Wookiee
Interesting Graig and useful information but I have to ask could all of these "Fixes" not of been resolved by better attention to detail in the mix its self? 

Yes indeed, which is why I said I wished I could have mixed the first song...it would not have been necessary to make some of the compromises that were made. For example, I would have dealt with the drums very differently than in the original mix, and EQed the vocals individually (as well as added a little pitch correction to some of the "aaahs"--not the lead vocal).
 
Which brings up the question people often ask at seminars--"If something is mixed properly, is mastering necessary?" In theory, no. But in practice, I've never found a song that couldn't benefit by a little overall processing. For example I mastered a song once which used only acoustic instruments. But they were recorded in a room with a slight resonance. It was easier to nuke the room resonance during mastering, as it affected all the instruments, rather than doing it for each instrument.

Great stuff Craig.  Thanks

sausy1981
Hi Craig, I've learned a lot from you and really appreciate all you do, With regards mastering in Sonar have you any advice on how to set up a mastering session within Sonar for mastering an EP or album. Is their a way using a screenset and setting it up in such a way that could replicate whats offered in Studio one for mastering?

 
Well as is usually the case, SONAR can do things Studio One can't do, and Studio One can do things SONAR can't do . I cover how to do what you're talking about in my seminars on mastering within a DAW, and IIRC Chapter 30 in the SONAR Advanced Workshop covers it as well. I've written various articles on the topic but can't find them online. So I guess I need to write an article and post it somewhere. Basically you can put cuts on the timeline, and alternate tracks or even have one cut per track if each one needs its own processing. Then you can add processing to the master bus if needed.
 
SONAR's main advantage over Studio One in this context is that there are more than two tracks, so if you're crossfading two songs but also need to add something to enhance the transition, you can do so. Also you can add automation beyond just SOPs fixed level/fades, and automate (for example) EQ which can be a life-saver. OTOH Studio One ties in with the song page, so changes made to a song are reflected on the mastering page.
 
However SONAR can't do DDP export and Studio One can. SONAR also doesn't have as much analytics, but ultimately you're going to listen so the analytics are helpful, but not essential. What I like to do is album assembly inside SONAR, then export as a WAV file. I then import it into SOP and add the track markers and from that point, can export as a DDP file.
 
I used to use Sony's CD Architect for album assembly but Studio One is a much better choice. What I find is having both Studio One and SONAR for mastering lets me do what I want, with none of the limitations inherent in either program by itself.

You don't have to master in Studio One using the project page. (It is limited in some aspects) You can master in the normal song page and have as many tracks and automation as you want. So on that score Sonar does not really have any advantage over Studio One at all.  (or any DAW for that matter)  I actually prefer mastering in the normal song mode myself. I feel it offers a lot more.
 
I have done very complex masters where I have split one song over many tracks using special effects, transitions and complex automation, so it is possible.
 
Harrison Mixbus is also an excellent program to master in offering something that other DAW's don't such as that lovely Harrison sound. The main stereo buss in that program also features a control for pulling out that 200-300Hz clug too. All you have to do is just turn it a little anticlockwise and all that is just sorted. The EQ's on the tracks, buses and the masterbuss are all different too.

So would you use a different track for each song and line them up end to end and insert processing on each track. Or would you have one track and line up each song end to end and insert processing on the clips? I'm gonna try and set up my own mastering screen set in sonar just to see what I come up with. The big thing for me would be the ability to put in track markers and CD text and the like. As of now I just insert track and load a song onto that track, insert another track and insert my next song on that track but at the end of the preceding track and process each track. I then export each track separately.

Jeff Evans
You don't have to master in Studio One using the project page. (It is limited in some aspects) You can master in the normal song page and have as many tracks and automation as you want. So on that score Sonar does not really have any advantage over Studio One at all.  (or any DAW for that matter)  I actually prefer mastering in the normal song mode myself. I feel it offers a lot more.

 
I think you're answering the wrong question, which was "Is there a way using a screenset and setting it up in such a way that could replicate whats offered in Studio one for mastering?" I assume by that he's referring to SOP's mastering page.
 
But i you want to compare the programs as a whole and not just the mastering page, that's a different subject. There are several reasons why I prefer to use SONAR's track view (maybe SOP 3 has some of the following, I haven't tried it yet).  

• For crossfaded transitions (which I use a lot), SONAR offers precise/repeatable options. With SOP, AFAIK when you type X, you don't necessarily get the crossfade you want, so you have to edit it; nor can I find any way to "snap" to something standard like equal power. 
• SONAR offers upsampled rendering so when you create your stereo mix for mastering, it has the potential for higher fidelity when you do your assembly.
• I don't think SOP offers per-clip or object-oriented effects like Samplitude or SONAR, aside from rudimentary DSP like normalize. If you're assembling an album, you might want an effect like a reverb splash or delay to spill over into the next song or end a song. You can do that with any DAW by creating a separate track, splitting just the part to process to that separate track, crossfading to avoid any discontinuity, and processing the track that contains the clip you split off, but that's less elegant.
• The playlist feature makes it fairly simple to test out song transitions before the songs have been rendered. It's also handy to see the key and BPM.
• I love that SONAR can do true tape-style varispeed on a per-clip basis where you can speed up tempo and pitch simultaneously, without any artifacts. With SOP, you have to go back and forth between the time-stretching and pitch-stretching parameters until you get it right.

This is why I prefer to record the WAV file in SONAR, then do track markers and a DDP export from SOP. However there are dedicated DDP export programs (including some free ones), so it's not necessary to lay out the $$ for the pro version of SOP for that functionality.

sausy1981
The big thing for me would be the ability to put in track markers and CD text and the like.

SONAR doesn't do CD Text, so it's not relevant to what you want. To spare Jeff the effort of looking for another opportunity to mention Studio One , note that SOP does support CD Text. However, bear in mind SOP's mastering page isn't really a mastering page but a CD assembly page with processing capabilities. If you want to do hardcore mastering (e.g., restoration, "micro-mastering," or waveform surgery), a better choice would be Wavelab or Sound Forge, both of which support CD Text as well.

In response to Craigs points:
 
Crossfade works fine in Studio One. I think with any crossfade you actualy have to listen to it. Just relying on a certain type of crossfade won't work. You need to use your ears and listen to the transition. There is no better way.  Editing is a simple matter if just grabbing the little handles in the fade and drag them around.  (after the xgfade is done) If you are mastering taking a few seconds longer to edit a Xfade is no big deal. (In fact in V3 they have given you more options in the transition shape now)
 
If you work in 64 bit and a higher res I think you still get the benefits.  Why not just create a mastering session in 96K and be done with it.  (I do like the upsampling feature in Sonar for VST things though eg NI 'Prism' being rendered out at a higher res) A few great mix engineers I master for give me 44.1K 24 bit files.
 
Studio One has full clip by clip or event processing. Always has. (well V2 anyway)
 
To be honest I don't crossfade songs that often anyway but it is still easy to hear it if you need to. In fact now with the scratchpad window more mastering options are possible than before.
 
Tracks or clips (events) can be pitched up or down and sped up and down very quickly and easily. Those settings are in the inspector box. I would not be doing that in mastering so much anyway. It is a compromise no matter how you look at it.
 
More to the point your video was good and I have found myself doing very similar things. I did not think the mixes were great though.  It is always better to master a fantastic mix, it is just so much easier.  Mastering a mix that is less than great is always harder and I take my hat off to those who can squeeze greatness out of such things.  I am very lucky I get to master some very nice mixes.
 
I am enjoying Harrison Mixbus though. I like exporting just a few stems from SOP and dragging them in there. Nice combination of EQ, dynamics and tape saturation on tracks and buses to get into some very sweet sounding mastering. I am about to go to V3 there. Should be good I think.
 
 
 

This is very interesting and useful. Thank you!  In the first track, I actually found the addition of the reverb immediately noticeable and a big improvement.  I underuse reverb and never put it on master, but it just goes to show you that you can't let your mind getting locked into a certain mode.

Very enlightening.