The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Position of analog gear in mastering chain Dynamics Processors (HW)
Old 28th August 2007
  #1
Gear Addict
 
cemski's Avatar
Position of analog gear in mastering chain

Hello my dear mastering friends!
Maybe a stupid question, but who knows:
Beside taste and the sound of the source material is there a preferred position in your mastering chain where you insert your analog gear? Any technical reasons and hints? i would appreciate your opinion =)

Greetings from Berlin,
Cem
Old 28th August 2007
  #2
Gear Maniac
 
Fabio's Avatar
Hello,
there is no rule. However before the brickwall digital limiter and SRC/Dithering!!
The important is that you avoid more than one conversion DAD!
Old 28th August 2007
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by cemski View Post
is there a preferred position in your mastering chain where you insert your analog gear? Any technical reasons and hints?
Basic Approach:

DAW > DAC > EQ > Compression > ADC > Limiter > DAW

Alternative:

DAW > DAC > EQ > Compression > more EQ > ADC > Limiter > DAW

EQ correction before Compression as a general tendency.

JT
Old 28th August 2007
  #4
Lives for gear
 
inlinenl's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Hello Cem,


Okay this is my most used config .... can switch .. depending on goal/sorce/client-wish ...

DAW -> digital compression ( weiss ) -> digital EQ ( weiss ) -> DAC ( hedd ) EQ analog -> analog Compression -> ADC -> Limiting ( if needed ) -> DAW

reason for this chain : prepare/deliver the audio as "clean" as I want it to hit the analog chain ... which could be in the sweet-spot .. and just needs a little "fine "tweak ...

hopes this helps ...
Old 28th August 2007
  #5
Gear Addict
 
cemski's Avatar
Hello!
Many thanx for the quick replies! your answers help a lot!

funny that many people (like me) only use a compressor as outboard gear for mastering (like myself). though i think an analog coloring eq might be something good for me: faster and better to work on. also cant get the right hi's from the box.

i asked about the chain order because i thought about putting the analog compressor to the end (before limiting) to "analogize all the processes that i have done in the box...
does that make sense technically?

all the best
cem

Quote:
Originally Posted by inlinenl View Post
Hello Cem,


Okay this is my most used config .... can switch .. depending on goal/sorce/client-wish ...

DAW -> digital compression ( weiss ) -> digital EQ ( weiss ) -> DAC ( hedd ) EQ analog -> analog Compression -> ADC -> Limiting ( if needed ) -> DAW

reason for this chain : prepare/deliver the audio as "clean" as I want it to hit the analog chain ... which could be in the sweet-spot .. and just needs a little "fine "tweak ...

hopes this helps ...
Old 28th August 2007
  #6
Lives for gear
 
inlinenl's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by cemski View Post
Hello!

i asked about the chain order because i thought about putting the analog compressor to the end (before limiting) to "analogize all the processes that i have done in the box...
does that make sense technically?

all the best
cem
Hi Cem,

technically it makes sense if you've got a decent bus/mix-compressor, what about you're AD/DA ... ( oops what do I know about mixing ... )

But mastering is a bit more than just a compressor on the mix-bus ... for sure you could make you're mixes sound the way you like ... but maybe some decent mastering by a ME could take you're mixes somewhere you would not have thought about .. some fresh ears/ideas on you're tracks could bring out the full-potential .. focus on song-writing/sounds/recording/mixing ..... that's already enough skills to learn for a lifetime ....

p.s. loved biking around berlin east/west ... maybe you hate bikes ..... nice "freaky"website you have
Old 29th August 2007
  #7
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
DAW -> M/S and/or stereo field expansion (optional) -> digital compression (optional) -> digital EQ ( opt. and if used, dynamic eq ) -> DAC -> tape layback (ATR 1/2", optional) -> EQ analog -> analog compression -> ADC -> digital gain( optional) -> limiting -> DAW
Old 29th August 2007
  #8
Lives for gear
 
phild's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by cemski View Post
... is there a preferred position in your mastering chain where you insert your analog gear?
Here's what I'm in deep training for:

My "eye of the tiger" signal path:

DAW#1 ---> DA ---> Sontec EQ/Gain Stage ---> AD ---> DAW#2

(alright, on Monday mornings/Friday afternoons - maybe add a harder edged EQ if I need a liitle more "hurt" before the AD)
Old 29th August 2007
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by phild View Post
Here's what I'm in deep training for:

My "eye of the tiger" signal path:

DAW#1 ---> DA ---> Sontec EQ/Gain Stage ---> AD ---> DAW#2

(alright, on Monday mornings/Friday afternoons - maybe add a harder edged EQ if I need a liitle more "hurt" before the AD)
Hey Phil:

I noticed that you have a second DAW, presumably for recording your masters(?).

If so, how do you reference to an already recorded master when working on another track?
Old 29th August 2007
  #10
Lives for gear
 
phild's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Krehm View Post
Hey Phil:

I noticed that you have a second DAW, presumably for recording your masters(?).

If so, how do you reference to an already recorded master when working on another track?
Until about 2 years ago I used 2 DAWS - from 100% Mac to 100% Windows.
Protools on a G4 and a turnkey Sonic Solutions
Protools on a G4 and a turnkey Sadie

& now...

just one computer running either 2 cases of Sequoia or ProTools and Sequoia. But I do have a spare laptop which is sitting around and it is admittedly kinda cozy to use.

Cross referencing tracks is easy enuff, I suppose. I just hit play on my record machine and that defeats the input from the other application. (Is that what u asked?)

Actually, it's interesting that you mention that. I'm trying to train myself away from referencing/cross referencing, a bit. I want to build some new skills and do more things that are outside my comfort zone.
Old 29th August 2007
  #11
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
DAW -> DA => cut eq => clean compressor => boost eq => AD -> limiter -> Hedd -> DAW
Old 29th August 2007
  #12
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by phild View Post
Until about 2 years ago I used 2 DAWS - from 100% Mac to 100% Windows.
Protools on a G4 and a turnkey Sonic Solutions
Protools on a G4 and a turnkey Sadie

& now...

just one computer running either 2 cases of Sequoia or ProTools and Sequoia. But I do have a spare laptop which is sitting around and it is admittedly kinda cozy to use.

Cross referencing tracks is easy enuff, I suppose. I just hit play on my record machine and that defeats the input from the other application. (Is that what u asked?)

Actually, it's interesting that you mention that. I'm trying to train myself away from referencing/cross referencing, a bit. I want to build some new skills and do more things that are outside my comfort zone.
Yes, this is what I am asking.

So if one wanted to insert two markers on a song, say a verse and out chorus, while mastering the first song, would you have to insert the same markers on the mastered song in the second DAW if one wanted to refer to the exact same points while working on the next track?

We had one computer setup that my tech guy setup to work like you have your Sequoia setup working, using Logic to record to and PTs to play locked together with machine control, but it was too flaky for prime time. In this system, I could mute the mastered mix in PTs but still use the markers in PTs and it would play the master from Logic. This is an optimum setup for the way I master and of course works great in one DAW but for a couple of reasons, would like to make it work with a "record" computer.

I am interested in trying this in one computer via Sequoia but it really expensive to switch to a new computer platform and Sequoia itself is also very pricey. I'm not sure if it would improve my work enough to warrant spending the several thousand dollars it would take to switch!

Once again, I have to LOL at our seemingly different approaches! I continually reference to my mastered tracks during an album session and given the success I've had in mastering albums that are nicely balanced throughout, doubt if I would ever change that approach.

I even reference to other good sounding albums while mastering the first track of the album (not necessarily track 1), just to confirm that I'm doing my best with what I have to work with and also b/c masters are constantly being played against other in iTunes, multi-spin CD players, etc. I always find it interesting and sometime instructive to listen to the work of other engineers.

I'm interested in trying different ways of using gear that I have, if the ways I currently use aren't getting the job done but have little interest in trying things just to shake me out of my "comfort zone"!
Old 29th August 2007
  #13
Lives for gear
 
phild's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Krehm View Post
Yes, this is what I am asking.

So if one wanted to insert two markers on a song, say a verse and out chorus, while mastering the first song, would you have to insert the same markers on the mastered song in the second DAW if one wanted to refer to the exact same points while working on the next track?
I don't see why not? But I just usually drop the cursor and hit play

Quote:
We had one computer setup that my tech guy setup to work like you have your Sequoia setup working, using Logic to record to and PTs to play locked together with machine control, but it was too flaky for prime time. In this system, I could mute the mastered mix in PTs but still use the markers in PTs and it would play the master from Logic. This is an optimum setup for the way I master and of course works great in one DAW but for a couple of reasons, would like to make it work with a "record" computer.
Machine control would be too much hassle for me. However, If I did have only one one program to do this (like 2 Sequoia's with 2 soundcards) then I would do the way I used to do with Sonic solutions. Source and destination - with in/out "gates". I learned that from George Graves and saw the same technique used by Tom Coyne years later. Old school = good school (for me).

