Mastering Engineers that will do 1 for free

[E-money]

A friend's band has finished mxing 12 songs, and is looking for a great Mastering Engineer.
I recommended choosing 1 of the songs, and sending it to 5-10 Mastering Engineers that offer to do 1 for free, comparing the results, and choosing the 1 that best fits the bands asthetics.
Anybody have:
1) any suggestions for Mastering Engineers that offer to do 1 for free for demo purposes?
2) any comments on this approach?

[rwc]

I'll answer B.

Anyone who will master a song for free probably isn't qualified to be mastering music.

I still have a firm belief in that "should be mixing/recording for about ten yrs before attempting mastering" thing.

[Neil Weir]

I'd narrow it down to maybe three choices so that you're not wasting as many peoples' time and so that each engineer has a higher probability of getting the work.

Choose maybe three who have done work you've liked and talk to them about doing a sample track. Be honest with them and let them know that you are getting samples from a couple other mastering studios....

I've had great luck with Magneto in Minneapolis and Carl Saff did a great job on a record I worked on this summer (Lost Highway's band, Big Timber.)

[chris harris]

This kind of 'test' highlights the misconception that many people have about the actual objective of mastering. Sending one song to a mastering engineer indicates that you expect mastering to be a process that magically makes your mix sound better. And, it appears that you're testing to see who can work the most magic.

Mastering is supposed to be about doing the LEAST amount of processing needed to make your COLLECTION OF SONGS sound like a cohesive album.

I could master one song for you. And, I could probably impress you by jumping through all kinds of hoops to make your mix sound waaay different than it did when I received it. But, the truth is, that wouldn't give you a real idea of what I could accomplish if I were mastering YOUR ALBUM.

People who want to "test" mastering engineers typically have a misunderstanding about why mastering is even needed, and they're skeptical about spending the money on something they don't really understand.

Your best bet is to do some more research and learn what to really expect from a quality mastering job. Once you understand what they do, find a ME that has mastered some records that you like and go for it. If you have realistic expectations of what to expect, then you probably won't be disappointed by the results you'll get from an experienced mastering engineer.

[Neil Weir]

Mastering is supposed to be about doing the LEAST amount of processing needed to make your COLLECTION OF SONGS sound like a cohesive album.


I realize that there are many differing ideas about what mastering should be... But especially in today's environment, where so many records are being tracked and mixed in less than ideal rooms, the good mastering engineers that I know do a lot of sonic problem solving that in the end will make your record sound better and more consistent from system to system. Sometimes very little processing is needed and sometimes a lot of processing is needed. If I sent a record to someone for mastering and it didn't come back sounding better (not by magic, but by the ME's problem solving skills) I'd be disappointed.

[chris harris]

Well, then you're from the new school of mastering expectations. You see mastering as an extension of the recording and mixing process. You expect them to fix things that you've done wrong.

And, sure, that's one thing that mastering engineers do every day. But, making this a part of what you EXPECT from the mastering process, is something that will prevent you from getting better at what you do.

As I said, I can take a mix and, through a number of different processes, make it sound better to me and probably better to you. But, that is not what we should just automatically EXPECT from mastering.

What I'm getting at is that seeing the mastering process as a place to make your mixes better is ass backward. It really hurts you to see it this way, because you're always counting on a process that will happen later, and be executed by someone else, to do things that you should be doing yourself, during tracking or mixing.

The mastering process is not the place to take home recorded tracks and make them sound like they were recorded in a great studio by an experienced engineer.

If you're finding that mastering is consistently making your recordings sound BETTER, then I'd suggest talking to your mastering engineer about what you can do to make your mixes sound better.

[chris harris]

Mastering is supposed to be about doing the LEAST amount of processing needed to make your COLLECTION OF SONGS sound like a cohesive album.


