Mastering with only the MD4 from TC 6000?

[Joemamma]

I've made a few masters using only the MD4 from the TC 6000.

I've had very good results with it.
I use the EQ (bessel lo-cut at around 30 Hz, maybe add 1 dB of 3 kHz and some 6-8 kHz and up), the 5 band comp (I'm compressing the three top bands more than the two low frequency bands to let the bass a bit more through before the limiter), and the brickwall limiter.

Is anyone using only the MD4? If not, what are you using in addition to it? And why? What can the MD4 not do for you?

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Joemamma

I've made a few masters using only the MD4 from the TC 6000.

I've had very good results with it.
I use the EQ (bessel lo-cut at around 30 Hz, maybe add 1 dB of 3 kHz and some 6-8 kHz and up), the 5 band comp (I'm compressing the three top bands more than the two low frequency bands to let the bass a bit more through before the limiter), and the brickwall limiter.

Is anyone using only the MD4? If not, what are you using in addition to it? And why? What can the MD4 not do for you?

Well, for one thing, I find the TC's built in EQ is very bland, not very lively at all, has no "character." I know it's unusual to speak of a digital EQ with "character", but I'm completely bored by the MD4's EQ. It works, yes, it's clean, yes!

What else... well, it makes a superb parallel compressor and a downward compressor as well, if you run two instances. It does not make a very nice de-esser, compared with the Weiss. What about expansion? Not in there. What about analog gear and its coloration and advantages? Not in there.

The MD4 is only one part of a complete breakfast! A very tastey morsel, however :-). Frequently I run several other pieces of gear in tandem, but when I need parallel compression, I go to the MD4 first.

BK

[Joemamma]

Thanks a lot for your reply Bob!

So if I don't care too much about "character" and I don't need a de-esser or expander, can the MD4 do what I'm looking for?
I pretty much only need EQ, (band)compression, and limiting for mastering my own mixes, which is mostly r&b, hiphop, and soul music.

Is there any better all-in-one plug-in or piece of hardware for mastering?

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Joemamma

Thanks a lot for your reply Bob!

So if I don't care too much about "character" and I don't need a de-esser or expander, can the MD4 do what I'm looking for?
I pretty much only need EQ, (band)compression, and limiting for mastering my own mixes, which is mostly r&b, hiphop, and soul music.

Is there any better all-in-one plug-in or piece of hardware for mastering?

I totally agree with you that the MD4 rocks! I think the only piece of digital "all-in-one" hardware that MIGHT equal or exceed it is the DBX Quantum. But the ergonomics of the Quantum are so awkward that is really a sore point.

As for the power of the MD4, you're right, it's a great single solution unit for most applications. It is far from a budget "box" and in the right hands will take you from 50% to 90% and sometimes 100% where you need to go. What are you doing for SRC and dithering?

However, (and you've heard this before) I think that passing your material on to a professional, experienced, and talented mastering engineer will surprise and delight you with a new perspective and possibly (probably!) a product that sounds even better than what you have been able to do with your own mixes working in your own singular environment.

[Alécio Costa]

I really wished TC one day would develop/release MAster X 5 band version for pro tools hd. Now that HD Accel chips are muh more powerful that its original versions.

MD4 would be a great coming to HD users and TC would probably sell a thousand copies.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Alécio Costa

I really wished TC one day would develop/release MAster X 5 band version for pro tools hd. Now that HD Accel chips are muh more powerful that its original versions.

MD4 would be a great coming to HD users and TC would probably sell a thousand copies.

The current MD4 is the culmination of years and years of prodding (mostly on my part) to get TC to include a wide range of attack times, release times and ratios compared to the MD3. When the MD4 came out it included every item on my wish list and more! It was a great bonus, especially the parallel compression. There is no other product that TC makes with the flexibility, power and sound quality of the MD4. All other TC products are basically glorified finalizers, and that includes the MD3 and the Master X5.

