Best Mastering Plug-In

[James Steele]

Okay... you guys will suspect me, but I'm not shilling for Slate, but I wanna post a link to this topic:

http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... 26&t=49555

Try the FG-X demo... I think many of you will be pleased. Especially if doing harder rock or metal genres.

[jnunally]

Excellent recommendation. I like it.

Jim

Okay. Try this sweetie. Stillwells Event Horizon.

I got plenty of plugins, but this one is an all time high favorite.
It makes things louder, naturally LOUDER.. sweetening louder.. with warmth!!!

You can use the evaluation version for free and buy it later for 39 dollars if you fall in love with it, like I did.



http://www.stillwellaudio.com/?page_id=16

Stillwell got plenty of other great plugins. Plz Check these out too!

[Kubi]

A big +1 on using the trim plug to peak the mix *well* below 0dB. Most common mistake in digital mixing is leaving too little headroom. I mix for an average level of around -18dB, highest peaks end up being around -6dB this way. Once the mix is done, either I or my mastering engineer take it to the level it needs to go. So much more space and room to breathe in the mixes this way.

This sounds great, but I have a really basic question... is there any way to REALLY know exact levels in DP, or do I need certain plug-ins to tell what my average (RMS?) and peak levels are? I've been around long enough to remember calibrating analog equipment, and I'm fairly careful with gain staging in DP so I end up with appropriately loud and clear mixes, but it's always a little mystifying when I'm interpreting levels between DP meters, Ozone meters, Central Station meters, etc. Maybe I'm just being lazy and not calibrating as much as I should, but I sure wouldn't mind having a little more certainty that what I see on my various meters is real.

"Calibrating" within DP itself is fairly easy - you don't really have to. Trim plug will tell you peaks, and any third party plug-in will tell you anything else you want to know. Within DP there really are no "levels", just how much (mathematical) resolution you have to spare. Not counting any plug-ins, it's almost impossible to overdrive a signal inside DP, since 32bit float will dynamically allocate headroom til the cows come home. Per Magic Dave's suggestion I once took a track, cranked it well beyond the red using a trim plug, then took the level back down with another trim plug on the master buss, bam, pristine audio in the end.

BUT: In practice this doesn't really apply, because even when staying within DP, many plug-ins will distort the signal for good when overdriven, i.e. VI outputs usually do. And of course with the printed files at 24bits resolution is very finite. So in practice, considering I have 24bits when printing and basically infinite resolution (or rather, 32bit float, which is a "shiftable" 24bit resolution) inside DP, I simply make sure I never let any peak on the master buss go higher than -6dB or -8dB MAX, which means when mixing individual tracks I usually don't let those peak higher than -16 to -12dB or even lower. When I *record* individual tracks to disk, I usually peak a hair higher than that (since I'm printing to 24bits), but even there I'd rather be safe - nothing wrong with leaving 10dB headroom.

As for calibrating the external meters, that's a different story. I guess that really depends on the unit? I ignore the meters on the 2408 for the most part. So when I need to know my levels going into the computer, my Lucid AD9624 tells me the digital output very exactly, so this simply means I'm good if I stay nicely way below 0dB. Plus a trim plug on the receiving track will remember the peak level when I record, if I need to double-check. Once inside DP, levels are digital and therefore absolute. So my elemental audio inspector tells me all about levels I need to know.

[waitsongs]

Thanks everyone for another bunch of useful information. Where I get into trouble most often is not planning for the extra headroom I'll need once plugins are added. Maybe I'll adopt some level "standards" early in the mix process like Kubi and Armageddon were kind enough to explain, and this will prevent the occasional need to lower all my levels halfway through the mix. Then again, perhaps the collision of art and science that defines audio mixing will never be truly predictable... at least until I get EZMix!

[mhschmieder]

I second Kubi's headroom recommendations. When I went to those standards a few years ago, my mixes improved markedly, and mixing also became easier and more precise as I rarely ever have to use much trim on the stems anymore -- this also means I have one more digit of precision since I'm well below -10 dB trim on the mix faders.

[Armageddon]

Okay... you guys will suspect me, but I'm not shilling for Slate, but I wanna post a link to this topic:

http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... 26&t=49555

Try the FG-X demo... I think many of you will be pleased. Especially if doing harder rock or metal genres.

Not at all! I messed with the FG-X demo a while back (frustratingly, no presets and limited features, but I understand why) and it's definitely at the top end of the spectrum for mastering plugs. The meters alone are probably worth it!

Thanks everyone for another bunch of useful information. Where I get into trouble most often is not planning for the extra headroom I'll need once plugins are added. Maybe I'll adopt some level "standards" early in the mix process like Kubi and Armageddon were kind enough to explain, and this will prevent the occasional need to lower all my levels halfway through the mix. Then again, perhaps the collision of art and science that defines audio mixing will never be truly predictable... at least until I get EZMix!

The main problem I figured out early on is, there's no such thing as a "good preset", especially for mastering. My first mastering plug was Prosoniq Dynasone, which even came with an "Automix" feature that supposedly analyzed your mix and adjusted its multiband comp-limiter to a certain style ("Rock", "Orchestral", etc.), and I subsequently turned out some really awful masters. The best thing you can do is to get your mix as finished-sounding as possible, then add as little on your mastering chain as you can get away with. Most of the time (in theory, anyway), you should be able to just add a limiter with about a -4 dB threshold and a -.03 output and call it a day. Everything else you add will alter your mix in some way.

[dpg4macman]

My mastering bus consist of MWEQ + DP Leveler, MW Limiter, Ozone4

[daniel.sneed]

My mastering bus consist of MWEQ + DP Leveler, MW Limiter, Ozone4

Nearly the same here:
prefader : Trim + MWEQ + DP Leveler + MW comp + MW gate
postfader : Ozone 5

Some plugins are mostly bypassed, such as trim and MW gate, but get some use, though.

Of course, I have built a few startup presets (global and individual) and I am quite fast and efficient with them, thru some little tweaking.

[Armageddon]

Nearly the same here:
prefader : Trim + MWEQ + DP Leveler + MW comp + MW gate
postfader : Ozone 5

Some plugins are mostly bypassed, such as trim and MW gate, but get some use, though.

Of course, I have built a few startup presets (global and individual) and I am quite fast and efficient with them, thru some little tweaking.

It's weird that, as time goes on, the sound of just one end-all mastering plug doesn't seem like it's enough. I started out with T-RackS (the original) and Dynasone, then, just T-RackS, then, Ozone 4, then, I started cobbling together a mastering chain from various sources. "Waves has the best limiters, Ozone has the best DC Offset, T-RackS 3 has the best mastering EQ, etc." I still need to find a decent compressor, though. PSP's MasterComp is the closest I've found to date for what I'm looking for, but I'm beginning to suspect that having a compressor on my mastering chain at all is turning into a bad idea. Even the allegedly transparent ones have a tendency to push everything into your face.

[HCMarkus]

My home/half-baked mastering chain is:

A good, balanced mix first!
Light touch of Waves C4 multi band compressor;
Waves Renaissance EQ (allows independent EQ of left and right channels - occasionally very handy);
Waves L1 for limiting and dither.

Better to master someplace other than where the mix was done...

[Armageddon]

I agree! Anything in the mastering chain should be as little as possible -- anything over a dB of added Q is probably too much and any compression that pushes your mix too far forward from what it sounded like with the compressor off is too much. Unfortunately, limiting is a necessary evil in these times, but it's definitely easy to go too far there, as well. Anything other than overall "final" volume can usually be fixed in the mix itself.

[Dan Worley]

One thing to consider not limiting your choices about is which device(s) or plug-in(s) to use to push the mix's levels up, before the final comp and limiter. (This is assuming there's some room to push anything.)

It doesn't have to be the gain of a perfectly clean Trim plug, or the limiter's threshold or the mastering comp's make-up gain. It can be whatever you like the sound of when you run the signal through it and increase the gain. Something with color and character that might be lacking in the mix, for whatever reason. Or something that adds to the overall tonal aesthetic of the entire album that the mix engineers just couldn't wrap their minds around when doing the individual mixes. Just something that sounds better or different or, you know... good. It can be 12 different things, as far as that goes. Okay, I'm exaggerating to make the point.

In mastering, going from level-A of a mix to level-B before the final comp and limiter can be quite an adventure in sound.

[Armageddon]

One thing to consider not limiting your choices about is which device(s) or plug-in(s) to use to push the mix's levels up, before the final comp and limiter. (This is assuming there's some room to push anything.)

It doesn't have to be the gain of a perfectly clean Trim plug, or the limiter's threshold or the mastering comp's make-up gain. It can be whatever you like the sound of when you run the signal through it and increase the gain. Something with color and character that might be lacking in the mix, for whatever reason. Or something that adds to the overall tonal aesthetic of the entire album that the mix engineers just couldn't wrap their minds around when doing the individual mixes. Just something that sounds better or different or, you know... good. It can be 12 different things, as far as that goes. Okay, I'm exaggerating to make the point.

In mastering, going from level-A of a mix to level-B before the final comp and limiter can be quite an adventure in sound.

That's why I usually try to make sure the audio files themselves are recorded (and bear in mind, in my case, I currently just do it all inside the machine through VIs routing directly into DP) as close to 0 dB as possible, then normalized. Obviously, most of you swear by the Trim plug, but I'd rather just have a printed audio file that tops out at 0 dB. For a bona fide plug-in junkie, nine times out of ten, I prefer to just get away with some low cutting (80 Hz for everything that doesn't need any low end) via a two-band ParaEQ, then, see if I can get something to mix right just by getting the volume where I want it. If it's still buried, or if it's not standing out where I think it should be, I'll resort to a compressor. My old method of mixing was just to slap plug-ins on everything, which meant that everything was always either compressed or EQ'd before it even hit the mastering stage. Obviously, that's not solving problems, especially mixing problems.

