Re: mastering- compression attack time question

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Hev" > wrote in message
...
> I know everything is subjective and depends on the situation but I've got
a
> fairly specific question anyway. In standard rock (4 piece band) is the
> attack time for the compressor generally set for the fastest possible
speed
> to affect the overall sound (including transients)? Obviously whatever
> sounds good for a particular piece is right, but is the attack time set at
> fastest most of the time as a starting point? Does it differ from musical
> style to musical style?
>
> I have a small home studio so I don't have the privileged of using high
> end analog compressors, but I do use a little plug-in compression.
>
> Could a mastering engineer set me straight here?

Definitely. People don't seem to understand the word "mastering". What
non-mastering engineers are really doing when they are "mastering" is just
"further mixing/tweaking" and it should have been on the mix. Though the
word doesn't actually come from you having to be a "master" to do it, it
could have though. I look at it this way, if a person has to ask a question
then they shouldn't be "mastering".

[Jay - atldigi]

In article >, "Hev" >
wrote:

> I know everything is subjective and depends on the situation but I've got
> a fairly specific question anyway. In standard rock (4 piece band) is the
> attack time for the compressor generally set for the fastest possible
> speed
> to affect the overall sound (including transients)? Obviously whatever
> sounds good for a particular piece is right, but is the attack time set
> at
> fastest most of the time as a starting point? Does it differ from musical
> style to musical style?
>
> I have a small home studio so I don't have the privileged of using high
> end analog compressors, but I do use a little plug-in compression.
>
> Could a mastering engineer set me straight here?

Actually, a slower attack time and a fairly fast attack time is a pretty
commonly used technique. It's usually followed by a bit of limiting
which is where the very fast attack time comes in.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[Hev]

"Jay - atldigi" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Hev" >
> wrote:
>
> > I know everything is subjective and depends on the situation but I've
got
> > a fairly specific question anyway. In standard rock (4 piece band) is
the
> > attack time for the compressor generally set for the fastest possible
> > speed
> > to affect the overall sound (including transients)? Obviously whatever
> > sounds good for a particular piece is right, but is the attack time set
> > at
> > fastest most of the time as a starting point? Does it differ from
musical
> > style to musical style?
> >
> > I have a small home studio so I don't have the privileged of using high
> > end analog compressors, but I do use a little plug-in compression.
> >
> > Could a mastering engineer set me straight here?
>
> Actually, a slower attack time and a fairly fast attack time is a pretty
> commonly used technique. It's usually followed by a bit of limiting
> which is where the very fast attack time comes in.

Ah... that makes sense to me if you meant fairly fast release time. Thanks
Jay.

-hev

[Roger W. Norman]

Think about what you're trying to do. A fast attack time in compression
means it's very likely to be noticed quickly, perhaps even inducing pumping.
Slowing the attack means it usually smooths it out more, which is probably
what you're looking for in terms of "mastering". If you find something
within the music that causes some compression problems across the mix bus,
then look for a vst plugin that gives you multiband compression so that you
can take care of problems specific to triggering the compression. But then
again, if you know there are frequency dependant problems on a mix you're
trying to "master" then you might as well just go back and fix the mix
first.

Ooops, sorry Hev. I'm not a mastering engineer.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Hev" > wrote in message
...
> I know everything is subjective and depends on the situation but I've got
a
> fairly specific question anyway. In standard rock (4 piece band) is the
> attack time for the compressor generally set for the fastest possible
speed
> to affect the overall sound (including transients)? Obviously whatever
> sounds good for a particular piece is right, but is the attack time set at
> fastest most of the time as a starting point? Does it differ from musical
> style to musical style?
>
> I have a small home studio so I don't have the privileged of using high
> end analog compressors, but I do use a little plug-in compression.
>
> Could a mastering engineer set me straight here?
>
> thanks
> -hev
>
>
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

Actually, he pointed out the same thing I did. In the process of doing a
mix, if you find yourself being the "mastering" engineer, then you probably
just haven't really fixed the mix yet. That's not a crime on your part, nor
a crime on Ricky's part for mentionting it. It's a fact of life. The final
step to production is mastering, but it may not even include touching a
product with compression, or it may include some very specific multiband
compression, etc., but this may just as well be due to the fact that the
mastering engineer doesn't have the mix to play with. You do, therefore,
fixing the mix is much more beneficial to your music than trying to do
"mastering".

