Wavelab "Redbook" question...

[RAMI]

Excuse my ignorance on this, but I'm not sure what the term "Redbook" really means (maybe it doesn't matter if I actually know the definition) and Wavelab's instructions are a little vague to me.

OK, supposedly, I can burn "Redbook" quality CD's. Does this mean "Professional" or "Industry Standard"??? If so, does any CD I burn from Wavelab automatically get burned at this level of quality or do I have to specify that somehow?

Also, there is a "Batch Process" (I think it's "batch process"...I'm at work and not at my computer right now, but it's "batch something") Is that the same as putting together an "Audio Montage" or are those 2 totally seperate things?

Any help is much appreciated. Thanx.

 

[MadAudio]

"Red book" is the industry standard format for audio discs. It's all about how the information is laid out. The quality of the audio is still up to you! I think "orange book" is for CD-ROMs or something like that.

The batch processor lets you apply the same function to several files at once, saving time. For example, you could use it to normalize a bunch of files to a certain level.

 

[mshilarious]

Excuse my ignorance on this, but I'm not sure what the term "Redbook" really means (maybe it doesn't matter if I actually know the definition) and Wavelab's instructions are a little vague to me.

OK, supposedly, I can burn "Redbook" quality CD's. Does this mean "Professional" or "Industry Standard"??? If so, does any CD I burn from Wavelab automatically get burned at this level of quality or do I have to specify that somehow?

Also, there is a "Batch Process" (I think it's "batch process"...I'm at work and not at my computer right now, but it's "batch something") Is that the same as putting together an "Audio Montage" or are those 2 totally seperate things?

Any help is much appreciated. Thanx.

Red Book is a standard format that means your CD will be playable in Red Book CD players, which is the standard audio CD format. It's not necessarily a guarantee of disc quality though, and Wavelab doesn't test a burned CD. Wavelab does automatically generate the Red Book coding, so you don't need to do anything special other than follow the instructions.

Wavelab has two functions to burn Red Book: via Audio Montage, or Basic CD.

With Audio Montage, you're supposed to render the whole montage to a single stereo .wav that is created with a cue sheet, then you open that montage in a new window and select Write CD from the CD tab menu.

Basic CD you just add the .wav files to the list and burn away.

 

[RAMI]

Beautufl! Thanx guys...It was so vague on whether I had to select the "quality" of the CD, or whether it just gave me "Redbook".

So, from what I understand, there's no REAL adavantage to using the Audio Montage if each wav is already mastered and ready to burn?

And, in my limited understand of things, I get the impression from everything I've read and heard over the years that normalizing isn't a good idea if I've used proper limiting and have good levels on every track. It seems to be a potentially destructive process. Am I wrong to assume this?
Thanx for the answers so far, Mad and MS.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So, from what I understand, there's no REAL adavantage to using the Audio Montage if each wav is already mastered and ready to burn?

That's basically correct, though a little over-simplified. Montage can be used as part of the "assembly" of the continuity of the CD as a whole; for example, to set up special cross-fades between tracks and such. But if the tracks are indeed "ready to burn", then they are ready to burn.

And, in my limited understand of things, I get the impression from everything I've read and heard over the years that normalizing isn't a good idea if I've used proper limiting and have good levels on every track. It seems to be a potentially destructive process. Am I wrong to assume this?
Thanx for the answers so far, Mad and MS.

Many times it's better to noramlize than to do nothing at all, but the main idea is that it's better to truely "master" using individual techniques like proper application of compression/limiting and EQ than to just use normalization as the magic bullet.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

Beautufl! Thanx guys...It was so vague on whether I had to select the "quality" of the CD, or whether it just gave me "Redbook".

So, from what I understand, there's no REAL adavantage to using the Audio Montage if each wav is already mastered and ready to burn?

Audio Montage lets you do all sorts of cool stuff like hidden tracks, audio in pauses, crossfades between tracks, etc. The basic CD function doesn't do that.

And, in my limited understand of things, I get the impression from everything I've read and heard over the years that normalizing isn't a good idea if I've used proper limiting and have good levels on every track. It seems to be a potentially destructive process. Am I wrong to assume this?

If you have limited properly, normalizing will do nothing since you will already have 0dB peaks. If your peaks are below say -0.3dB, then you should revisit your limiting techniques.

I would recommend, before limiting, use the Global Analysis function on each track, which will give you a pretty good idea of relative loudness of the tracks. It will also tell you where your peaks are, and whether you have clipping or DC offset. Pay attention to both max RMS and average RMS, I find both concepts are useful in terms of relative track loudness.

