I suck at mastering what is the best Multiband Compressor ==> Ozone vs Fabfilter vs Bitwig Compressor+

[pekbro]

Well that may be true about fuse, i still use it all over the place. If i want it something to
sound pristine or somethin, i use unisum i
suppose.

I stopped using izotope stuff some years ago.

[ChanceB]

Well that may be true about fuse, i still use it all over the place. If i want it something to
sound pristine or somethin, i use unisum i
suppose.

I stopped using izotope stuff some years ago.

I could be wrong about Fuse. I haven’t had it for long and have been using it for that OTT sound and most of that use has been in Current, but I was just checking it out and it seems like it can be fairly gentle and transparent too. Either way I’m by no means a master of multi band processing of any kind.Fuse is definitely cool though ,very intuitive and easy to use . I guess I’ll have to try using it on the master in the future.

[Jac459]

After throwing all that snake oil away and adding proper acoustic treatment, things like mixing and mastering became a lot easier all of a sudden. For the first time I could actually hear what was coming out of my speakers. No wonder why I couldn't get the frequency balance and dynamics right, the room modes swallowed a lot of bass (giving me the impression that the levels where alright when the bass was actually way too loud in the mix/master) and the heavy room reverberation (first reflection points) made sound everything from low to high mids sound too loud (resulting in mid frequencies being too quiet in the mix/master).

So instead of buying a new fancy mixing/mastering tool I recommend to get the room acoustics right first. This is the bare minimum. No, it's not possible to make even an okay mix or master on headphones alone and it's not possible to mix/master on speakers in a room without proper acoustic treatment no matter how good your speakers are. The best speakers, the best multi-band compressor, the best audio interface sounds like garbage in an untreated room. Because the room sounds like garbage. And this is why professional mastering is so important: The well-treated room is part of the equipment the mastering engineer works with. Mastering is more important than ever in the era of bedroom producers working in bad sounding rooms.

I think you are mixing snake oil and magic bullet.
If your expectations are reasonable, just to correct small issues due to small room issues, then you can have a good result.

If you are expecting to mix with a cheap and transform the sound and make it sound like a real studio with only DSP treatment, the product is not the problem, it is your expectations. When you see an advertisement with fit people drinking Coca-Cola, you understand it is marketing right?

As per if it is better to mix in abbey road studio or in your room, I think it is clear for everybody.
But saying that your "can't" have good results seems odd to me.

It is like saying that sampling is shit, it is better to have an expert soloist with you....
Yeah sure.... But lots of things can be achieved with samples.

[WackyZoundz]

If your expectations are reasonable, just to correct small issues due to small room issues, then you can have a good result.

No. You can't fix a bad room by making the speaker response even worse. Two wrongs don't make a right. You only introduce even more issues. Take a look at room modes for example, try to fix that with DSP. Not possible.

For speaker calibration you need a proper measurement microphone, an automated stand that can freely rotate the speaker, good software that can handle a lot of data and of course an anechoic chamber to minimize room influences. This is the only way to do it right. The downside is that it's expensive and takes much longer. But you get a profile that actually works. And it looks and sounds very different from what ARC or anything similar produces. But this doesn't solve a single room issue either. Only acoustic treatment can do that.

It is like saying that sampling is shit, it is better to have an expert soloist with you....
Yeah sure.... But lots of things can be achieved with samples.

A better comparison would be trying to make a stereo mix with only a single speaker. You can't mix nor master what you can't hear. And you can't simulate stereo sound with DSP either.

[Jac459]

If your expectations are reasonable, just to correct small issues due to small room issues, then you can have a good result.

No. You can't fix a bad room by making the speaker response even worse. Two wrongs don't make a right. You only introduce even more issues. Take a look at room modes for example, try to fix that with DSP. Not possible.

Well, folks from Dirac or Room Perfect, products generally extremely praised and recognised, would tell you that you are obviously wrong.

But of course, provided that you are reasonable in your expectations...

If you expect to put a DSP in a church and make it sound like a room closed with carpet, then surely you will be disappointed.

If a part of your room create a small dip in frequency response, then you are in for a treat.

As I was saying, it is not black and white, it is grey. Some stuffs can be done, some others can't.

And by the way, the list of things that can be done by DSP is progressing years after year, just look at RX 11 for example.

For speaker calibration you need a proper measurement microphone, an automated stand that can freely rotate the speaker, good software that can handle a lot of data and of course an anechoic chamber to minimize room influences. This is the only way to do it right. The downside is that it's expensive and takes much longer. But you get a profile that actually works. And it looks and sounds very different from what ARC or anything similar produces. But this doesn't solve a single room issue either. Only acoustic treatment can do that.

I agree with the reasoning but not the conclusion. Again you are trying to be boolean... It is not Yes or no. Sometimes you can significantly improve and get a near perfect result, sometimes you can't.
Am I saying that DSP can replace room correction ? Certainly not. But DSP surely does help.

It is like saying that sampling is shit, it is better to have an expert soloist with you....
Yeah sure.... But lots of things can be achieved with samples.

A better comparison would be trying to make a stereo mix with only a single speaker. You can't mix nor master what you can't hear. And you can't simulate stereo sound with DSP either.

Funny, you chose this example. stereo vs mono, black vs white, yes or no, 0 or 1.
It suits very much your manichaean mindset . I guess it makes life simpler .

[WackyZoundz]

Well, folks from Dirac or Room Perfect, products generally extremely praised and recognised, would tell you that you are obviously wrong.

