Alright guys, recording/sound engineer experts. Need your help on finding the best of the best program for recording a mix and then mastering afterwards.
Ive read several other threads about recording and mastering, and I've most frequently seen people mention wavelab and soundforge. How about t-racks?
If you can tell me what is the best and explain why.
What im looking for is best sound quality and over all quality. Ease of use isnt important, cause I will eventually learn the program.
And also, if you feel that a program is best at Recording, while another is best for mastering, then suggest them seperately. Your help is appreciated.
I understand the concept of having good needles and sound card to get best quality. Currently I am using the soundblaster live soundcard, stanton trackmaster IIs carts. Also, Im using Cool Edit Pro as my recording/mastering program. I have the feeling that Im not getting the best quality from using Cool Edit Pro.

BTW: As far as when it comes down to compression, how am I supposed to know what ration to give? Should I just "play around" until finding the correct setting? Is there such thing as too much compression?

First of all there's a difference between audio editing software (like Soundforge, Cool Edit, Wavelab, etc...) and and a program like T-racks.

T-racks is basically a mastering effects rack. It applies EQ'ing, compression, limiting and stuff like that on your recordings. It has no real editing abilities. Also no real recording features.

Audio editing software are a little bit more powerful. You can cut, copy, paste and all that stuff. Also do a lot of other things (resample, record, mix several recordings). The effects that you can apply differ from program to program. Some come with more powerful effects, some with more handy ones. But most of them can also accept third party effects. In that optics, you could say that those programs can do anything T-racks can, if you have the right plugins...

If you are playing in the league of programs like Soundforge, Wavelab and the likes, I'm already intended to say the quality is tops no matter what, and it all comes down to the interface. You like it or you don't.
And about Cool edit Pro, try to dig a little deeper. It's a pretty powerful program also. You can get as good results with it as with any other program.

So in the end, what program to use? Well personally I use several, just because I like the interface of one better to do this job as another, but for another job I prefer the other...

I feel for recording Wavelab gives you the most control. You can adjust the levels from within the program (with most others you need to go in the Windows config). Also the metering is more precise (you get peak and RMS readings.
But for editing I like Soundforge most. Dunno, it doesn't do much more as Wavelab or Samplitude, but I'm more comfortable using it. Also for applying effects for mastering and such...
For cd burning I still use Samplitude. That's mainly because it was one of the first progs that allowed me to make those mixcd's with tracks pretty fast and accurately (back in the time where I learned to work with it, Wavelab and Soundforge couldn't do disc-at-once, at least not without a plugin). I guess I'm still used to Samplitude. The newest versions of the other progs can do this as well now.

I think it all comes down to your needs. Do you need multitrack ability (producing own tracks or making audio montages). If you don't, Soundforge is a pure mono/stereo editing program. It has some decent plugins and accepts DirectX plugins (Waves, those are killer ones).

If you need an editing program with multitrack options (I'm stating it this way, because there are also multitrack programs with basic editing options like Cubase or Logic), you basically can keep working with Cool edit pro 2. Samplitude and Wavelab are the step up.
For newcomers (people that don't know all those programs' interfaces) I think the latest Wavelab is still the most complete and easy to use. It has some great plugins (EQ is really good), and can not only accept DirectX plugins, but also VST ones (ok, theoretically the directx host progs like Soundforge can use DXwrappers, but those don't always work that nice). So you got more options that way.
If you are going to master, I strongly suggest you look for Waves plugins. Those cost a lot, but ... you know

Don't get me wrong, T-racks isn't a bad program at all. Very convincing results can be achieved with it. But it's just a mastering rack. If you only need that, no problem (although I recommend the Ozone Isotope plugin, better quality, but you need a dX host). I just feel it's kinda limited.

Also you know my point of view : quality recordings not only depend from the playback equipment, but also the recording post (I record in 24 bit now... yummi).

As for compression, that really depends what you are compressing (single instruments vs complete mix). But a general rule is : unless it's meant as an effect, if you clearly can hear compression, it's already too much...
I suggest you read some (of the hundreds) articles from www.studiocovers.com
I covers a massive amount of topics about audio related stuff (eq'ing, mastering, compression, recording, ...)

Hope this helped,
Thy

Hey Thy, Thanks for replying. Lots of helpful information. I also like the link you provided, tons of info... I just need to get accostumed to the jargon used, but good to go.
Another question: You are an audio engineer correct? I was wondering if you are fond of audio engineers becoming producers and vice versa.. is this something youve heard of?

I'm studying for it yeah.

Audio engineers starting to produce and vice versa. Yeah of course that exists (Armin van Buuren for example does all the mastering himself). I think there's an advantage to that. If you're a good engineer, you'll need less time to get the sound that you want (compressors and stuff). And most of the time, from experience mainly, they'll know things to do and not to do.

You could compare it with dj-producers. A good dj that starts to produce has the advantage of knowing the structure of tunes very well, and also what will rock the crowds and what not. BUT it is not required to be a good producer. If he has enough talent and feeling, he'll be able to do it...

And you can have the opposite too. A producer can make fabulous tracks artistically, but suck at the mastering. And the audioengineer can be technically perfect, but not be able to make good tracks himself (although to be a good engineer you need to know what sounds good of course).

If you really find yourself limited in what you can do to the sound of your tracks, you can still go to a mastering house. You'll be amazed how much they can make your stuff sound better (don't forget those guys have studied years for this, and most of the time they already have years of experience...)