Be warned, there is quite a difference in volume between the two, but not at the expense of sound detail !. Oh, and these are those crappy mp3’s.

Something to believe-master ]]> http://www.puretonemastering.net/audio-demos/feed/ 0 http://www.puretonemastering.net/quick-example-of-de-noising/ http://www.puretonemastering.net/quick-example-of-de-noising/#comments Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:32:22 +0000 puretonemastering http://www.puretonemastering.net/?p=959 Hi people

Although I don’t seem to have much time for my own projects right now, I do get a bit here and there. So, I’ve been wondering how to get some of the level 42 stuff sounding less like sandpaper. Although I’ve managed to push the tonal character into something slightly more ear friendly, the sound is still very sharp.

So, having exhausted most other possibilities, I spent half an hour with the headphones on the laptop(not a very friendly work tool with the touch pad mouse, so I never use it much). I then set about trying to remove some of the harmonic distortion created by the tape saturation.

Below are the source, followed by the mastered version, then the de-noised job. When I have some time, I will make a proper job of this for the final thing. I’ve just ordered some HD650 phones for exactly this kind of work. The ones I’m currently using actually hurt my ears. Some kind of 2kish lift that makes even the best material sound quite nasty.

Ignore the intro section. When done properly I’ll automate the noise reduction threshold so it’s unheard at the start.

Love meeting love source

Love meeting love remaster 23-03-2010


Love_meeting_love27-03-2010-temp-denoised.mp3




Hopefully this short post demonstrates the importance of noise removal, and that far from just being about getting rid of the noise, it is quite a musical process.


Thanks for stopping by


Tone

So, M/S eq. I’ve had a few requests about this now, so thought I would shed a little light on the reasonably undocumented subject.

What is it?

It’s clever hard/software, that separates the mono(M) and stereo (S) , or left and right signals to be worked on individually. Although this technique has only recently come to light in the domestic realm, the process dates back quite a while. Where the larger recording studios would actually have to rewire  their consoles to provide the function. Today, it’s much easier to achieve. Being offered as an option on many standard models, as well as more dedicated/specialised versions.

When to use it?

It’s always worth checking a track to see if it can help, especially if attempts with standard eq haven’t  yielded the result you wanted(but be realistic). As most mix processing(reverbs/chorus etc) is stereo, this can be a great tool to shave some unwanted parts of those sounds.

I quite often find some freq ranges in the stereo side, conflicting with the mono. Especially where freq areas have built up through the reverb for example.

The left and right channel adjustment can be extremely useful too. With some of the restoration work I do, I often find noticeable differences between the two sides, causing a lack of continuity in the sound/image (uneven head alignment from 1/4 inch sources etc). Although some modern mixes suffer too, from heavy panning with tonal imbalances.

How to use it?

This is just an eq, so the principles are the same as for a standard model. Some m/s versions have a listen feature, where you can solo either stereo or mono. This is really useful for getting an instant idea of possible problems, but don’t be tempted to do the eq work in solo, and then expect the whole sound to be coherent. Once again….this is mastering, it’s about the whole sound, it all has to join up!.

Conclusion, for this short article

M/s eq is really powerful, and I remember being totally excited at how much  improvement could be achieved with problem material. However….be very careful, if not used with respect, it can be a back firing gun, making a total mess out of something that may not have been so bad.

Remember, it’s just one tool in the arsenal needed to bring out the best in the material. Very rarely does one process or gadget make or break the finish of the music. It’s about the right technique, being used in the right place at the right amount.

Thanks for stopping by

Tone

In my last article “Expansion…the lesser known dynamics tool” , I spoke about bringing out detail using expansion rather than compression. It wont work with all material, but in some cases, where the mix is just wrong somehow, it can bring back elements before moving to the compression stage.

This track is a good example of such material. Take a listen to the original Donald Fagen-Countermoon-source


No continuity in that sound at all hey!. The bass and snare being the culprits. I don’t think either was limited. In my opinion, what this creates, is a broken waveform going through the speaker cone. The unnatural peaks and dips force the cone to pull against itself, giving a very strange sound.


In this quick remaster, I used expansion in a few places, before moving to compression. Kind of meeting the dynamics needs half way between the two methods. I wont go into exact detail of how I went about it, but I used both multiband and wideband to lift specific lacking areas.

You will still hear what sounds like my dynamics work in a couple of places. But check the source, it’s mostly where the source issues have been made clearer….mostly .


Donald Fagen-Countermoon-remaster

As usual I’ll say this…It’s still not perfect. But it’s a more natural and listenable sound than the original.




Well, that was it, just meant as an example to the previous post. My next article on m/s eq is almost finished, so check back soon.


Thanks for stopping by


Tone

Hi people!

