What's The Best Mastering Program For Os X?, Mastering Original Songs - CD Production Options

[horvath]

I'm an old pro at songwriting, performing and recording (I'm presently recording with a Roland VS-1880 Digital Studio) ... but now I'm getting into mastering my own tracks on my Mac G4 - OS X and trying to educate myself on the processes.

I'm trying to decide which one of two mastering programs I want to purchase:
1 - T-RackS - my favorite so far ... tube sounds and mastering ONLY.
2 - Sound Forge 7.0

Is anyone familiar with either of these? Or do you have other suggestions? ProTools is a bit pricey ... especially considering I ONLY want a mastering suite.

Thanks.

Ce message a été modifié par horvath - jeu. 9 oct. 2003, 14:49.

[cinemafia]

I don't have any experience with T-RackS, and Soung Forge is Windows-only...

However, I can give a recommendation for Bias Deck 3.5, which is what I use for mixing/mastering. There are a few drawbacks between Deck and ProTools, such as you're limited to 16-bit audio and 24 tracks. However, it is only $320.

[horvath]

Thanks, bro' ...

16-bit ain't a problem ... after all, once it's on a CD, it's 16-bit anyway. My Roland recorder is 24-bit, but once I mix down to stereo and make a CD it's 16-bit.

I was just digging into some of the presets I have inside the Roland recorder and there are about 30 mastering presets, any one of which I can use to apply compressors, liniters, etc, etc., etc. ... so now I'm thinking maybe I just need to learn more about using the Roland and just educate myself more about mastering-techniques.

I'm experiencing sensory overload at this point! LOL!

[cinemafia]

Too true, there are so many applications available now, and yet at the same time something of a hardware renassaince, that it's hard to find one way to do something and stick with it. The more you explore new things, the more fun you have, but sometimes you never end up getting anything done!

[horvath]

Man, you said it! Learning all this stuff is a tiresome task as it is ... and with all the various solutions available to us these days, it becomes another task to learn what's needed and what's not necessary! It also makes it easy to over-do things, eh?

"Simple" still gets it every time!

[rickenbacker]

Peak 4 is out now and supports 24-bit recordings. T-Racks 24 also supports 24-bit recordings (the clue is in the name) and the company are at pains to stress that keeping files at 24-bit quality during the mastering process is infinitely preferable to 16-bit. Can't fault the logic of that.

Probably the best mastering app for Mac has been Emagic's Waveburner Pro, but that's been languishing in OS 9 hell for years. However, I did read today that once Panther is released, Apple will have corrected their omission of true Red-Book compliance that is missing in Jaguar. Emagic have had WB Pro ready to go for months, apparently, but have been waiting for this problem to be ironed out at source.

On the other hand, Roxio Toast With Jam and Peak 4 both say they can burn Red-Book compliant CDs right now in 10.2, so don't ask me who is telling the truth - I'm just repeating what I've read (like a true internet gossip).

Anyway, I sincerely hope the WB Pro story is true, because I have it, it's excellent and I'll be first in line for the OS X upgrade. I do have an earlier version of T-Racks, too, and it's OK. You can get a good sound out of it, if you know what you're doing. To that end, I recommend absolutely everyone, whatever music they're making, should buy Mastering Audio by Bob Katz - the only studio reference book you'll ever need.

[horvath]

Thanks, bro'! -- I just ordered "Mastering Audio" by Bob Katz

[genehardage]

After reading all the posts on this question I'm still not sure if Toast With Jam is able to master a CD for my newfangled firewire Lacie CD burner in OSX Jag. Has anyone ever actually seen it done? I don't mind buying stuff when it does what it's supposed to do but as we all know - things don't always work the way you think they should.
So - Has anyone seen it work??

[ramblingjoel]

I recently purchased a powerbook with presonus firepod, using cubase le. I'm also wondering about mastering software. I don't need anything fancy, I just want to brush up the final mix and burn it to a cd. Any suggestions?
Thanks...

[Jsegura]

If you had budget for Ozone 3 of iZotope, you would take an authentic beast of mastering. Also to use it in the recording and the mix.

