T Racks - Analog modeling Mastering Software
- Thread starter Animaniac
- Start date
Jon X
New member
I agree as well. T-Racks is great for $300, but I think paying the extra money for Wavelab and the Waves plugins is worth it if you can. If not, then T-Racks is no slouch by any means, and probably your best bet in that price range.
Hey sonusman, do you have a preference between the Waves plugins and Steinberg Mastering plugins? I've never used the Steinberg ones before, and don't even know what the price range is. I'd like to get that Waves Gold Native bundle, but man, I don't have $1200 to spend on plugins. That's almost another guitar.
Hey sonusman, do you have a preference between the Waves plugins and Steinberg Mastering plugins? I've never used the Steinberg ones before, and don't even know what the price range is. I'd like to get that Waves Gold Native bundle, but man, I don't have $1200 to spend on plugins. That's almost another guitar.
Hey Sonus... does WaveLab 3.0 require a dongle? It looks like I'll have to put SF to rest soon, and WaveLab looks like the best option out there right now. But I HATE dongles. I sit at home pouting, reading all the rave reviews of the Waves plug-ins.
(BTW, I spent 20 minutes reading stuff on the Steinberg site, and couldn't find anything besides feature bullets and the usual system specs)
[This message has been edited by pglewis (edited 06-05-2000).]
(BTW, I spent 20 minutes reading stuff on the Steinberg site, and couldn't find anything besides feature bullets and the usual system specs)
[This message has been edited by pglewis (edited 06-05-2000).]
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
I've been using it for 6 months now. It's pretty cool but you can mangle stuff with it too. You can't use the pre sets (mangle mode) but once you learn how to tweek it it's ok. My trick is to get it where you think it sounds good and then back it off a few ticks.
sonusman
Banned
pglewis - no dongle for Wavelab. Check out http://www.mp3proclub.com/main.htm if you are on the scroupleless side of things... 
JonX - It really depends on the material I am working on. If I am not getting the kind of compression I want from the L1, I try the Loudness Maximizer from Steinberg. LM is more of a Peak Limiter type of thing, and doesn't give any cool pumping. But, if you want a tad of pumping effect, the L1 can get that much easier.
Also, the Waves EQ's are a little "prettier" sounding to me. But, I tend not to use them. Free Filter is a fine tool if I need a really specific cut somewhere, or on several bands (don't need that too often though). I really don't use either EQ. I am having a love affair with QMetric. QMetric does double sampling rate processing as an option, and is the most invisible eq of all three. I is just a killer mastering eq, with all the features you could expect.
I suppose that when it gets right down to it, the plug in packages are a decent deal for the money. You get a lot of processing for far less then a stand alone unit would cost. $2000 worth of software gives you many tools, and that is the minimum cost of a mastering quality compressor or eq, so, you can see that it is a deal. But, you do not get the same quality either. Some of it IS double bit precision, so it works nearly as well as the stand alone boxes.
I would probably just go for the Waves stuff if I HAD to make a choice between the two, although, Mastering Suite contains the Spectralizer plug, which on some mixes really makes things sparkle. I haven't found anything in the Waves plugs that does this same thing, but maybe they do have something and I haven't checked it out yet.
Ed
JonX - It really depends on the material I am working on. If I am not getting the kind of compression I want from the L1, I try the Loudness Maximizer from Steinberg. LM is more of a Peak Limiter type of thing, and doesn't give any cool pumping. But, if you want a tad of pumping effect, the L1 can get that much easier.
Also, the Waves EQ's are a little "prettier" sounding to me. But, I tend not to use them. Free Filter is a fine tool if I need a really specific cut somewhere, or on several bands (don't need that too often though). I really don't use either EQ. I am having a love affair with QMetric. QMetric does double sampling rate processing as an option, and is the most invisible eq of all three. I is just a killer mastering eq, with all the features you could expect.
I suppose that when it gets right down to it, the plug in packages are a decent deal for the money. You get a lot of processing for far less then a stand alone unit would cost. $2000 worth of software gives you many tools, and that is the minimum cost of a mastering quality compressor or eq, so, you can see that it is a deal. But, you do not get the same quality either. Some of it IS double bit precision, so it works nearly as well as the stand alone boxes.
