PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

On 2005-03-29 07:17, thomashenrydavies wrote:
...
I'll take one of my projects, and render each track down as it is, then I can load them all into SX at unity gain, and do one mix internally, and one mix by bussing them all to scope channels...

not to discourage you, but that's a pretty pointless attempt, given you plan to use arbitrary source material.

You got to have something that 'challenges' the audio engine in one or the other form.
I always find those sine wave examinations in gear reviews highly inpiring, it's just sad that there are so few sines on CD

I really wouldn't bother even about a noticable difference (you're probably monitoring 24/32 bit data), unless it sounds horrible on the final 16 bit CD mixdown

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-03-29 11:09 ]</font>

I'm another Cubase user who prefers mixing in SFP. My question is: once the mix is in SFP, what tool do you use to produce your final stereo mixdown? Is there an economical approach that still sounds professional?

The way I have been doing it is to bring my final stereo mix back into Cubase, mute all other tracks except for those, and then export those 2 tracks to stereo interleaved. I do, however, like the idea of having a separate mastering tool.

I'll usually record the raw output from the mixer into a stereo ASIO pair back into Logic, setup a second signal chain with PEQ4 and OptiMaster and record that into another stereo ASIO pair. I'll usually build the EQ and OptiMaster settings over time, i.e. record the mix after each session, tweak the settings of the EQ and OptiMaster each time, saving the settings as presets. When I get to a near-finished track, I'll usually have 10-20 different EQ and OptiMaster settings available. I tend to cycle and pick the best one for the final version, usually with a bit of last-minute tweaking.

Since I also record a raw version of the mix, I also have the option to load that mix into WaveLab/whatever and do the mastering in there, or do it straight in Logic.

I might add PsyQ and ISON Level Devil/STW Mastering Limiter to my signal chain at some point, but I found that with an optimal OptiMaster setting, the gains from running the OptiMaster output into a mastering limiter are really minimal, I usually can't get more than 0.5dB of additional loudness (this on pretty loaded-up dancefloor material.)

Of course, I'm a mastering newbie, so feel free to point and laugh at my technique =P

Thanks. As an aside question, what do you think of optiMaster? Does it give your final mix more volume? (I know what the manual says it's supposed to do)

I saw in a previous thread that magix music studio 2005 may be used as a decent mastering tool. Anybody else use that with good results? (emphasis on affordability here)

I'd like to do all of my audio in SFP, but I'm not sure I want to delve into VDAT (would like to be able to do edits) and tripleLE seems unfriendly (previous thread).

On 2005-03-29 11:06, astroman wrote:

On 2005-03-29 07:17, thomashenrydavies wrote:
...
I'll take one of my projects, and render each track down as it is, then I can load them all into SX at unity gain, and do one mix internally, and one mix by bussing them all to scope channels...

not to discourage you, but that's a pretty pointless attempt, given you plan to use arbitrary source material.

You got to have something that 'challenges' the audio engine in one or the other form.
I always find those sine wave examinations in gear reviews highly inpiring, it's just sad that there are so few sines on CD

I really wouldn't bother even about a noticable difference (you're probably monitoring 24/32 bit data), unless it sounds horrible on the final 16 bit CD mixdown

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-03-29 11:09 ]</font>

ermmmm

so there is no point doing it a real life project; there is only any point doing it on audio test data?

Rightio! So why does anyone bother with it then????

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: thomashenrydavies on 2005-03-29 17:54 ]</font>

sorry for my stupid attempt to be ironic
I just wanted to mention that it's probably more effective to have a few important, but difficult to reproduce sources (like a trio of vocalists or violins, brass section, live drum-kit etc), than each track of an arbitrary mix - unless the mix consists of lots of 'challenging' stuff...

cheers, Tom

On 2005-03-26 18:36, at0m wrote:
Check this here on z: only Cubase users rave about the SFP mixers, Logic users seem to prefer to use the Logic mixer. Any Logic users still reading topics on 'mixing in SFP', please let us know. But my impression is that they leave us be with our 'Fisher Price' (;I read their minds) SX mixer. Oh well, we got continued platform support, and Logic's on a dead end pc-wise. But that's another story.

I once recorded the same sawtooth on 2 tracks, and Cubase deceided they were not in phase - the tracks were a couple of samples offset. Can't Cubase put the 2 samples at the exact same position as they were transmitted from SFP? No wonder we prefer VDAT for recording.

Just some impressions,

at0m.

Just plain ASIO mixed within Logic , with Logic's master fader directly to my monitors.


There's no substitute for Logc with Logic Control!

Cheers
Ronald