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

[viktorkestral]

Ok, I will give you my humble opinion about mastering...
I used to be a mastering engineer since the very beginning of the PCM1610 (for those who remember...). IMHO, The main point is definitely the monitoring, no matter if you're using the most expensive GML, Manley,Avalon,Focus,Neve analog, digital or plug's eq's and comp's. I've tried almost every possible existing studio monitors on the market and liked working on Genelec 1024 B as I was used to it (even though customers didn't especially appreciated them...) I knew them pretty well and the result that would come out of the studio. Anymway, on a more technical side,
Some points are really fundamental in a mastering software: metering tools (accurate VU and PPM metering as well as phase correlometers); accurate and fast PQ editing, quality control ability as well as multi-support output options (DDP,full red book or more compliant CD-R..). Specialized monitoring module should also be considered: A/B/C monitors switching, mono sum, phase reverse, channels flip, external source monitoring switch (for easy comparison), individual monitor and external source easy calibration tools.
For sure, mastering is specific job in itself and in my opinion, a software like "wavelab" is probably one of the most adapted amongst the affordable software but I can also cite "Samplitude" or Sequoia mastering edition which is also great for the job

[richiebee]

Originally Posted by Electriclight

So this software can model audio attributes of other CD's? I'd like to try it but all I found was:

AAMSAccredited Asset Management Specialist (College for Financial Planning)
AAMSAdvanced AFSATCOM Monitoring Subsystem
AAMSAdvanced Automatic Monitoring System
AAMSAgency Asset Management System
AAMSAggregate Area Management Study
AAMSAir-to-Air Missile SeekerAAMSAir-To-Air Missile System
AAMSAmerican Accordion Musicological Society
AAMSAmerican Air Mail Society
AAMSAmministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato (Italian)
AAMSArea Airspace Management System (US FAA)
AAMSArmy Acquisition Management System
AAMSArmy Aircraft Maintenance Shop
AAMSAssociation of Air Medical Services
AAMSAutomated Aircrew Management System

You need to get yourself a new search engine. It was on page 1 of Google. Twice.

[Ruzz]

I've used AAMS. It's a superb tool for the "I'm on a home studio kinda budget" people. However, I've only successfully used it on a single song basis - I've never been able to fathom the manual to master an entire album (English is not the writer's first language). Richiebee - if you have a the time, could you please offer up a step by step on this?

Monitors/Listening space: A few people have mentioned "good monitors" and an excellent environment etc, etc. No doubt, these are a must - but for some of us, that's just not possible - or not readily achievable, anyway. I just can't afford some of the telephone numbers charged for top end monitors and I can't create a top notch listening space. As for the monitors, yes, it's vital that you know your monitors (top notch or not) intimately. You must know what they do (or don't do) to the sound. And the best advice there is to listen to them using material (pre-mastered) that you know extremely well. Doing this, you're learning about two things at the same time - your monitors AND your space. But, if your monitors are shit and your space is crap...

That's where a tool like AAMS comes in.

What it does, for those that don't know, is analyze your source material (song) against a reference source (produced from a pre-mastered song or songs) and provides a bunch of EQ/Compression/Limiter settings to move your source in the direction of the reference. It does this by listing the required settings needed (EQ's, compression ratios etc). You have the choice of allowing AAMS to apply these settings itself to its own inbuilt tools, or stopping and using those settings on your own kit.

Now, before any purist out there (like a certain Mr Katz) jumps in and says that's just not possible, let me say this: all I can do is compare (in good old A/B fashion) what I stuffed in with what I get out. Usually it's waaaay better than what I started with.

Is what AAMS is doing scientifically valid? I have no clue. If I could prove it one way or the other, I wouldn't need AAMS. Think about it.

Ears: Somebody else mentioned using your ears -they're the best tools you have. Actually, they could easily be your worst - did you ever test them? I do - yearly. As an "engineer" you MUST treat this piece of equipment with greater than due respect. I do. I didn't used to though. Now I have tinnitus - I'd give anything to rid myself of this. Too many years banging it out at 747 take off speed volume, I'm afraid. See a qualified professional and get yourself a yearly audiogram and frame it and put it up on the wall somewhere and monitor how it changes over time.

Actually, you can get a pretty good idea of where your hearing is deficient here WWW Hearing Test

Anyway - this is turning into war and peace.

Ruzz

[richiebee]

Originally Posted by Ruzz

I've used AAMS. It's a superb tool for the "I'm on a home studio kinda budget" people. However, I've only successfully used it on a single song basis - I've never been able to fathom the manual to master an entire album (English is not the writer's first language). Richiebee - if you have a the time, could you please offer up a step by step on this?

I've never used it on an album and as I said, I don't know that I would want to use it for a commercial release album. Most of my stuff is 1-4 pieces. For songs in the same space sonically, I'd try mastering one, either using the built in presets, or tweaking by hand, then mastering all other songs using the first as the reference.

What it does, for those that don't know, is analyze your source material (song) against a reference source (produced from a pre-mastered song or songs) and provides a bunch of EQ/Compression/Limiter settings to move your source in the direction of the reference. It does this by listing the required settings needed (EQ's, compression ratios etc). You have the choice of allowing AAMS to apply these settings itself to its own inbuilt tools, or stopping and using those settings on your own kit.

... you also have the choice of over-riding the settings and tweaking them to your own requirements.

Now, before any purist out there (like a certain Mr Katz) jumps in and says that's just not possible, let me say this: all I can do is compare (in good old A/B fashion) what I stuffed in with what I get out. Usually it's waaaay better than what I started with.

Same here... I think the key is finding the right reference! I've created some of my own.

Is what AAMS is doing scientifically valid?

I think it is on a superficial basis. The problem is finding something close enough to what you're looking to create as a reference. The requirements for a human element of finding that reference is where the system falls down.

I have no clue. If I could prove it one way or the other, I wouldn't need AAMS. Think about it.

I agree. I certainly don't think [good] mastering engineers have anything to worry about, but its a step in the right direction and if you analyze the results, you might just improve other elements of your mixing before it gets to the mastering stage.

Ears: Somebody else mentioned using your ears -they're the best tools you have. Actually, they could easily be your worst - did you ever test them?

I totally agree with you here. Your brain could easily be at fault too. This is one good reason to get an independent person to master your work. Someone who is not familiar with it.

[brandondrury]

Now, before any purist out there (like a certain Mr Katz) jumps in and says that's just not possible, let me say this: all I can do is compare (in good old A/B fashion) what I stuffed in with what I get out. Usually it's waaaay better than what I started with.

Well, I know where Mr. Katz is coming from. The idea of analyzing a cd and matching it sounds nice, but is EXTREMELY complicated. For example, Dyer's Eve by Metallica is a fast thrash metal song where the double bass is going nuts for most of the song. The low end is HUGE on that kick drum. I'm curious what would happen to Dyer's Eve if you used the "Nothing Else Matters" curve.

In other words, I'm curious how this thing discerns the transients. Maybe they have a solution, but something feels very wrong about this. With that said, I should probably try it once before I decide I hate it.

Your brain could easily be at fault too.

I'm WAY WAY WAY more afraid of my brain than my ears!

Brandon

[captainjoe]

I'm WAY WAY WAY more afraid of my brain than my ears!

Brandon[/quote]

I actually don't trust my brain or my ears for mastering unless I have to. When budget allows, I recommend that clients use someone else to master after I've finished mixes. Of course, I recommend someone I trust.

Re: mastering - I think there's way too much emphasis on compression when mastering. So what if your CDs don't keep the LED's glued to zero. Music is about dynamics. I've heard masters coming out of Nashville that are so over-compressed - the life is squashed right out of the music Maybe I'm old, but, but for me, less is often more.

[brandondrury]

So what if your CDs don't keep the LED's glued to zero.

To most of the buying public, this is THE sound and non-compressed sounds are small and weak. That may be one reason to think about it.

Music is about dynamics.

I don't buy albums because they are dynamic. I buy them because they make me feel something. They excite me! So music is about excitement to me! The issue brought up is "does crushed music sound more or less exciting"?

I've swayed on this one for a long time. I was taught by old recording guys that excessive compression was bad all the while I was listening to all kinds of music that I thought sounded great. When I finally put my engineer hat on I realized the music had been crushed. Some music works better when crushed. It sounds more dense. (Hard Rock / metal in particular).

I started noticing that albums I listen to are much louder than I think even though they may have been made before the loudness wars began.

To take it one step further, I think dynamics is entirely over rated. I think it's a technique that is used in maybe 10% of music. Listen to the dynamics in Billy Ocean's "Caribbean Queen". There are none. Listen to the dynamics in Nirvana's "Smell's like Teen Spirit". There isn't nearly as much as you thought there was. It's an illusion.

To go further, most modern rock music has different "modes". When in "full blast mode" the music is crushed to be louder than hell (but also very dense). When they back off from full blast mode, you still get the dynamics. It's impossible for a distorted electric guitar to be dynamic without volume automation or some kind of volume pedal in the effects loop. So simply put, most guys who complain about lack of dynamics aren't really utilizing dynamics anyway. They just don't know how to mix in a way that there mix won't turn to shit when crushed. (I just came to understand this recently.)

I've certainly heard some country vocals that were WAY out front in front and it was clear that the limiter on the 2bus was hitting the vocal hard. I can't say I care for this sound either.

Brandon

[ChicoBluez]

I'm not trying to push AAMS...I will say that if you try it, I think you'll like it.

I do the best I can to mix my tunes and after I run them thru AAMS, the tunes have that pro shine. For a project studio guy, what more can you ask for. I plan on mastering the entire CD project with AAMS.

Chico

[Electriclight]

Originally Posted by richiebee

You need to get yourself a new search engine. It was on page 1 of Google. Twice.

Richiebee, You are correct;Please accept my apology. -Dave

[richiebee]

Originally Posted by Electriclight

Richiebee, You are correct;Please accept my apology. -Dave

Apology accepted. Please accept my apology for not adding a smilie at the end of my message.