Hello,

Most Mastering facilities offers FTP (file transfer protocol) services to their clients so they (clients) can upload their songs. The clients have their own accounts and personal space to their files

You would have to upload your stereo mix files to it (wav, aiff etc.)

You can get your Mastered files back by FTP again (download) or get the Master CD by mail.

Cost: depends on the studio/engineer. By visiting their website or calling them, you will get the answer to this question.

Regards

Richard's right - most mastering houses will offer an FTP upload/download capability.

However, there are some folks who ONLY offer this capability. In other words, if you ask to come into the facility, their only response could be..."What facility."

You've got to be careful. Some of these "on-line" mastering houses merely take your song, run it through a Behringer compresser and then back into a hacked version of cubase with their hacked Waves plugins and smash the hell out of your tunes. (I know one of these companies!!! They're in my area here and they REALLY PISS ME OFF!!!!)

If you can't visit a tangible location, don't work with them. They could have a storefront in Northern India for all I care, but that at least means that they have clients that come in and they actually care enough about their business to lease space dedicated for mastering!

So, in other words - be careful.

FWIW - I have two domains in which I perform mastering. 1 is in my studio. This is my "light" mastering setup. This is for the dudes that come from the studios up the road and want some quick/cheap stuff done. Then I have one that I built in my home. It's not a regular "home" studio - it's designed from the ground up for acoustics. (I had the home custom built and one of the main aspects of this house was the studio - the other was the built-in wetbar just off of the studio... :D (y) ).

Clients are welcome in either or both locations if they would like to come. I have no secret weapons or magic voodoo that I don't want my clients to see (like that local "on-line" company near me does -- hint, I've seen their bag of magic tricks - it's Sound Forge/CD Architect with an Alesis reverb box and a behringer compressor monitored through Alesis M1s in an awful acoustic environment!).

So, the best advice is - do your homework and be careful. If in doubt, post your findings here - we will gladly debunk or validate a good service.

Good Luck!!!

J

When you're looking for "low-rent" online service...

(Dead Link Removed)

A lof of questionable types have given me a lot of flack over that particular article over time. And the accusations... Whoa...

Anyway, it's really only something to think about. The whole "no free lunch" and "if it sounds too good to be true" type stuff. There are a lot of people out there trying very hard to rip you off.

There are a lot of people who aren't also - There are a lot of honest, non-deceptive online budget mastering services out there. It just seems that they're getting harder to find through some of the noise...

John,

Isn't it your logo on the 2nd picture on the left side of this ebay add?
( http://cgi.ebay.com/AUDIO-MASTERING-RESTORATION-SERVICES_W0QQitemZ6025082173QQcategoryZ50356QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem ).

I doubt that someone else has the same logo and is in the Mastering business :roll:

OUCH!!!!! :!:

John - I'd be pissed as HELL about that one!

I also bet if you contacted Lipinski, he could tell you whose room that is on the right with his monitors hanging over the control desk.

Is someone prepared to give this guy an on-line bitch-slap yet?

Sure looks like it. John..?

I do about 80 or so percent on line mastering. FTP or U send it gets the tracks here. I compile a list of questions after listening to your music and then we get busy. Details on my site. I do my best..clients are pleased.

I maintain open communication and interaction. It is very nice to get a free sample of your mix..mastered by the prospective mastering house before you decide. Rates can vary depending on the amopunt of preparness you have put into your mixes. Some are basket cases and hands need to be held to assure the best results, others just need another set of ears and some fine balancing. It is all relative.

Come to think about it - if you've trademarked your logo and/or copyrighted your photos, I wouldn't be pissed at all - this clown just earned you a lot of money in court! Just hope he has liability insurance and you can take him for the limits!!!!

TrilliumSound wrote: John,

Isn't it your logo on the 2nd picture on the left side of this ebay add?
( http://cgi.ebay.com/AUDIO-MASTERING-RESTORATION-SERVICES_W0QQitemZ6025082173QQcategoryZ50356QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem ).

