Topic: Do you Band Pass Filter / Gate your Masters?

[mfisch]

I read someplace recently that running a band pass filter / gate before mastering to CD can help prevent saturating the media (reduce clipping, allow the compressor to get additional gain without limiting, etc).

Any tips / experiences / opinions in this arena?

[lordbelial]

HI there!

I'm usually acting this way everytime I have to remaster some of my shows.

Using Adobe Audition

First of all I apply X db in the less loud channel, (0,6 or 1db in left channel for example)
Then I go to 30 band EQ and I equalice the show in freqency. Every show has got his own carachteristics, so it takes a long time to see which freq. has to be boosted and which has to be gained down.
Later I apply compression with L3 multimaximizer
And then I add the necessary db for reaching 0db (Hard limiting tool)

That works fine for me

[zowie]

I read someplace recently that running a band pass filter / gate before mastering to CD can help prevent saturating the media (reduce clipping, allow the compressor to get additional gain without limiting, etc).

Any tips / experiences / opinions in this arena?

Only on the rare occassions I have accoustic instruments in a room with low frequency noise problems.  Otherwise, no, because severe eq like band pass tends to effect the audible spectrum too.

AFAIK, there is no issue of "saturating the media" with CD.  If your wave doesn't clip, the CD doesn't clip.

[NewHomebrew]

I would just leave the stuff as it is.

[mfisch]

Leaving the stuff as is ... great for a "raw" master, but no good for distribution. A recording with no gain/eq/normalization/etc will not be "loud enough" on a normal CD player.

.... What about normalization, anyone here normalize AND compress their recordings?

[pfife]

No, its totally true.  I agree with yah.

[mmedley.]

add fades and track marks, done.

QFT.

[BC]

IMHO when taping a PA system there is enough processing done before the signal comes out of the speakers that this stuff is not necessary.

[Patrick]

add fades and track marks, done.

QFT.

Yep.  That's all that needs to be done, unless you have some pops and click or something. 

[BayTaynt3d]

To be honest I am in love with the Waves L3 Multimaximizer and do enjoy it's use on occasion. I just got riled up at the comment about our recordings not being loud enough for today's CD players, that was a good one

I like the L3 too, but I'll have to say that the Waves S1 stereo imager vst is freakin' awesome too. I'm just talking about the plain vanilla S1 (not the mid/side S1). You can narrow your image or expand it. You can move it from left to right, and symetrically or asymetrically angle it. If you have imaging problems (too much or not enough or off-center) that thing works wonders -- and still stays true to the sound as long as you don't over do it.

[BobW]

Being a smartass was not my intention. It was the stupid comment about not being "loud enough" on a normal CD player that got me. Our live recordings will never be as loud as the bullshit you hear on the radio or modern mastered cds and we should not be in the habit of limiting our stuff into the stratosphere to compete with all this distorted bullshit you listen to on your IPOD. Take a CD you bought in the early 90s and rip a track and take a CD you bought yesterday and do the same thing. Open them in a wav editor and check the RMS values. You'll see how ridiculous it's become, not to mention one of the tracks will look like a giant square wave. Amplifiers are made to be turned up, that's how they sound good, do yourself a favor and look into this.

You mean, you don't like to compress your stereo mixdowns at a 16:1 ratio

Are you saying that I bought the $42K  Fairchild 670 and restored it for nothing ?
Damn !   

[mfisch]

I don't mean to sound stubborn or arrogant, but you guys sure have some cult mentality going... all of you responded without really trying to understand what I was trying to accomplish.

.. just a mass response here ..

  I whole-heartedly agree that for archiving and playing music on nice reproduction hardware -- untouched is the way to go. Thus is the format of 'archive'-like copies I use when trading with other audiophiles.

  but .... are you all hiding in a hole? Seriously? I guess when I mentioned "normal cd player" I should have said "average consumer audio playing device" ..
Although I can't find any free statistics, this normally means:

• mp3 player (with headphones)
• mp3 player (hooked to FM transmitter)
• CD audio in a car
• CD audio playing out of a dvdplayer/gamingconsole hooked up to a TV or very cheap home stereo

  When kids take home a demo cd (for which this post work is targeted), pop it in their playstation or car stereo they will mostly be disappointed their newly obtained music cannot compete with the volume of any other CD they own. A saturated recording is what they are looking for, and I can't blame them for the quality of most consumer hardware these days.

again, to reiterate. When I said "no good for distribution" I meant, "no good for sending home with people who arent audiophiles".

[BayTaynt3d]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I'd even take it a small step forward from there. I think audio should be at least normalized. I DO NOT mean tweaking the inherent dynamic range here, I simply mean bringing the whole thing up to having the peaks hit 0 db. Let's face it, sometimes our recordings don't even come close to having the levels up enough. I personally don't think normalizing is a big deal, you either do it in post or someone is going to do it with their volume control -- and either way, the noise level will be increased. And like you said, some devices that don't pump out enough volume will result in a bummer when you max out your volume control and it still isn't loud enough. Now, COMPRESSION is a different story, which some people alluded to hear. Personally, I like a little compression, but only when it's subtle enough to squish a few transients here and their, which helps when normalizing to the peaks. But, that is much more controversial from an archival perspective and I totally get that. However, I will always compress/limit just enough to fix any clips I might have -- I'd rather not ever have a clip in a finished product, so I might run Sony's Clip restoration in a couple of spots here and there when needed. Anyway, that was a long-winded way of saying I'm with you man...

