Goldwave/Mastering

B

Bullet Days

New member
so i downloaded goldwave because i read that you can use it to master. i got as far as uploading my wav file, couldn't really find the "master" button :D

no seriously, how do you master a wav file with this program? or does anyone know of another program that's fairly easy to use for mastering?
 
When I master at home I use Sound Forge 4.5 (old) with a few plug-ins. I'll probably use some multi-band compression (although I don't really know what I'm doing), followed by normalisation and then put it through Waves Ultra-maximizer to nicely compress it. Finally do any fading that might be wanted. It should sound louder and nicer.

Using Goldwave, I'm not sure what facilities that has. Just make sure you top 'n tail it and then normalise.

As you've probably gathered, i'm not a mastering engineer....

:D
 
Bullet Days said:
so i downloaded goldwave because i read that you can use it to master. i got as far as uploading my wav file, couldn't really find the "master" button :D

no seriously, how do you master a wav file with this program? or does anyone know of another program that's fairly easy to use for mastering?
Click to expand...

I've had debates with a few MEs on software programs that "process" versus "mastering". Some feel that if the software can't burn a CD, then it is not mastering software but processing software or a DAW.

Personally I'm a Pro Tools guy, but I've worked with Sound Forge and a few other smaller packages. I like being able to route the bus to analog and digital outboard gear, as of the last version of Sound Forge I used you couldn't do this, I don't know if they added this functionality yet. To get around it I basically just used Sound Forge for editing and front-ended all of my outboard gear from another digital or analog source. If you're mastering for a living, this gets to be a pain because it's more difficult to recall and re-feed if there are changes requested by several clients when you are working on projects concurrrently.

I've heard some very good things about Wavelab though, but haven't used it yet. I believe John Scrip (aka Massive Master) has experience with it and may be able to give us a rundown of it's capabilities?
 
Agent47 said:
I'll probably use some multi-band compression (although I don't really know what I'm doing), followed by normalisation and then put it through Waves Ultra-maximizer to nicely compress it. Finally do any fading that might be wanted. It should sound louder and nicer.
Click to expand...
Just wanted to point out -- there's no point in using the normalization process in the chain you just described, since the Waves process will raise you levels anyways. The idea is ro avoid as much unnecessary processing as possible and in this case, normalization is completely rendundant........

(also note - that what you've described can't really be called "mastering", but that's a whole other story!) ;)
 
Ok Blue Bear. To be honest, I think I normally just shove it through the Waves Ultra-M and have it peak at -0.01dB.

I thought all that processing was mastering? It's just doing it to a file rather than through some boxes in real-time? I'm confused... :)

One day I may get used to multi-band compression...but not yet...!
 
I don't claim to know anything about mastering, but I will say that Wavelab is a great program. I don't have too much outboard gear, so I haven't really had the need to do much routing out. I mostly use PSP Vintage Warmer and some Waves plugins. Wavelab is extremely fast though and extremely stable.

From the looks of things it has the capabilities to do the things that one would need at a higher level, so if and when I get to that level...
 
The reason I said what you're doing isn't really mastering is because first and foremost, mastering involves analytical listening before you patch anything in the signal chain.

THEN, once you've analyzed what you think the track needs, you patch in a signal chain that does only what is needed FOR THAT TRACK... ie - it's pretty unlikely that you'd be running all tracks thru the exact same processes and parameters each time, since any processing is unique to the needs of a track.

The first and best tool in Mastering are the ears... THEN reach for the other tools once the ears tell you what is needed. (This assumes, of course, that you have a monitoring chain and a listening room that's even up to the task of providing critical listening -- not the case at all in many homegrown recording rigs!)

All in all, you may be able to sweeten your tracks somewhat, and hopefully improve the sound from what it was -- but it's a bit of a stretch, IMO, to call it "mastering" in the true sense of the word.
 
Last edited:
Blue Bear Sound said:
The reason I said what you're doing isn't really mastering is because first and foremost, mastering involves analytical listening before you patch anything in the signal chain.
Click to expand...

AMEN Bruce!

Everyone always seems to keep searching for the magic button(s) to master and mix (e.g. what compression ratio should I use for xyz, what are EQ settings for ...).

If you went to the doctor and he always recommended taking 2 aspirin I would find a new doctor. Likewise if I went to a mix or mastering engineer that used the same EQ/compression settings, or even chain without listening to the "patient" first in regards to his illness, I would seek help elsewhere.
 
IF it's done right without cutting any corners. It's hard to use the same chain.
Impossible even more for the same settings. Even with a good Mix Eng. The tracks will be different, dynamics change, etc.

I once use to cut corners by listening to just a minute or so of a track then process it. Then bam, the insts jump up or down, tracks change all together, new insts come in, etc. waaay too many variables when "Mastering".

Thats why I call what I do processing from what I know. LOL

I only use the term "Mastering" for clients because thats what they wanna hear.

Keep at it man and read. If you really read through a lot of the threads in this forum alone,, you can really improve your work.

