[James Nighthawk]

Hmm... This seems like a very bad offer...

Firstly,
They accept only stereo files. The stereo file is the last chance saloon: When I master I always have access to the individual instruments files. That way if the mastering compressor algorithms colour the sound in certain ways, or push certain frequencies more than others, I can go back to subtly edit the parts needs. It is amazing what an EQ tweak here and there can do for available head room and warmth of sound.

£90+ VAT is also too cheap for "Abbey road."

My studio is leagues below Abbey road for size and equipment. My rates depend on the complexity of the mix, also an issue when mastering. For a full rock production I charge £40-£70 for in house production, £60-£80 for external work (if it is external it is more faff for me, as I have to start new files and acclimatise to the file; If I have been working on the song from the start I can do things quicker)

As such, the above seems too cheap... so they probably pass the work to the least experienced people. REAL abbey road mastering would not be sorted with an online booking service. They will go through agents and discuss cases intimately.

This stinks of the company looking for a quick buck from people enticed by the brand name. I would avoid at all costs.

(PS I am not anti-Abbey Road... the Beatles remasters take pride of place on my shelf and I love them so!!!)

[Ramshackles]

Hmm... This seems like a very bad offer...

Firstly,
They accept only stereo files. The stereo file is the last chance saloon: When I master I always have access to the individual instruments files. That way if the mastering compressor algorithms colour the sound in certain ways, or push certain frequencies more than others, I can go back to subtly edit the parts needs. It is amazing what an EQ tweak here and there can do for available head room and warmth of sound.

£90+ VAT is also too cheap for "Abbey road."

My studio is leagues below Abbey road for size and equipment. My rates depend on the complexity of the mix, also an issue when mastering. For a full rock production I charge £40-£70 for in house production, £60-£80 for external work (if it is external it is more faff for me, as I have to start new files and acclimatise to the file; If I have been working on the song from the start I can do things quicker)

As such, the above seems too cheap... so they probably pass the work to the least experienced people. REAL abbey road mastering would not be sorted with an online booking service. They will go through agents and discuss cases intimately.

This stinks of the company looking for a quick buck from people enticed by the brand name. I would avoid at all costs.

(PS I am not anti-Abbey Road... the Beatles remasters take pride of place on my shelf and I love them so!!!)

Every single dedicated mastering engineer in the world pretty much accepts only stereo files (unless they are doing stem mastering)..
Check out sterlingsound for the industry leaders in mastering.
If you are going back and tweaking, you aren't ready for mastering yet

We got the mastering done by Ronan Chris Murphy for our EP. It involved a lot of discussion like you say, which abbey road wouldnt really offer. There was a lot of talk along the lines of 'This isn't really ready for mastering yet, because if I push it in the way you want or do X to it, Y is gonna happen'.
Of course, the conversations are probably a lot different when you have paid to get it mixed aswell! Plus RCM is a well-respected engineer in his own right, so I wasn't going to ignore him
It was a hell of a lot cheaper than abbey road and all kinds of expensive fun toys were involved, such as this:
http://www.analoguetube.com/

[James Nighthawk]

@Ram

That's the kind of conversation an engineer would need to have after listening to the stereo mix premaster, so yup they are doing things correctly

There are a few companies now which accept the bounce down files for individual instruments or grouped instruments. I.e. A bounce of drums, a bounce of guitars, vocals, etc. You mix them see when stacked they provide the full mix as you want it, allowing the tiniest of tweaks for headroom. It isn't remixing per se as when changes are made they are done as non-intrusively as possible, and often to compensate for changes in the feel of the mix/relative levels made by mastering compressors/EQ to get back to the mix you started with! Mastering is still mixing; compressors, limiters, EQ... it all colours the sound! 

I view mastering differently to dedicated mastering engineers I guess. For me, mastering from someone else's stereo mix will very often involve compromise. Mastering is an extension of the mixing project for me due to the way I work. I am aware of this but I would never be a dedicated masterer... it's not the right job for me

My own point I want to mention here:
Just because products are mastered by big studios on big labels does not mean they are done well. In the late 90's there was a run of albums that were squared off. Ruined. "Californication" by Red hot Chill Peppers and a couple of Oasis albums were victim to this. Certain tracks off those albums are unlistenable to me, especially on headphones. Guitar clipping is very apparent, vocals too in places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

It has become less of a problem in the new century. But I am finding that masters are still too heavy on some CDs; vocals too flat dynamically, drums lifeless and one level. All just to sound "louder". I find it sad. We have volume control! And radio stations compress anyway!!

