Other than CPU issues, does it really make that much difference if you master a track within a host using say, Ozone or export a wav and master in an editor using Ozone?
If there is a huge difference can somebody explain why.
Cheers
Mastering. fx
-
- KVRian
- 522 posts since 10 Jan, 2004 from England
There are 2 rules to being a success in life: 1. Never give out all the information.
-
- KVRAF
- 25030 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
Imo 'no' and that's not what I meant when I wrote:2windy wrote:Other than CPU issues, does it really make that much difference if you master a track within a host using say, Ozone or export a wav and master in an editor using Ozone?
If there is a huge difference can somebody explain why.
Cheers
i rather meant:jens wrote: jep - agreed - Rob basically said it as well - but I'll put it straighter: fx on the master-out are generally evil!
Sascha Franck wrote: I would recommend to mix completely WITHOUT FX on the master because that will force you to get the individual signal's levels right. With, say, a limiter on the master you won't detect the nasty peaks of your kick (just as an example) but just wonder why the mix is pumping funnily instead.
Bottomline: Work and mix without master FX!
When you decide that your mix is 'ready' I would recommend to bounce it all down for the following reason:
- freeing up cpu
- uncluttering your 'workspace'
- making it easier to do things like applying master fades, bringing in other (mastered) tracks for comparison, etc.
But imo it's not neccessary to use an audio-editor for it. Currently I do all my mastering with Tracktion.
-
- Banned
- 6127 posts since 1 Apr, 2004 from Et in Arcadia Ego
I always do that mastering stuff offline. I'll use a multi-band compressor/eq with a limiter after it if anything, but unless a square waveform is desired for some reason it's treacherous you need to pay attention & not crush the sound too much. If there's alot of subtlety & expansion in the track you're going to hurt it using compression anyways, so I usually normalize instead between -3 & 0db if all the material is digital to begin with, but never let anything run past 0db. I also apply my verb before hand on a per track basis & tend to avoid strapping across the master track, but I'm not doing what would be considered 'normal' material..
-
- KVRian
- 522 posts since 10 Jan, 2004 from England
Makes sense.jens wrote:Imo 'no' and that's not what I meant when I wrote:2windy wrote:Other than CPU issues, does it really make that much difference if you master a track within a host using say, Ozone or export a wav and master in an editor using Ozone?
If there is a huge difference can somebody explain why.
Cheers
i rather meant:jens wrote: jep - agreed - Rob basically said it as well - but I'll put it straighter: fx on the master-out are generally evil!
Sascha Franck wrote: I would recommend to mix completely WITHOUT FX on the master because that will force you to get the individual signal's levels right. With, say, a limiter on the master you won't detect the nasty peaks of your kick (just as an example) but just wonder why the mix is pumping funnily instead.
Bottomline: Work and mix without master FX!
When you decide that your mix is 'ready' I would recommend to bounce it all down for the following reason:
- freeing up cpu
- uncluttering your 'workspace'
- making it easier to do things like applying master fades, bringing in other (mastered) tracks for comparison, etc.
But imo it's not neccessary to use an audio-editor for it. Currently I do all my mastering with Tracktion.
I think I would prefer to bounce to WAV then reinstert back into Orion as an Audio Clip(s) then master rather than use the editor. That should be ok still?There are 2 rules to being a success in life: 1. Never give out all the information.
-
- KVRAF
- 25030 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
actually that should be completely o.k.2windy wrote:I think I would prefer to bounce to WAV then reinstert back into Orion as an AudioClip(s) then master rather than use the editor. That should be ok still?
-
- AcousticHippie
- 4769 posts since 12 Mar, 2003
just testing the quickreply feature... sorry to be sooooo off-topic
-
- AcousticHippie
- 4769 posts since 12 Mar, 2003
-
- KVRAF
- 25030 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
yes
-
- KVRAF
- 25030 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
no
-
- Banned
- 6127 posts since 1 Apr, 2004 from Et in Arcadia Ego
test
-
- AcousticHippie
- 4769 posts since 12 Mar, 2003
-
- KVRAF
- 4960 posts since 21 Oct, 2003 from UK
OK, now I'm curious.
You guys are talking about working in your host without mastering effects, then bouncing or streaming down, then re-importing to your host and adding mastering effects as far as I can see.
So why not add your mastering effects in the master to begin with, then still stream down at 24bit?
What difference does it make?
Genuine question, not sarcasm.
Working in Orion, it seems ideally set up to work in that manner - and my mixes, for the most part, don't sound that bad, but I also know they could sound a lot better.
I then take them to wav editor and master them some more.
It's how I get the max volume out of a track.
And, no I'm not saying it's right - it's just the way I do it.
But I know I can do better so I'm curious.
You guys are talking about working in your host without mastering effects, then bouncing or streaming down, then re-importing to your host and adding mastering effects as far as I can see.
So why not add your mastering effects in the master to begin with, then still stream down at 24bit?
What difference does it make?
Genuine question, not sarcasm.
Working in Orion, it seems ideally set up to work in that manner - and my mixes, for the most part, don't sound that bad, but I also know they could sound a lot better.
I then take them to wav editor and master them some more.
It's how I get the max volume out of a track.
And, no I'm not saying it's right - it's just the way I do it.
But I know I can do better so I'm curious.
-
- Banned
- 6127 posts since 1 Apr, 2004 from Et in Arcadia Ego
That's pretty much how I do it as well. When I use Orion I export at 96/32 & let Audition handle the dithering stuff on the working assumption it has a better process than Orion. I'm usually forced to work in Reaktor standalone in 44.1 as I'm sorely tasking my CPU with what I'm already doing generator-wise. It just makes sense to leave mastering a seperate process for me, and leaves a rendered file that can be referenced for final mixdown available for multiple efforts.Glassback wrote: And, no I'm not saying it's right - it's just the way I do it.
But I know I can do better so I'm curious.
-
- KVRAF
- 4960 posts since 21 Oct, 2003 from UK
So you never use the mastering inserts in Orion?
How about the master eq?
Personally I find both of these have beneficial effects on my stuff but I'll gladly try something different in my seemingly eternal quest for a cleaner, louder mix.
I just don't understand why those inserts are there if not to be used?
Surely a compressor at least would help eliminate the odd spike?
But the point is, as well, why stream it and re-import it (OK Sickle, I know you don't but some have said they do
) as a wav only to use the same programme but with inserts in the master?
See what I'm saying?
Why not just put the inserts there in the first place and stream only once?
How about the master eq?
Personally I find both of these have beneficial effects on my stuff but I'll gladly try something different in my seemingly eternal quest for a cleaner, louder mix.
I just don't understand why those inserts are there if not to be used?
Surely a compressor at least would help eliminate the odd spike?
But the point is, as well, why stream it and re-import it (OK Sickle, I know you don't but some have said they do
) as a wav only to use the same programme but with inserts in the master?See what I'm saying?
Why not just put the inserts there in the first place and stream only once?