Remove Ads

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
an album I produced/engineered/mixed/mastered
#1
hey guys

here's a short album I did for a friend on the ultra cheap

totally not like OURS. More like Ben Folds, Billie Joel, with muse and foo influence.

check it out if you got a moment

www.brendangetzell.bandcamp.com
Reply
#2
What Mastering hardware did you use?
Reply
#3
All in the box.

pretty sure I used different parallel chains. Sometimes T-racks's 670, Kramer tape, Waves L3, Sony's inflator. Overall EQ shaping. It was pretty tough to get all the different styles to fit together. As well as fine tuned Bass control via RX harmonic manipulations

I think I'm most proud of the master on Caverns. I've never been able to make an acoustic based song sound so huge. Part of it is the mix, and the subtle production i did for the low end, but the master really worked out.

Reply
#4
That's software, those are all plugins.  That's also a lot of multiple calculations you're stressing on a track.  It's going to BOX up your sound and make the tones not finite and too wobbly.

Also: My personal opinion is that to qualify as a full album it should be at least 30 minutes. I would prefer over 40 with 10 tracks but over 30 with 8 tracks is barely acceptable but your "album" qualifies as an E.P. You take a drive to get groceries and it's over.
Reply
#5
As I said. All in the box. I didn't use hardware on it. My home rig is based around composing and editing orchestral works and samples these days. As that's what I mostly do/did for a living. I quit recording bands more years ago than most bands stay together, only really taking a step out for the opportunity to work with a favorite rock band from highschool a few years ago and it totally soured me on the process all over again for a whole slew of new reasons.

I could go into detailed reasoning on pointing out ore flaws in the recording and source that could be as much issue trace you hear than the master. Lets just keep it on the short list... cheap mics, focus on time working on multiple arrangements, large separated sessions, cheap interfaces... the whole thing was done on the super cheap, but included hiring live musicians, rooms, orchestrations...etc )

It wasn't planned that I'd master the record originally. I actually think it requires a separate set of ears, but it just ended up this way. I actually hate mastering, since I'm not really set up for it, and the process is such a weird balance of finding an artist/song natural aspects, and consumer's expectancy of perceived loudness.

Also, I didn't use all those plugs at the same time. Just choices and combinations for each song to get a good shape and balance as we could from the multiple sessions and different rooms, and highly varied song styles. Some songs just worked better with different choices with the volume levels we were after.

I think we found a good balance on keeping source character and said volume levels

On length, there was one more song planned for the record, but pulled at the end. Remember that this isn't my album, just something I helped create from the ground up with a friend. Smile I'm with you, I like longer albums

Still pretty proud of how Caverns tuned out on the master side though. I've never been able to find a nice balance in making an acoustic based song fit in with louder more broadband material, without squashing the absolute life out of it. Sadly catch wasn't a multitracked song, so the balance on that acoustic song suffered.

The song I think turned out best is Missing a Cue.

Through all that defensive sounding nonsense though, I wanted to get to the one thing that actually did kinda bother me about what you said. I absolutely disagree with the idea that plug ins at 32/64 bits and 88.2 or higher resolution is going to box up your sound just because of "calculations". Especially on a 2 track. The math is using such high values that the quantizing artifacts like aliasing and the like are minimal now, and it becomes more about source material and end usage more than anything, just like analog gear users can cause similar problems on material through misuse. I work pretty heavy with phase coherency on a near forensic level these days the idea that plug ins box up your sound is just a perpetuation of misuse or old analog "set it and forget it" workflow bias. While some great analog gear is never gonna be modeled correctly, and the character that specific piece of gear can bring is worth going to a specific studio/engineer for. The ability to do whacky parallel processing and still, after the fact, work on phase manipulation/frequency support at high spectral bin separation/high quality FFT makes the idea that stressing your track with calculations, and in turn making things sound worse somehow by default, is something I'll never agree with with today's software. Audio software technology has come a long, long way, form the days of fudging the math to try to cope with single processors, and we're at a point where things can be made spectacularly better in the box with some of the more creative software developers straying from chasing the modelling train. Kramer's and Slate's tape models are awesome though. That said, I'm not all high and mighty to say I didn't do a shit job at mastering. It's not at the top level of my skill set. It's not some inherent problem of using software though, probably more my chronic avoidance of working with bands to build up the right habits to do it better these days.
Reply
#6
I wasn't making a simple generalized comment based on math alone. Although that would be enough.  The more math you're doing, the more unnatural the sound is going to become.  I made my comment based completely on what I could hear from the song I was directed at.

Also, I don't speak the lingo and therefor didn't know that "In the Box" meant basically I just used a computer. Leave it to a younger generation to try and sound more cool than they are. I think it's a respect thing.
Reply
#7
Sorry about that. In the box is a term that's been used for about 15-20 years now. About as common as saying "laying it to tape" for recording on reel to reel. I cut my teeth splicing tape 22 years ago, so it's all gravy if I sound like a smart ass kid still... probably will never sound like a kid saying it's all gravy. But come on with the marginalization on that last bit... Leave it to the older generation to always think it's all about disrespect.

Mastering just isn't my forte. I like to think I'm not terrible at it, but it never has been my focus, and likely never will be. So maybe some better/different plugs and someone else mastering it would have totally sounded more to your preference and liking, even still using 3 or 4 or more plugs in a chain, which is pretty common.

I think we agree that bad math is going to be a problem, but it just sounded like you were making it a blanket issue that the sound you're hearing and having a problem with is because it's all software in the first place, or because it's multiple plugs. Which I don't agree with.
Reply
#8
people don't say "Laying it to tape" and the in the box reference is maybe 10 years old. Professional musicians in an actual studio still used tape 15 & 10 years ago and especially mastering professionals were not mixing or mastering anything all in the box professionally. People that know what they're doing do sub-mixes and keep sub-mixing instead of doing all the processes at once. It fucks the calculations up. Clearly you can't hear it but that's why you don't master for a living. I'm 31. Preferences are preferences but this has nothing to do with that. The sound on caverns is incorrect and wobbly. Those are mathematical miscalculations that were done by over processing or simply done by a shitty interface, which is the most important of all the gear.
Reply
#9
fuck it, nevermind.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)