Mastering software

J

Joza

New member
Hi there!

I decided to purchase a mastering software to be able to 1) get my demos sound a little bit better and 2) start practising the art of mastering in case I will some day really need it.

Im asking for some opinions as I cant decide if I should buy Steinberg WaveLab studio 6 or Izotope Ozone 4.

I got a feeling that WaveLab is slightly higher quality and it has a larger number of features, but it actually seems to be missing multiband stereo imaging control and multiband harmonic exciter which Ozone does have. Also Ozone is significantly cheaper, so I am thinking that would I be paying that extra 100€ just for the name?
 
I have only used Ozone 4 and it is excellent. Very powerful, but a steep learning curve for a simpleton like me!:)

I guess the question is what DAW are you using? A lot of them have some pretty powerful tools built in. I'm using Sonar 8 Producer and it has enough tools to do a great "home mastered" recording.
 
Joza said:
I decided to purchase a mastering software to be able to 1) get my demos sound a little bit better and 2) start practising the art of mastering in case I will some day really need it.
Click to expand...
Okie dokie.

Im asking for some opinions as I cant decide if I should buy Steinberg WaveLab studio 6 or Izotope Ozone 4.
Click to expand...
Simple - One is actually mastering software. The other is a plugin of a bunch of stuff that's rarely ever actually used during mastering.

I got a feeling that WaveLab is slightly higher quality and it has a larger number of features, but it actually seems to be missing multiband stereo imaging control and multiband harmonic exciter which Ozone does have. Also Ozone is significantly cheaper, so I am thinking that would I be paying that extra 100€ just for the name?
Click to expand...
Maul-the-band compression... Maul-the-band stereo imaging... Maul-the-band harmonic exciter... Here are just a few of those things that make mastering engineers cringe in retreat. Especially the thought of potentially using them on your own mixes...? It boggles the mind.

Plus, given the fact that WaveLab can actually author the production master (hence the term "mastering" in the first place, that's an awfully important feature of "mastering" software if you ask me), I think the decision is pretty clear.
 
John...

Perhaps for a professional studio, Waves makes sense. It's acceptable to clients, it has profession 'cache', it's a fine piece of software. It can also be written off for tax purposes, which lowers it's 'cost' to you, the studio owner.

Ozone, on the other hand, costs about $200, which is what, 1/10 the cost of a complete Waves suite?

It can do the job if you learn how to use it - just like any tool. And those applications you think are unacceptable, can be turned off.

For someone who doesn't have to meet professional industry standards, I think the decision is pretty clear

no disrepect intended.
 
Steinberg Wavelab is NOT Waves. Two entirely different animals.

I'm with John (as usual ;) ), in that if the OP really wants to learn what mastering is all about, then Wavelab is the choice, because it's the only one of the two that actually performs true mastering functions.

I'd add in another option, and that would be the Sony Sound Forge/CD Architect bundle, which also is very good software that actually performs the functions necessary to textbook mastering.

Added bonus (if you want to call it that) is that - last time I checked, anyway - the Sony package actually includes Ozone in the bundle as well. So if you really want to play around with discombubble transmorgifiers and other multi-syllabic doohickies that have minimal use in the process of mastering, you still can have your fun, and then when you want to get serious about it, still have the actual editing and master authoring software that you actually need for mastering.

G.
 
Hmm.. Well maybe I shouldnt talk about mastering at all. After all Im not trying to master an album right now, im trying to "master" separate songs and I have now understood when reading other threads that it shouldnt be even called mastering. (I would maybe have enough songs for an album but they are all so different that not even the best mastering engineer could make them fit to the same album! :D ) So, I guess what I want to do is closer to the mixing, and the thing I need is actually just a bunch of new plugins. Not really a mastering software. So I decided to get ozone and I think its working quite well so far. =)
 
is there that much to be achieved with wavelab or soundforge at a relative newb level?

Im far from having to master anythng but I do muck about trying to get songs to similar levels just to listen to on MP3s...so far a maximizer, comp, EQ, and a stereo enhancer plus sonar is all Ive needed

isn't it pretty much all that it is??
 
Joza said:
Hmm.. Well maybe I shouldnt talk about mastering at all. After all Im not trying to master an album right now, im trying to "master" separate songs and I have now understood when reading other threads that it shouldnt be even called mastering. (I would maybe have enough songs for an album but they are all so different that not even the best mastering engineer could make them fit to the same album! :D ) So, I guess what I want to do is closer to the mixing, and the thing I need is actually just a bunch of new plugins. Not really a mastering software. So I decided to get ozone and I think its working quite well so far. =)
Click to expand...

OK, just so everyone ends up on the same page...Are you talking about mixing all the tracks of your song into a "finished" stereo mix??? If so, you're talking about mixing.

Or, are you talking about taking the "finished" stereo mix and "polishing" that up to get a "final" product??? That's closer to mastering (for the purpose of this discussion).
 
kcearl said:
is there that much to be achieved with wavelab or soundforge at a relative newb level?

Im far from having to master anythng but I do muck about trying to get songs to similar levels just to listen to on MP3s...so far a maximizer, comp, EQ, and a stereo enhancer plus sonar is all Ive needed

isn't it pretty much all that it is??
Click to expand...
If you just want to hear MP3s at the same level, use Replay Gain or something that won't actually change the sound.
 
Joza...

If I may offer some advice... use the presets in Ozone as a starting point. You'll notice the presets use different tools for each. You can turn off one or more of the tools used.

