Ableton Forum

I've heard different things about mastering in ableton, but I don't see why it isn't possible to get a nice finished product with it. It certainly seems to have all of the needed tools. If I had the money i'd get a plugin like Ozone to help with the mastering process but I don't.

My question is: If I am going to be mastering in Ableton does it make sense to export my mix-down and then reload it as one track in a separate live set for the mastering? Or can I simply use the same set I mixed in and apply what I need to the master channel?

Does it make a difference sound-wise?

Yes do a mix down first and then master that mix down. Make sure your mix down is at least -3 db at peak.

As far as mastering with ableton... Ableton's compressors are terrible. There is no good multi band compressor as well. You would really need other programs like Ozone or others. There are probably some good free vst's to help as well. In general I don't use the one board ableton plug ins because they just aren't up to par.

Also, when you export your mixdown, do it in 32 bits.

Why paying for ozone or T-racks when you have great tools in ableton 8?

Go in audio effects, audio rack, mastering, vintage mastering 2

I recently sent a track for a compilation, it has been remastered in studio.
Result: no difference with my original mixdown excepting an ugly blank at the end of it.

Multiband FX is great in 8, just take time for learning how to use it.

Ableton's compressors are terrible. There is no good multi band compressor as well. You would really need other programs like Ozone or others.

I also disagree. Live's onboard stuff is not that bad. Don't give anything on advices like..."you need this and that". Explore it for yourself.

And switch off "warp"...

2beats wrote:Yes do a mix down first and then master that mix down. Make sure your mix down is at least -3 db at peak.

As far as mastering with ableton... Ableton's compressors are terrible. There is no good multi band compressor as well. You would really need other programs like Ozone or others. There are probably some good free vst's to help as well. In general I don't use the one board ableton plug ins because they just aren't up to par.

bollocks.

lapieuvre wrote:Also, when you export your mixdown, do it in 32 bits.

bollocks..

3dot... wrote:

lapieuvre wrote:Also, when you export your mixdown, do it in 32 bits.

bollocks..

...always good to have an experts view...

esky wrote:

3dot... wrote:

lapieuvre wrote:Also, when you export your mixdown, do it in 32 bits.

bollocks..

...always good to have an experts view...

bollocks to that....

My favorite gimmick for mixing/mastering is to freeze all the tracks once the creative bit is done, and then create unfrozen groups for each to which I can then add mixing effects such as EQ and compressors with any automation I need. This allows me to keep everything last-minute-accessible, unlike mix downs.

You can mix/master with nothing more than Live's native effects, although Ozone is juicy.

d.reamonn wrote:My favorite gimmick for mixing/mastering is to freeze all the tracks once the creative bit is done, and then create unfrozen groups for each to which I can then add mixing effects such as EQ and compressors with any automation I need. This allows me to keep everything last-minute-accessible, unlike mix downs.

You can mix/master with nothing more than Live's native effects, although Ozone is juicy.

^^^
this guys' got it straight...

You can do the mastering either way, it's up to you if you want to master from within the project, or do it separately after. It's more a workflow issue and about having enough CPU left over. If you do export and then bring it into a new project, be sure to turn off warping for the clip when you bring it back into the new project. Also, as long as youre not clipping the master channel, these no need to render the mixdown at 32bit, 24bit is just fine. Try this too:

http://tarekith.com/assets/mastering.html

ShelLuser wrote:

2beats wrote:As far as mastering with ableton... Ableton's compressors are terrible. There is no good multi band compressor as well. You would really need other programs like Ozone or others. There are probably some good free vst's to help as well. In general I don't use the one board ableton plug ins because they just aren't up to par.

This is totally nonsense.

It also looks as if you never discovered the Multiband Dynamics effect.

While Live's effects maybe harder to use that doesn't mean they can't cope. Just check the schematics of your processed audio material.

I must say I agree with 2beats. The difference between using the Sonnox plugins I have (Oxford EQ and Oxford Dynamics) and Ableton is vast. Absolutely nothing to do with functionality or usability - it is about sound quality. That is not to say that Ableton does not have effective compressors or dynamic processors, but I think you used the right phrase there - it simply copes. Dedicated plugins do more than that - they emulate "real effects" a whole lot better. And given that one Sonnox plugin costs the same as Ableton Suite, I think it stands to reason that these plugins perform their main function better than Ableton's built in effects.

People can say bollocks as much as they like, but they would be wrong

Technology is overrated here. The compressors and EQs you use count for 10% of the result. The most important factor is experience and a clear idea of what 'mastering' actually implies and what you want to achieve with it and why. The other real big factor is your listening environment.
Nothing but Live's stuff and a pair of PMC speakers or something in that range in a dedicated room and you'll going to have a lot of fun if you know what to do.
With the best tools in a shitty room and without experience it is easy to fuck it up quite badly.

