Helpful ReplyMastering in Sonar, why not?

Using Sonar for an entire project from performance to mastering is easy when you break the task down into three deliberate stages. Each stage requires a different mindset. A quality song expressed with a quality performance is an overall objective always brought to bear on the entire project but each of these three stages have a unique focus.

Stage 1 - Tracking:
During tracking your major objective is to collect high quality tracks and clips as discretely as possible that capture the feel in time and in tune of all sonic performances that are candidates for inclusion in the final product.

The unique focus is the quality of the clips and tracks captured. You want a good S/N ratio and a capture that is as discrete as possible so that the clip includes only the sonic performance dedicated to that clip. The volume should be as high as possible without clipping. Even parts that will be laid low in the final mix should be captured at as high a level as possible. You do not need to turn the amplifier up to eleven (unless that is the sound you are trying to capture) but you do need to set the gain stages of the microphone, preamp, and any other pre capture electronics high enough that you get a healthy strength in the signal.

The mistakes commonly made at this stage are allowing more bleeding of other sonic components into more microphones than are dedicated to that sonic component. You do not want the lead guitar to be heard at low volume on the bass track. Some bleeding is inevitable. The mistake is allowing more of it than you need. Another mistake is using a microphone placement that is less than ideal in order to get better volume or separation on the capture. Placing the microphone inside the lead guitar cabinet to isolate it from the bass is a bad idea if you do not really like the sound of the microphone there. Microphones have proximity dynamics that can differ radically from their optimal range. Clipping, pops and wind noise are far more likely when a microphone is too close to a sound source.

If a band is made up entirely of amplified instruments and they prefer to play together at the same time in the same acoustic space, then a good technique for capturing them is to use a splitter on all instruments and a dual set of amplifiers. The extra set of amplifiers are set up each in their own acoustic space. Some live albums are actually recorded this way where the recorded tracks were captured from identical amplifiers set up in their own discrete acoustic space. This allows the band to interact live and yet still obtain discrete tracks that are more easily overdubbed to recover from obvious bloopers.

Dire Straits has even used a version of this approach for live sound where there are no amplifiers on stage. Everyone's rig is somewhere back stage. They hear what they need to through the wedges on the floor in front of them. Shania Twain does the same thing except they use wireless in ear monitors. The only sonic energy on Shania Twain's stage comes from their voices, the drums and the plinkity plink of the guitars. but I digress.

Stage 2 - Mixing:
During mixing your major objective is to determine what relative volume and what effects best enhance the captured clip or track. This can include the complete dismissal of certain clips, radical conversion of sonic energy to change the sound and feel of a captured clip, etc. There are no rules just genres.

The unique focus is the finding of a unique place for each discrete part and the creation of an artistic blend of parts. The major tools are fading, panning, subtle EQ, judicious multiple reverbs and other effects that enhance the "coolness" of a part. Your goal is to achieve a blend of the parts to create a coherent performance. Radical use of EQ should only be thought of as a "cool" effect. EQ cannot correct or fix anything.

The fader is used not only to determine the relative volume of a part but also its apparent position from front to back. Once its proper relative volume has been found increasing it a bit more brinks it up front and reducing it a bit more places it further back stage. (for example: In mixing a video of a band it contradicts our ears and our eyes to make the drums too prominent if the drummer is set up toward the back of the stage. Set up the volume so that is sounds "perfect" and then back it off a touch. Psychologically this causes the viewer to feel the explanation for why the drums are just a smidgen lower than would be "perfect.") Panning determines not only the left right spread in the stereo spectrum but serves to isolate an instrument somewhere in the horizontal space discretely away from other instruments. Subtle EQ can be used to assign a voice somewhere in the vertical space. Here cutting serves more than adding. Cutting the highs places a sound closer to the floor; cutting the lows moves it toward the ceiling. (Cut the highs on the bass drum but cut the lows on the overhead cymbals. The sax player up high on the platform toward the back should be just slightly lower in volume and slightly cut off at the low end when mixing the live DVD. A good live DVD mix MIGHT even make subtle pan and EQ adjustments and radical pan adjustments to compensate for the point of view of a camera. A bad live DVD mix adjusts only volume UP on the featured instrument.) Multiple delayed reverbs can be used to define the size of the room. Walls have duller reverbs than ceilings. There could be as many reverbs as their are walls in the room. Each reverb is delayed based on how far away a particular panned sound is from opposing surfaces. The brain wants the bright reflection from the ceiling to be less delayed for instruments way up high than for instruments down on the floor. You get the idea.

Stage 3 - Mastering:
During mastering your major objective is to determine the dynamics of overall reverb to give all voices a similar acoustic space, and compression to make the song listenable in multiple environments. The major environment is the other songs it is collected with. A cut on a CD has to fit in with the other cuts. A radio mix has to fit in with whatever else might be on the radio. Classical music prefers expanding to compression - its goal is clarity. Rock and pop music prefers to compress heavily - its goal is to be as loud as everyone else.

The unique focus is preparing the final mix for delivery platforms.

In Sonar the track view is good for stage 1, the mixer or the envelopes in track view are good for mixing, and mastering can focus on the effects insertable at the master output.

This is how I build a song. Some people prefer different tools for each stage. I said everything above to say this: I see no reason why each stage cannot be done in Sonar.

Wow...I think that was the most concise explanation I have ver heard of the whole process. Bravo.

Did you write that or cut'n'paste it from somewhere??? (I agree with Elvenking's comment, too.)
T.

ORIGINAL: Phoenix

Dave B. --sounds like your situation is most similar to mine (at the moment, anyway)...what plugins are you using to--hmmm--master? mix? mixmaster?

