didn't read all the responses, but mastering should cost as much as the recording, done deal

bouldersound, post: 388560 wrote: 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.

DIY doesn't mean Do it with out knowledge. The point I am trying to make is people should be able to make an Informed decision as to whether professional Mastering is right for their project. The fact remains that to produce an Industry Standard Master requires having the proper tools, equipment, and expertise (not just experience) and that is out of the relm of the DIY'er. If the project requires industry standard specifications then professional Mastering is needed. I think the real issue here isn't should I Master but how should I choose a good Mastering Engineer, but again it falls back to the needs of the project.

I think one of the points of interest here has not been mentioned at all? We know that most of us professional folks that have been doing this for many years have either learned from our mentors or in professional situations at other respectable studios. Some of us have really benefited when we were younger, from learning from the pros. Because the cost of education in this field can be quite pricey and since these folks who are new at it have invested a sizable chunk of change (at least in their minds) it would behoove them to at least book a single session from their closest respectable Mastering Engineer where they can be present for the mastering session. It's a huge education that only costs as much as the mastering session which is way less than enrolling in an academic institution. There is so much to be learned by doing it that way at least once. So while many of us Master our own projects for many of our clients and since they want to learn how to do it well, it's about the cheapest education they can invest in.

You learn from teachers and pros which have no real cons.
Mx. Remy Ann David

In the context of this forum a topic about how home studio mastering is a bad idea completely misses the point.

While I agree that this thread doesn't belong in the Home Mastering Forum (for reasons I gave earlier) I'll go along with the flow. There have been two arguments in favor of Pro mastering that I think are in conflict. Argument (A) is that Pro mastering will make your CD sound better than DIY mastering. Argument (B) is that Pro mastering will make your CD more "comercially viable." The problem is that most people are using an "underpants gnome" version of argument (B):

Step 1. Pro Mastering
Step 2. ????
Step 3. Profits!

The big problem here is that while there may be a lot of ways of filling in Step 2, we all know the big one -

Step 2. Pro Mastering house squashes the hell out of your CD and makes it the loudest song on Clear Channel radio.

You can protest all you want, but we all know lots of examples. If your argument for Pro mastering is really, "we can make bricks of sound better than you can make bricks of sound" (which I fully believe to be true) say it and own it. Of course, if you have a better way of filling in Step 2, where there is some market where beautiful, balanced, dynamic mixes lead to Step 3! I'd be even more interested.

Very well said Bob, the only thing I disagree with is that this shouldn't be in the DIY. I think it could have been worded better for the DIY but it is important that people know and understand the implications and pitfalls of DIY Mastering. Mastering is a specialist activity that should only be taken on by the DIY in certain circumstances. I think the (poorly worded) gist of this thread is that if you are not properly equipped and experienced then you should consider outsourcing your Mastering needs depending on the needs of YOUR project. I disagree with the blanket statement of " Home Studio Mastering Is A Terrible Idea" but do agree heavily with the idea that home studio mastering for a professional end user product is a bad idea. If it needs to be industry standard then I feel it should be professionally mastered. If it doesn't then that is a great time to be getting the DIY experience in home mastering.

As to your comment about the mastering houses, I think that statement is too broad as well. There are some amazing mastering houses out there. It is the mastering "mills" that i have a problem with. It seems to me a lot of those set the goal of product in - product out as quickly as possible rather than having the needs of the client or project at heart.

Katalyst_Studios, post: 388610 wrote: I disagree with the blanket statement of " Home Studio Mastering Is A Terrible Idea" but do agree heavily with the idea that home studio mastering for a professional end user product is a bad idea. If it needs to be industry standard then I feel it should be professionally mastered.

What people in the professional world of music probably don't realize is that there's a whole world of amateurs out there who don't care about your ideas of commercial success or industry standards. They don't care about, or even flatly reject, the idea of getting airplay. They are creating a grass roots culture that doesn't need or want to break into your version of the business. They are eroding the establishment's stranglehold on creativity and will eventually replace it with something different.

Of course physics can't be changed by culture, but you have to let the process run its course. They will find their own solutions to the problems of mastering, some of which will be the same as yours but some you can't even imagine because your training and experience drive you toward the same old "industry standard" solutions. This is not the place for rigid application of standards however technically correct, it's the place for trial and error that leads to learning and innovation.

bouldersound, post: 388612 wrote: What people in the professional world of music probably don't realize is that there's a whole world of amateurs out there who don't care about your ideas of commercial success or industry standards. They don't care about, or even flatly reject, the idea of getting airplay. They are creating a grass roots culture that doesn't need or want to break into your version of the business. They are eroding the establishment's stranglehold on creativity and will eventually replace it with something different.

As I've said several time now if the DIY doesn't want an Industry Standard then they by all means should do their own mastering. How ever with out an industry standard even if the project is selected for label consideration, radio airplay, film, tv or any other for of mass media it will REQUIRE Industry Standard Specifications. If it is not at the Industry Standard then it will have to be brought to the industry standard and the cost of doing so often back charged or taken out of any payment for the project often at a rate higher than you would have paid to begin with. Industry Standards exist so that projects can be incorporated into other venues of release. Shure there are a lot of people out there doing their own thing and if you can find another group doing the same thing you are great on you. But again it is about knowing the pro's and con's and selecting what is right for you and your project. Blanket statements on BOTH sides of the argument are plain wrong.

Whoosh!

