I have a mac G3 B&W 350. I have an Isobox which is an acoustic isolation box with built in fans that encloses the mac noise somewhat. It lowers the noise but not silencing as the web site advert claimed. I am in the market for a new hard drive and am aware there are newly developed quiet hard drives. I definately need to get the quietest hard drive available. So far I have been recording to my internal scsi seagate barracuda 18Gig. This also holds my sample library. I may have to get a quiet replacement for this one as well as an additional drive. My plan was to buy an 80Gig IDE and have this as my sample library and use my scsi barracuda as my audio recording drive. I hear that the new G4's are very noisy. Has anyone out there made all the noise reducing alterations to their mac. There is an interesting site called endpcnoise.com. It has a list of all the alterations possible. The arctic silver heat sink sounds interesting.

On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 04:06 PM, roman pirie wrote: > I have a mac G3 B&W 350. I have an Isobox which is an acoustic > isolation box > with built in fans that encloses the mac noise somewhat. It lowers the > noise > but not silencing as the web site advert claimed. I have the IsoBox as well. It is certainly not silent. I don't see on their web site where it claims that the IsoBox is totally silent. It works well, but it is not perfect. > I hear that the new G4's are very noisy. Has anyone out there made all > the > noise reducing alterations to their mac. There is an interesting site > called > endpcnoise.com. It has a list of all the alterations possible. The > arctic > silver heat sink sounds interesting. I'll check that out. As well, you may look at : http://www.acoustilock.com/ This is the isolation box that I wish I had bought (It came out one year too late). -------- Edmund Eagan www.twelfthroot.com

Ok, I'm very confused: Just when you think you have a nice little system down for mixing, bouncing, etc. , something new always pops up and rears it's ugly head! My question is: what is the superceding item, bit depth or sample rate, that determines how your bounced stereo file will sound when burned to a CD?? In other words, will a song sound normal at 16 bit, 96khz on a CD? or....does it really have to be 16 bit, 44.1khz?? Now I know that the larger the sample rate the larger the file, but how does the bit depth come in to play??? The reason I ask is because I made 4 different bounces on a song I was doing and I dithered down from 24 bit to 16 bit but.....I never down sampled them to 44.1, they are still at 48 and they play normally on any CD player. If there are any words of wisdom on this subject please reply!! M-De

>In other words, will a song sound normal at 16 bit, > 96khz on a CD? or....does it really have to be 16 bit, > 44.1khz?? >I never down sampled them to 44.1, they are still > at 48 and they play normally on any CD player. 'regular' CD-players play 16 bit 44.1 kHz audio ONLY (red book) My guess is your cd-burning app. Accepts other formats and converts them before burning your 'audio-cd' That's not to say there are no advantages recording at higher bit-and-or-sample-rates, but that's another (and sometimes quite subjective) discussion. cheers

<'regular' CD-players play 16 bit 44.1 kHz audio ONLY (red <book)My guess is your cd-burning app. Accepts other <formats and converts them before burning your 'audio-cd' Actually, that's the confusing part.......I use Toast Titanium 5.2 and it burns the CD at whatever the settings of the file are. I burned a 24bit, 96khz CD and it played on my CD player but super super slow , of course. But the 16bit, 48khz CD I burned played normal. So that's what brought about my question........does bit depth supercede sample rates?? The CD player played a 16bit file normally and not the 24bit file. M-De

On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 11:01 AM, M-De wrote: > I use Toast > Titanium 5.2 and it burns the CD at whatever the settings > of the file are. I burned a 24bit, 96khz CD and it played > on my CD player but super super slow , of course. But the > 16bit, 48khz CD I burned played normal. So that's what > brought about my question........does bit depth supercede > sample rates?? The CD player played a 16bit file normally > and not the 24bit file. Are you certain it does not play just a touch slower at 48khz? 96khz is more than 2 times 44.1khz, so you should expect to hear it as more than twice as slow when played back at 44.1khz (i.e. 3 minutes of 96khz takes more than 6 minutes if "read" at 44.1khz). On the other hand, 48khz is only about 8% more than 44.1 khz, so you should only hear it about 8% slower (i.e. 3 minutes of 48khz should take about 3 minutes - 15 seconds to play at 44.1khz). You may simply not be noticing the 48khz is in fact slower as well. Take care Jesse Widener

M-De <mattdesoulman@...> writes: >what is the superceding item, bit depth or sample rate, that >determines how your bounced stereo file will sound when >burned to a CD?? All CDs can only be 16bits/44.1Khz, but that doesn't mean you can't record, mix and master at a higher bit depth and/or sample rate and then dither down to 16bit and/or downsample to 44.1Khz later in preparation for a CD. In fact, it's not such a bad idea to do this (start out with a higher quality) for another reason: In the future the consumer delivery format will no doubt be better anyway (it has already started: DVD-A maxes out at 24bits/96KHz). So you'll already have a master at this higher quality. It's like the fact that many television shows have been shooting and editing in HighDefinition for a while, in anticipation that consumers will eventually be mostly owning these kinds of TVs anyway (even though right now, hardly anybody on the planet watches HDTV). 24bit (compared to 16bit) gives more dynamic range (better signal to noise ratio). Many people would agree that it definitely sounds better. 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz gives a smoother frequency response in the high end (and allows for supersonic frequencies to exist and beat with other frequencies to create audible sidebands). However, this is debated by a lot of people. My ears tell me that there's way less advantage climbing the sample rate ladder than climbing the bit depth ladder. f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!"

> All CDs can only be 16bits/44.1Khz, but that doesn't mean > you can't record, mix and master at a higher bit depth > and/or sample rate and then dither down to 16bit and/or > downsample to 44.1Khz later in preparation for a CD Thanx for the reply.......actually though, all that you told I am very well aware of but my confusion was due to an unexplainable, at least for my knowledge. My confusion came from the fact that I burned a CD at 16bit 48k and it played in all my CD players at normal speed......I then burned a CD at 24bit 96k and it didn't play back at normal speed (it played fast, as one would obviously suspect). This sort of told me in a weird way that the bit depth superceded the sample rate because the 16 bit song played normally even though it was still at 48k. M-De

> You may simply not be noticing the 48khz is in fact slower > as well. Well, this is interesting because it could be true. I will solve the problem once and for all by A/B ing a normal one (44.1 16bit) and the 48 16bit. Thanx for the insight. M-De

Does anyone out there have their perfect little system down for Mastering their songs within Logic??? What limiting plug do you use? Do you mix in a hard limited/compressed version of the song into the output version that only has small limiting? How about dynamic integrity amongst these plugs that you use?? I have the TC Powercore which has some options also.......does anyone use these tools?? much success?? Basically, I'm getting frustrated with all the options that are there for the "at home masterer", so if anyone has a system they're truly confident in please share. Thank you kindly, M-De

On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 12:45 PM, M-De wrote: > Basically, I'm getting frustrated with all the options that > are there for the "at home masterer", so if anyone has a > system they're truly confident in please share I have mastered about 200 CD's professionally with Logic, using native plugins, and now my UAD-1 card. I use Wave's plugins, and the LA@A and Pultec from the UAD-1, and get fantastic results.. so it can be done. On the other hand, I have been mastering CD's for about 9 years now, and have spent a lot of time learning the craft. It is not something you can just do, but your welcome to try. And before some of you go one the attack about my comments, try this. Take your best shot at mastering a tune, and then take it to someone who does professional mastering. You will find out pretty quick that it often makes a major difference when you know just how much you can massage a song, without it sounding way overdone.. George -- My home and Logic Tips: http://www.tazmusic.com "Reet too tee too tee too tee too tee too teeeeeee" Frank Zappa "All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them." - Walt Disney (1901-1966)

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, M-De <mattdesoulman@y...> wrote: > What limiting > plug do you use? PSP VintageWarmer here. Waves L1+ is perhaps the "standard" plugin limiter, has less obvious character than the VintageWarmer. Practically all settings, EQ, etc depend entirely on the genre & the state of the source mix, but one tip - be sure to peak limit to less than 0db, about -0.3 db is good. Some CD players will clip in a very ugly way given 0db peaks. Avoid Logic's multiband compressor, it has evil phase-shift problems. Very useful & highly professional mastering information can be had at http://www.digido.com John Pitcairn ------------------------------------------------------------------ Midi controller learn in Logic. Soft takeover. Lots of memories. Tracks remember control assignments. Write track automation. Fadermapper demo: http://www.revolver.co.nz/fadermapper/ ------------------------------------------------------------------

