[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/17/2014 12:15 PM, Les Cargill wrote:


Most local bands don't have the budget to go to a professional
mastering house, especially if it's only a demo CD.


Most local bands don't have the budget for a $500 live-tracked cd.


Oh, very true!

Most will usually stop at around $300 for a demo CD.

Not exactly the sort of people who will out-source
their mastering to Sterling Sound!

Haha!


For demos, simple peak limiting to set overall volume can be
enough, if the mix was well done. Ozone 5 will certainly be more than
enough in these cases.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul
wrote:
Not many mastering houses allow the customer to watch them
work, which I understand, because I don't like bands hanging around
while I mix.

I have never, ever heard of a mastering house that didn't allow attended
sessions and I would certainly never hire one that did.

I would agree, but often someone else is calling the shots. The last album I
worked on was screwed up by over zealous mastering IMO, and in the opinion
of the artist. Unfortunately it was out of our hands.

The man producing calls the shots. If you don't like it, take the money
but don't put your name on it.

I worked on hundreds and hundreds of projects that were musically just awful
including a whole lot of background music and terrible film soundtracks.
I take the money, I do my job the best I can, I keep my mouth shut.

Don't worry about it. Tomorrow is a new day and a new project.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Paul wrote:

Tucson, AZ. And would travel to Phoenix for my next album,
naturally.

Try Roger at SAE Mastering, he is good people.

If you intend to recommend a mastering engineer, won't that be
genre based? Surely there are people who specialize in Hip-hop, House,
Electronica, Jazz, Classical, Rock, Pop, etc.

To some extent, yes, and there are people who will flat out say "I don't
do this kind of music but try my friend who does." But most of the old-line
mastering engineers came up doing a wide variety of acoustic music and
shouldn't have any problem doing something like you're looking for.

My second album will likely be mainly Jazz/Classical piano/vocal
based, with at least one Bach-meets-Reggae tune (!!), which will include
organ, drums, bass, and guitar.

What is it supposed to sound like? Don't tell me, tell the mastering
engineer. If possible, bring him some samples of commercial releases like
what you're aiming for. If you want it as clean as possible, say so. If
you want it loud, say so. You're working together.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 17/05/2014 3:32 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
On Friday, May 16, 2014 9:15:35 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:


I suggest the fabfilter because it sounds good, has a good interface and is relatively easy to use. There are many, many other comp/eq/limiter plugins I could suggest to you that would accomplish the same thing.




Izotope ditto all the above.

(I don't work for, am not sponsored by, or are a fanboy of Izotope).

;-)

geoff

[geoff]

On 18/05/2014 1:45 a.m., david gourley wrote:





Yes, but isn't that the primary point of attending the mastering session?

david


Presumably the point, as with attended mixing, is so that the artist can
tell the mastering engineer how to do his job.


geoff

[Sean Conolly]

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
geoff wrote:
On 16/05/2014 7:08 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
Never use presets!

I find them a great starting point, and a learning aide.

Depends on the equipment. A lot of gear today has presets that are
very exaggerated, in an attempt to show how dramatic an effect is
possible, when what you probably want to actually be doing with the
device is much more subtle.

There is some gear out there where the presets are good starting points
but there are a whole lot of devices out there where they aren't even
that
now.


Exactly, but like all generalisations, "never use presets" is just
simplistic nonsense.

Well, I'm glad that cars don't come with presets for the cruise control....

Seriously though the concept of using a preset for mastering strikes me as
counter-productive at the least. As does the concept of mastering at home.

Maybe we should just call it 'polishing' instead in this context.

Sean

[Trevor]

"david gourley" wrote in message
...
Not many mastering houses allow the customer to watch them
work, which I understand, because I don't like bands hanging around
while I mix.

I have never, ever heard of a mastering house that didn't allow attended
sessions and I would certainly never hire one that did.

I would agree, but often someone else is calling the shots. The last
album I
worked on was screwed up by over zealous mastering IMO, and in the
opinion
of the artist. Unfortunately it was out of our hands.


I know a lot of mastering houses that charge more for attended sessions,
but you get what you pay for.

But this has led many home studios to do their own mastering, so
they have something to give a professional to reference, as to what they
are shooting for. And if they cannot find someone that beats their
version, then they do it themselves. This is what I plan to do with
my next album.

And this, in short, is why so many new releases sound so bad.

And many of them sound bad because they have had mastering
"professionally"
done, just not done as you or I would want.


Yes, but isn't that the primary point of attending the mastering session?


As I said, if you aren't paying the bills, you may not have any say even if
you attend. Or indeed whether you can attend if you wanted to.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Presumably the point, as with attended mixing, is so that the artist can
tell the mastering engineer how to do his job.

Not at all, it's so the mastering engineer can tell the artist why he thinks
something needs to be done, and so the artist can let him know whether that
will improve or degrade his artistic concept. *IF* everything was black and
white, the mastering engineer could make all the decisions himself and
everyone being happy with the result. Unfortunately things are never black
and white, and very often not everyone is happy with the result. Too often
the mastering engineers deliver what they know suits the labels, or risk
having it sent back, (or worse, no future jobs from that client) not what
they would actually do if it was their project alone.
I would have thought the loudness wars that have been going on for a decade
or two was enough proof that not all mastering decisions suit everyone?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
I have never, ever heard of a mastering house that didn't allow attended
sessions and I would certainly never hire one that did.

