Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Mastering directly in cubase

DoubleJ said:
Would there be any point to limiting and compressing a track vs just bringing the volume down? I can see potentially needing to limit if the track is too quiet and needs to be brought up in loudness but the reverse doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
Acording to Spotify:

Loudness normalization - Spotify

support.spotify.com support.spotify.com

Loudness normalization means we don’t always play your track at the level it’s mastered.

  • Target the loudness level of your master at -14dB integrated LUFS and keep it below -1dB TP (True Peak) max. This is best for lossy formats (Ogg/Vorbis and AAC) and makes sure no extra distortion’s introduced in the transcoding process.
  • If your master’s louder than -14dB integrated LUFS, make sure it stays below -2dB TP (True Peak) to avoid extra distortion. This is because louder tracks are more susceptible to extra distortion in the transcoding process.

So an advice to people making louder music, be aware that Spotify Will crunch your Masters, and other streaming platforms too, just use the reference levels to avoid any destruction of the quality of your work.
 
Last edited:
The new "AI" mastering tools in Logic will generally default to getting your mix around -14 LU.

I'm going on the assumption that because the very same company handles a fair chunk of the world's music streaming needs..that it's a fair target to go for.

(As an aside, the dynamics processing is some sort of dark magic if you select the algorithms that require Apple Silicon..)
 
Last edited:
If you master a pop or electronic (let alone rock or EDM) track to only -14 it will be lacking the density that is part of the sonic aesthetics of those genres no matter what volume you play it at. (I and my mastering engineers aim for roughly -10.)
 
SupremeFist said:
If you master a pop or electronic (let alone rock or EDM) track to only -14 it will be lacking the density that is part of the sonic aesthetics of those genres no matter what volume you play it at. (I and my mastering engineers aim for roughly -10.)
Click to expand...
Oh yes for electronic music the standard (if i remember correctly) is -6 to -9 integrated lufs or so, this style of music needs to be louder (club music)

I think the op don't make this style
 
SupremeFist said:
If you master a pop or electronic (let alone rock or EDM) track to only -14 it will be lacking the density that is part of the sonic aesthetics of those genres no matter what volume you play it at. (I and my mastering engineers aim for roughly -10.)
Click to expand...
anything mastered loud ( crushed ) will always sound worse compared to a dynamic master when played loud on full range high quality speakers , no matter the genre/aesthetics there is no way around that . I ve never seen someone in a level matched A B choose the loud master .The volume it is played at and also the volume of the noise surrounding the listener play a big role , if you have a noisy room and small speakers with not a lot of power , the loud master would be better .
 
rudi said:
The AES (AESTD1008.1.21-9) recommendations for music are:

See: https://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=731

Page: 4

Track normalised: -16 LUFS

Album-loudest track (e.g., on-demand music services): -14 LUFS
See Section 5D
Click to expand...

From what I a have seen on forums, I get the impression not everyone follows the rules. Folks in the hip hop and EDM target much hotter tracks. I am not expert, but I think it all depends on the music itself.
 
One thing I can recommend, as it works for me:

- Do your composing and mixing in one project
- But do your mastering in another project

This allows you to get into a different mindset: The composition is done, all the instruments and their respective groups are mixed.. Export the whole thing to one audio track -> and start working on that Mix in your Master project. It allows you to move on.

Your mileage may vary, of course
 
I would really recommend giving Wavelab a demo when you have a good week free and a project close enough to try a master of.

Pretty much every DAW nowadays has the facilities to master music, and if you're only doing single tracks you probably won't find too much of a difference.

However, if you're doing albums and releasing to multiple streaming services and/or formats, I do find Wavelab to still be great, although I have to admit I started using it about 8-10 years ago when it was head-and-shoulders better than Protools or Logic in my workflow.

The montage setup and being able to adjust levels for individual songs non-destructively without automation lanes is very helpful for full albums.

The included plugins are basically all you would ever need and I very much appreciate having a "clean" plugin folder with very limited but comprehensive options. When I mix I have a hundred 3rd party plugins (which is frequently nothing but a time-water), but when I master it's nice to only have 8-10.

The built-in reference track integration (again, without a 3rd party plugin) is wonderful.

Full-album Metadata editing/tagging is as good as it gets.

Batch exporting to multiple formats is great once you get it all setup if you've got fairly regular output.