It sounds like you were into home studio mastering, and got really into it. And now you are a lauded professional in the acoustics realm. I was wondering about getting into home studio mastering, my space is smaller than is required, by the 30' deep thing. Could the distance be made less with a bass travel that folds back on itself a couple times. Kind of like the b&w nautilus?

The Nautilus is an absolutely amazing design and Abby Road swears by them but it doesn't change the given standard. It will still take a 36Hz wave 30.5' to complete one full cycle. but as with anything in mastering it is all about producing the highest quality for any given project. Mastering for some High Definition games with that (earth rattling rumble) requires working with lower frequencies than say mastering for CD. You need do define what projects you will be working on and equip yourself for that. If you are not going to be mastering for high end projects such as high definition movies and games you will not need the capabilities to do so. If you are mastering (or remastering) sound fx for console games or mobile applications you are going to be on the other end of the spectrum dealing with a much narrower band of frequencies. To give you an idea @20Hz the wavelength is 55' and @20kHz it is only .055'

Good thread.

Are people actually trying to produce music below 40hz? I roll everything off below that, if not higher. How does it sound in a studio that long? I mean, what is different between a studio 55' long apposed to 30'? I'm trying to imagine if it just sounds clearer and tighter or what?

I assume 36Hz wave 30.5' needs to be that high as well?

I mastered my bands demo album. A friend gave it to someone at their office to listen. Turns out that coworker was the wife of a president of a local record label. They hired me to master their next single. I had no intention of doing it for a living and I still don't. But I said sure... and I did it. It sold over 125k on itunes in one week. They hired me to do their next few singles with more planned to come later. They commented on how they were paying hundreds of dollars for a mastering studio in Atlanta and mine sounded just as good or better and I only charged them 40 bucks each and I was faster. I don't advertise and I don't seek out mastering jobs. They came to me after hearing my work. They never asked me how I did it and didn't care. Through word of mouth I've had the chance to master more songs with more repeat customers.

What did I use? A $300 HP laptop running Adobe Audition 3.0 and two low end powered monitors. I set them up on a portable table in the middle of my living room and used several different types of headphones, the house entertainment speakers, and the monitors. I took the laptop to my wifes car and plugged it into the stereo. Then I did the same to my car. I hauled the laptop and speakers to various rooms and locations around the house. Once I had it sounding good on all the options, I hit save and sent them the file.

I figure not ONE person buying their singles will listen to the song in a mastering studio. But they WILL listen to it on iPods, in their cars, on their laptops and in their home entertainment system. So I mastered the music to sound good on those and it doesn't take a mastering studio to do that.

The song may sound horrible in a major mastering studio... but that's not the intended target and not why they're paying me. So what's the point?

In the end, it doesn't matter where it was mastered... What matters is how it sounds to the listener on the equipment they are using to listen. Currently, the standards are radio (compressed and squashed), mp3 (compressed and squashed) or CD... 16bit and usually compressed and squashed to sound like radio. So paying thousands of dollars to have a mastered song that sounds awesome in a specially designed room is actually a waste of money the very second it's sent to radio, stuck on an iPod or burned to a CD.

If square pegs are the best sounding quality you can hear... but the standard listening device is a round hole... where is the cost incentive to pay thousands for a square peg you'll end up smashing into a round hole, when there's a guy who'll charge an honest price for giving you a great sound in the shape of a round hole?

But that's just the view of someone who's not in the business on purpose, couldn't care if I get another mastering job and only got the gig in the first place because they liked the way my songs sounded and not the sales speech I gave them or how much my gear cost.

tracerbullet, post: 388901 wrote: I mastered my bands demo album. A friend gave it to someone at their office to listen. Turns out that coworker was the wife of a president of a local record label. They hired me to master their next single. I had no intention of doing it for a living and I still don't. But I said sure... and I did it. It sold over 125k on itunes in one week. They hired me to do their next few singles with more planned to come later. They commented on how they were paying hundreds of dollars for a mastering studio in Atlanta and mine sounded just as good or better and I only charged them 40 bucks each and I was faster. I don't advertise and I don't seek out mastering jobs. They came to me after hearing my work. They never asked me how I did it and didn't care. Through word of mouth I've had the chance to master more songs with more repeat customers.

What did I use? A $300 HP laptop running Adobe Audition 3.0 and two low end powered monitors. I set them up on a portable table in the middle of my living room and used several different types of headphones, the house entertainment speakers, and the monitors. I took the laptop to my wifes car and plugged it into the stereo. Then I did the same to my car. I hauled the laptop and speakers to various rooms and locations around the house. Once I had it sounding good on all the options, I hit save and sent them the file.

I figure not ONE person buying their singles will listen to the song in a mastering studio. But they WILL listen to it on iPods, in their cars, on their laptops and in their home entertainment system. So I mastered the music to sound good on those and it doesn't take a mastering studio to do that.

The song may sound horrible in a major mastering studio... but that's not the intended target and not why they're paying me. So what's the point?

In the end, it doesn't matter where it was mastered... What matters is how it sounds to the listener on the equipment they are using to listen. Currently, the standards are radio (compressed and squashed), mp3 (compressed and squashed) or CD... 16bit and usually compressed and squashed to sound like radio. So paying thousands of dollars to have a mastered song that sounds awesome in a specially designed room is actually a waste of money the very second it's sent to radio, stuck on an iPod or burned to a CD.

