Software Mastering?

[2infamouz]

I've come to realize most professional audio mastering engineers use hardware, so my question is this:
Is software adequate for mastering? It seems like it'd be much easier to get all your tracks to similar perceived volumes on a computer...And also if the project started in software (which many do now) as digital information, is there really any benefit of sending it out to analogue gear?
What's the point in multi thousand dollar components that do the same thing plugins that come free in your DAW software do ? Is there a real difference in tonal quality? I've heard both sides of the software/hardware argument but ive still yet to find a definitive/absolute answer to the question.

[jimmys69]

Until you actually hire a talented ME, you won't know. If you haven't heard the benefits of great analog gear, used by a pro, that has not heard your mix the 1000 times like you have, then you won't understand.

I am a digital ITB kind of guy myself, but I know, and have had my own ears prove to me, that a great master, can only be done by someone with great gear, room, and an ear/experience to use it. Yeah, I self master most of my projects, but not because I feel it is best. It's other peoples money, so I can only suggest they have someone else do it.

And by the way, I have not yet heard a free included software that comes even close to the real thing. The expensive versions can come close, but in the hands of someone who does not know what they are doing, it falls way short anyway.

The answer IMO, would be an absolute yes. There is a huge difference. Not just the analog gear, but the one with experience using it.

[Massive Master]

Is software adequate for mastering?

If that's what you're happy with and it does the job you need it to do, then yes. Even the hardware guys (I'm one of 'em) use software (well, at least around 99% of us do) for certain things.

It seems like it'd be much easier to get all your tracks to similar perceived volumes on a computer...

"Perceived volume" is about 5% of the mastering process. It's almost an afterthought. A lot of people tend to *think* that it's all about volume... I'm still not certain where that comes from.

And also if the project started in software (which many do now) as digital information, is there really any benefit of sending it out to analogue gear?

That depends on the hardware... And it's a loaded question that would take volumes and volumes to answer.

What's the point in multi thousand dollar components that do the same thing plugins that come free in your DAW software do ? Is there a real difference in tonal quality? I've heard both sides of the software/hardware argument but ive still yet to find a definitive absolute answer to the question.

Define "the same things..." If I had software that could do the same things as my hardware, I'd give up the hardware.

[jaynm26]

I've come to realize most professional audio mastering engineers use hardware, so my question is this:
Is software adequate for mastering?

If most do it, it has to be for a reason right? Most think ME do things they way they do because, "Its just harder and we like it that way! and shall never change... WRONG!. They do it that way cause it sounds better period. ME have great ears, since of space, they have sound in their head years and years of sound/records/songs/ which is gained through exp. Analog/Hardware is the sound they know and above all thats the sound they trust its becomes a "learned sound" almost like an athletes muscle memory they get a listening memory thing goin on . And thats what it is more about with ME's. When new components are added to the chain it adds un needed obstacles to the listening/playback process and the "learned sound" becomes unknown. New items are falling off the shelf everyday I tell you most ME won't buy into it at all because the items and equipment they have they know it, and they know it like you know your own name.

[jaynm26]

It seems like it'd be much easier to get all your tracks to similar perceived volumes on a computer...And also if the project started in software (which many do now) as digital information, is there really any benefit of sending it out to analogue gear?What's the point in multi thousand dollar components that do the same thing plugins that come free in your DAW software do ? Is there a real difference in tonal quality? I've heard both sides of the software/hardware argument but ive still yet to find a definitive/absolute answer to the question.

If I told you I saw Sash-quash you would call me a liar and go debate about it on every blog/TV Show/Internet/Website round the world right? But If you came to the forest and actually seen Sash-quash for your self you would become a firm believer in the live walking mop that likes beef jerky wouldnt you? Its one of those things you have to EXPERIENCE. Analog being better than Digital? in MOST instances Analog is better in SOME cases digital is easier Not necessarily better. If you have never heard the sound of a Manley, or GML EQ's or Crane Song EQ or Comp or a Pultech or Tube Tech CL1B and listen to music through them vs a digital imitation then you wont quite understand the difference. Does that mean you cant get a good master with plugins, No. You asked, "Is there a real benefit to routing digital to analog." First this not concise question with a definitive answer... Thats like asking whats the real benefit for using a mic when recording? Well...what else are your gonna use??? Mastering Eng are a stubborn group of guys "like an old man set in his ways" Unlike most groups in the music production business who ushered in the digital age with great cheer and conformed immediately. Mastering Eng were THROWN into the digital age kicking and screaming the whole way. Why? CHANGE!!! Because it meant new way of doing things and it would destroy their learned sound (member we discussed learned sound & listening memory) yea ALL GONE! Because everything was going digital ME's went, "NOOOO !! I spent the last 20 years learning my old gear, and my old speakers, and my vintage EQ & my vintage Comp NOOO!! I can master a whole album in a couple hours with "PERFECT precision" I know my systems, I know my room, I know my gear NO CHANGE!"... Yea, they converted slowly BUT they did not convert that gear! So they found a happy medium use both, software and analog gear. So its not the question of "real benefit" its a necessity because they refuse to go fully 100% digital. So they route from digital to their analog gear and back it's a must.

