Next thing you know (next stage of relapse?) you'll be suggesting that you can actually make music with Pro Tools or something.
Mixing DAW -- Mastering DAW
-
- KVRAF
- 6159 posts since 4 Dec, 2004
There you go again Dan, watering down the Internet with accurate and concise info. We gotta get you back into rehab. Next thing you know (next stage of relapse?) you'll be suggesting that you can actually make music with Pro Tools or something.
Next thing you know (next stage of relapse?) you'll be suggesting that you can actually make music with Pro Tools or something.-
- Rad Grandad
- 38041 posts since 6 Sep, 2003 from Downeast Maine
+1 'cept I have no desire for sequoiasiriusbliss wrote:I do everything front-to-back in Samplitude.
Have been for years now.
Am considering getting Sequoia.
So yes, it's possible to do everything in one DAW
Greg
The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose‐larger‐than‐the‐self kind of understanding.
-
- KVRist
- 35 posts since 27 Dec, 2009
The difference is mastering and mixing capabilities, preference and work-flow. The proper term would probably be Pre production DAW and Post production DAW.
You can master and mix in the same DAW nowadays but for some people they have preferences in DAWs that they use for each process. So, when people talk about mixing and Mastering DAW, they mean a preference for tools that are more suited to there mastering and mixing needs.
I use Ableton/Cubase to make R&B/Urban music because Ableton fits my "Pre production and mixing needs. The workflow for me is faster and I prefer the functionality of the DAW because of its fast paced engine. This is where Ableton shines in its preproduction speed so it is my mixing/Pre production DAW.
I master in Samplitude or Wavelab because those DAWs work-flows suit my mastering/Post production needs, such as red book, surround panning, aux buses and mastering suitability. For me, Samplitude and Wavelab shines in its post production whereas its pre production is not to my liking. Samplitude has great Multiband Enhancers, spectral analysis and oscilloscopes that makes mastering more complete and to my liking. I also prefer the sound engine and the internal VSTs which allow for a more conducive mastering experience.
The issue is Workflow, DAW,s capabilities and your overall preference for each step of the mixing and mastering process.
Some people can mix and master all in one DAW and others use and prefer different tools because of there likes, wants and needs.
You can master and mix in the same DAW nowadays but for some people they have preferences in DAWs that they use for each process. So, when people talk about mixing and Mastering DAW, they mean a preference for tools that are more suited to there mastering and mixing needs.
I use Ableton/Cubase to make R&B/Urban music because Ableton fits my "Pre production and mixing needs. The workflow for me is faster and I prefer the functionality of the DAW because of its fast paced engine. This is where Ableton shines in its preproduction speed so it is my mixing/Pre production DAW.
I master in Samplitude or Wavelab because those DAWs work-flows suit my mastering/Post production needs, such as red book, surround panning, aux buses and mastering suitability. For me, Samplitude and Wavelab shines in its post production whereas its pre production is not to my liking. Samplitude has great Multiband Enhancers, spectral analysis and oscilloscopes that makes mastering more complete and to my liking. I also prefer the sound engine and the internal VSTs which allow for a more conducive mastering experience.
The issue is Workflow, DAW,s capabilities and your overall preference for each step of the mixing and mastering process.
Some people can mix and master all in one DAW and others use and prefer different tools because of there likes, wants and needs.
-
- KVRian
- 1302 posts since 9 Oct, 2003 from California
Lawrence,LawrenceF wrote:Next thing you know (next stage of relapse?) you'll be suggesting that you can actually make music with Pro Tools or something.
I have told you this a number of times. You can't make music in Pro Tools; you can only make records
Dan
Those that can, do. Those that can't, argue about it on k-v-r
-
- KVRist
- 46 posts since 9 Jul, 2009 from Somerset UK
I construct, edit, write/record music, mix & 'master'audio plays, then bounce down to 16bit cue/bin CD image in Reaper. (Having done the first check on CD text.)
I do NOT count myself as a pro mastering engineer, but the clients don't seem to want to pay for anyone 'better'.
As a rule of thumb, I go for a light touch on all mastering processes.