Play around with them. Turn them on one at a time, then turn them off one at time.

As Glen said, sometimes all you need is a light coating of compression or EQ.

Also, if you find, or develop one you like, save it as your own preset.

Lately, I've been using some of Ozones stuff on a track level. When you need something pretty radical, it can be a useful plug-in.
 
michaelst said:
Joza...

If I may offer some advice... use the presets in Ozone as a starting point. You'll notice the presets use different tools for each. You can turn off one or more of the tools used.

Play around with them. Turn them on one at a time, then turn them off one at time.

As Glen said, sometimes all you need is a light coating of compression or EQ.

Also, if you find, or develop one you like, save it as your own preset.

Lately, I've been using some of Ozones stuff on a track level. When you need something pretty radical, it can be a useful plug-in.
Click to expand...


I think Izotope Alloys more aimed at track level..Im not sure if there's much difference other than cpu usage mind you
 
If I may offer some advice... use the presets in Ozone as a starting point. You'll notice the presets use different tools for each. You can turn off one or more of the tools used.
Click to expand...
I'd offer slightly different advice - Especially considering the nature of the plug --

One of the best engineers I work with regularly "hacks" (and he knows it and admits it) mixes with Ozone. He always says "I started out with a preset that sounded pretty close and I have no idea WTF happened after that" or something along those lines.

Use the presets to learn what the plug does. NEVER go "preset fishing" to figure out what you need the plug to do. KNOW what the plug can do, KNOW what the mix needs. Again, especially with the radical nature of the plug and the presets available.

Mastering engineers generally deal with 'a dB of this' and 'a half dB of that' and the dramatic difference between 32 & 40Hz and what not. We're not typically in the business of "let's apply the most radical changes we can" (such as the typical Ozone preset) and using Haas effects on the low end (such as the typical Ozone preset) and multiple bands of compression (such as the typical Ozone preset) unless there's a very specific purpose.

Learn the tool. Learn to listen. Do what the MIX tells you to do - Not what some preset (that has no idea what it's hearing) suggests...
 
kcearl said:
is there that much to be achieved with wavelab or soundforge at a relative newb level?

Im far from having to master anythng but I do muck about trying to get songs to similar levels just to listen to on MP3s...so far a maximizer, comp, EQ, and a stereo enhancer plus sonar is all Ive needed

isn't it pretty much all that it is??
Click to expand...

For MP3's, what you're doing works fine. I think the general consensus is to export your Sonar mix to a 2-track wav, then start a new project to work on that. Most advice given is to not add 'mastering' effects to the master buss of your mix project.

If you want to try to burn your own cd's, then something like Wavelab Essential or CD Architect would be what you're looking for. You can set individual levels, spacing, etc and then the app will set the correct PQ codes and burn the cd in redbook format. Plus, you can add barcode and ISRC data.
 
RAMI said:
OK, just so everyone ends up on the same page...Are you talking about mixing all the tracks of your song into a "finished" stereo mix??? If so, you're talking about mixing.

Or, are you talking about taking the "finished" stereo mix and "polishing" that up to get a "final" product??? That's closer to mastering (for the purpose of this discussion).
Click to expand...

Im not really sure, but I guess Im talking about both to some extent, as I am propably going to apply ozone to both invidual tracks and the master channel. So I guess I use it for both mixing and mastering.

About the presets. Hmm, I already have read the ozone tutorial (http://ps139.com/vs880ex/pages/OzoneMasteringGuide.pdf) a couple of times so I want to put those things that I learned (in theory) into use and not use the presets that much. But maybe I should give some look at them. Maybe I will learn something new that way too.

Thanks for the replies!
 
Chili said:
For MP3's, what you're doing works fine. I think the general consensus is to export your Sonar mix to a 2-track wav, then start a new project to work on that. Most advice given is to not add 'mastering' effects to the master buss of your mix project.

If you want to try to burn your own cd's, then something like Wavelab Essential or CD Architect would be what you're looking for. You can set individual levels, spacing, etc and then the app will set the correct PQ codes and burn the cd in redbook format. Plus, you can add barcode and ISRC data.
Click to expand...

I do export it to a wav file then import it back...I dont put anything on the master buss...well not now anyway ;)

what do you mean by a 2 track wav?
 
Joza said:
Im not really sure, but I guess Im talking about both to some extent,
Click to expand...
That's cool. Nothing wrong with that. I just wanted to make sure everyone was using the same terms to mean the same things. After reading your post that I quoted below, I wasn't sure if that was the case. :cool:


Joza said:
maybe I shouldnt talk about mastering at all. ....I have now understood when reading other threads that it shouldnt be even called mastering. So, I guess what I want to do is closer to the mixing,
Click to expand...
 
kcearl said:
I do export it to a wav file then import it back...I dont put anything on the master buss...well not now anyway ;)

what do you mean by a 2 track wav?
Click to expand...

Yeah, just what you said there.... exporting it. It gets exported as a 2-track wav or stereo wav, same thing. I just like to throw out new terms to show how little I really know.... :rolleyes: makes me feel all important and stuff. :)
 
Chili said:
Yeah, just what you said there.... exporting it. It gets exported as a 2-track wav or stereo wav, same thing. I just like to throw out new terms to show how little I really know.... :rolleyes: makes me feel all important and stuff. :)
Click to expand...

hahaha :D

Ill be sure to keep asking you things Chili...just for kicks :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top