Mastering Question

[John Hernandez]

Hello All, OK, so I finished a album mix and it was sent off to the ME. The clients were not pleased with his initial work, so he did a second rendition. They A/B/C'd the two renditions against my mix...and all involved chose the mix over both masters!! So here's the deal: Can I get away with just using Bob's SRC/dither to create the master for duplication? Or do I have to seek out the best converters/algo's/etc. OTB to do a proper job? The album is mostly flute/piano, with some violin. It will most likely be limited to a local customer base, and may get a little airplay, maybe not. (Hint: If I can get away with ITB, I'll do it...) Any input welcome. TIA.

[sebastiandybing]

If it sounds good, then it sounds good.
Don't over complicate the deal.
I guess its classical music and really less is more,
Use the find peaks in Bobs levelizer on the master track
and raise the level on the input faders so its about -1 db,
Then set the normalize to 0.35db and peak limit to 3 db.
make sure to play over the loudest passages to hear if there
is any distortion, a flute can somehow get the worst out of
a limiter.

Sebastian

[John Hernandez]

If it sounds good, then it sounds good.
Don't over complicate the deal.
I guess its classical music and really less is more,
Use the find peaks in Bobs levelizer on the master track
and raise the level on the input faders so its about -1 db,
Then set the normalize to 0.35db and peak limit to 3 db.
make sure to play over the loudest passages to hear if there
is any distortion, a flute can somehow get the worst out of
a limiter.

Sebastian

Hey Sebastian,

Thank you so much for your feedback. Ok, so I levelize as you suggest...now...can I get away with mixdown to 16/44 solely by using Bob's algoes...?? What do you think?

Blessings,

[Angie]

Steve Berson has commented many times on SRC/dither plug-ins. You might want to do a search for his posts. We used the Mbit+ from Izotope for a recent classical project. It is available in Ozone which has a 10 day unlimited trial if you want to play with it. But quite frankly, the SRC in SAW would have been fine.

[John Hernandez]

But quite frankly, the SRC in SAW would have been fine.

Hello Angie,

Exactly what I'm hoping to hear, thanks! What about the dither in SAW? Same (I hope)?

BTW, I still have Chris in my prayers!

Blessings,

[Angie]

Why not just A/B them for yourself and see which one you like. I don't remember that there was a huge difference in our case.


BTW, I still have Chris in my prayers!


Thanks, John. It is working. Chris has been doing remarkably well.

[sebastiandybing]

Did you do the recording at 48 khz. ?
If you did it at 44.1khz 24 bit you
don't have to sample rate convert it,
Then its op to you and your ears if
you want to use dither when going to
16 bit.
I never use dither, but do some test
with headphones.

Sebastian

[Grekim]

I might argue that it is better to keep it in the box for a classical type project. Because when going for extreme loudness analog often works better. Not the case here.
The way I like to use the Levelizer is first to set it for dB rather than % (an option in the blue triangle menu). Work your threshold down to where you see the limiter working. In your case you can probably just play through the loudest passage. You may not want to limit at all, but at least get a feel for where the limiting starts to take place. Then raise the Levelizer output by an amount a little ( 1/4 or 1/2 dB) less than the threshold. So if your threshold is at - 8 dB then your output will be something like + 7.5 dB.
The only problem is you don't know how loud you've made it overall and so I recommend the Sonoris meter, but you could do okay by A/B'ing your volume against a commercial CD of the same genre.

[John Hernandez]

Did you do the recording at 48 khz. ?
If you did it at 44.1khz 24 bit you
don't have to sample rate convert it,
Then its op to you and your ears if
you want to use dither when going to
16 bit.
I never use dither, but do some test
with headphones.

Sebastian

Hello Sebastian,

Yes, the tracks given to me were 24/48, as well as my mixdown.

To my ears, I find that the use of dither in lieu of chopping off the extra bits retains a lot of that 24 bit sheen...course, more experienced ears would argue that it's all in my head...

AAR, thanks for the input!

Blessings,

[Gary Ray]

John,

I would not be using much limiting if any at all. This sounds like a chamber piece (or pieces) which usually don't have as much dynamics as a full orchestra. At most, take off the top 2-3 db of one louder crescendo that might be in one of the tracks.

