poll: are ableton's plugs good enough for mastering?

ploy · Post by **ploy** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:06 pm

to me pepper is the only interesting work of them. and even that not fully. they were nice guys and important to keep on establishing music to the world, but finally they aren´t kicking at all.

snowtires · Post by **snowtires** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:21 pm

ploy wrote:that mastering-shit is overrated and mostly idiots talk.

though it is true that gives it the final kiss. but a soft one.

you've obviously never had anything mastered professionally.

ploy · Post by **ploy** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:08 am

sure... you´re alright. i never heard any music.

ploy · Post by **ploy** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:09 am

(or unmastered promo-versions of later classics)

snowtires · Post by **snowtires** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:40 pm

i've yet to hear a recording that didn't end up sounding better after it was mastered, classic or modern.

SubFunk · Post by **SubFunk** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:59 pm

stew wrote:If quality mastering is so important, how come no one gives a shit about remastered editions of 70s records? Seriously, Sgt. Peppers was the world's best record already before it got remastered.

ok, here we go again... mastering is not just squashing levels or making a single song sound better after a neat mixdown!, one of the needs of real mastering is to get for example several songs belonging to one album recorded / produced under / in different circumstances / enviroments / studios into one homogene sound. [cause may projects are made in diffrent studios with different gear, soetimes even diffrent producers, for example] again that is just one of many aspects of mastering...

of course do suck a lot of remastered albums, cause it was a fashion ]and no real need to enhance the already excisting sound] to increase sells and make money out of old music, not being so 'hype' anymore. a simple PR move!! nothing more.
and a little of good but also plenty of shit was done under the name of re-mastering.

that doesn't mean that mastering is not important and can do a hell lot of diffrence for newly created / released music.

cheers

pepezabala · Post by **pepezabala** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:28 pm

Well, lots of talking, I would assume that you might get satisfying results with live, but then again totally depending on the material. Some indietronica, underground-electro or schranz probably doesn't need the same finishing process as a jazz-album for example.
Are there any examples of unmastered/mastered material that you can compare? I really would like to listen to an unmastaered production and compare it to the mastered finished product.

mikemc · Post by **mikemc** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:36 pm

I think it's fair to say that Live's plugs, alone, are not comparable to what a suite of mastering-specific plugs can do. So I think that right off you want a better limiter than the Live plug gives you.

It is also fair to say that Live's plugs can be used as part of the mastering chain to the benefit of the track.

It is also fair to say you can master a track with Live plugs and it will sound ok. You can do stuff to master with complicated combinations of Live plugs that will sound ok-- that is, it is fair to say that with Live 6 you could build a rack that does multiband compression that will sound ok, for example: that it will be good enough.

I think a point is, that when you compare things you need to quantify them, and you also need to establish tolerances. So maybe it's not audiophile luminous liquid beauty awe inspiring mastering you can get, but it can be good enough.

snowtires · Post by **snowtires** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:24 am

stew wrote:If quality mastering is so important, how come no one gives a shit about remastered editions of 70s records? Seriously, Sgt. Peppers was the world's best record already before it got remastered.

the prefix 're' refers to something being done 'again.' REmastering means mastering, for at least the second time. if sgt peppers was remastered, that means it was mastered when it was released. so your argument sucks.

Pepehouse · Post by **Pepehouse** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:09 pm

Live plugs are not for mastering

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:33 pm

Pepehouse wrote:Live plugs are not for mastering

..and Live isn't for djing either - what's your point?

-

12micsn1 · Post by **12micsn1** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:10 pm

Lo-Fi Massahkah wrote:
timothyallan wrote:Is Live a good sequencer for trance!?
Is Trance a good genre for Live?

-M

lmao

PLB · Post by **PLB** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:27 pm

Lo-Fi Massahkah wrote:
timothyallan wrote:Is Live a good sequencer for trance!?
Is Trance a good genre for Live?

-M

poll: are ableton's plugs good enough for mastering?

are ableton's plug-in's good enough for mastering the master out?