is proper mastering not possible with software/plugins?

[Vlaaing Peerd]

Hi, I am a SOS reader for years now and have dabbled around the forum for the last weeks now to get some more information about mastering and I got some really helpful replies about it.

both financially and practically I am not able to send off each track to a ME. So lot of the times I need to master it myself, as good or bad as the result may be. Now after speaking with a lot of the pro's, it seems none of them use software for the job, only anologue hardware.

I can't think of any reasons why I wouldn't be able to achieve the same results with software. Though I had a mix mastered once by an ME which obviously sounded better then my own attempt, I think this may have more to do with my listening skills (and fatigue after spendng hours on end on the same track), improper room acoustics and monitoring issues rather then that plugins are not up to the job.

So why do ME's in large numbers still use anologue gear? Does it really make better masters then when finalised with plugins?

the tools I mostly prefer for mastering are Waves EQ's,limiters and (multiband)compressors, PSP Vintagewarmer and Xenon and sometimes Adobe Audition's EQ. I'd like to be sure my next investment should be proper room treatment and monitoring or buying a lot of (expensive) anologue outboard gear for mastering.

as a final I'd like to add the most common problem is that trying to get my tracks comparably loud with similar productions oftens tends to end up in (altough slightly) oversteering the track which is specifically audible in the high freq range. The ME that did a free demo for me was able to make it as loud as needed while maintaining a clean sound and keeping the dynamics perceptually unchanged.

sorry for the long post, but I'm struggling with this issue and I need to make my money worth each investment.

[narcoman]

I can't think of any reasons why I wouldn't be able to achieve the same results with software.

Hey - there are oodles of reasons why software DOESN'T do the same as analogue hardware. Heck - even the Weiss digital EQ makes most clean plugin parametric's look sluggish. There are some great EQ and compressors {etc} plugins out there - really really good. But for every one of them I can show you much much much better hardware.

The second thin g- mastering {and mixing} is absolutely an experience game. Experience and a great monitoring environment.

[Aliweasel]

In theory, hardware and software are just tools; it's how you use them that defines how well they work. The things that make the most difference between your masters and a professional MEs masters are properly configured monitoring and experience – the former you can buy, the latter you can't.

Remember, the ME isn't just someone with flashy, expensive kit: they are another set of ears that haven't your track before. They can give a valuable second/third/fourth opinion about your music that you can't give yourself, because – as you've admitted – you've been listening to it so much during the mixing process and you're getting listening fatigue.

[Mich H]

There is two points in this thread that I do believe everyone producing music, has to consider, and follow.

1) What is top priority ? To keep budget low, or not existing...
or
2) To get the best possible result...

Of course enthusiasts want the best outcome, but to be realistic - for decades major producers/mix engineers have been accepting "other ears" as a main factor in getting the best possible results - why should this change because of plug-ins? is basically the same thing such as to create a need of doing itself. Nowadays more and more people has got the main package of plugins, and because of the possibility to perform the mastering themselves, they don´t even consider if this is for the best.
Consider this when determining which way to go mastering wise.

Also be aware that you can get online mastering at our facility for 50$ per track - satisfaction guaranteed!
We do 1500 masterings a year, herof 1000 online tracks.
I know that the majority feels this is a good investment, rather than something that could have been saved (moneywise)
This service incl. these rates is also available other places on the web. Just be just as critical to your music as to your budget

nice weekend to ya´ all

[Vlaaing Peerd]

many thanks for the replies. It seems opinions differ quite a lot about this matter.

I fully understand the aspect of having a 2nd pair of ears doing a better job and I would certainly send of a track for mastering if I wanted it to be released. However if you are preparing a dozen of tracks before having it played the same evening, spending a few hundred Euro's and waiting a couple of days is not an option. So yes, I do need to be able to do some mastering myself and needless to say get the best possible results.

I want to be sure the discrepancy in quality of my masters and the ME's is not due to the use of (wrong) plugins vs their use of anologue hardware, as it does say "mastering plugins" on the package, but non of the masterers actually seem to use them...which makes me doubt.

Most mixes I try to limit off compressor peaks as these use quite a lot of headroom. Is it practice that ME's use anologue clipping to "flatten" these off?

I have the idea that anologue gear could provide me a smoother/less harsh result in the highs when (soft)clipping/limiting/making it louder in general, but having no experience with anologue mastering gear this could just as well be a fairytale and the light oversteering problem I have is more due to me not having enough experience in this field or using the wrong plugs.

I am referring specifically to my drum & bass and dubstep productions which need to be that loud, for my band tracks (funk/soul) I don't have the need to make it that loud and prefer full dynamics.

[narcoman]

I have the idea that anologue gear could provide me a smoother/less harsh result in the highs when (soft)clipping/limiting/making it louder in general, but having no experience with anologue mastering gear this could just as well be a fairytale and the light oversteering problem I have is more due to me not having enough experience in this field or using the wrong plugs.

