Re: 'Finishing'/mastering programs
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:41 pm
Aah what you do is basically what I used to do. I'm just fed up of having two wavs and one mp3 for every song I make :\ guess there's no easy answer here really.
worldwide dubstep community
https://www.dubstepforum.com/forum/
Why? Sure it sucks ableton does not export mp3, but why add an extra step and then complain about it taking too long? Using reaper would make sense if you exported your mixer tracks separately. Or if their mp3 encoding is better or faster then audacity.Right, so dude to the ridiculous fact that Ableton doesn't render to mp3 I have been for a long time exporting a naked wav to one folder then doing a quick 'mastering' job (usually just a limiter) then exporting a second wav to a different folder then opening that on in Audacity and then exporting that as an mp3
Seems like you create problems for the sake of it. Why do you love the concept? You complain about something taking to long yet you love a process that inevitable will take you longer.I love the concept of being able to render one wav with nothing on the master then take that wav into another program to finish it off and export as my internet ready mp3.
Is there an advantage to "mastering" a single file?nowaysj wrote:This what I do:
mix the song. When finished, I save the project file as song name FINAL. Then I render out a stereo wav, name that song name PREMASTER, and open that in a new project, call that song name MASTERING. Apply my mastering fx and render out into a stereo wav, save that as song name MASTERED. Save that mastering project.
N.B. When I'm mastering I'll use a limiter to push everything up to -o.1 db just to be safe (hopefully no intersample peaks and general software funniness), so I don't need to normalize.
Then I open up my encoder, and mp3 encode the mastered wave file.
That's it, nothing revolutionary by any stretch of the imagination.
I guess your only issue with this workflow would to be actually name your project appropriately... no help there, just do it.
If you wanted to be cheeky, for no real reason, you could buy image line's edison audio editor, and put that as a vst fx on ableton's master channel, record in the audio, and render out of edison as an mp3...
You still totally misunderstand me.thor_beatz wrote:Ok fair enough. I stand corrected. However by reading over your "question" twice I sort of understand why people might not get you at the first glance.Why? Sure it sucks ableton does not export mp3, but why add an extra step and then complain about it taking too long? Using reaper would make sense if you exported your mixer tracks separately. Or if their mp3 encoding is better or faster then audacity.Right, so dude to the ridiculous fact that Ableton doesn't render to mp3 I have been for a long time exporting a naked wav to one folder then doing a quick 'mastering' job (usually just a limiter) then exporting a second wav to a different folder then opening that on in Audacity and then exporting that as an mp3
Seems like you create problems for the sake of it. Why do you love the concept? You complain about something taking to long yet you love a process that inevitable will take you longer.I love the concept of being able to render one wav with nothing on the master then take that wav into another program to finish it off and export as my internet ready mp3.
In any case if we are talking about music tracks, I don't see any reason why you'd want to bounce a mix dry and add limiting to 1 wav containing multiple mixer tracks.
Sound forge, wavosaur, audacity they are all pretty much the same. It's not realtime processing like a DAW. It's a audio editor.
I use soundforge for my work and limit/normalize my samples with it.It's ideal for batch processing, working with one shots etc. It's also useful for editing out clicks or digital glitch etc.
However it seems that you want to limit a source that's made up of multiple mixer channels. Obviously you won't be able to adjust things when the limiter is applied in sound forge on a per channel basis. So it must be because it's faster? Indeed, a bit of a contradiction.
Maybe you got a bit lost in the whole process and start to make it more difficult than it actually is,I have that problem too at times. why complicate a solution to a simple problem by adding a concept involving extra steps that are not useful? the only problem you have is that if you want to export a mp3 in ableton you'll need to convert it. You dont need a finsishing/mastering program, you need fast converter i'd say.
The whole point of this thread is that that is the quickest way to achieve the results I need O.o if you know of a quicker way then please let me know but I'm pretty sure there isn't...thor_beatz wrote:Why do you love the concept? You complain about something taking to long yet you love a process that inevitable will take you longer.