Apologies for taking so long to get another article written. Been rather busy actually working on stuff.

“But Tone, what about the multiband series??”. Well…I had intended to make screencast video’s, showing and explaining with narration, exactly how to get one of these things setup. But the fact is, making them takes an age to do. So I’ve drawn up a new plan, where I will be making sets of tuition vids on many of the different areas of mastering, and the tools used. These sets will then be purchasable from the site. If you want an idea of what I have in mind, take a look at the talented Nick Maxwell’s site Nickstutorials.com .

I had never intended this to be any kind of ‘pay for’ site. But to give the best advice on tips and techniques takes a long time. So it’s a natural progression. Keep checking back for small demo’s of what will be available(when I get some time). I will however continue to post articles.

My goal remains the same…to hand on tips and methods to help you better understand your audio work, and get the best from it.

What is expansion

Simply put, it’s the exact opposite of compression . It’s main use is when working with already over compressed material, to add back dynamics. I was actually inspired to write on this subject, after working on a 70’s restoration job that needed a different approach.

The material came from LP, which as far as I can tell, had been kind of mastered by the guy who cut the disc. It’s full of nasty notches, a large wide mid lift(totally covering the low end) and a very thick sounding bass guitar. Don’t forget, this is an old recording, even if no compression was used during tracking and mixing etc, this has gone from 2 inch multitrack to 1/4 inch reel, then onto vinyl and back into digital. Plus with all the parts of the spectrum missing, it’s quite a strange sounding recording. Anyway, compressing the bass region was a no go, ….not immediately anyway. So here’s what I did:

So, to give me a more balanced start point, I used a multiband model, and expanded either side of the bass hump(which covered 80-200hzish) using shelves, plus a couple of  other expansion lifts at 190 and 250ish to keep the warmth in the vocals. I also used longer release times than I would normally, as the dynamics either side of the hump are jumping about all over the place.

What this effectively does is this: as the bass hump approaches threshold, the upper and lower shelves lift to match it “but Tone, now the whole thing is bouncing up and down”, yes, but that’s the point. Now I have a sound that I can start to push into shape, using the normal methods.

For anyone thinking “why didn’t you just compress the mid using multiband compression”, I did try that first, but it worked much better expanding first, and then using a small amount of mb comp to tighten the whole thing up. Sometimes, the way things are mixed, and the problems that are put in, need dealing with differently.

Setting up

1:Have an idea of what you want to achieve

2:If you’re using multiband expansion, find the places where you want the lifts. Find the sweetspots where the upper and lower shelves need to be, by using a small expansion ratio first, maybe 1.03:1 for example. Use a small attack time like 5ms. Too short and the expansion isn’t going to work right. Start with 100ms release. Set the threshold by hearing the blend. Don’t look at the meters!. The ones on my fav model are totally misleading(done on purpose I think).

3:Adjust ratio/amount of expansion to suit on each band.

4:Adjust attack times. Concentrate on the attack part of the music. Don’t be put off by a slightly wrong release phase at this time.

5:Blend in the expansion by adjusting the release times. Drag it around all the way from 50ms upto 1 second. Forget the numbers and dial in the sound you want.

6:Once you’ve done all that, go over the settings again and make sure it’s all working together.

Setting up a standard wide band expander is just the same as for a compressor. Set enough attack time to allow the kick through.

Once you’ve found the attack and release region you want, I find there is usually a few ms to play with for artistic input. That 1 extra ms on the attack can create a tiny delay, which can be very creative, and similar with release. Listen for a delay or hole(attack too long) or a slight thickness (attack to short). Similar deal with release times.

Conclusion

I know not everyone needs to use expansion, but it’s a powerful tool that will go some way towards fixing bad compression or mix problems. Next time you’re working on a mix where the kick is a bit loud, think “Do I want a thicker kick, by using compression, or should I lift the rest first using expansion, and then deal with overall compression.

A fellow M E recently told me “I know quite a few mastering engineers, and we all get to the end result in slightly different ways”. It’s exactly the same with different material. You could own the best compressor in the world, but it’s not always going to be the best tool for the job.

I’ll ask my customer if it’s cool to post before and after for you guys to hear.

Next up I’ll be explaining the very powerful m/s eq. So be sure to stop by real soon.

Till then, thanks for reading

Tone

Hi people

There are a few almost guaranteed reasons why first steps with mastering are disappointing:

1:Your expectations

A lot of people think the mastering phase is magic, and it can certainly make a huge difference. However….besides the skill of the M E in question, the mix and challenges it presents are the big deal. So spend time listening to what’s going on BEFORE loading the plugin toys.

