TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- DJ set EQ

DJ set EQ

Hi Guys


Want to know if any of you do any mastering after you recorded a set. Even though I make sure that I record my set with a decent signal going into Logic I find that the volume is a bit weak after I burned it to a CD.
Does anyone have any tips on how to warm up the sound?

Thanks

sidechain, analog.


no just add a little compression and raise the gain a littlebit.

Your tracks are already mastered, don't try to master them again. Doing so will almost always yield disastrous results: what you think is a good change at the time will sound unnatural and/or fatiguing on other playback systems. Instead use a high quality, professional sound card and dj mixer. Make sure your soundcard input is all the way up. Watch your levels very carefully and leave around 10 dB of headroom so you don't clip. Having the peaks around -6 dB or even -10 dB below 0 is fine, in fact its preferred so you have some headroom to work with later. Most RCA record outputs on dj mixers output at -10 dB, meaning the record level output is 10 dB below the clipping point of the mixer (the red light at the top). Once you're done recording, increase the overall level with the gain to as close to 0 dB as you can without clipping. MAKE SURE you don't clip (you'll be able to see if you are by looking closely at the waveform). Convert the file from 24bit to 16bit but be sure to dither before you do. This allows for a higher noise floor = ability to raise the volume with less distortion.

Optional: if you're still not happy with how loud it is, apply a limiter to the mix with a couple extra dBs of input gain. This will increase the overall volume of the mix without clipping, as it automatically reduces the gain before the clipping occurs. Set the output to -0.3 dB just to be on the safe side, some limiters are less effective than others. I never push a limiter more than 2-4 dB, doing so will alter your transitions by making the mix less dynamic (less of a difference between soft and loud parts).

Convert the 16 bit WAV to mp3 with your preferred mp3 encoder, mine is Max (for Mac). I think encoding at less than 320 this days is foolish, but that's up to you.

Bam, you're done.

Oh, and forget about your mastering plugins, they're useless on already mastered tracks. Holler if you have any questions.

all it needs is analogue boost

All my mixes get recorded to an Alesis Masterlink. Only thing I do afterwards is normalize or level boost. Maybe a little compression to keep the levels in check. Especially during transitions. But that's it. The tracks are already mastered.

On the Masterlink, I set the record levels to -6db. The signal comes out of the mixer digital and inputs digital. -6 for a Masterlink is a good starting point. Sometimes during transitions I'll see a spike peak at around -2. But that's ok. The onboard compression and limiting can take care of that. I'll boost the signal during mixdown as close to 0db as possible. If not that's ok too. It's digital. All real digital mixing consoles are referenced at -18db as their analog 0db unity. So boosting in the digital domain isn't as important as it is in the analog world.

Thanks for the reply guys will play around with this over the wekend.

Just try to keep it as balanced as possible. You gain nothing by "boosting" your mix. Listener can boost volume itself by volume button, and that is better when the sound is clear and not a porridge.

Yes, most of your tracks have already been mastered. Some haven't (there are some fucking sloppy digital labels and producers around), but there will never be a one-size-fits-all option which will work on every track in a mix.

If you think certain tracks need a bit of touching up it's best to do that on a track-by-track basis before you record your mix.

Analogue inputs on sound cards and recording apparatus in general are never perfectly linear though, so you'll find that if you record a track in and normalise your peaks to 0dB, it'll rarely be as loud as the original track. As has been already said, a limiter is often the best way of bringing the level up a bit without clipping, but go easy and use a commercially released track as a reference for volume.

At the end of the day, at the points in a mix when you're layering two tracks together, even with the EQ work in the world you'll usually find the overall level rising a bit. A gentle bit of compression (like that carefully used limiter) helps to keep things even, but it's not going to make up for slopping use of your gains and levels when you record the mix. It also helps things to sound more cohesive, as the overlapping tracks will have a bit of common 'motion'.

Thanks for all the input. I did some tests and found that using just a limiter on the master channel works quite well. I tried using a compressor but it does not always sound good on all the tracks.

Do any of you guys have experience using this software platinumnotes

dont use platinum notes. it tries to remaster your already mastered tracks and slap ozone multiband compressors on them, which is not a good idea. mixed in key on the other hand is a great product.

the main thing to take away from this topic is that less is more. use high quality equipment setup properly and you'll end up with the best sound, period.

no posproduction, ideally you should only use the gain knobs between the track to have a consistent volume, and i personally add 0.8 Db to the master channel but there is no "scientific" purpose of this , don't be afraid to set all the eqs of the upcoming track at the middle, some tracks have a powerful snare and if your last track has a low one it's going to sound bad, you can raise it progressively while the track it's playing.

