best choice for home mastering in DP...

[cloudsplitter]

Another plug worth demoing is Dynamic Spectrum Mapper. It's probably overkill for your music, but stealing "imprints" from mastered music in your genre and then applying them to your recordings will be very instructive as you start out.

For most of us on here who have DSM it seems to do more harm than good....!!

[David Polich]

Another plug worth demoing is Dynamic Spectrum Mapper. It's probably overkill for your music, but stealing "imprints" from mastered music in your genre and then applying them to your recordings will be very instructive as you start out.

For most of us on here who have DSM it seems to do more harm than good....!!

Agreed. I tossed the demo out after a lot of time trying to make it work.

There is a fundamental problem with DSM - no matter where you take a snapshot of the track, it's only representative of that section, and as we all (should) know, a vocal or instrumental track is dynamic, not only with respect to loudness, but also frequency content. So if you capture a portion of the track at its loudest point where it "sounds good", the frequency spectrum at that point won't be the same as it is in another "softer" section which contains a different set of frequencies and amplitudes. If you capture the first portion of a dynamic vocal track,
then that capture won't work for the sections where it gets louder and
exhibits a different frequency response.

The claim is that DSM is designed to do nothing where the frequency and
amplitude content of the track fall below the curve set by the capture.
In practice, it doesn't work this way - because it is still a computer
algorithm and is not smart enough to know when you want it to work and
when you don't. Net result - most tracks I tried it on sounded dull
and masked once I captured a section of them and then applied the DSM
process.

Plus, their EQ section really sounds bad. +12 db at 5.0khz yields a "little
brighter" - their EQ's aren't really responsive.

Ozone4 also has an EQ capture feature (called "matching") which actually does work.

I was thinking Slate Digital's new FGX Mastering plug-in might do a cool
job, but so far I have not been able to get the demo to work - the plug-in does not show up in my plug-in list in DP.

[jloeb]

I have to chime in and say i'm not sure naysayers of DSM really understand the specifics of how it works and therefore how to use it. To be fair though, I think Paul Frindle really could (and should) help to alleviate this problem by providing more in-depth, detailed videos on the real-world usage of this plug. It is a very different beast whose technical mechanism is, as far as I understand it, entirely unique. Just for starters, its EQ is not really an EQ: its effect has as much or more to to with the capture, threshold, knee, attack and release settings as it does with how much you crank the knobs. It modifies the frequency capture curve, not the output signal. For that reason, it doesn't work like Ozone's matching EQ and similar products, and you can't expect to use it that way.

DSM can be as subtle /transparent as you like. If it's doing something to your signal in soft passages and you don't want it to, then your settings are too extreme. You're forgiven for that by default though, because nearly every one of the presets included with DSM are extreme settings. They are intended either as starting points to back off from (usually way off), or, for a quick, last minute fatigued-ears-hail-mary-save-my-butt-6AM-scratch-mix-to-client type of usage. (I would point out that in that situation, there is nothing like DSM. With just a little tweaking it will nearly always plop out a reasonable, though not optimal, mix when used 24dB-to-the-floor in that manner.)

The "veiled" thing was definitely a problem for me as well until I learned that A) the presets represent very extreme settings and B) how to properly capture a spectrum. Spectrum capture is not as straightforward as the single button you push to achieve it would lead you to believe. The best thing to do, which I learned in an email exchange with Paul (and which Paul should emblazon in red letters across the top of the DSM website), is to set the attack to its fastest setting, the release to its slowest setting, set all other parameters to neutral/inactive, and to push and hold the capture button for the duration of a passage with max volume and roughly maximal high-frequency material. Then set attack/release and the other parameters to taste. Doing all of these things should provide you with a smooth, unveiled high end at the proper settings.

It's also nice on individual tracks. I love it for bass guitar control and vox parallel comp in certain contexts.

Regarding the "different frequency profiles in different song segments" issue, I agree that to achieve the most convenient possible use of DSM, it would be helpful to have the ability to trigger chained frequency morphs to different presets during playback, similar to Flux's A/B morph feature in Solera. However, there's nothing stopping you from just doing this manually by merging differently processed soundbites. Also, all slider and knob parameters are automatable, and in many cases that's good enough.

Like every dynamics processor yet invented, you won't use DSM in every situation. But it is very flexible, more so than most dynamics processors. I think that fact as well as its unique mechanism make it non-trivial but worthwhile to learn.