IF ending up on a CD, I would want the original recordings in 44.1 sample rate with 24 bit depth. I guess you didn't have any control over it. That way there would not be an additional down sampling from 48 to 44.1 rate. 48 would only be used if it were to end up on a DVD track. (and not CD).

Good dither comments above already.

[TotalSonic]

Despite how many words have been given to it, and how hyped of an issue many have made it out to be (particularly by some well known engineers who have attempted to assert themselves as "golden ears") - after extensive hours doing listening tests, and extensive time spent reading on the subject, I'm firmly of the belief that dither choice is the absolutely least important decision you will ever make in mastering - as unless it is essentially broken it effects the least significant bits only. As far as my own preferences after my listening tests - I found the SAW native options not to be as satisfying to my ear as Sonoris, POW-R, Megabitmax/MBIT+ (Izotope), or Waves IDR were. fwiw - I use the Sonoris dither here nearly every day in my own work. However the SAW native choices (and I would definitely suggest having the "random" and "non-correlated L/R" options checked) work just fine. The main rule is to actually add dither whenever requantizing from 24bit to 16bit - as in these cases the effects of truncation is in fact audible and never preferable in any of my listening tests in comparison to adding dither.

Regarding src - in a recent shoot out I found pretty much all the ME's and other engineers I presented a comparison test preferred algorithms that had steeper filters with relatively less aliasing and more pre/post echo - than the smoother transition and less pre/post echo (but greater ultra-high freq loss with a tiny bit of aliasing) that the SAWStudio algorithm provides. As always with these choices that can be very subtle and very subjective as to their differences - YMMV!!! fwiw - I currently use Awave Audio for my src needs - but a definitely interesting comparison of algorithms and test results for these are available at http://src.infinitewave.ca

Anyway - for best results it is critical to do src first as its own step at 24bit (or higher) resolution - and then requantize/add dither from 24bit to 16bit as a second and final step.

As far as limiting - for "purist" classical mastering it is indeed a rare practice. More often instead of limiting if dynamics are indeed exaggerated in the recording beyond what would be heard naturally by the ear in the concert hall (which is often in fact the case with many recordings) per section, phrase or even note fader automation would occur instead of limiting to effect desired dynamic reduction. For many folks who are preparing more for "crossover" genres where the expectation is to have them work for audiences doing their greatest amount of listening in places with high noise floors (i.e. when driving, when walking around while listening to earbuds, etc.) - then some limiting might occur. Every limiter (including the Levelizer) will in fact leave an audible coloration on the sound as soon as it is limiting - so if you choose to limit you might want to make a comparison between a number of different limiters, as well as unlimited - to see which coloration you prefer. fwiw - if I choose to use a limiter for acoustic chamber musics I tend to go for the PSP Xenon as it is capable of subtly softening too sharp initial transients in a nice way without changing the spectral shape (the "eq") overtly.

As always with mastering the ability to a/b between the original unprocessed source and the processed master level matched between these two and via a single button push - using the most accurate full range monitors as possible in as in accurate room as possible - is often critical to being able to make the best decisions as to what processing to use (or not to use!).

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[MikeDee]

John, if you use a dithering plugin other than SAW's built-in dithering algo (e.g., Sonoris), it must be the last plugin in the chain (i.e., after the Levelizer). Also, keep an eye (and ear) on your levels; dithering is likely to add 1-2 dB of gain...after the Levelizer's processing.

HTH,

[TotalSonic]

John, if you use a dithering plugin other than SAW's built-in dithering algo (e.g., Sonoris), it must be the last plugin in the chain (i.e., after the Levelizer).

Good reminder!



Also, keep an eye (and ear) on your levels; dithering is likely to add 1-2 dB of gain...after the Levelizer's processing.


Unless it is a broken algorithm dither really shouldn't add 1dB of gain. I'd say it will be more like 0.1dB. Generally leaving the limiter's output ceiling to -0.2dBFs or so (I usually do -0.3dBFs) should easily give you enough headroom to prevent any overs (including any intersample peak overs as well).

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[John Hernandez]

As always with mastering the ability to a/b between the original unprocessed source and the processed master level matched between these two and via a single button push - using the most accurate full range monitors as possible in as in accurate room as possible - is often critical to being able to make the best decisions as to what processing to use (or not to use!).
Hey Steve! I was hoping you'd chime in! Thanks as always for the valuable advice!

Incidentally, this is the same mix you steered me to Doug Sax for mastering. Unfortunately, the producer decided the project was over-budget and used an in-house ME (who wasn't a true ME it turned out...performer/mixer...you know the route). That's why the clients decided no mastering was better.

AAR, I toyed with the suggestions given and decided that less is indeed more. No limiting...all Bob's algo's (of course SRC applied first, then dither with both options checked in a second pass). Results will suffice. Thanks to all who helped. This is indeed a valuable forum!

Blessings,

[MikeDee]

Unless it is a broken algorithm dither really shouldn't add 1dB of gain. I'd say it will be more like 0.1dB. Generally leaving the limiter's output ceiling to -0.2dBFs or so (I usually do -0.3dBFs) should easily give you enough headroom to prevent any overs (including any intersample peak overs as well).

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Øøps, sorry...left out the all-important decimal point...should read .1-.2 dB. Tiny point, but big difference! :o

Thanks for spotting & correcting that, Steve. :)

[Sean McCoy]

I've been plodding through Bob Katz's book, "Mastering Audio," and he makes an argument for using dither even during 24-bit mixing if lots of 32-bit and 48-bit processing is going on in chains, to prevent cumulative rounding errors. Any thoughts on that, Steve?

[TotalSonic]

I've been plodding through Bob Katz's book, "Mastering Audio," and he makes an argument for using dither even during 24-bit mixing if lots of 32-bit and 48-bit processing is going on in chains, to prevent cumulative rounding errors. Any thoughts on that, Steve?

My thought is that a single instance of truncation from 32bit (or above) to 24bit is not in fact audible as any distortions resulting from the requantizing are well below the noise floor. Multiple instances of truncations going from hi-res to 24bit might possibly accumulate into becoming audible though. From my understanding regarding SAWStudio's math the way Bob L. gets around this is he returns a full 32bit DWORD after each internal calculation and then just has a single truncation from 32bit to 24bit at final output (although you can optionally set up SAW to add dither at the 24th bit if you wish - I've just never felt this was a benefit).

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Sean McCoy]

That's essentially what Katz says, as well: single instances are not an issue, and even chains aren't necessarily going to create any audible rounding errors. Since the jury's still out, and there is at least the theoretical possibilty of degradation, he's making more of a "lite" recommendation.

[Grekim]

You couldn't possibly hear something 138 dB below 0 dBFS which is where the error signal would be in that case, I believe.

I looked in the cumulative error thing several years ago. I'd like to revisit it now that I can write come code, but at the time I concluded there was nothing to worry about. I basically used a spreadsheet to multiply and divide a sample up and down a few hundred times, rounding each time, and compared it to the original. I think the surprising thing was that a new "error" could actually undo an earlier error and therefore things never really go out of hand.

[studio-c]

Did the client say exactly WHAT they didn't like about the mastering job? Were they hearing the dither? Or was it something more major like a pop/rock engineer trying to attack a classical piece with lots of heavy comp limiting?

I've had lots of situations where classical pianists are working with a studio that wants to close mic wide stereo inside the semi-closed piano, and the artist wants the across the room, concert hall sound.

You could be spending a lot of time/money/effort chasing software plugins, etc, and it could be something entirely different. My initial thoughts are:

Is the mastering guy good/compatible with classical works? Did he do a good job? Did YOU like it? Just as with all of our job titles, there really are no requirements for being a ME other than saying you are. Track record is everything.

Is the classical client very finicky? Often people will use postproduction complaints as a mask for their performing insecurities.

Do they have a budget for agonizing over this? You mentioned limited sales, little or no potential airplay. For a client/album that might sell 200 units at shows, does this pencil out?

These are all based on past experiences. Just curious...

[John Hernandez]

Did the client say exactly WHAT they didn't like about the mastering job? Were they hearing the dither? Or was it something more major like a pop/rock engineer trying to attack a classical piece with lots of heavy comp limiting?
Yes, the client did say what they did not like...that the ME's work sounded like CHAFF (polite biblical equivalent for an expletive)! After a recent re-listen with an objective ear, I could only agree..
And with regard to dither..they do not have enough recording knowledge to recognize it if they heard it. They are skilled musicians with a finely tuned ear (they caught practically every minute edit I made...now that I think about it...you can probably remove the 'practically'..)
I've had lots of situations where classical pianists are working with a studio that wants to close mic wide stereo inside the semi-closed piano, and the artist wants the across the room, concert hall sound.Mic issues were among the most problematic to be sure. This is a large church with a studio that mostly deals with contemporary music. The clients were at the mercy of a hip tracking engineer who did not have a clue how to properly mic these instruments (piano, violin, flute). When they cringed at his rough mixes, he assured them that the end result would be acceptable. Then he left the church, and I was called upon to pick up the pieces .