My poor-man's (insert non-threatening word substituting for 'mastering' here) signal chain is:

Sonitus EQ (tweak according to program)
Spectralive (on a light setting: 'take the blanket off', widen stereo field)
Sonitus Multiband (tweak according to program)
Kjaerhus Classic Master Limiter (Again, on a light setting.) [I'm looking to replace with a better one, maybe Vintage Warmer]
Powr-3 dithering to 16/44.1

I export the wav, then import all the wavs back into Sonar (a mock-up temp project containing all the cd tracks) to check them against each other for (relative) consistency in eq, loudness, bass response. I tweak the original song projects according to what I find in the mock-up, and re-export. Time consuming, yes. And I probably would have tweaked it more if I hadn't come up on the deadline (and some of the final decisions were not mine to make, and anyone in a band knows what I'm talking about)

Again, I'm sure somebody with half a million dollars of boutique gear and twenty years experience could do a better job (probably the understatement of the year) but saying one *has* to avail one's self of that kind of service for a project like this (an independant band, 1000 unit pressing) is like implying that one is only really driving if one is in a lamborghini. JMHO.

Well, since none of that was required by the manufacturing company pressing my band's cd, I guess my band's cd isn't "mastered" at all.

Your assumptions are ill-founded, and you obviously do not understand what the terms mean.
In plain english:
A CD image is a pre-mastered red book audio CD, which can be used to create a final production master. The printed discs will be EXACTLY the same as what's on the CD. I'm assuming that a disc of this sort is what you sent the manufacturing company.

A DDP image is a specially encoded image of a disc, but can be stored on a variety of storage mediums. In our case, we still use Exabyte tapes, because we have had ZERO returns on exabytes. They have increased data integrity in comparision to an audio cd, and so there is a much reduced risk of having errors or dropouts. Even minor, inaudible errors will be rejected by a professional manufacturing plant, and a DDP file/image reduces the risks of this - As I said, we have had NO failures using DDP on exabytes, but we HAVE had the occasional red-book CDR sent back.

Editing PQs, basically means inserting track markers (D start/end, track start/end, track indices, timings etc) to indicate where one song on the CD ends, and the other begins and so on. I can guarantee you that no CD will go to press without PQ coding. Whatever program you used to create an audio CD inserted these automatically, but you wouldn't have had fine control over them, such as you would with a mastering app.

ISRC (International Standard Recording Codes) relate to identifying each track as unique. Each mastering house will have it's own prefix, to which is added a code that identifies each track as an unique item. I believe it is these codes that computers read when trying to obtain artist info etc from the CDDB database. You may not actually require ISRCs unless it's a comercial release, and the music is to be registered with the PRS.

So you're incorrect that the manufacturers needed none of these features. If anything was not there, then they would've added it themselves, during the course of their pre-mastering. Many CD manufacturers will charge for BASIC mastering your CDs, others will include it in the price of duplication. To make a CD you must have a master, and a master MUST be an image of some sort, and MUST have PQs.

Kjaerhus Classic Master Limiter (Again, on a light setting.) [I'm looking to replace with a better one, maybe Vintage Warmer]

Aggie,

I wouldn't even *think* about replacing the Master Limiter with Vintage Warmer. VW is good but it's a coloring compressor, which is far from a clean limiter. As soon as you push it a few db, VW starts degrading your mix heavily - that may sound good on drum and bass tracks but not on a full mix.

If you plan to purchase a Mastering Limiter, go for one of the "well-known" ones: WaveArts FinalPlug, Waves L2/L3, Voxengo Elephant, Elemental Audio Finis, Izotope Ozone). Of course, I would recommend nothing else than Elephant which happens to be the cheapest of the lot.

You can of course get Vintage Warmer too but use it as a compressor, and when applied to a full mix, use it lightly and it will add some warmth and shine if needed (I find it *is* needed with most softsynth-only tracks).

ORIGINAL: NYSR
Stage 1 - Tracking:
Stage 2 - Mixing:
Stage 3 - Mastering:

Very nice summary of the whole process, NYSR, and with a focus on SONAR throughout. Well done. I know I've seen these steps laid out like this before (it may have been you doing it then, too), but seeing it here and now is timely for me... I picked up S5PE and the Voxengo Mixing/Mastering suite this month. Thanks.

Yes, why not? You can master audio within Sonar (using the right plug-ins and external hardware) but ultimately, you will need another product (at very minimum, something like CD Architect) in order to author a master CD you send out for duplication. Keep in mind that there's more to mastering than just running the audio through a mastering plug-in (usually). It depends on the project and what the ultimate goal is. Are you producing music that will only end up as an MP3 on a website? Then, with the right tools, you can probably do everything you need to do within Sonar. Are you producing an album that will end up on record store shelves? Then no, you need more than just Sonar and you probably wouldn't be doing it yourself anyway

ORIGINAL: ooblecaboodle

Your assumptions are ill-founded, and you obviously do not understand what the terms mean.
In plain english:
A CD image is a pre-mastered red book audio CD, which can be used to create a final production master. The printed discs will be EXACTLY the same as what's on the CD. I'm assuming that a disc of this sort is what you sent the manufacturing company.

A DDP image is a specially encoded image of a disc, but can be stored on a variety of storage mediums. In our case, we still use Exabyte tapes, because we have had ZERO returns on exabytes. They have increased data integrity in comparision to an audio cd, and so there is a much reduced risk of having errors or dropouts. Even minor, inaudible errors will be rejected by a professional manufacturing plant, and a DDP file/image reduces the risks of this - As I said, we have had NO failures using DDP on exabytes, but we HAVE had the occasional red-book CDR sent back.

Editing PQs, basically means inserting track markers (D start/end, track start/end, track indices, timings etc) to indicate where one song on the CD ends, and the other begins and so on. I can guarantee you that no CD will go to press without PQ coding. Whatever program you used to create an audio CD inserted these automatically, but you wouldn't have had fine control over them, such as you would with a mastering app.

ISRC (International Standard Recording Codes) relate to identifying each track as unique. Each mastering house will have it's own prefix, to which is added a code that identifies each track as an unique item. I believe it is these codes that computers read when trying to obtain artist info etc from the CDDB database. You may not actually require ISRCs unless it's a comercial release, and the music is to be registered with the PRS.

