What software are you using to master on PC?

[E.rOk.stA]

I am using a PC and Sony's CD Architect. Unfortunately, It only uses Direct X plugins. That leaves me with only Ozone. I like Ozone, but I want my VST's. I wish Bias was for PC....

[De chromium cob]

I have Wavelab and Sequoia but use Wavelab the most because thats what I'm most used to...

[AstralPStudios]

I use pro tools and put everything in sequoia to create DDPs and make the cd.

[Joe_caithness]

Cubase Essential 4 + Wavelab Essential 6 here

love Cubase, always used it, since I was 12

Wavelab is the ugliest program ever, and it's all back to front, but it's a great tool for album compiling.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Wavelab 6.0 and Samplitude 9.0 here.

[Cellotron]

I'm using a fairly unusual choice - SAWStudio - Welcome to RML Labs - The Makers of SAWStudio - with the JMS Audioware Cue Sheet Generator add on (which allows PQ index points and subcodes to be entered and edited directly in SAWStudio, and to create Red Book compliant cue sheet images from the layouts you have entered) - JMS Audioware

Some of the advantages of SAW over other DAW apps are:
# support for up to 32bit / 400kHz audio (and any standard or custom sample rate below)
# ability to combine files with different sample rates and bit rates in a single session
# 64 bit fixed point math for all multiples and divides returning full 32bit dword in internal processing (instead of just the 24bit + 8bit mantissa in a 32bit IEEE file) for extremely high accuracy for all digital processing
# assembly language coding for its engine core allows for incredible stability and efficiency
# gui, signal path and work flow emulate a large format analog mixing console
# skinnable look completely changeable with a single mouse click
# NO copy protection or Windows registry hooks allows complete ease of installation!
# fully automateable SAW native plugin format with excellent sounding processors that are unavailable for any other format
# support for VST / VSTi / DX plugins (including DSP based "powered" plugins from UA & TC)

I also use Sonoris DDP Creator to convert the cue/wav images generated by SAWStudio into DDP when necessary, and to do quick resequencing editing of subcodes - DDP Creator - Sonoris Audio Engineering

Some other PC based apps I've found useful are:
Exact Audio Copy - Introduction » Exact Audio Copy - excellent CD digital audio extractor with "secure" error correction, and also excellent CD-R burning app from cue sheet images.

Awave Audio - http://www.fmjsoft.com/aaframe.html - batch format converter for over 90 different digital audio file types

Nero - Nero - Nero AG - Liquid Media to Simply Enjoy - Official Website - full featured data & audio disc burning software, including support for Blue Book spec "CD Extra" authoring.

Cirlina HD Audio Solo Ultra - Solo DVD-Audio authoring - Author DVD at the best audio quality - inexpensive DVD-Audio disc authoring with ability to create "hybrid universal" discs compatible in standard DVD-V players.

Plextor Plextools Pro XL - PlexTools - Home Page - disc info and error checking software

Jthink Jaikoz - Jaikoz Audio Tagger - advanced id3 tag editing (including support for ISRC) for Mp4, M4a, M4p, Mp3, Wma, Flac and OggVorbis

Rail Rogut Interleaver - http://www.railjonrogut.com/interleaver.zip - batch converter to combine dual mono files into stereo interleaved wav's

Rail Rogut sd2Wav - sdTwoWav - batch converter of sd2 files to wav

Fostex BWF Manager - BWF Manager Software - Broadcast, Film and Pro Audio - extracts mono files from poly and stereo bwf wav files (and visa versa)

CAS DVD Audio Extractor - DVD Audio Extractor -- Full featured DVD audio ripper for your easy use - extracts audio (including support for 7.1) from DVD-V discs.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[wildplum]

Wavelab 6 here. Audition and Rx for restoration.

[andsonic]

another vote for Samplitude here. Samplitude & Sequioa are basically the same program. (Sequioa has a few more features, namely authoring to .ddp)

You will find that a lot of Mastering folks use Sequoia. Off the top of my head I can think of Brad Blackwood, Bob Ohlson, & Bob Katz.

[Franco]

PTLE for processing, CD Architect for the premasters, Audition for batch processing (making MP3s, etc.)

[SoundOps]

Thanks to Cellotron for pointing out Jaikoz Audio Tagger. Since we provide versions optimized for online playback with all our studio masters, this could come in handy.

[Stereophonic]

Samplitude with the DDP xport (no longer available for Samplitude). Samplitude is everything I will ever need in an editor. And it sounds great too!



Timothy Stollenwerk

____________________________________________
S t e r e o p h o n i C . . . . . . . . | Stereophonic Mastering | | Custom Audio Mastering |
m a s t e r i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503. 407. 2521
Stereophonic Mastering on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Videos

[aivoryuk]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

Wavelab and Samplitude here.

Same Here

[RTR]

I use PT..then burn with nero..what is so hard about this? Am I missing something?

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by RTR

I use PT..then burn with nero..what is so hard about this? Am I missing something?

What you're missing is noticeably improved work flow when you use the same program to assemble a sequence and create and edit track and pause indexes and subcode info as the one you use to process and edit audio.

In the single app paradigm say if you wanted to stretch a fadeout at a track end longer and move the following tracks back you just edit the session and you're done. With the dual app paradigm you have to go back to the processing app, re-edit files, reinsert into the second assembly app, and repeat again if any further tweaks are needed.

Having worked both ways there's no way in heck I'd ever want to go back to the two app paradigm.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[nine99nine]

Wavelab and you dont need the full version to take advantage of how awesome it is!

[Don S]

Pyramix or Sequoia.

[Glenn Bucci]

I used to use Wavelab, but now Samplitude which I like better. Samplitude 10 includes an amazing plug in called Ammunition that is one of the most powerful software compressors I have ever experienced.

[Ben F]

Sequoia for mastering.

A mac with Protools LE, Logic Pro and Ableton Live for other sorts of trickery.

[KRStudio]

Samplitude for tracking, mixing, mastering.

[Paul Russell]

Sonar in 64 bit precision mode for mastering. It renders a 16/44 file which then goes into CD Architect for ISRC codes, CDText and track input.

[mcsnare]

Wavelab for playback and Sequoia for capture and editing. Occasionally ProTools for playback but that's on a Mac.

Dave

[MASSIVE Master]

Samplitude (and hardware).

[andsonic]

There seems to be a lot of Sequiatude users here

[KRStudio]

I'll bet there's a good well kept reason for that! Shhhh don't tell!

[deadears]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

I'm using a fairly unusual choice - SAWStudio - Welcome to RML Labs - The Makers of SAWStudio - with the JMS Audioware Cue Sheet Generator add on (which allows PQ index points and subcodes to be entered and edited directly in SAWStudio, and to create Red Book compliant cue sheet images from the layouts you have entered) - JMS Audioware

Some of the advantages of SAW over other DAW apps are:
# support for up to 32bit / 400kHz audio (and any standard or custom sample rate below)
# ability to combine files with different sample rates and bit rates in a single session

After reading several messages here about Saw STudio a while ago I visited their website to find a big argument about how inferior their sample rate conversion was. The saw studio company owner demanded the inferior test results be removed from a website that showed SRC results of different DAW. and the forum moderator took down the thread about it right in the middle of discussion, so no one could read it.

So I don't know how anyone can consider inferior sample rate conversion sound quality as an advantage.

IIRC, there were many DAW with WAY better sample rate conversion specs than SAW, including Pro Tools and Samplitude and Logic and Sonar and Seqoia.

And how is non standard sample rates an advantage to mastering if you have to convert?

~deadears

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by deadears

After reading several messages here about Saw STudio a while ago I visited their website to find a big argument about how inferior their sample rate conversion was. The forum moderator took down the thread about it right in the middle of discussion, and the saw studio company owner demanded the inferior test results be removed from a website that showed SRC results of different DAW.

So I don't know how anyone can consider inferior sample rate conversion sound quality as an advantage.

IIRC, there were many DAW with WAY better sample rate conversion specs, including Pro Tools and Samplitude and Logic and Sonar and Seqoia.

And how is non standard sample rates an advantage to mastering if you have to convert?

~deadears

Deadears -
First off - the thread on the forum you are referring to was removed because it devolved into disruptive off topic in-fighting between some of the posters - not because of the content that was on topic. The discussion was a good one though as it actually revealed a bug in the lower quality src conversion algorithm which was in fact fixed in a recent free update.

The reason the test results on the SRC Comparisons site were removed was because the SAW user who had submitted them had used settings which used one of the lower quality (for real time monitoring) algorithms. Because SAW's author was making both bug fixes to the src routine and also wished SAW to be represented on an equal footing as the other apps tested (which for the vast majority of apps tested are at their highest quality settings) he wanted to send in new results with settings properly done. Infinitewave made the decision on their own to oblige SAW's author request for the test results to be removed in the meantime. I'll see what I can do to expedite new tests being posted.

Next - despite the issues posted above SAW actually tested out to be around the same quality level of PT's and Sequoia's - and superior to the src native in many DAW's also used in mastering, such as SADIE. Regardless NONE of the apps you listed have the best src available by any means - most of them are in fact test out with results inferior to the freeware SoX algorithm.

Next - and possibly most importantly - src plays very limited role in my mastering work flow - and in the work flow of the vast majority of mastering engineers I know. For the vast majority of jobs received I play all digital files at the same sample rate out received to my analog process chain - and then capture back at the sample rate desired for delivery. So - in the vast majority of mastering jobs I do - no src is used, regardless of the source or delivery rates.

