|
Multiband mastering
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJREMIDI |
How would you setup the bands of your multiband compressor for mastering a trance song? Would it vary from project to project or are there some general guidelines?
Thanks! |
|
|
| camsr |
Mastering is really about giving a song a Sonic Signature. Its like the sound that has been ingrained in your mind since childhood by overdriven radio stations. Take a listen to the radio between rock, rnb, and dance music stations and you will notice they all have a different balance of frequencies, but this balance is constant for each individual station, and doesn't often change.
For club style music, you want solid contained bass. Try 120hz. Lower the mids a bit because these are excrutiatingly painful to listen to in the club. Then the sibilant range should have good dynamic and about the same average RMS power as the bass spectrum. |
|
|
| nephilim |
as with virtually everything else, this would always vary from project to project... the only thing i can say is:
trial-and-error
generally speaking, though: on EQs (and multiband compressing) a "smiley"-shape on the frequency spectrum will do the trick.. you don't want too much mid-frequencies in your mix! |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJREMIDI
Would it vary from project to project or are there some general guidelines? |
Yes.
By even asking this question you're showing that you don't really understand the point of a multiband compressor, so I'd personally suggest staying away from them until you can at least make an educated guess as to which bands need treatment and how much. |
|
|
| DJREMIDI |
I understand the concept behind multiband compression. I didn't ask whether I should try and do it on my own or not. I asked what should the cutoff points of the bands be set to for trance songs. Obviously the low end band for a hip hop song would be setup differently from a trance song since trance basslines tend to have a lot more low-mid frequencies.
I am trying to find out if there are any general guidelines when it comes to setting up the bands on a multiband compressor specifically for mastering trance songs.
I'll just figure it out myself. Thanks. |
|
|
| Mr Rogers |
there is no guidlines.
making music should be ur own creations. If u want a low freq bass, or a higher one. that is totally up to u. which ever sound ur looking for will be different in every single track.
If u set guidlines, u set restrictions.
Follow ur ear, if ur track is sounding the way u like it sonically, stick with it. don't worry about parrameters.
just stay outta the red ;) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Surely you don't believe that every single trance track sounds exactly the same? Thus, why would you believe that there are some sort of "general guidelines"?
Multiband compressors are used for two reasons:
1) To treat particular areas of the spectrum which have particularly high or frequent transients (often the bass);
2) To "shape" the spectrum of a track that isn't particularly consistent with its spectrum.
In other words, multiband compressors are used to treat mix problems. I'd argue that these tools should be reserved for mastering engineers who have been handed a weak mix that they need to try and improve. Because ultimately, the result will be of lower quality than it would have been if the mix were simply fixed in the first place. And it will also take much longer to do properly.
If you can't get by with a regular compressor, you need to go back to your mix and determine what's wrong. If, on the other hand, you think that a multiband compressor will automagically make your mix sound like a PvD or Ferry Corsten track if only someone would tell you the "right" settings to use, then you're a lazy pissflap who shouldn't be producing at all.
No offense, I'm just stating a fact. I've used MBs before, and for a time I loved them because I was always able to make the track sound "better". A little bit better. Then I learned how to actually mix (I should say, I got out of kindergarten and into grade 1, because there's still a long way to go), and that's when it sounded MUCH better.
Drop the MB, and fix the mix. That's my advice, take it or leave it. |
|
|
| DJREMIDI |
Are actually trying to say that if a track is well mixed it needs no mastering? That's absolute nonsense! If that were the case mastering studios would all be out of business. You can have the best mix possible, mixed by a world top mixing engineer, yet it CAN be made to sound even better with some mastering tools. Multiband compression just happens to be one of those tools.
I am not trying to use the MB compressor to fix a poor mix, but simply to make it sound slightly better. My mixes sound good even without mastering and only require limiting to compete with other commercial tracks, but I always strive for perfection and believe that by utilizing mastering tools I can improve the sound of my tracks. |
|
|
| Derivative |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJREMIDI
Are actually trying to say that if a track is well mixed it needs no mastering? |
No, Diginut is actually spot on with respect to nearly everything he says.
There are no real fixed definitions of what Mastering is anymore. It used to be that you would do a Premastering stage and send it to mastering house so they could get it on Vinyl without the needle skipping due to phasey bass. That or dither it down to a CD/DVD playback standard.
Nowadays these are increasingly seen as just steps in the song writing process in an attempt to end up with a professional product at the end of it.
If your mixdown is really truly spectacular, very little work needs to be done on it with post processing on the master bus. To consistantly get your mixdowns that good that would require a mathematical understanding of digital audio and signal processing. And if you have that learning under your belt - you are basically a sound engineer anyway and can make a living off mastering other people's mixdowns.
However a perfectly mixed down track doesn't mean if the song is rubbish.
If you think about it - mastering never made a tune good. Mastering never turned a poorly produced tune into anything other than a mastered but poorly produced tune. With respect to albums, mastering would involve making each song homogenous to a certain degree and with respect to every other track on the disk. Its the final professional touch but you need the goods before you get to that stage. If you are good enough, you won't have to touch up the end product too much, if at all.
Mastering studios are still in business because there is a huge industry around it. Very few people ever stop learning in this industry and very few people can say their mixdowns are as good as they are going to get, nevermind perfect. Mastering houses exist to do certain aspects of the trade which you need a mathematical understanding of in order to accomplish and not up.
As musicians for the most part, the producer doesn't benefit a whole lot from thinking about their work mathematically. Its generally better to go with what sounds best.
You still need to do the learning though for the sake of consistancy.
If you don't fully understand what a Compressor does and what a Paragraphic EQ does - do not use a Multiband Compressor. Not until you know what both of those tools do and how to use them in every conceivable way. Otherwise you will seriously not understand what you are doing. I don't know about you but I hate winging things like this. Its too easy to make your tunes sound worse by fluking through the entire process. |
|
|
|
|
