Interesting. They have a fair amount of credibility, products and tech to pull off something better than some/most of the other online one-click type services.
The results I've heard from online mastering has been fine except when people send particularly amateur mixes or want it BRUTALLY loud. Decent Gant overlap in those.
So there didn’t seem to be pricing in the video.
I wonder if this is why we’ve not seen Slate’s Mastering plug updated even though he said they were deep in it quite a while ago.
Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 10376
Loc: Litchfield, NH, USA
Originally Posted By: Mooseboy
Good thing Falc retired when he did.
I've ONLY 'retired' for NEW customers wanting mastering, such as yourself, Doug.
Established clientele are still welcome to enjoy mastering by me, as I have done nine albums so far this year for them. Two were international.
Obviously trimmed WAY down, but NO local advertising, and nothing on the internet, which includes NO webpage.
One of the most enjoyable thrills I get out of life, is when I'm listening to one of the many online streaming music apps (for a certain type of music, whatever); and someone's song comes on that I mastered! It happens nearly every day. That REALLY makes me smile...a LOT.
. . Falcon
_________________________ . . . but, what do I know?
Reasonable pricing. And no cost if the client isn’t satisfied.
it's even cheaper if you do it yourself.
That TC FINALIZER --sure sufficed in the 90's > happy budget clients == and Alesis furthered that with the Masterlink ~!
if the mix is good, then then Mastering job is easy.
i'll put a saturation plugin on the Master to get the highs just the way i want it, then a Limiter with a couple of dB of reduction just to catch the stray peaks.
Reasonable pricing. And no cost if the client isn’t satisfied.
it's even cheaper if you do it yourself.
That TC FINALIZER --sure sufficed in the 90's > happy budget clients == and Alesis furthered that with the Masterlink ~!
if the mix is good, then then Mastering job is easy.
i'll put a saturation plugin on the Master to get the highs just the way i want it, then a Limiter with a couple of dB of reduction just to catch the stray peaks.
We have a limiter at the end - 0.01--- no Saturation plug -- maybe I can search one out -- trying to keep it simple
one EQ ~~~~ one Comp >>> TDR plugs >>
Most tweaking should already be applied >>in the mixing stage
I fully would recommend Tao explore options using AI if it's not in the budget to get actual caring human ears to do it. It's too late in the day to change course and "learn to master".
When you get ready to, though...allow me to show you what you should do to EVALUATE the master candidates. It's a BIG...BIG...fucking deal. It will ensure you get a GOOD SOUNDING master. Not JUST a loud one. THAT is a skill (and experience hearing the ACTUAL difference) that will help you at MANY turns of audio engineering.
We're supposed to be starting an album project. We haven't decided if I'm going to record it or if we'll use a local studio. I'll probably be in the market for a mastering service in about a year. The band operates at the pace of a glacier anymore. This seems like a very inexpensive option, but it is kind of weird at the same time.
Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 10376
Loc: Litchfield, NH, USA
Originally Posted By: C Jo Go
Tried one --- from the 880 --- SAYS " NOT ENOUGH HEAD ROOM "
Come on :: full 16 bit -- mixed to the Masterlink
C Jo...You're joking, right?
First of all, I'd NEVER use the terminology 'FULL 16 bit' together in the same sentence.
Secondly, if you're being told there's "NOT ENOUGH HEAD ROOM", that one's totally your error.
You need to be giving the mastering engineer plenty of room (in dB's) to work with the final mix. You ALSO can't simply slam it with a limiter way up at -0.01dB, either.
I don't know of a single replication house in the world that would accept such a thing like that. Running a True Peak level against something like that would show more clips than having your dog sent to the groomers for a haircut.
Running peaks at -6dB will leave the mastering engineer enough headroom to let them work with the material. Of course it really depends on the genre of material and level of dynamics within it.
. . Falcon
_________________________ . . . but, what do I know?
Tried one --- from the 880 --- SAYS " NOT ENOUGH HEAD ROOM "
Come on :: full 16 bit -- mixed to the Masterlink
C Jo...You're joking, right?
First of all, I'd NEVER use the terminology 'FULL 16 bit' together in the same sentence.
Secondly, if you're being told there's "NOT ENOUGH HEAD ROOM", that one's totally your error.
You need to be giving the mastering engineer plenty of room (in dB's) to work with the final mix. You ALSO can't simply slam it with a limiter way up at -0.01dB, either.
I don't know of a single replication house in the world that would accept such a thing like that. Running a True Peak level against something like that would show more clips than having your dog sent to the groomers for a haircut.
Running peaks at -6dB will leave the mastering engineer enough headroom to let them work with the material. Of course it really depends on the genre of material and level of dynamics within it.
. . Falcon
Well :: it was back in 1997-98 -- maybe did not have all the skill sets yet
---Certainly not a music computer > of any type /\
Some type of rack EQ & a DBX comp ---
Don't have the original data backup -- just one DAT stereo "master" SO its all I have to send
Will maybe send them a more of a "modern" song :: say 2010 ....
Something I can remix to the specs of WAVS suggestions >>>>
FALCON :: If ya give them a file 25 + years old -- SLAMMED >>> with no way to recover the original tracks ....you make it seem that the song is a final > ( which makes tech sense ) format wars win again ..
Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 10376
Loc: Litchfield, NH, USA
Originally Posted By: C Jo Go
Will maybe send them a more of a "modern" song :: say 2010 ....
