I just use vegas, and it sounds horrible, I'm doing something wrong. I wish someone who knows what they are doing would post to this topic and help me.

I have always used WaveLab (ver 3.0) for audio only because I'm comfortable navigating in it, although, truth be told, I bet I'd get equally comfortable with VV 3.0 if I really spent some time using it for sound only files.

In fact, I think I'm going to do just that.

Caruso

T-Racks24. Works just fine for me!

Scott Stillwell

I use Sound Forge 4.5, with Waves plug-ins - including, especially, Waves Ultramaximizer.

I didn't "upgrade" to 5.0 because I still want to use CD Architect for burning my CDs (CDA works in SF4.5 but not 5.0).

I tried the CD burning functions in Vegas3.0, but they don't work, so I'm STILL using good old CD Architect for that part of the process.
Ernie

I use Sound Forge to master the songs for the audio aspect of it and then I use CD Architect to compile the CD together and make final volume adjustments. I will most likely be moving to Vegas to handle the second part of it now that it supports the features of CD architect and is a multi-track editor. I've tried to use wavelab 3.0 time and time again, but I can't get past that "audio montage window" to compile a CD. It's suppose to allow multi-track compiling of the CD, but I can never get it to do what I would like it to. The user interface is just too cumbersome for me and I'm not going to spend a week trying to figure it out, when I have CD architect which is very intuitive and user friendly.

INtersting,
I didint know people were using Vegas for MAstering. I was thinking I'd have to move to something more ."Sophisticated" like Wavelab.
I LOVE the was Vegas is laid out and ease of use. Was just thinking about the sonic/audio quality.
Would that depend more on your Plug-ins and Sound card ??

if vegas sounds horrible, you're definitely doing something wrong!

I get 99% of the final mix sound in Vegas, and then check it in Cool edit pro and trim it up for CD.

Tell me how you go about mixing (where you route things, how you EQ) I can probably give some useful tips :o)

Jason

if vegas sounds horrible, you're definitely doing something wrong!

I get 99% of the final mix sound in Vegas, and then check it in Cool edit pro and trim it up for CD.

Tell me how you go about mixing (where you route things, how you EQ) I can probably give some useful tips :o)

Jason

I think the audio quality of Vegas itself for mastering is not the issue. It depends more on what you are doing in Vegas (or any other program). Some of the built-in effects in Vegas are probably not the highest quality. As far as other plug-in, if you use the same plug-in in Wavelab that you use in Vegas you will likely get the same results. If some other program has built in tools that you prefer (that Vegas obviously won't have) then of course that's a good reason to use it.

Personally, I use Sound Forge for mastering final mixes because I'm familiar with it and like it's interface (which is very similar to Vegas). I use some of the built-in Sound Forge tools and 3rd party plug-ins. I get very good results with the Waves Rennaisance compressor and the L1 Ultramaximizer. I suggest being modest with both of them, esp. the L1.

I should add that the best way to get good results from mastering is to do a good job engineering the tracks from the beginning. For example, I used to over-use compressors and normalizing on the finax mix because the gain on my original tracks and samples was really too low. Once I started working on the getting hotter intitial samples and tracking, I didn't need to work that aspect so much in the final mastering process.

Lastly, I suggest listening and comparing with tracks that you like and having lot's of patience.

Hope this helps...

A mastering lab is the best program, and the mastering engineer that goes with it.

Not too long ago, in a time before computers were as ubiquitous as they are now, TC electronics came out with a product called " the finalizer". Of course tons of people went out and bought it and decided that they didnt need to go to a mastering lab anymore, they had " lab in a box". Nevermind that it sounded like total crap, for many reasons, not the LEAST of which was that there wasnt a mastering engineer running it.

Still it hurt the industry for mastering houses.

Now everyone has "studio in a box" and mastering lab in a box in their PC's. the REAL studios and mastering labs feel the crunch again.

Its debatable whether a good mastering engineer could take one of these apps and a handful of plugins working at home and make a decent run of it.

Think hard about this. A recording studio is built to satisfy certain parameters: recording and monitoring MULTIPLE tracks, accoustics for correct monitoring, facilities for treating individual tracks in a way that they may be " mixed" together, usually a slight compromise for each individual track, in the interest of economics( we cant afford an avalon compressor on ALL 64 tracks right), and many other factors.

A mastering lab is set to mess with TWO channels. A mastering engineer ( hopefully) has messed with TWO channels all his life. A TOTALLY different thing than a recording studio. A reference point that attempts to "catch" any inadequacies in the control room/accoustic environment/playback speakers in the mixing environment. Another set of ears. Another set of speakers.

When I see the ads that say " blah blah 32 tracks recording, in house mastering" I have to LAUGH! The same room, the same speakers, the same EARS are gonna master the project as the ones that mixed it ???? Oh the arrogance.

Lets keep it real people, mastering engineers have devoted as much time to their craft as us recording engineers have and dont need to be compromised by this behaviour. You dont see them reccomending " mix in a box" to your clients do you? Dont do that to them.

While I do agree with you for the most part Pipe, I like keeping the forum more Technical as opposed to political or opinionated. But I'm not tryingto censor :-)

I think a lot of people use programs likeVV, So Forge,Cubase, Wavelab, ect as an interdiary. Something to bridge the gap between pure ametur and pure professional. A lot of the work I do (for church and projects) on't have a budget (or even a need) that affords high price engennering and mastering. Yet I still like to get the best quality for the $$$.

And yes!!! when I do a major project for signifgane volume release and sale I will go to a pro studio with pro engineers. Right now I'm just working with folks who are trying to capture a dream and get it going (on a SERIOUS budget;-)

That all said . . .
I was considering getting Wavelab to do some mastering, but now Sonic Forge sounds intersting too. But to be honest I don't see (much) you can do in Sonic Forge that you can't do in Vegas with the same plug-ins.

What do Sonic Forge users have to say about that ???

I have used Wave Lab 3 in the past. It does the job well, but it does have quirks that I'm not happy with. I've also used Sound Forge XP 4.5 with no problems and prefer it for the simplicity.

I plan to move to Sound Forge 5 soon. It comes with XFX1, XFX2, XFX3, Acoustic Mirror, Spectrum Analyzer and Noise Reduction. I prefer Sonic Foundry products to Wave Lab because Sonic Foundry has the most efficient, rock-solid, intuitive software I've used. I also just got Nero 5.5, so I'll be using that to burn.

I'm also suprised to see people using Vegas to master. What do you do to master in Vegas that you couldn't do in mixdown? IMO, when you record and mix a song yourself, you miss out on some of the benefits of mastering if you also do that yourself; you'll probably be using the same monitors and ears that you used to mix. In that case, all I'd do is clean up the spaces between songs and match volumes.

OK Audio 4280,
Are you saying you use Sound Forge over Vegas becasue it comes with XFX1, XFX2, XFX3, Acoustic Mirror, Spectrum Analyzer and Noise Reduction.

I guess I'm still not seeing else it has that Vegas does not have. Is that worth the price of purchase ?