My question could belong in the mastering section but would like to hear from other producers/engineers.
I've been thinking about offering a mastering service for my clients and was thinking of outsourcing it to someone who has the expertise.
A friend of mine recently did his cd on a laptop, sent it to a mastering house and although overcompressed, it turned from a home demo to a professional releasable cd (I was blown away)
What has your experience been with mastering? is there a big difference between unmastered/mastered versions? would it be worth it for my clients?

I am aware the elements and the mix needs to be good etc. What I would like to know is your experience, even if you've made a terrible mix which turned out half decent when mastered

One of my projects came back worse than it was to start with. (Although I think that was more the result of the client's input) We sent the client directly to them instead of being a "go-between." The client just wanted HOTTER, HIGHER, MORE! (Until it sucked most of the tone out) Also, they didn't use their best engineer for the job either.

So I guess the moral of the story is, don't refer a client that has no "ear" directly to the the mastering folx. But if you do, make sure he gets one of their better engineers. If a studio contacts them to do the job instead of the individual, I think they are more likely to take it more seriously. (Assuming the guy is an *unknown*)

I think mastering is really important. I have had some albums I have done come back from mastering quite different, and other have been virtually identical to the mixes (guess I did an OK job mixing those)

When I do albums with good budgets I always like to get them mastered by some one else, but I do it myself for projects with tighter budgets and do a bit of it for other people, but I was a professional engineer for about 15 years before I really felt comfortable mastering.

Whether there's a "big difference" has two factors: who you use and what the goal is.

If you want a modern "loud" master, or that's the ME's default, there will be a big diff--you just can't slam it without significantly changing the fidelity.

My working understanding of "mastering" comes from the explanation I was given a long time ago when I was just a po' musician trying to put out my first record. I've learned alot more about it since, but that original understanding still makes sense to me. A buddy of mine, that was an engineer, told that basicly instead of mixing the tracks of a song, mastering was kind of like "mixing" the songs on a record. The main goal was to get them to sound like they belonged together instead of some hodge podge collection of tunes like you'd have on a demo. This made alot of sense to me, and still does. I read and hear so much about loudness and corrective measures, but, for me the goal is still the same as it was then. I would never dream of putting out a CD without having it mastered. If I couldn't afford a pro, I'd do it myself. I just can't see putting out a CD with songs of different volumes or different overall eq characteristics. It just doesn't make sense to me. Of course now, in the world of the ipod, it's starting to look like singles are the way to go. So I'm wondering what the new face of mastering ,as I understand it, is going to look like.

Lance

I wanted to add that I mastered my 1680 mixed album, because it needed a LOT of tweaking. I didn't have the budget for someone to spend the kind of time it would take to even out those mixes.

...this time around, everything's quite even...a few DBs RMS squeeze and setting the HPF to the appropriate freq for each tune should be all it takes.

Bassman,

It all depends....
I have had relationships with mastering engineers where I knew what they would do to the mix later and I would mix specifically for that.

Blindly sending something off to mastering is usually a bad idea.
I do Master albums myself every now and then.
It isn't ROCKET science but it does require experience and you need a reliable listening environment.
The mastering engineer I use has an EXCELLENT playback system and I can hear subtle Low Frequencies there that I can't hear at home.

Lately I haven't been using an Analog stage when I go to Mastering (I haven't like what it does)
and I have most of the same Plugins that any Mastering house would have. Good Analog mastering gear is expensive. Something to think about.

jmp

I am getting one track mastered next week by a guy who's got some serious credits (and some great gear). It's a bit of an experiement and will let you know my thoughts.
I've spoken to several other producers about mastering and they all have varied experiences. I guess at the end of the day you can't polish a turd and what I have noticed with most of the great projects I've been involved with is that the mixes already sounded fantastic. The mastering sort of gave it that extra push over the cliff or turned it up to 11.

Nice "Spinaltap" ref Bassman, NICE!