> Avoid Logic's multiband compressor, it has evil phase-shift problems. Thanx John for the tip.........I've found also that Logic's Ad-Limiter has a strange delaying effect when comparing a track using the Ad-Limiter and the same track without it. The Ad-Limiter track is off in regards to play back sync with the other non-limited track. Have you experienced this?? M-De BTW: the Logic regualr Limiter doesn't have this delayed effect

> > > Avoid Logic's multiband compressor, it has evil phase-shift problems. > > > Thanx John for the tip.........I've found also that Logic's > Ad-Limiter has a strange delaying effect when comparing a > track using the Ad-Limiter and the same track without it. > The Ad-Limiter track is off in regards to play back sync > with the other non-limited track. Have you experienced > this?? > > M-De > > BTW: the Logic regualr Limiter doesn't have this delayed effect Yes, a couple have this effect - multiband comp i think. Just use them for mastering is the normal response sam

Hi George, I just read some of the Logic tips on your website. Thanks, you really do know what you're talking about. Anyway, I wanted to ask you about the Channel EQ plug-in for Logic 6. Did you say that it was one of the best EQs you'd heard or was that someone else? I'm a musician on a budget and before I splurge another fortune on some EQ, I want to make sure that I'm not going to be redundant when I purchase Logic 6. Thanks Ken > > George > -- > > My home and Logic Tips: http://www.tazmusic.com > > "Reet too tee too tee too tee too tee too teeeeeee" > Frank Zappa > > "All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them." - > Walt Disney (1901-1966)

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, M-De <mattdesoulman@y...> wrote: > Does anyone out there have their perfect little system down > for Mastering their songs within Logic??? What limiting > plug do you use? Do you mix in a hard limited/compressed > version of the song into the output version that only has > small limiting? How about dynamic integrity amongst these > plugs that you use?? > > I have the TC Powercore which has some options > also.......does anyone use these tools?? much success?? > > Basically, I'm getting frustrated with all the options that > are there for the "at home masterer", so if anyone has a > system they're truly confident in please share. > > Thank you kindly, > > M-De First, I'm no pro, just trying to make my mixes sound the best I can with limited resources. So, I do a mix, normalize, Audio Energize, then since V5 i have been bouncing again with the Multipressor (maybe I need to reevaluate this after reading more of this thread) and dithering, manually riding the levels. Sounds better to me than the unprocessed mixes, though for release I'd get a pro in I guess. All this just with LAP 5.5, no extra plugins, regards

> Från: M-De [mailto:mattdesoulman@...] > I've found also that Logic's > Ad-Limiter has a strange delaying effect when comparing a > track using the Ad-Limiter and the same track without it. Yes, it does delay audio. In fact it is to be used as a mastering effect and should not be used for single tracks. Best wishes Per Boysen ________________ www.boysen.se www.looproom.com

