What techniques can you use with sound forge (I have 4.5) to postmix to give you the closest to finished product you can get short of a pro master? I assume some compression is in order - I see the normalize pull down gives some pre-set options that might help - I also assume some eq would help - I'm kinda new at this, so before I spend umpteen hours trying stuff, it would be helpful to see what works for anyone else - Thanks!
Mastering with sound forge
- Thread starter et MA
- Start date
Queue
Active member
I haven't even tried to "Master" or "pre-master" my stuff yet. Unless you've REALLY got your mixing skills down, you should focus on mixing first. When you get something mixed, post it in the MP3 Mixing clinic, where others will critique your mix, and give you some helpful input.
Queue
Queue
Here is the link Queue is speaking of:
http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=31902
Queue is right, ideally if the stuff is recorded right and mixed right it should sound pretty good as is. As the thread above shows, it takes a lot of experiance to know how to "master" something properly to really improve a good mix. On the other hand, as the same thread shows it can be a fun learning experiance as well. As long as it is your own stuff, and you are not chargeing someone, I say fire away!
Currently I have a somewhat different situation. A friend of mine gave me a live recording of his band done on a boom box. It came in the form of a CD done as a single track. Rather than "mastering" it I'm trying what amounts to a salvage operation - the sound quality is poor, volumne uneven, has tape hiss, etc. I just mention this because I have been playing with the "Wave Hammer" plug-in (it's in Sound Forge 5, don't think it's in 4.5) which seems appropriately named, since it is about as subtle as a hammer. It's basicly a compressor with some pre-set tweeks that seems designed for "mastering". It might be a help with source material that was recorded too quietly, but I think someone using the standard SF plug-ins could get better results with only a little experimentation.
http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=31902
Queue is right, ideally if the stuff is recorded right and mixed right it should sound pretty good as is. As the thread above shows, it takes a lot of experiance to know how to "master" something properly to really improve a good mix. On the other hand, as the same thread shows it can be a fun learning experiance as well. As long as it is your own stuff, and you are not chargeing someone, I say fire away!
Currently I have a somewhat different situation. A friend of mine gave me a live recording of his band done on a boom box. It came in the form of a CD done as a single track. Rather than "mastering" it I'm trying what amounts to a salvage operation - the sound quality is poor, volumne uneven, has tape hiss, etc. I just mention this because I have been playing with the "Wave Hammer" plug-in (it's in Sound Forge 5, don't think it's in 4.5) which seems appropriately named, since it is about as subtle as a hammer. It's basicly a compressor with some pre-set tweeks that seems designed for "mastering". It might be a help with source material that was recorded too quietly, but I think someone using the standard SF plug-ins could get better results with only a little experimentation.
SPINSTERWUN
Active member
Queue said:
LOL That would be the best way to do your work.
spin
I'm going to use that 'Wave Hammer' on Queue's head for moving that mastering duel. I think the wave hammer and the EQ are pretty neat in 5.0 but I don't like the reverb nor do I like the Normalize feature. The reverb causes rumble, and the normalize thing seems to mess up everything you worked on.
t
I think the wave hammer and the EQ are pretty neat in 5.0 but I don't like the reverb nor do I like the Normalize feature. The reverb causes rumble, and the normalize thing seems to mess up everything you worked on. t
I have been pretty satisfied with the wave hammer feature on 5.0 as well. Your right in that its not very subtle in some cases, but I think it sounds pretty musical as long as you keep the ratio below 3:1 or so. It did a pretty good job of beefing up some old 4track recordings for a demo we put together. I've also been using it a lot on individual snare tracks, etc. cause its better than any plug-in compressors I have.
ok....without calling it mastering & starting shit, here's what I do w/ SF. I get my stereo mix into SF, and usually use the Ultramaximizer to boost the signal to make it louder. I used to use normalize but rerad somewhere on here that U.M is better for digital signals. I have found that my CD's come out a bit quieter when I use UM vs Normalize. My next step is to try UM THEN normalize...... I also like to add EQ boost around 15K about +3-5 db. I've played w/ stereo imager, smmoth/enhance, and am unsure of their real effects. Oops! 1st thing I do is use the DC offset.... just kinda read you're supposed to.....I have also used the waves RCL compressor...it seems to help. I've been happy w/ my results and while it's not pro, it sounds pretty good. Hope this Helps!
philboyd studge
New member
I guess we all use SF a little differently. I run my stereo mixes from a Tascam 788 to Sound Forge 5.0 in groups of 10 to 12 songs, and the first thing done is to save the 24bit raw .wav files to disk for later use (like making mp3's). Then I mute any 'leader' and get a good fade on the ending. Then I check the waveform for unusual peaks and lower the volume on them to about 80% (it's important to expand the waveform when doing this). At this point I'll sometimes add a small amount of ambiance reverb but not often. Unless I'm working with old tapes or records I don't make any EQ changes since I feel that should have been taken care of in the mix. The final step is to normalize to 95% with either peak or rms, it depends on the song.
I've tried wave hammer but it seems to compressed. I'll try Ultramaximizer next time around and see how that works, but generally I'm satisfied with things as they are.
It isn't often I remember to do it but paragraphic eq is handy for making mp3's. Since mp3's don't hear anything below 60hz and above 15khz you roll everything off there and it'll give you a better mp3 cause there's less to process. And if you normalize at over 95% it'll peak when making an mp3.
If you want to hear some of my stuff done this way I'm at mp3.com (type John Malcolm Penn to the search window). The site's being changed around but those guys take forever.
I've tried wave hammer but it seems to compressed. I'll try Ultramaximizer next time around and see how that works, but generally I'm satisfied with things as they are.
It isn't often I remember to do it but paragraphic eq is handy for making mp3's. Since mp3's don't hear anything below 60hz and above 15khz you roll everything off there and it'll give you a better mp3 cause there's less to process. And if you normalize at over 95% it'll peak when making an mp3.
If you want to hear some of my stuff done this way I'm at mp3.com (type John Malcolm Penn to the search window). The site's being changed around but those guys take forever.
John Sayers
Solar Power!!
The audio Pluggin chainer is the best feature that forge has IMO cos you canchange the order of the pluggins. When you've got it the way you want you can save it and it saves all the pluggin settings. Last night I was playing with the Batch Converter and you can callup the saved chainer setting and apply it to a group of tracks, Cool 
Like I was taking some tracks off an LP so I setup a vinyl restoration series of pluggins and then applied it to all the tracks.
cheers
John
Like I was taking some tracks off an LP so I setup a vinyl restoration series of pluggins and then applied it to all the tracks.
cheers
John