Helpful ReplyMastering in Sonar, why not?

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? Honestly, for a decent demo, is there something essential missing, if you import the mixed wav into a Sonar track, equalize it, compress it with multiband, do other plugin-based editing, clean the start, process afada, etc.? Please tell me the big difference, and I'll be saving for mastering tools...

Jsaras has previously done mastering for folks using just the tools in Sonar to prove you can master with just the tools in Sonar.

but it's not just about getting the best tools for every occassion.

Yep we can throw some stuff on somewhat blindly ...as we all do... including me

but go try out someone who does mastering professionally too.

There are a few folks on here that do that, some have 1 minute free so you can here what the finished product may sound like.

I have written 420 1 minute long songs especially geared for this offer ! but seriously...nothing to lose on having a go yourself, plus getting a pro to do it ....

Just get a good set of mastering plugins (ie.- Voxengo, Ozone, WaveArts, etc.) and you can master in Sonar as easily as in any dedicated audio editor.

I have a "Mastering" template for Sonar. It has one audio track routed through one "mastering bus" that contains a compressor, a good EQ, and a limiter (Voxengo Crunchessor, CurveEQ and Elephant, in my case), and also an instance of Elemental Audio Inspector at the end of the chain. There's a second audio track routed to the soundcard's output.

In the first audio track I import the soon-to-be-mastered mix, and in the second I import a commercial song extracted from a CD. Now it's just a matter of tweaking the plugins and matching the level and spectral content of the commercial song. I have everything I need in the same screen: level meters, RMS measures (from Elephant), spectral views (CurveEQ and Inspector), stereo field graphs (Inspector), clip indicators (Inspector), etc.

Also, I switch the audio engine from 44.1 Khz to 96 Khz when mastering and render the final WAV at 96 Khz, then use Voxengo's r8brain to convert to 44.1 Khz. It gives me better results than doing everything at 44.1.

And now with Sonar 5 waveform preview things are going to be even easier.

Oh, just let me add that I master my own songs because they're not commercially oriented. They won't be sold or used as demos. They will be burn to CD's to give to friends and family.

If I were to do some commercial CD, I would take my mixes to a pro mastering studio.

If you still do it yourself, a good tip that has worked for me is always mastering twice: do a first master, burn to a CD, listen to it for a while in several places (car stereo, home stereo, discman & headphones, etc), take mental note of what's wrong with the mix (written note should be better but can't do it while I'm driving), and then (after a couple weeks) make a second master. It will sound much better (at least in my case).

Very good and relevant advice from fac

ORIGINAL: simppu

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? Honestly, for a decent demo, is there something essential missing, if you import the mixed wav into a Sonar track, equalize it, compress it with multiband, do other plugin-based editing, clean the start, process afada, etc.? Please tell me the big difference, and I'll be saving for mastering tools...

One reason I would not want to do that is because it would require another trip through the audio engine to get the output file. I like to use a file based wav editor like Sound Forge so I can operate directly on the file. Also, if process with a plugin in Sound Forge I can see the results (waveform) after it's done and before I do another one and keep an eye on peaks and levels. With Sonar 4 I can't see the results at all. Now Sonar 5 has a bus waveform view but I would question how accurate it is when you have more then one plugin applied and have not palyed the song through. I think the new bus waveform view is more of a rough estimate.

It's also a skill thing, I've used Sound Forge for years and I can get things done very quickly with predictable results, I'm not sure if I have time to get to that level with Sonar as a matering tool, and there is no reason since I already have Sound Forge. However, if I had to start over I think I would still like to have a wav editor.

Just to get an idea.....what software(s) (other than Sonar) are my fellow Forum members using to master in? Any compelling differences (advantages) that you can point to, in support your Mastering sofware choice?

Thanks,
David

when the song goes through my master bus.. it's mastered. and im not kidding even.
I do my songs in such way that when I do the final export to a wave .. I dont have to touch it ever again (maybe this is why my songs never use less than 92% of CPU) 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

ORIGINAL: Fullmoon

Just to get an idea.....what software(s) (other than Sonar) are my fellow Forum members using to master in? Any compelling differences (advantages) that you can point to, in support your Mastering sofware choice?

Thanks,
David

I use cdarchitect because it does a ton of things that sonar can't do-cd text,isrc coding,redbook burning,the crossfadind but still giving each track its correct number place on cd etc, and i think it does one or two things sound forge does'nt do and thats DAO burning.I don't think it's a good idea to burn your album on to cd's using windows media player or something similar!Mastering programs are more than just used for applying processing effects.

ORIGINAL: attalus

ORIGINAL: Fullmoon

Just to get an idea.....what software(s) (other than Sonar) are my fellow Forum members using to master in? Any compelling differences (advantages) that you can point to, in support your Mastering sofware choice?

Thanks,
David

I use cdarchitect because it does a ton of things that sonar can't do-cd text,isrc coding,redbook burning,the crossfadind but still giving each track its correct number place on cd etc, and i think it does one or two things sound forge does'nt do and thats DAO burning.I don't think it's a good idea to burn your album on to cd's using windows media player or something similar!Mastering programs are more than just used for applying processing effects.

