[url]http://soundcloud.com/convectuoso/abc12345[/url]


Try this on for size.

I only recorded drums. Everything else was recorded and played by the client (1 guy) on an Mbox 2 pro.

And feedback appreciated.

**unmastered, soundcloud just makes it looks like I've smashed it, but it's not mastered yet at all**

[QUOTE=Convectuoso;18521341], do you not have time to save some extra dough and save yourself some money in the future instead


[/QUOTE]


No, I don't. Hence why I posted it now, and with the funds that I have available now.

[QUOTE=Moseph;18519514]That wasn't what I was getting at. I was saying that if you're top concern is quality, you're probably passing on the duet and getting 1-2 channels of top-notch specialty stuff instead. If your top concern is getting something that doesn't cost a whole lot, you're probably also passing on the duet and grabbing something with a smaller price tag.

That's literally it: I just don't get who they're really selling to (other than Convectuoso, apparently).






I'm not talking about any particular ones, actually: I'm just playing the odds. The amount of BlackFace ADATs/Mackie 1604s/Shure SM58's that got sold in the last 20 years is a pretty large number. In amassing my own gear collection, I came across some other home recordists who let me hear some stuff they did, and much of it sounded quite good. I reckon there are more than a few dozen folks within 2 hours driving distance of me that have gotten similar results over the years.

If you want a good idea about "more with less" pick up both of the TapeOp compilation books. The fact of the matter is that just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it doesn't sound good. The inverse of that is also true.




You're drawing conclusions that aren't there. I don't recall ever encouraging anybody to buy "shitty" gear (though your threshold for "shitty" is significantly higher than mine). I do recall saying get what you're comfortable getting because it won't matter too much if you're new. Also that I'm not getting the marketing for Apogee's home recording interfaces. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure you're finding nonexistent subtext.[/QUOTE]

arguing with you is like arguing with a computer, you've no ability to infer

[quote=Xomblies;18523633]arguing with you is like arguing with a computer, you've no ability to infer[/quote]

I suspect that's largely because of the text-only medium the argument is happening across.

Appropriately enough, I'm also not sure if you really mean "imply" instead of "infer", seeing as how the context is about the things [I]I've[/I] posted. If you are talking about inference, then by all means, elaborate.

[QUOTE=Moseph;18523638]I suspect that's largely because of the text-only medium the argument is happening across.

Appropriately enough, I'm also not sure if you really mean "imply" instead of "infer", seeing as how the context is about the things [I]I've[/I] posted. If you are talking about inference, then by all means, elaborate.[/QUOTE]

you're doin it right now son

[QUOTE=Sad But True;18521393]No, I don't. Hence why I posted it now, and with the funds that I have available now.[/QUOTE]

just mix at low volumes, the reason i'm always ranting about treated rooms is more a problem with reflection, less volume means less reflection... TBH You could really familiarize yourself with just about any pair of monitors. And if you want to get some kind of dead environment to mix in at louder volumes, you could try building yourself a fort of packing blankets and mic stands...

[QUOTE=Xomblies;18523707]just mix at low volumes, the reason i'm always ranting about treated rooms is more a problem with reflection, less volume means less reflection... TBH You could really familiarize yourself with just about any pair of monitors. And if you want to get some kind of dead environment to mix in at louder volumes, you could try building yourself a fort of packing blankets and mic stands...[/QUOTE]

This is actually untrue. The room has the same influence proportional to the listening level at any volume. Most of the interactions within a room (reflections) are nearly (if not quite) linear systems, meaning that increasing or decreasing the listening level will increase or decrease the level of room sound by some proportionality constant relating to the materials within the room and its size. The only way that you will lessen the effect of the room is to either use highly absorptive materials in the walls (treatment) or to make the room bigger (to take advantage of the inverse square law between reflections). I'm not just bullshitting here, I do research in real-time computer acoustics simulation.

Also, beware of mixing at loud volumes because the ear hears differently at different SPLs. See: Fletcher–Munson curves. You should mix at an average listening level (I mix at about 75-80 dB SPL) in order to keep this from affecting your mix too much. Typically, you will perceive 2-5 kHz as being louder at high SPLs relative to other frequencies.

