MASSIVE MASTERING-- Question

[e-are]

Massive Mastering (godfather of this forum) & all alike:
me setup - 4 pc systems/ cubase sx2.2 & 3/ v stack/ uad/ waves/vintech 473/distressor/PEAVEY VCL-2 tube comp/limiter/twin q/ blue mouse & a few other things. i've recently tracked a project that was mixed at sugarhill studios in houston & although my mixes are good,clean & punchy, it doesn't sound as detailed and transparent and as big as sugarhill's. my thought is 2 get a really good converter & it should get me close but not sure if that will do it. i am now deciding on these 3 pieces.

1. audient sumo summing box
2.UA2192 converter
3. big ben

do u believe i'm on the right track?
feedback please---- thanx 4 the reply

 

[Plec]

Don't want to intrude on MASSIVES topic, but I'd like to give my opinion if I may.

IME the stuff that you notice right away when listening to program is in 95% of the time NOT about the gear. I can do a mix with UAD only and there are very few people that will notice the difference right away. It will almost have the same depth, broadness and detail as if I'd mixed it on the high-end analogue setup but just a little less organic and just a tad narrower but still sound really good.

When I listen to stuff that I think sounds awesome, I don't go \"wow, I need (this) gear to get me there\" 'cause I know what the difference will be if I do that. Like, I heard this great production one time and I just HAD to know how it was done, so I did research for about a year on it, even contacting the producer (who was very friendly) and asking him for the exact gear that was used and even certain settings on certain pieces of gear, which he was very willing to share with me. What I found out was that it was recorded on a VERY small budget with home-recording gear in a rehersal room with just a couple of medium front-end devices and a SSL bus compressor at mixdown. I had gear that cost 20 times the setup he had to work with and yet...

The difference today is I understand why it was such a success, and the gear used had little to do with it. Now when I hear something that I really like I just go \"nice, this guy is better than me\". Learn from it!! All the manufacturers want to make you think it's all about the gear, but the truth is.. it's not... in 95% of the cases

 

[e-are]

Plec
thanx for responding and i do agree with you but i don't know how i can get that amount of depth and transparency and space with what i have. at times it seemed like the span was beyond the speakers. i can compress & eq and everything to get my mix where i want it. the sound that i'm looking for seems to be conversion. hopefully. oh the original message wasn't intended for just massive mastering. i've read many of his replies to posts and i really respect his opinion as well as yours. i've read a lot of yours as well and i really appreciate you guys. your extremely helpful to me and i hope i can one day give back half of what i've received from this forum!!!!!!

oh yeah the gear should be in friday. i'll let you know how much it helped

 

[geekeye]

if you want your stereo to seem like it's spreading wider than the speakers, try this trick with a couple of your mono sounds:

first, double up your mono track with one copy panned hard left and one panned hard right.

next, insert a very short delay (2-5ms, 100% wet, 1 tap) and a gentle low pass filter above 5-7khz or so on the side you want to pan away from, and reduce the volume on that track. ie, if you want to place the sound past the right speaker, apply these fx to the left channel. this simulates what happens when a sound has to travel around your head to reach the ear on the opposite side, and will make your panning sound much more natural.

let us know if it works for you.

 

[MASSIVE Mastering]

After reading from the start, I have to wonder if everything is being close-mic'd...

A lot of that \"space\" and \"depth\" comes from - Well, space and depth.

While a \"pinched\" sounding preamp driving a mic that lacks detail going through less than wonderful converters can certainly squelch that depth and space, if it isn't there in the first place, it's nearly impossible to produce it efficiently after the fact... Ambient mics, far away from the source - There's really no substitute for something like that. But that depends SO much on the room where the recording takes place -

That being said - All other things being equal, that (the room itself) is a big part of what really separates some recordings from others.

Not certain if that's your issue in particular - Just the first thing that came to mind...

 

[Plec]

Massive has a great point there, as always.

Again, IME... the number one piece of gear that has changed the actual sound of my productions the very most is great converters.

e-are: My personal opinion is that you're doing exactly what you should be doing. That is to experiment and find your own path. It's good to ask for opinions once in a while as long as you remember it is just an opinion, and the only way to truly master what you've set out to do is through experience, trial & error.

Try this out...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Imitate the best, until you are getting consistent results!

