R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Total Members Voted: 0


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?  (Read 41767 times)

masterhse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #30 on: June 15, 2008, 01:47:18 pm »

I'm wondering if the WB issue has to do with their processing chain some sort of assumption about dithering and truncation.

Has anyone used a bitscope to see if the last bit is just dropped off? The numbers are an odd coincidence.
Logged
Tom Volpicelli
The Mastering House Inc.
CD Mastering and Media Production Services

zmix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2828
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #31 on: June 15, 2008, 02:20:15 pm »

Andy Krehm wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 13:27

zmix wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 12:49

Other?

Seems that the ommision of Waveburner or even Logic is pretty glaring, considering the number of threads about them on this forum....

Watching the threads and posts it would seem that Logic is seldom used by mastering specialists. Given the success that many of us have had with Pro Tools as a processing DAW, there is no reason not to adapt any other DAW but for whatever reason, PTs is more popular, at least on this web board.


I thought the point of this poll was to determine what DAWs were in use for mastering. How can you state that something is 'seldom used' if you the very poll used to determine that excludes it?

Quote:


WaveBurner has not at all been excluded and is/has been used extensively by many mastering pros.


It's not on the list, so I would say it has.

Quote:



However, recently it was discovered to have a programming glitch resulting in an inaccurate rendering of bits in certain modes.


Can you please provide some more information ofr possibly a link to qualifty this claim?


Andy Krehm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 611
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #32 on: June 15, 2008, 02:48:38 pm »

masterhse wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 13:47

I'm wondering if the WB issue has to do with their processing chain some sort of assumption about dithering and truncation.

Has anyone used a bitscope to see if the last bit is just dropped off? The numbers are an odd coincidence.

I just took a master that I burned (24b to 16b via POW-r type 1 dither), dragged it to the desktop, loaded it into WB, booted up Spectrafoo and VOILA, the meter shows the full 16 bits.

If it's missing a bit, what's up with that?

Then I decided to try a quick listening test even though I know it isn't really going to be conclusive.

I opened 2 instances of WB. 1 had the copied 16b file off my master disc (POW-r type 1 dither) and the other had the 24 bit file it was made from. Unfortunately, the POW-r dither when enabled in the menu doesn't seem to work in real time (need a bounce) so I inserted a Waves IDR to get it down to 16 bits. Unfortunately, that screws the test even more than having no 2nd operator and the X factor b/c of the 2 different sounding dithers.

I forged ahead anyway and my conclusion was that the 24 bit file with IDR dither played in real time sounded a bit fuller in the bass area but who knows if its b/c of the that particular file responding better to that dither or b/c it hasn't been bounced yet.

OK so now I'm really intrigued. So I burned a disc with the IDR dither and copied it from the CD to the desktop and put it into WB.

Now I have the 24b file with IDR inserted in the region and the copied-from-CD file with no IDR (trks. 1 & 2 respectively in the WB doc).

With a few quick jumps back to the start of each file, now I hear no difference!

BTW, both files show a full 16 bits on the bitscope of Spectrafoo.

Again I apologize for the shallow testing methods. On the other hand, I have been making quick sonic decisions like this for many years (like any experienced ME) and do think that I am qualified to make a reasonably accurate judgement in this case.

All I know is that I heard a difference in the first test but nothing stood out a being different in the second test.

This proves, at least to me, that the masters I put out sound like they should and that if I do replace WB, I will be very careful in my selection and not rush b/c I'm worried about the sound being screwed up.

I'm all for switching to a new system if it is worthwhile to do so but just a reminder of the thousands of CDs that were burned in WB by folks on this board. Does that mean they are not accurate? That they all of a sudden don't sound good? You proofed them and they passed your test. Your clients approve the jobs and told you they sounded great (well, most of the time!) but now the sound of WB is not right? Hmmm...

That's why I didn't jump off WB immediately when the first posts of bit "problems" were posted. Using the logic in the para. above, It just didn't make sense to rush into to something else.

Thanks for inpiring me to do some testing, Tom.

Andy Krehm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 611
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #33 on: June 15, 2008, 02:52:15 pm »

zmix wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 14:20

Andy Krehm wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 13:27

zmix wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 12:49

Other?

Seems that the ommision of Waveburner or even Logic is pretty glaring, considering the number of threads about them on this forum....

Watching the threads and posts it would seem that Logic is seldom used by mastering specialists. Given the success that many of us have had with Pro Tools as a processing DAW, there is no reason not to adapt any other DAW but for whatever reason, PTs is more popular, at least on this web board.


I thought the point of this poll was to determine what DAWs were in use for mastering. How can you state that something is 'seldom used' if you the very poll used to determine that excludes it?

Quote:


WaveBurner has not at all been excluded and is/has been used extensively by many mastering pros.


It's not on the list, so I would say it has.

