Why shouldn't you master in a sequencing program?

[Lunatique]

I keep seeing people saying that you shouldn't master in Sonar and should use a dedicated mastering software. I've never used a dedicated mastering software, and I should try one out to see what everyone is talking about, but I keep thinking, with all the highend effects plugins on the market (Waves, Voxengo..etc) made especially for that purpose, why would you still need to master in a dedicated software instead of just using those highend plugins in Sonar?

[feadhel]

It used to be that Sonar wouldn't handle all the strain, but with computers now that isn't an issue anymore. I put Ozone3, or Multicompressor on the main out and let it ride. Why not? That way you mix to the sound you'll hear later.

Now people are going to say that it's better to have a mastering studio do the work.. but that's a different issue. If you are doing it yourself, no reason not to do it in Sonar (or whathaveyou) if your computer can handle it.

[headquest]

Hi there Lunatique,

I've been thinking the same thing (although in my case I use Tracktion, not SOnar, but I think the same rule probably apply).

So I downloaded a demo of Adobe Audition, the audio editing software that I know some people use for their mastering.

It is a fantastic programme - no doubt - and I recommend that you at least have a look at the demo (check the link from this site under "hosts").

Unlike other audio editing software, Audition can run up to 128 audio tracks at once, and can act as a ReWire master. So in some ways it is developing into a DAW itself. Also it can host both DX and VST effects, so you can use all those great Sonitus effects within it alongside its own (very good) native effects.

Having said all that...

I've now asked myself what Audition can do that Tracktion (or probably even more so Sonar) can't do?? (Especially now that Tracktion has the $399 FinalMix mastering pluggin added for free! , which is a bit of a coup! )

So far as I can tell, the answer to that question doesn't involve mastering (it can do surround sound, video support, etc, which Tracktion can't - yet!)

So I think that if you know what you're doing and have the right pluggins, there's no reason not to master in a DAW like Tracktion or Sonar.

Final thought - A good pair of ears is far more important than the software you use when mastering...

[progfusion74]

I finalize tracks in Cubase, but master a CD in Audition. I just find it easier to make line up tracks, match beats, etc in Audition.

[Spyro]

I usually master my tracks on the fly on FL, but Tracktion is handy when I want all tracks to have the same level and eq so to give coherence to the whole album.

T-Racks I guess, thats all you need to master, no matter your host. (I don't have them anyways)

I think you can master on every host you feel comfortable to do the job aaand renders in good quality.

[spaceman]

having your mastering plugs (which are usually quite cpu hungry) in your sequencer with the rest of your tracks can be a bit too much on the ol' puter. But having said that, I often import my mix-down back into a new project in Cubase for mastering (and/or in Har-bal )

[pHz]

there might be a psychological aspect to this too ...

... i master my stuff in audition - partly because (at least until my new uber-laptop arrives next week !!! ) my measly CPU cant handle 'inline' mastering in any of my hosts - and partly because mastering in something like audition means i cant go in and start endlessly fiddling / tweaking the track any more (which i KNOW i would if i was using a sequencing host to master) ...

... it makes the whole process a bit more final if you know what i mean

slainte rob

[headquest]

there might be a psychological aspect to this too ...

... i master my stuff in audition - partly because (at least until my new uber-laptop arrives next week !!! ) my measly CPU cant handle 'inline' mastering in any of my hosts

What do you mean by "inline" mastering?

- and partly because mastering in something like audition means i cant go in and start endlessly fiddling / tweaking the track any more (which i KNOW i would if i was using a sequencing host to master) ...

Do you mean because Audition renders edits destructively?

... it makes the whole process a bit more final if you know what i mean

Do you use Audition's multitrack capability for this - e.g. bringing in Reason/FL via ReWire on a track by track basis?

If so, have you found Audition's mixer sufficiently flexible?