Malcolm
 
First of all, make sure your mix is as good as can be. Don't try to fix things in a mastering that you can fix in your mix. A mastering for me means just making the mix sound ok on soundsystems. Real mastering is different business I don't touch.
I use in this order: A big EQ. Listen to anoying freqs, spot them by a high notch and big gain, and if you have spotted it, just dip it a bit. Then use a good compressor and set a low threshold with a low compression value. Put it the mix a bit more togetter without smashing it. Make sure there are no big peaks (fix that in de mix), cause that makes your mastering compressor work shitty. If you are happy with the sound just turn up the gain and make sure it won't clip. Another way of making it louder is with a limiter, but louder isn't always prouder. good luck
 
Masteringhouse, maybe it's more appropriate to compare to a doctor who always recommends a mastectomy....
 
jkvd said:
First of all, make sure your mix is as good as can be. Don't try to fix things in a mastering that you can fix in your mix. A mastering for me means just making the mix sound ok on soundsystems. Real mastering is different business I don't touch.
I use in this order: A big EQ. Listen to anoying freqs, spot them by a high notch and big gain, and if you have spotted it, just dip it a bit. Then use a good compressor and set a low threshold with a low compression value. Put it the mix a bit more togetter without smashing it. Make sure there are no big peaks (fix that in de mix), cause that makes your mastering compressor work shitty. If you are happy with the sound just turn up the gain and make sure it won't clip. Another way of making it louder is with a limiter, but louder isn't always prouder. good luck
Click to expand...

Like I said before, I don't claim to know anything about mastering. But I thought I had been reading (on this board and in other places) that you shouldn't try to fix everything during mixing. I know it's been said a few different times that you should leave room for compression, reverb, and fades during mastering. Obviously if you are mastering yourself and not sending it out, then there will be some overlap between these. But since I heard that I've been using less compression and reverb during mixing, and leaving a little bit of room for when I "master". I feel like I've had better results this way. It seems to tie the whole track together a bit better. Please correct me if this is errant.
 
EleKtriKaz said:
Like I said before, I don't claim to know anything about mastering. But I thought I had been reading (on this board and in other places) that you shouldn't try to fix everything during mixing.
Click to expand...

You mix to get the best, equal, balanced, etc sound that you can from your songs. You can mix a song like a commercial song if your following some of the techniques ( ie, pans, reverbs, effects etc) that you like in a commercial song, but dont try to mix to get the presence, levels, volume, etc that you hear in them. Leave that for mastering. Makes sense?
 
Agent47 said:
Ok Blue Bear. To be honest, I think I normally just shove it through the Waves Ultra-M and have it peak at -0.01dB.

I thought all that processing was mastering? It's just doing it to a file rather than through some boxes in real-time? I'm confused... :)

One day I may get used to multi-band compression...but not yet...!
Click to expand...


basically, that is as much 'mastering' as a 4-track in your bedroom is a 'studio'

it's the same idea, but actual mastering is a lot more complex, with much more expensive buttons, and plenty of them...i think, but i don't know...i don't master, i'm somewhere between a bedroom setup and an actual setup.
 
Yeah, and try -0.4 dB - NOT 0.04, mind you... I run at -0.5dB. No one is going to notice the difference, and there are fewer CD players that will argue with it. ALSO less C2 errors - I shouldn't say "less," as just one will ruin a disc. Long story - Scientific stuff that I barely understand myself...
 
i think we can all agree that mastering is a very complex science, but my question regards the "simpler" version of mastering. mastering, from everything i've read, means that your project sounds full and even, and sounds good through most playback devices. but, i also agree with george harrison that recordings should sound like a really good demo. i guess that's why i love the sound of 60's and 70's rock, and that "lo-fi" sound in some indie rock music. i mean, if "professionally mastering" your project means that it will sound like a creed or linkin park song--polished and slick--then forget it. i'm not looking for that big arena or heavily compressed sound you hear on the radio anyway. i am, however, looking to improve the sound of my projects. i guess the word is not so much mastering as it is enhancing the sound. i've listened to all of them and i think that they can sound fuller and more even. i do agree with one of the responses to this thread that you have to first figure out what needs to be fixed in the project, that you can't just apply the same buttons and effects to all of them (the two aspirins analogy).

i think i did a pretty good final mix of my projects, but they all suffer from not sounding even in different playback devices. like, they sound ok in my car stereo, but they sound better through boombox speakers. also, i added my projects in a playlist that includes some mp3's from artists i like, and when it gets to my songs, the volume drops a bit sometimes. after playing around with goldwave, i saw that it has processes like boosting (mildly) the volume and something called "maximizing." i think i'll use those and see how they sound.


but if anyone else knows of a better program than goldwave please let me know. remember, i'm looking for something simple, so please don't tell me to invest on pro tools. thanks!
 
Bullet Days said:
i think i did a pretty good final mix of my projects, but they all suffer from not sounding even in different playback devices. like, they sound ok in my car stereo, but they sound better through boombox speakers.
Click to expand...
This points to an issue with mixing, so you may want to look at your monitoring system... or maybe you simply need more practice mixing in general.

Each stage of the recording process needs to be 100%, otherwise you get behind the 8-ball in terms of sound quality very quickly. (ie, you don't fix bad tracking during the mixing process - you get it right during tracking... consequently, you don't fix poor mixes by mastering - you make sure your mix is solid before it gets mastered.....)
 
As somebody who actually has Goldwave.

There isn't any 'Master' function, there isn't any Process/Mixdown button either because Goldwave is just a wave editor program. Once you have the file as 44.1khz just select 'Save As' and save it as a 16 bit stereo file. You will then have to use some other program (I use Nero) to actually burn the tracks to a CD.

There are a lot of other folks here who are way more qualified than me to tell you how to decide which effects to add to your master, so I won't open that can of worms...but they are all found under, not surprizingly, the Effects menu in Goldwave. One thing that nearly all mastering does is to be sure that the peak of the track uses the full (or nearly full) dynamic range of the format also known as Normalizing. This is found under Effects|Volume|Maximize.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top