|
|
Post by M57 on Oct 12, 2021 19:00:35 GMT -6
I'm in the market for one of these things, and I was reading the Lurssen thread I got to wondering.. How do these things work? Do they first analyze the track, and then attempt to get the track to sonically match a reference track or attain a sound based on the average sound of a group of reference tracks in a given genre, and do they just apply their preset mojo regardless of what's there, or is it hypothetically possible to load up a track that's already "perfectly" mixed such that an algorithm would decide to do nothing? My guess is the answer lies somewhere in between. Can folks elucidate on what's going on, and perhaps explain how different products out there approach things differently?
As an amateur singer-songwriter I pseudo master on the 2 as I mix, so I end up with is my best attempt to mimic a mastered mix. In theory, if I'm really good at it, a good mastering engineer shouldn't have to do much. On the other hand if I suck, the guy has his work cut out for him. Let's say that my mixes are closer to the latter category because I don't know what the hell I'm doing? Based on the methodology/approach they use, which of these programs is better at putting lipstick on my pig.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2021 4:15:09 GMT -6
I just read up on the Lurssen mastering console and I've come across these types before via EZmix. Essentially they're a bunch of presets with a few extra "knobs", I've not used the Lurssen suite (so it might be great?) but EZmix was just fine... I guess, better than not having a clue I suppose.
Ozone 9 standard is on offer at the moment, just bought it myself. It has an EQ match function which analyses a reference song and IME that's where most people struggle. It also has a mastering assistant which isn't half bad actually, you select what "style" you're going for like vintage or modern, how loud you want it to be and what the end target is like streaming for example. From there on it'll set the compressor functions / maximiser etc. and essentially gives you a good starting point.
The advantage of Ozone is you can fix anything you don't like, also Ozone already has presets and some of them aren't half bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Oct 13, 2021 4:30:58 GMT -6
Yeah, I can get the LUFS in a good range and I'm just figuring out how to do it while manipulating the dynamic range at the same time, but the process is counterintuitive and time consuming. My EQing abilities are definitely lacking. Just the other day, I had someone else master my work, then I went back and tried to match it. That helped for sure. So I know I can learn how to do it. I guess I'm at a point where I need to make a decision. Do I really want to take the time to learn to master my stuff and get one of the suites that allows me to get lost in minutia, or am I better off just getting one of these set and forget suites with a bare-bones user interface?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2021 5:03:56 GMT -6
Y'know unless the mix is bad less is often more, most of the time it's just a bit (and I mean a bit) of EQ / compression and limiting to glue everything together (also I generally stack a couple of mastering limiters). Wideners have never given me anything more than headaches, maximisers and clipping should be used sparingly IMO and de-essers / reverbs should IMO only be used when mixing.
Sure there is M/S parametric EQ manipulation and multi-band compression but I wouldn't trust anything but a good mastering engineer to mess around with that, plus it's not often needed unless you're a bit odd like me and have the urge to classically widen everything for that retro console sound.
You can DL an Ozone trial for free so give it a go, select the mastering assistant, drop in a reference track to automatically EQ it and see if it gets you where you need to go. If not go for a Lurssen type setup..
|
|
|
|
Post by bossanova on Oct 13, 2021 8:17:04 GMT -6
Yeah, I can get the LUFS in a good range and I'm just figuring out how to do it while manipulating the dynamic range at the same time, but the process is counterintuitive and time consuming. My EQing abilities are definitely lacking. Just the other day, I had someone else master my work, then I went back and tried to match it. That helped for sure. So I know I can learn how to do it. I guess I'm at a point where I need to make a decision. Do I really want to take the time to learn to master my stuff and get one of the suites that allows me to get lost in minutia, or am I better off just getting one of these set and forget suites with a bare-bones user interface? Ozone is really good at setting dynamic EQ cuts if nothing else. The limiter is good, the tape and saturations are interesting, and if you go Advanced, the Tonal Balance Control is invaluable for isolating the problem areas you can't hear. IMO, way more useful than Mastering Console VSTs which are typically comp/EQ/saturation chains with a limited number of settings and a hard limiter at the end. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Oct 13, 2021 11:51:47 GMT -6
I don't think anything outside late model Ozone is doing any analysis/AI...and obviously the online robot mastering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2021 12:48:01 GMT -6
The Tokyo Dawn bundle is still the cleanest digital stuff. It’s ridiculously clean. There’s just zero hand holding or trying to hide over limiting outside of the program dependencies.
