Hi everyone
I'm a newbie here. Recently I've been trying to master my own recordings. Of course with plug-ins. I've read similar posts on this subject.
My questions:
Do the plug-ins that are made as a simulation of a real hardware really sound like them or do they only look like them (of course some plug-ins like EQs and compressors make a lot of annoying noise but that doesn't make them analog). I've sent my mixes to mastering studios that use analog gear, the results are way better than what I hear from my plug-ins and I can't even get close to that big and punchy sound, I think I'm taking the right steps to achieve the best sound, but still I'm not satisfied. Have anyone of you guys that have analog mastering gear, mastered with plug-ins alone and have you achieved the same results as analog? In your own experience? And if you did how did you use your plug-ins in the mastering chain?
By the way I read this Ebook on mastering with plug-ins, have anyone read it? Opinions?

http://www.m-mastering.com/ebook.htm

There are a lot of subtlties and variations to analog gear that are hard to code for. Of the emulations that I've tried they sound similar but "synthetic". Kind of like vegetarian beef compared to the real thing.

That's not to say that you can't get good results with plugs though. Some can be better at certain tasks than analog, limiting is an example.

I recently had a friend come to the studio with a master that he had worked on totally "in the box". I ran it through an analog chain consisting of a tube eq and Chandler ltd-2 for a little "iron" with flat settings and he was pretty impressed with the difference.
_________________
Tom Volpicelli
The Mastering House Inc.
www.masteringhouse.com

Hi, I'm new to the forum but am intrigued by many of the threads.

Obviously I know every song and/or album is going to be different and require different amounts of (pre-)mastering fx? But since plug ins are the only thing available to me at the moment, I was wondering are plug in (pre) mastering FX usually essential to making a mix sound better?

For example, What premastering fx are typically used on current sounding Alternative rock songs? Would they have a slight amount of room reverb added across the full mix? Is this typical, or is it rarely done?

In my opinion, the order of plugin pre - Mastering FX, when used, should be

Compressors, EQ, reverbs(if needed) Limiter.

But how often do all or any of these things be required in mastering or premastering.

To the average musicians ears, if I add Breverbs VST room, on one of the PUSHTEC master fx across the full mix, they perk up and get excited, the same could be said by adding some of the glasverb final mix VST's but is it also true that adding compressors(when thought needed), Eq across the board, any reverbs(if required), , and limiters simply just squashes the song, so that it may sound better to the average human ear but at the expense of the stereos we want the songs played on? At the end of the day, we want them to sound somewhat professional, from the perspective of not yet being able to afford sending them to a mastering studio.

So then when you mention this too to the musicians, and then remove the Breverb or Glasverb FX that you had previously added, the song, to their ears, then sounds very dry and dull. What is the best way to present a song to a record company for example?

I'm asking really for advice, information, expert opinions on this rather than suggesting that I have any genuine knowledge at all. I worked mainly as a live sound engineer and not a studio engineer, so the comments and examples I'm giving here are things I've seen but don't really know too much about.

Reverb is rarely used in mastering except in cases where the tail of song may be too short and it needs to be lengthened for a fade. Adding reverb over an entire mix just tends to push the entire mix back, a mix should have depth but some instruments and particularly vocals should remain forward. The best way to accomplish this is in the mix.

Most often processing in mastering consists of EQ, compression, limiting, and dithering in that order. EQ is usually first so that the compressor doesn't react to a frequency component that is going to be removed by EQ.
_________________
Tom Volpicelli
The Mastering House Inc.
www.masteringhouse.com

Thanks for the reply.
Would a small amount of room reverb be worth adding to make it seem like it was all recorded at the same time by a band in the same room? Or is that just nonsense?

And why is it that plugins such as Pushtec, for example, say, pushtec 'not so subtle smile' plugin seems to make a mix seem more clear? To the point where some musicians get excited by it? But then if you change the plugin to 'subtle smile' it seems dull again? Is it just a case of something sounding less processed that makes it sound duller and that it doesn't always mean that it's a worse mix?

What plug in mastering fx would you recommend as decent fx, particularly in the free, or cheap range For EQ, compression, limiters and dithering?

Even if instruments were recorded in the same room the delay times would be different as they occupy different areas of the space. Adding reverb to an overall mix just makes it sound like you are listening in another room IMHO.

I haven't played with Pushtec, it sounds like (and looks like) a pun on Pultec. I use a Fearn VT-4 which is a tube EQ (hardware) that is similar to t Pultec and would guess that what you are hearing is just a matter of how much EQ is being applied.

As far as free, there are a lot of free VST plug-ins. Personally I'm more of a hardware guy so there isn't much that I can recommend in this department.
_________________
Tom Volpicelli
The Mastering House Inc.
www.masteringhouse.com

Thanks for the ideas and knowledge.