TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Who has money for mastering?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by nec Who needs mastering nowadays if you're a good producer?

Did you even bother to read this thread? Do you even know what mastering is?

quote:

Originally posted by nec Who needs mastering nowadays if you're a good producer?

This just points out how much ignorancy is out there about Mastering, did you know, Mastering should not be done by the same Producer who mixed it, and Produced it? Is a golden rule, ask to any sound enginner, you can youtube some conferencies, you will hear is one of the first things they tell you, the reason is because you usually are so used to the sounds you worked with, that you dont have a clear image of the sound, and you tend to miss things.

Kopi =o.

Though I agree, that getting your track finalized by someone else, will be beneficial - There are some high profile names out there who supposedly master their tracks themselves. Sander van Doorns mixes sound fantastic imo, and he does all that work himself.

quote:

Originally posted by kopi_luwak No, I want it done better, that's the point of mastering, to reach the higuest level, is stupid to think that to pay for mastering is stupid, that not may work for you, because digital sales sell bad, etc, is other think. We are talking about if you want to release your stuff with the best quality posible, and to give your track best chances to success, or just another average sound track in the digital shops. If we are talking about digital releases, then I think I understand you, but for CD releases, mastering is absolutely mandatory, for me, even mixing from a professional sound enginner, you dont want to get your CD out there, and to listen to the CD's done by other Producers properly mixed and mastered in a studio, and to realize yours is good, but just not as good as could be, you have to reach the higuest quality you can get if you want to fullfill all your chances to success. Other issue about to think like you is, that the quality of the productions you hear now out there are not as good as it used to be in the past, practically all the tracks you hear now in the sets, audiojelly,etc, were mixed and mastered by the producers who made the tune, the overall sound of the productions dicreased a % compared with the days when there were only major labels with a quality standart. As I stated before, my mix is good enough, but I am not even close to what a sound enginner can do with years of experience and good hardware. Other think is, you send a CD to Cafe del Mar for example, and your mix&mastering is not the best, they could just ignore it, usually big labels want something already done to be pressed, a CD properly mixed&mastered by a sound enginner, is your best card, for your material. Kopi =o.

This sort of thinking holds me back when I'm producing. What your saying, is that your sound quality has to be perfect to get a label interested, thats just not true. If the song is good the label will tell you its good, and either offer mastering or tell you to go back and do it better.
Also, an obsession with sound quality can be to the detriment of music quality; so often here I hear a track which is beautifully professionally mastered but has no real musical value. Its just lacking something which moves people. Obviously someone has worried about sound quality so much that the entire song has become an engineering exercise, not a creative one. Good mastering isn't what makes your tracks stand out on beatport or whatever, the thing that makes your tracks stand out is their own beauty, which shines through even the poorest mastering.
It also seems to me that a lot of your method is motivated by fear. You seem to think that you'll get your CD in a record shop and find that it wasn't as good as someone elses. I find that if I get into thinking like that I don't get anywhere. At any rate its not about being "as good" as someone else, its about making music which is individual and original. Comparing your music to other people's is a bit pointless.
And I think that productions today sound just as good as they did at any stage in the past, in fact, I think that they have become far more complex and technically refined. Of course mastering will make your track a little more polished, but it won't make a track stand out. It won't make it a better track and it won't make people like it better. The only thing to avoid is bad mastering, good mastering is not that essential and certainly not worth shelling out for yourself. As I say, if the label thinks the track needs it, let the label pay. Otherwise, "Reach the highest level" through your own musical talent.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips This sort of thinking holds me back when I'm producing. What your saying, is that your sound quality has to be perfect to get a label interested, thats just not true. If the song is good the label will tell you its good, and either offer mastering or tell you to go back and do it better.

I said will increase your chances, and btw, I am talking about big labels like Cafe del Mar, not digitals, anyone can sign up anything in a digital label.

quote:

Also, an obsession with sound quality can be to the detriment of music quality; so often here I hear a track which is beautifully professionally mastered but has no real musical value. Its just lacking something which moves people. Obviously someone has worried about sound quality so much that the entire song has become an engineering exercise, not a creative one. Good mastering isn't what makes your tracks stand out on beatport or whatever, the thing that makes your tracks stand out is their own beauty, which shines through even the poorest mastering.

