This guy makes it look easy, but I can assure you this perfection took years to develop. Eric is one of the only Mastering Engineer I would consider if I had a serious audio project for mastering. Never get tired of watching this expert at work...
im not kidding when i say this is literally the best, most straight forward video ive ever seen on mastering . super appreciative of this, just wish there was more!!
+Johnny Partain Agreed 100%... 1 pass and it already sounds like a million bucks!!! Great song choice as well. Lots of dynamics and a great balance. All in all... Great vid - 9.5/10
Louder always sounds better...the ears can be tricked quite easily. He only improved it by a tiny bit and then effectively made it louder. The improvements would basically be adding air in a boost + EQing the sides of the mid/side to help the mono cut through and the slightest addition of analog saturation to warm the track musically and slightly act as glue(everything so done so slightly apart from the EQ and fair limiting). The mix was good from the start and recorded well. Those slight moves would never work on a crappy mix so again the ears can be tricked. Theres A vs B tests online that prove how trick-able we are as we say one sounds better when its the same mix at different levels.
Satisfying to watch a good mastering engineer who knows his set of chosen tools and by years of experience just knows which buttons he has to turn. Hopefully I'll get there one day
this might be the best explanation of a quick overview of what you're doing. I can follow along, learn what you did, and take a few things from it for myself. thank you!
Through my Dynaudio BM5As, your enhancements are anything but subtle. The track has more depth, clarity, air, and punch. Staging, which was initially nonexistent, becomes real. The stereo image also widens and wraps around the listener. You have pieced together one hell of a mastering chain. Your devices "play well" with each other, filling in where others leave off, and that Manley limiter is just magical. Outstanding work, sir.. outstanding work.
@Cristiansen Vendetta A fair warning though, it is difficult to get a mix to sound perfect in the Dynas. They are so damn accurate, even the smallest warts are noticable. Re-listen to mixes you have previously finished, you will find they were not as good as you thought. On the flip side though, if a mix sounds good in the Dynas, it will sound good everywhere and on everything. Cheers, and happy mixing / listening!
@Cristiansen Vendetta Yes. At Chuck Levins Pro Sound section, I was able to compare them to KRK V8, Yamaha HS8, Genelec 8010 and 8030, as well as others. While not as "sweet" sounding as the Genelec and not as bass heavy as the others, their accuracy left me in awe.
very nice job on the track. You opened up the track while giving it air/breath with a bit more punch and edge. You have great ears, beautiful setup and an awesome environment for mixing. My hat goes off to you.
Awesome video. What a nice way of communicating the mastering concept and process.. thanks! I went to check out your other videos because i thought I might have finally found *my* TH-cam mentor, but to my dismay, no other vids!? aw shucks.. Well ima subscribe anyways, and hope you add some down the road.. I loved your equipment and listening environment btw... PS: DIY equipment? really..? that's brilliant.. im going to look into that ..never crossed my mind that DIY was even possible for the h/w elements...
Hi Eric! Nice tutorial, thanks for sharing it! :) Can you please explain what that limiter's damp parameter does with the song? The kick became more punchier when you turned it up. Thank you :)
Hello, awesome video love the demonstration thank you.. My question is regarding your playback speakers , I noticed you were using focal utopia speakers ( fantastic speakers ) however I was under the impression that one needs to use studio monitors to have a more flat response ?
I'm glad you liked it! Flat does not necessarily mean accurate. Low-disortion, and flat-ish reverb time in your room, mixed with whatever works for you, is always best. Look more closely and you'll see I'm in very good company. Another thing, many studio monitors that are advertised as flat, are shit. For example if you tell me your speaker is "flat," and show me a linear graph, without also showing the smoothing, you really haven't shown me anything, that assuming the paradigm that flat (= no or very little bass) is even a good place to start. This really can be a deep subject, with opinions all over the place. Start google-ing, reading, obsessing, and get back to me in a year with your opinion, then in another two years with your updated opinion, then a decade later with your new, new updated opinion, and you'll see what I'm talking about now.
a bit too hyped in the upper mids for my taste, but overall it is a real eye opener as to the power of these tools in the hands of a good listener. well done, sir!
From the Engineering Mastering point of view it is possible to describe what you are doing ..... based in that recipe the outcome n the process is different for every song....
Great video, did help me a lot! Would using this outboad gear result in ‘better’ sound than using in-box stuff. It really looks and sounds more straight forward than using in-box plug-ins. I usually end up using a lot plug-ins (kramer tape, different eq’s, Max bass, clipper, l3 limiter, etc.) but here it seems ‘lesss is more’ When u use exactly the right equipment.
Less is more, except when more is more. The beauty of it all, is you doing it in your own way, suiting your own taste. I use what I use because it suits my taste, by no means is it "better."
Hi Eric, hopefully you're still looking at these comments. As stated before, this is a really cool vid, and thanks for answering my earlier questions. Another interesting observation was that when you go to the 'loudness' stage, it was interesting to see that you increased the input of the Manley Backbone rather than the output. I thought that was interesting. Especially after you had already set your Massive Passive and more importantly, your compressor. It seems that increasing the input would drive into the compressor even more so it would change the dynamics of the audio that had already been set. I would have thought (and who am i??) that after setting my eq and comp, I would increase the output of the Manley Backbone to push the signal into the limiter to get the loudness. I thought that was interesting. Also, I assume the limiter is after the Backbone and before the AD. Just curious about your thought process and whether or not this is a common workflow, although I totally understand that every project is approached somewhat uniquely depending on its specific needs.
Its interesting looking at the meters on the DAC and ADC. Especially right around 2:30 in the video towards the completion of the processing. Looking at the DAC and ADC, it looks like a huge difference between Left and Right Channels, although listening everything sounds really balanced from a stereo perspective when you listen. So it would logically seem as though the complete system is in Mid Side somehow, but being decoded back to stereo somehow, maybe after capture. This is really interesting because it would almost seem that the analog chain is being fed Mid Side information and the program is also being captured in Mid Side. The Manley Backbone is set to stereo and unity all the way across. Eric, can you help me figure out what's going on there? If its a technique you've worked out and are reluctant to share, I'm cool. Just something I observed.
You nailed it. Encoding and decoding to M/S is cleaner in the digital domain, not necessarily better. I know people who's masters I love that prefer to do M/S in the analog domain, but none-the-less digital encode/decode is my preference. One reason I'm doing it this way is it's very difficult to perfectly match inductors (basic building blocks of passive filters) so even if you noticed I'm not doing anything different on each of the channels, the fact is IN MY SET UP, using eq's with passive inductor based filters, I get a more solid mono with the chain running M/S even if I'm not necessarily doing "M/S." Put me in a different room with different gear and likely I would have a different opinion. I have no right or wrong idea's one way or another, other than it's what I prefer in this room, with this gear.
Yes! The only critical piece of hardware is the speakers and the room! You can only correct, or be inspired by what you hear, unfortunately a really good room and truly great monitors are quite pricey. But the rest of it, they are only tools, machines if you will. I believe it was Quincy Jones who said something to the effect; Great engineers have the machines working for them, bad engineers are slaves to the machines.
I've been doing (mostly) ITB mastering for, gosh, almost 18 years now. One of those things where I was mastering my own music, someone asked me about it, ended up doing some masters for them, and then it just became a thing. I do have a few pieces of modded hardware that I use for certain very specific circumstances now, but I still do most projects ITB.
Thanks for asking, but I really can't, it's just a feel thing, not a right or wrong thing. I can tell you sometimes it sounds like complete rubbish, and sometimes it brings everything together beautifully.
Hi Rafa. You can't really fix, as much as just help make some sort of improvement by at least taking the time to check the mono, and push it in whatever direction you think it should go, every situation is unique. Eq would be the most common tool you would use, and digital eq's have some advantages over analog: some can be very precise, and can allow you to make subtle changes in a surgical way.
Wow that's a marvelous track! I would REALLY prefer it without any limiting though. That dynamic vibe which is suppressed with limiter, it's so-o-o tasty without it
did you do a -5db shelf out of the mono signal ...... of out of the side.... why did the low end not go away ... or was it set to dynamic ....... or did the limiting bring back up the low end .... explain please .... finally what rms did you shoot for .....and finally finall ...low cut or low shelf ??? and why do people use linear phase eq which I have tried but it causes hugh pre ringing Lots of questions there but you look like you are willing to interact so
Hey. The low shelf is across the entire program, no M/S there. In some cases, not always, but sometimes when you do a low shelf cut up around or above 150-200, you keep the sense of deep bass, but reduce the boomy-ness or low end weight, but once again only sometimes. Often times thats where the life of the low end lives ...just depends. No particular RMS goals on my end, it's the taste and goals of the client that generally is what drives the loudness target, basically varies wildly project to project. And hi-cut or low shelf? You probably know thats like asking me if I should always add curry or salt to a soup, depends on what it needs, Low shelf is most certainly a more gentle and transparent choice, but sometimes the song benefits from a larger polarity shift like what you get from slapping on a high pass filter ...just depends. And linear phase eq? Allot of people get results they are happy with using linear phase eq's, not my cup of tea, so no opinion on that one, I don't use any.
Eric Broyhill Hey thanks for replying and well that's amazing sounding eq I'm still amazed you took out 5 db and the bass sounded more powefull I'm guessing the limiting brought back up the Lowe end... great stuff thanks
That part sounded weird to me too. I mean it sounded great but didn't expect to hear that based on what I saw in the video. It must be because the eq is dynamic. I suppose it created a separate band for the low end and there's more going on inside that Weiss than we see in the video. Just a simple eq cut wouldnt sound like that thats for sure.
Allot of people have been curious about this, so let me add to my previous comment. What I think you and others are also hearing is that eq is BEORE the compressor, so in a way, the overall volume is coming up as I'm cutting low end. The low end is generally what will be driving the compression, pulling the lo-end down, can, in many cases, have the effect of pulling the compression back if the eq is before the compressor.
Eric Broyhill that kind of make sense... I suppose you would get the same effect without eqing if you used a compressor with a sidechain high pass filter.... or..... a compressor with a side chain low shelf "which I don't think exists" ....
Jbdoster The "difference signal" is simply the Left and Right channels combined, but one of them has it's polarity reversed. Doing this effectively cancels out whatever is panned to the center. It's a quick way to monitor whats been panned L/R when your trying to single something out.
I was hearing something a little bright/edgy panned to the sides, so I went to the difference/side channel to more easily identify what I was looking for. To monitor the side/difference channel, mono the stereo sum, then invert the polarity of just one of the stereo channels, L or R.
Awesome! Question: Is the stereo widening you archieve only a matter of EQ, compression and limiting or do you also use tools like aural exiters and stereo enhancers in this example?
+Marc Brassé Hey Marc, no enhancers, I do spend a little time monitoring in mono to make sure I get good mono compatibility for FM radio and vinyl, this seems to help push me a good direction when it comes to getting a solid stereo image as well.
I was aware of that mono compatibility checking moment as such but am in general very impressed with what your treatment does to the stereo field, especially if it is,as you claim, done without any "artificial" enhancement. Remastering surely has taken large strides in the last years. Soundwise I actually had some good experiencess with a mastering service via the net, until I paid the second half of an agreed project fee too early and heard nothing of the enigineer anymore. Which is a pity, I am a reasonable good engineer myself but fully support the notion of adding a pair of skilled extra ears to the mastering. In a world where my music never has and never will earn me a buck such an experience and especilally the incured waste of money however hurt extra hard. Now I wish I had invested the same amount in a set of good tools and done my worst myself. At least I would have learned a lot in the process.
Feeding the analog chain in MS means that subtle differences between channels will translate into enhanced width instead of asymmetricaly affecting the stereo image. If compressors are not fully linked they may compress more the Center than the Sides and this will also contribute to this effect.
Awesome work sir! Love it! And I can’t say enough about your room and those Focals!!! Wow! I had a couple of questions about the order of the processors in your chain. It was great to see the order of the processes, but what about the actual order of the chain. The first move (after listening of course) was the MMP sweep for clarity. I see it was insert 2 of the Backbone. Interesting it looked like only one side was being modified, so I can only assume either you did the other side as well, or you were working in Mid-Side and this was a Mid only move. Then there was a little dynamic work, just a touch. Was the compressor before or after the MMP in the chain? Next was your mono check, and that’s where you used the Weiss to clean up the lows and low mids in the center. Then you smoothed the edges of the sides, also with the Weiss. I only saw the Backbone and didn’t see a digital switcher (i.e. Crookwood), so where is the Weiss in the chain? Is it between the DAW and the DAC before you even hit the Backbone? Or are you using a separate AD/DA to put it in the Backbone? Lastly, you use your custom limiter. I assume its between your Backbone and your Lavry AD, since it seemed like you pushed the outputs of the Backbone into limiter. Just some questions on workflow. I also know that things work differently for different sets, but just looking at this example, I was just curious about the actual signal flow as a function of your signal processing. Thanks again for sharing the experience!
Thanks John, some of the moves are just edited in because I didn't get it right on the initial pass ...video wise, which is probably obviously not my area of expertise. So take the whole thing as totally accurate in spirit, which was my only intention, if you tear the shots apart some of it will only lead to confusion, like the MP shot, which was a 12k boost in both channels, and that is what you hear, but the shot is fiddling with the MP just cut in. The Weiss is always feeding the DA and my main go-to eq, and the MP is before that compressor, and at that time occasionally I was using a diode clipper at the end of the analog chain, then maybe a hardware L2 just for a little bit more??. Gain wise, I run the whole chain fairly hot, and to get more I will often push it even harder from the input, then every piece takes a small bit of dynamic with it, rather than just getting the loudness from only limiting, often lesser of the loudness evils, but not always, doing something different all the time to be honest, and luckily clients aren't having me push things as hard these days, ...as often
i see the Massive Passive at the 12k.. What model Chandler is that? I dont know which model of the weiss your using to make eqs cuts and thats definately not a digital limiter.. Clipping some A/D converters maybe as well? 🤔🤔🤔
Hey Geedy, no Chandler anywhere here, the Weiss is the EQ-1, I sometimes do use the soft saturation function in the Lavry gold AD, but technically I'm not doing any clipping with the converters.
If you go to 2:30 in the video you can see what's going on with the meters on the DAC and ADC. On the ADC, there is at least still 1-3db of headroom for peaks. I'm also surprised at the amount of dynamic range there is before and after. But you can see that there is no clipping of the Lavry ADC. What you can also see is that when he auditions BEFORE versus AFTER processing, there is little change in overall level based on the meters, but the program 'seems' louder. My guess is that he's a mastering engineer that uses his chain for processing the material, and then any actual 'loudness' increases that we all look for is done in the box. Just an assumption.
Hey John, I turned the mastered version down for the video to give a more fair before and after representation. And your correct, on that one I wasn't clipping the converters.
I've been advised by people smarter than myself that the least amount of jitter is using a good clock internally, so I haven't bothered trying them out. But if you try it, and your ears like it, I say fuck the jitter nerds and go for it!
This guy makes it look easy, but I can assure you this perfection took years to develop. Eric is one of the only Mastering Engineer I would consider if I had a serious audio project for mastering. Never get tired of watching this expert at work...
im not kidding when i say this is literally the best, most straight forward video ive ever seen on mastering . super appreciative of this, just wish there was more!!
''DON'T FOOL YOURSELF, ALWAYS LEAVE THE FINAL TOUCH TO THE PROFESSIONALS'' BEAUTIFUL CRAFTING Eric Broyhill , this is amazing
Dude this deserves a million more views!! Make this a series!!
+Johnny Partain Agreed 100%... 1 pass and it already sounds like a million bucks!!! Great song choice as well. Lots of dynamics and a great balance.
All in all... Great vid - 9.5/10
Some of that equip is so warm I had to take my shirt off :)
I am just blown away by how quickly that turned into gold
Louder always sounds better...the ears can be tricked quite easily. He only improved it by a tiny bit and then effectively made it louder.
The improvements would basically be adding air in a boost + EQing the sides of the mid/side to help the mono cut through and the slightest addition of analog saturation to warm the track musically and slightly act as glue(everything so done so slightly apart from the EQ and fair limiting).
The mix was good from the start and recorded well. Those slight moves would never work on a crappy mix so again the ears can be tricked. Theres A vs B tests online that prove how trick-able we are as we say one sounds better when its the same mix at different levels.
@@QuabmasM wow, thanks
Satisfying to watch a good mastering engineer who knows his set of chosen tools and by years of experience just knows which buttons he has to turn. Hopefully I'll get there one day
Even the subtle changes you made brightened it up significantly. Sounded way better after the processing.
Wow... I am in awe.... Looks like an awesome job, btw....
Awesome video. Thanks for the small yet useful knowledge of how a pro thinks and has fun with his work
this might be the best explanation of a quick overview of what you're doing. I can follow along, learn what you did, and take a few things from it for myself. thank you!
This really changed my life
Wow !! Proof that it takes so many years to make it look so easy. Thanks for the insight.
Busy works beats brought me here. Insightful!
The difference is astounding, really great vid
Hello Sir, thanks for doing this! It's so awesome!
Through my Dynaudio BM5As, your enhancements are anything but subtle. The track has more depth, clarity, air, and punch. Staging, which was initially nonexistent, becomes real. The stereo image also widens and wraps around the listener. You have pieced together one hell of a mastering chain. Your devices "play well" with each other, filling in where others leave off, and that Manley limiter is just magical. Outstanding work, sir.. outstanding work.
@Cristiansen Vendetta Absolutely. Do not hesitate to buy them.. for the price, they are outstanding.
@Cristiansen Vendetta A fair warning though, it is difficult to get a mix to sound perfect in the Dynas. They are so damn accurate, even the smallest warts are noticable. Re-listen to mixes you have previously finished, you will find they were not as good as you thought. On the flip side though, if a mix sounds good in the Dynas, it will sound good everywhere and on everything. Cheers, and happy mixing / listening!
