I know this will open a can worms for all the professionals out there, but I master with a $300 program called Reason. I have consumer speakers my friend gave me when he got surround sound and two pairs of cheap headphones. I know all three sets very well. Not a single person who I've shown my masters to, compared to the professional version, have ever noticed a difference. Sure, about 1000 mastering engineers out of a world of 6 billion would notice something, but no one has a mode-treated car with Genelec speakers in the doors. No one turns on their iPod and listens with mastering headphones...
Sorry if that came out a bit harsh - I really just wanted to put some perspective on the amount of money that is spent on mastering. If someone can convince me that I am wrong, feel free to let me have it! :-)
To start out, I have the feeling that some people think that I am talking about a good final mix, and not about mastering. To clarify, these are the devices and processes I use when mastering within Reason 3.0:
multi-band compressors, stereo imagers, high frequency harmonic enhancers, master reverb, dynamic filtering, upward expanders, plus all the usual devices: compression with side chain input, EQ, limiter, volume maximizer with soft clip. I'm currently working on a Reason patch to emulate the sound of the Vitalizer hardware.
Aztec clarified this for me, thanks!
aztec wrote: More over "limiter/volume maximizer/compressor/expander" in which you are referring as separate things are the same piece of gear used in different settings !
Now, on to the debate. :-) I know experts are passionate, and I really do appreciate your input.
jdsdj98 wrote: Wow. Your rates must be great since your investment has been so minimal.
Yes, they are! Business 101: If you want higher profits, don't raise prices, rather cut your costs.
jdsdj98 wrote: My girlfriend can't hear the difference between a 24 bit/192kHz recording and an MP3, and I bet the people that you've shown your masters to have similar credibility, or lack thereof. Have you ever asked a good mastering engineer to evaluate your work? Are you willing to state that your work is of the same caliber as theirs? Apparently you are.
My girlfriend can't either, despite my attempts at teaching her... :-) For that matter, neither can 99% of my target audience. If I marketed my CDs to mastering engineers, sure, my masters are horrible. Luckily, I've decided that a target demographic of mastering engineers is too limiting and too demanding an audience.
jdsdj98 wrote: And rather than offer that as an excuse for calling yourself a mastering engineer (something I am not) and butchering your work calling it "mastering", I say that just demonstrates the problems in pro audio today. Everyone calls themselves an engineer. Everyone thinks they can skimp on the cash outlay and just do it themselves. It reminds me of the cover of Mix a few months ago: "Who cares about quality?" Obviously you don't.
No one but mastering engineers cares about that level of quality. No one but mastering engineers can even hear that level of quality. Mastering the business of subtlety, and subtlety isn't noticed by the average ear. I'd bet $15,000 that your masters beat the socks off of my masters, but I'd also bet that people like our girlfriends wouldn't be able to tell the difference. People like our girlfriends are the consumers. The cost of improving a master from 'good enough' to 'professional grade' increases exponentially. $15,000 just so some professional mastering engineers will say, "that's a good master!"? I have better ways to spend my money.
jdsdj98 wrote: I, however, will not try to talk you out of what you're doing. I'm able to admit my inadequacies and work harder to get better. ... That's my competitive advantage over people like you in the job market. Keep it up. It creates opportunity for those of us that care about audio quality.
I feel like this is a bit of an old school vs new school issue. It's not that I settle for crappy quality, I just have some relatively new technology (Reason 3.0) that allows me to get 'good enough' masters when previously I couldn't dream of having the cash for pro mastering gear. I think the devices and processes listed at the start of this post is a decent list of gear. All I lack is a treated room and expensive monitors. But if I listen to reference material on my consumer speakers, and try to emulate the sound, will the result be close enough? I know answers to that question in this forum might be biased since if it is close enough, your jobs are suddenly threatened.
The same way musicians in the early part of the twentieth century felt when recording became possible. Their unions banned members from recording thinking it would put live musicians out of jobs.
I’ve always wondered if there’s been any research on whether or not there is a significant psychological advantage to professionally mastered music when compared to ‘good enough’ mastered music to justify the costs of pro mastering. I haven’t charged anyone yet for my ‘good enough’ mastering services, but I feel like this cost-effective-for-the-quality method could fill a consumer demand in semi-professional recording.
