Scott mentioned how "full" a commercial track looks when you load it up. If you amplify your tune in Audacity so it looks as full, odds are it now sounds like er, crap. Where did we go wrong? I think its worth a moment to understand how that Nickelback (or whatever track) got to that point.
As much as we'd like to believe there's a magic tool we need, fundamentally we are not doing anything different in Riffworks than in a high end studio. There's some differences in the quality of the equipment we're using (i.e. a Guitarport is not gonna be the same quality as a SSL desk). When we get to mastering, there's gonna be some quality difference between Audacity and the custom equipment at Sterling Audio. In my opinion these differences are small and don't prevent us from getting a great result that can approach the sound of a commercial track.
The thing we don't have is the engineer who does this day in and day out,who hears what is needed and knows exactly what to reach for. I'm not talking about one engineer, I'm talking about the ones at tracking, mixing, and mastering. These are the differences that really add up in recording, and make that difference.
What can we do about it ourselves...the first thing is recognize if we don't make every step great we compromise the end result and there's no way to change that. Also recognize if we can't quite get as loud without messing the sound up, we should err on the side of good! What you will find is over time as your work gets better through the whole process then your tracks will be getting both louder and clearer and the less you'll have to do to them to get there.
Now, anybody up for a little mastering exercise?
