You attitude, while essentially correct, is that of a top F1 mechanic dissing SCCA amateur racers for building their own cars. Very little of what they do "matters" in a commercial sense, and nobody gets killed in a five song pileup caused by someone's home studio mastering errors. Meanwhile they are making all the mistakes that lead to a deeper understanding of the process. Though few will ever be real mastering engineers some will come to have an increased respect for the profession. They are your future clients. Chill and let the people have their fun.

I was not saying that they should not have their fun, I was pointing out that mastering quality is directly proportional to the accuracy of the room and the monitors within them. When was the last time you saw a set of near field monitors capable of the broadband response necessary to do good mastering? When, indeed was the last time you saw a home/project studio with a control room that was (at least) 30 feet deep? Without these minimum requirements they cannot hear in the low frequencies necessary to trust any adjustments they may wish to make below—let us say—30Hz - 60Hz. Even with a good subwoofer combined with some high-end near field monitors the small size of such a room will not permit any level of accuracy worthy of the name.

Btw, I am not a mastering engineer myself—although my many years of experience probably would allow me to do a credible job. I began life as a musician/writer/composer and I became interested in recording. This interest led me into audio, and this (of course) left me with a desire to build my own facility. I designed and built a room that looked beautiful but was an acoustical nightmare. Being the kind of person that I am this poor outcome forced me to discover exactly why it was that I had failed. I went back to university and (eventually) earned a PhD in physics thereby leading me into becoming an acoustician and studio designer. However, I simply cannot get audio out of my blood and I still maintain my own studio. When I do an album project rather than mastering them myself I make use of several different mastering labs (even though my control room is both big enough and my monitors broadband enough to master should I desire to do so) because it gives me the much needed advantage of a fresh set of ears that might hear things my closeness to a project may forbid me to be easily aware of.

I hope that the kids in this forum will indeed try to do some of their own mastering because it is almost certain to teach them the lesson that it cost me many thousands of dollars to learn...

Paramadman :wink:

I'm curious as to what prompted this post to begin with...?

Good thread though and I share your dream while doing other things to survive. Family and parenting has kept me from diving in full time again. Back in the day when I was full time however, the business was thriving and money was never a problem.
I want to lease a building, partner up with another engineer and do it again but fear the worst as the passion burns inside me. I own all my gear this time round so it wouldn't be difficult to make it work if there was in fact people prepared to pay us. So I like this thread indeed.

I echo moonbaby, what sparked your thread?
Do you really need a 30 ft deep room for mastering?

"Do you really need a 30 ft deep room for mastering? " LOL!!!!!
I thought that , too, until I reread it as ...CUBIC feet. I feel your pain, Chris.

lol, that one had me in "deep" thought. Thanks for clearing that one up moon!

"Damnit, Jim, I'm a musician, not a mathematician!"

I think he really means 30' deep. And I suspect he's got good reason.

OK. I was going by the 1500 cubic ft comment at the earlier part of the thread.

Ya, this must be based on how many feet it takes for low freq waves to complete a cycle but I'm sure there are many top notch mastering rooms that aren't 30' deep, yes?

It could be that and/or inverse square law. Bigger room means reflections travel farther, attenuate more and affect the listening area less. Plus with enough time separation the ear can begin to hear them as echoes rather than a phase effect.

moonbaby, post: 385853 wrote: "Damnit, Jim, I'm a musician, not a mathematician!"

I try to be both, but that's damned funny!

To the OP: (and indirectly to the many high quality mastering houses that post here.) I'll repeat an earlier question: who is this post really aimed at? The shoestring amateurs who send their terrible mixes off to the master-by-numbers houses? You can't turn their chicken droppings into chicken salad, and you can't compete on price with the people who ... compost the chicken droppings. Can you really claim that they will benefit financially from hiring you?

I guess the bigger problem is guys like me. I've had stuff mastered by pros and I know the difference that it can make. (In that sense I absolutely agree with your post.) But in most cases it is a pure vanity purchase. If I do work for a children choir, or a church band, or a group that' going to sell CDs at gigs there is no way that the difference in quality of the disc - which will absolutely be there - will pay for itself. So for those people for whom it isn't financially advantageous to pay for a mastering house I slap a limiter on the mix; bring the rms level up to something below squashed to hell and live with the results. (Mostly complaints from people who notice that its not as loud as the other songs on their mix tape.)