I realize that there are many differing ideas about what mastering should be... But especially in today's environment, where so many records are being tracked and mixed in less than ideal rooms, the good mastering engineers that I know do a lot of sonic problem solving that in the end will make your record sound better and more consistent from system to system. Sometimes very little processing is needed and sometimes a lot of processing is needed. If I sent a record to someone for mastering and it didn't come back sounding better (not by magic, but by the ME's problem solving skills) I'd be disappointed.

Man... you've got great gear and a lot of experience working with some really wonderful bands and artists. What exactly is the mastering engineer doing to make your mixes sound better?

[centurymantra]

I've actually seen quite a few mastering engineers that offer to do one track to demo their work. I'd generally agree that mastering probably won't turn something terrible into gold, but I think it can be shaped sonically to some degree along with the process of getting everything cohesive. I do think every mastering engineer will bring a different musical sensibility to the table, so I don't think it's such a bad idea to do this with some engineers to get a feel for their work.

One of those MEs is the well-regarded Carl Saff. I sent him a sample track awhile ago and he did a nice job on it. When our project finishes up, I'm intending to send it his way.

[Cellotron]

fwiw - I do free samples of single songs for potential clients that have never used my services before. Of course I have to put this after any paying work so generally there's a 1 -3 week wait before I can get to them (right now I'm fairly busy so the wait would be about 2 weeks). Details for those interested can be read at http://www.totalsonic.net/free.htm

It should be noted that while there are a number of ME's willing to do free samples most (including myself) don't appreciate being part of a "cattle call" where we're one of say 10 ME's being put in a "shootout." To me it's better to find a few whose past work you like (just look for credits on albums whose sonics you really dig) - contact some and find out who you have the best communication with (a very important thing!) - and then just ask for samples from two or three if you're still undecided.

As far as what a mastering engineer can do for even fantastically mixed music is the same thing we can do for anyone:

* creation of a verified completely Book spec compliant master so that the resulting products will be exactly as you wish and so there are no potential for delays in the production by the replicator rejecting the master

* the enhancement of your final mixes through the tasteful use of equalization, compression and other processes, so that your audio will sound the best it possibly can, allowing more "impact" and emotional involvement from the listener.

* shaping of individual tracks to better match each other in terms of spectrum, transients and level, so that an album to smoothly flow from one track to another, so that the end listener never feels the need to adjust their volume or tone controls during listening through its entirety, and so that your album can become a cohesive entity in itself and not just a collection of tracks.

* the chance for a fresh perspective on the mixes from an experienced engineer, in a highly accurate and revealing listening environment (so that any processing decisions made will be the right ones) with excellent processors and an ultra-clean signal path (so that any processes done will be made at the highest quality possible).

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Neil Weir]

I'm not saying that you should expect the mastering engineer to fix problems that should have been dealt with in the tracking or mixing stage. I'm just saying that it's not unusual to get your mixes into a mastering studio, hear your mixes on different speakers in a different room and discover little issues here and there.

"Oh, there seems to be a little bit of a peaky area at around 2K that needs attention... Maybe we should shave off a little bit of that super low stuff...etc... etc..." Those minor fixes, if done well, are going to make your music sound better and make it sound more consistent on a variety of playback systems...

Between working at my place and working a larger studio for several years before that, I've never heard a mix done by anyone that didn't need some sort of tweaking at the mastering stage... I agree that you should aim for mixes that don't need any help in mastering (and that's what I do) but in reality, I've found that little unnoticed problems crop up in everyone's mixes once they get into the mastering studio... and I'm also saying that mixes done in someone's bedroom are more likely to have more problems that need to be addressed than mixes done in well designed rooms.

I'm not talking about big stuff here, just little things that add up...

On the other hand, I also understand that there is a school of thought that says that a mastering engineer should be more hands-off... and that's totally fine but there are also other equally legitimate approaches to mastering...

[chris harris]

I definitely agree with all of that... I guess I'm not doing a very good job of making the point I wanted to make, which was about just sending in one track and hoping to get an idea of what a ME will actually do with a whole album.