I tend the seperate the mastering and CD layout processes. A mastered song file is an archive just like a master tape would be and is considered "finished". It might or might not go on any one CD or be crossfaded with another song and that is a seperate process then the "mastering".

I master the stereo mixdown in Sonar after loading one or two reference songs ripped from commercial CDs into adjacent tracks.

I bounce the mastered mix to a new track to listen carefully for pops or clicks before exporting. Very rare, but "Never turn your back on digital" - Bob Katz.

The good news is that if the bus wave form preview is all that in S5, I won't have to wait for bounces just to check it before a final is produced.

Mastering in Sonar works well. I see no need for another app. There are many items higher on the priority list for me than Sound Forge or Wavelab.

[EDIT: I do use CD Architect 5.2 for checking levels, album continuity, and PMCD burning, but I don't do any editing there... as the files are already dithered to 16 bit by the POW-r dither in Sonar.]

ORIGINAL: SteveD
....

[EDIT: I do use CD Architect 5.2 for checking levels, album continuity, and PMCD burning, but I don't do any editing there... as the files are already dithered to 16 bit by the POW-r dither in Sonar.]

Another good reason not to make changes in CD Architect. Also, again you can't tell if you have cliping unless you play the entire project. I think that's how we ended up with so many cliped major label CDs in the last 10 years.

One reason I would not want to do that is because it would require another trip through the audio engine to get the output file. I like to use a file based wav editor like Sound Forge

Mate, I always learn interesting stuff from you... can you explain this a bit more?

What I do is output a stereo file, then start a new Sonar session with that file and master it... but it sounds like you're saying that approach goes through the audio engine, which it wouldn't if I used SoundForge, and the result is better with SoundForge?

(Sorry if this sounds totally confused... I just want to be sure I understand what you're driving at.)

T.

I'm fond of Ozone from iZotope (www.izotope.com) - I haven't found a preset that can actually be used right out of the box, but a few of the presets have given me a starting point. One of the biggest challenges in my book is trying to get a master any where near as hot as the commercial releases. Obviously the big studios/mastering houses have really good equipment and or software, but it's the art of mastering that makes a good cut. You can easily get carried away with compression, EQ's and the like - it's harder than you think to do this well. A lot of folks will tell you to ship your songs off to someone else to master, telling you that you will never master mastering - I say bang your head against the wall for a month if you have to. Personally, I want to learn to do this myself, but that's just me.

While I haven't used the Voxengo Mastering Suite, I use several plug-ins from them (Aleksey Vaneev) and they are fantastic. I don't know what the presets look like, I don't know if they can be used right out of the box or as a good basis for your type of music. Perhaps someone else can comment on this.

I suspect you can "master" using only the tools that Sonar provides, but if you can afford Ozone or the Voxengo suite - I recommend looking at those.

there are simply too few waveform editing and analysis commands in Sonar to do a proper job
of mastering (imho).

jeff

Oh, one more thing. I often do edits in Sound Forge that are done by selection, not applied to the entire song like a plugin would be in Sonar. I might also use the pencil tool to do tiny little fixes by hand. There is no way I can do that in Sonar or any other tool I know of. So Sound Forge is a must have. This is not just for mastering but also for editing clips, I just couldn't get that level of precision any other way. I can often fix a track (clip) in Sound Forge that can't be re-recorded and is an essential part of the mix. I would hate to have to tell a client (or mayself) "Sorry.. I can't fix that.. it can't be done". In fact I will go so far as to say that I could do with any DAW for mixing even ProTools (yuck) but I could not do the real magic I do without Sound Forge.

Thst's good news to hear... I haven't upgraded to Sonar 5 yet... that might be a reason another incentive to upgrade. I'm still learning Sonar 4 PE and going from a Roland VS880 to Sonar you have to change the way you think about mastering (and recording).

Got a lot to learn...
Thanks for the info

David

ORIGINAL: The Scar

One reason I would not want to do that is because it would require another trip through the audio engine to get the output file. I like to use a file based wav editor like Sound Forge

Mate, I always learn interesting stuff from you... can you explain this a bit more?

What I do is output a stereo file, then start a new Sonar session with that file and master it... but it sounds like you're saying that approach goes through the audio engine, which it wouldn't if I used SoundForge, and the result is better with SoundForge?

(Sorry if this sounds totally confused... I just want to be sure I understand what you're driving at.)

T.

I think it's "better". Every trip through the audio engine is uncertain at best and may even add dither for a second time. I do know the sound changes and not for the better. What I do is export to 24bit at native sample rate to the project. Then I do all my mastering in Sound Forge at that rate. Then as the last two steps I 1. resample to 44.1 (using highest quality setting) and then 2. dither down to 16bit. That way any mastering processes are done at 24bit and at native sample rate. I get no surprises that way, things sound exactly as I expect them to.

If I open the export from Sonar and there are things I can't fix in Sound Forge I go back and re-mix and re export. That way every song has only made one trip through the Sonar audio engine and has not been downsampled by Sonar.

One reason I would not want to do that is because it would require another trip through the audio engine to get the output file. I like to use a file based wav editor like Sound Forge so I can operate directly on the file.

And just what do you think happens to that file? Does it just sit there and get magically transmogrified? Nope! It goes through the Sound Forge audio engine. There is no conceptual difference between using Sound Forge or SONAR to do this kind of mastering.

