mastering in SF

  • Thread starter Thread starter bean 123
  • Start date Start date
B

bean 123

New member
I use SF entirely as a 2 track finalizer. I wonder what plug ins are best used to master songs. I use the waves C1 comp( usually opto type), eq, and reverbs. I have experimented with the enhancers, ultramaximzer, but am unclear of their real impact. What comression ratios,attacks,etc are best used on final mixes?
What is the ultramaximzer? Should I use the normalizer to expand or boost my raw signal once recorded? These are all things I've done with som good, some bad results and would be really interested on other insights
 
You might be better off (and get more responses) by placing this thread in the MIXING AND MASTERING section of this site. :)

spin
 
Luckily, you made a good choice with the Waves line of software plugins. Just about everything you should need is right there.

The enhancers and the like are all just icing. Try 'em out, and if you like them, use them, and if not, then no big-deal.

The compression this plugin offers is truly outstanding as far as software plugins are concerned. For your purposes, though, I would stay away from the compressors and focus your attention on the Ultramaximizer. This tool is for mastering, while the others are more useful for individual tracks. It will quickly become your best friend.

What it is designed to do is boost (maximize) the volume of your work. It really acts like a compressor in that it boosts your quiet parts, and limits your peaks. The beauty is that with a normal compressor, limiting can sometimes sound rather harsh -- like your sound is kind of hitting a brick wall and stopping dead in it's tracks when it hits it's limit (and sometimes distorts during the process).

The maximizer will increase your volume and act as a limiter without the harsh side-effects.

Setting the threshold:

Depends on how loud your music is. You'll want to watch the input meter on the left side, and move the "cursor" up and down untill you find your spot. It's really a combination of your ear and your intuition. The cursor will set your "ceiling," so to speak, where the limiter will kick in. Watch your levels, and ask yourself: "Where on this meter are the levels usually hanging out at?" Does it usually hover around -4, with an occasional jump to -1? If so, then set your cursor at about -4 or -5. You get the idea . . . but play with it. Your ear knows best.

Setting Output Level (meter on the right): For mastering, crank it up as far as it will go without clipping -- Bring it all the way up, and then down just a fraction of a hair.

Hit the okay button, and you're done.

Now your stuff will sound good an loud, like what you hear on the radio and on your CDs.

NO NEED TO USE THE NORMALIZE BUTTON. It's a waste of time, and I've heard advice from many in the know to stay away from it.

C4 :

I forget if it's the C3 or C4 . . . anyhow, this is the multi-band compressor. What this allows you to do is apply all sorts of compression to particular frequency ranges. It's pretty advanced stuff. This kind of tool is great for fixing things like harsh siblances (use it as a de-esser, or if the crash cymbol gets out of hand at times) or plosives ("p" sounds from an overly aggressive vocalist).

Why not just cut the frequency a bit using EQ? You can do that, but suppose that particular frequency is only problematic during certain parts of the song (like cybal crashes or snare hits)? That's where this tool comes in handy, acting as a compressor only for that problematic frequency, while leaving the others untouched.

I could go in to it all, but it would take a while. I would ask for help on these types of things if and when you encounter a problem, because fixing problems is mostly what this tool is for.

Hope this helped.
 
I just finished reading "The Mastering Engineer's Handbook", by Bobby Owsiniski. (He also wrote "The Mixing Engineer's Handbook")

It should be required reading by anyone who is tempted to call the home-grown post-mix process of using their DAW plug-ins to tweak their mixes "MASTERING." No excuses.

If you are performing "DIY mastering", you ARE NOT "MASTERING". Period. Argue all you want, hate my guts for saying it - the plug-ins are NOT "good enough", and they don't even come close to the true mastering art which is firmly rooted in a Mastering Engineer's ears. Although very important, the high-end gear is only a portion of the real mastering process. The biggest part comes from the objective experience of the engineer, who's heard many many good and bad mixes and is in the unique position to make educated tonal adjustments to your mix that you yourself would never ever hear (since you would be too close to your own work!)

SO flame away.... IMNSHO, mastering can NEVER be a home-grown process.............

Bruce
 
The Big Bad Bear is absolutly correct Sir.:D
 
If you insist . . .