So you're incorrect that the manufacturers needed none of these features. If anything was not there, then they would've added it themselves, during the course of their pre-mastering. Many CD manufacturers will charge for BASIC mastering your CDs, others will include it in the price of duplication. To make a CD you must have a master, and a master MUST be an image of some sort, and MUST have PQs.

Except for the insult at the beginning... this is a great post.

It's worth mentioning (again) that Sony's CD Architect 5.2 produces Redbook Standard PMCDs... PQ editing, required 2 second pause at the beginning, track name, track sequence, crossfades, ISRCs, CD text, as well as underrun buffer protection and burn speeds starting at 4x.

I use a Plextor Premium CD writer <link> with the required disk-at-once-writing and their proprietary Plextools Professional software <link> that allows CD analysis of the PMCD after creation. It's easy to analyze and detect C1 and C2 errors and this drive rarely creates a CD that isn't WELL below Redbook PMCD error count standards on good Taiyo Yuden CDs.

Mastering houses do this.

Never had a rejection.

It's also worth mentioning that I'm quite aware that mastering houses also use DDP format on Exabyte tapes. It's just another medium... and I agree... less error prone... but PMCDs are a standard and quite acceptable.

ORIGINAL: agincourtdb
My poor-man's (insert non-threatening word substituting for 'mastering' here) signal chain is:
...
I export the wav, then import all the wavs back into Sonar (a mock-up temp project containing all the cd tracks) to check them against each other for (relative) consistency in eq, loudness, bass response. I tweak the original song projects according to what I find in the mock-up, and re-export. Time consuming, yes. And I probably would have tweaked it more if I hadn't come up on the deadline (and some of the final decisions were not mine to make, and anyone in a band knows what I'm talking about)

Nice tips, ag. This notion of putting up the CD tracks as SONAR tracks is very elegant (deceptively simple, meaning the whack-your-head, "why didn't I think of that" kind of simple).

You know, the mock-up project could be more than a temp... it could serve as the actual project for the 'mastering' stage. I get what you say about iterating back to the mixing stages to fix things (maybe all the way back to tracking, if needed). No problem with that, it's natural if you are the driver of the DAW. But the 'mastering' project can be used for applying the final polish. For instance, you could place 'mastering' FX in the tracks and buses, and export from that stage to the final WAVs.

(Maybe you were already implying all this, but it just struck me as a great way to go.) Thanks!

Hey Losguy!

Long time no type.

I don't think I have ever used the same mastering chain and settings on more than one song.

Again... check out CD Architect. I'm not on their payroll... but it's easy... easier than in Sonar... to see all the wave forms and skip through the whole album to check for leveling and continuity. Hear a problem? Switch back to Sonar, correct, and export and the new version is automatically brought into CD Architect in the same slot it originally occupied.

Works great.

and if you're doing a commercial release .. forget "mastering" on your own anyway .. the label people will ask you for an "untampered" version which they will propably master themselves

very true -- Ultimatly if your music ever gets used commercially they will want to master themselves

I think its a combination of skill and how well you know your software. I am sure there are skilled people who can really master well with just sonar tools. Skilled people who can master well with tools used outside of sonar. I think its all in how well you know the soft wear -- your experiance and skill -- mastering is no joke. takes a long to to "master" mastering

Agincourt, you're description is interesting. The one thing I have to agree upon with the pros is that different songs on a CD might have sounds that are so different that it throws the listener off. What you are saying is that you load all of finished wavs of each song in one project and compare the tracks for EQ and stuff, right?

Does CD Architect and those kind of programs have a better way to do that?

I was pleased with my "classical" CD that I did all in GPO. But, there was a definite difference between my Coplandeque composition which relied mainly on brass, my string quartet and my full orchestra pieces. Is that what you're trying to eliminate? What is the best way to do that? Is that what we might think of as the endstage of "mastering"?

And I am irritated with the pros as well. It should be apparent that a great number of us do "home studio" stuff in SONAR. We are trying to get the end product to an, at least, listenable stage without paying hundreds or thousands of dollars to master. Consequently, a person who participates in a thread with the sole purpose of bashing us because we are ignorant enough to think we can use a few tools to maximize our songs is just being inappropriate.

We just wanna have fun.

ORIGINAL: Mooch4056

I think its a combination of skill and how well you know your software. I am sure there are skilled people who can really master well with just sonar tools. Skilled people who can master well with tools used outside of sonar. I think its all in how well you know the soft wear -- your experiance and skill -- mastering is no joke. takes a long to to "master" mastering

I'm not suggesting mastering with "just sonar tools". I'm just suggesting that Sonar can be used as the app for mastering. I use all kinds of other, high-end tools including hardware eq and compression if it's worth the trip to analog and back for high-end hardware processing. High-end converters are necessary for this to be worth it.

Sonar is just the vehicle. I agree that Sonar doesn't have the tools for mastering and wasn't designed for that purpose. But with the right tools, it can deliver.

ORIGINAL: SteveD
Hey Losguy!
Long time no type.

Back at ya, Steve-O. Nice bumping into you again on the electronic social scale.

I don't think I have ever used the same mastering chain and settings on more than one song.

Again... check out CD Architect. I'm not on their payroll... but it's easy... easier than in Sonar... to see all the wave forms and skip through the whole album to check for leveling and continuity. Hear a problem? Switch back to Sonar, correct, and export and the new version is automatically brought into CD Architect in the same slot it originally occupied.

Works great.

Sounds good. I get the impression from this that after you are 'done' with a mixing pass, you transition to 'mastering' by adding the touches, whatever the piece needs, either to a Master Bus in SONAR or to an exported/imported track (back in SONAR or another tool like CD Arch). Is that true? If so, which? If not, then what?

I also remember reading once that you own Adobe Audition, and that you liked their automatic Group Limiting/Leveling feature, among other things. I own Audition and love it as a surgical editor, but I've had mixed results with Group Limiting (guess there no substitute for the personal touch on every cut). Do you still use Audition, either for the Group Limiting or perhaps for surgical edits?

ORIGINAL: losguy

ORIGINAL: SteveD
Hey Losguy!
Long time no type.

Back at ya, Steve-O. Nice bumping into you again on the electronic social scale.

I don't think I have ever used the same mastering chain and settings on more than one song.

Again... check out CD Architect. I'm not on their payroll... but it's easy... easier than in Sonar... to see all the wave forms and skip through the whole album to check for leveling and continuity. Hear a problem? Switch back to Sonar, correct, and export and the new version is automatically brought into CD Architect in the same slot it originally occupied.

Works great.

Sounds good. I get the impression from this that after you are 'done' with a mixing pass, you transition to 'mastering' by adding the touches, whatever the piece needs, either to a Master Bus in SONAR or to an exported/imported track (back in SONAR or another tool like CD Arch). Is that true? If so, which? If not, then what?

I also remember reading once that you own Adobe Audition, and that you liked their automatic Group Limiting/Leveling feature, among other things. I own Audition and love it as a surgical editor, but I've had mixed results with Group Limiting (guess there no substitute for the personal touch on every cut). Do you still use Audition, either for the Group Limiting or perhaps for surgical edits?

In my experience, the DAW and the mastering plugins work much better on a stereo file than they do on the multi-track 2 bus. However, as I near what I think is completion of the mixing process, I will place a mastering chain on the 2 bus... just to see what my mix might sound like mastered. This saves a lot of time as reverb will swell, and vocals come forward, and drums and bass can get buried. It's easy to by-pass the effects on the 2 buss and make corrections in the mix and then try again.

Once I'm ready to master, I bounce the unmastered mix to a new stereo track in the same project. Remember... RMS around -18.0dBFS and peaks around -6.0dBFS. That's a good mix for mastering. If that's not loud enough for you while mixing... turn up your speakers.

Next I save the whole project into the same folder with a "-Master" extension like so "MyProjectxx-Master" where xx = the sequence number of the project saves I've done.

Next, after verifying that I'm in the -Master project name I delete all tracks and buses except for the master bus and the stereo mixdown track.

I place all mastering plugins on the insert effects bin of the stereo mix and leave the master bus at unity gain (0.0dBFS).

I may route the mix out for hardware processing and back in again on a new stereo track. I have a couple high-end analog compressors, EQs, and limiters... but I usually throw the UAD-1 Precision Limiter on as the last step even here... just to catch any pesky overs... but it's really not showing any activity when I work this way. This is time consuming because the whole song must be re-recorded back into Sonar in real time... but you can monitor (if you're set up that way) what the hardware is doing as you make adjustments. Again, you need great converters and great outboard gear for this to be worth the trip to analog and back.

The master is limited to -0.3dBFS. Not all playback meters are created equal and the 0.3db of headroom is virtually inaudible and protects against intersample peaks that can slip by Sonar's or CD Architect's meters. Just another mastering safety tip. This is recommended by Bob Katz and the Waves L2 manual.

Playback, listen, tweak, playback, listen, tweak, playback, listen, tweak...

If I'm staying in the box, I'll bounce the mastered mix to a new track to listen, and inspect the resulting wave form. If it's crushed or getting a crew cut, not only does it sound that way, but it looks that way too.

I'm able to check this mix on several speaker systems instantly with the push of a button... right out of Sonar.

Once I'm happy, I burn a reference CD at high-speed and check it on the living room hi-fi, in the car, and on a boogie box. Amazingly, my laptop with earbuds provides incredible insight into the translation of the mastered mix.

Finishing touches and tweaks in Sonar and repeat.

Export the mastered mix at 44.1/16 using Sonar's excellent SRC and POW-r dither and create a project of all the songs on the CD in CD Architect.

Check for leveling and continuity, arrange song order, and adjust pause lengths.

Back and forth to Sonar for mix and master corrections. Notice this is the only time I've had to leave Sonar. But by this time, it's quick and easy to make a correction, usually just for leveling between songs. If the name and start/end times of the exported master from Sonar haven't changed, the new version just appears in CD Architect in place of the old one. Very cool.

I "drop the needle" through the album to make sure it really sounds like it all belongs on the same CD.

When I'm done and I've got an album, I burn a PMCD in CD Architect at 4x speed and use Plextools Professional to inspect the CD for errors.

If I'm not happy... burn another... 'til I am. I don't need a duplication plant to tell me it will kick out. I can see that for myself.

Label the PMCD as such and "DO NOT PLAY"... and send it off with the track sheet and PQ details which can be exported to a file and/or printed right out of CD Architect and sent to the plant.

Again... Sonar is just the host. The mastering is in the experience and understanding of the engineer and the tools that are used in the process.

This can be done in Sonar. The rest is not so easy. It takes years to learn and the correct tools are not cheap.

Again... even though what I offer sounds great... I'm not a mastering house, don't have their gear, and I'm not an ME. Any demo or commercial release will benefit greatly from using a qualified reputable mastering facility for their project.

Hope this is helpful.

Steve, that's a terrific reply. Thanks for the glimpse into your workflow process. I didn't realize that I was asking such a loaded question! I've bookmarked this page. (This thread is just getting better and better.)

After such a great response, I almost hate to ask... I feel like a worthless, greedy sot... could I venture you to comment on the questions I had for you about Adobe Audition too? Thanks...

Oh crap!

Sorry... I forgot.

I think you have me confused with someone else.

I've never owned Adobe Audition (aka Cool Edit Pro), Wavelab, or Sound Forge.

I freely admit I probably don't know what I'm missing... but again, I'm getting great results without them and I just feel like there are higher priorities for me right now.

I've bookmarked this page too. Thanks to simppu for starting it, and to everyone who posted, particularly NYSR for his concise, informative post--finally got the distinction between mixing and mastering thru my thick skull.

Incredible advice to those of us who haven't even gotten to the "final stages' yet. I've got more of a line on tools to buy, what to look forward to, what not to do, and a more realistic view of what I can expect as an end result. Better decisions based on better information.

Thanks for this thread and all the contributions.

ORIGINAL: SteveD
Oh crap!
Sorry... I forgot.
I think you have me confused with someone else.
I've never owned Adobe Audition (aka Cool Edit Pro), Wavelab, or Sound Forge.
I freely admit I probably don't know what I'm missing... but again, I'm getting great results without them and I just feel like there are higher priorities for me right now.

No problem. For surgical edits on clips, they are a nice complement to the plugin and envelope paradigm of SONAR. They take a problem area, not a whole track, mind you, but a selected relatively short piece of a long track (SONAR clips are perfect for this), and fix the problem, period. But I have used them for what might be called 'mastering', too, adding final polish to one- or two-track mixes. With my Voxengo purchase, I'm embarking into a more interactive, 'knob-based' approach to 'mastering'. Not that these tools aren't interactive, and they do accept plugs as well. Heck, I may just end up plugging the Voxengo Mastering suite into Audition. (I'm just swimming in the possibilities, I tell ya.) But it's good to know, great really, that there is a worked-out path to do the 'mastering' right in SONAR.

Anyway, I think these tools got their start way back when in the editing of sample files (that's for samplers... especially SoundForge). Their power for general audio editing was realized as computer resources grew enough to allow for it.

This must have been disussed before, but still: is there really a major difference between mastering a mix in Sonar track and using a costly, separate mastering software?

If Sonar had built in CD burning I would definitely do my mastering in there to avoid having to go to another program.

ORIGINAL: jlgrimes

This must have been disussed before, but still: is there really a major difference between mastering a mix in Sonar track and using a costly, separate mastering software?

If Sonar had built in CD burning I would definitely do my mastering in there to avoid having to go to another program.

It would be great if sonar had this, maybe in future releases.

Except for the insult at the beginning... this is a great post.

I apologise to agincourtdb, I didn't actually mean it as an insulting comment, just a stern correction. Sorry if i was (easily) misunderstood!

CD Architect

I have copied into a word file a lot of stuff from this thread. I've been mixing four new songs, which I'll import to Sonar and master in a session during the next ten days. There's been a huge amount of advice and opinions from all you addicted people - I appreciate! From the previous 6 songs session I got one sold to a national level project - I hope I'll be as lucky this time.

There's been a huge amount of advice and opinions from all you addicted people

Some of us aren't addicted, some of us do this for a living.

ORIGINAL: ooblecaboodle

Except for the insult at the beginning... this is a great post.

I apologise to agincourtdb, I didn't actually mean it as an insulting comment, just a stern correction. Sorry if i was (easily) misunderstood!

No worries brother

I consider myself addicted to making music as well...

ORIGINAL: fac


Elephant has various limiting algorithms but I use exclusively the EL-2 mode. I've tried the other modes but always preferred the EL-2. There's even a new EL-3 mode which is supposed to be smoother but it doesn't seem to work too well with my music. The cool thing about EL-2 is that there's only two parameters to mess with: Input Drive and Limiter Speed - and Limiter Speed has only six or seven levels, so it all amounts to pushing the input drive a few db's up and selecting the best Limiter Speed for the job (according to your ears). There's also an optional high pass filter that you can use to remove DC and subsonic content but I never use it (I always have CurveEQ placed before Elephant and that's where I remove low frequencies).

IMO, the trick to using a loudness maximizer (mastering limiter) is always listening to both, processed and unprocessed signals, at the same level. This way you don't fool your ears into thinking that something sounds better just because it's louder.

With Elephant you do this by turning down the output level about as much as you turn up the Input Drive. For example, IN = 6 db, OUT = -6 db. Here the signal will have about the same level when the limiter is active than when it's bypassed (unless the original signal was too quiet to begin with). I constantly change between processed/unprocessed signal (by just bypassing Elephant) and listen carefully for any degradation in sound quality or noticeable changes in dynamics (especially on drums). If everything's fine, I can push the limiter a bit more (turning INPUT up and OUTPUT down). As soon as I hear something wrong I back it up a little bit.

When I've reached the level I want, or when the limiter starts degrading the signal I leave it there and raise the output level back to 0 db (actually I leave it at -0.3db), and then render the signal.

I never squash my songs that much. They're usually in the -14 to -12 db RMS range, which is a bit better than today's commercial CD's and sound just as loud. I usually listen to CD's in my car, over traffic noise and all, and my CD's cut through it just fine. Sure, a decent engineer with proper equipment would probably do a better job, but for what I do this is good enough.

I like -14 to -12 db RMS range too. Do you use multiband compresion before the limiter?

ORIGINAL: evan
I like -14 to -12 db RMS range too. Do you use multiband compresion before the limiter?

Most times I use wide-band compression (using Voxengo's Crunchessor) but sometimes I use Vintage Warmer's two-band compression

My usual mastering chain is Crunchessor->CurveEQ->Elephant. Sometimes I replace Crunchessor with VintageWarmer if I feel the track's too clean:

I use compression only to tame out those peaks that may be out of control. I set Crunchessor to give me about 3db of reduction at the loudest peaks.

I've demo'ed some multiband compressors (Voxengo Soniformer, Waves C4) but I've failed to see how the could improve my masters. They just made the process over-complex (especially with Soniformer).

I know Crunchessor is not the best compressor for mastering but I'm getting good results. Maybe I'll try Polysquasher someday.

Sonitus Multiband (tweak according to program)
Kjaerhus Classic Master Limiter (Again, on a light setting.) [I'm looking to replace with a better one, maybe Vintage Warmer]

Why do you do that? Is there something you don't like about the limiter in the Sonitus Multiband? Do you turn that limiter off and use the Classic one instead for some reason?

Thanks for your response FAC.

I've demo'ed some multiband compressors (Voxengo Soniformer, Waves C4) but I've failed to see how the could improve my masters.

For example when you need compression only in the low range.

Anyone using multiband compression when mastering, where do you put the crossovers?

Anyone using multiband compression when mastering, where do you put the crossovers?

It depends! In most of my recordings the vocal is the most important, so I don't like a crossover in the 300-3000 vocal range. Therefore, I usually choose 3 bands with crossovers at 300 and 3000. This lets the music breath, but keeps the vocal range intact. This only works if I have scooped out a little mid-range EQ in instruments that overlap the vocals --- especially piano and guitar.

Regards,
David

ORIGINAL: Elvenking

Wow...I think that was the most concise explanation I have ver heard of the whole process. Bravo.

ORIGINAL: The Scar

Did you write that or cut'n'paste it from somewhere??? (I agree with Elvenking's comment, too.)
T.

Thanks, I have followed the recommendations of the Grammy, Producers and Engineer Wing for years. That was sort of impromptu. But I've understood that three step process from the time CDs were first being released.

I'm using the Classic Master Limiter to increase and match the RMS from tune to tune, I guess... it's a one-knob plugin, and setting it at between -1 and -4 for all the tunes on the cd allowed me to match percieved volume of the 'louds' throughout the album. I don't mess with the Sonitus Multiband limiter, it's on but set to 0.

ORIGINAL: dcastle

Anyone using multiband compression when mastering, where do you put the crossovers?

It depends! In most of my recordings the vocal is the most important, so I don't like a crossover in the 300-3000 vocal range. Therefore, I usually choose 3 bands with crossovers at 300 and 3000. This lets the music breath, but keeps the vocal range intact. This only works if I have scooped out a little mid-range EQ in instruments that overlap the vocals --- especially piano and guitar.

Regards,
David

Interesting, I'm doing almost the same, I set crossovers at 180hz, 3000hz and 5000hz. Four bands. I like to use an expansor in the 3-5khz band (from Bob Katz's book ).

Ozone default setup is crossovers at 120, 2000, 10000. As you said, I don't like that cut at 2000hz.

A multi-band compressor is a tool for fixing problems. Mastering houses need this tool to fix uneven bass, overly prominent and dynamic mids, brittle spikey highs, or spitty cymbals.

Why? ... Because they don't have the multi-track. They can't make a correction in the mix.

What's you're reason for using a multi-band compressor?

I know we run audio through certain hardware or even certain software... like the Pultec Pro, or the Fairchild, with no gain reduction on. It just sounds better having passed through it. But I don't believe the Sonitus Multi-band has this quality. If it's not compressing, I don't hear it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your application here.

Don't get me wrong... the Sonitus Multi-band is an excellent tool. But it can do more damage than good if you're not experienced and careful.

If you can go back and correct the mix, don't use a multi-band compressor on the master. Use a single band full range compressor instead.

If you can go back and correct the mix, don't use a multi-band compressor on the master. Use a single band full range compressor instead.

amen steved. this is a tool born of necessity in the mastering phase .. the telephone
should be preferred above a mulitband compressor (imho). not that they aren't
useful. but, if you've got the tracks, i can't imagine why one wouldn't fix the
mix (unless completely out-of-time).

jeff

ORIGINAL: SteveD

A multi-band compressor is a tool for fixing problems. Mastering houses need this tool to fix uneven bass, overly prominent and dynamic mids, brittle spikey highs, or spitty cymbals.

Why? ... Because they don't have the multi-track. They can't make a correction in the mix.

What's you're reason for using a multi-band compressor?

I know we run audio through certain hardware or even certain software... like the Pultec Pro, or the Fairchild, with no gain reduction on. It just sounds better having passed through it. But I don't believe the Sonitus Multi-band has this quality. If it's not compressing, I don't hear it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your application here.

Don't get me wrong... the Sonitus Multi-band is an excellent tool. But it can do more damage than good if you're not experienced and careful.

If you can go back and correct the mix, don't use a multi-band compressor on the master. Use a single band full range compressor instead.

I couldn't agree more. Go back and get it right, there's a radical thought!

But I got beat up pretty bad on another thread for suggesting the same thing in the context of using V-Vocal type pitch correctors to fix vocal takes that weren't in tune. We're approaching the day when the only control in our GUI will be a big "FIX" knob. Lotsa fun that'll be...

ORIGINAL: j boy

ORIGINAL: SteveD

A multi-band compressor is a tool for fixing problems. Mastering houses need this tool to fix uneven bass, overly prominent and dynamic mids, brittle spikey highs, or spitty cymbals.

Why? ... Because they don't have the multi-track. They can't make a correction in the mix.

What's you're reason for using a multi-band compressor?

I know we run audio through certain hardware or even certain software... like the Pultec Pro, or the Fairchild, with no gain reduction on. It just sounds better having passed through it. But I don't believe the Sonitus Multi-band has this quality. If it's not compressing, I don't hear it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your application here.

Don't get me wrong... the Sonitus Multi-band is an excellent tool. But it can do more damage than good if you're not experienced and careful.

If you can go back and correct the mix, don't use a multi-band compressor on the master. Use a single band full range compressor instead.

I couldn't agree more. Go back and get it right, there's a radical thought!

But I got beat up pretty bad on another thread for suggesting the same thing in the context of using V-Vocal type pitch correctors to fix vocal takes that weren't in tune. We're approaching the day when the only control in our GUI will be a big "FIX" knob. Lotsa fun that'll be...

Some of us came to your defense on that thread J Boy.

A vocalist only has just so many takes before the voice or the performance is lost. The performance is key.

One way around vocal fatigue is to send the artist home and try to nail it in the next session... but that isn't always possible.

I'd rather have a perfect performance without the need for vocal correction, but even with call-backs that rarely happens... even with big name talent.

A little corrective care is most likely all that's needed to make an otherwise awesome performance a keeper.

To bring this back on topic, vocal correction happens during the mixing... where it belongs.

Sorry to go off-topic Steve. BTW - There's a good article in the September issue of Sound-on-Sound magazine about mastering. It has some useful info for independent artists as far as what to do up-front to save time and money before schlepping your mixes to them. My point in all of this, in a roundabout fashion, is.. fix it in the mix, don't try and use "mastering" as a fix-all. The less the mastering engineer has to fix, the better the end result will be. That's what they're saying, not me (but I agree).

