Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Software finaliser
From: Gary Counsellor (sineigs_AT_eskimo.com)
Date: Thu Jan 24 2002 - 18:52:59 EET
> 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.)
I was lucky in that I had "journeying" experience studying under other folks
who knew what they were doing and I watched what producers, technicians etc.
were doing when ever I was in a studio. Not that they knew all the "typical
frequencies and harmonics of particular instruments" but through
'hit-n-miss', other peoples experiences and they're own playing around, they
knew thier hardware well enough to get what they were looking for.
Kinda like some of the 'masters' who at the time said "I don't know! I just
turn the knob when ever I want it to do this" Later on they (as well as I)
try to figure out just why we like what happens and what really is happening.
That leads you to being able to put happy accidents to work for you in
places where they might never have happened. Lots n Lots of reading help
because certain changes only give certain results at (like you said) certain
frequencies. You not off the mark at all.
>
> 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.
Once you get used to your tools you'll develope 'favorite settings' to start
out at and go from there. Personally I try to rely on great signal (sound)
to start with, mike placement etc. and if you get THAT down there may be
very little left to do.
>
> 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.)
Ah the "grimoire" of recording! If I had wrote down every setting I ever
used and liked or what I had read about other people using.... It would give
you and me something of a head start, in a way... but results vary not just
with type of music but also instrument, mike, board, medium and the
ultimate... What the customer really wants to hear despite what or how
they're playing it. Or what it is they're listening to. Maybe we aught to
write down (I'm sure someone already has) what to cut or boost where to
effect what change. For example remove boominess add sizzle, increase
clarity or add 'space'. Anybody have any suggested reading material?
-- Gary Counsellor http://www.musician2000.com sineigs.all.attitudes_AT_eskimo.com Please remove.all.attitudes before replyingIn 1977, there were 37 Elvis impersonators in the world. In 1993, there were 48,000. At this rate, by the year 2010 one out of every three people will be an Elvis impersonator. (Source: N/A)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jan 24 2002 - 20:34:08 EET