There is an autistic science nigga that thinks that these plugins will do the same exact job for free than anything you can throw money at plugin wise. Thoughts? image.png
Yeah... They're just as good as ozone and the conpressor is equivalent to a waves ssl strip.
I'm being sarcastic obviously. It really depends on the sound you're going for or the amount of work you want to do.
Ozone can literally compare your track against another track and dial in a good starting place on a master, and can therfore assure more consistency across all tracks.
Imitation analog channel strips, compressors, and saturation can really add body, especially if they allow some channel bleed like on a real console.
Those plugins may be fine for some styles, but not rock.
And I'm not biased by the way and am very serious about style / ends. If it's the sound you want go for it. Fucking rewire a speak n' spell and make some noise. If you're doing EDM, it'll do something and maybe something interesting. But sometimes you need a flat head screwdriver and other times you need a socket wrench.
Don't forget to analyze phases, and especially for two instruments in the same master channel that are within the same frequency range. If you're using midi, you'll have to jump it to analog first.
> It's clearer than it was because I ducked the bass.
That's the lazy way.
And phasing has an effect at any frequency. That's science. Go ahead a make a comb at any frequency and tell me you don't hear anything. We have plugins that create phasing for effect and not just in the bass frequencies. Simply put, you clearly don't understand the physics and mechanics underlying sound production, and I'm not going to argue further. You're just wrong.
What you're describing is the physical effect that too much bass has on a speaker diaphragm and how it effects the output of other frequencies on that physical medium, and the listener's perception thereof. That's not phasing.
Phasing is the effect of the combined polarity of current in a wire has on the movement of the speaker diaphragm due to the simultaneous receipt of opposite currents.
You can also have phasing in the air as between the monitors, but then you're brining in a lot into the calculation, i.e. the room, the materials, and output positioning. You can't control where the listener is though, so you can't worry about that, best you can do is a/b/c check, pink noise tests, white noise tests, etc.
If I have multiple guitar tracks of the same riff to thicken the mix, they better be time and phase aligned or it kills the beef. The same is true when you have multiple mics on the same drum. Two mics have to especially be checked, because they may be mechanically reversed, or off due to positioning.
If you want a mediocre mix, be lazy. If you want a crisp, punchy mix, you'll study the phases and adjust as possible given what you have. There are plugins to help compare tracks.
Yes, nudging a 100 tracks takes time, but there's a reason Def Leppard's Hysteria took several months to engineer, and they did that before having all of the modern tools.
@Humpleupagus@charlie_root@ned Phase is really important the lower you go. It doesn't really cause problems most of the time above 500 Hz. That's why so many EDM producers just duck the bass around the kick or at least filter out the lows in the bass (though that's a phase issue in itself). Oscilloscopes are so useful for understanding that. You can just alter the phase of things by putting an allpass at the frequency causing problems.
That's what I was thinking this bx_digital tool would be perfect for, I'm working more with synths so they are more precise, however I was warned to only make small incremental changes with M/S because too much can ruin a mix.
@charlie_root@Humpleupagus@ned mid/side on an individual instrument can be used as an effect but with mastering what you're looking for is optimizing the stereo field. Track I'm mixing right now, I knocked the mid out completely on one track.
@Humpleupagus@charlie_root@ned Most mastering engineers play with the mid side balance. When you're mastering you often don't have access to the stems. You're right though a perfect mix wouldn't need that.
Me when trying to get the final sound...: :AAAAAA_glitch: :AAAAAA_glitch: :AAAAAA_glitch: :AAAAAA_glitch: :AAAAAA_glitch: :AAAAAA_glitch: :AAAAAA_glitch: :AAAAAA_glitch: :AAAAAA_glitch: :AAAAAA_glitch: :AAAAAA_glitch: :AAAAAA_glitch: :AAAAAA_glitch: :AAAAAA_glitch:
While there's always some clean up of the mix in that process, the way I view mastering when you have control of the mix is to make different tracks sound similar and to create transition between them, so as to make discrete tracks meld into a single work.
People don't really produce "albums" any more, so it's becoming a lost art.
It really is. Like I said in my reply way above.... if that's the sound you're going for, go for it.
But in most genres there are some pretty standard approaches if you way that "sound". For example, in rock, hard panning guitars is very common, as is side chaining the bass drum to compressors on various tracks. Then there's the uncommon stuff that's discretionary. For example, I like putting an electronic kick with a band pass between 1000 to 2500k to lead the ear to the actual bass drum, to give the illusion of louder bass. The electronic pop shouldn't stick out though. It should just lead the listeners attention.
Just remember, if your shit is good enough, you can play like shit and mix it like a turd. Go listen to Appetite for Destruction. I won't argue about how great it is, but it's sloppy af.