Who in here will master tracks for 25 bucks?

[aleatoric]

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally Posted by aleatoric

I guess my point (which seems like an obvious one) is that rate and quality are not intermittent by ANY means. That being said there are probably more people doing poor quality work in the low price bracket. However there are also plenty of people who are doing poor quality work at the cost of a huge bill.

Now there's common ground.
How about these statements ?

1. A great mix can only be ruined by (poor) mastering.

2. A poor mix cannot be saved by (high quality) mastering.

I added (poor) and (high quality) because yes ... there are a bizzillion variants possible but as a general rule of thumb .... would you agree ?


Rate vs quality ... well ... more often then not ... they are in line with each other imvho. Of course there are exceptions ... But more often then not, when hearing someone claim that they paid an arm and a leg and then they still are not happy or even worse ... they are disappointed ... usually Statement 2 will apply.

All too often I see people go to mastering with - again imvho - the wrong reasons. All too often I see people rely on mastering to save what they did wrong somewhere in the process leading to the point of mastering.

It does NOT start with the choice of Mic Pre and the choice of Mic you put in front of the cabinet ... NO .... it starts with a great ****ing guitar player with a great ****ing sound. From that point onwards ... all you can do is screw things up ... wether you're the tracking / editing / arranging / producing / mixing / mastering or whatever-ing engineer ....you can only screw things up.

argh ... whatever ...


Chris

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally Posted by SafeandSound

What is your problem exactly, basic competition?
As a man of the world you should know this is normal.

On the contrary ... I'm not a ME. All I can do is slap an ML4000 on the master and set it to 'pop mix' ... That's where my mastering chops end .....

Then again .... I do that for free ... and for fun as well

Chris

[minister]

This is not directed at or against Aleartoric, but if we just look at numbers for a second:

A claim was made in the thread about $60,000 USD. At $275/day, that is 218 days. With 52.x weeks per year, lets assume vacay and for ease of discussion, that's 50 weeks a year. Let's also assume that Sat/Sun are weekend, no work days. 5 days x 50 weeks is 250 days. Do you mean to tell me that ME's work 4.36 days per week, every week? Even at $25/song? This means that there are 218 bands with FULL LENGTH CD's that need Mastering, every year. In any given city, there may be hundreds if not thousands of bands. But are they all putting out CD's all the time?

[jdg]

with the magic of the interwebs, i can work with bands from all over the world (and do)

i dont know how busy anyone else is, but i do avg of 3 full legnths a week, 1 EP, and a few singles.

sometimes more, sometimes less, but thats just an avg.

if i wanted to be rich, i wouldn't work in music.
but i couldn't survive on 25/track (wish i could)

[LFF]

Originally Posted by C.Lambrechts

It does NOT start with the choice of Mic Pre and the choice of Mic you put in front of the cabinet ... NO .... it starts with a great ****ing guitar player with a great ****ing sound. From that point onwards ... all you can do is screw things up ... wether you're the tracking / editing / arranging / producing / mixing / mastering or whatever-ing engineer ....you can only screw things up.

argh ... whatever ...


Chris

I agree and disagree. It does start with fantastic musicians but no matter how fantastic the musicianship, you can still improve things from a mastering perspective. Perhaps the tracking / editing / arranging / producing / mixing engineer will screw things up but it's not the job of the mastering engineer to screw anything up. tutt My first rule is to do no harm.

We should be the "sound quality control" of the whole chain of production.

I have recently received a single from a vocalist. Gorgeous voice and music but the mix engineer screwed around with some EQ and limiting. Somewhere along the lines, ticks were introduced as well. It was my job as an ME to remedy those faults. Did the others screw it up intentionally? Probably not but it is my job to do no harm and repair anything I can. The results were no noises, even better vocals than what I received and the client was ecstatic.

This vocalist has worked many people and many ME's and she said that my "mastering is the best sounding track I have" and how she was so happy, etc.

If all we do is screw things up....then why hire us?

When I have received a great recording on which I could not improve upon, then I do nothing and tell the client it doesn't need much. I even discount my rate further. All I do is set the correct levels and do the PMCD.

I try to make it a win-win situation for all.

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally Posted by LFF

I agree and disagree. It does start with fantastic musicians but no matter how fantastic the musicianship, you can still improve things from a mastering perspective.

To the point that you and I will hear the difference yes ... not up to the point where my sister or brother in law or dad will hear a difference unless you point it out to them .... maybe then .... after a couple of attempts.

