Thread title says it all .

I want to order mastering from you guys but your prices for digital process are within my mastering budget right now. I could save up some money and get the analog combo but first tell me why should I do this.

Let me know about the reason(s) "why one is more expensive" (ITB vs OTB).

Malcolm

ITB vs OTB

I can only speak for myself. In terms of the results, there is no difference whatsoever but a few caveats: some mixes, especially those that sound digitally 'sterile', do seem to benefit a bit more with a combination of analog and digital processing, while some others don't. It really boils down to whether you think your music deserves the best possible sonic treatment and if that bit of extra sonic improvement, however subliminal, is worth that extra money.

If you trust our judgment, you can find out as to whether we think processing out of the box {OTB} will make a difference or not. Click here

I prefer to let that decision fall upon the customer, so if you don't request for this particular type of feedback, you get what you asked for, no questions asked.

The reason why we have to charge more for OTB is that mastering with analog tools add more time to the pre mastering task. There is also the time required to set up; just to have an analog unit like the Avalon 747sp reach its optimum calibration point, takes almost an hour. Every setting has to be written down after each session {I do it usually on a text file which it is saved as part of the session} so that in case someone asks for a revision, the same settings that were used can be roughly recalled again.

Obviously, each time you fire up a vacuum tube unit, it shortens the life of the tubes as well, so inevitably we will have an extra cost down the line. With computers and software {ITB} on the other hand, it only takes the time to boot up to get an instant recall. You get back to work on a revision almost right away.

The answer to your question will be different for each mastering engineer, so your miles may vary.

I hope this helps,

Really? I thought that mastering with hardware was always best. The components are higher quality and the sound is superior to digital....your reasons to charge more for this don't make sense to me and you should just charge whatever you like without that explanation.

Invachece wrote:I thought that mastering with hardware was always best. The components are higher quality and the sound is superior to digital....

That's the general consensus, isn't it? Well, I am not aware that there is a study or research conducted either publicly or by an engineering group that demonstrates without a doubt that analogue mastering equipment is superior to digital. As I said above, there maybe a few instances where an analogue chain maybe more suitable for certain mixes.

But IME, the opposite is true. A client of mine who in the past had some material mastered OTB, mistakenly ordered ITB mastering. I didn't make an issue of it and proceeded with his order. After I delivered the tracks his feedback was along the lines of "This time I loved much better the deep bass and warmth of your analogue eq". He also thanked me for the price discount. I told him that the order clearly stated ITB mastering not OTB. He replied to me saying that he would have never realized that and he thanked me again. What I did notice, however, was that the mixes that he sent on that last order were significantly better than the ones sent in previous times. Better balance between kick drums and basses will yield a better sounding bass. Since his mixes tended to come out very bright , I did check to see if I could roll off some unnecessary high frequencies. Thus, he perceived the sound as being 'warm' which is completely an audio illusion.

OK, one more example. A client requested for a mastering demo. He received his mastering sample which is usually processed ITB. He thought that -even though it sounded good- maybe he should pay a little more and get the analogue mastering treatment {OTB}. Again, I don't question my clients' decisions, so I proceeded with his order. His response was that he liked better the sample I made him ITB but he didn't ask me to redo the job with digital processing {ITB}. He now only orders ITB mastering. These are just some of the many cases that I've had. Believe me, I have no reason to make these things up and in fact, I would stand to gain more by not disclosing this information.

I believe that your mix will need one or the other {ITB or OTB} depending upon the foundation. So it all depends on the tracking and mixing. Tracking is perhaps more crucial than mastering since all the instruments get recorded in a way that either they sound much alive or dead {you can improve things when mixing but that's besides the point}. So microphones, preamps and compressors along with their quality and proper use, could be the deciding factor to leaning more towards one mastering process than the other.

OTOH, mixing is the deciding factor as to how much 'process' one has to apply in the pre-mastering stage. Thus, all things being equal, if your mix is tracked correctly and with quality analogue gear, and your mix is very well executed, other than to check for individual track levels and assemble, one could end up doing little or nothing at the mastering stage.

My ideas are hard to swallow by many mastering engineers who have taken a very contentious attitude towards me, but I completely understand why my words maybe too inconvenient to them.

your reasons to charge more for this don't make sense to me and you should just charge whatever you like without that explanation.

I hope my reasons make sense to you now.

Regards,

Edward Vinatea wrote:

Invachece wrote:I thought that mastering with hardware was always best. The components are higher quality and the sound is superior to digital....

That's the general consensus, isn't it? Well, I am not aware that there is a study or research conducted either publicly or by an engineering group that demonstrates without a doubt that analogue mastering equipment is superior to digital.

Who do you think you are speaking with such an air of authority? I know my stuff too

Invachece wrote:Who do you think you are speaking with such an air of authority? I know my stuff too

I guess you got no idea

Teflon Don wrote:

Invachece wrote:Who do you think you are speaking with such an air of authority? I know my stuff too

I guess you got no idea

Guess he doesn't . I saw couple of days ago a tweet saying that MMOL was mastering a new Shirrelles' cd. Is Edwards the guy mastering it? I'm curious because Shirley A. Reeves is a high profile artist , my parents are big fans of her.

Yup, got twitted.

Edward Vinatea is the most underrated mastering engineer in New York City.

I'm curious, my parents are big fans of her.