I guess I'll start flaming, then. : )

So a guy reads a book, and all of a sudden, he's too good for software plugins. I guess for that matter, you could say that recording on a home digital recorder really isn't recording . . . or that playing on a $500 Strat really isn't playing . . .

Unless you've got yourself a Mac with a gazillion gigabytes of memory, a lightning-speed processor, and a $20K Pro Tools setup, then home recording, mixing, and mastering are all tools for the novice on a limited budget.

Untill we win the lottery or land that dream job, then I'm afraid software plugins and P.C.'s are about the best options available to us common folk. I suppose you could probably work magic on my recordings after reading that book of yours, Professor, but how much are you going to charge me by the hour for your expertise and objective ear?
 
Blue Bear Sound doesn't use any plug-ins, since I am not DAW-based.... my rates are posted at http://www.bluebearsound.com, which is a recording/mixing facility, NOT a mastering facility.

One of my pet peeves (as noted in many of my previous posts) is "home mastering". And I've commented many times against it - reading this last book has simply strengthened my opinion to the point of requiring a rant on the subject.

Join the DDIAHACIM society today!

(DDIAHACIM - DON'T-DO-IT-AT-HOME-AND-CALL-IT-MASTERING)

Bruce
 
Last edited:
Chess and Bruce,

You're both right....

Most of us here are trying to do our best with what we have. Guys like Bruce are kind enough to help us along in the quest for a "good recording". But remember, these people have years of experience and tons of knowledge, so you've gotta give 'em some slack when they feel it is necessary to smack one us upside the head with the harsh reality of truth that no matter how good we get with our plugins, we aren't doing as good a job as someone with years of experience, and tons of gear. I think the real key is not only the 'ear' but also the 'gear'. The ear tells them which gear to use. The mastering process is different each time, based on the source material and then engineer's response to that source.

Now where can I get that Bob Ludwig plugin? Is that DirectX or VST?

Queue
 
Fine, I won't call it mastering, then . . .

Personally, I didn't find anything helpful in what Blue Ball had to say at all. It seemed like his only purpose was to come in here and be a snob. Kind of like a guy who owns a Royce going up to a guy who owns a mustang and saying "Please don't call your pathetic piece of crap a sports car."

Nice shameless plug for your studio, by the way.

If you can suggest an alternate term I can use that isn't too many syllables, and is easy to remember, then I will call it that.

How about "quasi-mastering?"

Used in a sentence:

"Yea, I just got done Q-mastering some pretty good stuff, the other day. Sounds great." "But not as good, obviously, as if I had done some REAL mastering like that Blue Bear guy does."

It's a little easier to say than "almost-but-not-quite-mastering," or "abnq-mastering."

Maybe "wannabee - mastering?" But then w-mastering is a little harder to say than q-mastering.

Your help would be appreciated . . . as I have obviously been blindly misinformed into believing that when I am creating my masters, that I am in fact using the wrong term to describe what I am really, in fact, doing.
 
Chess,
I'd continue to use the term "Mastering", because technically that is what you are doing. Just remember, even though this place is called HomeRecording.com there is a significant number of posts by professionals here. This is a good thing, because they often contribute with highly informational posts. Just ignore the non-helpful posts and keep on reading....

Personally, I'm still trying to get my mixes right....
After that, I'll look into those waves plugins, cuz I'm just having fun, and can't afford "Real Mastering".

I dunno if this guy is any good, but there's some good info on his website: http://www.johnvestman.com/index.html

Queue
 
Re: Fine, I won't call it mastering, then . . .

chessrock said:
Nice shameless plug for your studio, by the way.
OH FUCK YOU........... at almost 1700 posts as BBS and another 1200 as bvaleria, I've been around here long enough that I hardly need to gratuitiously "plug" my studio. :rolleyes:

And if you've bothered to read any of my posts at all, I simply tell it like it is - hardly a snob...

You don't like hearing the truth, then be happy in your ignorance.

Bruce
 
Thanks, Queue !

"Just ignore the non-helpful posts and keep on reading.... "

You mean the ones from guys who post under several names, kindly REMINDING us how inferior our gear is, and who resort to potty-mouthed profanity because they have nothing constructive or "professional" to say?

Cool. Will do. Thanks for the tip.
 
Re: Thanks, Queue !

chessrock said:
You mean the ones from guys who post under several names, kindly REMINDING us how inferior our gear is, and who resort to potty-mouthed profanity because they have nothing constructive or "professional" to say?
Yeah... whatever....

*sheesh* :rolleyes:
 
Challenge . . .

In hindsight, I can also understand that Blue Bear's previous posts were intended for those who may be under the false perception that "Hey, we got computers to do this stuff for us. Now, all I have to do is buy a cheap PC or Mac, get a copy of Sonar, and I, too, can be a professional Mastering Engineer." -- Obviously a delusionist theory.

Still, I must say that there are some mighty impressive things one can do with some of these software plugins.

I am willing to say that a person with a good ear, some quality software plugins, and a ton of patience can churn out some very acceptable work. Acceptable in the sense that the "average listener" may not notice a whole lot of difference between the professionally-mastered stuff and the home-grown.

So here is my challenge: Blue Bear (or an objective third-party) picks a poorly-produced song. Any song that is commercially available (and that doesn't have any known remasters available). Each of us has a week to play with it, and hopefully come up with an improved version/remaster. Blue Bear, the seasoned pro with all of his tools and know-how, takes on Chessrock, the amateur working out of his bedroom. Each of us posts our revised versions in mp3 format . . . and hopefully an unbiased group of forum visitors (regulars and newbies) get to vote on the quality of each.

Obviously, I'm sure we all know who the winner will be. But I seriously believe I can beat a fair point spread without difficulty. On a quality scale of 1 to 10, I believe I can come within 2 to 3 points of your work. And if not, I will eat my words and send my demo to BlueBear for mastering and pay full price for your services.

If I succeed and come within 3 points, then Blue Bear masters my demo for free.

In the unlikely scenario that my mix actually receives higher overall marks, then Blue Bear has to sell me his studio for $100.

Just kidding.

If Blue Bear does not feel he is up to the challenge, then I issue this same challenge to any other forum regular who wishes to participate.

Who's in?
 
Now this, I GOTTA see!

Chess,
Depends on how far Bear will go to prove a point...

Not sure about the logistics either... Bruce might bite if it were merely a "Gentlemen's Bet".

You might need to use a non-commercially available mix of something, because of copyrights?

An important point:
The judging should be blinded. An example: all entrants send me the masters. I give them generic names, hell maybe even put the original back into the running, and let people grade them unbiased. I'd have to exclude myself from judging, but I don't know shit anyhow :confused: .

Queue
 
Sounds great . . .

I'm definitely open to suggestions.

The reason I wanted to do a commercially-available tune is because I don't want anyone to be able to cheat. Like I could pick one of my songs, send you a crappy version as the original, and then send you a good version as my remake.

Then again, alot of commercial CDs have these remastered editions available, so that could be a problem.

Anyone who has any ideas on this -- post away. I think it would be totally fun. Even if I get my a$$ kicked . . . I'm no stranger to wiping a little bit of egg off my face from time to time. :o)
 
From an experimental point of view, I'm interested.... 2 big BUTs though...

1) I'm NOT a mastering engineering and never professed to be one - I send stuff out to be mastered...
2) There is little point "re-mastering" a commercial release - it would have been mastered to the best it could before release.

For a real test, we should use a mix of someone's personal material (final mix, but not yet "mastered") state. For equality, it should be available as a WAV file or CD (as opposed to MP3 - which messes things up long before we even start).

Oh, and a 3rd point -
3) I'm a busy guy, and right now I'm swamped - I'd need more than a week to fit it in to my schedule - say 3 weeks.

OH yeah... definitely gentlemen's bet - my rates are already inexpensive enough, I'm already practically giving it away! ;)

Bruce
 
You're on . . .

Sounds like a plan.

I'm far from a mastering engineer, myself, so that helps even out the score slightly, I suppose.

As far as commercial releases go, I can think of many that have been done awfully poor. Old Genesis (with Peter Gabriel) and some of Hendrix's stuff sound simply attrocious -- although the musicianship is brilliant in both cases, don't get me wrong.

But yea, three weeks would be cool. I guess we should start soliciting forum visitors for some material? Have them forward it to Queue? Might be a real fun way to plug your studio. :) Just kidding, Bruce!
 
Back
Top