People listen to the tune ... not to an interaction of frequencies that were balanced and controlled by people like us.

Originally Posted by LFF

it's not the job of the mastering engineer to screw anything up. tutt My first rule is to do no harm.

That realization is likely 75 % of your job

Chris

[LFF]

Originally Posted by C.Lambrechts

To the point that you and I will hear the difference yes ... not up to the point where my sister or brother in law or dad will hear a difference unless you point it out to them .... maybe then .... after a couple of attempts.

People listen to the tune ... not to an interaction of frequencies that were balanced and controlled by people like us.

There are people who hear the difference and I can point out many other forums filled with such people. The general public may not all hear the things we do, but if at least one person does, then I have done my job. I'm sure there are hundreds of people who do notice. If not, then nobody would have bitched about Death Magnetic or Californication.

Originally Posted by C.Lambrechts

That realization is likely 75 % of your job.

Nope. tutt 100% of my job is focused on making things better. I have lost more than a few jobs for refusing to brickwall an album.

[dimitvel]

$25 per tune....?!?

OK - I master one song for 2-4 hours (sometimes more) depends on its length and its difficulty (glitches, pops, noises etc.) If I do a song for $25 it'll be between $12.5 and $6.25 per working hour! Sorry, my equipment is not found on the street, but bought! Thanks, but "McDonald's shit work" would be preferred instead of doing mastering for payment like this! No matter if I can do it for $25 for any reasons or not - it is just not fair and it is an offence to mastering engineer work, first of all!

Wish you find some millionaire's son with a lot of free time and appropriate skills that can work for you for free! Good luck! Otherwise, for $25 it probably won't be called "master". Or why don't you try vloud ? It "masters" music for free...

[Thor]

2-4 hours for one song?!?!?!

I'm not going to tell anyone how to do their job, but if you need 2-4 hours/track to find the sweet spot, you might be in the wrong line of work....

Wow.

Thor

Originally Posted by dimitvel

$25 per tune....?!?

OK - I master one song for 2-4 hours (sometimes more) depends on its length and its difficulty (glitches, pops, noises etc.) If I do a song for $25 it'll be between $12.5 and $6.25 per working hour! Sorry, my equipment is not found on the street, but bought! Thanks, but "McDonald's shit work" would be preferred instead of doing mastering for payment like this! No matter if I can do it for $25 for any reasons or not - it is just not fair and it is an offence to mastering engineer work, first of all!

Wish you find some millionaire's son with a lot of free time and appropriate skills that can work for you for free! Good luck! Otherwise, for $25 it probably won't be called "master". Or why don't you try vloud ? It "masters" music for free...

[dimitvel]

Originally Posted by Thor

2-4 hours for one song?!?!?!

...find the sweet spot...

Thor

If the music was a spot I would be ready for a minute!

Yeah, approaches are different. And I don't want to know yours...

I can work fast, cheap and qualitative but you must choose only two of these...

[LFF]

Originally Posted by dimitvel

I master one song for 2-4 hours (sometimes more) depends on its length and its difficulty (glitches, pops, noises etc.)

Your definitely in the wrong line of work. Someone is also getting ripped off.

[minister]

Originally Posted by dimitvel

OK - I master one song for 2-4 hours (sometimes more) depends on its length and its difficulty (glitches, pops, noises etc.)

Entire albums are mastered in 4-6 hours.

[kiopo]

I can't believe that people are actually COMPETING and doing masters for you for a POTENTIAL $25. It's sick man.

I'm not going to complain about such low rates. It's a completely different economy to the big players on here, and doesn't affect them in any way. But you can't treat people like that, they're going to spend a decent amount of time doing Masters that you aren't going to even use, for no money. If you're going to go for bargain basement Mastering, then at least work with the first poor sod who contacts you.

[dimitvel]

Originally Posted by LFF

Your definitely in the wrong line of work...

Originally Posted by minister

Entire albums are mastered in 4-6 hours.

OK, guys! Take $25 and make it then...you will make good money...

Let me be the slowest ME on this planet - I don't care! My methods (not techniques) of doing this stay obviously far away from yours. I can do a tune for 10min. ( I mean it seriously) if I want to or need to. But as I said above: I can work fast, cheap and qualitative but you must choose only two of these...

Cheers.

