Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

Mastering.com Members Club

34k members • Free

8 contributions to Mastering.com Members Club
Favorite EQ?
What's your favorite EQ plugin, and why?
Favorite EQ?
0 likes • 5h
But if I had to pick an analog emulation EQ-- the Maag EQ4 because that air band is pure silk to the ears.
0 likes • 1h
@Tom Baldwin I can definitely understand the frustration. I have that problem with UAD as well. I stopped shopping from them after a while.
Shelf bands on an EQ: a clarification
I noticed in the music production 101 course, there was some talk about EQ shelf filters, and how they boost a frequency "above a certain point". This isn't really true though, they also boost a bit (in a slope) below that point too. This is important, because if you're recording and mixing at a high sample rate (such that frequencies above 22.05kHz are not aliased), then using a plugin like the Maag plugins' air bands (or other analog emulations) at 20k or above can affect the frequencies below it in a really pleasing way. I posted a comment somewhere nearly a decade ago about how recording and mixing above 48kHz is a pretty good idea, and people widely rejected that, claiming that "mixes are rendered at 44.1k and humans can't hear above 20, so there's no point!" but that ignores the fact that frequencies above 20k can actually have an effect on how the ones below it sound, and doesn't take aliasing issues into account. Fast forward 10 years and everyone else seems to be catching up on this fact (and oversampling too!), but I'd just like to point out that there's a reason mixes are exported at 44.1kHz and not 20! Because to give the minimum viable aliasing, you need double the max frequency (so 40k) but also provide a small buffer so that the top range of hearing isn't mangled by a 1-bit on/off aliased cycle, the minimum sample rate suggested is actually 44.1kHz, not 40, not 20. That's not an accident, and finally, It's widely misunderstood that 44.1kHz is "all that's required" when actually, it's a bare MINIMUM requirement, for not exceeding the most possible damage to high frequencies that listeners can tolerate. However, 44.1kHz is still the maximum damage to those frequencies that users can tolerate. 48kHz is less, 92 even less and less and so on. So higher sample rates = less damage to those frequencies, as is very apparent when using plugins or hardware that boost frequencies above 20k, especially in analog emulations.
0 likes • 2h
@Tom Baldwin still watching, but this test is done with just noise. I guess there's no way to prove this easily, but I feel like anything naturally musical above 20k will not having random, noisy effects on the frequencies below it, but instead have musical effects on the frequencies below 20k. To properly run this experiment, it must be done with music, not noise, in my opinion.
0 likes • 2h
For the record, I mix at 48 and use oversampling, and now I understand why that works so well. Thank you for the video, it was enlightening! Oversampling corrects unwanted artifacts and noise levels that a higher session sample rate cannot, or does not. I stand corrected.
Which Way To Go?
Hey, all. I have a question regarding some tracks I have written prior to beginning to watching the videos on this site which have taught me more than I learned in 2 months of watching YouTube videos. I am gaining a lot more knowledge, and I'm starting to question all the decisions I made on these tracks. I think they could be viable tracks, and I like them but, they could be so much better. My question is this: Do I strip them down to bare bones, and completely redo them (ie. gain staging, FX, EQ'ing, etc.).? Or do I leave them as is, and chalk them up to a learning experience and begin new projects? I am leaning toward both. Copy the project and redo everything, then keep the original for comparison and to track my progression. What do y'all think? Your advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Karlton...
1 like • 5h
@Karlton Bethea that song sounds really really cool!!! I'd love to hear it when it's done! I only dabble in EDM right now, as I'm still learning all the different flavors of it but I do enjoy house, trance, and dubstep varieties. I'm glad you have a solid plan going forward as well! I am wishing you luck and success and I hope you can achieve all that you want.
1 like • 4h
@Karlton Bethea you're very welcome! Can't wait to hear it :)
Mindset Shift Idea: Forget what you know about mixing.
