Mastering an Album One Song at A Time?

[oceantracks]

So let's say you want to use one of the more expensive mastering houses (300 per hour) and you don't have the funds to do the whole album at once. Would it be absolutely insane to do the album one or two songs at a time? Maybe then at the end when all were done you would send them all back to have one consistent master made?

Desperate people require desperate solutions

Thanks
TH

[Riccardo]

I think you should look at an album as a collection of songs in context.
I would save up and do it rather than doing one or two songs at a time.
It will also very likely be less expensive.

[jdg]

im far from one of the expensive guys, but i get single tracks from artists as they work on them, and master them in context as they come, and eventually they have a final album.

so, if its happening at my level, im sure its not that uncommon elsewhere.

just tell your mastering engineer that you will be slowly sending songs for a complete album over X many of months..

good luck.

also, in the long wrong this is more expensive, as i charge more for singles as for a whole album

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

So let's say you want to use one of the more expensive mastering houses (300 per hour) and you don't have the funds to do the whole album at once. Would it be absolutely insane to do the album one or two songs at a time? Maybe then at the end when all were done you would send them all back to have one consistent master made?

Desperate people require desperate solutions

Thanks
TH

Generally this ends up being about 20-25% more expensive than mastering them all at once. Because:

a) no matter how hard we try to master in context, the decisions treating individual songs may change when we hear the rest of the album

b) it ALWAYS takes more time to master 10 songs from an album individually than 10 songs at once. Just the setup and restore time takes longer cumulatively because there are 10 setups instead of one! And normally during a 10-song album you develop an inertia and a holistic feeling of the album, which is very hard to recover if you're doing it individually. In addition, when I'm given the second, and the third and the fourth individual song, it is my duty to review and rehear at least a portion of what I did for the others to get the vibe and the feel and how they are working together. This takes time, too.

However, if you send not 2, but at least 3, 4 or preferably 5 representative songs the first time, especially if they are in the order of the final album, there is probably enough context to guarantee that the rest of the album will flow together when you get the rest of the songs mixed.

In summary, the more songs you give us the first time and subsequent times, the less your total billm the fewer headaches you create for the mastering engineer, and the more the guarantee that the album will flow and feel like a holistic unit. The less the chance that we may have to redo one or two songs because when their context and position in the album become more clear, the approach to those songs may have to change.

You're really not saving money, you're creating more headaches! Mastering is not that expensive a process, with most mastering engineers, you're not talking about that much total.

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Generally this ends up being about 20-25% more expensive than mastering them all at once. Because:

a) no matter how hard we try to master in context, the decisions treating individual songs may change when we hear the rest of the album

b) it ALWAYS takes more time to master 10 songs from an album individually than 10 songs at once. Just the setup and restore time takes longer cumulatively because there are 10 setups instead of one! And normally during a 10-song album you develop an inertia and a holistic feeling of the album, which is very hard to recover if you're doing it individually. In addition, when I'm given the second, and the third and the fourth individual song, it is my duty to review and rehear at least a portion of what I did for the others to get the vibe and the feel and how they are working together. This takes time, too.

However, if you send not 2, but at least 3, 4 or preferably 5 representative songs the first time, especially if they are in the order of the final album, there is probably enough context to guarantee that the rest of the album will flow together when you get the rest of the songs mixed.

In summary, the more songs you give us the first time and subsequent times, the less your total billm the fewer headaches you create for the mastering engineer, and the more the guarantee that the album will flow and feel like a holistic unit. The less the chance that we may have to redo one or two songs because when their context and position in the album become more clear, the approach to those songs may have to change.

You're really not saving money, you're creating more headaches! Mastering is not that expensive a process, with most mastering engineers, you're not talking about that much total.

Thanks Bob, great info. At 300 per hour, and 10-12 hours for an album of 12 songs, it's a lot for me right now, but your points are well taken and make sense. Guess I need to hold back until I can send 4-5 songs and then the rest in the second go around.

Tom

[Table Of Tone]

It happens to me all the time!
I get the artist come back after they've decided that their album is too short and they've recorded and mixed another song which they want added to the record.
I did a record last year where no less than six different producers and four different mix engineers had worked on it.
To top it all, the artist delivered the material in the form of four email addresses!
Yep!
I had to get the material from each mix engineer by emailing them one by one.
What can ya do?
Some artists are just super flakey.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

Thanks Bob, great info. At 300 per hour, and 10-12 hours for an album of 12 songs, it's a lot for me right now, but your points are well taken and make sense. Guess I need to hold back until I can send 4-5 songs and then the rest in the second go around.

Tom

Tom, not all of us are $300/hour, in fact, very few of us are. The costs of mastering an album by a top-notch, talented mastering engineer with the best equipment and the best ears can be around or below 2/3 of that. And the best engineers take less time to get to a great sound, so the number of hours billed can be as little as 4-6 for a typical album.

[Jesse Graffam]

I'm actually doing a fresh "setup" for every single track, and still on average a track will take me around 45 minutes until I'm happy with the results. Granted - being all digital helps the workflow speed some, but yeah.

I've always had a minimum billing of 1 hour per session because of that, so that if it's a single I feel ok billing (and working) a full hour, to get it extra fine tuned... in case the track is ever used as part of an album/ep/whatever.

[donsolo]

It's funny but I have a minimum of 2 hours.

