Ok now that I'm all up and running with my Finalizer 96k and Avalon 747 I have a couple of Q's for you guys to see what you think!
1. First, input options. I've tried a couple differnt things. I am trying to use the DA7 as a summing mixer and eq for a few things. I think I like it thus far but... I set it up out analog the DA7 and straight into the Avalon then out the Avalon into the Finalizer and set the finalizer to analog in. OR I could go out of the DA7 digital AES/EBU into the finalizer and put the Avalon as an insert?
2. Normaly when I master using PT and Waves mastering plug-ins, I put the multiband comp first and EQ after that. How come the Finalizer has the multiband comp last in the chain right before the Limiter? Also the limiter has a 0db threshold like it should but for some reason I can get a hotter mix spdif straight from PT with the L2 than with the masterlink? Whats up with that. I'm not super stoked with the Finalizer I think Waves is a better rought and cleaner BUT I want to give the Finalizer-Avalon 747 combo a chance.
3. I set the Avalon at straight up on the input and same on the output. Should it be less on the imput and more on the output in theory?
4. Again if I turn off the multi-band compressor in the Finalizer then I'm not hitting the masterlink very hard with the final mix. This is frustraiting. Does it matter if I turn on the multiband comp and set it to not realy be compressing just so that I can use the output and crank that as to hit the limiter harder? Also when I check the screen that tells me the levels as it goes through the chain, is it ok if its hitting peaks every once in a while?
I know to use ones ears to figure this out and it should 'sound' right if I'm doing it right... but I just am curious about the theroy of this all.
thanks
sam
sorry if my Q's are so scattered:-/

I say it is a mixer be ware deal...

If you are digi, stay there and insert the Avlon. That way you will bypass the Masterlink converters.

The other way I'd 'try' is to use the Avalon then to the Finalizer to the Masterlink.

Happy hunting/mixing

Has anyone else here read the book by Bob Katz? There's a section that goes through what happens when your perfectly finalized mix hits the processor of an FM transmitter. This section wasn't written by Bob Katz but by Bob Orban who virtually invented multi-band comps for AM/FM transmission. Reading this section will make you want to throw the finalizer AWAY!!

Since EVERYTHING I do is on Radio/TV, our post-prodoction department will be re-thinking everything we do with pushing levels to the maximum!!


BRING DYNAMICS BACK!!

OK Eric, I'll bite..

How moch dynamics do we bring back and who's gona moniter the radio engineer to make sure he dosn't tweek the comp a little more to get that extra twenty feet of on air coverage.

I understand it in clasical, for the most part a little compression does not hurt a recording and some audiofile will not catch it.

I understand it in rock where the comp brings a special sonic rockness to guys like the Kinks or Blink. But where is the line from where we can say that is over the limit? Is it Areosmith with the square waves left over from over compression or the radio engineer squeezing the last drop of sound out of some old 45 so his buddy can hear it in some location that is just out of the stations coverage?

Ok now I'm goiong off the scale.

You bring up an interesting thought here (I'm also not a big fan of that piece of gear-finalizer).

So we hear about those am/fm transmiters for home use, and now for our computers but they don't have any compression like any radio station these days so how are we suposed to get a feeling of what it is going to sound like over the air waves? Part B, How much compression do you use for brodcast?

One of the things Orban and Katz recommend is for labels to furnish a RADIO MIX with no distortion... let's face it guys, when you SLAM those levels to the edge, they're clipped!! The AM/FM processing makes it WORSE and there have been case studies where the hotter the CD on the radio, more people will change the channel due to the 'grungy' sound... ESPECIALLY FEMALES.

As far as levels, Katz recommends to get rid of a limiter on EVERY CHANNEL OF YOUR DAW and try letting the music breath. In most cases, that's ALL it will take.


Get the book. It's worth having.

So, you mean after mastering my tracks shouldn't just look like a giant sqaure wave?

I was working with a girl who was intering a contest, and she was singing to a track of that song Evanescence I think is the bands name, rock song girl singer. I imported the real song into protools as that we could A-B some parts. Man was that song slammed up to 0! There wasn't a sminch of room the whole song long. If you have the CD try it and check it out... wholy cow! That was a giant square wave!

After a point, the DISTORTION is what makes it sound louder, not the volume.

The guy that designed our mastering consoles also designed a couple of boxes for Digidesign, including the Command-8. He said Digi was cool with everything except they wanted more output from the headphone amp. He told them with the power supply they were using and had spec'd, he couldn't get any more gain from the HP amp cleanly! Their response was to increase the gain into clipping and it would sound louder. They did. (and you thought Digidesign was a reputable company)

"[w]holy cow! That was a giant square wave!"

Check out Green Day's American Idiot.

Looks like a 4 x 12.

Seems to work for this music, though.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eric Seaberg:
(and you thought Digidesign was a reputable company)
not for over a decade now...