Need advice on a Hardware Mastering setup.

[Hunter33]

First some details on my setup and what I'm doing with it;

Core2Duo e6600, 2Gb Ram, over 500Gb's HDD space, 7600 RPM Sata HDD.
M-Audio Delta 1010 Audio Interface, 16 way balanced (trs) snake.
Soundcraft Spirit Folio Mixer.
Main recording mic (atm) AKG C1000S.
JPW monitors.
SOny MZ-R700 Minidisc recorder (for offsite recording).

Soundforge 6 (editing and some recording)
REason 3
Ableton Live (for sequencing REason and live stuff).

Main Studio Environment: Midsized bedroom, will record live drums in a hired studio when needed (the band stuff is usually done in a studio environment anyway).

Audio ProjectsI'm working on:
MMO Soundtrack (some live instruments and sequenced orchestral and synths).
Rock based (heavier) live band mastering.

So heres the situation. I've been writing/arranging my own tracks for a good few years now and have also recorded stuff in a hired pro studio (also had the pleasure of studying on an SSL G+ Desk for a while). So I am aware of the difference between the sound of something recorded at home (via software mainly) and within a proper recording environment via a nice big phat desk.
**Note** (here we go lol)
I refuse to edit out this phat word despite now understanding how much of a noob this may make me look like to some readers. Its a generalisation. get over it.

My aim in recently purchasing my Delta 1010 was to begin a setup of a home hardware rack setup so i could further enhance/tweak my audio without solely relying on software. I have not yet purchased any external hardware such as compressors or eq's etc (other than what you see listed) and would like to hear what your suggestions would be bearing in mind the type of projects I am working on.

Wether this is the right way to go or not (is hardware mastering any better than software mastering in this day or age?) is also up for discussion but if its simply a 'if you have the money' issue then I am already on the road to funding this direction.

I am also aware that 'getting it right before the mix' is important and not relying on my hardware to 'polish a turd' etc.

I just want to (if this is possible) add that 'w a r mth' and depth you get from sending your channels through a physical desk into my final audio product.
I am quite pleased with what I can comeup with atm via software only but I want to take it to the next level.

Any suggestions and advice appreciated. I may not reply immediately as I am away for a day or two but will respond as soon as I am able to.

[Hunter33]

Okay, let me explain a bit more clearly as to what I'm trying to achieve as I was in a bit of a rush on my last post. I'm back now.

You may be thinking in order to get a sound akin to something aquired from a nice big SSL desk, I'd probably need to use an SSL desk. Makes sense I guess.
I'm not expecting something that sort of quality level from a few hardware boxes but I am of the opinion that hardware (actual components as opposed to virtual components) can add more depth to a sound than software. OF course you can't add whats not already there and a lot of it comes down to how you recorded it I guess aswell (do correct me if I'm wrong).

Im my situation, theres a lot of samples being used for orchestration (lots of premades that came with Reason) so those are quite decent quality recording wise. Other than these there are sampled Guitar/BAss parts recorded for specific tracks and aligned with the midi parts or triggered via midi.

I had the idea of outputting my arrangment (on seperate tracks) into a desk to then be tweaked via hardware components and then sent back into the PC for re-rendering. This, I thought, would be a way to further enhance my tracks (again correct me if I'm wrong).

However I'm having some trouble with the setup of this.
For a start, a lot of my midi tracks are done within Reason.
I will often run Soundforge and record my 'Live' Guitar/Bass parts into Soundforge whilst playing my midi sequence via Reason.

I 'thought' with the addition of a 1010 I'd be able to play tracks from Reason into my desk (works fine, I can hear tracks on seperate channels) and then output simultaneously back into another recording program like Ableton to capture the tweaked mix (doesn't work because Reason rewires/Slaves itself to Ableton).
So it seems one way around this is to play midi into Ableton, record the parts (exit Reason), and then switch the outputs to the desk/hardware setup but then I'd need an additional program (that won't rewire/Slave itself to Ableton) so I could re-capture the desk/hardware setups 'tweaked' output.

This is probably sounding all too overly complicated to any seasoned PC recording vet and there is probably a much easier way to do this maybe involving using Cubase.
This is where I need some help/advice.

[brandondrury]

Are you looking to master or to mix? I'm confused on what you are trying to do here. It sounds like you are trying to record the signal, send it through converters, analog hardware, and then back through converters to use your computer's rendering algorithm.