That's a bogus argument. That's like saying Trump must be a good president just because he is praised by a lot of people. People praise all kinds of things. It should also be noted that people in the industry receive money for advertising such products. If you receive enough money you would praise the worst products in existence with a happy smile.

If a part of your room create a small dip in frequency response, then you are in for a treat.

No because you can't reduce the dip of the room with DSP. The resonance causing this dip can only be reduced with acoustic treatment. Not even hitting the mute button solves the resonance because it doesn't change the physical properties which create the resonances which create the dips.

And by the way, the list of things that can be done by DSP is progressing years after year, just look at RX 11 for example.

You can't bend nor break the laws of physics with DSP.

One last attempt to explain. You have a mix with a reverb on a send. The reverb creates some nasty resonances. Do you fix those resonances on the master or the send? I prefer the send, or in other words - the place where the issue actually occurs. Because this doesn't mutilate the dry signal. You on the other hand choose to fix what isn't broken (the dry signal) which introduces only more issues.

[Jac459]

Well, folks from Dirac or Room Perfect, products generally extremely praised and recognised, would tell you that you are obviously wrong.

That's a bogus argument. That's like saying Trump must be a good president just because he is praised by a lot of people. People praise all kinds of things. It should also be noted that people in the industry receive money for advertising such products. If you receive enough money you would praise the worst products in existence with a happy smile.

Wow. I was not expecting a Trump argument here. You must be running out of ideas...

Using DSP to counterbalance laws of physic is working extremely well... Better than Trump's actions on Covid.
Should I remind you that active noise cancellation is an example of that ?
Anybody who tried AirPods or Sony 1000xm knows that while the result is not perfect (again you need to manage your expectations, there is no silver bullet), it is damn efficient.

If a part of your room create a small dip in frequency response, then you are in for a treat.

No because you can't reduce the dip of the room with DSP.

Of course you can. Your understanding of physic and DSP is not good my friend.

The resonance causing this dip can only be reduced with acoustic treatment. Not even hitting the mute button solves the resonance because it doesn't change the physical properties which create the resonances which create the dips.

I am very convinced by your physical explanation lol...

And by the way, the list of things that can be done by DSP is progressing years after year, just look at RX 11 for example.

You can't bend nor break the laws of physics with DSP.

One last attempt to explain. You have a mix with a reverb on a send. The reverb creates some nasty resonances. Do you fix those resonances on the master or the send? I prefer the send, or in other words - the place where the issue actually occurs. Because this doesn't mutilate the dry signal. You on the other hand choose to fix what isn't broken (the dry signal) which introduces only more issues.

I don't really get your point here.
It is always better to fix a problem at the source. Nobody is denying that.
That's why in my first message I was saying that it is better to master in Abbey Road Studio than at home. FOR SURRRRRE.
But with DSPs, you can clearly bend the law of physics and make the things better.

That's why (I explain again for you) my first point was saying you are mixing snake oil and silver bullet. DSP treatment is NOT a silver bullet. It would be stupid to say that. It is better to have a room treatment. BUT. DSP treatment is NOT snake oil. It is as stupid to say that.

[Uncle E]

Using DSP to correct room issues is literally the same using a mask to stop COVID. LITERALLY!

Trust the science.

[Uncle E]

Those bass lines are sneaky bad ass. Also interesting to see that Lennon was cringe even before Yoko.

[WackyZoundz]

Using DSP to correct room issues is literally the same using a mask to stop COVID. LITERALLY!

Trust the science.

You couldn't be more wrong with that. Using room correction DSP instead of acoustic treatment is the equivalent of "treating" Covid with alcohol.

[Cavey Arrgh]

Using DSP to correct room issues is literally the same using a mask to stop COVID. LITERALLY!

Trust the science.

You couldn't be more wrong with that. Using room correction DSP instead of acoustic treatment is the equivalent of "treating" Covid with alcohol.

I have no horse in this race, but are you saying that if your room acoustics swallow bass freq by 2db, and some correction software tells you this, and applies an eq curve where it increases that bass freq by 2db, this does not improve anything at all? Zero improvement?

If so, please explain the physics.

[Cavey Arrgh]

If the above was regarding my question, it was a legitimate question. I genuinely am interested in the answer. I am open minded as to whether room correction software is at all effective, and if not, then why it is not. By definition, this cannot be trolling.

[pekbro]

Its all about math jeezus, math actually works, believe it.

[Uncle E]

I have no horse in this race, but are you saying that if your room acoustics swallow bass freq by 2db, and some correction software tells you this, and applies an eq curve where it increases that bass freq by 2db, this does not improve anything at all? Zero improvement?

If so, please explain the physics.

Jac459's explanation is the best way to look at it. If you do frequency correction without any room treatment at all, the corrections will cause problems elsewhere in the room. Fix a node and now resonance shows up somewhere else. But used together and you can get great results, very likely better than using room treatment alone if you're not using $3K+ monitors.

[jamcat]

Room correction software is only good for the space immediately around the mix position.

No room is perfect anywhere, much less everywhere. No monitors are perfect either. An all-of-the-above approach is of course the best: great monitors in a great room that has been professionally treated, plus room correction software to get the mix position as good as possible.

But any one—or a combination—of the above is still better than none of the above. And that's what most people are working with.

Even with all of the above, it won't be "perfect" because there is no such thing. Really, you just need "good enough" to be able to work through to a mix that translates.

I know from my own personal experience that ARC cleaned my monitors to an extent that shocked me because I hadn't realized just how much clean-up they needed until I did it. I can say for absolute certain that my monitors sound like much better monitors now. It's like taking a hose to all the mud.