@Cristiansen Vendetta Yes. At Chuck Levins Pro Sound section, I was able to compare them to KRK V8, Yamaha HS8, Genelec 8010 and 8030, as well as others. While not as "sweet" sounding as the Genelec and not as bass heavy as the others, their accuracy left me in awe.
@Cristiansen Vendetta When they arrive, watch this video again and hear what I heard.. his "subtle" changes result in a huge difference.
This was brilliant how you just did it by feel! I took great pleasure in watching this :)
Make more please!
Thank you so much for this opportunity to see a mastering being done professionally!
Wow, simply inspiring work here. I'll go find a hat to put on just so I can take it back off.
AMAZING! Best sub I´ve felt in my life I think! Unbelievable work! Thanks a lot for sharing!
very nice job on the track. You opened up the track while giving it air/breath with a bit more punch and edge. You have great ears, beautiful setup and an awesome environment for mixing. My hat goes off to you.
I could watch this all night. Thank you :)
Awesome!!! Great Sound!!! This Dope 🔥🔥🎤🎤
love Eric and his process. Great video and great masterer.
Will be a lifelong partnership with this guy!
Awesome video. What a nice way of communicating the mastering concept and process.. thanks! I went to check out your other videos because i thought I might have finally found *my* TH-cam mentor, but to my dismay, no other vids!? aw shucks.. Well ima subscribe anyways, and hope you add some down the road.. I loved your equipment and listening environment btw...
PS: DIY equipment? really..? that's brilliant.. im going to look into that ..never crossed my mind that DIY was even possible for the h/w elements...
best mastering vid on the tube, should do more. cheerz.
The right amount of boost on those sub-bass freqs and a nice crispy sound in the SSSS's
A master at work. Amazing.
This is awesome, you should do a bunch more of these POV mastering videos!
Amazing work on this channel. You got skills. Let me know when you upload new videos, maybe we can help someway.
How would you single out a solo channel like that? Very interesting stuff! Thanks for sharing!
You've still got the goods old friend. Miss you man. You'll be hearing from me soon, I have a project coming your way.
Love this video. Learn why we do things before doing them.
Mate, best video I've seen on what mastering actually is.
That is so quick. You made it look so simple.
Thanks For this amazing video
Could you please make a series? this is lovely to watch. please
Hi Eric! Nice tutorial, thanks for sharing it! :)
Can you please explain what that limiter's damp parameter does with the song?
The kick became more punchier when you turned it up.
Thank you :)
+CoarseOfficial It's controlling the knee of a diode based clipper.
A Master at work!
Wow! that was almost spiritual!!!
Absolutely incredible video!
while other people go out having fun in the club.. i do this all the time xD nice bro, nice :D
Nice.. that was quick too!
At last a mastering video that isn't boring.
You are a master!!!! No pun.. Lol... Great work man!!!!
How are they done the screens for the reflected wave ?
Hello, awesome video love the demonstration thank you.. My question is regarding your playback speakers , I noticed you were using focal utopia speakers ( fantastic speakers ) however I was under the impression that one needs to use studio monitors to have a more flat response ?
I'm glad you liked it! Flat does not necessarily mean accurate. Low-disortion, and flat-ish reverb time in your room, mixed with whatever works for you, is always best. Look more closely and you'll see I'm in very good company.
Another thing, many studio monitors that are advertised as flat, are shit. For example if you tell me your speaker is "flat," and show me a linear graph, without also showing the smoothing, you really haven't shown me anything, that assuming the paradigm that flat (= no or very little bass) is even a good place to start.
This really can be a deep subject, with opinions all over the place. Start google-ing, reading, obsessing, and get back to me in a year with your opinion, then in another two years with your updated opinion, then a decade later with your new, new updated opinion, and you'll see what I'm talking about now.
if this does not inspiring you to become a producer then what else?! really good video.
Pure Magic. One Love
a bit too hyped in the upper mids for my taste, but overall it is a real eye opener as to the power of these tools in the hands of a good listener. well done, sir!
Awsome how the sound become alive. But i hate to say it, that gear could be a new car.. or two ^^
Well done man great test
I like it!, thanks
Sik setup. Thanks for posting!
From the Engineering Mastering point of view it is possible to describe what you are doing ..... based in that recipe the outcome n the process is different for every song....
Very illustrative.
I like how he is recording this in real-time with the explanation at the bottom of what moves he's making.
I'm curious. What compressor he using?
Wow, this is amazing.
