Fact: You can use all the plugins individually on tracks, buses, everywhere, etc. Man, do I like 'em...A TON! I was under the impression that I wouldn't be able to use them as “normal” plugins, but in fact that's exactly what they are.

With 99% of the plugins that I've used, they've all been super clean and attempting to be transparent. There's nothing necessarily wrong with transparent if you don't have a pulse, but I like color! I think this clean obsession is a MAJOR problem in home recording land. So many people are looking for clean, clean, and more clean. When I listen to my favorite recordings, I'm hearing character, character, and more character when I want it. The T-Racks plugins provide this character thing better than any plugins I've used to date.

What Do You Get?
T-Racks includes all the essential tools for the gig. Compressors, EQ, limiters, multi-band compressors, linear phase EQ, and even a cool metering plugin that displays peak level, RMS level, and phase. I'm too busy to rewrite their propaganda and features. You can read all that junk on the T-Racks 3 website.

The Idear
All of the T-Racks 3 plugins have taken the non-modern (and dare I say "analog") route in regard to their controls and intended sound. I mean that most plugins have 400 knobs and buttons that allow for all kinds of fancy tweaking. T-Racks 3 has went a more old school route to sonics and usability.

For example, the Classic Multiband Limiter has thresholds for 3 bands, level for 3 bands, and two different crossover points. When compared to a Waves C4 or equivalent with at least twice the knobs, at first you scratch your head. I did. I quickly found out that this particular plugin is not intended for microsurgery by any means. It doesn't allow you to set ratios. Release time doesn't go below 80ms. It's clear this thing is saying, "I do what I do. If you don't like it, too bad!" This sort of thing is consistent with high end vintagy tubey type gear and a welcome addition. This thing has A SOUND!

The Classic Compressor is similar. It's attack time will not go any faster than 12ms. Why all plugins think they need to do all things for all people is beyond me. I LOVE the idea that a plugin is going to do it's thing even if that means you can't use it as a brickwall limiter. (T-Racks 3 has that covered on another plugin.) This slightly less flexibility approach gives more options for character!

The Program EQ 1A is the T-Racks version of a Pultec. For you new guys, a Pultec is a way old school EQ known for having massive, massive character. They rarely go for under $3,000. They have 2 bands. You pick a frequency and either you boost it or you cut it. The Program EQ 1A has taken the exact same format. From a features standpoint, the Pultec is a biplane in a world of B2 bombers and space stations. However, it does something right and is still insanely popular! So having 400 knobs on a plugin ain't all it's cracked up to be. T-Racks 3 clearly recognizes this.

The Sound
CHARACTER! CHARACTER! CHARACTER! I really don't want to use the "v" word (starts with v, ends with "intage") because that word doesn't mean anything to most of us. When you think of what a dirty ol', expensive tube compressor is going to do to your tracks, that's pretty much what they were going for with T-Racks 3 most of the time.

If you choose to push 'em, the T-Racks plugins, will ooze out life and excitement. They have a way of taking boring tracks and adding something extra to them. They can make the audio more harmonically complex. (My best attempt at avoiding buzz words.) While I'm sure most of you aren't dying to nail the Beatles sound, imagine your tracks you've recorded that sound a little "plain". When you blend in a little "Beatlesness" to your snare, electric guitars, vox, or whatever it doesn't end up sounding "Beatley". It ends up sounding WAY more like your favorite records...even if they came out last year. The most modern sounding records are still using the good ol' gear. They are just using it in different ways.

So for those of us who don't have $100,000 to outfit our rooms with an arsenal of mega hardware, I think the T-Racks 3 deal offers some TREMENDOUS possibilities for the creatively inclined.

URS was my go to compressors when I wanted color. I don't see myself using them so much anymore. The T-Racks compressors and limiters just take it a step further in terms of bold attitude. There are multiple stages you can intentionally overload the T-Racks compressors and limiters. I've found this to be absolutely pleasing when I'm in the mood for a little bit of extra something on a given track. Even their brickwall limiter gives you the option of being clean, saturated, and a few in between. I found this AWESOMELY useful!

Don't get me wrong. When used cleanly, the T-Racks plugins ARE clean. They don't sound distorted or crappy. They sound quite nice. However, my experience and mixing style suggests that pushing instruments just a hair is EXACTLY what separates a great mix from a boring one. (Okay, there are a FEW more factors than that, but you get the idea.) Needless to say, having the ability to switch between 3 different saturation modes on a brickwall limiter in addition to clean, clipping, and 4 advanced settings (to predict upcoming peaks) is exactly what I need. The ability to bring out the guns when I need it is extremely important to me!