Quote:



However, recently it was discovered to have a programming glitch resulting in an inaccurate rendering of bits in certain modes.


Can you please provide some more information ofr possibly a link to qualifty this claim?




There are several. Start with this one:

 http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/201129-wavedi tor-vs-waveburner.html

As for ME's using Logic, I'm just saying that not many people that are posting on this board and Gearslutz mention it. Perhaps all you Logic users that are full-time ME's would like to chime in.

masterhse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #34 on: June 15, 2008, 03:29:54 pm »

Andy Krehm wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 14:48

Thanks for inpiring me to do some testing, Tom.


Thanks for performing the bitscope test Andy.

The testing that I performed so far was to create a file in PT with alternating 1 sample clicks and a 1K test tone. The purpose of the 1 sample clicks was to line-up the files before performing a null test. I bounced this down to 24 bit and 16 bit in PT.

I then used WB to burn a CD (no dither) with 2 versions of each of these files, one intact and the other with a fade (assumption being that the ones with the fades would be processed while the others would not). I then brought all tracks back into PT, lined-up the clicks and performed the test. None of these nulled and the 16 bit files where off consistently by approx 6 db as reported elsewhere.

I then ran the original 16 bit bounce from PT through sample manager and had it perform a 16 bit reduction with no dither and also performed a null test against the original. This one nulled perfectly.

I really wish I was able to read the bounce from WB before burning to the CD to clear-up a few variables in my mind. This isn't a conclusive test by any means and I plan to try a few other things before jumping to any conclusions.

Anyway glad to see that this is not the issue, though my friends sometimes accuse me of being "1 bit short of a full word". Smile

Logged
Tom Volpicelli
The Mastering House Inc.
CD Mastering and Media Production Services

Ben F

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #35 on: June 15, 2008, 09:26:51 pm »

It's interesting that most people that are debating Sequoia are on the Mac platform. I'm a die hard Mac fan as well, but am prepared to use XP if a better software alternative comes around.
Logged

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #36 on: June 15, 2008, 09:32:55 pm »

Ben F wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 20:26

It's interesting that most people that are debating Sequoia are on the Mac platform. I'm a die hard Mac fan as well, but am prepared to use XP if a better software alternative comes around.

Yep - I use XP simply because IMO Sequoia is the best software available...
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

dave-G

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 375
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #37 on: June 15, 2008, 09:58:30 pm »

Eliott James wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 11:00



How about Peak 6.1. Not bad.

+1

I'm surprised it's not on the list and/or more widely used by the Mac crowd.  Compared to PMCD (and as a companion to PT), I find it more intuitve to use (for simple assemble, isrc, text and burn).

-dave
Logged
DAVE GREENBERG
SONOPOD MASTERING

Andy Krehm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 611
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #38 on: June 15, 2008, 10:04:41 pm »

Ben F wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 21:26

It's interesting that most people that are debating Sequoia are on the Mac platform. I'm a die hard Mac fan as well, but am prepared to use XP if a better software alternative comes around.

I don't think any one is "debating" whether sequoia is the best or at least one of the best all around mastering platforms.

What I am debating is whether I am willing to spent very significant dollars plus a certain amount of pain in the changeover and learning process that would be necessary to change to the XP platform. I have to keep Pro Tools and HD in my studio as others use it after hours so unless I want to get a less expensive, separate system, I have to consider staying on the same platform very seriously.

Apparently Sequoia runs just fine on the new Macs as long as the HD units are upgraded. However, some peculiarity of the XP world dictates that on one HD can be used for routing and inserts and I need two so bring on the new and bigger Z-Sys! Big bucks, all in all!

Since I have never tried Sequoia, I can't say for sure I would be faster and more efficient but if I get any faster and more efficient than I am already using my current setup, I'm going to lose money Laughing!

But seriously, the reason many of us use PTs as a processing platform is b/c we have morphed it into to a very suitable DAW for this purpose.

Whether one cuts parts in WB or some other Mac sequencing program is really just a very slight inconvenience to use a separate program.

dave-G

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 375
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #39 on: June 15, 2008, 10:11:50 pm »

Ben F wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 21:26

It's interesting that most people that are debating Sequoia are on the Mac platform. I'm a die hard Mac fan as well, but am prepared to use XP if a better software alternative comes around.

Indeed. I'm a Mac guy too, and know/use PTHD well enough to not really feel any 'itch' to change .. but I can still see a rationale for putting together an XP rig for Samplitude. After seeing an extended demo of it at the last AES, I get why guys like Brad are so enamored with it.  The overall interface and flow of it made more immediate sense to me than SoundBlade, which I Mac-centrically wanted to like more (and despite Thor's excellent beer-house demo of it).