If you sent me one track to master, you might really like what I do to it. Suppose you hire me, send me all of the album tracks, and because of the sounds on the other songs, I have to take a completely different approach to mastering it all, including the test track that I did.

I'm just saying that sending in one test track is not the best way to find out how a ME will approach your whole album project. You can get a feel for what kind of studio wizardry is possible. But, your test track may not be very representative of what your album will sound like. It's hard to say. Even harder in the home studio world, where the mixes might not be very consistent from song to song.

I think that you're better off going by other full album work that they have done. Listen to a few records by the same ME. Does everything gel the way you like things to? Does the whole album sound cohesive? Do two or more tracks with different tones/approaches still sound like they belong on the same album together? If the answers are yes, and the engineer handles him/her-self professionally, then there's no reason to think that they wouldn't achieve the same with your project.

Good luck!

[DrummerMan]

contact some and find out who you have the best communication with (a very important thing!)

+1

This, I feel, has been the main difference between the best and worst mastering experiences I've had.

[MASSIVE Mastering]

I'd narrow it down to maybe three choices so that you're not wasting as many peoples' time and so that each engineer has a higher probability of getting the work.

Choose maybe three who have done work you've liked and talk to them about doing a sample track. Be honest with them and let them know that you are getting samples from a couple other mastering studios....

I'm an unabashed capitalist who "shops around" as much as the next guy, but I agree with that. You should be able to find a few that "hit you" the right way and go with them.

I feel lucky (?) enough to get most of the "cattle calls" that I get wrapped up in. But the "cattle call" in general just isn't a good thing for the industry... It's a fairly new thing and I have to admit, it can get pretty frustrating.

A couple months ago, I was involved in one where the client shot off an e-mail to everyone without BCC'ing (it wasn't the first time either). There were around 20 places on the list ranging from cracked-software-in-a-bedroom-with-nearfields-for-$5-a-track places all the way up to some very well-known places that charge $200+ an hour. I got the gig - but I felt "dirty" somehow...

There's a lot of info out there on web sites - Samples, client lists, gear lists -- It's pretty easy to narrow it down to a few people in your budget. And as mentioned, communication is key - especially if you're looking at an unattended session.

Sorry - I didn't mean to start on a 'rant' --

[themagicmanmdt]

why does the one song have to be for free?

hook someone up for their time, even if it's just a little bit.

but, i learned the hard way. went to a really great place and ME once, expected to get that third opinion and transformation - and I did, because I told him that's what I wanted - but in retrospect should've spent the money/time on a better mix on some better gear.

this was way back when.

[Nick Sevilla]

Mastering is supposed to be about doing the LEAST amount of processing needed to make your COLLECTION OF SONGS sound like a cohesive album.


I realize that there are many differing ideas about what mastering should be... But especially in today's environment, where so many records are being tracked and mixed in less than ideal rooms, the good mastering engineers that I know do a lot of sonic problem solving that in the end will make your record sound better and more consistent from system to system. Sometimes very little processing is needed and sometimes a lot of processing is needed. If I sent a record to someone for mastering and it didn't come back sounding better (not by magic, but by the ME's problem solving skills) I'd be disappointed.

If a mix needs a lot of work by the ME, then it is a BAD MIX, and should be FIXED AT THE MIXING stage.

If the audio parts sound bad and cannot be fixed iin the mixing stage, then they need to be RE-RECORDED PROPERLY.

If the recording process cannot properly get the sound recorded onto any recordable media, then it is to be fixed at the RECORDING PROCESS.

If the sound is not good enough and does not accurately represent the artists instrument or "vision" then it is to be fixed at the PRE-PRODUCTION PROCESS.

I am so tired of the following:

" dont' worry, we can fix it in the tracking / mixing / mastering session...."

F**K THAT!!!

Just go and record good sounds, dammit... and if you're not sure about it, then DON'T PRESS THE RED BUTTON until you are sure about the sounds you are listening to.

Cheers