FinalMix compared to?

[.jon]

Then you miss out on all kinds of stuff that sounds great. Many of the MDA plugs, which just use the host's built in gui, sound great, but are almost bereft of a GUI.

Remember it's not the GUI that provides the DSP. And Final Mix has plenty of controls there to twiddle should you desire to do so. I've had trouble improving on the excellent list of presets.

---clip---

It does chow down lots of DSP, but recall what it's actually doing: 2 different 6 band parametric EQ's, 3 band dynamics, soft limiter, all in stereo. (I probably missed something). So it's going to chow some cycles. Make a rack with all of these elements in it individually and see if you can come up with something more efficient. If so, please post results here.

Nah, I've used MDA for years, I'd prefer all the plugs to be GUIless if the devs can't come up with a GUI that rally adds value to the experience. GUIless plugs integrate better with the host and therefore work better with my "philosophy" - the computer is one instruments, host is the UI and VSTis are just expansion cards.

If the dev instead wishes to make a very amateurish GUI with tiny, unprecise and stepping controls that are meant for very fine adjustments (smooth, longthrow fader movement anyone?) it doesn't give the impression professional quality, which is of course extremely important when dealing with a mastering plugin.

CPU consumption is ok, it could eat all the cycles for all I care - it's not like your slamming these on every track when mastering

Some of the presets nearly made me deaf - I'll never browse the presets again.

[Kingston]

Well, I don't know if you remember the times when finaliser was released, but for a brief perioid it managed to chomp a whole market by offering a great feature set for its price. Note the magic words: 'for its price'. It hit that first wave of prosumer market. FinalMix was released sometime after this with a feature set that was close to indentical to finaliser, apart from the finaliser being completely modular. Clever chaps as they are they also gave it a very similar name. "Dang, this thing even LOOKS like a finaliser", said the consumer in awe.

This was also the time when people started getting prissy about the phasing artifacts in any multiband compressor. They also noticed how their older analog equipment just sounded better. They said, "shite this thing is only good for on-the-fly samplerate conversions".

There is the odd rare case when multiband compression is still valid and sounds good, and that's called "TubeTech SMC-2B Stereo Multiband Compressor"


Notice with finalmix how you seem to be getting so much with so little CPU usage. With current state of plugin quality, the age of finalmix and laws of physics in mind, start training your ears.

[Lunch Money]

OK.

Regarding multi-band, there may be something to what you say. Frankly, I don't have the ears for it (yet? maybe never?) and I never notice any artifacts. When "final mix" / "mastering" threads appear, many people seem to recommend a multi-band compressor still. I'm willing to concede that most of us here are a bunch of hobbyists, but I gotta say that I'm well impressed with the mixing and mastering jobs that a lot of them do, so I don't mind. "Dating" an effect or technique is only useful when identifying "over-use". It's fairly well-known that sonic maximization is an 80's effect, because that's when it was really OVER-used. But that doesn't mean that sonic maximizers shouldn't or can't be used anymore! In any case, that's a separate point and the main one is: it's a technique that is being used (and used WELL!) by a great many people, and it seems to work well for me; therefore, it doesn't really burn my arse that "professional mastering studios" don't use them, because I'm simply NOT a professional mastering studio and I have no pretension to be one.

Perhaps some day, in the 2010's, style will change and people will say, "Can you believe people used a single limiter over an ENTIRE mix? It sounds so... 2005!" Would that suddenly invalidate the process?

Regarding the analog gear "simply sounding better", that's a whole other can of worms-- and you WELL KNOW that it's an age-old red herring!!-- that I simply won't bother getting into because I don't have access to that gear anyhow.

Greg

[headquest]

Do people really use a single limiter over a whole mix? Damn - I've been doing that wrong too! I often use a limiter on my drums, etc, as well as or instead of a more complex compressor (the Kjaerhus GCO-1... nice update to that today, by the way ).

Oh well. I'm coming to the conclusion that there are no "rights and wrongs" here anyway... just lots of different ways of skinning a cat, as they say.

On the subject of multi-band compression/dynamics, I though that the Wave-Arts Multiband is a stunning and very useful effect when I ran the demo. In fact, I quickly remastered a pile of old stuff with it before the demo period ended I don't give a rat's fart whether pro mastering facilities use it or not... all I care about is that it gave me a new level of control over my mix, and was simple to use. Now I plan on buying it.