|
|
|
|
Post by bossanova on Oct 13, 2021 14:10:43 GMT -6
The Tokyo Dawn bundle is still the cleanest digital stuff. It’s ridiculously clean. There’s just zero hand holding or trying to hide over limiting outside of the program dependencies. I will echo this...if your ears/monitoring are good enough that you can live without the Tonal Balance metering, Rebalancing, and the AI tools, the combination of TDR Kotelnikov/Slick EQ M/Nova/Molot/Limiter GE suite gets you a set of tools are as good or better quality than the same options in Ozone. And while not on the same level, their Smart Ops tool for finding resonances works pretty damn well. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Oct 13, 2021 15:19:35 GMT -6
As an amateur singer-songwriter I pseudo master on the 2 as I mix, so I end up with is my best attempt to mimic a mastered mix. In theory, if I'm really good at it, a good mastering engineer shouldn't have to do much. On the other hand if I suck, the guy has his work cut out for him. Let's say that my mixes are closer to the latter category because I don't know what the hell I'm doing? Based on the methodology/approach they use, which of these programs is better at putting lipstick on my pig. Based on title I thought this was going to be about actual mastering consoles... analog transfer desks. Not software based packages... While I'd hesitate to hang out a shingle as a true mastering engineer, reality is I've cut more then a couple three masters over the years for all kinds of indie labels & self released projects. That said my opinion on the "automated mastering" is that having tried a few over the years, they all kinda suck. Personally I can get farther ahead with a well picked EQ and limiter. Maybe saturation too if the project needs it. YMMV. The vibe I get from automated software is that they're attempting to emulate the chain of equipment & decisions that would be made by an actual mastering cat who's patched it all together with their transfer console. And I guess depending on desired expectations etc results can range from "icky" to "that's not so bad!" - but overall probably better then using Landr. Technically mastering is the last step of the creative process, but its really the first step in replication and releasing music to the world. Its technical more then creative. Best results, no matter what equipment is used tend to come when mastering is separated from mixing. Mastering is about context as much as anything else... treating a group of songs as a whole. Making sure things are uniform, balancing low end to song gaps so the music will translate to various playback mediums... from CD & vinyl to streaming that everyone has the same listening experience. For example, if your doing an EP or LP with 5-10 songs? Trying to master while mixing and/or mastering each one on its own? Probably not a great idea. But if your just putting out a single or two here & there? Throwing stuff up on soundcloud vs doing an actual release? Then I'm sure any of the "one shot mastering" programs are fine... at that point its probably a matter of taste or preferring a certain GUI. Carry on! |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,982 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Oct 13, 2021 19:07:03 GMT -6
As an amateur singer-songwriter I pseudo master on the 2 as I mix, so I end up with is my best attempt to mimic a mastered mix. In theory, if I'm really good at it, a good mastering engineer shouldn't have to do much. On the other hand if I suck, the guy has his work cut out for him. Let's say that my mixes are closer to the latter category because I don't know what the hell I'm doing? Based on the methodology/approach they use, which of these programs is better at putting lipstick on my pig. Based on title I thought this was going to be about actual mastering consoles... analog transfer desks. Not software based packages... While I'd hesitate to hang out a shingle as a true mastering engineer, reality is I've cut more then a couple three masters over the years for all kinds of indie labels & self released projects. That said my opinion on the "automated mastering" is that having tried a few over the years, they all kinda suck. Personally I can get farther ahead with a well picked EQ and limiter. Maybe saturation too if the project needs it. YMMV. The vibe I get from automated software is that they're attempting to emulate the chain of equipment & decisions that would be made by an actual mastering cat who's patched it all together with their transfer console. And I guess depending on desired expectations etc results can range from "icky" to "that's not so bad!" - but overall probably better then using Landr. Technically mastering is the last step of the creative process, but its really the first step in replication and releasing music to the world. Its technical more then creative. Best results, no matter what equipment is used tend to come when mastering is separated from mixing. Mastering is about context as much as anything else... treating a group of songs as a whole. Making sure things are uniform, balancing low end to song gaps so the music will translate to various playback mediums... from CD & vinyl to streaming that everyone has the same listening experience. For example, if your doing an EP or LP with 5-10 songs? Trying to master while mixing and/or mastering each one on its own? Probably not a great idea. But if your just putting out a single or two here & there? Throwing stuff up on soundcloud vs doing an actual release? Then I'm sure any of the "one shot mastering" programs are fine... at that point its probably a matter of taste or preferring a certain GUI. Carry on! Nailed it; You don’t hire a mastering engineer for his gear you hire them for their ears. Chances are your mix isn’t quite going to fit one of the presets their algorithm is going to pick. Mastering isn’t about big moves it’s about tiny subtle adjustments. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Oct 13, 2021 22:39:14 GMT -6
