Are this mastering companies ok?

[Joza]

Hi

We produced a fan song with our sports team mostly for our own enjoy. Anyway I decided that I could spend some money to master it. The loudness isnt really important but Im not that experienced in mixing so I believe it might benefit from checking the spectral balance etc.

I found at least these online mastering companies by googling:
http://www.littlemajorproductions.be/
http://www.mastering-online.com/index_e.aspx?gclid=CMKO6qjN058CFYuB3godnzGLbg
http://mastering-on-line.com/
http://www.nflproduksjoner.com/

Does any of them sound good? What would you recommend? Or do you have something else in mind?

Thanks in advance
Joza

 

[Waltz Mastering]

I didn't really check out the sites to much, but when you don't see:

Pictures of the actual mastering room
Info on the Engineer
Album Credits

It usually = bedroom studio

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The loudness isnt really important but Im not that experienced in mixing so I believe it might benefit from checking the spectral balance etc.

It sounds to me that you need mixing before you need mastering. Things like "spectral balance" should already be done before you bring it to a mastering engineer.

G.

 

[Joza]

It sounds to me that you need mixing before you need mastering. Things like "spectral balance" should already be done before you bring it to a mastering engineer.

G.

Im not sure if I can afford that, and I kind of would like to do that my self because I like doing it and I want to get better in it.

Maybe I should post a sample when I get it finished so you could tell if its in good enough shape to be send to mastering.

I _think_ I can make it quite good but having someone else who has a fresh point of view to tweak it would be nice. I guess that is partly the point of mastering? The mixer gets too close to the song and can not here some things that are wrong.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

I _think_ I can make it quite good but having someone else who has a fresh point of view to tweak it would be nice. I guess that is partly the point of mastering? The mixer gets too close to the song and can not here some things that are wrong.

I would say "bingo" but that word sounds silly... but, I think you have a good point there.; )

When your to a point in the mix where you feel you've taken it about as far as you can, that's usually the point to get a fresh point of view.
Sometimes it's easy to over mix or mix into a hole, where things can start to go south, by over thinking, and second guessing yourself.

 

[Massive Master]

* Do you want your song to sound professional?
* Are you looking to produce commercial quality material?
* Do you need to give your songs their own distinct sound?

Then Mastering is the answer.

No it's not.

 

[Dogbreath]

I would say "bingo" but that word sounds silly... but, I think you have a good point there.; )

When your to a point in the mix where you feel you've taken it about as far as you can, that's usually the point to get a fresh point view.
Sometimes it's easy to over mix or mix into a hole, where things can start to go south, by over thinking, and second guessing yourself.

Bingo!

I was at this same point. Over mixing, second guessing etc...when I was finishing up my brothers project.
And kind of odd that I'm posting right after Tom @Waltz Mastering cuz he's the guy that took my stuff to a new level. Sent back a couple to tweak and remix a bit and the end result was a LOT better than I could have done with my mad mixing skillz.

And no...this is not pimping out Tom, just relaying my experience with a real mastering engineer and Tom was excellent to work with. Helped me get a better product out there.

The key is finding an ME that will work with you to bring out the best you can do. Not just take your money and move on.

my 2 bucks dude...

 

[Dogbreath]

No it's not.

Troof.

It starts at tracking, then goes on to mixing. If those two are good, the final touch is mastering.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Im not sure if I can afford that, and I kind of would like to do that my self because I like doing it and I want to get better in it.

Having a mixing engineer mix your song properly doesn't cost any more than having a mastering engineer try to fix a bad mix does.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to learn how to mix, or with doing it yourself, but until you are at the point where you are confident in your own mixes, mastering is NOT the answer to your shortcomings in mixing. The only correct answer to bad mixing is to correct the bad mixing, not try to patch it up after the fact.

And besides, you can learn a LOT more about mixing by having a mix engineer show you what's up. Once the mixing is done and you send it to a mastering engineer, the only thing you'll learn is to try to lean on mastering to do your job for you.

G.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

Having a mixing engineer mix your song properly doesn't cost any more than having a mastering engineer try to fix a bad mix does.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to learn how to mix, or with doing it yourself, but until you are at the point where you are confident in your own mixes, mastering is NOT the answer to your shortcomings in mixing. The only correct answer to bad mixing is to correct the bad mixing, not try to patch it up after the fact.

