What kind of processors do you use on your master bus?

Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:13 am

Well...the one is very heavy and might require 2 hands...and the other is a virtual device (software) though I could hold the box...
Wink

(JK of course).

I think it's all a matter of how they're used in the scheme of things. Again, with the software L2, there are tons of plugs loaded before it usually and you're usually trying to keep those plugs from clipping the buss and then squash the mix with the L2. Or the opposite, you set up all the plugs on the mix and then allow it to clip but going to the L2, it limits it.

Whereas with the hardware L2, you'd get your analog mix pumping along at a pretty decent (to insane) level and then you strap the processor on as it's going into the digital domain.

Granted, on the hardware L2, everything happens at 48 bit so your 24 bit signal is getting adjusted to the right in the binary world to keep from clipping that actual digital buss, then the L2 is applied and the signal dithered back down to 24 bit. In your software, it's doing the same basic thing only operating at 32 float (hopefully). The number differences between the two (32 and 4 Cool

shouldn't make any difference in this application.

Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:52 pm

patrick_like_static wrote:

Massive Mastering wrote:

the loud one sounds like [SELF-CENSORED] by comparison, but that's the one they want

My car's CD system starts to impart sound once it's driven beyond a certain level. Surely this is some reason to make the source material as loud as is possible, right?

No, it overdrives the system's input stage -- Distorting it at the earliest possible chance.

Amplifiers aren't designed for the kind of input levels we're feeding them. Making discs as loud as they are now is bad for everything, start-to-finish.

My car stereo sounds like crap when it's overdriven. Yeah, it "imparts a sound" on it - that's for sure. But when it's distorted on the way in, there's never any reason to turn it up to where it's designed to run.

Quote:

Now I'm no proponent of the current volume standard. In fact, it's unattainable by me: the sonic equivalent of a Victoria's Secret model. But I'm sure some albums (Our Lady Peace's Gravity comes to mind) would have lacked a lot of guts without the insane mastering.

I'm all about getting it to punch -- But I have never, NEVER, EVER, not once, never ever ever ever, heard a recording at -10dBRMS that didn't sound amazingly better at -14dBRMS. Never. Ever. Not ever, not even close, no comparison, ever.

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:04 am

Presently we use a Behringer DEQ 2496 to a Masterliknk --tried a lot in the last 30 years ..settled on the gear we now incorporate .

This topic sponsored by: