mastering in sonar

[blipndub]

So I'm using Home Studio XL to master my projects and I'm wondering if the best way to do this is to bounce all the tracks into a single stereo track and then do my processing there or if I should master all the tracks as individuals. Any suggestions?

[WalterBush]

Masters are done on the final mix, be it mono, stereo, or surround. Bounce the tracks down before mastering, always.

Mastering is about the final treatment of the program material as a whole, not the individual instruments.

[Charling]

^^ as he said, processing individual elements is the mix, processing the finished thing is mastering.

its a massive, massive subject, and you can easily ruin you're mixes with poor mastering. any released material, even bedroom style productions coming out on small labels, will almost certainly be mastered at a proffesional mastering houses. its just not something the artists do generally because it involves such a radically different set of skills and to a certain extent equipment.

if you want to master yourself, get yourself a good compressor, limiter, eq and possibly some mastering gear like a stereo image enhancer and a harmonic exciter. though to be honest allot of mastering is being able to say 'we dont need that for this one'.

bob katz has written a book called 'mastering audio the art and the science' i recommend it! its a textbook but has some great ideas in it and its really helped me understand the process.

[blipndub]

thanks guys. I'm mxing my own stuff in my home studio and witnessing mixing for real at a pro studio that cut our album. The enginner there doesn't do the mastering at all and mixing is taking weeks. So I understand there is really very little I can do with my meager setup especially when it comes to mastering. I'm feeling the limitations of my ability to mix but it's still fun

[geoffkhan]

If it's mixed well, there might not be all that much mastering needed.

But yes, EQ and a multiband compressor are your friends when it comes to mastering!

[msquared]

The nice thing about mastering in Sonar is that you have the "master" channel which you can apply all of the standard mastering-style plugins to, which means that you can do your mixing and most of your mastering in the same stage. If there's something that isn't quite right in the master channel, you have the option of tweaking the mix before exporting. It's very convenient.

On the other hand, mastering is typically done by someone other than the person who mixed. This is a good thing if you are trying to produce something that is going to be enjoyable to multiple people with different sound systems and different ideas of what "good" is.

There is also an obvious benefit to making a full mixdown and having the options of tweaking the mix taken away from you while you're doing things like trimming the front and back end of a song, but this really depends on what your style is and what you're used to.

+1 on getting the Katz book. I've had it for years and am still finding things in it which are useful to the situation at hand.

[geoffkhan]

Originally Posted by msquared

The nice thing about mastering in Sonar is that you have the "master" channel which you can apply all of the standard mastering-style plugins to, which means that you can do your mixing and most of your mastering in the same stage. If there's something that isn't quite right in the master channel, you have the option of tweaking the mix before exporting. It's very convenient.

ProTools has that, too. Seems like most of the top DAWs have that capability.

Originally Posted by msquared

On the other hand, mastering is typically done by someone other than the person who mixed. This is a good thing if you are trying to produce something that is going to be enjoyable to multiple people with different sound systems and different ideas of what "good" is.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of instances where the engineer was unhappy with the way someone else mastered his/her work. It's important when mastering that you and the engineer can be there during the process.

Originally Posted by msquared

There is also an obvious benefit to making a full mixdown and having the options of tweaking the mix taken away from you while you're doing things like trimming the front and back end of a song, but this really depends on what your style is and what you're used to.

You can do that in DAWs, too. (or at least in Sonar or PT)

[blipndub]

So does that mean you can put your mastering applications in to one of the aux busses and use an envelope to apply the plug ins. Wouldn't that be confusing to the mix to add them to independant tracks or can you group those fx envelopes?

[Charling]

Originally Posted by blipndub

So does that mean you can put your mastering applications in to one of the aux busses and use an envelope to apply the plug ins. Wouldn't that be confusing to the mix to add them to independant tracks or can you group those fx envelopes?

hmm, i think your confusing terms a little there man. your aux busses are for send effects during mixing, and you wouldnt want a situation where you sent every track to one bus and then used that as the desks only output, far too confusing!

also, an envelope is something that generates a change in a parameter over time, often something like volume, using attack, decay sustain and release controlls or similar. its not used in mastering, unless you count the attack and release functions built into a compressor which could be considered an envelope of sorts.

all DAW's ive used have a seperate channel, that allows you too add effects to a specific output of your soundcard. in a standard system when there is only 1 output of your soundcard that you are using before speakers (as opposed to using a desk for mixing down,m where you would use lots of output channels) you would apply the effects to this track.

for example in cubase, to the right of the mixer is (provided its not set to hide) a channel which relates to the sum of everything coming out of your soundcard and going to the speakers. this is your master channel or bus and you can add effects to it in the usual way, except any effect you add is affecting the whole mix.

bear in mind though, that mastering is usually done seperately. if you mix, put on some mastering and then decide you want to change the volume of a single track then you would have to remaster. as the changes you make will drastically effect how the mastering compressor responds, changing the balance of the whole thing.

much better to mix, get happy with it and then master seperately to remove the temptation to change mix elements when you are at the mastering stage! they are seperate processes, and it is very very hard to properly do them simultaneously!