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, M-De <mattdesoulman@y...> wrote: > Does anyone out there have their perfect little system down > for Mastering their songs within Logic??? What limiting > plug do you use? Do you mix in a hard limited/compressed > version of the song into the output version that only has > small limiting? How about dynamic integrity amongst these > plugs that you use?? > > I have the TC Powercore which has some options > also.......does anyone use these tools?? much success?? > > Basically, I'm getting frustrated with all the options that > are there for the "at home masterer", so if anyone has a > system they're truly confident in please share. > > Thank you kindly, > > M-De I'd use 'em in about this order if I had to: 1. declicking, decrackling, denoising 2. de-essing 3. stereo image correction 4. single band compression/limiting of transient peaks 5. corrective EQ 6. single band compression, low level compression curve (not affecting the peaks) or parallel compression (mixed with uncompressed signal, not affecting the peaks) 7. bass enhancer 8. multiband compression 9. stereo enhancement 10. sweetening EQ 11. exciter 12. tape/tube saturation emulation or some other distorting device (preferably multiband) 13. reverb 14. limiting 15. dither If you know, then explain what's wrong with that suggestion. Your order might be different. 9 might go after 13. You might omit some processing like 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13. Try clipping. If it sounds good at home, car and club, it might be ok, but on radio, it might have problems because their gear might react to clipping in an undesired way. I found these settings somewhere for a 5-band compressor: LOW Frequency Range: 0Hz-150Hz Ratio: 2.5:1 Attack: 20ms Release: 150ms Threshold: very low to almost always trigger compression. Gain: make up gain lost in compression. LOW MID Frequency Range: 150Hz-600Hz Ratio: 3:1 Attack: 20ms Release: 150ms Threshold: trigger regularly, but be about 2dB below the point of rarely triggering. Gain: make up for compression, or just a little more for warmth. MID Frequency Range: 600Hz-1.5Hz Ratio: 6:1 Attack: 10ms Release: 150ms Threshold: set fairly low to almost always trigger compression. Gain: add 4-6dB or more to make up lost gain and add guts. MID HI Frequency Range: 1.5KHz-6Hz Ratio: 3:1 Attack: 10ms Release: 150ms Threshold: trigger regularly, but be about 2dB below the point of rarely triggering. Gain: add 1-3dB for presence/clarity. HI Frequency Range: 6KHz-15Hz Ratio: 2:1 Attack: 10ms Release: 150ms Threshold: only trigger when harshness present. Gain: maybe add 1-2dB to recover sparkle lost in compression. Read my recent posts (search for hsjoblad) on mastering and monitoring tips with Logic and get the tool I uploaded to the Files section. I'm using it all the time. 10-15 min or more listening to reference material per an hour of mixing & mastering should keep you on the right track.

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "drtimllewellyn <tim.llewellyn@b...>" <tim.llewellyn@b...> wrote: > So, I do a mix, normalize, Audio Energize I'm somewhat suspicious about this - the Sample Editor destructive processes, as far as I know (Emagic aren't saying), take place at the same fixed bit-depth as the audio file - effectively it's re-sampling the audio, so will introduce some quantization noise, especially at 16-bit. In my opinion, rather than normalizing, it's far better to simply increase gain via Logic's mixer, using the volume fader, gainer plugin etc, which will happen at 32-bit floating point resolution and thus any quantization error should be vastly reduced. There was a longish thread about this some months back, though I'm not sure we came to any definitive conclusion... John Pitcairn ------------------------------------------------------------------ Midi controller learn in Logic. Soft takeover. Lots of memories. Tracks remember control assignments. Write track automation. Fadermapper demo: http://www.revolver.co.nz/fadermapper/ ------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Basically, I'm getting frustrated with all the options that >> are there for the "at home masterer", so if anyone has a >> system they're truly confident in please share > > I have mastered about 200 CD's professionally with Logic, using native > plugins, and now my UAD-1 card. I've mastered 2 albums which I produced. One was recorded on a four track the other in Logic recently. I am not a professional. > I use Wave's plugins, and the LA@A and Pultec from the UAD-1, and get > fantastic results.. so it can be done. I used T-racks for my latest album. > On the other hand, I have been mastering CD's for about 9 years now, > and have spent a lot of time learning the craft. It is not something > you can just do, but your welcome to try. And before some of you go one I eq my track to have a typical bass level and other things that need touches. Then I just give it +3db on the overall compression, another 2db on the multi limiter, and then I maximise the signal so it just clips the output. This results in something that impresses the artists because it's much louder and thicker. > the attack about my comments, try this. Take your best shot at > mastering a tune, and then take it to someone who does professional > mastering. You will find out pretty quick that it often makes a major > difference when you know just how much you can massage a song, without > it sounding way overdone.. Nobody listen to my words because I'm not a mastering pro, but I am pretty happy I can add the crucial overall compression etc and get a thick sound out of my amateur studio. It doesn't sound too squashed. But I reckon your comment above is right. Good pop/rock mastering I reckon makes music bigger and more powerful without sounding too squashed. I got my album sounding close in level to pro cds. And as I said before I didn't think it sounded squashed. I am curious if all commercially released cds are normalised close to the cds headroom. Because thats effectively what I'm getting when I soft clip the mastering softwares output. Has anyone out there done the test George and many others have suggested of mastering yourslef and then getting a pro to do it and comparing?