I really don't mean for this to be a flame or an attack on the usefulness of mastering engineers. The way technology is going, I think this is an important topic for everyone interested in mastering to discuss. I am perfectly willing to be convinced that my $300 methods really stand between me and a sucessful career. Let's hear the evidence! :-)
Topic Tags
Comments
To sidetrack (also from the original thread) - I know several gu
To sidetrack (also from the original thread) - I know several guys who use - let's call it "severely budget deprived" rigs for mastering. Some of them do a failry decent job. But many of them can't really hear what they're doing to the mixes. $300 program or not, there is no substitue for a quality monitoring chain (including the room, of course). The point is to tweak on a system that is superior to - not equal to or less than - 99% of the systems the project will ever be heard on. That's why the mixes sound right in cars or on Genelecs or in your living room.
Many of them think that a maul-the-band compressor and a pair of nearfields is the ticket to greatness. When those same guys come in here with their mixes, they can finally hear the damage they're doing.
I'm not saying that this is the case - But there are two things that are used very rarely in mastering rooms - Multiband compression (the first thing on your list, and what SO many people think is "the usual") and nearfield or small full-range monitors.
Hell, when I finally started out "on my own," even I thought I could beat the laws of physics. And I had worked on sessions in some really great rooms. I knew better. Don't know what I was thinking - When I finally figured out that I was only getting a tiny percentage of what I was shooting for, I accepted reality and plunked down for some "real" gear. **
Again - I'm not saying this is the case all the time - Maybe you (or some of these other guys) are "naturals" or have special skills that most don't. Impossible to say. And with the way a lot of records sound lately, maybe it even matter that much anymore - Which would be sad, but for me, I'll keep doing what I'm doing.
** Heck, my current rig is gets snubbed by some other M.E.'s I know...
The value of a good mastering engineer is in their experience an
The value of a good mastering engineer is in their experience and their gear. Unless you plan to become a mastering engineer the odds are that you won't be able to do anything comparable to what a good mastering engineer could provide, particulary with Reason as your only tool. It depends on your goals, but suffice to say I don't think there's been a single pop hit in history which was mastered in Reason. That doesn't mean it isn't possible, it just means it isn't probable. By contrast many of the mastering engineers you can outsource your projects to have worked on dozens, if not hundreds, of actual pop hits. There's simply no substitute for that type of experience. 8-)
You don't seem to have a full grasp of what a good mastering engineer does, try this. Save up a couple hundred bucks. Finish off one of your tunes as best you can. Book a few hours with a local mastering engineer. The best you can find. Take your song in and sit in on the session. Observe as much as you can and ask questions without impeding him/her. Get your song mastered. Now you'll know for sure if it's worth it for you or not. Consider it research. I think you are going to leave the studio with a *much*different view of what mastering is than you have now, but I might be wrong. 8-)
If you are pleased and your clients are pleased and they are sel
If you are pleased and your clients are pleased and they are selling their target number of CD's, then their is no complaint. However, I am on year 31 of doing this and the track record is that of those who use my services tell me they sell "many more" CD's of the ones I have mastered than previously before they used my services. Perhaps it is mearly a coincidence.
Time and time again..my customer base is my repeat customers.
These days, I don't even try to get new customers. I do get them from referrals but honestly, I do MORE repairing of botched mastering jobs WITH the new customers than my scheduled ahead work. I used to charge as much as a decent used car to provide my services. I bet now I am one of the lower priced services out there. It is not cheap..but it is not $650 an hour or by the hour. For new clients.. I charge per project..after I hear it.
I really don't see me going out of business anytime soon. I actually have bookings well into 2007 and two confirmed (Paid) in 2008...already blocked out.
I wonder why that is? (??)
People know something "special" when they hear it.
Tell you what. Pick a track of the three you have listed. I will master one of them for free. Compare.
Cool?
Good advice by both Massive Mastering and Calvary! I especially
Good advice by both Massive Mastering and Calvary! I especially like the idea of doing 'research' on one of my tracks to see what professional mastering is really like. You're right, then I'd know for sure if it is worth it.
I listed the Multi-band compression first just by accident. Since I make all my music with Reason 3.0, as well, I have control over the mix, so I very very rarely have any need for the MBC. If I ever do use it, it's just to "densen up" a particular frequency range. I just wanted to point out that constructing a MBC is possible in Reason 3.0, along with many other rather advanced pieces of gear.
I doubt that Reason 3.0 has been out long enough to really have any hits produced or mastered on it... Maybe I'd be the first to master a pop hit on it? ;-)
I guess my mantra is still 'good enough' is more cost effective than 'professional.' Those three free songs in my signature were all mastered in Reason 3.0. I am not in any way claiming they are as good as a professional master, and I know many things could have been improved in the mix beforehand, but do you think they are 'good enough?' I already have many tricks of the trade in full force for my second album material, so my newest masters are sounding much better than these old three songs.