[cloudsplitter]

Yes..jloeb, I haven't given up on DSM yet...just frustrated because so far I haven't had wow moment with it..that's not to say there isn't one...just not one that I have found...so I will keep at it. David, keep us posted on the slate digital thing if you could....I'm curious to see if you get it working......one can't have to many tools in the tool box. !!

[rainmaker]

I have to say that I own almost all of the plugs suggested here. I own Waves Mercury so I have all of the Waves limiters and they're very good. I love Ozone as well and use certain modules out of it for mastering. But my go-to limiter and my absolute favorite is the Universal Audio Precision Limiter. It is a wonderful limiter that is extremely transparent even under extreme limiting. With that said, most of the suggestions here are valid. I suggest you download and try the demos and try them for yourself. You already have the UAD limiter as a demo and you can download the Waves versions easily enough.

[David Polich]

I have to chime in and say i'm not sure naysayers of DSM really understand the specifics of how it works and therefore how to use it. To be fair though, I think Paul Frindle really could (and should) help to alleviate this problem by providing more in-depth, detailed videos on the real-world usage of this plug. It is a very different beast whose technical mechanism is, as far as I understand it, entirely unique. Just for starters, its EQ is not really an EQ: its effect has as much or more to to with the capture, threshold, knee, attack and release settings as it does with how much you crank the knobs. It modifies the frequency capture curve, not the output signal. For that reason, it doesn't work like Ozone's matching EQ and similar products, and you can't expect to use it that way.

DSM can be as subtle /transparent as you like. If it's doing something to your signal in soft passages and you don't want it to, then your settings are too extreme. You're forgiven for that by default though, because nearly every one of the presets included with DSM are extreme settings. They are intended either as starting points to back off from (usually way off), or, for a quick, last minute fatigued-ears-hail-mary-save-my-butt-6AM-scratch-mix-to-client type of usage. (I would point out that in that situation, there is nothing like DSM. With just a little tweaking it will nearly always plop out a reasonable, though not optimal, mix when used 24dB-to-the-floor in that manner.)

The "veiled" thing was definitely a problem for me as well until I learned that A) the presets represent very extreme settings and B) how to properly capture a spectrum. Spectrum capture is not as straightforward as the single button you push to achieve it would lead you to believe. The best thing to do, which I learned in an email exchange with Paul (and which Paul should emblazon in red letters across the top of the DSM website), is to set the attack to its fastest setting, the release to its slowest setting, set all other parameters to neutral/inactive, and to push and hold the capture button for the duration of a passage with max volume and roughly maximal high-frequency material. Then set attack/release and the other parameters to taste. Doing all of these things should provide you with a smooth, unveiled high end at the proper settings.

It's also nice on individual tracks. I love it for bass guitar control and vox parallel comp in certain contexts.

Regarding the "different frequency profiles in different song segments" issue, I agree that to achieve the most convenient possible use of DSM, it would be helpful to have the ability to trigger chained frequency morphs to different presets during playback, similar to Flux's A/B morph feature in Solera. However, there's nothing stopping you from just doing this manually by merging differently processed soundbites. Also, all slider and knob parameters are automatable, and in many cases that's good enough.

Like every dynamics processor yet invented, you won't use DSM in every situation. But it is very flexible, more so than most dynamics processors. I think that fact as well as its unique mechanism make it non-trivial but worthwhile to learn.

Yes, well, see, there's the thing. DSM isn't intuitive, and why would the presets all be "extreme" settings anyway? Sorry, that's just dumb. Presets
should be the best that the programmers can come up with that work well right away, not "extreme examples". The parameter values you listed aren't
in the user manual for the product - why not? If the EQ section isn't really
EQ, then it should be labeled something else. Personally, I think this product is a clear case of something that went to market before it was "soup".

Maybe after a steep learning period you can get good results. I'm not a fan of anything with a steep learning curve, though. And second, I still think
that DSM does nothing that automated multi-band compressors and EQ's (and a pair of good "ears") can't already do.

I'm a sound designer/programmer, and over the last thirty years I've sussed out my fair share of difficult-to-decipher systems including experimental
waveguide synths that were developed by Yamaha but never released. If the way a plug-in works is beyond my comprehension, I have to draw the line
and say I don't want to bother with it, no matter how well conceived it might be.

