Re: AW: OT: favourite premastering effects chain

[Per Boysen <perboysen@gmail.com>]

On 31 aug 2007, at 19.45, Rainer Thelonius Balthasar Straschill wrote:
>
> Ok, just trying to understand (and also like Todd asked): why do  
> you do
> this?

Because I think it makes the recording sound better.


> More specifically, let's say I take a source signal with a strong  
> center
> component (almost always true for bass, bassdrum etc.).
>
> So, this signal is a mid signal, and shall be the only content of M.
> Then we have a side signal S (the non-mono component), and that one  
> relates
> to L and R as follows:
>
> L = M+S
> R = M-S
>
> Now for your mix clones, I will always postfix the channels with  
> the number
> of your clone, e.g. the left channel of stereo mix clone 1 is L1.
>
> We get with the above equations:
> L1 = -M-S
> R1 = -M+S
>
> L2 = M-S
> R2 = M+S
>
> L3 = M
> R3 = M
>
> So, for the submix (which will get index s), we get:
>
> Ls = -M-S+M-S = -2S
> Rs = -M+S+M+S = 2S
>
> Now in the last stage, you mix that together with your Submix3,  
> which gives
> you as your final mix:
>
> L = M+S
> R = M-S
>
> So, why do you do that? Is that a very complicated way of  
> controlling the
> M/S balance?

Yes. And since it is "very complicated" it is also very delicate  
which means you can achieve good musical results if you learn it.


>
> Then you said:
>
>> Combined frequency and and stereo correlation meter and
>> goniometer (not affecting sound, only for reading out data),
>> EQ, multi band compressor (sometimes, not always), limiter, a
>> second combined frequency and and stereo correlation meter
>> and goniometer.
>
> Is it always that order, and that choice of components?
> I.e. either EQ->Mcomp->Lim or EQ->Lim? Which means you never use a
> compressor pre-EQ?

Yes. It may be possible to do it like that as well, but I have found  
it easier to tweak the sound by starting out with a plain EQ. Every  
other effect are more or less dynamical so I kind of regard the EQ as  
"the foundation". Since more stuff is going to be balanced on top of  
it I find it logical to apply it as the first process.

> An idea and a question:
>
> The idea: your stage B) is accomplished quite simply and without  
> the need
> for submixes etc. by a lot of VST plugins, some of them free.
>
> The question: have you ever worked with a M/S signal in stage C?  
> E.g. it
> might make sense to work on the M and S signal with different  
> settings for
> compression and maybe even EQ.

Yes, quite often actually. But my stage (B) always comes before stage  
(C). Sometimes I find it faster to create a stereo file on the hard  
drive and duplicate it into three clones for the further phasing  
processing. Other times I patch up all processing from A to C in the  
same session. I use Logic but any software or physical mixing board  
with routing capability should do.

Greetings from Sweden

Per Boysen
www.boysen.se (Swedish)
www.looproom.com (international)