That's half the story. Here's an example - go listen to this months SOS versions of the UAD massive passive against the real one. The reviewer mentions how good the UAD card MP is - he's right. It is good. Then he puts up a real MP against the UAD MP - for this listener, a BIG difference. It doesn't shame the UAD version - but on my monitoring (and as Max will tell you I have some rather good monitoring ) there are many differences in handling of the highs and depth of translation of complex material...... not that any of that matters when smashing the hell out of a modern chart record !!

Even more so with compression - I use plugins all the time , but where possible I slap in a bit of decent hardware. It's just better!!

[Exalted Wombat]

You need monitors (and a room) that let you hear what you're doing. Beyond that, it's 99% about ears, experience and judgement.

I understand why plugins market well when labelled with the name of some hardware unit. But this encourages judgement on the basis of how closely the hardware is emulated, not how the software sounds. And it tends to reinforce the idea that where there's a difference the hardware's version is "good", the software's "bad".

[Howdy Doody Time]

So why is the only con in the review "might annoy owners of the massive passive hardware"?

The whole point of SOS or other review mags is that one can expect an accurate review (OK it has to be subjective) and I'd expect the reviewer to be pretty good at what he does.

Now you say it doesn't hold up against the real deal when good monitoring it used!

You also say (twice) that the software is good (perchance to avoid conflict with the mag) - but if it doesn't emulate the hardware as described how can you say it's good?

I'd like to know, as an extension of the OP's question, How much of a con is software emulation?

[Exalted Wombat]

I'd like to know, as an extension of the OP's question, How much of a con is software emulation?

The big con is the market's insistence that a plugin should copy hardware. A more healthy approach would be "If you were thinking of using X, try this. It doesn't pretend to be a slavish emulation, but it does the same sort of job. Enjoy!"

[Martin Walker]

You need monitors (and a room) that let you hear what you're doing. Beyond that, it's 99% about ears, experience and judgement.

That's the perfect answer EW!

Never assume that all music needs to be subjected to a battery of tweaks before it's considered 'mastered'.

Mastering is not primarily about plug-ins or treatments, but evaluating what needs to be done for the best result - if anything!

Martin

[Martin Walker]

So why is the only con in the review "might annoy owners of the massive passive hardware"?

The whole point of SOS or other review mags is that one can expect an accurate review (OK it has to be subjective) and I'd expect the reviewer to be pretty good at what he does.

Now you say it doesn't hold up against the real deal when good monitoring it used!

You also say (twice) that the software is good (perchance to avoid conflict with the mag) - but if it doesn't emulate the hardware as described how can you say it's good?

Hi IHDT!

I don't think there's any cause for concern here, particularly since the audio file comparisons in question are there for everyone to download so they can listen and decide for themselves how close the hardware and software versions are:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul10/a ... eaudio.htm

As the reviewer says, "If you can pick the ‘right’ sound clips 10 times out of 10, you should consider becoming a mastering engineer or hi-fi salesman..." ...which in other words means to me that they are pretty damn close and that most people will be well pleased with the software version.

However, he also points out that it's sometimes tricky to exactly duplicate the same settings across software and hardware, which would account for subtle audible differences. However, as narcoman has pointed out, if you've got really expensive gear and a wonderful acoustic environment you could well still hear these subtle differences. Remember that the reviewer was listening in a local mastering studio and couldn’t always tell the difference either. Sometimes he and his colleagues actually preferred the plug-in.

I think it’s a close contest, and if you knew the gear that narcoman had to discern the differences he heard you’d agree that the plug-in was pretty damn impressive

Martin

[SafeandSound Mastering]

I am going to quote Bob Ohlson, a fairly well known mastering engineer (and ex-motown engineer) :

"The right settings on a plug in will beat the wrong settings on hardware each and every time."

I use a combination of hardware and software, fact is excellent mastering can be achieved in software alone. For this to happen you need:

1)The right choice of software.
2)Great monitoring and room.
3)Experience and capability of knowing what client requires.

Anyone can own a set of plugins, it's whether you do whats needed that counts !

The suggestion that having a £30K rack of gear means great mastering
is guaranteed is one of the most erroneous propositions going.
(supported by the number of "I had this mastered at XYZ Mastering studio and I did not like the end result")

And at last count my software choices alone come in at around £4,500.00 so it's hardly a "cheap" option.

I have software EQ options that IMO blow £4K+ mastering EQ's out of the water. Download some demo's and listen.

And stone the crows.. but there is still one more EQ I am lusting after right now.

[Howdy Doody Time]

Yes I see. The OP's question was great for me because computer simulation or emulation of hardware (Snooker Tables, Boeing 747's, or Pultecs) fascinates me like mad.