TC guard this power very carefully, and rightfully so, in order to attract people to the System 6000 platform, and keep its value, as it is their premiere platform. Which means that you will not likely see a VSS4 or an MD4 migrated to Pro Tools in the near term or to the Powercore either. I would pay very good money to have VSS4 or MD4 in the Powercore!

[Joemamma]

Originally Posted by bob katz

As for the power of the MD4, you're right, it's a great single solution unit for most applications. It is far from a budget "box" and in the right hands will take you from 50% to 90% and sometimes 100% where you need to go. What are you doing for SRC and dithering?

However, (and you've heard this before) I think that passing your material on to a professional, experienced, and talented mastering engineer will surprise and delight you with a new perspective and possibly (probably!) a product that sounds even better than what you have been able to do with your own mixes working in your own singular environment.

I have been using Protools HD with POW-r dithering and noise shaping #3 mostly.. I have been converting to 44,1 khz 16 bit when I bounce the tracks to disk in protools..
Is there a better or more accurate way to do it? Also, do you chose different types of noise shaping for different mixes or do you stick with one type?
Yes, I'd prefer letting an expert master my mixes too! thumbsup
Thanks for all the good info!

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Joemamma

I have been using Protools HD with POW-r dithering and noise shaping #3 mostly.. I have been converting to 44,1 khz 16 bit when I bounce the tracks to disk in protools..
Is there a better or more accurate way to do it? Also, do you chose different types of noise shaping for different mixes or do you stick with one type?
Yes, I'd prefer letting an expert master my mixes too! thumbsup
Thanks for all the good info!

Hi, again, Joe. If you started at 44.1 kHz, then I think one of the three choices of POW-r dithering will get you to 16 bit pretty well!

If you start at a higher sample rate, I think you should use a higher quality standalone SRC to take it down to 2444 or 3244 first, then down to 16 bit with one of the three choices of POW-r.

In answer to choosing different types of noise shaping, some people claim they really don't hear much of a difference. Others swear by just good ol' flat TPDF. My opinion is that the higher values of noise shaping capture more of the sense of depth and preserve the transients better, however there is a tradeoff in tonality. Since you can't fit 24 pounds in a 16 pound bag, there's that tradeoff. If you believe my reactions, then the higher orders of noise shaping can tend to bias the sound in the "brighter" direction, but it is extremely program dependent. You should listen for 5-10 minutes to a loud passage, choosing from among the noise shapes. If you don't think you hear much of a difference (and this is quite possible, as it is material-dependent), then probably Pwr-1 or Pwr-2 are your safest bets.

Hope this helps,


Bob

[Joemamma]

Cool, thanks!

[John Webber]

I agree the basic MD4 EQ is a bit boring but the GML license is well worth having on your 6000. I prefer it to the sonnox one and have compared both to the Analog unit. In addition I use either a Prism MEA-2 or a Massive Passive (for a touch more character). The MD4 multi-band compressor it great for sorting untidy mixes but i still use my MLA-2 (with a fast attack) to catch quick transients before hand. Vari-Mu compressors tend to work well for mastering the Manley Slam being particularly nice.

Hope This Helps

John.

Mastering

[kosmokrator]

the MD-4 is the only device that's in my mastering-chain 90% of the time.
It's incredibly versatile and the audio quality is very good.
I have to agree with Bob that the EQ is a bit 'boring', but on the other side, it's very accurate, so .1db changes are quite audible.
I'm not sure if it would work as good as plugin, since a good amount of it's power is due to the 48bit-processing of the system 6000.
But then, I don't know anything about ProTools internal calculation-capabilities..

Sebastian

[mixerguy]

anyone else wanna chime in about the MD4 ?

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by mixerguy

anyone else wanna chime in about the MD4 ?

It's great, but I don't use the EQ. Is that what you're looking for? It's not that its EQ is unusable, just that there are better choices at my fingertips. Among them are the Massenburg MDW which also I have in the 6000, and certainly the Weiss, which is what I most often use when I choose digital EQ. And of course, there's analog, but that's a different topic I think. I also happen to think the de-esser in M/S mode rocks.