[Baleen]

Charling, I believe blipndub's talking about track envelopes, as at least Sonar calls them. I think they would otherwise be known as automation - to automate volume, pan, sends, EQ, etc. so you don't have to do it manually in the mixing process.

I agree, do the mixing in one step and the mastering in another. If not just for all the reasons stated above, then also to distribute the processing load on the computer, and to simplify the steps in the process for yourself.

Of course for rough demos/proposals/rehearsals I often throw the mutli-band comp into the master channel to help it a little, but again these are not finished works.

[blipndub]

What I've been doing is mixing the individual tracks and when I'm ready to give it a listen out in the real world I bounce all tracks into a single stereo track. I then solo that track and apply basic mastering fx such as some eq and compression (using the "boost" plug in for sonar and limiter and expander).

[geoffkhan]

You could just use the master track in Sonar...

[blipndub]

I don't know what that is, but I'll look it up.

[didier]

The Katz book is very very helpful

[TheButler]

I have just bought Sonar 6 Producer Edition. I know a bit from using Cubase SX3 which i felt i needed to update from at the arrival of a new shiney keyboard ( CME UF8 ) I agree with what has been said, mastering is in the final mix and if done badly it could potentially ruin a good piece ( i'm sure you know this) Anyway if there is anything you would like to ask about Sonar, albiet i have 6, then PM me

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by didier

The Katz book is very very helpful

If it only gave my ears 25 years of mastering experience, I would be set.

[WalterBush]

Originally Posted by blipndub

What I've been doing is mixing the individual tracks and when I'm ready to give it a listen out in the real world I bounce all tracks into a single stereo track. I then solo that track and apply basic mastering fx such as some eq and compression (using the "boost" plug in for sonar and limiter and expander).

Yeah, that sounds about right. The only thing I do differently (another Sonar 6 PE user, here) is bounce to a stereo .wav, and then import the .wav file into a new Sonar project. Less screen clutter means less to distract me when listening. It also means I have to get all my ducks in a row, making a sort of "commitment" to a mix before I master the track.


I prefer to do mastering a few days after mixing. Sure, I mess with mastering while mixing a little, it's easy enough to do, but at the end of the session I bypass everything on the master channel before saving. Mixing and mastering should be done separately, just like tracking and mixing should be done separately whenever possible.

[Charling]

Originally Posted by TheButler

I have just bought Sonar 6 Producer Edition. I know a bit from using Cubase SX3 which i felt i needed to update from at the arrival of a new shiney keyboard ( CME UF8 ) I agree with what has been said, mastering is in the final mix and if done badly it could potentially ruin a good piece ( i'm sure you know this) Anyway if there is anything you would like to ask about Sonar, albiet i have 6, then PM me

hmm, I am interested as to what you have upgraded by going to sonar 6 PE. I just had a look at the spec sheets for it and it seems as though all the features it talks of (including the new ones, read and write automation functions, name soundcard outputs etc etc) have been fully implemented into SX and Logic for years?

Im not saying one is better or worse mind, I fully believe that you should use whatever program you like the best, im just interested in what aspects you feel you are 'upgrading'

[geoffkhan]

Originally Posted by WalterBush

I prefer to do mastering a few days after mixing. Sure, I mess with mastering while mixing a little, it's easy enough to do, but at the end of the session I bypass everything on the master channel before saving. Mixing and mastering should be done separately, just like tracking and mixing should be done separately whenever possible.

Good advice. Mastering is something you just have to do with fresh ears.

[TheButler]

Originally Posted by Charling

hmm, I am interested as to what you have upgraded by going to sonar 6 PE. I just had a look at the spec sheets for it and it seems as though all the features it talks of (including the new ones, read and write automation functions, name soundcard outputs etc etc) have been fully implemented into SX and Logic for years?

Im not saying one is better or worse mind, I fully believe that you should use whatever program you like the best, im just interested in what aspects you feel you are 'upgrading'

Don't get me wrong SX3 was good, but when i bought a new keyboard and soundcard i thought what the hell and just bought Sonar off ebay. I would have bought Cubase 4 but it was quite a bit more and i felt wounded by the keyboard and soundcard as it is :P