[QUOTE=ares;18523725]This is actually untrue. The room has the same influence proportional to the listening level at any volume. Most of the interactions within a room (reflections) are nearly (if not quite) linear systems, meaning that increasing or decreasing the listening level will increase or decrease the level of room sound by some proportionality constant relating to the materials within the room and its size. The only way that you will lessen the effect of the room is to either use highly absorptive materials in the walls (treatment) or to make the room bigger (to take advantage of the inverse square law between reflections). I'm not just bullshitting here, I do research in real-time computer acoustics simulation.

Also, beware of mixing at loud volumes because the ear hears differently at different SPLs. See: Fletcher–Munson curves. You should mix at an average listening level (I mix at about 75-80 dB SPL) in order to keep this from affecting your mix too much. Typically, you will perceive 2-5 kHz as being louder at high SPLs relative to other frequencies.[/QUOTE]

smaller sine waves don't travel as far son, mixing quiet (unless you're mixing in a bathroom the size of a closet) actually does make a difference. You can simulate acoustics on a computer all you want, but i'll speak from experience:
[url]http://soundcloud.com/alphawolf-1[/url]

screw your science i'll go with personal biases

[QUOTE=JoshIsNumber3;18524194]screw your science i'll go with what atually works[/QUOTE]

Fixd*

[QUOTE=Xomblies;18524183]smaller sine waves don't travel as far son, mixing quiet (unless you're mixing in a bathroom the size of a closet) actually does make a difference. You can simulate acoustics on a computer all you want, but i'll speak from experience:
[url]http://soundcloud.com/alphawolf-1[/url][/QUOTE]

Each reflection of sound within a room can be modeled using the equation:

S' = A*S

where S is the input sound, A is a frequency response representing the attenuation caused by energy loss during reflection, and S' is the output sound. This is a LINEAR system (in most cases), so if we make everything twice as loud:

S'' = A*(2*S) = 2*A*S = 2*S'

we get double the output volume. The sound that you hear in a room is caused by millions of these interactions summed together. The other major factor in modeling room acoustics is the distance attenuation that sound experiences as it travels through air:

S' = 1/(1+D^2)*S

This is still a linear system and will behave accordingly if you increase the input volume. However, you can lessen the effects of room acoustics by increasing the size of the room: increasing the average D in the previous equation will net a lower ratio of room to direct sound. It will also push room modes to lower frequencies. A room that is bigger than around 55 feet in all directions will have all room modes below 20Hz.

Oh, and if we're going to play that game, this is a mix I did last night in my untreated room:
[URL]http://www.expireband.com/progeny.mp3[/URL]

but you are saying the system is linear, so increasing room size would have the same effect as turning it down, less output means your "linear" attenuation curve falls sooner right? i think you're also overlooking the fact that we're not talking about a completely empty room here which is probably what you've been simulating. In the real world, most people in an "untreated" room often have other objects in the room: Slick reclining chairs, couches, other band members, fleshlights, pets, mountains of cocaine gear racks, even the rig/ desk the mixer is using not to mention there are a lot of factors in building a room that come into play like what type of dryall, is there wallpaper, what about glass windows? are there curtains? what about crown molding? how tall is the room?, is it vaulted? so while i'm sure your impulse response simulations of completely empty rooms with walls made of math are accurate, You can usually trust your ears more than you can some bullshit some nerd pulled off of google

i'm pretty sure all acoustic treatment techs stopped using the flether munson principle some time ago, there are more up to date sound pressure theories...

also your mix sounds really isolated, use more gates on your close mics and automate them so when the drummer does a roll it's disabled etc, ESPECIALLY on the toms. More room mics/ overheads would glue your drums together and make them sound more natural. Guitars sound really crushed and Fake. Your entire mix kinda sounds crushed as well but not in a good way, your release is set to crackhead speed making it sound jittery, if you have the ssl comp plugin, try setting your release to auto instead of turning the release time all the way down.

i think posting your music along with any advice on these threads is a good idea, it'll allow the reader to determine whether or not the person giving it knows what their doing rather than just what they're talking about.

