order of processing

[jmorris]

This is I'm sure old talk but I've noticed when I "master" a song it makes a difference at least in the wave forms which process I add first. What does everyone here do and in what order? Compress,Normalize,EQ ETC. I of course understand the "what" part of the question is dependant on the song and its rerquirements. Lets say it needed help in all 3 areas. What first?

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

First all... normalizing is NEVER used in mastering....

And you EQ, compress, limit only as the song warrants. Multiband-compression can be used in place of EQ in certain cases, so it very much depends on what processing the particular track requires.

Limiting, is pretty much the last step, assuming you're using it to bring overall levels up.

 

[jmorris]

if you had to

"I of course understand the "what" part of the question is dependant on the song and its rerquirements."

Im saying if you had to use all,what order.I thought everyone Normalizes? Maybe that is why I thought it sounded like shit on the entire mix I do limit at the end! Thats a plus!

 

[TexRoadkill]

The general rule would be compress, EQ then limit. You usually EQ after compression because if you EQ first it will change your compression response and you'll end up chasing your tail. With that said all I ever do is some slight limiting and very slight EQ if needed (usually something in the low end). If I need any more than that it's time to remix.

 

[masteringhouse]

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with the general principle of EQ after compression. Usually EQ is done first to remove "bumps" in the frequencies that would cause the compressor to react to something that it shouldn't, for example subfrequencies in the kick drum.

There are times when you may want to add a bit of EQ after compression to make-up a loss in high end due to transients being compressed, but there are other techniques around this such as parallel compression, and adaptive processing.

 

[TexRoadkill]

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with the general principle of EQ after compression. Usually EQ is done first to remove "bumps" in the frequencies that would cause the compressor to react to something that it shouldn't, for example subfrequencies in the kick drum.

There are times when you may want to add a bit of EQ after compression to make-up a loss in high end due to transients being compressed, but there are other techniques around this such as parallel compression, and adaptive processing.

A lot of that depends on whether you use digital or analog systems. On a DAW you can pretty much do it in any order you like. With analog EQ and compression where you truly have them chained together than EQ before compression can drastically change what is triggering the compression. As you EQ the compression response changes so you change the comp settings then realize you don't like the EQ so you change the EQ then the comp changes again...

I wouldn't bother mastering in a DAW anyway but that's a whole nother issue.

 

[masteringhouse]

A lot of that depends on whether you use digital or analog systems. On a DAW you can pretty much do it in any order you like. With analog EQ and compression where you truly have them chained together than EQ before compression can drastically change what is triggering the compression. As you EQ the compression response changes so you change the comp settings then realize you don't like the EQ so you change the EQ then the comp changes again...

I don't see the difference if it's analog or digital. In the case of my example, if there are sub harmonic frequencies pumping up the bottom end a compressor is going to react to these whether analog or digital. Later you will most likely want filter out these sub frequencies if they are overbearing. As a result you have the compressor previously reacting to something that isn’t going to exist in the final product, pumping away at nothing.

There’s a good chapter in Bobby Owsinski’s book “The Mastering Engineer’s Handbook” that goes into signal paths for mastering. Recommended path is EQ -> compressor for both digital and analog.

I wouldn't bother mastering in a DAW anyway but that's a whole nother issue.

What would you use then? Sonic Solutions, Sadie, Pro Tools, and other DAWs are what are used by most mastering engineers. If you're going to CD I don't see much choice.

 

[TexRoadkill]

I don't see the difference if it's analog or digital. In the case of my example, if there are sub harmonic frequencies pumping up the bottom end a compressor is going to react to these whether analog or digital. Later you will most likely want filter out these sub frequencies if they are overbearing. As a result you have the compressor previously reacting to something that isn’t going to exist in the final product, pumping away at nothing.

What would you use then? Sonic Solutions, Sadie, Pro Tools, and other DAWs are what are used by most mastering engineers. If you're going to CD I don't see much choice.

The main difference between digital and analog mastering is that usually digital is done in seperate multiple passes and analog is done as a chain. That's not always the case but every engineer I have talked to always EQ's after compression when they are done in series.

I'm not opposed to digital audio for assembling. I use a Radar for recording and editing. I just prefer analog EQ's and compressors to plugins. Why go with a modelled plug in when you can get the real thing? Sometimes digital limiters can be better because of their look ahead abilities. I sure as hell wouldn't pay money to get a project mastered in PT.

 

[masteringhouse]

The main difference between digital and analog mastering is that usually digital is done in seperate multiple passes and analog is done as a chain. That's not always the case but every engineer I have talked to always EQ's after compression when they are done in series.

Huh? There's no reason why you can't chain digital processors in the same way as analog. You may be used to lower-end processing programs that require this, for example Sound Forge which requires multiple passes for processing. Pro Tool allows you to chain any mixture of outboard analog and digital gear along with plug-ins. You can also use the Z-Sys digital detangler for chaining digital gear together.

I'm not opposed to digital audio for assembling. I use a Radar for recording and editing. I just prefer analog EQ's and compressors to plugins. Why go with a modelled plug in when you can get the real thing? Sometimes digital limiters can be better because of their look ahead abilities. I sure as hell wouldn't pay money to get a project mastered in PT.

The best (IMHO) is a hybrid of both. There are things that analog is good for, and things that digital is good for. There is more to digital processing than plugins. A good outboard digital EQ (I'm talking the Weiss EQ1 variety) will give you less phase distortion than analog. These units cost upwards of $4,500 and there is a reason for it. There are times however when this type of phase distortion gives digital an analog quality, which is probably why you like it since you are recording on a digital medium.

In the plugin world, Waves Mastering Bundle has a great set of EQs as well as the Waves Renaissance Equalizer. These aren't "modelled" after anything, they are great EQs in their own right.

In regards to mastering with Pro Tools, you would be surprised what albums were mastered on this platform. Just check Bob Olhsson's credits.