Mastering choice. hardware or software

[SouthSIDE Glen]

hi guys, and thanks for all the responses. very interesting debates on software vs hardware.
...
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.

Mod,

Sorry to hijack your thread a bit there with the compression rant. But that did serve to show some of the issues involved in "mastering" a recording, and that true mastering technique is not as simple as "make it louder".

Ti address your questions directly, though, I think there are two important points in the software vs. hardware issue: price and talent...

First is the immutable law of physics that permiates every aspect of our lives, but really shows up in hiigh resolution in this topic and that is "You Don't Get What You Don't Pay For." Here that translates into the fact that the hardware route is generally higher quality then the software rout, but it's going to cost a lot more. It also translates into the idea that there is a huge difference in quality between an Oxford EQ emulator plugin in software and the parametric EQ software plugins supplied with most editor software; there is also a huge difference in price. But even the Oxford plugin will not be as good (though probably extremely close) as the real Oxford hardware, all other things being equal.

Second is that an experienced mastering engineer can often do a better job with freeware software than a rookie could do with a $500K mastering suite. No matter how good the hardware, if you don't know how to use it right, it's useless. Put a layperson in a state-of-the-art operating room with the best instruments, the best imaging systems, etc. and they'll still kill the patient. On the other hand, a good doctor can do a lot with nothing but a pocket knife, hot water, a towel and a home-repair needle and thread.

Pu these two together and I'd say yeah, go ahead and start with the smaller, more comfortable budget and work on technique. Once you have basic technique down to the point where you think the quality of your instruments is starting to limit you, then you can start upgrading to some bigger and better stuff if you wish.

G.

 

[Robert D]

John, Glen,
Semi apologies accepted. A couple of points:

"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." "

Agree to disagree, but the PROPER use of a multiband comp does take real thought and understanding. An MBC is nothing more than a set of band pass filters (*) with each band followed by a comp/limiter, each leading into a summing amp. When you understand it that way, not as a season all spice, then it is a useful pre-configured set of tools. That's why I brought it up in the first place, because someone who takes the time to understand that and how to effectively and selectively solve problems with it is probably capable of understanding mastering.

"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."

My point exactly. Remember, I initially said "If you can wrap your mind around the concept". The problem is people don't, and those people shouldn't be trying to master.

"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." "

So the only time you'll use it is to use it wrong the way most people do? What do you do when there's a note that keeps popping out of the mix, too often to selectively edit it, but you don't want to just eq it away along with everything else at that frequency, and you don't want the whole mix squashed and pumping from using a single band dynamic to fix it? Of course this should have been fixed at the track level, but it wasn't, and they need the master now. Hello MBC.

"But even the Oxford plugin will not be as good (though probably extremely close) as the real Oxford hardware, all other things being equal."

Keep in mind that the real Oxford EQ is software, not hardware, running on DSPs inside the console. Whether Sony ported the exact same code to run on the DSPs on the Powercore I couldn't tell you. But this is not a case of software emulating the real hardware.

I mean all this as constructive discussion, not to argue with you all. I think a great tool has gotten so abused by so many people that it's gotten a bum rap, and even really good mastering engineers like John have lost sight of what it was originally designed for.

Regards,
RD

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Keep in mind that the real Oxford EQ is software, not hardware, running on DSPs inside the console. Whether Sony ported the exact same code to run on the DSPs on the Powercore I couldn't tell you. But this is not a case of software emulating the real hardware.

Well, I suppose this is splitting semantic hairs a bit, but the fact that the original Oxford runs on - and only on - required seperate DSP hardware to me makes it a hardware device. I suppose it might most accurately be called a "hybrid" device.

Though I have not bothered to mention it before, I have the same problem when the UAD-1 package is referred to as a "plugin". Yes, it acts juts like a plugin in the UI, and (more flippantly) the DSP card is a "plug-in" card. But it in my mind it is really a whole 'nother animal altogether from a software plugin.

G.

 

[Robert D]

Well, I suppose this is splitting semantic hairs a bit, but the fact that the original Oxford runs on - and only on - required seperate DSP hardware to me makes it a hardware device. I suppose it might most accurately be called a "hybrid" device.

Though I have not bothered to mention it before, I have the same problem when the UAD-1 package is referred to as a "plugin". Yes, it acts juts like a plugin in the UI, and (more flippantly) the DSP card is a "plug-in" card. But it in my mind it is really a whole 'nother animal altogether from a software plugin.

G.

Glen,
yes, it's a bit of a grey area, and the line between hardware and software isn't as clear these days, unless it's analog hardware of course. Anyway, it's all a bit about bits. It sounds pretty damn good on the P-Core, but I've never heard the original to compare. You always have to wonder if they deliberately held back some of the quality, let alone how it translates to the different host hardware.
-RD

 

[Massive Master]

I mean all this as constructive discussion, not to argue with you all. I think a great tool has gotten so abused by so many people that it's gotten a bum rap, and even really good mastering engineers like John have lost sight of what it was originally designed for.

