• Mastering

    From Nathan Pendleton@BLUELOBS to All on Thursday, July 03, 2008 14:33:00
    Hi all,

    I've always been interested in the concept of mastering recordings for the purpose of playing on car systems, home audio, etc. I get to the point where
    I EQ all of my recordings, put on any digital effects, etc., but they always seem "narrow" to me when I play them in the car or at home. I assume this is because they need to be mastered, but I don't really understand what the process does, let alone what's involved in actually mastering a recording.

    Here's my set up:
    I record directly to a Korg D3200 Digital Multitracker.
    I then do all the EQing, compression, effects on the board and burn to CD.
    - I burn using the highest possible format and it ends up at high-quality
    WMA files once the CD is "ripped" by my computer.
    I load the WMAs into Cool Edit Pro 2.1 to trim the intro and ending
    I then save at the highest possible quality settings as MP3s

    There is a function on Cool Edit that supposedly does mastering, but it's
    more of a Pan/Expand kind of thing. Sometimes it sounds good, sometimes it doesn't.

    Does anyone know a tried-and-true method of mastering at home?

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Blue Lobster BBS - telnet://bluelobster.dyndns.org
  • From Digital Man to Nathan Pendleton on Friday, July 04, 2008 01:03:33
    Re: Mastering
    By: Nathan Pendleton to All on Thu Jul 03 2008 02:33 pm

    Hi all,

    I've always been interested in the concept of mastering recordings for the purpose of playing on car systems, home audio, etc. I get to the point where I EQ all of my recordings, put on any digital effects, etc., but they always seem "narrow" to me when I play them in the car or at home. I
    assume this is because they need to be mastered, but I don't really understand what the process does, let alone what's involved in actually mastering a recording.

    Here's my set up:
    I record directly to a Korg D3200 Digital Multitracker.
    I then do all the EQing, compression, effects on the board and burn to CD.
    - I burn using the highest possible format and it ends up at high-quality
    WMA files once the CD is "ripped" by my computer.
    I load the WMAs into Cool Edit Pro 2.1 to trim the intro and ending
    I then save at the highest possible quality settings as MP3s

    Are you converting from a compressed WMA format to MP3? That seems strange to me. Are at least using variable bit-rate?


    There is a function on Cool Edit that supposedly does mastering, but it's more of a Pan/Expand kind of thing. Sometimes it sounds good, sometimes it doesn't.

    Does anyone know a tried-and-true method of mastering at home?

    I've used Steinberg WaveLab (for 2-track mastering) with good results in the past: http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/audioediting_product.html

    digital man (xbox-live: digitlman)

    Snapple "Real Fact" #61:
    Pigs get sunburn.
    Norco, CA WX: 64.2°F, 67% humidity, 0 mph SE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
  • From Trash80@THEVILLE to Nathan Pendleton on Friday, July 04, 2008 09:28:00
    Nathan Pendleton wrote to All <=-

    Hi all,

    I've always been interested in the concept of mastering recordings for
    the purpose of playing on car systems, home audio, etc. I get to the point where I EQ all of my recordings, put on any digital effects,
    etc., but they always seem "narrow" to me when I play them in the car
    or at home. I assume this is because they need to be mastered, but I don't really understand what the process does, let alone what's
    involved in actually mastering a recording.

    Mastering is just recording the mix down to 2 tracks (if you're doing stereo) in a high quality format and with compression so that you have the "master" from which you can then press your CD's or whatever release format you are going to do.

    The narrow sound needs to be fixed during the mixing. Separate your tracks
    not just with panning. Try using minute delays on doubled tracks (aka
    wall of guitar sound).



    --- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ville...where 8 bits meets 32.
  • From Nathan Pendleton@BLUELOBS to Digital Man on Friday, July 04, 2008 13:26:00
    Re: Mastering
    By: Digital Man to Nathan Pendleton on Fri Jul 04 2008 01:03 am

    I haven't, actually! The only reason I'm going between WMA and MP3 is
    because MP3 works better with more formats. I can upload it online, put it
    on an mp3 player, etc. I suppose I could make two separate copies (the raw data is initially in WAV format) one for the internet and one for
    distribution on CD, but I much more prefer to use MP3s. I always used
    constant bitrate ... is there a real difference between that and variable?