This song sounds like it could've been written by Billy Corgan... i can easily imagine him singing it. I know they're Pumpkins fans
BEST VIDEO ABOUT MASTERING!
Cool song. Do more videos please
Great video, did help me a lot! Would using this outboad gear result in ‘better’ sound than using in-box stuff. It really looks and sounds more straight forward than using in-box plug-ins. I usually end up using a lot plug-ins (kramer tape, different eq’s, Max bass, clipper, l3 limiter, etc.) but here it seems ‘lesss is more’ When u use exactly the right equipment.
Less is more, except when more is more. The beauty of it all, is you doing it in your own way, suiting your own taste. I use what I use because it suits my taste, by no means is it "better."
Thanks a lot for your reply! Cheers :)
Hi Eric, hopefully you're still looking at these comments. As stated before, this is a really cool vid, and thanks for answering my earlier questions. Another interesting observation was that when you go to the 'loudness' stage, it was interesting to see that you increased the input of the Manley Backbone rather than the output. I thought that was interesting. Especially after you had already set your Massive Passive and more importantly, your compressor. It seems that increasing the input would drive into the compressor even more so it would change the dynamics of the audio that had already been set. I would have thought (and who am i??) that after setting my eq and comp, I would increase the output of the Manley Backbone to push the signal into the limiter to get the loudness. I thought that was interesting.
Also, I assume the limiter is after the Backbone and before the AD.
Just curious about your thought process and whether or not this is a common workflow, although I totally understand that every project is approached somewhat uniquely depending on its specific needs.
Each piece takes a little bit of the work, rather than having just the limiting needing to do it all.
Bad ass. Love crosses!
Arte pura, parece até facil só assistindo. kkkkk
THAT WAS FANTASTIC
Still planning another video?? would be amazing
this touched my soul!
So dope!!
Perfect job BRO!
WBR.,..
Its interesting looking at the meters on the DAC and ADC. Especially right around 2:30 in the video towards the completion of the processing. Looking at the DAC and ADC, it looks like a huge difference between Left and Right Channels, although listening everything sounds really balanced from a stereo perspective when you listen. So it would logically seem as though the complete system is in Mid Side somehow, but being decoded back to stereo somehow, maybe after capture. This is really interesting because it would almost seem that the analog chain is being fed Mid Side information and the program is also being captured in Mid Side. The Manley Backbone is set to stereo and unity all the way across. Eric, can you help me figure out what's going on there? If its a technique you've worked out and are reluctant to share, I'm cool. Just something I observed.
You nailed it. Encoding and decoding to M/S is cleaner in the digital domain, not necessarily better. I know people who's masters I love that prefer to do M/S in the analog domain, but none-the-less digital encode/decode is my preference. One reason I'm doing it this way is it's very difficult to perfectly match inductors (basic building blocks of passive filters) so even if you noticed I'm not doing anything different on each of the channels, the fact is IN MY SET UP, using eq's with passive inductor based filters, I get a more solid mono with the chain running M/S even if I'm not necessarily doing "M/S." Put me in a different room with different gear and likely I would have a different opinion. I have no right or wrong idea's one way or another, other than it's what I prefer in this room, with this gear.
Love it!!
My only question would be, do you think you can do all that ITB with plugins and a decent soundcard?
Yes! The only critical piece of hardware is the speakers and the room!
You can only correct, or be inspired by what you hear, unfortunately a
really good room and truly great monitors are quite pricey. But the
rest of it, they are only tools, machines if you will. I believe it was
Quincy Jones who said something to the effect; Great engineers have
the machines working for them, bad engineers are slaves to the machines.
I've been doing (mostly) ITB mastering for, gosh, almost 18 years now. One of those things where I was mastering my own music, someone asked me about it, ended up doing some masters for them, and then it just became a thing. I do have a few pieces of modded hardware that I use for certain very specific circumstances now, but I still do most projects ITB.
great and inspiring video!!! thanx!! just for curious, what the compressor? and, the weiss eq is always before compressor and manley eq after?
Thank you! The compressor is a slightly custom built version of this guy... www.highlanddynamics.com/
The Weiss is first in the chain.
thanx for the reply!! so it's a vari-mu... can you suggest me when to use a vari-mu or a vca (in mastering) or how do you choose?
Thanks for asking, but I really can't, it's just a feel thing, not a right or wrong thing. I can tell you sometimes it sounds like complete rubbish, and sometimes it brings everything together beautifully.
ah ok, good because is what happens to me, and that's why i asked. So thank you so much again!!!
Awesome work my man.
Less than 3 minutes and magic happened!!!
Subtle is a subtle word for that...
What about the mono signal ? How we can fix the cloudy signal in plugins ??
Hi Rafa. You can't really fix, as much as just help make some sort of improvement by at least taking the time to check the mono, and push it in whatever direction you think it should go, every situation is unique. Eq would be the most common tool you would use, and digital eq's have some advantages over analog: some can be very precise, and can allow you to make subtle changes in a surgical way.
@@ericbroyhill825 first tank you for answering and for the video 💞💓
Ok i undersatnd
GREAT SESSION
Wow that's a marvelous track! I would REALLY prefer it without any limiting though. That dynamic vibe which is suppressed with limiter, it's so-o-o tasty without it
It's what the artist asked for though...
did you do a -5db shelf out of the mono signal ...... of out of the side.... why did the low end not go away ... or was it set to dynamic ....... or did the limiting bring back up the low end .... explain please .... finally what rms did you shoot for .....and finally finall ...low cut or low shelf ??? and why do people use linear phase eq which I have tried but it causes hugh pre ringing
Lots of questions there but you look like you are willing to interact so
Hey. The low shelf is across the entire program, no M/S there. In some cases, not always, but sometimes when you do a low shelf cut up around or above 150-200, you keep the sense of deep bass, but reduce the boomy-ness or low end weight, but once again only sometimes. Often times thats where the life of the low end lives ...just depends. No particular RMS goals on my end, it's the taste and goals of the client that generally is what drives the loudness target, basically varies wildly project to project. And hi-cut or low shelf? You probably know thats like asking me if I should always add curry or salt to a soup, depends on what it needs, Low shelf is most certainly a more gentle and transparent choice, but sometimes the song benefits from a larger polarity shift like what you get from slapping on a high pass filter ...just depends. And linear phase eq? Allot of people get results they are happy with using linear phase eq's, not my cup of tea, so no opinion on that one, I don't use any.
Eric Broyhill Hey thanks for replying and well that's amazing sounding eq I'm still amazed you took out 5 db and the bass sounded more powefull I'm guessing the limiting brought back up the Lowe end... great stuff thanks
That part sounded weird to me too. I mean it sounded great but didn't expect to hear that based on what I saw in the video. It must be because the eq is dynamic. I suppose it created a separate band for the low end and there's more going on inside that Weiss than we see in the video. Just a simple eq cut wouldnt sound like that thats for sure.
Allot of people have been curious about this, so let me add to my previous comment. What I think you and others are also hearing is that eq is BEORE the compressor, so in a way, the overall volume is coming up as I'm cutting low end. The low end is generally what will be driving the compression, pulling the lo-end down, can, in many cases, have the effect of pulling the compression back if the eq is before the compressor.
Eric Broyhill that kind of make sense... I suppose you would get the same effect without eqing if you used a compressor with a sidechain high pass filter.... or..... a compressor with a side chain low shelf "which I don't think exists" ....
so good song!
How can I monitor the difference signal? And what should I look for with it?
Thank you!
Jbdoster The "difference signal" is simply the Left and Right channels combined,
but one of them has it's polarity reversed. Doing this effectively
cancels out whatever is panned to the center. It's a quick way to
monitor whats been panned L/R when your trying to single something out.
Awesome thank you! Though the text in the video says "let's fix that" for the difference signal, I am confused on what it is you are fixing and how?
I was hearing something a little bright/edgy panned to the sides, so I went to the difference/side channel to more easily identify what I was looking for.
To monitor the side/difference channel, mono the stereo sum, then invert the polarity of just one of the stereo channels, L or R.
OH! Dude, you are such a boss thank you.
Awesome!
Question: Is the stereo widening you archieve only a matter of EQ, compression and limiting or do you also use tools like aural exiters and stereo enhancers in this example?
+Marc Brassé Hey Marc, no enhancers, I do spend a little time monitoring in mono to make sure I get good mono compatibility for FM radio and vinyl, this seems to help push me a good direction when it comes to getting a solid stereo image as well.
I was aware of that mono compatibility checking moment as such but am in general very impressed with what your treatment does to the stereo field, especially if it is,as you claim, done without any "artificial" enhancement. Remastering surely has taken large strides in the last years. Soundwise I actually had some good experiencess with a mastering service via the net, until I paid the second half of an agreed project fee too early and heard nothing of the enigineer anymore. Which is a pity, I am a reasonable good engineer myself but fully support the notion of adding a pair of skilled extra ears to the mastering. In a world where my music never has and never will earn me a buck such an experience and especilally the incured waste of money however hurt extra hard. Now I wish I had invested the same amount in a set of good tools and done my worst myself. At least I would have learned a lot in the process.
