Trying to Master with the ART Pro VLA II

[jimthepisces]

Okay, so I just bought the Pro VLA II so that I could try to add an analog tube quality to my mixes. ART promotes the VLA as a good "mastering tool" so I figured I would run some songs through it and see if they sounded better. All in all, I don't hear much of a difference in sound quality when I A/B the VLA tracks with the older mixes (in which I only used the Waves L2). Maybe I'm doing something wrong?

Here are my settings --
Attack: .25msec
Release: .5sec
Input Threshold: -2dB
Ratio: 2:1
Output Level: 0

I tried to keep it so that the needles stayed around 0 VU and rarely went over. Then I used the Waves L2 limiter to make it a bit louder.

 

[Bguzaldo]

How much reduction are you getting? Also try a longer release time, somewhere between .60 seconds and 3 seconds. But I wouldn't suggest using a longer release if you getting more than 6db of reduction. I aim for 2-4 db.

Hope this helps, its an awesome compessor for tracking and mixing too (what I mainly use it for).
-Barrett

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

First of all, the Pro VLA II is *not* a tube-based compressor, even though that's how they make it sound it in the big print. It uses a tube in the gain section, yes, but the compressor section itself is a Vactrol optical-electronic circuit.

The VLA II is an excellent compressor - I own one of the original VLAs myself, and I love it, and the II is an incremental improvement in build quality over that. But quality mastering is a matter of technique as much if not more than it is gear. You can't just run a 2mix through a box with a tube and expect it to magically come out the other end with some magical tube-mastered sound.

I'd recommend using that VLAII more during tracking and mixing; especially on lead vocals, bass, and other tracks *that need compression* where you want a more "smooth" or "warm" sound. That will contribute far more to your mix and to your final mastered sound than strapping the thing to the master buss will.

G.

 

[dintymoore]

I've been interested in hearing what these things are like...

Just for shits and giggles... try setting the attack and release at the shortest possible settings, forget that WAV limiter and instead crank the output of the Art as loud as you can get away with before it sounds noisy at all (probably a couple of notches on a dial) and then with the ratio at say maybe even infinite start bringing the threshold down until you can hear some action.

I'm not saying that this is how you should use it, but that's probably the extreme I'd set it to to get a feel for it's flavor.

The gain (the output) is the tube section, so I'd want to play with cranking that a bit and hearing what it will do.

More than anything use your ears... the thing might say it's hardly performing any gain reduction and yet be in the musically optimal place.

 

[jimthepisces]

thanks, i'll play around with those settings and see what happens. i didn't realize that the tube was in the gain section of the hardware!

 

[Massive Master]

A) "Tube sound" almost never comes from having tubes in the unit.

B) If ART would get that tube out of the unit, I'd probably buy another one myself.

 

[jimthepisces]

yeah, i've heard of a lot of people that open the VLA up and swap out the tube for a higher quality one.

so, i've been messing around for awhile now and it seems like it sounds a little better whenever I have the output set high. I increased the release time to .6sec and it sounds better than .3, but when I go all the way up to 3 seconds it starts to sound worse to me.

the one thing i'm kind of confused about is the ratio settings. I actually think I like the way it sounds more when its cranked up to 20:1 rather than low at 2:1. I was thinking that I just wanted to beef up the sound a little so a low ratio would be better. But when the ratios and output are cranked, I don't need to use the L2 limiter as much, so that probably has something to do with it...

 

[jimthepisces]

hm. the song has a fade-in and the compressor is making it sounds crrrazy. I think i'm gonna need more transparent settings...

 

[moresound]

hm. the song has a fade-in and the compressor is making it sounds crrrazy. I think i'm gonna need more transparent settings...

Ah there you go!
I switched out my tubes and it was a bit of a different flavor. Better? Not really just different.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

the one thing i'm kind of confused about is the ratio settings. I actually think I like the way it sounds more when its cranked up to 20:1 rather than low at 2:1. I was thinking that I just wanted to beef up the sound a little so a low ratio would be better. But when the ratios and output are cranked, I don't need to use the L2 limiter as much, so that probably has something to do with it...

