The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Is mastering needed today? What's the point on this? Dynamics Plugins
Old 19th December 2016
  #61
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by just_manu View Post
Hey. Finally one constructive answer. I always analyse the songs with my brainworx analyser as I posted on the picture before. And do it through cubase.
Please use the Audacity measurment on your songs and Galantis - Runaway to make sure this argument is not just about measurement methology...
Old 19th December 2016
  #62
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_manu View Post
You are wrong. I'm NOT asking for them to tell me to do it by much self. In fact I'm asking for a solution so I don't have to do!
I already provided my answer to that as well.
As you are not satisfied with the work from the ME before you should find somebody who shares you vision and can deliver, simple as that.
Many people spent years to find the right guy to work with.
2
Share
Old 19th December 2016
  #63
Gear Maniac
 
just_manu's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Analogue Mastering View Post
I've got no PM from you in the past 2 years (have no more inbox history from before)
So I've just sent you a PM and we can take that offline, I really want to know what you are referring to.

Loud and punch are subjective though, I don't find the example track above punchy at all, it sounds over limited, having the track less limited and just dialing the volume knob up a notch, would give a much more dynamic sound.

I get your point about people wanting it loud, but I don't see that a lot anymore since 2 or 3 years or so. Most have wisened up by now. Especially if you do Nu disco and Deep House, it's very hip to be as dynamic as possible, think 80'ties loudness
plenty of Beatport releases being really "quiet" nowadays.

and Bumbataa is right, especially on streaming platforms, you're better off working towards the codec sweet spot rather than absolute loudness. As more and more stuff gets normalled.
If I have to choose, I prefer lower rms like you guys. The problem is clients bring in some references and they want it to sound the same. Lower for them is a bad job. Absurd but it is what it is.

BTW our first message on Hotmail was April 13th. U can check.
1
Share
Old 19th December 2016
  #64
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_manu View Post
If I have to choose, I prefer lower rms like you guys. The problem is clients bring in some references and they want it to sound the same. Lower for them is a bad job. Absurd but it is what it is.

BTW our first message on Hotmail was April 13th. U can check.
But then it's easy, just find a ME who can make your songs sound the same as the reference songs if you are too busy to do it yourself?
Old 19th December 2016
  #65
Gear Maniac
 
just_manu's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBataa View Post
I already provided my answer to that as well.
As you are not satisfied with the work from the ME before you should find somebody who shares you vision and can deliver, simple as that.
Many people spent years to find the right guy to work with.
I will try the audacity. I will message u if I have any doubt ok?
1
Share
Old 19th December 2016
  #66
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZooTooK View Post
When I take Galantis - Runaway from Spotify I get around -13RMS and from Youtube around -14RMS in Audacity, using the Analyze/Contrast on about 10 second chorus section. Could there be differencies in measurement methods in this thread?
YouTube and Spotify apply loudness normalisation. They will play the tracks at a lower level than the actual releases.

Alistair
Old 19th December 2016
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_manu View Post
If I have to choose, I prefer lower rms like you guys. The problem is clients bring in some references and they want it to sound the same. Lower for them is a bad job. Absurd but it is what it is.

BTW our first message on Hotmail was April 13th. U can check.
Got it.

Last edited by Analogue Mastering; 19th December 2016 at 11:51 AM..
Old 19th December 2016
  #68
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBataa View Post
But then it's easy, just find a ME who can make your songs sound the same as the reference songs if you are too busy to do it yourself?

Ok, I've looked into this: Manu did send me an EDM track, It was a very nice track BTW, excellent singer and arrangement. the mix itself however was already heavily EQ'ed compressed and limited
I did him a free master with feedback (I could not improve/restore dynamics)
part of my feedback was harshness issues in the 4K area and the amount of compression and limiting already in the track
I also mentioned clearly to him that I worked towards the loudness sweetspot and that the track needed rework if he wanted it louder, without damaging it further. But that was no problem for me, no extra charge.

After this initial free mix advise, I didn't hear anything anymore. I did not send Manu an invoice.

