I voted No. More than once a mix i did sounded better before mastering than after. I'm not at all saying that i can do better mastering myself but due to these bad experiences i've grown custom to doing it myself, and getting good result / feedback.
Out of interest though, i will hopefully soon visit http://www.amsterdammastering.com/, supposedly one of the best mastering rooms in europe. Gonna keep my eyes and ears wide open!
Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
Re: Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
My remedy for this is to give each project some time off. Completely forget about it for two weeks, a month. IMO The longer you can stay away the better.leedsquietman wrote:Yes - but it works both ways. Sometimes your vision might be the ULTIMATE vision for a track.
Other times, you are so close to the track that you can't see the WOOD FROM THE TREES.
Tod at least has a circle of friends with experience to run it by, so there is some external objectivity there.
At the end of the day, the best way of doing this will vary from user to user there is no one definitive 'one size fits all' answer.
Then,your ears should be fresher or more neutral to the project and less subjective.
Anyway, we all know that traditionally, the pro is the way to go. But what the heck, this is art and one of the reasons we are all in it is for the freedom. Freedom to express ones self, even if this sometimes means changing the papameters, and creating new boundaries.
fe real!
-
computercontrolled
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:01 pm
Re: Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
I dont like to master my own tracks, i'd rather have a professional mastering engineer with better gear and fresh ears, but sadly i cannot afford it so i have to do it myself.
Re: Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
Out of interest, after considering this thread's poll & discussion, has it changed much over the last couple of years?Tarekith wrote:I think I asked this here a couple years back, just curious how much has changed since then.
Re: Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
peez wrote:I voted No. More than once a mix i did sounded better before mastering than after. I'm not at all saying that i can do better mastering myself but due to these bad experiences i've grown custom to doing it myself, and getting good result / feedback.
Out of interest though, i will hopefully soon visit http://www.amsterdammastering.com/, supposedly one of the best mastering rooms in europe. Gonna keep my eyes and ears wide open!
That studio is sexy, I have seen it before but would love to hear it in action. Please report back your findings
Re: Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
Shouldn't the label be mastering the tracks anyway?
I find it a bit cheap of a label to expect the artist to do the lot. BY all means master track yourself (or get someone you know to do it) for demo purposes but that's it. I am going to create a thread about this
I find it a bit cheap of a label to expect the artist to do the lot. BY all means master track yourself (or get someone you know to do it) for demo purposes but that's it. I am going to create a thread about this
-
senator adam
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:14 am
- Location: Seattle
- Contact:
Re: Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
I feel you should always have someone else master. It's been explained in many posts above so no use doing it again. It's definitely saved my ass many times because I got soooooo into the mixing that I didn't see the overall picture until mastered.
But on another note, I feel that many of the complaints about how Ableton and digital DJs sound bad compared to vinyl is mainly due to this subject. With vinyl, it's almost ALWAYS mastered for vinyl by a mastering engineer that knows what the outcome should sound like.
Yet with DJs playing digital files, many of them could have been self-mastered by producers that don't know how to master. They throw on presets of some mastering software and listen to the "mastered product" in the same exact listening environment they made their tunes in, which hides the obvious mixing mistakes that were done. Hence, these tunes sound worse in the club than the tunes that were mastered properly on vinyl. This then gives the digital format a bad rep when it's actually the mastering, or lack thereof, that is the problem..
But on another note, I feel that many of the complaints about how Ableton and digital DJs sound bad compared to vinyl is mainly due to this subject. With vinyl, it's almost ALWAYS mastered for vinyl by a mastering engineer that knows what the outcome should sound like.
Yet with DJs playing digital files, many of them could have been self-mastered by producers that don't know how to master. They throw on presets of some mastering software and listen to the "mastered product" in the same exact listening environment they made their tunes in, which hides the obvious mixing mistakes that were done. Hence, these tunes sound worse in the club than the tunes that were mastered properly on vinyl. This then gives the digital format a bad rep when it's actually the mastering, or lack thereof, that is the problem..
Re: Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
Eggnchips - I was actually debating for a few days posting this question as I was afraid it would be taken that way. Obviously this is my profession so I have an interest in the subject. I hope I'm allow to discuss the topic from time to time without people assuming it's always an ad.