I am a firm believer of sending mixes out to a good ME if the budget allows for it. This seems to be a ongoing arguement in the audio realm these days. To me there is something to be said about sending audio through 100lbs of metal to make it sound better in the end. Not to say that one day (probably soon) we will all be in the pristine "Buck Rogers" era where music is sterile, but for now I think that tube gear cannot be emulated in a plugin. It comes damn close, but not perfect.

For a artist to have a budget set aside and go to a good house (Georgetown, Sterling Sound, John Script ;-)) I think it is the best move they can make. Any hack can slam a song through a L2 and call it mastering, but there is again something to be said about a Manley Slam into a Weiss EQ, into another Manley and then into good converters that sounds "better" then the Waves LinMB, into a Massey or L2/L3 with a PowR dither plug on it. I recently use Bob Olhsson for a project and his touch was amazing. I made a ref master from my procedure and then A/B'd it to his. He has much more fullness to the mix and the highs were tamed to not be harsh to the ear. I will be using Bob in the projects to come for sure and his rates were great. (For those that do not know Bob, he was at Motown Records for a few years and has helped define "Mastering" for the past 35+ years) I have also used a younger ME in New YOrk by the name of Nathan James. Again, FANTASTIC ME and has a slick system that you can upload files to and he then mails it back. Sterling Sound in New York is another BIG house that does a ton of records and has a "midnight master" plan for lower budget clients. Worth looking into for sure.

So I think that it is wise to get clients to budget for it. There is something that a ME does that regular engineers not necessarily cannot do, but it is always nice to have a new set of ears on the final product. And YES, usually a ME house will have amazing converters and EQ to get the best and most out of your mix. I really hate to master my clients, but can if needed. I tend to frown on the smaller studios who "claim" to do "mastering" and then you see that they have OZONE to master with solely.

Best of luck,

Doc

I just had my upcoming cd mastered here . Great job. Evened things out while preserving the dynamics. I say if there's a budget, send your project to someone who does it for a living.

I got a track mastered this week more as a test really. It sounds good, a bit more balanced and quite a bit louder but in a way almost identical to my original mix which could mean 2 things. Either my original mix was so terrible beyond repair or so blindingly brilliant that very little tweaking was needed.
So was it worth it? I'd say definately and it's also a good reminder that a good mix is required before the mastering stage.

If money isn't going to be a problem, have it mastered, but by someone who has experience working in the field. If you look at their stuff and you don't know what you're seeing, they probably have some good gear and know how to use it. I know a bunch of shmucks who have sent stuff to "budget" mastering guys who'll give it a quick run thru waves and leave it the same, which is just a huge waste of money. I think that every mix always has room for improvement, and mastering can always help it out a little, at least.

I'm still surprised by how many musicians come to me wanting a recording but have no idea what mastering is or that they should be leaving space in the budget for it. I've started explaining it like it's making a cake--tracking is like getting all your ingredients lined up on the counter and measured out, mixing is like mixing all the ingredients together and ready to cook, maybe adding a dash of flavor here and there, and mastering is like baking it. I wouldn't want to eat a cake that wasn't baked (nor would anyone want to try it or buy it) and I wouldn't want to listen to an album that wasn't mastered (nor would I expect a radio station to spin it or a store to stock it).

I've had clients take their mixes to their "friend who did it for 50 bucks" that pretty much ruined it--too much limiting, digital clipping, and other things that weren't there before and shouldn't be there now. The "ME" burnt the cake. I've also had clients who took recordings of a lousy performance to a good ME and now it sounds like a good mastering of a lousy performance, like a nicely decorated cake lovingly made with dog food.

quote:

Originally posted by dirtyragamuffin:
I'm still surprised by how many musicians come to me wanting a recording but have no idea what mastering is (snip)

I'm still surprised how many people (almost always rappers for some reason) send me all their raw tracks (as in not mixed).

quote:

like a nicely decorated cake lovingly made with dog food.

HAR!!

Crap, now I can't get that image outta my head!

mud