can do a lot of damage very quickly with a multi band compressor. I think it is something that is hard to master, probably much harder than a "regular" compressor/limiter.

I know for me personally I'm just starting to get a hang for compression, and I'm not talking multiband. It's taken years to get as far as I have, and I think multi band compression is just that much more technical and requiring that much greater "ear-ability".

I've stayed away from multibands, don't use them at all. Not that they aren't a good tool, but I think you have to have some expertise and perhaps a knack for them. Just tossing in a plugin and going with some presets or tweaking presets without *really* understanding what's going on can lead to some bad stuff with multibands, in my opinion.
 
Massive Master said:
I'm a hardware type - I *should* say that I'm an analog hardware type. Even a Finalizer is basically software - It's a digital box, running digital processing. The compressor is not an analog compressor and the EQ is not an analog EQ.

Not that there aren't some fine digital hardware pieces out there... Weiss, TC's "good" stuff (like the 6000), etc...

But yeah, the more I tried to go digital, the more I ended up embracing analog again.
Click to expand...

interesting . . . . . i have to ask something here . .
do finalizers have converters built into them. converting analog to digital or separate digital converters are used along with the finalizers.
i use an analog console and send everything into a separate hard disk recorder. i don't use any external convertors cause i though my hard disk recorder converters the analog signal and then record them onto the disk digital. . . .
opppss ... i guess this is going off topic now. maybe time to jump into another forum and post. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top