I'd love to know how close it really is and since I'm never gonna own a Pultec or Massive Passive I have to rely on Narcomen and reviewers opinions. My lugs are far and away the weakest link in my monitoring chain, but I will be mixing for clients with young lugs, so it's an important question.

[narcoman]

As Martin says!!

The UAD plugin is good - very good. But like 8/10 good - if you see what I mean!!

[Vlaaing Peerd]

Hi All,

Thanks for the responses. I think I will stick with the plugins for the time being. Probably there might be some advantages of using hardware, but considering what lacks in my masters it will would be more useful to invest in a good room and monitoring and ofcourse experience. My hard earned Euro's probably have a better way of being spent on other parts in my home studio for now.

one question I hope someone could still answer is about the problem I have with my own masters is that in the stage of getting it louder I experience that the high freqs (hi hats, cymbals)tend to sound very harsh (almost oversteering)after the limiting part. Trying to equalise it afterwards will usually result in not getting rid of the harsness, just merely lowering the HF only to compromise a decently balanced mix.

I suspect that working with anologue hardware might handle the clipping (or at least the peak limiting) better and provides a more "round" sound on those highs, as that is also what several anologue gear users I know claim. Would that be a false assumption?

[Exalted Wombat]

You can limit too harshly using both hardware and software. It soungs as if you are limiting too harshly. If something sounds bad, don't do it!

Do you feel limiting is an inevitable part of completing yoir mix?

[Vlaaing Peerd]

yes it needs to be that loud. I am not happy with the loudness wars , but yes dance needs to be loud, and yes, lately it's getting so silly that you need wizzardry to still keep punch vs silent parts and dynamics in the masters. But I don't have the luxury not to engage and have my mixes softer then my concurrent releasing colleagues. So I feel myself more being a victim of the loudness war rather then a competitor.

my tracks need to be comparable with other artists in the same genre, but somehow they seem to be able to keep the cleanliness and punch whilst still maximising it to that level.

[narcoman]

yes it needs to be that loud. I am not happy with the loudness wars , but yes dance needs to be loud, and yes, lately it's getting so silly that you need wizzardry to still keep punch vs silent parts and dynamics in the masters. But I don't have the luxury not to engage and have my mixes softer then my concurrent releasing colleagues. So I feel myself more being a victim of the loudness war rather then a competitor.

my tracks need to be comparable with other artists in the same genre, but somehow they seem to be able to keep the cleanliness and punch whilst still maximising it to that level.

I have generally found that going to a decent mastering house works better for me..... But there is a lot to be said for making sure the volume is in the mix in the first place, even if it's just an exploratory to find out "what's what".

[Exalted Wombat]

yes it needs to be that loud. I am not happy with the loudness wars , but yes dance needs to be loud, and yes, lately it's getting so silly that you need wizzardry to still keep punch vs silent parts and dynamics in the masters.

I quite appreciate that "dance" is where it's at, and we're all trying to make a living. But, serious question. Do you LIKE dance? Is it what you'd have playing at home, in your car, for enjoyment?

[Vlaaing Peerd]

yes, amongst other styles (jazz rock, funk,soul,rock,fusion,hiphop,reggae, metal, etc, etc). In dance I specifically like drum n' bass and dubstep a lot but don't care too much about 4 to the floor styles.

I can truly enjoy listening to (or producing!)rattling syncopated punchy snares with wobbling and pushing basslines, perhaps intellectually not very stimulating, but holistically seen a very energetic,driving and lively type of music. And let me tell you, that wears off to the listener.

I know there is a tendency to regard dance as simple and repetitive music, but drum and bass absolutely has an interesting approach to music which you won't find anywhere else. Being an(electric and upright)bassplayer I found it more then interesting how a tune could solely exist from elements of the rythm section alone. Dabbling with it for a few years finnaly sucked me into becoming a producer. And it helped me a lot with recording my other styles of music as well!

Perhaps from an introspective point of view (the style largely evolved in the UK) and the overload of low quality productions that followed you perhaps fail to see the acual quality within. People often tend to not like their own backgarden I guess.

but I must add that totally different elements are interesting and need to be payed attention to as compared to i.e. the funk tracks I record with more traditional instruments.

but I think we're getting off topic here

[SafeandSound Mastering]

A little O.T. but there is certainly nothing "simple" about D n B as a genre(I am sure you know ; ), if you take it's progression from Acid house to Hardcore to Jungle, tech step and DnB where it is today it's not a simple progression. Maybe some styles are more minimal with kick... snare kick.. snare with a hat pattern these days but it is hard to pull off 6 minutes of good, hypnotic, repetitive DnB compared with making just an average and boring, repetitive track. I think some programming from true drum and bass masters is incredibly complex.

For anyone in doubt I recommend (albeit quite old now) this, it puts the Amen break to bed (and it did it a long time ago!), this album was mixed through an SSL 4000G+, that does not happen much these days.
(I knew the artist)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obC74KhbQY4

err... try and put that together in an evening.

D n B will always have a strong place in my musical heart, something about those natural human played breaks and hard quantized triggers.

cheers

[Dave Blackman]

It is absolutely possible to master a record using nothing but plug-ins, and there are a number of engineers working in the box, but most studios will have some dedicated outboard for a number of reasons. Here are some of mine:

i. I can get to where I want to go faster and with better results with outboard over plugs - I find the interfaces fairly un-intuitive and the sound (especially EQ wise at the very top and bottom ends) just doesn't do it for me. Also, if I've got separate boxes handling each job it makes it easier to look along the cahin and see where I need to make a tweak to get that extra fraction I'm after.

ii. From a fiscal point of view (I'm trying to run a business here!) I don't find plugs to be particularly good value. Sure the buy-in is cheaper (relatively) but they have very little resale value, and chances are something more powerful is going to come along a few months down the line. And what happens when you upgrade your workstation and those processes are no longer supported? If you buy top-end hardware, it'll always hold value - nothing better is going to come along, just different. (Check out the number of engineers still using Pultecs, and then see how much one costs) Even on the digital side, a decent box is going to be around for a long while - I've had my TC S6000 for maybe 7 years, and they've only just brought out V2.

iii. Knobs are way cool.

iv. In mastering we're (usually) working on the stereo track, and any flaw is going to be revealed. The quality of any processing is paramount. We also only need one of something, unlike mixing where you may want EQ & dynamics on every channel. Rather than have lots of OK EQs, we can spend the same money and get one exceptional one.

That's not to say that I don't use plug-ins, but when I do it tends to be for something that I can't do elsewhere - I run Cedar ReTouch, and do my eliptical equalising in the box.

The other thing to consider is that in a mastering (and recording) studio, every piece of gear has to earn its keep, or it's a bad purchasing decision. No engineer is going to drop a couple of grand on an EQ because it'll look good on the website. I regularly use every piece of equipment I own. If plug-ins were now the way to go, you'd see engineers all over the place dumping their gear in place of software solutions - god knows it would be a lot less hassle. This isn't happening.

At the end of the day, they're just tools. Once your room and monitoring are set-up, it's just a case of selecting the right ones for the job. I check up on new plug-ins every few months, and they're getting better all the time. I imagine it won't be long before I start introducing a few into my arsenal - they're just not there yet (for me). I recently did a couple of classes at a local college, and we worked up a track I'd done previously in my room using nothing but plugs (mostly Waves I think). It sounded good - great even. But when we brought up my original it just wasn't there. It was close, but I don't get paid to be close.

And writing "mastering" on the side of the box to indicate a mastering processor is from the same school of sales that says it's better if it says it's "pro"

As always, YMMV. And sorry for the long post.

Dave

[SafeandSound Mastering]

One thing I would like to add is I think people who are buying any high end analogue hardware should very much listen with an open mind.

1)Do try and find a place that can demo what you want, this is not always easy, I am considering a new high end outboard EQ and because the manufacturer is small there are very few in the U.K. (even the UK distributor does not have one on demo) as they take 3 weeks to build, this creates an awkward dilemma.

2)Try and listen and do some EQ/compression with the best equipment you already own (on audio material you know) before you go and listen to new kit so it's fresh in your mind. The best is to demo the gear for a few days in your studio.

3)NEVER buy a bit of kit because XY and Z uses it, I listened to some very esoteric and expensive EQ's recently and they cost between £3.5K an 4k and they certainly were not for me and certainly not better than what I already own.

I am not sure about the kit value argument, a Massive Passive is £3,700.00 new today and second hand it's £2K, it's hardly great resale value from buying new IMO and on top this these machines need maintaining (valves) and recalibrating esp. for mastering (at least they should be) as channels will age a little differently as time passes. In saying that I love my outboard and would have trouble letting it go, though I am completely open minded about carefully selected digital processing doing as good/better job than it's hardware counterpart.

Every bit of kit is unique (like music itself) and preconceptions can be a help and a hinderance when auditioning new kit and you can get nice surprises about what kit can do in different situations, keep your ears open:)

[Exalted Wombat]

a Massive Passive is £3,700.00 new today and second hand it's £2K,

I've never quite understood why e.g the Massive Passive is considered any differently to the stuff on this page: http://tinyurl.com/2eyzn6c

Both, I am sure, do a competent job. But just how much magic can you get into a few quid's worth of components?

[Jack Ruston]

Well I dont think that's fair. Design, build and bring to market a high end eq like an MP and see what you have to charge to make any money on it. Just the costs of getting the front panel made is considerable. It's very different to the mains cable thing.

J