If you're currently using Cubase, then Wavelab now runs as a sort of plugin within Cubase, which makes things even better. If you want to make any deeper changes to your mix, you can do so in Cubase and the individual track is then updated in realtime within your album montage. Very fast and opens up new workflows and "album perspective" possibilities when you compose and mix as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JTB
I don't know what "mastering" means in this context. When you're working on a single track, and have access to the full track layout, there is no change in approach and you can do it anywhere. If the track sounds better when you scoop the mids on the full mix, you're much better off finding out what track(s) are causing the issue and dealing with them at a more granular level.

The "goal" of mixing should be for the mastering engineer to do nothing to the mix aside from some light, transparent limiting, only to maintain consistency between the rest of the tracks on an album. Of course that doesn't always happen, but that's because (imo) the strength of mastering is really just to have different ears doing a dummy check before printing. If you're wearing both hats for a single track, there's no reason to force yourself into working with the full mix only.

The actual mastering comes into play when you need things referenced by LATABOM's post above, for which you'll probably want to use something more purpose built.
 
Perhaps a little controversial, but here in 2024 when we're talking about mastering...I'd just pick the nearest AI tool and go with it.

Back in the day I used to go back and forwards, comparing different mixes with reference tracks and tearing my hair out. Nowadays I just get the mix to a place where I think it works and slam it through Logic's AI mastering. I trust it more than my own tired ears, especially after working on the same track for hours.

I might do a quick A/B before bouncing with a reference track in a similar genre and usually find Logic has done a fair job adjusting any questionable mix decisions on my part.

(In fairness - yes - I'm talking about basic stereo mixes for the internet and for streaming. I accept that if you're working in the top tier A List, Hollywood etc or your requirements and delivery are more complex, then you'll want to go further than this. I'm really talking about the great masses of us who have to ship music quickly and constantly and have had to DIY master for years.)

For the OP in Cubase land, that probably means Ozone.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for sharing your experience!

I see a lot of people using Pro Tools for mixing, I intend to mix and master in Cubase and use Pro Tools only for deliveries if the project applies.

It might be obvious but is mixing in Cubase common as well? I would tend to say yes.

Thank you!
 
Valérie_D said:
Thank you all for sharing your experience!

I see a lot of people using Pro Tools for mixing, I intend to mix and master in Cubase and use Pro Tools only for deliveries if the project applies.

It might be obvious but is mixing in Cubase common as well? I would tend to say yes.

Thank you!
Click to expand...

Pretty much everyone at the professional level mixes in Pro Tools, you won’t really see much else besides that, but there’s no shame in mixing in Cubase, I do, if you know Cubase well and that’s what you want to use then that’s the most important factor
 
- Cubase is absolutely fine for mixing and mastering. Software like Wavelab have tools for eg. CD authorisation - but if you only want to add effects to create a final piece of music, then you don't need those tools.
- The best way to deal with loudness: use your ears. If you want, make it as loud as you want, just try to not kill it by reducing dynamics too much and adding distortion and other artifacts
Xabierus Music said:
Acording to Spotify:

Loudness normalization - Spotify

support.spotify.com support.spotify.com

Loudness normalization means we don’t always play your track at the level it’s mastered.

  • Target the loudness level of your master at -14dB integrated LUFS and keep it below -1dB TP (True Peak) max. This is best for lossy formats (Ogg/Vorbis and AAC) and makes sure no extra distortion’s introduced in the transcoding process.
  • If your master’s louder than -14dB integrated LUFS, make sure it stays below -2dB TP (True Peak) to avoid extra distortion. This is because louder tracks are more susceptible to extra distortion in the transcoding process.

So an advice to people making louder music, be aware that Spotify Will crunch your Masters, and other streaming platforms too, just use the reference levels to avoid any destruction of the quality of your work.
Click to expand...
It will not crunch anything. It's just the most basic turning volume down.
I checked my Techno tracks and there's no additional destructive processing added. Believe me, I would hear that because mastering engineers already put it to its limits and any other processing would be immediately audible.
Also, nobody follows those references. Even people who recommend 14LUFS often don't follow it. A lot of talk and no action.

Of course, orchestral music doesn't need to have 9LUFS, 3 compressors, 2 limiters, mb limiter and clipper on the master bus, but this is another story :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom