computer program for mastering...

  • Thread starter Thread starter floppsybunny
  • Start date Start date
F

floppsybunny

New member
i have been using a standalone console multitrack (Korg d1600mkii) for a few months now and am really happy with it except when it comes down to mastering and burning cd's with it, i can mix down to a pretty good sounding pair of stereo tracks but it never translates well...the mastering "effects" they give you are a load of crap, the compression is sub-par to say the least...the redeeming value is that it is usb connective, so in other words i am wondering about running the tracks once their recorded and effected and mixed onto my computer via usb for mastering...

can anyone recommend a good computer program for full on digital mastering ?
 
Well Wavelab would be my first choice. You will need some good plug-ins though.
Some plug ins you might need.

6 band parametric EQ
Limiter
Compressor
Stereo expander
Dither (at 24bit preferably)

If you have USB then you can keep all your recordings in 24bit if you recorded in 24bit. This will give you a better quality at mastering.
 
I have used T-racks with ok results, it's a full mastering suite, where you just load your wav's in, and process them in a virtual rack of a compressor, eq, limter, softclipping..

You can't make 100% proffesional sounding results with T-Racks, but you can get far.. (have in mind the prize of proffesional mastering studios equipment..)

However i believe that the best mastering plugins outthere would be waves, I have heard great sounding recordings mastered with waves plugins, however they are more expensive than T-racks..
 
I'd go with UAD if I had to stay digital myself... Wavelab, CD Architect, Samplitude Master... Little more than PQ editors. Important, but not the "core" of the system...
 
T-racks is a good programme but limited since it only has an EQ, compressor and limiter and output section.
Can get some nice sounding mimics of tube warmth and saturation, but is pretty easy to squash the life out of the track if you dont know what you are doing. Watch out for pumping (wavey volume) after using wrong comression settings.
 
Massive Master said:
I'd go with UAD if I had to stay digital myself... Wavelab, CD Architect, Samplitude Master... Little more than PQ editors. Important, but not the "core" of the system...
Click to expand...

What plugins for the UAD would you suggest? How to go about using them?
 
Last edited:
thanks guys, i forgot to mention that yes i am on a pc...

i will check out wavelab and some of the others you mentioned. question - are the wave plug-ins generic? that is, do they run in any studio program? and where does one get them?

also - am i going to have to upgrade my soundcard? or does my soundcard have anything to do with it? (it shouldnt' really, should it?)

thanks
 
fraserhutch said:
What plugins for the UAD would you suggest? How to go about using them?
Click to expand...
You use whatever plug the mix is asking for in whatever way it needs.**

That being said, for digital use, the Precision EQ is a must. The Pultec rocks. The LA2A and 1176 will come in handy - Not exactly what my first choices would be in a mastering situation most of the time, but better sounding and more flexible than most of the "included" compression in many of the "all-in-one" plugs. The Fairchild is somewhat usable, but definitely one of the more abused plugs... Still haven't figured out why... It's fairly handy for quick M/S compression if someone is too lazy to build a proper matrix, and wonderful in a mixing situation, but a whisker on the "too flavorful" side for everyday use (IMHO). The Cambridge EQ is great for notching and corrective use, but the PEQ blows it away for shaping.

** I know people are getting sick of reading that, but I have to reiterate that I've never had a mix that just screamed "Use Ozone on me!" or "You know, this mix really needs that 'T-Racks' flavor" before.

You dont' start a mastering session by assembling a bunch of plugs (or gear). You start by listening to the mix and establishing what it's asking for. If you don't know what it's asking for, send it to someone who does. This is the primary reason why mastering one's own mixes is self-defeating. If I wanted it to sound different than the way I mixed it, why didn't I just mix it that way in the first place?
 
Massive Master said:
You use whatever plug the mix is asking for in whatever way it needs.**

That being said, for digital use, the Precision EQ is a must. The Pultec rocks. The LA2A and 1176 will come in handy - Not exactly what my first choices would be in a mastering situation most of the time, but better sounding and more flexible than most of the "included" compression in many of the "all-in-one" plugs. The Fairchild is somewhat usable, but definitely one of the more abused plugs... Still haven't figured out why... It's fairly handy for quick M/S compression if someone is too lazy to build a proper matrix, and wonderful in a mixing situation, but a whisker on the "too flavorful" side for everyday use (IMHO). The Cambridge EQ is great for notching and corrective use, but the PEQ blows it away for shaping.