You could be spending a lot of time/money/effort chasing software plugins, etc, and it could be something entirely different. My initial thoughts are:

Is the mastering guy good/compatible with classical works? Did he do a good job? Did YOU like it? Just as with all of our job titles, there really are no requirements for being a ME other than saying you are. Track record is everything.
AFAIK, the ME was another hip engineer with little or no experience with anything classical. Okay, some of the quieter passages had a rich sound to them. Basically, he slapped on a nice sounding verb, some low end EQ, and some kind of compression that worked on those pieces. On the rest, it sounded like a squishy tunnel. Plus, he threw away my work on two of the pieces and remixed them himself. I probably wouldn't have been too concerned if they actually sounded better, but they were basically trashed..many hours of tweaking in the toilet.

Is the classical client very finicky? Often people will use postproduction complaints as a mask for their performing insecurities.As stated, both have microscopic ears..but the flute soloist..well 'very finicky' is an understatement. Let's just say she's a professional who knows exactly what she wants to hear. And right on the insecurity issue...but in this case, she's absolutely correct...the postproduction complaints are legit.

Do they have a budget for agonizing over this? You mentioned limited sales, little or no potential airplay. For a client/album that might sell 200 units at shows, does this pencil out?Like I said, this is a large church, and if the truth be known, the budget technically is unlimited. But the producer (who admits he knows nothing about recording..he's more like a 'business agent') is trying to keep expenses under control. They've already shelled out for 2 separate mixing engineers, an ME whose work they're about to toss, and they're discussing a possible second ME at Capitol. But you hit the nail on the head..this ain't Yo-Yo Ma, and though they are excellent players, will most likely not transcend their cult following at the church. The church also owns a radio station, so they potentially could get airplay there, but beyond that not likely. Does it pencil out? You do the math.

These are all based on past experiences. Just curious...Your experiences are spot on, good sir. Thanks for your input, and if you are a praying man, I could use a ton about now.
Blessings,

[mixer100]

But...if the the mic technique is /was bad along with poor mics choices, you can mix until your ears bleed and master until Jesus comes back and it won't change an awful lot, right? Capitol Records can't fix the things you are talking about being the basic issues.

[John Hernandez]

But...if the the mic technique is /was bad along with poor mics choices, you can mix until your ears bleed and master until Jesus comes back and it won't change an awful lot, right? Capitol Records can't fix the things you are talking about being the basic issues.

Right. You are preaching to the choir, my friend. :)

I posted this to gain confidence for bypassing further mastering, ear-bleeding, Capitol Records, etc. so as to finish the job with a simple use of Bob's SRC and dither.

And in fairness, the tracking engineer didn't do everything wrong. The current state of the project IMHO is quite lovely. These ladies are masters at their craft. But it would have been nice if more experienced engineers laid the groundwork.

AAR, thanks for your input.

Blessings,

[Carl G.]

Right. You are preaching to the choir, my friend. :)

I posted this to gain confidence for bypassing further mastering, ear-bleeding, Capitol Records, etc. so as to finish the job with a simple use of Bob's SRC and dither.

And in fairness, the tracking engineer didn't do everything wrong. The current state of the project IMHO is quite lovely. These ladies are masters at their craft. But it would have been nice if more experienced engineers laid the groundwork.

AAR, thanks for your input.

Blessings,
So... could you gain more credibility in your 'track record' by simply explaining to them what the real issues are and the unlikely outcomes no matter what 'in the mix/master' work is done? Then simply state (perhaps, for instance) "This recording is not worthy of it's attempted repair, and I wouldn't want to waste your money to achieve an unhappy resolve"?

[Ian Alexander]

Right. You are preaching to the choir, my friend. :)

I posted this to gain confidence for bypassing further mastering, ear-bleeding, Capitol Records, etc. so as to finish the job with a simple use of Bob's SRC and dither.

And in fairness, the tracking engineer didn't do everything wrong. The current state of the project IMHO is quite lovely. These ladies are masters at their craft. But it would have been nice if more experienced engineers laid the groundwork.

AAR, thanks for your input.

Blessings,
Go. Especially with the expected user base, send it off for duplication. If they chose your mix, and you think it sounds pretty good considering how it was recorded, then it's fine.

I understand that mastering is important. But with very limited distribution of a classical recording, there is little to be done. Check the EQ on good monitors, or barring that, several monitors. No comp, mayyyybe a little limiting (but the flute player might hear it). I never use it on choral recordings. Classical listeners expect very low average levels and huge dynamic range. Find the peak level in the whole album and set it to -0.3 or wherever you're comfy, make sure the levels are unchanged from track to track - quiet movements of symphonies are not normalized, as you know, and ship it.

And while there may be SRC and dither that some like better, nobody has said that using SS SRC and dither would be a mistake.:) If you like to experiment, and you like your convertors, run it out at native samplerate and bit depth, and capture it again at 44/16. See if you prefer that over "in the box." Again, for the scope of the project, I don't think you can go wrong.

My two cents. Good luck.

[studio-c]

if you are a praying man, I could use a ton about now.
Blessings,

I'll start now :) Best wishes with the project.

Thanks for your answers. Dither is pretty much a red herring, a non-issue as compared to pop/rock micing techniques and overcompression. Good advice from Ian re not spending tons of money on a Holy Grail chase. The question is, do they want to re-record it, or just get the best product with what they've got. If they're classical performers they can probably kick out another great performance. Definitely lesson learned though, regarding using tech people who aren't sensitive to the subtleties of classical work. I have a feeling you're going to make them happy though :)

[TotalSonic]

In defense of my specialty in our profession - got to say I truly strongly believe that if John's client had used one of the ME's from the short list I gave him that he would most likely raving about the results rather than having to redo a poor job. Going to folks with proven track records working in studios specifically dedicated to mastering can in fact make a big difference! ;)

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[John Hernandez]

In defense of my specialty in our profession - got to say I truly strongly believe that if John's client had used one of the ME's from the short list I gave him that he would most likely raving about the results rather than having to redo a poor job. Going to folks with proven track records working in studios specifically dedicated to mastering can in fact make a big difference! ;)

Best regards,
Steve Berson
And I sure wish they had, Steve! Then the need for this post would not exist! Thanks again for the input, my friend.

Sincerely,

[mixer100]

I dare say, if you wore a tuxedo and acted a bit more aloof, things would probably be different, LOL

[studio-c]

Steve, you'd be at the top of my very very short list :)

[Dave Labrecque]

Steve, you'd be at the top of my very very short list :)

Hey, what about me? I'm barely 5'7". :rolleyes:

[Ian Alexander]

In defense of my specialty in our profession - got to say I truly strongly believe that if John's client had used one of the ME's from the short list I gave him that he would most likely raving about the results rather than having to redo a poor job. Going to folks with proven track records working in studios specifically dedicated to mastering can in fact make a big difference! ;)

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Sorry if I seemed to give you guys short shrift. I'm sure you're right.:o But this raises an interesting question: How do you know if the ME you are talking with has any experience in the genre you've recorded? Shouldn't they tell you if they don't know better than to try to make classical louder? Is it acceptable to ask them for samples of their work?

[studio-c]

Is it acceptable to ask them for samples of their work?

Discography, client list, samples. Sure. If you're dropping a bunch of money, you owe it to yourself to research them.

Same for studios. It makes me crazy when (like many of us), after having invested my life in a BA in music, 30 years in the trenches working in and with classical, punk, rock, funk, hip hop, country, and gospel music, producing or engineering many thousands of radio and tv commercials, and several hundred audiobooks, and thus being able to catch voiceover inflection nuances and script grammatical errors which would have caused costly retakes...

that someone could easily choose the kid down the hall who just finished his internship from a 6 month tech school, who uses phrases like, "I coulda went..."

You certainly have the right to protect your (project) investment by asking the tough questions of a contractor. And on the other side of the coin, we can make it easy for our prospective clients by letting them know our strengths and experience.

And I realize I'm better at some of the above, so will refer out many projects to experts in the genre, while I concentrate on what I'm best at. That's only fair to the client.