hardware mastering processor

[wilkinsi]

There are still hardware mastering processors out there by Drawmer and TC Electronic, etc. Would they work OK using the hardware insert in Digital Performer, or are they only supposed to be used between hardware mixers and recorders?

[EMRR]

Digital in/out, sure, but I don't feel there are any like that which would have any advantage over software until (possibly) you get into extremely expensive hardware.

[dwilliams]

+1
In fact, I think you can literally but the TC Electronic finalizer algorithms as plugins. I mean if you have one lying around, sure and it's always nice to have more knobs and buttons.

You would be better off putting something across your 2-bus. I use a Tegeler Audio Creme but there are so many options, many reasonably priced. You don't need a Neve or SSL to add some sauce.

[James Steele]

Yeah... what others have said. If something is a digital hardware device, then what it does may likely already have been duplicated by a plugin, and probably better. Where it may make a difference is with hardware units that operate in the analog domain. There's some debate about this, but I feel personally that some analog outboard can add some mojo and impart something a plugin just quite doesn't. I now pretty much keep an Audioscape Buss Comp on my main stereo buss via a Hardware Insert plugin.

I should say, though, that the differences will of course be slight...

[HCMarkus]

In a word: Ozone.

[daniel.sneed]

In a word: Ozone.

That's my word, too.
IMHO, difference between processors are much more about your knowledge and experience with them (hard and soft).
Listening and tweaking many different projects will make you an expert, but will sure take time.
BTW, before any mastering task, you must be totally confident with your listening conditions (monitoring speakers, room acoustic, fine tuning speaker eq, sweet spot in listening position, spl levels, fresh ears, ...). This may include a serious learning curve too.

[bayswater]

In a word: Ozone.

Would you have anything to add to what dAn said in his reply? I ask because I had Ozone (and Alloy) back at V2. I used it a bit, never took to it. It didn’t seem to do much that wasn’t done easier with simpler plugins. I didn’t a lot of effort into learning it, so maybe I should update it and have another look.

[James Steele]

In a word: Ozone.

I am by no means a mastering engineer but I get passable results with Ozone 11 and letting it "learn" what it "hears"... although I run through my hardware buss comp first set to very subtle "sweet spot" setting... (30ms attack, 0.1 release, 2:1 Ratio)... just adjusting the threshold and sometimes the sidechain, and then I let Ozone learn "downstream" from the buss comp.

I also found I don't really like Ozone's "Imager" module or whatever it is... so I'll disable that and put something like Softube Widener or DJ Swivel Spread after Ozone for a very tiny bit more stereo width.

[daniel.sneed]

Long ago, I've red Bob Katz's book "Mastering audio, the art and the science", from cover to cover (was first edition, back in the days).
Today, it's still on my desk, beside my daw tools.

[HCMarkus]

As of late, I've been using Ozone's EQ, Multi-Band Compressor (light touch if any) and Maximizer, but I'm typically mastering my own mixes, usually with the project live, so changes can be made at the mix level and I don't need to doll stuff up with the mastering plugins. Ozone's Maximizer is, IMO, very effective at squashing mixes without destroying them.

On occasion, little leveling from Waves Max Volume ahead of Ozone keeps dynamic range under control.

I use Waves Loudness Meter (WLM) last in the chain (nice big readings) to keep an eye on levels.

I do not use the Ozone mastering assistant, but maybe I should...

[James Steele]

I use Waves Loudness Meter (WLM) last in the chain (nice big readings) to keep an eye on levels.

You know... there was a time when I felt complete confident uploading WAV files to TuneCore (had to mention them because the generic words for these services like TuneCore and DistroKid always escapes me) and I would just make them pretty hot and make sure no overs. Now from what I understand you can't really do that and it's all about LUFS. So now I'm timid about uploading my stuff. I have no pressing need, but there's a gaping hole in my knowledge now on how to deal with that.

[HCMarkus]

I would just make them pretty hot and make sure no overs. Now from what I understand you can't really do that and it's all about LUFS.

Here's my take: I make my masters as loud as I can while still sounding "right."

What we don't want to do is squash masters to death because the streaming services will just turn our lifeless, over-compressed mixes down so they sound (as perceived by humans) at approximately the same level as the service's perceived loudness goal, measured in LUFS (Loudness Unit Full Scale). Any energy generated as a result of the volume added by over compressing and limiting is lost to the streaming services' loudness algorithms.

I haven't checked lately but, IIRC, Apple recommended LUFS is -16 and Spotify -14. I believe these are Long Term LUFS values, but the actual algorithm used to determine loudness by each service is not known to me.

And there is an important caveat: "Loudness Normalization" (Spotify) and "Sound Check" (Apple Music) are user defeatable. As such, even for masters aimed at streaming, there is value in mastering to a level that is typical for the genre of the music being mastered. If a user has loudness normalization turned off and your music is not mastered at a "competitive" level, yours will sound softer than others in the genre. Also, unless you are creating separate masters for CD or other format releases, you will can run into the same "competitive volume" issue. You want to be in the ballpark with other music in your genre.

When using Spotify or Apple Music as my reference, I compare my masters to other similar music with loudness normalization defeated to make sure I am in the volume ballpark. With normalization enabled, my master may be reduced in volume if my levels exceed the service's loudness goal, but its quality will not be compromised. Aiming for the streaming service's loudness goal with one's master is important only if the music requires broad dynamic range, which a lot of rock and pop do not require. The (at least somewhat) squashed "mastered" sound is an important part of the sound of many genres. Just don't overdo it!

For more detail, this article at Sweetwater explains all of this nicely: https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/what- ... ld-i-care/

[BKK-OZ]

Thanks to this interesting discussion, I poked around the internet a bit to look at metering (not so much limiting, more just metering).

I came across this plugin from Youlean.
I know almost zero about the topic and Youlean, but I can report that I successfully downloaded, installed, and have run the (freebie) release candidate version of their metering plugin. Seems slick and fully featured. (But I dunno much about this topic.)

I am running DP 11.32 on Monterey (12.7.4).

I can also report their 'Pro' version is currently on sale (until September 15) for $29.

https://youlean.co/youlean-loudness-meter/

[dwilliams]

IMHO, mastering to a LUFS target is a terrible mistake. I know there are some engineers and content creators that agree with this (reference Colt Capperrune and MixBusTV YouTube videos on this subject). First of all, these thresholds aren't standardized, nor are they set in stone and some services and users don't even use the normalization. The streamed result can sound wimpy. I don't think you should even have a loudness or dynamic range target (although I think TP should be -0.3 dB and LUFS above -6 is kind of pushing it). Make the master sound as good as possible and as loud as possible without over compressing and/or over limiting.

[HCMarkus]

Make the master sound as good as possible and as loud as possible without over compressing and/or over limiting.

Exactly.