Now don't get me wrong. There are dynamics functions and perhaps even EQ
functions that I use in the master section of my DAW, but those, even though
they might have been part of what a mastering engineer would use, are still
just part of my mix. This is more of what we are talking about.

And it may be simply a conflict of semantics. I don't consider that I
master my products, but I consider them to be of mastering quality, which
means that I'm happy with the level and quality of the mix itself, and
although it may not have the final touches a mastering engineer would put on
it, it's still playable as is. At least, that's what I shoot for. It also
means that, if a client so desires, I can easily turn off any small amounts
of compression, limiting or EQ I've done in the master section of the
virtual console and give the mastering engineer a clean version of the mix.

But, in the event that real mastering is called for, always leave a little
workspace for the engineer. And also realize that if you're compressing the
stereo bus and were planning on sending it out to a mastering engineer, then
you've limited the functions a mastering engineer could apply to your music.
If you apply this philosophy to your mixing and you realize that it's the
absolute BEST job you can do on the mix, you really have no place left to go
because you won't be able to really HEAR what the subsequent fixes you apply
do to the music, and mastering is not a guessing game.

Again, this is not giving you a hard time, and in defense of any reasoned
reply to such a question, although you are the one asking the question, the
answer may well be pertinent to a lot of lurkers who do not post their
questions.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Hev" > wrote in message
...
> "Ricky W. Hunt" > wrote in message
> news:b3z6b.381384$uu5.72491@sccrnsc04...
> > "Hev" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I know everything is subjective and depends on the situation but I've
> got
> > a
> > > fairly specific question anyway. In standard rock (4 piece band) is
the
> > > attack time for the compressor generally set for the fastest possible
> > speed
> > > to affect the overall sound (including transients)? Obviously whatever
> > > sounds good for a particular piece is right, but is the attack time
set
> at
> > > fastest most of the time as a starting point? Does it differ from
> musical
> > > style to musical style?
> > >
> > > I have a small home studio so I don't have the privileged of using
high
> > > end analog compressors, but I do use a little plug-in compression.
> > >
> > > Could a mastering engineer set me straight here?
> >
> > Definitely. People don't seem to understand the word "mastering". What
> > non-mastering engineers are really doing when they are "mastering" is
just
> > "further mixing/tweaking" and it should have been on the mix. Though the
> > word doesn't actually come from you having to be a "master" to do it, it
> > could have though. I look at it this way, if a person has to ask a
> question
> > then they shouldn't be "mastering".
>
>
> It might be true that a person asking this question shouldn't be
"mastering"
> (in quotes, nice touch).
> But then it could also be said that someone replying without adding any
> beneficial information shouldn't really be "writing".
>
> -hev
>
>

[Hev]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, he pointed out the same thing I did. In the process of doing a
> mix, if you find yourself being the "mastering" engineer, then you
probably
> just haven't really fixed the mix yet.

I know it... but he was being a dick. Saying something like: "I look at it
this way, if a person has to ask a question
then they shouldn't be "mastering"" Sounds to my ears like 'If you have to
ask you shouldn't learn'. If I don't ask I'm not going to learn and I'm not
going to improve.

> That's not a crime on your part, nor
> a crime on Ricky's part for mentionting it. It's a fact of life. The
final
> step to production is mastering, but it may not even include touching a
> product with compression, or it may include some very specific multiband
> compression, etc., but this may just as well be due to the fact that the
> mastering engineer doesn't have the mix to play with. You do, therefore,
> fixing the mix is much more beneficial to your music than trying to do
> "mastering".

Like I stated in my other post I whole heartedly agree. I'm not using the
mastering stage as another place to change the mix. It is mainly to achieve
more volume.

> Now don't get me wrong. There are dynamics functions and perhaps even EQ
> functions that I use in the master section of my DAW, but those, even
though
> they might have been part of what a mastering engineer would use, are
still
> just part of my mix. This is more of what we are talking about.

Well I don't use them in my master section of my DAW, although I have done
that with fine results in the past, I drop them in sound forge. But we are
talking about the same things you are putting in your master section. A
little EQ, little compression, volume maximizing, limiting.

> And it may be simply a conflict of semantics. I don't consider that I
> master my products, but I consider them to be of mastering quality, which
> means that I'm happy with the level and quality of the mix itself, and
> although it may not have the final touches a mastering engineer would put
on
> it, it's still playable as is. At least, that's what I shoot for. It
also
> means that, if a client so desires, I can easily turn off any small
amounts
> of compression, limiting or EQ I've done in the master section of the
> virtual console and give the mastering engineer a clean version of the
mix.

Right. I guess what I'm calling "mastering" is what you are calling
"mastering quality"? I think.
So what are the final touches a mastering engineer would put on it? I know
the mastering engineer's job is usually in context of a whole album being
"balanced" frequency wise.

I guess I should be calling what I'm doing volume maximizing (with a light
hint of glue).

> But, in the event that real mastering is called for, always leave a little
> workspace for the engineer. And also realize that if you're compressing
the
> stereo bus and were planning on sending it out to a mastering engineer,
then
> you've limited the functions a mastering engineer could apply to your
music.
> If you apply this philosophy to your mixing and you realize that it's the
> absolute BEST job you can do on the mix, you really have no place left to
go
> because you won't be able to really HEAR what the subsequent fixes you
apply
> do to the music, and mastering is not a guessing game.

I can't wait for the day a mix of mine gets the budget to get properly
mastered. I think if I had a good relationship with a mastering engineer I
could get my mixes even closer to where they need to be and learn a lot in
the process.

Thanks for your replies Roger.

-hev






> "Hev" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Ricky W. Hunt" > wrote in message
> > news:b3z6b.381384$uu5.72491@sccrnsc04...
> > > "Hev" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I know everything is subjective and depends on the situation but
I've
> > got
> > > a
> > > > fairly specific question anyway. In standard rock (4 piece band) is
> the
> > > > attack time for the compressor generally set for the fastest
possible
> > > speed
> > > > to affect the overall sound (including transients)? Obviously
whatever
> > > > sounds good for a particular piece is right, but is the attack time
> set
> > at
> > > > fastest most of the time as a starting point? Does it differ from
> > musical
> > > > style to musical style?
> > > >
> > > > I have a small home studio so I don't have the privileged of using
> high
> > > > end analog compressors, but I do use a little plug-in compression.
> > > >
> > > > Could a mastering engineer set me straight here?
> > >
> > > Definitely. People don't seem to understand the word "mastering". What
> > > non-mastering engineers are really doing when they are "mastering" is
> just
> > > "further mixing/tweaking" and it should have been on the mix. Though
the
> > > word doesn't actually come from you having to be a "master" to do it,
it
> > > could have though. I look at it this way, if a person has to ask a
> > question
> > > then they shouldn't be "mastering".
> >
> >
> > It might be true that a person asking this question shouldn't be
> "mastering"
> > (in quotes, nice touch).
> > But then it could also be said that someone replying without adding any
> > beneficial information shouldn't really be "writing".
> >
> > -hev
> >
> >
>
>

[Inter Media]

Jay - atldigi > wrote:

> Actually, a slower attack time and a fairly fast attack time
> is a pretty commonly used technique.

Wat's wrong with this picture?

Barney

[Chris Smalt]

Hev wrote:

> It might be true that a person asking this question shouldn't be "mastering"
> (in quotes, nice touch).
> But then it could also be said that someone replying without adding any
> beneficial information shouldn't really be "writing".


Good one, Hev!

Of course both of these statements depend on your definition of
"mastering' and "writing", or mine, or someone else's. The same is true
for whatever is being said about compressor attack times. Fortunately I
gather from your remarks that you actually hear the difference, so keep
trusting those ears.


