I used to own wavelab for mastering. Unfortunately it's not compatible with my new computer and I'm not shelling out $500 for an upgrade. I've been using Nuendo multi-track for mastering. Any of you do the same? Use your multitrack software for mastering?
Comments
Dr_Willie_OBGYN, post: 439383, member: 25832 wrote: Why not just
Dr_Willie_OBGYN, post: 439383, member: 25832 wrote: Why not just use the multi-track for mastering?
I don't consider myself a pro master, but I have the tools and do it.
Can you explain a bit more?
Maybe I do. I do use a multi-track and mix into a master. Is that partly what you are getting at?
But at the end of the day, I still need the master section to finish on. I'm pretty sure I can strap the digital tools on any one of the channels though. Accomplish most of it but there are some advantages to whats on the master section.
But to take it even further, I will actually put 10 tracks (unlimited for that matter) of a 2mix, all but one muted and comparison master between them.
I will keep the standard master tools on the master section , an
I will keep the standard master tools on the master section , and never touch this section ( I have a little set thing I do) .
I master more detailed things like different EQing, comps on the channels. Thus compare variation of pre masters.
While all this is going on. My master section has a limiter and Mid/Side there. Maybe even a Bricasti or simple digital reverb to subtly add some over all space to the master.
So in essence, I use the multi tracks for pre masters.
To go even further, I will use two DAW's, both set in Master mod
To go even further, I will use two DAW's, both set in Master mode, and share files between the two DAW's which are uncoupled with an analog section between them. So if I feel a mix needs some analog character, I will start it on DAW 1, pass it over to DAW2 taking advantage of a nice analog shift. The pass can be just beautiful.
I would then capture that pass on the multi track of DAW 2, and do as described about.
I also record and mixdown like this. So, I use a 2 multi-track
I also record and mixdown like this.
So, I use a 2 multi-trackDAW's to record, mix and master with the option to include analog gear either pre or post on any one of the DAW's, switchable via digital routing. Its all seamless and pristine transparent.
Hows that for an answer?
bouldersound, post: 439388, member: 38959 wrote: Master for what
bouldersound, post: 439388, member: 38959 wrote: Master for what format? A CD? For that you need to deliver either bin/cue or DDP 2.0. If you're mastering for online release then it's not so critical as long as you've got a mastering limiter, decent metering and one or two other tools.
Boulder, I've been meaning to ask. You use Vegas right? Which was bought by Magix. What is the overall expectations, hopefulness , pros/cons you and the Vegas community has now? Do you think Magix will incorporate some of the cool things Vegas has?
(edit) Like the ability to run at 2 different sample rates on the same DAW, at the same time, comes to mind? Do I have this correct?
This could be a useful mixdown/ mastering thing I would love to see Sequoia have.
bouldersound, post: 439388, member: 38959 wrote: Master for what
bouldersound, post: 439388, member: 38959 wrote: Master for what format? A CD? For that you need to deliver either bin/cue or DDP 2.0. If you're mastering for online release then it's not so critical as long as you've got a mastering limiter, decent metering and one or two other tools.
No. Just mastering digital files for YouTube videos.
I tried to use Ozone in stand alone mode but I had problems gett
I tried to use Ozone in stand alone mode but I had problems getting the right levels.
I started to load all the songs in sonar on multiple tracks and I use Ozone as a plugin and then Fabfiler's limiter on the master buss. I now get better results and it's easy to compare songs on the fly.
audiokid, post: 439390, member: 1 wrote: Boulder, I've been mean
audiokid, post: 439390, member: 1 wrote: Boulder, I've been meaning to ask. You use Vegas right? Which was bought by Magix. What is the overall expectations, hopefulness , pros/cons you and the Vegas community has now? Do you think Magix will incorporate some of the cool things Vegas has?
I don't know the community, I just know me. I hope they keep the way Vegas edits. Nothing else I've used is as fast, though Reaper is okay.
audiokid, post: 439390, member: 1 wrote: (edit) Like the ability to run at 2 different sample rates on the same DAW, at the same time, comes to mind? Do I have this correct?