Feeding the analog chain in MS means that subtle differences between channels will translate into enhanced width instead of asymmetricaly affecting the stereo image. If compressors are not fully linked they may compress more the Center than the Sides and this will also contribute to this effect.
TANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
U crack my mind
Awesome work sir! Love it! And I can’t say enough about your room and those Focals!!! Wow! I had a couple of questions about the order of the processors in your chain. It was great to see the order of the processes, but what about the actual order of the chain. The first move (after listening of course) was the MMP sweep for clarity. I see it was insert 2 of the Backbone. Interesting it looked like only one side was being modified, so I can only assume either you did the other side as well, or you were working in Mid-Side and this was a Mid only move. Then there was a little dynamic work, just a touch. Was the compressor before or after the MMP in the chain? Next was your mono check, and that’s where you used the Weiss to clean up the lows and low mids in the center. Then you smoothed the edges of the sides, also with the Weiss. I only saw the Backbone and didn’t see a digital switcher (i.e. Crookwood), so where is the Weiss in the chain? Is it between the DAW and the DAC before you even hit the Backbone? Or are you using a separate AD/DA to put it in the Backbone? Lastly, you use your custom limiter. I assume its between your Backbone and your Lavry AD, since it seemed like you pushed the outputs of the Backbone into limiter. Just some questions on workflow. I also know that things work differently for different sets, but just looking at this example, I was just curious about the actual signal flow as a function of your signal processing. Thanks again for sharing the experience!
Thanks John, some of the moves are just edited in because I didn't get it right on the initial pass ...video wise, which is probably obviously not my area of expertise. So take the whole thing as totally accurate in spirit, which was my only intention, if you tear the shots apart some of it will only lead to confusion, like the MP shot, which was a 12k boost in both channels, and that is what you hear, but the shot is fiddling with the MP just cut in.
The Weiss is always feeding the DA and my main go-to eq, and the MP is before that compressor, and at that time occasionally I was using a diode clipper at the end of the analog chain, then maybe a hardware L2 just for a little bit more??. Gain wise, I run the whole chain fairly hot, and to get more I will often push it even harder from the input, then every piece takes a small bit of dynamic with it, rather than just getting the loudness from only limiting, often lesser of the loudness evils, but not always, doing something different all the time to be honest, and luckily clients aren't having me push things as hard these days, ...as often
Thanks John. The L2 is connected digitally, the converters are only so-so. And Yes, the speakers and the room is %95 of the expense.
Very nice!!!!!
Great, thanks.
i see the Massive Passive at the 12k.. What model Chandler is that? I dont know which model of the weiss your using to make eqs cuts and thats definately not a digital limiter.. Clipping some A/D converters maybe as well? 🤔🤔🤔
Hey Geedy, no Chandler anywhere here, the Weiss is the EQ-1, I sometimes do use the soft saturation function in the Lavry gold AD, but technically I'm not doing any clipping with the converters.
If you go to 2:30 in the video you can see what's going on with the meters on the DAC and ADC. On the ADC, there is at least still 1-3db of headroom for peaks. I'm also surprised at the amount of dynamic range there is before and after. But you can see that there is no clipping of the Lavry ADC. What you can also see is that when he auditions BEFORE versus AFTER processing, there is little change in overall level based on the meters, but the program 'seems' louder. My guess is that he's a mastering engineer that uses his chain for processing the material, and then any actual 'loudness' increases that we all look for is done in the box. Just an assumption.
Hey John, I turned the mastered version down for the video to give a more fair before and after representation. And your correct, on that one I wasn't clipping the converters.
Homie got golden ears
This video is incredible! Where do I contact you about mastering a song?!
Thanks Nolan! website: broyhillmasters.com email: eric@broyhillmasters.com
"a home brew, diode based clipper" (!!!) Is it something you build yourself ? Sounds georgous indeed ♥
Thx a lot for that Eric 👌 I am all about diy So let me shoot you an e-mail
+Adrien Sauvaget I am looking into some DIY Limiters as well. Sounded awesome! Any info?
Do you like aneleope or black lion clock?
I've been advised by people smarter than myself that the least amount of jitter is using a good clock internally, so I haven't bothered trying them out. But if you try it, and your ears like it, I say fuck the jitter nerds and go for it!
Are those Bower & Wilkins off to the side?
+Alex Solano Focal Maestro Utopias
I used to own the same steelseries qck mousepad 😂
Whats the metering software you are using?
What is the name of the song at the start?
The Epilogue
Lovely
good video how can i contact you for some mastering some music thanks
www.monsterlabaudio.com