** I know people are getting sick of reading that, but I have to reiterate that I've never had a mix that just screamed "Use Ozone on me!" or "You know, this mix really needs that 'T-Racks' flavor" before.

You dont' start a mastering session by assembling a bunch of plugs (or gear). You start by listening to the mix and establishing what it's asking for. If you don't know what it's asking for, send it to someone who does. This is the primary reason why mastering one's own mixes is self-defeating. If I wanted it to sound different than the way I mixed it, why didn't I just mix it that way in the first place?
Click to expand...

I thought that mastering was a total other set of skills and gear :)
I know nothing about mastering, and just want to dick around with it. I have no intention (or iillusions) of being a master-er (?).
 
Massive Master said:
You use whatever plug the mix is asking for in whatever way it needs.**

That being said, for digital use, the Precision EQ is a must. The Pultec rocks. The LA2A and 1176 will come in handy - Not exactly what my first choices would be in a mastering situation most of the time, but better sounding and more flexible than most of the "included" compression in many of the "all-in-one" plugs. The Fairchild is somewhat usable, but definitely one of the more abused plugs... Still haven't figured out why... It's fairly handy for quick M/S compression if someone is too lazy to build a proper matrix, and wonderful in a mixing situation, but a whisker on the "too flavorful" side for everyday use (IMHO). The Cambridge EQ is great for notching and corrective use, but the PEQ blows it away for shaping.

** I know people are getting sick of reading that, but I have to reiterate that I've never had a mix that just screamed "Use Ozone on me!" or "You know, this mix really needs that 'T-Racks' flavor" before.

You dont' start a mastering session by assembling a bunch of plugs (or gear). You start by listening to the mix and establishing what it's asking for. If you don't know what it's asking for, send it to someone who does. This is the primary reason why mastering one's own mixes is self-defeating. If I wanted it to sound different than the way I mixed it, why didn't I just mix it that way in the first place?
Click to expand...

John,

My budget is gonna make me choose between the Cambridge and Precision EQ. Unfortunately I got busy and let the Cambridge demo run out before really putting it through the paces. The PEQ demo hasn't been activated yet. For eq's I currently have a Project Pak with the extra Pulltec midrange add-on, the Sonitus eq that came wth Sonar, the Timeworks eq from Sonar 2 and Waves reneq.
In a nutshell, I'd like to get an all around high quality eq that can help out with correction at the track level but still be used for overall shaping at the mix level. I probably haven't gotten proficient enough with my current plugs to really know if there is anything to complain about, but I have been able to hear subtle differences in them and found that certain tracks "take" to a certain eq better than the others (did that make sense?)
So, given the above information, would you recommend the Cambridge or the PEQ? Or maybe even a different brand? Or stick with what I have and just send it to you? ;~)
Thank you, your advice is respected and appreciated.

Terry
 
Masrering

after 10 years of recording I'm still not convinced the same pair of ears can do justice to a track when asked to track, mix and master and T-Racks I avoid at all costs. I've yet to hear a song mastered with T-Racks where I couldn't instantly tell it had been used. In extreme moderation it can do justice. If you're making anything more than a demo to hand out to your friends get it done professionaly.
 
LemonTree - (thumbs-up icon would go here if we had one)

Terry - The Cambridge is a great EQ for surgery - Excellent for notching, Elliptic rolloff (around 100dB/octave if I'm not mistaken) and other corrective processing.

The Precision EQ on the other hand... Well, once you start the demo, you'll know which one you want after about eight seconds. :D Stunning.

IMO, YMMV, yada, yada, etc., etc.
 
You will need some good plug-ins though.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that WaveLab's plugins don't cut it? Are those plugins you mention "all that" compared to high end hardware?
 
If you really want a professional product, skip the software. Take the plunge and find someone with a hardware mastering setup. Just like recording studios, there are low mastering studios and and high end mastering studios; the low end mastering (with hardware) will give you better results than software.

If the pro product isn't a huge deal, nevermind :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top