    I'll definitely check out wavelab. I might see if they've got a demo I can look at or something. Is the mastering function you're talking about built into wavelab or is it a plugin or addon of some type? Thanks again!

    Re: Mastering
    By: Nathan Pendleton to All on Thu Jul 03 2008 02:33 pm

    Hi all,

    I've always been interested in the concept of mastering recordings for th purpose of playing on car systems, home audio, etc. I get to the point where I EQ all of my recordings, put on any digital effects, etc., but th always seem "narrow" to me when I play them in the car or at home. I assume this is because they need to be mastered, but I don't really understand what the process does, let alone what's involved in actually mastering a recording.

    Here's my set up:
    I record directly to a Korg D3200 Digital Multitracker.
    I then do all the EQing, compression, effects on the board and burn to CD
    - I burn using the highest possible format and it ends up at high-qualit
    WMA files once the CD is "ripped" by my computer.
    I load the WMAs into Cool Edit Pro 2.1 to trim the intro and ending
    I then save at the highest possible quality settings as MP3s

    Are you converting from a compressed WMA format to MP3? That seems strange t me. Are at least using variable bit-rate?


    There is a function on Cool Edit that supposedly does mastering, but it's more of a Pan/Expand kind of thing. Sometimes it sounds good, sometimes doesn't.

    Does anyone know a tried-and-true method of mastering at home?

    I've used Steinberg WaveLab (for 2-track mastering) with good results in the past: http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/audioediting_product.html

    digital man (xbox-live: digitlman)

    Snapple "Real Fact" #61:
    Pigs get sunburn.
    Norco, CA WX: 64.2°F, 67% humidity, 0 mph SE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs



    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Blue Lobster BBS - telnet://bluelobster.dyndns.org
  • From Nathan Pendleton@BLUELOBS to Trash80 on Friday, July 04, 2008 13:30:00
    Re: Re: Mastering
    By: Trash80 to Nathan Pendleton on Fri Jul 04 2008 09:28 am

    What I do is just straight recording to the multitracker, then I mix it down
    to just basic stereo L and R from there. Even when I do full panning, like
    two guitars playing the same thing but one 100% left and the other 100%
    right, it doesn't sound as "wide" as some of the commercial recordings I've heard. Could be psychological, but it really brings out the amateur
    qualities recording quality-wise, at least to me.

    I have a friend who used to record to digital and then he transfers it to a reel-to-reel tape machine for mastering. I have no idea what that accomplishes, but in the end, his mixes sound a lot more powerful and closer
    to a commercially printed CD than mine. Could it just be that I'm expecting too much?

    Thanks!
    Nathan

    Nathan Pendleton wrote to All <=-

    Hi all,

    I've always been interested in the concept of mastering recordings for the purpose of playing on car systems, home audio, etc. I get to the point where I EQ all of my recordings, put on any digital effects, etc., but they always seem "narrow" to me when I play them in the car or at home. I assume this is because they need to be mastered, but I don't really understand what the process does, let alone what's involved in actually mastering a recording.

    Mastering is just recording the mix down to 2 tracks (if you're doing stereo in a high quality format and with compression so that you have the "master" from which you can then press your CD's or whatever release format you are going to do.

    The narrow sound needs to be fixed during the mixing. Separate your tracks not just with panning. Try using minute delays on doubled tracks (aka
    wall of guitar sound).





    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Blue Lobster BBS - telnet://bluelobster.dyndns.org
  • From Angus McLeod@ANJO to Nathan Pendleton on Saturday, July 05, 2008 10:27:00
    Re: Mastering
    By: Nathan Pendleton to Digital Man on Fri Jul 04 2008 13:26:00

    Re: Mastering
    By: Digital Man to Nathan Pendleton on Fri Jul 04 2008 01:03 am

    I haven't, actually!

