 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Music techology
Subject: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
Viewing all 24 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2 3
Original Message 1/24 22-Jul-98 @ 05:14 AM - Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
O.k. If mastering is an art can some just list 4 or five fundamental processes involved.
Freefilter is cool but I want to do my own stuff my own style. Where shuould I start
I have a mix of hiphop with an artist, this mix has melodic strings and pianos plus drum and
bass and snare. I think the mix is great. Now what do I do after that. Should I get the mix
compressed or normalized first then EQ... or the other way around... should I avoid compression.. by the way. when you go get your stuff mastered by a pro will they just need
the final mixed in one wav file or cd not the individual instrument tracks????
help please
Freefilter is cool but I want to do my own stuff my own style. Where shuould I start
I have a mix of hiphop with an artist, this mix has melodic strings and pianos plus drum and
bass and snare. I think the mix is great. Now what do I do after that. Should I get the mix
compressed or normalized first then EQ... or the other way around... should I avoid compression.. by the way. when you go get your stuff mastered by a pro will they just need
the final mixed in one wav file or cd not the individual instrument tracks????
help please
Message 2/24 22-Jul-98 @ 11:19 AM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
Mastering is the art of adding final touches and sonic clearing up or improvement of the final mix whether it be by ambience processing, global EQing, harmonic processing or stereo dspread enhancement (plus lots of other similar things !). Anything else is mixing. So they won't need the multirack stuff. If they do, they're mixing !!. It could be the masterer might say "this needs re-mixing" but that's another story.
For mastering, compress then normalise is the last operations normally done. Any EQing required and ambience adding is done normally before compression. Having said that, it can be doen afterwards and some songs are never compressed. It depends on the sort of music. For the music you describe I would say (guessing) that you would EQ + enhance together (maybe do some sub bass adding or something if neccessary, or perhaps enhance. You don't have to though). Then compress then normalise. How you actually do these things thoughwill greatly effect the end product. Best tip for any mastering process is don't over do it. AND approach it with fresh ears. Don't do it straight after a live jam or a mix. Go away and come back to it another day. Second best tip, get it right in the original mix, then pretty much the only thing to do would be a little compression and normalising, and if you're really good even this may not be needed.
For mastering, compress then normalise is the last operations normally done. Any EQing required and ambience adding is done normally before compression. Having said that, it can be doen afterwards and some songs are never compressed. It depends on the sort of music. For the music you describe I would say (guessing) that you would EQ + enhance together (maybe do some sub bass adding or something if neccessary, or perhaps enhance. You don't have to though). Then compress then normalise. How you actually do these things thoughwill greatly effect the end product. Best tip for any mastering process is don't over do it. AND approach it with fresh ears. Don't do it straight after a live jam or a mix. Go away and come back to it another day. Second best tip, get it right in the original mix, then pretty much the only thing to do would be a little compression and normalising, and if you're really good even this may not be needed.
Message 3/24 22-Jul-98 @ 02:22 PM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
yup.... and after all.... who says it needs it ??...... if you're happy with it..... tonally... then fine.... if you're burning to cdr.... it might be an idea to normalise the tracks....... but again it's up to you....
there is 2 parts to mastering.... the som=nic side... (eq etc).... and the compilation side.... that is.... track ordering.... spacing... x-fading etc etc.....
if you have a bunch of tracks.... setting them up in the correct order... with the correct pause between them.... makes for a nice proffessional sounding result......
if you cut to Vinyl.... then obviously, you have to prep the acetetate...... so all the eq etc stuff will be done for you at the cutting room... for CD runs... you can do it at home.... as long as it sounds ok on your home system.... and the demo cdr you burned sounds ok across the board when you play it on freinds systems, in hi-fi shops etc etc.... then go for it.......but if you want it to sonically sound like all your other cd's from the shops.... then go and do all the processing to get that... however i would say.... the one thing that bores me fuckless about cd's is the same bland tonal qualities they all have.... Napalm Death to William Orbit.... regardless of content... they all sound the same....... if you get what i mean.... sonically, you're listening to the exact same eq curves etc..... it's tedious.....
there is 2 parts to mastering.... the som=nic side... (eq etc).... and the compilation side.... that is.... track ordering.... spacing... x-fading etc etc.....