When the ratios cranked, you are basically trying to use the VLA as a limiter, which is why you then don't need the L2 plug also. But if that's screwing with your fade-ins, that's probably either because you have the threshold set way too low or your signal is already way too compressed before you even send it to the VLA in mastering. That's also why you have to push the gain so hard; you've sucked all the energy out of the signal by a factor of 20:1.

I still stand by the point that you need to take advantage of the VLA in tracking and mixing; get your tracks to sound right before your master and the mastering will go much better. But if you insist on waiting until mastering to get your mix to sound right, you'll never do it by churning the whole mix through a 20:1 grinder in one single pass, and one pass of "more transparent" compression likely won't give you the sound you want either.

Take it in light steps, starting with runaway peak control, then a little more stringent leveling but just enough to tighten up the mix a bit, then if you absolutely have to, throw the results against a limiter, limiting yourself to only a dB or two of reduction via the limiter. And *listen* at the end of each step to what you have and where you're going. In any frequencies start going a bit wild form the compression, nip them in the bud with some targeted narrow Q parametric EQ before you move on to the next step.

Of course if you take care of most of this stuff in mixing before you get to the "mastering" stage, it'll be much easier for you to get even better-sounding results.

G.

 

[Dogbreath]

Take it in light steps, starting with runaway peak control, then a little more stringent leveling but just enough to tighten up the mix a bit, then if you absolutely have to, throw the results against a limiter, limiting yourself to only a dB or two of reduction via the limiter.
G.

So out of curiosity, how many "light steps" do you guys do?
I've been trying to control mine in 1 step.
When I get my mixdown to a 2 track, I'll comp/limit that, save that as a new 2 track then burn that to CD.
Do you guys do a series of steps in there? And are they all just nudges instead of any squashing?

tanx

 

[dintymoore]

... I actually think I like the way it sounds more when its cranked up to 20:1 rather than low at 2:1. I was thinking that I just wanted to beef up the sound a little so a low ratio would be better. But when the ratios and output are cranked, I don't need to use the L2 limiter as much, so that probably has something to do with it...

hm. the song has a fade-in and the compressor is making it sounds crrrazy. I think i'm gonna need more transparent settings...

The difference between a compressor and a limiter is the threshold ratio, that's it. When you set a compressor to a 1:infinite it's a limiter.

On the master buss, I'd think you'd want the ratio to be the highest the compressor offers. Typically I'd want the threshold to be right before the needles said there was any gain reduction going on, or close to it.

As far as the fade in - that's the way it will work. I'd probably record that by itself with no compression or while I was adjusting the threshold manually.

In the end, did you get an "mash" improvement? Does it sound less digital/harsh?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So out of curiosity, how many "light steps" do you guys do?

Hey there Duke, baby!

Well, by "you guys" if you mean actual pro mastering engineers, I'm not one of those guys. Nor do I have the quality of gear that they have. So I can only speak for myself.

I don't do a set number of steps, I just go until the job is finished. Whether that's one step or four or something in-between depends on what needs to be done. But usually I'd say two or three will do it.

But I would never recommend just throwing a raw mix up against a brick wall and being done with it. It may sometimes work, we all get lucky sometimes. But it's asking an awful lot of any mix to smash some 6-10dB out of it and then make that up in output makeup gain in one fell swoop and expect it to hold together in one piece without cracks starting to show. Usually a bit more care and massaging is called for to keep those cracks to a minimum.

G.

 

[Dogbreath]

Hey there Duke, baby!

Well, by "you guys" if you mean actual pro mastering engineers, I'm not one of those guys. Nor do I have the quality of gear that they have. So I can only speak for myself.

I don't do a set number of steps, I just go until the job is finished. Whether that's one step or four or something in-between depends on what needs to be done. But usually I'd say two or three will do it.

But I would never recommend just throwing a raw mix up against a brick wall and being done with it. It may sometimes work, we all get lucky sometimes. But it's asking an awful lot of any mix to smash some 6-10dB out of it and then make that up in output makeup gain in one fell swoop and expect it to hold together in one piece without cracks starting to show. Usually a bit more care and massaging is called for to keep those cracks to a minimum.

G.

I thank you, Sir Glen of SouthSIDE.


maybe that's why my mixes suck.


Your 6-10 db was pretty much spot on. That tends to be right at the numbers I've been tryin to control with one swoop.


