|
|
Post by Ward on Oct 19, 2023 13:26:04 GMT -6
Curious about why you're all doing this. Is this more an ITB thing? This is pretty much an ITB thing these days. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2023 13:31:09 GMT -6
Curious about why you're all doing this. Is this more an ITB thing? I understand the idea of getting rid of stuff most people can't hear or most systems can't reproduce, but why not do that on the channels? Most things are going to be hi-passed much higher (vocals, guitars, etc) with only a few instruments going deep down. Is there a benefit to one master HPF for the whole mix as opposed to each track getting it's own? I know when I use HPFs I pretty much end up with different points for all the low stuff (kick, bass, synths), if I'm using them at all. Is there a benefit to using both, assuming the channel's filters aren't gentle slopes starting really low? The mastering guy is not mixing the music. I'm not mixing the music for for most mastering jobs I take on. Most independent musicians cannot afford someone else to mix them, only 100-200 bucks give or take to master their record in an afternoon or evening while a proper mix might be listed at 5 to 15x that depending what they want or how poor the recording is. There's only so much you can cut them a deal before it's not worth your while to do it. There's only a stereo mix and asking the mixer (usually the musician or the producer for independent stuff) to go add a high pass filter to one thing on his mix might mess up his fader moves or what elements are working in his mix. That's even if he can recall. A lot of the time they cannot with today's cheapo prosumer analog equipment, clones, and all the bullshit with counterfeit capacitors and communist tubes crammed into 1 rack unit. If the musician mixed down the first track on a 10 track album a year ago through that some of this crap, it might not sound the same a year later when he's finished the other tracks and send the whole thing out for mastering. |
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Oct 19, 2023 13:54:14 GMT -6
Curious about why you're all doing this. Is this more an ITB thing? I understand the idea of getting rid of stuff most people can't hear or most systems can't reproduce, but why not do that on the channels? Most things are going to be hi-passed much higher (vocals, guitars, etc) with only a few instruments going deep down. Is there a benefit to one master HPF for the whole mix as opposed to each track getting it's own? I know when I use HPFs I pretty much end up with different points for all the low stuff (kick, bass, synths), if I'm using them at all. Is there a benefit to using both, assuming the channel's filters aren't gentle slopes starting really low? The mastering guy is not mixing the music. I'm not mixing the music for for most mastering jobs I take on. Most independent musicians cannot afford someone else to mix them, only 100-200 bucks give or take to master their record in an afternoon or evening while a proper mix might be listed at 5 to 15x that depending what they want or how poor the recording is. There's only so much you can cut them a deal before it's not worth your while to do it. There's only a stereo mix and asking the mixer (usually the musician or the producer for independent stuff) to go add a high pass filter to one thing on his mix might mess up his fader moves or what elements are working in his mix. That's even if he can recall. A lot of the time they cannot with today's cheapo prosumer analog equipment, clones, and all the bullshit with counterfeit capacitors and communist tubes crammed into 1 rack unit. If the musician mixed down the first track on a 10 track album a year ago through that some of this crap, it might not sound the same a year later when he's finished the other tracks and send the whole thing out for mastering. I neglected to mentioned I was asking about HPFing on the 2-buss for a mix not master, but good points either way. I've never had a mastering engineer ask for these kinds of adjustments so I assume my sub-lows are ballpark good. Eric's "Better safe than sorry" is as good a reason as any but I know that filters have their own potential drawbacks so was curious why the potential pros would outweigh the potential cons (as opposed to just doing it track by track). |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,099 
|
Post by ericn on Oct 19, 2023 14:06:15 GMT -6