Mastering In Home Recording Land
I have my philosophies on mastering and they seem to coincide much more with the guys who are actually making records than with the "compliance professionals". It's a long story.......

T-Racks is an exhaustive set of plugins that have a TON of character when you want them to. Can you process a mix with them? Sure! They provide an interesting set of tonal colors that is fun to have around! However, is there anything particularly special about them that makes them the ONLY tool for mastering? Not at all. If you are saying to yourself "Oh FINALLY! I can master now”, than you are going to be surprised when you get a collection of EQ and compressors/limiters.

The ability to chain multiple T-Racks 3 plugins within a single plug in instance is a huge help for those of you using audio recording software that doesn't allow for a ton of plugins on the stereo bus.

T-Racks 3 doesn't make any attempt to handle the dominant role of mastering. That is to turn a collection of EXCELLENT mixes into an album with a common tonality. I was really hoping they'd make concessions for this in some way. It appears that Cubase is still my favorite tool for this. So far, I've not found a better way to process mixes individually and skip back and forth from track to track to ensure tonality and volumes are consistent.

CPU Usage
I'm currently using a Quad Core 2.33Ghz PC with 4GB of RAM on a highly optimized Windows XP SP3 install. I can use Waves plugins all day long. I can use a dozen guitar emulators without really thinking about it. I noticed that the T-Racks 3 plugins do use quite a bit more CPU power than other plugins I own. I actually had to pay a little attention to my CPU meter for the first time. So fair warning.

Conclusion
The T-Racks 3 series is an excellent set of plugins. The provide bold character that is clearly more in the old school arena. I think they are an excellent compliment to the Sonnox Oxford plugins which are quite a bit cleaner.

As for the "mastering" part, don't sell yourself short. If you don't toss the T-Racks Opto compressor on your drum bus, you aren't living! The Fairchild wannabe is SWEET on vocals. If you want to toss this stuff on the 2bus too, have at it. However, this thing is way more than a “mastering” suite and you've still got to use your recording software to bounce back and forth for consistency setting.

In this robo, over the top, one-sided, devil's advocate style blog I'm going to point out one concept. I can't wait for the four letter words to fly, but the proof will be in the pudding....or the video.

Hypothesis:
If your mix isn't already turbo bad ass, mastering isn't the solution.

Evidence:
In this video, Butch Vig, that no-talent ass clown (wait, wrong guy), pulls up the tracks for Smells Like Teen Spirit off the Nirvana Nevermind album.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErcJ2kUC4Wg

Analysis:
One thing strikes me as interesting right the bat. These tracks sound finished! The sound of that record is there even in this “rough” state. Hearing the solo'd tracks and such makes me wonder exactly what they did during mixing because the damn thing sounds pretty much finished with the faders all basically at unity. In fact, I'm so impressed by the raw tracks that I have to wonder if there was really a song improvement from mastering at all.

Now, it's possible that they did a milllion, zillion things to all these tracks and then printed the tracks into their DAW to make playback easier for the documentary. That's irrelevant in this case. Regardless of the mixed state of this thing, one thing is clear. The tracks, in their rough Youtube state, sound badass and we can all agree that they were not mastered.

What Is The Role Of A Mastering Engineer?
A mastering engineer is kind of like a baby doctor. (I refuse to learn girl medical crap when I can read about potential holes in Einstein's theories.) Dr. Baby Doctor is there to be the final authority at the end of the child manufacturing process, address potential problems, and make sure the thing comes out alright. (You don't have to refer to a baby as a person until you have one.)

Most of us don't have to track our family trees back too far to find a few cases where no baby doctor was present, but few of us have a problem listening to The Doc when the umbilical cord hits the fan. With that said, the amount of intervention desired of The Doc varies from personal to person. Some people want a natural child birth without modern dope and cutting edge robotics. They just want the Doc to be there in case something bad happens.

There is one thing I think all of us males can agree on, regardless of our views on the role of The Doc. No guy wants to let The Doc take part in the initial creation phase! (The role of additional chick nurses in that department is subjective.)

Where we, as recording guys, draw the “initial creation” line also varies. However, it's clear in this case that Butch Vig and Nirvana had their sound DOWN long before they stepped into the mastering studio. The sonics of that record were already there long before the mastering engineer got a hold of it.

What Did Andy Wallace Do?
Andy Wallace is THE rock mixer. He's gotten his hands on some of the most desirable rock tunes of all time for my generation and is about as bad ass as they get.....or is he? While we've had to speculate as to the exact state of the tracks Butch Vig was toying with, it looks like a beginner could pull the faders up and call it a day. When tracking is seemingly that good, this whole mixing thing seem to be on the level of what a monkey can do. Most of us only dream of working tracks that sound THAT good.

