> I import the bounced song into 'Har-Bal' which is a PC only app I use > on a little laptop, cause I'm on a G5. > It shows the average frequency spectrum of the whole track as a > frequency spectrum graph line. It also shows the peak frequency lines > (which could go high up just from one cymbal crash in the song or any > loud peak). > 'Har-Bal' also shows the peak and average frequency spectrum graphs of > any commercial CD you wish to compare to. > Then squash it with 'waves L2' or similar till it's loud enough. But > yeah I don't like too squashed either. Gotta have some bump in the > music. All good points Roman. I just wanted to add that Ozone allows a similar form of EQ comparison, which as you say, is always very helpful. And, I seem to remember Ozone's limiter beating the Waves L2-L3 in a "shootout" that Sound On Sound did a while back. In my own personal tests, I preferred it too, and it also sounds clearer than Logic's Ad-Limiter, as well as having better sounding dithering than Logic's, which is quite impressive, because Logic sounds pretty good in that department. Peace, Ed Billeaud Snowflake Studio P.O. Box 7637 Breckenridge, CO 80424 970-453-6830 edva@earthlink.net http://www.soundclick.com/edbilleaud

On Dec 31, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Ed Billeaud wrote: > And, I seem to remember Ozone's limiter beating the Waves > L2-L3 in a "shootout" that Sound On Sound did a while back. > In my own personal tests, I preferred it too, and it also sounds > clearer than Logic's Ad-Limiter, as well as having better sounding > dithering than Logic's, which is quite impressive, because Logic > sounds pretty good in that department. As for limiters, the UAD-1 precision limiter is the best I've come across, and I have allot of plug-in limiters. It seems to be able to increase the volume without crushing the transients as much as others, for the same amount of gain reduction. Jody Whitesides can verify this, as I just mastered an Xmas CD for him, and he was pleased with the relative volume and sound compared to some of the louder commercial mixes out there. Take care, George Leger III ________________________________________________________ http://www.myspace.com/georgelegeriii http://www.utopiaparkwaymusic.com Mac AND PC: The only way to fly 8-}

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, George Leger III <george3@...> wrote: > As for limiters, the UAD-1 precision limiter is the best I've come > across, and I have allot of plug-in limiters. It seems to be able to > increase the volume without crushing the transients as much as > others, for the same amount of gain reduction. > > Jody Whitesides can verify this, as I just mastered an Xmas CD for > him, and he was pleased with the relative volume and sound compared > to some of the louder commercial mixes out there. > > Take care, > > George Leger III Yeah, I totally agree with George on this one. Once I bought my second UAD-1 card, I've been able to use more of the UA plug-ins in my mixes and they sound great and are very reliable. I also like Sonalksis and Roger Nichals (Elemental) Comp/Limiters and EQs. As for watching a fequency analyzer for mixing. I glance at them, but I never rely on them. IMO, you could find a perfect curve of frequencies and be mixing parts that sound bad, but have great looking frequencies curves. Just raising or lowering frequencies isn't the answer. Solid arranging and parts is the answer. And when they fall in line, you'll know with your ears, that everything sounds right. Relying on Technology only goes so far. That's a quote from George Martin; not me. Cheers

On 01.01.2007, at 02:09, jonathankek2000 wrote: > Relying on Technology only goes so far. That's a quote from George > Martin Well, that sounds if we had read the same book. Now comes the question: Squeezing the transients means squeezing the whole sound (freely quoted from Mike Stavrou, right?). That means if you use a limiter to "cut" your violent transients it doesn't really "cut" but actually push everything around the transients down. To be exact, everything shortly after such a transient will be lower than it was. So it is not a cure but rather self-defense. And the solution is to either avoid that trasients in the recording stage or bring them - and only them - individually down afterwards. Can you agree? ___ Peter Ostry

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Peter Ostry <po@...> wrote: > > On 01.01.2007, at 02:09, jonathankek2000 wrote: > > Relying on Technology only goes so far. That's a quote from George > > Martin > > Well, that sounds if we had read the same book. Now comes the question: > Squeezing the transients means squeezing the whole sound (freely > quoted from Mike Stavrou, right?). That means if you use a limiter to > "cut" your violent transients it doesn't really "cut" but actually > push everything around the transients down. To be exact, everything > shortly after such a transient will be lower than it was. So it is > not a cure but rather self-defense. And the solution is to either > avoid that trasients in the recording stage or bring them - and only > them - individually down afterwards. Can you agree? > > ___ > Peter Ostry Yes, that sounds correct. I use a lot of plug-ins in different stages and applications to help keep unwanted transients down. Compressor/Limiters are our friends, but they aren't the whole answer. I also have a stack of Mastering Plug-ins that I use at my final stage. The one thing I don't try to do is depend on my plug-ins or anything visual to tell me my mix is adequately "National" sounding. I just use my ears, and I spend time really listening to my mixes on several different sets of speakers over several days (Usually), to see if everything is the way it should be, and if all my parts and performances are up to acceptible standards. I've found that nothing replaces good performances, good mic placement, and the right arrangement when it comes to Production. The tools can be almost anything if these factors are in place. Cheers & Happy New Year!

> > As for watching a fequency analyzer for mixing. I glance at them, but > I never rely on them. IMO, you could find a perfect curve of > frequencies and be mixing parts that sound bad, but have great looking > frequencies curves. Just raising or lowering frequencies isn't the > answer. Solid arranging and parts is the answer. And when they fall in > line, you'll know with your ears, that everything sounds right. > > Relying on Technology only goes so far. That's a quote from George > Martin; not me. > But this thread is called 'mastering suggestions'. Mixing is different. When it comes time to master the overall frequency curve becomes more important. Some people play and mix bass heavy. The mastering engineer has to reduce this to be able to get the final master in the ball park of commercial CDs in tone and loudness. I haven't heard of anyone using a frequency analyzer for mixing. Frequency curves of peak frequencies and total average frequencies are very useful visual aids in mastering. I fully agree with everything you said in regards to mixing. I guess I sound like I'm defending my thread a little here. To tell the truth after a while of using visual frequency graphs as an additional aid I feel more confident just listening. But for people that don't have the luxury of a perfectly tuned mastering studio with mastering quality speakers then visual frequency referencing of commercial mixes becomes very useful as an educational thought provoking bit of info. Especially in the sub bass zone. Just more info really.

On 01/01/2007, at 7:41 AM, George Leger III wrote: > > On Dec 31, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Ed Billeaud wrote: > >> And, I seem to remember Ozone's limiter beating the Waves >> L2-L3 in a "shootout" that Sound On Sound did a while back. >> In my own personal tests, I preferred it too, and it also sounds >> clearer than Logic's Ad-Limiter, as well as having better sounding >> dithering than Logic's, which is quite impressive, because Logic >> sounds pretty good in that department. > > > As for limiters, the UAD-1 precision limiter is the best I've come > across, and I have allot of plug-in limiters. It seems to be able to > increase the volume without crushing the transients as much as > others, for the same amount of gain reduction. Agreed that the Precision Limiter is the best but to my ears it's the best because it offers the greatest increase in perceived loudness with minimal increase in distortion and other colouration. It, along with every other limiter will crush your transients to oblivion if used in too heavy a way. This is my first post in this thread. It's surprised me that no one has mentioned the absolute most powerful available tool to us DAW users in getting the best possible result from our mixes/ masters - total recall of our mixes. Ask any leading mastering guy and he will confirm that for mastering any well mixed track, regardless of style, that anything more than a couple of dB eq, and a bit of compression single or multiband 1-3 dB and then limiter is pretty much all you need. If your mixes need much more than that then any other processes applied are at best a band aid and the issues are far better addressed by doing another mix - which is generally pretty easy with total recall. I'm going out on a limb here so here goes. As for the best tools to master with - coloured sound is LOW on my list. That;s what mixing is for - not mastering. Words like transparent and high resolution come to mind as desirable. To this end and assuming we're all Logic users here, an "all in one" mastering package like Ozone or T-Racks etc will not give you any better results that what is already available within Logic's own standard plugins. My basic chain recommendation would be first a compressor - either Logic's compressor or multiband compressor. Then second, without doubt Logic's Linear Phase EQ and then finally Logic's Plain Limiter - not the Adaptive limiter as it has a very coloured sound. If your mixes are decent to begin with this chain will yield great useable results when set well. If I have to master my own mixes my preferred plugins are the UAD-1 Precision range - Precision Multiband, Precision EQ and Precision limiter but my rule is that I don't master anything I do that's slated for release. I do however master other product I've not recorded myself. I rely on my mastering guy's ears more than his gear even though he has some of the best analog stuff like GML and Focustite Blue plus a very accurate room and monitors. I recently did a test after he mastered one of my tracks. I tried - using just Logic to see how close I could get to his mastering and the answer was very close - but this was with me constantly comparing my attempt to his finished master. Point being it's his ears that make the biggest difference. YMMV Kind regards ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Paul Najar Jaminajar Music Production www.jaminajar.com

It's also good to understand the expectation of one's customer base. For example, an African musician was not pleased at the mix of this professional studio. The instruments were hand drums, vocals, and a wooden marimba called a balafon. The problem was having the balafon stand out in the mix when all the drums were playing. I told him that he had sit in during the mixing process to guide the process. He did that, but the mixing person had a difficult time as he could not hear the same thing as my friend. Eventually they got it right, but it was a painful process. Too much ego on the part of the mixing person. One can rely on one's own ears but one has to understand how the target customer base wants it. That can be difficult if one deals with a different cultural perspective. Olushola

On 02/01/2007, at 1:37 AM, olushola wrote: > > It's also good to understand the expectation of one's customer base. > For example, an African musician was not pleased at the mix of this > professional studio. The instruments were hand drums, vocals, and a > wooden marimba called a balafon. The problem was having the balafon > stand out in the mix when all the drums were playing. I told him that > he had sit in during the mixing process to guide the process. He did > that, but the mixing person had a difficult time as he could not hear > the same thing as my friend. Eventually they got it right, but it was > a painful process. Too much ego on the part of the mixing person. One > can rely on one's own ears but one has to understand how the target > customer base wants it. That can be difficult if one deals with a > different cultural perspective. These kind of issues are not uncommon and they are made MUCH worse by mixing in a room that is not very accurate. Mastering is not the place to fix less than well mixed material even though mastering engineers have to deal with this often - and also have to deal with the client's expectation being "that's what mastering is for". Kind regards ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Paul Najar Jaminajar Music Production www.jaminajar.com