Moocho Tanx man.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Your 6-10 db was pretty much spot on. That tends to be right at the numbers I've been tryin to control with one swoop.

If the tracks and their summing are damn clean, it's easier to get away with.

But what can often happen is some of the lower amplitude stuff can be kind of muddy or whatever, and it'll make it through fairly well masked in the raw mix, but after big compression/limiting followed by makeup gain, that low level stuff winds up getting boosted and more prominent in the mix, and can stick out like a more sore-er thumb.

By trying it in increments, one can listen for that low level stuff starting to expose itself and nip it with some EQ or re-mixing or whatever before they continue with the next step. Then any further compression or limiting will be on a cleaner signal and will sound better coming out the other end. At least that's the idea .

De nada, Dukester.

G.

 

[mixsit]

What's fast, what's 'slow'

Since this is 'home master kinda sorta and by nature aspects of the mix blend into questions/methods about the master.
So... Engage-- When you add this 2-bus stuff-- you are tackling mixed program.
Yeah, duh,
But what I mean is-
What in this mix is gona drive this comp (or limiter)? Easy. The loudest thing?

Maybe. Or not.
How fast is the comp set?
Oops.

Maybe the kick snare are the things 'poking up, but then you mixed them.. put them in place already.

Attack- 0-20, 30ms or so is gona mess with them. (Is that what needs fixing?
Where 40, 50, 100 will less so and the comp begins to look' at the other things and will find and create other forms of movement and interplay.

So part of this is comp/limiter moving, subtly, or not- (punching holes..) in the mix.

Driving the mix comp -with the things in the mix, is slightly different than putting that control of (pick whichever mix element) back at the track (or sub group).

 

[Thurgood]

A little OT but thanks for the info/observations about the VLA comp. Be Well All. Thurgood.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

But what can often happen is some of the lower amplitude stuff can be kind of muddy or whatever, and it'll make it through fairly well masked in the raw mix, but after big compression/limiting followed by makeup gain, that low level stuff winds up getting boosted and more prominent in the mix, and can stick out like a more sore-er thumb.

Well, here's a thought, then.

Would it make sense to, as part of the mixing phase, take a mostly finished mix, mix it down, and then mash it with a limiter and listen for that kind of garbage?

I mean, I'm asking, but I really should be saying, "I gotta try that, as part of critically listening to a mix. Fuck it up, and see how it holds up or if limiting the hell out of it brings out any weaknesses I was missing."

 

[Farview]

Well, here's a thought, then.

Would it make sense to, as part of the mixing phase, take a mostly finished mix, mix it down, and then mash it with a limiter and listen for that kind of garbage?

I mean, I'm asking, but I really should be saying, "I gotta try that, as part of critically listening to a mix. Fuck it up, and see how it holds up or if limiting the hell out of it brings out any weaknesses I was missing."

After a while, you get a feel for what is going to get goofy in mastering and you just avoid doing that. Until you learn that, yes, run the mix through a limiter to see if it holds up.

Listening to the radio the other day, I heard an old Aerosmith song and the radio station compressed this thing so hard that it was bringing instruments I never noticed before to the front of the mix. It was really strange...and annoying.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Well, here's a thought, then.

Would it make sense to, as part of the mixing phase, take a mostly finished mix, mix it down, and then mash it with a limiter and listen for that kind of garbage?

I mean, I'm asking, but I really should be saying, "I gotta try that, as part of critically listening to a mix. Fuck it up, and see how it holds up or if limiting the hell out of it brings out any weaknesses I was missing."

Well, that's kind of what I was describing eariler, with some small exceptions...

The first is kind of semantic; once it's mixed down, the mixing stage is kind of over, technically speaking. If you're doing it all yourself, that's academic. But if someone else is doing the mastering, I'd leave that up to him/her to take care of.

If you are doing it yourself, though, I'd still prefer personally to take it in smaller bites with a decent compressor and see what shakes out at each step. Not only does that seem to work better than throwing the whole thing against the wall in one fell swoop, but the corrective EQ after each step seems to me to be easier to execute with better results than one massive EQ attack to try to adjust for the single brick wall limiting.

IMHO, YMMV, NaCl, H2SO4, Etc.

G.