This is just ridiculous, sorry, I am talking about the overall package obviously, if you have something great, melodically, harmonically, etc, the next step is to have something great in the enginnering area too, no ones is talking about to do wonders with a crappy track, or that an amazing track will be a failure because was not Mastered by a professional, etc, is not that I focus only in the *quality sound*, I care for the OVERALL package, dont make non sense please.

quote:

It also seems to me that a lot of your method is motivated by fear. You seem to think that you'll get your CD in a record shop and find that it wasn't as good as someone elses. I find that if I get into thinking like that I don't get anywhere. At any rate its not about being "as good" as someone else, its about making music which is individual and original. Comparing your music to other people's is a bit pointless.

Again, you are just saying non sense, we are talking about the MASTERING, the enginnering work, not the music, who on earth is talking about to compare my music? My music is other business, I am comparing the enginnering work, get the picture I am talking about if I release a CD, that took me years of hard work, I will take the same care to have it perfectly mixed&mastered by a Professional if I can increase the quality, to acomplish the best level for my project, not because fear, because I am looking for the higuest quality in all the levels posible for my project, when I refer to the sound, not sounding as good as the CD's out there in a music shop for example, I repeat you, I refer to the Mastering process, the final stage process.

quote:

And I think that productions today sound just as good as they did at any stage in the past, in fact, I think that they have become far more complex and technically refined. Of course mastering will make your track a little more polished, but it won't make a track stand out. It won't make it a better track and it won't make people like it better. The only thing to avoid is bad mastering, good mastering is not that essential and certainly not a worth shelling out for yourself. As I say, if the label thinks the track needs it, let the label pay. Otherwise, "Reach the highest level" through your own musical talent.

Are you caring to read? Jesus, we are talking about the enginnering work, you keep talking about the music, if the music is good, will stand out, no matter the sound enginner, etc, etc, read the topic *Who has money to pay for Mastering*, we are not talking about if the track is the 8 wonder, or not, we are talking about the Mastering!

good mastering is not that essential and certainly not a worth shelling out for yourself.
Not for you, that's obvious, for me, as the title says, who has money to pay for Mastering, I do, if does not worth shelling out for you, does not make it wont worth for me, and have worthed every penny btw.

quote:

"Reach the highest level" through your own musical talent.

I will assume you have read actually all the thread, I have said several times, my skils are not even close, compared with what a sound enginner can do, I know my limits, and when I decide to hire a sound enginner, is because I know my limits, and I want more, thats why I care to pay to a sound enginner to do the Mastering, as this thread title is, I have money for Mastering and I will pay for it.
In overall, so you understand, what this thread is about, if there's a % that can be improved, hell yeah I will pay to fullfill it, now, that is not necessary today, for a digital release, small releases, etc, for you, has nothing to do with what I said.

PS: I heard some of your music, sounds pretty clean, I liked it pretty much Breaking Down actually, but it could be improved much more, the vocal mixdown is not very good, above all compression, your stereo image is pretty reduced, you need to use more of your stereo image,above all with your guitars, they are too centered, you need to play more with the stereo image so your vocals can breath more, your guitars should be less prominent, your music would benefit with some sound enginner mastering, and Mixdown work, not saying your music, mix, is bad at all, just that the sound could be improved.



The overall peak countour is unbalanced, compression is required here, as you can see in the image, so you can boost up the overall sound, but with this cimage you will be very limited, (Mastering), also you will see the stereo image a bit boxed as I commented before, you have three clips you should take care of too, this track is a good candidate to be properly Mastered.

If you want to, I could get *Breaking down* properly Mixed&Mastered with a sound enginner friend of mine, and we do a before and after, then let's the rest of the members to judge how many % the quality sound got improved .

Kopi =o.

Ok man, I guess at the end of the day, if professional mastering makes you feel better about releasing a track, then go for it. If I make a piece of music, I find it unproductive to obsess about little things and to me mastering is a relatively little thing. But as I say, everyone works in a different way, so if mastering is something you go in for in a big way, then I'm not saying you don't have a right to pay someone. I'm saying I wouldn't ever pay myself, although obviously if a label offered I wouldn't say no.

I appreciate your effort to look at my stuff too, and your kind words. "Breaking Down" was really an experiment and actually one of the worst mixed tracks I've ever made so I wish you'd picked another example If anything, I'm suprised theres ONLY three clips, because I would have thought there would be more!

