Sundown
-
Posts
1,597 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Sundown
-
-
Hey all,
I have been using Universal Audio's Precision Limiter for 10+ years, and while it does a good job with light duty chores and most material, it's showing its age. I'm still working on my optimal mix levels (see other post), but I find that the UAD limiter tends to raise or introduce unwanted noise and hiss.
I tried Eventide's Elevate (formerly Newfangled Audio) and needless to say it's a slick piece of software. There are up to 26 frequency bands, so if you want to control the amount of limiting or gain on a specific frequency region, it's no problem. I find it handy for small adjustments that would otherwise require a separate EQ. There are a ton of other adjustments you can do that are a bit over my head (transient recovery/emphasis, etc).
I have no connection to the company, I just wanted to share something I found. Give the demo a shot if you haven't tried it before.
Todd
-
Hey all,
Proper gain staging has been such a lesson and journey for me and I still have a ways to go.
I'm working on a softer piece of music and when I think of level, I tend to think in RMS (measured in dBFS). I'll watch the meter in Wavelab to see what professional mastered material is averaging to and then I'll try to get my music there. I'll of course keep an eye on peaks to stay below 0 dBFS, but RMS is what I'm watching for overall level. I have a decent VU meter (Klanghelm VUMT, typically calibrated to -18 dBFS), but other than a general guide, I find that an RMS meter works best for me at this time.
This current piece of music is pretty dynamic, so I want the softest parts to be between -22 and 20 dBFS RMS, the middle sections to be about -14 to -16 dBFS, and I want the big sound effects and climactic events to be between -8 and -10 dBFS. Right now the mix in Cubase is too low and if I bring it into Wavelab, I'm going to have to raise the gain so much that I'll bring up the noise floor. I'm using an SSL G-buss compressor plugin for tone and glue, but not using it to raise the gain.
I know it's probably material-dependent, but what would be a good target to finish the mix to in Cubase? How much headroom should I leave myself? All of the individual tracks are 32 bit / 44.1K.
My general rule of thumb is to leave peak headroom at -6 dBFS or at most, -3 dBFS. I'll then use a limiter in Wavelab to bring up the overall level to the desired RMS and let the peaks hit a few decimals under zero (e.g. -0.2). If the material is peaky in Cubase, I'll use compressors or limiters to try and bring up the base material.
Any tips or suggestions? I'm going to remix an old project after this as I made the same mistake (the final mix level was lower than it needed to be).
Thanks in advance.
Todd
-
Nice piece. It's even got a G-series buss compressor.
-
If I may be so blunt it doesn't have to be this way.
That's fair. That situation may be unique to me and the way I work.
I still think it's worth having the extra controllers, the slightly better action, and that lovely Tine Piano 1 Rhodes sound.
Todd
-
Thanks for the feedback, guys. Just for fun I picked up Abbey Road Chambers (it's hard to resist when Waves does their ridiculously deep discounts), and it does have some pretty unique ambiances. But Boy, is it a CPU hog... I'll definitely be upping my buffers and latency when mixing with this one. My PC was a high performer in 2012 but not so much now. But it's also not far enough behind to warrant a new one.
-
I joined this one late...
I still own my original ~1991 W/S which was upgraded to an EX. Unfortunately the power supply is dying so any wave sequencing / vector reminiscing these days is done with the wonderful Korg Collection (which is arguably better anyhow given the resonant filter and much improved GUI).
My FiL and I might do some surgery on that W/S one day (he"s an electrician), but I don"t know if we can save it. Truth be told it wasn"t the right instrument for me at the time. I was just following the crowd. The Roland JD-800 that bowed a year later would have been a better fit for my music at the time.
I don"t think anyone has really found the optimal solution to wave sequencing. I think a software instrument is the right answer, or maybe hardware with one hell of a CPU and a bundled editor. My taste has always been toward cross faded sounds (as opposed to the rhythmic band-on-a-key patches), and I think it"s a synthesis idea that could still be advanced and pushed in new directions. If you *did* do it in software and had disk-streaming, ultra-deep modulation routings, bad-ass filters, user sampling, etc. I think you could get some great sounds.
And for God"s sake, can Korg drop the Prophet VS and PPG tones? Those grungy, single-cycle waves were never good to start with. I"ve never understood the appeal.
-
Hey all,
Plugins have advanced tremendously over the last 20 years and I still consider reverb to be Mt. Everest. That was probably true before even the advent of plugins and PC/Mac software. Digital reverbs (e.g. Lexicion, AMX, etc.) took a lot of number crunching power and R&D.
So in this day and age, is it possible that a $50-100 plugin can rival a $300-600 plugin? To get really lush tails and high-quality ERs, do you need to spend $500-600 on Altiverb or the Lexicon PCM series? Or is it possible that a smaller player or independent coder could crack-off a world-class algorithm?
Now in my case, I primarily do New Age / EDM / AOR keyboard music so I'm not really looking to emulate realistic acoustic spaces. Most of my needs are plates, synthetic reverbs, and small halls with short decays to glue together a mix.
Just curious for your thoughts.
-
Yes.... maybe not as much as 1991. A Roland piece always worked well with a DX piece. The comparative strengths and weaknesses offset each other well. And .... Eric Persing is a genius.
Spot on... In the nineties there was a definite character to brands. I'm not sure that's as evident today.
-
Hi Sam,
If you can afford the higher price, get the MP11se. I own an MP11 and I was in similar shoes five years ago. For me, the ability to quickly fire up the instrument and get sounds is invaluable. The onboard sounds aren't going to rival a sample library (except the extraordinary Tine Electric Piano 1), but they are still quite good. There are many times I just want to play in a pinch and firing up my computer, loading Cubase etc., takes up to ten minutes. You also get pitch/mod wheels, four assignable knobs, a simple onboard sequencer/recorder, and of course the triple pedal assembly.
I don't gig (thus I don't have to worry about weight/portability), but the MP11 is the Swiss watch of actions. Yes, it's going to run you about three-large with a high-quality stand, but for me, it took away any instrument excuses. If a part or performance isn't right, it's not the instrument. It's me...
Best of luck with your decision.
Todd
-
Great question, KP -
Hands down, the weak element in my setup is my NFMs. They are Event PS8s (powered two-ways) and I bought them in ~2001. I've treated my room quite heavily with low-frequency absorbers (nearly twenty units in a 14' x 12' x 7.5' room), but judging the bottom end is still a major challenge. It's the element of mixing and mastering that I always struggle with, and I wind up having to do a lot of trial and error. I had *terrible* standing waves in Sundown Sound #1 (a 15' x 12' x 8' room with an additional walk in closet at the rear), and once you've experienced that, you become sensitive to it. Sundown Sound #2 was a 14'x12'x~7.5' room with over 20 absorbers. Sundown Sound #3 (current setup) is workable, but it's not ideal. I've taken the room as far as it can go, but I'm thinking a sealed pair of heavy, powered monitors is the next action (e.g. Unity Audio "The Rock", etc). In a couple of years I'll make Sundown Sound #4 which will be a basement studio with better dimensions and far more isolation.
A new DAW/PC might be second in line. Mine dates back to 2012 (PC Audio Labs RokBox MC7), and while it still works, some instruments start to hit the meter. I would use that opportunity to update all of my software to the latest levels.
I'm not short on sounds, but it would be great to have a real analog synthesizer (OB-6 or Prophet 6 come to mind). A Moog One is gorgeous, but I would *have* to have 16 voices and that's eight large. Not happening...
I always try to prioritize what is weakest, and right now it's speakers.
-
Hey all,
Big sales are hard to pass up and Fathers Day is fast approaching. UAD has their summer sale going on and some of their flagship products are really cheap right now. I thought I might pick up their Distressor plugin along with the Lexicon 480L reverb.
But then I tried the demos, and that was enough of a pause for me to realize that neither purchase would help me close the mountain of unfinished projects I'm sitting on. I already own several UAD reverbs, some Waves reverbs, and of course the bundled Cubase reverbs, and other than some mix glue, I'm not even a big fan of reverb right now. I'm more inclined to use short, panned delays if I need to call attention to something.
As for the Distressor, I'm sure UA did a great job modeling it but I'm a home studio hobbyist keyboard player. I'm not mic'ing a drum kit or recording guitars right now. And frankly, I'm not even a big fan of that ultra-compressed drum sound anyway. I've got the UAD 1176, LA2A, and LA3A plugins (and the Waves counterparts), and none of my projects are in need of a Distressor.
So short story long, it's amazing how you can convince yourself you need something (just because everyone else uses it). I find that asking that critical follow-up question usually grounds me: Is this device going to help me finish projects?