if you have a bunch of tracks.... setting them up in the correct order... with the correct pause between them.... makes for a nice proffessional sounding result......
if you cut to Vinyl.... then obviously, you have to prep the acetetate...... so all the eq etc stuff will be done for you at the cutting room... for CD runs... you can do it at home.... as long as it sounds ok on your home system.... and the demo cdr you burned sounds ok across the board when you play it on freinds systems, in hi-fi shops etc etc.... then go for it.......but if you want it to sonically sound like all your other cd's from the shops.... then go and do all the processing to get that... however i would say.... the one thing that bores me fuckless about cd's is the same bland tonal qualities they all have.... Napalm Death to William Orbit.... regardless of content... they all sound the same....... if you get what i mean.... sonically, you're listening to the exact same eq curves etc..... it's tedious.....
Message 4/24 22-Jul-98 @ 03:12 PM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
Alright, I'll admit that I only tried Free Filter for the first time yesterday. I recorded a track off Janet's Velvet Rope into Soudforge, anylized it using Free filter and saved the curve as a preset. Next I loaded in an extremely dodgy recorded track that I did 3 years ago and had recorded onto a D90 cassette. It wasn't even mixed properly. I tried a couple of plugins on it and found that the best thing to do was to alter the eq using Free filter (and the Janet preset I'd saved) and then run it through Denoiser. Once I'd done this I can honestly say that the quality blew me away. I compared it with a few well recorded CDs and it came accross really well and sounded as good, if not better than a couple of them. All this from a crappy demo recorded on a D90.
Mastering engineers have always made a mess of my tracks, even a guy being paid $160 an hour from the label I was with. I'm now planning on building a whole library of preset eq curves and just seeing which one works best on each track. So what if they're other peoples eq curves. If they sound good, use them. There's no way I or any mastering engineer here in Australia could get a sound as fat as the guys mastering hip hop in New York do. Besides, I really doubt that Tom Coyne's going to sue me for ripping off the eq sound he used on a Pete Rock lp that came out 4 years ago.
Another thing, if your drums are sounding a bit thin, I've found that it can help a bit to use a multiband compressor to tighten up the bottem end a bit. Soundforge has one of these built into it.
Mastering engineers have always made a mess of my tracks, even a guy being paid $160 an hour from the label I was with. I'm now planning on building a whole library of preset eq curves and just seeing which one works best on each track. So what if they're other peoples eq curves. If they sound good, use them. There's no way I or any mastering engineer here in Australia could get a sound as fat as the guys mastering hip hop in New York do. Besides, I really doubt that Tom Coyne's going to sue me for ripping off the eq sound he used on a Pete Rock lp that came out 4 years ago.
Another thing, if your drums are sounding a bit thin, I've found that it can help a bit to use a multiband compressor to tighten up the bottem end a bit. Soundforge has one of these built into it.
Message 5/24 22-Jul-98 @ 10:26 PM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
I know freefilter works great. I admitt. But I'm not learning anything!! Thats what I like to do learn.
What the hell is free filter doing?? It's copying the Eq curves that a human did .. Now I want to know what the Human did and why? Its perpetuating my ignorance just using freefilter. Cuz without freefilter your nothing I want to be something with or with out it. I have access to waves native powerpack 2.35 and its really good now I want to learn how to use it. I don't want to be superdependent on freefilter... I wanna judge the eq of my on mix for my self, after all its my song and I should be able to uniquely adjust the eq the way I feel is needed your not going to get what YOU want from freefilter because you don't know what you want (finer details) your just gonna get something that sounds good but not knowing how and why . If thats all you want then use the hell out of freefilter. When I used freefilter i was amazed then I became dissapointed because I could not do it on my own, I had no knoweldege of the technique and specifications used.
What the hell is free filter doing?? It's copying the Eq curves that a human did .. Now I want to know what the Human did and why? Its perpetuating my ignorance just using freefilter. Cuz without freefilter your nothing I want to be something with or with out it. I have access to waves native powerpack 2.35 and its really good now I want to learn how to use it. I don't want to be superdependent on freefilter... I wanna judge the eq of my on mix for my self, after all its my song and I should be able to uniquely adjust the eq the way I feel is needed your not going to get what YOU want from freefilter because you don't know what you want (finer details) your just gonna get something that sounds good but not knowing how and why . If thats all you want then use the hell out of freefilter. When I used freefilter i was amazed then I became dissapointed because I could not do it on my own, I had no knoweldege of the technique and specifications used.