Chris

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Hev" > wrote in message
...
> "Ricky W. Hunt" > wrote in message
> news:b3z6b.381384$uu5.72491@sccrnsc04...
> > > Could a mastering engineer set me straight here?
> >
> > Definitely. People don't seem to understand the word "mastering". What
> > non-mastering engineers are really doing when they are "mastering" is
just
> > "further mixing/tweaking" and it should have been on the mix. Though the
> > word doesn't actually come from you having to be a "master" to do it, it
> > could have though. I look at it this way, if a person has to ask a
> question
> > then they shouldn't be "mastering".
>
>
> It might be true that a person asking this question shouldn't be
"mastering"
> (in quotes, nice touch).
> But then it could also be said that someone replying without adding any
> beneficial information shouldn't really be "writing".

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I was just answering your question from
something I found out myself. You asked if a mastering engineer could be of
help and I said yes. I qualified my answer as a lot people including newbies
read these NG's and believe all of this "mastering in a box for dummies"
bullcrap. What gets tossed around as "mastering" these days is really just
stuff they might as well slap across the stereo buss during mixdown. I think
a lot of people feel just as long as you do "something" to the stereo mix
after mixdown then you are "mastering" and all is well and good and that's
just not the case. You are really hiring the guys ears as much as anything.
It's probably not best to master your own stuff even if you are capable.

[Jay - atldigi]

In article >, "Inter Media"
> wrote:

> Jay - atldigi > wrote:
>
> > Actually, a slower attack time and a fairly fast attack time
> > is a pretty commonly used technique.
>
> Wat's wrong with this picture?
>
> Barney

Wow, how'd that happen? Slower attack - faster release

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[Jay - atldigi]

In article >,
wrote:

> "Inter Media" > wrote:
>
> >
> > Jay - atldigi > wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, a slower attack time and a fairly fast attack time
> >> is a pretty commonly used technique.
> >
> >Wat's wrong with this picture?
> >
> >Barney
>
> Nothing, compressor with a slower attack, limiter with a fast attack.
>

Which is indeed what the second part of the post said - but yeah, my
brain must have skipped a beat while typing the second instance of
"attack" which was to have been "release". A small error like this
probably wouldn't stump anybody in the context of the thread. I bet most
understood what I meant.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[Andrew M.]

When I think of mastering, I think of tying the whole project together.
A mastering engineer will help get all of your mixes working together so
they sound like they belong together (for lack of a better term), and so
things flow smoothly from track to track. That's really what I think of
when I think of mastering.

Compression is a fact if your music is going to be competing with any
popular music. You don't want people to have to turn up their volume
when your CD plays on their multidisc CD player. I know A&R people that
will toss your demo in the trash if it's not competitive level wise. A
great mastering engineer will do this "transparently". If you have the
budget I would HIGHLY recommend MASTERDISK in NYC. Any of the engineers
there will take your mixes to the next level.(and no I don't work there,
I just love what they do for my mixes).

Monte P McGuire wrote:
> In article <wQy7b.405075$YN5.272229@sccrnsc01>,
> Ricky W. Hunt > wrote:
>
>>What gets tossed around as "mastering" these days is really just
>>stuff they might as well slap across the stereo buss during mixdown.
>
>
> On a project with multiple mixes, it's helpful to be able to decide
> what, if anything, is needed once you have all of the mixes available.
> That's hard to do when you're building each of the mixes. So, even if
> you do it yourself, doing it in the context of the entire project
> might give you some different results than what you'd do after
> spending hours on one mix by itself.
>
>
>>It's probably not best to master your own stuff even if you are capable.
>
>
> True. It's nice to have a 'second guess', but you really have to
> trust this person and be able to deal with your project sounding
> different than what you sent in.
>
> It sounds stupid, but many people want their project to sound better,
> but they don't really want much of anything changed either. I've been
> bitten by this on both sides of the situation.
>
> The important thing is to figure out what you like about the mixes and
> try to save or enhance that and try to minimize the stuff that's not
> helping out. It's also crucial that this stuff is communicated
> effectively. If you don't do this, having someone else master your
> stuff won't work, and if you're not up front with yourself about what
> you need to do, you won't be able to master your own stuff either.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Monte McGuire
>

[Chris Smalt]

Jay wrote:

> Slower attack - faster release


BTW, these are also the recommended settings for posting to r.a.p. :)

(Not directed to you, Jay!)


Chris

[dwgriffi]

In article >, "Hev" > wrote:

> "Ricky W. Hunt" > wrote in message
> news:b3z6b.381384$uu5.72491@sccrnsc04...
> > "Hev" > wrote in message
> > ...