That song was made when I was only just learning how to mix and program synths, I've developed a lot more in just the few months since I made it. I'm not sure whether a mastering engineer would have helped that song, because it was fundamentally flawed. The original sound sources were quite poor, I had no pop shield for the vocals, and the guitar sound was fairly shoddy because I was just getting used to a new guitar... It could be cleaned up of course, but I don't know whether it would be worth your friend's time to work on such a flawed track... If you have faith that it could sound really good, and be an amazing track, then I would certainly take you up on your offer(free mastering is fine in my book! I just wouldn't ever pay) but only if you think the track's worth it, I don't want to waste people's time on something which is just a way of settling our dispute.

Actually is a very nice track, send me the stems, no compression, effects please, DRY, and I will give you the hand with the sound enginner, and I could help you to get it signed too .


I did a very fast before and after with your track, doing some very basic stuff, you will notice your mix sounds a bit muted&flat compared with the one I did, also I corrected the clippings, you can hear the sample:

The order is:

Original - Kopi Mastering, Original - Kopi Mastering.

http://download.yousendit.com/BA81E20C68757457

You will notice more the sound diference in the second verse.
I did not touch your version at all, so is as you had it on soundclick.

A sound enginner would improve this track alot as I told you before, then I am positive we have a great track here .

Kopi =o.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips Also, an obsession with sound quality can be to the detriment of music quality; so often here I hear a track which is beautifully professionally mastered but has no real musical value. Its just lacking something which moves people. Obviously someone has worried about sound quality so much that the entire song has become an engineering exercise, not a creative one. Good mastering isn't what makes your tracks stand out on beatport or whatever, the thing that makes your tracks stand out is their own beauty, which shines through even the poorest mastering.

Very well said. I think producers forget this and lose their way. Some of my favorite old school death metal and hardcore punk songs are poorly mixed and mastered. I was on a nostalgia kick last week, and I was listening to some of the metal and punk I listened to in the late 80's. The production quality is pretty poor, but it doesn't matter because the songs are great and stand the test of time.

It is nice to hear a song with great production, but great production will never compensate for mediocre music.

quote:

Originally posted by zodiac9 Very well said. I think producers forget this and lose their way. Some of my favorite old school death metal and hardcore punk songs are poorly mixed and mastered. I was on a nostalgia kick last week, and I was listening to some of the metal and punk I listened to in the late 80's. The production quality is pretty poor, but it doesn't matter because the songs are great and stand the test of time. It is nice to hear a song with great production, but great production will never compensate for mediocre music.

Please read what I said in my previous post, so you are updated.
We are talking about the Mastering process only, not about if a mediocre tune will become a master piece, or that an oustanding tune wont become a master piece because was not properly mixed&mastere.
If people just would care to read, there would not be useless off topics like this.
At the end we agreed, that Mastering can do a great track, even better, not that will do wonders with a piece of crap, or that a great track wont be good because was not mastered. Mastering is intended to reach the best of your music, this is what all this thread is about, if there is a %, even if is a really small %, that can be improved, why dont do to improve it if you have the money and you want to reach the best level posible? Now that if you dont have the money or you are happy with your sound, the dont hire a professional for to master your track, the rest of the comments are just off from this topic.
The thread title is very simple:
Who has money for Mastering.
I already asnwered I do, and why I will pay for the service in my previous post.
I dont see what else you could discuss here, it is very simple.

Kopi =o.

quote:

Originally posted by kopi_luwak Please read what I said in my previous post, so you are updated. We are talking about the Mastering process only, not about if a mediocre tune will become a master piece, or that an oustanding tune wont become a master piece because was not properly mixed&mastere. If people just would care to read, there would not be useless off topics like this. At the end we agreed, that Mastering can do a great track, even better, not that will do wonders with a piece of crap, or that a great track wont be good because was not mastered. Mastering is intended to reach the best of your music, this is what all this thread is about, if there is a %, even if is a really small %, that can be improved, why dont do to improve it if you have the money and you want to reach the best level posible? Now that if you dont have the money or you are happy with your sound, the dont hire a professional for to master your track, the rest of the comments are just off from this topic. The thread title is very simple: Who has money for Mastering. I already asnwered I do, and why I will pay for the service in my previous post. I dont see what else you could discuss here, it is very simple. Kopi =o.

Yes, we understood what you are saying. What we are saying to the original poster is, if you are willing to spend the money on mastering, then do so. I'm sure we all have money for mastering, the point is, is it worth it or not. Will the return be worth it. If you are willing to take the loss, then great. Perhaps you will make the money back, perhaps you won't, maybe you'll break even. If producing is just a hobby for you, and you are willing to spend money on it without gaining anything back, that's fine too.

