Master Chain, too much?

[Greg Reierson]

Some really bad mixes may benefit from that much processing but that's way too much to be using on a regular basis. Try just one EQ, one compressor, one final limiter. That should be enough 95% of the time. Skip summing the LF, MS, stereo imagers and other gimmicks unless the mixes are in rough shape and the artist and engineer agree to the unusual amount of processing in the mastering stage.

I would guess a very small percent - approaching 0 - of your favorite mixes had any of those things applied in mastering.


GR

[smackmastering]

I agree with Greg, 1 EQ, 1 Compressor, & 1 Limiter works for me 90% of the time.

[Jakal]

Hi Greg

Thank you for reply.

I agree s1 imager can be dropped as I am finding it meaningless when Brainworx EQ imaging settings are applied.

However most of the mixes I have had to deal with benefit greatly from Brainworx EQ and when bypassed, once applied, you really hear how bad the mix is. Mainly due to low ends not being in mono I presume when mixed.

There isn't alot of heavy processing going on setting wise. For example rcomp is just set to soft preset, materQ to set low freq and high, Brainworx to balance out imaging and EQ accordingly. All very subtle.

API and PSP get pushed a bit. limiter anything between -0.1 > -2.7 (never over -3)

I do push RMS to between -4.5 > -4.0 but that's only because every other Tech-House/Techno track I hear from peers have it so. Sometimes -5.0 but again depends on track.

I will have a go with Brainworx - PSP - Limiter and check out results. I have read this but most sources have been from industry pros on Sound on Sound and have excellent mixes to deal with.

Thank you for reply too smackmastering, was replying as you posted.
Regards

Mike

[Thor]

Less is more.

Listen to Greg, don't argue with him

Try to do more with less. The more stuff you have in between the recording and the audience, the harder it will be to reach the listener, imho.

When you can manage with 1 EQ, 1 comp and maybe a limiter now and again, see if you can start using fewer and fewer bands of EQ. Maybe one carefully selected curve and freq where before you might reach for two. Every little bit counts.

That's my experience, anyway. Worth exactly what you paid for it

Best regards,
Thor

[Greg Reierson]

Originally Posted by Jakal

... most sources have been from industry pros on Sound on Sound and have excellent mixes to deal with.

The quality of the mix definitely factors in. A great mix will often need little processing. Rough mixes get whatever they need.

Hey, if you're getting good results, it's probably OK!


GR

[Jakal]

I totally agree with less is more factor, of course. First quote I drilled home from peers when first started.

I don't go crazy with EQ either I read somewhere that on any band you never go over +3 db of gain and if you do need to then get back in touch with artist to amend mix.

I assure you I am listening and taking all points on board.

I will reply with my findings tomorrow.

Note to Thor I am not looking for any argument just to learn. No point coming across as I know it all when I don't.

[huejahfink]

There can be some benefits to using more than one EQ if they are chosen for a specific task... for instance I quite often will use a linear EQ for surgical upper mid to high frequency cuts but I would much more often use a min-phase EQ for lower mid and bass adjustments whether boosting or cutting, or also for boosting drum transients at any frequency.

There's much less call for multiple comps, but if the need arises I might use one stage on a sidechain to clamp on an overly edgy snare for example followed up by another to do the general duty.

For what it's worth I would be much more likely to put the compressor in after the EQ adjustments unless I was looking to bring a frequency range 'out of the compression' so to speak. Adjustments to the low end particularly are best done before compressing in my experience....

[Thor]

Hi Mike,

no criticism or slight intended.

To quote some famous guy, "if it sounds good, it is good". Do what you need to do...

Cheers,
Thor


(and I actually added 4dB of low end to a few mixes during a recent project - there are no rules, except making it sound as best it can - but you already know that )

[Chris Bauer]

Please forgive me if I am venturing slightly off topic, but I have noticed an interesting phenomenon with my own mastering. When I master using only software I tend to want to use more processing, whereas when I master using analog hardware I am usually more minimalist.