I doubt that someone else has the same logo and is in the Mastering business :roll:

I am not too sure you can copyright a picture of a blank reel . It may be someone's logo but it is also the same picture that is used by a lot of companies that sell 10.5" take-up reels. You would have to prove that this was unique in some way.

I have seen pictures of microphones used for logos for studios but not only can that not be copyrighted (if it is recognizable microphone from a microphone company) the person that is using the likeness of a microphone for there studio logo is in direct violation of copyright law. This would be especially true if it were a instantly recognizable microphone like an RCA-77DX or Shure SM58.

Just for clarification.

Thomas W. Bethel wrote: [quote=TrilliumSound]John,

Isn't it your logo on the 2nd picture on the left side of this ebay add?
( http://cgi.ebay.com/AUDIO-MASTERING-RESTORATION-SERVICES_W0QQitemZ6025082173QQcategoryZ50356QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem ).

I doubt that someone else has the same logo and is in the Mastering business :roll:

I am not too sure you can copyright a picture of a blank reel . It may be someone's logo but it is also the same picture that is used by a lot of companies that sell 10.5" take-up reels. You would have to prove that this was unique in some way.

I have seen pictures of microphones used for logos for studios but not only can that not be copyrighted (if it is recognizable microphone from a microphone company) the person that is using the likeness of a microphone for there studio logo is in direct violation of copyright law. This would be especially true if it were a instantly recognizable microphone like an RCA-77DX or Shure SM58.

Just for clarification.

Not so. You can copyright any image that you create. You are correct in that you need to prove it that you created it, but if he watermarked it or if it is used in its exact likeness, it would be very easy to determine.

Bear in mind, ANYTHING that you create in this country (and I believe most countries internationally) is automatically protected by copyright now - no paperwork filing necessary. The burden of proof, however, lies on the person claiming infringement. This is true of recordings, songs and lyrics, photos, poop-art and so on. (The most common form of copyright protection, which I refer to as "poor-man's copyright" is to simply place a copy of your intellectual property into an envelope and send it registered mail to yourself. Do not open the item - ever. If you ever need to prove when you created your masterpiece, you have a federal document - err, mail - showing a legal, court-worthy date.)

As for using a microphone such as an RCA 77DX or so in an image as part of your logo - that is perfectly legal. You can't copyright an idea. If you were to take a picture of the 77DX, then that particular image is copyrighted, but not the concept of using the microphone in an image. To be sure though, it's always wise to get the blessing of the company before you do it. Many companies (such as Monster Cable) encourage this kind of thing, as it promotes brand recognition.

If using an item in a logo were illegal, then showing a person driving a Chevy during a Pepsi commercial would be illegal.

However, if you used the Chevy cross as part of your logo or in print advertising which is advertising yourself, then yes, you are in direct violation.

Truth be told, if this yahoo did take John's logo which John either created or had created for him (in otherwords - paid a graphic artist and the GA released all rights to it), then he has a legitimate law suit on his hands.

Book em Danno!

8-)

So who's studio is that in the picture?

He does offer "retour" shipping, so you've got that going for you....

DC

dcollins wrote: So who's studio is that in the picture?

He does offer "retour" shipping, so you've got that going for you....

DC

Hmmm, maybe from this one : http://www.stepsaheadsound.com/cd-mastering-studio/index.htm .

Buenos Aries is a long ways from NYC. I guess he masters by Osmosis.

audiowkstation wrote: Buenos Aries is a long ways from NYC. I guess he masters by Osmosis.

In this specific case "masters" is a big word... looks more like "right click, copy, paste, save as my new studio..."

I should have put that in this form of "masters"...beat me to the edit.

Cucco wrote: [quote=Thomas W. Bethel][quote=TrilliumSound]John,

Isn't it your logo on the 2nd picture on the left side of this ebay add?
( http://cgi.ebay.com/AUDIO-MASTERING-RESTORATION-SERVICES_W0QQitemZ6025082173QQcategoryZ50356QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem ).