[quote=Xomblies;18524912]but you are saying the system is linear, so increasing room size would have the same effect as turning it down, less output means your "linear" attenuation curve falls sooner right? i think you're also overlooking the fact that we're not talking about a completely empty room here which is probably what you've been simulating. In the real world, most people in an "untreated" room often have other objects in the room: Slick reclining chairs, couches, other band members, fleshlights, pets, mountains of cocaine gear racks, even the rig/ desk the mixer is using not to mention there are a lot of factors in building a room that come into play like what type of dryall, is there wallpaper, what about glass windows? are there curtains? what about crown molding? how tall is the room?, is it vaulted? so while i'm sure your impulse response simulations of completely empty rooms with walls made of math are accurate, You can usually trust your ears more than you can some bullshit some nerd pulled off of google

i'm pretty sure all acoustic treatment techs stopped using the flether munson principle some time ago, there are more up to date sound pressure theories...

also your mix sounds really isolated, use more gates on your close mics and automate them so when the drummer does a roll it's disabled etc, ESPECIALLY on the toms. More room mics/ overheads would glue your drums together and make them sound more natural. Guitars sound really crushed and Fake. Your entire mix kinda sounds crushed as well but not in a good way, your release is set to crackhead speed making it sound jittery, if you have the ssl comp plugin, try setting your release to auto instead of turning the release time all the way down.

i think posting your music along with any advice on these threads is a good idea, it'll allow the reader to determine whether or not the person giving it knows what their doing rather than just what they're talking about.[/quote]
[URL]http://soundcloud.com/convectuoso/abc12345[/URL]

Do me, do me!

I'm now buying some Alesis M1 MkII actives for £150, is this awesome y/y?


Also, what do you guys do insofar as mastering is concerned? Do you just use a mastering plugin or is there more to it than that?

Ozone is a good place to start, but you'll probably want to do more tweaks to your master than a single plugin can provide.
Good multiband compressors/ maximisers are very useful, and you'll want to run through a matching eq, a global reverb, etc.

[quote=Moss;18526003]Ozone is a good place to start, but you'll probably want to do more tweaks to your master than a single plugin can provide.
Good multiband compressors/ maximisers are very useful, and you'll want to run through a matching eq, [B]a global reverb[/B], etc.[/quote]
Ew.

Unless it's like an acoustic and a vocal that have for some reason been mixed with no or very little reverb. I can't imagine why the fuck anyone in their sane/sober mind would want to put reverb over the whole mix? I don't care if Ozone has one, it's fucking stupid.

Two of my friends have the MKII's. They're "okay". But their mixes both always seems to have this weird tone to them that I can only put down to either their mixing abilities or their speakers.

[QUOTE=Convectuoso;18526110]Ew.

Unless it's like an acoustic and a vocal that have for some reason been mixed with no or very little reverb. I can't imagine why the fuck anyone in their sane/sober mind would want to put reverb over the whole mix? I don't care if Ozone has one, it's fucking stupid.
[/QUOTE]

Cohesiveness for different tracks recorded from different sources. Especially in a world where a lot of guitars, bass etc. go in from a line source, you need a global reverb to bring the mix together.

[quote=Moss;18526143]Cohesiveness for different tracks recorded from different sources. Especially in a world where a lot of guitars, bass etc. go in from a line source, you need a global reverb to bring the mix together.[/quote]
All that should've been done in the mix?

And reverb on a bass? Maybe 1/100 mixes ever need reverb on a bass.


Fixing it in the master is the worst idea anyone could ever entertain.

Fair douze, diff'rent strokes and all that. :-)

[quote=Xomblies;18523706]you're doin it right now son[/quote]

Yeah, you're definitely going to need to elaborate. I can't infer anything about my own statements: I made them, I know what I meant to say. Any subtext there I don't know about is on you.

Also, looks like some big happenings while I stepped away. This is gonna be long, since I'm late to the party...

[quote=Xomblies;18524183][B]smaller[/B] sine waves don't travel as far son, mixing quiet (unless you're mixing in a bathroom the size of a closet) actually does make a difference. You can simulate acoustics on a computer all you want, but i'll speak from experience[/quote]

"Smaller", by itself, doesn't mean anything in particular with respect to acoustics. Based on context, I'm assuming you're talking about "less energy." And yes, the distinction (and precision) is important here.