It could be because I have an extensive arsenal of plugins which I am keen to make use of, whereas I only have 2 analog eqs and 2 analog compressors which makes my choice more limited and forces me to be more selective.

There is also something about physically moving switches on analog gear, which causes me to be more aware of the changes I am making to the material. Typing in settings or moving a mouse somehow makes the mastering process feel less involving.

It might explain the temptation to use more extensive software based mastering chains as a matter of course.

[Jakal]

Settled with api comp, masterq, vintage warmer, s1 imager and limiter.

brainworx eq gimmicks are just that.

[lu432]

Hi Chris,

I find the exact same thing, I figure hardware has analog imperfections that adds a character to the sound that can only be acheived by plugins by adding more pluggins. Greg was very apt to note less is more, I find that you have to compensate for the lack of real character in pluggins by using several more to find the character and exact sound you want to add.

I know I can dial in my Avalon and my Distressor and slam my converter to get exactly the sound I want, where as if I am using plugins, I have to use 1 eq, 1 compressor, 1 tube warming plugin, and 1 Limiter to get similar but not as pleasant sounding results.

You have to find a balanace and use what works for each song, but I understand where your coming from.

[ORC]

I'm using outboard entirely, with the exception of Elephant limiter, if needed. On good mixes, one eq and one comp are usually plenty. I will use a digital limiter if needed, 2 db of gain reduction tops. On mixes that need some help, I might use my Linear phase eq for correction, One comp for macrodynamics, a second for microdynamics, then a nice outboard eq for sweetening. Again, a digital limiter only if needed.

[Slug1]

One of the things I'm starting to do now is "premastering" using an outboard EL7 Fatso, going through an Apogee Rosetta 200, followed by UAD Massive Passive followed by the UAD Studer A800, followed by a limiter (still looking for the right one). I'm hitting the Studer plugin hard and actually adding gain there. I'm trying to get to roughly -12RMS at that stage. Then I'm using the Ozone 4, really only for limiting and boosting 'loudness' to -8RMS. Intelligent II is beast. The Studer tape compression is really eliminating my need to compress a lot at the mastering stage. I'm hoping to add an API outboard compressor to perhaps replace the Fatso. I love the Fatso, so its hard to part with it. But I want the API so that I have a diversified tool set.

Earlier tonight, I sent a client a first draft of a mastered track, and he said, "man I listened to it on my stereo at home and it sounded as loud and clean as stuff on CDs", which really made me feel good. Of course he had some criticisms about a few things needing to come out or move back, but it was great to hear that the 'mastering' was working for him. So, I'm going to move forward with this premaster/master method. But at the end of the day, its compression, EQ, limiting. The UAD Studer is an amazing plugin though. It does more then add harmonics. The Repro EQ does something really special to the low end. Man I'm enjoying this learning process. Its exciting yet challenging all at the same time.

[neilwilkes]

Originally Posted by Jakal

However most of the mixes I have had to deal with benefit greatly from Brainworx EQ and when bypassed, once applied, you really hear how bad the mix is. Mainly due to low ends not being in mono I presume when mixed.

That's something that really should be taken up with the producer & the artist then, as if it truly is that bad it needs remixing.
Your job is to prepare the masters for the intended release format in the main, and not to put your own sonic imprint on the tracks that have presumably been approved by the producer & the artist.

Seriously - there are countless mixes I would have done differently, but it does not mean the release is bad - just not the way you would do it as a mix engineer. Mastering should have a golden rule of "first do no harm".

[Kazuya]

On a good mix -> less is more
On a bad mix -> more can be more :-)

Really depends on the mix. I think nowadays there is a lot of "premastering" or "midrangemastering" because of the changing industrie.
The artist is the producer and the mixing engineer in one person and the hole production is done in a small homestudio... If i get a mix like that i´m not afraid of using a lot of processing.
If the mix is from a pro studio with a good engineer it can be enough to do some sweetening and comp/limiting.

But i always find it useful to start with nothing but a good eq.
Sit back, take a listen, take pen & paper and try to describe what the mix needs and how you wanne go there.

