Re: [linux-audio-user] Software finaliser

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Software finaliser
From: Ade Rixon (ade.rixon_AT_big-bubbles.fluff.org)
Date: Thu Jan 24 2002 - 12:38:22 EET


23 Jan 03:57:41 PM: Meanwhile in the Sheraton, Gary Counsellor wrote:
> I agree to some extent Enhancers, Exciters, Maximizers (first time I ever
> heard of ) finalizer Do basicaly what Jason states. To learn better
> mastering techniques should be of more value than relying on magical black
> boxes.
> But no wheres near as quick.

Aye, there's the rub. I suspect that to effectively master manually, I'd
have to understand quite a bit about the typical frequencies and harmonics
of particular instruments, response curves, etc. (If this sounds like
meaningless B.S. to you, then you've probably realised that I'm already
out of my depth. :-) I don't mind learning that stuff, but I don't really
have time. (I've got some old band masters that could do with a quick
boost and polish prior to burning.)

Even in the studio, the engineer had to learn how to tweak the finaliser
properly rather than relying on the (overly harsh) presets ... but at
least he had a dedicated box as a starting point, and hence the basic
algorithms.

Perhaps what we should be collecting is a list of good or "typical" EQ &
limiting parameters that people have used for their mastering. (Yes, I
know it depends on the music, but an idea of the typical procedure would
be a useful starting point.)

Cheers,
Ade_
  /

-- 
|Ade Rixon|http://www.big-bubbles.home.dhs.org/|ade.rixon_AT_big-bubbles.fluff.org|

"Your welfare committee is the tool of those who wish to possess your minds!" - "A Change of Mind", The Prisoner


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jan 24 2002 - 12:28:29 EET