Looking for a secondary DAW (for mixing/mastering) which will eventually become my primary DAW (for all things)

[fedexnman]

Sounds like you got it narrowed down to StudioOne or Cubase .

I picked Cubase. Already started a mix

Man , that's great !

Let's celebrate a successful KVR discussion with....pie.

Yes ... Lol

[musicproducerdee]

Already started a mix

Just out of interest, how does that work? Do you export a MIDI file from Bitwig and start over again in Cubarse, reloading all your plugins and applying the appropriate presets, which I assume you'd have to save in Bitwig first. That's the workflow we've had to adopt as my bandmate doesn't want to give up Cubarse and I am much happier in Studio One. But I make him do all the shit work - he supplies me with all those elements so I only have to load 'em in and get to work.

Or do you export stems from Bitwig and work from there?

Oh no, I don't export any kind of MIDI files. Only audio files. I finish the whole arrangement in Bitwig Studio (sometimes including automations) and once I'm happy with it, I export individual stems. Then I load them up in Cubase and mix + master.

Exporting MIDI files + presets and then arranging the song again in Cubase (automations, etc), would take forever and would just make me work double time, wouldn't be really productive. I anyways export stems for mixing purposes once I'm done with the arrangement, regardless of which DAW I choose to mix it in. Even if I choose to mix it in Bitwig, I'd still export stems.

Ah man, maybe try to get your bandmate to switch to Studio One haha. The workflows are pretty similar in a lot of ways. I'm sure you know, coming from Cubase yourself. Infact, Studio One is much faster in getting things done. But hey, they might have their reasons for sticking to Cubase.

I'd still recommend loading stems in Studio One, instead of loading the whole midi with plugins and presets. Unless you absolutely have to. I'm assuming if you've saved a preset, to load again in a different DAW, you've pretty much finalized it, so why not just bounce it to audio and avoid all the hassle? Just a suggestion

[dupont]

Bitwig for live gigs and composing in the studio. Logic for mastering the songs.
Note : currently bouncing my last techno live from bitwig and replying to your post at the same time. Bounce is almost finished so I quit and import the result in logic !

[jonljacobi]

There are as many answers to this question as there are DAWs. Minus one of course.

[? ? ?]

what difference does it make if you do your mastering from a pre-rendered mix or if you place your mastering chain into the Master channels of your mix so you can tweak from both directions?

An example would be the difference between putting multiple effects on one track versus using parallel processing/sends. The latter, at least to my ears, gives the song a wider sound (more breathing room for lack of a better term).
Mastering a rendered file versus utiilizing the master bus of a project file with multiple tracks for mastering does have a difference in results, with the former giving the overall finished project "more breathing room." Again, at least to my ears.
Could it depend on what plugs are used? Maybe. Could it depend how one mixes? Maybe. If you can get satisfactory results mixing and mastering simultaneously hats off. My ears would punch me in the face if I did that. When mixing, I am in a completely different zone listening wise than when mastering.

Doing your mastering as a separate process can reveal issues in your mix, which you then have to go back and fix, which is far less efficient than mixing with your mastering plugins active so that those problems don't arise

I guess everybody has their own way of mixing and mastering. Based on how I treat the mixing process, having mastering plug ins active gets in the way of the mixing. But that's me. Again, hats off if you can kill two bullies with one punch.

[TechGirl]

I have been using Calkwalk by Bandlab. It is still free but not for much longer.

[musicproducerdee]

I usually master in the mix project as well. As Bones mentioned, (for me) it does not make a difference if I do my mastering from a pre-rendered mix or if I place my mastering plugins on the master channel of the project.

My mix is completed between individual channels and bus channels, sends etc. The master bus is basically just a stereo output. Now whether I render that stereo output to audio and then add my mastering chain to it, or directly add my mastering chain to it, to me, it does not make a difference. Infact, I see it as a step saved lol. Why render it to audio and create a separate master project and then add my mastering chain to it. Unless I'm sending the mix to someone else to master, then I'd send the mixdown audio file. But since I'm doing it myself, I don't feel the need for it.

But hey, everyone is more than welcome to do it their own way

[BONES]

Oh no, I don't export any kind of MIDI files. Only audio files. I finish the whole arrangement in Bitwig Studio (sometimes including automations) and once I'm happy with it, I export individual stems. Then I load them up in Cubase and mix + master.