Bottom line: Other than the really uneducated (who probably can't benefit from your services) most of the rest of us completely buy your argument that you can make our CDs sound better. How about trying to make the argument that you can make our CDs more profitable.

"CDs More Profitable"?????

Dammit Jim, I'm a mathematician not a MAGICIAN!

BobRogers, post: 385862 wrote:

Bottom line: Other than the really uneducated (who probably can't benefit from your services) most of the rest of us completely buy your argument that you can make our CDs sound better. How about trying to make the argument that you can make our CDs more profitable.

man, did you ever nail that one.

I do agree with this. The sad fact though, is that I've sent songs in progress to some of my friends (the mass market - no real interest in anything about music, have no problem listening to music on laptop speakers, etc) with a single repeating drum loop, since I use that instead of a metronome. Threw a couple cymbals when the chorus comes in, and no one even noticed the drums.

So if they're missing that much of the picture, then I doubt they'll pick up much on a REAL mastered vs home mastered song. I realize this is an extreme example, but there are many who don't care.

I do agree though. I am trying to just step into the realm of listening well. I got a nice pair of headphones and I am actually excited when I get to put them on to listen to my favorite songs. What baffles me is that some of these pop hits, big bands recording professionally, have noticeable clipping in some of their songs. How the hell does that happen with all that money?

The music industry is a joke

Once in a while I buy a top 40 CD for a sound reference. Recently I bought Katy Perry's CD, I just had to hear how it sounded through my lush system. I mean, how many million has she sold, right! Its got to sound stellar. And her songs sound pretty good on radio stations.

Wow, I imported a few tracks into my DAW and was horrified to see and hear how smashed and terrible these tracks sound. I couldn't ruin songs that bad in good conscience. They are the worst example of top 40 music I have ever heard. I would expect this from an amateur Mastering Engineer but not something that has sold millions of copies and attracted so much worldwide music attention. Did the mastering house really do this? OMG! duh

What gets me is how come they sound better than most tracks on the radio but the CD sounds this bad? The bloody CD sounds like an MP3. Are we so conditioned to compressed music that we don't even notice music this poorly mastered on the air anymore? Now I'm worried.

So you know what I think. I probably should sell all my gear and buy a boat. What a joke this industry has turned into.

The 80's is where sound quality stopped and something very terrible happened. Who is running this business?

Don't give up yet audiokid! Just try and help the new generation! You can start by commenting on my thread in the HSR forum on where to place my broadband panels ;)

And I wonder if her songs sound good on radio stations because they don't need any more smashed compression beyond their original state? I heard an old Jack Johnson song on the radio once and that was SMASHED. It sounded so bad.

How about the new sattelite radios compared to FM?

Paramadman, post: 385838 wrote:
5.) A topnotch mastering lab has been CORRECTLY wired electrically and thereby bring system noise down close to theoretical limits.

Working ITB is the only way to get noise down to "theoritical limits" these days.

Paramadman, post: 385838 wrote:
6.) Home/project studios cannot begin to afford the necessary equipment. Plugins will (generally speaking) prove incapable of doing the job.

Horseshit.

double post

Accidental double post...

Paramadman

audiokid, post: 385848 wrote: Good thread though and I share your dream while doing other things to survive. Family and parenting has kept me from diving in full time again. Back in the day when I was full time however, the business was thriving and money was never a problem.
I want to lease a building, partner up with another engineer and do it again but fear the worst as the passion burns inside me. I own all my gear this time round so it wouldn't be difficult to make it work if there was in fact people prepared to pay us. So I like this thread indeed.

I echo moonbaby, what sparked your thread?
Do you really need a 30 ft deep room for mastering?

Yes. A room needs a minimum depth of 30' if you wish full development of low frequency waves within it...

Paramadman

IIRs, post: 385973 wrote: Working ITB is the only way to get noise down to "theoritical limits" these days.

Horseshit.

Precisely. This is just what you'll get if you decide to "master" a project in a room that is too small and using a mixer that is not specially souped up for mastering. Go to Primal Gear and find out the cost of a mastering console and get back to me in the morning...

Paramadman

BobRogers, post: 385860 wrote: I try to be both, but that's damned funny!

I am both and it's even funnier than you imply...

Paramadman :smile:

moonbaby, post: 385855 wrote: OK. I was going by the 1500 cubic ft comment at the earlier part of the thread.

1500 cubic feet is about the minimum volume one needs to build a control room for a project studio that has enough room to place the necessary number of acoustical treatments to make it work. The primary problem--even in a room of this size--will be in the low and low-mid frequencies. You will need to understand how to properly shoot the room and to identify modal incongruities sufficiently well to know where to place the necessary treatments. Those so-called "foam bass traps" are purest crap--as is any attempt to control low frequency modes with "fuzzy" absorbers placed against a wall or in a corner. O.C. 705 semi-rigid fiberglass boards have more than three times the mass of those foam toys yet it would take 4' of them stacked one on top of the other to completely absorb a 90Hz wave. To tame low frequency nodes in such a space will require the construction of CORRECTLY built Helmholtz resonators, or the use of polycylindrical units otherwise the types of treatments that would actually help would require too much room. For instance, in pro rooms I've designed I've surrounded the space with 4' deep bass traps and then used angled partitions and QRD or primitive root diffusers to add reflected sound back into the room. However, do keep in mind that this 1500 cubic foot rule is not a firm number as poor ratio's of length to height to width can cause problems so large that you'd run out of room for your gear if you attempted to treat it acoustically to make it 'flat enough'.

There is far more to building a proper recording space than most engineers without years of experience are aware of and if you lack the mathematics chops and understanding of physics necessary for the job it will pay to hire a pro because the only thing more expensive than building a studio correctly is to make the common mistakes most newbies make, be forced to tear it down and hire the pro to rebuild it for you correctly...

Paramadman :smile:

Guys, guys, the real problem is inexperience and not the rooms. A good engineer knows how to listen. A good engineer knows how to tweak. A good engineer knows their room. And a good engineer will generally have professional grade equipment. Professional grade could imply hardware and/or software. And generally a hybrid use thereof. But if you know your monitors, they're adequate. And most of us don't have a single pair of monitors for our reference. We have multiple pairs. Yes I think you need a room of 30 feet when dealing with sound at 1100 ft./s and some low frequency waves a half a block long. Remember, you can hear those guys with their boom boom car stereos coming from 3 blocks away. So maybe a proper Mastering Studio should be three blocks long internally? I think that's rather impractical. So instead of three blocks lets just say 30 feet? Simply because few people can afford a dwelling three blocks long for proper low-frequency propagation. And how does mastering make a difference with car stereos like those average morons have? They only need a 60 Hz bruise.

And that's why nobody cares about mastering anymore.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Paramadman, post: 385838 wrote: Although there are many tools now available...

I disagree entirely, but you don't seem to be here for a debate. Just one question: have you ever heard a home-mastered piece that you enjoyed?

I sure have. I love my own Mastering. No, I'm not Doug Sax or Bernie Grudman or any of those other guys. And there are just as many ways to Master a recording as there are selections of microphones to choose from. So it's not what you've got but what you do with it that counts. So the first thing in my Mastering arsenal is ears, brains and experience and then there's the equipment. Master is as Master does. And I am a Master at audio, whatever it is, any kind, it doesn't matter. I don't only have one particular specialty in the recording arts and sciences along with the broadcast industry. I think to be a good Mastering Engineer you also have to understand what the processing chain is in the radio stations and TV stations. If you don't know what they are doing and you don't know what they have, then you don't know. Most folks know that multi-band spectral processing is utilized both in Mastering and Broadcasting. And too much of a good thing can be, well, too much of a good thing. But when it's really really good, it still comes through most anything better than most everything. Sometimes people have remarked that my Mastering sounds like an FM broadcast. Really? I wonder why?

First-class FCC radiotelephone license since 1979
Mx. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD, post: 386780 wrote: I sure have. I love my own Mastering...

First-class FCC radiotelephone license since 1979
Mx. Remy Ann David

Hey, I love your outlook.

It seems to me that most folks here are advanced pros. I've been mostly amateur for 30 years. One thing you and I share though, is slight arrogance, because we feel by now we know of what we speak, and we have great faith in ourselves.

And, the good ears and brain. I knew from when I was a kid that I was gifted in these departments. As well as enjoying music, I always wanted to pick apart why it sounded the way it did. I don't expect to get much beyond amateur, plus, I don't have the time, money or gear to mimic the pros. But I can still apply what I do have, and my aim is true. And even I have a reasonable chance of pleasing clients.

The opening attitude of this thread reminds me that yes, some pros need to have that "stratospheric" attention to detail, but 99% of the rest of the world doesn't care that much.

