Mastering with Cakewalk Pro Audio 9

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wong
  • Start date Start date
W

Wong

New member
Hi guys,

It's been an extremely long time since I've posted here. But I've definitely learned quite a lot from this forum. I'm using Cakewalk Pro Audio 9.

Anyway, I'm currently facing a problem with my recording. The overall volume level of my recording seems to be too soft when compared to other commercially pressed album CDs. Before recording anything, I adjusted my input level of all the tracks so that they peak just below -6dB to avoid distortion. But after recording the whole song down, I felt that the volume was very much lower than the CDs I compared to. This has happened on my previous song too.

In an attempt to normalize the volume level of the song, I compiled a few other songs from some CDs (with my desired volume levels) together with my song and burned them onto CD-R using Nero burning software. In Nero, I checked the Normalize box.

After listnening to the newly burned CD, I found that many parts of my song had distortion especially in the chorus and accented parts. Can someone please advice me on how can I get to give my song a "hotter mix" so that the volume level can be comparable to the commercial CD albums?

Also, is there any software where I can download for this purpose of normalizing without making the sound distort? I noticed that on the main home page of this website has a link to download from audiograbber.com. Is this software good for this purpose?

Sorry for the long posting but I hope you guys can help me out. Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Forget normalizing and start compressing.

If you want your stuff to compare to commercial CD's you need to compress and limit the final mix.

If you have nothing else, then export a finished wave of your song, and reimport it into PA9. Then try adding compression and brick wall limit the output.

There's a lot of tools out there for this, but unfortunately, not many of them came bundled with PA9. Look into some of the Waves stuff - particularly the C4 and L2.
 
dachay2tnr,

Thanks for the advice. Yeah, I suppose what I would need is some compression or limiter. What about Cool Edit? Is this software able to do the job?

I'll check out Waves. Thanks again!
 
Yea I go with dachay2tnr. Use the compressor. Now about cool edit...if it can do the job?, i dont know, I suppose it depends on what plug ins you got. But probably youll have the same plug ins in both of the programs so it wont matter that much.
 
I use PA9 for recording the tracks, then Sound Forge for Compressing and Limiting, ( ie Wave Hammer ). I struggled with the same issue until i realized ( with the help of some folks on the forum ) that Pa9 is good for recording stuff, but when it comes to editing, I was better off sending the track to SF . Since i started sending the track from PA9 to SF for editing, my tunes sound alot better. You gotta use some compression...as was suggested, read up on it, it will make a huge difference. Also, make sure your tracks are recorded at optimal levels in the first place. It all comes back to that "good " initial recording. Good luck
 
Compression can be carried out in PA9. You don't need any detailed editing to use compression.

I only send tracks to SF when I need to do some serious editing. :)
 
Wow, thanks a lot for replying you guys!

Moskus,
Thanks for the link man. Gotta do quite a bit of reading on compression.

By the way, how do you add compression in PA9? I can't seem to find it. Unless it is in one of those plug-ins which I don't have.

Is there any significant differences between Cool Edit and Sound Forge if I was to use either one for compression?
 
Wong said:
By the way, how do you add compression in PA9? I can't seem to find it. Unless it is in one of those plug-ins which I don't have.
Click to expand...
You can look in the Cakewalk FX "folder". Look for "Dynamic processing" or "Compressor/Gate".

The difference between CoolEdit and SF are next to zero if we're talking about compression. You can throw in PA9 there too.

What matters is the plugins you use. If you're serious about compression, check out the Waves plugins.
 
Well, I tried looking for the compressior/gate or Dynamic Processing function in the whole of PA9. Looks like I don't have it. Guess I'll have to try it out in Cool Edit.
 
Wong said:
Well, I tried looking for the compressior/gate or Dynamic Processing function in the whole of PA9. Looks like I don't have it. Guess I'll have to try it out in Cool Edit.
Click to expand...
My recollection is that they might have been part of the FX1 package that came with PA9 Deluxe edition (along with FX2 and FX3 - tape sim and sound stage).

If you didn't get the deluxe edition, that might be why you don't have them. I believe they are now included with the basic version of Sonar (except for FX3).
 
Hey guys,

Which version of Cakewalk Sonar would you recommend as I may be thinking of upgrading from PA9. Is Sonar Producer Edition (I think the name is correct) a good choice? Is the operation of Sonar similar to PA9?

Thanks.
 
Sonar 3 PE is a not good choice... it's a GREAT choice!!! Worth every cent you throw on it. But don't judge that fast. First, you must KNOW what you realy want to achieve. Sonar 3 PE is the best for those who knows and need it's features. You also need to list your curent setup/gears, PC power, Windows version, soundcard, etc etc. If you're not in need of rather complex and extra features, cakewalk Home Studio 2004 (or XL version) would be great enough for you. Cheaper and simpler, yet still powerfull enough to feed your demand :)

If you're familiar with PA9, then operating those newer families of Cakewalk won't be that difficult. You'll get "same feeling" with enhanced view and features. The manual covers almost anything you need from the start. They didn't write 700 pages for nothing :D If you have any difficulties, we're here to give you a hand...

;)
Jaymz
 
BTW, it supposed to be midnight, eh? What brings you here instead of bed, Wong? :D How's Malaysia now? It's rainy down here in Indoland... :)
 
Well, my setup isn't really up to date but it works for me.

-Windows ME
-Pentium 4, 2.0GHz processor
-Soundblaster Live! Platinum
-256MB RAM
-40GB HD

I basically do recordings and midi drum programming with soundfonts.

Is my setup ok to run Sonar 3 PE?
 
James,

I donno man, suddenly got the urge to find drum samples and check out the threads. Need to go to bed soon.... Hey, I was down in Jakarta last Dec. Which part are you from?
 
Almost :)

Cakewalk recomend running Sonar 3 PE with Windows XP, I'm not sure if you can run it on Win ME... (Calling dachay2tnr :) )

256MB is good (salt and grain!), but consider you're using soundfonts, get at least 512 will be alot better for you.

SB Live! is okay... I love it as MIDI card. It has MIDI connection, and internal synth (soundfonts), but you need something "better" for audio (wave and DXi) work.

Using two separate 7200rpm HD drive for OS and Audio is also recomended. Specialy if you often work on project contains many audio tracks (12 and above).

;)
Jaymz
 
I'm at Bandung. Highland city, three hours drive away from Jakarta. They call it "Paris van Java", but I never recall finding any French around :D Maybe it stands for fashion/dress. So many boutique and factory outlet down town. And the girls... umh... :o

Think I need to go bed too... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top