In some separate threads, I am learning much from people criticing my masters / mixes of these three songs, and I really do believe that Reason 3.0 provides all the necessary tools. All that's left is to train my ears.
I definitely understand the need to use better gear than consumers. I guess I try to overcome this need by using multiple consumer speakers, like several sets of headphones, computer speakers, car speakers etc. Each set brings out something different. With their powers combined... Maybe all the different details they bring out is the same as listening once on a really nice set of speakers in a treated room? I guess listening on all those different speakers takes more time.
That's a very impressive schedule, audiowkstation, and I'm sure
That's a very impressive schedule, audiowkstation, and I'm sure you provide excellent services that bring back repeat customers. Perhaps you are more of the Mercedes approach, while I am more of the Honda Civic approach. There's certainly a need for ultra high end mastering, and I don't doubt there will always be a market for it. In the same way, there will always be a market for ultra high end sports cars, even though a used Honda Civic will also get you to your destination...
I'm not sure where I am going with all these comparisons between high end and low end services, but maybe a new demand for cheap but good enough mastering services is waiting to explode as the technology required in mastering becomes more accessible to the average musician?
Any of you pros want to hire a young whipper-snapper who thinks his new-fangled gadgetry can usurp the old tried and true mastering institutions? :-) Just kidding, but not really. I will be looking for a job after I graduate... Do you think this cheaper service could have a place alongside the high-end studios? Or would poor bands just assume that my masters are automatically inferior? If there is a demand out there, think of the cost / revenue ratio! A team of Reason 3.0 "mastering engineers" wouldn't need any local offices because you could just email them the mix files. You could charge clients half of what you normally charge while paying the whipper-snappers 1/4 of what you earn. It would be like free-lance project work. Like outsourcing, or hiring cheap foreign labor...
You've trumped me on that one. :-) I honestly don't know what 7
You've trumped me on that one. :-) I honestly don't know what 7000 clipped peaks means. I assume it's a bad thing, but I didn't hear 7000 clipped peaks... I mean, I know what a clipped peak is, but I thought you had to sacrifice some (or 7000 apparently) of those peaks in order to compete in volume. Someone put me in my place so I can have a foundation on which to form an educated rebuttal... :oops:
I will be happy to show you.., perhaps tomorrow. It is bedtime a
I will be happy to show you.., perhaps tomorrow. It is bedtime around here...but I opened the file first (using ears) and went...wow...lots of flat tops..then I simply opened the file in samplitude and saw them all. You can have "loud" without having "clipped".
Actually, the trend is going away from LOUD..since people are finally starting to discover the volume control on their playback systems. It simply does not need to be that loud. Perhaps this is why I have such a splendid reception with my clients and their CD's are actually selling.
We can carry on. I will be happy to do some tutoring..and you will benefit...and your music and clients will as well.
I just finished a 15 hour day, got to bed down now.
Yeah, if it weren't for an 8-page essay on Francsico Franco, in
Yeah, if it weren't for an 8-page essay on Francsico Franco, in Spanish, that is due tomorrow, I'd be hitting the hay, too. I have this mysterious knob on the volume maximizer in Reason that's labeled, "soft clipping." Maybe tomorrow you can enlighten me as to it's function if it even has anything to do with 7000 clipped peaks. To me, it sounds even more distorted when I turn soft clipping up.
You're probably right that I've made everything too loud. That was a similar critique of the track Running, when I submitted it a few weeks ago.
To clarify our discussion tonight (which I will look forward to
To clarify our discussion tonight (which I will look forward to continuing tomorrow): I have no clients... I was just speculating on the business side of things, but I certainly am interested in getting into this line of work. As it is now, I only master my own material, and I've spent about the past 4 months really learning the techniques of mastering. I used to patrol the official Reason forums, but no one there seemed to know anything advanced. That's when I went in search of a specialty mastering forum, and I came across recording.org.
In spite of all my slightly inflamatory challenges to the old guard of mastering, I really do appreciate all the responses and the fact that no one seems to be guarding their wisdom on the subject. I certainly hope to do my fair share of contribution after I've been around the block a few times. I have a few tricks that I'm pretty sure no one has ever thought of - stemming from Reason's ability to visually program device chains and the unlimited amount of devices available... But that'll be for another post.