Cos this takes daaaaaays on my internet connection :\ also I don't want to be putting up tracks peaking at -6db when half the people that hear it wont turn it up properly :sRecessive Trait wrote:why don't you just upload wav files to your soundcloud?
Doesn't ableton have a limiter built in? Cos if it doesn't + the whole can't bounce straight to mp3 thing makes it a bit redundant doesn't it?paravrais wrote:Cos this takes daaaaaays on my internet connection :\ also I don't want to be putting up tracks peaking at -6db when half the people that hear it wont turn it up properly :sRecessive Trait wrote:why don't you just upload wav files to your soundcloud?
pro tools, logic, nuendo, cubase i guess i know for a fact logic can bounce in almost any format including mp3 of course.paravrais wrote:Right, so dude to the ridiculous fact that Ableton doesn't render to mp3 I have been for a long time exporting a naked wav to one folder then doing a quick 'mastering' job (usually just a limiter) then exporting a second wav to a different folder then opening that on in Audacity and then exporting that as an mp3. Pretty long winded and eventually you get REALLY sick of doing it. So recently I started toying with other ideas. I love the concept of being able to render one wav with nothing on the master then take that wav into another program to finish it off and export as my internet ready mp3. I tried using audacity but it takes forever to apply anything so it ends up taking even longer than my previous method having to apply limiting, wait for the waveform to change, play it back, shit it's not quite right, undo, re-apply new limiting settings etc etc. So then I started using reaper but a: I didn't like using reaper enough to purchase it and b: I really want to be able to see the waveform when I'm working on this stage so I can see the peaks etc.
Basically the point of this story is that I want a program similar to audacity that I can load wavs into, apply various vst effects and then render it out as an mp3/ogg file. I know soundforge is the go to program for this but I don't have that kind of money at the moment. Free would be nice but I can go up to 100 quid probably. Anyone know of any programs that would suit my needs nicely? Needs to be reasonably easy to use and friendly to look at too.
Just to be clear I'm not trying to master my tracks here, just use a limiter to push the quiet wavs up to 0 and VERY occasionally some gentle EQ.
because of this:paravrais wrote: Dunno why so many people getting confused :s
(Audacity and sound forge are almost the same.)Basically the point of this story is that I want a program similar to audacity that I can load wavs into, apply various vst effects and then render it out as an mp3/ogg file. I know soundforge is the go to program for this but I don't have that kind of money at the moment.
(the problem was not being able to export mp3's and you end up wanting 2 different functions from 2 completely different programs)My question was really quite simple, I just wanted to know if there was an easily available program that could combine the best features of exporting via Reaper and Audacity in one package.
God knows why, guess they just don't think it's important.nowaysj wrote:Why doesn't live render mp3 by the way? They always have some shit excuse for their deficiencies, what's this one?
As I've already mentioned I can already see my waveform in my DAW. I want to be able to see it in my rendering program right before I export to mp3.thor_beatz wrote:edison will show you the wave form in your DAW. (although a roof on a limiter is not relative so why the visual feedback?)
naming files and replacing them will answer your cluttering problem.
audacity, itunes, input freeware converter here, can convert your mp3.
But really; I have no clue why you'd want all these steps... There is no technical advantage what so ever. it just takes longer.
YES!JemGrover wrote:Doooood, have a look and Tracktion 2 if you're willing to spend money 'cos it's a measly £29.99 now. You can rewire it with Ableton and it's piss easy to edit audio files. And a lot less fiddly then audacity (and Ableton) to chop stuff up in
Because they would have to buy a licence in order to use the codec for sale or revenue of the program utilizing it (which the end user would end up paying anyway) or write their own version utilizing one of the many opensource codes, which would mean they would in turn have to make their edited version available to the opensource community. The laws and cases around codec and code ownership in general at the moment is a fucking mess. This is also why the likes of protools used to charge £20 for mp3 option support.nowaysj wrote:Why doesn't live render mp3 by the way? They always have some shit excuse for their deficiencies, what's this one?