> Has anyone out there done the test George and many others have suggested of > mastering yourslef and then getting a pro to do it and comparing? > I just had a project mastered by a respected mastering engineer, and when I compare the results to my own efforts at "mastering" in Logic (which only included light compression and limiting and a touch of warmth from PSP mixsaturator) there's a big difference in sonic quality. A good mastering engineer can do a lot more than just make your tracks louder, but should also know enough not to do TOO much tweaking. Even if you have good mastering software, a real mastering studio has really accurate monitoring gear and a room that's been acoustically treated. Most project studios can't afford to create an environment like that, and thus shouldn't be expected to be able to produce comparable results. And also the ME has generally had lots of experience getting mixes to translate well to various playback systems. Don Newmeyer

On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 03:15 PM, poetic20us <poetic20us@...> wrote: > I > wanted to ask you about the Channel EQ plug-in for Logic 6. Did you > say that it was one of the best EQs you'd heard or was that someone > else? I'm a musician on a budget and before I splurge another fortune > on some EQ, I want to make sure that I'm not going to be redundant > when I purchase Logic 6. > Well I couldn't really hear it at NAMM, so it wasn't me. But it is supposedly a better sound that the FAT EQ. and is D.O.T. enabled, so you get more on an altivec type Mac, eg. G4. And the realtime analyzer is a cool touch... As for good native EQ's, here are a couple I would recommend... UAD-1 Pultec EQ. Damn this thing sounds good. It thickens the sound, and if you have the $$ to spare on the UAD-1 card, get it now. This card is the BEST $600 I have ever spend on audio gear in the last 20 years of doing this thing called "Music". And it also has great compressors, channel strips, EQ, FX, and Guitar amp simulator. Wave Arts Track Plug. A great value at $90 or so, and it has a gate and compressor as well. Very native dsp efficient. Waves RenEQ. Great sound, part of the Renaissance collection. -- My home and Logic Tips: http://www.tazmusic.com "Reet too tee too tee too tee too tee too teeeeeee" Frank Zappa "All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them." - Walt Disney (1901-1966)

On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 04:07 PM, Hans Sjöblad wrote: > I'd use 'em in about this order if I had to: > 1. declicking, decrackling, denoising > 2. de-essing > 3. stereo image correction > 4. single band compression/limiting of transient peaks > 5. corrective EQ > 6. single band compression, low level compression curve (not affecting > the peaks) or parallel compression (mixed with uncompressed signal, > not affecting the peaks) > 7. bass enhancer > 8. multiband compression > 9. stereo enhancement > 10. sweetening EQ > 11. exciter > 12. tape/tube saturation emulation or some other distorting device > (preferably multiband) > 13. reverb > 14. limiting > 15. dither > I would be a bit concerned about signal degradation, with that amount of DSP going. The plugins go back and forth between 16, 24, and 32 bit processing, and each time needs to be internally dithered.. Try this.. 1) A touch of stereo enhancement. It could do good, or hurt it if used to extreme. 2) Gentle single band compression. Waves Rencomp is a good one, as well as the UAD-1's LA2A or 1176. 3) 4 or 6 band eq for frequency tweaking. Waves or UAD-1 recommended. 4) Waves L, with no more than 6 db of limiting. Any more and you destroy the transients of the mix. 5) Real time frequency analyzer, so you can see what your doing. Good to see if you've added too much bass or treble, or you have a hole in your overall mix. Also, try and leave about 2 to 3 tenths of a db below zero level in your master. Some CD players crap out at full code signals, and you never know which one will. Try and use a mix that has the tone you want to emulate. Practice getting 10 songs to sound similar to each other, and then play them back on as many systems as you can, so you can see how much they may change during playback. Get the best monitors you can. Make sure they work well in the room. I use Genelec's, and I have a buddy with the same model. His room is a bit wooly sounding, and his monitors don't sound half as good as mine. Same speakers, different room. Hope this helps.. George -- My home and Logic Tips: http://www.tazmusic.com "Reet too tee too tee too tee too tee too teeeeeee" Frank Zappa "All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them." - Walt Disney (1901-1966)