If you want to enter the arena of quality audio be prepared to t
If you want to enter the arena of quality audio be prepared to take some mild ribbing from time to time. You'll look back on the work you're doing today in a few years and think, "Wow, I was really out there..." :)
Clipping isn't good anyway you slice it, no matter what. I think the point being made by "ouch" is that with 7,000 clips, it's definitely an issue to be looked at. :D
If you think 99% of the people can't tell a difference, then I t
If you think 99% of the people can't tell a difference, then I think you are misguided. Maybe they can't put it into words, or know what it is that is different. But they like some things better than others, they just don't know why. I think the proof is in your own words. No one has ever payed you for your "new technology" mastering. So it's not really a threat to the "old school" if you aren't taking any money out of their pockets.
This idea isn't new. Bedroom mastering has been around since the first wax vinyl cutters were afforable to the public, say 1950's. I even have a recording my grandfather made in his living room to vinyl and I can "almost" hear him say "Hello this is Vince on the new vinyl cutter. Hear the quality and the detail. It sounds like a professional recording". then he plays the piano. sure it's cute and nostalgic, but professional???
This whole discussion reminds me of about 200 interns i've known over the years in various studios. Walking around pointing at the old guys and laughing. Every single one of them is doing something else like bartending while the old guys are older and still making records. Maybe, just maybe, you don't know as much as you think.
headchem wrote: I will look back on these early mastering discu
headchem wrote: I will look back on these early mastering discussions as cute at best.
Sounds like you're getting a good taste of your own "cute" boot !
Kind of like the young guy who bursts into a room of vintage wine makers and proclaims:
"what's the big deal, wine-in-a-box tastes just great, and it's cheaper?"
Mike is dead-on right, as is Audiowkstation.
Proclaiming your imagined sense of superiority? Wrong forum, try this one:
http://recording.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=5
have a nice day :wink:
I am in session right now..so It will be a little leater tonight
I am in session right now..so It will be a little leater tonight that we can get into some of the key points to what mastering IS and what it is GOOD for..and why my clients keep eggs and toast on the breakfast table.
The OUCH was due to the thousands of clipps. I can "hand draw" a few dozen with no worries..but at my rates, fixing 7000 of them...it would be cheaper to fly first class here and let me recut the whole performance, musicians and all.
Now...This is why you will have mastering engineers getting a shade steamed due to the "mastering is no big deal" situation:
Take this constructively, I am on a 10 min break right now and my clients are watching me type this..and I do need to get back to work..keep the flow going..
I do profess to being a "clown" at times..but this is to keep the vibe happy. I am rather thin skinned when things get "personal" but this below is what I want to write for now..(like I say, time is short)
Every one of us, Michael and Jerry in particular..I have known these professionals through the web, Michael about 5 years and Jerry a little over a year or so..have had their chops busted when first starting out..just like I have. We thought we really knew what we were doing during our first year (mine being 1974) and it took until around year 5 or so before we really knew just how far we had to go to really earn the title, mastering engineer. It is not the easiest game in town to work at the level of Doug Sax, Bernie Grundman or Bob Ludwig. We like to think we can actually work at their level and I would say that Mike, myself and Jerry...we are naturals and it still took quite a long while to gain the experience to really know what their level really is. Yes...the more we thought we knew..the more we come to realize just how important mastering is and what our services bring to the table for our clients and how utterly important music is to us..for us to do this for a living. It is not easy to "get it right" nor do the "biggest names" get it right 100%. I have "some goofed up works by some major names." or let me just say it blatently, I have works done by the big boys that are fucked up. So even at that level...mastering is hard work. It is the nature of what we do because we are dealing with the law of averages. I can hear in any project where the mastering engineer gets lazy. No one is immune.
Take Jerry and me. Jerry happens to own the same power amplifier as I do. I wonder what made him choose that beast and we did not talk about it beforehand either. I don't know of many mastering engineers who use the Mc2500's but this in itself will tell you that...perhaps me and Jerry do "sing off of the same sheet". If I am ever overbooked, Jerry will get my extra work flow..if he has the time. I would hope if he is overbooked, he would "try me" to see how close we are. I would definitely entertain the idea of taking someone under my wing from an intern POV as well. I have had interns..some have gone on to do some pretty damned good work..although a few of them bug the crap out of me...when they get stumpped.
What I am saying is that..even with all the experience we have, I can look back 20 years ago and hear where I do it better now..but 10 years ago..I was doing some pretty kick ass work so I sometimes listen back 10 years to assure myself..."I ain't slipping" any.
Hand it to the experienced mastering engineers. What it takes to "get here" is a bitch. It was not easy nor is it easy today.