The mastering guy is not mixing the music. I'm not mixing the music for for most mastering jobs I take on. Most independent musicians cannot afford someone else to mix them, only 100-200 bucks give or take to master their record in an afternoon or evening while a proper mix might be listed at 5 to 15x that depending what they want or how poor the recording is. There's only so much you can cut them a deal before it's not worth your while to do it. There's only a stereo mix and asking the mixer (usually the musician or the producer for independent stuff) to go add a high pass filter to one thing on his mix might mess up his fader moves or what elements are working in his mix. That's even if he can recall. A lot of the time they cannot with today's cheapo prosumer analog equipment, clones, and all the bullshit with counterfeit capacitors and communist tubes crammed into 1 rack unit. If the musician mixed down the first track on a 10 track album a year ago through that some of this crap, it might not sound the same a year later when he's finished the other tracks and send the whole thing out for mastering. I neglected to mentioned I was asking about HPFing on the 2-buss for a mix not master, but good points either way. I've never had a mastering engineer ask for these kinds of adjustments so I assume my sub-lows are ballpark good. Eric's "Better safe than sorry" is as good a reason as any but I know that filters have their own potential drawbacks so was curious why the potential pros would outweigh the potential cons (as opposed to just doing it track by track). If it’s going to a real mastering engineer let them make the choice. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 23, 2023 8:51:20 GMT -6
I never do a HPF on master. I'm either doing it on individual tracks or busses so nothing is left by the time it gets to the master out.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowlou on Oct 23, 2023 9:13:53 GMT -6
Curious about why you're all doing this. Is this more an ITB thing? I understand the idea of getting rid of stuff most people can't hear or most systems can't reproduce, but why not do that on the channels? Most things are going to be hi-passed much higher (vocals, guitars, etc) with only a few instruments going deep down. Is there a benefit to one master HPF for the whole mix as opposed to each track getting it's own? I know when I use HPFs I pretty much end up with different points for all the low stuff (kick, bass, synths), if I'm using them at all. Is there a benefit to using both, assuming the channel's filters aren't gentle slopes starting really low? The mastering guy is not mixing the music. I'm not mixing the music for for most mastering jobs I take on. Most independent musicians cannot afford someone else to mix them, only 100-200 bucks give or take to master their record in an afternoon or evening while a proper mix might be listed at 5 to 15x that depending what they want or how poor the recording is. There's only so much you can cut them a deal before it's not worth your while to do it. There's only a stereo mix and asking the mixer (usually the musician or the producer for independent stuff) to go add a high pass filter to one thing on his mix might mess up his fader moves or what elements are working in his mix. That's even if he can recall. A lot of the time they cannot with today's cheapo prosumer analog equipment, clones, and all the bullshit with counterfeit capacitors and communist tubes crammed into 1 rack unit. If the musician mixed down the first track on a 10 track album a year ago through that some of this crap, it might not sound the same a year later when he's finished the other tracks and send the whole thing out for mastering. [OFF TOPIC] I'd love to know which selected hardware gear & brand are worth paying for these days, you think. You seem to hate most hardware mixing gear with passion, which is great, because it's always based on experience + very analytical, empirical & informed thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by smashlord on Oct 23, 2023 9:54:15 GMT -6
None?
I try to get that right in the mix. Generally, the kick will feel as if its dragging the tempo if there is too much sub information in it, so I'll take care of it then and there. Unless its like a classic rock tune, I usually place the bass above the kick, so no sub issues there once the kick is OK. If I notice the final limiter is pumping a bit much with the lowend, I might attenuate it little bit or put a multi band with just the low band activated to catch those occasional peaks.
If I am ADDING lows across the 2 buss via a shelf, I may engage something at like 10hz if it feels like its bring out some crud down below or it appears the bus comp is working too hard.