[IIIrd]

Keep it simple

[lu432]

If you client was happy that is really what matters, honestly. If your not happy the way the master sounds, its more than likely that your runing into room limitations, where you might be hearing things that are or not there, or that your unable to tackle, because you can't pin point them due to your room's limitation. Of course you can spend hours painfully isolating them and tackling them, but it becomes less financially rewarding tackling them since you find yourself doing revision after revision. Its really not your pluggins, its your room from the sounds of it.

[steffo]

I see no point of using more than one eq, one compressor and one limiter. Sometimes I like some color plugin but normally I prefer to mix through it and leave it there.

I think the problem when asking a question like that is that you pay to much attention to the technical side of it.

what does it sound like and what do you want to change?

Does it require more than one eq/comp/limiter?

If you can explain to yourself with confidence why you need all those plugins then you need them, If not you don't listen hard enough to the music yet and put your faith in the plugins instead of your ears. We all do sometime so nothing wrong with that..

[Jakal]

Well after a year of alot of reading and seeing a real master engineer at work I Settled with EQ's, Compressors, Imager, Multi-band and Limiter.

Which type and number of EQ's used is dependent on mix file. Same for compressor but only 1 used.

Thanks to those who gave me insight

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Jakal

Well after a year of alot of reading and seeing a real master engineer at work I Settled with EQ's, Compressors, Imager, Multi-band and Limiter.

Which type and number of EQ's used is dependent on mix file. Same for compressor but only 1 used.

Thanks to those who gave me insight

Most of the time I use one EQ and a limiter.


DC

[Slug1]

Originally Posted by Slug1

One of the things I'm starting to do now is "premastering" using an outboard EL7 Fatso, going through an Apogee Rosetta 200, followed by UAD Massive Passive followed by the UAD Studer A800, followed by a limiter (still looking for the right one). I'm hitting the Studer plugin hard and actually adding gain there. I'm trying to get to roughly -12RMS at that stage. Then I'm using the Ozone 4, really only for limiting and boosting 'loudness' to -8RMS. Intelligent II is beast. The Studer tape compression is really eliminating my need to compress a lot at the mastering stage. I'm hoping to add an API outboard compressor to perhaps replace the Fatso. I love the Fatso, so its hard to part with it. But I want the API so that I have a diversified tool set.

Earlier tonight, I sent a client a first draft of a mastered track, and he said, "man I listened to it on my stereo at home and it sounded as loud and clean as stuff on CDs", which really made me feel good. Of course he had some criticisms about a few things needing to come out or move back, but it was great to hear that the 'mastering' was working for him. So, I'm going to move forward with this premaster/master method. But at the end of the day, its compression, EQ, limiting. The UAD Studer is an amazing plugin though. It does more then add harmonics. The Repro EQ does something really special to the low end. Man I'm enjoying this learning process. Its exciting yet challenging all at the same time.

Funny coming back a year later and reading this post. Now have Manley vari mu, Massivo mastering, dangerous bax, and Lynx Hilo. Still using a similar approach but much simpler. Still getting as much gain as possible in the analog domain and clipping the Hilo. The vari mu simply for gain is amazing. No more than a half db of gr. Sublime for hip hop.

[StringBean]

Originally Posted by Jakal

Well after a year of alot of reading and seeing a real master engineer at work I Settled with one EQ, Compressor and Limiter.

[Owen Gillett]

Originally Posted by dcollins

Most of the time I use one EQ and a limiter.


DC

Hi DC,

I was curious as I have seen you post a couple of times that quite often you just use 1 eq and a limiter, is this because most mixes you receive are already compressed?

Do you have an opinion about using compressors just for the aesthetic? ie not for the sake of increasing loudness. Do you prefer to avoid compressors for the sake of making your touch more sonically transparent?

It just surprises me that you can get a high rms master (that sounds any good) with just a broadband limiter. Obviously you CAN, so yes... I was wondering if this is partly because the mixes you receive are already compressed?

Best,

Owen Gillett

[Thor]

Much of the time I use a compressor, it's not for level, but either:

1. to add density to a thin track, make it fuller by bringing up low level information, or

2. to change the 'feel' of a track by tweaking attack/release and ratio constants to help bring out the swing and drive if it isn't conveyed well enough in the mix, or

3. to bring disparate elements in the mix into the same space and room, i.e. glue. The vari-mu excels at this, I think it's because of the transformers.

Cheers,
Thor

[Jakal]

Originally Posted by dcollins

Most of the time I use one EQ and a limiter.


DC

Yes even just EQ and limiter can do. But mix files that need this minimal treatment have been done to a very high standard.

@stringbean yes 1 eq can do but i find each has its own benefit for dealing with specific ranges. If they are needed.

[Jakal]

Originally Posted by Slug1

Funny coming back a year later and reading this post. Now have Manley vari mu, Massivo mastering, dangerous bax, and Lynx Hilo. Still using a similar approach but much simpler. Still getting as much gain as possible in the analog domain and clipping the Hilo. The vari mu simply for gain is amazing. No more than a half db of gr. Sublime for hip hop.

great gear. I really do wish I had the cash to buy hardware.

You got all that in a year? You must have a very well paid job.

[wado1942]

Originally Posted by Jakal

However most of the mixes I have had to deal with benefit greatly from Brainworx EQ and when bypassed, once applied, you really hear how bad the mix is.

That's the ticket right there. If the mix is bad, it isn't at a point where it should be mastered. You can't always help that if you're mastering for somebody else, but it sounds like you're mastering your own mixes. If that's the case, it's better to go back and fix the mix to where it sounds right.

Also, dare to be different when it comes to levels. -4dBfs RMS sounds like crap regardless of the material and I'll guarantee you absolutely 100% that a good mix mastered to say -10dB will kick the snot out of anything that hot in a club. Even -6dB takes some great skill by an experienced engineer to make it sound half way decent. -4dB is such a small difference in loudness but such a huge difference in distortion and overall wimpiness of dynamics it's not worth it.

[Jakal]

Originally Posted by wado1942

That's the ticket right there. If the mix is bad, it isn't at a point where it should be mastered. You can't always help that if you're mastering for somebody else, but it sounds like you're mastering your own mixes. If that's the case, it's better to go back and fix the mix to where it sounds right.

Also, dare to be different when it comes to levels. -4dBfs RMS sounds like crap regardless of the material and I'll guarantee you absolutely 100% that a good mix mastered to say -10dB will kick the snot out of anything that hot in a club. Even -6dB takes some great skill by an experienced engineer to make it sound half way decent. -4dB is such a small difference in loudness but such a huge difference in distortion and overall wimpiness of dynamics it's not worth it.

Originally Posted by Jakal

brainworx eq gimmicks are just that.

lesson was learnt very quickly with that Brainworx EQ way back.

I hate tracks that have rms all the way up to -4. awful. No room for djs to maneuver on mixer with eqs when pushed that far.

Highest I will ever go is -6. But that is only if track can be pushed that far, most though sit well on -8 or -7. I look to keep true peak either on 0 or below. I use Nugen Vislm-h to monitor levels. With settings I got from Ian Shepard in one of his videos (don't know if any of you are familiar with him but his views and tips are great).

[wado1942]

Originally Posted by Jakal

lesson was learnt very quickly with that Brainworx EQ way back.

I hate tracks that have rms all the way up to -4. awful. No room for djs to maneuver on mixer with eqs when pushed that far.

Highest I will ever go is -6. But that is only if track can be pushed that far, most though sit well on -8 or -7. I look to keep true peak either on 0 or below. I use Nugen Vislm-h to monitor levels. With settings I got from Ian Shepard in one of his videos (don't know if any of you are familiar with him but his views and tips are great).

I didn't realize how old this thread was till just now.

Yeah, some stuff sits fine at -8. Almost everything works at -10 or so, so that's generally where I aim unless the client says otherwise.