Hey Group--
 
Although I've been using Sonar for decades, I've never mastered with it. I have Sound Forge and Wavelab and never saw the need. I just read this Sound on Sound article on mastering in Sonar, and I only have one track to master, so I'm going to give it a try.
 
Anything you want to add or subtract from this article, I'm all ears! 

Where it really makes a difference is when you're assembling an album that goes beyond the whole Red Book "individual cuts with two seconds between cuts" protocol.
 
A lot of what I do involves crossfades and adding, for example, a sound effect or two. I'm finishing up my 2018 project, "Joie de Vivre," which is an attempt at re-inventing EDM by cross-pollinating it with rock. Five songs are done, but they're meant to be part of a continuous DJ-style set. So the finished mixes are in CbB, but the transitions aren't done - so I'm taking advantage of CbB's multitrack nature to create the transitions around the finished songs. (I suppose I could use Wavelab's Montage feature, but that's not as flexible as a multitrack editing program.)
 
So ultimately, the project may have dozens of tracks with effects and loops creating the transitions between the various songs. After that's done, I'll bounce it as one long file, import it into Studio One, slice the file up into cuts, add the PQ codes, use SO's analytics to make sure is well, then export as the finished, mastered file.
 
Mastering isn't what it used to be in the days of vinyl. I often find myself bouncing among programs to produce a finished master. Just being able to do automation in CbB when mastering can be a big deal to me.

Hey Anderton
 
Thanks for the real life example. Although I've used Sonar for mixing forever, using it for mastering is turning out to  have a learning curve for me that I'm going to have to get used to, I guess.
 
I think I'll do a master in Sonar and then another in Wavelab and see which I like best, as far as a finished product is concerned. You can never have too many tools -- or can you!? :-o

razor
Hey Anderton
 
Thanks for the real life example. Although I've used Sonar for mixing forever, using it for mastering is turning out to  have a learning curve for me that I'm going to have to get used to, I guess.
 
I think I'll do a master in Sonar and then another in Wavelab and see which I like best, as far as a finished product is concerned. You can never have too many tools -- or can you!? :-o

I spend very little time on Mastering given that the focus is always on the mix. For me Mastering has become a two part process.

Making the mix appropriately loud and a getting a nice fade. I used Tape Saturation and Compressor and a sculpting EQ on the Main BUS, so it's already sounding the way I need it.

I should point out that my music style is very conventional and so this process may not work if you are doing some complex stuff.

Get a clean, warm and cohesive mix and the mastering is like adding icing on the cake.

Audioicon
I spend very little time on Mastering given that the focus is always on the mix. For me Mastering has become a two part process. [snip] Get a clean, warm and cohesive mix and the mastering is like adding icing on the cake.

Yes! If you get a good balance when you mix, then mastering can only make it better. Maybe 5% better, but still, better. (I know you've heard Simplicity - the mastering for that was extremely basic, because the songs were simple enough to "mix themselves").
 
However, I come from the "old school" definition of mastering which also includes album assembly (I know, it's a singles world, nobody does albums any more, etc.). Album assembly is an art unto itself that's different from using mastering to enhance a mix. What I described above is more about assembly, and a multitrack DAW can be an incredible tool for album assembly, while also being able to tweak dynamics and EQ for individual cuts.  

Anderton
However, I come from the "old school" definition of mastering which also includes album assembly (I know, it's a singles world, nobody does albums any more, etc.). Album assembly is an art unto itself that's different from using mastering to enhance a mix. What I described above is more about assembly, and a multitrack DAW can be an incredible tool for album assembly, while also being able to tweak dynamics and EQ for individual cuts.  

True, I have heard some really cool stuff and I am always asking myself as to how or when it was assembled, was it part of the song or was it part of the Mastering process. 

One of the styles I have seen is the cross-fade of tracks, but yet these are individual songs or, intros that flows into other tacks but are in themselves separate tracks. Other times I have heard different effects added and you can tell they were not part of the original song or the original was mixed then placed through some serious creative process. The best I have heard is when you have no idea where you are on the CD track list, it becomes a fascinating listening experience.

Maybe I am at a distance but I have been noticing less and less creativity at the Mastering stage, especially given the cultural of immediacy. For example: Not related but to make a point, NetFlix has a "Skip Intro Feature."
And I watched the Crown, I just love the opening Theme. There is something about the music that makes me feel I am floating on air, I would have not experienced this if I had skipped the intro.

I am nowhere near the stuff you described above but I love to hear others do it, I think the reason is, I simply just make one song at a time.

Excited to hear your finished product.

Audioicon
Maybe I am at a distance but I have been noticing less and less creativity at the Mastering stage, especially given the cultural of immediacy.

You are correct. Mastering used to be considered the last stop in the creative and technical process, not just the technical process. Back in the day when mastering I would often shorten songs, lengthen intros, add overdubs, kick up the intro +3 dB...whatever it took. That's just not the way people think any more.

I actually ended up pulling my Cakewalk mastered track into Wavelab after all. Mostly because it has the analysis tools I like, then after I saw a couple areas for improvement, it didn't make sense to jump back and forth between CW and WL to finish the track.
 
I think I'll still use the CW mastering method described in the SoS article I posted to get my mixes better prepped for mastering, but I feel like I have more control of the process, and more functionality in WL. IMO.
 
I will admit, after applying the mastering techniques in CW that are described in the article, my time spent mastering in WL was lot less than I typically spend.

razor
I actually ended up pulling my Cakewalk mastered track into Wavelab after all. Mostly because it has the analysis tools I like, then after I saw a couple areas for improvement, it didn't make sense to jump back and forth between CW and WL to finish the track.
 
I think I'll still use the CW mastering method described in the SoS article I posted to get my mixes better prepped for mastering, but I feel like I have more control of the process, and more functionality in WL. IMO.
 
I will admit, after applying the mastering techniques in CW that are described in the article, my time spent mastering in WL was lot less than I typically spend.

Exactly!! Use each program for what it does best. I do find CW's analysis tools lacking, but when I put the final mixer/mastering album into Studio One to use its analytics, I can do a final reality check.
 
I use Wavelab and Sound Forge for "wav surgery," for which they excel, as opposed to album assembly - for which they don't 
 
We're very, very fortunate to have these incredibly rich tools at our disposal. The recording gear I used in the 60s and 70s looks antediluvian compared to what we have now. I'm extremely happy with music technology. I can do things I only could dream of in the past. Now they're reality.
 

I really liked this article Craig.
I do things a little bit differently but still along the same lines.
Great job.