With that info you will have a general strategy for limiting each track to make them fit together. After a while you'll have a better feel just listening to them, but the Global Analysis will still help confirm your instincts. Usually I can tell before the track even starts playing what the level is, just based on looking at the waveform.

 

[MadAudio]

BTW, I just picked "normalize" as an example.

 

[RAMI]

BTW, I just picked "normalize" as an example.

I figured that, Mad...But it did remind that was a question I wanted to ask for a while. Thanx.

 

[RAMI]

Thanx South and Hilarious...I usually have the L1 limiting my eaks at -.3 (or is that .03?) Anyaway, thanx for the info...I'll see what cool stuff I can do with the Audio Montage...Crossfades and such sound like cool things to spice up the production of a CD, as long as they're not overdone, I guess. Thanx alot.

 

[gullyjewelz]

Is there a decent "one source" place or book I can get about mastering. I am in the ignorant, dark, cave of not knowing what the hell I am doing. I want to master an EP I have been working on. I have been schooled in another thread as to not using VEGAS as a mastering.

What software should be used? More importantly, how?

I took 3 songs to a studio once before for mastering. The engineer loaded all three tracks into some software program (I know not which one). He put each song into the same "track". He then started applying "effects" (I know not which ones).

What are you supposed to use as your "guide" when applying compression, limiter, etc. to these tracks?

 

[mshilarious]

Is there a decent "one source" place or book I can get about mastering.

Bob Katz, Mastering Audio

I took 3 songs to a studio once before for mastering. The engineer loaded all three tracks into some software program (I know not which one). He put each song into the same "track". He then started applying "effects" (I know not which ones).

What are you supposed to use as your "guide" when applying compression, limiter, etc. to these tracks?

That's a long answer. Read the Katz book, but as a general plan of attack, you will address EQ problems in the mixdown (which might be easier to fix in the mix), compress, and then limit. Depending on the tracks, you might do those steps in a different order, or omit one or all of them. You might have to use noise reduction techniques, or manual edits like gain envelopes. You might have to address the stereo spread by expanding or reducing it. You might use stereo EQ techniques. If there are difficult problems in the mix, you might use multiband compression, but again since you can make changes to the mix, that is probably better.

If your mixdown is not 16/44.1, you will also need sample rate conversion and dither on the final mix.

Finally you will put the tracks in order, apply fades and crossfades, and burn your Red Book master CD

 

[crunkthanamug]

Bob Katz, Mastering Audio

Finally you will put the tracks in order, apply fades and crossfades, and burn your Red Book master CD

Does anyone know if Roxio Easy CD creator 5 burns Redbook cds???

 

[Massive Master]

What are you supposed to use as your "guide" when applying compression, limiter, etc. to these tracks?

I recently posted this at another forum... I think it applies here...

My goofy cryptic (but absolutely applicable) answer for the day - How to premaster mixes**

(1) Listen to the mix with blank objectivity.

(2) Realistically and purposefully visualize mentally what the mix's potential is - Mentally establishing what it "should" sound like when it's done.

(3) Set up and put in order a chain that will give you the reult you're looking for. Apply the settings in your head to the hardware (or software) chain.

(4) Listen to the result.

(5) Tweak.

** This is assuming that we're not referring to a "smash it into a limiter to make it loud" thing.

The most important step, and the reason that most M.E.'s will never master their own mixes, is step 1. You (and I) cannot listen to a mix that you're intimately familiar with at the track level with true objectivity. Attempting to do so is little more than second-guessing your own mixes - If there is something to be fixed during the mastering session, it would be FAR more efficient to simply go back and fix it in the mixing phase. And mastering mixes on the same system they were mixed on? (!?!) That's a completely different can of worms (for another thread at some point I'm sure).

Step 2 - Realistically establishing the potential. This is where there are no shortcuts - Experience plays the biggest role here. Listening carefully and imagining what can and connot be tweaked. What should be brought out, what should be pushed back. Mentally establish the energy and feel of the finished product without actually hearing it.

