WTF? When I said Waves mastering plug-ins, I was talking about Waves Masters in that post. I use the plug-ins, so I in fact do know what I'm talking about.

Alistair's very good point is that this is not automatically true and clearly not true in your case. I am not an ME but I am learning and I shut up a lot in a few years of reading GS and learn a lot. You should try it.

SB

Clearly not true in my case?
I use the Waves Masters plug-ins, which include a Linear Phase EQ - "Lets you hear what you've been missing by eliminating phase distortion with phase linear FIR filters that better perserves the musical balance." What exactly isn't true about that? When frequencies are being delayed, since when is that not a form of distortion?

I wasn't talking about the Renaissance EQ. When I said mastering plug-ins from Waves, that's no different from Waves plug-ins designed for mastering. Why is that being misread?

I'm still learning, but at least have the courtesy of correcting me instead of going on a rant of attacks.

Ease up a bit on ol' SS. Cuz this is wrong "So you are very sad and are silly so do not yet deserve courtesy."

Everyone deserves some. He is admitting his lack of know-how, to his credit. If he charges $20 a track, its likely craptastic work. But a few weeks hanging around here, and they likely wont be teh crap anymore.
We can hope, at the least.

Thanks everybody for the interesting responses.... Truly a good learning experience. And thanks for at least trying to keep it civil... SS's intentions where good...

AS far as where im at now, just got back form a trip out of town to visit a friend... Had some fun away from gearslutz.. But now im going back to the mix. I have suspected for a while now, that playing the music, recording the parts, mixing the parts, and then mastering is a huge job that probably should't be tackled by all the same person... AS UnderTow stated, Mixing on the same speakers, as your mastering on doesn't make much sense....

I always seems to rush into the mastering phase.... I get a mix im happy with, and imidiately start throwing things on the mastering buss... It is a habit that i clearly need to break.... So im going back to the mix, and im gonna keep at it untill i am happy with it... Then waite a while, listen on a hwole bunch of different sets of speakers, and then wait some more and try mastering it again....

Ill definitely be referring to this thread when that time comes.. so thanks for all the helpful insights and tips... Much Appreciated!


Peace
Ian

Good point: they have to be better or with a more accurate frequency response.

Good luck and happy holidays,

I also think that the value of another set of ears is something that i am realizing. RasCricket sent me some versions of the song that he did, They sounded great. and, while listening in the car the other day to the version that i did, i found myself wanting to hear the changes he made.... Good Stuff....

Happy Holidays right back at cha...

Disclaimer: I didn't read through the whole thread but one observation on the 'Frequency Analyzer' mentioned by the OP, maybe overstating the obvious:

If the room is not treated, what good would the analyzer do for a finished mix? You might have a great balance that actually has some exaggerated peaks IN YOUR UNTREATED ROOM, meaning that the Analyzer is analyzing the room and not the mix? Thus you'd make the mix worse by correcting a 'problem' that isn't there to being with, more likely than not taking your attention away from the problems that may be there but somewhere else in the sonic spectrum.

Why not put your mix on different systems: boombox in the kitchen, car, etc and measure that?

IMO, the key is translation, no matter where or how the mix was created.

A FFT analyzer that is not perceived just as a light show, gives you good information about harmonic balance or frequency distribution and their magnitude across the spectrum, and, it will work for you so long as you understand those visual correlations with sound that compares to music material relevant to your genre of music.
I am confused with this question you've made, but if you are referring to high peak transients at some points within the spectrum in some music recordings, that's pretty natural indeed.
As I said, you don't need to address the occasional peaks that happens in some frequency bands as long as you know or hear what's causing it. For example: you don't need to correct sibilance which is usually represented on the RTA as high peak transients above 5kHz if you think it doesn't sound bad and it is desirable to keep in a song. Only if you thought it was too harsh to the ear, then you should correct it. This implies that you use good monitors speakers because you still need to hear clearly to make critical decisions and adjustments. Working inside a good treated room is even better. In my experience, bad sibilance usually looks like a very high, sharp burst of amplitude at the high end and it usually looks as bad as it sounds.
You can avoid going through car systems and kitchens if you have good accurate monitors, good experience reading correlations with RTAs {regardless of your choice of FFT} and if you can afford this, have a very well treated room. But, your listening is crucial, RTAs only confirm what you are listening and helps you spot areas of problem.