I can only assume, Manu took my advise and reworked the mix, after that feeling he did not need mastering anymore.
Old 19th December 2016
  #69
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
just_manu,

First up I would ignore the haters and posters that don't understand the type of music you work on and the people that don't read what you write before responding.

Secondly, I would never do business with someone that constantly poo poo's the type of music you work on and makes derogatory comments about bedroom producers while he himself has his "mastering room" in a converted bedroom.

Thirdly, actual RMS measurements vary depending on settings, whether people are looking at the loudest section of a track or the entire track etc etc. In other words they don't really mean much. LUFS measurements might be more accurate for this kind of thing. (But LUFS are also not an absolute indicator of perceived loudness). I would just say "competitively loud" whatever that means in any specific genre.

Fourthly, you are right to make a distinction between singles and albums but what about "various artists" albums? Is your work never released on those? The labels might want un-mastered versions for those albums to create a cohesive whole.

And lastly, when I work on my own tracks I like to mix into a "mastering chain". The mix ends up being the master. To me it seems easier to get clean loudness this way because everything is levelled/EQed/compressed/limited/saturated/whatever to fit the whole chain from source material to the final output limiter. Things don't get pushed too much because you instantly hear when the sounds start to suffer.

If you separate the mixing and "mastering" stages (between quotes because making things loud isn't exactly what mastering is) you loose this instant feedback so you basically end up with guess work. You can make the perfect sounding mix but that mix will change once you apply a limiter or other "mastering" processing to it so it won't sound the same any more. With music that doesn't get pushed too much level wise this is fine but for stuff that needs that loudness, IME making the mix sound like the final product (including loudness) seems to work best. A lot of the top pop/rock/dance producers and mixers seem to say the same thing in interviews. And before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, this has nothing to do with the skill of any ME, just the fact that you loose the instant feedback of mixing directly into the "mastering chain".

Just my -0,02 dB FS RMS

Alistair
2
Share
Old 19th December 2016
  #70
Gear Maniac
 
just_manu's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
just_manu,

First up I would ignore the haters and posters that don't understand the type of music you work on and the people that don't read what you write before responding.

Secondly, I would never do business with someone that constantly poo poo's the type of music you work on and makes derogatory comments about bedroom producers while he himself has his "mastering room" in a converted bedroom.

Thirdly, actual RMS measurements vary depending on settings, whether people are looking at the loudest section of a track or the entire track etc etc. In other words they don't really mean much. LUFS measurements might be more accurate for this kind of thing. (But LUFS are also not an absolute indicator of perceived loudness). I would just say "competitively loud" whatever that means in any specific genre.

Fourthly, you are right to make a distinction between singles and albums but what about "various artists" albums? Is your work never released on those? The labels might want un-mastered versions for those albums to create a cohesive whole.

And lastly, when I work on my own tracks I like to mix into a "mastering chain". The mix ends up being the master. To me it seems easier to get clean loudness this way because everything is levelled/EQed/compressed/limited/saturated/whatever to fit the whole chain from source material to the final output limiter. Things don't get pushed too much because you instantly hear when the sounds start to suffer.

If you separate the mixing and "mastering" stages (between quotes because making things loud isn't exactly what mastering is) you loose this instant feedback so you basically end up with guess work. You can make the perfect sounding mix but that mix will change once you apply a limiter or other "mastering" processing to it so it won't sound the same any more. With music that doesn't get pushed too much level wise this is fine but for stuff that needs that loudness, IME making the mix sound like the final product (including loudness) seems to work best. A lot of the top pop/rock/dance producers and mixers seem to say the same thing in interviews. And before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, this has nothing to do with the skill of any ME, just the fact that you loose the instant feedback of mixing directly into the "mastering chain".

Just my -0,02 dB FS RMS

Alistair
Undertow.

Thanks A LOT for your post. I guess you are absolutely right in everything you've said. For the first time I see a professional in this thread who knows how to work in the 2016 environment.

Only one question. As u work like me, using a mastering chain over the 2 buss while mixing... how would you do it if you wanted to work with a mastering engineer who can bring fresh ears to your song? That's what I always need because in the end, I get really tired of listening to it and don't know if I'm doing it right or not.