If square pegs are the best sounding quality you can hear... but the standard listening device is a round hole... where is the cost incentive to pay thousands for a square peg you'll end up smashing into a round hole, when there's a guy who'll charge an honest price for giving you a great sound in the shape of a round hole?

But that's just the view of someone who's not in the business on purpose, couldn't care if I get another mastering job and only got the gig in the first place because they liked the way my songs sounded and not the sales speech I gave them or how much my gear cost.

Wow, is that not a reality check.
tracerbullet, I would love to hear this song! Could you please share a link?

audiokid I have tried to just give the facts on wavelength to give an idea of why people were using it as a reference. When we were all using massive monitor arrays seated in the middle of a big empty space 15 feet from our speakers we needed a room that would allow the wave forms of low frequencies to "rap out" before reflecting and creating demonstrative interference as the reflected wave forms interacted with the directed waves. Now with the use of near field monitors where the monitors are typically 3 - 6 feet away being monitored at much lower levels the reflected wave forms are much less of an issue. A much larger issue I notice is improper speaker placement and even near field monitors being placed on the desk up against the wall allowing the low frequencies to reflect off of the front wall and kill the mix. Proper placement, Proper Pink, and Proper levels are far far more important than the length of a room.

tracerbullet, You mastered a track for iTunes that sold 125K copies in software that doesn't support the format iTunes uses ? I too would love to hear it.

Nowadays people are mixing at home and it sounds considerably amateur in many regards when compared to Dark Side of the Moon. Anyhow I am by no means any authority here to say anything so I will shut up now... Hold on... I am an amateur and I lack the PHD in physics etc. I am a Doctor of freak rebellion though... One thing I can say is that all music can be made better by others stepping into to either roles(mix/master) and adding to the sound scape. Today music is not going in the direction of mastering in my opinion... So much is being done on the general mix that it gives a mastering engineer very little to improve upon or rather should I say fix. I say very little to fix since their wave files are as square as my knowledge of physics. But one can use their ears and eyes to see that we are just killing our ears. So yes I agree that mastering should be done by someone else than the person who mixes the tracks. I also agree that others should learn to see why this is important and try to learn mastering techniques on their own too. However, today I don't feel that mastering music is worth as much as the mix. Hey it don't matter how you fix it in the mastering process when you can't even fix it in the mix. Learn how to mix correctly for it to be mastered correctly. To learn how to mix is to understand better how someone else will master your work.

p.s. Oh yeah foremost learn how to record the best you can so you don't even have to fix it in the mix!

The doctor sounds like one of those physics professors/rocket scientists/astronomers from the University of Arizona. It sounds like he really knows how to go to the moon and back if not further? He makes a lot of sense and I glean a lot from his responses. Trying to fix it in the mix is another expression we love to utilize called " Polishing Turds ". The best recordings come from the least use of gobbledygook plug-ins. You're not playing computer games. You're trying to make art and computers cannot create art in by themselves. It's one thing to tell the computer to create a fractal. But you still have to know the equation in which to enact that. I frequently master projects for which I have recorded for others. In no way am I like a Greg Calbi, Doug Sax, Bob Ludwig, Bernie Grubdman. Though I still know what I'm doing and can come up with a reasonable product. But that takes knowledge and experience and not some one button plug-in. That's BS marketing hype. It doesn't necessarily get you where you want to go with your product. We know that solid and liquid rocket engines can only get you so far. In Star Trek, they had warp & ion drive. Today, we have accomplished ion drive for some of our satellites. It's not yet quite ready for prime time drive. But we're getting closer. The same can be said for audio. Just because somebody wants to sell you plug-ins does not make you a Mastering Engineer. And everyone touts that their toilet paper is better than the others. So you test and compare for yourself. Though people do have catastrophic failures in that area LOL.

I like Charmin extra strong. Simply because I like to push the envelope.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Sure it's a bad idea, but I do it all the time, and I use variations of real-world junky speakers as reality checks. Sadly, that's what people listen to music through.

I use a hi-fi tube amp. A lot of people still like well mixed and mastered music. I know hundreds myself. Some people listen only to those junky formats. But it needs to be good in both formats, to appeal to a larger market, and to stand the test of time.

Sorry I've been away...

Friends,
I'm sorry that I've been gone from the forum for so long. I just wanted to add a thought to all of this and clear up any confusion my earlier posts might have created about my beliefs on what is truly important. What I offered about the physics of control room sound was purest truth, I stand by it, and these physics never change. However having Grammy winning sound is great, heck I've tried to make my living off of it, but not the true point unless you can define "success" as happily polishing the ego of the guy behind the console with no thought of or for the music. No matter how a recording sounds all that matters: repeat ALL that matters, is did you capture the moment or not? If you indeed did capture this magic "moment", then, despite all I said, it can sound like you recorded/mixed/mastered it in hells garage itself and you've still done your job. The true artistry of audio is to be found in the ability to hit the "stop" button and say the words "this is it!", "this is what this song, this artist, is about!", "no matter what else happens hereafter it will lessen the song--not better it" and be able to say this despite the (always) apparent imperfections.

Do you believe that the Beatles classic early records were made more magic by further refining of the sound alone..?

In the end nothing else matters but being able to truthfully answer the question,"did you capture that magic moment when they caught the feel of the song, the soul of words, with the monosyllable "yes". If you've caught this moment nothing further in refinement is absolutely necessary because its greatness will transcend any sonic weakness. If you've failed to capture it the attempt to fix this will force you to learn the impossibility of polishing a turd into diamond. It will smell the same no matter how much you shine it.