-dave
Logged
DAVE GREENBERG
SONOPOD MASTERING

Ben F

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #40 on: June 15, 2008, 11:58:32 pm »

If you are used to OSX Windows XP is no big deal...when mastering there is hardly a difference, all you are doing is loading audio files into the DAW and bouncing them out. Disks are burn directly within the software. Sequoia is also very intuitive and 'Mac like'. After using Sonic Solutions on Mac OS9 it was a revelation, but I miss the days of simply turning off extensions in OS9 and rebooting which would fix everything.

The biggest inconvenience is probably configuring Windows for audio, which doesn't take long if you read the instructions that are on Magix website. The other is not using the internet on that machine so you don't have to run anti virus software- just have it on a local network. Turn automatic updates off and it will run rock solid 365 days a year.

I have to admit I freak out a little more when a Windows machine bugs out as I am not as used to the OS as much. However, a quick google or forum search generally provides most answers. They are all running off Intel hardware there days anyway.
Logged

fuse

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #41 on: June 16, 2008, 06:30:40 am »

I'm just annoyed that there are none that I really like.
Sound quality might be sufficient but I'm missing out on the usability part. Instead with every version they put in more stuff you don't really need. And if I ask them to put stuff in I like to use they won't because 'thats not what the customers want'.
Guess the point is there isn't a company who's interested into creating a DAW specially for ME's because the customer base is way too small.
Logged
Wouter Veltmaat
Eindhoven

Thomas W. Bethel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #42 on: June 16, 2008, 06:41:06 am »

I have been using Wavelab since version 1.6 and still like it for what it can do.

I also have Samplitude which I use for multi-track editing and some mastering,

I guess it boils down to what you are familiar with and what works best for your use.

We use some plug-ins and an external processing rack and WL lets me do this with ease so it gets my vote as the best DAW for mastering.
Logged
-TOM-

Thomas W. Bethel
Managing Director
Acoustik Musik, Ltd.
Room With a View Productions
http://www.acoustikmusik.com/

Doing what you love is freedom.
Loving what you do is happiness.

zmix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2828
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #43 on: June 16, 2008, 11:20:25 am »

Andy Krehm wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 14:52


However, recently it was discovered to have a programming glitch resulting in an inaccurate rendering of bits in certain modes.


So I asked:

Can you please provide some more information or possibly a link to qualifty this claim?


Quote:


There are several. Start with this one:

              http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/201129-wavedi tor-vs-waveburner.html



Gearslutz? Are you pulling my leg?

The first relevant quote I found in that thread was this:

Quote:

Even 1.5.2 will only burn bit accurate discs from 16 bit source files with no processing.
__________________


Obviously this was posted by someone who does not understand the following basic facts:

1:  You cannot burn a red book audio CD at a greater bit depth than 16, so any file with a greater bit depth than 16 bits will be truncated and dithered.  

This process will not allow the original higher bit depth file to be extracted from the stored 16 bit file.

So, yes, NOT bit accurate, but hardly unique to Waveburner.  Rolling Eyes   Rolling Eyes

2:  Any signal processing, even a level change will alter the original data.... Again, Rolling Eyes


EDIT: Further idiocy in that *gearslutz* thread has resulted in the unsubstanciated claim that Waveburner truncates to 15 bits...  


If you truncate and - dither - a 24 bit file you will NOT get a null when compared to the original 24 bit file or even the 24 bit file after truncation to 16 bits.  

Why?

Dither needs to toggle the LSB to be effective, therefor only the upper 15 bits will null against the original 24 bit file or the truncated to 16 bit file.


Verdict?

NOT A BUG

Matt_G

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: Which DAW do you use for Mastering?
« Reply #44 on: June 16, 2008, 11:31:00 am »

zmix wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 02:49

Other?

Seems that the omission of Waveburner or even Logic is pretty glaring, considering the number of threads about them on this forum....


Actually, when I started the thread I set the poll up with applications that do recording & processing (not CD burning only). While it is possible to do plug-in processing in Waveburner it's not possible to record with it & I left it off because of the newly discovered flaw handling 24bit files. I didn't think of Logic as I haven't heard of anyone using it professionally for mastering.

I do own Waveburner & I've used it on countless projects. When I first heard of this bug I too was also reluctant to test it for fear of looking at the alternatives. I did the tests & verified that it fails going from 24bit to 16bit every time (fwiw - it's always in the bounce down to HD & nothing to do with burning to CD & it also applies to bounce region, bounce mix & bounce project). Whether you could reliably pick the faulty bounces in a blind listening test, I have doubts, but the fact is Waveburner is broken & this was enough to cause me to worry about it's validity & integrity for professional mastering.

Let's face it, it's bundled free for Logic users so why would Apple bother developing it further or adding new features? All these things make it a dead end piece of software in my book.

I've now added Peak to the poll...

Matt
Logged
Matthew Gray Mastering

Brisbane Australia
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12   Go Up