[quote=ares;18523725]This is actually untrue. The room has the same influence proportional to the listening level at any volume. Most of the interactions within a room (reflections) are nearly (if not quite) linear systems, meaning that increasing or decreasing the listening level will increase or decrease the level of room sound by some proportionality constant relating to the materials within the room and its size.[/quote]

Hold up, what about the Sabine Equation (as referenced in my copy of Kinsler*)? That's not a linear description. I was always under the impression that the "relatively" linear behavior was because most descriptions knocked out the higher-order behaviors on purpose to give a general idea of what the room would do (i.e., the non-linear stuff is actually important).


*[I]Fundamentals of Acoustics, 4th Edition[/I]. Kinsler, et al. Wiley: 2004. My understanding is that this is the standard intro survey text (in one form or another), and that this has been the case for roughly 50 years or so.

[quote=ares;18523725]Also, beware of mixing at loud volumes because the ear hears differently at different SPLs. See: Fletcher–Munson curves. You should mix at an average listening level (I mix at about 75-80 dB SPL) in order to keep this from affecting your mix too much. Typically, you will perceive 2-5 kHz as being louder at high SPLs relative to other frequencies.[/quote]


Another big one is the dramatic change in the perception of bass frequency. I've always considered this change to be even more important, since most people will have a perceived boost at 2-5 kHz across the volume ranges (though the exact nature does change with volume).


[quote=ares;18524283]Each reflection of sound within a room can be modeled using the equation:
...

[/quote]

Again, I'm wondering how relevant the non-linearities are in this instance. I've always thought of this behavior in the linear realm as well, but was under the impression that it became more vital in the higher frequencies.


[quote=Xomblies;18524912]i think you're also overlooking the fact that we're not talking about a completely empty room here which is probably what you've been simulating. In the real world, most people in an "untreated" room often have other objects in the room...not to mention there are a lot of factors in building a room that come into play like what type of dryall, is there wallpaper, what about glass windows? are there curtains? what about crown molding? how tall is the room?, is it vaulted? so while i'm sure your impulse response simulations of completely empty rooms with walls made of math are accurate, You can usually trust your ears more than you can some bullshit some nerd pulled off of google.[/quote]

I'd be inclined to give him a little more credit than that. That's all stuff that gets considered in the first week of reverberation calculation. I was worrying about that stuff in my Acoustics class and we only talked about it for about 3 class days (as would be expected in a general overview of acoustic phenomenon).

And the idea that you can [I]learn[/I] the physical behavior of sound using nothing more than Google and no particular understanding of calculus and differential equations is pretty ludicrous. Even the [I]easy[/I] version of acoustics hits on multivariate calculus and lots of phasor trigonometry.

[quote=Xomblies;18524912]i'm pretty sure all acoustic treatment techs stopped using the flether munson principle some time ago, there are more up to date sound pressure theories...[/quote]

Which one would you consider the "gold standard?" Part of the reason why there are lots of equal-loudness contours is because the measurements are pretty much always calculated directly from experimental results: the sampling pool has a big influence on the data in that regard. Nonetheless, his point was largely about how perception changes with volume, and [I]all[/I] equal-loudness contours will show that particular relationship in roughly the same way.

[quote=Xomblies;18524912]allow the reader to determine whether or not the person giving it knows what their doing rather than just what they're talking about.[/quote]

Speaking of which, did you ever get an answer on the -24 dB standard for digital audio? I'd still like to look into that if possible.


[quote=Convectuoso;18526110]I can't imagine why the fuck anyone in their sane/sober mind would want to put reverb over the whole mix?[/quote]

Off the top of my head: very common on jazz records, very common on orchestral/symphonic/brass recordings, can be used to "sweeten" an album recorded in a dead acoustic space, often done with live recordings, often done to maintain cohesion through edits, can be used as a short-term special effect, and is very standard when you want to put the performance in a single virtual space. Keep in mind that "reverb" doesn't always just mean "artificial reverb."

[QUOTE=Moseph;18526206]
Hold up, what about the Sabine Equation (as referenced in my copy of Kinsler*)? That's not a linear description. I was always under the impression that the "relatively" linear behavior was because most descriptions knocked out the higher-order behaviors on purpose to give a general idea of what the room would do (i.e., the non-linear stuff is actually important).