Todd
-
Hi Paul. I have a couple. If you're stateside I don't have a problem sending them to you. Just PM me your address and I'll try to get them sent out in the next couple of days.
-
Craig - You wrote the manual on NI's FM7, correct? I gather you're no slouch when it comes to FM programming.
That's still a great synth. I use FM8 now (to avoid having to bridge a 32bit plugin), but I like the GUI on the original '7 much better.
In addition to FM8 I have Arturia's DX7-V. It sounds very close to the original and I'm sure it's a capable synth, but it's extremely hungry on the CPU. I don't use it much (partially because it's a reminder of how dated some of those DX sounds are).
One day I would still like to pick up an SY77 or SY99. They came out at a time that they couldn't shine but they are very capable instruments.
-
Thanks guys. It sounds like I should stay the course on how I set my input levels. My thinking (particularly with external instruments) is that the noise floor doesn't change, so if you record the part soft you get the same amount of noise. If I record the part a bit hotter than needed, I've now gotten more signal, the same amount of noise, but when I turn it down to the mix target, I'm keeping signal and lowering the noise portion. That's my simple thinking anyway...
Thanks again.
Todd
Edit: One thing I don't do for obvious reasons is push a signal too far just to hit that -12 to -6 dBFS range. If a patch or instrument just doesn't have a lot of oomph (and I don't need it to have oomph), I'll record it at a level where it just sounds good while still being strong. If you take a soft tone and try to raise it too high, you can get some nasty artifacts and noise.
-
Hey all,
I'm a home studio hobbyist, synth player, and instrumental song writer and I have a few quick questions about gain staging. I use a mix of external instruments and virtual instruments and I record and render everything at 32-bit float / 44.1 KHz (with 24 bit AD/DA on an RME Multiface II). I record and mix with Cubase and then I bounce the stereo master down to 16-bit 44.1 KHz for CDs, MP3s, etc. All of my effects processing is done in the box (with UAD, Waves, and Fabfilter plugins)
It was a revelation to me about 10 years in that I didn't have to record so hot with 24 bit. A hot individual track for me now is peaking between -12 and -6 dBFS, which typically hovers around 0 VU (I use Klanghelm's VUMT calibrated to -18 dBFS). I've recently heard from two sources that you should try to keep your mix faders near zero, as the resolution differs at the top and bottom of the fader (with more precision toward zero). This is a totally new idea to me and it's spawned some questions.
First Question: Let's say I've got a soft percolating synth pattern from an external instrument (Roland XV-3080). It will have some stereo delay and autopan on it and it opens my song at a modest level. Once the other elements come in it's level will drop a bit.
My normal modus operandi would be to solo the MIDI track and then set the input level to my target (between -12 dBFS and -6 dBFS for peaks), independent of how loud this part will be in the mix. Then I would pull the fader down to the level I want while mixing. I always thought this would give me the best S/N ratio.
But is this in fact the wrong approach? Am I wasting time and sub-optimizing the recording if I'm going to pull the level down anyway? Should I just record it closer to the mix target, so that I don't have to lower the gain later?
Second Related Question: Let's say I have a virtual instrument part. Normally I would change the volume level on the instrument to my target range (-12 to -6 dBFS for peaks), and then pull the fader down to the level I want. Similar to the above, is this the wrong approach? Should I just render it (or set the instrument volume level) closer to the target mix level? Does recording "hot" and then lowering the gain with a plugin (or pulling the fader down) make sense, or is it better to just capture the part close to its intended mix level?
Third and Final Question: What influence do effects plugins have on this? Let's say I want to compress that percolating synth part even though it's lower in the mix (just to even it out and stabilize it for clarity). If I do record it at a lower input gain, am I going to have trouble getting enough level into the compressor plugin for it to be effective? Think of a typical 1176 compressor or LA2A plugin. I don't think it would make sense to boost the level with the compressor input knob and then pull it down again with the compressor output knob or mix fader. Or maybe it does make sense? If I knew I wouldn't be asking.
Thanks in advance for the insight and help.
Todd
-
Hey all,
So I finally got my KC2 Wavestation and M1 installed yesterday. It was not easy. Keep in mind I'm running Win7 which isn't officially supported anymore.