And another angle - I'm really not interested in doing any work I don't love - hence my amateur status. It's about the music in the end, for me. For example, I've been listening to some old cassette releases from Africa, and they could hardly sound worse. But the music is stunning, and all is instantly forgiven.

Oh, Chris, I think you are right again. Yup, I guess I am a bit arrogant? And while I've been doing this all of my life, for a living, I don't think there is anything unprofessional about not being a total and complete professional prostitute. There are certain kinds of musical genres I simply refuse to work with/on. Sure, I've engineered all of that stuff until I decided not to anymore. And to me, while it might be somewhat financially limiting, professionally, it's called integrity. You can't endorse or work on things you don't believe in. It would be hypocritical to do so and there are a lot of hypocrites out there starving anyhow. So they can do it and financially benefit by it but I won't. That simply means you have to do more video instead which I do. I think most of us here can also make that claim? Audio guys may not know when the blacks of the video look a little crushed. But we sure as heck know when the video guys get their picture right, their audio is frequently crushed, blasé, generally awful. So perhaps people with 100% hearing impairments might know that the blacks are crushed, us and all of our fellow vision impaired family and friends definitely know when we get it right. And that makes us a majority, over the video guys. Just because video killed the Radio Star doesn't mean we should all believe that. So regardless of the musical genre and whether you do it or not, I still appreciate good engineering of sound for musical genres I still refuse to work with. And that's OK and perfectly professional when you have your own standards to follow. So Chris, there's nothing I think is amateurish about your quest for the ultimate decibel. In fact, I find you more of a professional because of that, with great integrity. But then, you're Canadian... and I expect that from you. Americans not so much so.

My mommy didn't sing no rock 'n roll and daddy played his fiddle all night.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Yes...I, too, have to take exception to this thread.

I've been professionally mastering out of my home for 4 years. Prior to that, I spent six years learning as much as I could on the subject.
The bottom line is that my clients are happy, their listeners are happy and I'm happy they're happy.

Well I figure I'll weigh in on this... .

The fact of the matter is there is going to be such a small population (if any) of people listening to music on Hi-Fi systems that there is absolutely no reason for paying big bucks for professional mastering unless ofcourse some corporate entity is backing it with their own bread. And if thats the case then your probably already compromising your artistic freedom.

Lossy formats dominate the industry no matter if its top 40 or a neighborhood mixtape.

Creating a product that sounds great in your poject studio and great in your car is what its about. Does it make any sense to take what already sounds good and pay big bucks to have it "tweaked" only to take it and convert it into a squashed mp3 for the masses? Take all the money your wasting on expensive mastering and save it, instead of needing to recoup that cost. . knock a couple bucks of your cd. Thats what will sell your cd...

I master my own stuff in my humble home studio simply because it's fun. Few bedroom engineers are doing it for any other reason. "Few", not "all". I've also read it's not possible to master records in Alabama anyway because of the humidity, but maybe I read wrong. Just kidding, don't flame me.

For a lot of bedroom engineers, mastering their own stuff is simply part of the process and is another aspect to the art and discipline of making records - for whatever reason. Usually just for friends and fun, right. Of course. Then there are those who discover they really love the mastering part of the whole deal and strike out to further make it a discipline and see where it goes.

Live, Love, and Record.

MrMojoRison, post: 388015 wrote: Well I figure I'll weigh in on this... .

The fact of the matter is there is going to be such a small population (if any) of people listening to music on Hi-Fi systems that there is absolutely no reason for paying big bucks for professional mastering unless ofcourse some corporate entity is backing it with their own bread. And if thats the case then your probably already compromising your artistic freedom.

Lossy formats dominate the industry no matter if its top 40 or a neighborhood mixtape.

Creating a product that sounds great in your poject studio and great in your car is what its about. Does it make any sense to take what already sounds good and pay big bucks to have it "tweaked" only to take it and convert it into a squashed mp3 for the masses? Take all the money your wasting on expensive mastering and save it, instead of needing to recoup that cost. . knock a couple bucks of your cd. Thats what will sell your cd...

There you go, and this is exactly where the music industry is headed.

Depends on the scope of your project. A project for release on the Sony label for a band with hit records... I'd use a real mastering engineer. A project for local release with limited budget, I'd do it in myself. Then again, I've been doing this quite awhile and have several other engineers here to give opinions.

Thought I would chime in. As a Mastering Engineer for many years now the biggest problems I see is number 1 poorly gained tracks and number 2 poorly EQ'd tracks. Even if your EQ and Compression is spot on (rare in home mastering) if your gain is low, high, or inconsistent then you are going to have a poor product. Mastering isn't about the pride of the Engineer. It is about us in the music industry producing and providing a quality product. If you want to make your CDs more profitable then make them sound better, give your customers (fans) the best product available to you and yes that does mean professional mastering. To my clients I equate it to playing the piano. I'm no Pianist, sure I know all the notes, and can even play them in time and in order but is is my performance going to compare to a professional Pianist ? No because it is the sometime very subtle nuances that the professional Pianist provides that makes his a far superior performance. The same is true with Mastering.

Is it possible to master at home and save money? yes it is. Should you do it for your project ? just like I tell my clients, Look at the total cost of the project. Is it in your budget ? Are you going to sell it enough to pay for it? If the answer is yes then you absolutely should be using professional Mastering. If the answer is no then you have to ask a few additional questions : Is this project of great importance to me ? Is this the sound I want to be represented by ? (i.e. am I sending out a demo for industry consideration ) or is this just something to get me in the door of the bar down the street. You have to look at the big picture when making any decision. Too many people discount the need for mastering and it is much to their loss and the loss of their customers (fans) . There is NO reason that we should not be like any other industry in the world, always striving to provide the best possible product at a price that is both reasonable and profitable.

And just in case anyone is wondering for the "30 ft room" a 36Hz wave takes 30.555 Ft to complete one cycle. 20Hz @ 55 Feet , and 20kHz @17 millimeters.

I think someone just plain missed the fact that he posted in the "Project Studios, Newbies, Home Recording" category, the very point of which is to give people without "real" budgets, "real" studios and "real" expectations of commercial viability a place to discuss how to record and master their stuff. There's nothing wrong with the pros pointing out the pitfalls, but saying people shouldn't DIY because it limits the ability to sell product completely misses the point.

Why can't the DIY person have "real" expectations of commercial viability ? I have heard many many mixes done by the DIY person that were outstanding mixes. but even outstanding mixes still need to be mastered and brought to an industry standard level and quality. This is not possible for most project studios, newbies, or home recorders. Mastering does not have to be an event that requires a second mortgage on the house. Everyone should have a real budget for every project that they undertake. It doesn't have to be a huge budget but you need to know where your money is going to be spent and that is even more important for the DIY person who may not have a lot to invest in a project. In order to Properly Master your project it takes time, skill, and the proper equipment which is not cheap and is generally out of the range of the DIY'er. I personally don't support the "Mastering Mills" I think Mastering should be done by someone who is willing to put in the time and effort not only on the project itself but with the client to produce a high quality , industry standard work.

DIY is great I do almost of my home repairs are DIY but when it comes to electrical I know my limitations and it is time to call in a professional. Will it cost me more, yes it will but I have the pice of mind knowing my project is is being handled with my best interests in mind and the result will be a high quality job that is beyond my capabilities.

Im not say Don't do DIY Mastering, I am saying know when it is right to do DIY mastering and when its right to have your work professionally mastered.

Katalyst_Studios, post: 388558 wrote: Why can't the DIY person have "real" expectations of commercial viability ?

I'm not saying they can't, I'm saying they generally don't and that should be respected. For them it's not a profession, it's an avocation. Those that rise to professional status will figure out the value of professional mastering without having to be told and the rest won't care.

Why can't the DIY person have "real" expectations of commercial viability ?

If they go through the same steps -- Similar experience, similar gear, similar spaces, similar skills, then they should have those same expectations.

If I use the same tools and techniques to detail my car as the guys who do it for a living, I'll probably be pretty happy with the job -- although the pro detailer will undoubtedly do a better, more thorough and faster job than I will, as he has the experience necessary to actually make a living at it -- He'll get RID of the swirl marks instead of making them worse, he knows which types of wax are better for which types of finishes, how much and what sort of rubbing compound to use on a finish in [X] condition, how much pressure when applying, how long to leave it sit, etc., etc., etc.

I, on the other hand, will buy a "detail kit" from the car parts store and spend all afternoon getting my car to look "pretty nice." Fine if I just want my car to look nice - But if I'm entering it in a show, prepping it for sale, putting it up against a bunch of other well-detailed vehicles, I'll just bring it to the guy on the corner with the weird sign out front.