Regards,

Thanks Ian.

Yup, it was a plug-in of the good ol' Roland Space Echo gs-201 that was the trick with the version I sent ya. Thanks for sayin' you liked it ~ it was a pleasure to work on.

GSi - Soundware for musicians

Its a real nice Tape Echo plug-in thats a reggae music standard but delay knows no genre! Lol, Happy Holiday heh

What is amazing to me is that I see people advocate this when none of the good and/or great Mastering Engineers and Mixers used RTA's as training wheels. How did they learn their craft without them?

I think it's all about training your ears. There's no substitute for it and just like a musician should be able to recognize and label intervals and chords by ear, a mixing/mastering engineer should be able to 'tell' the frequency makeup of a sound. Some people are much more advanced than others but you can always improve by simply practicing it.

I really don't think that a FET Analyzer will do much good for this.

How? I'll speculate by saying that:

A/ They were taught the trade by another ME who used none and learned his ways as they went along.
B/ They were always told to listen by other "golden ears" audio engineers and to not trust in analyzers and even in meters.
C/ They were told to build listening rooms with the flattest frequency response in order to hear the sound energy distribution at low frequencies.
D/ They were told to use special monitors with very accurate frequency response in order to clearly hear depth, stereo field as well as mid and high end frequencies.
E/ They were told to buy expensive analog gear to achieve the finest processing to insure the best control of tone and transparency.

I don't think there is anything wrong with any of these assumptions. The problem is that as soon as the digital technological revolution began, there has been as you know, many changes to the way of how things get done.

That includes how one should approach audio. If you think of sound just as sound waves with levels of pressure, I think you are missing the point entirely. I think of and hear sound as a 'concert' of frequency bands each playing their own part to create a sound "picture" or a sound scape. By understanding sound with their visual correlations, you will also understand sound in a different dimension.

I do not only recommend analyzing mixes of all styles {although one should always start with the style that is relevant to one's musical choice} but also analyzing individual sounds such as: percussion hits, wind instruments, strings, electric instruments, sound effects, etc, and of course, vocals. Believe me, once you start to understand and remember all these frequency curves and harmonic shapes, you can mix them in your own head {mentally} and even predict how the mix should look like.

I am there already, that's because I spent a great deal of time using the RTA. Believe it or not, the only engineer in this world that I admire is not my AE teacher or my ME teacher but engineer-inventor Stephen St. Croix. He created the interface of the AD-1 Intelligent Devices analyzer. He is the only one I know that had used the analyzer to work his recordings to perfection more than me, but at this point, I think I have surpassed him because he past away a few years ago :(

I bought this AD-1 which was my first real time analyzer from him in 1995 and never looked back. It was the first true stereo FFT analyzer ever made. Prior to that I worked and analyzed with the one my old ME teacher had but that was a hardware unit and was L+R configuration only and IMHO, it was too long {a rack width or 19 inches} and not enough amplitude display per band.

All I ask of you is to have an open mind so that I can continue to post and report on my observations according to the thread's topic, and trust me, I am not here to sell RTAs.

BTW, there many kinds of FFT analyzers, you've seen them in this thread and in others: 3D analyzers, landscape style analyzers, spectral energy analyzers, FFT analysis graphs, 1/3, 1/6, 1/10/ 1/24 octave analyzers, etc.

And, let's not forget also how useful SA graphs are to support what we believe we hear, for example, at the "Does Really Dither Matter?" where Lupo made an undeniable point.

