Really? I did an internet search using 'Can i master in Studio One Artist' and
the FIRST result was this video titled 'How To Master in Studio One Artist and Print'
https://youtu.be/lKyNrup3d5c

Yes. That is the only video on this subject and the reason I didn't mention it is because it confirms that there are no in-depth tutorials on how to master in Artist.
That is a 5-minute video that does not teach how to master with Studio One Artist.

Learning how to 'master' is going to be a long process no matter what DAW you use. So if you want to learn it you need to start NOW and keep at it.

Precisely! and a 5-minute video does not begin to cover it. The guy actually says he does all his mastering in the Pro version because the Artist version does not have the project window, but that you totally can and proceeds to say you can copy a wave of your mix, paste it as a new song and from there you start doing your mastering. That's it.
There are 45-minute to 2-hour-long videos on how to master in a particular DAW... which don't cover everything but are merely a place to start. That 5-min video doesn't help me to learn mastering on the Artist version, just says that I can.
That's good because I now believe a little bit more in myself. But still don't know where to turn to start the step by step learning...

The 'best' product for you will depend on how involved you want to be in the mastering process. Are your projects always going to be on the simple side? Or do you plan to do a lot of many/multi channel things.

Will your projecs involved only MIDI files or will you be using a combination of audio and midi?

Tell us about a project you have mastered in the past.

I've done projects with just one track and others with 20 tracks, with most between 4 to15 tracks. I also plan to do some orchestral scoring but not in the immediate future.

I use both audio and midi. I've done all my mixing/mastering in a Tascam machine up until now, so what I need is to understand the process on a computer DAW, as it is different in many ways, in how you apply effects and EQ, and be able to find where things are.
I've used effects in the mastering process. Studio OneArtist does not have mastering effects, so that tells me it's not even geared much towards mastering.

My immediate concern is that as I invest time in a project and if, - when I get to the mastering stage, there are no in-depth tutorials for the version of the DAW I am working on, I have wasted my time, as I then, in the middle of the project, have to switch to a version or other product that has abundant tutorials dedicated to it.

I just realized this about Studio One Artist. I don't know if it's the same situation with Cubase AI. Most Cubase tutorials probably reference the Pro version I assume. The question is whether that knowledge can be applied to AI or not. In the case of Studio One, it can not because the project window on which all mastering is done in the Pro version, and on which all mastering tutorials focus, does not exist in the Artist version.
I'm totally fine with using a medium version, for now, I don't need a full roster of effects, and I don't need the full capacity of a Pro version for my near-term projects, BUT I don't want to get stuck not being able to finish my projects because I don't understand how to master in that version. How do I do this particular task? So I turn to tutorials and they all go: "In the project page you...", but I don't have a project page.
I hope I now explained it a little bit better.

BTW, this is a list of some of the things that Studio One Artist does not have but Pro does:
Channel Editor, Drum Notation, Extended FX Chains, Guitar Tablature, Import Song Data, Listen Bus, Mix Engine FX, Mixer Scenes, Note FX, Performance Views, Project Page, Score View with Printing, Scratch Pads, Video Import/Export Player, Multi Instruments (not exactly sure what that is), Analog Delay, Chorus VST3/AU/AAX, Console Shaper, Fat Channel XT, Groove Delay, IR Maker, Multiband Dynamics, OpenAir, Pedalboard, Acoustic Drumkits and Loops, and some other loop and effects.

Mastering is something I've slowly been learning more about, and will eventually choose a DAW most appropriate for.

At this stage in my learnings, it seems Bitwig has a clear superiority, as it's seemingly been tailor made around providing uniquely integrated tools for mastering and EQ operations in ways none of the others are.

And a lot of the content made for and about Bitwig seems to focus on this quality.

It's also, to me, a more modern approach to many aspects of navigation and usage of both the more traditional flows (Cubase, Reaper, ProTools etc) and the feels and flows of operating a "better" version of some of Ableton's Live paradigms.

In terms of video content quality of instruction and insight as a ratio of all content available for it, I think it wins, too. Ableton Live has far and away the most video content, but a lot of it is low quality, low effort "I'm a youtuber, let's do monkey-see-monkey-do for an hour" stuff. Bitwig stuff is generally more of a much higher content standard.

