|
Post by massivemastering on May 13, 2017 18:30:14 GMT -6
It's not here yet. The wait is maddening. Hopefully within a week.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on May 12, 2017 9:56:25 GMT -6
Finally got some good news... The wait is almost over.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on May 7, 2017 9:51:46 GMT -6
If I could only use one type, SM58 (just because it's reasonably good on everything and everyone is familiar with it). That said, Beyer M88 on some, Telefunken M80 (sounds very open and condensor-ish), 105... Meh, I'm not adding anything here.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on May 3, 2017 1:11:10 GMT -6
I generally use meters to calibrate things. There are a few to choose from here including a set of Dorrough pretty meters to keep clients happy (and again, to calibrate the chain).
Spectrum analyzers -- Meh, I mean, if there's a particular frequency that's causing an issue somewhere and a spectrum analyzer helps you find it, there you go.
The only meter I concentrate on is the (Nugen, in this case) LUFS meter if I'm working on something that requires a particular number (usually film / broadcast stuff) -- as misleading as it may be sometimes, they're looking for specific numbers and the end product may not be accepted if that number is nailed.
(EDIT) Just read the above post and I have to disagree (respectfully, of course). The only time I ever click in a spectrum analyzer in session is -- well, basically almost never. If I felt the need for one, I'd find out why and fix the problem. I used to click in a FFT EQ (that happened to have a spectrum analyzer) for recordings with video whine -- Depending on what country it came from and the refresh rate, it could vary in frequency (from around 14.5-ish to 16-ish kHz) and I guess it was handy to just "see" the offending frequency when carving it out - Although the only reason I loaded it in the first place is because I heard it. Though thankfully (due to LCD / LED screens) recordings with VDO whine are few and far between these days (although occasionally, one might sneak through here and there).
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Apr 22, 2017 23:13:52 GMT -6
I understand it's Purusha's board -- Not building it myself... I'm just no good at that sort of stuff and I don't have the time (that said, I don't think the guy building it for me has the time either - BOO Yah!).
I know people with both (DRMQ5, BPNEQ) and both tend to love 'em. Had GML's, had a 250, liked 'em both but never fell in love for some reason. Even my (Crane Song) Ibis ended up on the block at one point. But all switched, mid-side capabilities (Not on everything, but when you need it, there's no substitute) and I negotiated a solid (if not somewhat slow) deal on it.
Can't comment on the DC250... And although the MQ5 is based on the 250, I'm not expecting it to sound like one - and that's fine. Had one - sold it. ;-)
Just looking for a good, clean, full-recall parametric with MS capabilities that's ridiculously quiet. Not having to kick out $8k for a *switched* Ibis makes me feel all warm 'n fuzzy.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Apr 21, 2017 22:23:23 GMT -6
That's all. Just wanted to rant. I'm sure it's going to be worth it, but it's been 16 weeks and I'm getting anxious. All I have at this point is a photo of the faceplate with the knobs laying on it. :-( Backstory as I'm sure it'll come up -- It's based on the DR-MQ5 / "Igor's Sontec" clone but it'll be all (Elma) switched with some pretty sweet upgrades (power, op-amps, caps, etc.). And those sexy Elma Classic Collet knobs... Oh yeah, those were my idea...
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Apr 7, 2017 0:24:16 GMT -6
Crane Song Avocet.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Apr 5, 2017 23:39:26 GMT -6
Every single decision you make (tracking, mixing, mastering, etc.) is based on your monitoring chain from the DA on down. Imma go with "really important" on this one.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 30, 2017 20:48:21 GMT -6
(Sorry - this board does weird stuff to me) Like, why is this a quote and I can't get a quote from someone else?
