Mastering CDs

  • Thread starter Thread starter toad_uk
  • Start date Start date
toad_uk

toad_uk

Member
Probably a much asked question but...

Can anyone recomend some CD mastering software which normalises and allows you to add pauses?

Plus...

If i have two tracks which run into each other (one fades out as the other fades in), can I normalise these two tracks as if they where one track so that thers no 'jump' in level as the track changes?

Hope you understood that one.

Cheers in advance.

Toad.
 
You'll love this software, but....

The price could be devestating to your wallet.

Wavelab 3.0 with the Wave NPP 1 and 2 plug in bundles.

Cost? About $1000!

You could make due with less, but, you get what you pay for.

Wavelab has a very good and simple to use audio CD authoring section, and the application as a whole for applying processing and editing is very easy and straight forward.

Good luck.

Ed
 
HI!

Good 'red-book' type software at a reasonable price would be from Adaptec : PC(windoze) - EZ CD creator, APPLE(MAC) - JAM.

Being a mac user I know that jam can do exactly what you are trying to do, I'm not 100% sure the PeeCee version can do the same.

//DJP
 
Hey phunk....

I like funk! :)

Anyway, Wavelab is what I use for CD mastering. No, not just me making little CDR's for clients to listen to, the real thing. It authors in Redbook. It allow one to place pause in between songs. It allows crossfades. The deal with levels though is the job of processing the file first. But, you can combine the two files, then insert a track marker where you want the next track to start and when you author it, the track marker is preserved, etc....

Truely a wonderful mastering software for PC in the lower end market. For around $300, I have seen nothing that really is as straight forward for mastering purposes.

toad_uk, be aware that changing levels between songs would require that you dither the file that has had it's volume changed. Any DSP function causes quantinization errors and the purpose of dithering is to "cover" these low level distortions by placing a "noise" at around the bottom of the dynamic range to "mask" the distortion. There are many ways that this can be done, and they all sound a little different.

The reason I am pointing this out is because if you were applying DSP, like compression and/or eq to a stereo .wav file, then saved it, then opened it in another program and applied more dsp, if the first DSP process applied dithering, then the second DSP process applied dithering, you would be applying dithering twice to the .wav file. This is not a good thing. Dithering should be the very last process applied to any .wav file (or aiff) before it is burned to disk. Once dithering is applied, you cannot apply ANY other DSP to it without creating more quantinization errors.

Anyway. This all really comes down to how you go about the mastering process. You best route it to:

1- Apply any compression, volume changes, effects, eq that you want.

2- Apply editing, fade outs, fade ins, etc....

3 - Apply any sample rate conversions you may need. Obviously, if you are working with files that are higher then 44.1KHz sampling rate, you will need to convert it to 44.1 before you can burn it to disk.

4 - Apply dithering to the file. Failing to do so will cause a process known as Truncate, which is where the extended bit depth of the file, a result of DSP being applied, is just lopped off when you save the file. DSP actually makes the bit depth longer then the file bit depth is, and this is what causes the quantinization errors that sound like distortion on your D/A converters. Actually, I didn't explain that very well, but trust me, dithering should be applied lastly before burning the file....:)

5 - Author the disk.

I am not sure if Jam applies any dithering to the file when it changes it's volume. Changing volume is of course a DSP function and will create the longer bit depth. So, if it doesn't apply dithering, then your audio will of course suffer.

There are so many implications to consider when mastering. Applying DSP muddies the waters. Dithering is yet another ingredient in the soup of audio! A careful engineer steers clear of doing any unneccesary DSP. So, think through your mastering process. But mainly, once you have applied dithering to a file, do not apply it again. The sound of that is aweful.

Good luck.

Ed
 
Sonusman - As an interim step I'm using Cakewalk to both record and "master" (this because I shot my retirement fund on mixers, sound cards, monitors, Cakewalk, etc.).

Here's the steps - can you tell me if I'm ok.
1. Record individual mono tracks.
2. Apply (realtime) eq, panning, volume changes and effects to each the individual tracks as necessary (i.e., season to taste).
3. Mixdown all tracks to a single stereo track within the same project file.
4. Copy the stereo track and paste into a new Cakewalk project file.
5. Apply compression and nomalization to the stereo track(this seems to be the only way I can get the finished volume to be anywhere near decent levels).
6. Output to a .wav file, and using EZ CD Creator burn the .wav to CD.

