mastering with pro tools le

[royal orleans]

can anyone help me figure out (if it can be done) how to master using pro tools le? the pro tools reference guide eludes to it, but dosen't explain how. i'm realativly new to pro tools, and digital recording in gerenal. thanks.

[merman1983]

You're new to PT and digital recording and you want to jump straight to being a mastering engineer? That's like going from grade school to grad school. Why would you think you could master a project after reading a paragraph or two in a manual? Big question is are you familiar with the mastering process and what an ME does?

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by royal orleans

can anyone help me figure out (if it can be done) how to master using pro tools le? the pro tools reference guide eludes to it, but dosen't explain how. i'm realativly new to pro tools, and digital recording in gerenal. thanks.

In general, Pro Tools (and LE) are not dedicated mastering programs. You can "premaster" the audio that is destined to become the master to a new file, but in the end you will have to PQ code (a form of "authoring") and arrange your tracks in another dedicated program in order to prepare to cut a master disc or tape for CD or DVD reproduction.

That's it in a very small nutshell, there's a lot more and even a book written on the subject :-)

BK

[royal orleans]

ok, i guess to ask a question here i need to give my qualifications.(?) yes, as a producer i have mastered using pro tools, about ten years ago was the last time. if it can't be done with le, so be it. if it can, i am more than capable of doing it, i just thought i could get a little friendly advice here.

how's this, can someone suggest mastering software for windows that is affordable enough for my home studio. i'm just looking to release my own stuff, not win a grammy for mastering.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by royal orleans

ok, i guess to ask a question here i need to give my qualifications.(?) yes, as a producer i have mastered using pro tools, about ten years ago was the last time. if it can't be done with le, so be it. if it can, i am more than capable of doing it, i just thought i could get a little friendly advice here.

how's this, can someone suggest mastering software for windows that is affordable enough for my home studio. i'm just looking to release my own stuff, not win a grammy for mastering.

Probably the most affordable complete mastering package you can get for Windows would be Wavelab.

Best wishes,


Bob

[royal orleans]

perfect. thanks bob.

[lu432]

10 years a producer and you just started working in pro tools? 10 years in the industry and you don't know what is out there for mastering? Sounds like you need to hire someone. And not ruin your project.

[royal orleans]

again, i was not aware you all needed my lifes history. i owned and operated royal orleans recording, boston mass. sold it in 1998, and moved on to a more profitable business. pro tools was not in every studio at the time, i used a dedicated mastering house at that time, with their engineer. somehow some of you read between the lines that i'm a moron. maybe i am, who cares? i just needed some advice from nice folks who could help me avoid purchasing the wrong software, thanks. please alow me to ruin my project by myself.

[DSD_Mastering]

Sony Sound Forge is a great software which comes with CD Architet for CD authoring and it's about $300. Samplitude is also another viable option!

Regards,
Bruce

[iamtwon]

uR my boi Royal

[darkman2]

i use protools l/e and do my own mastering using l/e

it works fine for me, i like what royal said .let me ruin my. stuff

myself, only way to learn mastering..

[masteringhouse]

As Bob mentioned PT will not create a final pre-master CD but is a great tool for processing - used wisely.

If the final product is digital download only (the future of mastering) then it is a complete mastering package. One could say that Pro Tools is ahead of its time!

(kidding Bob)

[LoudChris]

Yes, you can!

It won't be the best. Say, the difference, of recording a rock album by yourself in your bedroom, to recording it in a nicely treated studio, but it can be done! And with decent results. You could call this a "pre" master, but depending on your budget and what kind of quality you are going for, you could do it yourself.

Don't get me wrong, a REAL ME is worth it, but if you just can't afford it, there are ways to get your tracks slammin'

The only thing you'll need is some sort of CD Burning software, and some sort of mastering EQ and Compressor. Oh yeah, and you need some decent ears.

I highly recommend the McDsp LE pack, though if you have regular old PT LE, than you and use Comp/Limiter III and T-Racks EQ. Hey, it works, though barely.

After your process your master, you can make the master CD with some burning software. Again, this is where the ME can do a much better job. He's got a great burner, great ear, and years of experience.

I don't want to encourage people to think that they can do everything themselves, and fill the world with bad masters, but just like the rest of record production, you can attempt to do it yourself.

If a guy can record and mix at home, why not master?

[Storyville]

Allow me to elaborate on what is being said here:

PT is a dedicated Recording and Track Mixing DAW, it is not designed for Mastering per se.