> > > Could a mastering engineer set me straight here?
> >
> > Definitely. People don't seem to understand the word "mastering". What
> > non-mastering engineers are really doing when they are "mastering" is just
> > "further mixing/tweaking" and it should have been on the mix. Though the
> > word doesn't actually come from you having to be a "master" to do it, it
> > could have though. I look at it this way, if a person has to ask a
> question
> > then they shouldn't be "mastering".
>
>
> It might be true that a person asking this question shouldn't be "mastering"
> (in quotes, nice touch).
> But then it could also be said that someone replying without adding any
> beneficial information shouldn't really be "writing".
>
> -hev




Bullseye.



Bullseye, bullseye, bullseye.



: )


What the f is it about mastering that brings out this "I can't tell you the
answer because you shouldn't be messing with it" types of posts? If someone
isn't bringing it to a mastering room and wants to know how to touch it up to
burn a decent CD, what's the friggin' deal?


When someone asks "I only have a small Fender amp in my closet. How can I make
it sound bigger than I've been able to?" we give our thoughts and encouragement.



If a person has to ask, then they shouldn't be doing it? WTF????


DW

--
Raindances always worked because they didn't stop dancing until it rained.



To reply, please remove the 555 from the return address

[LeBaron & Alrich]

dwgriffi > wrote:

> What the f is it about mastering that brings out this "I can't tell you the
> answer because you shouldn't be messing with it" types of posts? If someone
> isn't bringing it to a mastering room and wants to know how to touch it up to
> burn a decent CD, what's the friggin' deal?

I cannot tell another what to do to a mix that I have never heard.
Attack, Ratio, Release, Crest, Ipana, Dial, whatever, if I haven't heard
what's happening I can spout useless generalizations, but absent hearing
it, I'm just useless.

> When someone asks "I only have a small Fender amp in my closet. How can I
> make it sound bigger than I've been able to?" we give our thoughts and
> encouragement.

Because I have a small Fender amp, have had several other small Fender
amps, have had closets and might again have closets, so I can say, "Take
the amp out of the closet and lay it on its back in the middle of your
living room and put a mic about six feet away from it". Humongoidally
biggerness at once.

> If a person has to ask, then they shouldn't be doing it? WTF????

Sometimes, yeah; OTOH, Google is the wannabee masterer's friend. Many
good ballpark outlines have been presented. A poster who goes there and
reads that might return with some specific queries that could lead to
usefull information.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Jay - atldigi]

In article
>, dwgriffi
> wrote:

> What the f is it about mastering that brings out this "I can't tell you
> the answer because you shouldn't be messing with it" types of posts? If
> someone
> isn't bringing it to a mastering room and wants to know how to touch it
> up to burn a decent CD, what's the friggin' deal?
>
> When someone asks "I only have a small Fender amp in my closet. How can I
> make it sound bigger than I've been able to?" we give our thoughts and
> encouragement.

"How do I make my drum machine sound like Steve Gadd?" Well, you can't.
There are, however, things to do to make your programmed drums sound
better, but it's worth making the distinction between what is and is not
possible before going full steam ahead. If you've followed my posts over
the years, you'll know that I personally don't tell people not to try it
for themselves. I do, however, sometimes throw in a disclaimer about
reasonable expectations before I offer suggestions.

If others actually believe it should never be attempted under any
circumstances, and aren't just making a distinction between project
studio mix processing and professional mastering and when each is
appropriate, then they're probably taking life a little too seriously.
As I think Hank observed, there are plenty of "hands on" postings
available from Google that will give a person a solid starting point.
I've made several myself over the years, so I know they're out there.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[DW Griffi]

In article >,
(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote:

>
> I cannot tell another what to do to a mix that I have never heard.
> Attack, Ratio, Release, Crest, Ipana, Dial, whatever, if I haven't heard
> what's happening I can spout useless generalizations, but absent hearing
> it, I'm just useless.
>



Oh, c'mon Hank (g)! You can say "If it's this kind of music start with
settings like this and adjust and listen. If that kind start with
this..." It wouldn't be useless.



