VST plug-ins for mastering?

[KevWind]

I am currently giving this limiter a trial ( NuGen ISL Limiter) and frankly its pretty impressive. The Link below, is the free public beta version and is only a 30 day trial but I think I like it even better than the Massey L2007 ( pt only) It's very transparent.

http://www.nugenaudio.com/ISL_True-P...U_AAX_RTAS.php

It boasts a particular type algorithm said to be free of any distortions or artifacts when converting down to MP3 etc. It does seem to be very transparent and smooth . here is a quote:

"ISL uses the standardised True-Peak algorithms of ITU-R B.S. 1770 and related standards and is suitable for the control of audio for Post Production and Broadcast applications. True Peak limiting can also be used to ensure that down-stream Codecs (mp3, AAC etc.) do not introduce distortion into the signal."

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by KevWind

"ISL uses the standardised True-Peak algorithms of ITU-R B.S. 1770 and related standards and is suitable for the control of audio for Post Production and Broadcast applications. True Peak limiting can also be used to ensure that down-stream Codecs (mp3, AAC etc.) do not introduce distortion into the signal."[/I]

Oh heavens...True-Peak algorithms and ITU-R B S. 1770 standards are broadcast and post-audio bug-a-boo buzz words and phrases. It has to do with FCC rulings and an industry attempt to corral broadcast promo's (and I guess long form if some show is crazy enough to push up into that level of crunch) I don't know really what that might have to do with music production?!?

This is for music production yes??

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

Oh heavens...True-Peak algorithms and ITU-R B S. 1770 standards are broadcast and post-audio bug-a-boo buzz words and phrases. It has to do with FCC rulings and an industry attempt to corral broadcast promo's (and I guess long form if some show is crazy enough to push up into that level of crunch) I don't know really what that might have to do with music production?!?

This is for music production yes??

I personally am not familiar with True -Peak or ITU-R 1770 . but the wording in the add "True Peak limiting can also be used to ensure that down-stream Codecs (mp3, AAC etc.) do not introduce distortion into the signal." peaked my interest. Because for me this has been a problem when attempting to post a file to say Sound Cloud where they reduce it to a 128 MP3 and there is in fact a warble type of distortion introduced .

Yes for music production. Check out the link and if feasible there is a 30 day free trial . Sound wise it seems to me to be very good, but I would be interested in hearing the opinions of others. I was A/B ing against the Massey 2007 mastering limiter on the 2 bus and thought it had just a bit more over all clarity and depth. and I thought it did well after posting to sound cloud.

[Smurf]

I have to ask what is wrong with the Studio One Mastering section? It's effects a are totally able to do great mastering, as long as you take your time, just like any other effect's bundle out there....

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

Oh heavens...True-Peak algorithms and ITU-R B S. 1770 standards are broadcast and post-audio bug-a-boo buzz words and phrases. It has to do with FCC rulings and an industry attempt to corral broadcast promo's (and I guess long form if some show is crazy enough to push up into that level of crunch) I don't know really what that might have to do with music production?!?
This is for music production yes??

Under the CALM act, BOTH advertising and program content are regulated. Stations are placing loudness analysis equipment into their chains that will set the level individual material is broadcast at. If you mash your dynamics too much, the equipment will drop the overall volume to prevent it from being reproduced to loudly. All advantage of over-compression will be lost. However, mobile reproduction of music in noisy environments will still typically want compression in order to prevent quiet passages from disappearing.

At the last AES I went to I attended a conference on mastering and encoding for the many and varied distribution formats and listening environments we face for our products. The challenge is that they vary from broadcast to hard distribution formats (disks) to digital delivery to portable playback formats to social distribution, and their distribution and end monitor needs vary as well. We were discussing the need for encoding and decoding standards that will allow the data to be "self aware" and allow it to behave differently for the various applications. In the transition, part of the challenge is looking for ways to outsmart social delivery formats to provide fidelity while accomplishing their data and audio compression needs. It's pretty esoteric, but post production encoding and dynamic methods are, indeed, being applied to music to that end.