When I do in fact need to do sample rate conversions I generally use a batch converter (SoX these days) that is separate from my primary DAW app that offers an src algorithm that tests out superior to nearly any other out there.

The ability to process and play out non-standard rates is useful for things like dealing with pull up or pull down rates for audio files used for video post-production, or for non-standard sample rates for games or other low memory devices with embedded audio. It also allows for high quality and flexible vari-pitching to be done real time in-the-box as well. It should be note that DXD (the sample rate used for processing DSD as PCM) is also at a "non-standard" rate.

The ability to combine multiple sample rates in a single session is a definite work flow saver to me as I can have a single session file for all the source files regardless at the received rate - and then can play each of these out at the received rate for each one to my analog process chain by reclocking to this rate with the click of a mouse. This is definitely a time saver from having to open and keep track of separate session files for each of the received rates to me.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[deadears]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

The reason the test results on the SRC Comparisons site were removed was because the SAW user who had submitted them had used settings which used one of the lower quality (for real time monitoring) algorithms.

edit

Next - despite the issues posted above SAW actually tested out to be around the same quality level of PT's and Sequoia's - and superior to the src native in many DAW's also used in mastering, such as SADIE. Regardless NONE of the apps you listed have the best src available by any means - most of them are in fact test out with results inferior to the freeware SoX algorithm.

edit

Next - and possibly most importantly - src plays very limited role in my mastering work flow -

I remember that thread differently than you do, and it was taken down in the middle of the discussion. I also remember the owner saying he did not believe in test results and telling the other guy to take it down rather than provide proper files. According to your link, the owner still has not posted them.

I also clearly remember the SAW test results being inferior to several other DAW, and the frequency of the sample rate conversion was incorrect (not 44.1k), so some of the tests did not work.

If sample rate conversion does not play a role in your work, then that is quite different than saying the sample rate conversion of your app is an ADVANTAGE to your work. That is what caught my attention.

Based on the link to the SRC website, I disagree that there is a perceptible (and barely measurable) difference between the Sox and PT, Sequoia, Logic, etc. There are others that are obviously inferior, like REaper and Vegas.

~deadears

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by deadears

I remember that thread differently than you do, and it was taken down in the middle of the discussion. I also remember the owner saying he did not believe in test results and telling the other guy to take it down rather than provide proper files. According to your link, the owner still has not posted them.

Again - I'll see whether I can help to have this get changed sooner than later.

I also clearly remember the SAW test results being inferior to several other DAW,

If you're concerned with using the absolute best src algorithm then it's easy enough to get a 3rd party utilty (which is better suited to batch conversions) which has one. Weiss Saracon, SoX, Izotope 64bit, have all tested out to be better than what is built into the vast majority of any DAW apps out there -including all the ones you previously noted.

If you want to pick nits I've been critical myself of SAW's built in dither algorithms. Easy solution is I just use an excellent 3rd party one (Sonoris) as a plugin and the issue is over.

Next -
There are MANY more processes that occur in DAW's over and over when mixing/editing/mastering that never use an src routine. I'd say SAW performs exemplary in these.

and the frequency of the sample rate conversion was incorrect (not 44.1k), so some of the tests did not work.

From my understanding this occured because the poster did not use the highest quality setting (he mistakenly set the destination rate in the Multitrack menu - which uses the quality setting chosen in the "real time" options - rather than choosing the destination rate in the final "Build Mix" dialog - which uses the settings in "build mix" options) - and because a bug existed in the lower quality settings - which has already been fixed in an update that was issued for free.

If sample rate conversion does not play a role in your work, then that is quite different than saying the sample rate conversion of your app is an ADVANTAGE to your work. That is what caught my attention.

Well then you completely misunderstood and are in fact misquoting my post. The distinct advantage to me is that I can have different files of different files at any bit rate and sample rate loaded into a single edit list (aka session) file. At a couple mouse clicks I can get these to play back at their source rates (along with any additional processing) out to the DAC. To me this is a distinct time saver. ymmv.

Based on the link to the SRC website, I disagree that there is a perceptible (and barely measurable) difference between the Sox and PT, Sequoia, Logic, etc. There are others that are obviously inferior, like REaper and Vegas.

~deadears

Yup. There certainly are some poorer src's in comparison out there. But if you want to criticize SAWStudio solely on its built in SRC algorithms you need to criticize most DAW apps as well.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Table Of Tone]

Originally Posted by andsonic

There seems to be a lot of Sequiatude users here

Someone should create a DAW called that!

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by Table Of Tone

Someone should create a DAW called that!

I think Magix's legal department would want to talk whatever people decided to do try it though!

Best regards,
Steve Berson