Every trip through the audio engine is uncertain at best and may even add dither for a second time. I do know the sound changes and not for the better.

It used to be argued that there was audio degradation in every single effect or fader, but this has largely been eliminated with 32-bit floating point, and is virtually non-existent with 64-bit floating point, so the number of effects, faders, or trips through the audio engine is really irrelevant any more. Furthermore, exporting to 32-bit floating point wave files should render any dithering completely transparent.

I can't wait to hear the audiophiles start saying they can hear the zipper noise of a 64-bit floating point fader at the end of a cymbol reverb tail.

Technically, it doesn't really matter whether you master-as-you-mix in SONAR or export the mix and master as a second step. But, from a work-flow perspective, it matters a lot. If you are mastering in the mix, then the levels have to be perfect for the entire song, not just relative to the other elements in the mix. This can create some difficult decisions and tradeoffs. But, if you export your best mix, and then master it in a second step it can be easier. Of course easier is not necessarily better, and you may find that EQ and compression change the mix in ways that require tweaks in the mix.

Regards,
David

Makes sense to do clip editing with a pencil tool during mixing... but during mastering? If I were a mastering house without access to the multi-track, sure I'd need tools to fix things that are wrong in the mix, but since I'm wearing both hats... if I need to edit something... you can bet I'm back in the mix doing that. And guess what app I use for that.

I obviously haven't had the pleasure of using the pencil tool in Sound Forge... sounds like it could be addictive... I'm sure it is. But can't you achieve the same result with hand drawn clip gain envelopes in S5?

I agree that the spectrum analysis and bit analysis tools in Sound Forge and Wavelab are excellent. But the PAZ analysis tools in the Waves Diamond bundle seem to do a pretty good job.

BTW... I've NEVER passed what I do off as mastering for anything that's going to be pressed at a duplication plant. I ALWAYS recommend a commercial mastering facility first.

Dear me, this thread is making me nauseous.

It would seem that most of you think that mastering a song is all about obtaining maximum volume, or worse yet matching someone else's idea of perfection by "duplicating " their frequency distribution.

Mastering is a very specialized art. I dare say it takes as many years to become good at it as it does to become a competent recording engineer.

And, most importantly, mastering requires top end gear in top end room. The idea that poeple are "mastering" in their bedrooms on $300.00/pair speakers makes me sick to my stomach. A real mastering house has spent thousands of dollars on the room's acoustics alone, then probably ten times that on professional monitors, amplification, and hardware. The people who work there do nothing but mastering. They are specialists.

To compare what you people are doing with a couple of cheap plug-ins in an acoustically incorrect enviroment to these places is a joke.

You are making your songs as loud as possible with the least possible dynamic range, and then forcing them into an EQ pigeon hole. If you are happy with the results then bully for you, but...

Please stop calling this mastering. It would more appropriately be called "apprenticing".

Rod

ORIGINAL: nprime

Dear me, this thread is making me nauseous.

It would seem that most of you think that mastering a song is all about obtaining maximum volume, or worse yet matching someone else's idea of perfection by "duplicating " their frequency distribution.

Mastering is a very specialized art. I dare say it takes as many years to become good at it as it does to become a competent recording engineer.

And, most importantly, mastering requires top end gear in top end room. The idea that poeple are "mastering" in their bedrooms on $300.00/pair speakers makes me sick to my stomach. A real mastering house has spent thousands of dollars on the room's acoustics alone, then probably ten times that on professional monitors, amplification, and hardware. The people who work there do nothing but mastering. They are specialists.

To compare what you people are doing with a couple of cheap plug-ins in an acoustically incorrect enviroment to these places is a joke.

You are making your songs as loud as possible with the least possible dynamic range, and then forcing them into an EQ pigeon hole. If you are happy with the results then bully for you, but...

Please stop calling this mastering. It would more appropriately be called "apprenticing".

Rod

Careful friend... says there you are replying to my post. Doesn't look like you read any of it.

ORIGINAL: SteveD
BTW... I've NEVER passed what I do off as mastering for anything that's going to be pressed at a duplication plant. I ALWAYS recommend a commercial mastering facility first.

the pencil tool in Sound Forge... sounds like it could be addictive..

it is .. i don't record anymore .. i just draw the waveforms out .. so much more
control ;-) and .. you don't always get clean stuff to work with .. so sometimes you have
to use it to fix isolated problems.

and PAZ is good stuff for sure .. but there's a whole aresenal of stuff in SoundForge ..
and the batch scripting is a real timesaver too.

it can be done in Sonar . but you need to supplement what they have significantly.

jeff

It would seem that most of you think that mastering a song is all about obtaining maximum volume, or worse yet matching someone else's idea of perfection by "duplicating " their frequency distribution.

you mean like Nickelback .. one of your country's gifts to audio posterity? ;-) .. you'll be expelled
for this kind of talk.

jeff

Great, folks! After a break with the kids I came back to find what I had hoped: some good ideas and responses to think about. I do not have the thousands of dollars and everything, so it was nice to hear that "others do it too". I had't thought the reference track from a commercial cd - definitely worth trying. I was not quite convinced about swiching to 96kHz in between the mix and the final product - what's the point? I love this forum - despite the fact that I only have the S3 and will be soon out of date...

