Recording, Engineering, Mastering: How good are you?

[C. Hanson]

Just wondering, after reading a recent thread about the intricacies of mastering:

How many members of this forum believe, honestly, that they are in the position to produce a CD of "normal" commercial quality, and could get it right most of the time? That is, all done in-house, no going to another studio for mastering or stuff like that.

[I'm not being a smart-arse or antagonistic here. For example, I know damn well that I'm NOT in such a position just yet (for reasons of gear and experience), but I suspect that some people around here are in a better place.]

A related question: how many members would be willing to pay for outside mastering for a home project? (as opposed to, say, buying a dedicated mastering program).

[paul999]

People have stopped complaining that my mixes are too squashed long ago because I have figured out how to use some of the outboard that I have in decent ways. Manley variable-mu (seen in most mastering house's) and Waves maxxbcl outboard limiter (handle's transients like I've never heard in a daw). I had tried a massive passive and it is very sweet but opted to go with a pair of API 550b's and Purple odd's. The solid state eq's are a bit faster responding to transients which is more important for now.

"CD's of normal quality" It is not tough to think of all the worst sounds you have heard on radio like thin guitars that are ignored brutal drums that are squashed bass that doesn't exist and sibilant vox that make you cringe. I think honestly that on a good day when the musicianship is right and I am firing on all cylinders I can make a cd that is as good as the low/mid end commercial stuff that is played on radio regularly. I haven't achieved what my hero's have in the sonic realm but I am far from being done trying to make something really special.

Cheers

[bozmillar]

yeah, I think "normal" commercial quality has quite a bit of range. For example, a few days ago I was auditioning singers, and I heard a cover recording someone did of a commercial song. When I heard her recording, it was obvious to me that it had some of the characteristic "home recording" characteristics, like too much low end, poorly placed reverb, not great compression. It certainly wasn't bad, but it did have that home recorded sound to it.

Then I went to listen to the actual song she was covering to see how it was supposed to sound. To my surprise, the commercial recording sounded awful. Very squashed, zero low end with a very harsh high-mid boost.

Although the home recording was far from perfect, it sounded much more natural than the commercial recording and actually gave a feel for how well she could sing. The commercial version just sounded awkward and painful.

So I think I can compete with if not exceed some of the obviously neglected commercial music that is made. I don't think that's hard for most people to do actually, considering how bad some commercial stuff can sound. As far as the really great recordings go, I don't think I have what it takes yet.

Keep in mind that this is not coming from any sort of audio purist who thinks the best sounding stuff came from the 70's. I really like a lot of the modern audio production techniques and even prefer the sound (sometimes) of squashed music. I like convoluted, over processed metal and I like simple dynamic piano music.

[String7th]

Originally Posted by paul999

"CD's of normal quality" It is not tough to think of all the worst sounds you have heard on radio like thin guitars that are ignored brutal drums that are squashed bass that doesn't exist and sibilant vox that make you cringe.

Metallica's St. Anger album:
Awful out of tune pawn shop delux drums, $99 squire guitars with floppy strings, with piss-poor mic placement all around, played half-drunk, through Million dollar mastering.

A very loud, clear, and punchy . . . . fart.

[bozmillar]

as for the outside mastering question, I wouldn't pay for a mastering service because as it stands now, I have no plans on making money with my music. I'm working on an album right now, and I will attempt the mastering part of it, but I have no doubt I would get better results from a real mastering house.

Since all the music I write/record is just for fun, there's no reason for me to pay to make it sound better. If I wanted to release it commercially, then I might think differently.

[String7th]

Originally Posted by C. Hanson

A related question: how many members would be willing to pay for outside mastering for a home project?

From an artist's perspective, yes. If I was in a band or solo musician and I recorded/produced my own album, and I had plans to market it and sell it, I would prefer to polish my recordings to compete with commercial music. But I won't master it expecting to fix mixing flaws.

But, from an engineer's perspective recording other's music, it's not my call to make. It's my job to mix it well enough to make it sound like it doesn't need to be mastered.

[Freddy G]

I do mastering work for clients quite often and I think my work could be held up to pro standards.
I'm in an interesting situation right now though...I've been working on a CD since the beginning of the year, I produced, recorded and mixed it. I'm very proud of it, I consider it one of the best productions I've done. But I am not going to master it. It's going to be mastered by a ME that I have huge respect for. I found that I just couldn't do it because I'm too close to it....I needed someone to come in fresh and do it.
This is going to happen mid october....it'll be nice to put it to rest. It feels like I sweat blood over this one.
I will say that I can't wait for the world to hear it though...and I've been looking forward to posting some of the material here on this forum and discussing recording and production techniques. I have not posted anything yet in "bash" or "diaries" because the band did not want anything released prior to the actual CD release.

[String7th]

Freddy G, I think that's why a ton of engineers choose to have someone else mix who has not been a part of the recording. Exausted after recording for 4 months of up to 16-hour days, Butch Vig and Smashing pumpkins chose Alan Moulder to mix Siamese Dream in his own studio, having not heard any of the work yet.

The best and quickest way to finish a mix is fresh ears.

[Freddy G]

Originally Posted by String7th

The best and quickest way to finish a mix is fresh ears.

Yes I agree. When I finished tracking for this project there was a ton of editing to do. What I did was edit each song so that it was totally ready for a mix and then put it on the shelf and never listened to it again. I continued editing the next one and so on. By the time I was ready to start the mix process with the first song I edited , it had been quite some time since I had last heard it and so it sounded fresh.

[frshtrx]

I'm meeting with a guy on Friday to give my DIY project a mastering once-over before I get it duplicated.
I'm going to sit in the room with him (his preference) and hope that between a "real" room and his knowledge my project will ultimately sound its best. It's the only pre-duplication part of the project I'm paying for, really...
I had my "mastered" versions of the CD at the Pre-Release performance Monday night and a few people passed on a CD purchase because it wasn't yet "mastered".
Admittedly, after using Ozone and Waves L2, I didn't feel I had the years or ears to get the mix to its audio maximums.
I just hope this guy will leave me feeling my money was well spent. (yes, I recognize you get what you pay for here as well...)