ORIGINAL: j boy

Sorry to go off-topic Steve. BTW - There's a good article in the September issue of Sound-on-Sound magazine about mastering. It has some useful info for independent artists as far as what to do up-front to save time and money before schlepping your mixes to them. My point in all of this, in a roundabout fashion, is.. fix it in the mix, don't try and use "mastering" as a fix-all. The less the mastering engineer has to fix, the better the end result will be. That's what they're saying, not me (but I agree).

Exactly, Just as the Mastering cannot fix a bad mix so the mix cannot fix a bad take. AT best they can only minimize the damage. As I said above. Mastering is not a step used to fix rather it is a step used to place the preferable mix into its delivered environment.

The best time and place to fix things is the time and place where they got broke.

If we just think about sound here, not the pq codes, cd text and all that other stuff regarding the actual burning of the CD, I think it comes down to this....ask yourself, and be honest... will the best plugins available now for mastering be able to compete with the best analogue gear used for mastering ? From what I've seen, I don't think we're there yet.... although some say the UAD-1 precision limiter, and EQ are pretty good, as well as the Sony Oxford stuff for Powercore.... I think that a pretty good job of mastering can be done in Sonar with the tools available ( and the uad-1's and powercores ), but there's really no substitute for going through some really good analogue gear, (granted the DA converters are exceptional) and really accurate monitoring that can be gotten from a mastering house. I think what's more important is our emphasis on the quality of our mixing, because a great mix will be much easier to master. I'd say the majority of Sonar users don't need mastering guidance, they need mixing guidance. After all...isn't mastering just final touch ups on dynamics, EQ, and Stereo spread (m/s processing) ...and maybe a touch of reverb to gel the mix ??? It's a hell of lot harder to get a song mixed and ready for mastering , than what it is to master a song because of so many more variables that need to be addressed for each track as well as the whole mix. So my advice would be to concentrate on improving mixing... and send your stuff to mastering houses for mastering..... their monitoring systems, analogue gear and tuned rooms will do far more justice to your mix than what you can do in Sonar. If you've got great speakers, a great room, great plugs and dsp cards, and great ears, and mastering experience....you can probably do it all at home .... but ..who has all that ???

ORIGINAL: lukejs
So my advice would be to concentrate on improving mixing... and send your stuff to mastering houses for mastering..... their monitoring systems, analogue gear and tuned rooms will do far more justice to your mix than what you can do in Sonar. If you've got great speakers, a great room, great plugs and dsp cards, and great ears, and mastering experience....you can probably do it all at home .... but ..who has all that ???

I just wish my wife would see it that way, when I go to withdraw a couple of thousand dollars out of the checking account to pay for professional mastering...

"But honestly dear, my mixes will sound soooo much better on soundclick.com if they're professionally mastered!"

ORIGINAL: j boy

ORIGINAL: lukejs
So my advice would be to concentrate on improving mixing... and send your stuff to mastering houses for mastering..... their monitoring systems, analogue gear and tuned rooms will do far more justice to your mix than what you can do in Sonar. If you've got great speakers, a great room, great plugs and dsp cards, and great ears, and mastering experience....you can probably do it all at home .... but ..who has all that ???

I just wish my wife would see it that way, when I go to withdraw a couple of thousand dollars out of the checking account to pay for professional mastering...

"But honestly dear, my mixes will sound soooo much better on soundclick.com if they're professionally mastered!"

All good points here... and I don't hear anyone saying... "Who needs professional mastering? I've got Sonar!!!"

Agreed... A good understanding of mixing techniques is a must and goes a long way in the mastering process. Never stop learning.

Here's the thing though... Do you think those guys running the mastering houses just bet the bank one day and opened shop without trying their hand at it? 'Course not. They spent years studying, trying, failing, studying, trying, succeeding (a little here and there). Eventually, you realize you've learned what it takes, and your attempts show that with the right equipment... you could do this.

There's a good chance that by the time you can make that statement you will have learned proper mixing techniques, you are running a commercial recording studio, and maybe even earned a degree in electrical engineering while you were at it.

THEN, you bet the bank and hang out a shingle for mastering!

I say it's fine to try your hand at post production processing (let's call it that so we stop upsetting folks by prematurely calling it "mastering"). Just don't leave out the study part. Read, read, read. Do the research. Then try to apply what you've learned. For example... can anyone post the typical number of frames of silence at 30fps before audio on a professionally mastered song? Too much time... and you've got unnecessary dead air. Too little time... and CD players all over creation will be cutting off the intro to your pride and joy when they press the seek button on their boogie boxes and car radios.

My favorite expression is, "The more I know, the more I realize I don't know". Study it, and by all means try it on your reference CDs for clients... but don't stop using or recommending Mastering Houses until you are one.

ORIGINAL: SteveD

A multi-band compressor is a tool for fixing problems. Mastering houses need this tool to fix uneven bass, overly prominent and dynamic mids, brittle spikey highs, or spitty cymbals.

Why? ... Because they don't have the multi-track. They can't make a correction in the mix.

What's you're reason for using a multi-band compressor?

Ok, multiband compression is not a rule. From my point of view the most important thing is the mix. I do go back often to the mix.

But, when you engage a limiter and you start to gain dbs the mix can change. In other words, your perception of the mix might change; you can hear more noise, hiss, eq changes... and your starting mix was perfect.

You can make corrections not only with an eq but with a multiband compressor/expansor too. With multiband compression you can get more headroom aswell so the limiter works better.

Besides, you can improve the whole mix with mastering eq and comp. For example; you a have two vocals tracks, you treat each one individually and you make a bouncing. Sometimes if you eq again this bouncing the two voices works much better together. In a mix is more or less the same.

Do I explain myself?

ORIGINAL: j boy

I just wish my wife would see it that way, when I go to withdraw a couple of thousand dollars out of the checking account to pay for professional mastering...

"But honestly dear, my mixes will sound soooo much better on soundclick.com if they're professionally mastered!"

If professional mastering sounds better to you, then you would be better off learning what and why the pros do what they do. In fact, it would cost you much less to join a pay to enter producers forum, and spend $500.00 to $800.00 on the best books available (books the pros use written by snooty grammy winning tech-geek producers) and learn to do it yourself.