ORIGINAL: SteveD

ORIGINAL: nprime

Dear me, this thread is making me nauseous.

It would seem that most of you think that mastering a song is all about obtaining maximum volume, or worse yet matching someone else's idea of perfection by "duplicating " their frequency distribution.

Mastering is a very specialized art. I dare say it takes as many years to become good at it as it does to become a competent recording engineer.

And, most importantly, mastering requires top end gear in top end room. The idea that poeple are "mastering" in their bedrooms on $300.00/pair speakers makes me sick to my stomach. A real mastering house has spent thousands of dollars on the room's acoustics alone, then probably ten times that on professional monitors, amplification, and hardware. The people who work there do nothing but mastering. They are specialists.

To compare what you people are doing with a couple of cheap plug-ins in an acoustically incorrect enviroment to these places is a joke.

You are making your songs as loud as possible with the least possible dynamic range, and then forcing them into an EQ pigeon hole. If you are happy with the results then bully for you, but...

Please stop calling this mastering. It would more appropriately be called "apprenticing".

Rod

Careful friend... says there you are replying to my post. Doesn't look like you read any of it.

ORIGINAL: SteveD
BTW... I've NEVER passed what I do off as mastering for anything that's going to be pressed at a duplication plant. I ALWAYS recommend a commercial mastering facility first.

My reply was to the thread in general, not you personally. Sorry if you took offense.

R

ORIGINAL: nprime

Dear me, this thread is making me nauseous.

It would seem that most of you think that mastering a song is all about obtaining maximum volume, or worse yet matching someone else's idea of perfection by "duplicating " their frequency distribution.

Mastering is a very specialized art. I dare say it takes as many years to become good at it as it does to become a competent recording engineer.

And, most importantly, mastering requires top end gear in top end room. The idea that poeple are "mastering" in their bedrooms on $300.00/pair speakers makes me sick to my stomach. A real mastering house has spent thousands of dollars on the room's acoustics alone, then probably ten times that on professional monitors, amplification, and hardware. The people who work there do nothing but mastering. They are specialists.

To compare what you people are doing with a couple of cheap plug-ins in an acoustically incorrect enviroment to these places is a joke.

You are making your songs as loud as possible with the least possible dynamic range, and then forcing them into an EQ pigeon hole. If you are happy with the results then bully for you, but...

Please stop calling this mastering. It would more appropriately be called "apprenticing".

Rod

Whoa! Now tell us how you really feel!

Dear me, this thread is making me nauseous.

Hmm! I think you meant .... but maybe you're right.

nau·seous Pronunciation Key (nôshs, -z-s)
adj.

1. Causing nausea; sickening: “the most nauseous offal fit for the gods” (John Fowles).
2. Usage Problem. Affected with nausea.

nauseous·ly adv.
nauseous·ness n.

Usage Note: Traditional critics have insisted that nauseous is properly used only to mean “causing nausea” and that it is incorrect to use it to mean “affected with nausea,” as in Roller coasters make me nauseous. In this example, nauseated is preferred by 72 percent of the Usage Panel. Curiously, though, 88 percent of the Panelists prefer using nauseating in the sentence The children looked a little green from too many candy apples and nauseating (not nauseous) rides. Since there is a lot of evidence to show that nauseous is widely used to mean “feeling sick,” it appears that people use nauseous mainly in the sense in which it is considered incorrect. In its “correct” sense it is being supplanted by nauseating.

My only requirement is that it sounds good to my ears, and to the ears of my band when it's my band's cd.

Which, by the way, was mixed and mastered in Sonar 4PE, is pressing now, and will be out Oct 9th :-) (shameless plug) It sounds pretty good to me, apart from some room ambience problems with the original studio tracks I inherited from the other recording engineer (basement with brick walls, maybe you remember the thread).

Undoubtedly someone with better gear (or even just dedicated mastering software) and more experience could do a better job. I'm willing to bet it's the experience that's the weightier variable. Anyway, I'm happy with the way it's turned out and so is the band. :-)

ORIGINAL: Fullmoon

Just to get an idea.....what software(s) (other than Sonar) are my fellow Forum members using to master in? Any compelling differences (advantages) that you can point to, in support your Mastering sofware choice?

Thanks,
David

I master in SADiE, because That's what we have in our mastering studio - it was there before I got employed.
I hate SADiE with a passion, it is the most unstable piece of junk I've ever worked with, and it hasn't got enough DSP power to simultaneously run a limiter, and a dither plugin. It will occasionally lose comunication with it's own integral, custom control surface. It will randomly decide not to lock to timecode right in the middle of a dubbing session, 8 times out of ten, if I press undo, it crashes completely etc etc etc.
All this from a hardware assisted DSP based system.

Howeven, I CAN't master in Sonar, because it HAS NO MASTERING FEATURES.

I can't make a CD image, or a DDP image, I can't edit PQs, I can't edit ISRCs, I can't enter a barcode. SONAR IS NOT A MASTERING APP.
I really wish I could amster in sonar though.

I can't make a CD image, or a DDP image, I can't edit PQs, I can't edit ISRCs, I can't enter a barcode. SONAR IS NOT A MASTERING APP.