The tonal and dynamic processing done in mastering is essentially the same as mixing, eq, compression, etc., but with different goals (matching tracks together). All eqing and compressing that would be done in a mastering house can be done in PT, and in fact, often is - though a software plug-in compressor is probably not going to be quite as good as one of the super slutty compressors at a mastering house.

WHAT PT DOES NOT DO IS: Allow you to sequence multiple tracks with dedicated track cues, nor does PT allow for overlaying crossfades (it does, but it takes the time of doing it on seperate tracks and bouncing the two seperate tracks in exactly the right place and then putting zero space between the two tracks in your sequencing program)

However, if you are doing low budget stuff, you can doing decent sequencing in NERO onto a CDR. It's not a great engine, and your computer probably doesn't have the greatest burner, but hey, its CHEAP.

[demonfuzz]

How about using CD-Architect for sequencing stuff?

I'm not an ME by any means, but I do alot of my own final mixes, some which go straight to production (CD/Vinyl) as-is. So far I have been satisfied with the results though I know I can get even better results if I let a real ME Studio handle this.

Anyways, I have found PT-LE to not be ideal for this (faux mastering) type work, though you could make it work.
Like was said, sequencing tracks, burning CD's & stuff is not possible (well I don't know how if it is or maybe there is plug-in?).

Unless you are making one continuous long 'mix' of all your songs, I'd suggest you import the individual 'bounced mixes' into Soundforge, WaveLab or some other dedicated 2 track editor.
You can still fade/crossfade/join songs together if needed & use most plug-ins. And the workflow is probably going to be much faster since you aren't dealing with all the individual tracks & buss/routing anymore.

I have been using SoundForge 8 + CD Architect for past few yrs, it has worked well.
I am getting ready to buy SoundForge 9, I believe it has CD-Architect built in now.
Quality is great, simplicity & workflow is great.
I heard WaveLab is awesome, but I never used it.

And again, since you can still use your VST plug-ins with these programs you should not be missing anything by not using PT LE.
I typically will import my PT mixes into SF, then use my UAD-1 card plug-ins to give the entire project a uniform sound & add any final touches (i.e. limiter, comp, lil bit of EQ).

If I want to go outboard with my final mixes (i.e. thru my FATSO or EQ) then I will I play the song in PT LE, send that Stereo (2Trk) mix out of the 002, into the FATSO or whatever, then back into 7/8 on the Digi and make a new Stereo track recording.
From there I bounce that stereo recording to disk, then import it into SF.
I don't have quality/dedicated outboard conversion but that would probably help to get even better results when going from the outboard stuff 'back' into the Digi 002.

Peace!

[andsonic]

Samplitude Master is what you're looking for. Or the afore mentioned SoundForge/CD Architect

[masteringhouse]

I have both Sound Forge and Pro Tools HD here. The routing in PT is far superior and IMHO workflow is much better than using a "plug-in chain". I think that CD Architect would be a very good companion to PT for burning CDs.

If you don't already have PT though, Sound Forge can work as well.

[billgennaro]

way to go, royal. this is the "prickiest" forum going (but i must admit, i love laughing at the prick-ness of it). i tried mastering in le, with decent results. but when i finally slapped an outboard compressor and eq of decent quality on the back end of it i was impressed with the difference. this wasn't top-o-the-line outboard, but good, decent stuff and it made a good amount of difference. i would look into it if at all possible.

good luck to you,

bill

[Ben F]

Yeah it may be a 'pricky' forum but it doesn't take much to figure out Pro Tools isn't a mastering program, it's a recording and mixing DAW first and foremost, and you have to use other software to sequence your tracks. 30 seconds reading the manual will tell you that. A google search will tell you what other mac/pc software is available for mastering on a budget. That's why people get the shits answering simple questions for people too lazy to figure it our for themselves...

[nuemes]

1. Get your mix perfect within LE

2. Download this little bastard for $89 and stick it on your master fader:
http://www.masseyplugins.com/?page=l2007

3. Burn to disk

It's not mastering by any means but it'll get the PTLE home studio guy where he needs to get volume-wise for a small release.

[leftright]

In this case, what do U think about this kind of signal path/routing, using PT LE (or other DAW, like Logic,..):

Track 1 = Audio Track with Original Audio file to be mastered
Track 2 = Aux Track with in insert: Harware Send/rtrn (where is sended to D/A->EQ's->Comp's->A/D then return) + DSP Plugin's (powercore MD3, UAD fairchild,...) + Waves LinearPhase, L2, L3,...
Track 3 = Audio Track to record the track 1 thru the treatments...

