Mastering in Reaper, yes or no.

[MyMusic]

Very soon I am going to start with Reaper again. But one thing I am not sure of, is mastering. I know it has been asked been asked before, but some think a mastering program is better. I don't see that. As far as I know, Reaper can do the same thing. It is all about using the right plugins. And with Reaper's routing options, it could even be a better way.

In other words, is there a good reason for NOT using Reaper for mastering. This is not about outsourcing mastering, but can Reaper do the mastering on a decent level?

[AmmoniumNitrate]

Originally Posted by MyMusic

... some think a mastering program is better. I don't see that. As far as I know, Reaper can do the same thing. It is all about using the right plugins.

It's conceivable a mastering program could be geared to work offline and take advantage of that. For example, a mastering program could look at your whole mix, beginning to end, and then decide how to EQ it only once it's seen the whole thing. Not sure if this sort of holistic approach is available from plug-ins. I'm just speculating though, and I don't know if any mastering programs work like that, and I've never mastered anything.

[vitalker]

You have a time to get good mastering plugin for free until 8th Jule: http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=141375 My answer is YES. You should use Reaper for mastering.

[MyMusic]

I think Reaper can do the same thing. Import each mixed song on a track and master individually or use the master track.

[evosilica]

yes..

[alex1073]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[jamesp]

Mastering isn't about gear and plug-ins. If you don't have the monitoring, ears and experience you're not going to get the results you need.

If you do have the above sorted, then Reaper works as well as anything.

[FKAB]

You might want to give this a shot, I've used it as a learning aid.

http://www.curioza.com/

http://www.curioza.com/index.php?opt...d=13&Itemid=63

[Magicbuss]

My question is what are you mastering and why do you want to do it yourself?

If its personal music projects that arent going to be released commercially I wouldnt bother with "mastering". Mix it as well as you can, throw a limiter on it to knock off 2 db or so of peaks and call it a day.

If it is for commercial release then you should send it to a pro.

If its for learning purposes, pick up a few mastering books, scour the web for tutorials and have at it with reaper and some very good free/cheap plugins (Baxter EQ for example). Keep in mind Your home monitoring environment is probably heavily compromised versus a pro mastering facility, so your starting off with a fairly serious sonic handicap.

[Jazzooka]

+1 on the monitoring : no matter what software you use, the monitoring and the acoustics are the most important

Reaper's audio engine is great ( long time Logic user, Cubase as well ) routing is super flexible, and the tweakability of Reaper's functions and looks could give you a customised mastering platform unlike any other

Plus there is the new EBU-r128 sws extension that looks amazing, and gives you a neat broadcast mastering feat.

Some swear by Sadie, SonicStudio, Samplitude/Sequoia and that these audio engines are better for mastering...maybe someone who has used aforementioned softs and Reaper could comment?

I know ME's who master in Cubase, Nuendo even Logic, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be possible with Reaper

regards
Nico

[serr]

Originally Posted by jamesp

Mastering isn't about gear and plug-ins. If you don't have the monitoring, ears and experience you're not going to get the results you need.

If you do have the above sorted, then Reaper works as well as anything.

This.

Mastering is simply putting a final mix into release formats (from full quality 24 bit HD to reduced quality portable formats like CD & mp3). The work needed ranges from absolutely nothing to full on audio restoration depending on the mix.

Reaper is a full featured DAW and perfect for the job.

[pattste]

I think REAPER, like most DAWs, is suitable for pre-mastering. But when it comes to delivering the finished product, which may include downsampling, bit-depth reduction, generating a CD image, a DDP file, burning master CDs... REAPER can do all that but I think there are many other solutions that are more suitable.

[evosilica]

Originally Posted by Jazzooka

Some swear by Sadie, SonicStudio, Samplitude/Sequoia and that these audio engines are better for mastering...

Some say their 15k$ speaker cables made a night and day difference

audio engine is just a fancy word for a task that couldn't be more simple... adding and multiplying numbers.

There's only one way to do this and Reaper does it just fine.

[pattste]

Originally Posted by evosilica

Some say their 15k$ speaker cables made a night and day difference

Speaker cables? That's nothing. There's audiophile magazine reviews of audiophile USB cables and power cables that claim a night and day difference.

[evosilica]

I know And don't underestimate the importance of quality network cables when streaming audio.

[german audiophile magazine, last page]
http://www.stereo.de/fileadmin/user_.../12-08/069.pdf

The winners were:
MONSTER ADV. HIGH SPEED CAT 6
for its "big, powerful, detached soundstage with colorful mids"

and
SOMMERCABLE MERCATOR PUR CAT 6
for its "silky mids, great resolution and big room" (whatever that means)



sry for ot

[AmmoniumNitrate]

Originally Posted by evosilica

SOMMERCABLE MERCATOR PUR CAT 6
for its "silky mids, great resolution and big room" (whatever that means)

I love the sound of silk.