Of course this may sound as a joke to many, why?, I don't know, but you can't assume that analyzers are also going to tell you the 'texture' of sound like your ears can. That is simply foolish.

This is something that so inexplicably many users here assume and, thus dismiss the analyzers usefulness altogether. You can not know by looking at a RTA more than you can tell a bass frequency from a high frequency by looking at a VU meter needle. You still have to hear. However, and this is why RTAs are great, if the amplitude of that peak is at say, 10kHz band and that's all you see, you know right away that it is a 10k tone. If all the frequencies across the spectrum are equally represented, you know is white noise, and so you don't even have to hear it. Try that with a VU meter or a LED one.

This brings back to the one point I have been making all along and falls on deaf ears: you need to use your ears and the best monitors you have to do any good analysis.

I am sorry for the rant and I hope I don't have to keep on answering to posters that appear to be stunned at why there is a place in the studio for a visual instrument like the FFT analyzer.

Best regards and happy holidays to all

Today, thanks to the easy availability and widespread use of analysis tools, records are sounding better that ever!


DC

No, today thanks to analysis tools we know better why these records don't. And Dave, every time I post something about analyzers doesn't warrant your snarky input and you should ignore these posts just like I try to ignore the majority of yours. We all know your position on analyzers.

Merry Christmas, Dave

Edward,

I don't know why you take the comments about the analyzer tools so personally? I think my as well as other comments were directed at the OP, suggesting that the analyzer might not be the right road to travel in his quest for sonic improvement.

I think that the tendency these days is to rely way too much on visuals, working with DAWs we're all guilty of this to a certain point. That's why it's NOT a good idea for a relative newbie to use analyzer tools to make sonic decisions IMO, useful as such tools may be for a more experienced person.

I agree. But, if you read what others have said, the OP had a couple of recording related problems, i.e. mic positioning and acoustics issues. This has nothing to do with analyzers and if anything, the spectrum confirms his problems. However, the analyzer can not reveal issues of background noise or inappropriate microphone positioning, that's not what they are for. Having said this, if you have the spectrum of the same sound miced inside a good room, you'd probably see clear differences. Anyway, you still need practical basic audio knowledge and training to avoid problems like that.
IMHO, one is better off learning the visual correlations as one learns audio. Analyzers are good for those who are starting an audio engineering education, not to make - at first - mixing or mastering sonic decisions. They can start to understand harmonic balance and/or why some mixes with the same style of music sound better than theirs. It takes time, curiosity and discipline. You won't become and expert engineer just by turning on the RTA either, but if you do your audio training with one and consistently, you might just get a little bit ahead of the guy who doesn't use one. YMMV and it's not for guys like the ones who pride themselves in doing everything by ear. Once again, nothing wrong with that, but you can find a lot of use for these tools to become a good audio engineer.

Regards,

If you are not going to use every available tool available to you, I don't know how you expect to get any repeat business, let alone long-time listeners/first-time callers.

So understanding sound "in a different dimension" makes the Mastering better? These old (and current) guys were (are) in a cave gazing at mere shadows whilst wielding iron and stone to try to make an airplane? But now music sounds so much better??

I am a mixer, and my mixes are not better when I distract myself by LOOKING at which frequencies need to be dealt with. Nor is it verily faster. Your argument falls on deaf eyeballs.

And frankly, with someone who has the quality and breadth of work of DC, I would want to know how he approaches his craft. (Sure, sometimes it is boring and uninformative to listen to a jazz guy talk about music, or dance about architecture, but that does not apply here.). Rather, I think when he and a few others share what they do -- even in an inimitable style that possesses the laudable virtue of excessive brevity -- I would want to prick up my ears. Then I would think hard about what they said and apply it assiduously to my own situation.

It has been said that Mastering can be fairly easy work, but it takes 20 years of arduous work to acquire that facility. If then they can get stuff to sound like that without the use of visual aids, I have to seriously question the efficacy of your prescription.