I would probably just go for the Waves stuff if I HAD to make a choice between the two, although, Mastering Suite contains the Spectralizer plug, which on some mixes really makes things sparkle. I haven't found anything in the Waves plugs that does this same thing, but maybe they do have something and I haven't checked it out yet.
Ed
LongWaveStudio
New member
I don't think you can really compare wavelab and t-racks. T-Racks is mainly about the specific dynamics of the track. wavelab is a mixture of everything. i think t-racks is great for budget mastering. go for t-racks, you'll not be dissapointed
dobro
Well-known member
This thread was started by a relative newbie, so I'll ask a relatively newbie question. I know nothing about mastering, so I'm wondering what the advantage is of software specifically designed for mastering. If mastering's a matter of EQ and compression, why buy extra software or hardware if you've already got some form of compression and EQ available?
Here is your relative newbie answer then:
Parametric eq is not good enough for mastering so you ll need high quality graphic eq most of the time. As for compression the magic word is "Multiband". And as for T-racks
the magic word is "analog modelling"
In mastering, the quality of your processors is very important. Thats what they teach us in the "newbies" class of course!
ps:respect to your 1000+ posts, advice will always be welcome
[This message has been edited by Animaniac (edited 07-03-2000).]
Parametric eq is not good enough for mastering so you ll need high quality graphic eq most of the time. As for compression the magic word is "Multiband". And as for T-racks
the magic word is "analog modelling"
In mastering, the quality of your processors is very important. Thats what they teach us in the "newbies" class of course!
ps:respect to your 1000+ posts, advice will always be welcome
[This message has been edited by Animaniac (edited 07-03-2000).]
sonusman
Banned
If you already have an audio editor for your computer, I think that the Waves Native Power Pack 1 or 2, or Steinberg Mastering Edition suite would do a much better job in about 999 out of 1000 cases then TRacks would. Also, those plug in's can work with 24 bit files (sorry, TRacks can't. Keep an eye on the future friends).
Graphic EQ's are very cumbersome to use in mastering. They require that you adjust several bands on FIXED POINT EQ to do a general curve. As you start working on mixes, you will find also that you will need to address a certain frequecy center where the Cue (or Bandwidth, or how far above and below that frequency center the eq band will effect) needs to be tighter then a graphic eq will address. Graphic EQ's usually come in 1 Octave, 2/3 Octave, and 1/3 Octave flavors. I find while mastering that I often need to go a lot tighter then 1/3 Octave, and a Parametric EQ will let you sometimes go as tight as 1/10 Octave with a band.
Multi band compression COULD be a cool thing sometimes. I have only successfully used one once in over 7 CD's worth of mastering (this includes mastering sessions where I worked with a very experienced mastering engineer who didn't like using multi bands either). I am not knocking them, just that they are very hard to use, and more times then not, you will not find them as effective as a really good mastering limiter.
Something like the L1 Ultramaximizer, or the Loudness Maximizer by Steinberg can really give your mixes a huge boost in overall RMS level. With a nice Parametric EQ in front of one of those, you can really address most of the issues that effect getting the most volume out of your mix. The use of a Parametric feeding a mastering Limiter is more or less the "traditional" approach to boosting RMS level.
If you are on a budget, and do not posses an audio editor that supports VST or Direct X plugin's, and want something that will do any "okay" job of increasing overall level, well, TRacks at around $300 will do the trick for you. But if you have an editor, and really want to have some tools that will can make your mixes start to pump, the some of the little more expensive Plug In packages designed for mastering will definately do a much better job. Don't forget to factor in the internal bit precision of whatever you decide to use.... (another story). Also, consider that if you have other uses for plug in's, then the plug in suites would be a better deal for you because you could use them at the mixing stage if you are using computer based mixing software. TRacks is a stand alone, proprietary software that only does one thing (and not all that great in my opinion).
Looks like a Mastering article is due here soon....