Before You Attack
So for those of you are are arming up to retaliate in your defense of mastering, I just slammed the mixing process too. You are going to need a bigger cannon. It kinda reminds me of a mix with three instruments and two of them are a bit too loud. It' easier to just push the third instrument up a bit. In other words, when the four letter words fly, why not instead of going way out of your way to defend mixing AND mastering, why not instead go ahead and slam the tracking process?

I'm not expecting anyone with more than 30 minutes of recording experience to slam the tracking process. So I expect all we'll be fighting about will be the relative importance of each stage of recording. While the importance of mixing changes from to song, it's clear that a song that revolutionized the world certainly didn't lean on the mixing process THAT hard.

So Why Write This Blog?
Since my aim is not necessarily to slam mastering, but to identify it's clear purpose, why would I write such a blog?

1. Way too few people have any real understanding of what mastering is. Speculation and overemphasis on audio recording forums seems to run rampant.
2. Even worse, way too few people really understand what is expected from them during the tracking and mixing processes. I think the Butch Vig video illustrates this to an unparalleled degree.
3. Good mastering costs money. I'm not against that. I am, however, against people who suffer from #1 and #2 shelling out the bucks.
4. For people on micro budgets who may only print up 100 copies of their recording (or choose internet distribution entirely) it'll be clear that the solution to their potentially much bigger problems may not be mastering at all. The links further up the chain may need to be placed under greater scrutiny.

Conclusion
In home recording land, many of us are looking to define what each role of the process should have. My intention was not to say that mastering isn't an important part of the process. I simply felt that this video could illustrate just how bad ass and how close to the final version the tracking (and maybe some mixing) of Smells Like Teen Spirit was to the final version before the mastering engineer got his hands on it.

This notion of “polish” is dramatically overstated in my opinion.

This blog is about pointing people in the right direction for their answers. It's clear in this example that the tracking was flat out bad ass and further links in the chain had a relatively small impact on the final results.

How AAMS Works
AAMS has the ability “scan” an audio file and save it as a “reference”. I don't know the details, but it essentially recognizes the frequency response of whatever file you toss in it. I'm sure there is more going on than just frequency response analysis, but the general idea is to be able to clone the “vibe” of one track and then add that “vibe” to your track. This seems like a noble idea in theory. So does it really work?

AAMS In The Real World
I downloaded the free version (for a limited number of uses) and fired up a few of the various preset references and applied those to a mix I was working on for a local client. Each time the results were really bad. I said to myself “all is not lost”. I decided to scan a few different references from a few different albums that were in similar genres. After processing, I can't say that I was any happier with the results. I didn't feel like any of my mixes took on a similar “vibe” as the tracks I had selected as references.

Out of curiosity, I tried it on a dance music thingy I was making. This track consisted entirely of virtual instruments from MIDI land and I was very happy with the way the mixes sounded as is. After running them through various presets in AAMS, I was never happy. I thought that AAMS did a better job with the dance music stuff, but my initial vision simply was not respected by the software.

AAMS was way too aggressive. All the results reminded me of what I've seen numerous times in guys doing their very first mix on their 2bus. You can immediately hear extreme over equalization. There is only so much processing you can do after the tracks are mixed.

What Is Mastering?
I have to explain this so often and many people who've never even used professional mastering will argue to the death. Mastering is what you do to make a collection of great mixes sound like a cohesive album. Mastering takes care of more logistical type problems such as noise between tracks, amount of time between tracks, and overall volume level between tracks. Mastering is about minimizing the distractions from song to song.

Mastering is not about making up for inadequate mixes. It simply does not work that way. A mastering engineer has his hands tied when only dealing with the stereo mix. Mastering engineers don't have the ability to adjust levels, manipulate eq, or manipulate effects on any of the individual tracks.

I'm not sure who created this myth that mastering will dramatically improve a mix, but they clearly have a different definition of “dramatic” than I do. It's impossible for a mastering engineering to uphold the mixing engineer's original intent and do something dramatic at the same time. Mastering requires a very soft touch.

AAMS Is No Mastering Engineer
I think AAMS has a major flaw. It's ability to “analyze” a track is very poor compared to that of a skilled human being. The idea of scanning a square peg reference and cramming (Oh no! There's that “cramming” word again!) that into a round hole is WAY too authoritarian for me. I used the phrase “square peg” because the processing that AAMS uses does not always fit what I believe is best for my mix.

Because AAMS is simply software, it has no way of knowing if I'm happy with my mix or not. When Eric Conn mastered an album for me, he asked me which mix best captivated the entire album so he could use that as his “reference” to decide what to go for on the entire album. (Remember, mastering is about tweaking individual tracks to have a similar vibe! It's not about enhancing on a track by track basis.) Eric continually went back to this reference tune as he mastered more and more songs. It was brutally obvious that context was extremely important. Making each song “fit” in the puzzle was extremely important! He never once pulled out another artists mastered version to make my album sound more like that one. It just wouldn't make sense to work in such a fashion.

AAMS goes through all lengths to make the analysis of my tracks match the analysis of whatever reference is selected. The only problem with “all lengths” is that it includes processing the track in a way that does not sound appealing. You see, sound quality is not really AAMS's principle function. Improved sound quality is supposed to be a result of the analysis of processing, but that is very hit or miss.

Why Excessive Emulation Doesn't Make Sense During Mastering
The entire concept behind AAMS is emulation. Emulation in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's totally acceptable for a musician to have “influences” and in the end the emulating of all these influences is a big part of coming up with something entirely new. I can live with that. However, it's one thing for a guitarist to have influences like Eric Clapton and Kirk Hammet. It's another thing to boost 110Hz by 6dB and cut 90Hz by 5dB to fit some kind of curve from another recording.

It needs to be said that using 5dB during mastering is A ROBO TON of EQ!!! I have a feeling that no mastering engineer would ever get this aggressive. Eric Conn told me that if more than 2dB of EQ is needed it's probably time for a remix.

In my upcoming home recording book, I make multiple references to the fact that EQ changes are not necessarily the same thing as tone changes. You can never EQ Boston to sound like Queen. You can not EQ Brian Setzer to sound like Napalm Death. You can't EQ Cindy Lauper to sound like Norah Jones. You can't EQ an American to speak with a British accent. It just doesn't work that way. There is much more going on than EQ in the sound of a recording. I think we can all agree on this. So emulating the EQ of another album doesn't mean we'll sound like that album. In fact, the emulation can actually cause us to sound even less like that album.

For example, lets just say that in order to mimic the frequency response of X major label production, I have to boost 110Hz by 6dB and I had to cut 90Hz by 5dB. Does this mean my kick drum will have the same massive girth and my bass track will have the same thickness as the major label recording? Not at all!

The tuning of the kick drum, the way it was recorded, and the way it was mixed may be relying on 90Hz to provide the foundation for the kick. Its' very possible that cutting 90Hz by 5dB will cut the heart right out of that kick drum. Maybe boosting 110Hz will do extremely little to bring back the life and impact that was sucked out. So just because the foundation of the kick drum is @ 110Hz on X big boy recording doesn't mean that our kick drum will benefit. A real mastering engineering (or even a half-assed mixing engineer) would immediately pick up on this and would not make entirely excessive decisions that wrecks the recording.

I think some beginners could assume that their 90Hz kick drum is “wrong” and the 110Hz kick drum is “right”. (Note: these numbers are entirely arbitrary). That is completely not the case. If 110Hz was “right' you would have tracked and mixed it that way. (If you are looking for mastering to do the mixes for you, think again!) We all have our preferences as to where we want to hear our kick drum meat. There are no wrongs or rights as long as the music is effective.

The problem here is our excessive emulation has led us to make decisions that made our music less effective. What worked on X production that sounds great did not work in our example here. It was meant to be that our kick drum was supposed to sit at 90Hz and now we have lost that.

The same goes for the bass guitar. The “center” of our bass guitar may be really deep or it may be much higher. You never really know. The low end on Fuel's first album “Sunburn” is dramatically deeper and thicker than that of Guns N Roses “Appetite For Destruction” even though they both sit in the rock genre. There is no doubt about it. If you were to apply Fuels reference to any pre-mastered song on Appetite For Destruction, you'd end up with a dramatically boomier audio track. Appetite For Destruction never intended to have a big, thick bass guitar. It intended to have a nasty, distorted bass with lots of definition in the midrange.

Real Engineering vs AAMS
In my art masterpiece here it's easy to see that with every engineering process there are two things that are required. We must have a source to deal with and we must have and we must have a vision as to what we want this source to sound like in the end. Then, using more of an Algebra-type of method we try to figure out what “X” is. We say “How do I take this source and get it to match my vision?”.

AAMS takes a different approach.

AAMS takes the source material, applies the processing based on a specific reference, and then spits out the result. There is no emphasis on “the vision”. Some may argue that we make the decision on what we want AAMS to sound like when we load a specific reference. Here lies the big problem. Just because we apply a James Taylor reference to our tune does not mean our tune will mimic James Taylor in any way. It's supposed to, but in my experience it simply does not work as advertised because it's too hard to predict wha that James Taylor reference will really do. It certainly doesn't work without casualties.

The Search For Presets
I know that quite a few beginners in home recording have no problem with presets. This was discussed recently here on the Recording Review forum. However, what happens when we take the label off of all our presets and essentially have to blindly choose one preset or another based on listening? In the case of doing this with a compressor, it's not that big of deal to hear if the compressor is doing what we want. In the case of AAMS, you have to process the file to really know. This can take 20 minutes or more.

In the time it takes me to find the most ideal AAMS preset I could have tracked, mixed, and mastered five albums. A person could search for months to find an AAMS reference that doesn't tear up their mix. Why can't a person just address mastering the old fashioned way even if the budget forces them to do it themselves. Import the wav file into your recording software of choice. Listen. If one mix has traits that stick out in a distracting manner from other mixes, address it the best you can.

You'll find that if your vision in the mix has already been dealt with there really isn't much you need to do, if anything. All you really need to do is make sure all the tunes have a similar, non-distracting tonality. That's not overly difficult to do when compared to actually getting a song to sound exciting in the first place.

If You Can Find References.....
My only real gripe with AAMS is the fact that it's hard to find references that actually make the mixes I'm working on actually sound good. I've already established that randomly grabbing a reference from a song in a similar genre is simply not good enough. There are too many differences that end up distorting my vision for the mix. It's tough to find the time to try out multiple references. I tossed AAMS on my TV computer and it took 3 hours to process 6 songs in batch mode.

However, if you do manage to find references that actually work for your genre, AAMS does an decent job at evening out the differences. This is good if you totally lost your hearing in the war. If you lost your hearing in the war, you wouldn't have made it this far though, son. If you are so incompetent that you can't make a little .5dB cut at 120Hz, how in the hell did you track and mix and entire recording? Have more confidence in yourself!!!!

My Experiment
I had a theory that the best way to find a reference was to use the reference the big boys use when mastering. They choose the best sounding mix on the cd and use it as their reference. I did the same on a project I recently finished mixing. I picked the mix I liked best and made a reference out of it. I then applied that reference to all 6 songs. The end results was the best I've encountered yet.

I went ahead and mastered these songs the way I always do in Cubase. I made a 1dB cut @ 4k to one song. I put a multi-band compressor @ 2k on another song cutting a max of .5dB. I put a mult-band compressor up at 10k on another song cutting a max of .5dB. Done.

I think my manual version sounds better. AAMS did a dramatically better job since the reference I chose was suited for the mixes, but I think the fidelity of the manually mastered version is a hair better. If I was in an extreme hurry....well...AAMS takes so long to process that it would still be quicker to master it myself.

Conclusion
It's hard as hell to find references that actually sound good with your mix. If you manage to find a good reference, AAMS can do the mastering for you in about 5x the time it would take you to do it yourself. If you can't find references, you can waste months trying to find references that are compatible with your mixes. You can always create references with your own mixes, but if you are going to master one song, why not master the others.

The Arazad Maximizer is written by RecordingReview.com member Aradaz who also wrote the Free VST Guitar Plugin - Aradaz Amp 2 White. After the success with the guitar amp plugin I figured I'd give the Maximizer a try. I must say that I'm very glad I did.

Let's Talk About Brickwall Limiters
For newbies, a brickwall limiter is a bit different than that of a conventional compressor or limiter in that they are designed to be super, super fast and highly transparent. While many compressors are designed to add color and “vibe” to a track, a brickwall limiter is only there to knock the peaks off the music and then automatically boosts the level of the mix to the threshold you set. Most compressors arne't infinitely fast and therefore will let some of the signal past a specific point. The modern brickwall limiters are designed so that absolutely nothing goes past the threshold. Basically, brickwall limiters allow you to boost the RMS volume of a track to as loud of levels as you please. The cost is a mix can be distorted beyond belief if you overuse it.

A lot of beginners in audio recording land are not sure how to get their mixes loud. While there is a lot that goes into getting a mix loud, these days it's very difficult to do it without placing a brickwall limiter at the end of the chain. I typically place a Waves L2 across the last insert on a mix and when the mix is getting close to being finished, I start the smashing. There is debate as to whether a person should use a brickwall limiter during mixing, but I'm of the opinion that brickwall limiters do damage and having the option to accommodate problems that get brought to the surface via brickwall limiters is a great way to reduce that damage.