Assuming that all these plugs are basically tools - and that they exist to make our lives easier, rather than more compicated - then surely what ultimately matters is the quality of the music in the end, and not the method, interesting though that is of course

[IIRs]

They also noticed how their older analog equipment just sounded better.

Quick everyone, start buying up second hand Behringer Composers You're just a Kingston

[Kingston]

They also noticed how their older analog equipment just sounded better.

Quick everyone, start buying up second hand Behringer Composers You're just a Kingston

You can read my posts and completely miss the point if you try really hard. And you've got a troll bait and a hook in your throat as well.

You can keep ignoring the sound quality related facts about FinalMix as well. It's your music. I hope the god your nick doesn't imply Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) filters, because it's most likely a low-CPU IIR implemetation that makes FM sound so dated and phasey. And it makes you look like a dork.

Besides, if it's a first generation behringer composer, it actually sounded decent. That was before they changed the power supply and remodelled it a bit (cheaper manufacturing process). In essence that generated the nowadays famous cheap behringer sound. Did you know behringer used to make a pretty decent 4-band multiband compressor before the cheap days as well? If one was to cross my path I wouldn't hesitate to use it (on individual tracks).





Do you know what touche means?

[Lunch Money]

Kingston, I'm not knowledgable enough to properly debate, so all I can say is what I've said already. However, it's worth pointing out that what you call "facts" are opinion until they're accompanied by the factual data.

Greg

[chance11]

WOW this is wierd. I frequent many hi-end mastering labs here in LA and they all use multiband I also have visited some lo-end (cheap) mastering houses that don't. The main thing is that you have to know how to use it. I have see a well-known ME use a Behringer (yes Behringer) 5 band compressor and it blew me away what he achieved. It reminded me of when I was growing up and I had a cheap $25.00 Kay guitar that sounded like crap but when a pro picked it up and played it I cried because it sounded so sweet. I have learned that people can say all they want negitave about something (like my old guitar), but put it in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, and they will make it sound good

[Lunch Money]

Not to mention that the Kay might be just what's needed on the track!

[Kingston]

However, it's worth pointing out that what you call "facts" are opinion until they're accompanied by the factual data.

The factual data is there when you listen to the plugin. I'm sorry if I do not have access to the actual DSP implementation. The sound is so clearly there for everyone to hear. This is not even something that is difficult to hear. I'll state again: you could even use FM to teach the meaning of digital crossover phase artifact. Then there's the average compression algorithm (tho that's more difficult to hear with all those bands at work).

I'm sorry if this bashing seems harsh and unjustified to some, but there are some things you can learn to hear for granted.

chance, that multiband behringer is just the one I mentioned and it wasn't/isn't cheap at all. It's one of the very few decent sounding behringer racks there is. Also, it's fully analog.

[chance11]

If you are saying that it sounds bad, have you ever thought that it might be the one that is using it? I have heard very high quality mixes done with FM and if you say otherwise, it is obvious that the problem is "operator error"
Don't give up, learn how to use it.

[chagzuki]

I think it's rare that multiband compression over a mix sounds good. The idea that it's necessary part of the process is a load of poo.

[Kingston]

If you are saying that it sounds bad, have you ever thought that it might be the one that is using it?

Yes, I have thought of it, and no it's not me, seriously.

I have heard good multiband compression once, and that was a custom bus based 96khz crossover setup going to sintefex with specially chosen compressor for each band (there was three).

It sounded especially nice, tight and transparent. We ended up using a single band sintefex fairchild chained to something else (in sintefex) as it sounded even better.

(and bmanic, that was one helluva ear opening session, cheers)

[IIRs]

<Sigh>

you could even use FM to teach the meaning of digital crossover phase artifact.

Probably yes; its inherent to the cross-over type. (It helps if you set suitable cross-over points & slopes though). You seem to be implying that only linear phase filters are suitable? They have other disadvantages (read up on them ), so best to choose the most suitable tools for each job IMO.

Then there's the average compression algorithm (tho that's more difficult to hear with all those bands at work).

In your opinion.. perhaps you don't realise that the design is capable of upward compression as well as downward, and expansion in both directions, or combinations of all 4.. anyone but a preset whore would realise the dynamics sections are well above average! (IMO)

[chance11]

I don't think anyone said it is necessary, but when it is, it helps to know how to use it