Let's put it this way: If you cannot 100% distinguish in a blind test if something was compressed or EQed with Live's stuff or with a rack full of Weiss mastering equipment, then you are probably better of just using the a chain consisting of a single instance of EQ8 in high quality mode followed by the compressor and nothing (!) else. There are some mastering engineers who are opposing the usage of multiband compressors and they have good arguments, too. I am none of them, but this gives an idea that the topic is more about knowing and an having a concept than about the tools.

Once you hit the wall with a parametric EQ and a compressor, you can start using other stuff. Because then you'll be able to hear and understand the differences and then you'll know what to use when. I am not saying that EQ and compressor has to be the one Live offers, but unless you can clearly hear the differences of the different settings of a single compressor, you should not bother with using a second brand.

Here are some ideas to get more out of what is there:

- explore the mid/ side mode of EQ 8 for subtle stereo enhancement. In order to make use of this it might be helpful to read up on how the human ear perceives location of sounds. Which frequencies we locate in the stereo field due to level and for which frequencies the delay between the channels is the more prominent effect?

- use the side chain input of the Compressor with an EQ8 to change the compression as a function of the frequency distribution in your mix. You might want subtle compression from the snare but not from the bassdrum or vice versa.

- explore parallel compression of a reduced frequency range.

- explore (subtle! ) addition of distortion by applying a parallel chain of EQ8 and saturator or dynamic tube or vinyl distortion...

What I try to say: mastering can be a lot lot lot fun, and every engineer at some point develops their own way of working, there is no standard 'mastering setup' ,apart from the most basic EQ-> Compressor


Also, mastering is the very last step in the chain. If the track is not balanced in the mix, it will be much harder to achieve a convincing sound with mastering. A good mix should already sound great on any speaker without mastering. The mastering should come into place when you want to compile several tracks to a consistent album or when you need to adapt your sound to a specific normalized listening environment you cannot provide by yourself. But then again you cannot do this 'at home' and the whole point of mastering is that you have an environment where you can judge the things you hear.

Robert

ShelLuser wrote:

trevox wrote:Dedicated plugins do more than that - they emulate "real effects" a whole lot better. And given that one Sonnox plugin costs the same as Ableton Suite, I think it stands to reason that these plugins perform their main function better than Ableton's built in effects.

People can say bollocks as much as they like, but they would be wrong

It is my experience so far that dedicated plugins often make it a whole lot easier to get the same results, which is also one of the things you're paying their authors for.

Another implied and IMO proven aspect here is that such plugins also often do much more processing than they tell the end user. Just take a bit of audio material and process this with Ableton's compressor / multiband dynamics, Reason's compressor (MClass) and that of Max or M4L (the 'omx.comp~' object). Then do the same with a dedicated 'professional' compressor.

Also important: get a decent sound analyzer. Live's spectrum can do, but since it cannot easily freeze the image its harder to compare snapshots.

Snapshot and compare results.

You'll most likely notice that there's much more going on with the dedicated compressor than merely applying compression or expansion. And I think that's where a lot of people go completely wrong in these kind of arguments. I can't help wonder if this aspect is also a possible cause why many people seem to be under the impression that using a single compressor alone can cope (or should be able to cope) to do mastering.


Edit:

PS: You do realize that many codecs used by Sonnox come from the Fraunhofer research organisation? Fraunhofer being the inventors of the mp3 format to name just one.

Now; you do also know that many of those codecs (better put: technical information on sound processing) are sometimes available free of charge or at a nominal fee ?

For example, check the HDAAC codec and then check the overview of the licensing fee.

I can't really agree that those licensing prices would automatically ("always") result in products which have a pricetag equal to that of Ableton Live itself.

Price doesn't guarantee value.

I cannot agree more that money does not necessarily buy results - a lot depends on who is using it, how they use it etc etc. I come from using Logic and I quite liked the EQ's and dynamic plugins. I was given the Sonnox licences, (so did not purchase them myself) and liked them better. I played around with Ableton's built in plugins and didn't like the sound of them as much, so I continued to use the Sonnox one's I owned. I also use my ears (in a decent studio setup) when mastering. Yes, I do use analysers at times (more to validate), but trust my ears over anything else. IMO (and it is my opinion) and in my setup, it happens that the ones that cost more give me better results. I don't really care what people choose to use, but to say using anything else cannot achieve better results is pretty closed minded, so when everyone replied "bollocks" to that post, I kinda took exception! There was certainly no intention to come across as being anti Live. Each one to their own and all that...