Ed
Graphic EQ's are very cumbersome to use in mastering. They require that you adjust several bands on FIXED POINT EQ to do a general curve. As you start working on mixes, you will find also that you will need to address a certain frequecy center where the Cue (or Bandwidth, or how far above and below that frequency center the eq band will effect) needs to be tighter then a graphic eq will address. Graphic EQ's usually come in 1 Octave, 2/3 Octave, and 1/3 Octave flavors. I find while mastering that I often need to go a lot tighter then 1/3 Octave, and a Parametric EQ will let you sometimes go as tight as 1/10 Octave with a band.
Multi band compression COULD be a cool thing sometimes. I have only successfully used one once in over 7 CD's worth of mastering (this includes mastering sessions where I worked with a very experienced mastering engineer who didn't like using multi bands either). I am not knocking them, just that they are very hard to use, and more times then not, you will not find them as effective as a really good mastering limiter.
Something like the L1 Ultramaximizer, or the Loudness Maximizer by Steinberg can really give your mixes a huge boost in overall RMS level. With a nice Parametric EQ in front of one of those, you can really address most of the issues that effect getting the most volume out of your mix. The use of a Parametric feeding a mastering Limiter is more or less the "traditional" approach to boosting RMS level.
If you are on a budget, and do not posses an audio editor that supports VST or Direct X plugin's, and want something that will do any "okay" job of increasing overall level, well, TRacks at around $300 will do the trick for you. But if you have an editor, and really want to have some tools that will can make your mixes start to pump, the some of the little more expensive Plug In packages designed for mastering will definately do a much better job. Don't forget to factor in the internal bit precision of whatever you decide to use....
(another story). Also, consider that if you have other uses for plug in's, then the plug in suites would be a better deal for you because you could use them at the mixing stage if you are using computer based mixing software. TRacks is a stand alone, proprietary software that only does one thing (and not all that great in my opinion).Looks like a Mastering article is due here soon....
Ed
waves native are a great bunch of plugins - but you have to know A LOT about the fundamentals of audio production to get it to not crush your mix into oblivion. T-Racks would be my choice for anyone relatively new to mastering and homerecording. The presets are actually pretty musical and are a great starting point for tweaking your sounds.
As a relative newbie to production i was thrilled by 'the magic box' effect that T-Racks had on my mixes. After i spend some more time getting down the nuances of this black art i'll probably consider moving over to Waves.
by the way, i've also heard great things about dynastone (sp?) anyone use this?
As a relative newbie to production i was thrilled by 'the magic box' effect that T-Racks had on my mixes. After i spend some more time getting down the nuances of this black art i'll probably consider moving over to Waves.
by the way, i've also heard great things about dynastone (sp?) anyone use this?
dobro
Well-known member
animaniac - my advice for you is: don't get too many posts on this board - it attracts mistaken assumptions
Ed - after that great article on compression, yes I'm well up for an article on mastering. I think the reason that this isn't making a lot of sense to me is because I haven't started mastering yet.
But I thought a person would be well advised not to master their own stuff. Oh well, I guess you have to start somewhere.
Ed - after that great article on compression, yes I'm well up for an article on mastering. I think the reason that this isn't making a lot of sense to me is because I haven't started mastering yet.
But I thought a person would be well advised not to master their own stuff. Oh well, I guess you have to start somewhere.
There is a lot of debate over multibands i can see, compression seems to be very important in achieving the ultimate volume levels for a mix to compare with pro/broadcast tracks
Dobro,
Thanks for the advice, but i dont quite get it?
I am an enthusiastic newbie who understands that getting his music presented appropriatelly is a multi stage proccess. My posts in this community are all newbie questions in several areas, like recording, mixing, mastering, equipment etc etc. I am always open to suggetsions. I am trying to understand all stages of music production since i believe that his will help me present my music better and have more options availiable to my creativity.
Sonusman, i 've heard your work in mp3.com (am i correct?)if i remember correctly you mastered somebody's album and i was interested in your approach to mastering. The tracks i listened to are a bit harsh/digital for my taste. I am a big analog fan. Thanks for your reply. I haven't quite grasped the eq to compressor theory. As far as i know a compressor will boost quiet signals and reduce loud signals. This is a question you might want to answer me. If you have a drum kit and an accoustic guitar in the mix plus a vocals track, and you want to use a compressor on every instrument, that would be 3 inserts (one stereo) why not/would it be better to use a multiband with the appropriate settings for each range of frequencies you want instead of 3 insert compressors?
[This message has been edited by Animaniac (edited 07-03-2000).]
Dobro,
Thanks for the advice, but i dont quite get it?
I am an enthusiastic newbie who understands that getting his music presented appropriatelly is a multi stage proccess. My posts in this community are all newbie questions in several areas, like recording, mixing, mastering, equipment etc etc. I am always open to suggetsions. I am trying to understand all stages of music production since i believe that his will help me present my music better and have more options availiable to my creativity.
Sonusman, i 've heard your work in mp3.com (am i correct?)if i remember correctly you mastered somebody's album and i was interested in your approach to mastering. The tracks i listened to are a bit harsh/digital for my taste. I am a big analog fan. Thanks for your reply. I haven't quite grasped the eq to compressor theory. As far as i know a compressor will boost quiet signals and reduce loud signals. This is a question you might want to answer me. If you have a drum kit and an accoustic guitar in the mix plus a vocals track, and you want to use a compressor on every instrument, that would be 3 inserts (one stereo) why not/would it be better to use a multiband with the appropriate settings for each range of frequencies you want instead of 3 insert compressors?
[This message has been edited by Animaniac (edited 07-03-2000).]
sonusman
Banned
Hmmmmmmmm....well, I have never uploaded anything to mp3.com. Try www.echostarstudio.com/Download.html for links to my mp3's.
Your question seems to be more in line with mixing then mastering. I am still not sure what you are asking. At the mixing stage, having seperate compression on instuments means much more intricate control while mixing. If you do not see the value in this, well, I don't know what to say. We ARE talking about mastering here, not mixing techniques. During MASTERING, some type of compression across the whole mix is what you are after, but for mixing, seperate compression on seperate tracks is desired. A multiband across the stereo buss while mixing to the next device is audio suicide.
In regards to your impression of my "harsh sounding" and "digital sounding" stuff, I would surely like to hear your stuff.... You must really have some killer mixes to share with me! I really enjoy hearing analog stuff that was recorded on Studers or Otari 2" machines. That IS what you have right? I mean, you couldn't be seriously comparing 1" analog machines, or less, with professional digital recorders. Please send a link to some high quality mp3's (meaning, something encoded at least at 192kbs with a decent encoder) so I can hear these golden mixes you are mastering with TRacks.
You wouldn't happen to have a Tube Mic Stand for sale would you?
Ed
Your question seems to be more in line with mixing then mastering. I am still not sure what you are asking. At the mixing stage, having seperate compression on instuments means much more intricate control while mixing. If you do not see the value in this, well, I don't know what to say. We ARE talking about mastering here, not mixing techniques. During MASTERING, some type of compression across the whole mix is what you are after, but for mixing, seperate compression on seperate tracks is desired. A multiband across the stereo buss while mixing to the next device is audio suicide.
In regards to your impression of my "harsh sounding" and "digital sounding" stuff, I would surely like to hear your stuff....
You must really have some killer mixes to share with me! I really enjoy hearing analog stuff that was recorded on Studers or Otari 2" machines. That IS what you have right? I mean, you couldn't be seriously comparing 1" analog machines, or less, with professional digital recorders. Please send a link to some high quality mp3's (meaning, something encoded at least at 192kbs with a decent encoder) so I can hear these golden mixes you are mastering with TRacks.You wouldn't happen to have a Tube Mic Stand for sale would you?
Ed
dobro
Well-known member
animaniac - welcome aboard, enthusiasm and all. The assumption I was talking about was the belief that the number of posts beside a person's name necessarily indicates knowledge or experience. It doesn't. What it indicates is the ability to type.
And as for Sonusman, it's not his mixes which are harsh (his mixes are super good), it's *him* who's harsh when you get on his wrong side. Does the phrase 'treading on the tail of the tiger' hold any meaning for you?
[This message has been edited by dobro (edited 07-03-2000).]
And as for Sonusman, it's not his mixes which are harsh (his mixes are super good), it's *him* who's harsh when you get on his wrong side.
Does the phrase 'treading on the tail of the tiger' hold any meaning for you?[This message has been edited by dobro (edited 07-03-2000).]