a master from a new file is subject to a charge.

if there are only minimal changes, this is not the full price for me, only an "analog recall", which costs about half of a new mastering.

if a customer is new, i am almost always tolerant and don't charge it - on the invoice, however, the point is listed with the note "not charged", so that he becomes aware that this is not self-evident.

if i made a digital master, i don't charge extra for another one (only <2% of my jobs are digital only).

but i had a lot more to do with this problem years ago than i have today, my clientele seems to know in the meantime, that you put final files into mastering :-)

Most annoying: rush by the label to do the “urgent” mastering, gets done with a tight turn around, weeks go past, then another “urgent” revision via email just when you arrive home after being in the studio.

We allow 1 revision within 7 days. New mixes...done on a case by case basis.

Many people only really listen to their mixes properly after mastering.

Seem to be getting a lot more of these lately. Revisions from a new file is always a charge. Make no secret of it and will always charge it in most circumstances. Recalling the gear from notes, matching the sound, re-doing any edits, running the mix through, rendering new files, extra admin/etc. All takes up a lot of time which is unpredictable and often has to be scheduled during after hours. Unfair for the mastering engineer to soak that up and I've never had a client question it. Especially as I explain what a revision actually means in advance. Heard the phrase "just swap over the files and use the same settings dude" many times!

I've thought about uping the rates and including a revision but a) that's not fair on clients who nail the mix properly before mastering and b) it gives clients a security blanket thinking that they get a second go for free. Not to be encouraged.

So many times I've had to stop myself from saying: "Oh, really? What happened to that crucial deadline you had 2 weeks back? Hmmmm?"

Yes, that. And it's also true that mastering can reveal some mix flaws that they couldn't hear before. That's why I feel I should be understanding and lenient to some extent. Where to draw the line is basically the underlying question behind this thread.

Agreed. The decision I've come to from this thread is to go out of my way to make it perfectly clear from the start that recalls aren't free. And to ask more questions about the mixing before beginning. That should cut down on unpleasant surprises and set up proper incentives.

I include revisions because I never hesitated to ask Bob Ludwig and Doug Sax for revisions. You need to live with a master for a while to be sure that it works. The benefit of a separate mastering engineer is that we get to respond honestly to a first impression but we still aren't God.

Time is money period. If you're having to spend your time mastering a completely new mix it doesn't matter why they are asking you to work on it again. You get paid for your time and skill. As long as you are clear about this it shouldn't be a surprise. You don't need clients that abuse this or don't value your time anyways. If they don't get this let them work with the many in the box bedroom producers doing everything with plug ins. Quality attracts quality and time equals money, there's no way around this.

I agree with that in theory, but in practice there are times when I decide to do a recall master for free. For example - Some of my best clients are mix engineers who send me a lot of repeat business, but it's their clients (the artists) who are paying me. Me asking for more money over a mix issue could cause friction between the client and the mixer. I don't want to cause trouble for my mixer client so I'll do a little extra work just to help him out and ensure more referrals to come.

In short - client relations are a factor.

This is one of the main reasons I'm now constantly trying to stay in the box. I actually do prioritize projects based on the first conversations with people.. if the mix is really tricky and will most likely get a few mix revisions, I'll always go ITB at first until it all settles down.

It's also a great motivator to get supremely good and reliable hardware that is super easy to reliably recall. This is where the premium switches and proper labeling comes in. Easy to use, easy to verify same settings, easy to take a picture of the used settings. These things matter an awful lot and hopefully hardware manufacturers understand this. It's also why I think good quality digital switches that can be automated/controlled from the computer will be the only way to go in the future.

.. and yeah, the revisited mixes that have totally different output levels and all internal levels of the various elements shifted around annoy me like crazy. It literally means I have to do all MY work from the beginning. So friggin annoying.

I usually do a quick level analysis of old and new mix to get the integrated LUF level of both to then start from the same point levelwise (works pretty well)
Then (if starting point is identical) Sequoia allows me select my whole edit and then point it to the new file so I get everything back in a second (level automation, and all objet mode settings).
The worst situation is when some declicking/denoising was applied and that you have to do it all again.

I usually don't charge for that, it doesn't happen that much and it only takes 30 sec de recall the whole chain.