[dietrich10]

Seems to me even just a few years ago small and hobby musicians releasing cds did not pay for mastering unless including in the replication package deal. Nowadays anyone/everyone gets their music mastered...$25 per track times a 12 track hobby Cd project is still a lot for that artist. I am curious how much work these $100 CD mastering guys get....via craigslist and such.

another point to make is that a 60k income level here in the USA right now depending where you live is more than adequate-obviously if you invested 100k in a mastering room and only bring in 60k a year...that is not a good business model.

[MASSIVE Master]

Originally Posted by minister

Entire albums are mastered in 4-6 hours.

And 90% of the "tweaking" is done in 10% of the time. If the settings for a tune aren't "pretty darn close" by the end of listening through the first time, something ain't right...

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

If the settings for a tune aren't "pretty darn close" by the end of listening through the first time, something ain't right...

I usually reserve the first listen though of a song for listening ... adjustments on the second run through.

Originally Posted by dimitvel

OK - I master one song for 2-4 hours (sometimes more) depends on its length and its difficulty

Do you charge per hour or per song? Not that it matter's as much or at all if the client is happy.

[aleatoric]

The whole "how long it takes to master a track" topic is kinda interesting.

I always find I nail it on the head pretty quick and than end up tweaking things only to very closely (if not exactly) return to my initial settings. I guess its that whole zen "first thought best thought" thing. Once you know your room/speakers and processors well things become very intuitive and relatively quick (but in no way rushed) if you follow your ears and intuition.

I mean you can sit there all day debating if a 1k boost should be 1dB or 1.5dB (or even 1.25dB!). Further on that thought; should the boosts center sit at 1k or 1.2k? Slightly wider Q or slightly narrower Q? A different EQ entirely? Eventually you have to make the best and most intelligent decision you can and move on.

Most of the ME's who I have worked with and watched generally do a song in 20-30 minutes. 2-4 hours on one song is pretty extreme. I mean sure I could try stuff all long day but ultimately I don't think the outcome would be any better that what I came up with in the first 30 minutes or less. That being said I have spent an hour or more on a problematic song quite a few times. In general though I am onto the next song after 20-30 minutes, as are most others.

[aleatoric]

Neat facts!:

-More money spent does not automatically equal better mastering
-Less money spent does not automatically equal better mastering
-More time spent does not automatically equal better mastering
-Less time spent does not automatically equal better mastering

Oh what an interesting world we live in!

Wouldn't forums be so much more laid back if everything was definite.

[KyleDiSanto]

Originally Posted by Franco

Comedy!

Hey, thanks for blessing us peasants with your appearance, if only it was to say how you are so above not addressing these - can you even call them? - threads!

The arrogance of some people in this business is seriously pretty funny.

WHOA man...never said I was "above" anyone or anything so please don't make accusations about me based upon the 1 sentence I wrote....to me - that is arrogant in and of itself.

This is a..."Whatever-of-a-thread." Its a perfect example of what gearslutz has been reduced to. I learned so much from the pro's on this forum when I was just a "lurker" - when people had respect for those than came before them...and now look at it...most of them are either gone or leaving. The constant bickering around here really does make someone, "not what to come into thread" or be around this negativity. (And its from both the top and bottom I do agree). If expressing my thoughts on the subject matter make me arrogant than so be it.

The fact of the matter is that, in this world, something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. I'm not against $25 masters...I mean really...did everyone just start out one day charging 100$+ per song before they made a name for themselves?

[wwittman]

Originally Posted by Thor

2-4 hours for one song?!?!?!

I'm not going to tell anyone how to do their job, but if you need 2-4 hours/track to find the sweet spot, you might be in the wrong line of work....

so when Metallica or Led Zeppelin or Streisand or Green Day or others book into Sterling for 2 WEEKS to do an album, they're just "doing it wrong"?

[dimitvel]

Originally Posted by wwittman

so when Metallica or Led Zeppelin or Streisand or Green Day or others book into Sterling for 2 WEEKS to do an album, they're just "doing it wrong"?

No, they're doing it right! They will never choose a "preset guy" or a "preset studio"....

Moreover - their mixes can be done faster than these I get from here...

P.S. Nevertheless, Metallica last album sucks! But everybody knows who is responsible to this. Even 4 hours mastering a song can't help, sometimes!

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by wwittman

so when Metallica or Led Zeppelin or Streisand or Green Day or others book into Sterling for 2 WEEKS to do an album, they're just "doing it wrong"?

It is definitely not a race, but last time I was at SS, TJ spent an average of 15 minutes a song. 17 songs in 5 hours.

This thread has morphed out of control a while ago and is really serving little purpose imho.