Really? Why? What if you're in the middle of your mixing process you realise that your bassline needs to be a bit snappier, for example? How do you deal with that without going back to Bitwig, changing the envelope settings and re-rendering? Closing yourself off from those kinds of options has to make mixing way, way harder than it needs to be, surely? That's how we used to have to do things - get every part onto tape before we started mixing - but it was a horribly inefficient process that I am profoundly happy I do not have to deal with any more.

Exporting MIDI files + presets and then arranging the song again in Cubase (automations, etc), would take forever and would just make me work double time, wouldn't be really productive.

Which is my entire argument for not using multiple DAWs. But you can choose at what point in the process you export your MIDI. You could do your automation once you get it into Cubase, instead of doing it in Bitwig, at least for some parts if not for every track.

I anyways export stems for mixing purposes once I'm done with the arrangement, regardless of which DAW I choose to mix it in. Even if I choose to mix it in Bitwig, I'd still export stems.

Again why? It makes absolutely no sense to me. What do you actually do with them?

I'd still recommend loading stems in Studio One, instead of loading the whole midi with plugins and presets. Unless you absolutely have to. I'm assuming if you've saved a preset, to load again in a different DAW, you've pretty much finalized it, so why not just bounce it to audio and avoid all the hassle? Just a suggestion

Because bouncing it to audio removes too many options for me to change it later. There are songs on the album we've just finished that I had been working on for more than a year, where I changed not just a sound, but swapped out instruments, in the week before we ruled a line under everything and decided we were done. In fact, just yesterday I swapped out the kick sound in a song I first started working on in 2020, even though we've officially finished the album. If I'd been working with stems, I'd have had to go back and re-render parts a dozen times a week over the past 6 months. But the reality is that I almost certainly wouldn't have bothered, I'd have tried some series of kludges to fix it as best I could because going back and changing the instrument would be way too much hassle. The way we work, nothing is finalised until the moment we deliver it to our label and I think our songs are much better for it.

I honestly can't imagine a more inefficient way to do things than the way you describe. As I said, there was a time when we had to work that way but those were not the days when I was able to do my best work. I used to be involved in developing pipelines for post-production studios (visual effects for film and TV) and what we were always aiming for was to be able to go as far back down the pipe as possible and make changes, without having to commit anything. So things like rendering stems stops you form doing that and makes your workflow less efficient. Moreover, I can't see any advantage in doing it that way. Like I said the other day, production is a continuum, it is not a series of discrete processes undertaken one after the other.

An example would be the difference between putting multiple effects on one track versus using parallel processing/sends. The latter, at least to my ears, gives the song a wider sound (more breathing room for lack of a better term).

Yes but that's a point in favour of my argument.

I guess everybody has their own way of mixing and mastering.

That doesn't mean they are all equally valid.

Based on how I treat the mixing process, having mastering plug ins active gets in the way of the mixing. But that's me. Again, hats off if you can kill two bullies with one punch.

I'll take your word for it but I don't see how that's possible.

The way I see it, there are two aspects to mastering, one is creative the other is technical. On the creative side, you are trying to make it sound "better", whatever that means for the piece you are making. On the technical side you are trying to hit a specific loudness level for streaming, making sure you have no nasty transients or spikes, etc., that your top end is sparkly and the bottom end is well behaved.

The technical side can absolutely be left to a separate process once everything else is done. But the creative goal, making the song sound better, is what every aspect of the production process seeks to do so it makes far less sense to try and turn it into something you do separate from everything else, doesn't it?

More importantly, rendering before mastering limits your ability to use some of those tools. e.g. What if the otherwise perfect setting for STA Enhancer causes your kick to play up? If you're working on a rendered mix, you'll just turn the effect down until everything sounds OK again. OTOH, if you have STA Enhancer on while you are mixing, you'll be able to use the optimum settings for that effect and you'll mix everything else so it fits properly with that. An occasional bit of A/Bing ensures the effect isn't killing your mix, which is a lot less hassle than having to go back, make a change, re-render, try it out, go back again, change it a bit more, re-render, etc.

The longer you put off rendering anything, the more options you leave open to do the best possible job.

[felis]

Wavelab is good for mastering. Elements is quite cheap.

Cubase - mixing

Wavelab - mastering

Depending on the complexity, the Elements versions of both programs might be enough.

[? ? ?]

Yes but that's a point in favour of my argument

How so?

That doesn't mean they are all equally valid.

Agreed and besides the point.

The technical side can absolutely be left to a separate process once everything else is done. But the creative goal, making the song sound better, is what every aspect of the production process seeks to do so it makes far less sense to try and turn it into something you do separate from everything else, doesn't it?

You are asking me. Why don't you take the intiative and A/B the process yourself? For some, mastering a rendered file sounds better. Why? Oh dear god why oh why? Who knows. There's a reason why back in the day there were mixing engineers and mastering engineers. Two separate ears to finalize a song. It worked and still does. But going about the mixing mastering process in a different approach is welcome. Especially if the results sound just as good or better.

More importantly, rendering before mastering limits your ability to use some of those tools. e.g. What if the otherwise perfect setting for STA Enhancer causes your kick to play up? If you're working on a rendered mix, you'll just turn the effect down until everything sounds OK again. OTOH, if you have STA Enhancer on while you are mixing, you'll be able to use the optimum settings for that effect and you'll mix everything else so it fits properly with that.

Ok fine. You like this enhancer plug in's sound and use it as a foundation for your mix. That's one way to go about it and it works for you and your style of a finalised production.
Personally, I prefer no effects on the master bus when i mix for the same reason i don't want an effect on the master bus when i am working out a guitar tone.

An occasional bit of A/Bing ensures the effect isn't killing your mix, which is a lot less hassle than having to go back, make a change, re-render, try it out, go back again, change it a bit more, re-render, etc.

If one is constantly making changes to their mix based on what they are doing during the mastering process, then they need to work on their mixing (or mastering) skills.

[BONES]

How so?

Being able to use sends and inserts, targeted at specific channels, gives you more options and allows you to better target problem areas.

Why don't you take the intiative and A/B the process yourself?

I've been doing this long enough, trying so many different techniques, that I don't need to at this point.

There's a reason why back in the day there were mixing engineers and mastering engineers. Two separate ears to finalize a song.

Back in the day there was no such thing as a mastering engineer. There were producers and engineers and that was it. Any mastering was done by the manufacturer so that they could successfully press the vinyl. The first modern style mastering engineer didn't appear until the 1960s and they remained a rare breed for at least 20 years after that, until CDs replaced vinyl and lots of music had to be rejigged for the new digital format.

You like this enhancer plug in's sound and use it as a foundation for your mix. That's one way to go about it and it works for you and your style of a finalised production.

Yes, it's a way that makes far more sense for absolutely anyone. Doing it any other way would be like a buying a brand new car with poor handling and spending $10k upgrading the suspension, when you could just buy a car that handles properly in the first place.

Personally, I prefer no effects on the master bus when i mix for the same reason i don't want an effect on the master bus when i am working out a guitar tone.

And that reason would be... ?

If one is constantly making changes to their mix based on what they are doing during the mastering process, then they need to work on their mixing (or mastering) skills.

Why? How can you know what is going to work best until you try it? If you are mastering separately, you have to second guess your mix to make sure it's all going to work. That's one reason any mastering engineer worth its salt will ask for stems, not a single rendered audio file.

[syntonica]

That and wasn't sure if Magix would last in competing with the big boys.

They are the cockroaches of audio software. They were here before mankind, they'll be here after.

That said, maybe somebody should mention Reaper?

While I wouldn't touch Cubase with a ten-foot pole, I'm happy the OP found something they click with, which is hard in the software world.

Basically, every DAW pretty much does everything these days, and sounds analog while doing it. It's just a matter of finding the one that does the things you want to do how you want to do them. I have Logic (for backyard compatibility) but these days, the friction is strong! I much prefer the simplicity of Mulab.

[teilo]

Mastering engineers getting pissed off because producers are realizing they are often no longer needed...

DAWs have a master bus for a reason. Yes, mixing and mastering are distinct skills, but they are also highly intertwined. Thinking otherwise is living in the past and cutting of your nose to spite your face. It's time for the sacred cows to be slaughtered.

[? ? ?]

being able to use sends and inserts, targeted at specific channels, gives you more options and allows you to better target problem areas

Firstly, I said sends and parallel processing VERSUS using inserts (multiple effects loaded onto one track - stacked effects).
Secondly, the former -which widens the overall sound of the song- is an example used to answer your question on why one would mix first and master a rendered file; it's not in favor of your method/arguement (I know, so sad isn't it?).
However, I stress again, it has been *my* experience that mastering within the project being mixed (mix N master simultaneously) doesn't produce better results. It could be that I did something (or many things) wrong, it could be that the plugins I use aren't best for mixing and mastering in that way - I don't know and I don't care because I'm getting results doing it the "ineffecient" way as you call it.

I've been doing this long enough, trying so many different techniques, that I don't need to at this point

Well then why are you so concerned about how others do their work to get to the end zone if you are adamant with your process?

Back in the day there was no such thing as a mastering engineer. There were produceers and engineers and that was it

So there were no mastering engineers but there were engineers? And producers?Am I missing something?

Any mastering was done by the manufacturer

OK, so maybe those cats weren't called engineers but the point being they were a separate entity from those who mixed songs.

The first modern style mastering engineer didn't appear until the 1960s

No they didn't. There was no such thing as a mastering engineer; you just said so yourself.

and they remained a rare breed for at least 20 years after that

That's impossible! How could something that never existed remain for 20 years???

Yes, it's a way that makes far more sense for absolutely anyone. Doing it any other way would be like a buying a brand new car with poor handling and spending $10K upgrading the suspension, when you could just buy a car that handles properly in the first place

I like standard cars versus automatics. Now somone like you would ask, "Why? Why bother with a clutch and have to deal with 3 pedals when you can just deal with two? Why would you want to shift gears when you can get an automatic to take care of it for you? The way you're doing it is not efficient."
And the answer is because I like it. I feel like I am actually driving when I drive a stick versus an automatic. With the latter I fall asleep from sheer boredom!
You drive how you like and with what you like and I'll drive how I like with what I like.
Mixing and mastering bores the shit out of me so *for me*, it's quicker (on top of it sounding better to my ears) to focus on one as opposed to doing both simultaneously. Maybe it makes no sense in the modern DAW age and guess what, I don't give a f**k.

And the reason would be... ?

Do this: open up one of your projects, load a flanger - with the feedback and rate all the way up - onto the master bus, now go ahead and mix the song.
After you do that, come back and ask me this question again.

Why?

Because when one does a mix, it should sound completely satisfactory. There is no "Fixing it in the mastering process"; that's ridiculous. Mix a song to a point you love it. Only then is it ready for mastering because all mastering does is accent the mix. Mind you, there are scenarios where the character of a song can change with mastering but in general, mastering is about taking what has been mixed and waxing it.
If you are unsatisfied with the mastering AFTER being 100% satisfied with the mix, then redo the mastering. If you are mastering and end up liking a particular sound but it raises a certain frequency/sound (ie perhaps a vocal) too much, then one can remix the vocal to accomodate the mastering. This latter scenario does happen but it shouldn't be a habit. if it happens too much, there's something in the mixing process that needs work. It actually has been the case with me where my vocals were not gluing in with the whole master and I realized I was overdoing the EQ and compression in the mixes even tough It did sound fine pre-mastered. It happens.

How can you know what is going to work best until you try it?

That's a funny question being that you won't A/B a mix because, as you say, you don't need to at this point.

If you are mastering separately, you have to second guess your mix to make sure it's all going to work.

No. Mix a song to full satisfaction and master according to that final mix. Don't worry about mastering when you mix. Don't even think about it. Focus on mixing, love the final result, then master.
It works and has for billions and billions of bands ( i know because I counted all of them just five minutes ago). You don't write a new song and second guess it based on a certain mixed sound. I mean, maybe technically you could but good luck with that.

They are the cockroaches of audio software. They were here before mankind, they'll be here after

The difference betwen Magix and cockroaches is roaches show up more often (at least where I'm at).
Until it was mentioned here, I completely forgot about Samplitude and didn't realize it was still around.

Mastering engineers getting pissed off because producers are realizing they are no longer needed...

Who in this thread is a mastering engineer?

DAWs have a master bus for a reason

Very good! You're learning. And don't forget pancakes are flat for a reason too.

Yes, mixing and mastering are distinct skills

Indeed they are!

but they are also highly intertwined

For your homework, I want a 500 word essay explaining how mixing and mastering are highly intertwined. I also want examples demonstrating their intertwiney-ness.

[syntonica]

The difference betwen Magix and cockroaches is roaches show up more often (at least where I'm at).
Until it was mentioned here, I completely forgot about Samplitude and didn't realize it was still around.

They both scatter when someone turns on the light.

I had some silly thing from them in the early 90s, when I didn't know any better. I then went Mac and forgot all about them.