Sonar is a great mastering program!

I have been using Sound Forge 8.x for mastering, but I decided to try S5.0.1PE for a new project.

I put the original track on top, imported at 96/32, and routed that to a master bus. I sized the stereo track on top to be equal to the Master bus on the bottom, and turned on the waveform preview. On the Master bus, I added plugins for compression, equalization and limiting (UAD Fairchild, Precision Equalizer, and Precision Limiter in my case).

I used a Clip Gain envelope on a few tracks to bring the mix file up near -0 dB. I applied some gentle compression depending on the content (I choose not to mix with mixbus compression), appropriate EQ, and limiting to bring the overall loudness up to a competitive level (the tracks at that point needed 4-6 dB of limiting). The waveform preview gave me a real-time visual display of what I was doing to the original file (always as a backup or confirmation to my ears!).

I exported the file at 96/64 for archival purposes, 16/44.1 for CD burning (I wish Pyro would work with files in their native high-res format for CD burning...CD Architect does...) using POW-r dithering, and as an MP3 at 256 using the LAME encoder.

The workflow was intuitive, and the sonic results are significantly better than my previous work. I plan to release this project within six months and I will provide links as soon as I can (this is not the project listed in my signature below, but I did mix that in S5.0.1PE).

ORIGINAL: martin s

thanks doug for this post.i wondering what the difference of version sonar 5 x and the sonar 5 version 2.thanks

Sonar 5 Producer Edition with the latest update.

Ok.. Ill ask the question.. even though I am sure its been answered or previously discussed..

what would it need to be considered a mastering program? Something other than a mastering plug in bundle?

I know it seem slike a newbie question, but.. i just dont do any mastering.. my knowledge of the topic is strictly what I have read.. nothing practical..

Alpine

Ok.. Ill ask the question.. even though I am sure its been answered or previously discussed..

what would it need to be considered a mastering program? Something other than a mastering plug in bundle?

I know it seem slike a newbie question, but.. i just dont do any mastering.. my knowledge of the topic is strictly what I have read.. nothing practical..

Alpine

A true mastering app would allow you to place track markers, adjust relative levels, edit audio, and do ALL final processing, including dithering, before exporting directly to your chosen master medium.
Basically, do everything that you need to do to create a finished product, without having to export into any other software.
it is the FINAL step before the production/replication process

ORIGINAL: ooblecaboodle

Ok.. Ill ask the question.. even though I am sure its been answered or previously discussed..

what would it need to be considered a mastering program? Something other than a mastering plug in bundle?

I know it seem slike a newbie question, but.. i just dont do any mastering.. my knowledge of the topic is strictly what I have read.. nothing practical..

Alpine

A true mastering app would allow you to place track markers, adjust relative levels, edit audio, and do ALL final processing, including dithering, before exporting directly to your chosen master medium.
Basically, do everything that you need to do to create a finished product, without having to export into any other software.
it is the FINAL step before the production/replication process

Well, I would like sample-accurat audio editing on the arrange page (not just for mastering), but you can do just about all of the leveling using envelopes (as long as the envelopes work...).

The other things bring you to other apps, like CD Architect or even Pyro, Nero, or Roxio.

Pyro has a long way to go, but with some thought and work, it could be made into this app.

The whole mastering controversy is unintelligible. The best that I have been able to make out is that you use S5PE for the final mixdown. Then, use some kind of spectral (?) EQ (Har Bal; Curve EQ,etc.) and finally use a "brick-wall" limiter (Elephant) for loudness maximization.

My understanding is that you will then have a "demo" that you can burn to CD that will "approximate" a professional recording.

Most users seem to agree that for a mass-production commercial CD, you will need to use a professional to master the CD.

Since I am an unabashed hobbyist, I think that I will add Har Bal and Elephant to "master" my CDS. Getting a professional to master my 20 minute long prog songs with electric instruments and an Orchestra (GPO) would be beyond my budget.

Some of my "unmastered" CD "demos" sound okay; at least the "classical" CD which was all done with GPO and a couple of sampletank sounds.

The prog stuff, though, is very uneven over a 16:00-20:00 time frame. I hope to able to smooth it out with Har Bal or Curve EQ. Then, since it's rock, I guess I will have to use some kind of loudness maximizer and my limited research indicates to me that Elephant is the way to go.

SO, basically, everything will be done in S5PE with a couple of plugs added.

Well, I would like sample-accurat audio editing on the arrange page (not just for mastering), but you can do just about all of the leveling using envelopes (as long as the envelopes work...).

What part of sonar's editing do you think is not sample accurate?

The other things bring you to other apps, like CD Architect or even Pyro, Nero, or Roxio.

Precisely, mastering apps. to master, you use a mastering app, not sonar.

Pyro has a long way to go, but with some thought and work, it could be made into this app.

I believe Sonar is closer. it already has an audio engine that even the most ardent mastering professionals couldn't argue technicals about. It also includes one of the finest dithering algorithms going.

ORIGINAL: ooblecaboodle
...
I believe Sonar is closer. it already has an audio engine that even the most ardent mastering professionals couldn't argue technicals about. It also includes one of the finest dithering algorithms going.

I agree, and that's why I am doing as much of this project as I can in S5. So far, the sound quality is noticeably better than in CDA; I particularly wanted to process (especially tops 'n tails, level adjustments, etc.) with the double precision engine, and dither with POWr.