What is this moment and how do you catch it? A VERY good question. If I knew this all of the time perhaps it would have been ME (not Mr. Parsons) who cut "Dark Side of the Moon", however...

Although you can't define it you know the moment is caught when you capture the heart of the artist and the intent of the song, when the "feel" overpowers the impossible dream of sonic perfection and becomes a thing that breathes on its own. If this is not achieved give up or tell the band to start over and press record again because absolutely nothing you can do to enhance the sound will matter. No amount of acoustical treatment, no "perfect placement" of microphones, no room of theoretically "perfect acoustics" (can't exist anyway pilgrim, quantum mechanics kills your best effort), no clever use of compression, eq or "pick your plugin or brilliant audio hardware of the day" tweaked to sonic nirvana by the golden ears of an experienced recording or mastering engineer will EVER succeed in taking a crappy song, played by crappier players, written by even crappier writers and turn it into transcendent magic like that achieved on the aforementioned classic "Dark Side of the Moon". It was brilliantly recorded, but it would STILL be a great record if those same performances had been recorded in a garage by an untrained baboon. (Well, not really, but sometimes hyperbole is effective in giving one a higher truth at the expense of exactness! :wink:)

It was, is and always should be about the music. Good acoustics and good engineering practices just make the job of magician easier and (just sometimes) allows one to polish greatness to the blinding sheen it deserves...

Paramadman :smile:

good thread!
I also think about destructive consequences of 'home cooked' mastering,
as with anything 2 ends of a stick:),
I did started somehow with basics, but I think difference is,
I never mislead potential client/artist about PRO SERVICES, as many kids today do...
' super pro mastering studio with 99 quid monitors..:( c'mon ...
people have right to start their business model at home, garage, whatever,
what buggers me is misleading information about their equipment, skills experience and ability (online mastering)
I don't have a problem with beginners starting off from 0, quite opposite,
I also can say it's kind of outcome of western culture,
here everyone is 'the best', in uk, 60 mil people and there's nobody on second or third place:)
everyone is on position number 1
I am myself Eastern European, I was raised knowing what humble means,
it's really cultural thing, in my country saying you are the best was quite inappropriate,
it has changed though, new generations are same like here - being modest sucks:))
and this attitude you can see all over the place (Internet mostly), where every kiddo is a Mastering Engineer now
as someone above said - maybe 1 day few of them became one, who knows..

Yeah even Bob Katz's studio at Digital Domain is not 30 foot deep! What the hell?!!

first - hi all, am new here and have joined because i intend to only do home studio recording and publishing and so browse sites such as these looking for ways to improve what i do.

am specifically interested in techniques, equipment, etc that would help improve our recording experience and finished products. although i may frequently use i and my, i do mean my team and i.

on to this post, i've read the very healthy discussion but somehow the over-riding point that you will get quality product in a professional studio is a rather unnecessary statement. if everyone could afford prices for a professional studio, professional studio engineer, etc etc, they would already be there and therefore the question of home studio production and mastering would be a moot issue.

what i would be interested in knowing are the inhibiting parameters, potential solutions and work arounds that would produce satisfactory product.

in his opening post, paramadman states room size and associated acoustics, equipment, and the experience of a sound engineer amongst others. all these i cannot deny, however the reality is that there are thousands of musicians out there with excellent material that need good but inexpensive production.

it would therefore be awesome for experts such as found on this forum can provide guidelines, benchmarks and standards that would greatly improve and enhance both the production as well as listening enjoyment of the audience.

i think dismissing a concept such as home recording and home studio mastering only further surpresses talent and instead lends more power to the large corporation and record labels to dictate on their terms artistic taste depending on who is fortunate enough to be "discovered" accidental or force-fed. will be back later

SAY-Kay, post: 391652 wrote: f

I am specifically interested in techniques, equipment, etc that would help improve our recording experience and finished products. although i may frequently use i and my, i do mean my team and i.

on to this post, i've read the very healthy discussion but somehow the over-riding point that you will get quality product in a professional studio is a rather unnecessary statement. if everyone could afford prices for a professional studio, professional studio engineer, etc etc, they would already be there and therefore the question of home studio production and mastering would be a moot issue.

what i would be interested in knowing are the inhibiting parameters, potential solutions and work arounds that would produce satisfactory product.

in his opening post, paramadman states room size and associated acoustics, equipment, and the experience of a sound engineer amongst others. all these i cannot deny, however the reality is that there are thousands of musicians out there with excellent material that need good but inexpensive production.

it would therefore be awesome for experts such as found on this forum can provide guidelines, benchmarks and standards that would greatly improve and enhance both the production as well as listening enjoyment of the audience.

i think dismissing a concept such as home recording and home studio mastering only further suppresses talent and instead lends more power to the large corporation and record labels to dictate on their terms artistic taste depending on who is fortunate enough to be "discovered" accidental or force-fed. will be back later

If you want to do your own recording, mixing and mastering GREAT!!! just do it. I work with a lot of clients that do all their own recording and mixing work and let me do the mastering but if they want to do the mastering as well I say let them do it. Your last sentence "i think dismissing a concept such as home recording and home studio mastering only further suppresses talent and instead lends more power to the large corporation and record labels to dictate on their terms artistic taste depending on who is fortunate enough to be "discovered" accidental or force-fed. will be back later" shows some lack of understanding of the music business today.

