Why shouldn't you master in a sequencing program?

[bugs]

Topic: Why shouldn't you master in a sequencing program?

because golden ears ppl will starve.

There are golden-eared people in the the actual composition end of music too. What mastering studios have is technological knowhow and the equipment to go with it, not better ears necessarily. They're ears may be better than the average garage band member, but I doubt they're are more atuned and sophisticated than let's say a first rate composer or conductor.

[headquest]

It does help to put some distance between the mixing and mastering process though.

Assuming you are going to master yourself rather than send your track to a specialist facility, a good recommendation is to finish your mix and render down to a wav file... then leave it alone for a few days.

When you come back to it a few days later, open up the wav in your audio editor (or sequencer if that's all you have) and you will hear it in a "new light".

[dlt123]

Wow - this is an ancient thread!

This may be ancient, but to a newbee like me, it has some very good thought provocative information.

I'm still confused though, why can't I just mix, master in my host, dump to disk in WAV format, then use a CD burning software such as Roxio to convert to MP3?

Is the sound quality going to be better using Adobe Audition, WaveLab or the like?

I almost feel that buying something like Adobe Audition replaces my current setup and is only going to cost me more $$$ in the end. Am I off base here or is the quality that much better? Just curious.

Also, if I may... Doesn't it seem more logical to master individual tracks of your composition, rather than mastering the final wave or output file... or am I still not getting it?

Thanks,
DennisT

[Hypertone]

Wow - this is an ancient thread!

I'm still confused though, why can't I just mix, master in my host, dump to disk in WAV format, then use a CD burning software such as Roxio to convert to MP3?

Is the sound quality going to be better using Adobe Audition, WaveLab or the like?

There's no reason you can't master in your host, you won't get better sound quality with Wavelab or Audition. You might not have the same tools in your host that you would find in an audio editor like spectrum analyzers, global analysis, dithering plugins, etc. But if you know what your doing you can get good results in a host.

Also, if I may... Doesn't it seem more logical to master individual tracks of your composition, rather than mastering the final wave or output file... or am I still not getting it?

Thanks,
DennisT

Yes that seems more logical to me too, different tracks will require different amounts of limiting and eq.

[dlt123]

There's no reason you can't master in your host, you won't get better sound quality with Wavelab or Audition. You might not have the same tools in your host that you would find in an audio editor like spectrum analyzers, global analysis, dithering plugins, etc. But if you know what your doing you can get good results in a host.

Makes since to me. I use Ozone3 and still have a lot to learn to use it correctly. Not sure if it has spectral analysis and other tools you mentioned but I really like what I've investigated.

Heck, for that fact, I have a lot to learn about Mastering correctly, period.

I've enjoyed my adventure so far and the more I learn about Mastering, the more I like it. I think I enjoy it almost as much as composing.

BTW: Can anyone recommed a good CD burner software that won't break the bank?


Thanks,
DennisT

[headquest]

Wow - this is an ancient thread!

This may be ancient, but to a newbee like me, it has some very good thought provocative information.

I'm still confused though, why can't I just mix, master in my host, dump to disk in WAV format, then use a CD burning software such as Roxio to convert to MP3?

Is the sound quality going to be better using Adobe Audition, WaveLab or the like?

I almost feel that buying something like Adobe Audition replaces my current setup and is only going to cost me more $$$ in the end. Am I off base here or is the quality that much better? Just curious.

Also, if I may... Doesn't it seem more logical to master individual tracks of your composition, rather than mastering the final wave or output file... or am I still not getting it?

Thanks,
DennisT

Hi Dennis,

There's a few points coming out of your questions, and I hope this helps:

Be careful you don't confuse mixing and mastering; they are two quite distinct processes. What you call mastering individual tracks is in fact part of the mixing process. At this stage you are right to add EQ and/or compression to each track (and any other effects, of course) to enhance the sound of the individual instruments. But this is not the same as mastering.

Mastering is applied to two-track mixes (or surround). It is not about changing the sound radically, but enhancing what is there. It usually involves adding EQ, mjultiband compression and hard limiting. SOmetimes you may also use stereo expanders and harmonic exciters, too. When you are done, this is also the stage at which dithering is vital in order to avoid artefacts appearing after the mix is reduced down to 16-bit.

Mastering is also not the same as audio editing, which is the primary function of Audition. Audio recorded and/or edited in Audition is far higher quality than in any of the sequencers I have used over the years (Cubase SX 1, Live 4, Tracktion). THis is because Audition gives you tools to remove any clicks, pops, low level hiss, people coughing in the background, etc. Alsi, Audition has effects that are on a different level to sequencers, including for example convolution-based reverbs.

Mastering will enhance the sound quality, whether you use plug-in tools to do it in your sequencer, or whether you use an external tool like Audition or Pro Tools.

If you have a decent EQ, compressor and limiter you can do the mastering job inyour sequencer, but as said before, make sure you seperate the process. If possible put a few days between mixing and mastering, so that you come to the track with a fresh perspective.

Ozone is a great plug-in that allows you to do your mastering within a sequencer. The manual explains many of the proesses I have mentioned in more depth and should prove useful.

I am assuming you have a sequencer plus Ozone, and wish you luck with your mixing and mastering! In due course you may find you also need an audio editor to get better audio than sequencers offer (Prop Tools and Samplitude are the only sequencers that offer full on audio editing). A good place to start if you don't want to fork out $$$ is Audacity, a freeware program that contains some of the vitals.

[silver]

I find there is one real advantage to mastering(or premastering as was pointed out) in a host, especialy for those of us who do not have a perfectly damped studio and monitors that cover the entire frequency range.

That is the ability to load up your track and directly below that load what you consider to be the perfectly mastered reference track. leave all faders at 0db and use the solo button to instantly A/B from one to the other. of course your mastering plugins should be inserted only on your track, not on the master bus.

Now in SX3 and external hardware inserted like a plugin it really is incredibly powerfull

at the moment ive got the mastering chain set up like this: Ozone for a touch of EQ > (external hardware plug) spdif out from soundcard to TC Finalizer Express, audio outs to: > VCS-1 tube compressor (for a touch of overall pumping compression) > SPL Vitalizer mkII > dbx 386 where it goes back to digital, and then back to the computer via spdif and then into another Ozone for analyzing (spectrum 5sec), loudness maximizer and dithering and then exported to the final 16bit master. It sounds pretty good and just for a test I managed to get much more volume than most comercial material without any distortion or strange volume rises in the quiet bits.

At the same time I open up another Ozone on the reference track with the spectrum set at 5sec also. this really helps by seeing as well as hearing what is happening thoughout the frequency range

The main point being the Instant comparison between your track and a professionaly produced one, both in percieved level and spectral balance.

sorry for rambling, I hope someone finds this post usefull:)

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[dlt123]

Hi Dennis,

There's a few points coming out of your questions, and I hope this helps:

Be careful you don't confuse mixing and mastering; they are two quite distinct processes. What you call mastering individual tracks is in fact part of the mixing process. At this stage you are right to add EQ and/or compression to each track (and any other effects, of course) to enhance the sound of the individual instruments. But this is not the same as mastering.

Mastering is applied to two-track mixes (or surround). It is not about changing the sound radically, but enhancing what is there. It usually involves adding EQ, mjultiband compression and hard limiting. SOmetimes you may also use stereo expanders and harmonic exciters, too. When you are done, this is also the stage at which dithering is vital in order to avoid artefacts appearing after the mix is reduced down to 16-bit.

Mastering is also not the same as audio editing, which is the primary function of Audition. Audio recorded and/or edited in Audition is far higher quality than in any of the sequencers I have used over the years (Cubase SX 1, Live 4, Tracktion). THis is because Audition gives you tools to remove any clicks, pops, low level hiss, people coughing in the background, etc. Alsi, Audition has effects that are on a different level to sequencers, including for example convolution-based reverbs.

Mastering will enhance the sound quality, whether you use plug-in tools to do it in your sequencer, or whether you use an external tool like Audition or Pro Tools.

If you have a decent EQ, compressor and limiter you can do the mastering job inyour sequencer, but as said before, make sure you seperate the process. If possible put a few days between mixing and mastering, so that you come to the track with a fresh perspective.

Ozone is a great plug-in that allows you to do your mastering within a sequencer. The manual explains many of the proesses I have mentioned in more depth and should prove useful.

I am assuming you have a sequencer plus Ozone, and wish you luck with your mixing and mastering! In due course you may find you also need an audio editor to get better audio than sequencers offer (Prop Tools and Samplitude are the only sequencers that offer full on audio editing). A good place to start if you don't want to fork out $$$ is Audacity, a freeware program that contains some of the vitals.

Thanks for adding clarification to these processes. I am in the process of reading Ozones Mastering Guide and it's excellent information.

BTW: I was able to find a new unopened copy of WaveLab 4.0 on eBay for a great price so bought it. Now I have my WAV editing and CD burnng software.

Thanks for responding.
DennisT

[rawcan]

...
In due course you may find you also need an audio editor to get better audio than sequencers offer (Prop Tools and Samplitude are the only sequencers that offer full on audio editing). A good place to start if you don't want to fork out $$$ is Audacity, a freeware program that contains some of the vitals.

Hi headquest,

I'm not sure if I understand you here. What do you mean with "better audio than sequencers offer"?
What do you mean with "full on audio editing"? Which are the functions you think other sequencers than ProTools or Samplitude don't have that you need for mastering (that Audacity has)?


rawcan

[headquest]

Hi rawcan,

I'm not sure if I understand you here. What do you mean with "better audio than sequencers offer"?