I'm continuously learning through practice that it's kind of detrimental to focus on the ideas of what a compressor or EQ or clipper, or whatever is "supposed" to do. Compressors aren't just for taming dynamics, EQs aren't just for balancing frequencies, and so on. Instead, analyze your song. If you hear a problem, decide which tool (of the ones you own or don't) could solve that problem most effectively. For example: you have a drum kit recorded in stereo. The snare is too loud. This is a dynamic problem, right? Not really. I mean, yes, but it's best solved with an EQ. You could use a compressor or clipper to turn down the snare, and crush it while leaving the rest of the kit intact, or you could just use a parametric EQ with higher bandwidth to target the snare specifically and turn it down, maybe with a dynamic EQ sort of process so your attenuation doesn't affect the quieter kick and toms, and at the same time, use a sharper EQ to target the kick and toms and boost them. I have an example of this, but I'm not sure how to share it. I was working through Music Production 101, on the "Long Way Home" song introduced in Mixing > Dynamics in the Mix and realized the methods shown really don't work very well. Not as well as an EQ anyway. Try this with the drumkit in the song, then, maybe, after the kick, snare, toms, and hat are balanced with EQ instead, then try to target just the snare with a clipper or compressor for a much smaller amount of gain reduction (less will be required). 2 things will happen: 1. you'll notice it sounds far more natural 2. after the EQ, before you even add the compressor at all, you'll notice the drum kit starts to sound fully mixed. Not quite 100%, but 80% for sure. Another example in the same song, regarding the snare: If you want more low mid body on the snare, you could try to EQ it, yes, but it might affect the whole kit. So instead, use some parallel processing. Use a parallel track with a high and low pass filter set to isolate those low-mids (where the snare sounds loudest). Then add tube or tape saturation to give it some leveling, oomph, and fatness (I used a tube), but also provide it some gentle distortion to work as a sort of exciter, and then mix it back in, and then EQ so it fits better with the kit. Just because an EQ "is for frequencies" doesn't mean its the best tool to EQ a snare, for example. Instead, I used a tube, some gentle compression and distortion from said tube, and some parallel processing to "EQ" the snare.
1
0
Gain Staging Debate: Session View or Arrangement View?
Quick question for everyone, what’s your preferred approach for initial gain staging for your individual tracks? Do you usually do it in Session View or Arrangement View, and why do you prefer one over the other? I’ve been debating this with a few producer friends and curious to hear different perspectives.
Gain Staging Debate: Session View or Arrangement View?
1 like • 9h
I'm not sure what session view or arrangement views are, but in my DAW, I gain stage in the "arrangement" view (or what I imagine that means) and the console window, which overlays the arranger, so both at once? Gain staging happens at many points throughout your signal chain. 1. At the file level, 2. The input level (my DAW has input pots that control the volume post clip / arranger track), 3. And finally, after each plugin via makeup gain or a gain plugin. The purpose of gain staging is to keep the signal consistent with the input at all steps of your signal chain. This is beneficial for a few reasons: A. It ensures you're always hitting your gear at intended operating levels (or plugins too, if you use plugins that are analog emulations or from UAD or Acustica Audio this is vitally important) B. You can A/B easily C. It's easier to leave yourself headroom for mixing D. Probably a few other reasons I'm forgetting (I just woke up). But as far as INITIAL gain staging, here's a solution no one ever mentions that I think is very, very beneficial because it keeps your audio at appropriate volumes, while still allowing you to clearly see the data in the arrangement view (the actual waveform on the clip remains visible in all DAWs), and still gives you the headroom you need on your input knobs. Steps: 1. Normalize clips / files to 0 dB peaks (for visibility and a starting point). 2. Use gain plugins at EQUAL attenuation on every track to reduce those peaks between -9dB and -12dB, so that the RMS hovers around -24dB. Adjust so that your loudest track meets these requirements, and then make all other gain plugins (should be the very top of your chain) match this exact same volume reduction / attenuation. 3. Then, go one step higher and use your INPUT knobs to actually create an initial mix with just gain. This ensures your precious input gain is only going maybe +-5dB and saving you a lot of space on them. This also means that your faders will all remain at unity gain (0dB) for your initial mix! This, you will discover, is incredibly useful later. It discourages you from turning things up so loud that you push limiter and compressors too hard later in the stages. If you want a little more headroom on your faders for exactly that purpose, then add 6dB gain to your initial Stage 0 gain plugins and turn your faders down 6dB. The point is, your faders all start at the same volume when you mix, and leave plenty of room for gain and reduction. Your clips will be normalized right? So all the waveforms will be large and easy to see for any additional edits or tweaks or finding peaks, etc. Your input knobs will have plenty of wiggle room, and you'll still be at the correct volume for your software and hardware. It's the best of all worlds.
1-8 of 8
John Lardinois
2
11points to level up
@john-lardinois-1035
I like to write for orchestra, and other genres, and mix music.

Active 1h ago
Joined Apr 1, 2026
Powered by