Modified content implying actually new passes, it’s not unfair @ all to charge again -perhaps with a discount.
What is usually not charged twice are revisions of the mastering edits [over one same mixdown].

That's really a good one to do indeed! Thanks!

I have heard of some top level projects that book out an mastering engineer for a day, constantly shooting back and forth the songs till they are done.

Top level guys though, so they know when to stop and what job belongs to who.

Not just top level, I have lots of clients like that.

Being 100% ITB up to this point, I charge a token fee for "re-running the same settings," and I tell clients about this upfront. Basically, I charge just enough to discourage the behavior and to cover my time, but not enough to actually prevent the client from making necessary changes discovered post-mastering (e.g they had a part muted).

In cases where my clients are being overly nit-picky, I often tell them a piece of mixing advice I read once (don't recall where, but I like it). "Don't mix past the money!" No one cares about that 0.1dB adjustment you are making back and forth to the doubled backing synth that's 12dB below the guitar.

Mix check / pre-mastering comms = Included in the price, and this can usually catch any major problems upfront

Stereo master = $130 / €110

Revision to the master = Free, in theory unlimited because usually I'll nail it in the first go, so it's an easy thing to offer

New mix file with very minor change on a song that didn't require multiple RX fixes = Minimum charge $65 / €55 (50%).

New file with major changes (usually anything being turned up or multiple changes) or a song that required multiple RX fixes = New master charge

Anything with stems and I'll add 50% of the stem charge.

New versions (instr, singback, etc.) will be charged at 50% as well.

I don't think any professional mastering engineers today are either or. Lots of masters are hybrids, lots are purely ITB, some are almost only OOTB.

Outboard naturally takes longer to recall, which is what you're getting at I suppose, but the analog recall and real-time bounce is only part of the equation:

Not to mention double checking the source file, any RX'ing or editing, and subsequent quality check and upload + comms.

A client telling you that a file is the same except for one small change... We all know that can mean a difference file length, a random dB change to the whole file, a track muted by accident, a glitch somewhere, or it sounding like a completely different mix, usually because they forgot to bypass a plug-in or similar.

Good point: anyone doing this for a while will expect to get the vast majority of work approved on the initial pass.

Yes.

Girls, boys, Slutz...

If you're an eng. with an experience and trustworthy monitoring then why, oooohh why, make a fuss about mixes that are so "in need for just a tad more" mix or whatever. When client don't know better, can't hear proper image and certainly don't appreciate and value work of a professional?

I am not saying there should not be any discussion involved but at some point discussion becomes meaningless. Right? And, like here in some cases, re-visit after a few weeks for a number of times (after done mastering!) raises a question. Either an eng. don't do her/his job or is money thirsty. I am not involving client who don't know better and/or can't hear the real picture. At all!

Well, despite the fact there are great MEs here, no doubt, I don't see the point in over doing it or debating endlessly what is definitely not the reason for debate.

For instance, I am an avreage user. I won't send files to the "best Australian ME", a company of one with the gear bought in last few years and without, at least a good school (read: practice before any school) from the bottom up. In this branch, of course. Experience. Real one.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong or in denial...

Krešo

@biksonije :

Perhaps some progress in your definition of experience could bring about other choices and then higher satisfaction for ye. Your criteria appear to meet the format-adapting task [which is only a small component of mastering duties].

If you’d like all to be quick, yes, some trained m.e. would lay out your tunes -the objective Noise/over’s/defect-taming side of mastering. This would also go with some betterments like eq boost. Yet mastering [in the recordist era] supposedly improves the record in a broader way, with matters of what you’d like to highlight + @What dynamic regime :
*audiophile, progressive amplitudes
*stupid-loud, maximised tension.
__________
Comparatively to the era of tape masters [involving an environment where m.e.’s were [also OR 1stly] tape-op’s,
you could be partly «*in denial*» that mastering today implies some artistic choices as well.
Even when client asks for tips so as to be as´stupid loud’ in the end they want to get, there’s a need for taking the [appropriate] start with this music or this other one...
In that, m.e.’s must foremostly be music lovers [with tools used accordingly]. That came to be the utmost character of the m.e. learning curve pre-requisite upon MS.Mandy Parnell[SoundOnSound documentary].