Quote:
I am interested in trying this in one computer via Sequoia but it really expensive to switch to a new computer platform and Sequoia itself is also very pricey. I'm not sure if it would improve my work enough to warrant spending the several thousand dollars it would take to switch!
If it doesn't improve your sound or speed then why bother? Peer pressure and conformity on these forums to only use - or not use - certain brands seems ****ing crazy to me. It's so easy to become one of the "sheep". I've been victim to that myself. Save your money for now.

Quote:
Once again, I have to LOL at our seemingly different approaches! I continually reference to my mastered tracks during an album session and given the success I've had in mastering albums that are nicely balanced throughout, doubt if I would ever change that approach.
Never change, Andy!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Krehm View Post
I even reference to other good sounding albums while mastering the first track of the album (not necessarily track 1), just to confirm that I'm doing my best with what I have to work with and also b/c masters are constantly being played against other in iTunes, multi-spin CD players, etc. I always find it interesting and sometime instructive to listen to the work of other engineers.
Yep, I also do that as well - even to the point of being able to recognize the work of certain mastering engineers in blind listening tests. This precisely what I want to avoid - certainly with the client in attendance! Unless I set my own reference point I will always be playing follow-the-leader. Figuratively speaking, If you want to be one of the greats then people will use you YOU as the reference not the other way around. I need to take that next step and trust my experience (about 7.5 working years) from working in my studio. If I took an album project to another mastering engineer (and I have) and they used someone's else record as a reference point I would be very suspicious of their talents. Wouldn't you find it weird? I would be dissapointed. Luckily, none of the "big" guys I respect have done that. That is influential to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Krehm View Post
I'm interested in trying different ways of using gear that I have, if the ways I currently use aren't getting the job done but have little interest in trying things just to shake me out of my "comfort zone"!
Cool. I need a constant challenges or layers of fat start to develop.
Old 30th August 2007
  #14
Here for the gear
 
digitalvoices's Avatar
 

Just wondering if anyone might use 2 EQ's for boost.....one for mids like a Massive and one for lows and high freq like an Ibis or whatever your flavour preference maybe.

How would that look?

Daw > DA > Cut EQ > Comp > EQ1 & EQ2 boost > AD > Limiter > DAW.

LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF EQ.

Perhaps the Cut EQ could be kept digital and reduce the analog signal path.


Julio
Old 31st August 2007
  #15
sometimes 2 boost eqs here for different flavour... like:

DAW > (multiband if needed) > DA > Cut EQ (IBIS) > COMP > BOOST EQs GYRAF GXIV & modified Neumann W495B > LIMITER (sometimes) > AD > LIMITER > DAW
Old 31st August 2007
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julio View Post
Just wondering if anyone might use 2 EQ's for boost.....one for mids like a Massive and one for lows and high freq like an Ibis or whatever your flavour preference maybe.
When the track needs it, I'll without hesitation use 3 different eq's in series (usually with maybe only 1 or 2 bands active on each). There is of course very good reason to attempt to keep the signal path in a mastering processing chain as simple as possible at all times - but if it simply sounds better breaking a "rule" then I'm going to go ahead and do it.

To my ear there's just some things that sound better on one eq or the other - i.e. for my own rig - mid boosts 1 - 2kHz usually sound best on my modded Medici, if I need a really broad high shelf boost I'll usually go to my Sontec, I really like low mid cuts around 200 - 400 on my 5500, etc. etc. - but which eq works best for that frequency band can vary from desired sound and the sound of the original source track being processed. Sometimes doing a little bit of a boost in a similar area with two different eq's can yield a better sounding result to my ear than just doing a larger boost with a single eq. Other times it's just the opposite and by stripping things to a simpler state it works better. Thing to do is start with a "blank slate" and an open mind, draw from experience as to what might work better, and then let your ears tell you what is or isn't working.