And besides, you can learn a LOT more about mixing by having a mix engineer show you what's up. Once the mixing is done and you send it to a mastering engineer, the only thing you'll learn is to try to lean on mastering to do your job for you.

G.

As usual I agree for the most part... but that's only assuming the mix is not good.

But assuming the mix is good...

Without hearing a mix you or I really can't even speculate.

Even if it's close to being very good.. one minor adjustment or tweak recommended from ANYBODY with the ability to help whether it's a balance engineer or a mastering engineer might be and is usually all it needs...It's not us against them...

my 2 bucks dude...

Thanks.

 

[Joza]

Having a mixing engineer mix your song properly doesn't cost any more than having a mastering engineer try to fix a bad mix does.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to learn how to mix, or with doing it yourself, but until you are at the point where you are confident in your own mixes, mastering is NOT the answer to your shortcomings in mixing. The only correct answer to bad mixing is to correct the bad mixing, not try to patch it up after the fact.

And besides, you can learn a LOT more about mixing by having a mix engineer show you what's up. Once the mixing is done and you send it to a mastering engineer, the only thing you'll learn is to try to lean on mastering to do your job for you.

G.

Well you got a point.

I guess I will finish my mix and then upload it. Then you could give advice on how to change the mix, or tell me to send it somewhere for remixing if its totally bad, or tell me that its good enough for mastering.

About the tracking:
Instruments are all VST:s and I believe they are pretty good (though of course lack some expression of a real performance). Then again the tracking of vocals.. You would propably call it horrible, but the singers didnt want to commit as much time to this project as I have so I just have to live with that. Of course I could hire talented vocalists and so on but then we would loose the point of making this as a team project. So the vocals definetely set some limitations to the outcome. Right now Im doing a LOT of vocal editing because both timing and tune are more or less off most of the time. And the recording room was my home studio.. which equals to my kitchen/workroom space, so the acoustics are also far from where they should be.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

As usual I agree for the most part... but that's only assuming the mix is not good.

Well, that's true, but the assumption here is made based upon the OPs own description saying that the's not very good at mixing and that he needs things like "spectral balance" worked on. While the phrase "spectral balance" is sort of a misnomer in and of itself, we all know pretty much what he's talking about, and that that is something that should already be buttoned down before the mix gets to mastering.

Is it possible that it can be fixed just fine in mastering? By a good mastering engineer, probably. But again, that's a blind - or is it deaf? - assumption. Whreas there's no assumption that it most definitely can be fixed by proper mixing. Within the limits imposed by the tracking quality, of course, but that's true in mixing and mastering alike.

I'm just up to my eyeballs with the whole pervasive bullshit concept that everybody seems to have that mixing is not important. And I'm not talking about the mastering guys, I'm talking about the clients being led to believe that. We've got a whole generation of newbs coming up who will learn nothing about mixing, and in doing so, will deprive themselves of an entire world of sonic choices that just can't be and aren't made in mastering. And that's just plain not good news for those of us who actually enjoy listening to music.

@ Josa: How many tracks make up your mix?

G.

 

[Joza]

@ Josa: How many tracks make up your mix?

G.

Mostly just drums, bass, piano, a couple of rhythm guitars (more in the background) and two singers (another one propably only on the choruses).

Anyway here is current mix (disclaimer: we don't own the original composition, the song won't be used in any commercial way):
http://www.box.net/shared/obcvey1x7v

It has only the main singer which is about ready. If you ignore the problems with vocal performance and tracking, what does it sound like? The first verse sounds a bit muddy and the vocals are maybe too loud but otherwise Im quite happy.

Well, that's true, but the assumption here is made based upon the OPs own description saying that the's not very good at mixing and that he needs things like "spectral balance" worked on. While the phrase "spectral balance" is sort of a misnomer in and of itself, we all know pretty much what he's talking about, and that that is something that should already be buttoned down before the mix gets to mastering.

