use of L2 hardware in mix bad for mastering?

[kurtr2]

hi all,

i wonder if some of the masters can give their opinions on this:
i am mixing in analog then converting back to digital to print mixes. my chain is this:

DAW-DA16x-analog mixing-HEDD192-L2 Hardware-DV-RA1000hd.

my tracks were recorded at 96k. i am printing to 96k in the dv-ra.

my question is this: is it bad for mastering if i use the L2 in the mix? i am monitoring off the DV-RA1000 so i am adjusting the analog mix in conjunction with the L2, and some processing from the HEDD192.
i know you should keep about 3dbs of headroom on your mixses for the mastering stage so there is room for processing, so if i set the output ceiling on the L2 at -3db and mix to taste, is there any reason this is going to compromise the mastering stage? i am not slamming the L2, just using it for some peak limiting, about 3-4 dbs of maximizing.
thanks,
Kurt

[nemisis633]

Typically my experience has been that mastering engineers don't mind a little compression (If you mix through a bus compressor for example) , but anything thats being done for volume maximizing is better left to the mastering engineer.

Cheers,
Jon

[5down1up]

at least do 2 versions for the mastering. you cant get rid of that limiter vodoo.
and in most cases limiter is last so let the ME decide what fits the song and his/her processing and do not " limit " that task.


3-4 db sounds more like a VOLUME increaser, theres really no need for it imho.

good luck

[kurtr2]

there is something that the L2 does that changes the relationships of the elements in the mix. i like it. if i think of the L2 as a loudness maximizer then i feel like my thinking is incorrect, if i think of it as a dynamics tool for the mix, then i wonder if theres anything wrong with thinking of it that way. but i like the way it helps the mix itself, regardless of percieved volume.

\kurt

[ed littman]

Originally Posted by kurtr2

there is something that the L2 does that changes the relationships of the elements in the mix. i like it. if i think of the L2 as a loudness maximizer then i feel like my thinking is incorrect, if i think of it as a dynamics tool for the mix, then i wonder if theres anything wrong with thinking of it that way. but i like the way it helps the mix itself, regardless of percieved volume.

\kurt

If you like the way it sounds.......then your correct.

the -3db head room is more for having the mix retain it's dynamics bofore mastering then having room to process at mastering.
Ed

[kurtr2]

Originally Posted by ed littman

If you like the way it sounds.......then your correct.

the -3db head room is more for having the mix retain it's dynamics bofore mastering then having room to process at mastering.
Ed

dont quite follow you there.
as i understand it the 3 db headroom is so a mastering enginner can apply eq or gain changes to the material.

k

[ed littman]

Originally Posted by kurtr2

dont quite follow you there.
as i understand it the 3 db headroom is so a mastering enginner can apply eq or gain changes to the material.

k

Not necessarily. One can technically do this if the mix is blasted at 0dbfs.
for me, getting a mix with the dynamics intact (-3dbfs is just a safety measure)means i have a better starting point. more control over the possible options ,less distortion, more to work with & a cleaner chance of getting a loud master with some punch intact.
Ed

[kurtr2]

ok thanks.
for my education how would you add 2db of eq boost if the printed mix is slammed at 0 db? for example...

[ed littman]

Originally Posted by kurtr2

ok thanks.
for my education how would you add 2db of eq boost if the printed mix is slammed at 0 db? for example...

You pull down the faders of the original source file, or go over 0db in your work station. most allow this with minimal artifacts.
Ed

[5down1up]

Originally Posted by kurtr2

.
as i understand it the 3 db headroom is so a mastering enginner can apply eq or gain changes to the material.
k

most gonna hit their analogue gear anyway, they simply use their volume knobs on their d/a to in-decrease the volume. If the ME would really depend on ~ 3db headroom for processing i guess they would all kill themself pretty soon.

of course the L2 changes the sound of the mix, but in a way that shouldnt be part of a mixdown imho. as i said alrdy, leave it to the ME. limiting is one of the LAST things being applied.

good luck

[Legacy]

I'm not one of the masters but I do master a decent ammount of dynamic, acoustic music so here's my take. It doesn't matter so much what your peak level is if you are still limiting at that peak level. You are still changing the dynamics of the final mix at a stage that is a bit premature. The major point of leaving a few dB of headroom is so the transients have some room and don't get chopped off (either by clipping or by limiting).