*[I]Fundamentals of Acoustics, 4th Edition[/I]. Kinsler, et al. Wiley: 2004. My understanding is that this is the standard intro survey text (in one form or another), and that this has been the case for roughly 50 years or so.
[/QUOTE]

I'm familiar with this equation, I actually use a modified version (Eyring) to calculate the reverb times in my simulation system.

The point that I'm getting at is that in most cases, the response of a room/source/listener configuration can be described by an impulse response: convolve this IR with source audio of any amplitude and you're going to get the same result times the input audio gain coefficient. The response is linear with respect to the energy of the sound source in most cases.

There are certain non-linearities w.r.t. energy that deal with how the sound interacts with air as it travels as well the interactions with materials in the room, but these are probably so small that they wouldn't have any effect when mixing at different volumes.


[QUOTE=Moseph;18526206]
I'd be inclined to give him a little more credit than that. That's all stuff that gets considered in the first week of reverberation calculation. I was worrying about that stuff in my Acoustics class and we only talked about it for about 3 class days (as would be expected in a general overview of acoustic phenomenon).
[/QUOTE]

Yes, my simulation system can use arbitrary geometry and every surface has material properties that specify the absorption at different frequencies. If you'd like to read about it, here is a paper I presented earlier this year at the 41st AES conference in London:
[URL]http://gamma.cs.unc.edu/GSOUND/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Xomblies;18524912]
also your mix sounds really isolated, use more gates on your close mics and automate them so when the drummer does a roll it's disabled etc, ESPECIALLY on the toms. More room mics/ overheads would glue your drums together and make them sound more natural. Guitars sound really crushed and Fake. Your entire mix kinda sounds crushed as well but not in a good way, your release is set to crackhead speed making it sound jittery, if you have the ssl comp plugin, try setting your release to auto instead of turning the release time all the way down.[/QUOTE]

I listened to my mix with your critique in mind. I definitely get the crushed feeling from the whole mix, this is mostly because the recording is really dense and I had just thrown a compressor on everything but drums grouped together. I mixed it all in one session, so I might have caught this if I'd taken a break and come back with fresh ears.

The guitar sound is not really fixable, the recording itself is 2 years old and lackluster and I was just trying to breath some life into it by adding some soft clipping.

The drum sound is actually pretty much what I'm going for. I could maybe add some more overheads/reverb to tie it together, but I'm pretty happy with it as it is. Also, I'm using Superior Drummer 2.0 triggered by an E-kit, so your comment about tom mics doesn't apply.

As for the mixes that you linked earlier, they sound pretty good but seriously lack bass guitar. Try boosting 100-200Hz and compressing the fuck out of it, especially with a compressor that can add some soft clipping.

[quote=ares;18526227]I'm familiar with this equation, I actually use a modified version (Eyring) to calculate the reverb times in my simulation system.

The point that I'm getting at is that in most cases, the response of a room/source/listener configuration can be described by an impulse response: convolve this IR with source audio of any amplitude and you're going to get the same result times the input audio gain coefficient. The response is linear with respect to the energy of the sound source in most cases.

There are certain non-linearities w.r.t. energy that deal with how the sound interacts with air as it travels as well the interactions with materials in the room, but these are probably so small that they wouldn't have any effect when mixing at different volumes.[/quote]

I'll see if I can't dig up something about the Eyring model in books/journals. This is one of my weakest areas regarding the physics/math of the situation. Admittedly, it's kind of rough in general to learn this stuff just because so much is happening in the math domain that it's hard to follow without sitting down and working through derivation yourself (and who wants to do that in their free-time?).

Refresh my memory: convolution (in the time-domain) is linear with respect to energy/frequency response, but non-linear with respect to transient response, correct?

I also can't remember the other properties that comprise linearity (if memory serves, it's more than just scalability), but I'm willing to take your word on it.



[quote=ares;18526227]Yes, my simulation system can use arbitrary geometry and every surface has material properties that specify the absorption at different frequencies. If you'd like to read about it, here is a paper I presented earlier this year at the 41st AES conference in London:
[url]http://gamma.cs.unc.edu/GSOUND/[/url][/quote]

Cool beans, man. I'll take a look at this when I have some free time.