[Brian Skalinder]

My target audiences for my recordings, in order of priority:

<1>  me
<2>  fellow tapers and friends
<3>  the masses

So I master accordingly:  for me.  It just so happens that many of my <2> friends and fellow tapers are also interested in hearing recordings in their full dynamic glory.  I'm not especially concerned about <3> those who wish to listen to recordings on the crappiest car sound system on the planet and therefore would prefer if I compress the snot out of my recordings.  So since I have no real interest in "mastering" my recordings for the masses, I don't.

As it is these days, I generally seed 2 sources:  24-bit and 16-bit.  The additional time, effort, HD space, and bandwidth are not worth it to me to ensure I satisfy the masses.

Were I to produce a recording on behalf of a band as an official release, then my target audience would have changed.  Hence, my decision of whether and how to master may change accordingly.

[heath]

while i understand your point, i still don't think compression is a valid tool for our recordings.  Personally, unless compression is used correctly, and the compressor itself is good (i don't like software compression), i think it can really kill a recording.  If you want to normalize, that's fine by me to get the output you want, but i don't like compression.

[mfisch]

So everyone seems to be in agreement on using compression for trade-friendly recordings? I've been applying at 100% on a per-track basis. This really does a great job on most recordings and songs.

As I've been whipping up 'demo' or distributable masters, I've been applying a mild 6-9dB gain w/ 3-band compression / limiter to ensure the intros, solos and chorus/etc are all audible on consumer hardware .... SlimSlowSlider's compressor isnt as nice as the hollywood or broadcaster digital compressors -- but its miles ahead of the one that came with cubase (just by being 3-band)... and its free.

Anyone have alternative method suggestions or a specific suite of tools they find particularly helpful? I'm using free tools / cubase se tools now, but If I find something I like I dont mind shelling out. .. of course much of this stuff is meant for producers who have complete isolation in their tracks already ...

[BayTaynt3d]

Oh shit, was that a troll? You're stepping in front of a train around here... 

[heath]

wanted to add that another great tool you can try (software permitting) is automation.  It's really helped me with gain issues, and is a nice alternative to plugins...  A slight fader ride during a particularly tough transition can do wonders.  Also works well for dropping rowdy crowds.  With smooth automation, the differences between those sudden peaks, and quieter setions can be completely seamless.

[Brian Skalinder]

So everyone seems to be in agreement on using compression for trade-friendly recordings?

Actually, it seems to me there's broad disagreement on using compression for trade-friendly recordings.

[mfisch]

So everyone seems to be in agreement on using compression for trade-friendly recordings?

Actually, it seems to me there's broad disagreement on using compression for trade-friendly recordings.

hmm, no, In fact not trolling, but maybe the bump on my head and late night are an excuse for a typo? I meant to say everyone is on the same page on using normalization ....

[Brian Skalinder]

Re normalizing:  you're better off setting your levels properly in the first place, so normalization is not necessary.  The only situations in which I can see levels not set properly is either a stealth job or a wholly unfamiliar recording scenario (for example, recording something far different than the normal AUD situation, like an organ recital with no sound check).

[RebelRebel]

Thanks Brian. 

Re normalizing:  you're better off setting your levels properly in the first place, so normalization is not necessary.  The only situations in which I can see levels not set properly is either a stealth job or a wholly unfamiliar recording scenario (for example, recording something far different than the normal AUD situation, like an organ recital with no sound check).

[ethan]

Leaving the stuff as is ... great for a "raw" master, but no good for distribution. A recording with no gain/eq/normalization/etc will not be "loud enough" on a normal CD player.

I disagree...get the levels right when recording and it'll be plenty loud. Besides half the resolution of 16 bit audio is *above* 6dBFS...if the nominal levels during recording aren't at or above that range you've blown the tape anyways. You can't get back what's not there.

-e

[bdasilva]

Mostly I record on my laptop... I record so that the levesl kiss 0 (without clipping)...  Its loud enough. I'll take out rumble and sometimes wind noise... But is not good soundwise to mess with too much and it'll drive you batty if to try too hard. Trims and fades.

[mfisch]

yep, its certainly driving me batty.

What about UV22?

[Brian Skalinder]

What about UV22?

What about it?  It's a dithering algorithm, and AFAIK, that's it.  I performed a dither comparison a while back if you're interested.

[mfisch]

What about UV22?

What about it?  It's a dithering algorithm, and AFAIK, that's it.  I performed a dither comparison a while back if you're interested.

Ya, its mainly the time it takes to run that bothers me. Thanks for the link.

ps. a "search" for uv22 comes up with mostly useless stuff not including your study .... and the more I think about the search rewrite its probably more complicated than I gave it credit initially ... worth a try though.