But you should not:

-Try to master the tracks, the exception can be really old tracks.
-Modify the full 1 hour, 2 hour... because you are destroying the dinamics.

And mix in 320kbps mp3 or wav, this way the sound will be clean

quote:

Originally posted by Rodri Santos But you should not: -Try to master the tracks, the exception can be really old tracks.

I'm afraid I disagree with this - nowadays the quality control, particularly on smaller labels, is so poor that a lot of otherwise really good tracks get through either with bad mastering or no mastering at all.

If a tune's going to sound better with a bit of remastering, then remaster it! I've done this with loads of new tracks I've bought in recent years, not just old tracks.

maybe on some cases but this only apply if you actually know how to do it properly which i think it's not the OP case and mine too

quote:

Originally posted by Rodri Santos maybe on some cases but this only apply if you actually know how to do it properly which i think it's not the OP case and mine too

Only re-master if it really needs it, and make sure you practice a lot first, before you do it. Mastering is an entirely different beast and a craft skill most don't understand, and takes a while to perfect. As a recording engineer, mastering is the job I prefer not to do. You can do some serious damage to a track, if it's not done right. Only tracks I've ever done this too, is the shit sounding ones produced to vinyl. Typically the ones that were pressed in a basement. Otherwise I leave the tracks alone.

quote:

Originally posted by djkatmaus Only re-master if it really needs it, and make sure you practice a lot first, before you do it. Mastering is an entirely different beast and a craft skill most don't understand, and takes a while to perfect. As a recording engineer, mastering is the job I prefer not to do. You can do some serious damage to a track, if it's not done right. Only tracks I've ever done this too, is the shit sounding ones produced to vinyl. Typically the ones that were pressed in a basement. Otherwise I leave the tracks alone.

Only started with production about 9 month ago, so mastering a track is still way out of my league. Most of the time when I come across a badly mastered track it is the lower frequencies that are missing. I have tried to tweak it a bit but the results is still not satisfying, suppose it will take a long time to develop a hearing for mastering.

Thanks for all your time peeps, learning is slow and painful.

Sorry for the shameless self promotion, but I run a mastering house specializing in dance music, so if any of you would like to have your tracks mastered with high grade ANALOG equipment, give me a shout at [email protected]. I also do restoration if you have a track that is damaged...i've had my work featured on BBC radio 1 as well as other well known outlets. I've got a great group of clients who can provide glowing testimonials...shoot me an email for a special TA discounted rate ;-)

www.deliverance-mastering.com

I never do anything to touch up a recording of my mix. I don't know why anybody ever would, as it's not a genuine example of what your mix would sound like. If your levels are all over the place in the recording, then you should learn to use your gains properly.

to be clear the red light of your meters shouldn't make appearance and if you see it think that you need to buy new speakers or use the eqs wisely, red light = clipping

quote:

Originally posted by idoru I never do anything to touch up a recording of my mix.

I will use lite compression.
A bit of limitter but nothing hectic.

If I found the over all sound a little lack luster and muddy then I might apply a very small amount of BBE sonic maximizer. This I am very wary of doing and will refence this on several systems before I let it go.

Cheers
Nem

If you know how to improve your mix quality it's fine but now i think, isn't the live thing what makes djing a bit challenging?

quote:

Originally posted by Rodri Santos If you know how to improve your mix quality it's fine but now i think, isn't the live thing what makes djing a bit challenging?

Indeed, live is what it is all about. But there is also no harm in presenting the best sounding demo possible in order to put you in that situation.

Cheers
Nem

quote:

Originally posted by idoru I don't know why anybody ever would, as it's not a genuine example of what your mix would sound like.

Every club uses compressors and limiters, so you could easily argue that without compression it's not a genuine example. Or more accurately, it's not a genuine example with or without compression as your settings will never be the same as the club's...

Without wanting to drag up the whole argument about what a demo should be like, this is just one way in which any demo you create will never be an accurate representation of one of your live sets, even if it was recorded live! So why bother trying to make it as close as you can when in reality it's a completely different animal?

add compression

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.