[evosilica]

Me, too. That's why I always stream my mixes to another pc to get that silky network sound.

[Doughboy]

It depends on what you want to do. If you have an amazing mix and are getting ready to run off a thousand copies of a CD. Then I would have it professionally mastered. If you're not running a large number of CD's then there are lots of things you can do to Master it yourself. Personally I waste a lot of time just trying to make something that is finished a little bit better.

Still, there's a few fairly inexpensive plugins that are well worth it for vastly improving the quality of your songs. Ozone, T Racks, even EZ Mix. You can use these with Reaper.

[Jazzooka]

Originally Posted by evosilica

...that silky network sound.

lolololol

[ginormous]

As stated before, monitoring, ears, and experience count more than the tools.

Having said that, someone with significant experience prefers certain tools. They are familiar with the results, and the limitations, and can work to compensate for those limitations.

Someone once described the recording process to me this way: "Engineers are building a full-size elephant out of Lego blocks. Remix engineers carve the details with a scalpel. Mastering engineers try to squeeze it into the average Manhattan (NYC) apartment living room."

My setup includes Audacity. It's an audio editor and (to a degree) a VST host. It's not fancy, it's not slick. It does what it does, and does it well enough for me to use as my mastering platform.

[Twangothan]

I think we all agree good ears and environment are prerequisites. I think the post is about workflow as much as anything. I agree Reaper can do it all but I find Wavelab (the basic one - Essentials? elements) is super intuitive. I do all the tracking, mixing and rendering to a stereo mix in Reaper, then Wavelab for nice fades if needed, any final editing, final processing of dynamics, EQ tweaks etc using Ozone. Then Wavelab again to compile all the tracks into a collection. It's very easy to get all the track levels relative, spacing correct, CD text etc.

I repeat though, it's not about tools. But this workflow works for me. I confess I've been using Wavelab for years so I haven't even learned how the equivalent process works in Reaper - no doubt it is all possible.

[pattste]

Originally Posted by AmmoniumNitrate

I love the sound of silk.

It's like taking a blanket off your monitors.

[Bristol Posse]

Do ears and monitors need to be better for mastering than for mixing? If so why?

I get that a second set of ears attached to someone without an emotional tie to the mix could be useful but I think If you left the mix alone for a couple of weeks and then come back to it a fresh there's no reason not to give it a final listen and sign off. I think if your ears and monitors are good enough to record and mix a song, they should be good enough to render it to an mp3 or WAV

Still, there's a few fairly inexpensive plugins that are well worth it for vastly improving the quality of your songs. Ozone, T Racks, even EZ Mix. You can use these with Reaper.

I'd argue that if this is the goal of your mastering then you really haven't finished mixing yet


From what I have seen Mastering is the final step to prepare something for final distribution.
In the old days this meant making sure the album fit together without massive volume jumps from track to track (unless that was part of the vision for the album) and in the days of vinyl, that the bass levels wouldn't cause the needle to jump out of the groove.
Perhaps pass all the songs through the same final chain which may lend a more consistent feel to songs which may have been recorded at different times in different places.
And then send either to a vinyl cutting lathe or to a CD Glass master with all of the correct PQ data, track markers, silence between songs and so on


It seems that in the days of self recorded one at a time songs released via Tunecore or whatever MP3 cannon you're going to use to fire your song across the world wide web, the perception of mastering is now that of as some kind of plugin preset to make a run of the mill or even poor mix magically sound wonderful and very loud without any dynamic range. It rarely works on the first goal although loudness is now accessible to all


I think if you are self publishing songs directly on line then do your damndest to turn out a great song that is finished and you are good to go. if that means slapping some processing on the master bus in REAPER then go for it. REAPER is good enough to mix the darn thing so it should be good enough to render it

If you are going to duplication for CDs or vinyl or multiple media tyes for a complete album with an holistic vision, then go to a mastering house to get it prepped properly for distribution. Don't expect the Mastering Engineer to finish the mixing, bring out the vocals, breathe life into dull snares or fix a horrible stereo image for you though

YMMV

[serr]

Originally Posted by Bristol Posse

I'd argue that if this is the goal of your mastering then you really haven't finished mixing yet

Exactly. There seems to be a misconception about mastering that there is always going to be further processing (beyond just level control) going on.

That's only in cases where the original mix has problems. Either unfinished, low budget rough mix, live 2-track - and the point being that the master multitrack no longer exists or never existed.