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, George Leger III <george3@t...> wrote: >> As for good native EQ's, here are a couple I would recommend... > > UAD-1 Pultec EQ. Damn this thing sounds good. It thickens the sound, > and if you have the $$ to spare on the UAD-1 card, get it now. This > card is the BEST $600 I have ever spend on audio gear in the last 20 > years of doing this thing called "Music". And it also has great > compressors, channel strips, EQ, FX, and Guitar amp simulator. > > Wave Arts Track Plug. A great value at $90 or so, and it has a gate and > compressor as well. Very native dsp efficient. > > Waves RenEQ. Great sound, part of the Renaissance collection. George, thanks a million for the advice. I just put a UAD-1 on the purchase list. How does it compare to say the PSP Vintage Warmer or the Oxford EQ for the Powercore(which I'm not sure if its been released)? Or do you have experience with these at all? I'm planning on spending somewhere in the area of $1000 on plug ins. I gets tons of people telling me to purchase the Waves Gold or Platinum package. Is it really worth it as opposed to say the UAD-1? I apologize for all of the questions, but its difficult to access someone that actually has REAL experience instead of some guy at Sam Ash trying to make a commission sale. Even though I don't have the experience I really don't want to compromise the tools, that is in comparison to what a professional has to offer. Sincerely, Ken

have the TC Powercore which has some options also.......does anyone use these tools?? much success?? If you have the Powercore I would use that. Eventually you might buy (if you haven´t already) the MX5, this is a 5 band finalizer which actually is one(band) better than the hardware box. Although it´s always a matter of taste most people would agree that the Finalizer is a favourite with many people including a lot of topnotch producers. Of course there´s also Waves, Universal, PSP, Emagic´s Ad-Limiter and when you get the hang of it, a combination of what you have. Until then I would check out your Powercore using the MX3. What also should be noted is that mastering is a very difficult art so don´t expect too much, that´s why we have mastering engineers/producers. Henrik Krogh henrikkrogh@...

>Has anyone out there done the test George and many others have >suggested of mastering yourslef and then getting a pro to do it and >comparing? I once mastered a recording at the studio I used to work at using MasterX. The results seemed to be pretty good. The band took the CD to also get mastered at DiskMakers and in the end they used my master. Even the guys at DiskMakers told them the master I made sounds pretty good. They ended up not having to pay DiskMakers since they ended up using my master instead to be replicated. The band said when they took both masters home they could only really see a 1db difference [DiskMakers being the one that is 1db louder]. I don't have TOO much experience mastering, so probably just beginners luck ;) -Jamie

Ken wrote: > I just put a UAD-1 on the purchase list. How does it compare to > say the PSP Vintage Warmer or the Oxford EQ for the Powercore. Actually Oxford has an equivalent on UAD1 called Cambridge which is basically aimed at the same market, a more precise, surgical EQ. The good news is it´s much cheaper than Oxford, the Cambridge costs 149 $ and should be released tomorrow. Henrik Krogh henrikkrogh@...

> "drtimllewellyn" <tim.llewellyn@b...> wrote: > > So, I do a mix, normalize, Audio Energize --- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "John Pitcairn" johnp@r...> wrote: > I'm somewhat suspicious about this - the Sample Editor destructive > processes, as far as I know (Emagic aren't saying), take place at the > same fixed bit-depth as the audio file - effectively it's re-sampling > the audio, so will introduce some quantization noise, especially at > 16-bit. In my opinion, rather than normalizing, it's far better to > simply increase gain via Logic's mixer, using the volume fader, gainer > plugin etc, which will happen at 32-bit floating point resolution and > thus any quantization error should be vastly reduced. There was a > longish thread about this some months back, though I'm not sure we > came to any definitive conclusion... OK thats interesting, I have been trying avoiding the normalize by tweaking the master output, it can be a bit time consuming though.

Is this a valid mastering processing order: 1. declicking, decrackling, denoising 2. de-essing 3. stereo image correction (if the image is not symmetrical/center stuff is not in the center) 4. single band compression/limiting of transient peaks 5. corrective EQ 6. single band compression, low level compression curve (not affecting peaks) or parallel compression (mixed with uncompressed signal, not affecting peaks) 7. bass enhancer 8. tape/tube saturation emulation or some other distorting device (preferably multiband), if reverb before multiband 9. reverb, if driving multiband soft 10. multiband compression 11. tape/tube saturation emulation or some other distorting device (preferably multiband), if reverb after multiband 12. reverb, if driving multiband hard 13. sweetening EQ 14. exciter 15. stereo enhancement 16. limiting 17. clipping 18. dither If you had to use all these processors, would you use them in this order? Any changes?

>Well, this is interesting because it could be true. I will >solve the problem once and for all by A/B ing a normal one >(44.1 16bit) and the 48 16bit. Thanx for the insight. > >M-De What program are you using to burn audio CDs at this rate? Redbook is only 44.1 16k. I am not sure which is more puzzling, a consumer CD player that plays 48k CDs or a program that burns them. Colin Miller

Here are some mastering tips: http://www.drtmastering.com/faq2.htm Thor Mamen

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Hans Sjöblad <w92nqlq6r001@s...> <w92nq= lq6r001@s...> wrote: > Is this a valid mastering processing order: > 1. declicking, decrackling, denoising > 2. de-essing > 3. stereo image correction (if the image is not symmetrical/center > stuff is not in the center) > 4. single band compression/limiting of transient peaks > 5. corrective EQ > 6. single band compression, low level compression curve (not affecting > peaks) or parallel compression (mixed with uncompressed signal, not > affecting peaks) > 7. bass enhancer > 8. tape/tube saturation emulation or some other distorting device > (preferably multiband), if reverb before multiband > 9. reverb, if driving multiband soft > 10. multiband compression > 11. tape/tube saturation emulation or some other distorting device > (preferably multiband), if reverb after multiband > 12. reverb, if driving multiband hard > 13. sweetening EQ > 14. exciter > 15. stereo enhancement > 16. limiting > 17. clipping > 18. dither > > If you had to use all these processors, would you use them in this order?= > Any changes? Hi Hans, If i had to use all these processors, i'd get back to the original recordin= gs and remix from scratch! I can't believe there's any recording would benef= it from this sort of processing chain. I do a fair bit of mastering, mostly for friends' low-budget projects that = can't afford pro mastering studio rates, and rarely use any more than a stan= dard EQ>>>multiband compression>>>limiter chain. Any tracks that require de-noising or special sweetening/FX are processed i= ndividually beforehand. Greetings, Colin.

> > Is this a valid mastering processing order: > > 1. declicking, decrackling, denoising > > 18. dither > > If you had to use all these processors, would you use them in this order? > > Any changes? > Hi Hans, > If i had to use all these processors, i'd get back to the > original recordin> gs and remix from scratch! I think he's just looking for a general order in which he should use things - not that he would ever use all of those - right hans?? sam

>Hi Hans, > If i had to use all these processors, i'd get back to the original > recordings and remix from scratch! I can't believe there's any > recording would benefit from this sort of processing chain. > I do a fair bit of mastering, mostly for friends' low-budget projects > that can't afford pro mastering studio rates, and rarely use any more > than a standard EQ multiband compression limiter chain. > Any tracks that require de-noising or special sweetening/FX are > processed individually beforehand. I agree. Get the mix as correct as you can in the time alotted so the mastering can do what its supposed to, polish a fine mix to suit a certain range of output. MattB

> What program are you using to burn audio CDs at this rate? > Redbook is only 44.1 16k. I am not sure which is more > puzzling, a consumer <CD player that plays 48k CDs or a > program that burns them. I am using Toast Titanium 5.2. And from my experiences so far, it burns it at whatever sample rate the file is. Also, so far every CD player that i've played them in plays them at their respective speed. M-De