The culture and appreciation of the effort of actually working seems to be integrated into Bitwig to a larger, more holistic extent than many of its rivals, too.

Cubase AI is no slouch. There are things that the Pro version has that makes tasks easier - but even some of these can still be accomplished on AI with extra work. Depends on the particular task.

Cubase AI has a maximum of 32 audio tracks. That seems to cover your needs as of now. Elements is still an inexpensive level and gives you 48 max audio tracks. Myself I didn't need this and was able to stick with Cubase AI "forever" until Pro went on super-sale and I bit just to have it. Still, I've never "needed" Pro for what I do -- which, admittedly -- is not much on the DAW front.

I would probably take Cubase AI for a spin since you have it and kick the tires for a project or two. Enough to get past the initial setup stage where you're doing something productive.

Bitwig is probably one of the worst choices for mastering, its focus lies in a completely different area.

If you want to stay with Cubase, go for Pro, as EQ and some effects are superior to AI.

But Steinberg also make Wavelab, which is dedicated mastering software. You might want to check that as well.

The best would be to pass your mixes to a mastering engineer (for a while).

[quotePost id=117618]Bitwig is probably one of the worst choices for mastering, its focus lies in a completely different area.[/quotePost]

What's that area?

Here's one of the reasons its quite good for mastering, I think:

https://youtu.be/COHi4GnpyYI

[quotePost id=117619][quotePost id=117618]Bitwig is probably one of the worst choices for mastering, its focus lies in a completely different area.[/quotePost]

What's that area?

Here's one of the reasons its quite good for mastering, I think:

https://youtu.be/COHi4GnpyYI [/quotePost]
Ah, you watched a YouTube video?
That certainly makes you qualified to state which software has "clear superiority" for mastering (at least this week). Next week it'll be Reaper again or some new thingie that attracted your attention.

"That area" is electronic music, for which Bitwig is very good.
Anything else, not really.

[quotePost id=117620][quotePost id=117619][quotePost id=117618]Bitwig is probably one of the worst choices for mastering, its focus lies in a completely different area.[/quotePost]

What's that area?

Here's one of the reasons its quite good for mastering, I think:

https://youtu.be/COHi4GnpyYI [/quotePost]
Ah, you watched a YouTube video?
That certainly makes you qualified to state which software has "clear superiority" for mastering (at least this week). Next week it'll be Reaper again or some new thingie that attracted your attention.

"That area" is electronic music, for which Bitwig is very good.
Anything else, not really.[/quotePost]

[quotePost id=117601]Mastering is something I've slowly been learning more about, and will eventually choose a DAW most appropriate for.

At this stage in my learnings, it seems Bitwig has a clear superiority, as it's seemingly been tailor made around providing uniquely integrated tools for mastering and EQ operations in ways none of the others are.

And a lot of the content made for and about Bitwig seems to focus on this quality.

It's also, to me, a more modern approach to many aspects of navigation and usage of both the more traditional flows (Cubase, Reaper, ProTools etc) and the feels and flows of operating a "better" version of some of Ableton's Live paradigms.

[/quotePost]

Do you need a calculator to count the caveats, Dragos?

And some gingko to help your memory, Dragos? So you might manage to retain multiple contexts?

Or prayer, so you can begin operating in good faith when quoting others?

@Adrian

You might be vastly more sonically capable than I. Perhaps most people are.

Audio Engineering is something I'm in awe of. I've been moving slowly through figuring out mastering and mixing, and finding EQ'ing is the thing I do the most to make (what I think) is a best possible result, which often leads me to doing more with sound design, and then going over it all with ever more dynamic EQ'ing. And ever more separation of dry sounds from the effects I want on them, and applying EQ'ing in ways that make this how I want.

The better the EQ tooling, the better I'm able to, with my limited abilities, plan out and then separate out and mix in to a "master", and faster.

It's time consuming and am not sure it's yet productive. Experimenting and pushing things around, to then listen again. And iterate, and listen again, and iterate... etc.

Can't do it for long before I get disinterested in the results and start tweaking too much. So try to do it in fits and bursts. What I like at 3am with headphones is different to what I enjoy with a morning coffee through a wall of speakers.

