Mastering Chain at Universal Mastering presented by Pete Doell
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2015
- Pete shows us Mastering Studio A at Universal and he tells us how he does mastering, both analog and digital. One of the main features of the studio is the System 6000. The System 6000 is often the first and last thing a song or score is working with, when it’s in Mastering Studio A.
Read and learn more:
System 6000: www.tcelectronic.com/new-syste...
TC ICON: www.tcelectronic.com/tc-icon/
The way he just explained mid-side!... it finally makes sense to me. Thank you sir!
Just get the goodhertz midside plug-in on demo. It simplifies the process and when you’re don’t using it, you truly understand.
Great video. Great easy info. Wonderful set up. Short & complete. Thx
A great deal of mixing info. Thanks
the R+L unlinked reverb idea seems cool, never heard of it
I must agree. Good hz spectrum on The speakers!!
One of the BIGGEST most important things besides the AD/DA converters is the quality of the word clocks. I cannot stress this enough. Jitter management baby! Antelope doesn't have the lowest jitter clocks. FYI. Companies that suck do not like putting out their jitter specs.
Signal Processing
Digital signal from computer -> Gets converted into analog -> Re recorded into second computer.
Analog EQS
Analog Compressors
Digital EQS
Digital Compressors
You need a second computer for different sample rates. You want it in native.
Surprised to see the Dynaudio speakers against the back wall and the Genelecs on their sides.
I know this video is 8yrs old but I’m curious on why you have the tweeter in and woofer out on the Genelecs???
Real mastering session
thanks
The price for those speakers is $35 thousand.
Surprised to see his tweeter cones facing in rather than out on the Genelecs. I've always faced them out on nearfeilds
The Genelec 1030As should always be upright. Naughty of him. A big No No.
@@waldiewave Why
Curious to see that the smaller monitors are layed down horizontally, AND with both tweeters towards the MIDDLE. 'Till today I've only seen with tweeters pointing out. Anyone want to elaborate on this subject?
+Infamous Aimed at him closer to his ears. His sweet spot.
+Infamous It's because ideally you want the tweeters at a certain angle, lower frequencies are more forgivable because they're less directional. If he would have had his monitors closer together the tweeters would probably be on the outside rather than inside to achieve a good phantom center.
i thought the tweeters on your nearfield monitors should alway be pointing out. could anyone tell me why they might be pointing inwards?
I noticed the same, curious why no one has replied to this? The tweeters usually should be to the outside to align better to listener. There may be certain exceptions according to speaker design, tweeter polarity, and the crossover order.
@@TheFRiNgEguitars and as far as i know you shouldn't lie on one sie speakers designed to stay upward because you risk to mess with the emission pattern
but since these are UNIVERSAL studio i think they can measure and adjust the shit out of it
@@johnmiller8279 I think you are talking about the dispersion pattern? Yes you're right, with side placement the vertical becomes the horizontal pattern which will be usually tighter, The near fields have a waveguide, which are likely time aligned. (so these can be on their sides) The speakers will still image sharply, perhaps more so, however the listening sweet spot will be smaller... and pretty much restricted to dead center between the speakers for best response.
I have a question: Why not just use 3 computers and perform all processing in real time while " in the box" sending the final output into the third computer.
TJ Mack becuase all in the box doesn't sound as good as this analog gear
Bs I see Weiss digital eq and compressor
Antelope amari is better then rme adi-2 dac fs pro?
TC you really need the finalizer vst plugin.
I don't quite understand using two computers. You can get interfaces with AUX sends or FX send/return for outboard gear.
They probably don't work with two sample rates even if you use two interfaces?
So if its not a conversion quality issue why not convert and then just send via AUX?
its to avoid conversion
its to avoid having to digital dither. you could do it with 1 computer, but your DAW/software will have to DIGITALLY convert it afterwards, which is what he’s trying to avoid.
for example, lets say your mixed track is recorded at 96khz/32bit
chain with 1 computer:
96khz/32bit > analog gear > 96khz/32bit > final 44.1khz/16bit (software/daw export conversion)
chain with 2 computers:
96khz/32bit > analog gear > final 44.1khz (second computer recording)
Anyone know about that eq (with the black knobs) above the keyboard? what brand is it?
+Miles Feinberg Sontec?
+Miles Feinberg It's the ITI MES-430 Parametric Mastering Eq. Also look into the Prism Sound Maselec MEA-2 Mastering Eq.
Why do you re-record the signal at 44.1kHz? Wouldn't it make sense to always record at the highest available sample rate that can be converted down to whatever resolution needed later?!
my guess is (Just a theory) that whatever sample rate you record at (even if its low) would retain most of the original quality been recorded through it even if the recorded audio has a higher quality... E.g, If you record a 192kHZ audio source from another computer into a 44KHZ sample rate on the computer you choose to use for the final export, the re-recorded audio should be able to keep many qualities of the original audio been recorded through it while it still remains a smaller size....
+kadekbalian I was thinking the same thing. I can't seem to understand as to why he is using that archaic analog mixer. Every time a DAC converts a digital signal to analogue one, it looses quality. He should change his title to "butcher".
+Honey Bear Focusrite? ...The fuck are you talking about? Every time you convert digital to analogue you lose signal quality because of the lossy nature of the analogue signal. So analog technology is not archaic? Wow, you learn something everyday.. Not! lol Just because old stubborn mastering engineers and the sheep they influence STILL use doesn't mean it's valuable because it's in "real mastering studios....".
shechshire shechshire honey bear is implying exactly what you just said essentially. I can do 20 passes of da-ad on my Aopgee symphony and it still nulls to zero so there's no loss at all on higher end converters. It's all about the dynamic range of the ad, da stages, THD and the actual bits you end up with so yes it is indeed all about computer science.
There's also nothing like that Sontec EQ he has there available as a plugin. There's also vibe in the Dangerous gear that he uses. No offence pal but you can't comment on that gear unless you've used it. You're not going to hear the difference in your bedroom studio anyway.
mrdan-music I take it you've read my other comment.. What I meant was that, studying sound, as in real sound in it's natural analogue state has nothing to do with computer science and hence that person wouldn't be able to talk out of knowledge because they don't understand computer science and how sound becomes digitized and then converted by a DAC into analogue again.
I understand that mega expensive DACs are extremely low jitter but the key word here is LOW.. Meaning loss of fidelity still exist. Sorry but, if their's no need for it then why even do it? Why go through the trouble? In fact, analogue purists' number one complaint is people that take an analogue sound and then run the whole thing through digital equipment.
Interviewer asked a v good question at 1m16 and engineer didnt understand his point. Was curious to know the answer! I know its very common to record at 96k and convert afterwards
he answered he'd do this if he had a single-computer full digital processing, but he uses analogue gear between the source and the recorder, then in this configuration it removes a conversion step.
96 -> analogue -> 44.1 record
instead of
96 -> analogue -> 96 record -> 44.1 conversion
Quality mix and mastering is not about how loud you can get a song. The game is all messed up nowadays. Of course you want loudness, but not compressed all to hell where you're loosing the beauty of the music.
It's because listeners don't care about that technical stuff at all. It's engineers who worry too much!
sorry just saw the comments below
This is definitely a stone age for modern software VSTs for mastering. Not that it is impossible to make great things with it (knowledge and ear is the king), but I guess it's definitely harder to achieve some things. This is mostly for hardware fetishists. Also, imagine how much noise it's added when you do DA and then AD.
Caveman rig gets the job done! I think you are imagining the "added noise."
… and thats why all the legendary hits are mastered/mixed on ANALOG gear. If you like TikTok ringtones i guess VST can work for you. This is for the big boys!
@@frutini I bet there are some great legendary hits made digitally, ain't it?
@@Essential-Electronic-Music fisher - losing it is not a legendary hit
You are the weakest link, and clearly don't understand a lick of what you're talking about or the gear that you just saw.
Pete does not get the first question.... He ask would it hurt to record in the same computer at the wrong sampling rate.... would doing that and converting degrade the outcome? that was not hard.
whats the name of those speaker near to him??
Genelec A1031
Genelec 1032c
He has the deepest voice in the world haha
if cant afford a $12k prizim converter...can i use a $500-1k presonus, or something... for A/D - D/A converter? its both 24 bit 192 sampling... it will do the job,?
No
Try a Lavry Gold.. under 10k and sounds AMAZING
phat handyman try a Lynx Hilo for about $2.5k
Just do it in the box. Most people do.
BAD MUSIC SOUNDS BAD AT ANY PRICE.
Two computers rather than Dither?
Pete has a broadcaster's voice. He'll always have worked lined up should he decide to quit mastering.
Of course yes, you have to understand the theory of mastering not the tools of mastering.
Wrong ! When you understand the tools 1st. Then you understand theory.
I just deleted all my free mastering VST's
why?
why use analog for mastering???
Because every piece of analog gear has unique sound, depth and width. Plugins still can't deliver that.
For the same reason virtually every professinal guitarist uses a real tube amp instead of a plugin
@@justaguy3515 That's debatable because even modern digital limiters sound different... If not better :)
0:53 - wtf?
ozorg maybe movies?? (On movie film tape)
LOL wtf is right LOL
WoWww what ehh voice... Hollywood's loss... He must have been a real ladies man during his times. 😉
holy fuck lol master the video audio or what LOL cool dude though!
He can't even hear high frequencies
that's a lot of hookis pookis,, i just use a laptop
and that's why your shit will NEVER sound like the Masters
@@messiahblack2295 I AM the Master
This might be the worse commentary I have ever seen. How do you stump the interviewee ?
Seems like interviewer was really clueless, or maybe just not great at English?
All this processing and thousands of dollars in mastering just for people to listen to the finished product with ipod-tier earbuds and 10 dolar speakers, lol
people still use hardware? why?