Anyway - I certainly never think of one eq as a "cut eq" and another as a "booster" though - all the ones I have are capable in both areas - to me it's just matching up a particular application of a freqency band with the best eq in the rack to tweak it. Learning your hardware like it's the back of your hand so you can make these choices by experience instead of long trial and error during the session is important - and one of the reasons that so many of the really great ME's don't really change their gear - or have a long list of choices - very often at all.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 9th September 2007
  #17
Lives for gear
 

once you're back in digital land, you gotta brickwall, SRC and dither. I like to do these in that order (to stay hi-res as long as poss), but does anyone know what to expect if the SRC came before the limiter? I only ask cos some SRC's seem to require "headroom"...
Old 9th September 2007
  #18
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
once you're back in digital land, you gotta brickwall, SRC and dither. I like to do these in that order (to stay hi-res as long as poss), but does anyone know what to expect if the SRC came before the limiter? I only ask cos some SRC's seem to require "headroom"...
It's a bit of a tradeoff. If you use the TC brickwall it does an excellent job of staying clean by its internal upsampler, so the TC brickwall sounds just as good at single or double sample rates. And in fact, because the TC recognizes the overs that can come from an SRC, it doesn't matter if you put the TC in either of these orders:

SRC to 44
Brickwall at 44 (TC is the only candidate to place in this order)
Dither to 16

Brickwall at 96
SRC to 44
Dither to 16


However, if you are using a standard limiter like the L2, you can take your chances and set the ceiling to -0.3 and then put it in front of the SRC. That's your best best as in my opinion, the L2 sounds less bright and less harsh if used at double sample rates.

In all cases, the dither to 16 bit must come last!

BK
Old 5th July 2008
  #19
Gear Addict
 
Kayo's Avatar
 

Hey...
Don't we first limit >> then dither to move all info up >> and only then SRC, now that we have moved all the deep info to the top??

Thought, I'd just ask the question.
Thanks guys.
Old 5th July 2008
  #20
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Krehm View Post
DAW -> M/S and/or stereo field expansion (optional) -> digital compression (optional) -> digital EQ ( opt. and if used, dynamic eq ) -> DAC -> tape layback (ATR 1/2", optional) -> EQ analog -> analog compression -> ADC -> digital gain( optional) -> limiting -> DAW
Hey Andy I know this was posted some time ago, but I couldn't help but notice the position of your (tape layback) in your chain. Don't you find that having it first in the analog chain that further EQ/Compression/limiting brings out the tape hiss more?

I usually have it at the end of my analog chain & if I need to compensate for bottom end I do it before it hits tape. I also find that it normally results in a cleaner (less hiss) master at the end too. Just an observation, didn't mean to intrude on what works best for you.

Matt
Old 6th July 2008
  #21
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
Hey Andy I know this was posted some time ago, but I couldn't help but notice the position of your (tape layback) in your chain. Don't you find that having it first in the analog chain that further EQ/Compression/limiting brings out the tape hiss more?

I usually have it at the end of my analog chain & if I need to compensate for bottom end I do it before it hits tape. I also find that it normally results in a cleaner (less hiss) master at the end too. Just an observation, didn't mean to intrude on what works best for you.

Matt
Interesting idea which I've never tried!

When using the tape lay-back style, I've always treated it as if the mixer had used tape which is why it is in that position.

That is also why I do any stereo or M/S treatment very early on b/c I figure that could have (may should have) been the work of the mixer.

But I do have some digital gear in front of the DAC as I also like to be able to make tonal adjustments (if necessary) in the digital domain before the tape using my Weiss units & some of the TC 6000 engines.

As for hiss, we did have too much in the early months but my tech guy worked with Andrew and Mike at ATR to find an optimal setting that would work best for the way I work. After we found the "sweet spot", we rarely have had any complaints about tape hiss. I can also switch to 30 ips if the track is slow and has very sparse instrumentation. In extreme cases, I can master a piano intro to a heavy track without tape and then just edit it to the rest of the track so I can use tape and avoid audible hiss.

I do realize that there are different ways that the machine can be calibrated but I really like to work quickly and efficiently so I never change the settings (unless mastering from tapes that are sent to us). In fact, I delegate the calibration/biasing to my tech guy and all I do is clean the heads and demagnetize them.

I have a 3 position switch which make auditioning really easy. Middle position is BP (XLR to XLR, no tape path whatsoever), Left is the Aria head and Right is the Stock head.

The first thing I do is adjust the level of the mix to the tape and then run through the 3 positions. This way it is usually very obvious which is the best way to go for the track. I think I remember reading that you record the signal to your hard drive and proceed digitally from there (?).

I just run the machine in record and when it runs out, do it again. I get about 200 spins before I notice any difference in the tape. Once in a while, I'll do an erase run which does cut the hiss down. I've been thinking about a degausser to do a bulk erase for a long time now but have never bothered as tape hiss complaints rarely happen here. The reason I run this way is that I want all processing to be in real-time so I can hear the final results and make any adjustments bofore committing.

Since I bought the machine I've had to recently relap the heads and actually had to replace the Stock play-back head. I never thought I would use it so much!

Recently I ran out of Quantegy GP9 and switched to ATR tape. Unfortunately, it is in the same time period that I had the Aria play-back head relapped and had the new stock head installed. Way too many sonic changes to be able to evaluate the differences in the sound of the tape so all I can say is that things certainly sound different! But, still useful as ever.

BTW, I hate to mention this, but after using the machine for so long I find the Stock head a very attractive option to the Aria. In other words, if you find yourself using the machine a fair bit, you really should consider getting the stock electronics.

If you want, I can do a test for you like the last time. You will be amazed at the difference in sound. Having the second head is almost like having another equalizer. At the moment, when I use tape, my split is about 50/50 between heads.
Old 6th July 2008
  #22
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Krehm View Post
When using the tape lay-back style, I've always treated it as if the mixer had used tape which is why it is in that position.
Seems logical except that the engineer didn't mix into the tape so it's a different thing. If a mix is dull & then you hit tape (especially at 15ips) you will need to boost your HF EQ considerably to re-balance. In the process the tape hiss which is mostly HF content will also come up with it & the compression will usually compound the issue.

Personally I treat my mastering chain & tape machine almost like a mix bus chain that's been set up for a mix engineer, except that I have mastering grade processors & monitoring at my disposal (like a uber cool mix down suite!). I am using the tape much in the same way as a mix engineer would by altering compression, EQ etc. before hitting the tape at just the right level. This gives a more even saturation point & a better SHR (signal to hiss ratio). I like to look at my mastering approach as an extension of the mix down process not a separate thing altogether. Following up with a gain stage & limiter to bring up the final levels.

Quote:
That is also why I do any stereo or M/S treatment very early on b/c I figure that could have (may should have) been the work of the mixer.

But I do have some digital gear in front of the DAC as I also like to be able to make tonal adjustments (if necessary) in the digital domain before the tape using my Weiss units & some of the TC 6000 engines.
If I need to do some EQ cuts I usually do it in the digital domain first with the Weiss EQ-1 or the new Sonoris LP EQ. Most boosts (EQ & compression) are done in the analog domain before hitting the tape machine.

Quote:
As for hiss, we did have too much in the early months but my tech guy worked with Andrew and Mike at ATR to find an optimal setting that would work best for the way I work. After we found the "sweet spot", we rarely have had any complaints about tape hiss.
I too use the higher operating level of +9 over 185nWb/m & at 30ips hiss is virtually non-existent.

Quote:
I can also switch to 30 ips if the track is slow and has very sparse instrumentation.
Oh I forgot you mostly use yours at 15ips, I just don't like the sound of the ATR as much at 15ips, I find I lose too much HF detail & the bottom is skewed a bit. 30ips is just right & sounds very modern & detailed with a more even frequency response. If I want character or more of a 'retro' sound I'll use the Studer A807 quarter inch at 15ips with RMGI 911.

Quote:
I do realize that there are different ways that the machine can be calibrated but I really like to work quickly and efficiently so I never change the settings (unless mastering from tapes that are sent to us). In fact, I delegate the calibration/biasing to my tech guy and all I do is clean the heads and demagnetize them.
Same here, I never alter the ATR's calibration unless it needs it at which point my tech gets the call to come over. The last time this happened was when I made the switch from GP9 to ATR-Magnetics tape. It was the flattest response my tech had ever measured from a tape machine! He was very impressed by the ATR/ARIA machine with the ATR Magnetics tape combo.

Quote:
I have a 3 position switch which make auditioning really easy. Middle position is BP (XLR to XLR, no tape path whatsoever), Left is the Aria head and Right is the Stock head.
I'm using a Dangerous 'Master' section now for all my analog inserts, I've got an API 2500 on insert 1, the Sontec on insert 2 (switchable to M/S with an analog spreader if required), the ATR on insert 3 followed by the T.C. Phoenix.

