Members Anderton Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 I'm curious how many of you master your own material vs. taking it to someone else...inquiring minds want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alphajerk Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 im tired of not getting back what i want and can get in the mix with a "mastering" 2buss. ultimately, i must sequence the record... its of most importance to me to get song order and timing between tracks as exactly as i want them to flow... afte that its prett much adding codes and getting it ready for the plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 I master my own, the manly way... I'm a true believer in getting it right in the mix. Though, as always, we should differentiate between the two parts of mastering, i.e. the finalization of the mix and all that other stuff involved in creating the CD. I've never done that latter part, and at the rate I'm going I'll be dead before I have a CD's worth to actually do it with. But in terms of creating the final stereo mix, I think you should get it right in the mix, and 'mastering' just becomes an analog circuitry sim, little final tweaking EQ, maybe a widener, and the limiter/maximizer, on the master buss for the export to stereo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Lozada Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I do master everything I do for others, my own demos and other artists music... BUT my own / my band's music for commercial release is mastered by the best mastering engineer in Chile, which happens to be a great friend of mine, Miguel Bahamonde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members elsongs Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 Wow, a lot of us do it by ourselves. So I guess that must make us... ...MASTER-bators! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 I haven't liked anything I have heard lately mastering wise and I can't afford a couple grand to have anything of mine mastered. I'm sure I could find someone to do it to my standards but the price can't be justified anymore since Music is free now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kendrix Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 I do my own. Wavelab and the finalizer rule. However, if i were to take things to the next level a pro mastering job would be on my short list of things to pursue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Inazone Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 After the awful results when our previous label "handled" the mastering last time around, we are trying to get a mix that is album-quality before mastering is even discussed. The studio we recorded at last time wasn't equipped to do professional mastering three years ago, but they are now and did a good job on remixing/remastering two songs for us. The owner/engineer despises the current trend of destroying a good mix for the sake of volume, and did a much better job than the supposed pro who mastered our earlier stuff. Depending on how things go with our in-progress album, maybe we'll go there for mastering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alphajerk Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 the reason why i now mix with that "mastering chain" is the approach to mixing for volume is far different than creating a good mix and trying to get volume after the fact. i dont think LOUD is going to go away... but knowing how to mix loudly and still retain some dynamics and punch in the mix will set people apart in the future IMO than what is being released now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members russrags Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 I can do a pretty decent job of Mastering myself and offer it for FREE on projects I record. However for my really important projects (which is most of them) I have it done in Nashville at Masterfonics by JR Russell. My stuff is pretty detailed and I have to be very involved, but Masterfonics has a way better monitoring system and will catch things I can't even hear when I do it myself. RussNashville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dave Martin Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 Do you guys who master your own records use the same monitoring setup that you used to record and mix the record? Do you really think that's a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 Do you guys who master your own records use the same monitoring setup that you used to record and mix the record? Do you really think that's a good idea? No I don't think it's a good idea... which is why I prefer to have someone else master it and do so whenever possible. I prefer to be there during the process, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members motord Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 Do you guys who master your own records use the same monitoring setup that you used to record and mix the record? Do you really think that's a good idea? I master stuff on the same exact setup as it was recorded and mixed. And yes, it is a patently awful idea. Just working with what I have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alphajerk Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 sure... i have some pretty bitchin speakers that sound as good as any high end setup [probably better IMO ], and when i take my mixes elsewhere they sound just like i intended without suprises. so why should i take it elsewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 If the room isn't good enough to master it, it probably isn't good enough to mix it, right? If mean, if you don't have a good enough room to create the final product, then that means you are sending the masterer a crappy mix and they will have to fix it in a way that's far less optimal than getting it right in the mix to begin with. If getting a good mastering job costs a $K, then for the cost of a couple of them or less you can probably treat your room to the point required to make it sound like it should (depends on how big it is.) $1K will get you 15 4" thick bass traps which would be enough to give a smallish studio pretty righteously smooth and reliable response. I have a set of Mackie HR824 mkII's, with a sub handling just the low-lows. So I don't think I'm lacking in my ability to hear what the mix sounds like, and I'm getting my bass trappage up to speed now as well and it's starting to sound good. And of course you will have to verify the result on other systems anyway, no matter what you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 I didn't click an answer for a couple of reasons: 1) I no longer take clients (besides myself), making my answer somewhat inconsequential 2) confusion about just what we refer to as "mastering" these days (yeah, I know what most folks mean when they say it) Assuming that we're talking about mastering in the post-disk-cutting idiomatic usage (and not talking about doing CD mastering, setting PQ codes, etc) of sprinkling magic faerie dust on a finished mix... not exactly. I do what most of what folks nowadays refer to as mastering right in my multitrack project DAW workspace. I typically get the best mix I can with a clean output bus and