[Dan Worley]

One thing to consider not limiting your choices about is which device(s) or plug-in(s) to use to push the mix's levels up, before the final comp and limiter. (This is assuming there's some room to push anything.)

It doesn't have to be the gain of a perfectly clean Trim plug, or the limiter's threshold or the mastering comp's make-up gain. It can be whatever you like the sound of when you run the signal through it and increase the gain. Something with color and character that might be lacking in the mix, for whatever reason. Or something that adds to the overall tonal aesthetic of the entire album that the mix engineers just couldn't wrap their minds around when doing the individual mixes. Just something that sounds better or different or, you know... good. It can be 12 different things, as far as that goes. Okay, I'm exaggerating to make the point.

In mastering, going from level-A of a mix to level-B before the final comp and limiter can be quite an adventure in sound.

That's why I usually try to make sure the audio files themselves are recorded (and bear in mind, in my case, I currently just do it all inside the machine through VIs routing directly into DP) as close to 0 dB as possible, then normalized. Obviously, most of you swear by the Trim plug, but I'd rather just have a printed audio file that tops out at 0 dB. For a bona fide plug-in junkie, nine times out of ten, I prefer to just get away with some low cutting (80 Hz for everything that doesn't need any low end) via a two-band ParaEQ, then, see if I can get something to mix right just by getting the volume where I want it. If it's still buried, or if it's not standing out where I think it should be, I'll resort to a compressor. My old method of mixing was just to slap plug-ins on everything, which meant that everything was always either compressed or EQ'd before it even hit the mastering stage. Obviously, that's not solving problems, especially mixing problems.

I've been trying to follow the advice and recommendations of some very knowledgeable and skilled engineers and hardware and DSP designers, who all recommend tracking and mixing at lower levels, -18dBFS with peaks at -8dBFS, as an example. Keeping as close (not absolute) to those levels as possible all the way through the final mix. Then comes the master. There's so many reasons for doing this, but I'm not the right person to explain them. The only reason that matters is, it sounds better.

I've been following this practice "kind of" for quite some time now (years), but old habits die hard and still the levels creep up on me -- especially when tracking. But when it's right, there is a difference in the quality of the final product and I know I have advanced and made improvements.

Ah, but here's the "kind of" part. When I master here (which happens much more nowadays, unfortunately), I like mixing into the mastering chain. I don't like doing the mix and master separately. That's not recommended but it's what I'm the most comfortable with. The big problem with that is, if I want or need to send it out to mastering later on, often times my mix without the mastering chain is just not very good. Oops! That's a big problem that I'm working to correct. Doctor, it hurts when I do this...

[David Polich]

Well, here ya go again - ask a bunch of different mastering engineers, you
get different opinions as to what's "right". Me, I've followed advice given
to me by Nancy Matter of Moonlight Mastering years ago - peaks at -3.00 db
max. Average level, that's another story. A spare jazz trio recording may
give you average levels around 20 db down from where your peaks are, whereas
a smashed, compressed electro-dance track may give you average levels 14 db down from your peaks. Or anything in between - you have to throw up the mix
and run an analysis on it to give your peaks and averages.

For me, usually I aim for peaks of -3.00 db with average level around -21.0
db. That's what most rock and pop mixes I do translate to. Using FG-X as
my mastering limiter, I'll shoot for master with a peak of -0.05 db and an average level of around -11.0 db. I'm leery of running peaks all the way to 0 dbfs but I've seen a lot of masters that peak at 0dbfs (usually hard rock/metal, and dance music).

For sure, though, I never record anything that peaks at 0 db on DP's meters - ever. For me peaks should tap a little above -6 db. I used to track with
peaks tapping 0 db but I found that with multiple tracks that just ate up all my headroom in the mix. It's so easy to still think like you're working
with tape recorders, where you have to print hot. In digital, you really don't have to track that "hot". In the old days of crap digital converters,
you always heard that you had to record close to 0dbfs to get all the "bits". But with improvements in converter technology I don't believe that
is the case anymore.

That said, sometimes you have a short session with a, shall we say, "dynamic" vocalist and you just end up with a track that is near 0db a lot,
and then they run out of money or time and that's what you have to deal with.

I could of course, be wrong - I'm lousy at math. And I don't record using
math, or even watching meters move much. I just listen and if it sounds
good and is not distorting or clipping, then it is good and I don't care if
it's done "wrong". It's the end result, not how you get there, that counts.

Just use what you like, in any order. If you have to do a huge amount of surgical correction, then it's likely you should go back to your mix and fix it there.

Disclaimer - I am not a mastering engineer. I only play one on television.