Hi John,

You are so on target with your article. Let me add that even online mastering services that appear to be reputable and professional, can be deceptive in their practices.

Case in point is www.xarc-mastering.com from Germany, where the engineer Lorenz Vauck, who is obviously the guy behind the service as stated on his site, appears to be operated by many people. The language is always "We" this or that. But, it's all just Mr. Vauck doing the talking.

Even on his personal web site he implies that he owns more than one facility, fully staffed and under his responsibility. (see About ‘real’ mastering) "The difference between XARC’s on-line mastering and an equally-skilled “brick and mortar” firm – lets call them “Firm X” – is not to be found in the “usefulness” of the product. XARC and Firm X both use professional-grade equipment, and both employ professional, skilled and talented mastering engineers. Both have actual studios too, and both are in every way real mastering firms. " http://www.lorenzvauck.com/

Now, his deception is in that, he made a puppet site called "www.masteringcentral.com" that apparently specializes in reviewing mastering services. However, the only review and the only company that is plugged in, it's you guessed it, www.xarc-mastering.com.

How do I know that? My name is Hans Klein from Washington, a year ago you could have gone to whois.com and find out who had the domain name for "www.masteringcentral.com". Do you know who that was? The contact name was Hans Klein from Pennsylvania. When I saw that I said to myself, hmm, how coincidental is that? A guy who is the same name as me and is also a musician.

So, through whois.com I found out his phone number and called him to inquire about the online mastering facility that he "recommends" on just about every page on his masteringcentral.com web site. When I got Hans Klein on the phone, he acted as if he didn't know what I was talking about, didn't even know what mastering was, ended the conversation very quickly and told me to call Lorenz Vauck, the mastering guy.

If that was someone in my family or even a musician/engineer whose name is just like mine, do you think he would have had the courtesy to spend a little time on the phone with a possible new found relative and address my questions? I believe that guy's name wasn't even Hans Klein and in fact he doesn't even write anything for www.masteringcentral.com. This is Lorenz Vauck's puppet web site, created solely to elevate him to a level of an authority in the field of mastering. He used someone in the U.S. to register the domain and since you don't have to prove identity to register domains, voila!

Unfortunately, you can't get whois.com to reveal the name of the domain account holder for www.masteringcentral.com anymore because it's gone private. Are you surprised of that?

Why a so "talented" mastering engineer as Lorenz has to resort to deceitful practices is beyond me, but what does it say of his work ethics?

Food for thought.

Dear John,

Nothing against $99 for mastering an album facilities, but without doing too much investigation I find suspicious www.mastering4less.com. Has anybody done any business with them? Here is what I found out:

The site appears to be honest about the equipment list (which is mediocre at best), however, listing "DIGIDESIGN PROTOOLS" is probably misleading because, there is no way they paid $15K for a professional ProTools TDM System and charge that ridiculous fee for mastering. It's most likely just software. (If it's not the free online version)

Second, there isn't even a sample to hear. All it's said on the site is: "visit www.joeycutless.com, we master all the material for that site" (this is a hip hop production studio for beats and what not). So, this is to hear their samples. But, do you who is it owned by? You guessed it, www.mastering4less.com.
How do I know that? If you go to place an order for that mastering service, you'll see the company name "UNSTOPABLE PRODUCTIONS INC". If you go to www.joeycutless.com, at the bottom of the main page you'll see a copyright "2001 - 2008 by Unstopable Productions Inc". How dumb is that?

Very. Especially if you represent yourself as a legit mastering facility servicing the hip hop community and appears to know all about that service.

So, what's the look of a $99 per album mastering facility?

See it at http://www.joeycutless.com/sitebuilder/images/studio1-176x147.jpg where you unmistakably always get your money's worth. A keyboard and a turntable on each side is hardly standard mastering equipment. That's the studio used for mastering as well as all the beats and what not, without a doubt.

I am not saying that this is another mastering scam web site, I am merely illustrating that these services often are NOT all what they appear to be. It's widely known that the best mastering comes from those who, all they do all day long, is mastering. The cost will never be less than $400 for an album.

So, $99 per album, $15 per song? Come on! Now, you know why so cheap. They suck at it.

Pretty informative thread, especially since I've got a few projects coming up that I will be looking to have mastered, but certainly have budgetary restraints. Thanks John for the article!

Hey John,

Audio-cd-mastering.com is another site that charges peanuts for mastering and claims to have as clients, "Big Label" accounts.

The name of this dubious engineer-owner is Ryan Clement. I called his phone number and much to my surprise, he actually answered. I told him that I wanted to stop by to check out his studio for a possible mastering project.

You know what he told me?

He said "This is a private studio, so it's not possible"

I asked why being "private" means that I am not welcome to use his facility.