I am sorry that your keyboard is broken and that you do not have a Shift Key anymore or are you just trying to be the new e.e. cummings?

Well said!

"I am sorry that your keyboard is broken and that you do not have a Shift Key anymore or are you just trying to be the new e.e. cummings?"

Ha ha. I notice a lot of malfunctioning keyboards these days!

Back on topic - It's music. I hear a lot of what would pass for poor mastering these days, but if the song is catchy, and the music is performed well, it just doesn't show up that much ... to me.

Thomas W. Bethel, post: 391661 wrote: If you want to do your own recording, mixing and mastering GREAT!!! just do it. I work with a lot of clients that do all their own recording and mixing work and let me do the mastering but if they want to do the mastering as well I say let them do it.

i like this type of flexibility

Thomas W. Bethel, post: 391661 wrote:
Your last sentence shows some lack of understanding of the music business today.

that could be true, and that's why am here on this forum to gain much better understanding

Thomas W. Bethel, post: 391661 wrote:
I am sorry that your keyboard is broken and that you do not have a Shift Key anymore

:biggrin:

just wanted to clarify, am not disregarding or otherwise disputing that the best sound is that from qualified engineers and production studios. some of us, like myself cannot afford these facilities but still want to produce music and need good solid pointers in fact i just came across and downloaded this free guide (you have to register to download) that does that exactly. it describes a typical home recording environment then proceeds to list the issues and possible workarounds or solutions

http://www.discmakers.com/request/Special_MPN.asp

page 7 of that guide talks about the typical home room acoustics, then there's recording techniques for a few select instruments and vocals, and towards the end is mixing and mastering guides.

etc, for guys like me this is very real and i would hope to build on that from forums such as this, where obviously there is tremendous expertise. specifically i would like to read on particular experiences with certain gear, or innovation etc that would enrich the materials from such guides.

anyway hope that helps

and oh wow

I just found the Shift Key and wait .... HERE IS THE CAPS KEY. have a good day folks

While I agree somewhat with PARAMADMAN, I've personally released records that have been mastered & mixed at HOME, and did fine.
The "average" listener hears no difference, when it's done correctly. The way technology is advancing now, the "old" way of mastering & mixing records in a huge studio with perfectly built rooms and monitors is becoming obsolete. (besides, record labels want quicker & cheaper turnaround with the records).

TeamMusicWhirl
[="http://www.musicwhirl.com"]MusicWhirl - Home[/]="http://www.musicwhi…"]MusicWhirl - Home[/]
[[url=http://="http://www.thesmith…"]The SMITH BRAND.com - About Us[/]="http://www.thesmith…"]The SMITH BRAND.com - About Us[/]

TeamMusicWhirl, post: 391862 wrote: While I agree somewhat with PARAMADMAN, I've personally released records that have been mastered & mixed at HOME, and did fine.
The "average" listener hears no difference, when it's done correctly. The way technology is advancing now, the "old" way of mastering & mixing records in a huge studio with perfectly built rooms and monitors is becoming obsolete. (besides, record labels want quicker & cheaper turnaround with the records).

TeamMusicWhirl
[="http://www.musicwhirl.com"]MusicWhirl - Home[/]="http://www.musicwhi…"]MusicWhirl - Home[/]
[[url=http://="http://www.thesmith…"]The SMITH BRAND.com - About Us[/]="http://www.thesmith…"]The SMITH BRAND.com - About Us[/]

I don't agree with your premise and

You get what you pay for...and if you do it on the cheap you get cheap results. I have yet to hear a DIY project that was recorded, mixed and mastered by one DIY person sound anything like a fully professional recording. Most DIY'ers convince themselves that it sounds better than it really is. If they are happy with crap then let them continue to put out crap. I am sure you have heard the story of the emperor's new clothes...suffice it to say that is what a lot of DIY people are let to believe.

FWIW and MTCW

re: Home Studio Mastering is a Terrible Idea

Thomas W. Bethel, post: 391871 wrote: I don't agree with your premise and

You get what you pay for...and if you do it on the cheap you get cheap results. I have yet to hear a DIY project that was recorded, mixed and mastered by one DIY person sound anything like a fully professional recording. Most DIY'ers convince themselves that it sounds better than it really is. If they are happy with crap then let them continue to put out crap. I am sure you have heard the story of the emperor's new clothes...suffice it to say that is what a lot of DIY people are let to believe.

FWIW and MTCW

Thomas, I've had numerous records mixed & mastered at super pricey studios, using the "best" engineers and the records did nothing! but on the other hand, a record mixed and mastered at home do great... It's all subjectively relative to the band, project, producer, artist, and ultimately the CONSUMER!
The sonic quality of records 70 years ago were CRAP, but they were able to capture the heart & essence of a recording, and the focus stayed on the emotion & performance. 10 years ago the focus was shifted to the process, thus (huge recording budgets, studios, gear, effects, etc...) and record completion turnaround times skyrocketed!
With the digitization of the music business, I believe we will see a paradigm shift back to the old days... (less quality, quicker turnaround, more emotion & performance, and less cost). Don't get me wrong, I love a sonically superior sounding record but, we as music professionals HAVE to change with and for the TIMES or we will have no place in the current time.