I doubt that someone else has the same logo and is in the Mastering business :roll:

I am not too sure you can copyright a picture of a blank reel . It may be someone's logo but it is also the same picture that is used by a lot of companies that sell 10.5" take-up reels. You would have to prove that this was unique in some way.

I have seen pictures of microphones used for logos for studios but not only can that not be copyrighted (if it is recognizable microphone from a microphone company) the person that is using the likeness of a microphone for there studio logo is in direct violation of copyright law. This would be especially true if it were a instantly recognizable microphone like an RCA-77DX or Shure SM58.

Just for clarification.

Not so. You can copyright any image that you create. You are correct in that you need to prove it that you created it, but if he watermarked it or if it is used in its exact likeness, it would be very easy to determine.

Bear in mind, ANYTHING that you create in this country (and I believe most countries internationally) is automatically protected by copyright now - no paperwork filing necessary. The burden of proof, however, lies on the person claiming infringement. This is true of recordings, songs and lyrics, photos, poop-art and so on. (The most common form of copyright protection, which I refer to as "poor-man's copyright" is to simply place a copy of your intellectual property into an envelope and send it registered mail to yourself. Do not open the item - ever. If you ever need to prove when you created your masterpiece, you have a federal document - err, mail - showing a legal, court-worthy date.)

As for using a microphone such as an RCA 77DX or so in an image as part of your logo - that is perfectly legal. You can't copyright an idea. If you were to take a picture of the 77DX, then that particular image is copyrighted, but not the concept of using the microphone in an image. To be sure though, it's always wise to get the blessing of the company before you do it. Many companies (such as Monster Cable) encourage this kind of thing, as it promotes brand recognition.

If using an item in a logo were illegal, then showing a person driving a Chevy during a Pepsi commercial would be illegal.

However, if you used the Chevy cross as part of your logo or in print advertising which is advertising yourself, then yes, you are in direct violation.

Truth be told, if this yahoo did take John's logo which John either created or had created for him (in other words - paid a graphic artist and the GA released all rights to it), then he has a legitimate law suit on his hands.

Book em Danno!

8-)

I can show you a dozen places on the web that have reels pictured just like Massive Mastering's "logo". They are tape suppliers or "graphic" houses that provide audio industry standard images. Our logo is copyrighted but it was created by a graphic artist and is unique.

If you follow your logic and one were to copyright a circle then you could claim anyone who used a circle in their advertising was in direct copyright violation. The logo has to be unique and not something that is in daily use. You cannot copyright letters of the alphabet, you cannot copyright standard drawing shapes such as a circle or a square UNLESS by some means you make that circle or square unique. There are lots of other things that you can and cannot copyright but you would probably have to consult with a lawyer to understand all the variables.

We looked into this at length with a copyright lawyer BEFORE we designed our logo since as part of our logo there is a damped sine wave image. The design of the logo is unique and INCORPORATES the image of a damped sine wave therefore it is copyrightable.

The other part of copyright is "proving" that the image someone else is using is in direct violation of your copyrighted image.

The RCA company still has the copyright on Nipper listening to the record player and the phrase "His Master's Voice" and very recently someone tried to use a similar image in their advertising and were taken to court by RCA for copyright violation. This was a black on white silhouette and not a full color photographic image and they still wound up in court.

Sorry to disagree with your statements but Massive Mastering's "logo" is something that could have been copied out of a catalogue or off the eb and is not unique.

MTCW

Nipper...meet Zeus.

Thomas W. Bethel wrote:
I can show you a dozen places on the web that have reels pictured just like Massive Mastering's "logo". They are tape suppliers or "graphic" houses that provide audio industry standard images. Our logo is copyrighted but it was created by a graphic artist and is unique.