In many ways, it is harder than ever..due to all the different flavors coming at us..and they all must be in the box of "broadcast quality" when they leave here.
headchem wrote: No one but mastering engineers cares about that
headchem wrote: No one but mastering engineers cares about that level of quality. No one but mastering engineers can even hear that level of quality. Mastering the business of subtlety, and subtlety isn't noticed by the average ear.
I'm not a mastering engineer, but I care.
Here's a hypothetical example. I'll take a song, professionally recorded, and bring it to two mastering studios; I'll bring it to your 'Reason 3.0' studio, and I'll bring it to a professional mastering studio. You do your best (since it's free, that's all I can hope for) and they'll do thier best (since I'm paying them, I expect they will). Take your version, and take thier version, crush it, compress it, put it on an iPod with $2 headphones, whatever. Show these two versions to someone, back to back, and ask them which one sounds "better". Don't ask why it sounds better or what specific quality the better one has over the other, just if one is better than the other.
I want the better one.
There is a certain quality in good mastering that you can hear, even if you can't say "ah, they used this type of EQ and this much compression". That doesn't mean it isn't there. All those 'subtleties', that you say people can't notice, make a difference to the end consumer. If I'm spending $20 on a CD, I want it to sound as good as it possibly can. Hell, if there were too versions out, one with a crappy mastering job and one with a great mastering job, and there was a $10 price difference, you bet I'd spend the extra.
There's two major differences between pro and am: equipment and ears. You gotta have both. It the level of the finished product will fall to the lowest common denominator: crappy equipment + good ears = crappy master. Fantastic equipment + mediocre ears = mediocre master.
Phew, I have a lot of rebutting to do. I'll try to break it up
Phew, I have a lot of rebutting to do. I'll try to break it up into relevant chunks.
xian wrote: Here's a hypothetical example. I'll take a song, professionally recorded, and bring it to two mastering studios; I'll bring it to your 'Reason 3.0' studio, and I'll bring it to a professional mastering studio... Take your version, and take their version, crush it, compress it, put it on an iPod with $2 headphones, whatever. Show these two versions to someone, back to back, and ask them which one sounds “better”. Don't ask why it sounds better or what specific quality the better one has over the other, just if one is better than the other. I want the better one.
There is a certain quality in good mastering that you can hear, even if you can't say “ah, they used this type of EQ and this much compression”. That doesn't mean it isn't there. All those 'subtleties', that you say people can't notice, make a difference to the end consumer.
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: If you think 99% of the people can't tell a difference, then I think you are misguided. Maybe they can't put it into words, or know what it is that is different. But they like some things better than others, they just don't know why.
These are very good points. This rekindles an idea I mentioned earlier about doing some kind of scientific research on the average consumer’s preferences of differentiating between masters. I definitely understand what you both are saying, and it does sound very plausible, but we'll need some empirical evidence.
It might be fun to host some sort of "Battle of the Masters" competition. Sounds like a good little-league football movie: The poor kids from the wrong side of town with no fancy training equipment end up playing the rich kids in the championship game. :D Then we'd have some real results to either discuss or to put the matter to rest. I think the big record companies should research this in the interest of maximizing their profits.
-------------
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: This idea isn't new. Bedroom mastering has been around since the first wax vinyl cutters were affordable to the public, say 1950's.
I'm just exploring a possible niche of taking this old idea of bedroom mastering and reviving it in an economical way. This would involve 1, creating a very good product for the money spent, and 2, somehow changing the perception of clients toward this “professional bedroom mastering” service. There may be a snowball’s chance in hell of either of those two things happening, and if it will never catch on, I’m cool with it. I'll move on to the next idea...
-------------
Zilla wrote: How many of your masters are charting? How many of your masters have sold enough units to actually earn your clients clear and worthwhile profits?
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: I think the proof is in your own words. No one has ever paid you for your “new technology” mastering. So it's not really a threat to the “old school” if you aren't taking any money out of their pockets.
If it came off like I think I'm a threat to pro MEs, then I expressed myself poorly. Audio production and post-production is my hobby, so consider me convinced that I'll never be a threat nor expect my masters on the charts anytime soon. Previous discussions in these forums have convinced me of that (see, I'm young and impressionable).
This new service I am suggesting is more about targeting bands that normally wouldn't consider mastering. So, I'd like to think these kinds of bands exist somewhere, and my new service would bring them out of the woodwork - creating new clients instead of taking existing clients. Do you think these kind of never-mastered-before bands really exist? It'll take someone who's not a pro ME to answer that one, of course.