TeamMusicWhirl
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.musicwhi…"]MusicWhirl - Home[/]="http://www.musicwhi…"]MusicWhirl - Home[/]

TeamMusicWhirl, post: 391875 wrote: Thomas, I've had numerous records mixed & mastered at super pricey studios, using the "best" engineers and the records did nothing! but on the other hand, a record mixed and mastered at home do great... It's all subjectively relative to the band, project, producer, artist, and ultimately the CONSUMER!
The sonic quality of records 70 years ago were CRAP, but they were able to capture the heart & essence of a recording, and the focus stayed on the emotion & performance. 10 years ago the focus was shifted to the process, thus (huge recording budgets, studios, gear, effects, etc...) and record completion turnaround times skyrocketed!
With the digitization of the music business, I believe we will see a paradigm shift back to the old days... (less quality, quicker turnaround, more emotion & performance, and less cost). Don't get me wrong, I love a sonically superior sounding record but, we as music professionals HAVE to change with and for the TIMES or we will have no place in the current time.

TeamMusicWhirl
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.musicwhi…"]MusicWhirl - Home[/]="http://www.musicwhi…"]MusicWhirl - Home[/]

As my mentor once told me, paraphrasing Bill Clinton, "it's the music, stupid". Yes it is all about the music. If you don't have good music all the fancy hardware and software in the world will not make it into a good song that people will relate to. OTOH if you have a GREAT song but it is full of hum, distortion, weird EQ and is compressed flatter than a pancake it also will not "make it". I see posts all the time over at GS. "I took my stuff to a top studio or a top mastering engineer and they ruined my music so I took it home and I mixed it or mastered it and now it sounds GREAT" They never tell what "top studio" or "top mastering engineer" they took their music to but be assured it was a top tier operation.

Those statements are so much BS. What the poster of that factoid fails to tell the other readers of the forum is that their stuff was garbage and no one, including top tier studios or mastering engineers could make it sound they way they thought it should sound so they did it themselves and convinced themselves that now it IS GREAT.

I understand that with the current technology it is possible for someone in their bedroom or basement studio to do things that 20 years ago would have taken a large studio and lots of expensive equipment to produce. As I said in a earlier post some of this self produced music sounds GREAT and is well done and ready for mastering. My DIY clients do a GREAT job of recording and mixing but they also realize that to put the finishing touches on a album they need to bring it to a professional who has the gear and the experience to make it sound GREAT!

To each his or her own. If doing everything yourself works for you then do it. The world is at your doorstep so use the technology to make it what you want it to be.

Best of luck and I wish you nothing but success!!!

wtf?

Reading this thread made me want to join.

Very apparent the OP is projecting his short comings/ inabilities in regards to engineers/ mastering.

As said, if you know what you're doing, know thy monitors, etc... you CAN home master with excellent result.

Furthermore, who sez everything has to be "mastered"?

It just amazes me how "mastering " has turned into this mystical ju ju art these days. (Laughable)
That's not what mastering actually is. It's actually a very simple straight forward process. nor did the MEs' of yesteryear "tweak" on your mix like they do now. In fact, the role of the ME was simple, it was very basic stuff like: Transfers, fades , put the songs in order, overall EQ and maybe some light compression. MAYBE once in a blue moon a mopup job on a bad mix. (usually from a DIYer)

NOW...."mastering has turned into a joke.)

I'll give you some advice: Get the mix correct from the getgo, and you'll find that you won't need much "mastering".

Real Mastering Vs "Modern Mastering" are two different things.

"Modern Mastering" is bascially a Monkey with a limiter turning the mix into a square wave sausage. Quite often it's a salvage job to polish poorly recorded turds, with the assumption that it can all be fixed in mastering. Therefore, to compensate for the crapsound, the Modern ME uses all sorts of gimmicky BS like stereo widener, Noise reduction, and all sort of other 1 trick pony gizmos etc to distract from the loud crapsound.. (right, cuz in addition to whatever issues the mix originally had, he's NOW totally jack up the volume level and sqaused the shit & life out of it, inorder to make it "compete",and also made it totally noisy, so... now he's gonna add even more artifacts to the mix.)

You don't need a large room for Modern Mastering, you can do it in a broom closet.....

Wizard of mixing, post: 392102 wrote: Reading this thread made me want to join.

Very apparent the OP is projecting his short comings/ inabilities in regards to engineers/ mastering.

As said, if you know what you're doing, know thy monitors, etc... you CAN home master with excellent result.

Furthermore, who sez everything has to be "mastered"?

It just amazes me how "mastering " has turned into this mystical ju ju art these days. (Laughable)
That's not what mastering actually is. It's actually a very simple straight forward process. nor did the MEs' of yesteryear "tweak" on your mix like they do now. In fact, the role of the ME was simple, it was very basic stuff like: Transfers, fades , put the songs in order, overall EQ and maybe some light compression. MAYBE once in a blue moon a mopup job on a bad mix. (usually from a DIYer)

NOW...."mastering has turned into a joke.)

I'll give you some advice: Get the mix correct from the getgo, and you'll find that you won't need much "mastering".

Real Mastering Vs "Modern Mastering" are two different things.