Then:

Tr 1: In = Disable, Out= BUS1
Tr 2: In= BUS 1, OUT= BUS 2
Tr 3: In= BUS2, Out = Output (where is the master out)

Then using a mastering software like for ex. PMCD or WaveLab to edit, and burn...

Just for idea?!

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by leftright

In this case, what do U think about this kind of signal path/routing, using PT LE (or other DAW, like Logic,..):

Track 1 = Audio Track with Original Audio file to be mastered
Track 2 = Aux Track with in insert: Harware Send/rtrn (where is sended to D/A->EQ's->Comp's->A/D then return) + DSP Plugin's (powercore MD3, UAD fairchild,...) + Waves LinearPhase, L2, L3,...
Track 3 = Audio Track to record the track 1 thru the treatments...

Then:

Tr 1: In = Disable, Out= BUS1
Tr 2: In= BUS 1, OUT= BUS 2
Tr 3: In= BUS2, Out = Output (where is the master out)

Then using a mastering software like for ex. PMCD or WaveLab to edit, and burn...

Just for idea?!

This is very close to the approach that I take.

Track 1 has the source audio (for stems repeat as needed) and is bussed to an aux track (or more than one aux track for M/S processing, evaluation of sections of the chain, parallel comp, and other uses). All inserts including my A/D converter, Weiss units, and plugs get inserted here or are carried over to an additional aux track. From there it is bounced down to a stereo interleaved file and the CD is edited and burned in another program (Waveburner, CD architect, insert here).

I also usually include other audio tracks which may contain reference tracks and other versions of the same song for comparison to the one that I'm working on. I can toggle back and forth between various parts, versions, routing configurations etc. using a few toggle buttons on a Dangerous monitor ST.

No so easy to do with other "mastering programs".

[3lbMike]

Saw this post on the DUC forums...I am not the author and do not claim to be an authority, but I felt it was an admittedly longwinded yet very interesting read...

Originally authored by Chris Cavell concerning mastering in PT (as far as I know).

Create a master fader.
With nothing on the master fader, play the track through once all the way. If the master fader clip indicator lights up, lower the master fader 6dB, repeat this until it doesn't light the clip indicator. If it doesn't light up on the first pass, control click the fader level indicator (the number just below the fader) one time to switch to a peak level indicator, play the tune through, and raise the master fader until the peak level is somewhere b/w -6 and 0, but doesn't clip at all.
After you've done this, your master fader is set, don't move it again unless you change the mix.

If you're sending it to an ME, the process ends there...just bounce it down to 24 bit at the same sample rate as the session and send the ME the data files.

If you're self mastering, I highly suggest bouncing to the highest sample rate you can work with up to 96k...there's no benefit beyond 96k. The reason for doing this is not that it'll make your bounce sound any different (it won't), but is a result of the sonic benefit to digital signal processing at higher sample rates (particularly EQ). Most people who self-master are stuck "in the box" and their results will often benefit greatly by working at 96k in the mastering stage.

Hook up a new/different set of monitors than the ones you used for mixing.

Create a new 96k 24 bit session. Import the file to be mastered. Create a master fader and an audio track. Place the tune on the audio track, and set both faders for unity.

Listen to the tune, determine what it needs, and process as needed. If you're self mastering, you probably have no need for a low cut or any need to visit width, panning, or phase issues, or even corrective eq or noise reduction...you can revisit the mix to take care of all of these problems. If the tune isn't wide enough (or too wide, often a problem in the low frequencies), adjust your panning in the mix...if you need a hi-pass, do it in the session b/c you can, etc.

Once you've taken care of all of those issues, mastering is fairly straight forward and simple:

Edit your start and end times. (if doing this in pro tools, turn on dither on fades in your preferences, but disable the noise shaping)

The rest (up to the next bounce) is ONLY IF NEEDED and very general in scope...every project differs in it's specific needs and requirements. I'm leaving out ALL of the more technical techniques employed in mastering because you should revisit the mix to take care of them at the source since you're self mastering!!!