Quote:
I think I remember reading that you record the signal to your hard drive and proceed digitally from there (?).
Not any longer I've figured out a way of running everything in real time so no need to print twice. I can monitor the complete mastering path in real time including limiting. With the ATR on an analog insert, I can quickly check if it suits the track by punching that insert in & out. If it suits the track it stays in if not it's completely out of the path which is a good thing as the input mode on the ARIA flips the phase on both channels 180º.

Quote:
Recently I ran out of Quantegy GP9 and switched to ATR tape. Unfortunately, it is in the same time period that I had the Aria play-back head relapped and had the new stock head installed. Way too many sonic changes to be able to evaluate the differences in the sound of the tape so all I can say is that things certainly sound different! But, still useful as ever.
Well I got to hear the difference with the same heads just different calibration & I actually prefer the ATR Magnetics tape over GP9 now, it definitely compresses a little more but it's also warmer with less of a 'glassy' sound on the high frequencies.

Quote:
BTW, I hate to mention this, but after using the machine for so long I find the Stock head a very attractive option to the Aria. In other words, if you find yourself using the machine a fair bit, you really should consider getting the stock electronics.
No need to go there, the ARIA is perfect for me, our approach & machines are a little different. My heads are 'standard response' flux magnetics not 'extended response' like yours, so it's LF head bump is a little higher up the frequency range, I always run at 30ips & I run it almost last in the analog chain. Also since changing over to the ATR tape I've got a slightly warmer character which is purely the new tape formula combined with the head response (no colouration from the electronics). If I want more old school charm, I switch to the Studer &/or rely on other processing options.

Matt
Old 7th July 2008
  #23
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
I always run at 30ips & I run it almost last in the analog chain. Also since changing over to the ATR tape I've got a slightly warmer character which is purely the new tape formula combined with the head response (no colouration from the electronics).
I'm intrigued. I'm old enough to have been part of some really good recordings, tape all the way. Any chance you'd want to use part of one of my mixes, master it the way you're describing, and we could see what it sounds like?

Otherwise, I can always email and see if you'll do a sample if you prefer.
Old 7th July 2008
  #24
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peakly View Post
I'm intrigued. I'm old enough to have been part of some really good recordings, tape all the way. Any chance you'd want to use part of one of my mixes, master it the way you're describing, and we could see what it sounds like?

Otherwise, I can always email and see if you'll do a sample if you prefer.
Probably best to contact me off list, unless there is a real interest for other people to hear this approach?

Matt
Old 7th July 2008
  #25
Lives for gear
OK Matt, I'll email you, because I'm definitely interested. Thanks.
Old 8th July 2008
  #26
1) Why do you guys not put reverb in the equation. Is that not and important source of glue, esp with a quality 2 ch reverb processor ?? If used, where in the chain??

2) If reveb can be used well in mastering, how do we decide how much to hold back when mixing?
Old 8th July 2008
  #27
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundseeker View Post
1) Why do you guys not put reverb in the equation. Is that not and important source of glue, esp with a quality 2 ch reverb processor ?? If used, where in the chain??

2) If reveb can be used well in mastering, how do we decide how much to hold back when mixing?
reverb is your job thumbsup
Old 8th July 2008
  #28
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
reverb is your job thumbsup
thanks for the encouragement to find my own way. would love to hear some stories from people whove already been up and down the mountain though.
Old 8th July 2008
  #29
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundseeker View Post
thanks for the encouragement to find my own way. would love to hear some stories from people whove already been up and down the mountain though.
The mountain is called 'mixing vision and the skill to make it happen'. The best mixes need a very light touch of eq and probably some light limiting. The next level of mixes need compression as well. The next level of mixes need more radical eq .... way down the list, mixes that need reverb, almost always the result of something being wrong. I've added verb once to great mixes, but it was ambient material already and the mixer was into the idea on 1/2 of them.
Old 8th July 2008
  #30
Thanks lucey

a very lucid and present answer.

the reason I thought a 2 ch reverb has its place on the 2 bus, is that it would allow the musicians to share the same reverb space dynamics.(the same glue) In contrast, where the reverb is applied individually, each component would be generating its own ripples, which might not interact very naturally in the mix
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Magic Mill / Mastering forum
19
maim9 / Low End Theory
6
Dr Gruv / Mastering forum
19
Cape / So much gear, so little time
13

Forum Jump
Forum Jump