Trying to play back literally every track mixed down in Sonar to this screenset may not always be ideal. When I say, "Bring-In" I mean that, even though you switch to the screenset, Sonar still has to process the audio as it would be played in the project itself. There you could perhaps "bring-in" or process/export the audio from the Project in these two ways, so that you can also edit heads and tails, or run some analytical plug-in tools against the audio before printing or rendering. What I didn't previously consider is, when you switch to the Mastering screenset, you can choose between Stems and Stereo (or eventually, Surround) to display your Master fader output or all your busses. But for practically any other medium additional Mastering work must be done, and camp 2 is added, but doesn't replace camp 1, IMO.īrconflict I've mentioned before something about having a screenset that sets up Sonar for Mastering, which brings up metering tools, and sort of changes the landscape to be more workflow conducive to a typical Mastering workflow, even one that can consider including external hardware. So, it can be called a Mastering tool in that regard. mp3 upload, then Mastering was completed in Sonar.
Technically, as long as the destination medium is met, such as burning a CD-R for CD replication or. I do believe that Mastering has, in some people's minds become just a finalization process from the DAW to any type of medium. The audio finalization processing from Sonar to a transmitted medium, such as a CD-R is the first stage, but then the lacquer-cutting and even as far as making the mother plates can all be considered a collective effort in the Mastering process. However, if you want to cut an LP, you will split the duties likely to make your audio pristine coming out of Sonar, then goes to your lacquer cutter, and finally the replication plant. wav file, by exporting from Sonar with some excellent plug-ins to best suit your needs, this is Mastering to. In both cases, the idea is to best match the audio quality to the medium it's destined for. Today, they're many times split-duties between multiple people. There are two proverbial camps, but realistically, and historically, they are both combined to make the Mastering process. For 2) Sonar needs to be supplemented with external programs or have additional features added. Sonar does 1) really well with the tools that come with it. To add, being able to "build" a final Master, as you can with Montages in Wavelab, is a very welcome thing for artists who want their music seamless from track to track.ġ) mastering = the finishing of the material via a number of plugins getting the levels and sound correctĢ) mastering = the setting up of the material for release on external media, gaps between tracks and adding metadata. and good metering and we could possibly see the prossible end of a certain other staple in the Home Studio market. Throw in DDP, Master report sheets, CD-R track and sub-track markers, etc.
If the Mastering screenset workflow is different from what Sonar uses natively, then it can be quite different in many ways, however, still included in Sonar and still integrated in ways we haven't considered.
Wavelab 6 ddp software#
All of this opens doors to using Sonar for Mastering, and, in some cases strictly for Mastering, if the software workflow is good enough. It may be best to use this as a separate Mastering tool, where you Import the audio out of the project and into this screenset, separately to save CPU and other resources while Mastering (especially since Mastering may use some real CPU hogging plug-ins!) More, In the normal Export dialogue, we could see a check-box for: "Open in Mastering Suite after export". I've mentioned before something about having a screenset that sets up Sonar for Mastering, which brings up metering tools, and sort of changes the landscape to be more workflow conducive to a typical Mastering workflow, even one that can consider including external hardware.
0 kommentar(er)
