| | | |
Carl Schonbeck
|
1/4/2008 9:44:30 AM
Mastering Service
Hi out there and once again a very mega 2008 to everybody. I think I've discovered more cool new music here during my Christmas break than I did in all of 2007. I just wanted to ask about the song mastering service. I submitted a couple of songs to it nearly a month ago and haven't heard anything back. Do they actually send CDs to you with the completed work (maybe with Geoff Emerick or somebody personally dropping them off :-) or is there a place where you just download them? Just wondering if anyone has had any experiences with it. Thanks for the help, cs
|
|
Bam Singh
|
1/4/2008 1:15:10 PM
Download links are sent to the address on file. Yours were sent on Dec. 23, and again via ArtistMail on Jan. 1 when there was no response. Let us know (by writing to IACsupporthotline@gmail.com) if you would like them sent again, and to what address.
|
|
|
1/4/2008 1:30:37 PM
Didn't know this was offered here. I can't find any details except a $15.00 which is unheard of for proper mastering. Is it just basic normalizing?
-c
|
|
Carl Schonbeck
|
1/4/2008 3:12:57 PM
Thanks Bam, your response is much appreciated. I never received either mail so there's probably some glitch with my address...I'll get it sorted out. Re: the H.S. question; guys I can say that I heard the before and after recordings they have and it was pretty impressive. I just don't have the technical oomph to really do proper mastering so I think it might be pretty useful if you're recording at home. Now if I can just get those links! lol
|
|
Village Jammers
|
1/4/2008 5:43:14 PM
The Rivergods thought to give the service a try for "Slow Fire", which was never mastered as it wasn't included on the CD. I intend to put it up on the page alongside the original so folks can make the comparison. I sent them the straight MP3 that's loaded on the page now. Should be arriving any day now.
Your Jammer CD will be in the mail tomorrow, Carl.
Enjoy!
|
|
Carl Schonbeck
|
1/4/2008 5:53:53 PM
You guys are too cool...thanks again. I really look forward to hearing it.
|
|
|
1/4/2008 6:40:48 PM
>>Village Jammers wrote " I sent them the straight MP3 that's loaded on the page now."
Just curious why you're mastering the mp3 instead of a wav?
Does it include the IRSC code for releasing it as a single?
-c
|
|
the Rivergods
|
1/4/2008 7:29:16 PM
Because I'm a punch drunk bass player and admittedly clueless
(what's an IRSC code?) but curious. And it was convenient. I don't know the difference except that the files on the actual CD are wav and certainly sound brighter than the mp3. I just thought mastering might help punch it up in the volume department. Am I wrong? Teach me, please.
|
|
the Rivergods
|
1/4/2008 7:54:48 PM
Hidden Symmetry, I just gave a listen to your music....everything excellent! I don't expect the song to come back sounding as big as yours, only an improvement on what it is.
|
|
Two Silo Complex
|
1/4/2008 8:59:23 PM
Rivergods,
The difference between MP3 and WAV is bandwidth. Its like this if you record on 1/4 inch tape. The record the same song on 1/2 inch tape. The 1/2 inch has more headroom it will sound fatter. It will enhance compression better. I agree that you should not submit a song for mastering as an MP3. Any mastering house that you went to would require wav files they would not even touch a mp3.
IRSC codes:
International identification system for sound recordings. Each ISRC is a unique and permanent identifier for a specific recording which can be permanently encoded into a product as its digital fingerprint. Encoded ISRC provide the means to automatically identify recordings for royalty payments.
ISRC codes must be encoded at the mastering stage, so if you intend to use them then you must aquire them before the master CD is burnt. ISRC codes at a later date if you obtain them in the future. However, you will be charged for a new master.
To find the ISRC agency for your territory click here:
http://www.ifpi.org/isrc/isrc_agencies.html
Peace
TSC
Ken
|
|
|
1/4/2008 9:19:53 PM
>>Rivergods wrote" I don't know the difference except that the files on the actual CD are wav and certainly sound brighter than the mp3">>
Mastering is very complex, a real art form & I'm not an authority but briefly
the IRSC code is for tracking the tunes, number of plays/ sales & embedded in the file during mastering.
Any type of file you use will lose some amount of quality when it's rendered/ dithered down so usually you'll want to start off with the best quality & mixed file that you have. An mp3 has already lost quite a bit of quality, then if you want to master or release as hard copy on a cd it has to be rendered up & then back down again to16 wav. You lose quality each time you do.
I'd use at least a 320 kbps mp3 if you're going to use one but I'd (& probably most) would recommend starting with a 24 bit wav.
My stuff was done about 4 or 5 years ago, the bass & drum files collaborated & sent via the internet as mp3's too. I wish now they were waves so I could re-mix & master all of them over..
Digging your tunes as well by the way, checking them out all now.
cheers, c
|
|
the Rivergods
|
1/4/2008 9:30:44 PM
Thanks, once again, for enlightening me Ken. You've been a fountain of technical knowledge.
|
|
Two Silo Complex
|
1/5/2008 12:07:47 AM
Rivergods,
I would ask the IAC mastering house if you can re-submit a wav instead mastering of the MP3 you sent. You will get a better result for your money. Then take the mastered wav convert this to MP3 at the highest bitrate you can. There are ways to send large wav files like ftp sites or on the web you can sign up for yousendit.com its free and you can send anyone up to 1 gb files.
Peace TSC
Ken
|
|
|
1/5/2008 6:18:51 AM
Death of High Fidelity
|
|
the Rivergods
|
1/5/2008 8:14:19 AM
Thanks guys, all good information here. I guess by sending the mp3, I've not really given the mastering dept a fair shot at their best work. I'm beginning to understand what you are talking about....I can't expect them to put in anything that isn't there to begin with. Still, I am curious as to the results. On double-checking the file, it is only 192 kbps, but the file size is 10 MB, nearly three times the size of the others on our page.
When the original masters came back, quite a bit of deliberation was given to thoughts of a remix, it being felt that the lead vocals and guitars were still too upfront. Having spent the better part of a year on what we had already, we decided to let it be. Since the mp3 is more subdued, I figured it'd be a good place to start.
In light of the article Symmetry posted here, apparently even with the best possible product to work with, a mastering service can still return disappointing results (loss of finger cymbals in the original Jeff Buckley mix) without the immediacy of direct communication between artist, engineer and mastering house leading to a more satisfactory product.
I'll leave it to their ears and talents to do the best they can with what I've given them to work with. If the track is returned for its mp3 status, I'll understand. If it comes back better than it went in, I'll be pleased. Either way, I won't be disappointed because you have given me the gift of knowledge.
For those among us who are curious as to the mastering service here at IAC, you can find the info under "artist resources" either at the top of the page or on your artist page. The before and after demo is worth a listen.
Thanks again HS and Ken for your generosity.
Mike
|
|
RedRobin
|
1/5/2008 8:26:22 AM
Any track has to be fairly well mixed to start with, otherwise you can't polish a turd.
|
|
Jo Ellen
|
1/5/2008 9:06:40 AM
My only issue with the service is that it is advertised as "in about 7 days a mastered version of the song(s) will be sent to you". Although I did receive my remastered song and the remastering was a decent job it was closer to a month than 7 days. I never would have submitted a Christmas song if I had known it would take so long. FYI. I hope the great people at IAC make note of this :)
|
|
| |
�2015-16 IndieMusicPeople.com All Rights
Reserved
| |