CD mastering facilities

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walnut
  • Start date Start date
Morgan Fairchild's rack I think ...

LOL. I think you've hit on the secret to mastering.
 
You know, I just went to masterbymail.com and I must admit, their equipment list does look impressive. They do mention Fairchild in the list. I'm not convinced solely based on the price. They mention mastering as, "an improvement". That scares me.

I wouldn't send them my mixes.
 
Blue Bear Sound>>>A skilled ME will catch any problems you may have missed in becoming acclimated to the project over a long period. IMO, the highest compliement you can receive is the ME telling you "there's nothing I can change..." - then you know you REALLY did your job well!


Blue Bear, I'm happy to say that I have received such a comment and I took it as a compliment. I don't deny that professional mastering has a very important place. However, I think we recording enthusiasts can spend hours trying to make a snare drum or whatever else we may be fixated on sound perfect, but ninety percent of the people who buy the recording will never hear what we did and wouldn't be able to if we told them. I like what one professional recording engineer told me....."If its too perfect it has no humanity left in it." This being said, I am a perfectionist and sometimes I can drive myself crazy, which for me is a short drive, working on something that I know nobody else will ever hear or would care even if they did. I hope you all get the spirit of what I'm inadequately trying to say.
 
I believe the line between objectivity and subjectivity can get rather blurred. True, its almost impossible to be objective about your own work. On the other hand (four fingers and a thumb) when you send something out to be mastered, even though he can be objective because it isn't his work, he is still very subjective about making it sound the way he thinks it should sound. Thats where the line can get blurred. Everyone has a right to their opinion but everyone isn't right. I would rather be subjective about my own work and have it sound the way i want it to sound than pay someone else to be objective and get it back sounding different than what I wanted it to be. I guess thats why its important to develop a relationship with a mastering engineer you trust to make the changes he thinks it needs while still giving you the sound you want. I hope this makes sense but I'm not sure it does. LOL
 
HWB said:
I guess thats why its important to develop a relationship with a mastering engineer you trust to make the changes he thinks it needs while still giving you the sound you want. I hope this makes sense but I'm not sure it does. LOL
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense. When you send things out, it's tough to let go of something you put so much of yourself into making.

My personal opinion is the mark of a great mastering engineer, or even a great mix engineer, is not what they do to the music but what they DON'T do to it. When I'm tracking, I try to get the song sounding basically what it's supposed to sound like tone-wise and feel-wise with just the faders thrown up. I like to think of mixing and mastering as elements that bring those sounds up to their optimum potential rather than something that changes the sound in radical ways. those decisions should be made at the tracking stage.

Now I know, everybody is different and the music varies widely from artist to artist. the stuff I work with I like to call "organic" music, made with real instruments and little or no syntheses. I guess a lot of the techno type stuff may receive more modification post-tracking, but I really don't know abut all that. I just know I like it when the people I send stuff out to work on seek to compliment what I've done rather than impose their own sound and vision onto my project.


just my humble opinion.
 
HWB said:
I believe the line between objectivity and subjectivity can get rather blurred. True, its almost impossible to be objective about your own work. On the other hand (four fingers and a thumb) when you send something out to be mastered, even though he can be objective because it isn't his work, he is still very subjective about making it sound the way he thinks it should sound. Thats where the line can get blurred. Everyone has a right to their opinion but everyone isn't right. I would rather be subjective about my own work and have it sound the way i want it to sound than pay someone else to be objective and get it back sounding different than what I wanted it to be. I guess thats why its important to develop a relationship with a mastering engineer you trust to make the changes he thinks it needs while still giving you the sound you want. I hope this makes sense but I'm not sure it does. LOL
Click to expand...
The only problem I have with what you're saying is that you presume that an ME is injecting their own personality into the work.

In a technical sense, the mark of a good ME is to NOT do that. One of the skills an ME acquires (over time) is a very solid sense of what constitutes "good sound." And they are in a unique position to properly gauge where you mix or someone else's sits in that perspective.

In practical terms, sure everyone has an opinion, but it is actually the ME's job not to force their opinion on a given piece of music, but only to add "polish" as needed.

I think you're only looking at Mastering from the point of view of "rescuing" a bad mix, and not considering the fact that an ME really only tries to draw out the best possible sound -- sometimes that means simply adding "sheen", other times it's a rescue operation....
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
The only problem I have with what you're saying is that you presume that an ME is injecting their own personality into the work.

In a technical sense, the mark of a good ME is to NOT do that. One of the skills an ME acquires (over time) is a very solid sense of what constitutes "good sound." And they are in a unique position to properly gauge where you mix or someone else's sits in that perspective.

In practical terms, sure everyone has an opinion, but it is actually the ME's job not to force their opinion on a given piece of music, but only to add "polish" as needed.

I think you're only looking at Mastering from the point of view of "rescuing" a bad mix, and not considering the fact that an ME really only tries to draw out the best possible sound -- sometimes that means simply adding "sheen", other times it's a rescue operation....
Click to expand...


In my opinion, if a mix has to be rescued, it should be remixed before being sent for mastering. I agree, if a good mastering engineer can merely add some polish to the recording and preserve the integrity of the style and feeling of what the artist wants, he is doing his job well. I wouldn't send anything to be mastered until I felt I did everything I could in the studio to make it sound the way I want it to sound. Then, it shouldn't need much tweaking.
 
CD Mastering

I hear so many stories on mastering, but how does a mastered CD become radio standard? I hear that a lot of thing have to go into it like certain codes and stuff. I really feel violated due to me sending my full CD out to be mastered and no one has responded yet. I'm kind of skeptical sending my CD out to another facility out of state due to my experience, I live in MA. I get an overwhelming response about sending your projects out. most say it is best to be there while it is being mastered and just a few say otherwise. I personally think that it is best to be there when it is being mixed. But since I do all the recording, editing and mixing, I don't think I would want to be around while it is being mastered. I need a break. I didn't realize how much of a headache this masteing bit is. My CD consist a variation of sonds such as bassy, no bass; straight vocal no music, sound affects, etc. So if I have to go without food for a month to pay for mastering; I want to make sure it is worth my starvation; because I will sacrifice for my music.

Walnut
 
"Radio ready" and "radio standards" are buzzwords that get thrown around a lot that really don't mean anything. Either something sounds good or it doesn't, I've heard plenty of stuff played on the radio that sound like shit. "Radio ready " is a sales term, a tool to sell production with.
 
strmkr said:
"Radio ready" and "radio standards" are buzzwords that get thrown around a lot that really don't mean anything. Either something sounds good or it doesn't, I've heard plenty of stuff played on the radio that sound like shit. "Radio ready " is a sales term, a tool to sell production with.
Click to expand...

Agreed, as soon as I hear buzzwords like "radio ready" and "big label sound" my B.S. detector goes off.

Walnut -

If you haven't paid for the service, the only costs have been postage which is a small price to pay for knowing a service not to deal with (better that than paying for a CD that sounds like garbage). Just go with someone else who has a few references that you trust, or at least someone who gets back to you in a reasonable amount of time.
 
And "radio ready" "big label" tunes can sound horrible, too.
 
I know this might be a little bit dated but Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime" sucked horribly sound-wise. Very FLAT. Flatter than the previous record.

I dunno.. just something that popped into my head while reading the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top