I hear a lot of amateur songs that claim to be “mastered” and yet to my ears they weren’t ever really mixed, or rather, the source material is so low quality (lousy microphones, scratchy acoustic guitar played with a lot of fret noise and badly flubbed performance) that “mixing” and “mastering” have little meaning. Buying their tools, without having their skills and their ears, won’t get the same results. Mastering means different things to different people, but the professional Mastering people are doing something that takes knowledge and ears that us amateurs just don’t have. I trust my ears enough to not bother with that.
I am an amateur songwriter, and a lot of my peers master using that LANDR website. Some folks don’t “master at all” and for what they’re doing it’s fine. Especially with Cubase 11 pro’s monitoring (SuperVision) which has any kind of monitoring you might want. There is no reason you cant create a mastering template and work effectively inside cubase. If you are mixing ONE song and releasing it, after mastering ONE song, and it’s not going to CD or vinyl, I don’t see why home users would benefit from Wavelab. Or doing a mastering session on an album of 10 songs. In my opinion, Wavelab made more sense in the era where you are mastering to CD.
0 kommentar(er)