[pdgood]

I've just begun learning about mastering recently myself, so maybe I can save you all some time - here is the condensed version of what I've learned so far. All of this is highly debatable, but at least this will be a good starting point.

Mastering=the act of taking tracks recorded at different times and places and making them all sound like they belong together. Most people think of it as also putting the finishing touches on a project.

First step=Do everything you can on a track level to get it mixed as well as possible before you master.

EQ=When you have it down to a stereo mix use Mastering equalization to make tracks sound similar. They call this type of eq non-linear or some such. It means that it avoids small phasing issues that would be apparent if the mix is played in mono for some reason.

Normalize=This task analyzes your mix, looks for the loudest point and raises it to the maximum allowable and then raises everything else an equal amount.

Multiband Compress=This is highly debated. Compression reduces dynamics. If you're in a car (with road noise) and you don't compress, then when you set the loudest part to a comfortable level the soft places will be too low. If you set the softest place at a comfortable level, then the peaks will be painful. Purists will say that dynamics should not be messed with and that this is a worthwhile sacrifice. I personally find multiband compression desireable.

Limit=A limiter seeks the peeks in a song, reduces them and therefore allows the whole thing to get much louder than you can accomplish with normalization.

The exact sequence that you should perform these tasks in is also debatable.

You can chose software such as Izotope Ozone which handles many of these tasks or look for small companies that do whichever individual ones seem most important to you. I have found the Apple Limiter which came free with my sequencer to be quite useful to a point. Others disagree, and think this is a good place to sink your money. Wave Arts has good multiband compression and academic discounts which make it a steal if you're a student. Elemental Audio has amazingly high quality products at very reasonable prices and also has academic pricing. Their non-linear EQ, Firium, is a great value, but being the amateur I am, I use their Eqium which isn't non-linear and works much easier for me and sounds fabulous to my ears. I like Ozone for an all-in-one thing, but am not crazy about their limiter. PSP makes good track plugs, and their Vintage warmer is a popular tool (limiter, I think) although I find it not to be clean enough for me. Those playing differnent kinds of music may find this desireable. Almost everyone agrees the L3 limiter by Waves is the most desireable, but also the most expensive. They have angered many with their hefty pricing for upgrades after initial purchase.
Some people add reverb to the final mix. This one puzzles me, but it is even part of Ozone, so someone must think it's important.
Hope some of this helps save you the many hours I spent accumulating this basic info.

[coldharbour]

Some good basic points you've gathered, pdgood.

First step=Do everything you can on a track level to get it mixed as well as possible before you master.

This is absolutely the most important point. Mastering should be only fine tuning. If you produce a crappy mix, nobody can save it by applying mastering processing to it.

EQ=When you have it down to a stereo mix use Mastering equalization to make tracks sound similar. They call this type of eq non-linear or some such.

Actually, the EQ type is called linear. Takes much more processing power than an ordinary EQ but has some desirable qualities for mastering.

Purists will say that dynamics should not be messed with and that this is a worthwhile sacrifice. I personally find multiband compression desireable.

That depends on the material. Classical music, for instance, may suffer significantly - but if you're producing something like radio pop for mass markets it's essential to have a tight sounding final product.

Some people add reverb to the final mix. This one puzzles me, but it is even part of Ozone, so someone must think it's important.

Depends on the material as well. You never add reverb to "normal" music, but in some cases (for example accapella or choir recordings) reverb may be added at the final mastering stage so the level can be balanced accurately according to the dynamics processing etc. To my knowledge, this is a very rare scenario.

[Jsegura]

We cannot forget that plug is also instruments to create music. In that case, the theory on the orthodox use of plug it could reduce creativity and to prevent to find new landscapes sonorous.
The reverb of Ozone, it sounds of wonder with snares and kicks and to knowing whichever things more.
Music is a vertiginous action that it can take to us to deepest of we ourself. That sometimes gives fear and it is then when the theory finds the form to prevail.