> > When someone asks "I only have a small Fender amp in my closet. How can I
> > make it sound bigger than I've been able to?" we give our thoughts and
> > encouragement.
>
> Because I have a small Fender amp, have had several other small Fender
> amps, have had closets and might again have closets, so I can say, "Take
> the amp out of the closet and lay it on its back in the middle of your
> living room and put a mic about six feet away from it". Humongoidally
> biggerness at once.
>


Hey now you're proving my point! (ggg)! You're giving a suggestion how
to fix the guitar sound but you're keeping mastering a phoney magic
science!! : ) (You know what I'm saying: project mastering as in the
stage one with a project studio can enter after mixing if the project
does not call for being handed off to another.)




> > If a person has to ask, then they shouldn't be doing it? WTF????
>
> Sometimes, yeah; OTOH, Google is the wannabee masterer's friend. Many
> good ballpark outlines have been presented. A poster who goes there and
> reads that might return with some specific queries that could lead to
> usefull information.


True, I just wish they could be pointed there (search engines were new
to all of us at one point) instead of being told to go home (not you
Hank, of course (g))

DW

[DW Griffi]

In article >,
Jay - atldigi > wrote:

> If others actually believe it should never be attempted under any
> circumstances, and aren't just making a distinction between project
> studio mix processing and professional mastering and when each is
> appropriate, then they're probably taking life a little too seriously.



That's really the point, Jay. Everyone knows there are recordings made
in everything from bathrooms to palaces and we don't say a good
recording could never be made in a bathroom. But people somehow don't
acknowledge that mastering is merely another stage of production,
sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes done with primo gear, sometimes
on the cheap. A mastering job someone does on their own bathroom
recording, even a less than stellar one, is still valid, and they
deserve better than the "Mastering FAQ" that sometimes gets posted,
which is "If you have to ask, you're not worthy."


But you knew that. : )


DW

[Jay - atldigi]

In article
>, DW Griffi
> wrote:

> In article >,
> Jay - atldigi > wrote:
>
> > If others actually believe it should never be attempted under any
> > circumstances, and aren't just making a distinction between project
> > studio mix processing and professional mastering and when each is
> > appropriate, then they're probably taking life a little too seriously.
>
> That's really the point, Jay. Everyone knows there are recordings made
> in everything from bathrooms to palaces and we don't say a good
> recording could never be made in a bathroom. But people somehow don't
> acknowledge that mastering is merely another stage of production,
> sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes done with primo gear, sometimes
> on the cheap. A mastering job someone does on their own bathroom
> recording, even a less than stellar one, is still valid, and they
> deserve better than the "Mastering FAQ" that sometimes gets posted,
> which is "If you have to ask, you're not worthy."
>
> But you knew that. : )
>
> DW

Yup. At the same time, some of Scott's points earlier in the thread are
worth bearing in mind as well. It was fairly recently that mastering
could enter the "project" stage. It used to be that you needed the Sony
PCM-1630 and an expensive PQ editor, or a big lathe and some serious
supplementary skills. There were also certain quality control issues and
standards and such. Mastering has always been a bit different from the
rest of the process, not quite just another step. At this time, it's
closer but still a bit different, especially if you are doing higher end
work and replicating thousands of units. But there are options now for
the little guy to improve his projects, and that's cool.

It's worth remembering where it came from and what the differences are.
Scott's point about it not just being processing is an important point.
I think that's what most are responding to - but if it's said "never
touch your mix after it's done no matter what", that's just silly. If
you're scraping together a few bucks and trying to get a demo out there,
you may have to do it yourself, and can improve your chances of being
noticed if you do it tastefully. You need to walk before you can run -
doing a budget demo before you tackle a big budget album. Just remember
that there's more to it than what you did at home after you get that
record deal with your cool new demo.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[Chris Smalt]

DW wrote:

> Oh, c'mon Hank (g)! You can say "If it's this kind of music start with
> settings like this and adjust and listen. If that kind start with
> this..." It wouldn't be useless.


Have you tried that? It doesn't work. The only way I'd be able to give
someone useful advise about post-processing a mix is when we're in the
same room at the same time. There are just too many variables,
and that's not even taking into account how two people can hear things
differently, and attach different words and numbers to it.


Chris