what's the best software to use for mastering???

[acoustic]

this is true one must pic the effect that the part needs start with small amounts add
more until you get to were you can live with the mix
hay you know we are our worst critics

thanks brandon you are the web master
may the force be with you


acoustic

[brandondrury]

this is true one must pic the effect that the part needs start with small amounts add

This is only true if we assume that a beginner uses too much. In the end, you don't need to add a "small" amount of effects/processing, you need to add the right amount.

thanks brandon you are the web master
may the force be with you

[acoustic]

Iam on page with you watch out for thoes tornados

acoustic

[zip]

I'm like Brandon in a way. Instead of Cubase I use Logic.

I "master" the final mix using EQ, Compression and Limiting on the output as I bounce the file with a little dithering.

Some of software tools I like are Logic's stereo "mastering" plugins. I use the mutiband compressor with the adaptive limiter a lot. My FAVORITE software tools are by Sonictimeworks. The EQ's are outstanding when used with the mastering compressor they offer. A little pricey but VERY nice IMO.

One "trick" I learned is to use a spectrum analyzer on a reference track - one I want to mimic the sound of....and use it as the last plugin in the chain on my file. Just helps you get in the ballpark so to speak...

Here's a free one I use. Not bad for free!!

rnd | downloads

[scribe]

I master sometimes, just for experimentation and usually will give artists I record a dry unmastered mix and then a mix with my attempts at mastering. I always ask for feed back as to what mix they prefer, where it sounded best etc.

The extent of my mastering with software is really just fade ins/ outs and stuff. If I was going to master with software I would just use cubase and i agree that that it will do just about the same as any dedicated mastering software. I am probably wrong in the sense that dedicated software probably has the a bigger array of plug ins and stuff standard.

I have tried mastering digitally but i kind of like using the analog path. It tends to round things off a bit and smear the hard edges imo.

Personally, I usually sum my mixes through a desk and then record the final mix as a stereo file. When I master a collection of tracks, I run the stereo mix out of my mac back through the desk and use light compression (hardware) that fits the groove through a digitech vcs tube compressor I have had for ages. I will do 2 takes with the vcs. One as is with the compression grooving away and another with a cut on the master out of cubase in the bottom end to where it feels right. I tend to mix a bit bottom heavy in anticipation of the mastering process moulding it.

But if i didnt have the gear I have and had to work within the confines of just digital with no other stuff I wouldnt waste my cash on dedicated mastering software, i would do it in cubase. If it was something which I was going to sell I would probably pay someone to master it anyway.

I am a "less is more" type of guy and think if you have a cookin' mix and controlled the skids in your mix, mastering is like a frame around a picture.

Cheers

[EnSkorSang]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

Assuming that I thought "pretend mastering" was easier.....

Brandon, what is this 'pretend mastering' your on about- whats the difference between that and 'real mastering'...is it just the fact that a pro mastering dude has lots of experience or is there something special all the professional masterers have that for some reason the rest of us cant?
Its very disheartening to think I have to shell out £500 or more, or settle for a 'pretend' master.

[zip]

Originally Posted by EnSkorSang

Brandon, what is this 'pretend mastering' your on about- whats the difference between that and 'real mastering'...is it just the fact that a pro mastering dude has lots of experience or is there something special all the professional masterers have that for some reason the rest of us cant?
Its very disheartening to think I have to shell out £500 or more, or settle for a 'pretend' master.

Not trying to speak for Brandon but I believe he is referring to the approach many of us take in the home environment. (ie DAW based mastering in less than a perfect environment with less than top notch monitors and mastering hardware)

I believe much if it is experience. Could Massenburg do a better job on my system than me?? Absolutely!! Could he match on my system what he could do in his mastering room where he has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars?? Not even close!!

Does that make sense??

[EnSkorSang]

so its money and experience..but what is the difference between a mastering environment, and you're regular studio? do they require seperate hardware/software, different acoustics?
From reading the forum posts it seemse that most of whats done in mastering requires many of the same effects you use in recording/mixing..ie reverb, EQ, compression.
I understand most home recording artists dont have a top notch studio - but to use Brandon as an example again, he has his own studio, but i guess can only produce 'pretend masters'....is this just down to experience?

[EnSkorSang]

Originally Posted by zip

(ie DAW based mastering in less than a perfect environment with less than top notch monitors and mastering hardware)
Does that make sense??

If they dont use DAW what do they use? All analogue? everything ive seen for sale etc that is digital and used for recording purposes is called a DAW.....am I missing something here?

[Wun Moshen]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

Well I can guarantee you that, because if this was true all pro dudes would use 0 effects. We know that isn't the case!

With that said, there is some real truth to the less processing you do, the less problems you cause. If you get the source right to begin with you won't need anything extra done. I'm big on this with just about everything, but especially electric guitar. If I need to use EQ on electric guitars, it means I screwed up.

Brandon

I was just about to do a post concerning a issue I had with a sensitive ass engineer last thursday night (coming soon). But anyways, heres what I do: I use tons of programs and mastering suites none of them are too much superior to the other. I started using BBE sonic maximizer, Steinberg Mastering Suite, Wave Lab, and then finally T-racks.


I use different methods and what comes with different methods sometimes call for different plugins. For "ME" to determine what method to use depends on the persons voice the instrumental track and so forth. Before I add ANY dynamics I gotta make sure the vocals are clean. Now once I get the vocals and music properly eq'd, Im sure I have to add compression to the voice.

I try to avoid heavy compression and limiting and so forth I try to get the mix nice and clean and clear then I leave head room for mastering.

Mastering is getting all the songs to fit the same format, no song should be louder than the rest of the songs on the album. They should all be on the same audio level.

You really have to sit and go through each song throughly. Brandon stated: the ads for software are sooo misleading, and he is right. you can not let the software drive you or else your project that you want so bad to sound retail ready will always sound like it was made in a common studio using a common studio budget. you songs will display noticeable limiting or compression and it can sound really ugly and unprofessional ESPECIALLY if your mix is horrble unless you are going for that mix tape sound lol.

(You cant shine a turd)

I cant even begin to tell someone whats the best mastering software, I heard a nice mix from this one guy who did his whole mix down in REASON 3.
He imported wav files in the nn19 samplers and then used reasons mastering suite to finish the job. The track sounded good for a ametuer that is.

Soundforge along with CD architect is a good combination. Ive used this setup in the past and was pleased with the finished product.




(sorry for the long post)