Is the general sound balance poor?. Are certain freq ranges  too dynamic, and are smothering other parts?. Are the transients too big?, this will make the main body of the sound too thin. How dynamic is the whole thing?. Play it through, giving it your full attention, listening for anything that needs sorting.

An exception to the rule, is m/s eq. If you don’t have any experience of this, there will be an article about it soon. In some models that offer m/s, you have the option to listen to the mono components or the stereo. Listening to these in isolation can show up some problems you wouldn’t otherwise be able to fix.

If you’re working on a restoration job, then the list of potential issues gets longer: phase, pitch changes from tape sourced material. Remember….if the speed/pitch changes, any eq/crossovers etc you have set become slightly wrong.

So…listen first, to every aspect you possibly can, and have an idea of how much you will be able to achieve.

2:Static settings

Apart from certain recordings that have little or no instrument/sound changes, the ‘one pass master’ (static settings throughout) is going to disappoint!. I have explained the reasons before, but briefly….because the introduction of instruments pushes additional energy into certain freq areas, the freq’s  that need boosting or cutting changes. Remember….in mastering, if you’re not fixing it, you’re just making a slightly different wrong version!.

It’s the same for any dynamics settings. Keep an eye on thresholds, especially if you’re using multiband compression. Push them too hard and your sound has gone.

Getting the best possible finish is all about the amount of time you put in, and the big advantage you have, over even the most well equipped mastering service, is…. time. They have an hour for your track (not everyone can commit financial suicide spending a day getting one song right like I do). You also have the luxury of working over a few days, to keep things fresh.

Don’t underestimate the static setting disappointment problem!. It still manages to catch me out on occasion.

3:Monitoring/room acoustics

This is a bigger problem than most people can imagine. Let me tell you a story…….

Thanks to my less than perfect setup at the time, I learned to “read the curve” in a slightly different way. If parts of the spectrum are missing, there’s no continuity in the sound. Kind of like a cracked bell. One day (after months of audio torture)it just became obvious. This was fine, and certainly helped, however…..mastering is about hearing everything. You need to hear the less powerful <50hz and >8k to get the best out of the material.

If your room is throwing a ton of 100hz at you, thanks to reflections etc, then hearing if you need to lift the 10k a little, or maybe bypass the sub compression(because the 32 hz is too thick) is going to be near impossible. I found certain “open” sounding freq’s (500hz to 1k for example) to be a problem too. How many times have you taken your mix elsewhere, expecting to blow the minds of the listeners, only to be shocked by a nasty 700hz shard of sound spoiling the whole thing?. It’s probably not that your monitors didn’t show it up, but the 100hz(example) was smothering it.

There is of course the matter of speaker translation, which to some extent, can be made less of an issue by working the whole curve. That way, it’s possible to only be off by the amount your monitors vary across the spectrum. If they have a 1db dip at 2k, and the playback system has a 1db  lift around the same area, then you will have a 2db lift at 2k, which can make a significant difference to your sound.

Not everyone has the ridiculous amount of money a good pair of B&W’s cost, but there is a reason for the price tag. In a treated room, they tell the truth!.

So, there’s a few reasons why you may be disappointed. But don’t let it stop you!. Be aware of these points, and deal with them as best you can. Despite the opinion of many, a mastering engineer isn’t defined by their equipment. It can make a difference with the results, of course. But knowledge, approach and experience can’t be bought. Any fool with £30,000 can buy the right gear, does that earn them the right to butcher artists hard work?

Till next time, keep pushing forward, and improving your art.

Thanks for reading

Tone

Again this is from the live 81 Gillingham tape.

Taken a slightly different approach with this. I found there was a huge difference between left and right eq, either from the recording itself or the transfer to digital. This was creating an empty centre, so I’ve done some work to balance it up(apart from the tape drift, it even seems to hold together in mono).

I’ve also used quite an aggressive compressor model to tame the kick and snare. Take a listen to the source file and check how far in front(louder) they are. It’s difficult because of the mid covering effect, but still audible.

Do take a close listen to the hard nature of the source. I can change the shape of the tone, but not the essence of the sample(which is all digitized sound is).

Love meeting love remaster 23-03-2010

As usual, I may tweak this again at a later date.

Thanks for stopping by

Tone

If you find yourself spending too much time on the recording process, and trying to make stuff sound great, it’s a fair assumption that your song writing is suffering.

Sound design/recording&mastering etc can be very addictive (trust me I know!!). Just don’t let it stifle your creative flow. Decide what you want to mainly be. I’m not saying give up on the recording, but put your song writing and playing first.

Just don’t let your main gift go rusty while trying to learn too many things.

