SurroundByUs.com

A Stereo-to-Surround Community
It is currently Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:23 pm
  • No posting regarding file sharing of copyrighted material is allowed
  • AudioMuxer is here
  • Spec and SpecWeb are here
 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


The tools and techniques described and provided on this forum are intended for use on material owned by users and for their personal use as covered by "fair use" and other applicable copyright laws. The owners and moderators of this forum do not suggest or condone any violation of copyright or other applicable laws. Any use of these methods outside this forum in a manner which violates "fair use" or copyright is done so at the individual's own peril and is not the responsibility of surroundbyus.com.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:52 pm 
Offline
Surroundaholic

Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:37 pm
Posts: 53
I have tested and Ozone mastering is the best I've worked.
In the case of preventing high levels. I recommend using a plugin to raise or lower the db per channel (the package from Tony ... he hung on a forum here.) brings one. greetings to all and is excellent on SPEC. awaiting the new version. greetings


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:20 am 
Offline
Surround Junkie

Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:15 pm
Posts: 34
Yep -set the latency - the surrounds with Spec 4.0 on its own were better than with the mastering VSTs.
Thanks again for the advice


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:02 am 
Offline
Tri-Field

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:27 am
Posts: 3
Hi,

Thank you for the highly automated surround layout, indeed it saves a lot of processing & calculation time! I've a question on the Mastering side of the layout which needs reassuring.
What is the correct approach to work when additional mastering is needed (and not go with the Free Mastering group) in SPEC layout? 1. Process sound with desired tweaks bypassing Free Mastering and ZPan (in case of ArcTan), and afterward feed the single MCH file in the separate Mastering layouts as a separate process to desired results, OR is there a way to link commercial mastering group from the additional mastering layouts in SPEC layout instead of the Free Mastering group.

For example, when try using Ozone mastering group placed in the SPEC layout instead of the Free Mastering group, there are latency issues which I do not know how to resolve - maybe not making the proper latency connections, if any, or maybe the layout cannot work that way and do not resolve such use, and one must only resort to working with Ozone in a separate mastering layout?! Just not sure of the right approach, having spend several days tinkering to no good results! Any clearance and help on that is highly appreciated... Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:25 am 
Offline
Tri-Field

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:27 am
Posts: 3
darkj wrote:
Hi,

Thank you for the highly automated surround layout, indeed it saves a lot of processing & calculation time! I've a question on the Mastering side of the layout which needs reassuring.
What is the correct approach to work when additional mastering is needed (and not go with the Free Mastering group) in SPEC layout? 1. Process sound with desired tweaks bypassing Free Mastering and ZPan (in case of ArcTan), and afterward feed the single MCH file in the separate Mastering layouts as a separate process to desired results, OR is there a way to link commercial mastering group from the additional mastering layouts in SPEC layout instead of the Free Mastering group.

For example, when try using Ozone mastering group placed in the SPEC layout instead of the Free Mastering group, there are latency issues which I do not know how to resolve - maybe not making the proper latency connections, if any, or maybe the layout cannot work that way and do not resolve such use, and one must only resort to working with Ozone in a separate mastering layout?! Just not sure of the right approach, having spend several days tinkering to no good results! Any clearance and help on that is highly appreciated... Thanks!


Well, I am about 80% hinted that a separate mastering layout is the answer, but I hope that it can somehow be linked inside SPEC instead the FREE Mastering group without latency issues (to eliminate the separate mastering process)...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:52 am 
Offline
SBU Wiki Team
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:01 am
Posts: 282
darkj wrote:
Well, I am about 80% hinted that a separate mastering layout is the answer, but I hope that it can somehow be linked inside SPEC instead the FREE Mastering group without latency issues (to eliminate the separate mastering process)...


If it's a resource-hogging VST like Ozone4, i'd say it'd be difficult to incorporate that into the SPEC layout unless you've got a very powerful PC. even in a separate layout, with ZAG included, you're still looking at overcoming the latency issues. I usually go to Zeerround when I have latency issues, so am of no help there myself. Perhaps he can chime in. I bet he will. :)

A word of advice, though: I think choosing your source material carefully is going to give you much better results than delving into mastering, in either pre or post-processing, though. I used to overuse mastering VSTs a lot, and now do not use any at all. I realize that working with sources such as first-generation CDs from the mid-80s can be difficult, though.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:36 am 
Offline
Tri-Field

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:27 am
Posts: 3
River161 wrote:
darkj wrote:
Well, I am about 80% hinted that a separate mastering layout is the answer, but I hope that it can somehow be linked inside SPEC instead the FREE Mastering group without latency issues (to eliminate the separate mastering process)...


