Mastering in Sonar

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! 

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

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.  

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.

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 am finding that even in Studio one I need additional plugins the get the kind of master I want. The plugins in SO are ok. That's what many regular SO users tell me. A lot of this is subjective. 
Most will say it is possible to get a decent master in ( take your pick of daw) with the included tools. The same people who say that don't use only the stock plugins in their masters.
 
The only real difference between SO and CbB in terms of mastering is that SO has  album assembly, track diagnostics and tag section. The plugins in SO aren't all mastering grade depending on the situation. Unless you're ok with "ok".

bitflipper

Anderton
 
...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 think it's a fair assumption that anybody who's serious about doing their own mastering has acquired the necessary third-party analytic tools to allow you to master in whatever DAW you're comfortable with. 
 
I feel no limitations at all when mastering a CD project in Cakewalk. Well, maybe just one: if you could insert indexes and then write an iso image directly from Cakewalk, that would be pretty cool. Does Studio One do that?
 

Studio One's mastering page (which is functionally separate from the multitrack song page, aside from the song/project linkage that's unique to Studio One) basically replaces a program like what was Sony's CD Architect, not a program like CbB. It's an entirely different animal from mastering in a DAW; you can insert P and Q codes, export in multiple data formats, do CD-text, create disk images, and perhaps most importantly, both export and import DDP files. Not a lot of programs can import DDP data, but sometimes you'll need to edit a master's metadata.
 
Also mastering analytics are a moving target. Studio One was quick to adopt flexible LUFS metering (as well as Bob Katz's metering). By the time you've bought all the required analysis tools, you might as well just pop for SO so you can do album assembly and DDP exports.
 
However, it can't do the deep waveform surgery that a program like WaveLab or Sound Forge can do. I use those for the "tough" cases.
 
I have no problem mentioning SO here in this context, because CbB doesn't compete with SO in respect to the mastering page, any more than CbB competes with Vegas because CbB has a video player screen. And for DJ mix-type stuff, SO's mastering page isn't anywhere near as flexible as doing album assembly in CbB (nor is Wavelab's "multitrack" Montage feature). Right tool for the right job...

Steve_Karl

Anderton
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.
 

As far as I know Red Book only requires 2 seconds to the beginning of the first track marker.
All others above the first can be anywhere from zero to whatever.
At least that's how CD Architect works.

The only required pregap is indeed 2 seconds before Index 01, although it's also possible "hide" a track between 0 and index 01 (but people have to know it's there - you need to hit play, then rewind immediately, and not all CD drives can read this).
 
However, consumer burning software defaults to two seconds between tracks because that's recommended, albeit not required. They can't change this because you can't place your own PQ codes, as you can with professional CD creation programs like Wavelab, Sound Forge, Studio One, etc.