KVR Audio

NickMo · Post by **NickMo** » Sat May 25, 2013 11:33 am

Hi,

I recently used Barry Gardner at SafeandSound mastering http://www.masteringmastering.co.uk/

I was really pleased with the results, and also by the fact that he responded really quickly to all my queries - which is very reassuring when you have just handed over your cash to someone you've found on the internet!

I was considering mastering the album myself, but I'm really glad I got a professional to do it. There are so many advantages, if you have a good engineer, the main ones being:
- the job gets done 10 times more quickly than you could manage yourself
- it's done in a properly acoustically treated environment
- the engineer has 'trained ears' that can pick out what needs sorting out
- the engineer has objectivity about the tracks

and in the case of Safe and Sound they've got some nice analog equipment, which is something I don't have at home.

Cheers

Nick

maxxxter · Post by **maxxxter** » Sat May 25, 2013 11:48 am

DELETED

Laurend · Post by **Laurend** » Sat May 25, 2013 3:46 pm

Years ago, the size limit was 700 MB.
The current limit for the file size is 1024 MB which represents 101 minutes in 16 bit stereo @ 44.1KHz, or 66 minutes in 24 bit.
If you use the highest supported format, 96KHz 32 bit, a 23 minutes track isn't a problem.

Snakman · Post by **Snakman** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:58 am

I've always mastered my own tracks after dealing with shady services that charge a lot just to do nothing. I have a good friend that's a local engineer that does a really good job, and does mastering for many major producers.

Shameless plug alert haha:
I've started my own mastering service on Fiverr. Pretty much I'll master any track for $5 the same way I would normally do my own. Nothing analogue for now, but I promise to get you a great sound that is label ready. All my tracks are being release on big labels, and if they're satisfied with my work I think you will be too. http://fiverr.com/dwinslow93/master-your-track

Laurend · Post by **Laurend** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:05 pm

Re-bump

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:08 pm

[DELETED]

murnau · Post by **murnau** » Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:32 pm

Snakman wrote:Nothing analogue for now, but I promise to get you a great sound that is label ready.

your video advert over there said the exact opposite: namely that you use high end analog gear: "thousand and thousands dollars of analog gear i collected over the years.."

no offense, i simply dont get it.

Snakman · Post by **Snakman** » Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:16 pm

murnau wrote: your video advert over there said the exact opposite: namely that you use high end analog gear: "thousand and thousands dollars of analog gear i collected over the years.."

no offense, i simply dont get it.

Are you sure you looked at mine? I don't have a video.

murnau · Post by **murnau** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:34 pm

strange, the last time i used your link i scrolled down (there were many different videos with different things) and there was one mastering video so i thought it is yours. now its really only your site without any video. never mind.

maxcor · Post by **maxcor** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:01 am

Just to clarify: Mastering is not a miraculous process that fixes a bad mix. Has anyone ever wondered what kind of mixes come to a "High End" Mastering studio? Answer: a incredible mix incredible that almost do not need treatment. That is the reality. If a mix needs to be "fixed" in the mastering process, you have to go back. The mastering process should be understood as the application of a slight glaze to a finished work.
And I agree with one of the posts: It's not the gear but the engineer.
Greetings!

dayjob · Post by **dayjob** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:38 pm

maxcor wrote:Just to clarify: Mastering is not a miraculous process that fixes a bad mix. Has anyone ever wondered what kind of mixes come to a "High End" Mastering studio? Answer: a incredible mix incredible that almost do not need treatment. That is the reality. If a mix needs to be "fixed" in the mastering process, you have to go back. The mastering process should be understood as the application of a slight glaze to a finished work.
And I agree with one of the posts: It's not the gear but the engineer.
Greetings!

yes and no. i'm sure every mastering engineer would like to get really great mixes to work with but very often the mixes are crap and they just have to deal w/it. and i'm not just talking about unheard of no name artists working out of their bedrooms... but some really well regarded successful albums often show up to the mastering engineer and are a mess.

w/o giving examples for obvious reasons.. but i spoke to one engineer who got a recent-ish album for a very well known artist who is critically lauded and he said the mixes were absolute shit and he even requested that the album get remixed before he mastered it but the label and the artist said "just deal with it" so the mastering engineer did just that. and now people on the internet talk about how great sounding the album is and that the artist is a genius of mixing and sound design...

and while yes.. it'd be great if we could all get our mixes 95% of the way there but often that's just not the case. maybe half the songs on an album will be there and the rest need more than just a sheen of mastering fairy dust to be done..

i've heard some premasters of various artists over the years and many of them sounds fantastic but need the mastering the make them all fit contextually as a release.. levels need to be matched and overall glue needs to happen to make them work.. and there are those artists who just know wtf they are doing and are for lack of a better word gifted producers who have fantastic ears and deep understanding of mixing who are 99% there with the process and could probably get by w/o mastering but do it anyways for that extra little balance and that 2nd set of ears.

personally, i leave a lot of dynamics in my mixes and just go for a reasonable level of loudness, balance and just try to get everything jelling together and in its right place and make sure it sounds the way i like... and then let the mastering engineer do the rest. room to work with.

maxcor · Post by **maxcor** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:29 am

dayjob wrote:yes and no. i'm sure every mastering engineer would like to get really great mixes to work with but very often the mixes are crap and they just have to deal w/it. and i'm not just talking about unheard of no name artists working out of their bedrooms... but some really well regarded

Hi dayjob, I agree with you totally, the truth is that the majority of mixes that come to us have severe deficiencies and, I know the cases you mention about the big names. However, we must not stop transmitting to the kids the reality of how the music production process should be. We must explain that the greater effort must be done in the mix, then the mastering process becomes a real "improvement" of the original. Thanks, best wishes!

Doug1978 · Post by **Doug1978** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:36 am

Hi Maxcor, dayjob, Laurent et al.

Just out of interest, what are the 3 or 4 most common primary mix faults that you, as professional mastering engineers, find?

Is the number one culprit over-compressed, lifeless mixes?

I'd be interested to know, not least because my current rent accommodation does not lend itself to perfect mixing (can't put up room treatment etc).

Many thanks.

camsr · Post by **camsr** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:38 am

maxcor wrote:The mastering process should be understood as the application of a slight glaze to a finished work.

Not even. Mastering audio is about making it ready to listen to and distribute. That does not require a "spot on" mix at all.
But, if a mix is put together well, the end result might be more sonically pleasing. The end product is always different, not always a certain RMS or LUFS. A good mastering engineer can make a bad mix worse by not focusing on the music.

Laurend · Post by **Laurend** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:41 am

The mix is what it is. There isn't any best possible mix of a tune. There's many different flavours of the same track. The artistic visions are a 360° panorama.

But the mix I receive may feature major technical flaws which are unacceptable for a perfect mastering. The following list is ordered by severity:
- Clipping > no way
- Limiting
- Over compressing
- Extreme EQing

Would like to talk about experience with online mastering houses.