Mastering Software

itsme1234

itsme1234

New member
Hi. I'm a new member to this forum. I was wondering what people are using to master their tracks. I've used T-Racks a few times but I was thinking of trying WaveLab 6. Opinions?

I was also wondering if anyone uses any hardware for mastering.

I seen a lot of post on different forums including this one with this similiar question and everyone seems to get pissed when you ask the same question over and over, but I notice when I search for a specific question I get a lot of threads from years ago. I think it is good to ask these same questions (in a considerable time frame of course) because new software and hardware is coming out all the time which means there are different features to compare. Just thought I should add that so this newbie doesnt get bashed to hard..... :mad:
 
itsyou,

If you don't want to get bashed too hard, you might consider doing a little homework to see if your question has already been asked and answered a billion times on this forum or not. ;)

But just to give the answer one more time, mastering is not software, it's a human process. There is no such thing as "mastering software"...or maybe more appropriately, every piece of hardware and softwar that I own could be called "mastering hardware" and "mastering software", because there is probably not a piece of it that cannot or is not used as part of the mastering process.

To call a chunk of software "mastering software" is like calling a hammer a "kitchen hammer" because it's being marketed to build kitchens. I know it's not your fault, because it's the marketing monkeys that sell you this stuff that assign such names.

Mastering involves the use of editors (waveform editors, track timeline editors, PQ editors, etc.), signal processors (EQ, compression, expansion, etc.), and media recorders (tape decks, CD burners, DVD burners, etc.). Some of the best editors, signal processors, and media recorders available and used for the best mastering work never come near the word "mastering" in their description.

G.
 
hmmm...thanks for the lesson...

sorry if i offended, but what would you describe t-racks as if it isnt software made for mastering? also, i couldnt find one post about wavelab 6 being used for mastering in this forum.

Im not trying to sound like an a$$, but it would be nice to have questions answered without sarcasism....especially from someone that has a lot of knowledge as i am sure you do.

Damn...ruinin my first post,...oh well. Anyone have an actual answer pertaining to my question? :confused:
 
He did answer your question without sarcasm, and he gave you and excellent, honest answer. He explained exactly what Tracks is.

If you would stop talking out of your ass and do a search as suggested, you'd quickly see that.
 
Glen did give you a good answer. If you want a list of which equipment all the ME's use, alot include it in their signature, beyond that it's alot to ask them.

Should you try Wavelab 6? Yeah, you should experiment with every option you have till you find what works for you and your projects.
 
WaveLab is a fine PQ editor. T-Racks *IS NOT* a PQ editor of any kind.
I was also wondering if anyone uses any hardware for mastering.
Click to expand...
I would say that most mastering engineers use mostly hardware to get from point "A" to point "B" - Of course, a PQ editor that will manage the burn is essential to the process...

Great hardware never goes out of style. As long as I can edit and burn in software, I couldn't care an awful lot on the bells & whistles.
 
itsme1234 said:
sorry if i offended, but what would you describe t-racks as if it isnt software made for mastering?
Click to expand...
T-Racks is little more than a bundle of fairly standard (as far as features and usability) signal processing plugs, combined with some rudimentary level automation for being able to do a few fades. Those plugs can be used anywhere in the production process and there is nothing that makes them specific to mastering. It's only in the marketing that T-Racks is "defined" as a tool for mastering.

And T-Racks includes few, if any, of the tools that are truely required specifically for the mastering process, such as PQ editing, compilation assembly, disc burning control and error reporting, etc.

And where is the reverb?

Look, itsme, I wans't trying to humiliate you or trash your first post. I was just trying to steer you in the right direction since you - and in fact most first-timers - really don't know what mastering is actually all about and are being duped by the marketing arms of companies like IK Multimedia into thinking something wrong.

And, BTW, try a simple search under the phrase "mastering software" (the title of this thread) like I just did. A whole boatload of relevant threads.

G.
 
sorry i seemed a little snappy, but i joined a lot of forums and it seems like no matter what question i ask i always get the same answers where people are telling me to do my homework. I do know a lot about music but I dont claim to know everything, if i did i wouldnt be here asking questions, i would be answering them instead.

Thanks for all the help. Your explaination of T-racks was very helpful. Sounds like a rip off to me considering how much it cost.

Might I ask what process you use to master your tracks SouthSIDE?
 
itsme1234 said:
sorry i seemed a little snappy, but i joined a lot of forums and it seems like no matter what question i ask i always get the same answers where people are telling me to do my homework.
Click to expand...

It was suggested to you that you do a search on these forums, which I see you still haven't done.

This question comes up a lot, and there is a LOT of information already answered. Why should it be answered yet again?
 
mastering is an art by itself

I havent used a lot of different software but came from analog old school mastering to a stereo reel to reel from live mix when you cant hear the headphones (guess and hope method) but there are various "tools" that help like compressors, EQs, etc. I notice most big brands usually have a package of plug-ins like: http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/Voxengo/default.asp

When it comes down to it, its all in the mixdown producers ears and there are as many different views as there are albums.

Didnt help at all, did I....
Mike
 
itsme1234 said:
Might I ask what process you use to master your tracks SouthSIDE?
Click to expand...
I'd really prefer to send my mixes to someone like John (It'll happen, John ;) ) who specializes in mastering.

But as it happens, most of the stuff I work on these days is for performers who for various legit reasons are not in the market for real mastering, so I do it myself.

Step number one is to step away from the mix for a while. Never master a still-warm mixdown that you cooked yourself. Let it cool overnight at least, 24 hours would be even better, if there's time. This gives you time to both rest and refresh your ears, and to be able to approach the mix from a fresh perspective. If there's a nail sticking so far out of the mix as to be obvious in the next area code, I'll go back and fix it in the mixing and create a new mixdown rather than try to hammer it down in mastering.

Then step number two is to polish the stereo mix. This usually involves a little touch-up EQ, some light low-threshold compression (if called for) to tighen up the dynamics a taste, throw some reverb tails on if/where necessary and set the final fades. Then some gain or limiting as required to match the song level to the album (if one of a compilation of songs) or to find the optimal level without splitting the mix at it's seams (if a single).(1)

Then it's lay the premaster into the burn project, setting the proper timing and fades between songs if necessary, set the track points properly, edit the PQ and disc data info, and burn a test disc. I then test the burn for error rates and general QA testing. Then it's take the disc and listen to it in my home stereo or car stereo or both.(2)

Finally I throw the disc out the window, head back to the desk and start the whole process all over again because the test pressing sounds like horse pucky.(3)

NOTES:
(1) Note that any of the tools, hardware or software, that are used in this phase of the mastering process are generic tools such as EQs, compressors, reverbs, waveform editors, etc. No "mastering software" required. I have a battery of different processors (plugs and hardware), I choose what I think will be the best sounding/best performing tools for the job at hand

(2) Note that none of the processes in this phase of mastering are handled by software like T-Racks or hardware like a Finalizer. Personally I like Sony Sound Forge/CD Architect for the editing, compiling, mastering and burning, but Wavelab will take care of all that just as well. I use a combination of Nero's CD/DVD Speed and Plextor's PlexTools to do the QA testing.

(3) It's just a joke. Lighten up people! :D

G.
 
The reason allot of folks get pissed is that it seems that the average newbie is just looking for a nice easy, cookie cutter , canned pre-set answer! :D

Fact is , that the new technology might crack the door open a bit but your gonna have to bust it down with some effort.
Read your ass off!

experiment and take some notes!

This is modern mastering software:
 

Attachments

  • i10.webp
    i10.webp
    6.6 KB · Views: 197
Last edited:
roftl
zing! ... a less-than-1-bit mix right there - or a sine wave set to an amplitude of 1

You know, I used to always try to "master" my mixes by doing stuff like limiting it all to poo and using loaded weapons like multiband compressors -- that is until I realized I needed a truckload more practice at mixing. Hmm ... how can one "master" when one cannot fully realize their ability to mix.

But speaking of the 24-hour cool down ... I have tunes I've been cooking for years - perhaps because I'm stubborn and never think of them as finished ... or perhaps paranoid of failure, or perhaps ... lazy
but the point is that every time I re-visit them, I change something, or a lot of things (at least 5 re-mixes of some of them) and 99% of the time it is for the better. Some of them have gone through 5 revisions since Christmas, and 10 revisions before that ... lol
 
The best mastering hardware is acoustic treatment for your room.

The biggest problem with mastering your own mixes (for many of us) is that our rooms are flawed. Taking a couple of days off and relistening is always a good idea, but if you are just going to re-listen in the same flawed room, you still have a problem.

That is why most people will encourage you to take your mixes to a real mastering engineer (with a wonderful listening room) rather than doing it yourself, if you are at all serious about putting out the best possible product.

But if you are just a hobbyist or someone in no position to spend any money (and there is no shame in that), then you certainly can explore some "do-it-yourself" mastering options. Just don't expect it to sound like the "real thing".

I can't recommend anything specific, because I always send all my stuff out to be mastered.
 
www.izotope.com > ozone
Maybe the pros here will kill me but I like it and find i helpful. The manual is great too. Maybe i´ll use other equipment later in my spiritual unbound and everlasting process called mastering, but for now its allright :D
 
I would never call anything I do to my music "Mastering" anyway.
Unless someone else with the neccessary skills is going to be doing my mastering, then it just doesn't happen really.

Seeing as I have access to the mixes to change anything, if I see anything during my "mastering" phase that I think could do with a bit of work, I go back to the mix and sort it out. Therefore "mastering" in the true sense becomes sort of pointless for me to do if I'm going to do it myself. Especially if the tunes are just sitting on my computer. If I'm going to pay them back on the computer I'll just go into the mixes.

Therefore my "mastering" phase simply usually involves sticking a limiter on for an ever so slight volume boost, and burning to CD. And thats only if someone specifically wants a CD of my stuff. Occasionally I might do a few other things, but again, it depends on the mix, which I prefer to work with at the end of the day.

Aside from that I don't see the point in having a version of my mix run through a limiter for my own listening purposes. I am perfectly happy using a volume control.
 
legionserial said:
I would never call anything I do to my music "Mastering" anyway.
Unless someone else with the neccessary skills is going to be doing my mastering, then it just doesn't happen really.

Seeing as I have access to the mixes to change anything, if I see anything during my "mastering" phase that I think could do with a bit of work, I go back to the mix and sort it out. Therefore "mastering" in the true sense becomes sort of pointless for me to do if I'm going to do it myself. Especially if the tunes are just sitting on my computer. If I'm going to pay them back on the computer I'll just go into the mixes.

Therefore my "mastering" phase simply usually involves sticking a limiter on for an ever so slight volume boost, and burning to CD. And thats only if someone specifically wants a CD of my stuff. Occasionally I might do a few other things, but again, it depends on the mix, which I prefer to work with at the end of the day.

Aside from that I don't see the point in having a version of my mix run through a limiter for my own listening purposes. I am perfectly happy using a volume control.
Click to expand...

There are a few other things you are probably doing that technically fall under the range of "mastering" as well - such as setting the timing of the spaces between songs, putting them in the right order, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top