kcearl
I see deaf people
so you can master one song? my songs are much better now I try to balance the EQ and compress the completed mix to attain a more polished product....i dont wanna wax the entire streets cars, just mine
so you can master one song? my songs are much better now I try to balance the EQ and compress the completed mix to attain a more polished product....i dont wanna wax the entire streets cars, just mine
B
BLP
New member
some good points going on.........I'm reading them all.
this site is FULL of useful information
this site is FULL of useful information
frederic
New member
That's okay, be as biased as you like. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I was sharing the "perfectionist's view" of my mentor. It's actually not a bad philosopy/attitude considering what I know you mastering guys get stuck with from time to time, if not very often.
I can only imagine lol.
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
Mastering is mainly about getting an objective opinion on the sonic quality of a track(s) from someone with experience. Asking the mix engineer to master his own track is similar to asking your mother if you are good looking.
No objectivity...
No objectivity...
frederic
New member
Clearly you haven't met my mother lol.
Waltz Mastering
New member
I agree with the perfectionist view of mixing as well...but am just pointing out that if more than a touch of eq and assembly is required there's no reason to think the mixing wasn't done to perfection... I guess the main thing is to make sure that any process compliments the one before it.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I'm full of a lot more than that
(there ya go kc, I beat you to it. 
)
"Nobody loves me but my mother/But she could be jivin' too" - B.B. King
Then again, one can master their own stuff and be completely objective as long as they have someone else mix it.
It's the whole mentality that if one has limited funds to have a "pro" do only one of the three stages of production, that waiting until the last stage is always the best idea that I just don't get. It's almost never the best idea. If anything, get the tracking done right and the stuff will practically mix and master itself.
G.
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
Well I hope that she didn't try applying make-up!
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
If one has limited funds obviously they have to cut corners somewhere and the decision is going to be based on priorities and total cost.
I don't disagree that having a pro involved in ALL stages is helpful. I would argue that the most important stage to have a pro involved is pre-production, before going to the studio. A good producer can recommend changes to the song structure, changes to make the song appeal to a wider audience, and in general provide recommendations that will make the tracks and performances better before a mic is even chosen. But how many budding artists want to pay for a producer? What is the cost over other parts of the production process, and what is the final product in hand after this stage? This is likely the area where most financially challenged musicians will sacrifice first.
What are the costs of tracking versus the other parts of audio production? Whenever I've was involved with an album this is usually the major cost of putting out an album other than promotion. Is it better to have a pro with pro equipment track? Absolutely! There can be some advantages in tracking at your home studio though. For example tracking vocals can be very personal. I often hear from artists that they would never get the "take" that they got at 2:00 AM in their home studio if they were in a po studio environment. Likewise instruments that run direct (e.g. MIDI Keyboards, samples) can be recorded pretty much as well in a home studio as they can in a pro studio. This is where some cost savings can be had without affecting quality. When an artist has a "reasonable budget" I always recommend that they record at least the basic tracks in a studio with a good room. In fact any instrument that uses the room as part of it's tone and presentation should be tracked at a good studio.
Is it advantageous to have a pro with an SSL, tons of outboard gear, and years of experince mix? Of course. The cost at this stage is likely to be less than the recording stage if both were done done at a pro facility. If the tracks were recorded completely in a home environment this is also where the final product is likely to see the biggest sonic improvement (as Glen suggests). However the cost of this stage is still more than ...
Mastering. With mastering there can be some very significant improvements in both mixes done at a pro facility and for home recordists. The cost for mastering at most facilities is less than any of the above stages of production and when all things are considered is likely less than the cost of a reasonable DIY setup if only performing this for a few albums.
So I guess that my point is that many look to mastering not because it is more important than any previous stage, but because it provides (hopefully) the best improvement/cost ratio of any stage in creating an album.
Of course it stands to reason that if everthing one has produced up to the point of mastering is crap, all that you will have after mastering is better sounding crap.
Last edited:
flatfinger
Use every dam bit!
+1
Actually you forget;............. There is still one last chance to fix it in the shrink wrap !!!!!!!!!!
M
Moseph
New member
To be fair, you could technically call the process of moving from whatever format you're already using to Red Book Audio a "post-mix" process, per se.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Let's put aside for the moment that 97% of the people who are asking this question of themselves and of us are looking at making MP3 singles and not albums - this thread is asking about "mastering" one song. The real reason these folks wait until mastering to spend the money has nothing to do with a cost/benefit analysis and everything to do with trying to escape from the corner they have painted themselves into.
After spending a couple of thousand dollars on entry level DIY gear and a few dozen hours (minimum) poking around in the dark or on forums like this while tracking and mixing and they discover that "do it yourself" does not mean that it all does it by itself, and that the result does NOT sound like their favorite commercial album, they are now over a barrel and don't know what to do, so they look to mastering as their last chance to make things easily OK. Not only does it sound easier than going back and correcting problems with tracking and mixing, but they also have the constant bombardment of bullshit from the marketers of multi-T-Blowzone-Bal-izer plugs that mastering is indeed the magic bullet that will save their asses.
And when the rubber hits the road in forums like this, the general message they get is that those marketers are right about that; the only thing they're wrong about is that the DIYer can actually do it themselves.
G.
kcearl
I see deaf people
Gwen got pwnd......
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
Good points as always G, and I won't argue that this can also be one of the reasons. Here though I find that many indie artists are well aware of their limitations and simply cannot afford the full process of recording with pros. In the end they simply want what they have to sound better at the lowest possible cost. So in essence it is about cost/benefit.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I don't doubt that is true with some. But it just begs the following questions: They can't wait to actually release their work until they can afford it because...? Or they can't get a manager to handle the costs for them because...? And they were able to afford the two grand for a handful of MXLs, an econo-interface and nearfield monitors - not to mention a score of man hours of DIY labor that they could be dedicating to paying jobs instead - but can't afford a hundred bucks to have someone mix their three-song demo EP for them because...?