I feel fortunate in that most of what I produce HAS to sound as if it were unpolished live yet done as well as if it were pre-recorded. This means the environment does not require the radical squashing techniques used for CDs and radio mixes. I've actually grown to hate that sound. What I produce for the most part either ends up in video as a background (you notice it only if you deliberately try to) or is used to enhance a live performance where the pre-recorded material is blended with live performance of both instruments and vocals. A so called pop-rock professional master does not blend well with live performance without something sticking out like a sore thumb. I require a relatively unpolished finish.

But on occasion I do have a client who needs a demo that requires the usual volume competition treatment.

Kno-whut-I-Mean!"

Vern?

Bob Katz does'nt even recommend Pro Tools (on mega HD systems) for mastering so i think sonar is realy out of the question with it's limited audio engine

you need top end gear to do professional mastering and definetely not sonar with cheap bedroom monitors

so guys dream on....there is a bit more to mastering than what sonar can offer > we all know some guys think sonar is the alfa and omega but realy it is not, take my word for it !!

Here's some words of encouragement from Michael Brauer.


"Put a monkey in my room with my gear and see what happens. If he mixes better than me, I"m gonna be pissed.

Put me in a room with whatever is available, and i'm going to deliver you a great mix. No excuses for lack of toys or different formats such as mixing in the box. Mixing is mixing, You're either a mixer or you're a monkey. Simple."

ORIGINAL: mb

Bob Katz does'nt even recommend Pro Tools (on mega HD systems) for mastering so i think sonar is realy out of the question with it's limited audio engine

you need top end gear to do professional mastering and definetely not sonar with cheap bedroom monitors

so guys dream on....there is a bit more to mastering than what sonar can offer > we all know some guys think sonar is the alfa and omega but realy it is not, take my word for it !!

Sombody's not paying attention.

ORIGINAL: djwayne

Here's some words of encouragement from Michael Brauer.


"Put a monkey in my room with my gear and see what happens. If he mixes better than me, I"m gonna be pissed.

Put me in a room with whatever is available, and i'm going to deliver you a great mix. No excuses for lack of toys or different formats such as mixing in the box. Mixing is mixing, You're either a mixer or you're a monkey. Simple."

Somebody IS paying attention!

So who's this Michael Brauer guy ?????

For more info, goto......

http://www.mbrauer.com/

ORIGINAL: SteveD

ORIGINAL: djwayne

Here's some words of encouragement from Michael Brauer.


"Put a monkey in my room with my gear and see what happens. If he mixes better than me, I"m gonna be pissed.

Put me in a room with whatever is available, and i'm going to deliver you a great mix. No excuses for lack of toys or different formats such as mixing in the box. Mixing is mixing, You're either a mixer or you're a monkey. Simple."

Somebody IS paying attention!

huh ????

there is a very big difference between mixing and mastering, kids.....

somebody is realy not paying attention to the real world out there apart from this forum

another useless uninformed sonar we know everything thread

but anyway kids knock yourselves out > !!

ORIGINAL: mb

huh ????

there is a very big difference between mixing and mastering, kids.....

somebody is realy not paying attention to the real world out there apart from this forum

another useless uninformed sonar we know everything thread

but anyway kids knock yourselves out > !!

I'm just saying I don't think you read my posts. I've studied what's going on in the real world (in Mastering Houses), and I don't claim to have their gear and I'm not an ME... (sound familiar? I keep saying this for guys like you. )

I've simply maintained that you can practice the craft of Post production processing... (see I didn't call it mastering) while reading and researching what it is that these guys do.

And you can use Sonar to do that.

That's all.

ORIGINAL: mb

ORIGINAL: SteveD

ORIGINAL: djwayne

Here's some words of encouragement from Michael Brauer.


"Put a monkey in my room with my gear and see what happens. If he mixes better than me, I"m gonna be pissed.

Put me in a room with whatever is available, and i'm going to deliver you a great mix. No excuses for lack of toys or different formats such as mixing in the box. Mixing is mixing, You're either a mixer or you're a monkey. Simple."

Somebody IS paying attention!

huh ????

there is a very big difference between mixing and mastering, kids.....

somebody is realy not paying attention to the real world out there apart from this forum

another useless uninformed sonar we know everything thread

but anyway kids knock yourselves out > !!

If I need a $3,000 a day studio, I'll call ya.

May I suggest Har-Bal.

Ignore the demo (it's only in 8-bit audio). Get the full 30-day demo version for $95. If you don't like it, you'll get a full refund.

This application really works.

What it really will reveal is the 'problems' in your mixing environment.

I use it in conjunction with T-RackS.

I create an EQ filter file in Har-Bal. Render it. Open up this 'X_eq' file in T-RackS and ALWAYS use the 'opto+half-inch' preset for multiband limiting.

Simply stated, Har-Bal optimizes the overall EQ and T-RackS increases the overall volume.

This may be late in the matter of timing, but if you are able to read this and get it; maybe it will help.

Perfect Practice Makes Perfect. What do I mean by that? If you learn how to do something wrong, you just LEARNED how to do something wrong. If you LEARN how to do something correctly, then you learned correctly. Once you have learned correctly, then you can do correctly. After receiving Dual music degrees and working in production studios and listening to the quality of music released, you learn a couple of things.
I studied when we still had to use a splice bar. Come on folks, the pros know the time it took to make a 30sec spot with splice tape. Also we use the ART and the 2-inch Tape Decks and the MTI boards with patch bays. Life in the digital age is so much simpler now. The point being after doing a couple of projects with the knowledge of real professional experience it is possible with what you have to do a decent job of production level mastering if not a solid job of Mixing. The use of the busses in Sonar will prove to be invaluable. Also along the lines with (fac) it will help with most of the plugins, even though it is possible to use the ones in the producer edition, with the advent of some that were in the older versions of Sonar. They work in tandem very good. With that said find a decent music school with sound teaching in production capabilities with a focus on this facet. Study well and be open to correction and advise from your peers and instructors and you should be at a good starting point.

Thank you.

Nice road map. Thanks.