[QUOTE=Moseph;18526206]

**SNIP**



Off the top of my head: very common on jazz records, very common on orchestral/symphonic/brass recordings, can be used to "sweeten" an album recorded in a dead acoustic space, often done with live recordings, often done to maintain cohesion through edits, can be used as a short-term special effect, and is very standard when you want to put the performance in a single virtual space. Keep in mind that "reverb" doesn't always just mean "artificial reverb."[/QUOTE]
Yeah but my point is why the fuck would anyone leave that till the master? Are you for real?

Dude you seem very uptight about your views on mixing and refuse to accept that other people do things differently. I'm not knocking you or anything, I'm just wondering why.

[quote=Sad But True;18526583]Dude you seem very uptight about your views on mixing and refuse to accept that other people do things differently. I'm not knocking you or anything, I'm just wondering why.[/quote]
You mistake uptight for confused and unwilling to let false misinformation be taken as legitimate fact.

Yeah but from an outside viewpoint (ie mine) who can say if yours is indeed to 'correct' viewpoint? TBH on something like the global reverb issue, it comes down to taste and preference, so I don't really see how it's false information.

[quote=Sad But True;18526586]Yeah but from an outside viewpoint (ie mine) who can say if yours is indeed to 'correct' viewpoint? TBH on something like the global reverb issue, it comes down to taste and preference, so I don't really see how it's false information.[/quote]
Is everyone illiterate?

My argument was towards Mop's idea that a global reverb **@ THE MASTERING STAGE** would help glue things together that were recorded from different sources or whatever.

All that should've been done at the mix.

You know this is a "Home recording thread"?
I often find that when I slam my master at the "Mastering Stage", the reverb changes it's characteristics due to the compression of the signal. You can re-add the sparkle at the top end by using reverb at the mastering stage. Works for me, even if it's not the "correct" way of doing things.
As this is a Home recording thread, I reckon pretty much anything goes if it helps to make your mix sound better.

[quote=Convectuoso;18526590]Is everyone illiterate?

My argument was towards [B]Mop's[/B] idea that a global reverb **@ THE MASTERING STAGE** would help glue things together that were recorded from different sources or whatever.

All that should've been done at the mix.[/quote]

Whoa hang on, when did I come into this? Last thing I posted here was about monitors o.O

[quote=Convectuoso;18526534]Yeah but my point is why the fuck would anyone leave that till the master? Are you for real?[/quote]


I am. In fact, there's a couple of sections in Bob Katz's book about why you might use some reverb in the Mastering phase. Check it out.

[quote=The_Mop;18526617]Whoa hang on, when did I come into this? Last thing I posted here was about monitors o.O[/quote]
Lmao sorry dude I meant Moss. Mind slip.
[QUOTE]
I am. In fact, there's a couple of sections in Bob Katz's book about why you might use some reverb in the Mastering phase. Check it out.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry Mo', but you need to stop reading books and start mixing more. Not only should most creative decisions be done at the mixing stage for artistic reasons, it's also easier and you have more control of what you actually put on into the reverb auxiliary.

I mean, have you actually tried to put reverb on a kick drum? 9/10 it sounds like dog shit and you take it off immediately.

Just because Ozone has a reverb in it, shouldn't think you need a global reverb to master.

A good mix should only need a bit of EQ tweak if that and level management depending on the genre and the eventual goal of the product. So to answer SBT'S question with a realistic answer:

Buy the Massey L2007, it;s like 89 dollars or something.

And buy a half decent digital EQ. Get a Linear phase one if you can.

Buuuuuut.

If you're wise,you'll find a friend who has a better setup than you do.

Mastering isn't about what plug ins or gear you have. It's how good your monitors are and how neutral your listening environment is.

Example: We have probably three top of the lines studios in NZ. My favourite, Roundhead Studios (owned by Neil Finn) has a Neve desk that recorded Quadrophenia and Grace, outboard that would blow your mind (Pultecs, API stuff, Urei, Neve 1073's (in their B room!) etc etc) a Studer A827. Microphones:

[IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/e1dgzk.png[/IMG] (that's just over half of them)

And guess what? Their head engineer said to me they don't pretend that they have the facilities to master. They send their mixes over to New York to Sterling etc etc.

So enter mastering with caution, you can easily fuck things up thinking louder is better. It's not how loud it is, it's how you make it loud, and if you even go down that road.