His second answer made even less sense. He said, "If I have to show you the studio, it would cost you three times more".

How convenient, ha? I wonder what he would have said if I replied: No problem, I'll then pay you 3 times more. Would he have given me the first answer (it's a private studio)?

I don't know about you, but it makes me very suspicious when I can't check out a studio in person or if in order to do so, the fees advertised on the site become significantly higher.

Also, on a quick search for 'Ryan Clement' with Google, nothing comes up with big label name attached to it.

In my opinion, he is another mediocre mastering guy with mediocre equipment to do so, or he would otherwise be charging serious bucks like the real pros.

Somebody should take him up on his 'send us one song and we'll master it for free, we're so sure you'll be back for more after you hear the results' offer and see what comes back.

Good thread here. I get incredibly suspicious of these places as well. Lots of times you find guys who have the Waves L2 or Massey plug (all great plug) but there is something to be said about sending your music through 100lbs of metal and tubes that makes it stand out. I am sorry but a plugin cannot do this, nor can Ozone that everyone hypes up. In my experience a Mastering Engineer is a different breed. I get pissed when I read about studios who mix their bands, engineer them, and "Master" them in the same space etc. Just because they have an outboard compressor. It has a lot more to do than just that. Converters are a BIG factor, layers of Compressors, eq, etc. There is a reason a WEISS Eq costs what it does. These hacks that say they master are just pumping up the levels and anyone with a software limiter can do just that. Heck I have mastered stuff on a budget band, but by NO MEANS consider myself a mastering guy. These 99 dollar per ALBUM places scare me. I just had a 5 song EP mastered by Bob Olhsson (Motown Records)and it was under 500 bucks for him to do at his place and it sounds like a record - LOUD AND PROUD. For using Georgetown Mastering it was a bit more, but not out of the budget. Hell, Sterling Sound (mastering pretty much every great record out today) has their midnight mastering plan which is good.

Bottom line: Tell your bands to budget for mastering. It is your name on the material and theirs and they only get 1 chance at making it right.

Just budget for it. If you have a producer, he/she should do this as well.

Doc

Thing is....plenty of great mastering engineers master with plugins only (for certain projects). Of course they have a nice impressive collection of hardware sitting nearby with nice flashing lights

jmp

quote:

Originally posted by John Mark Painter:
Thing is....plenty of great mastering engineers master with plugins only (for certain projects). Of course they have a nice impressive collection of hardware sitting nearby with nice flashing lights

jmp

Sure, but I bet those "flashing lights" are beating to the sound of the music way before the plugin is...

IntelDoc, you are correct. Mastering engineers who own Manley , UA or Avalon gear, will never miss a good opportunity to process with analog.

That doesn't mean that an expensive digital workstation with good converters can't do the job, though.

Hans K.

Sure, but how many "Mastering Houses" have you gone too that are strictly "In the Box" using Ozone, Massey, or Waves. I mean really, I do not know of one record that has sold that was a In The Box master. I may be out of it from this viewpoint, but most reputible houses use analog gear and usually it is Weiss, Lavry, Manley and a few other pieces.

Just saying...

and I know that with good converters you can get a decent master, but again there is something to be said about sending audio through 100lbs of metal and tubes to make it sound "Great!"

quote:

I do not know of one record that has sold that was a In The Box master. I may be out of it from this viewpoint,

Actually...there are LOTS.
Good Mastering Houses do have great Analog gear on hand but that doesn't mean it is always used.
I always check it both ways.

When I am delivering digital Masters I almost always pick the all digital path over analog. You lose some width and depth in the A/D conversion and you have to decide if it is worth it.

jmp

quote:

Originally posted by IntelDoc:
Sure, but how many "Mastering Houses" have you gone too that are strictly "In the Box" using Ozone, Massey, or Waves. I mean really, I do not know of one record that has sold that was a In The Box master. I may be out of it from this viewpoint, but most reputible houses use analog gear and usually it is Weiss, Lavry, Manley and a few other pieces.

IntelDoc, I have been checking up mastering houses in a couple of big cities and checked and continue to check online facilities (for the convenience of it). Some music mastering online services don't let you send or upload music unless you are paying for an order. All they offer is before/after online samples and as you know, they could be manipulated and you wouldn't know it.

The mastering houses I visited had both digital and analog gear which they used no matter what project is at hand. 2 Out of 10 mastering houses were all digital. One used a ProTools TDM system with the Waves bundle you seem to disapprove of, and the other was not really a mastering house but a young and honest fellow still in college with a PC and a Nuendo program that had (I guess cheap) plug ins like the ones you mentioned above.

His work was OK, but he lacked the experience that is needed to really determine the best engineering approach to make music sound like real records. The guy with the TDM mix system, rented space in a music rehearsal building and he seemed to know what he was doing, but I could hear music from the other rooms and I believe that total silence in the mastering process is important. Again, his work was good but not great, because in my view, he lacked the experience to make critical adjustments to my music.