Message 6/24 23-Jul-98 @ 12:09 AM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
Remember mastering is the last thing in the rec process .
I agree that mastering isnt allways necessary .
The only thing is that if you do it you have to be very careful , and not get anxious of getting an extraordinary sound only in one step !
You cant master in a bad sounding room or bad monitors cause they will lie to you .
In my opinion the best way to improve your tracks and normalize levels between them is waves L1 ( there are many more but its difficult to afford really good sistems like this ) .
If you have to process the track , not only fade in/out etc ... is better to do it in 24bits . You can do this in many editors , convert a 16 bit file to 24 bit , it only will add zeros to it , then you fill that digi-headroom with the process you want ,and dither to 16 bits again .
The problem processing 16 bit files in SOME apps is that they add sound artifacts to the sound that are more noticeable in stereo files and vary the stereo image you have builded in hours mixing .
This has been my little experience .
The conclusion is that is better to do less processing if you are not sure it will really be useful :-)
I agree that mastering isnt allways necessary .
The only thing is that if you do it you have to be very careful , and not get anxious of getting an extraordinary sound only in one step !
You cant master in a bad sounding room or bad monitors cause they will lie to you .
In my opinion the best way to improve your tracks and normalize levels between them is waves L1 ( there are many more but its difficult to afford really good sistems like this ) .
If you have to process the track , not only fade in/out etc ... is better to do it in 24bits . You can do this in many editors , convert a 16 bit file to 24 bit , it only will add zeros to it , then you fill that digi-headroom with the process you want ,and dither to 16 bits again .
The problem processing 16 bit files in SOME apps is that they add sound artifacts to the sound that are more noticeable in stereo files and vary the stereo image you have builded in hours mixing .
This has been my little experience .
The conclusion is that is better to do less processing if you are not sure it will really be useful :-)
Message 7/24 23-Jul-98 @ 12:33 AM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
Hey where can I get this free filter thing? Does it only work with steinbergh products?
-Chad-
-Chad-
Message 8/24 23-Jul-98 @ 01:06 AM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
er...... how are you going to achive 24 bit processing on a 16 bit OS exactly ?.....
Message 9/24 24-Jul-98 @ 12:01 AM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
Theres no direct relation between OS bits (anyway win95 is 32 bits) and the internal bit resolution of the software app you use .
A simple example any number greater than 65536 needs more than 16 bits to be archived , and any os can deal bigger ones .
The real important thing in audio bits is input bits , thought is better to work with 24 bit converters but ANYWAY is better to process 16 bit files in 24 bit resolution .
THere are some apps that convert to 24 in default and others no , this is the reason I post the 24 bit thingy.
I am not sure if freefilter does that , and stereo recordings may be more evidently damaged by sound artifacts caused by the lack of digital-headroom .
A simple example any number greater than 65536 needs more than 16 bits to be archived , and any os can deal bigger ones .
The real important thing in audio bits is input bits , thought is better to work with 24 bit converters but ANYWAY is better to process 16 bit files in 24 bit resolution .
THere are some apps that convert to 24 in default and others no , this is the reason I post the 24 bit thingy.
I am not sure if freefilter does that , and stereo recordings may be more evidently damaged by sound artifacts caused by the lack of digital-headroom .
Message 10/24 24-Jul-98 @ 05:36 AM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
buggo
Posts: 8
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Well actually I found out something interesting about bits vs sample rate..call me fucking stupid if you already know this, but I sure as hell didn't...We all know what sample rate is, and the net result of higher vs lower sample rates...but bits is just the total number of VOLUMES the system has to work with; that is, if it's taking X number of samples per second, each sample has to have its own volume/dynamic...so basically with more bits you have a higher dynamic range, which is not necessarily good, especially if you're gonna have to compress to even out dynamic range later anyway!
maybe this is why 12-bit samplers sound so good for drums...you get less subtlety and more up-front sound, like, on the end of a bass drum hit it just sort of cuts off rather than leaving a little sonic "tracer..."
am i making sense? am i correct? hmm.
maybe this is why 12-bit samplers sound so good for drums...you get less subtlety and more up-front sound, like, on the end of a bass drum hit it just sort of cuts off rather than leaving a little sonic "tracer..."
am i making sense? am i correct? hmm.
Message 11/24 24-Jul-98 @ 08:49 PM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
Purple Haze
Posts:
Link?: No link
File?: No file
I always thought that if you had more bits you would get a higher resolution in your dynamic range, i.e. less difference between 'volumes'. 12 bits would mean 4096 different 'volumes', 16 bit 65536 different 'volumes', but I think the dynamic range is the same, only the resolution differs.
But then, I might be wrong.
I've got a 12 bit roland W30, works great for all kind of drums (and 8 separate outs!), except for open hihats, but I guess that's rather because it's max sample rate is 30Khz and the open hihats seem to contain lots of high frequencies (at least, the samples I use).
Just my 2 francs...
But then, I might be wrong.
I've got a 12 bit roland W30, works great for all kind of drums (and 8 separate outs!), except for open hihats, but I guess that's rather because it's max sample rate is 30Khz and the open hihats seem to contain lots of high frequencies (at least, the samples I use).
Just my 2 francs...
Message 12/24 24-Jul-98 @ 09:14 PM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
ah... i see...... however... it all has to be dithered back down to 16 bits for cd right ?.... Bob Lentini (who I trust cos his s/w is so excellent, reckons it's a waste of time.... what say you people ??... you can see his posts if you search using the CHAT SEARCH FACILITY here.... search with the word BIT...
then look at the thread titles 16/24 bit etc....
then look at the thread titles 16/24 bit etc....
Message 13/24 24-Jul-98 @ 11:20 PM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
I dont always convert to 24 bits .
But talking bout mastering you cant leave any error chance .
There are some apps that convert to 24 bits defaultly cause thats its internal bit resolution but there are other that dont do that .
Internal processing is always greater than 16 bits ( 24 , 32 , 52 .... )
Am I right ?
But talking bout mastering you cant leave any error chance .
There are some apps that convert to 24 bits defaultly cause thats its internal bit resolution but there are other that dont do that .
Internal processing is always greater than 16 bits ( 24 , 32 , 52 .... )
Am I right ?
Message 14/24 25-Jul-98 @ 02:20 PM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
I think the whole BIT thing is just a load of garbage that manafacturers use to sell their products. Look at the Yamaha mixers, 02/R etc.. 32 bit eq, 40 bit something else, 20 bit this, 24bit that..... Like, big deal, the desks still don't sound crap.
Pick up an old cd from the late 80's and compare the sound of it to something fairly recent. To my ears the old 80's cds always sound nicer because most of them were recorded with fat analog desks, 12 bit samplers, real analog keyboards and so on. I'm talking electronic, or dance music here of course, so you don't need to telling me about guitar recording techniques.
In my mpc3000 I convert all my samples down to 8bit in Awave before loading them in. It just sounds better, and combined with an old analog desk, you can garauntee that it will sound a lot nicer than a 16bit sampler with 20bit d/a going through a digital desk. A bit noisier perhaps, but you don't notice the noise much on drums.
Pick up an old cd from the late 80's and compare the sound of it to something fairly recent. To my ears the old 80's cds always sound nicer because most of them were recorded with fat analog desks, 12 bit samplers, real analog keyboards and so on. I'm talking electronic, or dance music here of course, so you don't need to telling me about guitar recording techniques.
In my mpc3000 I convert all my samples down to 8bit in Awave before loading them in. It just sounds better, and combined with an old analog desk, you can garauntee that it will sound a lot nicer than a 16bit sampler with 20bit d/a going through a digital desk. A bit noisier perhaps, but you don't notice the noise much on drums.
Message 15/24 25-Jul-98 @ 03:45 PM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
ALL your samples???
Hey /\VE/\/E are you from Aus?
Hey /\VE/\/E are you from Aus?
Message 16/24 25-Jul-98 @ 04:06 PM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
One thing is that you like some crappy cool 12 bit drum sounds and another different thing is that you want to have the choice of high quality recording made on 16 or 24 bits .
Most 24 bit workstations use 20 bits DA/AD !
The most important thing in digital conversion is the quality of the conversor itself and the filters inside it.
You can record 12 bit sounds in a higer res system but not higer to less (in the case you are resampling yes) .