[quote=Convectuoso;18526961]I'm sorry Mo', but you need to stop reading books and start mixing more. Not only should most creative decisions be done at the mixing stage for artistic reasons, it's also easier and you have more control of what you actually put on into the reverb auxiliary.[/quote]

Check. Note to self: Convectuoso knows more about the mastering process than Bob Katz. Therefore, there cannot possibly be any legitimate use of reverb during mastering, because Convectuoso says so.


[quote=Convectuoso;18526961]I mean, have you actually tried to put reverb on a kick drum? 9/10 it sounds like dog shit and you take it off immediately.[/quote]

I have (granted, it was during the mixing process). For most styles of rock, I'm inclined to agree with you. But it's very much a stylistic thing.

I've done a bit of work in gypsy jazz and Americana/bluegrass where the kick had a bit of reverb and it was completely appropriate. I also did a live outdoor recording of big band swing where the whole mix got treated with reverb: not only appropriate, but in my opinion [I]necessary [/I]on that one.


[quote=Convectuoso;18526961]Just because Ozone has a reverb in it, shouldn't think you need a global reverb to master.[/quote]

I don't recall mentioning Ozone; or saying that reverb was a necessary part of the mastering process. Only that there were scenarios where it could be used. Don't confuse my posts with someone else'.


[quote=Convectuoso;18526961]Mastering isn't about what plug ins or gear you have. It's how good your monitors are and how neutral your listening environment is.

...

[B][bunch of gear stuff][/B]

...

And guess what? Their head engineer said to me they don't pretend that they have the facilities to master. They send their mixes over to New York to Sterling etc etc.[/quote]


Don't forget that this thread is about [I]home recording[/I]. The whole point is that, for whatever reason, you [I]won't[/I] be shipping things off to be handled by a specialist.

[quote=Moseph;18526995]Check. Note to self: Convectuoso knows more about the mastering process than Bob Katz. Therefore, there cannot possibly be any legitimate use of reverb during mastering, because Convectuoso says so.[/quote]

No, my point is, Bob Katz knows how to master, he will no when it is a appropriate to add reverb to the whole fucking 2 bus and when it is not. Telling someone who has never properly mastered to get a global reverb is just stupid and will end up with the person wasting whole bunch of timing and wrecking a mix.




[QUOTE]

I have (granted, it was during the mixing process). For most styles of rock, I'm inclined to agree with you. But it's very much a stylistic thing.

I've done a bit of work in gypsy jazz and Americana/bluegrass where the kick had a bit of reverb and it was completely appropriate. I also did a live outdoor recording of big band swing where the whole mix got treated with reverb: not only appropriate, but in my opinion [I]necessary [/I]on that one.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, buuuuuuut, IT SHOULD ALL BE DONE AT THE MIX STAGE. :o

[QUOTE]
I don't recall mentioning Ozone; or saying that reverb was a necessary part of the mastering process. Only that there were scenarios where it could be used. Don't confuse my posts with someone else'.[/QUOTE]
I think Moss did, and all the things he was mentioned are in Ozone so I was just assuming he was just reading from the GUI of Ozone. Soon I think most forums will make Ozone and Mastering have the same definition. "Great, the mix is all done, now all we have to do is send it off to someone to Ozone it. I hope he puts a global reverb on the mix because I certainly couldn't be assed gluing the mix together myself."

[quote]Don't forget that this thread is about [I]home recording[/I]. The whole point is that, for whatever reason, you [I]won't[/I] be shipping things off to be handled by a specialist.[/quote]
Yeah okay so I can't use anecdotes to illustrate a point (that you so clearly missed) but you can quote from a 15 year old book aimed at people with some serious technical understanding?

Enhance your calm, John Spartan...


[quote=Convectuoso;18527007]No, my point is, Bob Katz knows how to master, he will no when it is a appropriate to add reverb to the whole fucking 2 bus and when it is not. Telling someone who has never properly mastered to get a global reverb is just stupid and will end up with the person wasting whole bunch of timing and wrecking a mix.[/quote]

(01) The issue is whether it's ever appropriate or not. Sometimes it is. Saying otherwise is bad information. Making exceptions doesn't work, and it doesn't change the fact that sometimes you want to do it.

