Forum Closed
The forum is now to new posts. All the historical content is still available to browse.
if you are looking for musicians to play with, please view the Bands Seeking Musicians list, or use the Musicians Directory
You can use our pages on social media to connect:
Mastering Engineers, Victoria, Vancouver?
| Message Board > Music Chitchat - Heavy > Mastering Engineers, Victoria, Vancouver? |
| Mi*coll* User Info... | I weighed in on Griphin's mastering troubles in the other thread, but actually I am looking for one myself for the Western Birds' recordings. Are there any good ones in Victoria, or do I have to look at Vancouver? Who is good in Vancouver? --Mike - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:29am | ||
| Kris North User Info... | you want to have it mastered? i don't think you need to have it sent to vancouver to be mastered. lots of dudes in town will do that for not to much at all. love, kris - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 7:43am | ||
| mactac User Info... | i'll do you one song for nothing if you want... - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 8:54am | ||
| Rawb User Info... | As far as I know there are no "true" mastering engineers in this city. Mastering is an art form--as techincally consuming as production--and doing it well is not as easy as owning a copy of Sound Forge on your home computer. Believeme, I've learned this the hard way by making my own mistakes. All that being said I use a guy in Vancouver named Jamie Sitar who works out of his own mastering studio called "Suite Sound Labs". This guy is killer. He is a pro who works on many of the major recordings released in Canada. He also does punk stuff--he mastered the DOA "Hardcore '81" Cd re-issue. I cannot recommend him highly enough. His rate is appoximately $50.00 per song or about $100.00 per hour. That depends on if you're doing a single or an LP release. http://www.suitesoundlabs.com/ - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:09am | ||
| mactac User Info... | I've used emily lazar from the lodge (www.thelodge.com) out of new york for a couple of things, and she does world class work. She's a bit expensive, ($200us / track minimum if you can negotiate her down ) but her work is amazing.. she's done sonic youth, lou reed, etc, and me ! :) if you've got an important project & can spend the money, check her out.... she definitely makes a difference. - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:56am | ||
| _Griphin_ User Info... | Why the hell do people charge so much for that kind of work?!? Yeah, so there talented, but noone is really worth charging THAT MUCH!!! It's funny, cause one day the people who know very little will be in more demand then those people that know too much, it's sorta like the grunge invasion of 92 :) - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:48am | ||
| Neil User Info... |  | ||
| mactac User Info... | "Why the hell do people charge so much for that kind of work?!? Yeah, so there talented, but noone is really worth charging THAT MUCH!!!" in fact there are people who charge a lot more. that's very reasonable for high calibre work. if you;re working with any real budget, spending 2 grand on mastering/premastering can be worth it. pretty much anything i've ever released through a mediun sized or large label had paid around this much for mastering. good mastering eqauipment is not cheap by any means. it can cost hundreds of thousands to set up a suite sometimes. it has to be paid for somehow. there is a real reason that MANY people use emily (& others like her), and it's not because they are stupid. these prices are typical (maybe not in victoria of course!), and believe me, there is good value there. Of course there are those who charge a lot & don't produce quality results.... but it many cases (esp with Emily), you do get what you pay for.... - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:21pm | ||
| Mi*coll* User Info... | Man, even $50 a song is too much. So far the budget for this project has been under $500. Paying that much again for mastering seems unreasonable. - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:49pm | ||
| mactac User Info... | ya, well of course it all depends on your budget... but here is something else to think about: now I have no idea what you've done so far, or mixed it or anything, but you might get more mileage out of your money by putting it towards getting it professionally mixed instead of professionally premastered...just something to consider... - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 1:08pm | ||
| Rawb User Info... | The album's budget does dictate what your end product will be and what kind of quality you can afford to put toward each component (Art, Sound, pressing..) of the release. mactac makes a great point--if you have the money to pay for a low grade mastering job and haven't done a final mix throw the money toward a higher end final mix by a more pro producer/engineer. The New Pronographers Twin Cinema was mastered by the guy who does almost every high end--like Pear Jam, Aerosmith kindo f budget--release out there. His rate was like $3000.00 per track. A good mastering job can make a really good recording sound truly great so it is worth the money and the work is not easy, Phil, no matter what you may think. - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 2:07pm | ||
| J User Info... | its an investment just like any other business... you have to be willing to put out the money if you want results. Not saying that spending money on any recording is going to get you to the big show. I also know how hard it is to justify spending that kind of money especially on somthing as a demo, but in the end a good solid sounding demo can take you further than an 'ok' production worth a couple hundred bucks. Personally I haven't had the experience of sending my tracks to a mastering engineer but if i ever am in the position i would spend my last dollars to make sure everything was perfect, cause in the end; like a business, you have to spend money to generate it! - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 2:39pm | ||
| wackakapow User Info... | This might be retarded: do you need all of your separate instrumental tracks to get mastering done, or can they master off of a cd? I'm guessing "remaster" means creating a new master cd, but if you don't have all your old tracks is it still possible to remaster, or would it just be ridiculously expensive? Just curious. - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 4:08pm | ||
| Rawb User Info... | Masteering is the equalization and enhancement of a final mix. So, you could get an old project re-mastered. You would not want to master right from the CD though. You would want to get the actual final mix, to 2 stereo tracks, and master from that. The quality is better. A CD that has been pressed will sound slightly different from it's final master that was sent to the pressing plant. If you are working on individual tracks (guitar track 1, bass track 2 etc...) from an old release, that is called remixing. - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 4:22pm | ||
| zakco User Info... | wackakapow, Not retarded at all, common question. What most people (myself included) refer to as "mastering" is actually "premastering". This means preparing a CD that will be used to create a "glass master" which will be used at the pressing plant. Having said that, 99% of the industry just calls it "mastering". To answer your question, no, you don't send the individual tracks. You send the fully mixed, raw, 2 channel stereo mixes. Unless you are very skilled, confident and have GREAT gear you are best off sending the files with no EQ, compression or brickwall limiting. Just the raw mix exactly as it comes off the 2bus. Process the individual tracks to your satisfaction but leave the final mix raw. These files should be delivered as either wav(PC) or aif (mac) files either by ftp or a data CD/DVD-R. Audio CDs are NOT recommended for this as the audio has gone through a file format conversion to create the audio disc. "Remastering" (not to be confused with "remixing") would be to re-visit a previously mastered release and hopefully improve on it. For example most of the early Rolling Stones albums were recently "remastered" to bring them up to todays standards. For this process the original, 2 channel analog tapes were used. - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 4:25pm | ||
| zakco User Info... | Just noticed Rawb answered your question while I was typing. We basically said the same thing.... One more thing....some people are choosing to send the ME multichannel stem mixes instead of a stereo mix. For example, -Drums -Bass -instruments and bgv -lead vox The ME would then be able to compensate for changes resulting from heavy compression/limiting etc... Personally I wouldn't leave those decisions up to the ME, but many people find that process useful. The jury's still out on that one.... -Z- - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 4:41pm | ||
| Wackakapow User Info... | Thanks for the info, guys. - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 5:28pm | ||
| ScottL User Info... | For something in town, i would suggest Dirk Vanderwall of Microphonic. I used him a couple years ago for the Pushing Up Daisies EP and I'm assuming he is still around. Very reasonable prices, extremely reasonable, and he is quite skilled. No Emily Lazar i'm sure, but he's also just a friendly guy. http://www.microphonic.ca - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 7:55pm | ||
| Mi*coll* User Info... | Hey mactac, i'm gonna take you up on your offer! I'll send a raw, 48 khz, 32-bit track over to you. Should we set up an ftp? These things run into the 60, 70 megabit range. I've been weighing a pro mix vs a pro master. Inevitably it comes down to financial considerations. If I could go to a studio and mix it with someone else, that would be great, but then we are talking studio-time rates. Plus, I prefer doing volume and effect envelopes anyway, so that takes forever. Basically, i decided that even though i have a truly sub-standard monitoring environment, I can get levels how i like. Also, I have the luxury of time so I can test mixes on lot's of stereos. I'm going to check out this Dirk Vanderwall guy. - Thu, 2 Mar 2006 9:34pm | ||
