Mastering Services: Opinions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nandoram
  • Start date Start date
Nandoram

Nandoram

Crom!!!!
I found this one on the net today:

http://www.masterbymail.com/

Quite frankly, it seems too good to be true. Does anybody have any information on this? Is it a reliable business? Do they do good work? Or should I beware?

I'm on the verge of putting out my 2nd cd, and I don't trust myself to do the mastering this time around. I've been looking around, but don't have a lot of cash to pay out $1000 + for mastering.

Thanks for any advice or help.
 
There's already been a discussion here about those people, whoever they are. Do a search and I think you'll come up with some opinions.

It looks like they've done some work on their web site since the last time they were discussed up here. The site looks better, and they are now providing audio demos, but still they should list their staff.

For $99 I would expect your album to get a pass through their mastering chain. In other words, they'd do one set up and all your songs will get the same treatment. As opposed to a situation where the mastering engineer takes the time to work on each song individually. That's what I'd expect anyway, whether they would do more than that I don't know.
 
SonicAlbert said:
There's already been a discussion here about those people, whoever they are. Do a search and I think you'll come up with some opinions.

It looks like they've done some work on their web site since the last time they were discussed up here. The site looks better, and they are now providing audio demos, but still they should list their staff.

For $99 I would expect your album to get a pass through their mastering chain. In other words, they'd do one set up and all your songs will get the same treatment. As opposed to a situation where the mastering engineer takes the time to work on each song individually. That's what I'd expect anyway, whether they would do more than that I don't know.
Click to expand...

Thanks, SonicAlbert. I took your advice and did a search (which I should have been smart to do the first time, sorry), and spent 2 hours reading. I feel like I know you now from all of your posts!

Thanks for the advice.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=171072&page=2&pp=25&highlight=masterbymail

G.
Click to expand...

Thanks as well for replying, SouthSIDE. From my two hour reading binge, I feel like I've gotten to know you as well, from all of your sound posts. If I'm not mistaken, at one point, you offered to master somebody's tracks. Do you still do this, or would you leave it to others?

From what I've read, it sounds like using one of the following would be smart. I like the fact that they are here, and I like what they've had to say in the various posts.

http://www.massivemastering.com/

http://www.masteringhouse.com/
 
Nandoram said:
If I'm not mistaken, at one point, you offered to master somebody's tracks. Do you still do this, or would you leave it to others?
Click to expand...
I doubt that was me, unless I was saying it sarcastically ;) . Though I do occasionally self-matser my own stuff, and have done it for clients at their specific request, I am not, nor do I claim to be a pro ME. Mixing is my specialty.

I usually take the tack that if you're looking for a cheap mastering job, you can probably do it just as good yourself as any body else with a computer and a few plugs can, no need to hire that out; but if you want or need a pro mastering job, leave it to the pros.
Nandoram said:
From what I've read, it sounds like using one of the following would be smart. I like the fact that they are here, and I like what they've had to say in the various posts.

http://www.massivemastering.com/

http://www.masteringhouse.com/
Click to expand...
Yep, I'd unhesitatingly recommend either one of them. I refuse to play favorites here, I'd have no problem senting anything to either Tom or John. I'll leave it to you to decide which one has the foot that'll fit inside your glass slipper the best :).

G.
 
It *appears* that these guys *may* have better gear and facilities than the average home recordist/self mastering dillusionist :D .

However, I would be very concerned about the amount of time they'd put in per song at that rate, even if they do know what they're doing. There are some things that can be done better by an amateur with lots of time, decent gear, and real commitment than can be done by a pro with pro gear, but only a few minutes and only a passing interest.
 
I went back and re-read that previous thread about mastering by mail. It's actually a pretty good thread, and two years later is still relevant.

The big problem with the audio Demos on the Mastering By Mail site is that the before and after examples are not level matched. Anything louder is going to sound better, and all the "after" examples are louder. For a fair comparison you really need to listen to both at the same level.
 
SonicAlbert said:
I went back and re-read that previous thread about mastering by mail. It's actually a pretty good thread, and two years later is still relevant.

The big problem with the audio Demos on the Mastering By Mail site is that the before and after examples are not level matched. Anything louder is going to sound better, and all the "after" examples are louder. For a fair comparison you really need to listen to both at the same level.
Click to expand...

Do any mastering services provide samples of their before and after work at the same level? I've never seen that, and would be VERY interested to hear examples of that.
 
rgraves said:
Do any mastering services provide samples of their before and after work at the same level? I've never seen that, and would be VERY interested to hear examples of that.
Click to expand...

Honestly I think you need to do that yourself, at the volume control on your monitors (after D/A). If an ME gets a mix that is peak -6dBFS and RMS -26dBFS, and turns in a peak 0 RMS -13dBFS master, you can't match levels digitally without repeating some of the mastering process on the before file.

However, you can raise the gain on your monitors by 13dB for the before track to listen at the same RMS as the master.
 
mshilarious said:
Honestly I think you need to do that yourself, at the volume control on your monitors (after D/A). If an ME gets a mix that is peak -6dBFS and RMS -26dBFS, and turns in a peak 0 RMS -13dBFS master, you can't match levels digitally without repeating some of the mastering process on the before file.

However, you can raise the gain on your monitors by 13dB for the before track to listen at the same RMS as the master.
Click to expand...
What?
All mastering samples should be at the same percieved level.
The mastering engineer should master the song, then bring the volume of the master down so it matches the precieved volume of the unmastered track.
I thought that would be common practice, becuase otherwise its pretty darn unfair to A/B.

Eck
 
ecktronic said:
What?
All mastering samples should be at the same percieved level.
The mastering engineer should master the song, then bring the volume of the master down so it matches the precieved volume of the unmastered track.
I thought that would be common practice, becuase otherwise its pretty darn unfair to A/B.

Eck
Click to expand...

I wouldn't do that, because then a less knowledgeable potential client would look at a sample master with -12dBFS peak and think it was inappropriately quiet. Sad, but true. One might think that you wouldn't want an uneducated client, but it's nice to eat too.
 
SonicAlbert said:
The big problem with the audio Demos on the Mastering By Mail site is that the before and after examples are not level matched. Anything louder is going to sound better, and all the "after" examples are louder. For a fair comparison you really need to listen to both at the same level.
Click to expand...
The bigger problem is that they weren't even the same mixes. Don't know if that's changed - I would hope to (something) that it had...

"Before" files in dead (and dull) mono - "After" files in carefully panned (and bright) stereo... That's not something that happens during mastering.

(EDIT)

I guess it hasn't changed...

The very first sample (at least) is a completely different mix - There's no question about that. Somewhere between "fishy" and "fraud" IMO.
 
mshilarious said:
I wouldn't do that, because then a less knowledgeable potential client would look at a sample master with -12dBFS peak and think it was inappropriately quiet. Sad, but true. One might think that you wouldn't want an uneducated client, but it's nice to eat too.
Click to expand...
But you obviously explain to the client that the final master will be louder.

Eck
 
Massive Master said:
The bigger problem is that they weren't even the same mixes. Don't know if that's changed - I would hope to (something) that it had...

"Before" files in dead (and dull) mono - "After" files in carefully panned (and bright) stereo... That's not something that happens during mastering.

(EDIT)

I guess it hasn't changed...

The very first sample (at least) is a completely different mix - There's no question about that. Somewhere between "fishy" and "fraud" IMO.
Click to expand...
Fecking scamming scum fucks!
Pardon my French, but I hate folk conning money out of the less well educated (audio wise) :)

Eck
 
I'm curious, is anyone really impressed with the "after versions"?

"Stereo widening" aside, some of the before versions sound warmer, more organic, and have a less congested dynamic than the after. Granted they could use some work. The alternative example in particular. Use your volume knob to makeup the difference in volume when comparing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top