if you know anything about mastering, click here.

  • Thread starter Thread starter shackrock
  • Start date Start date
If im taking more time over mastering, then I use Nuendo or Pro Tools. wavelab is a great quick mastering system, or if you use it properly (and you have some nice ears!) , you can get very pro sounding results.
 
ok ok i think i understand then.

i think i can try out wavelab frmo a friends house, if its easy enough to learn - i will go with that then if i make any purchases.


thanks guys.
 
CASE CLOSED!

if someone mentiones T-Racks again...im gonna scream
 
LongWaveStudio said:
CASE CLOSED!

if someone mentiones T-Racks again...im gonna scream
Click to expand...

I think that's T-Rex!!!....that'll get ya screamin';)
 
Well, I use cool edit pro for mastering. Recentely some fellow asked me to master a louzy recorded cassette of his band. Not only the recording was bad, but the music wasn't that great either:). But he paid me and gave me freedom to change things, so I started to cut and paste, going beyond the mastering function, and kinda created new songs by a lot of cutting and pasting. And I garantuee you, someone who doesn't know won't notice the cuts. If you do such things with precision, nobody is going to notice.

But that is somewhere beyond mastering. Although, they always told me that mastering is everything that you do with your recordings after the mix. That usually involves extra eq'ing and compression on my behalve.

Btw, not every song has the same volume on a good record. It is the masters ear of a engineer to feel how the songs fit together, like on which volume you must master a ballad after a few uptempo tracks.
 
brett,

hmm, what you said is kinda true, but at the same time, you dont want the listener to have to keep going to his hi-fi and turning it up and down. you have to think about the song following the ballad aswell. is it going to jump out too much due to dramitic volume changes? basically, when i master, most of the time, i will usually ease compression (or not use it) on a ballad, to make it looser, and then the next upbeat song might have a tighter compression feeling. but i might not actaully change the overall level of the track, just the perception of it. does this make sense to you? btw, this is just an example! lol, i dont stick with these rules. my view of audio is that there are no rules as long as you are producing it. but there are sensible guidelines.
 
LongWaveStudio said:
brett,

, i dont stick with these rules. my view of audio is that there are no rules as long as you are producing it. but there are sensible guidelines.
Click to expand...

I especially agree with that part!!

cheers

Brett
 
it's true. if everyone stuck to rules and always used 'mic x' on overheads, and 'mic x' on vocals, music would be quite boring to listen to because of the production limits. if you hear something which needs to be in the song, DO IT! (you might get rid of it the next day, but if you dont, Great!).

just do what you feel sounds good for the track.
 
Just a point - I use Forge in preference to wavelab because of the pluggin chainer in forge. When you add pluggins to wavelab they are fixed in place whereas you can move them around in forge (i.e. eq before compression or after by moving the order).

cheers
john
 
Man oh man...

I was really in the OZONE after I ate those big T-RACKS of BBQ ribs....

Back to reality...

One method I use to keep from drastic volume changes is to use Multiband compression on a "softer" song then use the Multiband plus a limiter on harder ones in the arrangement.

That way you are not going from a soft totally non-compressed tune to a loud heavier compressed one...
 
You know what amazes me....

As many times as I have heard "Thou must go to a Mastering Facility" on this BBS...

...just to find out there really are a bunch of closet tinkerers around here...:D:D:D

zip >>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top