Finally, we are saying (to the original poster) don't worry about mastering so much, just come up with some music that moves people. To the original question again, I believe a rare gem of a hit will rise to the surface, materstered or not. A record label is looking for good tunes, good songwriters, not mastering. A proper label should be mastering their artist's tracks anyway to ensure quality control.

quote:

Originally posted by zodiac9 Yes, we understood what you are saying. What we are saying to the original poster is, if you are willing to spend the money on mastering, then do so. I'm sure we all have money for mastering, the point is, is it worth it or not. Will the return be worth it. If you are willing to take the loss, then great. Perhaps you will make the money back, perhaps you won't, maybe you'll break even. If producing is just a hobby for you, and you are willing to spend money on it without gaining anything back, that's fine too. Finally, we are saying (to the original poster) don't worry about mastering so much, just come up with some music that moves people. To the original question again, I believe a rare gem of a hit will rise to the surface, materstered or not. A record label is looking for good tunes, good songwriters, not mastering. A proper label should be mastering their artist's tracks anyway to ensure quality control.

Fair enough .

Kopi =o.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm waves aren't that good.

You're out of your mind. Waves plug-ins are used extensively in every high-end studio I can think of... When you have guys like Roger Nichols employing them in his sessions, you know you're not f*ing around.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips I agree, Its really not neccesary to spend money on mastering, if the label wants it done better then they can pay, but paying for mastering yourself is stupid. There is so much arrogance about this topic, contrary to popular belief, you don't need a great monitoring environment to master well, just a wide range system and a decent pair of ears works fine. It does take a while, but some of the tracks I've spent that time on years ago still sound good to me on any system today. I was mixing them on a Teac stereo at the time. In the old days of the rock industry, then mastering was a big deal, you had to worry about the idiosyncracies of vinyl, and you couldn't ever go back and mix and master again, once it was on tape, you were committed. But these days, a track often gets a remix and remaster after a few years, you don't need to worry about needles skipping the groove 9/10 times, and if you turn around in a year and discover that your mastering was crap, go and do it again! Each track is preserved along with all your automation, its not like you've mixed down to stereo and can't get the original 20 tracks back. Redo it and call it the '08 remake! People who go on about mastering are missing the point, mastering is about making sure the track will sound good on most peoples systems, not some audiophilic 20 000 grand system. And most of the time the best mastering IS an L3 plugin and a hi pass at 40 Hertz, putting more rubbish on a track won't make it any better, it'll almost always make it worse. And it doesn't matter if your paying someone $100 to do it

i promise you wont get a track sounding as finished with your methods. the good mastering studios use �20,000 monitoring systems so they can hear what needs to be adjusted for the track to work on the majority of shitty systems. master using bad monitors and you wont hear what you are adjusting.

quote:

Originally posted by CReddick You're out of your mind. Waves plug-ins are used extensively in every high-end studio I can think of... When you have guys like Roger Nichols employing them in his sessions, you know you're not f*ing around.

Waves are used everywhere because they have become standard, not because they are good. You can use them in your project in one studio, take it to another studio, and be guaranteed the other studio will have all the same plugins.

Not that they arent pretty good, but they're not amazing. Ive heard the new Waves API stuff is quite good though.

Oh and I dont know much about Roger Nichols, but I know he bought out Elemental Audio, upped the prices of all their VSTs and renamed them all to sound really shit, and has descriptions on his website describing how he spent years developing them even though he never even touched them before he bought them out, imho he's an idiot...

Edit: Actually, reading stuff like this on his website, maybe Im wrong about him, lots of people were pretty annoyed with what he did to Elemental Audio though, although now the website and descriptions he has for all the plugins seem a lot better. The names are still crap though

quote:

Originally posted by richg101 i promise you wont get a track sounding as finished with your methods. the good mastering studios use �20,000 monitoring systems so they can hear what needs to be adjusted for the track to work on the majority of shitty systems. master using bad monitors and you wont hear what you are adjusting.

It doesn't have to be that expensive at all.. One of the largest companties in dance mastering in holland has a more expensive studio than the 20.000 pounds, but not if only looking at the monitoring system.