then I engage a compressor (often with an EQ in front of it to mitigate the effects of compression on the high end). I try to use as light a hand as possible with both. Now... I do think there can be merit in sending out -- particularly if your own mixing environment has problems you are having difficulties getting around and there is an appropriate budget. Clearly an experienced engineer in a good monitoring environment with good tools should be able to correct some of the problems induced by mixing in a compromised environment. But -- by that token you might as well supply stems -- or just let someone else mix it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 If the room isn't good enough to master it, it probably isn't good enough to mix it, right? That leaves out most home studios. But that's even more reason why someone should check out their mixes on different speakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Karma1 Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 I do all my composing and tracking in my own project studio on my ProTools LE rig. However I take my tracks to another studio for final mixing and mastering. The engineer I work with has a wealth of experience as well as a $50,000 ProTools rig and racks full of high-end outboard gear like Neve, Manley, Langevin, Waves L2, etc. Since my music is being distributed internationally and competing with other professionally-produced cd's, it's worth it to me to spend the extra money to have it sound as good as it possibly can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jlampson Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 You mean you don't just mix and master through headphones? =P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 Interestingly, I wrote my answer in the coffeehouse just as my battery was giving up the ghost. (I forgot to recharge in between coffee house visits so it was actually a pretty heroic last stand, as it put in about three hours today after the previous session and not having been charged in about a week.) Anyhow, not more than five minutes later one of my pals walked in, mentioned he'd just finished a jazz/standards album he'd done for a woman singer and it had just come back from mastering and it sounded great. So, as were were talking about the music we drifted off into the mastering aspects. He'd sent it to a well-known guy who likes to use stems -- but encourages the producer (but not the artist) to be there during mastering (which eliminates most of my misgivings about sending out a set of stems for final mix and mastering). He said he always uses this guy because the stuff always ends up sounding great. Now, my pal's dedicated project studio is longer on infrastructure (a nice little solo/drum booth with double glass doors) than on actual monitor set up, he's got a pair of KRK 7 or 8 inch NFMs and no references (his NS10m's are on loan). But as he went on about his ME's studio, he first mentioned the guy's audiophile brand monitors and then mentioned that he used $2,000 speaker interconnects... The sound of my eyes rolling upwards in their sockets must have stopped him because he quickly interjected, "But his mastering always sounds great!" What can you say, if it works for you, it works for you. But there's no way in hell I would shell out the kind of money a guy who buys $2000 speaker cables would have to charge -- and there's triple no way in hell I'd shell it out to a guy who would buy them. (And I note in perusing the ME's website that he recommends getting one's technical information from Stereophile Magazine... I don't know if you know Stereophile -- but it's one of those voodoo/clever little clock/fantasy audiophile rags filled with crypto-fabulist technology -- a real laff riot, IYAM.) Great sounding mastering -- or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members techristian Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 I master my stuff myself. Why? The last time I paid an engineer in a real studio he made 2 real big mistakes and charged me over $80 an hour to make those mistakes ! 1) He cut an entire verse out of a song. 2) He cut an entire drum out of the mix ! Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 If the room isn't good enough to master it, it probably isn't good enough to mix it, right? Wrong. One can get a good overall relative balance and tones, but if their room has issues it will throw the balance off when it gets outside the room. Mastering can correct that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 No I don't think it's a good idea... which is why I prefer to have someone else master it and do so whenever possible. I prefer to be there during the process, though. +1 If the budget's there, I always prefer to have someone else that I know and trust do the mastering on an album I've recorded, although like Lee, I prefer to attend the mastering session whenever possible. If the budget's NOT there, I have to do it myself, but I certainly don't think that's the "ideal". YMMV. I've done a fair amount of low budget mastering for other folks too, and while I usually have better gear, a better room and better speakers than where it was tracked / mixed, I wouldn't consider myself to be a true "mastering engineer" or that we're a mastering house. But even having it done low budget by someone like me is better than DIY for most people IMHO. There's no substitute for getting someone else's ears involved, in a different room, and with a fresh perspective - as long as they're not just going to squash and run... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 I master my stuff myself. Why? The last time I paid an engineer in a real studio he made 2 real big mistakes and charged me over $80 an hour to make those mistakes !1) He cut an entire verse out of a song.2) He cut an entire drum out of the mix !Dan I can see how one could leave a drum out of a mix -- but how does one accidentally cut an entire verse out of a song? (Unless, I suppose, he was removing something else and the mouse slipped or he lost his place on a tape.) One of my pals who does a lot of mixing and remixing got the raw tracks from a PT dump off a local studio's 24 track... I don't know who was behind the board at the studio for the tracking or dump but when it came to him -- two whole choruses of back up vocals were ON THE DRUM TRACKS. This is not some low-end, shoebox studio. It's a decent sized facility with a fairly decent client list and their rates are not especially low -- particularly in today's bargain bin market. Like so much else in this old world, it's pretty much caveat emptor time 24/7 in the music services biz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted October 24, 2007 Members Share Posted October 24, 2007 Wrong. One can get a good overall relative balance and tones, but if their room has issues it will throw the balance off when it gets outside the room. Mastering can correct that. But the purpose of mixing isn't to get good overall relative balance and tones, it's to make the song sound like you want it. If you can't do that in your room, then you need to address the room. If you can do that, then your room should sound good enough to master it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.