Mastering With Adobe Audition?

[smccarthy945]

I am not a professional when it comes to mastering but I do my best. I have been using Sound Forge and L3 for a while and just tried Adobe Audition with its mastering module. It has an exciter, maximizer, etc. I don't know if its just me (that's why I'm posting) but the quality I am getting out of Adobe Audition vs Waves L3 is amazing. The mix sounds like it has more life to it and much clearer.

Has anyone else used Adobe Audition and seen the same results?

[wado1942]

I have Audition as well as it's predecessor Cool Edit Pro. I don't like a lot of the things about the workflow but it does some things with better quality than many other software that's much more expensive.

Some things I should note, the L3 is about the worst thing you can do to your mixes, same thing with those "enhancer" type devices and plugins. Now I haven't used Sound Forge in over 10 years but I don't remember it being particularly impressive. That was 10 years ago though and things change. So if you like Audition better, use it. The limiter designed by Syntrillium is far better than the L3 and in many ways, the L2. However, Adobe modified it to prevent certain settings from being used which I don't like. I want to make up my own mind about how I set my limiter. I thought about upgrading from CEP 2.1 to Audition and somebody even gave me his copy in trade but in my experimentation with it, Adobe doesn't understand audio and they've done some very foolish things to CEP that counteract many of the improvements they made. So I'm still using CEP for now.

Hope that helps.

[rumleymusic]

Audition is the only editing software we use at the radio station I work at. It is a fast, intuitive, and an easy program to use. The most recent release includes the new "mastering" module you are refering to, which I am almost sure is a 'lite' licence of Izotope technologies. It works fine, especially in a pinch. I have used it to breathe a little life into our San Diego Opera broadcasts that are not exactly professionally recorded. I get much better results though in my own studio with separate processors.

For the most part, I see Audition as an editing environment geared toward fast workflow. Its mastering features are good but are optimized for radio production over high end music mastering. And it has a few other issues that I wouldn't trust for mastering, such as potentially glitchy playback on most systems.

[Old Goat]

Originally Posted by wado1942

...Adobe doesn't understand audio and they've done some very foolish things to CEP that counteract many of the improvements they made. So I'm still using CEP for now.

Hope that helps.

Glad I'm not the only holdout.

[SSMastering]

I still use CEP 2.1; it's pretty easy to get a well-balanced mix with it,
but listening to songs I've mixed in CEP compared to Pro Tools, Cubase 5 and Logic,
CEP just doesn't seem to have that good of a mixing engine.
Sounds like a lot of the punch and fullness of the music gets lost somewhere.

[Old Goat]

Originally Posted by SSMastering

I still use CEP 2.1; it's pretty easy to get a well-balanced mix with it,
but listening to songs I've mixed in CEP compared to Pro Tools, Cubase 5 and Logic,
CEP just doesn't seem to have that good of a mixing engine.
Sounds like a lot of the punch and fullness of the music gets lost somewhere.

Agreed. I just use it for editing and repairing quickly.

BTW, love your sig.

[wado1942]

I still use CEP 2.1; it's pretty easy to get a well-balanced mix with it,
but listening to songs I've mixed in CEP compared to Pro Tools, Cubase 5 and Logic,
CEP just doesn't seem to have that good of a mixing engine.

Well, CEP was never intended to be a mixing program. The "multitrack" was intended more for multiple song leveling. It's really a stereo editing program, which is what he wants.

OP, you may want to look into Wavelab also.

[RDMS]

Been a cool edit/ audition user since the genre began.
Adobe did stuff a lot of things up when they took over, stability for one.
Version 3 is by far the best release but needs a multicore to function properly.
The spectral tools are fantastic for surgical repairs of clicks, pops and various background annoyances that seem to appear more and more in mixes I'm handed.
As for the Mastering tools built in? Wouldn't touch them. It's a nice mix and edit platform but "pay for plugins" are the only way to go.

[jamesp]

I used CEP and Audition up until version 2. Unfortunately version 2 was released before it was really ready and they never put out an interim update so it had too many reliability issues for me to continue with it as my main software.

I still use Audition 1.5 for its restoration features and for the occasional edit.

Cheers

James.

[Franco]

I've been an Audition user also from it's CEP days. The new spectral editing capabilities of A3 are worth the price of the software alone. I've been able to remove things like coughs from a live performance without affecting the audio and I don't think there's anything else out there that compares for the money.

