routing mastering plug-ins

Chisel · Post by **Chisel** » Fri May 05, 2006 10:39 pm

We've had lots of discussions about the mastering chain, but not so much about how you actually route between Scope and your recording software. Do you setup another track in your sequencer to record a master mix? I know a lot of you use programs like Wavelab or Soundforge as the last program in your chain. How do you apply mastering plug-ins like Optimaster to those programs? The thing with Scope is that you always have to re-record in realtime to apply changes. How do you do that when Soundforge isn't multitracking? Do you load your sequencer and sound recorder at the same time to record the final mix? Personally, I've tried recording a dry mix into an audio track in Live, apply the Optimaster (in XTC mode) to that track and then record it onto another track to apply the changes. Sometimes, I skip using it and just use Wave Hammer in Soundforge.

Peace /
Chisel

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Sat May 06, 2006 12:36 am

By far the easiest and most efficient way IMO, if you're running a sequencer that can record audio, is to create an extra track and feed back the mix to it. Mastering effects can be inserted in the chain in SFP in the first run or later, with a specialised mastering project.

I don't see why adding another program (instead of audio track) would improve that situation. It's just a waste of resources I think... Unless the main sequencer doesn't allow for recording of course.

erminardi · Post by **erminardi** » Sat May 06, 2006 1:52 am

It's only my opinion but Optimaster works bad in XTC insert mode???
Any confirm?
TNX

Anyway I realize my master in SFP mode with cascade chaining; wavelab lite as play source and VDAT as recording dest.

djmicron · Post by **djmicron** » Sat May 06, 2006 7:09 am

On 2006-05-06 02:52, erminardi wrote:
It's only my opinion but Optimaster works bad in XTC insert mode???
Any confirm?
TNX

it seems that optimaster does not work right in insert slots in sfp mode too.

Using scope effects is the same as using outboard, so the way is to work with multitrack projects.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sat May 06, 2006 7:18 am

Optimaster works fine as a master (mix) insert on an STM2448. Haven't checked it on other insert slots, such as channel ones, but I wouldn't see much need to put it there anyway. It's more suited as a mix insert or used standalone as a mastering tool.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sat May 06, 2006 8:55 am

I think perhaps the cleanest & most 'purest' recording method in Scope is to record multitracks to one or more VDAT, then play back your 24 or 32 bit VDAT multitrack through an STM2448 or your mixer of choice & produce a master stereo mix recording with your audio sequencer of choice (cubase, sonar or whatever). That's just me however & other people will definately have different workflows depnding on their use of XTC or not especially. Me, I'm not a fan of XTC at all. I don't see the point in trying to do everything in one enviroment when you have two enviroments that work perfectly well side by side.

erminardi · Post by **erminardi** » Sat May 06, 2006 9:25 am

I personally prefer the mix algorithm of Cubase SX 3.x instead the STM2448.
I know that I'm out of the main Pulsarian opinions, but I find the mix of Cubase more uniform and more "wall of sound".
Question of taste...

I prefer XTC because is more quick (and safe) to recall the whole project in one single enviroment.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sat May 06, 2006 10:40 am

'Wall of sound' ?? That's normally generated using decent 'music to the ears' source material before mixing down a master in whatever app. Applications such as Cubase don't provide any 'wall of sound' funtions, abilities or characteristics, so sorry but that is complete rubbish.

erminardi · Post by **erminardi** » Sat May 06, 2006 2:15 pm

Yeah, maybe I've speak with wrong words...

Forget my "wall of sound" example.
Anyway I like the CubaseSX mixdown engine.
Maybe more character than others.
For example, IMO, the Protools mix engine sucks compared to CubaseSX3/Nuendo3.

Wired · Post by **Wired** » Mon May 08, 2006 7:49 pm

good tip, shroomz,

AndreD · Post by **AndreD** » Mon May 08, 2006 11:38 pm

...the new external efx/instruments within sx/nuendo in combination with scope are pure power ;-´)