I would agree, but often someone else is calling the shots. The last album
I
worked on was screwed up by over zealous mastering IMO, and in the opinion
of the artist. Unfortunately it was out of our hands.

The man producing calls the shots. If you don't like it, take the money
but don't put your name on it.
I worked on hundreds and hundreds of projects that were musically just
awful
including a whole lot of background music and terrible film soundtracks.
I take the money, I do my job the best I can, I keep my mouth shut.

Exactly my attitude, but I get to complain about it here though! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...
"Trevor" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
geoff wrote:
On 16/05/2014 7:08 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
Never use presets!

I find them a great starting point, and a learning aide.

Depends on the equipment. A lot of gear today has presets that are
very exaggerated, in an attempt to show how dramatic an effect is
possible, when what you probably want to actually be doing with the
device is much more subtle.

There is some gear out there where the presets are good starting points
but there are a whole lot of devices out there where they aren't even
that now.


Exactly, but like all generalisations, "never use presets" is just
simplistic nonsense.

Well, I'm glad that cars don't come with presets for the cruise
control....

Why not, presets for the standard speed limits might be useful, and like all
presets could simply be overidden.


Seriously though the concept of using a preset for mastering strikes me as
counter-productive at the least. As does the concept of mastering at home.

Obviously you don't do low budget work that cant afford or justify a
seperate mastering engineers payment then.


Maybe we should just call it 'polishing' instead in this context.

Well in the days of vinyl, mastering *was* a necessary job for skilled
engineers that understood the limitations of cutting lathes and playback
equipment. (as well as how to polish gems and turds) These days I'd say most
of it is really "polishing". Which is not to say that big buck projects
should *not* be polished by skilled professionals in proper mastering suites
of course!

Trevor.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/18/2014 10:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
could simply be overidden.


Seriously though the concept of using a preset for mastering strikes me as
counter-productive at the least. As does the concept of mastering at home.

Obviously you don't do low budget work that cant afford or justify a
seperate mastering engineers payment then.


Yes, when you do demo CDs for poor, starving, unknown local bands,
you have no choice but to do the mastering yourself.




Maybe we should just call it 'polishing' instead in this context.

Well in the days of vinyl, mastering *was* a necessary job for skilled
engineers that understood the limitations of cutting lathes and playback
equipment. (as well as how to polish gems and turds) These days I'd say most
of it is really "polishing". Which is not to say that big buck projects
should *not* be polished by skilled professionals in proper mastering suites
of course!

Trevor.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/18/2014 9:59 PM, Trevor wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
Presumably the point, as with attended mixing, is so that the artist can
tell the mastering engineer how to do his job.

Not at all, it's so the mastering engineer can tell the artist why he thinks
something needs to be done, and so the artist can let him know whether that
will improve or degrade his artistic concept. *IF* everything was black and
white, the mastering engineer could make all the decisions himself and
everyone being happy with the result. Unfortunately things are never black
and white, and very often not everyone is happy with the result. Too often
the mastering engineers deliver what they know suits the labels, or risk
having it sent back, (or worse, no future jobs from that client) not what
they would actually do if it was their project alone.
I would have thought the loudness wars that have been going on for a decade
or two was enough proof that not all mastering decisions suit everyone?

Trevor.


You make good points here. I recall someone here saying that if
customers want **** sandwiches, that you'd better learn how to make
them. Everyone wants their track to stand out from the rest, to be
the loudest or brightest.

It appears we were both victims of the loudness wars.

My guess is that most here would not approve of mastering DIY
first, and then bringing your master to the real mastering session,
as it might "jinx" the engineers decisions.

But for those of us who didn't or can't go to audio engineering
classes, I imagine it would be fruitful to bring your laptop to the
session, and listen through the high-end monitors and tuned room, and
have the engineer tell you what he thinks you did wrong, and fix it with
your software.

Give the man a fishing pole, not a fish....

It would also be a great way to compare your monitoring with the
high-end stuff.

[geoff]

On 19/05/2014 4:59 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
Presumably the point, as with attended mixing, is so that the artist can
tell the mastering engineer how to do his job.

Not at all, it's so the mastering engineer can tell the artist why he thinks
something needs to be done, and so the artist can let him know whether that
will improve or degrade his artistic concept. *IF* everything was black and
white, the mastering engineer could make all the decisions himself and
everyone being happy with the result. Unfortunately things are never black
and white, and very often not everyone is happy with the result. Too often
the mastering engineers deliver what they know suits the labels, or risk
having it sent back, (or worse, no future jobs from that client) not what
they would actually do if it was their project alone.
I would have thought the loudness wars that have been going on for a decade
or two was enough proof that not all mastering decisions suit everyone?

Trevor.

The (relatively 'am') mastering I've done with clients present seem to
consist of little other than requests to "make it louder", despite all
attempts at education.


geoff

[Sean Conolly]

"Paul" wrote in message
...
On 5/18/2014 10:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
could simply be overidden.


Seriously though the concept of using a preset for mastering strikes me
as
counter-productive at the least. As does the concept of mastering at
home.

Obviously you don't do low budget work that cant afford or justify a
seperate mastering engineers payment then.


Yes, when you do demo CDs for poor, starving, unknown local bands,
you have no choice but to do the mastering yourself.


Oh, I've done what others may call mastering nowadays - but without a real
reference point it's more guessing than 'mastering'.

I suppose it doesn't make much difference after it's been distilled down to
MP3 anyway.

Sean
(been sick for four days and feeling particularly grouchy)