If I had to repeat the process, I'm not sure I could. The plugins run great (no compatibility issues), but I don't want to breathe on the installer for fear of losing them.
I used my leisure laptop (Win10) to download the executables and I relied partially on offline activation by emailing Korg. I say partially because I still got a lot of errors in the authorization manager and I had to hook-up an ethernet cable to complete the process. Since their installation manager is essentially a customized IE browser window, I just used different combinations of refresh and 'go back' whenever I got an error, and eventually the registration just stuck.
It's fantastic that Korg has continued to support these instruments (and the resizable windows and updated GUIs are appreciated, along with a few patch fixes that make the presets closer to the originals), but I'd love to see them change the copy protection. I know iLoks have a bad reputation in some circles, but I've never had issues with them and they are used by several manufacturers. I'll take an iLok scheme any day over the Software Pass Installer.
I'm not sure I'll gamble $250 on Triton with Win7, but I might ask Korg for their opinion. It's a drool-worthy plugin but not enough for me to consider rolling my system. If I can get it to work with a couple of hours of fiddling, then I'll do it.
Todd
-
Hey all,
When I entered the DAW world in ~2000, life was simple. I was a Cubase VST user and you had *.fxp files (patches and effects settings) and *.fxb files (banks). And that was pretty much it. Some instruments had their own proprietary format for saving settings, but *.fxp and *.fxb captured it all (as far as I can recall).
Then someone came up with the idea of an attribute browser and life got more complicated. Don't get me wrong... The ability to search for patches based on instrument type, sonic attribute, or personal rating is great. But I don't know any DAW that caters to all virtual instruments equally well, and it seems that every manufacturer embeds their own proprietary browser into their virtual instruments.
As a Cubase user (v6.5), the Media Bay doesn't do a great job with third party instruments (particularly older instruments). I think it goes by a different name now with v10.5, but I doubt it has improved compatibility. Trying to add the presets from a third party instrument to the Media Bay is typically a roll of the dice.
Isn't this something that could be standardized among manufacturers? Couldn't they agree on a set of attributes and a file format that supports easy export and import for upgrades? Not wanting to redo my Media Bay is yet another reason that I stick with 8-year-old DAW software.
Agree or disagree?
Todd
-
This is a great thread... Here are my contributions:
Thinking you can do it all (especially as a hobbyist)
It takes an enormous amount of learning, practice, failure, and perseverance to write, record, mix, and master your material. Software and instrument manufacturers market their products to make you believe you can do it all yourself and get professional results. For 99% of us, I don't think you can. And you lose the advantage of objectivity from other experts (for example, a mastering engineer). The antidote to this is to set realistic expectations.
Downplaying or ignoring the role of the room
There's a reason professional studios have remarkable rooms with high ceilings, splayed walls, and carefully tuned acoustics. You can buy the best speakers and microphones, but if you're using a walk-in closet for a studio it's not going to produce great results. I would encourage a newbie to find or build the best room he can and invest a good portion of his budget in acoustic treatment (or make his own which is still pretty expensive). You can't make good recording/mixing/mastering decisions if you can't hear what's going on.
Looking outward for inward problems
The software and instrument manufacturers are great at making rookies believe that if they just get Product ABC their mixes will come together. There is no doubt a certain level of equipment you need to do the job, but let's face it, most major DAW packages have bundled plug-ins that rival what was sold separately many years ago. Buying the latest recreation of a vintage processor (that Johnny Rockstar endorses as "better than the original") is almost never going to make the difference. If a mix or a song isn't coming together, it's not likely the gear that is lacking. It's an inward problem that can only be resolved with learning, practice, and trial and error.
Gain staging
Kuru made the same point but there is a lot of misinformation around proper levels and it took me 12-15 years to figure that out. I consider myself intermediate and I still have a lot to learn about gain staging. You can open the manual of many top-flight DAW packages and the manufacturer recommendation will still be to record as hot as possible. There are a lot more articles about gain staging and level setting now, but the old 16-bit adage of pegging the meters unfortunately still persists.
Never finishing
This is still my Achilles Heel. Someone mentioned the tendency to push material out and not give it a thorough overview. The other challenge is the inability to say "good enough" or "this is the best I can do right now" and call it a day. Brian Transeau (a.k.a. BT) gave this advice in an interview and he said you have to finish. You have to get in the habit of closing projects and eventually your projects will get better. I have hundreds (thousands?) of Gigabytes of unfinished projects and while it's easy to say I'm time-constrained, it's more accurate to say I'm insecure and afraid of judgment. I never share anything.
If I think of others, I'll post again.
-
One that really bothers me is Native Instruments B4. I still don't understand why they dropped it and went to a sample based replacement.
B4 was quite a plugin. I wish I snagged it before it was discontinued. After Kontakt took off, it seemed like NI drifted toward sample-based instruments and libraries and put oscillator-based instruments in a distant second place (or third or fourth place if you count their DJ products, etc).
-
I started with and still use Korg Legacy Collection in 2005. Does anyone remember all the nay-slayer predictions and whining about future support/compatibility?
Absent their terrible installer and copy protection app (Korg Software Pass), I think Korg has done a phenomenal job supporting and growing the KLC collection. If I wasn't having so many issues with their installer I'd pick up the Triton plugin.
I have both the W/S and M1 plugins, and I use the M1 quite a bit. Those 16-bit samples really glue into a track.
-
Hey all,
Plugin instruments are great, but as time marches on you run the risk of support running out or the inability to install them on later operating systems.
I still use the Waldorf A1 which was bundled with Cubase SX in the early 2000's. They never ported it to 64bit, so I run it through a bridging utility on Cubase 6.5. I'll tell you what... If you have some decent effects plugins to round it out, you can do far worse than the A1 for basses and comp sounds. It's a very CPU-efficient instrument with a fat tone. If I was in a contest to produce a piece of music quickly I would definitely include it in my arsenal.
I also still use Native Instruments Pro-53. You can find some newer recreations of the Prophet 5 with Arturia, etc., but again, it's an extremely efficient plugin with some decent presets that serve as great starting points for your own sounds. I still use it in many compositions (again, with a 32-to-64 bit bridging utility). It's one of the best 150 dollars I've ever spent. And the simple, tinny built-in delay? I love it...
Last, there is Pentagon 1. It was ultimately acquired by Cakewalk but I bought it before that happened. I don't use it as much but it did provide a critical sound for a few compositions. I doubt I'll be able to keep it going into Win10, etc.
Plugins that sounded great 20 years ago still sound great today. Hopefully manufacturers will continue to support their software as operating systems progress (like Korg has done with the Legacy Collection).
Todd
-
Are you sure Cubase doesn't have something similar?
Hi Mark. It's hard to say since I'm still running v6.5. Maybe I'll download a demo of 10.5 on my leisure laptop and see what's changed.
They have changed a lot with routing. For example, later versions allow you to route VST instruments into standard mixer channels as an input. You can't do that with 6.5. Absent busses, there is no routing option in 6.5 for VSTs into a mixer channel other than itself.
Way back in the VST 3.7 and VST 5.5 days, you had more control over the channel that a VSTi occupied. With SX and later versions, a VSTi channel was just created in the mixer by default.
If v10.5 does have a way to do this elegantly, I'll take the time this Summer or Fall to roll my system. My hardware is still in pretty decent shape, and I could always bump my RAM up for cheap (going from 16 GB to 32 GB). For the flexibility it would give me, it would be worth the time (plus I wouldn't have to deal with software incompatibility issues anymore with newer, Win10 stuff).
Todd
-
I'll add two...
The Syntronik 99 library, which I posted about separately, and I upgraded my Steven Slate drum plugin to v5.5.
Both are well worth it.
Todd
-
It was more expensive than it's competition at the time, and also more difficult to program. Those were the 2 biggest obstacles I faced when trying to sell one.
People who did buy them purchased a very elegant keyboard. That's the best way I could describe it. I gigged with one for a short while (I could say that about most any keyboard produced
Very true... A Wavestation was about $2,200-$2,300, a Roland D-70 was about the same, and I think the SY77 was around $2,700 (if memory serves). The SY99 would be more expensive than that, given the extra keys.
The Korg T-series was *much* more expensive, but I don't think those came along until a bit later.
What level are you finishing mixes to (gain)?
in Craig Anderton's Sound, Studio, and Stage
Posted
Thanks guys. I guess another way to ask the question is how much gain uplift are you applying with a limiter to get your final level?
3 dB? 6dB? More?
When I have to add 6+ dB during mastering, I find that it raises the noise floor and with audible hiss (and these are pretty clean keyboards through an RME Hammerfall/Multiface II).