Ah yes! That's the key isn't it.

Does CD Architect do this? Does Pyro? What?

Regards,
David

You are correct Sir!

Thanks for pointing that out.

Rod

ORIGINAL: nprime

Dear me, this thread is making me nauseous.

It would seem that most of you think that mastering a song is all about obtaining maximum volume, or worse yet matching someone else's idea of perfection by "duplicating " their frequency distribution.

Mastering is a very specialized art. I dare say it takes as many years to become good at it as it does to become a competent recording engineer.

And, most importantly, mastering requires top end gear in top end room. The idea that poeple are "mastering" in their bedrooms on $300.00/pair speakers makes me sick to my stomach. A real mastering house has spent thousands of dollars on the room's acoustics alone, then probably ten times that on professional monitors, amplification, and hardware. The people who work there do nothing but mastering. They are specialists.

To compare what you people are doing with a couple of cheap plug-ins in an acoustically incorrect enviroment to these places is a joke.

You are making your songs as loud as possible with the least possible dynamic range, and then forcing them into an EQ pigeon hole. If you are happy with the results then bully for you, but...

Please stop calling this mastering. It would more appropriately be called "apprenticing".

Rod

I master my stuff all the time (SONAR4 and UAD-1 plugs) and have gotten a few deals, film placement and music library, with my mastered tracks. That said, if my project was a CD release for example, I would be better off giving the tracks to a mastering engineer with the ears and gear.

I think everyone should try it themselves, if for no other reason, than to understand and more completely appreciate the value a mastering engineer adds.

You've never used a someone else's mix for reference? I would argue that if one is working in a specific genre for commercial release, it would be beneficial to reference similar material and mix in a manner appropriate to that genre. Just the other day, I ws working with a client in my studio and we were grooving to some tracks we had just recorded and I had just put together a rough mix.

Then we flew in a Maroon 5 track, "Harder to Breathe", and it knocked us out. We realized then and there that we had to start over again, strarting with tracking drums on a Neve console. EQ pigeon hole my arse. Those maroon 5 tracks sound great.

Ken

ORIGINAL: nprime
....

Please stop calling this mastering. It would more appropriately be called "apprenticing".

Rod

Rod, I've ripped many major label CDs that were "mastered" by mastering houses with the very best gear and so called talent that money can buy. Frankly, I'm not impressed. I sure wish I had been given the chance to "apprentice" them because that music is ruined forever, pride and profit will not let the artist go back and fix it now and the mastering house is not going to ever admit they did anything wrong, the opportunity to hear that music in all it's glory has been lost. Less then 1db of dynamic range ? Clipped waveforms throughout the entire CD ? If that’s mastering I’m very glad I can’t afford their services.

My only requirement is that it sounds good to my ears, and to the ears of my band when it's my band's cd.

In the end you have a product you are happy with. Good for you!

Rod

ORIGINAL: ohhey

ORIGINAL: nprime
....

Please stop calling this mastering. It would more appropriately be called "apprenticing".

Rod

Rod, I've ripped many major label CDs that were "mastered" by mastering houses with the very best gear and so called talent that money can buy. Frankly, I'm not impressed. I sure wish I had been given the chance to "apprentice" them because that music is ruined forever, pride and profit will not let the artist go back and fix it now and the mastering house is not going to ever admit they did anything wrong, the opportunity to hear that music in all it's glory has been lost. Less then 1db of dynamic range ? Clipped waveforms throughout the entire CD ? If that’s mastering I’m very glad I can’t afford their services.

There is no substitute for skill and experience. It must be very disappointing for some when they pay a professional to do a job and get back that kind of crap.

I do not understand this instaiable need for maximum volume, I mean WTF is going on here (the industry). I think your point is well taken that the reason the bedroom studio folk are doing this is because they are emulating what they hear in professional releases. Bring back dynamic range, PLEASE!

However, I think when Bob Ludwig masters a high end release himself (not just his studio with the latest new guy at the controls) the results can be stunning. If properly done, mastering should take a great recording and make it incredible.

BTW Frank, I certainly wasn't meaning to include you (I did say "most of you") in my diatribe. I think you and I approach this from a similiar angle.

It's really funny when you say "Frankly".

Rod

nprime,

Let me begin by saying that I am not even close to being able to master (still trying to perfect mixing).

With the rapid advancements in technology, I can't help but wonder if it's no longer necessary to invest thousands and thousands of dollars on room acoustics, monitors, etc. I've interned in a couple of studios with these expensive Neve boards and all. One owner/engineer swore that one could never come close to the same sound on Pro Tools, etc. The other studio used a couple of multi band EQ's to treat the room, but I read that that isn't even the best way to do it anymore. He now uses Pro Tools along with his vintage analog board.

I can certainly understand being reluctant to give in to the newer and less expensive equipment after investing my life savings in the older, much more expensive analog equipment. But some of the folks in and out of this forum seem to be doing very well in their smaller, less elaborate studios.

Having said that, common sense dictates that you still have to have the experience, ears and know-how, no matter what you use. But with the right tools and know-how, isn't it possible to do at home what was only possible in the big studios years ago?

I'm not challenging anyone. I'm trying to learn all I can. Just wanted everyone's opinion, especially those that are actually mastering professionally.

