Is digital mastering "wrong"?

[spasm_dtc]

hmmmm... i don't care much if its digital or analog or tomato-pumpkin based as long as it sounds good in the end.

On the other hand i'm very much interrested in how to frenchkiss my grandmother using plugins - that's a whole new set of options that had never crossed my mind ..or hers

[chris_m]

Besides that fact that it's absolutely possible to deliver a great master both fully digital or fully analog, today you can get pretty close to analog sound ITB. I can match probably 70-90% of analog depth and color. As working ITB is faster i can offer ITB as a cheaper but still quality alternativ to analog mastering. Win win
Where ITB still lacks imho is in copying exact characteristics from analog compression.

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by SafeandSound

It seems some people are unable to partake in discussion without personal
attacks, a sure sign of a weak position.

I find it crass.

Proof is always in the pudding, and applicable at every level.

Are you referring to me? I never attacked you personally. Just healthy debate.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

I think that many people are still under the assumption that "digital automatically sounds bad" and therefore think that using some piece of analog gear will some how overcome the "evil effects" of an all digital signal chain.

I know from years of experience with analog equipment, including building some myself, that all analog equipment is not "better" just because it is analog. If analog equipment is not properly maintained , especially equipment with tubes, it can go from very good to very bad in a very short time. Things like hum, distortion (both harmonic and IM) can simply be the aging of or problems with one of the tubes.

I love analog and have recently started doing a lot of listening to my vinyl record collection and all of my interns have recently gotten turntables and are now buying vinyl again but just because something is analog does not make it inherently better.

Our mastering chain is mostly digital. I have thought about adding some pieces of analog gear to round out our mastering rack. Right now, considering the price of good analog gear, is is not something that is practical for us and I will have to wait until the economy improves.

Good discussion.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

IMHO it is less about the equipment (digital or analog or a combination of both) and more about the skills and experience of the mastering engineer that really makes the difference.

FWIW and YMMV

[Bob Yordan]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

IMHO it is less about the equipment (digital or analog or a combination of both) and more about the skills and experience of the mastering engineer that really makes the difference.

FWIW and YMMV

[aleatoric]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

IMHO it is less about the equipment (digital or analog or a combination of both) and more about the skills and experience of the mastering engineer that really makes the difference.

FWIW and YMMV

I agree.

[Caput]

Originally Posted by aleatoric

I agree.

So does everyone. I've been reading this board for years and I've never heard it denied. All topics like this end up with someone stating the obvious.


SB

[joeaudio]

Digital EQ and Dynamics Processing have been around
for decades. If it's wrong, there are a lot of CD's out there that are wrong.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by joeaudio

there are a lot of CD's out there that are wrong.

I agree. ;)

Alistair

[antonbuys]

Originally Posted by tresperros

out of topic - I got feeling this forum is very similar to hiphop forum:)
BIG EGOS
BIIIGGG

So, all those racks of expensive analog gear is just "bling"?

As long as it sounds good, I'll let my ME decide what to use. Of much greater importance to me is who and what he's done, and whether I like the sound of what he's done on previous albums. Mastering is not a place to pinch pennies. So, I'd rather not send off my masters to some great unknown "$1.99 mastering" service.

Just my 2 cents.

[Caput]

Originally Posted by antonbuys

As long as it sounds good, I'll let my ME decide what to use. Of much greater importance to me is who and what he's done, and whether I like the sound of what he's done on previous albums. Mastering is not a place to pinch pennies. So, I'd rather not send off my masters to some great unknown "$1.99 mastering" service.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree.

SB

[joeaudio]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

I agree. ;)

Alistair

Ah, you got me. Maybe I should have said "clean, dynamic and fine sounding"
CD's that are wrong. I remember when an all digital processing chain
was considered a selling point for a facility. Still a viable way to work IMO.

[MAzevedo]

I've got plenty of analog fancies (Sontec, Requisite, Pendulum, Crane Song), and I use them most of the time. Last week I mastered an album entirely digitally, because it was the right thing for the material. The irony is that this particular album is going to be primarily released on LP.

For some albums, the Requisite L2M is the wrong sound. For some, the Trakkers are the wrong sound. For some, the Sontec is wrong. And for some, very transparent digital processing is exactly the right sound. I think that talking about analog vs. digital is too broad, I think one should focus on what is the best tool for the task at hand regardless of wether it's based on bits or voltages.

I think it is hard to honestly say that there are not very, very good digital processing options available to an engineer in 2010. While they may not always be the best option, I could certainly make my clients happy with an all digital chain. In fact, for many years my chain was a z-Sys EQ, a TC M5000, a Jünger d01, and a hardware L2 and I did some of my favorite work then. I would personally be much more concerned about my ME's monitoring than his processing. If the results sound good, who cares how we got there?

[aivoryuk]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

Another example is the Elysia Mpressor. When working totally or partially in analogue I use the hardware, if I am working totally digital I use the TDM (plug in).

Riccardo do you find the plugin version useful for mastering? I am not sure about the metering it provides.
How do you think the sound compares to the hardware version?

[lucey]

Distortion has a sweet spot. Too much or too little is what a great ME will avoid.

Knowing the line in the sand for each project can require your input, or not.

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by aivoryuk

Riccardo do you find the plugin version useful for mastering? I am not sure about the metering it provides.
How do you think the sound compares to the hardware version?

