Mastering -Pro Con around inside/ outside LMMS

[musikbear]

Most recommendations on Mastering-process, focus on external wave-processing programs, like audacity for windows, and ardeur for linux users.
I have no knowledge in respect to the benefit from doing mastering on wave-files instead of working in LMMS directly (should say that i use the RC with multi-FX-mixer, so any signal, single or compound, can be mastered with own specific settings of any effect)

Imo it is more flexible, to have any group or any instrument, mastering up agains 'something', than aplying the same on everything?
Alternatively, one could export individual tracks, and then do segmented mastering on these exported wavefiles, but then a multi-track-wave-editor, would be needed (donno if ardeur has that feature...?)

But are there obvious reasons for not mastering in LMMS?
Will the result be of lower quality? (why)
Are there processes that simply cant be done? (what)

looking fwd to an interesting discussion

[slapkev]

Most people should not bother trying to master their own tracks anyways. It is a skill that takes an extremely long time to even become proficient at (most people use the term "mastering" with no real concept of what it is). What you have said so far is technically still only mixing. Mastering is specifically taking the entire track as one file and preparing it for distribution. This typically includes normalizing the track (for example if it is part of an album, you'd want them all at the same volume), applying last minute EQing, and if the track is intended for the "loudness war", boosting the track to louder levels.

Aside from that, most people get many processes of mixing mixed up with mastering. Mixing is far more important at a non-professional level as it is where the track gets its quality from. There is a saying that you can polish a turd, but at the end of the day it is still a turd. I think this applies to music very well, if the music was not put together well and wasn't mixed well, then mastering will not do much for it.

To answer the question, there are two answers based on what the end goal is. If someone is mastering to get the most out of their song, it is probably best to do it outside of LMMS. This is what I do, I do my mastering in FL. Not to bang too hard on LMMS, but the included plugins and the lack of an accurate dB meter in the mixer really kill LMMS's ability to beat commercial programs like FL when it comes to mixing or mastering. For people who specifically use LMMS because they like opensource or don't want to spend money, it can be done in LMMS. It is just more of a pain to deal with (without luxuries like dB readouts) but is still able to be done.

PS: its spelled Ardour

[musikbear]

good input
-so in your opignion, nothing that could be done in external proggies, cant be achived in lmms or FL
(must admit, i diddent think of FL, at all, as a 'wave' processing tool, but -yes that is actually rather clever!

[slapkev]

It all relates to the user's skill level and funds. My general recommendation is paying a professional studio for mastering if the musician is serious about his/her music.

But yes, there is no reason someone couldn't use LMMS or FL, but the results will greatly vary depending on his/her skill level and how accurate/exact the program being used is.

[caLRo]

Mixing is far more important at a non-professional level as it is where the track gets its quality from. There is a saying that you can polish a turd, but at the end of the day it is still a turd. I think this applies to music very well, if the music was not put together well and wasn't mixed well, then mastering will not do much for it.

Totally agree with this. When mixing in LMMS try to leave a little headroom in case you want to master it (or have it mastered by someone else) later on. I prefer software like Audacity for mastering purposes, but a good mix done in LMMS goes a long way.

[softrabbit]

I know my turd-polishing process involves things that are way much easier in Audacity than in LMMS: a slight bit of overall compression, possibly a touch of EQ, all while looking at a graphic representation of the entire waveform or its spectrum.

And the biggest advantage of not doing it in LMMS is for me that it takes out a lot of the urge to go back and tweak something in the song itself. Like "OK, that's the track, now make it sound a little less awful, if possible" instead of "Oh, while adjusting the compressor I came up with a variation on the bass line to use in that one place..."