The rest is an old discussion whether Sonar should include CD burning capabilities. Pyro, as I said, isn't yet there, but with some more features (import of any sample rate/resolution, Sonar's audio engine and dithering, printing of PQ Lists, index marking, etc.), it could be - either as an external app or a Sonar feature. Mastering programs, whether Pyramix, Sequoia, etc., have these built-in to simplify work flow.

Some people import all of their mixes to one .cwp on different tracks, position them where they would occur on a CD, add fades etc., add effects per-track for EQ, limiting, etc., and then bounce the whole thing. Import this into the CD burning app, add track indexes, and burn the disc; this still is two-step, but workable.

---

(not directed at you) Many people still seem to misunderstand what Mastering is. It isn't fairy-dust EQs or compressors. Mastering is a simple step in the recording process that takes a mix and makes it ready for replication or delivery.

For release on vinyl, it meant EQ (including the RIAA curve which pre-emphasized certain frequencies when making the record master that are de-emphasized on playback, used for noise reduction), and often compression (to make it consistent and loud on the radio, and to keep dynamic passages from knocking the needle out of the groove).

For release on CD, dynamics do not need to be compressed, yet we are in an insane war to make each CD play apparently louder than the last (when in effect, this can make the music sound weak and actually less loud on radio). No global EQ is necessary (although much mastering is done using a cookie-cutter smiley-face curve).

On rock-type music, I use a little (no more than 2-3 dB in most cases) compression to glue the mix, much as tubes, tape, or large consoles will do to some extent. I use a little EQ to taste per-song. I use limiting to bring the song as loud as I reasonably can without ruining the mix. All of these tools are in support of making all songs on a recording consistent - this can and maybe should be done in the mix (the best mix is the one that needs the least amount of work at the mastering stage), but even if I did all the mixes they might need some work to make them sound consistent in-context with each other.

I can say from experience that if you mix a song they way you want it to sound, you leave less room for a Mastering Engineer to ruin it!

I use sonar for mastering all the time.

I basically work on an album as on long .wav - crossfading if need be and all trimmed and effected as required (even easier with the new clip insert effects).

I then export the entire thing as 16bit 44.1khz audio which i then import into nero and add the track markers there myself.

I really don't see what's the difference between doing that in sonar/nero and doing it in wavelab.

Personally I would rather do the final burn in nero as it supports my burners VariRec mode which gives a very very low (if any) error rate.

Kind regards

Dave Rich

If I was using Sonar for mastering, I would want to be able to import the cwp files as clips on the timeline. Then if you notice something that needed to be changed in mix, you just right doubleclick the clip, the project opens, adjust the mix, save and then right back to mastering.

--Brett

I then export the entire thing as 16bit 44.1khz audio which i then import into nero and add the track markers there myself.

Dave ...

Please, please, please tell me more! I use Nero and would love to do this. How do you add track markers in Nero? Are you using the Nero Wave EdItor, something I have rather snobbishly always ignored because I'd just assumed it was a lightweight inferior to Adobe Audition, etc?

Best,
Geoff

On Edit: Ah! Now I see it ... on the Edit menu, Track Split! Dave, thanks for this info. Now I'm off to play ...

I just mastered an album in Sonar 4PE using Har-bal and Waves plugins. I didn't know how to burn a CD using one large audio file so I would greatly appreciated if someone could explain this.

I have also utilized Nero Version 6.0 (under Wave Editor) to master my Sonar stuff; mainly to boost the volume. I have found it to work very well. It also allows one to utilize Sonar plug ins (ie Sonitus) to add additional effects, compression, etc. It is a very economical way to master without forking out a bunch of money for a mastering program. I am certain that other expensive programs would probably do a good job but I am very satisfied what Nero will do. I will probably purchase Nero 7.0 in the near future.

Ed

Dithering should be applied at last, very very last ! If you applied an effect after dither, it's like you have done nothing.

ORIGINAL: jmcelroy

You know, I kinda think that maybe SONAR should just stick to what it does best. I mean, it would be great if we could have it do EVERYTHING, but I doubt it could do everything WELL. You know? I'd rather have a dedicated DAW program and a separate, dedicated, mastering program than try to acheive and all-in-one program that's not good enough at either one. A good example of this, not to single anyone out, was a recend post about the notation editor. I mean, it would be great if you could get a fully funcioning notation program bundled with your DAW for just the price of a DAW, but it doesn't seem to work that way. As it is, someone probably pestered them to release a version with just enough musical notation features to allow for a better interface for trained musicians and it snowballed into people wanting a full fledged notation tool to come "free" with their DAW. Again, not to single out the person who posted that ; ) It would be great a if a full-on mastering program came with SONAR, and they didn't jack the price up accordingly, but those kinds of attempts usually fail IMHO, since the fact that the price stays relatively the same implies that the development resources stay the same, and therefore you're dividing the resources over a larger set of features and each feature gets less attention.

Of course, I'm not just trying to contradict everyone or anything. I just would rather see SONAR improve at what it does best, without trying to become a new type of software. Kinda like how Reason will never record audio no matter how much people ask. It lets the developers concentrate on one goal, I think. Now, if they came up with a separate mastering program made by a separate team and purchased separately, but with the benefit of having fantastic integration with SONAR, that would be cool.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

I agree

I don't want sonar to be my burning program.

They could bundle Nero and then everyone would be happy ;)

Kind regards

Dave Rich