For anyone that feels like they are always having to think about the lowend of their mix, I highly recommend floor to ceiling trapping in all corners of your room. I had what I thought was a well-treated room for years before installing corner traps and man it was quickly evident I was wrong! It was like as if I added a sub.... I swear I could hear an additional octave. Bass/kick relationships clear as day, I could work more intuitively, and struggles with low end virtually evaporated overnight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Oct 23, 2023 10:32:48 GMT -6
I never do a HPF on master. I'm either doing it on individual tracks or busses so nothing is left by the time it gets to the master out. Odd, most mastering engineers I know and use ask for mixes not to be overly premastered. And no fades. Just let them" 1. Do the heads and tails including fades at specified points 2. Do all HPF and LPF for final master and any other overall EQ needed to make the release sound uniform everywhre 3. Final compression, leveling, output choice usually -14 up to -7LUFS 4. Encode all meta data |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 23, 2023 10:54:04 GMT -6
I never do a HPF on master. I'm either doing it on individual tracks or busses so nothing is left by the time it gets to the master out. Odd, most mastering engineers I know and use ask for mixes not to be overly premastered. And no fades. Just let them" 1. Do the heads and tails including fades at specified points 2. Do all HPF and LPF for final master and any other overall EQ needed to make the release sound uniform everywhre 3. Final compression, leveling, output choice usually -14 up to -7LUFS 4. Encode all meta data ? I mean the master output from my mix. HPF and LPF are naturally done to each track in the mix if needed. Eases the need for other EQ moves and clears up space in the mix. I always mix like I want it to sound. The best thing a mastering engineer can say to me is that they didn't do anything to my mix. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Oct 23, 2023 10:57:17 GMT -6
Curious about why you're all doing this. Is this more an ITB thing? I understand the idea of getting rid of stuff most people can't hear or most systems can't reproduce, but why not do that on the channels? Most things are going to be hi-passed much higher (vocals, guitars, etc) with only a few instruments going deep down. Is there a benefit to one master HPF for the whole mix as opposed to each track getting it's own? I know when I use HPFs I pretty much end up with different points for all the low stuff (kick, bass, synths), if I'm using them at all. Is there a benefit to using both, assuming the channel's filters aren't gentle slopes starting really low? Well, it’s easier to do one hi pass than say - 64 of them. Edited to add: I was kind of referring to the mastering process. Most of my stuff is lower budget so I’m whore mastering them myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Oct 23, 2023 10:57:52 GMT -6
Curious about why you're all doing this. Is this more an ITB thing? This is pretty much an ITB thing these days. What do you mean? I’d do the same thing with a console. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Oct 23, 2023 11:03:57 GMT -6
I always low cut the kick and bass too. I probably should have asked “if you do low cut on the master…blah blah”
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Oct 23, 2023 11:07:36 GMT -6
Like Eric said, any analog process may introduce some subsonic crud, DC offset, etc. I've always done every channel as needed within the mix, but the mix chain usually shows some artifacts down to zero, so then I look at the energy on the spectrogram and do a digital cut, I like RX10 / select region / gain -inf for that job.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Oct 23, 2023 11:36:52 GMT -6
Curious about why you're all doing this. Is this more an ITB thing? I understand the idea of getting rid of stuff most people can't hear or most systems can't reproduce, but why not do that on the channels? Most things are going to be hi-passed much higher (vocals, guitars, etc) with only a few instruments going deep down. Is there a benefit to one master HPF for the whole mix as opposed to each track getting it's own? I know when I use HPFs I pretty much end up with different points for all the low stuff (kick, bass, synths), if I'm using them at all. Is there a benefit to using both, assuming the channel's filters aren't gentle slopes starting really low? Well, it’s easier to do one hi pass than say - 64 of them. Edited to add: I was kind of referring to the mastering process. Most of my stuff is lower budget so I’m whore mastering them myself. Yeah but if I want to filter a bit of sub off a kick, it's going to be set much differently than a filter my vocals or guitar or percussion or... By the time I'm done with each channel, the muck down low has been dealt with so a HPF on the 2-buss seems redundant. I'm not saying I've never done it, but it's quite rare. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Oct 23, 2023 11:57:11 GMT -6
This is pretty much an ITB thing these days. What do you mean? I’d do the same thing with a console. I was just speaking on behalf of myself, and I'm not even sure I'm unanimous about that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2023 21:59:54 GMT -6
The mastering guy is not mixing the music. I'm not mixing the music for for most mastering jobs I take on. Most independent musicians cannot afford someone else to mix them, only 100-200 bucks give or take to master their record in an afternoon or evening while a proper mix might be listed at 5 to 15x that depending what they want or how poor the recording is. There's only so much you can cut them a deal before it's not worth your while to do it. There's only a stereo mix and asking the mixer (usually the musician or the producer for independent stuff) to go add a high pass filter to one thing on his mix might mess up his fader moves or what elements are working in his mix. That's even if he can recall. A lot of the time they cannot with today's cheapo prosumer analog equipment, clones, and all the bullshit with counterfeit capacitors and communist tubes crammed into 1 rack unit. If the musician mixed down the first track on a 10 track album a year ago through that some of this crap, it might not sound the same a year later when he's finished the other tracks and send the whole thing out for mastering. [OFF TOPIC] I'd love to know which selected hardware gear & brand are worth paying for these days, you think. You seem to hate most hardware mixing gear with passion, which is great, because it's always based on experience + very analytical, empirical & informed thinking. If you can recall it or do not need to recall it and it gets you closer to what your finished product is, then go for it. Most hardware was made to solve a problem and sound cool or clean while doing it. Now sadly gear is designed as Paul Wolff put it, just to sound cool. Most of clones are form without function and do not even match the form except for the paint and fonts on the face plate. They're just there to crap up your sound like the emulation plugins. Many pieces have very confusing analog designs such as feed-forward compressors with peak / rms switches or feed-forward / feedback switches or all the deliberately distorted tube revival gear, much of which sounds worse than what ART puts out.
The compressor thing is easy to point out because the RMS is to smooth the action of the compressor. Switch it off in a feed-forward compressor and the only program dependency will be the hopefully logarithmic action. Feed-forward and feedback cannot be both on an analog compressor in the same sidechain circuitry, ie the control path, and reach the same ratio. You cannot just switch between them and get accurate behavior because feedback compressors are self correcting so will max out at about a 2:1 transfer curve and require non-linear gain in the sidechain to get higher than that. Unless the design is very clever like Molot GE or lets you manually put in a ridiculous transfer curve like Presswerk, you're not going to get the ratio on the face plate and only one of the positions of the feed-forward or feedback switch will be accurate. The makeup gain knob also isn't attenuating a fixed gain amplifier on a VCA compressor usually too like an 1176 makeup knob. The makeup knob is adjusting the control voltage of the VCA controlling the audio to bring it back towards unity where it is optimized for noise and distortion. If the signal being fed back is taken from after that VCA instead of from within the sidechain, turning up your makeup gain will compress the audio more like in API 2500 old mode.
Of course there are the records now that are a little too analog that didn't exist in the past and they have less clarity than many old demos and 60s records because they've been messed with too much to become a sea of brown and grey textures. So much stuff has been stacked up, all you hear is murk. Add the often conspicuous compression on every track and the record sounds ridiculous and bad. Mixing and mastering for loudness or with cheap digital effects like Avid Lofi, Inflator, multiband dynamics, or heavy use of digital maximizing limiters just makes it even worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 23, 2023 22:21:54 GMT -6
around 40Hz gentle curve is a good compromise. I always try to keep stuff below that, really I try to ask myself why? people have a bass control they can crank if they want, maybe some subs they can boost. It’s about the song, sometimes the sub can move the listener’s focus away from the music. (Kick flub to me is under 45 Hz)
|
|
|
|
Post by christophert on Oct 24, 2023 0:11:58 GMT -6
I usually opt for a shelf at around 30-35hz, and sometimes add a second gentle HPF at 20hz
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Oct 24, 2023 0:35:36 GMT -6
Oops. Saw low cut and thought it might be a Shania or Shakira sorta themed thread.  Carry on Gentlemen.  Chris |
|
|
|
Post by lowlou on Oct 24, 2023 4:07:34 GMT -6
[OFF TOPIC] I'd love to know which selected hardware gear & brand are worth paying for these days, you think. You seem to hate most hardware mixing gear with passion, which is great, because it's always based on experience + very analytical, empirical & informed thinking. If you can recall it or do not need to recall it and it gets you closer to what your finished product is, then go for it. Most hardware was made to solve a problem and sound cool or clean while doing it. Now sadly gear is designed as Paul Wolff put it, just to sound cool. Most of clones are form without function and do not even match the form except for the paint and fonts on the face plate. They're just there to crap up your sound like the emulation plugins. Many pieces have very confusing analog designs such as feed-forward compressors with peak / rms switches or feed-forward / feedback switches or all the deliberately distorted tube revival gear, much of which sounds worse than what ART puts out.
The compressor thing is easy to point out because the RMS is to smooth the action of the compressor. Switch it off in a feed-forward compressor and the only program dependency will be the hopefully logarithmic action. Feed-forward and feedback cannot be both on an analog compressor in the same sidechain circuitry, ie the control path, and reach the same ratio. You cannot just switch between them and get accurate behavior because feedback compressors are self correcting so will max out at about a 2:1 transfer curve and require non-linear gain in the sidechain to get higher than that. Unless the design is very clever like Molot GE or lets you manually put in a ridiculous transfer curve like Presswerk, you're not going to get the ratio on the face plate and only one of the positions of the feed-forward or feedback switch will be accurate. The makeup gain knob also isn't attenuating a fixed gain amplifier on a VCA compressor usually too like an 1176 makeup knob. The makeup knob is adjusting the control voltage of the VCA controlling the audio to bring it back towards unity where it is optimized for noise and distortion. If the signal being fed back is taken from after that VCA instead of from within the sidechain, turning up your makeup gain will compress the audio more like in API 2500 old mode.
Of course there are the records now that are a little too analog that didn't exist in the past and they have less clarity than many old demos and 60s records because they've been messed with too much to become a sea of brown and grey textures. So much stuff has been stacked up, all you hear is murk. Add the often conspicuous compression on every track and the record sounds ridiculous and bad. Mixing and mastering for loudness or with cheap digital effects like Avid Lofi, Inflator, multiband dynamics, or heavy use of digital maximizing limiters just makes it even worse.
Overprocessing is a thing I'm guilty of ^^. I love processors too much for my own good. Thanks Dan . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2023 7:19:58 GMT -6
If you can recall it or do not need to recall it and it gets you closer to what your finished product is, then go for it. Most hardware was made to solve a problem and sound cool or clean while doing it. Now sadly gear is designed as Paul Wolff put it, just to sound cool. Most of clones are form without function and do not even match the form except for the paint and fonts on the face plate. They're just there to crap up your sound like the emulation plugins. Many pieces have very confusing analog designs such as feed-forward compressors with peak / rms switches or feed-forward / feedback switches or all the deliberately distorted tube revival gear, much of which sounds worse than what ART puts out.
The compressor thing is easy to point out because the RMS is to smooth the action of the compressor. Switch it off in a feed-forward compressor and the only program dependency will be the hopefully logarithmic action. Feed-forward and feedback cannot be both on an analog compressor in the same sidechain circuitry, ie the control path, and reach the same ratio. You cannot just switch between them and get accurate behavior because feedback compressors are self correcting so will max out at about a 2:1 transfer curve and require non-linear gain in the sidechain to get higher than that. Unless the design is very clever like Molot GE or lets you manually put in a ridiculous transfer curve like Presswerk, you're not going to get the ratio on the face plate and only one of the positions of the feed-forward or feedback switch will be accurate. The makeup gain knob also isn't attenuating a fixed gain amplifier on a VCA compressor usually too like an 1176 makeup knob. The makeup knob is adjusting the control voltage of the VCA controlling the audio to bring it back towards unity where it is optimized for noise and distortion. If the signal being fed back is taken from after that VCA instead of from within the sidechain, turning up your makeup gain will compress the audio more like in API 2500 old mode.
Of course there are the records now that are a little too analog that didn't exist in the past and they have less clarity than many old demos and 60s records because they've been messed with too much to become a sea of brown and grey textures. So much stuff has been stacked up, all you hear is murk. Add the often conspicuous compression on every track and the record sounds ridiculous and bad. Mixing and mastering for loudness or with cheap digital effects like Avid Lofi, Inflator, multiband dynamics, or heavy use of digital maximizing limiters just makes it even worse.
Overprocessing is a thing I'm guilty of ^^. I love processors too much for my own good. Thanks Dan . No problem. Another thing to watch out for is fake stereo mastering gear with stereo input and output pots, two sets of pots for attack and release, or stepped potentiometers. You cannot match them even with test tones. Your image will drift. You’re better off with any switched (and I mean any. Even the cheap Dav eq or something colored like the curve bender) or most modern digital eq or that normally priced Daking Comp that ericn pointed out because it has push buttons for the different settings, and mono input and output pots that can be matched with test tones and the Daking doesn’t have a lot of distortion in sharp contrast to say Neve’s classic diode bridge designs which will all eventually drift into thuds. Matching attack and release pots with test tones like on the Dangerous is much harder and will require you to break out audio analysis tools like plugin doctor should you wish to change them rather than just controlling the send volume. And even if you want that thudding diode bridge sound, you’re better off with a real 33609 or that Buzz DBC-M because they use switches rather than the well-advertised RND gear’s stepped pots. And besides, still manufactured hardware will neither be as surgical nor as program dependent as the MDW and the TDR plugins. Dan |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,099
|
Post by ericn on Oct 24, 2023 8:07:32 GMT -6
Overprocessing is a thing I'm guilty of ^^. I love processors too much for my own good. Thanks Dan . No problem. Another thing to watch out for is fake stereo mastering gear with stereo input and output pots, two sets of pots for attack and release, or stepped potentiometers. You cannot match them even with test tones. Your image will drift. You’re better off with any switched (and I mean any. Even the cheap Dav eq or something colored like the curve bender) or most modern digital eq or that normally priced Daking Comp that ericn pointed out because it has push buttons for the different settings, and mono input and output pots that can be matched with test tones and the Daking doesn’t have a lot of distortion in sharp contrast to say Neve’s classic diode bridge designs which will all eventually drift into thuds. Matching attack and release pots with test tones like on the Dangerous is much harder and will require you to break out audio analysis tools like plugin doctor should you wish to change them rather than just controlling the send volume. And even if you want that thudding diode bridge sound, you’re better off with a real 33609 or that Buzz DBC-M because they use switches rather than the well-advertised RND gear’s stepped pots. And besides, still manufactured hardware will neither be as surgical nor as program dependent as the MDW and the TDR plugins. Dan Dan is absolutely right stepped pots = never being able to recall or match up, but I am going to point one thing to my friend Dan, pots have one advantage. Pots let a mastering engineer make tiny corrections to an individual channel, you know correcting for that slightly miss matched EQ with stepped pots the mix engineer put across the mix bus😁 Now if you did a survey you would find that the majority of AES don’t really factor the type of controls into most of their choices but mastering guys are going to make it a priority. An interesting simple experiment is if you ever get to use a large console with recall is to EQ a channel run pink noise and look at it through a RTA/ FFT save it, zero out the console recall it measure and compare, you will most likely see some slight differences, now bring that saved setting on a different channel, measure and you will definitely see some differences. I can’t put enough emphasis on how much you can learn playing around with the most basic measurement tools. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 24, 2023 15:20:52 GMT -6
So true. I remember learning from someone older and they’d retouch a knob over and over and only move it tiny imperceptible bit. And it would take like 30 minutes of this, all over the mix. And I’d be sitting there, like is this guy for real or is he imagining things? Is the final really better than the before? Once I started running tones through, see that a tiny hair can be a half dB, ohhhh he wasn’t crazy
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Oct 24, 2023 21:11:12 GMT -6
Was it "d" then? Or just the "B" instead? Chris |
|