> > Hi Hans, > > If i had to use all these processors, i'd get back to the > > original recordings and remix from scratch! --- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "Sam Greene" <sagreene@n...> wrote: > I think he's just looking for a general order in which he should use > things - not that he would ever use all of those - right hans?? > sam Sure. But, I would use each and every one IF, and only if, after each step, with lots of bypassing and A/Bing different settings, the sound got better. I'd also do versions with less plug-ins and compare. I've been thinking of a system, where, using aux send bypassing, I can bypass only certain plug-ins, so that only EQs remain, alter the order of plug-ins, etc. It would have a semi automatic level compensation by bypassing volume plug-ins. I got support for this chain from Joe Doherty, Factory Masters, New Orleans, on the Mastering Web Board, How Do You Do That? http://webbd.nls.net/webboard/wbpx.dll/~mastering/login Quote: "In general here in N'awlins I use an almost identical chain with very conservative settings and process twice using dither only on the second time through." Don't know yet what the differences are. 1. declicking 2. decrackling 3. denoising 4. de-essing 5. stereo image correction (if the image is not symmetrical/center stuff is not in the center) 6. single band compression/limiting of transient peaks 7. corrective EQ 8. single band compression, low level compression curve (not affecting peaks) or parallel compression (mixed with uncompressed signal, not affecting peaks) 9. bass enhancer 10. tape/tube saturation emulation or some other distorting device (preferably multiband), if reverb before multiband 11. reverb, if driving multiband soft 12. multiband compression 13. tape/tube saturation emulation or some other distorting device (preferably multiband), if reverb after multiband 14. reverb, if driving multiband hard 15. sweetening EQ 16. exciter 17. stereo enhancement 18. limiting 19. clipping 20. dither That's 18 processors.

> George, thanks a million for the advice. I just put a UAD-1 on the > purchase list. How does it compare to say the PSP Vintage Warmer or > the Oxford EQ for the Powercore(which I'm not sure if its been > released)? I've used the vintage warmer. It is kind of an "analoger", making a track sound more like tape. The UAD is different. Never used the powercore, though I will be soon. > Or do you have experience with these at all? I'm planning > on spending somewhere in the area of $1000 on plug ins. I gets tons > of people telling me to purchase the Waves Gold or Platinum package. > Is it really worth it as opposed to say the UAD-1? UAD-1 and ? The waves plugin that is invaluable is the L1. Get the cheapest native bundle that contains it.. Hope that helps, and as for the UAD_1, I waited for about 5 months before getting one, and now I wished I'd gotten it then. George -- My home and Logic Tips: http://www.tazmusic.com "Reet too tee too tee too tee too tee too teeeeeee" Frank Zappa "All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them." - Walt Disney (1901-1966)

> UAD-1 and ? The waves plugin that is invaluable is the L1. Get the > cheapest native bundle that contains it.. > Hope that helps, and as for the UAD_1, I waited for about 5 months > before getting one, and now I wished I'd gotten it then. > George Definitely helpful. I've decided to pick up the UAD-1 and the Waves Masters Package. Its supposed to have the L2 which allegedly is the same as the L1 but without any phasing. When I look at their packages, it seems that too many of their products overlap. Thanks, Ken

Hello all, I've tried to post this before but got no response. Does anyone no the best way to interchange from the Mackie HD System to Logic Platinum5?? What type of file should I save as in the Mackie HD System?? Will I see significant differences in the track layout in Logic??? Thank you kindly, M-De

> Hello all, > > I've tried to post this before but got no response. Does > anyone no the best way to interchange from the Mackie HD > System to Logic Platinum5?? What type of file should I > save as in the Mackie HD System?? Will I see significant > differences in the track layout in Logic??? > > Thank you kindly, > > M-De > I think you have to go the hard way, meaning that you connect the Mackie HDR to your Logic system via digital I/O´s, press record in logic and play on the Mackie :/

>> I've tried to post this before but got no response. Does >> anyone no the best way to interchange from the Mackie HD >> System to Logic Platinum5?? What type of file should I >> save as in the Mackie HD System?? Will I see significant >> differences in the track layout in Logic??? From memory of the SOS review, I think at least one of the Mackie HDR's has a USB socket and can export via this as aiff. You will need to import these manually into Logic song so I'd advise preparing the song on the Mackie so that all tracks start at the same place. Gareth