I don't like it for processing (can't use my Nocturn and don't like the effects interface personally) but I run it in tandem with PTLE and it's nice to have that going in case it's needed.

Also, it's horrendous for burning CDs (one time, one of them wouldn't even play back in my car).

EDIT: I always forget to mention this about Audition, but I just did this now on a batch of tracks and remembered, so while that's going, I wanted to also note that this software has a lot of flexibility in the types of dithering options. I have not tried all of them, but the ones I've auditioned all sound better to me than the PTLE options.

[mike cantu]

Hey Wado...or anyone else...know anyplace I can get a copy of CEP? Most places I've looked at try to sell you AA 3.0...

[RasCricket]

Originally Posted by smccarthy945

I am not a professional when it comes to mastering but I do my best. I have been using Sound Forge and L3 for a while and just tried Adobe Audition with its mastering module. It has an exciter, maximizer, etc. I don't know if its just me (that's why I'm posting) but the quality I am getting out of Adobe Audition vs Waves L3 is amazing. The mix sounds like it has more life to it and much clearer.

Has anyone else used Adobe Audition and seen the same results?

Yes. Most definitely. Theres sadly an army of guys here at Gearslutz who dont have a clue about how good Audition is. Two of my better mixed songs that just.....seemed to have turned out really nicely mix-wise were done using the little Mastering Module in Audition.

Here's one: SoundClick artist: RasCricket - Original Reggae and Dub Productions ~ Small Axe Studios ~(no, its not the best thing ever, but its a great mix for someone who had taken 4 years off of home production and had only owned Audition for like, 2 months at that point ~ granted, my mix was well panned and placed and had some B+ levels going on already BEFORE I slapped the Mastering Module on the master channel. So, with all that said, this here is a good example of what that module can do, finishing-touch wise, for someone who had just got back into home recording and wasnt even on the VST kick yet. Not a bad mix.)

Yeah, CEP was good, but Audition is better. Thats my opinion. Could you burn CD's with ISRC codes, UPC codes, and CD text in CEP? I cant remember, honestly. But to be very truthful, the CD burning options and the Spectral Tools are two very good reasons to upgrade to AA 3.0.

Its true that "pay to play" plug ins are good.....however, to those of us who have done enough A/B testing and enough work with the standard plugs that come with Audition, Im not sure you can convince us that this is a clear cut fact. Its actually far from a fact. Many of the plugs in Audition rival or beat Waves plugs.

Yeah, like Franco said: Remove a cough, or in my case chair squeaks and tinking glasses just ONCE and youll feel a little different about still being with CEP. Perhaps. It was a slam dunk for me, I know. Ive never looked back.

One thing we'll agree on, is the magnitude of how great CEP has been over the years to get a very high quality product in the hands of home-producers. Ive long been a serious fan.

[WBM]

Audition V 1.0, 1.5 and 2 been made by a different person after, since they don't want to pay the designer the rights they chose to get an other designer that he used a different algorithm, now sucks bad the old version are better in terms of software sound.

[tribeofenki]

Version 3.0 has some Ozone plugs... maybe they are good, maybe not (I just own previous versions). I really enjoyed the product in the past. Now it seems very mature and the VSTi integration seems better... Any users of the latest updates here?

[wado1942]

I see copies of CEP on Ebay once and a while. Nobody has new, in-box disks anymore. I just bit the bullet and put my AA 3.0 that I got in trade for a job on my new work station. I hate that it's missing some useful things CEP 2.0 had and I REALLY hate the fact that it takes over a minute to load. VST and ASIO support are just too important now for me to keep using CEP.

[RasCricket]

Originally Posted by wado1942

I see copies of CEP on Ebay once and a while. Nobody has new, in-box disks anymore. I just bit the bullet and put my AA 3.0 that I got in trade for a job on my new work station. I hate that it's missing some useful things CEP 2.0 had and I REALLY hate the fact that it takes over a minute to load. VST and ASIO support are just too important now for me to keep using CEP.

Wow, it had been so long I forgot. CEP doesnt support VST?

Good lord. Heck no. In 2010? No way.

I give thanks for what CEP was able to do for me and my band in like.....1999-2000, but...theres better things available these days built on the CEP foundation. Time to check out AA3 if anyone hasnt yet.

[ORC]

The audio quality of Adobe Audition is horrendous! I also think masteing in Pro Tools is a joke.