Additional

This post is mainly aimed at the writers using guitars or piano’s etc. The sounds used in electro production are an integral part of the material, so the sound creation of the piece has to go hand in hand with the writing. There is actually a biological reason why the 2 styles differ. For example: The guitarist sits virtually anywhere and writes a whole song, purely in creative mode. No technical distractions. Whereas the electro writer is already in technical mode as they create their latest track.

I used to be a pretty good guitarist, and I could sort of write songs, until I discovered the recording process, and the nice toys that come with that. Luckily for me it was a natural move, as my songs were rubbish, but I hate to imagine the good writers who get so distracted, that the new material stops coming. The phrase “use it or lose it” is very relevant in music creation.

Prioritize your talents, Stay focused!!

Tone

So, where were we???. Besides me regretting trying to write about such an awkward subject . As I mentioned in part 1, you need to make an assessment of what needs doing, before jumping straight on the controls.

Common example:  Heavy sub end (under 70hz) with Little or no need for compression. The idea here, is to find the crossover point for band 1/2. Like a cut off freq for where the compression stops. We can then bypass band 1, or use a small amount of gain reduction purely to blend with the settings through the other bands.

The green area through the centre, shows the compression curve. The most gain reduction being in the mid area, less at the top (squashed hi’s aren’t pretty), and least below 100hz.

Remember, this is basically a dynamic eq, and the green compression line, with its upper and lower boundaries shows that graphically.

Thinking of it as a sort of eq, may help you to realise, that for this thing to work, all it’s parts have to be working as one. The spectrum has to join together at the right times.

Setting up

As I said before, soloing in mastering can be pretty useless, as we’re working on the whole sound. First steps with a multiband compressor can be an exception. To get the main ‘problem band’ pushed into the right shape, may be easier in isolation. We first need to set the amount of gain reduction, and get the release time where it sounds right, so we can then match the other bands to it.

So…solo the problem band. This is usually band 2 (70hz ish to 500hz ish) or band 3 (500hz ish to 4kish). Those are VERY rough freq examples, the point being, the most energy in a track is below 4k , and we don’t usually compress much under 100hz, as we want the sub end to move. I love tracks that go all the way down to 10hz, and with a solid low end, but over compressing under 100hz isn’t usually the answer.

So, with band 3 soloed for instance, begin by setting a starting ratio (maybe 1.7:1) Don’t forget…as with a standard wideband compressor, you want to be paying attention to the attack time. Setting it too fast will try to compress the front of the peak, and will usually make a bad job of it!. That peak power gets dealt with by the limiter later on. So initial setup is a case of finding attack and threshold.

Check out this little vid, showing me setting up band 3. This is a raw file, with no eq etc. It’s purely for demonstration. If the captions don’t show, Click the ‘CC’ button.
Note:Any compression artefact is from the source recording. I couldn’t use a compressor at all, 10 odd years back when I mixed this

Obviously I cheated, by setting it up before doing the screen cap, to keep it short. Band 3 here is the problem band. Not that it’s badly wrong or anything, but it needs slightly inflating to make it keep up with the low end. This is a classic use of multiband, dealing mainly with the mid section. Remember….match the wrong, to the right.

Once this band is roughly setup, it’s time to make the others work with it, and I’ll show that in the next part of this series. Once you have all the bands working together, it’s time to grab those global settings to get things sounding right. But remember….mastering is about striking a balance. You may set band 3 up just the way you want, but find you have to make a slight compromise to get the whole thing sounding natural.

Well, I’ve just accidentally hit the “Publish” button. So I’ll leave this article there. The screencast stuff will become a large part of future posts etc, and will include narration and more depth as I get better setup to do so.

Apologies for this post taking so long. As well as getting the video thing going, I’ve been hands on with some mastering projects. Oh…and there was Christmas .

I’ll start working on part 3, where I’ll be showing the setup through the rest of the bands.

Thanks for stopping by, check back soon, and please leave comments!

Tone

Hi people

I worked on this track for a while over christmas, and although it still needs a tweak or 2, I’m quite happy with the improvement. For those who don’t know…..this is one of the rarest Level 42 songs. “Morning silence” Written by Mike Lindup, only featured in a few live shows during the 80’s. Luckily it was captured in this recording, as I don’t think another version exists.

For any new visitors, the technical details are this:

Damaged cassette from 1981.

Large mid range eq lift on aux send to cassette, Forcing large amounts of tape saturation into and around the offending freq area. I’ve had to try, to match the shape of that boost, by using many smaller cuts. As well as using the standard ‘boost the nice bits’ technique.

Source has large Boost around 107hz

Constant eq changes by the engineer

Remember, this is never going to be a perfect finish, just more listenable.

Have a listen

Morning silence source


Morning silence remaster


Thanks for stopping by. Be sure to Check back for updates or new tracks etc. Part 2 of my multiband compression tutorial is imminent.

Tone