2. Learn how to make finer and finer distictions until you can clearly see how and why each approach works!

3. Learn to assign higher and lower values to results in order to create an internal system that will guide you!

4. Learn to create variations of great ideas and to combine elements of great ideas to evolve improved versions!

5. INNOVATE!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[bugsstar]

If you want to hear imrpovement on your recorded tracks :
get a bigben

I will not do a digital session anymore without a decent clock !
A clock will give you a more clear improvement than a converter. imo
Converters can sound different so you might like this or that type... but it's more analog like in 'soundwise'.

Some use RME, others lavry, apogee, etc...
I have a mini-me and a mini-dac + an amek purepath with their digital ouput... i use the amek most of the times but i clock everything with the BIG BEN. Amazing difference.

A summing box will not improve your mixes.
a digital summing or analog summing does the same. Difference is analog colors and that's what some people like.

I don't see what converter you use but if it's just the computer audio's input i would suggest getting a converter with a good steady clock.

You think a converter will improve the previous recorded tracks from the studio ? The clock will do that...
than you can always go and add a better DAC but detailed and transparency can come alive with a good clock.

 

[s_sibs]

What benefit is there to having the Big Ben if you're getting the UA2192? Doesn't the 2192 have a great word clock and distribution capabilities?

I myself am looking to upgrade my converters. Right now I'm using a Spirit 328 digital mixer as my converters. I'm looking at slowly upgrading to a point of totally bypassing the 328 converters. I was looking at the UA2192 as a converter and a word clock source/distributor.

Do I need another word clock source other than the 2192?

Thanks.

 

[MASSIVE Mastering]

I'd think you'll be quite happy with the clock in the 2192.

 

[e-are]

i'm going to try the clock on the 2192. i will go through everything individually and whatever doesn't cut it will go back. i'm anticipating it all being kept but it's a lot of money so i will make sure it earns it's keep! thanx all

 

[saemskin]

what are some things that you would want to clock?
I've heard it said many times that a good clock is irreplaceable (ie Big Ben), but the only thing I own with a BNC connector on it is my audio interface. None of my synths, fx boxs, or mic pre's have word clock in.

What's going on here?

 

[s_sibs]

The way I understand word clock is:
In a digital system, it makes sure that that all the 1s and 0s are playing back at the exact same rate. I'm sure that is oversimplified but you need all of your digital devices that interact with one another to be \"on the same page\" so to speak.

Your master clock should be either (a) a master clock device like Big Ben or the UA2192 or (b) the converter, either a/d or d/a depending on which way you're going with the signal.

Let me know if I'm off base with this info.

 

[bugsstar]

i have no experience with the UA converter + it's clock so i won't go and say it's the best clock out there.
But from my experience with other clocks and reviews from pro-audio users , the bigben is the top/best.
Apogee has been in this clocking development for a long time and the c777 is the best one i've heard.

a clock can be send out thru s/pdif, lightpipe, aes or bnc
Big ben has them all

 

[msmith92]

clock

i've often wondered about the whole clock thing too. do you think i need one?
my setup is:
motu 2408 and a motu 1296.
i use a focusrite octopre into the 1296 (just using the analog outs)
i use a presonus digimax preamp using the adat out into the 2408
i also have a presonus central station for my monitors. and a focusrite voicemaster pro (analog into the 1296)

the only time i change the source to record is when i'm using the presonus adat. i have to slave it to that adat bank.

i always record at 44.1 at 24bit.

any suggestions or insight into this set would be appreciated.

 

[starfighter]

Re: clock

i've often wondered about the whole clock thing too. do you think i need one?
my setup is:
motu 2408 and a motu 1296.
i use a focusrite octopre into the 1296 (just using the analog outs)
i use a presonus digimax preamp using the adat out into the 2408
i also have a presonus central station for my monitors. and a focusrite voicemaster pro (analog into the 1296)

the only time i change the source to record is when i'm using the presonus adat. i have to slave it to that adat bank.

i always record at 44.1 at 24bit.

any suggestions or insight into this set would be appreciated.

hi! I'd really recommend you buying the 2192. It's a fantastic converter and an amazing clock. In our studio it's clocking a Yamaha 01v96 with an Apogee convertercard, Focusrite Octopre LE, an old EMU 5000Ultra sampler, a Korg Trinity V3 and a Pulsar II card in the DAW. I never experienced any problems earlier when pretty much everything was synced from the Pulsars internal clock, but switching to the 2192 made a huge difference to imaging stability (and width), depth and low level detail both in new and previously recorded material. Check out http://www.3daudioinc.com where there are several threads about different clocks and converters (sorry for advertising for another forum, but Lynn's a great guy) You can also find downloadable audioclips comparing the 2192 to the 192I/O interface. The 2192 wins hands down )

besty regards
morten