I run a budget studio catering to low/very-low budget clients. I
I run a budget studio catering to low/very-low budget clients. It's basically a way to help fund hardware/software purchases rather than trying to make any serious money and most bands that come through my studio are inexpereinced, young and near-broke.
Whenever i book a new client in for a project, i'm very forward and up front about the fact that if they want thier project to sound GREAT, bite the bullet and pay for pro-mastering. To this day, 90% of my clients simply toss a few extra $$ my way and go home happy.
The moral here: Certianly not that I'm doing great work. I'll openly admit that i barely know enough about mastering to scratch the surface. My gear is sub-par and my room sucks. However, all of these bands realise that with todays commercial radio formats, they WILL NOT get airplay without lable-support, a marketing team and a whole lot of luck - regardless of the quality of thier masters.
Once commercial-airplay is out of the question, the goal then becomes: Is this recording something that represents my music well, the listener can enjoy and the band can be proud of. My (obviously sub-par) masters *do* accomplish this and the bands leave happy with $$ in their pockets to spend on printing up pretty CD covers.
Pro mastering - even with todays very reasonable rates - is simply an unjustifiable cost to most bands recording w/o financial backing. It's certianly not an ideal situation in terms of the general quality of music out there but even the "Pro's" have to admit that amature jobs have been getting better and better in recent years.
Audiowkstation wrote: This is why you will have mastering engine
Audiowkstation wrote: This is why you will have mastering engineers getting a shade steamed due to the "mastering is no big deal" situation.
I am honestly not offended that Ouch file. 8) I thought it was funny, and your comments have been extremely constructive for me.
By the way, I just now noticed your free master offer. That is very generous of you! Either I just plain missed it, or you edited it in after I read the original post? When Calgary commended your generosity, I thought he was referring to posting the screen shot of my 7000 peaks… :D
If you’re still up for it, that might serve as the "empirical data" in the "Battle of the Masters" idea I suggested in my last post. It would be good for a fresh thread with a poll where we post both versions without labeling which is which. Of course, our audience would be a bunch of MEs, so it's not exactly testing the average consumer, but it'd be fun even if I get blown out of the water. I'd probably consider my master a success if I got 10% of the vote... I have a new track that I think has fewer mistakes to correct in mastering that we could use.
You’ve hit the nail on the head with MEs getting a shade steamed...
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Maybe, just maybe, you don't know as much as you think.
jdsdj98 wrote: Reminds me of the cover of Mix a few months ago: "Who cares about quality?" Obviously you don't… I'm able to admit my inadequacies and work harder to get better… You obviously don't have that capacity. That's my competitive advantage over people like you in the job market. Keep it up. It creates opportunity for those of us that care about audio quality. Shezan, please don't listen to this guy if you're interested in doing things the right way.
Thomas W. Bethel wrote: to call what you are doing mastering is ludicrous
JerryTubb wrote: Sounds like you're getting a good taste of your own “cute” boot!... Proclaiming your imagined sense of superiority? Wrong forum, try this one: *link to Home, Project Studios*
Let's not take this disagreement too seriously. I'll say again that I am willing to learn and admit I'm wrong. The only catch is, you'll have to convince me first, instead of sending me to the “Home, Project Studios” forum, for example...
Notice that you all didn't dismiss me as crazy at first and move on to another thread. Maybe there's enough credible controversy for pro MEs to spend their time writing rebuttals? - which I really do appreciate. I think we're all better off for it.
Wow, thanks for jumping in this fray with me MilesAway. Of cour
Wow, thanks for jumping in this fray with me MilesAway. Of course as the one backed in the corner here, I support everything you just said. I think it's even time for a greatest hits compilation:
MilesAway wrote: To this day, 90% of my clients simply toss a few extra $$ my way and go home happy.
I hope I'm not insulting myself by saying I'd probably be one of those satisfied customers.
MilesAway wrote: The moral here: Certianly not that I'm doing great work... However, all of these bands realise that with todays commercial radio formats, they WILL NOT get airplay without lable-support, a marketing team and a whole lot of luck - regardless of the quality of thier masters.
I feel like long-winded Edward Everett, Abe Lincoln's opening act at the Gettysburg address, who spoke before Lincoln took the stage, and according to Everett said more in 2 minutes than he had said in 2 hours. Looking back over this thread, it's high time I use my 2 ears and 1 mouth in that proportion.