Glad I found an oasis at this desert! XD
Old 19th December 2016
  #71
Gear Maniac
 
just_manu's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Analogue Mastering View Post
Ok, I've looked into this: Manu did send me an EDM track, It was a very nice track BTW, excellent singer and arrangement. the mix itself however was already heavily EQ'ed compressed and limited
I did him a free master with feedback (I could not improve/restore dynamics)
part of my feedback was harshness issues in the 4K area and the amount of compression and limiting already in the track
I also mentioned clearly to him that I worked towards the loudness sweetspot and that the track needed rework if he wanted it louder, without damaging it further. But that was no problem for me, no extra charge.

After this initial free mix advise, I didn't hear anything anymore. I did not send Manu an invoice.

I can only assume, Manu took my advise and reworked the mix, after that feeling he did not need mastering anymore.
Yes, I didn't answer. And I must say I'm really sorry. It is absolutely not the way to proceed. Sorry. Need to say in that exact track, if I'm not wrong, I didn't change the dynamics too much. What I did was sidechaining some elements a little bit more and adding my Mcdsp ml4000 through the whole mix so I could get a little bit less "cardboard" sound, something that I ended up discovering by listening at my car and which u didn't mention in any moment.

Again, my apologies.
Old 19th December 2016
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_manu View Post
Yes, I didn't answer. And I must say I'm really sorry. It is absolutely not the way to proceed. Sorry. Need to say in that exact track, if I'm not wrong, I didn't change the dynamics too much. What I did was sidechaining some elements a little bit more and adding my Mcdsp ml4000 through the whole mix so I could get a little bit less "cardboard" sound, something that I ended up discovering by listening at my car and which u didn't mention in any moment.

Again, my apologies.
No problem, learning here is that Mastering is a 2-way street. You send a track, we establish a baseline, provide feedback and work from there, whether that's on dynamics, EQ, harsness, doesn't matter. Or you say that you got enough for now and take the track back for rework. You did rework and apologized for not getting back to me. I kept my promise of "no cure no pay" so no harm done.

But if you want to get most out of mastering communication is key.
Old 19th December 2016
  #73
Gear Maniac
 
just_manu's Avatar
 

I think you complicate things too much.
Old 19th December 2016
  #74
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_manu View Post
I think you complicate things too much.

You have not given a single useful advice or word through all the thread, but only spreading bs.

I do believe u work with amazing edm artists as you say, but I'm not sure u are ready for it according to your way of thinking.
It's quite simple: you have a track, I tell you how to have it reach max potential, that's my job, if your ego can't handle that, then you and I are not made for each other. Again no harm done. It's a 2-way street. And I've been very nice with you.

Worst that can happen is that you pay someone upfront, you get 1 master back, which is suboptimal because of your own work, no feedback, so you still don't have clue where to fix and money walked out of your pocket.

But if that's what you want? It seems more to me that you are the one not ready for mastering. I will not share the track as submitted to me, or our comms. But you know you are wrong here.
Old 19th December 2016
  #75
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
YouTube and Spotify apply loudness normalisation. They will play the tracks at a lower level than the actual releases.

Alistair
Hold on, that doesn't mean Spotify and Youtube introduce dynamics that isn't there in the original master, do they? The RMS value is just showing the average difference between peaks and valleys. To loudness compensate is mainly just to lower the volume to achieve similar perceived volume regarless of the RMS for each song.
Old 19th December 2016
  #76
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZooTooK View Post
Hold on, that doesn't mean Spotify and Youtube introduce dynamics that isn't there in the original master, do they? The RMS value is just showing the average difference between peaks and valleys. To loudness compensate is mainly just to lower the volume to achieve similar perceived volume regarless of the RMS for each song.
Exactly, the dynamics are locked after mastering, whether you play that on volume 1 or 10, the dynamic relationships stay the same, spotify just "turns the volume down"

2 penalties:
1. you did not gain anything above target loudness compared to other tracks
2. You actually sound worse because of all the compression and limiting that's in the this track, compared to the others sounding much more dynamic. at same apparent volume.
Old 19th December 2016
  #77
Gear Maniac
 
just_manu's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Analogue Mastering View Post
It's quite simple: you have a track, I tell you how to have it reach max potential, that's my job, if your ego can't handle that, then you and I are not made for each other. Again no harm done. It's a 2-way street. And I've been very nice with you.

