CygnusX-1Bk2

Not if it is to be done correctly. Space is especially crucial for proper mastering, specifically where low frequencies are concerned. As are monitors. Most commercially available speakers cannot adequately handle the frequency range needed for mastering. Same thing goes for a space. This is not opinion, it's physics. It is not as simple as purchasing software. Please read through Bob Katz' Digital Domain listed above. He is THE mastering authority.

 

Algorithms can do many things including mastering a recording. It won't be great. In fact many of the robot sites charge around $20 for a standard res file. I posted this one because it's free and it does a decent job of getting tracks into the top of the volume spectrum without peaking or distorting badly.

 

Anyone is free to check my production credits and professional projects (posted earlier) to call me on anything...

Nice!

 

Is that line only or does it have mic pres?

Real mastering engineers. Please note rates and clientele list where posted:

 

Bob Katz (invented the K System):

http://www.digido.co...tists-page.html

http://www.digido.com/ratesheet1.html

 

John Cuniberti (whom I have worked with personally):

http://www.johncunib...tering-history/

http://www.johncunib.../rates-options/

 

Ian Shepard

http://mastering-media.co.uk/about/

Anyone can claim to be a mastering engineer and charge $20 a song, but again you get what you pay for...

 

I only "call out" incorrect information, not individuals. :)

 

We both know that was a cheap shot. At least be a man and admit when you're not being one.

 

You challenged his authoritah. How else could he respond but to go personal? (Rhetorical question, that one.) Trust me, you're not the first recipient of that behavior.

I am not trying to dupe people into using my services. My apologies if people cannot handle discourse. I have stated repeatedly that my opinion is no more important than anyone else's.

Nowhere do I state anything about being a "mastering engineer", and if anything sell my services for exactly what they are - a budget alternative to people whose prices are so insanely high they can't even list it on their site. The fact you're going out of your way to squash an insignificant little bug in the industry says a lot (too much) about you, as a human being.

I am not trying to squash anything. You get what you pay for. There are a lot of "budget alternatives" on the internet, one of which I posted. Chances are this robot can do what you are doing for free and you popped up to complain that someone posted direct competition to what you are trying to do. I tried to pass it along.

 

Professional mastering costs a lot of money because of the specialized tools and space needed to perform that particular function. If one spends only $20 for this service chances are more than likely they will need to take their project to another mastering house who will indeed charge the market rate to get it done properly. If you want to take that personally then go right ahead. It is not personal, it's business.

 

Also note that I posted my professional audio credits so feel free to take shots at me. I am thick skinned enough to take whatever perceived slights thrown my way. I love being attacked for trying to help people. :)

$20 for mastering is cheap. Too cheap to be credible. My "shot" was not however. :) Anyone claiming to be a mastering engineer while charging only $20 per song is no better than a mastering engine and/or trying to take advantage of people who don't know any better.

 

Real mastering engineers post their clientele & projects and are not threatened by a robot engine. I have worked with name mastering engineers and there is another moderator here who is also an excellent mastering engineer. I am certain they can charge a good deal more than $20 per song.

 

Go ahead and report more of my posts. The reports go directly to me. I'm the moderator of this section. :)

 

http://jimdiazaudio.com/

Radio and TV use limiters not normalization. A limiter is a compressor with a ratio of anywhere from 10:1 or 20:1 to infinity:1. Normalization is simple gain changing based upon peaks in a given audio file.

 

Yes, that is correct. I was thinking normalization using a target RMS, say -10db. The compression ratio is adjusted, as needed, as the track is processed. Meaning it can be anywhere from 2:1 to 15:1 (or more) . It's still called normalization, and it isn't *just* limiting at one ratio either.

 

Normalizing using peak values is useless as a one-and-done. It was clear I wasn't referring to this.

 

These terms are often incorrectly tossed around. I'm aware of their differences, but thanks for trying to call me out.

I only "call out" incorrect information, not individuals. :)

 

Actually broadcast limiters are indeed fixed ratio.

 

And RMS normalization vs. Peak normalization are different from each other but neither are compression so the terms are not interchangeable. :) RMS will alter a waveform destructively where Peak is a straight gain change.

Radio and TV use limiters not normalization. A limiter is a compressor with a ratio of anywhere from 10:1 or 20:1 to infinity:1. Normalization is simple gain changing based upon peaks in a given audio file.

 

This is a robot engine created by mastering engineers that analyzes mixes and applies compression and EQ based upon what type of music it thinks it is. It is more mastering than simply normalizing. It also recommends that files submitted have headroom of at least -6 dB (highest peak being -6 dB not average level of -6 dB). It is free when other mastering engines similarly charge more. A real mastering engineer charges as much as $400 per song because they work with specialized tools & speakers in a specialized control room (the mastering room at the Plant in Sausalito was about 30-40 ft. from speakers to mastering position. I spent some time in there before they closed). So this is a bargain. You get what you pay for. I am just passing it along.

 

Anyone can claim to be a mastering engineer and charge $20 a song, but again you get what you pay for...

No this is a quick and dirty fix for unmastered files. From what I got it was more than mild normalization, then again my target is -12 to -6 dB (because my room is calibrated to K14 for post production) which gets pushed up considerably. If your mixes have headroom (which they should) then this is a considerable help because of how it handles peaks. It is more of a limiter which I really hear, not simply normalized, because the bottom of the dynamic range is brought up.

Ah, but that is a Cathode Ray Tube, not a power/gain stage tube. :)

Never heard of slo-blo. A fuse is there to make sure other things don't blow out. I would think any 2A/250V fuse should work. Think of a fuse as a safety wire encased in glass that will burn out before damaging current can reach critical parts of a circuit. That's it's function. On wikipedia it is stated as "a sacrificial device to provide overcurrent protection." Translation: It breaks so your amp won't. :)

Customs don't generally have the maple top that Standards do.

That Standard is very Ace Frehley! Very nice. :)

Hey all! One of the guys I've been playing with found a free music mastering engine online that seems to sound ok. If you are like me (most are not :) ) then your mixes are fairly dynamic and at a moderate to low level volume-wise. It's hard to do proper mastering without a specific room and equipment. I usually end up using a two track editor to raise the overall volume before peaking or clipping. Our cover band has been working on a gig demo so we gave eMastered a try. Right now it's free and it only takes a few minutes per song plus you will be able to download a full rez wave. Other mastering engine sites are charging $9.99 per CD rez waves and $19.99 for full rez (24 bit/ 96 kHz) while mp3's are free but their masters don't sound near as good. It's best if your files are around -6 to -12 dB peak but will still work on louder files.

 

https://emastered.com/

It needs a "Good to Suck" ratio I think. Turn up the good and turn down the suck...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/91akmYY1TcL._SY355_.jpg

That one is ok mixed with all those guitars.

Indeed

7/4 or a bar of 4/4 followed by a bar of 3/4

Not only are there single bars of 1/16, but that is for particular instruments. The score is absolutely bizarre. Which is one reason it is near impossible to play. The first performances were tragically bad to the point there was booing and people leaving the theater because the orchestra just couldn't comprehend it.

 

So of course Disney put it in Fantasia...

Along the lines of counting, I bet there are plenty of guitarists and drummers that can play Black Dog but have no idea where "1" falls. Not sure it matters.

Yeah, Black Dog can be very nebulous. When measures collide!

 

BTW, I am giggling like a little girl through all of this. :)

 

Let's play this:

http://www.boosey.com/imagesw/print/Music/$wm1_0x700_$_M060026959_mus.jpg

:)

 

Why do you hate 4/4???

There are bars of 3/16 and 1/16 when you get into the score. It is near impossible to play.

I met Eddie at NAMM a couple years ago. Douche... He was trying to blow Portnoy. Figuratively speaking.

Let's play this:

http://www.boosey.com/imagesw/print/Music/$wm1_0x700_$_M060026959_mus.jpg

:)

Please give an example of "Free Time" composition. Improvisation is not free from time nor time signature. One cannot add a time signature after the fact. A piece of music is in a time signature. That is not to say a composer/writer had a preconceived notion of what the time signature is. In fact I will go as far to say that Rush have written the majority of their songs NOT knowing what the time signature is. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

On Miles Davis classic album Kind of Blue, he first cut, So What, begins in free time. It's not until the bass enters that a discernible time signature exists.

Let me clarify; show me that page please. :) I'd like to see how it's written.