|
Which Mastering Suite?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| David Adams |
I can get Academic versions of either the iZotope Effects and Mastering Bundle or Sound Forge 9 for great prices.
Here are the links:
iZotope Effects and Mastering Bundle
Sound Forge 9
There is also this:
Adobe Audition 2.0
and this:
Wavelab 6
Given the choice, which one would you go after? I'm about to finish up my degree so I need to get on these good deals while I can. Or, would you recommend something else. I don't have any mastering software at the moment.
Am I comparing apples and oranges here? It was my understanding that Sound Forge was a good tool for mastering as well. I admittedly posted this without researching Sound Forge that much. I just started a training DVD about mixing/mastering and it talks about Ozone and Sound Forge quite often - I just haven't got far enough into the course yet to fully understand its implications in the mixing/mastering process.
Thanks in advance,
Adam |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Sound Forge ain't worth it. Wavelab is probably the best post-processing tool I've found, and izotope is definitely one of the best sets of mastering plugins (the Waves bundle is very good too, though expensive - they're both sorta different and hard to compare).
I know some people here use Audition, but I'd personally go with izotope. The only thing is, you might find it a little hard to use without a good post-processing tool like Wavelab, but it's certainly possible to use it directly in Cubase (or whatever sequencer you use), and I did that myself for a while. Breaking Up the Wrong Tree, the track I did nearly two years ago now that people still say is the best of mine (sigh) made heavy use of izotope.
Also just make sure that the academic versions aren't crippled in any way. Everything I say could be totally invalid if that's the case. |
|
|
| David Adams |
Thanks, DigiNut!!!
The Waves bundle is quite expensive, but I would love to have. I need to keep the WAF (Wife Approval Factor) higher than a 1.0 :D
I'm trying to keep everything less than $300 - $400 if I can.... I might just have to go with Ozone 3 by itself without the others included in the suite and with Wavelab....
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but Ozone and Wavelab are completely different animals, correct? I'll go find the answer to that myself as well.
Edit: What don't you like about Sound Forge?
I found that Sound Forge 9 comes with some of the iZotope effects/processors:
Sound Forge 9 - iZotope |
|
|
| DigiNut |
That's interesting, I didn't know Sound Forge came with those. It doesn't say whether it's the VST version or not, I'm guessing not, so you probably wouldn't be able to use the bundled iZotope plugins with any other software... but I don't know that for sure, it's something you should find out.
Sound Forge is alright, I guess. I've just always found it heavy on useless features and surprisingly unstable and difficult to use. Plus it's now owned by Sony, which is a major negative in my book these days.
Obviously the price isn't irrelevant either - get what you can afford. I think you can download trial versions of all of these programs, so maybe that's where you should start. |
|
|
| David Adams |
| I believe I'm going to be going with Audition 2.0 and Ozone 3. I dunno. I've really taken to Audition. I like the way it looks and the workflow. |
|
|
| CReddick |
Honestly,
http://www.sonymusicsim.com/
Allow me to analogize:
You can go out today, and buy a back-hoe for super cheap. The market is flooded, or the production is cheaper, whatever.. irrelevant here.
So instead of hiring a back-hoe owner and operator to dig the foundation for your new house, you decide to do it yourself.
Does this make any sense? no. You're not trained in operating it, nor do you have the years of experience in the business.
I'm not being negative towards anyone's abilities in this forum, I'm just saying, in the long run, if you're track is worth it, have an experienced pro do the job.
just my 2 cents. |
|
|
| echosystm |
If you've composed and mixed a song yourself, you are the last person that should be mastering it. Objectivity will go straight out the window mate. :p
Besides, few people actually have the skill to master properly. |
|
|
| David Adams |
Of course people out there can mix/master better than I can, but learning how to is part of the allure of producing - at least for me. I want to learn how to do it myself. If I make a decent track, I'm sure a label will have it professionally mastered anyway, right?
Knowing at least something about mixing/mastering will not hinder you in any way. If anything, it will make you stronger and more well rounded.