    Haven't what?

    ---
    Playing: "God" by "Tori Amos" from the "Under the pink" album.
    ■ Synchronet ■ Audio! We're all for it at The ANJO BBS
  • From Digital Man to Nathan Pendleton on Saturday, July 05, 2008 13:55:11
    Re: Mastering
    By: Nathan Pendleton to Digital Man on Fri Jul 04 2008 01:26 pm

    Re: Mastering
    By: Digital Man to Nathan Pendleton on Fri Jul 04 2008 01:03 am

    I haven't, actually! The only reason I'm going between WMA and MP3 is because MP3 works better with more formats. I can upload it online, put it on an mp3 player, etc. I suppose I could make two separate copies (the raw data is initially in WAV format) one for the internet and one for distribution on CD, but I much more prefer to use MP3s. I always used constant bitrate ... is there a real difference between that and variable?

    I'll definitely check out wavelab. I might see if they've got a demo I can look at or something. Is the mastering function you're talking about built into wavelab or is it a plugin or addon of some type? Thanks again!

    When you mix and master you should be dealing with uncompressed highest quality audio (e.g. WAV) as you can. And then after you have your 2 track master, you can convert that to all kinds of formats, lossy or not. And variable bit-rate is a definite improvement over constant bit-rate. You can get much higher quality with the same size (or smaller) file than when using constant bit-rate.

    As for WaveLab, it comes with all kinds of mastering facilities (compressor/limiters, sonic maximizers, stereo imaging, EQ, etc.) and it supports plug-ins as well. "mastering" is not a function, but a process. The elements of this process differ depending on the engineer / producer's tastes.

    digital man (xbox-live: digitlman)

    Snapple "Real Fact" #4:
    Slugs have 4 noses.
    Norco, CA WX: 84.0°F, 51% humidity, 4 mph SE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
  • From Digital Man to Nathan Pendleton on Saturday, July 05, 2008 13:59:29
    Re: Re: Mastering
    By: Nathan Pendleton to Trash80 on Fri Jul 04 2008 01:30 pm

    Re: Re: Mastering
    By: Trash80 to Nathan Pendleton on Fri Jul 04 2008 09:28 am

    What I do is just straight recording to the multitracker, then I mix it
    down to just basic stereo L and R from there. Even when I do full panning, like two guitars playing the same thing but one 100% left and the other
    100% right, it doesn't sound as "wide" as some of the commercial recordings I've heard. Could be psychological, but it really brings out the amateur qualities recording quality-wise, at least to me.

    If you're not adding any reverb, then perhaps it's just "dry". A good stereo reverb (and sometimes, delay, chorus and other effects) will help give you a more 3D soundscape.

    I have a friend who used to record to digital and then he transfers it to a reel-to-reel tape machine for mastering. I have no idea what that accomplishes, but in the end, his mixes sound a lot more powerful and
    closer to a commercially printed CD than mine.

    I doubt very much that the analog tape is accomplishing anything that can't be done digitally.

    Could it just be that I'm expecting too much?

    Nah, you may just need to use more effects / processing. :-)

    digital man (xbox-live: digitlman)

    Snapple "Real Fact" #26:
    The Hawaiian alphabet only has 12 letters.
    Norco, CA WX: 84.9°F, 47% humidity, 5 mph SSE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
  • From Nathan Pendleton@BLUELOBS to Angus McLeod on Sunday, July 06, 2008 00:43:00
    Re: Mastering
    By: Angus McLeod to Nathan Pendleton on Sat Jul 05 2008 10:27 am

    Re: Mastering
    By: Nathan Pendleton to Digital Man on Fri Jul 04 2008 13:26:00

    Re: Mastering
    By: Digital Man to Nathan Pendleton on Fri Jul 04 2008 01:03 am

    I haven't, actually!

    Haven't what?


    Used a variable bitrate.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Blue Lobster BBS - telnet://bluelobster.dyndns.org
  • From Nathan Pendleton@BLUELOBS to Digital Man on Sunday, July 06, 2008 00:44:00
    Re: Mastering
    By: Digital Man to Nathan Pendleton on Sat Jul 05 2008 01:55 pm

    Re: Mastering
    By: Nathan Pendleton to Digital Man on Fri Jul 04 2008 01:26 pm

    Re: Mastering
    By: Digital Man to Nathan Pendleton on Fri Jul 04 2008 01:03 am

    I haven't, actually! The only reason I'm going between WMA and MP3 is because MP3 works better with more formats. I can upload it online, put on an mp3 player, etc. I suppose I could make two separate copies (the r data is initially in WAV format) one for the internet and one for distribution on CD, but I much more prefer to use MP3s. I always used constant bitrate ... is there a real difference between that and variable

    I'll definitely check out wavelab. I might see if they've got a demo I c look at or something. Is the mastering function you're talking about bui into wavelab or is it a plugin or addon of some type? Thanks again!

    When you mix and master you should be dealing with uncompressed highest qual audio (e.g. WAV) as you can. And then after you have your 2 track master, yo can convert that to all kinds of formats, lossy or not. And variable bit-rat is a definite improvement over constant bit-rate. You can get much higher quality with the same size (or smaller) file than when using constant bit-ra

    As for WaveLab, it comes with all kinds of mastering facilities (compressor/limiters, sonic maximizers, stereo imaging, EQ, etc.) and it supports plug-ins as well. "mastering" is not a function, but a process. The elements of this process differ depending on the engineer / producer's taste

    digital man (xbox-live: digitlman)

    Snapple "Real Fact" #4:
    Slugs have 4 noses.
    Norco, CA WX: 84.0°F, 51% humidity, 4 mph SE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs


    Very cool, thanks so much for the heads up. I guess what I've been doing
    all along can be considered "mastering" even though I call it "mixing." It makes sense now, considering your 2-track is your "master" track. I'm
    coming along already!

    I still haven't messed around in Wavelab yet. Any presets or anything that
    you really stick to when you're using the software?


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Blue Lobster BBS - telnet://bluelobster.dyndns.org
  • From Trash80@THEVILLE to Nathan Pendleton on Sunday, July 06, 2008 21:02:15
    Re: Re: Mastering
    By: Nathan Pendleton to Trash80 on Fri Jul 04 2008 13:30:00

    What I do is just straight recording to the multitracker, then I mix it down to just basic stereo L and R from there. Even when I do full panning, like two guitars playing the same thing but one 100% left and the other 100% right, it doesn't sound as "wide" as some of the commercial recordings I've heard. Could be psychological, but it really brings out the amateur qualities recording quality-wise, at least to me.

    I have a friend who used to record to digital and then he transfers it to a reel-to-reel tape machine for mastering. I have no idea what that accomplishes, but in the end, his mixes sound a lot more powerful and closer to a commercially printed CD than mine. Could it just be that I'm expecting too much?

    Do you mean two different recordings of the same quitar part? 'cause that should sound wide. I haven't done any recording for about 15 years (man has it been that long) but that always worked for me. Or even one guitar part on two tracks with a slight delay.

    You said you're mixing to mp3? Have you tried mixing to a lossless format? Maybe the "narrowing" of the mix is happening because of a compressed format like mp3.

    Regards,
    Doug
    --
    The Ville - Where 8-bits meet 32. Internet: web, telnet, ssh, ftp, gopher FidoNet: 1:255/36 URL: theville.vintagecomputing.net

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Ville...where 8 bits meets 32.
  • From Nathan Pendleton@BLUELOBS to Trash80 on Monday, July 07, 2008 15:59:00
    Re: Re: Mastering
    By: Trash80 to Nathan Pendleton on Sun Jul 06 2008 09:02 pm

    Re: Re: Mastering
    By: Nathan Pendleton to Trash80 on Fri Jul 04 2008 13:30:00

    What I do is just straight recording to the multitracker, then I mix it d to just basic stereo L and R from there. Even when I do full panning, li two guitars playing the same thing but one 100% left and the other 100% right, it doesn't sound as "wide" as some of the commercial recordings I' heard. Could be psychological, but it really brings out the amateur qualities recording quality-wise, at least to me.

    I have a friend who used to record to digital and then he transfers it to reel-to-reel tape machine for mastering. I have no idea what that accomplishes, but in the end, his mixes sound a lot more powerful and clo to a commercially printed CD than mine. Could it just be that I'm expect too much?

    Do you mean two different recordings of the same quitar part? 'cause that should sound wide. I haven't done any recording for about 15 years (man has been that long) but that always worked for me. Or even one guitar part on tw tracks with a slight delay.

    You said you're mixing to mp3? Have you tried mixing to a lossless format? Maybe the "narrowing" of the mix is happening because of a compressed format like mp3.


    Yup! I'll record the same part on two tracks, or one of my favorite things
    to do is mic an acoustic with a pickup and plug it in direct as well. then i'll pan the direct feed far left and the mic far right. In any case, no matter how I pan stuff out, it always seems narrow. I suppose it could be
    the result of compression to mp3 ... I've never tried to burn the straight
    .wav onto CD before. I'll give it a go and see what happens!

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Blue Lobster BBS - telnet://bluelobster.dyndns.org
  • From Sniper@KIA to Nathan Pendleton on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 09:59:00
    Nathan Pendleton wrote to Trash80 <=-

    @VIA: VERT/BLUELOBS
    @MSGID: <48727597.1057.dove-aud@bluelobster.dyndns.org>
    @REPLY: <48715D07.176.dove-aud@theville.vintagecomputing.
    Re: Re: Mastering
    By: Trash80 to Nathan Pendleton on Sun Jul 06 2008 09:02 pm

    Re: Re: Mastering
    By: Nathan Pendleton to Trash80 on Fri Jul 04 2008 13:30:00

    What I do is just straight recording to the multitracker, then I mix it d to just basic stereo L and R from there. Even when I do full panning, li two guitars playing the same thing but one 100% left and the other 100% right, it doesn't sound as "wide" as some of the commercial recordings I' heard. Could be psychological, but it really brings out the amateur qualities recording quality-wise, at least to me.

    I have a friend who used to record to digital and then he transfers it to reel-to-reel tape machine for mastering. I have no idea what that accomplishes, but in the end, his mixes sound a lot more powerful and clo to a commercially printed CD than mine. Could it just be that I'm expect too much?

    Do you mean two different recordings of the same quitar part? 'cause that should sound wide. I haven't done any recording for about 15 years (man has been that long) but that always worked for me. Or even one guitar part on tw tracks with a slight delay.

    You said you're mixing to mp3? Have you tried mixing to a lossless format? Maybe the "narrowing" of the mix is happening because of a compressed format like mp3.


    Yup! I'll record the same part on two tracks, or one of my favorite things to do is mic an acoustic with a pickup and plug it in direct as well. then i'll pan the direct feed far left and the mic far right.
    In any case, no matter how I pan stuff out, it always seems narrow. I suppose it could be the result of compression to mp3 ... I've never
    tried to burn the straight .wav onto CD before. I'll give it a go and
    see what happens!

    There is something about recording to MP3 format that just diminishes
    the sound. Record to wave, or to the CD directly if possible and
    once you have that "Master" then rip an mp3, you'll notice the
    difference immediately. I've done several Demo's in the last 2 years
    for local bands, and I send the signal directly from my Soundcraft II
    board to my computer. I record using Audacity, once I have it I then
    burn the CD or I can rip to Mp3. I'm sure a Digital mixer would be
    nicer in some respects, but I just perfer the Analog sound. The
    bands like how the CD's come out, even though its a live recording,
    done in one session... <during their show!>

    Recording live is quite a bit tougher than a studio, but I like
    getting the sound of the band as they sound in a club environment.
    Getting crowd reaction also helps. Its not as clean, but, if you do
    it right, it makes for a great Demo. :)




    ... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.47
    ■ Synchronet ■ Killed In Action BBS - kiabbs.org
  • From MRoblivious1bmf@mroblivious1bmf@eob-bbs.com.remove-inv-this to Sniper on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 15:57:31
    To: Sniper
    .,: This is something about Re: Mastering,
    Sniper said it to Nathan Pendleton on Tue Jul 08 2008 09:59 am --──────────────────────-────---───────────────---─────────--────────
    There is something about recording to MP3 format that just diminishes
    the sound. Record to wave, or to the CD directly if possible and


    that something is that its conversion format is 'lossy' not 'lossless'

    |15 .─.┌ ┬ ┬┬ ┬┬.─.┬ ┬┌┐
    |07-│ │├┐│ ││ │││ ││ │└┐-
    |07 `─'└┘┴┘┴`\/'┴`─'└-┘└┘
    |08°∙·.[|04Edge of oblivion bbs |12eob-bbs.com|08].·∙°|15


    --- Synchronet 3.14a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85
    * eob - Racine, WisconSIN - telnet://eob-bbs.com
  • From Scottie@VHCBBS to Digital Man on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 16:07:00
    Re: Mastering
    By: Digital Man to Nathan Pendleton on Fri Jul 04 2008 01:03 am


    There is a function on Cool Edit that supposedly does mastering, but it's more of a Pan/Expand kind of thing.
    Does anyone know a tried-and-true method of mastering at home?

    I use Cool Edit Pro 2.0 for any audio editing that I may needs. Both here at home and at the sudio. Since Peter sold CEP to Adobe you can't get any plug-ins for CEP but I managed to find a couple online. Just some more
    effects and one video plugin.
    I been usind CEP for about 4 yrs now and I find that it has evrything that I need for CD creation to effects, time slicing, multi-track editing, I use it for my church videos and audio, for the bands that I work with.
    As far as "true mastering" goes I dont need anthing more..If I did you would think about CakeWalk or ProAudio..one of those commercial softwares.
    At "The Cock of the walk Studios" (Jesse Dupre - from Jackyl) they use CakeWalk software. Looks and does the same as CEP. I use the surround sound plugin for CEP and CakeWalk does have that plugin..

    anyway, sorry to ramble...just had to put my 2 cents in...:)

    scottie


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Scotties Place - vhcbbs.synchro.net
  • From Nathan Pendleton@BLUELOBS to Sniper on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 16:52:00
    Re: Re: Mastering
    By: Sniper to Nathan Pendleton on Tue Jul 08 2008 09:59 am

    Nathan Pendleton wrote to Trash80 <=-

    @VIA: VERT/BLUELOBS
    @MSGID: <48727597.1057.dove-aud@bluelobster.dyndns.org>
    @REPLY: <48715D07.176.dove-aud@theville.vintagecomputing.
    Re: Re: Mastering
    By: Trash80 to Nathan Pendleton on Sun Jul 06 2008 09:02 pm

    Re: Re: Mastering
    By: Nathan Pendleton to Trash80 on Fri Jul 04 2008 13:30:00

    What I do is just straight recording to the multitracker, then I mix i to just basic stereo L and R from there. Even when I do full panning, two guitars playing the same thing but one 100% left and the other 100 right, it doesn't sound as "wide" as some of the commercial recordings heard. Could be psychological, but it really brings out the amateur qualities recording quality-wise, at least to me.

    I have a friend who used to record to digital and then he transfers it reel-to-reel tape machine for mastering. I have no idea what that accomplishes, but in the end, his mixes sound a lot more powerful and to a commercially printed CD than mine. Could it just be that I'm exp too much?

    Do you mean two different recordings of the same quitar part? 'cause that should sound wide. I haven't done any recording for about 15 years (man h been that long) but that always worked for me. Or even one guitar part on tracks with a slight delay.

    You said you're mixing to mp3? Have you tried mixing to a lossless forma Maybe the "narrowing" of the mix is happening because of a compressed for like mp3.


    Yup! I'll record the same part on two tracks, or one of my favorite things to do is mic an acoustic with a pickup and plug it in direct as well. then i'll pan the direct feed far left and the mic far right.
    In any case, no matter how I pan stuff out, it always seems narrow. I suppose it could be the result of compression to mp3 ... I've never tried to burn the straight .wav onto CD before. I'll give it a go and see what happens!

    There is something about recording to MP3 format that just diminishes
    the sound. Record to wave, or to the CD directly if possible and
    once you have that "Master" then rip an mp3, you'll notice the
    difference immediately. I've done several Demo's in the last 2 years
    for local bands, and I send the signal directly from my Soundcraft II
    board to my computer. I record using Audacity, once I have it I then
    burn the CD or I can rip to Mp3. I'm sure a Digital mixer would be
    nicer in some respects, but I just perfer the Analog sound. The
    bands like how the CD's come out, even though its a live recording,
    done in one session... <during their show!>

    Recording live is quite a bit tougher than a studio, but I like
    getting the sound of the band as they sound in a club environment.
    Getting crowd reaction also helps. Its not as clean, but, if you do
    it right, it makes for a great Demo. :)

    I love doing live recording! Even when we record in my friend's basement
    (with all hardwood floors, sounds amazing!) I insist on recording as much as possible live and doing minimal overdubs. You get a much better feel for the room and the natural acoustics of the environment that way without having to rely on a bunch of hokey reverb and trying to match everything up to artificially create a sound like you can get just by doing it live.

    I was an analog purist for years, but then I discovered the Korg D3200 (look
    it up!) and was forever silenced. I've made some real studio-quality recordings with this thing and it's so portable I can take it anywhere.
    Oboard EQ, onboard effects ... the thing is absolutely amazing. And for the price, there is nothing that compares.

    It will mix down to master and encode the result as a .WAV file, or it will burn directly to CD so you can rip it later. I think my problem has been
    that I've focused too much on getting the music online in a size that's ready to download and forgetting that the format should be purer for CD. I just
    put everything to CD and rip the CD as WMAs, then do my stereo expansion and the like in Cool Edit, and finally save the result as an mp3, which I then either burn back to CD or put it online for download. I've had mixed results ... if you've got iTunes, do a search for Love Torpedo. We're on all the
    major digital download sites, like Rhapsody, Napster, etc. You should be
    able to hear a sample from there.

    Thanks again for the suggestion ... we'll be doing some recording tomorrow night which I'll definitely follow your advice on when mixing down. Here
    goes nothing!

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Blue Lobster BBS - telnet://bluelobster.dyndns.org
  • From Nathan Pendleton@BLUELOBS to Scottie on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 16:55:00
    Re: Mastering
    By: Scottie to Digital Man on Tue Jul 08 2008 04:07 pm

    Re: Mastering
    By: Digital Man to Nathan Pendleton on Fri Jul 04 2008 01:03 am


    There is a function on Cool Edit that supposedly does mastering, but i more of a Pan/Expand kind of thing.
    Does anyone know a tried-and-true method of mastering at home?

    I use Cool Edit Pro 2.0 for any audio editing that I may needs. Both here at home and at the sudio. Since Peter sold CEP to Adobe you can't get any plug-ins for CEP but I managed to find a couple online. Just some more effects and one video plugin.
    I been usind CEP for about 4 yrs now and I find that it has evrything that I need for CD creation to effects, time slicing, multi-track editing, I use it for my church videos and audio, for the bands that I work with.
    As far as "true mastering" goes I dont need anthing more..If I did you would think about CakeWalk or ProAudio..one of those commercial softwares.
    At "The Cock of the walk Studios" (Jesse Dupre - from Jackyl) they use CakeWalk software. Looks and does the same as CEP. I use the surround sound plugin for CEP and CakeWalk does have that plugin..

