How reliable is this plug as a Mastering reference?

[FMiguelez]

Hello, everyone.

I've noticed that I'm tending to mix my tracks on the Bass-heavy side. A bit too much. After intense A/B comparissons between my tracks and similar reference ones, it becomes even more obvious...
I "discovered" this PAZ analizer (from Waves) burried deep down in my plugs. It seems really great, AND EXTREMELY informative. It reads me that I'm having some low frequencies too loud, mostly from 20Hz to 60Hz.
I'm applying that plug at the very end of the other plugs (Q4 and L2) on the master channel, so it will change as I change the EQ.
Applying that PAZ plug to a professionaly masterd similar-sounding track, shows that those freqs are really in the -40 to -20 dBs area. Mine are way up!
So, how seriously should I take this plug? Can I use it as a valid reference? So far, it has SCREAMED a few secrets to my face.

I know I need to get a better monitoring system, and I need to revise my room's accoustics. But, for the time being, what do you think?

All I've said is in the mastering phase of things. I wish I could just have a mastering engineer master ALL my tracks EVERY time, but more often than not there's just not enough budget and not enough time.
Anyway, by messing with the eq or the C4 until I get a similar reading to a reference track, things seem to improve, but I'm afraid I'm too focused on the BASS now.

Anyone uses it on a regular basis? How seriously do you take it?

Thank you so much for your expert advise.

Cheers,

Fernando

[Splinter]

I don't use PAZ though I have it, but it is a valuable tool and should be reliable for you. For mastering you want to watch the average, non-peak line. I personal use EAS Inspector XL which is far superior and precise, but PAZ is works fine. You do need to watch that low 40 to 60Hz range and things can get really heavy without you knowing it iff your monitors/room do not accurately reflect what is happening down there. PAZ can really help with that.

[FMiguelez]

.

Thanks, Splinter.

I personal use EAS Inspector XL which is far superior and precise

Who makes this plug? I'd like to check it out.

Cheers.

[Shooshie]

Elemental Audio Systems made the plugin. Roger Nichols sells it now. Sells it for a lot more than EAS used to sell it for.

Shooshie

[Obscure Object]

Hello, everyone.

I've noticed that I'm tending to mix my tracks on the Bass-heavy side. A bit too much. After intense A/B comparissons between my tracks and similar reference ones, it becomes even more obvious...
I "discovered" this PAZ analizer (from Waves) burried deep down in my plugs. It seems really great, AND EXTREMELY informative. It reads me that I'm having some low frequencies too loud, mostly from 20Hz to 60Hz.
I'm applying that plug at the very end of the other plugs (Q4 and L2) on the master channel, so it will change as I change the EQ.
Applying that PAZ plug to a professionaly masterd similar-sounding track, shows that those freqs are really in the -40 to -20 dBs area. Mine are way up!
So, how seriously should I take this plug? Can I use it as a valid reference? So far, it has SCREAMED a few secrets to my face.

I know I need to get a better monitoring system, and I need to revise my room's accoustics. But, for the time being, what do you think?

Fernando

I believe that on most of the professionally mastered recordings you'll find that the 20hz - 50/60hz range is being cut or shelved in order to be able to get higher overall levels. So I believe there's nothing wrong with PAZ.

[jrdmcdnld]

I'd like to add OZONE to this thread. It has pretty good analyzing capability. You can choose real time, 3 sec, 5, 10 or infinate (average) sample times. It'll even match eq with your favorite songs. I wouldn't use that last feature, but it gives you a good direction to start moving in.

[David Polich]

It's a mark of Jedi advancement when one finally decides one day to run their audio through a meter, PAZ, Inspector, Ozone or anything else.

You're on the right track. Yes, you can trust PAZ. I believe it has an "average" option (I'm using Ozone for metering now, I haven't used PAZ in awhile).

[bigz203]

There is a free version of inspector available by roger nichols.

[Splinter]

There is a free version of inspector available by roger nichols.

Gee, what a generous guy.

Sorry, I couldn't resist the sarcasm.

[Tim]

I believe that on most of the professionally mastered recordings you'll find that the 20hz - 50/60hz range is being cut or shelved in order to be able to get higher overall levels. So I believe there's nothing wrong with PAZ.

While mixing I cut that stuff from tracks that don't need it (indv. or via sub mstrs.). It really clears the way for tracks that do need it.

[Billster]

I believe that on most of the professionally mastered recordings you'll find that the 20hz - 50/60hz range is being cut or shelved in order to be able to get higher overall levels. So I believe there's nothing wrong with PAZ.

While mixing I cut that stuff from tracks that don't need it (indv. or via sub mstrs.). It really clears the way for tracks that do need it.

Which brings up two things:

#1 - High-passing the tracks to clear unneccesary low end is really important in the digital domain, where stuff that tape never captured is preserved in 1's and 0's.

#2 - Low frequencies eat up headroom faster than high frequencies.

OTOH, most commercial pop releases these days have such limited dynamic range, they aren't effective references for good sounding recordings. google "volume wars" and beat a dead horse

[FMiguelez]

OTOH, most commercial pop releases these days have such limited dynamic range, they aren't effective references for good sounding recordings. google "volume wars" and beat a dead horse

I totally know what you mean. I've been playing lots of kifferent older and more modern professionaly mastered songs to get a feel of what they look/sound like. I was soooooo surprised to see that a lot of stuff done in the 80's and early 90's was not so squashed as tracks from this past years. I was checking a few tracks by Sugar Cubes, and most of their stuff has lots of headroom. It peaks at around -2dBs, most of the time beng around -5dBs. Other tracks, like the Matrix Soundtracks are so hot that the meters almost seem to stick ALL the way up! When the rhythm tracks are playing all the way up there, I'm like "the orchestra is comming now. Where is it gonna fit?" But it does fit. Somehow... I wish I could make mine sound so good, though

It's a mark of Jedi advancement when one finally decides one day to run their audio through a meter, PAZ, Inspector, Ozone or anything else.

You're on the right track. Yes, you can trust PAZ. I believe it has an "average" option (I'm using Ozone for metering now, I haven't used PAZ in awhile).

I'm SO glad to hear this! My mixes are just beginning to sound better, without all that ultralow stuff downthere. I know this is just a first step (out of hundreds) on the right path to great sounding-mixes. I've been checking these "corrected" mixes of mine in many different systems, and it's better already. I really hate it when the bass sounds all woofy and blurred and exagerated. I don't know why it took me so long!

While mixing I cut that stuff from tracks that don't need it (indv. or via sub mstrs.). It really clears the way for tracks that do need it.

Exactly. This is the best way, during the mix stage. I just rolled of those low frequencies in some taiko tracks I had, and it cleared the mix so much. I also did that to the bass track, and I almost didn't have to touch the final master. Man, I feel like a 6 year old kid with a new toy.

So, where do this extra low frequencies come from anyway? I mean, I have a mix with an orchestra. If the double basses lowest notes are E or low C, the freqs are around 40 or so Hz, right? So where do this below-20 Hz freqs come from? Are they some kind of sub-fundamental thing?

Also, when I listen to the typicaly "cinematic" bass, man, it just rumbles. So, what happens with this freqs that rumble, but don't sound muddy? It's like they are felt and heard, but they don't sound muddy at all. No matter where you play them, they sound great, be it in the car, in the leaving room or in the studio.

How do you guys achieve that sound?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Fernando

[davedempsey]

Hi Fernado,
Your last question opens up an entire subject for study.
To start very simply: when you look at a resonating string, say low E on a guitar because it's very easy to see, you'll notice the movement is not so much the entire string length but rather smaller oscillations associated with the harmonic nodes. This reveals the major reality of audible frequencies - the energy is not so much at the audible frequency but rather is concentrated in the upper harmonic partials. This is true for all sounds - the frequency you hear is created by the downward pressure of the harmonic overtones. Distorting these harmonics by adding or subtracting energy changes the tone or timbre but not the fundamental frequency.
So, quite simply, an audible low frequency has very little energy at the fundamental and most of the energy in the first ten upper partials. In the case of a 100 cycle note most of the energy is at 200, 300, 400, 500 etc.
Have a look at how Waves Maxxbass works. Have a look at fourier analysis and the physics of musical instruments. Have a look at the way our ears work - mechanics. The way a speaker system works - also mechanical.
When you start to apply this theoretical stuff to the way you apply eq and compression you can make the low energy more audible and also control the speaker movement more efficiently.
Dig in - it's a very useful study.
Cheers,
Dave

[FMiguelez]

Hey Davedempsey. Thanks for your reply. But why do I think I heard somewhere that sometimes there are also harmonics created below the fundamental? I understand the upper overtones, but am I mistaken regarding the one below the actual fundamental? Or this just happens as the result of combining more complex textures within a piece?

Anyway, what benefits would getting a subwoofer offer? I mean, if I HAD one already, would I have been able to more readily notice this mud in my mixes, or would it have just embellished the mud and misguide me more?

Most of the stuff I do is like film scroing stuff. Is the subwoofer needed for this, or is it mostly for dance, rock etc.

I saw a dynaudio system that has one... It's expensive, but it seems to sound awesome...

What do you think?

Saludos.

[davedempsey]

Yes to a subwoofer - I wouldn't mix anything without one. How can you make good decisions if you're not hearing what's happenning?
Re. the combination of complex textures creating tones, consider this: the classic three piece rock outfit, well miked up through a big PA system - all three players on the edge, going for it - relentless pressure with no-one else to cover for you. This sounds so great because of the accidental audio events, the harmonic contribution of the sound system itself as everything smashes together. I love three piece rock - always almost out of control but the fun is keeping it together and chaotic at the same time - lets the magic happen.
Isolate a bass guitar track and it's a lot brighter and kind of broken around the edges - doesn't sound like that in the mix.
You have to listen to tracks solo and in context to make good mix decisions.
Dynaudio is great product. So's the Adam stuff. Any subwoofer, even a cheap one, is better than no subwoofer.