Originally Posted by Smurf

I have to ask what is wrong with the Studio One Mastering section? It's effects a are totally able to do great mastering, as long as you take your time, just like any other effect's bundle out there....

I've never used Studio One's mastering tools but I'd bet there's nothing wrong, per se, with them. The difference is the precision and quality of the tools. With some of the tools mentioned in this thread you are tip-toeing into the professional tool crib.

Bob

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Under the CALM act, BOTH advertising and program content are regulated. Stations are placing loudness analysis equipment into their chains that will set the level individual material is broadcast at. If you mash your dynamics too much, the equipment will drop the overall volume to prevent it from being reproduced to loudly. All advantage of over-compression will be lost. However, mobile reproduction of music in noisy environments will still typically want compression in order to prevent quiet passages from disappearing.

Yes of course I do understand Bob. Indeed this is what I "do" here in Hollywood. We of course have been seeing this spec (in one form or another) trickle into the promo outlines for at least a year now. The spec of course has many more components than dialog metering and matching the long form mix. The dBfs scales have changed as well and in fact the industry spec for "peak' levels has risen. In some spec sheets by 20 dB.

I'm also aware that the specs include long form but as I inferred earlier I don't know of a single prime time long form television show that has ever dared enter into the world of crushed promo land. The spec might cover long form, but needlessly.

Still in all of that my question remains how does this spec fit in with music production that absolutely does NOT adhere to these specs?

[Bob Womack]

Since radio broadcast is to be governed by the same specs, people are beginning to consider how to optimize their music within those specs. It's the same old story: once the standard is in, how do we optimize our product within the standard. How can we manipulate Dialnorm to benefit our product.

Bob

[KevWind]

I'm certain there is much of this spec. system beyond my level of expertise. So in terms of how this relates to audio production I can only go with what is stated on the NuGen web sight and how it sounds to me
In the promo blurb for this limiter it says:
ISL is a transparent look-ahead limiter designed to allow you to get on with creative audio production while it takes care of True-peak compliance for you.

In any case the bottom line is "the sound" that is important Yes?

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Since radio broadcast is to be governed by the same specs, people are beginning to consider how to optimize their music within those specs. It's the same old story: once the standard is in, how do we optimize our product within the standard. How can we manipulate Dialnorm to benefit our product.

Bob

Yea I just don't get what you're sayin here Bob This spec deals specifically with average RMS dialog output levels (SOT's and VO) in an attempt to identify where the maximizing is abused. Everything else (FX's, crowd reactions, nats, laughs) the spec has actually increased allowable dB levels. In some cases I've gained 20 dB of headroom.

Music mixes would get AWFULLY weird using these specs. I mean... guitars and keyboards floating 20 dB over vocals. This spec is simply NOT intended for music production, radio or otherwise.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I'm certain there is much of this spec. system beyond my level of expertise. So in terms of how this relates to audio production I can only go with what is stated on the NuGen web sight and how it sounds to me
In the promo blurb for this limiter it says:
ISL is a transparent look-ahead limiter designed to allow you to get on with creative audio production while it takes care of True-peak compliance for you.

In any case the bottom line is "the sound" that is important Yes?

Yes of course the sound is important. I work in a business where people lose their job if they get even slightly askew of that mantra.

There is two utterly and completely different issues at play here. Look ahead bit depth maximizer have been around for a long , long time now. I seem to recall Digidesign had their maximizer WAY back in the Pro Tools 5.0 days. These maximizers are the core cause that the FCC implemented the spec we've been talking about in the first place.

The compressor we've been discussing appears to hang its hat on the "we compress AND monitor for you so you can mix "within spec" while still Maintaining the numbers the FCC requires.

All of that cool and you may be absolutely right about decent tone although I'd argue we need to ban ALL look ahead limiters as noise pollution. Still and my point is that this spec has nothing to do with music production

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

Yes of course the sound is important. I work in a business where people lose their job if they get even slightly askew of that mantra.