I want to remind that english isnt my native language so I may be using wrong words. With that I ment the song might need some EQ:ing. The mastering engineer might think that there is too much or too little bass for example, which I just can't hear because of either being too close to song or because of my monitoring equipment.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Joza,

I gave your mix a listen, and it sounds pretty good to me when it comes to EQ and arrangement. My biggest issue with it is that the overall dynamics sound a bit flat; i.e. it sounds like everything is at the same volume, and what would otherwise be a fairly textured arrangement winds up sounding like everything trying to step on top of each other instead of cooperating with each other. This also makes things sound a bit on the "busy" side.

The main, but not the only, culprits here for my taste are the vocals and the piano, which are fighting each other for attention a bit.

I'd like to hear the piano pulled back just a little deeper into the mix and the vocal brought up on top of the instruments just a little more. I'd also probably control the piano in this way with some volume automation and not just overall level, as there are times when I'd want it to be more prominent and other times more subdued (possibly maybe even muting a measure or two here or there).

I also don't know what the missing vocals will do to the overall balance, but for the mix as it is with just the one vocal, I might try beefing up the vocal a little bit with a gentle bass boost. I can't give you specific frequencies, I'd have to play with that a little to see what's possible, but the current vocal timbre is just a little "thin" and maybe could benefit from just a little fattening up.

For me, I'd tackle those first and then re-analyze the new mix to see what, if anything, I felt I wanted to fine tune elsewhere from there. I might want to then play with some of the drum dynamics, maybe emphasizing some of the fills by pulling back just a little on the main rhythms, but I'd wait for the re-mix to make those decisions.

But overall, Joza, I'd say you're off to a fine start. There are some good sounds in there (the ride cymbals have a very good sound at times) and the song has a nice bounce and energy to it. But (for me, YMMV), it's not quite done yet .

And, yes, I understand the language difficulties. I did not mean what I said as something against you; I was just trying to avoid a side debate with our fellow forum members on the phrase "spectral balance". I understood what you meant, and I'm sure most others did as well . I give you credit for working here in a second language; I don't know that I could do that as well as you do.

G.

 

[Joza]

First of all big thanks for a great and helpfull reply! I really appreciate the time and effort you put into it.

I gave your mix a listen, and it sounds pretty good to me when it comes to EQ and arrangement. My biggest issue with it is that the overall dynamics sound a bit flat; i.e. it sounds like everything is at the same volume, and what would otherwise be a fairly textured arrangement winds up sounding like everything trying to step on top of each other instead of cooperating with each other. This also makes things sound a bit on the "busy" side.

Hmm.. I will think about the dynamics and see if I find out something I could do to them. I kind of understand your point but Im not sure if I manage to improve it.

I also don't know what the missing vocals will do to the overall balance, but for the mix as it is with just the one vocal, I might try beefing up the vocal a little bit with a gentle bass boost. I can't give you specific frequencies, I'd have to play with that a little to see what's possible, but the current vocal timbre is just a little "thin" and maybe could benefit from just a little fattening up.

The vocals sounded a bit boomy at first so I propably over EQ:ed them. I try to take some of that back and make room for those frequencies elsewhere.

The other vocalist sounds quite similar. Im not sure if I should just pan them slightly to different sides on chorus and make them equal or rather put the second one farther away and use pitch correction (which anyway has to be used even more with that track) to change it into harmonic background vocals.

But overall, Joza, I'd say you're off to a fine start. There are some good sounds in there (the ride cymbals have a very good sound at times) and the song has a nice bounce and energy to it. But (for me, YMMV), it's not quite done yet .

Thank you! The tournament where it will be played comes already after 1,5 weeks and I am busy with my studies too, but I try to get this tweaked a bit more before that.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Hmm.. I will think about the dynamics and see if I find out something I could do to them. I kind of understand your point but Im not sure if I manage to improve it.

Just to make clear, when I'm referring to "the dynamics" here, I don't necessarily mean the static dynamic envelope in the way we usually think when we normally talk about using compression to tame peak dynamics. I'm talking more about how the track loudnesses relate to each other, how they may change to support the song arrangement, and the overall "texture" or dynamics of the song itself.

I'd say to start with the recommendations I gave regarding the vocals and the piano.; bring the vocals in front of the instruments a bit more (or pull the instruments behind it, either way); there are times when the vocal gets buried in the instruments. And using level automation on the piano to accent it's hooks while not allowing it to compete against the vocals when the vocals are important is a great use of dynamic changes in the mix. A similar approach to the drums at times like I mentioned might help also.