ORIGINAL: ooblecaboodle

ORIGINAL: Fullmoon

Just to get an idea.....what software(s) (other than Sonar) are my fellow Forum members using to master in? Any compelling differences (advantages) that you can point to, in support your Mastering sofware choice?

Thanks,
David

I master in SADiE, because That's what we have in our mastering studio - it was there before I got employed.
I hate SADiE with a passion, it is the most unstable piece of junk I've ever worked with, and it hasn't got enough DSP power to simultaneously run a limiter, and a dither plugin. It will occasionally lose comunication with it's own integral, custom control surface. It will randomly decide not to lock to timecode right in the middle of a dubbing session, 8 times out of ten, if I press undo, it crashes completely etc etc etc.
All this from a hardware assisted DSP based system.

Howeven, I CAN't master in Sonar, because it HAS NO MASTERING FEATURES.

I can't make a CD image, or a DDP image, I can't edit PQs, I can't edit ISRCs, I can't enter a barcode. SONAR IS NOT A MASTERING APP.
I really wish I could amster in sonar though.

You're system is broken... that's true... but a current version of SADiE is a top of the line mastering app.

I agree that Sonar needs a CD app like Sony CD Architect to complete the process of pauses between tracks, PQs, ISRCs, CD Text, and burning the CD.

DDP images are still used, but who wouldn't accept a redbook compliant PMCD these days?

In all fairness,

A multitracker is not the sort of precision tool designed for mastering. However, it can give the very best mix possibilities towards the end product and finished master product.

Frank made a very good point. The major label (which does not include all of the field but a large percentage) mindset toward mastering it on the verge of sonic carnage and appalling by any standard - no matter how low it may go.

But in their defense - their decisions are based on your demands as the customer, they will only give you what you want or will tolerate.

In looking for a means to master. Stop looking towards sonar - it is not designed (yet - but I'm hoping that some talks happening right now will change that soon) nor capable of that task at the standard people would judge the output from Sterling/Masterdisc or others at in the here and now, For what it's worth, neither is Vegas/Cubase/Nuendo/Logic/Protools etc at present. It's like trying to do a proper assembly job requiring a jewellers screwdriver and using a swiss army knife attachment to make do with. Yes, you can get something going, but not easily, not happily and usually that awkwardness translates to less than happy making results or uneccessary compromises at best

It is a very capable and growing multitracking and composite mixing application that can bring you the results that will make the end run of the process, a pleasure and a fine representation of your work if looked at in that perspective.

ORIGINAL: nprime
....
It's really funny when you say "Frankly".

Rod

LOL "Can I be Frank ?,.. and you know how I can be.."

DDP images are still used, but who wouldn't accept a redbook compliant PMCD these days

Our CD manufacturers demand DDP, on whatever format that we can supply it - Exabyte, DVD/RAM, Or even a CD. The reason they don't accept audio CDs is because of the lack of data intergrity, they simply don't possess the vigourous error checking facilities like a DDP image does. CD-ROM's even, have more error checking facilities than CD-audio.
However, they will accept a red-book CD at a push. We have to do this if a client wants CD-text, as SADiE is incapable of writing CD-text, and it's the only option we have available for writing DDPs.

ORIGINAL: ohhey

ORIGINAL: nprime
....

Please stop calling this mastering. It would more appropriately be called "apprenticing".

Rod

Rod, I've ripped many major label CDs that were "mastered" by mastering houses with the very best gear and so called talent that money can buy. Frankly, I'm not impressed. I sure wish I had been given the chance to "apprentice" them because that music is ruined forever, pride and profit will not let the artist go back and fix it now and the mastering house is not going to ever admit they did anything wrong, the opportunity to hear that music in all it's glory has been lost. Less then 1db of dynamic range ? Clipped waveforms throughout the entire CD ? If that’s mastering I’m very glad I can’t afford their services.

You're so right, Frank. What nprime doesn't realize (or won't admit) is that just because they*can* achieve superlative results doesn't mean the record companies *will* do what's best musically.

This is nothing new, though! The Beatles first albums were mastered in England by EMI, in beautiful, breathtaking true stereo. But when Capitol Records in the USA got hold of the masters, they re-mangled them into dull mono and fake "Duophonic" pseudo-stereo versions, and threw them out there as quick as could be. Their attitude was, hell these stupid kids won't care, they'd buy dog dung if it said "Beatles" on the packaging. They were probably correct in a business sense, but that's another story...

The Beatles' disgust over their music's butchering at Capitol's hands was the inspiration for their "Butcher Cover" for the Yesterday and Today LP.

ORIGINAL: ooblecaboodle

Howeven, I CAN't master in Sonar, because it HAS NO MASTERING FEATURES.

I can't make a CD image, or a DDP image, I can't edit PQs, I can't edit ISRCs, I can't enter a barcode. SONAR IS NOT A MASTERING APP.

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.

I'm sure there's a major-label way of doing it that involves stuff Sonar can't do. But how much of it is really necessary for the end cd to sound good to modern ears? I think of mastering in terms of processing the mixed audio into the state that will be reproduced exactly by the cd. Sonar can do that (although the pencil tool would make it easier)

You're so right, Frank. What nprime doesn't realize (or won't admit) is that just because they*can* achieve superlative results doesn't mean the record companies *will* do what's best musically.

Please, I'm not stupid.

Did you read all my posts?

I fully understand that the A&R guys dictate that the "Volume Wars" will continue. But I don't think every major label release is handled this way. There are still a few top end mastering engineers who get to work with top end producers who care about the final product quality more than the ultimate volume of the product.

I still stand by my contention that what the bedroom studio people are doing is not "mastering", call it whatever you want though, I not sure why I even bother to care.

To each his own.

I'm sorry I waded into this discussion, as usual. Seems having a strong opinion on anythng isn't wanted here.

Eveyone go back to whatever the hell it was you were doing before...sigh.

Happy Waveform smashing!


Rod

hey rod,
you did a good thing by pointing out the skill level of a pro-grade mastering
engineer .. i completely understand what you're talking about .. so wading in
was cool.
jeff
btw: the coolest stuff happens when you set the threshold on the L3 to -19db ;-)
(i'm kidding ... )

This is the best "mastering" thread of all!
That may be because the "pros" aren't responding.
I also only make Cds for family and firends (still too chicken to put any up here).
I have been using the process that Scar does.
Say "Ohhey". When you counsel against exporting to wav and reimporting, are you against it because the signal might get corrupt? I mean, since we are digital, we don't get added tape hiss, but is that analogous to what you are saying?
Fac is the man. On almost all of the many threads on this subject, it has just come down to "You can't master your own CD, no how no way." Now, Fac says, "There are a few tools that you can use that will definitely add to your finished product."
If he can do it, I can do it.
On that note, I didn't get the Voxengo mastering Suite deal because it seems to me that;
1. Elephant and Curve EQ should allow loudness maximization and comparing EQs to commercial mixes;
2. Each of those plugs looks like it will take a bit of effort to learn to use and, if they don't add appreciably to Elephant and Curve EQ, they probably aren't worth the effort.
Now, the question is, do the CD Architect type programs add appreciably to overall quality of the CD and how hard are they to use?

ORIGINAL: nprime
Eveyone go back to whatever the hell it was you were doing before...sigh.

Happy Waveform smashing!

Hey Rod... I've got no beef with you. I totally get the volume war thing and though I'm not in a bedroom (far from it), I agree, and have stated in this very thread, that I don't possess what it takes to be a Mastering House or a Mastering Engineer.

But do feel that what comes out of my studio isn't smashed and doesn't sound like crap. In fact, most think it sounds pretty good, and (like you) I have studied enough about the art of Mastering to get it that way... that's all.

Peace.

do the CD Architect type programs add appreciably to overall quality of the CD and how hard are they to use?

well, for a replication house, CD architect does a lot of things to ensure that the output
is Redbook compliant and supports the appropriate meta info (ISRC, track titles, etc.).
About the only thing it doesn't do is detailed QA checks ... but nowadays (if burning at 4x)
it's rare to get a kick out.

[edit- .. didn't answer your second question .. CD architect is a very easy program
to use imho .. but i'm used to the Sony stuff and they all work about the same]

jeff

ORIGINAL: rallenjones
...
Say "Ohhey". When you counsel against exporting to wav and reimporting, are you against it because the signal might get corrupt? I mean, since we are digital, we don't get added tape hiss, but is that analogous to what you are saying?...

I don't know the technical reason why there is a change in the sound I just know there is. Maybe it's becuase I export at 24bit ?

ORIGINAL: ohhey

ORIGINAL: rallenjones
...
Say "Ohhey". When you counsel against exporting to wav and reimporting, are you against it because the signal might get corrupt? I mean, since we are digital, we don't get added tape hiss, but is that analogous to what you are saying?...

I don't know the technical reason why there is a change in the sound I just know there is. Maybe it's becuase I export at 24bit ?

On my system, when I re-import the stereo mix into the same project and flip the phase... it nulls -- Silence -- even against the multi-track mix.

I'm sorry I waded into this discussion, as usual. Seems having a strong opinion on anythng isn't wanted here.

Eveyone go back to whatever the hell it was you were doing before...sigh.

Happy Waveform smashing!


Rod

Yeah, like a bull in a china closet, you waded. Your opening volley, "nauseous", etc., was offensive. Don't start whining now about strong opinions not being wanted. Sniff.

Uh, peace.

Ken

ORIGINAL: nprime
Please, I'm not stupid.

Did you read all my posts?

I fully understand that the A&R guys dictate that the "Volume Wars" will continue. But I don't think every major label release is handled this way. There are still a few top end mastering engineers who get to work with top end producers who care about the final product quality more than the ultimate volume of the product.

I still stand by my contention that what the bedroom studio people are doing is not "mastering", call it whatever you want though, I not sure why I even bother to care.

To each his own.

I'm sorry I waded into this discussion, as usual. Seems having a strong opinion on anythng isn't wanted here.

Eveyone go back to whatever the hell it was you were doing before...sigh.

Happy Waveform smashing!


Rod

Whoa! I didn't say you (or anybody) was stupid... not even implying it.

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?

ORIGINAL: rallenjones
On that note, I didn't get the Voxengo mastering Suite deal because it seems to me that;
1. Elephant and Curve EQ should allow loudness maximization and comparing EQs to commercial mixes;
2. Each of those plugs looks like it will take a bit of effort to learn to use and, if they don't add appreciably to Elephant and Curve EQ, they probably aren't worth the effort.
Now, the question is, do the CD Architect type programs add appreciably to overall quality of the CD and how hard are they to use?

Allen,

Elephant is the loudness maximizer. CurveEQ is just a very good EQ. They are both easy to use and come with presets which are actually useful to start from.

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.

btw: the coolest stuff happens when you set the threshold on the L3 to -19db ;-)
(i'm kidding ... )

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised when I got this big square waveform after doing this then? <VBG>

Dynamic Range > Overall Volume in my honest opinion.

Funny you should mention Bob Ludwig, I had a brief email correspondence with him regarding the serious "louder is better" wars going on in the mastering industry. One thing he said was this.

Lemmie dig up those emials..

Hi Stephen,

** is there a pressure to master CD's at this high level..
YES! It has only been POSSIBLE to do it with the invention of digital domain "look-ahead" limiters which are about 10 yrs old now.

.and is it ultimately hindering sound quality??
YES! It probably contributes to the lack of sales as much as anything I bet.
Who wants to put on a record and listen a second time when it is such an assault?
I always say I'm glad they weren't invented when the Beatles were making records!
Compression CAN be a good thing for pop music, but generally it's over the top now. It CAN'T go much higher than it is because there is physically no more room left.

Bob

Pretty neat little blub on his take. Unfortunately, he also said that he is often told by clients to "make it loud". He seems to make the best of it though. Even so, 90% of all rock CD's sold today are hit with a limiter so hard, that it is audiable to the trained ear. And it's sad. To hear a Kick Drum come in and just suck the life out of surrounding instruments. (Yuck)

ORIGINAL: nprime

ORIGINAL: ohhey

ORIGINAL: nprime
....

Please stop calling this mastering. It would more appropriately be called "apprenticing".

Rod

Rod, I've ripped many major label CDs that were "mastered" by mastering houses with the very best gear and so called talent that money can buy. Frankly, I'm not impressed. I sure wish I had been given the chance to "apprentice" them because that music is ruined forever, pride and profit will not let the artist go back and fix it now and the mastering house is not going to ever admit they did anything wrong, the opportunity to hear that music in all it's glory has been lost. Less then 1db of dynamic range ? Clipped waveforms throughout the entire CD ? If that’s mastering I’m very glad I can’t afford their services.

There is no substitute for skill and experience. It must be very disappointing for some when they pay a professional to do a job and get back that kind of crap.

I do not understand this instaiable need for maximum volume, I mean WTF is going on here (the industry). I think your point is well taken that the reason the bedroom studio folk are doing this is because they are emulating what they hear in professional releases. Bring back dynamic range, PLEASE!

However, I think when Bob Ludwig masters a high end release himself (not just his studio with the latest new guy at the controls) the results can be stunning. If properly done, mastering should take a great recording and make it incredible.

BTW Frank, I certainly wasn't meaning to include you (I did say "most of you") in my diatribe. I think you and I approach this from a similiar angle.

It's really funny when you say "Frankly".

Rod

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.

Very clear and cool description... I'm gonna try it. Thanks mucho.

In school, we had a few lectures on "The Dark Arts of Mastering." And it is that, truly... We all know some quick and easy, or cheap and nasty ways to master our mixes and that's great, but it's not even close. Sure the home recording techniques and technologies have vastly improved in the last 10 years...it's crazy. Some would argue that you don't even need to go in a studio save to rent their gear or to transfer stuff to tape before going back into software. Mastering equipment and facilities...on a private scale...? It's just not happening yet folks, the quality is not there regardless of platform, plug-in, A/D/A conversion, or outboard gear. You need the tools (which are WAY different than the stuff "we" use,) and you need the room (which is designed WAY different than the ones "we" are in,) and you need the ears (which have to be more trained than most of ours at recognizing the colors and placements of frequencies.)

I've had the opportunity to hear demos of my mixes both pre and post mastering and it is a sight to be seen...er sound to be heard. Generically speaking, it fills more space with sound...not gain or noise...SPACE. It sounds great on ALL manners of repro (playback) and it makes you want to freaking cry.

I agree with all of nprime's statements on mastering. I would recommend if you find someone who offers free mastering demos or whatnot to take him up. Most of the time they will let you sit in on the process...if they do take them up on it.

Ultimately it comes down to target demo of the project, because you have to spend money on this. But it is so worth it...so worth it. No, I couldn't afford Bob Ludwig and his DC powered lair, but a company in NY that was drumming up business here at Full Sail. I was blown away at the results.

Can't use it all the time, though. That's why I whip out Sonar, Sound Forge, my multiband comps and limiters and EQ's and CD architect and everything I can get my hands on to SMASH THOSE WAVEFORMS UNTIL THEY SOUND LIKE SEVENDUST!!!

(I love Sevendust)

If you care about the song at all though you will (1) get a copyright (only 30 bucks) and (2) get it professionally mastered.

Take a good one!
Tony

Brian "Big Bass" Gardner.

What he did to Alkaline Trio's "Good Mourning" was fantastic!

And his work with Dr. Dre needs no further mention.