EQ+, within Bitwig, has been a big help because its integrated wholly, not merely a plugin, and has great visual feedback and incredible tooling. As far as I'm concerned.

I also like the UI/UX of Bitwig, which helps a lot considering I gotta look at it a lot when doing any kind of attempts at mixing and mastering.

And the tools of Bitwig make it super easy to animate the EQ'ing. Which adds, to what I'm trying to do, desirable results, as I can create builds and transitions of all sorts (and then incorporate more with sound design animations, note structures and timings, effects and EQ/volume characteristics) and continue shaping the sounds, all in one environment, wherein all the dynamics/animations can be somewhat linked and make sense.

This is all unabashedly synth "music" of various sorts. Yes, "music" is doing a LOT of work in that sentence. Stretched to breaking point.

No doubt there are lots of choices for DAWs. Hypothetically, any one of these may fit your sensibilities better. There are trends of usage for some DAWs and you may or may not identify with typical use cases advertised (directly from product info or indirect through forum and user chatter).

However, the ask is if it is sufficient. Probably driven partly by the fact that it's free.

I think it is sufficient.

That doesn't mean you have to use it - just leaning into the original question.

Good luck, honestly, with whatever you decide.

In the end, the DAW can be used with 3rd party plugins, and there are lots of great ones available, including specialized solutions for mastering.

So yes, the included one is absolutely capable.

It also has the advantage to offer a cheap upgrade path to Cubase Pro which has one of the best native EQ (not 3rd party) of any DAW (including Bitwig, ofc).

[quotePost id=117630]In the end, the DAW can be used with 3rd party plugins, and there are lots of great ones available, including specialized solutions for mastering.

So yes, the included one is absolutely capable.

It also has the advantage to offer a cheap upgrade path to Cubase Pro which has one of the best native EQ (not 3rd party) of any DAW (including Bitwig, ofc).[/quotePost]

Could you talk to this part of Adrian's question?

[quotePost id=117591] More importantly, are the Cubase mixing/mastering tutorials relevant for the AI version? Or are they all for the Pro version? And even if tutorials are for the Pro version, is that knowledge transferable to the AI version?
[/quotePost]

Thank you all for your valuable input. After some consideration of all facts, I realize I am in a place, -like many others, where it is a bit of a draw. Some of the facts considered are:

- I'm not going to spend the money for any full version of a product that might be anywhere from the worst one for me, to good but I still could have looked further and chosen something else that would have suited my needs & inclinations more. The way to go is to try several free products and hope to find the one that tickles more of the right spots for me, & then upgrade. Ideally, the free versions would show you enough of what the upgraded versions can do. And this is what I was trying to find out between Cubase and Studio One in terms of mastering. Unfortunately for me, nearly all mastering tutorials on either product are made for the top-tier versions, though fortunately for those who own those versions...

- I am inclined towards Cubase because of its native EQ, MIDI history, and high preference among film scorers since that is something I aspire to do in the future.

- I'm not altogether sure how Cubase AI compares to Studio One Artist. Most comparisons are made between Pro & Pro. At this point, Studio1 Artist might be on a bit higher tier than AI, since I believe it has unlimited channels. I could be wrong.

- I don't believe the much-bandied hype about a particular product being easier to learn, or more straightforward since in my experience, ironically, it is exactly the products so advertised that have the most unintuitive buttons and use unnecessary and confusing ways of doing things. In addition to that, the manual, instead of making things clearer, it leaves me confused many times. I went'n watched a video that explained the issue and it was so simple that it made me wonder whether the writers of the manual were purposely looking for ways to make the whole concept sound academic, or perhaps they just want to boost the online courses industry... I got this impression about Studio One somehow.

So anyway, I will give all free versions a longer inspection before deciding to upgrade to something, but for this project, I will stick to Studio One since I'm already a bit used to it, which will save me some time, plus there weren't any AI tutorials on the subject that were much better depthwise than what I could find for Studio1 Artist at this point.

Thanks again all!

The best would be to pass your mixes to a mastering engineer (for a while).

Anyone can recommend a good place? My music is lyrical, classically inspired, with jazz overtones and light rock influences, and uses a very wide dynamic range. Thx