Load a opto-style comp, medium-long attack and release times, low ratio of 2:1 or lower. Adjust the threshold for no more than around 3dB of reduction at most. This is a very slow smooth comp setting. What this will do is 1) let the loud transients through, preserving the mix (it doesn't squash/hide the snare for example), while 2) simultaneously smoothing out the frequency response of the program material (some call this "glueing" or "gelling" the tracks in everyday engineer-speak). Adjust the output level to ensure against clipping.

Once this is done, load a simple bass/treble tonal type of eq. Bass and treble controls should be shelves w/ a q just below 1 (if you can set that on your eq) set at 250 Hz and 4 kHz. This should be treated as a tonal/overall timbre eq. If you need more bass, boost it here. If you need more treble, boost it here. If you need more mids (or less mids), do it here by boosting/cutting the treble AND bass simultaneously by the same amounts. Again, adjust the output (sometimes you have to adjust input too depending upon how much headroom you left yourself) to prevent any clipping. (I suggest a linear phase eq for this part...there are a number of them out in the market now, but since we upsampled to 96k, it isn't absolutely necessary if you haven't got one.)

Follow this up with another compressor, similar to the first, but with a slightly quicker attack time (starting around 50 ms) and maybe a 3:1 compression ratio. For now, set your release fairly long, 300 to 500 ms to start. Set your threshold for around 3 to 6 dB of reduction as a reference, and tweak the attack time listening to how it affects your loud transients. Adjust it so it's effective but as transparent as possible (i.e, doesn't screw with the mix). Then adjust the release down listening carefully to the decay of your cymbals (or if the track doesn't have percussion, the decay of strummed guitar chords, or synth/organ notes that sustain through other transients. Bring it down to the point where it starts "pumping" those decays and then back off a bit. This comp will boost your rms somewhat...the goal is to do so as smoothly as possible while remaining faithful to the original mix. Again, adjust the output.

What comes next is the part that is absolutely detrimental to your original mix, but there is often no way around it: boosting perceived level...often dramatically.

At this point, you've probably already spent hours getting here...just in the number of times you've listened through the song. Take a couple days off and give your ears (and brain...as you'll find out when you try to get some sleep tonight that you can't get the song out of your head) a well deserved break.

There are two main ways of accomplishing this goal of loud levels: in one fell swoop, or in a multitude of small steps. Do both and compare which sounds best in the end for this song.

One fell swoop:
Throw on a fast limiter and smash away, or drive your converters to clipping (which sometimes sounds better believe it or not).

The multitude of small steps:
Load another comp, similar again to the others, but with an even faster attack and release, and an even higher ratio...set it up following the same procedure as the second comp observing b/w 3 to 5 dB reduction, boost the output level accordingly while careful not to clip. Repeat at nauseum (speeding up attack and realease and increasing ratio slightly each time) until you're only a couple or three dB away from your goal volume. Then throw on a limiter for the final few dB boost (or clip the converters).

A note, many of the "mastering" processors out there have the option of dither builtin to the plugin itself...make sure you have it turned OFF everywhere in this plugin chain so far.

Ahh...so you think you're done?...NOPE! There's much left to do...alot of it not involving your ears at all.

Now you have to bounce the beast getting it back to 44.1. To do this safely, you'll need to adjust the output so that your peaks have a little headroom, 0.5 dB is usually enough, but don't be surprised if you have to bounce it a second time leaving a few decimal places more headroom. (There are other ways of performing SRC, such as going out of the box analog into another DAW at your destination rate...but since this "little tutorial" is geared toward those completely stuck "in the box", I've decided left the multitude of possiblities regarding SRC out.)

Okay, bounce to disk, 44.1kHz, still 24 bit, and use the tweak head conversion algorithm. The pro tools tweak head algo is one of the finest on the market...to get something better will absolutely require spending a considerable amount of cash...which if you had at your disposal, you wouldn't be mastering this stuff yourself in the first place. (Which by the way, if you happen to have $600 laying around, or could have saved up that much by working during the time you spent self-mastering all 12 to 14 of the tracks on your album, you could have a had a very reputable pro mastering house take care of it for you in just a couple of days turnaround time!!!...phew..sorry, I digress...back to the topic...but email me off the board if you want the name of that facility)

Now you should have a mostly mastered 44.1k 24 bit track that hopefully sounds pretty darn good. Time for dithering. Make a new session (44.1 24 bit), create a master fader and audio track. Put the song onto the track. Pick your favorite dither algo, 16 bit with some type of noise shaping, and bounce. (If you haven't spent the time before now, go ahead and create a different bounce using every possible dither algo and setting at your disposal, including straight truncation, burn a quick disc, and see how each affects the sound of the end result. I bet you'll be surprised at what you hear. Some are better than others on different material, some drastically change the sound (UV22 anyone), and this test will help you in choosing the right dither for a particular work...not to mention the rest of the tracks going on this disc. I usually find Pow-R type 2 or 3 to be the best (most transparent and faithful to the 24 bit original) depending on the program material.)

