
mark4man
MoonMix Studios
Gang,
I know we've gone around on this one before, but I'm still not sure (in terms of quality) just how to treat my pre-mastering process concerning SONAR XL 2.2. SONAR's audio engine (at least I think it's the audio engine) exports (bounces) all selected tracks to a stereo .wav file (yes...we all know this, Mark.) But the .wav file never seems to sound as good as the sound of all tracks playing back in the app.
The first major difference (which I'm sure I can rectify in WaveLab), is that the .wav files don't sound as bright . . . almost as if the highs are a bit muted. I can live with this one, since it is very subtle at most (although it does bother me that it is not an exact duplication, which I am assuming it should be.)
The second difference drives me nuts. For those tracks that have passages that are "distortion questionable" (this is my term for those tracks that sound fine when soloed, but that sound as though they have a subtle digital distortion when played with the entire mix), those passages are always somewhat noticeably distorted in the bounced .wav file.
Even when I pull the output buss down to where I have virtually no clipping, you can still hear it (& there should be no such thing as cumulative signal distortion if we're below 0dBFS, correct?)
So my observation is: Maybe the file writing function (audio engine?) of the major PC multitracking software apps is not yet up to snuff, comparitive to mastering gear (or is it me?)
I know audio engine quality has been on the increase through various Cakewalk incarnations, but I was wondering:
How much better off would I be with say; an Alesis Masterlink, or similar tool. How much better would the quality be, given that the transfer process would be essentially an analog output capture, directly to hard disk in the Masterlink, during multitrack playback? (meaning that the signal would undergo double conversion.)
The pro's all swear by this machine . . . but it seems to me that SONAR's export function should be all that is technically necessary to create high-quality pre-masters.
If someone could help with what I might be doing wrong in SONAR . . . or offer some insight as to why essentially a digital data rewrite (which I am assuming is what happens when multiple digital audio tracks are written to a single file from DAW software) doesn't yield precise results . . . or if I would just be better off utilizing outboard mastering gear . . . it would be appreciated.
Thanks,
mark4man
I know we've gone around on this one before, but I'm still not sure (in terms of quality) just how to treat my pre-mastering process concerning SONAR XL 2.2. SONAR's audio engine (at least I think it's the audio engine) exports (bounces) all selected tracks to a stereo .wav file (yes...we all know this, Mark.) But the .wav file never seems to sound as good as the sound of all tracks playing back in the app.
The first major difference (which I'm sure I can rectify in WaveLab), is that the .wav files don't sound as bright . . . almost as if the highs are a bit muted. I can live with this one, since it is very subtle at most (although it does bother me that it is not an exact duplication, which I am assuming it should be.)
The second difference drives me nuts. For those tracks that have passages that are "distortion questionable" (this is my term for those tracks that sound fine when soloed, but that sound as though they have a subtle digital distortion when played with the entire mix), those passages are always somewhat noticeably distorted in the bounced .wav file.
Even when I pull the output buss down to where I have virtually no clipping, you can still hear it (& there should be no such thing as cumulative signal distortion if we're below 0dBFS, correct?)
So my observation is: Maybe the file writing function (audio engine?) of the major PC multitracking software apps is not yet up to snuff, comparitive to mastering gear (or is it me?)
I know audio engine quality has been on the increase through various Cakewalk incarnations, but I was wondering:
How much better off would I be with say; an Alesis Masterlink, or similar tool. How much better would the quality be, given that the transfer process would be essentially an analog output capture, directly to hard disk in the Masterlink, during multitrack playback? (meaning that the signal would undergo double conversion.)
The pro's all swear by this machine . . . but it seems to me that SONAR's export function should be all that is technically necessary to create high-quality pre-masters.
If someone could help with what I might be doing wrong in SONAR . . . or offer some insight as to why essentially a digital data rewrite (which I am assuming is what happens when multiple digital audio tracks are written to a single file from DAW software) doesn't yield precise results . . . or if I would just be better off utilizing outboard mastering gear . . . it would be appreciated.
Thanks,
mark4man