I know people that have built their own house all by themselves. It took them years to complete, but what an accomplishment! The same can go for building your own airplane in your garage - what an accomplishment. The ability to mix/master your songs close to professional - what an accomplishment. It's about striving for more and wanting to better yourself - in this case as an overall musician.
Just my opinion. |
|
|
| CReddick |
My only final thought is this:
The pro-est of pro mix engineers in the world don't master their own mixes... for the same reason it's a crappy idea to let the guy who wrote the screenplay for a movie direct, edit, or shoot it. bad decisions get made, and its all about perception. something you spent 100 hours mixing is going to sound a tad different to you than a stranger...
I'm sure your friend who built the house might do a few things differently next time. If you're looking for a personal sense of accomplishment, that's great, master it yourself. but if you want it done right, well...
again, just my additional 2 cents now adding up to 4 cents. |
|
|
| Diginerd |
+1 to the last post. There's an even stronger not to master your own stuff.
If you do it in the same room on the same speakers you will only accent the flaws in your setup, it may sond perfect to you, but you run into the very real likelyhood that your mix won't translate properly.
It's fun to play with and can make your mixes sound better, but for real releases you need serious mastering. That requires serious gear, a serious room, and serious talent & experience. It's as challenging to get right as producing a whole mix as the slightest goof can have serious consequences.
Check out http://www.digido.com/bob-katz/ for some serious tips from one of the guiding lights of mastering |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by CReddick
Allow me to analogize:
You can go out today, and buy a back-hoe for super cheap. The market is flooded, or the production is cheaper, whatever.. irrelevant here.
So instead of hiring a back-hoe owner and operator to dig the foundation for your new house, you decide to do it yourself. |
What a terrible analogy. A house costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to build, and a foundation costs almost that much to dig, and the consequences of either one failing could be disastrous or fatal. And a house is an enormous financial investment. The consequences of a poor mastering effort are... it sounds a little wonky on some speakers. Financially, almost nothing wasted.
A house is a large-scale construction project involving architects, building contractors, lawyers, materials suppliers, construction workers, etc. Most music productions are a one-man effort, perhaps two with a vocalist or, liberally, three if you include a mastering "engineer".
Construction is a highly-specialized, highly-skilled, highly-regulated industry often requiring actual engineers (you know, real engineers with a degree and professional license, not self-titled ones). The media mastering field is filled with thousands upon thousands of home studios, tiny office studios, and other me-tooers trying to scrape together enough just to afford their own studio equipment so they can produce their own stuff on it. Professional studios that do work for Hollywood film production and top 40 hits still charge an assload of money.
Most of us will only ever build (or commission to be built) one, maybe two houses in our lifetimes, if any. If anybody ever does more than that, they aren't doing it for fun, they're doing it as a full-time job.
I'm not saying that a disengaged, objective, experienced mastering professional can't do a better job on my track or your track than either of us can. I have no doubt that he can. The question is, can you or I do a job that's essentially good enough, at a much lower cost in case labels turn out not to be interested (if they are, they'd probably have their own mastering guys anyway), or if we simply aren't interested in sending to labels.
What's worst about that analogy is that you compare mastering to the foundation of the house. The most critical part that everything else rests on. Mastering is more like the paint job, the finishing touches put on afterwards, which a lot of people do choose to do themselves, sometimes well and sometimes poorly.
I think a better question is, if you think that music production is in any way similar to construction, wouldn't you be a lot better off outsourcing the architecture (arrangement and composition), the materials (synthesis and sampling), the scaffolding (sequencing), and all the floors and ceilings (mixing) to the trained professionals, and if you're going to bother trying anything yourself, try your luck at the painting, which you know won't be that hard to fix or start over even if you do screw it up? |
|
|
| CReddick |
Mr. Nut.. that was quite a girthy reply... I think you read a little too far into it.
ok, so the analogy was so-so...
but the point I think is solid. don't do it yourself. |
|
|
|
|