Ahh...now you've got a single song done. Good for you. Do the rest of them now.

When you've finally got your hands on all the 44.1k 16 bit tracks for the disc....line em up and burn a quick temp reference. What's that? Yep, you're not done...upon your very first listening you've just discovered that from an artistic standpoint, track 3 is too loud compared to track 4...something must be done to make this musical transition more...well, musical.

That's right, take notes...revisit the mastering sessions and adjust accordingly. (You do want to do this right don't you?...well, no one said it was going to be easy...well, no one who knew what the heck they were talking about anyway...) Heck, you might even discover something within the tracks (production wise even) that necessitates revisiting the mix...forcing you to start all over again. Ugh... ("ugh" is really just a nice way of saying what's going through your head, possibly out of your mouth, when you reach this point: !#$%@#$%&^#%^#$!!!)

Ahh...now you've managed it...you've gotten all the tracks spot on...but wait, what this??? You're still not done!?? Yep, that's right...it isn't over yet. We've still got what many ME's consider to be the most crucial steps in the process of mastering...and what many point out as the dividing line b/w the "pro's" and the 16 year old kid in a band with too much time and money on his hands who fancies himself an ME.

It's time to make the disc: the "replication ready master". Aye...therein lyes the rub..."What is the difference b/w that disc I just previewed in the car and a replication ready master?" you ask...more about that later, we're just getting started with disc authoring.

Okay...you've got your tracks, you've got a burning program...what's left? Hmmm...let's see...have you managed to get your ISRC registrant code yet? What's that...you haven't...better get on the ball young man...if you want to see any revenues from royalties collected specifically for you from that college radio station that fancies your musical endeavors. Do a search for ISRC here on the DUC and you'll probably find another lengthy post by yours truly containing all the details. Oh yeah...UPC codes too...hmmm...don't bother trying to get your own (although you could)...your replication facility can provide one for you, usually at no extra charge. You'll need one if you plan on any stores ever allowing you (and most will if you have a UPC) to stick your product on there shelves.

But, you just noticed that your burning software (or burner) doesn't allow you to encode ISRC metadata...oh well, time to go get a new burner and/or software. Well, you don't have to, the replication facility will be glad to encode this information for you after the fact, for a fee. If it's already present on the replication ready master however, keeping the info on the pressed disc if it was present in the replication ready master provided by the ME is usually free.

Okay...you're good then, right?...you've got your tracks, ISRC codes, you'll have the replication facility provide you with a UPC...what's left?

Oh yeah...you've got to author the disc...don't worry kids, you get to use your ears again. Yippee!!! It's about time, I could tell you were all getting tired of the technicalities in the previous couple of paragraphs. It's time to determine track spacing. Oh...so you think 2 second gaps across the board is fine...it might be, but you better take a close listen and make damn sure. Last thing you want is to give a listener a heart attack b/c you had a nice soft luvvyduvvy ballad end so calmingly only to be followed a few ultra-short moments later, not enough time for your listener to return to their "emotional" norm, before you blast them with that double kick screamer intro.

You've checked your gaps, gotten your isrc codes squared away, etc.

Time to burn the replication master then. Yep, we're getting there, close to the end that is. First you need to get yourself some quality media to burn. I suggest Taiyo Yuden media. So, you burn the disc. What now? "We're not done yet!?" screamed the hordes...Nope. Now you must perform the single most crucial (according to many) step in the mastering process: quality control. You must, if you plan of having any confidence in the disc, submit it to a quality control regiment. "How do I do that?" you ask.

It's not so tough...one aspect of this process is to listen through the disc, in it's entirety, paying careful attention for any odd skips, glitches, or anything else that shouldn't be part of the master. But that's not enough...you really need to at the very least check the disc for it's Block Error Rate (commonly called BLER) to ensure with some amount of confidence that the disc is within redbook specifications. Errors are intrinsic and ubiquitous with CD media...the goal is to keep these errors so few and infrequency that the logic based error correction within CD players prevents them from manifesting audibly...which is where the red-book spec conservatively draws the line. To do this without spending a fortune on a machine/workstation specifically designed for this task requires a Plextor cd burner compatible with Plextor's PlexTools software.