I don't really think its a big deal if you are only very lightly limiting (meaning the limiter lights come on only very occasionally to catch some errant transients). But if its kicking in fairly often I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Let the ME do the real limiting after other processing.

-Silas

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by kurtr2

there is something that the L2 does that changes the relationships of the elements in the mix. i like it. if i think of the L2 as a loudness maximizer then i feel like my thinking is incorrect, if i think of it as a dynamics tool for the mix, then i wonder if theres anything wrong with thinking of it that way. but i like the way it helps the mix itself, regardless of percieved volume.

\kurt

Well, if you are thinking of it as a dynamics tool for the mix, then no one can fault you for using it. But it's a very fine line you have there. I'm betting that 9 out of 10 mixing and mastering engineers would feel that the extremely high compression ratio of the L2 is just not a very suitable "mix bus compressor". The first thing that the very-fast-attack L2 starts to deal with are transients, and if so, then you probably will find that a subtle compressor (or limiter) on the snare drum or whatever transient will accomplish the effect you are looking for in a less damaging manner. Also, consider that 3 dB of L2 on the mix is a LOT, for anyone, working, anywhere.... Are you sure you are not "volume maximizing" instead of doing it for the esthetics? To prove this objectively, turn the ceiling down on the L2 to the same level as your threshold so that you can compare at unity gain, turn up your monitor gain to compensate, and then switch the bypass switch in and out and in and out and in and out on the L2 until you are convinced that it sounds better one way or the other!

[kurtr2]

Thanks Bob, i will try that. i bought and read your book, i learned alot! thank you.

about this mix with the L2. let me tell you about what is going on with it. it is a live jazz quintet, 12 mics, 96k. the sounds are great, but there is alot of drums in everything, especially on the peaks, maybe 3db jumps in volume. so sometimes theres more drums in the piano mics than there is piano. i did do alot of volume automation on the drum tracks but the drums are also in the other mics so volume automation doesnt totally solve the problem.

the L2 on the mix bus to my ears is solving this problem in conjunction with my Fearn VT-7. the L2 is limiting the peaks of the drums in every channel and also bringing the body of the mix forward. it is working. i think it sounds very good, and i am a perfectionist.
the adjustment of the L2 is affecting the adjustment of all the other equipment in the chain, allowing me to use less bus compression. if i didnt use the L2 i would have to use much more VT-7 to squash the peaks and keep the drums tamed. that would result in audible compression, which i dont want.

so the L2 is doing three things-
1 taming the peaks of the drums
2 bringing the instruments into balance with the drums
3 maximizing volume to a degree

i can see that one should wait until mastering to decide upon whether or not to use a brick wall limiter for #3, but the tools one uses to mix are already affecting volume and dynamics in the mix. why isnt the L2 just another one of these tools? why should it be left for mastering? why dont people say that bus compression and eq should be left for mastering? is the L2 different because it is truncating the waveform over the ceiling? and this is a much more destructive thing to do to the audio than analog compression or limiting?
what does an analog compressor or limiter do to the waveform? is it more acceptable to the ME to have those types of artifacts or distortion on the mix presented? is there any technical reason why one should only be used by the ME? to my ears the distortion and artifacts introduced by the VT-7 are more audible than the L2, especially when trying to tame 3db peaks.

someone set me straight.

thanks
/kurt

sorry for the long post.

[5down1up]

why dont you just send the 2 versions to a mastering house and youll figure out very soon what the difference is !

good luck

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by kurtr2

Thanks Bob, i will try that. i bought and read your book, i learned alot! thank you.

about this mix with the L2. let me tell you about what is going on with it. it is a live jazz quintet, 12 mics, 96k. the sounds are great, but there is alot of drums in everything, especially on the peaks, maybe 3db jumps in volume. so sometimes theres more drums in the piano mics than there is piano. i did do alot of volume automation on the drum tracks but the drums are also in the other mics so volume automation doesnt totally solve the problem.