It does almost all radio/tv dance compilations here, used to master the entire armada catalog (not sure if they still do), still does an awfull lot for big artists as armin van buuren, the asot cd's, armada/cloud9 compilations, Markus Schuls, Johan Gielen, DJ Jean, Roog, Deepack, Leon Bolier, Sensation 2005, Marco V (etc,etc,etc)... Conclusion: the monitoring really doesn't have to be that expensive to be good for mastering. However some guys need or prefer it to be .

There's even some other guy that had an engineer work on his acoustics. He's able to provide quality masters/mixes on Behringer truths. Now that is just a 400$ set of speakers right there.

quote:

Originally posted by richg101 i promise you wont get a track sounding as finished with your methods. the good mastering studios use �20,000 monitoring systems so they can hear what needs to be adjusted for the track to work on the majority of shitty systems. master using bad monitors and you wont hear what you are adjusting.

A lot of the time I seem to forget the purpose of mastering. I had a friend of mine master my tracks one time, I don't think he knew what he was doing. I think he was trying to sweeten my tracks, instead of making them sound good on every type of system. It is definately something that takes a lot of experience to get right. Getting a track to sound good on everything from little cheap walkman headphones to boombox speakers.

Do mastering engineers always deal with bringing up the volume of the track, using limiters and such? I suppose a good engineer can do this without affecting the volume of any of the instruments in the track. It seems to me maybe the artist should do the limiting, so no volumes are affected. I did a remix for a friend of mine, and he is releasing his original and my remix on Bonzai. He told me to leave the track alone, no limiting, no normalizing. Apparently Bonzai does all the mastering. Be interesting to see what my remix sounds like with pro mastering.

quote:

Originally posted by richg101 i promise you wont get a track sounding as finished with your methods. the good mastering studios use �20,000 monitoring systems so they can hear what needs to be adjusted for the track to work on the majority of shitty systems. master using bad monitors and you wont hear what you are adjusting.

I won't judge my results against other's, but I promise you that I DO get results that I'm happy with. There are many areas that I feel affect a track more than mastering, I prefer to spend time and money on them. Kopi has the point that if you have the money you may as well do it, even if it only improves your track a tiny bit, and I think thats fair enough. I'm waiting to see what Kopi's mastering guy's like as to my final judgement on the value of mastering though.

quote:

You're out of your mind. Waves plug-ins are used extensively in every high-end studio I can think of... When you have guys like Roger Nichols employing them in his sessions, you know you're not f*ing around.

Oh well, if Roger Nichols is using them they must be great Seriously, I was using waves plugins for everything, and then gave up on them and moved to sonalksis, which are 1000X better IMO. Don't assume somethings good because someone famous uses it. I still use the waves L3 occasionally, but I don't touch their EQs, reverbs or compressors (basically the bread and butter effects) because I find them deeply uninspiring. Sonalksis are beautiful though, I recommend everyone using waves gives them a try...

quote:

Yes, we understood what you are saying. What we are saying to the original poster is, if you are willing to spend the money on mastering, then do so. I'm sure we all have money for mastering, the point is, is it worth it or not. Will the return be worth it. If you are willing to take the loss, then great. Perhaps you will make the money back, perhaps you won't, maybe you'll break even. If producing is just a hobby for you, and you are willing to spend money on it without gaining anything back, that's fine too. Finally, we are saying (to the original poster) don't worry about mastering so much, just come up with some music that moves people. To the original question again, I believe a rare gem of a hit will rise to the surface, materstered or not. A record label is looking for good tunes, good songwriters, not mastering. A proper label should be mastering their artist's tracks anyway to ensure quality control.

I think I agree with you here, this is pretty much what I was trying to say, that the label should deal with this stuff for you and at any rate, a truly worthy song will rise above any mastering.

Like I said though, I'm going to wait for the results of my first professionally mastered track...

quote:

Originally posted by CReddick You're out of your mind. Waves plug-ins are used extensively in every high-end studio I can think of... When you have guys like Roger Nichols employing them in his sessions, you know you're not f*ing around.

Like everyone else above me has said... Waves seriously are NOT as good as people think. They are RIDICULOUSLY over priced for what they are. Back in the day they were the cream of the crop, but everything else has come a long way since then and the Waves bundles haven't really changed one bit.