Rave - In my experience it's still about 50% label pays, and 50% artist pays. Typically it depends on the size of the label and the release too, where a larger label with a big release will typically coordinate all the mastering. Either because they want a consistant 'sound' for their releases, or just because they've built a good relationship with a particular ME. A lot of the smaller download only type labels expect that the artist sends them a finished product, so there's still artists with releases under their belt that have it done themselves. Sometimes they'll wait until the track is actually signed before coming to me too, which can be a good compromise. Though I think it's worth pointing out that even if the label DOES pay for the mastering upfront, most times they expected to be recouped on that amount by the release before the artist gets their full cut. So in effect the artist is paying for it anyway.
80 - Surrpsingly it seems that these days more people are actually getting their tracks mastered by someone else. I would have guessed it was only about 10% before asking this question, so I'm a little surprised by how many people are doing it. I figure it's due to a few reasons based on the work I've seen:
- People are working more and more on their own, no longer in bands or doing as many "in-person" collabs. So it's one final chance to have another set of ears to go over it and make sure there's not any obvious issues their missing. I think there's also a lot more discussion and information out there now about what exactly is mastering, and why it "can" be useful too. So people seem more open to the idea now that they know more about it.
- People already know they have a less than ideal monitoring chain or environment they are working in. Some people come to me just to get advice on what parts of their songs they consistantly seem to be missing sonically. Once I've mastered a few of their songs and provided feedback, they're happy to continue working on their own knowing in advance what problem areas to listen for.
- There's cheaper options now. In the past mastering meant about $1000 per CD to have done, and it still is that price (rightly so) at the larger mastering facilities. But lately there's certainly a lot more budget options available to people as well, some good, some bad true, but at least the playing field has opened up some. In the past it certainly didn't make sense for an artist to spend $1000 on a 500-1000 copy release where they might only see $400 in profit. Now there's other options out there.
Rave - In my experience it's still about 50% label pays, and 50% artist pays. Typically it depends on the size of the label and the release too, where a larger label with a big release will typically coordinate all the mastering. Either because they want a consistant 'sound' for their releases, or just because they've built a good relationship with a particular ME. A lot of the smaller download only type labels expect that the artist sends them a finished product, so there's still artists with releases under their belt that have it done themselves. Sometimes they'll wait until the track is actually signed before coming to me too, which can be a good compromise. Though I think it's worth pointing out that even if the label DOES pay for the mastering upfront, most times they expected to be recouped on that amount by the release before the artist gets their full cut. So in effect the artist is paying for it anyway.
80 - Surrpsingly it seems that these days more people are actually getting their tracks mastered by someone else. I would have guessed it was only about 10% before asking this question, so I'm a little surprised by how many people are doing it. I figure it's due to a few reasons based on the work I've seen:
- People are working more and more on their own, no longer in bands or doing as many "in-person" collabs. So it's one final chance to have another set of ears to go over it and make sure there's not any obvious issues their missing. I think there's also a lot more discussion and information out there now about what exactly is mastering, and why it "can" be useful too. So people seem more open to the idea now that they know more about it.
- People already know they have a less than ideal monitoring chain or environment they are working in. Some people come to me just to get advice on what parts of their songs they consistantly seem to be missing sonically. Once I've mastered a few of their songs and provided feedback, they're happy to continue working on their own knowing in advance what problem areas to listen for.
- There's cheaper options now. In the past mastering meant about $1000 per CD to have done, and it still is that price (rightly so) at the larger mastering facilities. But lately there's certainly a lot more budget options available to people as well, some good, some bad true, but at least the playing field has opened up some. In the past it certainly didn't make sense for an artist to spend $1000 on a 500-1000 copy release where they might only see $400 in profit. Now there's other options out there.
tarekith
https://tarekith.com
https://tarekith.com
Re: Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
I hear what you are sayingTarekith wrote:
Rave - In my experience it's still about 50% label pays, and 50% artist pays. Typically it depends on the size of the label and the release too, where a larger label with a big release will typically coordinate all the mastering. Either because they want a consistant 'sound' for their releases, or just because they've built a good relationship with a particular ME. A lot of the smaller download only type labels expect that the artist sends them a finished product, so there's still artists with releases under their belt that have it done themselves. Sometimes they'll wait until the track is actually signed before coming to me too, which can be a good compromise. Though I think it's worth pointing out that even if the label DOES pay for the mastering upfront, most times they expected to be recouped on that amount by the release before the artist gets their full cut. So in effect the artist is paying for it anyway.