For a great example of modern mastering go listen to your Laura Marling albums; the second and third album manage a great balance of modern with dynamics

[Ramshackles]

@Ram

That's the kind of conversation an engineer would need to have after listening to the stereo mix premaster, so yup they are doing things correctly

There are a few companies now which accept the bounce down files for individual instruments or grouped instruments. I.e. A bounce of drums, a bounce of guitars, vocals, etc. You mix them see when stacked they provide the full mix as you want it, allowing the tiniest of tweaks for headroom. It isn't remixing per se as when changes are made they are done as non-intrusively as possible, and often to compensate for changes in the feel of the mix/relative levels made by mastering compressors/EQ to get back to the mix you started with! Mastering is still mixing; compressors, limiters, EQ... it all colours the sound! 

Stem mastering 

My own point I want to mention here:
Just because products are mastered by big studios on big labels does not mean they are done well. In the late 90's there was a run of albums that were squared off. Ruined. "Californication" by Red hot Chill Peppers and a couple of Oasis albums were victim to this. Certain tracks off those albums are unlistenable to me, especially on headphones. Guitar clipping is very apparent, vocals too in places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

It has become less of a problem in the new century. But I am finding that masters are still too heavy on some CDs; vocals too flat dynamically, drums lifeless and one level. All just to sound "louder". I find it sad. We have volume control! And radio stations compress anyway!!

For a great example of modern mastering go listen to your Laura Marling albums; the second and third album manage a great balance of modern with dynamics

I read it was the chillis themselves that pushed for it to be sooo loud.
Now people look back, it seems the loudness wars were more a product of the early days of DAW's than anything. AD converters werent as great, 16-bit was highest resolution, meaning the noise floor was much and it couldnt handle being squashed. 64-bit processing didnt exist.

Now with 24-bit and all the digital advances in the past 10 years, it's not really a problem. I like to think this 'nu-folk' revival (or whatever you want to call it) has helped calm things a little. But in the scheme of all music, it's probably not that big a movement!
Pop/chart songs are as squashed as ever, but the artefacts are not so bad anymore. The resolution from digitisation is just great now
Great quote from Dave pensado: 'The loudness wars are over; the loudness won'.

[James Nighthawk]

@Ram

All very good points, and now I know the termonology "Stem Mastering!"

Whilst artefacts may now be a thing of the past, no matter how well done a loud track is, Listener fatigue will always be an issue.

Ears are not designed to be pounded with heavy waves and loud music is audibly tiring. There is little that decent mastering can do to stop this, so it still saddens me that loud won. Loud enough should have been loud enough, but people always want more...

[Ramshackles]

@Ram

All very good points, and now I know the termonology "Stem Mastering!"

Whilst artefacts may now be a thing of the past, no matter how well done a loud track is, Listener fatigue will always be an issue.

Ears are not designed to be pounded with heavy waves and loud music is audibly tiring. There is little that decent mastering can do to stop this, so it still saddens me that loud won. Loud enough should have been loud enough, but people always want more...

Yup. It is a shame. If you want an album that absolutely did not go for loudness, check out beth ortons Comfort of Strangers. It's a good few dB quieter than anything I have with a lot of dynamics. Unsurprisingly, it didnt chart well !

[nooms]

nerd warning
butting in here guys but i was told californication was mixed in mono..
really punchy sound but got tiring listening to it, loudness fatigue
great album but i dont want to hear it again...

[SimonOlder]

mmmm.... I think its gone up quite a bit since I checked it out a couple years ago

[Nige M]

i wouldnt pay for mastering.... i might have done  if i was young  & super confident our music was the bees knees or just naive & deluded that we were going somewhere...but were not ...i mean realisticaly how many people actualy hear our stuff anyway? we post it here we send it to some friends who ignore it & then it sits on my computer forevermore...its a daft hobby with a fantasy attached
if i payed for mastering it would be because i was deluded

That's a strange comment coming from you. I'm new here but I know one thing, your songs are great. They're unique, fun, great to listen to and really buyable. There's many artist nowhere near as good as you who have made it. I also know that there's not much difference between
delusion and belief or resignation and hope. Keep the faith sister.

[tina m]

that was a realy nice surprise to find your post nige! thank you for what you said it made my day!
 im afraid i spend my life either elated about our music or depressed about it or both at the same time

doesnt being a musician let you be able to make exactly the music you want to hear so your always your own fave band & thats why you think its the best...& why you mistakenly think everyone should love it aswell ..& why you get so depressed when its plain theres something wrong with others cos they dont feel the same!

anyway in 1 last attempt to see what the reality realy is weve put everything on bandcamp so if its realy so great people will queue up to buy it.....but i know the answer already
so at the end of the day we do it just for fun..we do it all for ouselves ..we play at being rockstars....we have a lot of laughs...  until we  go & write something  realy good again & then all the delusion & elation & depresion starts all over again