Host for mixing and mastering

[Ocean Zen]

I agree with D Fusion - All you need is your cuurent Sequencer and Decent Plugins,

No need to shell out for another package that basiocally lets you see an audio file.

I use Logic for composing, bounce down the fianl mix as 24bit/44.1 khz to preserve the bass and then master in Logic using,
EQ - PSP Master Q or Tritone's Hydratone
Compression- Reaktor's FlatBlaster or Ozone 3
Limiter - Ozone 3

[Zero dB]

Vegas.

Seconded.

[headquest]

I am fairly new to mastering, I wonder; when I am mixing a track, would I need to use compressors

yes (but go easy!)...

limiters and maximizers

Possibly, depending on the material. but these are more often used at the mastering stage...

and a final reverb in the mixing process?

Reverb tends to be overused. It can be used as a special effect (generally on an aux bus), but at the mastering stage tends to be used more subtly for adding a bit of sheen or ambience. COnvolution reverb is great at this stage.

what would the use of mastering be if I already used all those in the mixing process?

That's a pretty big question! Mastering is used for bringing spectral balance, maximising the sound, etc. Also for getting a bunch of (for example, 10) tracks to have similar sonic characteristics so that they sit well on an album together. If you do a search you will be able to find some excellent articles about this, e.g. on the "Sound on Sound" website.

Having specialised mastering plugins are totally invaluable during the mastering stage, but a top-drawer audio editing application such as Audition or Sound Forge is also particularly useful if you are working in a predominantly software environment (as oposed to a full-blown professional mastering installation).

[headquest]

All you need is your cuurent Sequencer and Decent Plugins

It's certainly possible that way. One problem there though is that it becomes difficult to seperate the mixing and mastering stages. I certainly find that I go back and tweak the mix rather than work on the overall stereo master. So I would say that in my experience the experts are right to draw a firm line between these two tasks (most commercial releases are mixed and mastered by different engineers at different studios!).

Having said that I have produced mixes in both Ableton Live and Sonar 5 that required virtually no work at all at the mastering stage!

No need to shell out for another package that basiocally lets you see an audio file.

The ability to see the audio waveform full screen and analyse it using detailed analysis tools is actually very useful though .

For example I was working on a track recently where I just couldn't get the right amount of "air" into the mix. When I analysed it using Audition's frequency analysis tools I found there was too much activity in the very low frequency domain. Removing this using Audition's "Scientific Filter" effect totally opened up the mix and brought in the clarity that had been missing.

[Ocean Zen]

headquest I think you missed my point

I still bounce down to a single stereo file then bring it back into Logic just like I would bring it in to Audition.

I Can also see the waveform very clearly and you can in most sequencers which is why I'm saying you don't need to buy another program that does the same thing.

[headquest]

headquest I think you missed my point

I still bounce down to a single stereo file then bring it back into Logic just like I would bring it in to Audition.

Sorry, I didn't quite get your point the first time, no! Thanks for clarifying what you meant!

I Can also see the waveform very clearly and you can in most sequencers which is why I'm saying you don't need to buy another program that does the same thing.

Right, yes, I did understand that point... BUT I don't think that simply seeing the waveform would be the main reason for anyone buying applications such as Audition, Sound Forge (or if you're on a Mac, the rather overpriced Bias Peak).

In my case, I felt that buying Audition gave me access to some very powerful mastering-grade effects and editing options that would have cost much more had I bought individual plugins. For example I tried the Noise Reduction effect in Audition head to head with the Waves Restoration Suite (which alone costs some three times the price of Audition!!). I played the results "blind" to several friends and professional musicians/recording people, and unanimously they thought that the Audition noise reduction beat Waves hands down. And that's just one of the effects that Audition offers...

The second point (where you may have misunderstood what I meant in fact) is that in Audition you are not necessarily looking at the waveform as a standard display, but possibly looking at it as a Spectral Frequency Display, Spectral Pan Display or Spectral Phase display (which I don't think you can do in ANY of the sequencing packages, although plugins that copy some of this functionality are beginning to appear now.)

Here's an example of how useful this can be - Suppose you record a live performance of a piano soloist (I do this regularly as part of my work). If somebody coughs in the audience, you can use the Frequency Spectrum Editing to identify, isolate and surgically remove the cough... all without affecting any other frequencies. So the sonic character of the overall recording remains unaffected, while the cough is completely gone. Of course you can see the waveform of an audiofile in most sequencers... but you can't do the sort of editing I just described in sequencers as a rule. I hope that explains what I meant before!

Cheers.

[EnGee]

headquest:
Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation. Yes, I have been reading in Sonar forum about this technique. I'm more convinced now about this work flow, although Samplitude is a real beast, but we can't win all (it is expensive and time consuming to try to have everything!).
One question, when you said I render to 32 bit file (the final mix), do i need to use dithering? or just mix down the tracks and then use the result in Audition? I ask this because I read that one should use dithering just once (in the mastering stage).
Oh btw, the Audition demo is ~ 471 MB!
manstok:
I'm also new to mixing and mastering, but I have practiced little bit and read a good deal about these two processes. I use two books about mixing and one book about mastering, one is the 'Art of mixing' which really is a fantastic book with Visual approach for learning and it suites me well as I'm visual learner. For mastering I don't want to deceive myself, I know it is a difficult science/art. Anyway, what I know is you use that order in mastering EQ, Compressor, Limiter. But this is just very simple rule! As general I read that if the tracks sounds good or the sound source is good, you would need little or no compression, other effects depends on what you want to hear, but EQ is essential to organize the frequency 'mess'. If your mix sounds good, then in the mastering stage it should need little effort (by the mastering engineer). You are reading the conclusion of a beginner, I'm sure the experienced members of this forum can delve deep into this (huge) topic and give you some general directions. Be prepared for a lot of study and practice.

edit - I think I need typing tutor as well to keep up with the posts here!

