Why shouldn't you master in a sequencing program?

[chagzuki]

The idea of mixing and mastering at the same time is generally rather foolish. The are enough processes during mixing to be dealing with, without adding further variables. If you're not too experienced with using mastering plugins, how will you decide what settings are benefiting the music? If you use extreme settings on a multiband compressor you'll simply compensate for it by adjusting all the mix levels accordingly. You may then find that the compressor is introducing artifacts here and there that you don't like, so you want to reduce it, but doing so means that all you mix levels are now wrong. A very messy approach.

[chagzuki]

And further, if all you do is compensate for main bus compression during mixing, why is it there in the first place? A mastering engineer doesn't ask you for a mix with drums slightly louder than intended because his compression will flatten transients slightly, because he knows how to apply compression in the right way so as to preserve the important dynamics of the material.

[chagzuki]

Therefore it makes sense to get the mix right, and then attempt to master in a way that preserve what was acheived during mixing, and improves on it slightly.

[topaz]

perfect explantaion.

you get 5 gold stars

Therefore it makes sense to get the mix right, and then attempt to master in a way that preserve what was acheived during mixing, and improves on it slightly.

[pHz]

yup ... nice explanations chagzuki ...

... i think in this context we are talking about mastering as a process that just adds a final 'sheen' / 'sparkle' / 'grunt' / 'whatever' to your track rather than as preparation for cutting acetates or red book CD reproduction ...

(at least thats how i see it ... my mastering process is usually just applying either ozone or vintagewarmer over the whole track on a relatively unobtrusive setting ... everything else SHOULD have been done to satisfaction in your sequencer)

... and as for burning audio CDs ... i do use the new burning capabilities of audition (basic though they admittedly are) and none of the southport CD recipients have complained ... yet ...

slainte rob

[headquest]

perfect explantaion.

you get 5 gold stars

Therefore it makes sense to get the mix right, and then attempt to master in a way that preserve what was acheived during mixing, and improves on it slightly.

I agree entirely.

By talking about mixing and mastering at the same time I didn't mean literally simultaneously, but rather in the same session and using the same software.

Obviously you need to get the track mixing established before adding final mastering. To attempt otherwise would ideed be ultra-foolish!

The question posed by this thread, however, is whether these two processes can both be done within the DAW (Sonar in Lunatique's case, Tracktion in mine) or whether the second process - i.e. the mastering part - needs to be done in different software such as Audition, Soundforge or Wavelab (or even by a different person).

I agree with the view expressed above that in a number of contexts, mastering should be done by an outsider. But for those seeking an all-in-one solution, I do not think it is "foolish" to think that mixing and mastering can now - and only now - be capably done within the DAW itself.
Let me illustrate using Tracktion, simply as this is the software I use most...

The track mixing, track-based insert effects, and "rack filter" aux send effects must all be sorted out as part of the mixing stage.

Only then, to add the final spit and polish, should you add your mastering plugs (e.g. FinalMix EQ and compression, Classic Master Limiter, etc) directly onto the master output.

This second stage - "mastering" the sound ready for your target audience/consumer playback/etc - could alternately be done by rendering the mix to a WAV file and exporting it to Audition/Sound Forge/etc.

But the question is - why?

And from the helpful comments people have contributed some answers at least have begun to emerge, but equally there seems to be quite a lot of confusion around out there, judging from both this and other threads.

[bugs]

I use both Cubase SX and WaveLab Essential. If only have one track to master, SX is fine--actually better in my case as there are more plugin slots and better dithering. If I am mastering a CD with numerous short tracks, however, it is better for me to use the Montage function in WaveLab as it balances out the CD. Eventually, I will upgrade to WaveLab 5 as it has DVD capability. The trend seems to be headed in the direction of Internet distribution, which means one track at time.

[original flipper]

HI

FWIW I do beleive that especially for VINYL release that if you miss my points on that; you are in for a "world of hurt!" come mastering.

YOU CANNOT press vinyl without getting an acetate cut - which IS the end process of what a mastering suite will carry out.

CD duplication will also require an involved mastering process, below is an example price list, detailing what might take place

"Mastering = $6 per program minute
* includes as necessary:

Equalization to level audio frequencies
Multiband Compression
Overall Compression
Overall Limiting/Maximizing
Dithering
Level adjustments between all songs on an entire CD.
Fade ins/Fade outs
Track spacing
Input of UPC and ISRC codes
Additional Editing = $6 per program minute
* includes as requested:

Shortening a track's length
Removing intros/outros
Extending intros/outros (by repeating)
Adjusting volume to specific parts of a track"

So don't assume this is some DIY process that can be learnt with a few plug-ins without a LOT of trial and error.

It can be done but don't fool yourself that it's an easy task, I would recommend any one who has a finished (mixed not self mastered) track to invest in finding a mastering co (you can get examples of their work) and get them to master your track - it won't cost the earth and it might give you a much better idea of what to aim for, don't forget I am talking about YOUR track, you can listen to lots of other peoples stuff and try to emulate their finished sound but hearing a master of your own production by someone who is experienced at this should give you a better insight - you could even attend the mastering (this isn't always the case) and pick up some further insight.