Though I'm what? 15% of that rate...

I take a lot of time with singles because they're really for marketing use. That's where I feel less bad when they want it loud beyond loud.

Usually I'll have clients have me master 1-2 singles and then come back for the final product. I start over in these cases because let's face it, different delivery, different needs.

It's an opinion, take from it what you will.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

So let's say you want to use one of the more expensive mastering houses (300 per hour) and you don't have the funds to do the whole album at once. Would it be absolutely insane to do the album one or two songs at a time? Maybe then at the end when all were done you would send them all back to have one consistent master made?

Desperate people require desperate solutions

Thanks
TH

Desperate people don't spend $300/hr, but that's another discussion.

When I'm asked to do a single now and the rest later, or any variation on that theme, I'll 1/2 charge if anything needs to be redone. So at $100/single it's another $50 for the touch-up during the full record mastering. That's the same rate as if I'm redoing their remix.

It's in my interest to make the record as good as possible, not to work against the client with a penalty for their pressing single needs, or their mix upgrades based on learning from my work something that helps up both look better.

[gainstages]

i think Bob pretty much said it all. I can't really add to his wisdom other then to echo it. i do personally prefer creating the album as a whole when possible. when working on "singles" i tend to get more aggressive with volume and EQ which i justify as fine for a single but generally innappropriate for a full album. also as previously noted, if the artist is clear about their intentions and tells me there will be more tracks to come it will all work out ok in the end. communication is key...

[gainstages]

Originally Posted by Table Of Tone

It happens to me all the time!
I get the artist come back after they've decided that their album is too short and they've recorded and mixed another song which they want added to the record.
I did a record last year where no less than six different producers and four different mix engineers had worked on it.
To top it all, the artist delivered the material in the form of four email addresses!
Yep!
I had to get the material from each mix engineer by emailing them one by one.
What can ya do?
Some artists are just super flakey.

I bet that was a fun job!

[Darius van H]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

So let's say you want to use one of the more expensive mastering houses (300 per hour) and you don't have the funds to do the whole album at once. Would it be absolutely insane to do the album one or two songs at a time? Maybe then at the end when all were done you would send them all back to have one consistent master made?

Desperate people require desperate solutions

Thanks
TH

In the U.S. you have some excellent mastering houses that could do your album for 1500$ or even a lot less.

If funds are tight, I honestly think you'll get just as good a result going to one of these places one time when the whole album is mixed, rather then going to the 300$/h place for one track at a time.

Not that the 300$/h guys aren't great at what they do, it's just that an album is best done in one go as a complete package.

Anyway, your suggested way of working would actually end up being the most expensive possible way of mastering the album!

[IIIrd]

i usually take between 4-6 hrs for an album, the longest sesion 23 hrs the shortest being 2 hrs,...its a case of how long is a peice of string. unattended sessions are much quicker in general. if you do attend, keeping the numbers down helps. the main thing is having everything prepared as possible....edit pionts decided, the correct mixes etc.....$300 per hour...thats £182 per hour...we're cheaper than that..only just mind....try haggling for deal...an all in charge perhapse

edit....alot of places do online mastering.....flat fee per track....advantages are...you know what your going to pay before you start and you can do as many tracks or few as you can afford, but you usually only get one redo if it doesnt work out....and there is the continuity of levels and eq if you do it in bits.

p.m me if you like and i can put you in touch with our bookings who can sort you a price

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Tom, not all of us are $300/hour, in fact, very few of us are. The costs of mastering an album by a top-notch, talented mastering engineer with the best equipment and the best ears can be around or below 2/3 of that. And the best engineers take less time to get to a great sound, so the number of hours billed can be as little as 4-6 for a typical album.

Good to know Bob, appreciate it.

TH

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by lucey

Desperate people don't spend $300/hr, but that's another discussion.

Sometimes desperation pushes one to find great solutions.

I have never gotten anywhere aiming for second best, and have always struggled to find a way to do things first class, within some kind of reason, anyway...probably more luck than anything else, but am aiming high on this until I am positive I cannot swing it. Thanks.

TH

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by IIIrd

i usually take between 4-6 hrs for an album, the longest sesion 23 hrs the shortest being 2 hrs,...its a case of how long is a peice of string. unattended sessions are much quicker in general. if you do attend, keeping the numbers down helps. the main thing is having everything prepared as possible....edit pionts decided, the correct mixes etc.....$300 per hour...thats £182 per hour...we're cheaper than that..only just mind....try haggling for deal...an all in charge perhapse

edit....alot of places do online mastering.....flat fee per track....advantages are...you know what your going to pay before you start and you can do as many tracks or few as you can afford, but you usually only get one redo if it doesnt work out....and there is the continuity of levels and eq if you do it in bits.

p.m me if you like and i can put you in touch with our bookings who can sort you a price

PM sent....thanks!
TH

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

Would it be absolutely insane to do the album one or two songs at a time? Maybe then at the end when all were done you would send them all back to have one consistent master made?

It's easier for an ME to get a flow going if you do it in one go. But if you wanted to do a song or two at a time with some touch up at the end. It would definitely not be insane as long as your clear about your goal/intentions and what you hope to achieve concerning continuity with the finished production from the start.

If you were to go the per song route the ideal situation would be to see if you can set up a per song or project rate in lieu of an hourly rate.