The idea that it's cost-prohibitive to have a studio produce their work for them is a fallacy. We do it for clients on a regular basis for far less that it costs for them to do it themselves, and in the bargain deliver a better product then they could get on their own.
That usually is responded to with the argument that studio time is a one-off deal, whereas DIY equipment is there to use for albums #2 and #3 also. Putting aside the fact that that is just as true for mastering as it is for mixing or tracking, that's true enough on paper, but the big gray elephant in that room that nobody wants to admit is that there is only rarely ever going to be a second or third album made with that gear.
Assuming the band is still together and successful enough to make those follow-up albums - definitely far from guaranteed - more often than not one of three things is going to happen by then; they will upgrade their own DIY gear with more or more expensive stuff anyway (this is probably the most common fate), they will be successful enough to desire going to a studio next time anyway, or they will sign with a manager or label that will throw them in a studio on their own dime.
Again, we're not talking about hobbyist home recorders here, or those working their way up to building their own studio anyway, both of which are just fine, but not applicable to this thread. We're talking folks wishing to make productions serious enough to consider taking some or all of their project to an outside engineer and serious enough to want to pursue music as a money-making venture, and not just to put a song up on meSpace in order to get laid (not that there's anything wrong with that, either
.)G.
mixmkr
we don't need rest!!
There is a flip side to this too... and I'm sure you'll know where I am coming from... it's analogous to the "bedroom mastering suites".
I've been to more than a couple of "mid priced" studios... either with friends, etc and some even in Nashville, that was a waste of $35/hr or $2k. Even with their old MCI board and a Studer in the corner and 20 grand worth of mics or more.
Yeah...I had a fun time, but I always went home going..."boy...I'm glad it wasn't my money paying for the time".
I've been to a couple of BIG BOY studios, and yes...it is "night and day".
but there are a surprising amount of $75K studios (what's that...a nice car?) that are still MUCH worse than what I feel I can get at home now a days.
Yes...that sounds like an inflated ego, but jee-mon-eezz...
I can see why bands feel they get ripped at your mid level studios and would rather spend $2k on home equipment. BUT YES...I KNOW THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS... (but you have to find them!!)
btw... since Nashville is a M-F recording town... catch some of the BIG BOY places on the weekends for dirt cheap. Sound Kitchen anyone for the weekend??
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
Caveat emptor applies equally to big, medium, little, and DIY boys.
Last edited:
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
You're absolutely right. I'm not recommending just *any* studio, whether its for producing, tracking, mixing or mastering. There are just as many hacks out there in this business as there are in any other. One doesn't - or shouldn't, at least - just pick a plumber or a dentist or a guitarist because they have a website and an honest equipment list (though if the equipment list is dodgy, that's an almost sure red flag these days), and they shouldn't pick a studio that way either. It's not so much about the studio as it is about the people that run it. Personally I'd never have accepted my position at Product Recording if I didn't feel the rest of the team had the real chops, and I most certainly would be the same way and even more so as a client.
And it's not just the studio and the people, but sometimes it's the specialty/experience. Not every producer/engineer/studio is always the right one for all projects. For instance there's a very nicely equipped studio near me with a great little customized Amek board, Studer deck, etc. yadayadayada. The guys that just bought it from the original owners a while back have experience, but they make no secret that they mainline heavy metal and similar. Even the name of the studio - which I won't name here in fairness to them - sounds like it was taken from an Iron Maiden album cover. Nothing wrong with any of that, and if I had a headbanging band I'd probably want to go there. But if I'm managing a C&W or ska act, I'd probably want to consider other studios.
This is one of the reasons why the best places have several engineers on staff, they want to hire people that can fill different needs the way different players fill the different positions on a baseball team. This guy knows metal, that guy knows C&W, the other guy knows Tuuvan Throat Singing, etc. And (hopefully) the manager of the joint is fluent enough in all of them to properly manage the bunch.
In the words of Smokey Robinson's mama, you gotta shop around.
G.
philbagg
Just Killing Time
You can master one song. IMO, any processing you put on the 2-track, at the end of the day, is mastering. It doesn't have to be in relation to anything else.
B
BLP
New member
Well, maybe I should let yall know that I am not an artist or a band.
I record and mix music
So my goal is to strengthen my knowledge and skills of mixing music and eliminating problems at the source with recording.
When I ask alot of questions I probably sound like I record and mix horrible music.
But I don't, lol
When I asked this question, it was because time after time I have an artist come to me with 3 or 4 songs on a CD (hence they are now usually just wma files because it's not a data disk) saying these are already mastered. Which these songs have been recorded at different times and "mastered" at different times with no reference to each other.
So in my head I'm thinking they are getting charged "55 to $100" bucks a song for "mastering" each track but never waiting till ALL their songs are done. These are not singles, these are songs being work on for an album that the engineer insisted that he can make better by mastering ( right after they just recorded and mixed it) in same session!
I record and mix music
So my goal is to strengthen my knowledge and skills of mixing music and eliminating problems at the source with recording.
When I ask alot of questions I probably sound like I record and mix horrible music.
But I don't, lol
When I asked this question, it was because time after time I have an artist come to me with 3 or 4 songs on a CD (hence they are now usually just wma files because it's not a data disk) saying these are already mastered. Which these songs have been recorded at different times and "mastered" at different times with no reference to each other.
So in my head I'm thinking they are getting charged "55 to $100" bucks a song for "mastering" each track but never waiting till ALL their songs are done. These are not singles, these are songs being work on for an album that the engineer insisted that he can make better by mastering ( right after they just recorded and mixed it) in same session!