(02) Wrecking a mix is part of the learning process. You suck when you start out. Everything has a learning curve. There's a reason I always recommend freeware plugins (when I make recommendations).


[quote=Convectuoso;18527007]Yes, buuuuuuut, IT SHOULD ALL BE DONE AT THE MIX STAGE. :o[/quote]

Again, not always the case. The biggest reason Katz recommends adding reverb is actually to help mask discontinuities with edits of finished mixes (for instance, re-splicing consecutive tracks during reverb tails).


[quote=Convectuoso;18527007]I think Moss did, and all the things he was mentioned are in Ozone so I was just assuming he was just reading from the GUI of Ozone...[/quote]

It was in fact Moss that brought it up. A quick read through the thread reveals this. That's not particularly relevant. I'm not Moss. My thoughts are distinct from his.

Part of this issue is that a lot of folks [I]do[/I] recommend the Ozone Manual as a handy "cheat sheet" for the mastering process. Their laziness in the matter is on them.


[quote=Convectuoso;18527007]Yeah okay so I can't use anecdotes to illustrate a point (that you so clearly missed) but you can quote from a 15 year old book aimed at people with some serious technical understanding?[/quote]

You can say whatever you want. But the point of your anecdote was "don't do it yourself", which is the opposite of contributing when the thread is about "do it yourself."

Also note that the age of a book is a poor indicator of the validity of its content. Sometimes an old book isn't helpful (a manual for Sound Tools), sometimes it is (Kinsler). For the record, Katz's book had its first pressing in 2002, and my copy isn't from the first pressing.

[QUOTE=Convectuoso;18526961] So to answer SBT'S question with a realistic answer:

Buy the Massey L2007, it;s like 89 dollars or something.

And buy a half decent digital EQ. Get a Linear phase one if you can.

Buuuuuut.

If you're wise,you'll find a friend who has a better setup than you do.

[/QUOTE]

It may have answered my question but it doesn't help me. I don't have the money for it, I don't have the time for it, i was just wondering is there a basic mastering plugin that I can use to get to grips with it, and don't recommend I save money and buy something or go do it somewhere else.

This is the home recording thread you know, most people won't have money to splash on nice gear.

[quote=Sad But True;18527053]i was just wondering is there a basic mastering plugin that I can use to get to grips with it[/quote]


I don't use a single plugin for when I try my hand at mastering, but I do like these:

Variety of Sound's Density mk2 (compressor)
slim slow slider's LinearPhaseGraphicEQ2
Antress Modern Deathcore (compressor)
Buzzroom BuzzMaxi 3 (limiter)

Voxengo SPAN (analysis tool)
smartelectronix's dfx monomaker (stereo tool)
Voxengo MSED (Mid/Side tool)
Tobybear's BitViewer (meter to check on dithering)

I tend to use Density with a relatively long attack and long release (for more of a "steady state" or "fullness" compression). I like Deathcore for shorter attack/response to help maintain "punchy" transients. BuzzMaxi 3 is a pretty transparent brickwall limiter that I use to protect clipping on the DAC (I set it to -0.5 dB with no makeup). LPG2 I mostly use for small tweaks to help maintain spectral continuity between them.

monomaker is a super-convenient on/off switch to check your mono collapse. BitViewer lets you know what's going on in terms of bit-usage, so you can make a more informed decision about dithering. The Voxengo plugs are pretty self-explanatory.

Those are all VST plugins, and last I checked were still freely available from their respective developers.

I seriously need to do some homework on mastering.

[quote=Sad But True;18527053]It may have answered my question but it doesn't help me. I don't have the money for it, I don't have the time for it, i was just wondering is there a basic mastering plugin that I can use to get to grips with it, and don't recommend I save money and buy something or go do it somewhere else.

This is the home recording thread you know, most people won't have money to splash on nice gear.[/quote]
You can't afford $89? :confused:

Yeah just take Mo's freeware suggestions. I can't recommend anything that doesn't cost.

[QUOTE=Convectuoso;18527580] You can't afford $89? :confused:[/QUOTE]
No, I can't.
[QUOTE=Convectuoso;18527580] I can't recommend anything that doesn't cost.[/QUOTE]

You might be in the wrong thread then.