Thanks for your nice comments, Kurt. Well, based on your more detailed description of the problem, it may be that the L2 is your best solution for a miking and tracking problem. Without actually hearing the mix or the isolated tracks, I don't think anyone could give you better advice. But I agree that sometimes the L2 or any peak limiter can solve a difficult transient problem without causing audible compression effects.

The last time I solved a problem of a very snappy (and too loud) snare drum I used a Cranesong Trakker with just the ideal attack and release time, and there were no pumping or other effects. The use of a peak limiter would not have occurred to me in that case. But as I said, it might just be the trick for you!

Since you are so concerned and this is a difficult decision and you have asked for help, why not ask your M.E. to listen to your mix with and without the L2 and see what he suggests? In this case, your ears are probably telling you exactly the right thing, but 4 good ears are probably better than two! Or, print with and without the L2 so as not to paint yourself into a corner, becaue it's hard to predict the interactoin on further mastering processing.

BK

[kurtr2]

thanks again Bob and everyone, i appreciate your consideration. i will scale back the L2 as much as i can, and print with and without. i am also printing to DSD just cause i can with the DVRA1000hd. i like the way it sounds, somehow more engaging.
will you permit one more question? i am using R8brain for SRC and Ozone 3 for dither. i chose those only because of recommendations here on the board. i am so nervous about those two processes because my 96, 24 mixes sound really good and i hate the thought of losing the magic they have. it never seems to turn out right when i do it. i guess i need to do a methodical testing to see what my preferred method is.
i am astounded there isnt a consumer format for 24 bits and a higher sampling rate. but that is for another discussion.
thank you!
kurt

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by kurtr2

thanks again Bob and everyone, i appreciate your consideration. i will scale back the L2 as much as i can, and print with and without. i am also printing to DSD just cause i can with the DVRA1000hd. i like the way it sounds, somehow more engaging.
will you permit one more question? i am using R8brain for SRC and Ozone 3 for dither. i chose those only because of recommendations here on the board. i am so nervous about those two processes because my 96, 24 mixes sound really good and i hate the thought of losing the magic they have. it never seems to turn out right when i do it. i guess i need to do a methodical testing to see what my preferred method is.
i am astounded there isnt a consumer format for 24 bits and a higher sampling rate. but that is for another discussion.
thank you!
kurt

I don't know Ozone but R8Brain as SRC is first rate. If your 9624 mixes sound first rate and you are hearing meaningful degradation when reducing to 4416 with R8Brain and Ozone, I suspect you may have reached the limits of the technology! I'd have to hear your original and your results as would anyone to be objective about what you are talking. There are losses going to 4416, no matter what tools you choose. Can mastering "to compensate" help? Maybe. Depends on what your ears tell you, sometimes subtle mastreing processing can make a 9624 that sounds better to the ear and survives the trip to 4416 with less apparent loss.

Around here my choices of 16 bit dither inevitably are pwr 1, 2, or 3, whichever one seems to capture the essence of the source with the least intrusion. Some mastering engineers prefer simple flat dither or the Pacific Microsonics approach. Nothing is neutral, there's always a loss or some change. With some sources, the losses seem to be negligible. Your description of your recordings seem to be purist recordings. On an audiophile basis there is a loss and you may just be reacting to that loss.

I don't know if this helps or gives you encouragement that you may be doing the best you can.

[crna59]

Originally Posted by kurtr2

thanks again Bob and everyone, i appreciate your consideration. i will scale back the L2 as much as i can, and print with and without. i am also printing to DSD just cause i can with the DVRA1000hd. i like the way it sounds, somehow more engaging. kurt

If you like the DSD format, why don't you just go DSD -> SACD and create a hybrid disc?

Regards,
Bruce

[kurtr2]

is pow-r available for cubase or standalone?

thanks,
i would like to go the sacd route, we'll see about the budget/marketing/label perspective on that.

thanks again!
kurt