This could be a useful mixdown/ mastering thing I would love to see Sequoia have.
I think that's correct, if I'm understanding you. That would be great. You know, you can have two iterations of Vegas running on one machine, each using different interfaces and running at different sample rates. I don't know if that meets the requirements for your mixdown method or if having two machines is part of the deal.
If I'm mastering a casual project I do use Vegas because it can burn a disc suitable for local duplication. DVD Architect came with Vegas 13 but I haven't tried it yet. That should be interesting because CD Architect and Sound Forge 4.5 were my entry into this line of software many years ago.
Wavelab is more for doing a full CD master, it's great for Motan
Wavelab is more for doing a full CD master, it's great for Motanges, track markers, with custom spacing ets.. If you are just doing one offs there's no difference..
Also Wavelab can burn redbook cds.
I usually master in Cubase and then do fronts and backs with track markers in Wavelab.. I just find the visual workflow better for me in Cubase.
At the studio I use peak, and toast. Mastering is usually just
At the studio I use peak, and toast. Mastering is usually just a bus comp and l2. I'm not good at mastering yet. I think I used waveburner or something like that last project cuz peak either got discontinued or my boss didn't want to pay.
I think we all just have to plan for periodic upgrades and fees. Or just ride the system till it dies for ten years. The systems will always do what they do, in general. It's the upgrade of one thing that can cause havoc.
Maybe it's just worth keeping things simple and paying the $500? It's something you already know and are comfortable with. Although that's a hideously steep price.
I'm paying 60$ to upgrade a pluggin pack I paid $100 for, just to get 64 bit.
I've use. T racks standone a few times at my cousins place, found it very meh. I liked ozones trasparency and sound better.
I'm just gonna use a few individual plug-inslike fab filter and waves for mastering, and samplitude for cd authoring.
kmetal, post: 439411, member: 37533 wrote: I've use. T racks sta
kmetal, post: 439411, member: 37533 wrote: I've use. T racks standone a few times at my cousins place, found it very meh. I liked ozones trasparency and sound better.
Isn't it funny how we all have different experiences and preferences? All of us are veterans and pros, and I have the utmost respect for all you guys as my peers and fellow cookers - yet we all have our own preferred tools and workflows; our own likes, dislikes, and preferences, that are often the same, but just as often, can be very different between us... certain tools that work for each of us individually at a given time and in a particular circumstance...
I love Fabfilter stuff too, but I also use T-Racks plugs, and I really like them.
I know guys who really dig the Slate stuff, and other guys who prefer Softube, Waves or UAD, and all of those cats are veterans and pros themselves, whom I also respect.
I know that Chris ( audiokid ) really likes the Variverb that comes stock in Samp and Sequoia, yet, I don't really care for it as much as he does.
That doesn't make either one of us "right" or "wrong"... it's not about that. We're just sometimes different in our preferences.
Again, I think it all comes back to that magic word: context - and what we are using the tools on, and for. ;)
IMO...
-d.
DonnyThompson, post: 439593, member: 46114 wrote: Isn't it funny
DonnyThompson, post: 439593, member: 46114 wrote: Isn't it funny how we all have different experiences and preferences? All of us are veterans and pros, and I have the utmost respect for all you guys as my peers and fellow cookers - yet we all have our own preferred tools and workflows; our own likes, dislikes, and preferences, that are often the same, but just as often, can be very different between us... certain tools that work for each of us individually at a given time and in a particular circumstance...
I love Fabfilter stuff too, but I also use T-Racks plugs, and I really like them.
I know guys who really dig the Slate stuff, and other guys who prefer Softube, Waves or UAD, and all of those cats are veterans and pros themselves, whom I also respect.
I know that Chris ( audiokid ) really likes the Variverb that comes stock in Samp and Sequoia, yet, I don't really care for it as much as he does.
That doesn't make either one of us "right" or "wrong"... it's not about that. We're just sometimes different in our preferences.Again, I think it all comes back to that magic word: context - and what we are using the tools on, and for. ;)
IMO...
-d.
Yes sir. The beauty of this art/science we all love!!!!!!
DonnyThompson, post: 439569, member: 46114 wrote: I would sugges
DonnyThompson, post: 439569, member: 46114 wrote: I would suggest that you get an accurate LUFS meter, though, as the volume criteria for several popular streaming sites has changed in the last year.
Can't I use the properties feature to analyze a selected audio file to get the same information that a LUFS meter provides and more? For example, here's what Nuendo shows me. BTW which is the most important indicator?....
Loudness_Value;-23.72 LUFS
Loudness_Range;0.00 LU
Max_True_Peak_Level;-4.85 dBTP
Max_Momentary_Loudness;-21.34 LUFS
Max_Short_Term_Loudness;-80.00 LUFS
Sample Rate;44.100 kHz
Average RMS (AES-17) Left;-27.44 dB
Average RMS (AES-17) Right;-27.13 dB
Max. RMS Left;-26.04 dB
Max. RMS Right;-25.82 dB
Max. RMS;-25.82 dB
Min. Sample Value Left;-5.08 dB
Min. Sample Value Right;-4.88 dB
Max. Sample Value Left;-5.05 dB
Max. Sample Value Right;-4.89 dB
Peak Amplitude Left;-5.05 dB
Peak Amplitude Right;-4.88 dB
True Peak Left;-5.05 dB
True Peak Right;-4.85 dB
DC Offset Left;-85.98 dB
DC Offset Right;-oo dB
Resolution Left;16 Bit
Resolution Right;16 Bit
Estimated Pitch Left;1300.9Hz/E5
Estimated Pitch Right;1711.4Hz/A5
The first bit of data is what I was referring to - the LUFS meas
The first bit of data is what I was referring to - the LUFS measurement.... Which, by the way, at -23, is right on par with the newer EBU 128 standard.
As long as you know that your metering is accurate, you're good to go. There have been several meters in a few different progs over the last few years that have been discovered to not be accurate, some pretty big name, too ... For example, Waves was one of the offenders; although I believe those that were listed as being inaccurate have either fixed them, or are in the process of doing so. The last time I checked the list, I don't recall seeing Nuendo as being one of the progs with accuracy issues.
I suggested an accurate meter plug to you not knowing that Nuendo already had one.
:)
It depends on your target. -23 is a great place to start with a
It depends on your target.
-23 is a great place to start with a final mix/pre-master, if you are sending it out to be mastered or are doing it yourself. It gives you the room to work.
For CD, a LUFS of around -12 to -14db is healthy, with an absolute peak of - 0.5. This gives you a DR of -12 or so, and that's a nice solid range, and acceptable by most U.S. broadcasting facilities.
For online streaming, like Youtube, last time I checked, they were looking for a LUFS of -16. iTunes may be lower, ( or higher) you'll have to check.
Keep in mind that you can go with a hotter level if you want, but depending on where it will be played, it may be turned down in volume to match the standards of the broadcast outlet that is playing it.
Currently, the EBU has stipulated -23 as their standard, but that doesn't mean you couldn't still deliver a -18 ... or even a -12 recording... they'll likely just end up turning it down to meet their own criteria for broadcast.
Although, if you delivered something really hot, say with a -6 LUFS, they may decline to play it altogether. ;)
edit: you may want to visit Ian Sheppard's web site. There's a lot of great info there about metering, standards, and mastering suggestions.
I feel your pain. Unfortunately we are all hostage to compatibil
I feel your pain.
Unfortunately we are all hostage to compatibility. Even if we stand our ground with what works great, sooner or later we can't even import or export the data. Money pit.
I suppose it wouldn't be so bothersome if we were all making large deposits to the money sucking bank.
I still keep upgrading but sooner or later that will stop too.
I use Sequoia 13 for multi-tracking and mastering. I love it. If I didn't have that I would most likely find something else that worked. Not sure that would be .