| Microphonic User Info... | Hey Scott - Thanks a bunch for the plug. I gotta say you guys brought in a great EP, so I don't know that I was really able to do much more than turn up the 'rad' from 10 to 10.5. All the rest of ya's, go check out 'Beep Beep Goes the Mind.' Just to toss in $0.02 on this, I agree with mactac and others that good mastering is worth every penny. You wouldn't believe the difference between premastered mixes and their finished versions sometimes. Expensive mastering studios invest tons and tons in their rooms & equipment, and hire experienced and talented engineers, whereas many of the less expensive guys run their sessions "in the box" (computer) using plug-ins, etc.. Without opening up the great analog vs. digital debate can o' worms, I think we can all agree as musicians here that without the benefit of major-label recording budgets most of us are trying to pregmatically make the most of what we can fork over out of our own pockets. Your decisions about who, where, and how to get your tracks mixed, mastered, and released, all need to be answered in the context of what you intend to do with this record (or what you'd like this record to accomplish for you), your budget, and how you can meet your needs/goals within that budget. $50 per song / $100 per hour is a really reasonable rate for professional mastering. For me, I don't pretend to be a professional *mastering* engineer, nor do I maintain a professional *mastering* setup. I just consider myself someone who knows what makes a good mix, and understands the tools used to make a mix sound even better. I'd be happy to give your mixes a listen and give you some feedback... Won't cost you a penny. Drop me a line. Cheers Dirk info #at# microphonic ~dot~ ca - - Fri, 3 Mar 2006 3:44pm | ||
| lonemonk User Info... | Hey Mi*coll*, I'm glad you took the man up on his offer. Mactac has some damn good ears and some very decent gear to assist him. All bands need people (like recording and mixing engineers or mastering folk) who can improve the sound without being personally involved. You woulnd't believe how necessary this is. The fact of the matter is that bands themselves do not know what sounds best for final release. Once you've heard it a million times while recording you become the LAST person to make the final version. I'm sorry, but thats just the way it is. Btw. I'm pleased with the sudden and increased level of very serious audio-related topics coming up in the discussion forums. I knew there was a reason I was laboriously logging in every day to check. I had to make sure I had the right URL - Fri, 3 Mar 2006 7:09pm | ||
| Mi*coll* User Info... | I absolutely agree, lonemonk. I am happy mixing our stuff, but I definitely do not want to master it. I spoke with Brooke from Immaculate Machine and, as it turns out, they had their record mastered my Jamie Sitar as well. I contacted him and he quoted me a price of $65/song or $100/hr, whichever is cheaper. While I would love to have someone as good as him on board, we just cannot reconcile spending that much when considering our budget to date. So, for now, we are looking at more affordable alternatives. Thank you to Microhponic and Mactac for your very generous offers! I emailed both of you. --Mike - Sat, 4 Mar 2006 3:51pm | ||
| Zippgunn User Info... | Mike Hall has been doing most of my "budget concious" mastering for awhile now with excellent results. 884-9725 - Mon, 6 Mar 2006 7:14pm | ||
| Wackakapow User Info... | Do pretty much all recordings need mastering? I thought ours sounded pretty sweet and complete. Will it bring out wild things we hadn't noticed before or something, or just give it a professional feel? ISN'T SANIJAV ALREADY PERFECT, SCOTT?! - Tue, 7 Mar 2006 2:54pm | ||
| zakco User Info... | If nothing else, quality mastering will glue your collection of songs into an album. Subtle EQ/Dynamics and overall volume adjustments will allow the listener to enjoy the record from start to finish without needing to change the settings on your stereo. The ME will also fine-tune the fades and the spacing between tracks. The better your mixes, the less noticeable mastering is. If you get a master back and you don't hear a huge difference, consider it a compliment.... And last but not least, the ME will create a low-error rate, production master that has been properly quality checked and guarunteed free from clicks/pops or other digital anomolies. They will also provide you with a list of PQ codes (for the replication plant) and a printed error report. Contrary to popular belief, not all CD-Rs/Burners/Applications are created equal. -Z- - Tue, 7 Mar 2006 9:05pm | ||
| Japanese Air Force User Info... | I second the Suite Sound Labs recommendation. I've had a couple of projects mastered with Jamie and I've always been happy with his work. ~JAF - Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:04am | ||
| Mr. Hell User Info... | We took it to Suite Sound and found that while he added a lot of positive things to our recording, he also added too much bad low end that we had to remove when we got back to Victoria. His room seems to be a little deceptive with those frequencies, so if anyone goes there, be sure to double check outside his space to be sure it's just what you need. - Wed, 8 Mar 2006 5:21pm | ||
| zakco User Info... | I agree. Several of my clients have used Jamie at SSL and I've never been really pleased with the results. A while back I sent one track to 3 different MEs. Jamie being one of them. We picked his version last. Compared to the other 2, his master was 2db louder, lacked depth, the instrument balance had changed and the high end was harsh and distorted. Also out of the 3 mastering houses, he was the ONLY one that wasn't willing to do one song at no-charge for the client to evaluate. When shopping for a ME, I highly recommend sending a single to a couple of different people. You'll be shocked how different the results will be. In can really make the decision of who to use much easier. Just my 24 bits... - Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:21pm | ||
| Microphonic User Info... | Wow, this is turning into a good thread. FWIW, this month's issue of Sound on Sound has an 'on-line mastering shootout' article, where they did exactly this: sent the same track out to a bunch of MEs that work via the internet. It's an interesting listening exercise on its own, but being able to A/B a couple of different peoples' work on your own mixes can be totally invaluable. And I'm also glad zacko brought up the point that louder isn't always better; squeezing your mix an extra 2dB can really sound unpleasant. As far as airing your tracks on the radio, Bob Katz makes a compelling argument in his book (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) that because of the signal processing that takes place at all FM stations, your music will actually sound *better* if it's not the loudest it can possibly be. Of course even if you're not going to broadcast, you theoretically would need those extra 2dB even less... Check out a few people who will run a 'demo' master for you; sounds like so far you've got Paul (mactac) and I, you might find one person's aesthetic more in line with your own, and ultimately it's all about making sure that your record sounds like what you want your listeners to hear. Cheers Dirk - - Thu, 9 Mar 2006 8:01am | ||
| ian johnson User Info... | so let me get this straight mastering is just like volume control, working out overall eq, getting rid of audio anomilies and makeing everything sound crisp and professional? and mixing is just like effects compression panning individual levels etc? just trying to see if i have a grasp on the difference - Thu, 9 Mar 2006 3:56pm | ||
| Mi*coll* User Info... | Generally mixing is what you do to individual tracks. Mastering is what you do to the master bus-- the stereo track that is the result of your mixing. That said, sometimes when you send something for mastering you will include stubs (like a vocal track and an instrumental track, say) for the ME to work with. He or she can then set the levels of these stubs. Like with most things, mixing and mastering are not totally discrete. Their definitions overlap. - Thu, 9 Mar 2006 6:23pm | ||
| Microphonic User Info... | If you think of making a recording like building a piece of furniture, say a table: First, you construct the frame, turn the legs, plane the boards, etc. - this would be like tracking, capturing the individual parts (like bass, guitar, vocals, etc.) on seperate tracks of a recording device. Next, you assemble the parts, tightening bolts and making sure everything is sturdy, and apply some stain or paint - obviously, this is mixing, where all the elements are brought together to form a cohesive and stable mix, and 'colours' of effects and processing are used to enhance the sound. Of course, you're not done until you do that last bit of sanding, waxing, oiling, veneering (you get the idea)... The last coat of polish to make your table look professional and finished, more like the rest of the furniture in your house - mastering does the same thing, bringing all the songs together as a record and as individual tracks, setting their volume at an acceptable level (though there are widely varying opinions on this subject), shaping them with a final equalization of the frequency spectrum, and even tweaking things like the stereo image, then outputting a properly-coded master disc for duplication. This last step used to be more important when mixes were often delivered on analog or DAT tape. Mike is right that some masters are assembled from 'stems,' to give the mastering enginner more flexibility at his stage (although good mixes don't often need the extra work this involves). He is also right that there is some overlap in the processes (for example, both mix and mastering engineers use tools like compression and EQ to process audio), but the essential difference is that mixing is the stage of combining all the different tracks, whereas mastering commences once all the tracks have already been locked together into a mix. - Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:34am | ||
| ian johnson User Info... | thanks for clearing that up for me, how important do u all feel mastering is for local demos? do u think its worth spending that kinda money on something that may or may not sell even 500 copies in total? just wondering what ur opinions are. - Sun, 12 Mar 2006 4:40pm | ||
