Mastering Software

  • Thread starter Thread starter T.O.I.Y.Z.
  • Start date Start date
T

T.O.I.Y.Z.

New member
What is the easiest Mastering Software to use?.....I was told T-Racks was pretty good and easy to use, just wanted to see what everyone else thought!!
 
The program is easy but I would not recommend it. I use to use it but my songs sound crappy. Your better off getting sound forge or wavelab for your mastering needs.
 
I use Cubase for 'mastering' the same as with mixing. And then Nero to burn. I've not personally felt the need for separate software for mastering yet. Is there something I'm missing?
 
legionserial said:
I use Cubase for 'mastering' the same as with mixing. And then Nero to burn. I've not personally felt the need for separate software for mastering yet. Is there something I'm missing?
Click to expand...
Nope, you're not missing a thing.

T-Racks is NOT mastering software, regardless of what their marketing department claims. All it is is an EQ, a compressor, a limiter, and a "clipper" (YIKES!) There's not a single thing that T-Racks does that any other EQs, compressors, or limiters don't do. As far as the clipper, welll...I think the name says it all.

Any EQ, compressor or limiter, or combination thereof - including T-Racks - can be used at any point in the production process from recording, through mixing, to tweaking the mix. But none of them, including T-Racks, actually perform any actual mastering tasks such as assembling track order, volume balancing, track marker editing, Bluebook editing, fades, CDInfo editing, P-Code editing, error reporting, media burning, etc.

If you want mastering software, try CD Architect or Wavelab if you want to master a CD. If you just want to publish individual cuts, any of the editors like Sound Forge or Cubase will do.

As far as T-Racks' ease of use, one either knows how to use an EQ and a compressor or they don't. If one doesn't, they will all be hard to use. If one does, then it's a moot question.

G.
 
So is there an advantage to separating your mastering and recording softwares then?

The closest I've seen to that is that Audacity works better for a few steps on the mastering side of things than Reaper. (Specifically maxing out the final mixes volume and adding fade in/outs). But neither of those is specifically a "mastering" program.
 
I've always been under the impression that there is no difference in SOUND between one hosting program or another. Aren't they all really just "hosting programs", with different features and specialities???
 
VomitHatSteve said:
So is there an advantage to separating your mastering and recording softwares then?

The closest I've seen to that is that Audacity works better for a few steps on the mastering side of things than Reaper. (Specifically maxing out the final mixes volume and adding fade in/outs). But neither of those is specifically a "mastering" program.
Click to expand...
The advantageous plan, IMHO, is just to follow the old addage: Use what ever tool works best for you for the job at hand.

If you find that Audacity works better for you for some of your mastering tasks, then by all means use it for that. You're right, that does not making it "mastering software" per se. But it's the tool you prefer for those tasks. And if you prefer to use Reaper for some other task, and it's worth it to you to go through the motions of changing software, then do it! :). That does not make either of them "mastering software" or "mixing software" or any other such generality. They are simply multitrack non-linear editors.

If one uses pliers to pull nails out of 2x4s, does that make them a special demolition or recycling tool? No, they are just a pair of pliers that are being used for at that time for those specific tasks. If one uses an EQ on a mixdown, that does not make it a special mastering tool either; it is simply an EQ being used for a specific task.

Just keep a full tool cabinet, and pull out what you need when you need it. Sometimes that Craftsman claw hammer works better for you, sometimes that Master Mechanic claw hammer might work better. Sometimes neither one is as appropriate as a nice pair of pliers. Just use what works best for you in any given situation.

G.
 
I think the problem with this was the way I worded the question....Let me try it a different way...

Once you have all your vocals laid down, as well as the beat, the steps YOU take to begin mixing the song, as far as the ORDER.....Along with that, the question of what YOU do with the Master Volume, and the volume of each of the tracks of vocals and aspects of the beat/instrumental, and the correlation of each together.....

Obviously with the beat aspects and vox you will EQ everything by ear....The question is, when you are doing this, what do YOU do with the Master Volume and each indivual track volume OVERALL......


Another technique I saw someone do was mute all aspects of the beat.....Keep the Master Volume at "0"....Mix all the vocals (adlibs, overlays, hooks/bridges/chorus), then bounce them down to one track all together...(saw another person bounce 3 times on 3 tracks...1 for main vox, one for adlibs/overlays and the third for the hooks).....Then after that was done, un-mute the beat and mix the tracks to the beat

I guess my main point is I have seen people do things different wayz, and come out with good mixes, but I am trying to figure out which way is best, or if there is a "right way" or not for mixing a song
 
T.O.I.Y.Z. said:
I think the problem with this was the way I worded the question....Let me try it a different way...