Voxengo, Sonalksis, WaveArts and Sonnox are where it's at IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips I won't judge my results against other's, but I promise you that I DO get results that I'm happy with. There are many areas that I feel affect a track more than mastering, I prefer to spend time and money on them. Kopi has the point that if you have the money you may as well do it, even if it only improves your track a tiny bit, and I think thats fair enough. I'm waiting to see what Kopi's mastering guy's like as to my final judgement on the value of mastering though. Oh well, if Roger Nichols is using them they must be great Seriously, I was using waves plugins for everything, and then gave up on them and moved to sonalksis, which are 1000X better IMO. Don't assume somethings good because someone famous uses it. I still use the waves L3 occasionally, but I don't touch their EQs, reverbs or compressors (basically the bread and butter effects) because I find them deeply uninspiring. Sonalksis are beautiful though, I recommend everyone using waves gives them a try... I think I agree with you here, this is pretty much what I was trying to say, that the label should deal with this stuff for you and at any rate, a truly worthy song will rise above any mastering. Like I said though, I'm going to wait for the results of my first professionally mastered track...

are those tracks on your soundclick page a representation of the work you are happy with ?

And as far as alot of people's view on mastering , well i suppose it doesn't seem that important nor will it ever be because you won't ever leave the amateur music network which you belong to. You think people pay for mastering because its fun and all professional sounding ?

Again stop relating the quality you get as if it is anywhere near professional standards. And by professional i don't mean your shitty online release or your 200 run vynil.

And finally , i'm not sure where you guys shop but waves isn't that much more expensive than other leading vst developpers. The sonalksis plugins cost around 300 US . And that is for just one plugin.

You know what, I just deleted this post, because your being daft and offensive. Quite frankly I can't be stuffed dealing with people who are acting as arrogantly as you Rich, sorry.

How was i being offensive ?

My only comment to you was a question. The other comments were to people in general that have a certain view which i explained. If you feel like those comments described yourself and somehow took offense, well that isn't my problem.

The reason i asked about your work is that to me , your level of mixing and production , well it has a long way to go. THis isn't a judgement because i have no idea how long you have been doing it , and really it doesn't matter at all because being good isn't some sort of requirement to make music. I find that you come across a little too confident and i think this attitude will just make the learning process longer. I think the more you realise you need to work on things and really open yourself up to the possiblity that your music isn't all that and a bag of chips, you will get better quicker. I 've been doing music for way too long and i still feel like a know nothing.

As far as the other comments , i'm not arguing that people should be getting everything mastered. I'm just telling the people that say they master on 200$ thruths in their bedroom and think they get good results to kinda just shut up.

Mastering is just another form of quality control. IF you want to sell a product and be proud of the product that represents your work and you know you will be making a return , good mastering is a no brainer.

And as far as your comment that i am arrogant. I really don't think i am. I'm just a little sick of retards thinking they know it all and preach like they've been mixing platinum records for the last 40 years.

(off topic, can I just say, ignore lists are fantastic things, they really clean up forums)

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV are those tracks on your soundclick page a representation of the work you are happy with ?

quote:

Originally posted by zodiac9 A lot of the time I seem to forget the purpose of mastering. I had a friend of mine master my tracks one time, I don't think he knew what he was doing. I think he was trying to sweeten my tracks, instead of making them sound good on every type of system. It is definately something that takes a lot of experience to get right. Getting a track to sound good on everything from little cheap walkman headphones to boombox speakers. Do mastering engineers always deal with bringing up the volume of the track, using limiters and such? I suppose a good engineer can do this without affecting the volume of any of the instruments in the track. It seems to me maybe the artist should do the limiting, so no volumes are affected. I did a remix for a friend of mine, and he is releasing his original and my remix on Bonzai. He told me to leave the track alone, no limiting, no normalizing. Apparently Bonzai does all the mastering. Be interesting to see what my remix sounds like with pro mastering.

I spent some time in a very well respected mastering engineers (optimum mastering,uk) the day before i was there the guy was mastering svd's grasshopper.

he was saying to me that he just does what is required. some tracks come in limited to shit (but sound awsome), and he just needs to do a little eqing. others come in sounding nice and well mixed, but need to be put through their good comp/eq/limiting to bring the track up to commercial levels and tighten things up. if you send them a track that is well mixed and sounds just how you want on your monitors, then he will perform the vital tasks needed to make the track sound how its meant to on the majority of systems.

he said you cant fix a bad mix, but i saw him able to seriously improve upon a mix where certain tracks were way too loud in the mix. things like snares that are too loud. he was also able to bring a waek snare out and make it shine.

though this place is too expensive for small labels/home released pieces, the outcomes they provide are what make a good release into a release that stands up against all the other top dollar mastered pieces.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.