When you've got one of these burners, and some quality media to use with it, burn a disc at 4x, 8x, 16x, and 32x...using plextools to calculate the BLER after each burning pass. You'll usually find that one of these four speeds will result in substantially fewer errors than the others. Use that speed to burn your replication master.

Print out a detailed report of the CD generated by the authoring program (if your program supports cue sheet style authoring, a cue sheet will do...what you want is a document containing ALL the track and disc information: cd-text, isrc codes, all pq-codes, and exactly where they occur on the disc, etc). Burn the disc. Use PlexTools to test the BLER of the disc. If the disc tests out okay, print out plextools' results. Then, send these two printouts, along with the newly burned "replication ready master", to the replication facility of your choice.

You're almost done...you can see the finish line coming up to meet you.

A short time later the replication facility sends you what is called a "reference". It's your responsibility to check this reference. Use the same quality control methods as before...check it for BLER (you might be surprised how much better your CD-R is than a pressed reference...if the pressed disc has poor results that are obviously outside of redbook spec, let them know about it), check to make sure your ISRC's are still present (you'd be surprised how many places forget to include them in the transfer), as well as that UPC they're supposed to provide you. And don't forget, listen to it...all the way through...critically.

Once you've got a reference you're happy with, you're done, finished, finito..."thank gawd" you exclaim.


TDub, I hope this helps answer your original question. I also hope you'll forgive my somewhat sarcastic (and sometimes caustic) method of answering it. Much of this potentially offensive demeanor found within this post is the direct result of an increasingly profound frustration and annoyance with the ever increasing population of "engineers" writing offensively (often offensive to me anyway) with a "mastering is easy", "don't trust others", and "do it yourself, thank me later" attitude. As I'm sure you can derive from the breadth of content in this post, the industry simply doesn't agree, and as such doesn't operate in a way that even remotely hints at a sympathetic viewpoint. Using a third party ME is not only generally good for your product (extra set of fresh ears, better gear, room setup for the process, etc), but painfully obvious that it's good business sense, fiscally and artistically. Paying someone else to take care of all the monotony entailed in true mastering at a cost (typically) that falls well below that of doing the work internally is good business sense in anyone's book. It also tends to keep those individuals less-pre-disposed to such work HAPPY with their jobs and responsibilities with regards to a given project, which in my book, is priceless.

This problem is only exacerbated with the continued introduction of plugins and programs advertised as "all-in-one-master-it-yourself-as-good-as-the-pro's-can" devices. Simply put, be wary, be very wary of any software billed in this manner. The fact is, if these programs were half as good as they claim, they'd be targeting their promotional material at the mastering engineer community, not the throngs of kids who got a DAW on their birthday.

Regardless of the length and verbose nature of this diatribe, I hope that you can find within it the information you were seeking when first posting. Hopefully a few others will benefit from it as well.

Cheers,
Chris

[billybly]

Yes you can master in Pro Tools LE but just not in it alone. This is how I go about it. First I do my mix and I pay close attention to my level. You don't want your level to high at this point so that you will have room to get louder. Once you get the mix where you want, Bounce to Disk giving it a file name something like Joe's Song Final Mix 1. Next open up a new session and import the Final Mix file into it. Then create a Master Track. Then import some songs that have the same kind of sound that you're aiming for. Mute these tracks initially. Now here is where you will have to spend an little money. I have the Waves Diamond Bundle which includes a 10 band eq, a multiband compressor and both L1, L1 Maximizer, and L2. insert the 10 band eq first and audition it versus the other songs you imported but don't forget to bypass what you have inserted when playing those songs already mastered. Once you like how you have the eq the insert the multiband compressor and play with some of the presets that it has to get you in the ball park. Then finally insert either L1, L1+, or the L2, again using the presets as starting points. Once you've done that you are ready to Bounce to Disk calling it Joe's Song Final Master 1. I would also suggest you getting Sound Forge for this next step. When I do my Final Bounce to Disk, I bounce 24bit/96khz. Then I pull it up in Sound Forge, use the bit converter to get to 16 bit and resample to go from 96khz to 44.1khz. Trust me you will get a very good sound for a home master. Just don't try to do it on the same day that you did your mix. Give your ears a rest.