But that was about mastering and I only say that you have to be careful .
Peace
Most 24 bit workstations use 20 bits DA/AD !
The most important thing in digital conversion is the quality of the conversor itself and the filters inside it.
You can record 12 bit sounds in a higer res system but not higer to less (in the case you are resampling yes) .
But that was about mastering and I only say that you have to be careful .
Peace
Message 17/24 27-Jul-98 @ 10:05 AM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
hmm, I've never come to terms w/ the old vs. new sounds thing avene's addressing. I mean, like old Fender guitars or Prophet V's, are they actually better sounding or is it just because it's a sound we've grown accustomed to hearing over the years.
Also, music is compressed to hell when played over the radio, so maybe we're just so accustomed to hearing over-compressed music that the higher dynamic range of digital recording is unpallettable. Whereas most engineers agree that the human voice DEFINITELY sounds better on digital, maybe that's because we're accustomed to hearing the voices true-to-life.
Please address this, it's actually something I've been trying to figure out for years.
Also, music is compressed to hell when played over the radio, so maybe we're just so accustomed to hearing over-compressed music that the higher dynamic range of digital recording is unpallettable. Whereas most engineers agree that the human voice DEFINITELY sounds better on digital, maybe that's because we're accustomed to hearing the voices true-to-life.
Please address this, it's actually something I've been trying to figure out for years.
Message 18/24 27-Jul-98 @ 04:11 PM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
Galleryslave, yes, I'm from Aus. Anyway, pretty much all of my drum samples I convert. There's some stuff I just couldn't be bothered with.
Hilevelt, I don't know about you, but I always find pure analog synths, and even lower bit rate samples to be much easier to mix and more pleasant to the ears. They just sound fat no matter what you do with the eq (as long as it's an analog desk). With high quality digital sounds such as those trying to emulate analog synths, I've always found that it takes a while to actually get them to sound nice. It's just a general observation.
Hilevelt, I don't know about you, but I always find pure analog synths, and even lower bit rate samples to be much easier to mix and more pleasant to the ears. They just sound fat no matter what you do with the eq (as long as it's an analog desk). With high quality digital sounds such as those trying to emulate analog synths, I've always found that it takes a while to actually get them to sound nice. It's just a general observation.
Message 19/24 27-Jul-98 @ 10:01 PM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
I must be a weirdo because I prefer digital sound to anologue. Analogue does have it's uses though but I like the lower noise and higher dynamic range of digital. Analogue always gives me a feeling of nostalgia or age, which is good for somethings but I want to be more in the now.
Jeremy Arsenault
Jeremy Arsenault
Message 20/24 28-Jul-98 @ 12:52 AM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
the 16/24 bit thing (back from the dead 
bits have to do with error....if you have a sine
wave coming in and you sample it X times a second,
with 8 bits (ex) you have 256 levels that you can
represent. chances are it's not going to be exactly
at one of those levels when you sample it, so you pick
one nearby. how close it is is your error. obviously,
with more levels (=more bits) you get closer to the
original. with less levels you get something, er,
different (go play with a DSS-1 sometime...it samples
in 12-bit, but allows you to playback as low as 6!!)
i don't know why it sounds good though. it's better
for some things than others, drums, snares, etc. have
a lot of noise in them anyway (error = noise) so you're
just adding some randomness i guess, it's just another
effect that sounds good on some things.
the internal bit rate is something similar...if you are
looking for good quality it's important. when you add
two 16-bit numbers together you get 17 bits -> throw away
the low bit to get 16 bits again. so it's like adding
together two 15-bit numbers more or less. add like
16 channels together, you're down to 12 bits, etc.
and multiply 16 x 16 = 32 bits..you are throwing away
16 bits!! or something like that. that's why (ex)
protools is 56 bits internally (24x24 (one 24-bit
multiply, like for reverb or something) = 48 bits,
256 channels of 48 bits = 56 bits (256 = 2 ^ 8 so
you lose 8 bits).
anyway this is way techie and doesn't really matter,
techno has a lo-fi history so maybe that's why it
sounds so good?
bits have to do with error....if you have a sine
wave coming in and you sample it X times a second,
with 8 bits (ex) you have 256 levels that you can
represent. chances are it's not going to be exactly
at one of those levels when you sample it, so you pick
one nearby. how close it is is your error. obviously,
with more levels (=more bits) you get closer to the
original. with less levels you get something, er,
different (go play with a DSS-1 sometime...it samples
in 12-bit, but allows you to playback as low as 6!!)
i don't know why it sounds good though. it's better
for some things than others, drums, snares, etc. have
a lot of noise in them anyway (error = noise) so you're
just adding some randomness i guess, it's just another
effect that sounds good on some things.
the internal bit rate is something similar...if you are
looking for good quality it's important. when you add
two 16-bit numbers together you get 17 bits -> throw away
the low bit to get 16 bits again. so it's like adding
together two 15-bit numbers more or less. add like
16 channels together, you're down to 12 bits, etc.
and multiply 16 x 16 = 32 bits..you are throwing away
16 bits!! or something like that. that's why (ex)
protools is 56 bits internally (24x24 (one 24-bit
multiply, like for reverb or something) = 48 bits,
256 channels of 48 bits = 56 bits (256 = 2 ^ 8 so
you lose 8 bits).
anyway this is way techie and doesn't really matter,
techno has a lo-fi history so maybe that's why it
sounds so good?
Message 21/24 28-Jul-98 @ 01:45 AM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
Avene, what I mean is what if you went back in history and made dx-7's the very first synths, and P-Funk had to find a way to make those sound nasty, and then all of a sudden analog was invented and became the new rage. Maybe because our ears had gotten used to the sound of the DX-7 there'd end up being a digital retro kickback, and everybody on this site would be bitching & saying "digital just has that wonderful clarity and detail, while all this analog crap just muddies up a mix."
I've owned so much retro guitar/engineer/keyboard gear, and yet younger kids seem much more accustomed to the sound of cd's, DDD all-digital recordings, and solid-state Crate guitar amps than to vinyl and old tube Hi-Fi's.
Thoughts?
I've owned so much retro guitar/engineer/keyboard gear, and yet younger kids seem much more accustomed to the sound of cd's, DDD all-digital recordings, and solid-state Crate guitar amps than to vinyl and old tube Hi-Fi's.
Thoughts?
Message 22/24 28-Jul-98 @ 05:39 AM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
well, my thoughts are....a good track comes along with an excellent hook.... wether it's dance or conventional music pop/rock whatever.... and all this becomes academic.... i guess..... i think the search for the original sound/source lies outside of these things......
Message 23/24 28-Jul-98 @ 05:43 AM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
It's a question of how tastes develop, which holds equal bearing when we ask what it is exactly that makes a good hook. On that level, it's pretty obvious you just have to go with the gut, but we can talk about sounds and equipment a little more analytically and exacting than that.
Message 24/24 28-Jul-98 @ 11:38 AM - RE: Forget freefilter ..real mastering techniques
Nomad you're right. I'd always go for 16 bit at least. Its truer to what you put in. There are smaller 'steps' to be dithered or 'smoothed' by the d/a as you go to higher resolutions. But with all things its shit in- shit out. So if you sample warm/harsh/analog/whatever sounds at a high resolution then you'll get that back out at the end of the day.
I think the safest way to a good CD sound is AAD or DAD, at least for more conventional (rock?) music because you can get the tape compression. I think this is where some of the 'cds are harsh and vinyl is great/warm' arguments come from. Too much dynamic range if you don't get the compression right.
Nomad, thanks for the 'internal bit rate' info. I've always wondered about that.
Also I think the 16 bit to 24 bit conversion for mastering is just for headroom right enough. Probably just keeping on the safe side in case they boost something. However it seems a bit unneccesary since they probably have to reconvert somewhere if they use any analog eq/compression. Maybe these are all digital mastering houses????
I think the safest way to a good CD sound is AAD or DAD, at least for more conventional (rock?) music because you can get the tape compression. I think this is where some of the 'cds are harsh and vinyl is great/warm' arguments come from. Too much dynamic range if you don't get the compression right.
Nomad, thanks for the 'internal bit rate' info. I've always wondered about that.
Also I think the 16 bit to 24 bit conversion for mastering is just for headroom right enough. Probably just keeping on the safe side in case they boost something. However it seems a bit unneccesary since they probably have to reconvert somewhere if they use any analog eq/compression. Maybe these are all digital mastering houses????
Viewing all 24 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2 3
There are 24 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