One of the weak spots with the mpressor is in fact the metering. The Elysyans can't be blamed of course as it was mainly meant for production rather than post-production. The metering in the plug is exactly the same.
I like both the hardware and the software versions. Thy are practically identical. Where I do (subjectively) hear a difference is in the Gain control but I guess the main difference overall is that the analogue is actually made up of physical part and as such is a tad "grittier" (I am exaggerating here) , making it slightly more muscular while the plug is cleaner. These differences are extremely subtle. My harware mpressor is part of an analogue chain and therefore has its place between other units in the chain, plus there is the hands on, phisical feedback. The plug emulation is veeery good. Well done guys!

Anybody heard or used the museq for mastering yet?

[bmanic]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

IMHO it is less about the equipment (digital or analog or a combination of both) and more about the skills and experience of the mastering engineer that really makes the difference.

.. and anybody who disagrees with this should take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves why they are in the business in the first place.

Cheers!
bManic

[Waltz Mastering]

Plug-ins just aren't that slutty.

[macc]

Sonically the differences are decreasing. I use plugins all the time and have had 2 today that are better 100% ITB. Big deal. Not using 'the fancy boxes' kind of feels even more slutty than using them


But all the sonics aside there's just no getting around the fact that working with analogue feels very nice. Especially with something passive, I'm not sure if/how you can replicate that experience in software. It's like playing an instrument.

In fact that's exactly what it feels like! Closing my eyes and working with analogue feels like it does when I'm playing the drums. Calling up GUIs and using the mouse and editing one parameter at a time feels like programming drums in midi.

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by macc

In fact that's exactly what it feels like! Closing my eyes and working with analogue feels like it does when I'm playing the drums. Calling up GUIs and using the mouse and editing one parameter at a time feels like programming drums in midi.

Same experience with analogue synths. Digital is getting close to replicating a Mini Moog, but I'd much rather play the real thing!

[Mjohnson11287]

[QUOTE=spasm_dtc;5086350]hmmmm... i don't care much if its digital or analog or tomato-pumpkin based as long as it sounds good in the end.

quoted for truth!

[misjah]

Depending on the material and provided the guy knows what he's doing you can get some solid results with plug ins alone.

[aivoryuk]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

One of the weak spots with the mpressor is in fact the metering. The Elysyans can't be blamed of course as it was mainly meant for production rather than post-production. The metering in the plug is exactly the same.
I like both the hardware and the software versions. Thy are practically identical. Where I do (subjectively) hear a difference is in the Gain control but I guess the main difference overall is that the analogue is actually made up of physical part and as such is a tad "grittier" (I am exaggerating here) , making it slightly more muscular while the plug is cleaner. These differences are extremely subtle. My harware mpressor is part of an analogue chain and therefore has its place between other units in the chain, plus there is the hands on, phisical feedback. The plug emulation is veeery good. Well done guys!

Anybody heard or used the museq for mastering yet?

a very useful insight thanks for that

I have found running the plugin at higher sample rates turns it into a different beast, sounds very smooth and nice (I found this with the tube tech plugin as well that i've been testing)

I'm still a bit torn about it as on some material it worked rather well but on others not as good

[bmanic]

Originally Posted by macc

Sonically the differences are decreasing. I use plugins all the time and have had 2 today that are better 100% ITB. Big deal. Not using 'the fancy boxes' kind of feels even more slutty than using them


But all the sonics aside there's just no getting around the fact that working with analogue feels very nice. Especially with something passive, I'm not sure if/how you can replicate that experience in software. It's like playing an instrument.

In fact that's exactly what it feels like! Closing my eyes and working with analogue feels like it does when I'm playing the drums. Calling up GUIs and using the mouse and editing one parameter at a time feels like programming drums in midi.

This is exactly the reason I've purchased a small touch screen for selecting active plugin (it's also off to the side) and using a midi controller for control (Novation Nocturn, not ideal but good for experimentation). This makes it possible to use it kind of like hardware gear without looking at any screen and using 100% ears. It's a very revealing experiment and I hope to get this system fully up and running by the end of the year (have even thought about integrating it to the desk itself).

Controlling something like Nebula without having any computer screen in front of me is just amazing.

Cheers!
bManic

[bmanic]

Originally Posted by aivoryuk

I'm still a bit torn about it as on some material it worked rather well but on others not as good

One of the causes for this is probably it's hard knee, causing it to be a bit brutal (even at modest ratios) on some material. Also don't be afraid of opening up the attack way past 100ms.

Cheers!
bManic

[csl]

Originally Posted by bmanic

This is exactly the reason I've purchased a small touch screen for selecting active plugin (it's also off to the side) and using a midi controller for control (Novation Nocturn, not ideal but good for experimentation). This makes it possible to use it kind of like hardware gear without looking at any screen and using 100% ears. It's a very revealing experiment and I hope to get this system fully up and running by the end of the year (have even thought about integrating it to the desk itself).

Controlling something like Nebula without having any computer screen in front of me is just amazing.

Cheers!
bManic

I'm glad you mentioned Nebula, as to me it is one of the most intriguing exemplars of plugin technology, yet also as much of a reminder of just how important interface and usability are. As Macc astutely points out, sound quality is useless without control; it's how we work with the equipment and arrive at the settings needed to do the job quickly and effortlessly.

As much as I enjoy the sound of Alex B's 5500 Nebula patches, I just hate the minuscule mouse movements required to nudge the gain -- it's just so damn finicky (at least in Neb 2). I literally find myself daydreaming about the real unit's tactile switches, so much so that Nebula unwittingly serves more as a reminder of how much I need to get my hands on some proper gear, than as a plugin poster-boy.