The compressor we've been discussing appears to hang its hat on the "we compress AND monitor for you so you can mix "within spec" while still Maintaining the numbers the FCC requires.

All of that cool and you may be absolutely right about decent tone although I'd argue we need to ban ALL look ahead limiters as noise pollution. Still and my point is that this spec has nothing to do with music production

Interesting so I am wondering, In your work when you are going to deliver your final product, do you not use any lookahead limiting on the master bus? or I guess the question is do you Master your product or is that something that will or may happen post delivery ? And If you do master what tools do you use?

[flagstaffcharli]

Wow! This thread has taken an interesting life.

I found that Elephant will do what I need. I won't be smashing things too hard.

I prefer using a pro mastering engineer. The guy I have hired on my last 2 cds is really good. He does some mysterious magic as far as I am concerned - not just leveling, but also dialing in a consistent sonic character and focus. On this project, I am really just sequencing and leveling where necessary. It is a different beast.

That said, I have written some timely topical/novelty tunes. Taking a recording of those folkier tunes from beginning to end so that I can use them as singles, freebies, or videos? I can see the advantage of that. Having some understanding of mastering is useful. And maybe dangerous. :-)

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Interesting so I am wondering, In your work when you are going to deliver your final product, do you not use any lookahead limiting on the master bus? or I guess the question is do you Master your product or is that something that will or may happen post delivery ? And If you do master what tools do you use?

Well...it's not quite that simplistic. Every show has a spec sheet. That is an outline of "how" the audio is going to be both delivered to the affiliates and how it's gonna be delivered to the vault of the show itself. It can include a lot of detailed specs but for this discussion it primarily involves output levels and how the audio stems (SOT, music, sound Fx's, nat and crowd reaction, if there is any) are delivered. Sometimes these specs are in anticipation of future use of the show, sometimes I believe somebody flips a coin and guesses. It is however fairly sensitive stuff and probably the place where most who lose their job screwed up.

From there, and to answer your question, the spec (especially now a days) determines the use of look-ahead devices. I won't name shows but many you see on a daily basis have utterly abused maximizing. Primarily in their promo bays. It is in fact the very reason the FCC had to find a way to limit the practice of crunching things into oblivion ostensively under the guise of "everyone else is doin it so..so are we". I've had some exec producers that pushed things to a comical level. Truth be told I've had an exec producer scream bloody murder about the audio only to discover the next time I saw him he had hearing aids.

As to the issue of mastering....we mix....it airs. This is not a particularly leisurely industry. There really isn't time for finesse. We never get to go home for the night and come back the next day to re-evaluate. There is no 3rd party mastering guy (or gal).

Yes I've used look ahead devices since there were look ahead devices. At this level of mixing the PC's, producers ect choose how things are mixed (and believe me there are some major bozo's at the helm). If the show wants crunch I give em crunch. That said I absolutely and positively despise it. I'd like to throw them all (look ahead limiters) in the ocean and be done with it. It's crippled audio at best and it makes my head hurt.

[KevWind]

Interesting , hey thanks for taking the time the reply. Your work world is one that most of us can barely imagine will never experience. It does however lend perspective and cause me to better appreciate the leisurely pace that I can record at.

[KevWind]

A bit off topic but sort of related and perhaps a bit intriguing.
FWIW
My daughter got a book for me for titled "This Is Your Brain On Music" ( The Science of a Human Obsession) a scientific understanding of how humans experience music.

Yesterday, I was watching the episode of Pensados Place with with CLA (Chris Lord Alge) as the Guest. He was saying that almost without fail except for the 2 bus, He always sets the compressor ratio at 4:1

So last night I was reading chapter 2 in this book about rhythm, harmony and loudness and there was a part about how our ears naturally compress loud sound. Now perhaps it means nothing but interesting none the less is the fact that " For every 4 dB increase in sound level, a 1 dB increase is transmitted to the inner hair cells" or a 4 to 1 compression ratio. Hummm