[newrigel]

Get a million $$ room and you'll be set!
Mastering is an art form and better left to such. I have sent stems to guys claiming they could master and then sent it off to someone who does it as a profession and there's no comparison... Ozone can make a nice master mix but I'd go with a dedicated ME with the dedicated environment and tools needed for true mastering.

[David Polich]

Get a million $$ room and you'll be set!
Mastering is an art form and better left to such. I have sent stems to guys claiming they could master and then sent it off to someone who does it as a profession and there's no comparison... Ozone can make a nice master mix but I'd go with a dedicated ME with the dedicated environment and tools needed for true mastering.

+1, totally.

Sadly, we all get clients who just don't have budget for mastering. So we
have to do it ourselves.Or we don't have time - someone says they need
a cue tomorrow morning, or a different version of your song for the tv show
they've submitted it to, you can't get someone pro to master it right away.
You have to do it yourself.

Every mastering engineer I've spent time with has said basically the same
thing - "I thought, well, it can't be that hard." They all started where we did. Truth is, mastering isn't that hard.
It does take time and trial-and-error, but anyone with the desire and judgement and skills can learn it. I get better results now with Ozone 4
than I did last year with it - and it's the same program.

That said, if I get the budget and the opportunity, I'd always prefer
someone else do the mastering.

[jloeb]

Yes, well, see, there's the thing. DSM isn't intuitive, and why would the presets all be "extreme" settings anyway? Sorry, that's just dumb. Presets
should be the best that the programmers can come up with that work well right away, not "extreme examples".

You know that's not totally fair; this is a dynamics processor. The whole idea of 'presets' for things like compressors is dumb to start with, but people still want them anyway. In the case of DSM, I think this problem was handled as well as it could be. The presets are 'extreme' in the sense that the threshold is way down and the gain way up. But this makes sense, because when you're auditioning presets in DSM, what you want to hear and compare is the influence of the particular frequency curve that preset has on your material, and you can't clearly hear that without forcing your material into the curve with a low threshold.

As you know, one of the time-honored ways of starting out when setting a compressor on a track is to set the threshold way down so you can clearly hear the influence of the attack/release/ratio settings. You aren't going to leave it that way, it's just for the purpose of getting immediate clarity about what the settings do. Same thing here. It would be really annoying if every time you flipped to a new preset in DSM, you had to drop the threshold/raise the gain yourself.

Now, do I think this should have been more clearly explained in the documentation? Yeah probably. Frindle seems to assume a fair amount of specific conceptual knowledge about what's going on with this plug, and while he does sort of sketch it out for you generally, he needs to provide more concrete examples to really make it clear how to use it.

The parameter values you listed aren't
in the user manual for the product - why not? If the EQ section isn't really
EQ, then it should be labeled something else. Personally, I think this product is a clear case of something that went to market before it was "soup".

Those parameters definitely should be in the manual. This product is like a lot of other poorly documented geek-catnip: cutting edge, but you need to thrash around a bit and/or really think hard about what the dev is trying to accomplish in order to understand it. It's a good thing though that Paul Frindle is very willing to communicate about the product by email.

Yeah the EQ should be named something slightly different, but what would he call it? "Band-limited threshold curve modifier" would take up a lot of screen real estate. "EQ-ish" might work. To be fair, the way the EQ section operates *is* explained in the documentation, which is the only reason I know it; I would never have figured that out on my own.

I think that the product itself is "soup." It's the documentation that is lacking.

Maybe after a steep learning period you can get good results. I'm not a fan of anything with a steep learning curve, though. And second, I still think
that DSM does nothing that automated multi-band compressors and EQ's (and a pair of good "ears") can't already do.

Nope, can't agree with that. Maybe wickedly fast and transparent automated multiband compressors, EQs, transient designers, all appropriately side-chained, phase locked parallel comp, and a great pair of ears. But nothing I've seen can squash/inflate a mix while apparently leaving all your transients intact and hairy like this thing does - with a single slider.

Learning how, when, and how much to use that capability artfully is another matter. But there is definitely a "there" there.

I'm a sound designer/programmer, and over the last thirty years I've sussed out my fair share of difficult-to-decipher systems including experimental
waveguide synths that were developed by Yamaha but never released. If the way a plug-in works is beyond my comprehension, I have to draw the line
and say I don't want to bother with it, no matter how well conceived it might be.

I know who you are, and people listen to you on this forum (I certainly do), which is why I think you maybe would want to be a little careful about trashing a new product like this one. I think you just got impatient with this thing which works in an entirely new way and is not all that well explained by its developer. But I think it's a promising technology and will go in very interesting directions before long. Talk to Paul if you have any time or interest.

[newrigel]

It's impossible to have a room designed well for mixing to be well designed for mastering unless you have like I said, a million dollar room designed specifically for that. The funny thing is, the end product usually ends up in MP3 format on a portable device so it's irrelevant in that case. If you release uncompressed content for motion pictures, CD 24 or surround, an ME is worth their weight in gold.

[David Polich]

I'm a sound designer/programmer, and over the last thirty years I've sussed out my fair share of difficult-to-decipher systems including experimental
waveguide synths that were developed by Yamaha but never released. If the way a plug-in works is beyond my comprehension, I have to draw the line
and say I don't want to bother with it, no matter how well conceived it might be.

I know who you are, and people listen to you on this forum (I certainly do), which is why I think you maybe would want to be a little careful about trashing a new product like this one. I think you just got impatient with this thing which works in an entirely new way and is not all that well explained by its developer. But I think it's a promising technology and will go in very interesting directions before long. Talk to Paul if you have any time or interest.

Alright, fair enough. My interest is gone, however. I'm not that impatient,
but there is something amiss with a product that basically requires you to
contact the developer for an explanation of how it actually works. Maybe Paul will rewrite the manual for "idiots" - that would be very helpful. "DSM for Dummies".

[toodamnhip]

Get a million $$ room and you'll be set!
Mastering is an art form and better left to such. I have sent stems to guys claiming they could master and then sent it off to someone who does it as a profession and there's no comparison... Ozone can make a nice master mix but I'd go with a dedicated ME with the dedicated environment and tools needed for true mastering.

The mastering engineer that won a grammy last yr, and is my mastering engineer doesn't have a million dollar room at all. Just a few tricks to make a surprisingly basic "business park" suite with brick and normal heat insulation walls, ,,,sound good.

Just an interesting factoid....

[toodamnhip]

I'm a sound designer/programmer, and over the last thirty years I've sussed out my fair share of difficult-to-decipher systems including experimental
waveguide synths that were developed by Yamaha but never released. If the way a plug-in works is beyond my comprehension, I have to draw the line
and say I don't want to bother with it, no matter how well conceived it might be.

I know who you are, and people listen to you on this forum (I certainly do), which is why I think you maybe would want to be a little careful about trashing a new product like this one. I think you just got impatient with this thing which works in an entirely new way and is not all that well explained by its developer. But I think it's a promising technology and will go in very interesting directions before long. Talk to Paul if you have any time or interest.

Alright, fair enough. My interest is gone, however. I'm not that impatient,
but there is something amiss with a product that basically requires you to
contact the developer for an explanation of how it actually works. Maybe Paul will rewrite the manual for "idiots" - that would be very helpful. "DSM for Dummies".

I too gave up on this product, but after reading the back and forth exchanges you two have had, I think i have to side with Jloeb.

I think this product definitely does do something new and exciting and that David, it is not correct to say that this product does what any good multi can do...
No way...

it does things totally differently and it does things that a multi cannot do..period!! That dos not mean you can;t skip this product and handle a mix with a multi..of course you could.

This product just takes work and is a bit hard to use until you "get it"....and obviously, neither of us "David's" got it!!!

I ditched it too..

But the examples online by the designer do indeed sound great and do indeed do something no other product does...
Perhaps there is one point you are right about David...when you say it is not "soup" yet.

It is "SOUP" in that it is an early version of a genius product...but, like all new ideas, it needs many generations to become EASY SOUP....lol....
I think we gotta give this guy an applause for starting this new way of compressing a mix...

Even though I was another guy who gave up on the program, i did see it was a genuis program and might re examine it when it has been made a little more dummy proof....lol

[dogBoy]

Dynamic Spectrum Mapper..... I've got to try this thing.
It looks similar to the Sonikisis dynamic compressor.
Good introduction video for it.

[dogBoy]

Checked it out.... I'd say with 2 minutes I felt this is a very good product.
I think of it as a 20,000 band limiter/compressor, I don't know how many points of the spectrum it actually analyzes, could be 20k... sure makes a mix sound cohesive.