Once you have all your vocals laid down, as well as the beat, the steps YOU take to begin mixing the song, as far as the ORDER.....Along with that, the question of what YOU do with the Master Volume, and the volume of each of the tracks of vocals and aspects of the beat/instrumental, and the correlation of each together.....

Obviously with the beat aspects and vox you will EQ everything by ear....The question is, when you are doing this, what do YOU do with the Master Volume and each indivual track volume OVERALL......


Another technique I saw someone do was mute all aspects of the beat.....Keep the Master Volume at "0"....Mix all the vocals (adlibs, overlays, hooks/bridges/chorus), then bounce them down to one track all together...(saw another person bounce 3 times on 3 tracks...1 for main vox, one for adlibs/overlays and the third for the hooks).....Then after that was done, un-mute the beat and mix the tracks to the beat

I guess my main point is I have seen people do things different wayz, and come out with good mixes, but I am trying to figure out which way is best, or if there is a "right way" or not for mixing a song
Click to expand...
Dude, I think you just copied and pasted your post from another thread. It makes no sense here.:eek:
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
If you want mastering software, try CD Architect or Wavelab if you want to master a CD. If you just want to publish individual cuts, any of the editors like Sound Forge or Cubase will do.
Click to expand...

I mastered a whole CD in Cubase because the software is pretty intuitive to me. Threw all the tunes onto individual tracks on the grid spaced in the order I wanted them, processed them individually, matched up the volumes of each track and exported the whole thing to one big wav file. Then I threw that into nero and stuck in indexes for each track. It just seemed the most sensible way of doing things for me.
 
Last edited:
legionserial said:
I mastered a whole CD in Cubase because the software is pretty intuitive to me. Threw all the tunes onto individual tracks on the grid spaced in the order I wanted them, processed them individually, matched up the volumes of each track and exported the whole CD to one big wav file. Then I threw that into nero and stuck in indexes for each track. It just seemed the most sensible way of doing things for me.
Click to expand...
Nothing really wrong with that. That's just what I mean about use the tool that works for you. I was saying that you could have done it all in one swoop with CDA or WL, whereas in Cubase you can't do it all, you had to move on to Nero for part of it.

Plus it depends upon which version of Nero you're using as to whether you're getting P-code editing, CDInfo editing and error rate reporting with those tools, all of which you'd be wanting if you were sending your "master" off for quality duplication to glass CD instead of CD-R. With full CDA and WL, that's all in there.

If you're just burning your own CD-Rs, you can pretty much get away without that stuff, and that's OK. But it just goes to show that when folks call stuff like Ozone and T-Racks "mastering software", it's a joke, because it addresses almost nothing that involves actual mastering, even on the amateur and prosumer levels. None of those things you mentioned using Cubase and Nero for can be done by T-Racks, and very few of them by Ozone.

G.
 
Yeah, Ozone is a great plug-in. You can use it for almost anything and it nearly always does a good job definatly recommend it as an all in one plug-in if you have a decent processor and don't go mad with it on every track etc. but as glen sain its only a plug and not mastering software though it is designed specificaly to be used in conjunction with something like peak-pro or on your master track in PT or cubase.

IMHO soundforge is good for playlis edits etc. but I just dont like it! the built in effects are shite as well though the newer version says its powered by iZotope so maybe its more intuitive, Peak seems to work better at nearly everything (and because its a mac app it supports AU plug ins as well as VST... if only it did RTAS as well!) basically to cut a long story short its all down to prefernece and your Os Peak doesnt work on windows SF doesnt work on mac and they both require third party plugs as their own ones are crap. Rant over.

-FKarma
 
That takes time, I think he wants it LOUD (T-racks clipper might just be the thing then)
 
Time to Mix

Usually takes me a day or two to get a good mix using Sonar6 Producer, Soundforge 8, and a few plugs. But it does take time.
 
fishkarma said:
Peak seems to work better at nearly everything (and because its a mac app it supports AU plug ins as well as VST... if only it did RTAS as well!)
-FKarma
Click to expand...

VST's I know a little, but what is RTAS
 
RTAS along with TDM is basically the protools version of VST its just a plug-in format much like AU audio units...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top