In the ideal world but let's say the label gets back to you, which has happened to me and they said, loved the track but could you change this and this - the change maybe as simple as remastering the track!. At best you end up mastering twice, unless you are doing a vanity release as UKRUSS very well expressed I don't see the point.Re: Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
What about the theory of perfecting the mix thus negating the requirement of an ME? Or at most very little of his services.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that it depends on the level/standard of production required. Ah mean, with a million-dollar-budget project, one would want to ensure that he invests in the best talent and equipment that that budget can afford in an effort to maximize on the returns.
However, a hobby or a low budget project or demo project wouldn't neccessarily warrant the expenditure.
So possibly there is no need to argue too much about this topic. The topic though was well put. It asked which one do we prefer and why. Not which is better, so there again is reason to keep it civil.
Probably that is why I haven't seen Mr. Deft passing through.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that it depends on the level/standard of production required. Ah mean, with a million-dollar-budget project, one would want to ensure that he invests in the best talent and equipment that that budget can afford in an effort to maximize on the returns.
However, a hobby or a low budget project or demo project wouldn't neccessarily warrant the expenditure.
So possibly there is no need to argue too much about this topic. The topic though was well put. It asked which one do we prefer and why. Not which is better, so there again is reason to keep it civil.
Probably that is why I haven't seen Mr. Deft passing through.
Last edited by evon on Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
fe real!
Re: Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
evon - sorry for being mean to you in the past, I have a problem dealing with dumb people. I have no patience for your kind of fuckwittery.
I'd hire an engineer if I was unsatisfied with a mastering job I've done. someday I might send a tune to Tarekith just to see how he'd do it. surely I'd learn a few tricks. I have zero ambition to ever sell a track I just like having fun with Live.
I'd hire an engineer if I was unsatisfied with a mastering job I've done. someday I might send a tune to Tarekith just to see how he'd do it. surely I'd learn a few tricks. I have zero ambition to ever sell a track I just like having fun with Live.
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
-
hacktheplanet
- Posts: 2846
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:37 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Re: Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
If I want pro results, I'll hire a pro.
Spending a buck on mastering is chump change compared to how long it will take me to master my own stuff. I'm a bonehead when it comes to mixing/mastering, and I don't have the gear either. Plus, it's beneficial to have an unfamiliar set of ears.
In fact, my band just got our EP back from our guy, and it sounds great. Well worth the $350.
Spending a buck on mastering is chump change compared to how long it will take me to master my own stuff. I'm a bonehead when it comes to mixing/mastering, and I don't have the gear either. Plus, it's beneficial to have an unfamiliar set of ears.
In fact, my band just got our EP back from our guy, and it sounds great. Well worth the $350.
Last edited by hacktheplanet on Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
how much do you typically make on a track? if you know a track won't sell as well do you factor that in?the_planet wrote:If I want pro results, I'll hire a pro.
Spending a buck on mastering is chump change compared to how long it will take me to master my own stuff.
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
-
hacktheplanet
- Posts: 2846
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:37 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Re: Have a professional master your songs, do it yourself?
Yup. This one is 3 tracks, and he's doing it for $350 mix/master which is an AWESOME deal. Normally it would be around $700 for 3 tracks mix/master. He's helping me out because he's a close friend and he has some spare time between projects right now.Tone Deft wrote:how much do you typically make on a track? if you know a track won't sell as well do you factor that in?the_planet wrote:If I want pro results, I'll hire a pro.
Spending a buck on mastering is chump change compared to how long it will take me to master my own stuff.
After pressing 100 CDs and printing 100 cardboard sleeves, artwork, and the price of mix/master, it will cost us around $600 total (not to mention all the time we spent recording and arranging in our studio space). We are going to give away 25 CDs free, and sell the rest for $3. So that leaves us with a net loss of around $400. We are also going to hopefully sell them on our website through Tunecore.
It's more of a promotional tool right now, and it's going to help us get into other clubs who require an actual demo... So we're OK spending the money.