I mean the opportunity to edit audio in more detail, as opposed to the recording and basic editing functions (i.e. normalising, slicing, etc) that sequencers have taken on in recent years.

What do you mean with "full on audio editing"?

Stuff like click/pop removal, noise reduction, converting sample type, analysing the frequency range, phase analysis, scientific filtration, applying effects to specific frequency bands only, etc.

Some of these functions are quite advanced, but I couldn;t very well record vocals without the ability to remove background noise, for example.

All the standard sequencers allow you to identify and open up a designated audio editor from within them, precisely because the makers of Cubase, Sonar, Tracktion, Live, etc all know that their software is not designed for advanced audio editing and that most musicians will want to access those features in specialised software.

Which are the functions you think other sequencers than ProTools or Samplitude don't have that you need for mastering (that Audacity has)?


rawcan

I wasn't sure what sequencer dlt123 was using, so I didn't mean to make a specific recommendation regarding feature list. However I have seen Audacity widely recommended, and as dlt123 mentioned not spending money I thought he might want to give it a look.

For my part I would ONLY recommend Adobe Audition, because it's frequency spectrum analysis tools blow my mind, and I know they are totally unique to this program

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding

[dlt123]

Hi Dennis,

Mastering is applied to two-track mixes (or surround). It is not about changing the sound radically, but enhancing what is there. It usually involves adding EQ, mjultiband compression and hard limiting. SOmetimes you may also use stereo expanders and harmonic exciters, too. When you are done, this is also the stage at which dithering is vital in order to avoid artefacts appearing after the mix is reduced down to 16-bit.

Hello again headquest, I re-read your reply and I read something I'm not familiar with, its two-track mixes. See, told you I was new at this.

I'm in the process of reading Ozone's Mastering PDF, but haven't come upon this term yet. Are you referring to a stereo file? If not, then what does two-track mixes refer to?

... and since I have you on the line, do you, or anyone else here, know of any online resources or books I should look into for more in depth mastering procedures and hints?

Thanks in advance,
DennisT

[headquest]

Hello again headquest, I re-read your reply and I read something I'm not familiar with, its two-track mixes. See, told you I was new at this.

I'm in the process of reading Ozone's Mastering PDF, but haven't come upon this term yet. Are you referring to a stereo file? If not, then what does two-track mixes refer to?

Hi there Dennis,
Yes, I mean a stereo mixdown. Sorry if that wasn't clear before.

... and since I have you on the line, do you, or anyone else here, know of any online resources or books I should look into for more in depth mastering procedures and hints?

Thanks in advance,
DennisT

Izotope's Mastering with Ozone is a really useful resource, and once you've read it all you may not need anything else...

...however, as you asked, check out the following website, which has all sort of useful information:

www.digido.com

If you want to get really into the subject, the standard text on the subject is:
Mastering Audio by Bob Katz

But I'm thinking you've probably spent enough for now

Cheers

[Sascha Franck]

Apart from the fact that I don't know much about mastering (well, make that close to nothing...), I like the fact to completely keep mixing and mastering separated. Using another app but my sequencer for that does help.

Still, most basic functions CAN be done in your sequencer, assuming you got a proper range of plugins (mastering compressor, EQ and limiter, perhaps some frequency analyzer and stereo imager). Format conversion should be no big deal either and fade ins/outs can be done in most sequencers as well.

Anyways, I don't really master myself, just the occasional bit of compressing and perhaps EQ-ing and that's about it. In case I'll ever do something worth a true mastering job, I'll give it someone else with better ears, equipment and more experience.

[dlt123]

Hello again headquest, I re-read your reply and I read something I'm not familiar with, its two-track mixes. See, told you I was new at this.

I'm in the process of reading Ozone's Mastering PDF, but haven't come upon this term yet. Are you referring to a stereo file? If not, then what does two-track mixes refer to?

Hi there Dennis,
Yes, I mean a stereo mixdown. Sorry if that wasn't clear before.

... and since I have you on the line, do you, or anyone else here, know of any online resources or books I should look into for more in depth mastering procedures and hints?

Thanks in advance,
DennisT

Izotope's Mastering with Ozone is a really useful resource, and once you've read it all you may not need anything else...

...however, as you asked, check out the following website, which has all sort of useful information:

www.digido.com

If you want to get really into the subject, the standard text on the subject is:
Mastering Audio by Bob Katz

But I'm thinking you've probably spent enough for now

Cheers

Thanks for responding. I'm reading Mastering with Ozone now. When I'm done with it, I'll check out Mr. Katz's book as well.

Nice thread.
DennisT