The key here is that - again to my ears and tastes, FWTW - the current tracks all just kind of lay there on top of each other at constantly similar overall volumes to the point where they don't actually "mix" in a cooperative way.

In a less dense arrangement this might not be such an issue, but there's a lot of stuff going on in that song all at once, and going through and accentuating the instruments when they are the most important or most interesting, and letting them subsume to the others when they are not, while letting the vocal keep prominence overall, will tend to weave the tracks together into a nice dynamic texture that sounds both more interesting and less conflicting at the same time. We're not necessarily talking drastic stuff; it's like EQ, sometimes adding a couple of dB on this piece while subtracting a couple of dB on that one is all one needs to make the tracks fit together more naturally.

IMHO, YMMV, R2D2, C3PO, ETC.

G.

 

[Joza]

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. Now it makes more sense.

 

[Joza]

Ok

I added the second vocal. It is maybe sounds more like an chorus effect than actually a second distinguishable singer but that is fine to me. Im not sure if the song actually needs that but I will leave it there again in the name of team effort.

Then I re-EQed the vocals and quickly automated just about everything. I think its better now. To me it sounds ok with my monitors and actually quite good with my headphones that Ive used most of the time while mixing this.

http://www.box.net/shared/8c6h8ysk0n

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I just gave #2 it a quick listen but haven't had a chance to really dive into it quite yet. But I will say that you understood what I was trying to say very well .

This is definitely an improvement over the first one; the lead vocal now sits solid on top of the mix without being too far in front of it, the piano line now has more of a "role" in the arrangement in an almost a call-and-response to the vocal, and the two dance together better now instead of stepping on each other's toes. And yeah, the vocal has gained just a little bit of beef to it's timbre, which is an improvement. And the drums sound a bit more like the drummer is modulating his banging in the method I described earlier. Very nicely done, Joza.

The added vocal is a nice touch, like you say. But I'd be tempted to boost the level of the background vocal just a little and un-stack it from the main vocal by moving that secondary vocal halfway or so to the left to provide a balance to the piano, which dominates the right side of the mix. I'm not promising that is better than what's there now, but it's just something that jumped out at me as something I'd try if I had that mix in front of me.

I'd have to defer to a further analytical listen when I get the chance before I make any other comments on potential fine-tuning of the EQ, but the fact that nothing else really sticks out as a major sore thumb is a good sign.

G.

 

[Joza]

Great! So nice to hear that I already know something and have hope for getting better. I have been mixing my own instrumental songs for a couple of years, and I have a bad habit of making mixing a nightmare by having a 10 times too dense arrangement... Knowing that "less is more" and having the backbone to actually follow that rule seems to be two different things. But tracking and mixing vocals is very new to me. I think this is my third song with a singer.

The added vocal is a nice touch, like you say. But I'd be tempted to boost the level of the background vocal just a little and un-stack it from the main vocal by moving that secondary vocal halfway or so to the left to provide a balance to the piano, which dominates the right side of the mix. I'm not promising that is better than what's there now, but it's just something that jumped out at me as something I'd try if I had that mix in front of me.

My thinking here was this. First of all the second vocalist insisted to have the first singer in her headphones while tracking (she thought that she couldnt follow the song otherwise. I made a mistake by supposing that they would study the song before the recording day without me having to tell them that...) and that just didnt work out. I had to make a comp track from all the choruses and copy it, use a lot of time correction (and I dont really know the tricks how to do that well) and use midi controlled pitch correction with very fast attack, so if you listen to it in solo it is quite "distorted". That is the reason I didnt want to make it very loud. But now that I listen to it with fresh ears it is quite hidden as you said, so I will see if I can take it a bit louder without the side effects becoming too apparent.

Then the panning. Currently I have the first vocalist panned slightly to the left (very little on verses and a bit more in choruses) to separate it from the piano. (By the way does it sound irritating that it isnt dead center?) Then the second vocalist is more on right side to balance it. I admit it is kind of buried under the piano, but in the other hand that covers the faults too. I think I actually tried flipping them around to give more definition for second singer but it didnt sound good. I'll give it a second listen still.

Thanks a lot for the opinions again!