Worst that can happen is that you pay someone upfront, you get 1 master back, which is suboptimal because of your own work, no feedback, so you still don't have clue where to fix and money walked out of your pocket.

But if that's what you want? It seems more to me that you are the one not ready for mastering. I will not share the track as submitted to me, or our comms. But you know you are wrong here.
Don't u accept your job was a bad job? Then no more to talk about this.

Not an ego thing. It just sounded bad. It didn't sound like a pro mastering engineer should sound, eq balance, dynamics and volume wise.

Next time u are not entitled to give helping feedback in a post, please simply don't say nothing. Now I would thank u if u stopped posting here. You have distorted the aim of the thread. Regards.
Old 19th December 2016
  #78
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_manu View Post
Don't u accept your job was a bad job? Then no more to talk about this.

Next time u are not entitled to give helping feedback in a post, please simply don't say nothing. Now I would thank u if u stopped posting here. You have distorted the aim of the thread. Regards.
feel free to post the track as submitted to me. And what I did sent back to you, as a first pass freebee, with valuable comments, waiting for your input.
Again this thread is nothing without context.

I'll leave at that, professional courtesy.
Old 19th December 2016
  #79
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_manu View Post
Only one question. As u work like me, using a mastering chain over the 2 buss while mixing... how would you do it if you wanted to work with a mastering engineer who can bring fresh ears to your song? That's what I always need because in the end, I get really tired of listening to it and don't know if I'm doing it right or not.
This is a very good question. It depends a bit on what is going to happen with the material you are working on. I don't have all the answers but here are some suggestions:

If it is a single and you just want a reality check from someone with experience listening in a good room, then you could just pay an ME for the feedback and advice without them actually mastering anything. As simple as that.

If it is for a compilation album you could do your full mix with everything on the master and just remove the final limiter before sending to the ME. Like this they can still do a bit of EQ to fit the track in with all the other tracks and limit to get all the tracks to the same perceived level. I would communicate with the ME and give them a version with and without limiter so that they know what you are aiming for. Key here is communication so that everyone knows what is going on and what is expected.

Lastly you could just give your fully limited mix and let the ME deal with it. I suspect this won't be a popular suggestion here. But IMO the job of a mixer (whether they are the producer him/herself or someone else) isn't to make the life of ME's easy. Their job is to deliver the best possible mix. For ME's it is _nice_ if the mixers make our lives easier but it shouldn't be a requirement.

In the end it is about communication and finding someone with whom you can work. Someone that understands your vision and that gets you the results you want (even if it is just feedback or a nod of approval that there is nothing weird in your mixes).

Best of luck on your endeavours!

Alistair
Old 19th December 2016
  #80
Lives for gear
 
Apostolos Siopis's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBataa View Post
Ok they all have limiters built in, but you get the drift.
Let's say it could damage speakers and your listeners ears for what it's worth.
I d say we shouldn't rely on our responses, on things we do not know, as it makes our argument really weak

there are really good arguments against stupid-loud masters but compatibility for PAs is not one of them

speakers or the listeners ears cannot be damaged by a track mastered crazy loud (NEVER)
let's get over it and let's move on to more appropriate arguments against the loudness war
Old 19th December 2016
  #81
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZooTooK View Post
Hold on, that doesn't mean Spotify and Youtube introduce dynamics that isn't there in the original master, do they? The RMS value is just showing the average difference between peaks and valleys. To loudness compensate is mainly just to lower the volume to achieve similar perceived volume regarless of the RMS for each song.
RMS values give an indication of the average level of a section. If you lower the volume by 6 dB, the RMS value goes down by 6 dB.