Flipper.

[bugs]

It is going to have some hands on experience in the mastering process even if you intend to have the project "professionally" mastered. I suppose you could have the tracks themselves "professionally" composed too.

[Sepheritoh]

I am in the mood of giving opinions, so here it goes.

The question was about using the software nd therefore I have to vote for what ever your software is capable of is right to do. I use Sonar and with Ozone (or PSP and others) you have full capability to do the mastering. There is no reason (in my opinion) to spend money on other software like wave or audigy as it will not impress anybody. You can get identical results from Sonar.

I agree with everybody here that you should not do it in the same process than do mixing. Finish your mix and render down to a wav file. Re-import the final file and master it.

Having said that, I have been breaking my own rule over the last month. Part of it might be the fact that I am now able to do so. Previously my computer did not have enough juice to run Ozone in the same session as 15 synths. Now that I have a powerful computer system (2 X 2.8 Ghz) my system is totally capable of running a few instances of Ozone at the same time as all the synths and samplers. Being less experienced with mixing than some others around here I found in the past that I had to go back and tweak the mix when I started to do the mastering. I have tried the method now of finishing the mix and then add Ozone to the master out after I am done and then just concentrate on the mastering side. Very often I now do not fall in the well established trap by over compressing everything for the umpteenth time again during mastering to try and fix a problem. It is now much easier to go back all the way and fix the problem where it started. That is, if there was a problem. Often I do not even tweak any of the mix parameters if it was not the cause of the problem.

Just as an example, what I found as an very inexperienced "sound engineer", was that my mix ended up being muddy after mastering. That was caused by the very process of mastering / compression as is reduce the dynamics and bring up the background reverb sounds more. The problem was however in the mix in the first place and therefore that is typically the problem that should have been fixed in the mix and not in the mastering. Listening to many tracks (commercial included) you can spot where engineers tried to fix a similar problem in the mastering process by using eq before compression.

[Improv]

I don't know if Cubase does have special slot for effects like dither or that it does it internally already for all output on mixdown. Orion doesn't do this.

Cubase SX2 uses Apogee UV22HR (24bit) for dithering. They also have Surround Dither (6 channel)

Cheers

[Sascha Franck]

Most of this has been said allready, but anyways:

A) Most people here on K-v-R don't even have the required equipment it'd take to "really" master something.
With that I don't mean plugins or their more expensive hardware equivalents, but more things such as a correct set of power amps, speakers and listening rooms. The folks at dedicated mastering studios have invested LOADS in just these things. Plus they have golden (or even platinum) ears.

B) Mastering while arranging/mixing IMO isn't too clever.
Just imagine you have one single signal that would permanently make your master kick over the 0dB mark. With some mastering limiter/compressor/maximizer you might not even notice this.
So, IMO it's the best to first sort these things out before even thinking about using any mastering related plugins.

C) It's not too clever to master your things all by yourself. Reconsider (A) and also reconsider that your mileage may be too much biased. You may just want to pump up your track as much as possible while some non-biased person would eventually just make the mastering suit the musical needs.

Personally I do a tiny bit of mastering on tracks that I may post here or only play to some persons.
But in case I had something serious to finish I would never do it by myself but give it to either some professional dude or (in case money is an issue) to some friend.

[Sascha Franck]

But, btw, almost forgot this... IMO there's no reason NOT to master in some sequencer, in case it offers proper rendering.
I would just not do it in the same songfile but import the mix into some new file.

[mauseoleum]

I know of some producers (with 20+ yr work exp.) who mix stuff and a/b the mix with (hw, usually tc) mastering processor to check how kick, reverbs and vocals should be treated on mix to compensate for what's to be expected from mastering process. so idea of having a mastering plug in your mixing chain isnt't THAT stupid. but I believe there's some sanity in separating the two. be it for sake of gaining some distance or different frame of mind. the latter being one of most common reasons for hiring a pro to do it for you. I know some guys who master for others and send their own stuff to be mastered.

[feadhel]

I see some questionable thinking here..

If the point is to get the mix perfect, and then tweak in the Master suite, how is this ruined by putting the master on the main out?

And I think we all know that we use the term "mastering" differently than it ought to be, but Bob Katz' book explains that the mastering engineer has two jobs, one of which is polishing the mix. That's the part we are all talking about. Once the mix is polished, it'll translate onto CD or mp3, so there isn't another step for most of us.

But back to business.. if the final outcome is the important thing, and not the steps along the way, then how can setting Ozone into the master bus wreck it? I already have a set of presets I've developed with certain qualities. For instance, Im working on a bluegrass tune, so I set the "appropriate" Ozone preset into the master bus. From then on I am shaping the sound, using my ears, to get what I want. I don't see anything foolish about it.

I use SF to do dithering, btw, and to silence any noise in the lead in, and to maximize volume, convert to mp3, but I could do this in Sonar. I'm just used to using SF and will when it suits me. But once I realized setting Ozone into the master bus was going to work on my computer, it became easier to do this. It is no more complex at all, indeed considerably less so, since now I don't have to encode a .wav for mastering, find I've got a level wrong, go back into Sonar, fix the level, reencode the .wav and go back into the mastering suite..