| Microphonic User Info... | Well, often the first questions I ask perspective clients is what they hope to accomplish with this demo/EP/album, / what goals they wish for this release to accomplish for them. The intended outcomes, or specific reasons, for beginning a recording project will dictate the sessions as well as your budget. If the goal is to cut three songs 'live off the floor' to market your live show to promoters & bookers, you can make fast and affordable work of it. In this case, your sessions will focus on laying down songs with a minimum of fuss and time, not worrying too much about absolute perfection, but mostly to give your intended audience a general idea of what your act sounds like playing together. I'd say that a small project like this, while it would benefit from mastering, probably doesn't need it because of the small intended audience. If you intend to sell CDs off the stage, you'll probably need to spend a little more time making a polished recording that your listeners will enjoy. How far you take this sort of project depends on what you're willing to spend as a band. I've heard some pretty poopy records made by bands on their own. You could say that maybe that's part of the charm, since most of the CDs wound up going to their friends anyways, but then again, maybe if they had shelled out for professional mixing and/or mastering at the time, they would have had something that they could have done more with. Which brings us up to the next level, say if you're hoping that you can get something from this disc heard on the radio (zone band of the month, for example), or if you want to make your discs available on cdbaby or amazon. Nobody is going to play your song on the air or pay to download/order it if it sounds sub-standard. This is where mastering is definitely not optional. One of the aims of mastering is to help the overall sound of your record "fit in" with other commercial releases. Not to say that your disc will come back sounding like nickelback/theoryofadeadman/default/everythingelseontheradio, but that the relative balance of bass/mid/treble etc. will better fall within expected standards. So, back to your original question, I guess there's no definitive answer. It all comes down to evaluating where you want to take your demo, and once you've done that, there's a whole spectrum of things you can do: if you don't intend big things for this particular release, then start saving up for next time. Use what you've got to book shows, and stash the money for an EP. If you're pretty happy with the demo and don't want to go back to spending more on recording anytime soon, hire a mix engineer and ask him/her to put some buss compression and EQ on your mixes (I did this on an unnamed local band's EP that I recorded last year, since they told me they had no intention of having it mastered). If you're really happy with the tracks, the raw material you've recorded warrants it (i.e., the drums were well mic'ed, the recording is free of noise, the performances are all solid, etc.), *and* you feel that you have the fanbase to move enough units to recoup your costs through various means (shows, record shops, website, etc.), then by all means have it mixed / mastered. As this thread has already discussed, there's a range of prices for services like mixing & mastering, so your budget may allow you some flexibility. My apologies for the looooong post... Dirk info ~at~ microphonic -dot- ca - - Mon, 13 Mar 2006 3:29pm | ||
| Yclept User Info... | Great thread!! My band is in the proccess of recording our own demo, we have finished one song and paid to get it mastered. I can tell you that it was definately worth the money!! There was a significant step up in the quality of the track between the mixing and the mastering stages. If you want to check out the quality the we were able to get from recording ourselves and getting it mastered..check out http://www.myspace.com/ycleptband I am interested to hear what you have to think about the recording, (ie the quality and the mixing/mastering etc) as we have not done a lot of recording prior to this.. Any suggestions would be great! [email protected] - Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:31am Edited: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:46am | ||
| Tyler User Info... | where do mastering engineers get their training? I have looked at a couple mastering engineer websites and they often don't talk about their education. - Mon, 20 Mar 2006 3:40am Edited: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 3:41am | ||
| zakco User Info... | That's because the vast majority of audio professionals don't have any formal training. It is a predominately entreprenurial industry. Most people have hands on training in the form of an internship or mentor relationship with an established engineer. There are several good books on the subject that can provide some of the technical information required, but in the end it comes down to the following: -An accurate monitoring environment -Good tools -A technical understanding of how to use these tools to achieve the results that your ears desire. -GREAT EARS (this is by far the most important) This is one of the only industries where a degree doesn't mean much at all. Unless of course you want to teach audio engineering.... - Mon, 20 Mar 2006 3:29pm Edited: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 3:37pm | ||
| K.C. User Info... | In case anyone's still reading: I think if you have a ton of money you should spend it on pro mixing and mastering. If you're on a budget - hell! do it yourself. You can get pretty damned excellent results with some mastering plug-in and a decent set of monitors. It takes a bit more time, but hey, we're learning right? This also gives you the added bonus of making your track sound how you want it to. k. - Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:31am Edited: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:33am | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