If you are mastering your own mixes, there should be only minor level control and then maybe a little extra limiting and boost for the lower quality portable formats (CD & mp3).

If there's some problem that needs fixing (sonic problem or mix balance issue), you sure wouldn't want to pull and tug on a flawed mix when you can simply go back to the multitrack and make a correction! Plus you'll just start going in circles always treating the mix as an unfinished intermediate step.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Bristol Posse

Do ears and monitors need to be better for mastering than for mixing? If so why?

Good pro mastering engineers will do a better job because they have a better ear, better acoustics and last not not least, an objective ear, which is pretty hard to come by after listening to your song production for 4 months.

What most people in music forums call "mastering" is just assembly and limited loudness.

[Bristol Posse]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

Good pro mastering engineers will do a better job because they have a better ear, better acoustics and last not not least, an objective ear, which is pretty hard to come by after listening to your song production for 4 months.

What most people in music forums call "mastering" is just assembly and limited loudness.

Objective or at least different perspective I agree with.
To me it seems to be a little weird to think the last guy in the chain who cannot affect mix decisions would need better monitoring and more golden ears than the guy who actually builds the mix and needs to be sensitive to all the individual nuances of each individual track.

Kinda like making sure in a furniture factory, the guy applies the final coat of varnish to a piece of furniture has better saws, hammers and nails than the guy who builds it. doesn't make sense

This to me just seems like one of those things that is said as truth on the internet. Also a lot of mastering engineers are also or used to be mix engineers

[AmmoniumNitrate]

Originally Posted by Bristol Posse

.... to me just seems like one of those things that is said as truth on the internet.

I wonder if pro mastering engineers trying to drum up business are the ones saying it sometimes.

[Lawrence]

To me it seems to be a little weird to think the last guy in the chain who cannot affect mix decisions would need better monitoring and more golden ears than the guy who actually builds the mix and needs to be sensitive to all the individual nuances of each individual track.

I never said "need", but it's probably clearly true that any full time professional mastering engineer has a better ear, better monitors and better acoustics than 99% of people making their own music at home.

That's the only context here, not record label work, unless someone here is signed to a record deal (?). If so, they wouldn't be making that decision anyway.

It all get confusing because consumers aren't under the same financial stresses as full time commercial artists, so the discussions are mostly irrelevant.

If you've spent $25k of your own money recording your album, mixing and mastering it yourself is probably a really bad idea, as opposed to letting someone who does that full time give you that extra 5% or whatever, assuming you actually want a return on your investment.

But we who use daws for fun are not that, we don't want the best and very often can't afford it anyway, so what Brad Blackwood would do to your master is irrelevant unless you decide to pay him.

[thequietroom]

Not sure I understand the question.. What mastering "programs" are you referring to. Most of the mastering suites are plugins (ozone,tracks,etc). They may have a standalone mode...

Or are you talking about har bal type or aams type of program?

In any case (and I am by no means an expert). I bet most MEs use a DAW when mastering and to that extent reaper is fine.

As far as how the audio is monitored and processed... That's what really makes a difference

[evosilica]

Originally Posted by Bristol Posse

To me it seems to be a little weird to think the last guy in the chain who cannot affect mix decisions would need better monitoring and more golden ears than the guy who actually builds the mix and needs to be sensitive to all the individual nuances of each individual track.

it's not that the mastering guy has to have better monitoring.
both the mixing and the mastering guy should have the best monitoring available.

But since mastering is the final check, the quality control, it's most important to have highest quality monitoring to be able to detect any flaws.

the mixing guy can compromise a bit more, since the mastering guy will tell him about any audible flaws in the final mix.

In this way the mastering guy also can affect mix decisions

[serr]

Originally Posted by Bristol Posse

Objective or at least different perspective I agree with.
To me it seems to be a little weird to think the last guy in the chain who cannot affect mix decisions would need better monitoring and more golden ears than the guy who actually builds the mix and needs to be sensitive to all the individual nuances of each individual track.

The mix engineer is not only thinking about fidelity but arrangement. In fact they may ONLY be thinking about arrangement!

The mastering engineer needs to be able to hear every last detail in the recording if they are going to be able to ensure that there are no weird fidelity issues on any system. Especially home theater / audiophile quality systems that reveal every last detail of the recording.

Then there's the situation where some mixes are worked on in less than ideal monitoring conditions. Should the engineer stop and wait until they can afford better gear? They can still have an ear for arrangement and balance.

The mastering engineer is needed in this case to have the perception to understand what the mix engineer was going for and to ensure that their work isn't distracted by sonic artifacts that could not be perceived on the mix engineers system.