Now if you have a badass compressor or a killer EQ, it makes sense to use that at mix time. I have no problem with that. However, simply routing a signal through extra analog stuff with no really processing in mind seems like it would do little more than lose this "depth" you are referring to.

An issue that you may not have thought of is summing. The difference is subtle, but some make it a big deal about it. Basically, when mixing on a SSL, the analog summing bus combines all the signals together. In Cubase or whatever a computer algorithm combines the signals together. It's generally accepted that most high end professionals prefer analog summing, but this difference is very subtle.

You may be thinking in order to get a sound akin to something aquired from a nice big SSL desk, I'd probably need to use an SSL desk.

It is what it is. Ironically, there are quite a few pro engineer dudes who hate the sound of a SSL console.

I am of the opinion that hardware (actual components as opposed to virtual components) can add more depth to a sound than software

Possibly. Of course, the bigger issue here is whether your time, money, and resources should be focusing on depth or some of the issues that about 10 billion times more important (like accurate studio monitoring, the performance, the song, etc). In my opinion, depth is one of the least worries I have.

This is probably sounding all too overly complicated to any seasoned PC recording vet and there is probably a much easier way to do this maybe involving using Cubase.

Can you not do everything in Ableton?

Brandon

[adorian]

You can approach this several ways. See if you want to mix outside of the box - that''' mean use a desk and do most of your moves there old school, by hand and by enlisting the help of some buddies to move faders. You can get some outboard gear, preferably tube for tracking and mixing and even mastering. That means that maybe you need to get a tube preamp or channel strip and maybe a few compressors, probably a good outboard reverb or two.
A few I can think of would be the Chandler Germanium Compressor or the Empirical Labs Distressor, or some kind of design based on the Neve channel strip, Universal Audio channel strip and so on. You can easily and quickly blow your budget as to where the rest of your gear becomes subpar.
I'd say that at this point in your budget you probably can't afford to go "pro". The converters on the audio card you mention are definitely not studio quality, your mixer has to be top notch, like say minimum an Allen and Heath Mix Wizard, you'd probably need a good clocking device, a computer that can handle it all and lets not even get started on monitors, microphones and the quality gear that you'd be recording with. Maybe even a 2 track analog 2 inch tape machine... As you can see - it is a never ending process!

My suggestion at this point would be to get a well mixing/mastering audio room and a good pair of monitors and keep on learning and add gear as you go.

I think at this level it is better for you to concentrate on the recording and mixing part of the process and leave the mastering to the professionals. After all mastering rates are really not that bad to warrant you buying upwards of 10k in mastering processing gear.

[Hunter33]

Yeh since starting this thread I've had time to refresh my memory, refine my direction and read more about the process others have been through here and elsewhere.

I've been and still am involved in some projects where the bulk of the recording and mixing is done outside the 'box' using reel to reel for recording to although it was only an old 2 track. Even so, the quality of the recordings is astounding compared to some of the ones I've done in the past via my pc straight to HDD. There is something to be said about tape and bias being able to capture something extra to a recording (other than hiss). Also the hardware boxes available (compressors,eq's etc) just seemed more 'real sounding' at the time, but I now realise that was probably due to the quality of the recordings and less about the difference between virtual and analogue kit. That project is based elsewhere so I don't have access to the equipment without a 60 minute trip on a train or I'd be using it for sure.

The reason for going the pc route for me is (convenience) the ability to edit and even tweak the different tracks post capture. This can be done outside the box as you said, but on weighing up the pros and cons (24 track tape out of my league, 24 track dedicated digital recorder costs a bunch and doesn't do anything else unlike a pc, I'm not keen on Fostex analogue 4 tracks since they tends to die easily). Seems I chose my route (analogue or digital) already since I blew a lot building a new pc that could handle anything thrown at it.

The Delta 1010 (24bit/96Khz) may not be studio quality (what would be studio grade?), but I think it is sufficient to capture what you feed it. So the quality of my recordings (on an equipment level) now rely on mic's, preamps, monitors and room acoustics and is no longer held back by my pc.
My next steps will be to get the rest of my non digital kit upto a better level.