Using the demo I was a little disappointed that you don't seem to be able to add effects to the master strip, but only to channel strips and/or via bussing. So the final EQ and Compression need to be done via the busses, which in turn limits what you can use the busses for... or am I missing something and being really dense? !

[christianmusicmaker]

It used to be that Sonar wouldn't handle all the strain, but with computers now that isn't an issue anymore. I put Ozone3, or Multicompressor on the main out and let it ride. Why not? That way you mix to the sound you'll hear later.

Now people are going to say that it's better to have a mastering studio do the work.. but that's a different issue. If you are doing it yourself, no reason not to do it in Sonar (or whathaveyou) if your computer can handle it.

Agreed.

[warbug]

mastering software is stupid. you have to aleast 'pre master' your tunes in a sequncer.

[pHz]

What do you mean by "inline" mastering?

using your mastering plugs on the master outs of your sequencer as youre working on the track in realtime

Do you mean because Audition renders edits destructively?

partly - but more that since its an audio editor / multitracker im not tempted to change the mix / the arrangment / the instrumentation / the composition / etc and can just focus on polishing the overall sound (i should add here that i use VERY little live recorded audio - im mostly a MIDI / loops / offline rendered audio type of producer)

Do you use Audition's multitrack capability for this - e.g. bringing in Reason/FL via ReWire on a track by track basis?

no - i tend to render the whole track from whichever sequencer im using and just take a stereo file into auditions audio editor page to apply the mastering plugins

If so, have you found Audition's mixer sufficiently flexible?
Using the demo I was a little disappointed that you don't seem to be able to add effects to the master strip, but only to channel strips and/or via bussing. So the final EQ and Compression need to be done via the busses, which in turn limits what you can use the busses for... or am I missing something and being really dense? !

as ive said above - i dont really use the multitracker part of audition at the moment

slainte rob

[pHz]

mastering software is stupid. you have to aleast 'pre master' your tunes in a sequncer.

yeah - agreed - just depends where you personally draw the line between mixing and mastering

slainte rob

[griels]

mastering software is stupid. you have to aleast 'pre master' your tunes in a sequncer.

yeah - agreed - just depends where you personally draw the line between mixing and mastering

slainte rob

I don't draw a line at all.. Sometimes its much better to go back to your original mix and adjust the EQ etc on an individual track than attempt to fix the problem using global EQ.

Personally I see the mastering and mixing as one cohesive whole. As I understand it, the point of mastering is to convey what you heard in the mixing stage as best possible on the target audience's sound systems. In reality, that's not always possible or even desirable and the mastering stage changes the perceived sound considerably. As I'd like to gig at some point, having those effects that change the sound noticeably performed offline is impractical... I want totall recall of all the effects I use. That's why I do all my mastering in SX2.

Then again, I still have a lot to learn about sound engineering

[donkey tugger]

mastering software is stupid. you have to aleast 'pre master' your tunes in a sequncer.

yeah - agreed - just depends where you personally draw the line between mixing and mastering

slainte rob

I don't draw a line at all.. Sometimes its much better to go back to your original mix and adjust the EQ etc on an individual track than attempt to fix the problem using global EQ.

Personally I see the mastering and mixing as one cohesive whole. As I understand it, the point of mastering is to convey what you heard in the mixing stage as best possible on the target audience's sound systems. In reality, that's not always possible or even desirable and the mastering stage changes the perceived sound considerably. As I'd like to gig at some point, having those effects that change the sound noticeably performed offline is impractical... I want totall recall of all the effects I use. That's why I do all my mastering in SX2.

Then again, I still have a lot to learn about sound engineering

Gadzooks I agree with you Greels, must be the Boss!

Imagine the tedium of having to re-render your mixdown file every time you wanted to make some minor change. Time is money - especially when the government are paying.

[griels]

Gadzooks I agree with you Greels, must be the Boss!

Imagine the tedium of having to re-render your mixdown file every time you wanted to make some minor change. Time is money - especially when the government are paying.

Exactly