"Modern Mastering" is bascially a Monkey with a limiter turning the mix into a square wave sausage. Quite often it's a salvage job to polish poorly recorded turds, with the assumption that it can all be fixed in mastering. Therefore, to compensate for the crapsound, the Modern ME uses all sorts of gimmicky BS like stereo widener, Noise reduction, and all sort of other 1 trick pony gizmos etc to distract from the loud crapsound.. (right, cuz in addition to whatever issues the mix originally had, he's NOW totally jack up the volume level and sqaused the shit & life out of it, inorder to make it "compete",and also made it totally noisy, so... now he's gonna add even more artifacts to the mix.)

You don't need a large room for Modern Mastering, you can do it in a broom closet.....

Please don't lump all mastering engineers into one broad category. It is not nice to stereotype. Pro mastering engineers are as diverse a group as their clients. Some of us really do care about how things sound. For the record...

("Modern Mastering" is basically a Monkey with a limiter turning the mix into a square wave sausage.) - Wizard of Mixing -

I'm no expert by any means, but I've seen this "square wave sausage" in wave-form views and heard the rather unpleasant results. To be fair, the extreme manifestation of this practice shows up in amateur mix-masters on a music collaboration site, but I hear it in some commercial music too. I'm sure it cuts through background noise for radio, but in a quiet environment I find it annoying.

"Modern Mastering" is bascially a Monkey with a limiter turning the mix into a square wave sausage. Quite often it's a salvage job to polish poorly recorded turds, with the assumption that it can all be fixed in mastering. Therefore, to compensate for the crapsound, the Modern ME uses all sorts of gimmicky BS like stereo widener, Noise reduction, and all sort of other 1 trick pony gizmos etc to distract from the loud crapsound.. (right, cuz in addition to whatever issues the mix originally had, he's NOW totally jack up the volume level and sqaused the shit & life out of it, inorder to make it "compete",and also made it totally noisy, so... now he's gonna add even more artifacts to the mix.)

You don't need a large room for Modern Mastering, you can do it in a broom closet.....

"Modern mastering" engineers need to put up with an awful lot of stuff we didn't need to put up with 20 years ago -- But I have to submit that you're kind of entirely on the wrong track with everything else.

No doubt - there are plenty of 'hacks' out there. And the whole ridiculous "volume thing" going on doesn't make it any easier (as so many now equate "mastering" with "using a limiter to turn the mix into a square wave sausage").

But as mentioned - Let's not lump everyone together here.

Wizard of mixing, post: 392102 wrote: Reading this thread made me want to join.

Very apparent the OP is projecting his short comings/ inabilities in regards to engineers/ mastering.

As said, if you know what you're doing, know thy monitors, etc... you CAN home master with excellent result.

Furthermore, who sez everything has to be "mastered"?

It just amazes me how "mastering " has turned into this mystical ju ju art these days. (Laughable)
That's not what mastering actually is. It's actually a very simple straight forward process. nor did the MEs' of yesteryear "tweak" on your mix like they do now. In fact, the role of the ME was simple, it was very basic stuff like: Transfers, fades , put the songs in order, overall EQ and maybe some light compression. MAYBE once in a blue moon a mopup job on a bad mix. (usually from a DIYer)

NOW...."mastering has turned into a joke.)

I'll give you some advice: Get the mix correct from the getgo, and you'll find that you won't need much "mastering".

Real Mastering Vs "Modern Mastering" are two different things.

"Modern Mastering" is bascially a Monkey with a limiter turning the mix into a square wave sausage. Quite often it's a salvage job to polish poorly recorded turds, with the assumption that it can all be fixed in mastering. Therefore, to compensate for the crapsound, the Modern ME uses all sorts of gimmicky BS like stereo widener, Noise reduction, and all sort of other 1 trick pony gizmos etc to distract from the loud crapsound.. (right, cuz in addition to whatever issues the mix originally had, he's NOW totally jack up the volume level and sqaused the shit & life out of it, inorder to make it "compete",and also made it totally noisy, so... now he's gonna add even more artifacts to the mix.)

You don't need a large room for Modern Mastering, you can do it in a broom closet.....

as far as your bitter post go, I can relate to it with simply answer
ME job is a service, if clients ask for 'it', they have 'it' for sure
where 'it' would be .....'can I have a sound like ...ya know kayne west?'
of course you can, but maybe your production made with mp3 file 1$ beat off interent
mixed with poor quality home recording vocals CAN NOT ?
through all these years I had so many strange requirements to make music uber loud or better, 'kayne west' sound:)
from a above example recordings,
client say - not loud enough, not punchy as 'kayne west'
...:)

Wizard of mixing, post: 392102 wrote: "Modern Mastering" is bascially a Monkey with a limiter turning the mix into a square wave sausage. . . . You don't need a large room for Modern Mastering, you can do it in a broom closet.....

Hahahaha this made me laugh.

Seriously though, 90% of mastering engineers out there seem to be complete hoaxes. The first project I ever engineered and mixed I sent off to some idiot in New York that my clients hired for "mastering" and he completely ruined the whole record. It's like he didn't even listen to the songs. He didn't even fade out the last note of the last song. It was a 15 second hold and then an abrupt cut off. A couple of the songs peaked so bad that the kick drum sounded like a screen door slamming. I could have done a much better job myself. Heck, it would have been better off without any mastering at all. That's the 90% that low budget producers/engineers like me have to work with. There's no difference between these guys and scam artists. I know there are the top 10% who make an honest living at mastering, but they charge so much that it's impossible to afford them with the project budgets that I work with. So, after getting screwed over a couple of times by these monkeys, I have turned to DIY mastering. Some of my big-time producer friends use mastering engineers in the 10% club, which I trust that you mastering guys in this thread belong to. But unless I win the engineering lottery and start getting nominated for Grammies, there is no way I am going to start paying people $500 an hour to tweak my mix with some EQ and compression.