I realize I should have some mastering software (Sound Forge? Wavelab?) but is this method suitable for the short term. BTW do the mastering programs include the capability to burn directly to CD, and avoid converting to .wav first before converting to audio CD format?

Also, if I later wanted to have the music professionally mastered and stamped to CD's, would I be better not to worry about the volume level now and leave that to the mastering process? (Guess I asked a lot in just one post. Feel free to answer anything or everything.)
 
Heres the deal....

If you are using software to mix, if you don't anticipate doing any other DSP to the mix, make sure then that in Cakewalk that it is dithering the .wav. All of your mixing stuff is of course creating a rather weird bit depth for the new stereo .wav it is creating.

If you DO plan on doing some DSP to the stereo .wav file, don't dither while mixing. Simple as that. Wait to dither until after your mastering DSP is applied.

About Normalization. It doesn't work. Sorry.

Part of mastering is trying to match the relative levels of all the songs so that they sound about the same volume when played back. Normalizing will not do this for you, all's it does is make sure that at some point in the song that it reaches digital 0. But average levels from song to song can be quite different, and when you throw in the ol' Fletcher/Munson Relative Loudness curve into the equation, one song that is peaking all the time can sound a lot quieter then a song that never reaches digital 0 once during the song.

A better way to improve overall volume, or average volume, is to use a limiter. Compression will help some, but overuse of compression will result in a lot of pumping and breathing in the mix. Limiting can do that too, but is a little more forgiving. A well applied mixture of both will yeild even better results. But, ultimately, if you are having trouble getting a really good overall level, and compression and limiting are not doing the job without bad sounding effects, then you need to apply an eq to the mix before the compression and limiting. The purpose of an eq being first in line is that you can tame some of the frequencies that are causeing your compressor/limiter to do it's thing. If the mix is well balanced, then you will be limiting very little.

Most every CD authoring software can only work with .wav files, or aiff. You cannot burn "on the fly" to a computers internal or external (which ever you have) CDR burner like you can a stand alone CD burner. You have to tell the software to fetch the .wav files you want on the disk, and tell it to place a certain amount of pause between songs, etc....Once you have given it all the commands, it does it for you.

If you are going to have your stuff mastered by a professional mastering service, don't worry about optimizing the mix after you have mixed it, unless you don't want them to do it for you. Also, don't apply dithering to it either. Always submit the highest bit depth and sampling rate you possibly can. Pro mastering suites have much better tools usually, and much better monitors, and much more experience in doing mastering then most people have, so leave it to them to deal with optimizing the audio.

Good luck.

Ed
 
Got me confused sonusman, are you saying that you should dither regardless of whether your changing bit depths?
 
I'll expand a bit. If everything is recorded in 16 bit to begin with, is there any point of dithering? Only reason being, I never read any higher bit's mentioned. Am i missing something? I though dithering just applied to converting from say 20bit to 16bit, or does it do something worthwhile in 16bit to 16bit cd audio?





[Edited by Emeric on 10-03-2000 at 19:04]
 
Emeric, YES!!!

It is important to dither after ANY DSP is applied. The post DSP file has quantinization errors on it as a result of the processing. Dithering helps cover the distortion that is evident on reverb trails and fade outs. You will notice too that your fade outs will sound much smoother after applying dithering.

The reason you have to apply dithering when you drop down your bits is for the same reasons. Instead of smooth reverb trails and fade outs, they will just get chopped off when you lose the bits when you resave at a lower bit resolution. Dithering puts noise just above the noise floor to help mask the audio just "dropping out".

Try it. Do a fade out. Listen to the fade really loud with and without dithering. Make sure that your software mixer is not dithering the mix. There is an option in most every software that I have seen to dither of not. You may have not noticed it before because you may be dithering your mixes. But that is the problem for the next stage, they are going to apply dither again. That is why so much of the digital audio I hear sounds so bad, people are applying dithering twice to it. The audio losses clarity, and the stereo field starts to get worse, and mainly, it sounds like there is a veil over the sound.

Dither once. You have to dither if ANY DSP was applied to a digital audio file. ANY volume change to it, any panning move from center, anything will cause extended bit depth. You need dithering to hide the errors that the D/A will have from trying to "average" the extended bits to something that it can represent.

Does that explain it well enough? http://www.digido.com has some excellent articles that you would understand too.

Ed
 
Thanks Ed,

Yes, that explains it well. I was neglecting the DSP aspect. This is what I've been doing, tell me if it sounds rational. I export my wav from Cubase. Edit in Wavelab. Use the L1 to increase it a few dB, also use the L1 to dither, noise shape, quantize. Apply this to the file. Burn that to a CD.

I don't think Cubase dither's when exporting, but don't know for sure. The only dither previous to the L1 is when the 20 bit converters in my sound card dither down to 16bit in Cubase.
 
Look around...

I would look around Cubase, especially in the Preferences very closely, and read the manual (if it is a uhhhhhhhh "legal" copy of it...:) ). Make sure that it is not dithering.

Also, I would use the Wavelab's dithering scheme. Once again, you want dither to be your last deal. Personally, I apply fade out's after any compression and eq because they will raise the volume of the .wav file. If you did fade out's before compression you will not get true to digital 0 fades because the parts right before digital 0 will be raised in volume and when the file does go to digital 0, it will seem to just sort of "fall off" to it rather then smoothly go to it.

But I am sure that Cubase is dithering. All the editor mixers I have seen that are worth a crap have so far. Find the option to disable it and you are set.

Ed
 
Ed,
I could be very wrong here but would'nt you prefer to not use dithering on a 24 bit system?
Since there is a trade off between signal to noise performance and less distortion, would'nt you prefer to transfer a 24 bit to analog with out it? in order to use the full resolution?
I have been lately droping the final mix from pro tools to a "2 inch". but I'm not dithering. What Is your opinion on this ?
No doubt the quality of the converters play a part here as well.







[Edited by Shailat on 10-04-2000 at 16:27]
 
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, 24 bits! :)

I wouldn't touch any dithering with a 24 bit file. You won't hear the distortion from DSP if the file stays at 24 bits. I have played around with this and can definately say that no dithering is required on 24 bit files, UNLESS you plan to cut it down to a 16 bit file, then apply 16 bit dithering to it.

Ed
 
A Little Off Topic

Shailat:

The final 2-track mix on 2" 24- or 16-track? Why? Why not a 1/2" 2-track?
 
Man- i don't even have any of that shit and I can tell you:
dump the 24 bit to the 2" and don't do anything else.
You'll be royal.
 
And then the sound on the 2" gets converted to 16-bit for CDs. I don't get it. Why not just skip the analog step in between the 24-bit mix and the 16-bit CD?
 
Ideally, If I Had The Gear

I'd track to 2" 24- or 16-track @ 15ips w/Dolby SR, A/D tranfer to Pro Tools at 24-bit and most likely mix in Pro Tools and D/A at 24-bit to 1/2" 2-track @ 30ips w/ or w/o Dolby SR to archive and possibly sending elsewhere for mastering AND master myself, save the 24-bit data files to CD-R, dither to 16-bit, and dump to audio CD-R.
 
Ed,
I thought you wern't a big fan of analog shades :)

RE - the reasom I go to 2 inch 24 track is becuase that is what I have (not at home).
Some times i'll track to the 2 inch drums and bass and dump into pro tools from there. Depends on the time I have and the budget. I own for my projects a couple of 2 inch tapes I got and reuse them from time to time but to buy new ones for every client is to expensive. I can hardly get 3 songs on to each tape
and for a full album it's way to expensive. i would rather go ADAT and spend the money on a horn section.
If I can convince people to buy tape then I'm happy !!.

You know RE from what I hear ...2 inch tapes are going down in price..
perhaps one day you'll start to skimp a little on the mics and go for it :)
 
He's got enough mics, shailat - I've seen the pictures. You guys are a bunch of gear-horny show-offs! My fuck! What's a poor boy to do?

Anyway, just goes to show, sometimes engineers make sense. :D This has been a really good thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top