[karumba]

i'm also using software in combination with selected hardware, but some things could be better done in the box. of course, the most important thing is the mastering engineer, then acoustics & monitoring.
the analog gear gives you the last 5%, the 5% that translate the songs into a record.
i also had some rare cases where the pure digital master won over the analog master (i sometimes make shootouts with myself ).

If I had software that could do the same things as my hardware, I'd give up the hardware.

really? i mean sound is one thing (of course, the most important), but what about the decisions, the feel of the knobs, not to stare on the computer screen beeing overflooded by informations, but closing the eyes & feel the music while tweaking the knobs & pushing the bypass on & off, beeing limited due to stepped controls (yeah, its a benefit, isn't it?), etc?
i would really miss that aspect of analog mastering - it just feels so right this way. on the other side recall could be so much easier... ;-)

[Massive Master]

I see your point and yeah, that would take some of the "organic" feel out of it. But I wouldn't mind having an extra 30 G's lying around either. Think of the nice digital controller you could have...

[gecko zzed]

really? i mean sound is one thing (of course, the most important), but what about the decisions, the feel of the knobs, not to stare on the computer screen beeing overflooded by informations, but closing the eyes & feel the music while tweaking the knobs & pushing the bypass on & off, beeing limited due to stepped controls (yeah, its a benefit, isn't it?), etc?
i would really miss that aspect of analog mastering - it just feels so right this way. on the other side recall could be so much easier... ;-)

Sure . . . there's a lot of satisfaction to be gained from the physicality of hardware.

But it is not the main game.

Mastering is not about you feeling good. It's about the client feeling good. And the client will feel good when they've been delivered a high-quality product.

The client doesn't care what equipment is used.

The physical aspect of using hardware is a bit like my enjoyment of steam trains. I get a real thrill out of the oil, the grease, the steam, the engineering and the earthiness of steam locos, and they do a fine job of transportation. But for getting from A to B safely, economically and efficiently, I got to hand it to boring electric trains.

[kevin6string]

I'm no mastering guru. But as a songwriter and musician of 40 plus years, i can get frustrated with the idea of "commercial volumn wars". Music that is recorded is meant to be heard as Music. If the song is'nt mixed well to begin with then the ME probably in my opinion can't fix problems whether it's analog or digital. Am i correct you mastering engineers out there? If i am going to record and engineer my own album project, bet a dollar to a donut i am going to let a real mastering engineer master the project. I could care less if my product is as LOUD as the next artists album. Is it musical and pleasing no matter the genre. Just saying. I have dabbled with IK Multi Media's T-Racks and like it for a do it yourself stand alone tool for sending a good demo out to a publisher or song plugger. But bottom line and you ME's out there correct me if i am wrong...all Mastering Experts are just that , EXPERTS. Be it done digitally or analog i would guess it is personal choice or personal need on any given project. They know what tools will be needed for any given song or album. And if it a project meant to be sold off the shelf or online, by all means save your money until you can pay the ME pro's to deliver a proffesional polished product. That's what they are trained to do. Recording Mixing and producing is a total different creature than Mastering..so i will always always always leave db room for them to do what they can do with it if they need to make is seem louder so be it. But then again i want Music not loud noise.

[karumba]

Sure . . . there's a lot of satisfaction to be gained from the physicality of hardware.

But it is not the main game.

Mastering is not about you feeling good. It's about the client feeling good. And the client will feel good when they've been delivered a high-quality product.

The client doesn't care what equipment is used.

of course, but only up to a given point. every aspect is part of the game & even if dimming the lights helps, why not? if i feel good when doing the job, the result will be good. i'm doing shootouts against myself all the time (& i win ;-)) comparing the results of a digital master to a hybrid master (analog-only is only sometimes the best approach). the way to the finishing line is what is important. i'm just e.g. EQing a bit differently with hardware than with software. also stepped controls are having an influence. you are less connected to the music with software, than with knobs, etc. you should not underestimate that aspect.