The Aradaz Maximizer 5
The Aradaz is a free VST plugin. The controls for these brickwall limiters are fairly straightforward. You have a threshold, which is most important. You have an output which allows you to turn down the output if you so desire. (Some people believe that hitting 0.0dB sounds bad on some converters and then only output their mixes at -0.1dB.) Aradaz Maximizer 5 also has a “Character” knob. When I used the Aradaz subtly in the mix, I really couldn't hear too much of a a difference. When I distorted the mix all to hell, the difference was HUGE. With the character set to 0.0, the thing was distorting like crazy. It's distortion was much more obvious that the Waves L2. With the character turned all the way up, the distortion went away and the low end seemed to get bigger in a good way. If I really wanted distortion on a mix, I would have mixed it that way, so I just keep the character all the way up.

So how does the Aradaz Maximizer 5 stack up against the widely acclaimed Waves L2? First of all, it needs to be said that in a normal mix, I don't limit THAT aggressively. I've never cranked a brickwall mixer to “Nuke” for the interesting color like I've done many times with compressors on individual tracks. A brickwall limiter is a utility that replaces peak normalization for me and gets me a few extra dB in the process. (There is ZERO use for RMS normalization for me.) So with that said, the differences between Aradaz Maximizer 5 and the Waves L2 are fairly subtle.

Listen for yourself.:
The Raw Mix - No Limiting
[audio:http://www.recordingreview.com/audio/mastering/dumbdance_raw.mp3]

Mix After Limiting With Waves L2
[audio:http://www.recordingreview.com/audio/mastering/masterL2.mp3]

Mix After Limiting With Aradaz Maximizer 5
[audio:http://www.recordingreview.com/audio/mastering/mymasterAra5.mp3]

In order to bring out this subtlety I did two things. After including the initial settings which I thought were appropriate for the mix, I then set the brickwall limiters to distort on purpose by setting the threshold to a setting that was just ridiculous. This makes it much more obvious as to what each plug in is really doing to the mix.

Distorted Mix - Waves L2
[audio:http://www.recordingreview.com/audio/mastering/distortedL2.mp3]

Distorted Mix - Aradaz Maximizer 5
[audio:http://www.recordingreview.com/audio/mastering/distortedAra5.mp3]

I also took the initial master of each brickwall limiter and flipped the phase on one. This cancels out any thing that is common or the same in both tracks and only leaves the difference. It was good to know that neither compressor added any coloration at all when the threshold was not exceeded. This is good. It mean that each plugin is transparent until the actual limiting takes place. So when we listen to these, we need to make sure that we are are listening closely to the way the peaks are handled.

Phase Cancelled Difference Between The Two
[audio:http://www.recordingreview.com/audio/mastering/phaseflip-normalized.mp3]

As you can see, there is quite a bit of difference between the two tracks. What does this really mean? Oh, I don't know. I'm of the opinion that if I really have to flip the phase of the tracks to hear a difference, the difference isn't excruciating.

Conclusion
I'm very pleased with the Aradaz Maximizer. I would have been impressed if, at the price of free, it had came close to the Waves L2. I think it's better. By much? Not really. This is a subtle process anyway as far as I'm concerned. It is better enough that I will be using it instead of the Waves L2 even though I paid for the Waves L2 back in the day.

Brandon

Does AAMS Automatic Audio Mastering System Work?
I have to admit that I was at first very skeptical about “automatic” anything working in regard to music recording. I've learned over the years that nothing is automatic. Little can be predicted. You just have to dive in and fight your way out of every audio engineering cock fight you find yourself in. That's been my experience anyway.

The notion of copying a “curve” or “reference” from a big boy major label band and magically applying that to my mixes does have an appeal to it, but does it actually work? It sounds like some sort of communist utopia where everyone works together for the common good of everyone, but I can't help but wonder if there is a Joseph Stalin behind all of this.

I'll let you decide for yourself what you think of the AAMS Automatic Audio Mastering System. You can read my opinions, praises (when does that happen?), and complaints on the AAMS Forum. If nothing else, you can go on there and rant about how stupid the idea is.

Brandon

I call them “silly plugins” because the music that inspired us to get into music recording ourselves didn't have these types of plugins and the music that most of us want to make won't be improved a bit this type of gadgetry. I'm not necessarily against new technology if it will improve the music.

There is an implication that we need to perform some sort of “processing” to our music to make it sound awesome. This processing is along the lines of “magic”. Well, we do have EQ, compression, reverbs, delays, etc but I consider these to be more like a shovel and a hammer. They are simple tools that help us do relatively simple things. An EQ either boosts or it cuts. There is no auto. A compressor says “Hey signal, you cross this volume line and I'll smash you”.

With mastering, people seam to think you need some sort of incredibly advanced algorithm to analyze and perfect the audio. If my ax and shovel analogy continues, than these mastering plugins must be NASA super computers! Well, I hate to break it to you. Big time mastering engineers are using shovels and hammers on your music, too. (They had a big problem with cds skipping until they figured out that only the music should be “worked on”.....okay I'm not a comedy writer. Give me a break.)

What Tools Are Pro CD Mastering Dudes Using?
When Eric Conn from Independent Mastering got a hold of a recording I had produced, there were not any spectrum analyzers or crazy gadgets. He had an API eq, a high end compressor, and a limiter. To my knowledge, that was the extent of it. It was a very simple chain when compared to how the usual home recording dude views the mastering process.

Okay, so Eric frequently has his hands on multi-platinum albums and a great sounding compressor, eq, and limiter make up the overwhelming majority of his tools. I thought to myself? Why do I need “mastering software” for this? What is mastering software going to do for me?

I've concluded that mastering software will do NOTHING! Now if the plugins in the mastering software packages sounded incredibly, that would be a reason to use them. However, if a mastering software company had an INCREDIBLE eq and compressor plugin, I would want to get the “normal” version so I could use it on my kick drums, guitars, and room mics. I would want it for mixing.

Mastering In Cubase SX3
I just fire up my recording software of choice (Cubase SX3) and go to town. I put each song on it's own track and space the tracks out to mimic the play order of the album. I grab the best sounding song and see if I can improve it. It may use a subtle amount of EQ, a subtle amount of compression, and a subtle amount of limiting. These are all plugins I load up on the insert to each track. I often put the limiter on the 2 bus because I can apply that to all tracks with the same setting and just control the volume going into the limiter. I MAY put some sort of multiband compressor on, but this is rare and I use it with EXTREME caution. (Nothing tears up a great mix faster than a multiband compressor).

So how is this different from using specialized software? It's not! I'm doing the exact same things. I usually don't use “spacial restoration” type of plugins, but I don't know what those are anyway and I'm pretty sure I don't want any “weird” processing done to my tracks anyway. “Weird” processing almost always sounds need on the system you put it on and almost always sounds terrible when getting it to translate to other systems. I'll let the people at home add their “surround” simulator or whatever.

Why Mastering At Home Sucks
Without a doubt, mastering at home sucks and it sucks for a number of reasons.
#1 I'm listening on the same system I mixed on. Mastering is a subtle process yet I'm supposed to hear these subtle changes on a system I just mixed the record on. If I didn't think the mix was the 100% best job I could possibly do, there is no point to mastering.

#2 If I did the 100% best job I possibly could on my studio monitors, than every mix should sound great and not need much in the way of mastering.

#3 I don't know what I'm dong. Seriously, I'm not a mastering guy. I just try to get all the songs to sound similar. Some songs will be brighter and some songs will be darker. The idea is to make the album “cohesive” so that the changes from song to song aren't distracting.

#4 I don't learn anything from mastering my mixes on my system.

What A Pro Mastering Dude Can Do For You
A real mastering engineer has a system that probably sounds WAY more accurate than your room. He's probably been mastering on those same speakers for 20 years. He knows them better than you know your wife. (And his studio monitors will never take half!......how was that one? You are right, my comedy writing sucks!). A real mastering engineer has more variety of projects than a male pornstar and can detect the subtle (and not so subtle) differences between the two with ease. Most importantly, a real mastering engineer can tell you what to work on and how to improve.

If You Have $300 To Blow On Plugins
If you have $300 to blow on plugins, don't buy something just because they wrote “mastering” on it some fancy font. Put your money towards buying some great sounding plugins that can be used during the mixing AND mastering process. You'll be happier in the end, trust me. If you are not sure what the best plugins for $300, just ask on the recording forum forum.recordingreview.com

Conclusion
Mastering at home sucks, but if you have to do it due to budgetary constraints, don't waste money on a program simply because it says “Mastering” in the title. The extra gadgetry it may contain is not something that the big boys are using, anyway. If you want to apply “neat” or “weird” effects to your mix, do it before you master. Your mix should sound PERFECT when you say “I'm done”. If you are relying on mastering to bail you out of a tricky situation, it's like waiting for your drunk step-dad to pick you up after baseball practice. (How was that one? That one was pretty good, I thought).

I find it strange that people will “trust” their recording software with every piece of their audio to handle the mixing process, but feel that their recording software is somehow inadequate for mastering. This is just not true.

Here we are in 2007. We have crazy gadgets for just about every task you can imagine. Some of you have probably heard my opinions of people watching Youtube videos of dogs skateboarding on their Iphones. Even in music recording, we have various “auto equalizers” and more silly plugins than we can possible imagine.

I call them “silly plugins” because the music that inspired us to get into music recording ourselves didn't have these types of plugins and the music that most of us want to make won't be improved a bit this type of gadgetry.

There is an implication that we need to perform some sort of “processing” to our music to make it sound awesome. This processing is along the lines of “magic”. Well, we do have EQ, compression, reverbs, delays, etc but I consider these to be more like a shovel and a hammer. They are simple tools that help us do relatively things. An EQ either boosts or it cuts. There is no auto. A compressor says “Hey signal, you cross this volume line and I'll smash you”.

With mastering, people seam to think you need some sort of incredibly advanced algorithm to analyze and perfect the audio. If my ax and shovel analogy continues, than these mastering plugins must be NASA super computers! Well, I hate to break it to you. Big time mastering engineers are using shovels and hammers on your music. (They had a big problem with cds skipping until they figured out that only the music should be “worked on”.....okay I'm not a comedy writer. Give me a break.)

What Tools Are Pro CD Mastering Dudes Using?
When Eric Conn from Independent Mastering got a hold of a recording I had recorded, there were not any spectrum analyzers or crazy gadgets. He had an API eq, a high end compressor, and a limiter. To my knowledge, that was the extent of it. It was a very simple chain when compared to how the usual home recording dude views the mastering process.

Okay, so Eric frequently has his hands on multi-platinum albums and a great sounding compressor, eq, and limiter make up the overwhelming majority of his tools. I thought to myself? Why do I need “mastering software” for this? What is mastering software going to do for me?

I've concluded that mastering software will do NOTHING!

Mastering In Cubase SX3
I just fire up my recording software of choice (Cubase SX3) and go to town. I put each song on it's own track and space the tracks out to mimic the play order of the album. I grab the best sounding song and see if I can improve it. It may use a subtle amount of EQ, a subtle amount of compression, and a subtle amount of limiting. These are all plugins I load up on the insert to each track. I often put the limiter on the 2 bus because I can apply that to all tracks with the same setting and just control the volume going into the limiter. I MAY put some sort of multiband compressor on, but this is rare and I use it with EXTREME caution. (Nothing tears up a great mix faster than a multiband compressor).

So how is this different from using specialized software? It's not! I'm doing the exact same things. I usually don't use “spacial restoration” type of plugins, but I don't know what those are anyway and I'm pretty sure I don't want any “weird” processing done to my tracks anyway. “Weird” processing almost always sounds need on the system you put it on and almost always sounds terrible when getting it to translate to other systems. I'll let the people at home add their “surround” simulator or whatever.

Why Mastering At Home Sucks
Without a doubt, mastering at home sucks and it sucks for a number of reasons.
#1 I'm listening on the same system I mixed on. Mastering is a subtle process yet I'm supposed to hear these subtle changes on a system I just mixed the record on. If I didn't think the mix was the 100% best job I could possibly do, there is no point to mastering.

#2 If I did the 100% best job I possibly could on my studio monitors, than every mix should sound great and not need much in the way of mastering.

#3 I don't know what I'm dong. Seriously, I'm not a mastering guy. I just try to get all the songs to sound similar. Some songs will be brighter and some songs will be darker. The idea is to make the album “cohesive” so that the changes from song to song aren't distracting.

#4 I don't learn anything from mastering my mixes on my system.

What A Pro Mastering Dude Can Do For You
A real mastering engineer has a system that probably sounds WAY more accurate than your room. He's probably been mastering on those same speakers for 20 years. He knows them better than you know your wife. (And his studio monitors will never take half!......how was that one? You are right, my comedy writing sucks!). A real mastering engineer has more variety of projects than a male pornstar and can detect the subtle (and not so subtle) differences between the two with ease. Most importantly, a real mastering engineer can tell you what to work on and how to improve.

Conclusion
Mastering at home sucks, but if you have to do it due to budgetary constraints, don't waste money on a program simply because it says “Mastering” in the title. The extra gadgetry it may contain is not something that the big boys are using, anyway. If you want to apply “neat” or “weird” effects to your mix, do it before you master. Your mix should sound PERFECT when you say “I'm done”. If you are relying on mastering to bail you out of a tricky situation, it's like waiting for your drunk step-dad to pick you up after baseball practice. (How was that one? That one was pretty good, I thought).

I find it strange that people will “trust” their recording software with every piece of their audio to handle the mixing process, but feel that their recording software is somehow inadequate for mastering. This is just not true.