[headquest]

headquest:
Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation. Yes, I have been reading in Sonar forum about this technique. I'm more convinced now about this work flow, although Samplitude is a real beast, but we can't win all (it is expensive and time consuming to try to have everything!).

Indeed!

One question, when you said I render to 32 bit file (the final mix), do i need to use dithering? or just mix down the tracks and then use the result in Audition? I ask this because I read that one should use dithering just once (in the mastering stage).

No, don't use dithering in Sonar. I wouldn't dither (or do sample rate conversions, etc) in any sequencer. As a general rule good audio editing software will do this task better (as has been demonstrated in independant tests, etc).

So just mix down the tracks in Sonar and export at 32-bit. You are right that you should just dither once - during the mastering stage. In Audition you will have some detailed options when it comes to dithering. At that stage you will get some help from the manual, and the Audition Forum (which is a good place) and if you want to understand the different options available for dithering you may benefit from reading up on the subject.

Oh btw, the Audition demo is ~ 471 MB!

Cheers and good luck!

[EnGee]

headquest thanks
Right! Dithering options and details, checked!
We should have 200 years average lifetime! 60 or 70 is really not enough!

[headquest]

Indeed. Thank goodness for presets

[mmanotjje]

"I agree with D Fusion - All you need is your cuurent Sequencer and Decent Plugins"


again ..i wil ask maybe a very "begginer" question, ..but this interest me and its better to take doubts away, .. i think the prevous question i made was about my tracks being really quiet, i got some answers , still trying to understanting.. , now this doubt came, the host were we do the mixing , matters in this case? diferent host, diferent sound quality?? ..or no its not about that and just about your skills in mixing.. i've been using free stuff, just starting in software and (trying to) produce.. vst's interest me, so im reading about fruityloops, cubase, energyXt,sonar, live.. any of these whoul be a good option/investiment (if we are considering just sound quality)..or again, no , its not about that, its not about the host.. ??
maybe people that start using other hosts after spending many time with one could tell me what they think about this, if its the same..
thank you.

[randygo]

Vegas.

Seconded.

Thirded. I've tried them all and nothing beats Vegas for stability and multitrack editing workflow. Acid Pro 6.0 is almost there.

Cheers,

Randy

Edit: I should also mention the up-and-coming Reaper, which is very Vegas-inspired.

[randygo]

Thanks everyone
Vegas or Sound Forge needs .Net + SQL Server desktop edition i think to be installed and I don't want to install them really.

This is a bit of an annoyance, but as far as I know Vegas only uses .NET for scripting (very powerful feature), and Media Manager (which can be disabled).

This is not a prerequisite and Vegas comes with the necessary run-time components.

However, you will find as Microsoft pushes .NET that it will become more of a requirement for any Windows application, so you will soon find it difficult to avoid.

Cheers,

Randy

[headquest]

I will certainly be avoiding .NET as long as possible here. On my previous system it caused a number of system problems, particularly relating to Windows Explorer functions. It has been a big relief on my new system not to have .NET.

How did I get it on my old system?...
















...from installing the Acid and Sound Forge demos, that's how.

[SonicBreeze]

"I agree with D Fusion - All you need is your cuurent Sequencer and Decent Plugins"


again ..i wil ask maybe a very "begginer" question, ..but this interest me and its better to take doubts away, .. i think the prevous question i made was about my tracks being really quiet, i got some answers , still trying to understanting.. , now this doubt came, the host were we do the mixing , matters in this case? diferent host, diferent sound quality?? ..or no its not about that and just about your skills in mixing.. i've been using free stuff, just starting in software and (trying to) produce.. vst's interest me, so im reading about fruityloops, cubase, energyXt,sonar, live.. any of these whoul be a good option/investiment (if we are considering just sound quality)..or again, no , its not about that, its not about the host.. ??
maybe people that start using other hosts after spending many time with one could tell me what they think about this, if its the same..
thank you.

Any modern host with 32bit sound engine can produce same Audio quality as it is discussed here in good length. but sound quality querry topics keep coming. Hosts you have mentioned all are up-to-date. But all of them have their own strength and functionality.

You choose host as per your needs and taste(GUI, Features, workflow, functionality etc.).IMO, people keep testing other host even after spending money because they look for something more.

There is a saying, Grass is always greener on the other side.

And my experience is, your needs are also keep changing as you get to know more possibilities of manipulation. So you end up possesing more than one hosts. VST and Rewire technology has extended possibilties combining more than one Application simultaneously. so you get best of both worlds.

IMHO, sound quality depends upon the Knowledge of good balance,treatment and experience, no matter from where it comes.

So before trying your hand on various available hosts and plugins, one should get a good tutorial on art of mixing and mastering to know how sound behaves. these tutorials are available on net in amples.