Great thread that I'll be watching with interest. headchem, at
Great thread that I'll be watching with interest. headchem, at least you realize that you invited this by saying:
headchem wrote: If someone can convince me that I am wrong, feel free to let me have it!
The civility of this discussion is appreciated. I stand by my first post, but I'll be reading with an open mind to the debate. Just remember - you asked for it.
You are right, there are many bands out there that never get the
You are right, there are many bands out there that never get their stuff mastered and don't have the money even if they wanted to. That's not my market. I master for a living, mastering projects and artists that make music for a living. their livelyhood depends on making as good a product as they can. They are going to look for people with proven track records and they look for people that take what they do as seriously as they do. It's an uphill climb proving yourself as good as someone that does this full time. You not only have to be cheaper, you have to be better. Better to the point of eliminating any doubt. That's very hard to do with a $300 program. Instead of saying "i'm as good as joe blow", you could phrase it as "Bands with no money find my work better than nothing at all".
I'm amazed by the generosity of spirit displayed by the MEs on
I'm amazed by the generosity of spirit displayed by the MEs on this thread. When I read the first post by headchem I did not think that anyone would dignify it with a reply. Forgetting for the minute that the quality of the sample tracks were quite dismal in my opinion, the argument put forward by headchem reminds me of the same attitude that is expressed by youngsters regarding text messaging on mobile phones. Yes, you can understand it, but it isn't English! Proposing that there is little point in starting with good quality when the end result will be an MP3 file played on an ipod reminds me of the dumbing down that has happened to education during the past 40 years here in the UK. Yes, you learn enough to pass the exams, but you can't really call it an education in the true sense of the word. Sorry if I've offended anyone, but this constant disipation of standards in all fields of life really depresses me. The sad fact is, you can argue until you are blue in the face, but the younger generation will never even understand, let alone concede to, the importance of learning and experiencing the basic ground work and rules. They just want instant gratification.
britbrian wrote: The sad fact is, you can argue until you are bl
britbrian wrote: The sad fact is, you can argue until you are blue in the face, but the younger generation will never even understand, let alone concede to, the importance of learning and experiencing the basic ground work and rules. They just want instant gratification.
Can you honestly say that a 16-y/o McJob working version of yourself would be any different? :D
Since I came to these boards 3 days ago I've learned alot about
Since I came to these boards 3 days ago I've learned alot about mastering by reading some documentation and a lot of posts. I for one learned that I, with my equipment here at home never would be able to judge if a song on a different system would sound just as good as it would here.
I also learned that I'm not trained at all to hear what kind of compression to use, how to determine the optimal settings for an EQ, or when a song is clipping too much, or is too loud. Despite all this, I'm still attempting with that same piece of 300$ software to make my recordings sound better. It might not be of a professional quality, and I realize very well that one would need a lot of expierience and education to reach that level.
But to gain some expierience you've got to start somewhere, and you learn a lot in the process. So I strongly disagree with the last statement of britbain, I've barely touched the surface of mastering, and I am very keen to learn. And ofcourse you want your first work to be at professional standards, but that's not realistic. This doesn't mean in any way that I'm underestimating the value of good education.
britbrian wrote: but the younger generation will never even unde
britbrian wrote: but the younger generation will never even understand, let alone concede to, the importance of learning and experiencing the basic ground work and rules. They just want instant gratification.
Yes, but the younger generation will get older, and they will learn that importance. Because they will want to get the end result quickly and easily, and they will see it's not possible. All hope is not lost for them.
I totally agree with you otherwise.
MilesAway wrote: Pro mastering - even with todays very reasonable rates - is simply an unjustifiable cost to most bands recording w/o financial backing.
headchem wrote: This new service I am suggesting is more about targeting bands that normally wouldn't consider mastering.
I totally agree, you guys do have a market. I don't think it's mastering though. If you were selling it as mastering, then you would be misleading your clients. I know that is not what you are doing, I'm just saying you should be careful of how you represent your services.
MilesAway wrote: Whenever i book a new client in for a project, i'm very forward and up front about the fact that if they want thier project to sound GREAT, bite the bullet and pay for pro-mastering. To this day, 90% of my clients simply toss a few extra $$ my way and go home happy.
Perfect.
Headchem, I respect your place in this whole thing, but I think you should know it. I'm 90% sure you do, or at least you are starting to. I think the reason there are so many replies is that you seemed, at first, to be representing your work as adaquate compared to that of a professional.