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

It's great, but I don't use the EQ. Is that what you're looking for? It's not that its EQ is unusable, just that there are better choices at my fingertips. Among them are the Massenburg MDW which also I have in the 6000, and certainly the Weiss, which is what I most often use when I choose digital EQ. And of course, there's analog, but that's a different topic I think.

I have a bunch of good analog and digital EQs.... but it is the multiband compressor and the CDX that looks interesting about the MD4.

any opinions about those?

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by mixerguy

I have a bunch of good analog and digital EQs.... but it is the multiband compressor and the CDX that looks interesting about the MD4.

any opinions about those?

Well, notice the edit I just made about the de-esser, but you were too quick...

Multiband I don't use often (mostly for problem cases), but when I do, it's the MD4, and it certainly works as advertised. DXP and parallel I also don't use much, but they also seem to work. Better to ask somebody who uses them more often though.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

Well, notice the edit I just made about the de-esser, but you were too quick...

Multiband I don't use often (mostly for problem cases), but when I do, it's the MD4, and it certainly works as advertised. DXP and parallel I also don't use much, but they also seem to work. Better to ask somebody who uses them more often though.

I've seen DXP mentioned a few times. Is it Downward eXPander or something entirely different?

Thanks,

Alistair

[Alécio Costa]

Do you guys use only the TC M6000 for mastering 5.1 ?

What are the "must have" lycenses for this product?

Are there top quality converters on-board with their basic interface or we would better stick with Hedd 192s, Lavry Blacks?

I have a 2.0 analog setup and the MD3 TDM suite for PT HD, which Mr.Bob has already mentioned it does not have the same flexibility of its bigger brother MD4.

Thanks

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

I've seen DXP mentioned a few times. Is it Downward eXPander or something entirely different?

Thanks,

Alistair

read this

Stereo Mastering

and look at MD4 at the bottom

[lowland]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

I also happen to think the de-esser in M/S mode rocks.

Agreed - I've found it pretty effective also, but haven't heard what the Weiss can do in this area. I also think judiciously applied hard clipping can sound surprisigly good in the 6000 when occasion demands - usually works better to my ear than soft clip, and when I used to use a dbx Quantum for 6000-like duties I found the opposite to be true.

[Rickard Bengtsso]

And I have a unit for sale!
Fitted with both reverb and mastering. stereo/5.1
No analog card.
Any interest?

best
Rickard

[streetvibes]

We have both the MD4 and MD3, but i find the MD4 a little clumsy to be honest.
The EQ setup on the 4 is kind of clumsy compared to the 3, and I need the expander!!

But the again, as Bob K says, the MD4 offer better attack/release time options...

[Andy Krehm]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

.....I also happen to think the de-esser in M/S mode rocks.

I also find this VERY useful!

[mixerguy]

bump to another old thread.... any new opinions?

[Lion]

Originally Posted by mixerguy

bump to another old thread.... any new opinions?

Personnaly, i think the MD4 worth it. If you know the MD3 then the MD4 is better (the same for the brickwall 2) and have more control... The DXP mode is great too. I also made a quick test today and compare it with Solera and Alchemist from FLUX and they are really great tools too. The compression seem to be more transparent with the FLUX and can retain low frequencies in a better way... At the price they are at the moment it's really a good deal. I will make some new tests to really compare them side by side to see the differences... but it seem that the MD4 and the FLUX are the best at the moment for multiband compression.

Lionel

[mixerguy]

bump

[tribeofenki]

Is the MD4 software related to the DBMAX broadcast hardware ?

[mtstudios@charter]

I mastered this record in 5.1 Surround. Kasio Kristmas with the TC6000. This record was done entirely with Casio Battery Operated Keyboards and games. I was very pleased with how it turned out, especially considering the source (CASIO). The TC was a champ.

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by mtstudi@pacbell

I mastered this record in 5.1 Surround. Kasio Kristmas with the TC6000. This record was done entirely with Casio Battery Operated Keyboards and games. I was very pleased with how it turned out, especially considering the source (CASIO). The TC was a champ.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh...... perhaps not the best testimony for the quality of the 6000?