When will the mastering gurus be all plugin based.

  • Thread starter Thread starter pingu
  • Start date Start date
Massive Master said:
I'm not a programmer, but I would imagine that it's the simplicity of EQ vs. the complexity of dynamics -

EQ ("Color" aside) -- Cut or boost this frequency by this much, all the time, no matter what.

Dynamics -- The level, the peak, the apparent volume, how "thick" or "thin" the signal, the speed, the timbre, the incomming dynamic range, the attack and release and how it attacks AS it releases -- For starters -- Again, "color" aside, goodness, that's a lot to put into ones and zeros. And to make that reaction relative to *any type* of signal... It still fascinates me that it's even possible in the first place.
Click to expand...
Good post!

The thing a lot of people don't know is that mastering compressors are non-linear, they don't always handle things exactly the same way. They also add an amount of harmonic distortion and coloration.
Digital compressors (software / rackmount) is compressing using pure math. Doing as best as they can to emulate the analog compressors we have been using for many years.
But they never seem to be spot on, they get close... but are just missing a little something.
EQ/reverb/delay/flange/chorus/etc... are all faily uncomplex... that's why digital versions of those effects sounds just fine.
But a mastering compressor / limiter is quite complex wheather you know it or not subtle nuances get lost with pure digital compression (like T-racks, ozone, Steinberg ME, etc.)


Think of it like this:

LesPaul guitar ran through a Marshall head.
vs.
Purely synthesized guitar ran through digital distortion.

Close... but no cigar.
 
But isn't a lot of that just a head thing? I mean from a pure listening standpoint, is there really that much of a differance between the hardware and software, just from a listening perspective? I always lived by the idea that it doesnt matter what you use to get the sound just as long as it sounds good. Is it possible that a lot of the differance in the sound is there because you want it to be there? I'm not saying that anyone is being an asshole on purpose, but every evolution in a technology has been preceded by a number of people who say it will never be as good as the "real" methods or equipment. All this stuff is just supposed to be a means to an end, the end being to get music from the studio to peoples ears. Is it really all that important what kind of gear was used to do it? I mean, as long as it doesnt sound like absolute shit, the creators are happy with it, and people dig it; who gives a crap how it was done.
 
Projbalance,
that sounds like the same argument people use to justify "HI FI" MP3 - the reality is there is loss & quite a lot.
In digital Vs analogue There's a difference; some people can hear it clearly & clearly some people can't hear it. There's also the issue that some have grown up with a "sound" and are comfy with that.
Let's face it would you rather listen to pristine vinyl, CD, Minidisc or MP3? There are major differences & the colouration of the plastic with the effect of the RIAA pre/post EQ'ing gives a sound that is nicer - though the adjectives vary. So to analogue vs digital in treating sound in the recording, mixing & mastering process.
Of course I know nothing & am old - er.
Cheers
rayC
Oh & Soylent Green IS people - it makes that kind of difference.
AND I use the MP3 mixing clinic BUT I hate what the compression & transportation process does to my music & worry about the loss of ambience, dynamics, colour etc compared to what it sounded like on tape or in the DAW.
 
Projbalance said:
But isn't a lot of that just a head thing? I mean from a pure listening standpoint, is there really that much of a differance between the hardware and software, just from a listening perspective?
Click to expand...
That's very true, as far as it goes. I don't care if I get the sound that I want using a tin can and a string; if it works, it works. The right tool for the right job and all that.

However, in a way that's looking at the wrong end of the horse. It's one thing to say it's not important to the listener how a sound is acheived, but when it comes time to actually acheive that sound, the engineer discovers that how it's done makes all the difference in the world.

Have you never come across the unscratchable itch? For audio engineers it's the sound that you just cannot quite get, the air that is lacking, or the tone that is just not quite right. You know that a song needs a punch at 60kHz but no matter how you EQ it in, it just does sound right; the reality does not meet the image in your head. Or it can be in tracking; you know you have a wonderful performer in a nice room with a decent mic, but no matter what you try, the recording just doesn't sound "right". You just can't scratch the itch. Then Someone comes along with the right tool for the job, whether it be just the right-sounding analog EQ or just the right mic/pre combination and, well whaddya know, the same moves you made with your gear that didn't work now work exactly as you imagined they should. It's like finally finding and reaching the itch. Ahhhhhhh! Pultec as Backscratcher.

The listener may not care about all this, but they can tell the difference, even on MP3. "How come my mix dresn't sound as good as my CDs" is the very first question that everybdy asks when they try turning from listener to engineer for the first time, and discover that it's nowhere near as easy as they thought. They can hear the difference. That's what the best engineers understand; not everybody may realize it, but in general they can hear the difference.

An important part of that difference is the quality of mastering, and an important part of mastering is the quality of the tools.

G.
 
Projbalance said:
but every evolution in a technology has been preceded by a number of people who say it will never be as good as the "real" methods or equipment.
Click to expand...

And they were usually right :)

I've found that very little new technology "replaces" the old, it's just something different. Sometimes it's better at performing a particular type of processing than the old, but the usual reason that new replaces is old is because of economics or ease of use, rarely quality.

For example has digital fully replaced analog tape? In some cases yes, but if you want a saturated analog tape sound the best place to get it is on a tape machine, not a plug-in replacement.

Does anyone else remember when FET solid state guitar amplifiers were supposed to replace tube? The marketing guys promised us that they sound just like the tube equivalents, they didn't. However they are very good for cleaner guitar sounds. Likewise are guitar amp emulator plug-ins as "good" as the real thing? Not if you want your amp to sound like a real tube amp, but in cases where you want a synthetic/processed type of sound they are better than a real tube amp.

If we're talking about plug-ins replacing their digital outboard equivalents, this is an entirely different story.
 
I don't doubt that pieces of equipment are used for particular reasons, and that a good engineer can tell the differance. However I also believe that, knowing the human animal like I do, there is a certain amount of gear- headed elitism that goes along with it. It's what some feel seperates them from the teeming masses of basement dwelling trolls with their home- built PC's and sound dampening material hanging from the cieling. A set of plug-ins is usually much less expensive than a vintage piece of gear; and a lot less rare. It's like people who collect art, not because they love the piece, but because it's rare. We've all known people who buy gear just to have the bragging rights to that gear, as retarded as that is.

Sure the plug- ins might not hold the same richness of sound as the hardware, but with time that will come. And really, who's to say that piece of hardware really sounds good. Maybe it's just because you know the sound of it. Maybe the plug-ins reveal the limitations of the hardware, or emphasis the flaws. It's all in how you look at it.
 
Projbalance said:
I don't doubt that pieces of equipment are used for particular reasons, and that a good engineer can tell the differance. However I also believe that, knowing the human animal like I do, there is a certain amount of gear- headed elitism that goes along with it. It's what some feel seperates them from the teeming masses of basement dwelling trolls with their home- built PC's and sound dampening material hanging from the cieling. A set of plug-ins is usually much less expensive than a vintage piece of gear; and a lot less rare. It's like people who collect art, not because they love the piece, but because it's rare. We've all known people who buy gear just to have the bragging rights to that gear, as retarded as that is.

Sure the plug- ins might not hold the same richness of sound as the hardware, but with time that will come. And really, who's to say that piece of hardware really sounds good. Maybe it's just because you know the sound of it. Maybe the plug-ins reveal the limitations of the hardware, or emphasis the flaws. It's all in how you look at it.
Click to expand...



I like your thinking man.
 
Projbalance said:
I don't doubt that pieces of equipment are used for particular reasons, and that a good engineer can tell the differance. However I also believe that, knowing the human animal like I do, there is a certain amount of gear- headed elitism that goes along with it.
Click to expand...
There are always a minimum of two ways of looking at any given issue: from the positive side and from the negaitive side. And usually both sides are at least partially true; it's rarely a black and white, either/or situation. The focus on "elite-headedness" is certainly a negative one. It has it's kernal of truth, but it is only a narrow focus on a much larger picture.

Elitism abounds in any profession, audio engineering is certainly not immune from that. Of course there are people to whom the gear they use is an extension of their penis, to whom anything less than Universal Audio, RCA and Rupert Neve is disdained, to whom hobbiest recording just plain sucks no matter how you parse it. This is the same mentality as those who will not drive anything short of a Mercedes S or BMW 7 series, even if they are just going to mail a letter. There are engineers who find that their LA-2A is the only vise to use regardless of the job, and the idea of stooping so low as to use an ART or dbx (let alone a plug) is just beneath them.

This is of course, idiotic. To limiting one's tool set is to limit one's flexibility. To forego the concept of "the right tool for the right job" and subscribe instead that there are one or two tools that are "the right tools for every job" is to ignore the true nature of audio.

That said, however, there is a fault in the analogy I used earlier of comparing high-end gear with high-end automobiles. A luxury car will be more luxurious, more comfortable, and have more refined engineering than your average Chevy or Nissan. But when it comes to the job it is actually meant for - transporting it's passengers from point A to point B - the Mercedes doesn't really do that job all that much better than the others. Sure, it may have more refined steering, better suspension, etc., but none of that really matters for 90% of the trips that car will be used for...except in the mind of the driver.

Audio gear, OTOH, is different in that an LA-2A sounds different than a VLA. Always. Unlike an automobile which will always get you from point A to point B regardless of the brand you are driving, while the LA-2A will get you from point A to point B, with the VLA you will probably end up at point C, no matter how you steer it. Use the dbx and it will be point D. And so on. It *does* make a difference which brand you use.

G.
 
FWIW, I'm fairly well paid for my 'gear elitism' - clients appreciate the fact that I can tell the difference and can make their art even 1% better.

Thank God some people still care...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top