[chappy]

Hi, I'm a part time mastering engineer. I prefer producing and writing but mastering
comprises about 25-35% of my yearly business. I'll be speaking on the Mastering panel at the Tape Op convention in New Orleans and have mastered national, regional and TV projects.
Depending on the type of music, mastering has a different function.
There are the current 'volume' wars for radio play and the war seems to be subsiding in favor of music.
Real mastering should be incremental applications of particular tools to enhance
dimension, level mixes and have eq balanced across the spectrum of the music.

A good mix is the best thing you can bring to a mastering session.
Dangerous tools are Finalizers, L2 and Multiband compression.
While having your mix incredibly loud might make you feel great for awhile, it will sound 'dated' in a short time. Real music needs air, dynamics and space or it will become fatigueing. It's not a 'taste' issue, it's the way our ears and brain are designed to responf to acoustic information.

My advice is to experiment with some light eq, some overall compresion (2:1 with
less than 3 db of reduction) and some limiting for digital overs (.03 works for most
cd players if you're using an L2 type plug in). If your mix is crowded and you have a good M/S encoder, you can play with width as well.
Organic sources (classical, jazz, acoustic music) require more dynamics.
Hip Hop and Metal can take more abuse.
Try and make all of the songs appear equal in volume or apparent volume.
The only way to understand the process is to go for it and not be afraid to make some mistakes. Exagerate each tool and you'll begin to hear the artifacts. By doing that, you'll be more confident in applying them.
Good Luck!
chap

oh yeah, go to a real mastering joint and check it out. That will help more than any Finalizer or box.

[Jsegura]

When the music is good, really good it does not matter if has volume more or less or if has air. When music is not good, does not matter what you do. When the music is able to penetrate the soul, exceed the words, the theories, the concepts, the styles , and everything what you want to put. Then only it exists is music and you. All the other surplus.

Ce message a été modifié par Jsegura - sam. 28 mai 2005, 19:25.

[chappy]

Philisophically speaking, you are quite right. Unfortunately, there are several obstacles between what we hear in our head and what the rest of the world gets to hear. No doubt, the end product is a compromised version of the original ideal
but it sure beats 'describing' what you feel etc... to each person.
So in the end, we're still left with trying to make our realized idea sonically presentable. The real question is "Is this why we're here or is this why we hear?"
cheers,
chap

[Jsegura]

I do not agree. If you want to call philosophy to the magical act to be in tune through the sounds, to discover the feeling that it affects to us deeply, you are in your right, but i call art. Whenever i listen to music good really, nonencounter theory able to explain it. In fact when deepening encounter heterodoxia. Brilliant musicians who among other things have interpreted each musical element skipping almost all the norms, varying totally the order and the form to make music. It is not possible to be taught has to make music that is able to transfer the human soul. It is possible to be taught like making music according to ortodoxia. The result will be an pleasant music and with good sound. Everything in its site. But it will be a foreseeable music
without adventure. It is necessary to use plugs in all the directions, and to forget to us the musically correct thing, because often they are an authentic brake to our creativity. When we spoke of the human soul we cannot speak of amount. If you affect a soul, a single one, your music already is great. As much as the human soul.

Ce message a été modifié par Jsegura - dim. 29 mai 2005, 18:21.

[chappy]

Well, I'm not quite sure exactly what you are saying but mastering
will not change the 'soul' or heart inherent to magical music.
Miles, 'Trane, the Beatles, Brian Wilson, Ray Charles, Aretha, Mavis and whatever geniuses inspire you and I, all had their recordings mastered. That's what this thread is about. Mastering does not affect 'soul' and 'heart' and inspiration. It just creates esiar access.
peace,
chap

[Jsegura]

I believe that you do not understand me or I do not explain myself well. The Beatles and Miles Davis, broke with the established thing, even with the norms that they themselves imposed. The Beatles from the Rubber Soul and Miles from In a silent waves. Song like I am the walrus, broke all the established theory and all the academic one. If ortodoxia had been in charge to interpret it, in tune cords, bass and drums in its site etc. they had ruined it. Not very often in the history of music something with as much intensity has been interpreted. When somebody asks me for the use of plug in, i do not speak to him of air, dynamics, etc, I respond to him what I have seen make to Beatles , Miles Davis etc. It is to say breaks the norms and use it as your creativity indicates to you. It is what I try.
Peace too.