If it's a resource-hogging VST like Ozone4, i'd say it'd be difficult to incorporate that into the SPEC layout unless you've got a very powerful PC. even in a separate layout, with ZAG included, you're still looking at overcoming the latency issues. I usually go to Zeerround when I have latency issues, so am of no help there myself. Perhaps he can chime in. I bet he will. :)

A word of advice, though: I think choosing your source material carefully is going to give you much better results than delving into mastering, in either pre or post-processing, though. I used to overuse mastering VSTs a lot, and now do not use any at all. I realize that working with sources such as first-generation CDs from the mid-80s can be difficult, though.


Thank you for you thoughts and advice - and yes, I know the pros and cons of additional mastering, but sometimes this is beyond want and can't be helped ;-( Quite often older material from 60s-early 70s that is simply hollow, dull, muffled or simply toneless or too "reverbly" sounding just needs the right amount of sparkling to brighten the sound a bit... It's different per anyone's taste IMO, I for one like hard rock, heavy metal and heavier sounds with crystal clear highs (cymbals & hi-hats, etc) and if the original mastering lacks in that domain, I am willing to re-master. Now heavier sound is my main surround conversion interest, for which in addition I can say I really struggle still to find an optimal and satisfying conversion Plogue method. Maybe it's genre specific coz` with several multilayered rhythm & bass guitars, etc, it's hard tough to separate anything at all - my best bet is still ArcTan but...)

PS. My machine is Q6600 Quad with 4Gb ram but latency is an issue with many layouts still... Thanks once again for your thoughts!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:45 am 
Offline
SBU Wiki Team
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:01 am
Posts: 282
Hard rock definitely depends on mix. Most of the 80's and early 90's are shot because of the dated production of the time with those hollow guitars and cavernous drums. Some modern remasters of that material seem to subscribe to the brickwalling theory of mastering rather than bringing those mixes up to modern standards, unfortunately. Some of vinyl rips I've come across here and there actually do improve sonically somewhat upon the mix. Hard rock production was definitely better before, and after, that era.

With some of these albums as well, the difference between bringing out the sonics and "ow! my friggin ears!" is thin.

Your best bet is always going to be ArcTan. You can definitely reach for a bit more separation, if you are not getting it, via use of the SLICE rear blend silders, but don't try to create audible artifacts when all channels are running. Also remember that ArcTan places sounds in the soundfield and not in particular speakers and that you're listening for separation and lack of artifacting within that soundfield, not whether that SR channel sounds great on its own. Little things, even using that "recenter" slider a tiny bit every now and then, may work to increase your separation.

I've messed around somewhat with the DeVerb/MoVerb plugins and some heavily reverbed albums (tried it on some Jesus & Mary Chain once - THERE was an experiment!). Your mileage may vary, but using them with some restraint on your source material might help out.

In the end, though, I still believe in "source source source."

Remember that we supplied the "Free Mastering Tools" because we wanted to ensure that the SPEC package itself remained either freeware-based or home-brewed. I agree that there are better paid tools out there, though.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pm 
Offline
SBU Wiki Team
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:01 am
Posts: 656
Re: Latency,

If your mastering VST has a latency (Delay out in samples) output pin you need to connect to the first or second input pin on both the Normalization and the Recording Gate & Sync Bidules.

It's OK to connect two or more things to an input on those.

If your VST does not have such a pin, but still has latency, you will need to add a constant or integer variable that is set to the latency amount, and make similar connections.

Those can be found via right click --> Building blocks --> Math.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:02 pm 
Offline
Surroundaholic

Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:16 am
Posts: 52
Zeerround wrote:

If your VST does not have such a pin, but still has latency, you will need to add a constant or integer variable that is set to the latency amount, and make similar connections.
But how can you find out what's the amount of latency of that VST in such a case?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:21 pm 
Offline
SBU Wiki Team
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:01 am
Posts: 656
Typically the vst will tell you in the gui.

Worst case we can measure it with the live pc plugin, as we used to use in spec.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Protected by Anti-Spam ACP POWERED_BY