Anyway, I guess to sum up, what I was asking for was some advice/tips on where to start with hardware OR software for mastering (when its needed).
I do have Izotope Ozone and have played with some of the presets etc rather than use the default sounds but in the past it has sounded a bit too thin. Again this could be down to my monitor setup so ignore that for now.
Expanders, exciters, when to use them for what purpose. Trial and error would reveal this but I'd rather hear what they're supposed to do than get one and find out I didn't really need to spend X amount on that bit of kit.

Its one of those things you feel stupid for asking about as its like asking 'what parts should I use to build my vehicle?' or something similarily vague.
Its obvious you need wheels, a rudder or wings depending on what type of vehicle you are building but those wheels or wings have X amount of variations available that only people who have used them may/will understand/hear the subtle differences and even then their opinions will differ on whats most suitable.

I'm not looking to make a living out of mastering audio so I'm not looking for the best gear to compete with the big boy studios or anything.
I am mainly a musician/composer working with digital and analogue instruments looking for the best solution to create, mix and master my own work to a professional standard which kind of sums up the majority of this forums users probably.
I am aiming at the creative media industry as a career path for income so that includes soundtracks, sound effects (for games or movies) maybe even a few jingles (if I get desperate). So any tips from people in the same industry as to what they use would be cool.

Okay I have heard of something called an audio farm (which is from what I understand a stack of pc's linked together) created to simulate a massive orchestra that may not be possible to produce the same 'grandeur' from a single pc. Anyone know anything about this?

[adorian]

Hunter - your question about pro quality setup is really again based on how much you can spend on analog to digital converters and word clock. Your audio card can't really go as high as the professional studios do so your bound to have digital masking and aliasing in there, whether you hear it or not it is muddying your tracks. I've been to some studios when we'd A/B-ed tracks done with A/D converters on the Pro Tools HD (industry "standard") and Apogee converters and the PT was definitely noticeably inferior, especially on cymbals and vocal recordings.

Most of us in home setups work around this with the tools that we have at our disposal, mostly eq and compression, so don't worry about it too much but work on developing your ears.

I know a few professional people that "master" in a pinch on DAWs with Waves plugins and an audio editor for the final splices of the tracks, so you really could use your DAW and master there with all the plugins you already have and do your final edits in say something like Sound Forge. When you think about it, the mastering engineer's real job is in making an album sit together cohesively, sometimes from tracks recorded in different studios and different mixing engineers, so maybe you need to put more emphasis on the recording and mixing part of your music and get to mastering last when you've worked out the kinks in the first two.

At this point I master at home on TRacks24 standalone software and do the final splices in CoolEdit Pro, which I use to do final file conversion and fades. I burn in Nero.

As an experiment - try having something that commercially released mastered by a pro and do one yourself and compare the results.

[Hunter33]

My problem (and it is my problem) is that I've always been a bit of a DIY person.
Especially when it comes to music & I got into recording with this in mind because i was usually the only person in the band who gave a shit about how the recording sounded enough to spend time messing with mic levels and positions.

Even if I had the cash to throw at an experienced engineer to master my work I'd still have a go at it myself first. Not because I have some strange notion that my experience will match a seasoned veterans, but because I would learn something from that experience that would enable me to get better at it.

I like that old saying, if you want something done good, do it yourself. Because noone knows what you want exactly as well as you do. Of course this assumes you know what you want & have some idea of how to achieve that.

But yeh, pro level equipment is out of my league. I was also curious as to wether many home recording folks use hardware or mainly software for their mastering so thanks for your responses.

[brandondrury]

The converters on the audio card you mention are definitely not studio quality

I owned a couple M-Audio Delta 1010 audio intefaces for years. I can't count how many times I switched betweent he Myteks and the Delta 1010 converters and asked my clients if they hear a difference. So far the artists are batting ZERO. Food for thought.

When you think about it, the mastering engineer's real job is in making an album sit together cohesively, sometimes from tracks recorded in different studios and different mixing engineers, so maybe you need to put more emphasis on the recording and mixing part of your music and get to mastering last when you've worked out the kinks in the first two.

I 1,000,000% agree! Assuming a mixer was EXTREMELY good they wouldn't need a mastering engineer.

Brandon

[magno]

When you do decide what piece of outboard gear you want think about getting something that is dual channel and has spdif in out on it.
This will allow you to use 2 more channels on your 1010, if you need them.
I use a tc electronics m-one for this purpose in my setup.