is it best to master after converted to wav or can I do it before while in session?

[diverseradio]

I'm wondering if the sound quality will differ if I master pre or post conversion to wav. Thank you for your time

[albee1952]

This will likely get lots of opinions, so here's mine(and do take it as opinion):
Quality, being a relative term, is probably not the right way to look at this. First and foremost, the biggest thing that a pro mastering engineer brings to the music is, a fresh set of ears(and perspective). I have plenty of dandy mastering plugins and a very well sorted monitoring setup, yet I still prefer to NOT self-master. Why? Mostly because its very tough to be objective when you've heard the song a hundred times.

As to mastering as you mix or after, I tend to leave it till after. Why? Because I want to get the mix as "perfect"(another relative term) as I can, without mastering stuff(which can tend to make things seem polished well before they actually ARE polished).

My master track does have FabFilter ProQ 2 on it, but its only doing a hi-pass around 25Hz. Its up on a 3rd screen so I can glance at its hi-res meter and the spectral display).

I will often slap Ozone or waves L2 to push volume up for client ruffs if the client doesn't grasp the reality of listening to un-mastered mixes When I bounce the final version, the master gets no plugins if its going to a mastering house. If I am mastering, I might add that AFTER the mix is approved, but on the actual mix(saving as its own version so I always retain the final mix(as well as most of the previous mixes). But other times, I will import all the un-mastered finals into a separate mastering session, so I can compare songs side by side and make them all sound like they belong together(which means mastering each song, individually, not passing all thru the same master track and plugins).

[diverseradio]

thanks Dave

[Philthy]

Assuming you keep your sample rate and bit depth the same when you print to WAV, it should make no difference. WAV is uncompressed, meaning no loss of quality.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by diverseradio

I'm wondering if the sound quality will differ if

Technical quality is 100% there if your wav file only contains ones and zeros. The sample gets distorted if your file has a two somewhere.

Seriously, joking aside, as said, quality is subjective. Which is why you should mix first, bounce the final mix, then send it to someone else for mastering. Unless you can replace your ears with a fresh pair, remove your memories regarding the mixed stuff, and begin mastering in another room.

Point being you are more objective if you haven't heard the mixes you master before, and a fresh set of ears and a different sounding room gives you 2nd opinion, which is crucial unless you mix in a perfect room.

[cwsand]

When I first read this, I was thinking about converting to a lower sample rate or bit rate which would mean a loss in audio quality (though you may not be able to hear a difference). Plus, if you convert to 16-bit from a higher bitrate, you need to dither. I would think you'd want deliver your mix to mastering at the sample and bit rates your session is in, and let the mastering engineer do the conversion and dither, though both are simple enough to do in Pro Tools.

[wwittman]

Originally Posted by cwsand

... I would think you'd want deliver your mix to mastering at the sample and bit rates your session is in, and let the mastering engineer do the conversion and dither....

That’s of course right, if you’re sending your tracks to a professional to be mastered.

But the original poster implies he was “mastering’ himself and wanted to know ‘when’?
No?

I think the important question would be what exactly he MEANS by “mastering” in this context.

Too many people just mean “make it loud”.

[innesireinar]

There is no difference, as long as your system can handle mastering plugins into the session, given that mastering plugins are usually very hungry. If you are going to master your stuff by yourself, leave at least a couple of days from the mix process to the mastering for refreshing your ears on that track.

[GTBannah]

Charles Dye belongs to the school of thought that says, "Mix It Like A Record".

You mix with the compressor, limiter, mastering eq etc ALL IN PLACE.
https://kagimedia.com/mix-it-like-a-record

I think it's a personal thing. let your experience and your ears be your guide.

[JFreak]

Yea cannot diasgree with that. But while you mix it like a record shouldn't limit you to the "mixing" decisions but instead bypass all conventional (*) dyn/eq from the master buss before bouncing and let the ME do the same decisions with better gear and fresh ears.

*) meaning dyn/eq that is not "the" sound of your song but more like "tweaks"