From all my visits, nearly all the mastering houses working on digital and with the expensive and not so expensive analog gear, gave me a better product, but the engineers were seasoned in the kraft. A particular studio using analog gear made by Samson, Dbx and Digitech and charging $45 an hour, sounded just as good as the one with Manley and Focusrite.

"Flashing lights" make no difference because the best sound that I've ever heard coming from my music, was from an online facility that used digital equipment and a mastering engineer with 25 years of audio experience.

When I compared their work to the others, I noticed how much smoother the mix was overall and how amazingly great the bass sounded! The detail of their work was excellent, they even removed a sibilance problem from the mix without impacting the high end. This is mastering at its best and this is without any analog gear.

I did ask why digital only and they said that if I wanted to add Avalon compression and eq, that it will cost me an extra $15 dollars per mix. I asked, why so cheap? the answer was, this analog gear takes 30 minutes to warm up to calibration point and all settings have to be written on paper in case I wanted to adjust something. So, digital/analog mastering it's optional to them and they charge you a bit more for the inconvenience!

This really has taught me that at least in the mastering world, digital technology has tilted the balance over and there is no doubt in my mind that, most important than any equipment, is the engineering experience. It's time that a lot people wake up and smell the coffee.

Hmmmm..... So he coffee is on eh?

I never said that you cannot "master" in the box and there is NOTHING cheap about WAVES plugins. Have you ever bought them? 4500 bucks for the diamond bundle I think is hardly cheap. Sure you can take work to a full digital house and they can put a bunch of plugins to get the levels up. In a good room you can use the L2 and get it loud enough. If the operator IE (Mastering Engineer) knows how to use a LinMB compressor and NOT suck the life out of the mix with it then good on him. That is a big thing that in a bad room can destroy your mix. But, yes you can on a budget get a good master out of plugins. Does it sound "Warmer" than running it through some nice tube gear and great conveters.... to my ears no? Granted I have had the opportunity to use some fantastic mastering engineers (Bob Olhsson, Nathan James, and Sterling Sound) So, sure you can go to a place and get a decent master. Is there a difference? To some, sure, to my ears... sure. But in the end it all depends on the budget, the clients wants and the mix that gets to the mastering engineer to start with. I am under the belief to send a mix to the guy the best that you can and make him do LITTLE as possible to make it more "Radio standard" for the client, or in most cases these days, LOUDER.

So please do not misunderstand me. THe point of this was sending music to the HACKS out there who make it loud and proud, but destroy the quality or dynamics. A good mastering guy can try to avoid that. I just got a 5 song EP back and the ME told me, "Ya I could squeeze a few db more, but why? It did not fit the music, just turn it up." Was it loud, sure was, but it was not competing with the loudness wars and it still retained dynamics. Just what I wanted.

So what you will, enjoy what you like and learn I guess. In the end it is audio and there is no RIGHT/PERFECT way to do things. Each client is always different.

Best,

Doc

IntelDoc, believe what you believe, and hear what you think you hear from analog gear. To me, it's not the gear but the 2o years or more of engineering experience the ME brings yo the table.

How come only people who over spent money on analog equipment talk just like you? Because if word got out that analog is obsolete, a lot of CEO and regular people would be on the unemployment line.

No disrespect, but I can tell you, having spoken to many engineers, that analog is a big illusion of the mind. Analog and digital masters have been tested time after time and the results were the same: inconclusive.

So stick to your analog preference and I will stick to my believe that in the end is about engineering experience.

I certainly don't want to argue analog vs. digital -- But let's just say that people have definite preferences that can be repeatable... I think digital is great, but I prefer to do some things in analog. I even love mixing digitally, but summing in analog.

Brings back a recent memory... Listening to some recordings -- One set summed digitally, the other summed analog (through a Crane Song Spider, specifically). Did the whole "blind A/B" test over and over.

Now, some things were conclusive and others inconclusive... 4 out of 6 preferred the analog version - 100% of the time. 2 out of 6 preferred the digital version - Also 100% of the time.

The conclusion wasn't that 2/3rd's preferred analog -- The conclusion is that there was a definitive preference, 100% of the time. That part was unexpected and blew everyone away.

(EDIT) Explaining "100%" -- A/B, make a choice. A/B, make a choice. Come back to it later, A/B, make a choice. No matter what order, the same people preferred the same files repeatedly.

quote:

IntelDoc, believe what you believe, and hear what you think you hear from analog gear. To me, it's not the gear but the 2o years or more of engineering experience the ME brings yo the table.

How come only people who over spent money on analog equipment talk just like you? Because if word got out that analog is obsolete, a lot of CEO and regular people would be on the unemployment line.

No disrespect, but I can tell you, having spoken to many engineers, that analog is a big illusion of the mind. Analog and digital masters have been tested time after time and the results were the same: inconclusive.

So stick to your analog preference and I will stick to my believe that in the end is about engineering experience.

Damn Hans, don't go get all bent outta shape. I am by no means attacking you. Just making the argument that was posted. You have obviously misunderstood my reasoning. And for christ sake, google Bob Olhsson and you will see where my rational comes from, but what do I know... I guess I am just one of those guys who makes records with Analog Summing and mixes on a HD system. Hmmm... that would mean that I track via Analog Pre's like everyone else... Mix in Pro Tools (holy crap digital...) but sum out to a API DSM setup and lots of analog gear (wow - analog) and get much more punch outta the API rig than I do in Pro Tools.... It has been tested and proven. Read reviews, google it.

So don't go get all bent outta shape because I challenged you and your reasons. THis is a forum and a topic that has been discussed many times over and will continue to be. I think that John's last post was spot on and I know him and his work. Hell I have mixed one of his clients in the past. It is a decision of the mastering engineer sure, and experience counts. I think that was the whole reason for this post to determine that the "hacks" who are using certain ways to master and calling it Mastered. Dude, I can throw my L2 on the master fader and slam it, call it mastered and move to the next one. That is not what it is all about I am afraid.

Whatever makes you happy I guess. Your ears are your own. I will stick to my digital/analog summing setup. Seems to be doing well for me.

Doc

Was reading on the Womb and found this quote from Bob Ohlsson to be interesting

"The thing about analog signal paths is that no two can possibly have the same frequency and phase response while every digital signal path is absolutely identical. Running a stereo signal through any analog channel makes the image a bit wider and when transformers are involved the extra phase shift can make it quite a bit wider. Tape heads also do this and gap scatter scrambles the time relationships between different tracks a bit. This is why mixing drum mikes together to a track sounds different from recording separate tracks and then combining them in the mix."


Enjoy,
Doc

quote:

Originally posted by IntelDoc:
Was reading on the Womb and found this quote from Bob Ohlsson to be interesting

"The thing about analog signal paths is that no two can possibly have the same frequency and phase response while every digital signal path is absolutely identical. Running a stereo signal through any analog channel makes the image a bit wider and when transformers are involved the extra phase shift can make it quite a bit wider. Tape heads also do this and gap scatter scrambles the time relationships between different tracks a bit. This is why mixing drum mikes together to a track sounds different from recording separate tracks and then combining them in the mix."


Enjoy,
Doc

I am not taking away the virtues of analog tracking at all. Also, summing out in analog/digital is fine too. What I am referring is that at least in terms of mastering, digital is more than sufficient to do the job, and with someone who is been mastering for over 15 or 20 years, the results are excellent. Both digital and analog have now great specs, so it doesn't matter what equipment is used. However, I believe digital is better, to me that fuzz and warmth don't do much for me.

If I put all the warmth and analog noise I ever wanted on my tracking and mixing, I expect the cleanest frequency alignment without adding analog squat to the final master. That's the bottom line and that's what digital mastering can achieve with the experience of someone who knows what he is doing.

To each their own I guess. Whatever works man. Whatever works. Like they say, there is no RIGHT way. Just make it sound good. If it is sterile like a well produced STING CD (all digital) or gritty like a Jack Johnson CD (all TAPE) as long as it sounds good, good on ya.

Best....

Doc

quote:

Originally posted by IntelDoc:
If it is sterile like a well produced STING CD (all digital) or gritty like a Jack Johnson CD (all TAPE) as long as it sounds good, good on ya.
Doc

Sterile CDs are the result of tracking and mixing with cheap A/D converters and mastered with yet a cheap digital software and hardware computer workstation.

I am not referring to that type of process ($10 - $15 song mastering, one of the reasons why we all are posting here).

I am referring to great production mixes recorded with the best of both technologies.

I also can't form an opinion about your Sting CD example for digital sterility, but on the other side of the coin, if you listened to the 2001 remastered version of the Beach Boys album "Smiley Smile" which supposedly was mastered with the best analog and digital gear, you'll find it to sound noisier and worse than the original LP release from the 60's and the original first CD release in 1990.

Bottom line, a quality digital mastering process with an experienced ME is better than a rookie mastering engineer armed with a 1/4 million dollar SSL board and the best analog gear money can buy to do your mastering.

We are also assuming that the person seeking a mastering service, is not a jack off with a half ass mix, recorded with a cheap mic, tracked with poor recording gear and rendered with mediocre sound converters.

No analog or digital mastering skill would ever bring that mix to industry standards and to sound punchy, warm, round and clear.

Best.

Hans