I do, however, want to let you know that I think you are doing a great job staying level headed through all of this. I have to admit, the first post I read of yours in the old thread, I thought you were a total idiot. At least you have the capability of stringing a sentence together. And, to your credit, the wise man is not the man with all the answers, but the man who asks all the questions. I think you are beginning to ask the right questions.
As a complete and total amature "recording engineer" (that was a joke, I am much closer to 'recording primate' than 'engineer') I will be watching this thread like a hawk. Before about a year ago, I had no clue as to what mastering even was, all I knew, is that it made it sound better and I knew it was part of post production.
I'm also eager to hear the "ME" vs. "Post-production tweaker" event. (no offence headchem, but I did just call myself a primate)
Awesome thread.
Xian, I think you're right that in the beginning (only a week ag
Xian, I think you're right that in the beginning (only a week ago? How time flies when you're having fun...) I felt more confident with my home-made mastering. Even at the start, I never thought it was better than the real thing, just close enough for the average person not to notice the difference. I certainly have a lot more questions to stick in this thread, but I also have to finish a sound track for a short film by 3pm...
I'll put some solid forum time in this evening, and see if Audiowkstation is still game for our ME vs 'guy-in-Godzilla-suit' event. ;-)
Well, I've had many assistants over the years. They all follow p
Well, I've had many assistants over the years. They all follow pretty much the same footsteps, bare with me.
Stage 1- the completely, happy as a pig in s&^t thankful to be in a studio.
Stage 2- The eager beaver to please.
Stage 3- The dumb look. (more responsibility, but without the experience and knowledge to stand behind anything).
Stage 4- the quite phase. (don't do anything, don't say anything, don't look at anything for fear of doing it wrong)
Stage 5- The sigh of relief (this is where they actually do something right)
Stage 6- Mr. talky (I know enough now to open my mouth and not look like an ass)
Stage 7- Mr snappy (this is where they know that they are actually doing something usefull and they know others know)
Stage 8- The look (this is when they think they know enough to question the boss's decisions on everything)
Stage 9- yeah, Ok (this is when they're convinced that you have no clue what your doing)
Stage 10- The bird (this is when they have have the balls to tell you they are ready to do what you do and demand it)
Stage 11- The girlfriend (At this point they are confident enough that a female will actually go out with them on a regular basis. this in turn boosts more confidence, which in turn gives them the ability to try and go out on their own)
Stage 12- The puppy (after 6 months of beating the pavement, going to gigs, handing out their personalized business cards, putting together demo discs, still refusing to assist because they feel it is beneath them, they hit reality square in the face. They can't make enough money to do anything. Their rates are about 50% higher than before because they feel they are worth it, their "clients" didn't feel the same way. Right about this time their girlfriend leaves. They start taking anything that comes around, recording their friends band at a low budget studio, doing live sound for the same band, transfering vinyl records for their neighbor, putting together audio CD's of their mothers meetings. Eventually, taking a day job to pay the bills.)
I'm not saying that all turn out this way, but 90% IS a pretty big percentage. So as a beginning mastering engineer, you should know where you fit in to the 12 stages of professional mastering. Because only then you will realize the inevitable and hopefully circumnavigate the puppy stage.
I'll put some solid forum time in this evening, and see if Audio
I'll put some solid forum time in this evening, and see if Audiowkstation is still game for our ME vs 'guy-in-Godzilla-suit' event.
You will need to find space for the files. I can set aside a little bit of time (shouldn't take a pro very long eh?) to put a mix and master together (although it is better not to master your own mixes, I am good at it) but my FTP is on full time useage for clients and the space I had Monday..will be full tonight..and all this week.
Get the space, point me there, I will knock a song out.
BEWARE..I will be guessing at the artists intentions...so the artist can say..it sucks..even if everyone else loves the sound.
If I am to do this, I must have the files by Wend. the 7th at 11
If I am to do this, I must have the files by Wend. the 7th at 11PM. Avaliable for download. The time I have set-aside will be immediately after that..and I am very busy Thursday and Friday (and the weekend as well)
I am not going to drag this out for days. I get them..I mix them and I master them. I also would like a "finished file" posted (at this time from) that will be "nulled" for authenticity so no "cheating" will go on. Provide your best work. The wav files shall NOT be tampered with of the tracking. We get the same goods.
I will also "remaster" your file for kicks and grins.
I also want to provide some reading material for those who need to have some advanced education of sound.
http://www.gedlee.com/audio.htm
Here are the first 3 chapters. No test of course..but read them. You will find a level mindset for this experiment.
In case you missed the link....
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/bobkatz.pdf
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/bobkatz.pdf