Mastering in wave editors; good or bad idea?

[xander]

It is not impossible to do A/B comparisons in a wave editor between processed and uprocessed signal at the same loudness

The processed signal have to have the same volume as the original signal to hear how the processing influence the sound.

Really? Not on Xander street.

I am not trying to be argumentative, but this statement makes no sense to me at all. I use real-time loudness, normalization and hard-limiting like most other DAW users I know, and I set my levels accordingly. Even if the processed signal is minus 2 or even 5 db, it can easily be compensated for in real time, so, to me, this statement is meaningless, unless I am mssing something in translation here.

So in the most cases you have to place a volume plugin last in the chain when you use audio editors for mastering for A/B'ing at the same loudnes.

In most cases? Why is that? Is it because he assumes that all processed signals will result in minus db? What if you are hard-limiting to an input of plus 6db in real time? Isn't the signal as output from the master buss going to be somewhat louder?

Perhaps you'd need a leveler to increase the signal is *some* cases, but it appears this guy is of the opinion that everyone uses heavy FX signal processing or something when clearly many do not.

For instance, I virtually never use the so-called mastering software like Ozone, Final Mix or BBE, etc., because I output my mix busses direct to disk as I want them to sound -- I hear them in real time as I want them to be.

I think what *someone* is getting at is that DAW-based mixing/signal processing is not as good as Tape/Hardware, which is, of course, an old argument and, in the end, a lot of reeking foofoo...

[kilroy]

The "Kilroy Method"...

- make copies of all files to be mastered (important anyway)

- set up two tracks in your multitrack software of choice, and put the file to be mastered on one track, and the copied "original ref" file on the track beneath it.

- if mastering digital, insert processing on the mastering track and volume match the "ref" track using your ears/metering/whatever. If you are mastering using an analog chain then buss the mastering track to the appropriate destination.

- to compare the two tracks simply "shift solo" in between the processed and original volume matched "ref" track to see how badly you are destroying the dynamics you originally intended the music to have.

The other advantage to this approach is that you can stack different mastered versions below the original and switch quickly between them for auditioning.

[plush2]

One amendment to the "Kilroy Method" that I would suggest.

-If you are using Soundforge or another single file editor (no multitrack) just open multiple versions of the file and gain adjust the non-mastered "ref" version to match the one with the mastering processes applied.

Appologies to Kilroy for adding to an already exellent list.

[electro]

It is not impossible to do A/B comparisons in a wave editor between processed and uprocessed signal at the same loudness

I think some of you missed this last line in the quote.

You can't do A/B comparison by switching between processed on/of only.
The processed signal have to have the same volume as the original signal to hear how the processing influence the sound.
So in the most cases you have to place a volume plugin last in the chain when you use audio editors for mastering for A/B'ing at the same loudnes.

A better way is to adjust the output of each plug so that the volume is the same as the unprocessed version. If you do that, you can bypass individual plugs within the chain without having a drastic change in how the other plugins (especially dynamics plugs) react to the change. A feature that helped us do this was in WL3 where we could route an individual plugin to the meters while the entire plugin chain was still audible. For some reason this was taken away in WL4.

Harbal has an automatic volume compensation mode, just waiting for it to be available as a plugin in WL4.

[dgkenney]

Yes they do in wavform edit, but, at least in Audition, there is no bypass function in multitrack mode, and it is from multitrack mode that many choose to master -- especially when using multiple buss outputs.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, you're really talking mix down not mastering in a multiple bus mode. Mastering by definition concerns itself as much with the presentation and consistency among the various tracks of the final product as it does with any individual track's sound.

That said, A/B comparisons of pre/post mastering and worrying about fletcher-munson effects is kind of missing the point (with the possible exception of eq) since the final product is..well.. the final product. Listening to the final product at different output levels is helpful of course, but the mastering effect(s) IS the mastering effect(s). In other words, if it sounds better louder or with a different eq curve, that is precisely why we made those FINAL mastering decisions.

Hope that made sense.

Dan

[xander]

Yes they do in wavform edit, but, at least in Audition, there is no bypass function in multitrack mode, and it is from multitrack mode that many choose to master -- especially when using multiple buss outputs.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, you're really talking mix down not mastering in a multiple bus mode. Mastering by definition concerns itself as much with the presentation and consistency among the various tracks of the final product as it does with any individual track's sound.

I understand what you are saying. I meant many choose to master from the multitrack mix bus to another medium (even tape) as opposed to bouncing the mix to a "master track" as one will do in Audition or Logic or ProTools, which I think is what he meant when saying there's no A/B pre/post monitoring.

That said, A/B comparisons of pre/post mastering and worrying about fletcher-munson effects is kind of missing the point (with the possible exception of eq) since the final product is..well.. the final product. Listening to the final product at different output levels is helpful of course, but the mastering effect(s) IS the mastering effect(s). In other words, if it sounds better louder or with a different eq curve, that is precisely why we made those FINAL mastering decisions.

Hope that made sense.

Dan

I think you're saying that essentially, in the average DAW environment, worrying over A/B monitoring is pointless and unnecessary, since it is relatively easy to make comparisons between original mix and new master and listen/remix as needed later.

It still seems to me a rather weak point saying there is little validity mastering in Wavelab or Audition because of a lack of on-the-fly A/B monitoring when there are so many ways to compensate for it.

Ultimately, it all depends on what it is you are mastering though -- Amazonian Red Ringed Parrot ritual mating calls or a symphony concert.

[kovacs]

Amazonian Red Ringed Parrot ritual mating calls

Damn...how did you KNOW!

[dgkenney]

It still seems to me a rather weak point saying there is little validity mastering in Wavelab or Audition because of a lack of on-the-fly A/B monitoring when there are so many ways to compensate for it.

That would be my take on it also.

Dan

[olepro]

olepro wrote:
Quote:
It is not impossible to do A/B comparisons in a wave editor between processed and uprocessed signal at the same loudness


The processed signal have to have the same volume as the original signal to hear how the processing influence the sound.


Really? Not on Xander street.

I am not trying to be argumentative, but this statement makes no sense to me at all. I use real-time loudness, normalization and hard-limiting like most other DAW users I know, and I set my levels accordingly. Even if the processed signal is minus 2 or even 5 db, it can easily be compensated for in real time, so, to me, this statement is meaningless, unless I am mssing something in translation here.

Quote:

So in the most cases you have to place a volume plugin last in the chain when you use audio editors for mastering for A/B'ing at the same loudnes.


In most cases? Why is that? Is it because he assumes that all processed signals will result in minus db? What if you are hard-limiting to an input of plus 6db in real time? Isn't the signal as output from the master buss going to be somewhat louder?

Perhaps you'd need a leveler to increase the signal is *some* cases, but it appears this guy is of the opinion that everyone uses heavy FX signal processing or something when clearly many do not.

For instance, I virtually never use the so-called mastering software like Ozone, Final Mix or BBE, etc., because I output my mix busses direct to disk as I want them to sound -- I hear them in real time as I want them to be.

I think what *someone* is getting at is that DAW-based mixing/signal processing is not as good as Tape/Hardware, which is, of course, an old argument and, in the end, a lot of reeking foofoo...

You are surely missing something in translation yes,
If you want to hear how your EQ and compressor etc. is infuencing the unprocessed signal it's importent to listen to the same volume on both signals.

Well and last:
If you etc. use cubase for mastering you can set up two different output busses, one with FX and one with no FX for A/B'ing when you master.
That's not allways possible in a stereo editor.

And i think that's what this was all about in the first post.

[xander]

You are surely missing something in translation yes,
If you want to hear how your EQ and compressor etc. is infuencing the unprocessed signal it's importent to listen to the same volume on both signals.

Well and last:
If you etc. use cubase for mastering you can set up two different output busses, one with FX and one with no FX for A/B'ing when you master.
That's not allways possible in a stereo editor.

And i think that's what this was all about in the first post.

It could be that was what was meant, but I keep going back to the title of this thread:
"Mastering in wave editors; good or bad idea?"

To settle it -- or at least to further my opinion on it, let me submit this link -- which explains fairly well how, through the use of certain techniques (specifically another method among several, in this case, 'waveform comparisons'), mastering in wave editors can be a fairly good way to go -- especially for those who don't have the gear to do otherwise, i.e. two or more audio cards, etc. Hence, I don't believe it is a bad idea at all to use a wave editor for the majority of cases.

The Mastering Guide

**Clearly, in this case, a lack of A/B audio comparisons are compensated for by even better methods than using one's ear.

[xander]

Amazonian Red Ringed Parrot ritual mating calls

Damn...how did you KNOW!

.

[Krakatau]

If you allow me...

...by my side, after reading quickly this topic, it suggest me a very similar question like this one :

- making your entire composition, orchestration and mixing with the mastering tools at the very end of the signal process chain from the beginning of your work,..a crazy idea ?

the initial idea, when you may be very concentrate to your mix, was the feeling of a quite huge modification of the overall atmosphere that can be induced by mastering process made completely after creating your final mix, like it's the case into a wave editor

And this may be considered as my personnal disagreement by making masters that way

On the other hand, i realised how difficult it is to do the entire job into a processed signal from the beginning, especially because of all the masking effects induce by a multiband compression for instance, when the overall dynamic is increasing/decreasing in intensity when your composition is running

After a quite long time, i may now pretend to deal with more or less successfully, but i'm still face to some issue to resolve by a better strategy in builting a composition up in the box

Hope this can contribute positively to the topic...

[Ian Stone]

If you can afford it, get Adobe Audition. It has multi-tracking.

[olepro]

It could be that was what was meant, but I keep going back to the title of this thread:
"Mastering in wave editors; good or bad idea?"

Personally i think you can do the mastering where ever you like.
It's more about the plugins and your own skills that matters anyway.

Sooo.....mastering in a wave editor is allso a good idea.....(i think)

[Krakatau]

to answer to ZZ ( i suppose he was talking to me ?):


well i can't, cos i'm a mac user first and second an important part of my sound generators are external hardware modules...

In fact I DO a few work after bouncing (dsp-quattro and peak LE on mac ), but only if needed