No, I think most people that use them have no idea what they were designed for. I appreciate them for what they do, and use them for mixes that "ask" for them - I have no problem at all with that. But search any forums about "secret mastering tools" and you'll almost always find "Mastering engineers all use MBC's on almost everything" - Which is just absurd. Any thread on "What's your regular mastering chain?" - (which is a goofy statement to begin with) is usually followed by throngs of people saying "an EQ, a MBC, and..." They have a MBC in the chain as a default processor whether the mix needs it or not.

95 times out of 100, you can almost bet that I'm going to go through an analog chain. But I don't even decide THAT until after I've heard the mixes.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Glen,
yes, it's a bit of a grey area, and the line between hardware and software isn't as clear these days, unless it's analog hardware of course. Anyway, it's all a bit about bits. It sounds pretty damn good on the P-Core, but I've never heard the original to compare. You always have to wonder if they deliberately held back some of the quality, let alone how it translates to the different host hardware.
-RD

Agreed. I probably would have been better served to use an 1176 software emulator vs. the original analog iron as an example instead of the Oxford, which brought us into this little side-eddy.

Just for the sake of conversation, though, I don't know if they are using the identical core modeling algorithms in both products or not either. But what I'm also not sure of is how the code that they have to wrap those core algoritms in in order to have it talk with the diifferent flavor of hardware microcode, different FPU structures etc. may or may not change the flavor of the sound.

I'd have to think that, though they may strive to make the closest software clone possible, differences in the DNA of the hardware would have to impose at least some artifacting in the result. Things like differences in floating point accuracy, regsiter widths, microcode instruction differences, etc. are bound to have some effect on the value of some of the lesser-signifigant bits. Whether it's enough to be audible or appreciable or not, I couldn't say.

G.

 

[fraserhutch]

Well, I suppose this is splitting semantic hairs a bit, but the fact that the original Oxford runs on - and only on - required seperate DSP hardware to me makes it a hardware device. I suppose it might
G.

Actually, to really split hairs, software running on a dedicated dsp chip in hardware is the definition of digital hardware . I would suspect that even if it were running on a general-purpose CPU it would still be considered outboard gear.

Which pretty much describes digital outboard gear.

 

[kylen]

Does anyone know of some commercially mastered CDs using only plugins I can pick up over at Tower Records or somewhere to listen for myself?

AFAIK nothing beats analog hardware mastering for the sound I prefer. I don't own a lick of it myself...

 

[Robert D]

No, I think most people that use them have no idea what they were designed for. I appreciate them for what they do, and use them for mixes that "ask" for them - I have no problem at all with that. But search any forums about "secret mastering tools" and you'll almost always find "Mastering engineers all use MBC's on almost everything" - Which is just absurd. Any thread on "What's your regular mastering chain?" - (which is a goofy statement to begin with) is usually followed by throngs of people saying "an EQ, a MBC, and..." They have a MBC in the chain as a default processor whether the mix needs it or not.

95 times out of 100, you can almost bet that I'm going to go through an analog chain. But I don't even decide THAT until after I've heard the mixes.

Understood. I've seen phony mastering engineers go at it like they're spreading canned frosting on a cake. And yes, the weapon of choice in this crime is all too often the MBC, followed up by a maximizer.

RD

 

[jmorris]

I heard The Beatles "Here comes the Sun" yesterday on the radio and noticed the intro acc. guitar was so soft. I thought, in todays world, that would have never cut it in the mix. Then I realised, the entire song sounded a few db. lower than the rest of the tunes I had been listening to on the radio. Like years ago with mixes you heard the drums,kick but nothing like now with the IN YOUR FACE kind of thing. You heard them, almost had to search a little to hear them but that was almost the point to me. You had to really listen to hear the cool stuff. I can think of many great albums that have little "mistakes" or "moments" than could never be duplicated but they were great.Like Sgt. Peppers reprise, at the begining you can hear a faint "bye!" It was part of the art.

 

[masteringhouse]

Why hardware or software?

Often times a hybrid of the two is the best approach. Generally speaking:

Digital outboard/software for neutrality and detail.
Analog for character and color.

 

[tkingen]

I heard The Beatles "Here comes the Sun" yesterday on the radio and noticed the intro acc. guitar was so soft. I thought, in todays world, that would have never cut it in the mix. Then I realised, the entire song sounded a few db. lower than the rest of the tunes I had been listening to on the radio. Like years ago with mixes you heard the drums,kick but nothing like now with the IN YOUR FACE kind of thing. You heard them, almost had to search a little to hear them but that was almost the point to me. You had to really listen to hear the cool stuff. I can think of many great albums that have little "mistakes" or "moments" than could never be duplicated but they were great.Like Sgt. Peppers reprise, at the begining you can hear a faint "bye!" It was part of the art.

Your post rings a bell because I've been listening heavily to Rubber Soul and Revolver for lessons in engineering and mixing. Wonderful, gorgeous music and recording work. On that IN YOUR FACE thing - it's hard to imagine why so much modern music insists on that approach. It's like someone yelling at you from 3'' away. I'm sure that all those "artists" who insist on that IN YOUR FACE thing wouldn't allow someone to YELL LIKE THAT TO THEM IN REAL LIFE!!!!