I use a 3rd party (freeware) utility to check my CD text info that I've set with my track markers in Reaper. Just to check for typos etc, then I'll burn the cue file with Imgburn. (For no other reason than I've used Imgburn for years...)
I don't feel the need to buy another program for these jobs. It's all only going to be as good as my ears/experience. More gear/software probably won't make much difference.
I do NOT count myself as a pro mastering engineer, but the clients don't seem to want to pay for anyone 'better'.
As a rule of thumb, I go for a light touch on all mastering processes.
I use a 3rd party (freeware) utility to check my CD text info that I've set with my track markers in Reaper. Just to check for typos etc, then I'll burn the cue file with Imgburn. (For no other reason than I've used Imgburn for years...)
I don't feel the need to buy another program for these jobs. It's all only going to be as good as my ears/experience. More gear/software probably won't make much difference.
-
- KVRAF
- 1668 posts since 2 Apr, 2006 from Studio City, California
Normally I compose, arrange and mix in Cubase 6 then master in Soundforge. since I bought Sonar X1 on a whim last year I am now trying Compose and Arrange in Cubase, Mix in Sonar and master in Soundforge.
Brought to you by the Hall of Sound
http://soundcloud.com/section-d-records
www.soundclick.com/theresistanceband
http://soundcloud.com/section-d-records
www.soundclick.com/theresistanceband
-
- Banned
- 3946 posts since 25 Jan, 2009
Mastering is a relative term if you look at its physical aspects. It refers to the master format from which every other copies are made, so if your daw can not support whatever format you want the master to be in, you haven' t mastered it yet.
If you refer to it as audio processing, it rather means "finalizing" a track or tracks for a cd where you (multi)compress, limit, eq, and add ambience to tracks to reach a final sound that works for you and not at least will work with many kind of medias. In this sense it is also completely relative whether you like the gear and features of your mixing daw or use another for finalizing the tracks.
Conclusion: Mixing daws and mastering daws are completely relative terms that depends on your personal preferences only and don't signify anyhing general.
If you refer to it as audio processing, it rather means "finalizing" a track or tracks for a cd where you (multi)compress, limit, eq, and add ambience to tracks to reach a final sound that works for you and not at least will work with many kind of medias. In this sense it is also completely relative whether you like the gear and features of your mixing daw or use another for finalizing the tracks.
Conclusion: Mixing daws and mastering daws are completely relative terms that depends on your personal preferences only and don't signify anyhing general.
-
- KVRAF
- 6159 posts since 4 Dec, 2004
Yeah. In the technical sense the "master" is the final thing that everything else will be duplicated from. They'd make the glass master from your DDP image.
The easy part is adding plugs and EQ and all that until it sounds like you want it, you can do that in any DAW. Playing around with random assembly orders, tagging, adding IRSC codes, having auto-gain matching when turning off plugs like Wavelab, and some other random stuff, maybe not.
Use whatever works for you.
All some of us were saying is that - typically - people don't mix and master in the same working session so if you're sitting down and launching software to master and you can launch only one application and do everything in it, tune up the audio, assemble it, print a test CD, tag the songs, make a DDP, why not, if you have it already?
Reaper does most of that by itself but Cubase doesn't so ... when you sit down to "master your 13 song CD", if you own Wavelab, you might as well just launch Wavelab and just stay there, import the files there, and do everything there.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that everyone should go out and buy more software to master in.
The easy part is adding plugs and EQ and all that until it sounds like you want it, you can do that in any DAW. Playing around with random assembly orders, tagging, adding IRSC codes, having auto-gain matching when turning off plugs like Wavelab, and some other random stuff, maybe not.
Use whatever works for you.
All some of us were saying is that - typically - people don't mix and master in the same working session so if you're sitting down and launching software to master and you can launch only one application and do everything in it, tune up the audio, assemble it, print a test CD, tag the songs, make a DDP, why not, if you have it already?
Reaper does most of that by itself but Cubase doesn't so ... when you sit down to "master your 13 song CD", if you own Wavelab, you might as well just launch Wavelab and just stay there, import the files there, and do everything there.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that everyone should go out and buy more software to master in.