For those of you in the 10%, you have some real monkeys who are ruining your reputation. That's your first problem. The second problem is that any good mixing engineer with good gear can do almost (notice I said almost) as good of a job for a 10th of the price. Therefore, the only people who really need you are the producers with at least a $50 000 album budget. I will probably never get there, so I respectfully wish you the best of luck. You need it.

Those are just my opinions on the current state of mastering, and I would be interested in your guys thoughts on my thoughts. You all seem to be much more experienced at this game than me. I would also like to add the thoughts of Eric Sarafin and Dave Pensado to the discussion. I think they make some great points. Watch this video at 34:45 and 41:35.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.youtube…"]Pensado's Place #67 - Producer/Mixer/Author Eric "Mixerman" Sarafin - YouTube[/]="http://www.youtube…"]Pensado's Place #67 - Producer/Mixer/Author Eric "Mixerman" Sarafin - YouTube[/]

ClarkJaman, post: 392226 wrote: Hahahaha this made me laugh.

Seriously though, 90% of mastering engineers out there seem to be complete hoaxes. The first project I ever engineered and mixed I sent off to some idiot in New York that my clients hired for "mastering" and he completely ruined the whole record. It's like he didn't even listen to the songs. He didn't even fade out the last note of the last song. It was a 15 second hold and then an abrupt cut off. A couple of the songs peaked so bad that the kick drum sounded like a screen door slamming. I could have done a much better job myself. Heck, it would have been better off without any mastering at all. That's the 90% that low budget producers/engineers like me have to work with. There's no difference between these guys and scam artists. I know there are the top 10% who make an honest living at mastering, but they charge so much that it's impossible to afford them with the project budgets that I work with. So, after getting screwed over a couple of times by these monkeys, I have turned to DIY mastering. Some of my big-time producer friends use mastering engineers in the 10% club, which I trust that you mastering guys in this thread belong to. But unless I win the engineering lottery and start getting nominated for Grammies, there is no way I am going to start paying people $500 an hour to tweak my mix with some EQ and compression.

For those of you in the 10%, you have some real monkeys who are ruining your reputation. That's your first problem. The second problem is that any good mixing engineer with good gear can do almost (notice I said almost) as good of a job for a 10th of the price. Therefore, the only people who really need you are the producers with at least a $50 000 album budget. I will probably never get there, so I respectfully wish you the best of luck. You need it.

Those are just my opinions on the current state of mastering, and I would be interested in your guys thoughts on my thoughts. You all seem to be much more experienced at this game than me. I would also like to add the thoughts of Eric Sarafin and Dave Pensado to the discussion. I think they make some great points. Watch this video at 34:45 and 41:35.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.youtube…"]Pensado's Place #67 - Producer/Mixer/Author Eric "Mixerman" Sarafin - YouTube[/]="http://www.youtube…"]Pensado's Place #67 - Producer/Mixer/Author Eric "Mixerman" Sarafin - YouTube[/]

There are lots of mastering engineers who are very good who don't charge $500.00 per hour. Many of them post here. I am sorry you had such a bad experience with mastering. Most people that get their stuff mastered are more than happy with the results. One major problem for musicians today is their are so many people offering "mastering" but many of them really don't know what they are doing or are using inferior equipment and or bad monitoring setups to do the mastering in and the results can be disastrous.

Another big problem today with getting stuff mastered is communications between the musician and the mastering engineer. The client drops off or sends some files with the following request "make it louder than anything else" and that is about it. They somehow equate mastering only with loudness. Everyone seems to want their stuff loud so "it will get some radio air play" or "so I can compete in the marketplace". The current loudness war has done some terrible things to the role of the mastering engineer. When I got started in this business 17 years ago I was asked to make the music sound GREAT. Then the loudness wars heated up and now it seems all my clients want it to make it loud. Some mastering engineers have tried to stem the tide and seek to make things sound GREAT and not just loud but if all the client wants is loudness they will either demand it or find someone else who will smash their music.

Finding a good mastering engineer who will do what you want and also make your music sound GREAT is not an easy task.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Unless actual money is involved, mastur-bating at home is the next best thing. These times... they are a changin'. Like youngsters who obtain cracked audio software and passing themselves off as better masterer's, when they really know nothing about the process. And it shows in their work. And there are plenty others that take a chunk of cash, plop it down on some new and decent equipment and still don't know what the hell they're doing. And that's mostly because they didn't do this before they decided to do this. LOL, it's actually sad. Because it's true. I know I'm here with some true professionals. I wouldn't have stuck around here if there wasn't. And that's because I'm one also. Or so I'd like to think?

I send people to mastering engineers and I master stuff myself.
Mx. Remy Ann David

One thing to always remember is this:
The recording is only as good as the song,
The mix is only as good as the recording,
The master is only as good as the mix!

What I'm trying to say is you can't polish a turd, if the recording and mix is shit, you're mastering will probably make it sound worse! :)

However a Good recording and mix can sound good mastered even if you have reasonably decent equipment, I believe. You just gotta try not to overkill the level and destroy it like most people do nowadays!! Also having the gear is one thing, you really need to understand how to use it especially within the different genres of music!