Nailed it; You don’t hire a mastering engineer for his gear you hire them for their ears. Chances are your mix isn’t quite going to fit one of the presets their algorithm is going to pick. Mastering isn’t about big moves it’s about tiny subtle adjustments. Big or small its about adjustments in context of a batch songs and ensuring they play decently across a variety of listening environments & formats. There are really only two kinds of people who send tracks for mastering... those who like the mixes and don't want things changed. And those who don't like the mixes and DO want things changed. For processing the only tools anyone really needs are a brickwall limiter and an EQ. Most people probably already have em on their DAW... past that? Yes it's about taste & big picture stuff. Then apply fades & gaps etc. I totally get the need for pseudo mastering... Not everything needs to go a real service all the time. But at the very least the process of mix vs master needs to be separated. Even more so if someone goes down the road of hiring it out... Mastering cat is going to ask for a copy of the mixes without the preset processing. Someone who cares wants to do better for you, and you should give them the opportunity to let em earn their money. |
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Oct 15, 2021 10:03:04 GMT -6
 Haha - just kidding. Sort of.  |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 15, 2021 10:13:14 GMT -6
Highly recommend Justin at Trackworx! I sent a friend to him before I realized they used their iPhone mic for tracking. Very sorry Justin! I tried Ozone on their mix, not listenable. I tried to stop them going to Justin but it was too late. Heard his master: ready for iTunes. I was shocked, unbelievable what he can do
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Oct 15, 2021 10:18:46 GMT -6
Based on title I thought this was going to be about actual mastering consoles... analog transfer desks. Not software based packages... While I'd hesitate to hang out a shingle as a true mastering engineer, reality is I've cut more then a couple three masters over the years for all kinds of indie labels & self released projects. That said my opinion on the "automated mastering" is that having tried a few over the years, they all kinda suck. Personally I can get farther ahead with a well picked EQ and limiter. Maybe saturation too if the project needs it. YMMV. The vibe I get from automated software is that they're attempting to emulate the chain of equipment & decisions that would be made by an actual mastering cat who's patched it all together with their transfer console. And I guess depending on desired expectations etc results can range from "icky" to "that's not so bad!" - but overall probably better then using Landr. Technically mastering is the last step of the creative process, but its really the first step in replication and releasing music to the world. Its technical more then creative. Best results, no matter what equipment is used tend to come when mastering is separated from mixing. Mastering is about context as much as anything else... treating a group of songs as a whole. Making sure things are uniform, balancing low end to song gaps so the music will translate to various playback mediums... from CD & vinyl to streaming that everyone has the same listening experience. For example, if your doing an EP or LP with 5-10 songs? Trying to master while mixing and/or mastering each one on its own? Probably not a great idea. But if your just putting out a single or two here & there? Throwing stuff up on soundcloud vs doing an actual release? Then I'm sure any of the "one shot mastering" programs are fine... at that point its probably a matter of taste or preferring a certain GUI. Carry on! Nailed it; You don’t hire a mastering engineer for his gear you hire them for their ears. Chances are your mix isn’t quite going to fit one of the presets their algorithm is going to pick. Mastering isn’t about big moves it’s about tiny subtle adjustments.
I take the AI-generated masters always as a suggestion, and from there, I most often, pull things back. Works for me in 90% of the cases, and it shows weak points in my mixes as well.
Sure, a human ME is the best you can do. As long my Covid income still goes down the drain, I don't even think about a mastering house.
|
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Oct 15, 2021 14:04:37 GMT -6
Highly recommend Justin at Trackworx! I sent a friend to him before I realized they used their iPhone mic for tracking. Very sorry Justin! I tried Ozone on their mix, not listenable. I tried to stop them going to Justin but it was too late. Heard his master: ready for iTunes. I was shocked, unbelievable what he can do What?! Who was that? PM me. LOL |
|