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 30, 2017 20:46:37 GMT -6
As much as I hate the "loudness war" (although I'm admittedly as guilty as the next guy in participating - under protest in most cases), that's the key. Don't give a rats a$$ about volume when you're mixing. Mix it to make it sound good. I get mixes in all the time that are "pre-loudened" at the track level and (A) they already sound weird and unbalanced and (B) they're usually shooting themselves in the foot. Without question, the loudest* mixes that come out of here were almost always the most dynamic and well balanced when they came in. * Loudest and decent sounding -- Anybody with a limiter can make any mix as loud as any other. How that mix handles the abuse is totally dependent on every single step before that.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 25, 2017 23:22:24 GMT -6
Gonna throw one into the "this to this" also -- Ignore the whole change of basically everything in the room and concentrate on the video monitors -- Older: For the record, that's a PC on the left and a Mac on the right. The current setup is more like this: STILL a PC on the left and a Mac on the right. The big guy is hooked up to both. SYNERGY is running between the machines -- The Mac is a keyboard/mouse server to the PC (client) so you can basically run the mouse in a circle between the 3 screens. You need to change the input on the big screen to use the other machine (I more or less only use it for the PC / audio machine but occasionally need it on the Mac / "business" machine). Long story short - You can certainly replace monitors - But you can also add them... [nostalgia] Lord, I miss how "clean" this place looked back then. That top shot was taken literally on "move-in" day or the next morning. Before there were extra cables everywhere, all those extra corner traps, secondary monitoring that barely ever even gets turned on, more cables, stuff on the walls... Meh... [/nostalgia]
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 24, 2017 8:26:27 GMT -6
Been using "big screens" for years. Don't know how I'd work without 'em. Everything at 1080 (well, since I changed the small monitors to slightly larger). Latest is a 50" Vizio 4K (also running @1080).
No idea how they'd be for gaming and what not -- But for Samplitude and such, it's perfectly fine.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 10, 2017 0:01:55 GMT -6
Just a live sound anecdote (as I'm totally in with the "a little breathing room" crowd for the studio) --
Was doing live sound for a bluegrass band -- (fairly popular, some Grammy action, don't want to mention any names in case anyone is here).
"We've got our own mics for (banjo, mandolin, bass...).
Had an AKG C-1000-S for the banjo. Cross my heart - a C-1000-S. On a banjo. Only a few inches away.
Asked him if I could use a different mic on it and he reluctantly agreed. Threw a 57 in front of it. He said it was the first time he ever "really heard it" in his monitor.
Worked with the same bunch a couple years later and the banjo player originally didn't remember he but asked if I could just "put a 57 in front of it." [/anecdote]
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 9, 2017 23:48:08 GMT -6
Now maybe I'm nuts -- But a couple studios I used to work at back in the 90's had them and I was like "Meh..." about them. For vinyl mastering, they were pretty cool (but still "meh" by today's standards IMO/E). I'll take a fresh Manley Vari-Mu --- which I also sold off --- most times. I also noticed that all the big mastering places sold them in a heartbeat as soon as they found out they could get $15k for them.
And at $50k?!? For a high-maintenance box filled with stuff that's nearly impossible to find?!? Not a chance.
I didn't care for the plug that much either. When it was super-popular with UAD (had it... didn't use it much) we called it "Child Abuse" (to varying amounts of laughter and applause).
Don't get me wrong - It's not like they sucked or something. And for the time, one of only few players in that particular game.
But geez - $50k?!? I can't even imagine. I can imagine $5k. And I'd *still* get another Manley at that price.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 9, 2017 23:37:03 GMT -6
A buddy of mine (who has unbelievable gear, but can hardly play) sold one a few years ago for somewhere north of $2k. I couldn't believe it. And I've been playing guitar for most of my life.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 9, 2017 23:31:30 GMT -6
Is it the case that if your room is the wrong dimensions i.e. too small then it will never be right no matter the speakers / treatment? I've always tried to explain it like water and sponges. If you're in (for example, not idea by any means) a 10x10x10 (1000 cubic ft.) room and you have 800 cubic feet (8' high) of water, you'll likely drown eventually. If you're in a 10x20x10 (2000 cubic ft.), the water will only be 4' high and you'll be moist and uncomfortable. The sound energy (mostly low end, as the low end is far more energy than the high) is the water - Broadband / bass traps are the sponges. If you have enough sponges to soak up a good amount of that water, you're in good shape in the larger room. The problem is that the small room doesn't have enough room for the sponges. *That said* -- Nearfields = less energy = less sponges. But a sacrifice of range and sheer power. Personal note -- While this room was being constructed, I had to spend a couple absolutely terrifying months in a 10x11x8' room (with a dozen 2'x2'x4" traps and a bunch of worthless foam corners in the front). At (somewhere around 110Hz), there was a 7-8dB peak and a 35-ish dB null point less than one foot away from each other, front to back, basically right where my head was. I can't even tell you what it took to do decent quality work in that room. I'm not a fan of "multi-monitors" -- Find a set that works and go - don't try to hit a moving target (the small speakers in here are totally client-side. I never turn them on unless a client wants to hear on a "little" system). But in that room, I had a set of -- Geez (sorry, I type as I think...) -- Uh... Diamond 8.2 uh - WHARFEDALE!!! Wharfedale Diamond 8.2's. GREAT little speakers -- Not "nearfields" per se, but small, wannabe big speakers. Those things saved my a$$ more times than I can count. My mains at the time were B&W 800 series Matrix 802's (the predecessor to the Nautilus 802's that came in a month before my room was done). There's a photo somewhere... Those are the Wharfies "overhead" Heh - More interesting photo of the desk before the current one came in -- EQ Magazine - long before I actually deserved to grace those pages. The desk was a hack-job on a $200 Office Max desk (as long as the thread is about desks) and a (Mid Atlantic?) rack that I cut to a pair of 30/60/90's - it was actually quite effective... But anyway - The Wharfedales, in that postition, had a totally different peak and null point in relation to my head (it was about 8" forward of the rail due to the height). So I could flip to those and sort of interpret what was going on at 110. Which I did. A lot. Blah, blah, blah, I'm getting long here -- It was a reasonably effective band-aid for a broken leg. It wasn't accurate, nor consistent at differing volumes or different points in space. It was a friggin' audio nightmare on a scale I hope to never have to experience again. There are rooms that just plain suck -- That was one of them. I literally didn't have enough space for all the trapping that it would take to make it reasonably decent.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 9, 2017 10:35:11 GMT -6
Totally agree. I know people who have been at this literally for decades that make - I'll say it - pretty bad recordings. And I know people who have been at this for hardly any time at all making quite "pro" sounding recordings. The difference is usually the monitoring.
Certainly - There's a level of experience that can overcome that to some extent -- A guy who has been putting [this] mic on [that] instrument and knows exactly what it's going to sound like later because he's done it before -- or the guy who can take those same tracks and mix them on [limited range] monitors because he has a good idea of how it's going to translate to other systems.
Still, there is a certain amount of guesswork and luck (for lack of better terminology) if the speakers can't faithfully recreate the "whole" sound... Just as there would be picking color chips with tinted lenses on trying to sniff out the spices in the soup in a coffee shop.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 8, 2017 23:00:26 GMT -6
A long time ago, I saw a colorblind gentleman's art exhibit. It was then that it hit me -- my own personal "Two Rules" of audio (everyone says there are no rules, but I'm convinced there are two). (1) No matter tens of thousands in gear, no matter decades of experience, no matter years and years of intense, immersive listening study -- You will only ever hear as accurately and consistently as your monitoring chain allows you to hear. (2) No matter tens of thousands in that monitoring chain -- The most accurate and consistent speakers, the most transparent conversion, the most accurate amplification available -- Your monitors will only ever be as accurate and consistent as the room they're in allows them to be. I'd give up every piece of gear in the racks and use stock plugins for everything before I'd give up those boxes. Or the broadband trapping --
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 8, 2017 9:56:32 GMT -6
Tyler Acoustics (Decade Series) -- The big guys are D1's and the wee lil' muffins are D4M's
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 7, 2017 15:38:16 GMT -6
Any free reliable LUFS meters? Look for the Youlean Loudness Meter --
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 7, 2017 15:27:27 GMT -6
I need new pictures... It's a Sterling Modular (D...?)
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Feb 28, 2017 19:43:20 GMT -6
I'm just glad that most of the mixes that come in here don't have that (late 80's early 90's-ish) "band inside the kit" sound where the overheads (and usually the toms) are panned 100% and everything else is within that field.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Feb 27, 2017 23:43:59 GMT -6
So correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've been reading, it seems that most ME's do accept stems. For the record, I didn't mean to suggest that I was interested in having my mixes re-mixed by an ME. I simply noted that a good number of 'fixes' may be better applied to stems. Now to the degree that folks might say that is remixing, I plead guilty as charged. Anyway, this has been a very informative thread for me. No doubt at some point, I will be working with an ME and I'm trying to get a handle on what expectations should be (on both sides of the glass so to speak). I'm right there with you too -- I don't know of too many who *don't* accept stems -- I know of a few that basically insist on them. I would at least hope that most use them to do their best to keep the essence of the mix intact - although I know of stories where crazy things have happened. Personally - and I don't recall if I'm repeating anything so please excuse me if I am - I'm not particularly a fan of stems, but I'll certainly accept them. Usually I just put everything at unity and go. I *do* have a handful of clients that send them in as a matter of course and I'm fine with that. Their thinking is usually level-based: If (for example) what I'm doing sinks the vocal down a bit, it's easier for me to just push the vocal up a dB or so to compensate for it than to be asking them for a vocal-up mix. In some (rare) cases, I've actually asked for stems to deal with anomalies (clicks, pops, clocking errors or what not) that the mix engineer just couldn't get rid of for whatever reason (In the long run, if there are clocking errors on the bass track, I'd rather take them out of the bass track than take them out of the whole mix). Oh lord - It almost sounds like I'm asking for stems... I'm not. But in some cases, that's the story. In johneppstein's view -- which is totally valid -- he's most likely one of those guys who isn't going to have those sorts of things in his mix in the first place. Which, no doubt, is the ideal situation. But that different approach is where the problem lies -- Some mastering peeps want stems so they can create "their version" of the mix -- Others want them so they can better preserve the "intent" of original mix. The former is a sort of "mix abuse" - the latter is usually unnecessary - but occasionally handy. But that's kinda what the process currently entails -- I say "currently" as (and Alan will back me up on this), it wasn't too long ago that we were trying to make as little impact on the audio as possible -- A tiny tweak there, a little nip here - just what was necessary to "make a record" out of a bunch of recordings. Over the past couple decades or so, it seems as if more artists are looking for that "enhancement" portion - where the mastering guy actually leaves a bit more of a footprint. And that's all fine too - most of us came to this out of some sort of creative function anyway - although as mentioned, there might be some out there that don't know where "enhancement" ends and "ornamentation" begins. It all comes down to: Abso-friggin'-lutely.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Feb 26, 2017 20:14:45 GMT -6
And yeah, I was also getting a little dig in at people who lack confidence in their mixing abilities to the point where they want the ME to remix it for them. * - I'd argue that it should be a good ME's responsibility to explain to the client that he really shouldn't want his stuff slammed like that, as it will have the exact opposite of the desired effect on radio or MP3 streaming services due to the way that the processing in those outlets interacts with a too loud program, but I understand that a lot of guys don't wanty scare off customers. With you there -- I've read threads here and there from (rather upset) folks who were asked to send in stems and found everything up to and including *additional instrumentation* and drum replacement. I (a) don't have time for that kinds of stuff and (b) can't even imagine doing that kind of stuff. That's a writer/collaborator thing. And I'm with you on the volume part also -- I do what I can to convince. But there are a lot of horses and a lot of water that isn't being drunk. Drank...? Slurped...? Silver lining - over the past few years, the requests for "high-res" versions - whatever the "res" - FLAC, MFiT, etc., has skyrocketed. Hoping the trend finds its way into the mainstream some time soon. I still think back on a story I've told far too many times -- I think it was in '94 or '95, doing an interview for some music mag that I'm sure is long since gone - I was asked about how much louder recordings are getting (AIC's "Dirt" was hot at the time and ridiculously loud - for the time) and whether I thought THAT trend would continue. I said something like "I don't think bands are going to purposely trash their own recordings just to be louder than everyone else..." I was so naive...
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Feb 26, 2017 1:05:22 GMT -6
I want to preface this with "I wholly support NOT using stems - But I occasionally get them and I'm fine with that too. I'm guessing that most M/E's set-ups don't support this work-flow, but I'm just thinking hypothetically. Most ME's I know (including myself) do most of the "stem adjustments" digitally and then just run 'em all out of the main buss. This is a trickier one -- Although there CERTAINLY ARE mastering engineers that go WAY overboard on what they do with stems, some artists would just rather send in stems "just in case" -- And that "just in case" is usually something simple -- Maybe the client wants "excessive loudness" and it pushes the vocals down a touch too much. Easy to just add a dB to the vocals. Maybe it pushes the cymbals into cymbal sibilance (Cymbilance?™) and it'd just be easier to apply a little side EQ to the drum stem. Maybe the guitars just wind up being a bit too "thwumpy" (?™) and cutting a little 100Hz on the guitars makes lets the bass cut through as it did on the original mix. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND that I'm TOTALLY not suggesting that I (or again, most ME's I know) prefer to work this way -- Lord knows, I want the client's mix to sound like *the client's* mix when it's done. And I would argue that most of the time when a client insists on sending in stems, I just set them all at unity and do whatever I was going to do in the first place. That said - I *do* know of a few guys who actually *prefer* to use stems from the start. And some of those are followed up by forum threads by folks who are pissed off because they went all "remix" with their stems. I'm not trying to defend the use of stems - But it's not the use of stems that's evil. It's what *some* people do with them. And almost without fail, the better sounding mixes have no reason to use them anyway.
|
|