Step 3 - Setting up the chain - Again, after steps 1 & 2, this is where everything can go completely awry. To keep the objectivity, 90% of this should be done without even hearing the audio. It's not a time for experimentation. Anyone who has ever "mixed themselves into a hole" (I think everyone's hands are raised right now) can relate to what happens when you experiment on a project that you're working on - Which leads to a rule of training - If you don't know what your gear does, experiment on something that doesn't matter. The point is to instinctively know what will happen with this or that processor with this or that setting to this or that mix. Not to "perfection" - But you should be able to mentally establish what EQ tweaks will need to be made. You should establish what type of dynamics control is needed and the "rough" settings for these controls. This is NOT the time to "throw a maul-the-band compressor on" and "play" with it - That's the surest way to get yourself into that "hole" discussed earlier - Ears adjust quickly - You have to be one step ahead of them. Establishing your chain before hitting the PLAY button again allows you to immediately compare without prejudice, between processed and unprocessed material. Which is essentially step 4.

Step 5 - Now that your settings are right in the ballpark, it's a simple matter of tweaking it a bit. Maybe the release time on the compressor wasn't quite right. Perhaps you were off by a little on the frequency on the shaping EQ. Maybe the corrective EQ was too strong or not strong enough and it's playing with the compressor. Etc., etc., yada, yada...

And again, this whole theory is based upon two important factors - (A) The engineer can listen without prejudice and (B) The monitoring chain (including the room, of course) is superior to any previous chain in the process.

"Pro" mastering every time? If you can, sure. If not, the best thing you can do IMO, is use the "buddy" system. There are only about 3 gazillion home engineers out there. Network a little. Work on each other's projects. Critique each other's work. Learn YOUR skills on something that you haven't heard - It's the only way you won't be walking backwards in your own footprints.

 

[mshilarious]

Does anyone know if Roxio Easy CD creator 5 burns Redbook cds???

I used to have that, and I believe the answer is yes. However I've seen a few CD plants say not to use it to make a master. See if you can get Nero instead.

 

[RAMI]

Thanx for the help guys...One last question (for now)...Is there a big difference between Wavelab 4 and 5? Should I bother upgrading?

 

[tkingen]

If you have limited properly, normalizing will do nothing since you will already have 0dB peaks. If your peaks are below say -0.3dB, then you should revisit your limiting techniques.

I would recommend, before limiting, use the Global Analysis function on each track, which will give you a pretty good idea of relative loudness of the tracks. It will also tell you where your peaks are, and whether you have clipping or DC offset. Pay attention to both max RMS and average RMS, I find both concepts are useful in terms of relative track loudness.

With that info you will have a general strategy for limiting each track to make them fit together. After a while you'll have a better feel just listening to them, but the Global Analysis will still help confirm your instincts. Usually I can tell before the track even starts playing what the level is, just based on looking at the waveform.

Wow, I've been reading (interpreting) that it's best for sound quality to limit peaks at about -3 with rms hovering around -12. Am I missing something?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Wow, I've been reading (interpreting) that it's best for sound quality to limit peaks at about -3 with rms hovering around -12. Am I missing something?

Uh oh, you might want to retract that question and run while you still can save yourself You're opening up a can of worms when you start asking about "proper" mastering levels. And EVERYBODY has a heated opinion on it.

The truth is the RMS level varies depending upon the density of the music itself. Heavy metal and the like can be pushed to higher RMSs, whereas more spartan mixes of lighter music from hip hop to standard rock to country usually will sound better at quieter RMSs.

As far as the peak level, I see no reason why one can't or shouldn't push the digital peak (peak dBFS) up to as close to 0 as possible. Though the difference between -0.3, -1 and -1.5dBFS peak will be negligible for any RMS levels below -6 to -10dBFS.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

Wow, I've been reading (interpreting) that it's best for sound quality to limit peaks at about -3 with rms hovering around -12. Am I missing something?

Nah Glen, let's have fun instead.

Yeah there is no reason to leave peaks that low IF YOU ARE self-mastering. That is, if you're mastering your own mix, get the peaks up to 0. Don't do that if you are mixing with the intention of mastering later! Then peaks at -3 is just fine.

An RMS of -12 with peak at -3 gives you an effective RMS of -9. That's pretty loud. If a standard can be set, it's probably -14, with some variation among songs on a CD. Any material of CD length over -11 is very likely going to be fatiguing.

 

[Chris Shaeffer]

FWIW- I know a number of people who are still using the first generate CD players they bought 10 years ago. They tend to clip when you get too close to 0dBFS. Newer ones don't do that, but I master to -.3dBFS to be safe.

I've also run into a situation where compressed formats made from a hot master had distortion on the loudest parts when played back on a cheap playback system. In that one case bumping the master down to -.5dBFS took care of the problem.

Take care,
Chris