What do you use for Mastering, what's your Editor and why?

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:44 pm

I have wondered quite a few times, what you use for mastering your final mixes. We have spoken rather little about it so far, as a separate, unique topic.

Questions:
* 1 What do you use for mastering?

* 2 What’s your experience with it?

* 3 Why have you chosen to use this particular editing software?

My answers:
1 - I personally, use WaveLab.

2 – Absolutely fantastic! I love this program, I couldn’t do without it. I am very used to its workings since version 2.5, and wouldn’t change it for anything else. It is the perfect companion and very rarely crashes, perhaps once a or twice a year.

3 – Because I already had Steinberg Cubase VST 3.7, (had worked with Cubase Lite 1.1 before it) and loved very much this software, despite all the horrible bugs it had, when VST just came to live. So I thought that WaveLab would be as efficient as Cubase, and that in a few months time things would be better when fixes arrived. Effectively, fixes arrived and I enjoyed it since then.

[ This Message was edited by: Nestor on 2004-03-23 23:45 ]

Zer · Post by **Zer** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:43 am

samplitude 7.22 easy to use nice built in fx, nice handling, easy cutting and fading, key shortcuts work nearly for all functions.
8 years experience in sir technology.

ChrisWerner · Post by **ChrisWerner** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:49 am

I use WaveLab too, because it is very fast and I simply like VST and/or DirectX plugs.

For more details look here:
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... &forum=3&4

[ This Message was edited by: ChrisWerner on 2004-03-24 04:51 ]

alfonso · Post by **alfonso** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 6:06 am

For my last things I tried a new approach and I'm absolutely satisfied.

First of all I like to work in vst32, all my midi workflow is perfect there, not to mention the easy way in wich I can match quantize everything with everything else.

Then I must say that I route all my audio tracks to stm2448 via separate busses, vst stuff is untouched.

When the track is complete, usually with a lot of modulars and real time processing in sfp (25 dsp), I record the highest and cleanest mix in a vst32 track, at the highest bit depth, like any other audio track, without any finalization or effect in the master channel, often adding dc offset removers to all the individual channels, as weird modulars bring some.

After this I can quit both vst32 and sfp project, and I load a dedicated mastering pro, with a control room device, whose inputs are fed by the outputs at various stages of my mastering chain, that can change,it depends on the type of stuff.

Recently I've been using Optimaster and PsyQ, so I could switch the Cntr.Room to listen at warious points of the chain, I can also load more instances of these plugs to have different combinations and settings selectable with a click.

What I really like is how this stuff sounds not loaded in any insert slot.

I load the clean mix in SX.

Well, when I find the proper finalization, that I also check visually via a wave driver In a very nice app that at0mic suggested here some time ago,I record a new 32 float file. Then in SX I tweak start and end fades and apply exclusively some UV22hr and make my 16bit file.

That's it, and for me is better of any waves or tc or whatever...

[ This Message was edited by: alfonso on 2004-03-24 06:09 ]

Post by **hubird** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 6:21 am

Peak 2.5.5

samplaire · Post by **samplaire** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:01 am

Usually I master everything at my work: ProTools Mix+ on a Mac with Waves C4, L2 and renaisance EQs (sometimes plain Waves Qs). Why? Because I know what to do with them and I like the ease of ProTools use. I feel comfortable with this software.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:20 pm

I'm surprised you have posted such a short spectrum, I thought there would be some other important programs as well: SoundForge, Nuendo, Logic used as a mastering tool, Encore, etc., etc., etc...

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:07 am

I don't really do any mastering. I might run the mix trough Vinco and Timeworks eq and that's it. Then I do fade in/fade out (if neccesary) in Soundforge.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:03 am

On 2004-03-26 06:07, King of Snake wrote:
I don't really do any mastering. I might run the mix trough Vinco and Timeworks eq and that's it. Then I do fade in/fade out (if neccesary) in Soundforge.

That surprises me much, I thought that everybody was onto mastering things... For me Mastering is sooo important, that I consider it part of the compositional stage. I feel that If it is not mastered, it is not finished yet. I find mastering as a creative, adding process and helps me sounding better. But of course, this doesn't mean you cannot do it without... Everybody has its own sound and way of doing it... As long as you feel confortable with the final result, that's it I guess. Cheers for your answer King.

zezappa · Post by **zezappa** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:42 am

Maybe I shouldn't reply about this matter regarding my absolute basic level knowledge, however it seems, considering experts oppinion, that this last step in audio prodution is the one which still remains impossible to get perfect with only software based tools, or, at least, without large know-how and lots of time to spend on it.

Take this just as a reminder (from a newbie as me) and don't try to fool real pro working studios/people.

