Mastering with Scope

[ARCADIOS]

Hi,
Which modules of scope are good enough to be compared to a good hardware eq and compressor for mastering?

[Bud Weiser]

Hi,
Which modules of scope are good enough to be compared to a good hardware eq and compressor for mastering?

You already tried ALL Scope stock devices ?

And did you try https://sonic-core.de/product-brands/dna/ ...

DNA Mastering Bundle and MultiComp ?



Bud

[nebelfuerst]

For a start, I recommend optimaster. A pretty good all_in_one solution.
The DNS-stuff is great, too.

[ARCADIOS]

Do we have any opinions on sound quality compared to hardware and compared to vsts like fabeq for instance?

[nebelfuerst]

Compared to "hardware" with analog inputs, scope plugins are better.

There are many VSTs out there, so there is no general answer.
I have enough VSTs in my DAWs (Samplitude,Bitwig, Ableton), so I also could master there.
But at the end, I use 70% of scope plugins and some external gear and some VST for the rest.
Sometimes some VSTs impress me on first sight, due to their graphics and usability, but at the end, the sound of scope plugins is just a little better.

[garyb]

i use BX Digital into Optimaster into PsyQ(very conservative settings) into a secret form of distortion/modulation.

later, i match final loudness/volume of the entire project with a hard limiter, usually in samplitude, since i arrange collections of tracks in an old version of Sam.


this has provided more than acceptable results, including tracks on radio worldwide, but as far as compared to hardware, real mastering studios use custom, purpose-built hardware for mastering. i don't think there are plugins anywhere that will compare to that. as to vsts, i'm sure(i know) that there are solutions that are a little simpler and that take less knowledge and understanding of audio, but i don't know of any that are better, audio quality-wise.

[valis]

The only difference in my case from above is I tend to use PsyQ on busses instead of the master, it has the ability to 'shift' phase on portions of the spectrum in a way that makes a bus either blend better or stand out in the mix better (think bass bus or leads/vocals etc). So I try not to over-do it.

BX & DNA stuff together with stock Scope devices is more than you should need for most projects.

[ARCADIOS]

PsyQ is an emulation based on a hardware module?

[valis]

It's an SPL algorithm, but while it bears some relation to the hardware Vitalizer (which is now in software) I don't believe it's 1:1. There are old th reads on here that would be worth referencing, but from my recollection it works base on phase shifting the different frequencies it works on (as well as boosting/attenuating around them) rather than the 'add noise' style of frequency enhancer that other hardware units used at the time (companding and then dividing down or multiplying up to add bass frequencies, and using gated noise in the HF portion to enhance the top end).

It's noticeable when you use it on one thing or a bus against other things in the mix, you can literally 'shift' the Psy-Q effected sound(s) and hear them 'move' in relation to the rest of the mix.

[LunaMan]

If you want to conserve Scope DSP there’s a bunch of UA plugins that run native. A good mastering comp for example : https://www.uaudio.com/uad-plugins/comp ... essor.html

OTOH if you want to use DSP I can vouch for the DNA stuff : http://www.dnamusic.nl/dNa.Scope/

dna-MultiComp my favourite .

[Chilliman]

It's a shame the Weiss stuff isn't on the sonic core platform.