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

Hi all, I am new member round here and I thought this was a good starting point. Well my name is Barry and I am a freelance sound engineer with a lot of experience in radio programming and other sound work. I have recently started offering an "online" mastering service as well as my labour within mostly London based studios. Typically this will appeal to small record labels and independent artists who need an experienced ear over their material and the ability to make judgements over what is needed to bring it together and I welcome input from the client. It's tricky, the processing tools I use are all software based and many say that this won't necessarily cut it. Well I believe that software has the potential to work wonders on audio and as such I am setting up my room in a way that it makes sense to my ear and my room mode response software (it is not going to look too pretty and there is a whole lot of Rockwool / high density acoustic foam treatment going on!) Luckily you don't see it on a master. This is how I can do my work for what I think is reasonable cost + other low overheads.

I am sure analogue high end equipment can add a little extra but I reckon that I can achieve around 90pct the quality, you sure have to pay more than 10pct more than my prices to get it !

Such a large amount of this (as someone mentioned) is the engineers ability, consideration and skill to manipulate the equipment available and to that end you are paying essentially for my time and the gear is thrown in.

At the price offered to clients I expect I think I have exactly the correct business model as at the end of the day we need to pay bills like anyone else. Unless you are ripping someone off it comes down to :

1)Who is the market?
2)Equip using knowledge appropriately
3)Price it appropriately relative to competition
4)Do an honest and best possible job with the tools you have.
5) Continually improve skills and knowedge

By the way I own both Cubase and Nuendo and they are both legit copies as is every piece of software I own. (So John you now know 1 person, at least online !) I feel I have to represent myself as it can also be confusing for a new mastering service user to understand what is what. I don't particularly feel proud that I have bundles of Rockwool in cotton sheets but I know that whether it looks good or not is irrelavant to the end result of sound quality. If you want to come over thats fine by me but I will have to explain that it does not look to pretty but it is functional and a means to an end. (yes good sounding rooms can look funny) Also I have built my equipment inventory over years and with sensible choices and so I don't feel I need to recoup the costs, I don't have loans on my gear etc. and so just because someone can offer decent prices does not mean they are not good and that they are not an honest person doing the best they can to make a living from what they love doing. It's a minefield for the unwary that is for sure.

I am hoping to contribute to this forum as and when I can.

Thanks

This is Ryan Clement

Before you start making assumptions why don't you send us one song www.audio-cd-mastering.com and we will master it for FREE. How can you beat that offer. This dude is just hating. I have been mixing for my whole life in Southern CA. I am also a marketing consultant for Side One Dummy Records and we had a top Billboard album Flogging Molly a couple weeks ago. Get a life! John keep giving yourself credit, not a good look! Thanks for keeping my name out there.