mikedocy
Hey Bill, how's it going?
Life is good - how about you?
mikedocy
You are 100% correct about the concept of mastering.
And sometimes I might jump too quickly, but I fear there is an entire generation that thinks the word means something other than what it used to mean. What we really need is an agreed upon term for the process that sits somewhere between the mix and mastering - it's not something that was really available way back when, but it certainly is today.
mikedocyThe OP did say that he wanted to learn how to master. <snip>
Don't you think that it is great that someone wants to take on a new learning experience?
Absolutely a good thing - and it appears I must have been distracted, because in re-reading my previous post I never completed my thought. In my defense it was time to get the kids ready to play in the snow...
Anyway, to complete my thought...
many (most) of my generation learned to track, mix, and even master from someone who learned from someone who learned from... you get the idea. Of course there was a generation that had to figure it out for themselves - and build the gear too. And each subsequent generation took what the previous generation learned and built on it.
Not to say you can't learn to track, and even mix, by trial and error. Not the most efficient approach maybe, but there are benefits to doing it yourself.
I do not think the same is true for mastering. In fact I'll go so far as to suggest that the loudness wars - whcih were started by folks who certainly knew better - have been exacerbated by folks who taught themselves to master. No one was there to teach them the finer points. And the finer points are getting lost in the ruckus.
The best way to learn mastering is to sit at the elbow of a bona-fide mastering engineer. The gear is there, the monitoring environment is there, and most important, the ears are there.
It probably isn't nearly as bad (?) as it was when I was a teen-ager. I ran for food and coffee, I swept floors and cleaned bathrooms, and I soldered a LOT of patch panels. I also put up - and moved - a LOT of microphones. I learned a ton. I also sat next to the engineers while they mixed - that was invaluable, and I think, to this day, that there was no better way to learn.
mikedocyThat said, the OP's original question was about acquiring equipment for mastering since he has none except that which came with Sonar.
What equipment do you think he needs in addition to the vst that came with Sonar?
I'm about to get banned, but I think Sonar is not the right tool for mastering - at least not mastering as I know it. And I did leave this part off the original post because I do not mean disrespect to the bakers or anyone that is using Sonar as a mastering platform, but here goes...
Get Wavelab or Sound Forge - you don't need all the bells and whistles that Sonar provides, you need a good stereo (or multi-channel, NOT multi-track) editor, and you need a really flexible effects rack. Wavelab and Sound Forge take different approaches to managing effects, so you might want to try the trial versions to see which one better suits your needs.
Then you will need a handful of plugins - I really like UAD, Plugin-Alliance, Waves, and Voxengo, but there are a lot of great plug-in developers. And don't overlook Izotope, their Ozone suite is fantastic, and the latest version even includes an audio editor, although I'm not sure if it is in the same league as Wavelab and Sound Forge, I have not tried it yet.
You need a really good graphic equalizer, if it allows you to vary the number of bands even better.
- I'd go with Zynaptiq Unfilter, the name is misleading. I just picked up Elysia MusEQ and I really like it.
You need a really good parametric equalizer.
- dang, so many good choices, but I'd probably go with the Cambridge EQ from UAD or the Izotope EQ.
You need either a dynamic equalizer or a multi-band compressor
- UAD Precision or Izotope Multiband, I prefer the former, largely because I already own it. I recently picked up Brainworx DynEQ, and I really like it a lot too, but it is DEEP, probably not the best way to learn this trick.
You need a really flexible dynamics processor - it should allow you to compress or expand, and probably gate (although really now, the mix engineer should have taken care of any issues that would benefit from gating<G>!).
- Waves C4 probably, but I haven't tried them all. I keep thinking there has to be something better.
You need a limiter - it must be able to look ahead, and it must be able to set not just a threshold but also an absolute ceiling. Extra points if it can predict intersample overs, but for now you probably don't need that.
You need a good analyzer - Nugen has great tools, Voxengo SPAN is awesome (and free), and Waves has PAZ as part of almost all their bundles.
You need a secret weapon - no, I'm not kidding. I use the Maag EQ to add that last bit of polish to a mix, and I am certain it would be just as useful for mastering. You may find a different tool that sets you apart.
For ALL of these tools it will be really helpful if you can work with the sum and difference (mid and side) as well as left and right. Most of my mix tools provide an M/S matrix, and for those that don't there are M/S matrices that I can plop in where required.
Finally, you need to avoid delays, reverbs, and other effects. There are mastering engineers that apply effects to a mix, and some of them do a masterful (intentional) job of it. But really, you don't want to do that if you are just learning, and most of them will tell you that what they are really doing at that point is fixing the mix, not mastering.
That's the software - you also need a couple of books. Read Bob Katz's book on mastering from cover to cover, twice. And as much as I bellyache about Izotope marketing, read their pdf about mastering. Except for the blatant sales pitch is is a really good primer.
Now aren't you glad you asked???
73s,
Bill
KB3KJF