Mastering Applications

[ruinerr]

What Mastering Suites are there out there for Windows and what ones should i stay away from.

[JonnyGinese]

I'm sure the Doc or Cavel will post on here.. But from what I've seen. L2 Ultramaximizer for protools is pretty much the only reall Program that they use. The rest of what they use is out board equipment which would be the most professional way to go about it. IF your just going to try and make your recording a little louder... I suggest L3 Multimaximizer. But.. thats just me.

Jonny

[Chris Cavell]

In terms of programs, the regulars tend to be sequoia, samplitude, wavelab, etc. But honestly, any type of DAW will do so long as you have a quality disc authoring program, which would include the above as well as maybe CD-Architect.

In terms of analog processors, you've got everything from manley to one-off custom comps and eq's, to vintage pultecs, fairchilds, LA-2A's, and 1176's, etc.

In terms of digital processors, many ME's like the weiss hardware, the algorithmix red and orange plugins for eq, whatever compressors float your boat, many reach for the L2 or L3 limiters, and pick the dither you prefer for the material you're mastering (for me that's usually between Pow-r 2 or 3).

ME's generally stay as far away from multiband compressors as possible except as a last resort, but keep at least one in the arsenal just in case you get a project that's so awful it requires it.

Cheers,
Chris

[Carl Fuehrer]

I'm using WaveLab 5 which is a killer program. It allows you to use your VST plug-ins (like Waves) within it.

[Carl Fuehrer]

I'm sure the Doc or Cavel will post on here.
Jonny

HEY What about the rest of us? There are others here that know allot!

[IntelDoc]

Someone's getting upset... looky, looky, our boy hits 1000 posts, and gets all upset.

I think Mr. Chris "Doogie" Cavell answered this fine. Since he does a lot of mastering these days, and I go to him for a lot of ???'s he can take it.

- Doc

[doylemusic]

Cav

What does your typical mastering chain consist of? I know every project differs, but I like to know what you think a good starting point is?

[Chris Cavell]

There honestly isn't a "typical"...but, maybe this will provide a little insight:

If it's perfectly recorded, mixed, etc, mastering is little more than a straight copy with dither, adjusting start and end times/fades, applying ISRC's, etc. The nitty gritty of proper disc authoring basically.

If something is pretty well mixed, ie better than average, the chain is usually pretty simple and centered around making the tracks as cohesive from one to the next as possible using eq for timbre continuity, comp for dynamic continuity from one track to the next, and limiting for overall level continuity...followed by the regular authoring bit. (All that "continuity" talk is with respect to the artistic picture of the album though...I couldn't imagine mastering a NIN or APC album with identical rms from track to track...it just wouldn't work artistically for the project. In those cases, you adjust the level to fit the artistic desire. In other cases, take a Dolly Parton album for instance, every track at exactly the same RMS wouldn't be out of the ordinary.)

If a track is average at best, it'll involve a little more:
eq (hi pass and corrective...possibly even noise reduction too)
comp (to re-gel the "fixed" track and smooth out the frequency response...broadband, not multi)
followed by the previously discussed chain:
eq (timbral continuity)
comp (dynamic continuity)
limiter (level continuity)

Of course, every project (and sometimes each track within a project) call for changes from one chain to the next...sometimes there are expanders, sometimes matrixing, sometimes a touch of verb, sidechaining, parallel processing chains, tape, etc. It all depends on what that track needs to blend in appropriately into the greater picture of the album, and then choosing the right approach to get there.

Other times you get it spot on, only to have the client want another 5dB rms (yikes)...so there is often compromise as well, just like in every aspect of audio engineering, to deliver that which the client desires and not necessarily what you think is best for the product.

If I'm doing any digital processing (especially if I'm dealing with noise reduction, this goes without saying), I'll upsample to 96k so that any aliasing is thrown well beyond the audible spectrum, or any artifacts are much shorter in duration (and often tossed out/minimized by a good decimation filter upon returning to the destination sample rate). With some digital processors this is unnecessary as they upsample and downsample internal to the algorithm (like the Massenburg EQ's for example).

When it comes to choosing the devices in your chain, it's in large part a very subjective process. Give the same tune to 5 different ME's and you'll see five different chains...sometimes it'll be the same type of devices in the same order, but different preferences regarding brands and models. Try out what you have at your disposal, and get to know it very well.

Cheers,
Chris

[lemix]

That would be dead on Mr. C_C..
I don't know what else to add...except a high end outboard device is preferable to plug ins.
> I've just missed the last bidding on Sintefex FX2000.. <
Experience/tuned room/and listening to the client's wants makes good sense...
as well..

[superpenguin79]

this one probably isn't considered high end, but I ran across a program a while back called Hal-bar that is great IMO for mastering. Its a very good DIY program for only $100 that gets the job done. No offense to you guys who do all the mastering in your studios, but its good for the project studio.