If you follow your logic and one were to copyright a circle then you could claim anyone who used a circle in their advertising was in direct copyright violation. The logo has to be unique and not something that is in daily use. You cannot copyright letters of the alphabet, you cannot copyright standard drawing shapes such as a circle or a square UNLESS by some means you make that circle or square unique. There are lots of other things that you can and cannot copyright but you would probably have to consult with a lawyer to understand all the variables.

We looked into this at length with a copyright lawyer BEFORE we designed our logo since as part of our logo there is a damped sine wave image. The design of the logo is unique and INCORPORATES the image of a damped sine wave therefore it is copyrightable.

The other part of copyright is "proving" that the image someone else is using is in direct violation of your copyrighted image.

The RCA company still has the copyright on Nipper listening to the record player and the phrase "His Master's Voice" and very recently someone tried to use a similar image in their advertising and were taken to court by RCA for copyright violation. This was a black on white silhouette and not a full color photographic image and they still wound up in court.

Sorry to disagree with your statements but Massive Mastering's "logo" is something that could have been copied out of a catalogue or off the eb and is not unique.

MTCW

I understand what you mean, but there are a couple issues here.

I believe you that you've seen that graphic elsewhere, but unless it was *exactly* the same image, not close, but exact, it wouldn't hold up.

The concept of copyrighting a circle wouldn't hold up - you have to prove that your idea is original. I would love to see the guy proposing he was the one that came up with the circle.

Let's just say, hypothetically, that John's logo (whether it's original or copyrighted or not) appears in that ebay ad, and that picture that it's imposed upon was actually a picture that John took and imposed his logo upon. That image is now John's intellectual property and by nature can be protected. However, if the logo is "generic" in nature and the photo isn't John's, then you are absolutely correct.

In 1978, the US Patent and Trademark office determined that coyrighting was not an essential step in the protection of one's intellectual property and therefore only essential if you desire absolute legal proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

As for the Chipper and Nipper thing - that was a trademark issue more than a copyright. In a trademark, you can specify likenesses whereas in a copyright, only exact matches or 1:1 infractions are covered.

The same is true with Monster cable. They have trademarked the terms "Monster Cable" and "Monster." However, their trademark on the word "Monster" only applies in a small, niche market (audio...) So, Monster Truck Madness is safe, but if I decided to call my audio store "Monster Market," I should expect to get sued quickly.

So, in principle, you're correct- if the logo is generic, then John has no protection, but if it is unique (even slightly) and John created it and can prove that, he's on the fast road to riches.

He John - Johnny Cochran just moved here to DC - if you want, I can get you his number! :wink:

J.

JC died in March. I don't think he will do much good at this point ;)

audiowkstation wrote: JC died in March. I don't think he will do much good at this point ;)

Oh, don't underestimate the power of the Cochran law firm! They would drag his bones into court if they thought it would get them a little more $$$ :shock:

Agreed! Just like their will be a "Bernie Grundman mastering" long after Bernard is gone.

Yes, that's my logo - Not that it's all that original.

But also yes, that image was lifted from my website - It's my old two-track rack.

That blows. did you email the guy about lifting you pic?

As a matter of fact, I did. And I told him to take down that photo of SAS also.

He took down the SAS photo so far...

I hate deceptive SOB's...

I flashed him this also: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm

I keep that one handy - I found my gear list on no less than a dozen sites in 2005. Some with photos of my desk and all. Pisses me off like you wouldn't believe.

The photo of the two-track rack (that I don't even use anymore) doesn't "really" bug me, but the premise still does.

I think it sucks. Email me the sites that are stealing "ripping" things off of your site, I'll take a look at them and if they are still doing it, we can start a campaign of emails to get them to remove the photos.

I totally appreciate the offer, but I've already had my lawyer contact anyone I've had trouble with. There were a few that cloned my entire site (photos, gear list, CLIENT list, everything) and just changed the word "MASSIVE" to "Buttwipe's Productions" or whatever.

Not that it won't happen again I'm sure... We can have a little "watchdog" thing (actually, I've been contacted by a "StudioWatchdog" on more than one occasion about stuff like this).

UPDATE: UPDATE: UPDATE: UPDATE: UPDATE: UPDATE:

UPDATE: UPDATE: UPDATE: UPDATE: UPDATE: UPDATE:

I e-mailed him - He e-mailed me back and blah, blah, blah...

Anyway, ALL the images that aren't his are gone. He even took down the "catalog" shots. I think something was triggered after I asked "Why don't you just use photos of YOUR OWN rig?"

After dealing with SOOO many of these types over the last few years, I assume his rig looks a lot like...

No... I'm not going to go there...

That's cool, except he's only left with one picture now. :lol:

For once the good guys win.

Hope this teaches him a lesson. But it probably will not.

There are lots of sites on the web that advertise their studios with pictures of facilities that are lifted from other folk's websites. These people try and convince their potential clients that they have "state of the art" facilities but in reality they are doing this out of their bedroom or basement. If you are doing this form of mastering on line then no one is the wiser and the bedroom mastering types can keep on plying their trade. If however someone wants to see what you really have in your "studio" they maybe in for a VERY rude awakening. That is why a lot of these folks ONLY offer on line mastering.

There is a studio around here that offers mastering and to look at his on line presence you would think this is NEW YORK or LA but it reality he has a very modest studio that he has "enhanced" with pictures from the web. When people go there he explains that his "real studio" is undergoing some renovation and that he is just using this place until his "real" one gets renovated. Some people believe him.

I applaud your efforts to get to the bottom of this and get this settled. Maybe if more people did this people will get a clearer picture (pun intended) of what they are really dealing with.

The ironic part - All this crap over the last several years - One site after another grabbing this or that (or ALL) and posting it... And it's not like it's just my site - I find other engineer's gear lists on sites all the time. They just look "fishy" and it's normally pretty easy to find out who's gear list you're lookin at.

Anyway - I added a poorly-written, patched together wreck of an article on my site some time ago about this very thing...

(Dead Link Removed)

I steer people at it who are looking to NOT use my services, but ask advice on some "budget" options.

So a while back I posted a link to it on some forum - This dude was checking out an operation that I KNOW for a FACT to be a fraud (phony gear lists, even more phony audio samples).

I said something like "just be careful" and added a link. A few posts later, some guy is accusing me of trying to scam people into using MM by scaring them away from anyone else. He said that my site looked just as "fishy" as anything I was trying to warn people about.

And I suppose the point was to be cautious about almost anything on the net, but geez...

Well, i'm in a little bit of a same boat. There is a company in Germany Called TurtleTone Productions. A little fishy if you ask me. TurtleTone as one word with both T's in caps. First of all it's a freak name to begin with. There was once a company called Turtletone Guitars from tempe arizona, which is where i'm from. but he's not longer in business. But anyway, two TurtleTones is one too many if you ask me. They just registered the name in october. I emailed them several times with no response.

About 10 years ago, there was a studio in Minnisota that had me listed as the chief engineer. One day I was approached by a guy and he said that he was going to be mixing with me at so and so studio. I of coarse didn't know what he was talking about so I kept talking to him. sure enough on their website, they had me listed as their chief engineer. I called them up and asked to book a mix session with me at their studio. I asked to talk to me to go over some details. Of coarse I wasn't available to talk. I requested that me call me when I have a free moment, when they asked my name I told them my name. The next day I wasn't chief engineer anymore.

My point is, if you find someone riding on your shoulders wrongly, let us know and we'll flood them with email's and phone calls.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: I called them up and asked to book a mix session with me at their studio. I asked to talk to me to go over some details. Of coarse I wasn't available to talk. I requested that me call me when I have a free moment, when they asked my name I told them my name. The next day I wasn't chief engineer anymore.

See, if you just kept yourself more accessible, you'd have had a much happier relationship with yourself. Sorry to hear about getting canned ;)

Seriously though, that's pretty messed up. I wonder how long the average "fake ID" lasts out there before getting caught (and how much money is stolen because of it)?