Something I can remix to the specs of WAVS suggestions >>>>
FALCON :: If ya give them a file 25 + years old -- SLAMMED >>> with no way to recover the original tracks ....you make it seem that the song is a final > ( which makes tech sense ) format wars win again ..
Ok, dude...glad to hear you've returned to the current decade.
I'm in the studios right now and just about to DL that tune from SoundCloud. Once I give it a quick bench test on the TECHNICAL side, we'll all know why it was rejected.
Or, perhaps I'll just take it offline and send what the scoop is to you in a PM.
I'm fairly confident what's going one here, as well as how it could be easily rectified.
But I'm NOT going to tell ANYONE but YOU the solution if I'm correct. And NEITHER will you... CORRECT???
Tricks of the trade after decades of testing and work with much older files, man.
Falcon
_________________________ . . . but, what do I know?
Thanks so kindly FALCON -- love to hear the masters result .... I have another Planet member > who is willing to extract the backup data and send me a CD of the 8 tracks ... I found the 16 tracks on the midi floppy > for the song to sync.
Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 26137
Loc: Palm Beach, Florida- U S A
Interesting. With my hearing as screwed up as it is,I am quite shy when it comes to mastering, knowing that the highs will be screwed up. I have no recordings in the works now or near future so I’m not worried.
I did quite enjoy my masterlink in the day.
-m
_________________________
Can you play that an octave louder?
Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 10376
Loc: Litchfield, NH, USA
Ok folks, after some heavy bench testing I came away consistently with basically the same results.
As I submitted final files that were EXACTLY at -5.5dB, they ALL came back completely BLOWN OUT at -.10 db or higher.
When I attempted to convert these wave files to MP3's. I found that the clipping levels were EXTRAORDINARY. These levels resulted in 101 clips within a 00:4:30 song, which is totally unacceptable.
Measuring on only a simple scale, it recorded (auto-mastered) 7.8 left, and 7.5 right for the Dynamic Range values (DR7), and -7.5 L and -7.8 R for the RMS Levels.
Basically VERY LITTLE dynamics, and now had the perceived volume level of a Foo Fighters live concert sitting in the front row, center.
Love the Foo Fighters, but NOT at THOSE levels.
Oh...and the original file that I submitted @ -5.5 dB for plenty of headroom, ALSO started out as a DR15
. .Falcon
Edited by FalconEddy (09/23/2305:57 PM) Edit Reason: added some info AND color...TWICE
_________________________ . . . but, what do I know?
That TC FINALIZER -- made it so easy --- just hit the magic button> trusted that for all mixes -- just did not know . Had no software to tell me different ----
--
Quote:
These levels resulted in 101 clips within a 00:4:30 song, which is totally unacceptable.
They did not have Google searches back then ==word of mouth or the library --- in those days.
When I attempted to convert these wave files to MP3's. I found that the clipping levels were EXTRAORDINARY. These levels resulted in 101 clips within a 00:4:30 song, which is totally unacceptable.
that's what happens when someone doesn't know the basics. audio engineering is not only an art, it's also a science. which involves a lot of studying and learning.
Hard pass, after reading Falcon's clipping comments in the thread.
I've had good luck with the Waves Abbey Road Studios TG mastering chain presets, anyway. And when I can't utilize that plugin I sometimes find on a good setting on the Ozone 8 Elements mastering plugin.
I will admit that professional mastering blows away anything I have ever mastered by myself. I was amazed by the sound they produced, which far exceeded the quality, and my use of the above plugins and their presets.
First CD pressed was about 95 ...the client and I had to drive 5 hours round trip to San Francisco...they had a Sontec eq and not sure the rest of the gear...delivered them a dat. Got a discount between mid night and 5 am ....got back home in the wee hours. Could not even reap the rewards and listen back to the CD on the drive home > not in my 760 Volvo wagon
Rocket Labs .
Started buying stand alone CD burners --blanks were not cheap & the machines made more blanks than final quality burns ..worst on board software.
First one that really worked ( and out of my budget ) HHB
Now just imagine if you paid someone to MIX, which objectively makes WAY fucking more difference than mastering. And a solid mix makes mastering for about any "level" easy.
So, Falcon...you certainly have some INPUT into the mastering style, no? You do with all other online automated mastering I've heard people use. I can remember a local songwriter had one of them--don't remember which, run down--I feel like they had 5 levels of loudness...he ran down like 4,3,2 (lower number is louder) as an experiment...and HE was disappointed that 2 started to sound "bad" to him and still played on streaming as "not as loud" as whatever he was comparing. He really liked the sound of 3, but didn't feel it was "competitive" enough...in his world of...whatever it is he's competing with. And while he liked 4, he thought "that's the level I can get with a simple limiter"...thus I don't know if he's continued to use whichever service that was...he SHOULD, though...I disagree with him--both 3&4 sounded better than anything I've heard him do himself...and I was peeved he didn't run down 5, which I'd assume is you know--mastering to sound BEST--so, what mastering ACTUALLY meant before, say, 1995.
The pro I’ve used is quite good, but he used to charge 50 per song and that was giving me a break. By now, I’m sure the prices will be higher, and my 13 song album would cost at least a thousand. I’m not poor, but we are helping our kid get through Berkeley. 1000 does give me pause.
Ultimately, I’m going to do whatever is needed to make it sweet.
SO its all I have to send 
: ears open and fingers on the mouse >> studying the workin's of Reaper /plugs 
than final quality burns ..worst on board software. 
It was in the dug out basement ( dirt floor) of this VETS hall ---Truckee CA 