[bino_5150]

Originally Posted by rumleymusic

Audition is the only editing software we use at the radio station I work at. It is a fast, intuitive, and an easy program to use. The most recent release includes the new "mastering" module you are refering to, which I am almost sure is a 'lite' licence of Izotope technologies. It works fine, especially in a pinch. I have used it to breathe a little life into our San Diego Opera broadcasts that are not exactly professionally recorded. I get much better results though in my own studio with separate processors.

For the most part, I see Audition as an editing environment geared toward fast workflow. Its mastering features are good but are optimized for radio production over high end music mastering. And it has a few other issues that I wouldn't trust for mastering, such as potentially glitchy playback on most systems.

Actually, no, AA is "optimized" for high end audio, not necessarily radio. As far as glitchy playback, that would be more an issue with your system, buffer settings, etc... not the software. I've been using AA since CEP. I have several other DAW's as well, like Pro Tools, that I only use to open and consolidate waves in a session so I can bring them into AA to mix and master.

Out the box, AA is great, but lets be serious, who here is mastering on the stock plugins that come with a DAW? AA uses all of your high end plugins just like any other DAW.

As far as audio goes, it's great, and I feel it's workflow, flexibility, and features (such as the mastering rack and edit view) make it far superior to a lot of other DAW's. Don't sleep on this...

[wado1942]

The audio quality of Adobe Audition is horrendous! I also think masteing in Pro Tools is a joke.

Really? I found CEP and AA add less distortion in basic operations than Wavelab, Vegas or N'track..... Not that those are known as incredible audio software. The stock dynamics processor is useless and I really wish they didn't lock out certain settings for the limiter in AA. The EQs are OK, scientific filters are incredibly flexible and the noise reduction & restoration tools are far better than any WAVES plugins, all in a very inexpensive package. It's just an incredible resource hog because that's what Adobe does with everything.

[miro]

Originally Posted by ORC

The audio quality of Adobe Audition is horrendous! I also think masteing in Pro Tools is a joke.

I'm not using either one but still interested in why?

[eighttwelve]

As a college student who's just finishing mixing on an album, I've been looking into mastering. Since professional mastering is so expensive, I've been looking into learning how to master on my own. What do you guys recommend? Reading this thread Adobe Audition seems like a reasonable choice, but do any of you guys know of anything else I could look into? Thanks in advance, great to hear about this stuff from people who know what they're talking about.

[Remeniz]

I still use Cool Edit Pro mainly for analysis; I love it's wave, Fq and phase graphs for visually checking mixes and will usually have it open while working in another DAW app. Also it's really quick to create a looped samples in CEP.

[bino_5150]

As far as audio quality being horrendous in AA, I think this may be a case of user error... If I load the same exact wave file in AA, PT, Sonar, whatever... it should sound exactly the same. It's not like the difference in an Alesis 3630 and an SSL G series compressor, where there is a distinct difference in the sound. Actually, it will sound better in AA because I'm not limited to Digi's crappy hardware.

As far as that goes, I work in 32 bit in AA, which is a very noticeable improvement in my mixing process, so I don't know how you figure AA as a DAW "sounds bad"...

Also, I've heard it mentioned here that someone is having issues with their limiter having settings "locked out"? I have not experienced this. I can set my limiter however I wish, be it the stock limiter, L1, L2, L3 Izotope, or any other limiter that I use. Neither Adobe or Syntrillium sabotaged my plugins. Maybe you have a conflict in your settings? What exactly is it doing to you?

Also,I find that a lot of the stock plugins in AA are actually pretty good, including the Dynamics Processor, which is a lot more flexible than say the C1 Waves, with a virtually identical sound. The Izotope multiband compressor that comes with AA for some reason actually sounds better than it's Ozone counterpart, though a multiband compressor isn't something that I use that often. But like I stated earlier, your same aftermarket plugins are available to you in AA just like PT or any other DAW, And AA has the one-up on other DAW's like PT because AA tracks and mixes in 32 bit, and the waves plugs process internally at 64 bit. Those extra 8 bits do make a difference as opposed to PT.

And yes I do agree, mastering in PT is a joke. Along with everything else in PT.

Keep in mind that CEP and AA are 2 totally different animals. Even AA2 and AA3 are totally different. AA3 is where it's at.

[Ari-M.]

Originally Posted by bino_5150

Actually, it will sound better in AA because I'm not limited to Digi's crappy hardware.

As far as that goes, I work in 32 bit in AA, which is a very noticeable improvement in my mixing process, so I don't know how you figure AA as a DAW "sounds bad"...

And AA has the one-up on other DAW's like PT because AA tracks and mixes in 32 bit, and the waves plugs process internally at 64 bit. Those extra 8 bits do make a difference as opposed to PT.

And yes I do agree, mastering in PT is a joke. Along with everything else in PT.

AA3 is where it's at.

http://akmedia.digidesign.com/suppor...ixer_26688.pdf




your quote pretty much sums up the type of person you are....if you click the link and actually read, you will see the problem with your statements (or not?)

[RasCricket]

Originally Posted by Ari-M.

http://akmedia.digidesign.com/suppor...ixer_26688.pdf




your quote pretty much sums up the type of person you are....if you click the link and actually read, you will see the problem with your statements (or not?)

He seems like a smart guy to me. He's using Audition. thumbsup

If you care to nutshell your point for all of us dummies, I'd listen. But if youre sold on the possibility that the human ear is gonna tell between a 32 bit mixer and a 48 mixer, I for one am not so sure about that. Maybe theres a link you have for that too. I dunno.

All I do know.....is im not gonna drink the water if Im in Nebraska. Obviously it affects the mind.

[Ari-M.]

Originally Posted by RasCricket

He seems like a smart guy to me. He's using Audition. thumbsup

If you care to nutshell your point for all of us dummies, I'd listen. But if youre sold on the possibility that the human ear is gonna tell between a 32 bit mixer and a 48 mixer, I for one am not so sure about that. Maybe theres a link you have for that too. I dunno.

All I do know.....is im not gonna drink the water if Im in Nebraska. Obviously it affects the mind.

the gentleman was claiming that AA "sounds" better because it processes it's mixer at 32-bit and "those 8 bits make a difference"

first of all 24 bit is 144 db dynamic range so yes the difference to the human ear is not worth mentioning really....

the real problem is the gentleman says that AA is better than PT because it is 32 bit mixing and PT is only 24....yet the article I linked clearly shows how PT is in fact a 48 bit mixer....

see the problem with the comments yet?


he unravels what could have been a valid point with an uninformed statement....and then goes on to say PT "sucks"

it's faulty logic....

ergo

my 32 bit mixer sounds better than your 24 bit mixer....even though your mixer is actually 48 bits....mine sounds better because it's 8 bits greater then yours (which is false)



PS the gentleman was from TX, not NE.....

I am clearly from california.....is there trouble with the water in Oregon?

[ORC]

Any legitemite professional ME's running Audition as their main daw, please feel free to chime in at any time.

I personally use Wavelab with Lynx harware and Lavry converters. This sounds better than Sonic IMHO.

One of my least favorite things is receiveing mixes done in Adobe Audition.
They always seem to be of poor audio quality.

I think the audio Codecs are pretty bad in Audition, about the same quality as Itunes.

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by ORC

Any legitemite professional ME's running Audition as their main daw, please feel free to chime in at any time.

I personally use Wavelab with Lynx harware and Lavry converters. This sounds better than Sonic IMHO.

One of my least favorite things is receiveing mixes done in Adobe Audition.
They always seem to be of poor audio quality.

I think the audio Codecs are pretty bad in Audition, about the same quality as Itunes.

I think it's the driver more than the tools.

Adobe Audition has just about every codec ever made as it's intended for broadcast. itunes uses AAC- the only one Adobe doesn't have. So you are just spreading biased mis information.

[ORC]

Originally Posted by Ben F

I think it's the driver more than the tools.

Adobe Audition has just about every codec ever made as it's intended for broadcast. itunes uses AAC- the only one Adobe doesn't have. So you are just spreading biased mis information.

Not trying to spread misinformation. I was simply speculating as to why almost all of the albums I recieve that are done in Audition sound really poor regardless of what driver is using the aformentioned program as a tool. The first things that came to mind were poor codecs. Regardless of what codecs Audition uses, It sounds about like itunes to me.

Again, any Legitimate professional ME's using Audition for their main DAW,
please feel free to chime in at any time.

[Harvey Gerst]

I've noticed that converting down to 44.1/16 bits and saving a file as an AIF file gives me better results than saving as a 44.1/16 bit WAV file. Don't know why that is.