No you're right, I'm learning. I don't think you can know too much. I'm not saying that I much at all. It is somewhat difficult to concentrate on technique when you're shopping trying to get the best deals. Thanks for that reminder.
Using Eq after Harbal
Just make sure it's deals on stuff you really need Don't just get stuff for the sake of having it. It's good to plot out a big picture of what you want so you can break down your purchases and have an idea of where each piece fits into that picture, and make sure you don't buy overlap, much like the EQ and HarBal appear to have been.
Good luck, and enjoy, it's a great hobby...and great business.
Don't just get stuff for the sake of having it. It's good to plot out a big picture of what you want so you can break down your purchases and have an idea of where each piece fits into that picture, and make sure you don't buy overlap, much like the EQ and HarBal appear to have been.Good luck, and enjoy, it's a great hobby...and great business.
Hi Dan,
I figured out how to make my Har-Bal and Massivo work together Since the Massive Passive isn't designed to be a surgical EQ I shouldn't treat it like it is a Weiss! I was thinking about buying the Weiss EQ1 Mk2, but the Har-Bal is taking its place. Unless I start getting I start hearing things like Bob Ludwig, or Ted Jensen I should be fine with the Har-Bal. Thanks for all your comments they helped along with everyone else here.
--
neospec
I figured out how to make my Har-Bal and Massivo work together
Since the Massive Passive isn't designed to be a surgical EQ I shouldn't treat it like it is a Weiss! I was thinking about buying the Weiss EQ1 Mk2, but the Har-Bal is taking its place. Unless I start getting I start hearing things like Bob Ludwig, or Ted Jensen I should be fine with the Har-Bal. Thanks for all your comments they helped along with everyone else here. --
neospec
It seems to easy
Hi all, im a new comer, and i have to say i have reviewed the 8 bit demo and i am very impressed with this product. I also would like to thank you all for i have learned a great deal in this forum. It i seems to me from, what ive read, that mastering a song that has been recorded and mixed quite well can be done or should be done with har-bal and a t-racks limiter. I think the T-racks is Earles choice. For those of you who master for a living i was wondering if you could help me by answering a couple of questions or thoughts about mastering. Now i do not claim to be an expert at anything, but i have read just about every article and quite a few books on mastering and digtal audio and it seems to me that if i use harbal correctly then there is no real need for mulitiband this and multiband that, harmoinic exciters, linearphase multiband eq's, but thats not what the majority of experts would have you to believe. The experts spend most of the article telling you that you should let someone else do your mastering, but if you cant do this then you better do that and most of the time it involves Eq multiband compression, singleband compression. harmonic exciter's, or some sort of saturator, and then a limiter. Would i be correct in saying that all of these techniques are trying to achieve the correct harmonic balance using tools that will only cause most people to chase their own tale, . I also understand that if you are mastering for a living you might need a certain variety of tools to satisfy your clients need, as well as having a great monitors, room acoustics, sound proofing, and wht have you, but what needs are there in mastering a song for a client that cant be met with harbal and a limiter, im not refering to track arrangement, fadeins,fade outs, crossfade, noise reduction, and all of that aspect, and i ask this genuinely, is there any need for all of those expensive plugins any more, when it comes to mastering. Im not doubting harbal or you guys in this forum but with harbal it seems to easy. Finally, how would you master your own song, disregarding the level wars, lets say for example a well recorded well mixed song, I know its quite hypothetical. But i know im at the right place for quality answers. Im sorry if this seems like babble and i hope this is a decent enquirey. Doug
Hi Doug,
I don't do mastering for a living but I do have reasonable experience in hearing commercially mastered music in good and bad acoustic environments and the general conclusion that I come to is that the best recordings as far as reproduction quality and transportability have the least processing (esp. multiband) applied to them. Using multi-band compressors can produce excellent results but it is very hard to do well and without obvious artifacts. The biggest problem with multi-band dynamics processors IMHO is that the results are very sensitive to room acoustics, so even if you end up with something you like the sound of there's a good chance it will have big transportability issues.
I've literally heard this with my own room, first with acoustic problems and now with excellent acoustics. With poor acoustics a lot of the new stuff processed with MB compression (even from Gateway Mastering) sounded woeful whereas all the older stuff I have dating from the 80s-90s were much more passable. Now with the acoustics sorted, those modern MB compressed recordings sound quite good to me, though how many of your audience will have ideal acoustics.
I think a general rule of thumb is the more you have to do to a track during the mastering phase the more it will experience transportability issues. I back that up with reference to classsical music recordings as evidence. I certainly find most classical recordings are far more transportable than your popular music productions and as I see it, it is for one reason only. They put all there effort into getting as much right before mastering, and as for dynamics processors, most quality classsical recordings don't use any!
If you want a reality check on processing required, go through your commercial CD collection and sort them into your favourites, sound quality wise. Then take a look at the dates they were recorded. For me the best sounding commercial CD's in my collection seem to date around the late 80's early 90's. The other thing to be clear on is that the loudness war issue is largely a non-issue that shouldn't be given much consideration. The fact of the matter is that so much compression is applied by radio/TV broadcasters to content that it largely makes no difference what you do to the loudness of you track. Squash the life out of it and it will still sound as loud as soumething recorded in the 80's when played over the radio. All you end up doing is killing the enjoyment of those who buy the CD. It's a really strange mentality. By all means, use limiting to make it loud, but not at the expense of killing the dynamics.
Cheers,
Paavo.
I don't do mastering for a living but I do have reasonable experience in hearing commercially mastered music in good and bad acoustic environments and the general conclusion that I come to is that the best recordings as far as reproduction quality and transportability have the least processing (esp. multiband) applied to them. Using multi-band compressors can produce excellent results but it is very hard to do well and without obvious artifacts. The biggest problem with multi-band dynamics processors IMHO is that the results are very sensitive to room acoustics, so even if you end up with something you like the sound of there's a good chance it will have big transportability issues.
I've literally heard this with my own room, first with acoustic problems and now with excellent acoustics. With poor acoustics a lot of the new stuff processed with MB compression (even from Gateway Mastering) sounded woeful whereas all the older stuff I have dating from the 80s-90s were much more passable. Now with the acoustics sorted, those modern MB compressed recordings sound quite good to me, though how many of your audience will have ideal acoustics.
I think a general rule of thumb is the more you have to do to a track during the mastering phase the more it will experience transportability issues. I back that up with reference to classsical music recordings as evidence. I certainly find most classical recordings are far more transportable than your popular music productions and as I see it, it is for one reason only. They put all there effort into getting as much right before mastering, and as for dynamics processors, most quality classsical recordings don't use any!
If you want a reality check on processing required, go through your commercial CD collection and sort them into your favourites, sound quality wise. Then take a look at the dates they were recorded. For me the best sounding commercial CD's in my collection seem to date around the late 80's early 90's. The other thing to be clear on is that the loudness war issue is largely a non-issue that shouldn't be given much consideration. The fact of the matter is that so much compression is applied by radio/TV broadcasters to content that it largely makes no difference what you do to the loudness of you track. Squash the life out of it and it will still sound as loud as soumething recorded in the 80's when played over the radio. All you end up doing is killing the enjoyment of those who buy the CD. It's a really strange mentality. By all means, use limiting to make it loud, but not at the expense of killing the dynamics.
Cheers,
Paavo.
Many thnaks
Thank you so much for your reply, i love this site. When you master a song do you ever use a compressor of any sort to tighten the kick or bottom end, or for any other special effect, and also if possible is it more desireable to obtain that sound in the mix. and which would you guys say is the best limiter for Digital audio.
Re: Many thnaks
DougDoug wrote:Thank you so much for your reply, i love this site. When you master a song do you ever use a compressor of any sort to tighten the kick or bottom end, or for any other special effect, and also if possible is it more desireable to obtain that sound in the mix. and which would you guys say is the best limiter for Digital audio.
Sure you can use a compressor to tighten the bass region, but a great method is to do a frequency sweep using a high pass filter between 45hz and 86hz. You can usually tighten the bass by getting rid of the muddiness. I usually put a high pass at the 45hz mark
Without a doubt the best explanation I have ever come across for using a compressor correctly has been from a friend of ours named Stavrou at www.mixingwithyourmind.com
Basically his technique for setting the compressor is flawless. You can always write him for more information. He has an article in his book called Cracking the Compressor. It is mind blowing and I use his technique constantly. He is a freaking genius!
Cheers
Earle
Thanks a million for the link, truly grand knowledge. I cant believe i havnt heard about MWYM sooner. its an honour to converse with everyone on this forum and recieve honest valuable information from people who love music. Just out of curiosity have you ever come across a mix that did not require any processing at all. Would you also name a few of the albums you were referring to in the 80' -90's period so that i can hunt them down and have a listen. much appreciated..
Doug
Doug
Hi Doug,
Like I said, I don't do mastering so I don't really have an answer for you on the "no processing" question, except in as much as I have come across CDs that have no "mastering" credit that sound very good to me. Can't name one off hand though and that doesn't say anything about the processing side of things.
Examples of CDs from 80's include:
Dire Straits : Love over gold
Tori Amos : Little earthquakes
Joe Jackson : Body and Soul
Tears for Fears : Songs from the big chair
Miles Davis : Amandla
From the 90s:
Pretenders : Packed
Tears for Fears : Elemental
These are but a few that I can think of off hand. I'm sure there's more. If the stuff from the 80's sounds a bit weak make sure you turn the volume up. Some of those CD's use minimal compression and limiting. I'm sure Earle could suggest plenty to add to this list.
Regards,
Paavo.
Like I said, I don't do mastering so I don't really have an answer for you on the "no processing" question, except in as much as I have come across CDs that have no "mastering" credit that sound very good to me. Can't name one off hand though and that doesn't say anything about the processing side of things.
Examples of CDs from 80's include:
Dire Straits : Love over gold
Tori Amos : Little earthquakes
Joe Jackson : Body and Soul
Tears for Fears : Songs from the big chair
Miles Davis : Amandla
From the 90s:
Pretenders : Packed
Tears for Fears : Elemental
These are but a few that I can think of off hand. I'm sure there's more. If the stuff from the 80's sounds a bit weak make sure you turn the volume up. Some of those CD's use minimal compression and limiting. I'm sure Earle could suggest plenty to add to this list.
Regards,
Paavo.
much appreciated. Thanks for the info. Doug......Re: Many thnaks
Just curious, Earle . . . when you personally use a high pass filter to tame some very low frequency bass muddiness, do you tend to use it "pre" or "post" Har-Bal?har-bal wrote:Doug wrote: You can usually tighten the bass by getting rid of the muddiness. I usually put a high pass at the 45hz mark
Cheers
Earle
Tom
Re: Many thnaks
Tomtcatzere wrote:har-bal wrote:Just curious, Earle . . . when you personally use a high pass filter to tame some very low frequency bass muddiness, do you tend to use it "pre" or "post" Har-Bal?Doug wrote: You can usually tighten the bass by getting rid of the muddiness. I usually put a high pass at the 45hz mark
Cheers
Earle
Tom
I actually use it at two places. I low shelf at 45hz in Har-Bal and point it towards the left lower corner. Additionally in my chain I have an EQ with a high pass filter always set at 45hz. Sometimes I just do a frequency sweep between 45hz and 64hz just until the bass sounds tight to my ears. I want to hear the bass notes popping. I do not want to be enveloped it in.
Between that and compression I can usually create that super tight bass that makes you ugly in the face
Earle
Thanks, Earle. In light of your response, I have what's probably a "technical" question -- or maybe it's just ignorance on my part. Is there any significant difference between using a "high pass filter" for this purpose as opposed to "low shelving" at the target (low) frequency? Seems like they both do essentially the same thing -- or is that not really true?
Tom
Tom
Tomtcatzere wrote:Thanks, Earle. In light of your response, I have what's probably a "technical" question -- or maybe it's just ignorance on my part. Is there any significant difference between using a "high pass filter" for this purpose as opposed to "low shelving" at the target (low) frequency? Seems like they both do essentially the same thing -- or is that not really true?
Tom
Ian Waugh explains it best
High Pass filter passes the high frequencies and attenuates the lower ones.
Low Shelf Cuts or boosts the frequencies below the cutoff point. Shelf filters are used to change a broad spectrum of the sound.
Cheers
Earle