Recording Engineers Mastered Version Of Paralle

  • Thread starter Thread starter sonusman
  • Start date Start date
sonusman

sonusman

Banned
I made sure to ask his permission to post this. He of course gave the okay.

Recently, mastering came up in different forums, as it does from time to time. Anyway, if any of you have downloaded the original version of Paralle, then you may want to check this one out.

I used WaveLab 2.0 with only the native plugins. Also used GoldWave to fix a few minor things as WaveLab cannot be trusted for absolute reference.

So, here's what I did.

The song had to of course be converted back to .wav format to provide better processing control. Did this with the Save As function in GoldWave, but only after I used GW to trim the front and back of the tune. Also, I used the Dynamics function in GW to get rid of a few really hot spikes in the mix. GW does support mp3's where WL does not.

Opened up the song in WaveLab and got to work.

I found that the best approach was to first do a little eq of the mix. Mainly at this stage I got rid of the upper mids, which were very hot on this mix. It was around 4-7kHz that was cut about 4dB. Also, I used the low shelf and cut about 7db down at 40Hz.

Next, ran it through the Peak Master. This plugin allows you to increase the input gain, and to pick how much processing it will do through it's Softness control. I picked -5 on softness, and increased the input gain by about 5dB.

Next, ran the mix through another EQ. This time, I added some top end, around 12kHz, and also cut with a very fine Que around 200Hz. Added a little bit of Low Shelf, about 3dB of 100Hz.

Presto, done.

The mix is now alot louder. Tonally, it is a bit more percussive, and the upper mids are a lot smoother. The extreme top end is more detailed.

This was my first real session with WaveLab. I think possibly the compression was a bit overdone for the quality of the Peak Master plugin. You can hear in exactly 3 spots in the mix where the compression really grabbed ahold. But all in all, for not having any of the pro quality plugins, I think the mix improved significanty.

Take a listen.


Ed
 
sonusman:
Haven't found anyone around here to spend the time to download it. Would ya mind sending a quick burn of it my way? That's alright if not.

Also, the package will be sent out Monday.
 
Can you post the URL of the unmastered version. I listened to the mastered version and well what can I say... very slick indeed. I'd like to see how the unmastered version differs.
 
Look down.
Under:

The Hand Merchant's first song on the web.
 
Ed: I listened to both and found your mix fatter and louder, but I think it changed the detail to sound more artificial in exchange for sounding a lot more "commercial". Maybe because the one I transcribed to .mp3 (and did nothing else to) started with the .wav file recorded from the CD.
 
I've listened to both and I guess the obvious difference is the mastered version is a lot louder. Just a quick question about this... I think I read somewhere (not sure where or in what context) that one of the goals of mastering is to make the song sound louder. Now obviously you can't exceed 0db and I'm guessing that Recording Engineer normalised his mix before sending it to you, so how did you achieve this increase in loundness... just compression and eq tweaks? If so, then i think it would be invaluable to have a mastered and an unmastered track on the Comp CD as suggested by Rec. Eng. to highlight this point. As the Doc said, it did make it sound more commercial - whether or not this is a good thing or not is a personal preference... very interesting though.
 
First off, I never suggested mastered vs. unmastered on the compilation; someone else did. What proposed was that I have two different recordings of the same song; not all the same arrangement, players, instruments, or equipment (although a lot was the same). I would like to put both versions on the compilation because I think it would show how a lot of people interpret different production styles as quality.
 
The unmastered version was not normalized as far as I know. I believe that drstawl just made a mp3 from the .wav file. So the big volume increase was a result of mastering. EQ did help a bit here too.

Ed
 
Not a problem.

Also, if I remember correctly, it was normalized, but maybe just a little compressed; but not to the over-done extent and probably really not done too well.

We had our album mastered a local studio. He's been engineering for more than 20 years and started his own studio in Fair Oaks, CA over 10 years ago when he moved from the Bay Area, CA.

Although he's been around, I think the personal DAW is new to him. He didn't work it too well in my opinion. In fact, for EQing, he just used his EQ and filters on his Souncraft board (I don't remember the model, but if I recall correctly, it was a nice one) while going from DAT into the computer where he maybe did a little normalizing or compression, edited, and put P&Q Codes in before burning at 2x speed.

Man. If I had the equipment at the time, I could have done a better job.

Believe me, our nexted album will be mastered by a professional mastering engineer. I'm really considering Bob Katz of Digital Domain. If not, then maybe Kurt Sheerer (since I've done live sound with him before at CSUS) of Paradise (Cake recorded their latest album there) here in town. My bass player just had his album with his ex-band mastered there (they recorded there too over a 4 year period; they just finished). Very nice.
 
Coop: No apologies needed. I had a really close look at both versions as waveforms in Vegas Pro. Vegas isn't a .wav editor but it can display them really well and give V/U info for any portion. Both the original .wav and Ed's remaster were normalized. When the whole cut was played the V/U "hold" meter showed 0 dB on both channels on both pieces.
That's all a normalization will accomplish.
The loudness differential came from changing the relative levels of various EQ bands to take into account human sensitivity to these various bands. I'm still not convinced that this sort of monkeying around after the fact can capture the sound of the original performance as well as the original recording. I'm not talking about what sounds "good" or "bad"; I think most would agree Ed's remaster sounds good. Only those in a position to A/B the original performance with these two versions could make the call as to accuracy of the reproduction.
 
So what you're saying Doc is you that although you agree (as do all of us) that Ed's mastered version sounds good, you're worried it doesn't accurately represent the original performance, possibly making it lack some feel or vibe in return for it sounding slicker. It's an interesting point.

[This message has been edited by Cooperman (edited 01-30-2000).]
 
Although, I think part of the point of mastering is to put "life" back into the recording.

There's more to why people send out their mixdowns to pro mastering engineers and don't have the recording studio master than just spending more money just because they can.
 
Also, I don't think we want accuracy or naturality all nor most of the time either. Otherwise, we wouldn't like analog tape or tubes.

Refer to one of my replies to: Why analog? in the Analog Only Forum for further clarification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top