"the spectrum confirms his problems."

I have the pic of his song and yes, theres a very out of wack low-mid freq that looks like a tumor growing on the rest of the spectrum. Its a huge lump that needs tamed. (Simple talk)

Umm, Edward. What is people's aversion to RTA's? Why do they assume no ear is needed?

Look guys. And yes, Im telling you "Pros" as well. RTA's will show problem areas in your Freq. Spectrum.

Bottom line.

No further Black Magic or trickery or anything else. And nothing that should generate the fear vibe that emanates from people when chanting down RTA's.

But the fear and misconceptions about RTA's could really use to get put to rest. Realize what kind of tool its used for and just ise it. Theyre helpful.

Maybe its a "level" thing. Meaning, RTA's are real useful to at-home studios or mid-level places. Theyre likely not needed in big studios because the ME has been whats called, TRAINED and/or SCHOOLED in the profession. Before you make yourself look amateur, properly quantify RTA's in the studios theyre most likely to be in and then end your misconceptions there.

RTA's are not God-zirra. They will not crush your town and/or city. Nor will they steal your "womens".

Learn what the tool is used for ~ then fear it not. You make yourself look like an amateur to bitch too much about them. Theyre simply a viable tool in a large tool box.

Where is it written by me saying that the music sounds better these days? Not that there aren't any good records out there but you know that the large majority are the by-product of affordable laptop computers and self-taught engineers. There are as a result, hundreds of thousands of bad mixes in need of "mastering".
I am mixer too, the difference between us is that what I do usually does not need any mastering. In fact, when you've been doing as many recordings and FFT analysis as I have, your mixes are masters. I am sure I am not the only one capable of doing this on this board {I hope}. If I gave you mixes to master all you'll be doing is sequencing and inserting codes, maybe lower a 1/2 dB on one mix.
DC work is fine but IMHO, so is mine. I honestly don't think that he can teach me any new trick or at least anything that could revolutionize my understanding, but I could be wrong. Having said that, I would take him up for a mastering challenge any day, any time, but that's seen as silly and immature on these forums {especially by the moderators}. Right Dave?
You should know that there are hundreds if not thousands of records mastered by ear by "top MEs" that sound mediocre at best. And, the frequency analysis of these records display the obvious problems such as: clipping distortion {though you don't need no analyzer to hear that} weird resonances on the bass areas, harsh over equalization of mids, extreme sibilance on vocals, extreme useless energy at 19-20k which take up headroom and would prevent making the overall louder, same with the the bass area {too much sub sonic density}, etc, etc I can go on and on with their mediocre approach at mastering and lack of knowledge in corrective equalization. Of course those mixes can be also at fault, but a good ME would 'mend' those issues easily. Don't ask me to post samples of their work, you can find these records yourself very easily. One thing you can bet on is that they didn't use a FFT analyzer, if they only had, they wouldn't have signed off on such ludicrous work.

RTA's are not God-zirra. They will not crush your town and/or city. Nor will they steal your "womens".

Hey, its been a while... I just got around to remixing and mastering that song. I cut it down to 2 guitar tracks and eq'd em in the mix. also tried to eq some of the harcsh SSSS's out using LP filters. figured id post it to get some opinions.... Better? worse? about the same? I mixed it LCR his time, so that is gonna make it sound pretty different.... Any opinions are appreciated...

Thanks
Ian

File didn't attach.. haha i like the new smileys....

As usual Dave,

you hit the nail on the head.

And as usual, it falls on (mostly) deaf ears, as people are too busy using their eyes.


Back to my quest for the best $150 guitar....


Cheers,
Thor


p.s. Let's blow a bonus rasberry to Ed for trying to tell us that digital audio is fundamentally different than analogue as far as using your EARS go. Hello, Earth to Ed.... Come in.... over....