    anyway, sorry to ramble...just had to put my 2 cents in...:)

    scottie

    We actually have something very similar going on in my band. I love using
    Cool Edit, in fact, I've used it since the early builds and demos of the program. My friend and bass player has always used Cakewalk, and his recordings sound really great, too. It's just a matter of taste, I think.
    To me, Cakewalk has a really fake digital sound that you don't seem to run
    into when recording to the multitracker and then mixing down with Cool Edit. But I guess it's just a matter of how exactly you go about using Cakewalk to
    do your mixes and masters rather than a reflection of the software itself.

    And rambling is what BBSes are made for. Thank god I have a place to ramble.
    :)

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Blue Lobster BBS - telnet://bluelobster.dyndns.org
  • From Scottie@VHCBBS to Nathan Pendleton on Thursday, July 10, 2008 23:24:00
    Re: Mastering
    By: Nathan Pendleton to Scottie on Wed Jul 09 2008 04:55 pm

    do your mixes and masters rather than a reflection of the softwareitself.

    What I like mostly about CEP is its simplysity.
    For example:
    Trk 1 = mono left, full left Pan
    Trk 2 = mono right, full right Pan
    -
    Trk 3 = mono left, 1/3 Pan right - 12%-15% reverb or chorus
    Trk 4 = mono right, 1/3 Pan left - " " " " " "
    -
    Mixdown Trk 1 & 3 to Trk 5 peaking at -1 Db
    Mixdown Trk 2 & 4 to Trk 6 " " -0.5 Db
    -
    Full Streo Mixdown..
    As a final Mixdown on the right home stereo sounds frikin great..maybe throw some lite panning effect into Trk 3 or 4 and with the delay or reverb you get a very cool demensional sound effect. Anyway, I get it on my 5 speaker setup on my computer. And the surround sound home theater down stairs sounds 10 times better...

    I was never about to do this with Cakewalk or ProAudio. I just like Cool Edit Pro.


    And rambling is what BBSes are made for. Thank god I have a place to
    ramble > :)

    Glad to know Im not alone...Rambling seems to come secound nature to me..:)

    scottir
    vhcbbs.synchro.net


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Scotties Place - vhcbbs.synchro.net
  • From Nathan Pendleton@BLUELOBS to Scottie on Friday, July 11, 2008 16:34:00
    Re: Mastering
    By: Scottie to Nathan Pendleton on Thu Jul 10 2008 11:24 pm

    Re: Mastering
    By: Nathan Pendleton to Scottie on Wed Jul 09 2008 04:55 pm

    do your mixes and masters rather than a reflection of the softwareitself.

    What I like mostly about CEP is its simplysity.
    For example:
    Trk 1 = mono left, full left Pan
    Trk 2 = mono right, full right Pan
    -
    Trk 3 = mono left, 1/3 Pan right - 12%-15% reverb or chorus
    Trk 4 = mono right, 1/3 Pan left - " " " " " "
    -
    Mixdown Trk 1 & 3 to Trk 5 peaking at -1 Db
    Mixdown Trk 2 & 4 to Trk 6 " " -0.5 Db
    -
    Full Streo Mixdown..
    As a final Mixdown on the right home stereo sounds frikin great..maybe throw some lite panning effect into Trk 3 or 4 and with the delay or reverb you ge a very cool demensional sound effect. Anyway, I get it on my 5 speaker setup on my computer. And the surround sound home theater down stairs sounds 10 times better...

    I was never about to do this with Cakewalk or ProAudio. I just like Cool Edi Pro.


    This might sound totally stupid, but are you saying that you've got the reverb/chorus effect itself on a completely different track from the
    recording that the reverb is applied to?

    Like this:

    1 - Far left, mono recording, dry
    3 - 1/3 right, 15% reverb

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Blue Lobster BBS - telnet://bluelobster.dyndns.org