Try it in any audio application that lets you calculate RMS values. Do the calculation, reduce the level by 6 dB and recalculate. You will see.

Alistair
Old 19th December 2016
  #82
Gear Addict
 
gorka's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
In the end it is about communication and finding someone with whom you can work. Someone that understands your vision and that gets you the results you want (even if it is just feedback or a nod of approval that there is nothing weird in your mixes).

Best of luck on your endeavours!

Alistair
True.
And to avoid a fruitless debate on gs, changing the topic title to:

"Is mastering on already super loud edm tracks needed today?"

would be a good idea, imho.

A forum like this always has the problem that people with totally different backgrounds and realities discuss the same topics, even if their music is worlds apart.

7
Share
Old 19th December 2016
  #83
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
RMS values give an indication of the average level of a section. If you lower the volume by 6 dB, the RMS value goes down by 6 dB.

Try it in any audio application that lets you calculate RMS values. Do the calculation, reduce the level by 6 dB and recalculate. You will see.

Alistair
You are right - what I meant in my text above using Audacity (but didn't write) was to normalize the relevant file you want to compare first. Then the RMS will give you an indication of the dynamics I believe. I'm sorry if I confused you guys...my mistake
Old 19th December 2016
  #84
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by gorka View Post
A forum like this always has the problem that people with totally different backgrounds and realities discuss the same topics, even if their music is worlds apart.

If people would be more generous when reading other people's posts they might not jump so quickly to to negative conclusions. Ah well... welcome to the internet.

Alistair
Old 19th December 2016
  #85
Gear Maniac
 
just_manu's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gorka View Post
True.
And to avoid a fruitless debate on gs, changing the topic title to:

"Is mastering on already super loud edm tracks needed today?"

would be a good idea, imho.

A forum like this always has the problem that people with totally different backgrounds and realities discuss the same topics, even if their music is worlds apart.

You are right. Probably the title of the thread has not been very nice for ME. Next time will try to be wiser.

Anyway, I'm not only talking about edm. I talk about any commercial music that needs to compete with the top40, which can be rap, pop, edm, ballads... and still having a high rms. Even if there are people who say loudness war is going to end, I'm afraid commercial music will always be having the same high volume than today, not less, not more.
Old 19th December 2016
  #86
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZooTooK View Post
You are right - what I meant in my text above using Audacity (but didn't write) was to normalize the relevant file you want to compare first. Then the RMS will give you an indication of the dynamics I believe. I'm sorry if I confused you guys...my mistake
Ah I see. Well in my experience there is no measurement that is really accurate to tell if something _sounds_ dynamic or not. In the end you just listen and decide if you like the sound or not.

I think just_manu is looking at the official release rather than any YouTube or Spotify version. They might not even be the same master! They might have made specific YouTube and Spotify masters.

Anyway, I think the whole RMS discussion is a bit of a waste of time. In the end it is about how loud something _sounds_ rather than how loud it measures and like it or not, a lot of modern (dance) music is still expected to be rather loud...

Alistair
Old 19th December 2016
  #87
Gear Addict
 
gorka's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Ah well... welcome to the internet.

Alistair
I´m using the internet since over 23 years but I´m still wondering why people don´t realize this and take everything they read with a grain of salt .
I sometimes ask myself why I´m so silly to do that as well, btw.
Old 19th December 2016
  #88
Gear Guru
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I love how these, "I sent my tracks to a mastering engineer but they were not well done so I redid them myself (and surprise, surprise) the label liked my version better", seem to generate a lot of angst and negativity.

The elephant in the room is that you could do something the mastering engineer could not. You could go back in a re-tweak your mixes until they worked in mastering. The mastering engineer was limited to what he had to work with and what you sent him.

The other problem here is that why someone would post this type of question on a Pro Mastering forum and not expect people to get their dander up. It is like asking a famous chef "now with all the fast foods and frozen foods why do they need chefs anymore" on a culinary forum for chefs.

If you can do your own mastering then do it but don't ask why mastering or mastering engineers are needed anymore unless you want to get negative comments.

Best of luck on your "quest" for knowledge. Maybe asking better questions without the negative connotations would yield better results...just saying.
4
Share
Old 19th December 2016
  #89
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_manu View Post
Even if there are people who say loudness war is going to end, I'm afraid commercial music will always be having the same high volume than today, not less, not more.
I would say it will never be as quiet as back then a few decades ago instead :D

You must understand that distribution ways change:
Spotify e.g. normalizes audio to -11 Lufs, Youtube -13, Apple -16.
Maybe that changed, I'm too lazy to look up numbers but generally speaking it's in that ballpark.
-11,5 lufs is like around -10,x rms!
And it is the loudest a streaming service offers today..

So when your master is -4rms you introduced distortion, clipping, limiting, compression to achieve those 6rms difference in loudness and you compromised your track, you squashed, your transients lack punch etc. etc.
You know the drill, you compromised dynamics. A kick will never hit as hard if it is just sitting right at 0 and poking at it, it needs room to breathe.

What then happens is that spotify dials back your music to -11Lufs so all the squashed dynamics will just be played at a lower volume.
What that actually means is that suddenly an extremely hot Kanye West track is as loud as a more dynamic and less squashed track with the difference that Kanye gave up all that sweet transient punch, 3D, dynamics and heft and destroyed a track for...NOTHING. He even made it worse.
Now there is a certain sound to loud music and nobody said it will be quiet like in the 50s again but the levels achieved these last years are..well, yesterday. You can thank apple, spotify, youtube and EBU128 for it.

CD is a different thing, it is limited by the 16 bit bandwith and a CD which is louder will sound louder when played on the same system, that is true, there is no normalization process only if you ask itunes for it when burning.
But you really think people will listen to CDs in 10 years or even 5 from now? Maybe our parents will. The rest will buy from Beatport or whatever instead.
There is a reason why guys like Universal want to become independent from CD sales as soon as possible.

You think DJs will play non-dynamic, squashed distorted flat dead club tracks in MP3 in a few years from now?
I always tell DJs to update their library to lossless or they will be in for a bitter surprise soon.
Many Clubs don't allow audio in MP3 anymore and a lot of (especially electroguys) changed to playing from vinyl alone, no digital vinyl emulation anymore, believe it or not.

Loudness wars peaked a few years ago, people already have been at the event horizon and back again, as always people think it will always be that way because they got used to it.
Seriously in a few years when every smartphone can easily store a few TB NOBODY will want to listen to mp3 on their device, it was simply a bridge technology, same as the idea to destroy your delicate music to just make it loud.
Old 19th December 2016
  #90
Gear Maniac
 
just_manu's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe View Post
I love how these, "I sent my tracks to a mastering engineer but they were not well done so I redid them myself (and surprise, surprise) the label liked my version better", seem to generate a lot of angst and negativity.

The elephant in the room is that you could do something the mastering engineer could not. You could go back in a re-tweak your mixes until they worked in mastering. The mastering engineer was limited to what he had to work with and what you sent him.

The other problem here is that why someone would post this type of question on a Pro Mastering forum and not expect people to get their dander up. It is like asking a famous chef "now with all the fast foods and frozen foods why do they need chefs anymore" on a culinary forum for chefs.

If you can do your own mastering then do it but don't ask why mastering or mastering engineers are needed anymore unless you want to get negative comments.

Best of luck on your "quest" for knowledge. Maybe asking better questions without the negative connotations would yield better results...just saying.
Which negative connotation is there? I'm starting to think u guys do not know how to read.

I've said MY MASTERS WERE CHOSEN BECAUSE I HAD THE CHANCE TO RETWEAK THE MIXES, SOMETHING THE ME COULDN'T.

Then u guys should start to think of this not as a threat to you (it looks like that), but as a chance to solve a problem a lot of people have (not only me). But you don't seem very interested in going out of your comfort zone.

If you think the questions I've made are not good questions, then you don't live on the real world of today home studios making nice productions and looking for solutions. With this attitude you are closing doors to a lot of new possible income ways.
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump