using wavelab for mastering

[ouvrotpoep]

does anyone have any thoughts on wavelab and how it compares to other mastering programs. i read here people suggesting cubase. i kind of find cubase more streamlined to use as it is non-destructive editing..

[MatsonMusicBox]

two different programs with two different purposes. Cubase is a mutlitrack recording program kile SONAR, Pro Tools, etc. Wavelab is a advanced wav aditing and mastering software. You really need both. I record/edit/mix in SONAR and MAster in Wavelab with the Ozone 3 Plg in as well as some of the stuff that comes with Wavelab.

Originally Posted by ouvrotpoep

does anyone have any thoughts on wavelab and how it compares to other mastering programs. i read here people suggesting cubase. i kind of find cubase more streamlined to use as it is non-destructive editing..

[ouvrotpoep]

Originally Posted by MatsonMusicBox

Cubase is a mutlitrack recording program kile SONAR, Pro Tools, etc. Wavelab is a advanced wav aditing and mastering software.

i know cubase isn't really used for mastering. it's just that in some of the topics i read here, people suggested using it that way. how would you go about the process. sorry i'm just really starting to learn how wavelab works. do you go under the process tab to compress or do you use the vst plug-ins under effects? after that do you normalize? what else can be done? limiting?

[engineroom]

I use Cubase 4 to master. I have thought about purchsing Wavelab or Ozone in the past but in the end I was able to get a decent master, definitely loud enough, and I decided I would rather spend the money on a new mic or on a new amp... Cubase works great, and they do have some stock plug-ins that are master friendly, so I have had some decent success.

Cubase also has a mastering setup for the multi-track software that you can use, it automatically opens up compressors and EQs for you to get started, but its basically the same as a regular multi-track suession.

In my opinion, and I think some others would agree, you don't need a program like Wavelab.

Hope that helps!

[Electriclight]

I have both programs and honestly, there is almost nothing you can do to an individual stereo track in Wavelab that you can't do in Cubase. However, Wavelab is really nice to work with multiple songs when putting together an "album" CD, as far as adjusting pauses and fadeouts and such. If you are just concerned about "mastering" individual tracks, there is no reason to purchase Wavelab.

[MatsonMusicBox]

Originally Posted by Electriclight

I have both programs and honestly, there is almost nothing you can do to an individual stereo track in Wavelab that you can't do in Cubase. However, Wavelab is really nice to work with multiple songs when putting together an "album" CD, as far as adjusting pauses and fadeouts and such. If you are just concerned about "mastering" individual tracks, there is no reason to purchase Wavelab.

I think this is accurate - so I retract the "need" part of my previous post. I don't know what functionality Cubase has, but Wavelab does several things for me at that stage that SONAR doesn't - these include:

1. convert to mp3 (have to buy something extra for SONAR)
2. more analysis tools, errors, RMS power, bit meter, phase, etc.
3. CD tools - especially audio Montage

[Doctor Steuss]

Originally Posted by MatsonMusicBox

[...]
convert to mp3 (have to buy something extra for SONAR)
[...]

Sonar 7 (which I use) has this ability without purchasing anything extra. I imagine that the newest version (8) also has this ability (they don't seem to like to get rid of capabilities... instead they just stack them on [i.e. Producer 7, becomes Studio 8, Producer 8 becomes Studio 9, etc., etc.]).

[ouvrotpoep]

thanks for all the feedback. just another question. what steps do you guys use when mastering? just walk me through the process. mixdown is finished and you want to master. what do you use and how much of each?

[MatsonMusicBox]

I have 6, 7, and 8 producer editions.

Originally Posted by Doctor Steuss

Sonar 7 (which I use) has this ability without purchasing anything extra. I imagine that the newest version (8) also has this ability (they don't seem to like to get rid of capabilities... instead they just stack them on [i.e. Producer 7, becomes Studio 8, Producer 8 becomes Studio 9, etc., etc.]).

[brandondrury]

i know cubase isn't really used for mastering. it's just that in some of the topics i read here, people suggested using it that way.

I'm HUGE on it for this application as it is more in line with what I (and most professionals) define as "real" mastering. Most of the people who use Wavelab and such are essentially doing 2bus processing after the fact. The differences of these two roles can be blurred.

However, I'm of the belief that mastering is the minimization of differences (and distractions) from song to song to create a common creation (like an album, for example). I don't feel there is really any point to have a single song mastered. If you hit a mix on the head, the only issue after the fact is maybe bumping up the level a bit. If you've not hit a mix on the head, what is a mastering engineer going to do?

In my experience Wavelab, Sound Forge, and the other stereo editors are not designed for the task of taking a collection of mixers/tracks/songs and making an album out of them.

I'm also of the opinion that if processing is required on the stereo mix to achieve your creative sonic goals it should be done in the final stages of the mixing process. The biggest reason for this is if you decide, for example, that the tune needs a high shelf boost (which is very common) it should be done while you still have access to your mix. When you add this shelf, it's possible that the apparent levels of individual elements can change.

The notion of simply loading up a mix you've done and tweaking it in some kind of stereo editor seems like a step backwards to me, personally.

Brandon