[ This Message was edited by: zezappa on 2004-03-27 11:51 ]

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm

That surprises me much, I thought that everybody was onto mastering things... For me Mastering is sooo important, that I consider it part of the compositional stage. I feel that If it is not mastered, it is not finished yet. I find mastering as a creative, adding process and helps me sounding better. But of course, this doesn't mean you cannot do it without... Everybody has its own sound and way of doing it... As long as you feel confortable with the final result, that's it I guess. Cheers for your answer King.

Well, I guess it also depends on what you mean by mastering. I don't see how I could do any more mastering other than compression and a bit of eq, especially since I don't have proper monitors to make any detailed judgements on how my mix sounds.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:50 pm

I didn't want to be the first one to say it but I agree with this. Hardware still rules, also the experience counts a great deal and having someone else master your music will add an objective ear. Maybe "impossible" is wording it a bit strong. I would have said "difficult".

On 2004-03-27 11:42, zezappa wrote:
Maybe I shouldn't reply about this matter regarding my absolute basic level knowledge, however it seems, considering experts oppinion, that this last step in audio prodution is the one which still remains impossible to get perfect with only software based tools, or, at least, without large know-how and lots of time to spend on it.

Take this just as a reminder (from a newbie as me) and don't try to fool real pro working studios/people.

[ This Message was edited by: zezappa on 2004-03-27 11:51 ]

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:34 am

I use Sonar along with CreamWare/Sonic Timeworks plugins. To burn CDs I use Jam on another computer. I use Jam or Sonar's built-in dithering, but I've never noticed any difference in sound quality between different dithering plugins.

Shayne

valis · Post by **valis** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 4:59 am

The noise that dithering adds is VERY low level and wouldn't (hopefully) be audible unless there was additional processing applied afterwards (like 'limiting' with a threshold of -50db

)

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:19 am

To give to a number of songs a final homogeneous cut and feeling you actually “need” Mastering your work. To publish a pro CD, you absolutely need to “normalize” everything at a rather common level ground, and before that you need to pass everything through a coherent gathering of compression, reverb and EQ (and all other common effects to the songs, to be used for mastering), so everything has a similar characteristic. At least, this is what I have read over and over again from all of the greatest professionals like Paul White, people that have been recording the utmost hits in modern history from 30 years ago. I guess they must know something about Mastering… enough for us to pay attention to their words.

One of the most difficult things for some engineers to achieve has been to publish different kind of music from different epochs and stiles in a single CD; the challenge was to match all those completely different sounding materials in their level and equalization, as well as in their dynamics. If you were to publish those songs without Mastering them first, the CD would sound horrible: while a song would be very loud, the second would be very low; while one of them would sound excessively bright, the other would sound moody. This means that the listeners have to tweak their hearing system all the time, and so the CD has no impact cos it is unpleasant.

Then it is the quality of the sound itself: without Mastering, of course you can for sure achieve great results, but some particularly important touches you have in your hands would be lost. Certain things you would not be able to do without the science of mastering cos they are impossible out of it real. In many ways, Mastering cannot be replaced by anything else, not even the best system in the world, or the best workaround plug-in gathering.

I have read and write quite a lot about Mastering so far just for the sake of learning, and the more I get into it, the more I realise how important it is… And not only that… it is a real passion to get into it, MASTERING IT’S A GREAT PLEASURE TO DO. It is a great quality time in my life. I enjoy superlatively much when I have to go through a whole CD just finished, song by song, slowly… paying attention to the characteristics of each sound on itself.

After a few days, when I have already finished all the songs separately from each other and they have reached the state of “pre-finished-songs” I get ready for the final Mastering, or final pass.. In the first step, the “pre” time, I have used of course, different effects for every track as needed, so a different approach and a completely different sound may come up from song to song. This is like a personal Mastering process of each song, without paying much attention to the “homogeneity” concept yet, but this is up to come in next step.

I get to the whole thing (so repeatedly suggested by the Masters of Mastering), and pass everything through some delicate and smooth “EQ filtering” just enough for everything to have an homogenous feeling, finally, I normalise everything to “-3”, which is the perfect point. I would describe it as: maximum sound quality, maximum level, and then global, homogeneous sounding CD.

[ This Message was edited by: Nestor on 2004-03-30 09:19 ]

Post by **hubird** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 4:44 pm

-0,3 you mean

you're absolutely right, gathered tracks need to get 'equalized'.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:01 pm

On 2004-03-30 16:44, hubird wrote:
-0,3 you mean
you're absolutely right, gathered tracks need to get 'equalized'.

Yea sure, sorry Hubird, this is what I wanted to say: -0,3[b/] thanks for the important correction there.

[ This Message was edited by: Nestor on 2004-03-30 17:02 ]