| Author
|
horrible quality /bad mastering
|
exotic
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
200
Posts :
5057
Posted : Feb 16, 2007 18:50
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-02-06 06:38, illusions wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2007-02-06 02:22, Colin OOOD wrote:
|
|
Yes Colin - your fantastic too
|
|
Oh mastering you mean 
  missing plug-in |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
OOOD/Voice of Cod
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : Feb 16, 2007 21:48
|
|
Open Records
Open Records
Started Topics :
34
Posts :
111
Posted : Mar 4, 2007 17:16
|
i agree, there are some pretty bad jobs out there! but it all comes down to cost i think... it can be quite expensive to get a good master done, and i think this is why many early labels dont have the best job.
there is no "best" master i think- each studio does different job, and they can be specific to the sound that the label is after... thats why i think its important to get someone who is familiar with your sound and knows what to look for.
in open records case... slow-burning studios (antix studio) was a natural choice! they did a truly amazing job! |
|
|
|
astralseeker
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
78
Posted : Mar 5, 2007 12:20
|
[quote]
On 2007-02-13 13:24, Aida Noridania wrote:
now i wonder something....
how does it come that sometimes i prefer the unmastered vbersions of certain tracks then the mastered ones? (example xerxes)
same things I wrote in the other topic "goadelic progressive" :
most of tracks i used to have on DAT 10 years ago were really better version than the version released on cd.
I suppose the fact of transforming a track in a professional studio to makes it ready to listen to on any kind of soundsystem makes it more plate, less strong, less dynamic, and makes it lose lots of its roots and rough sounds that comes directly from the artist studio and his/her work. |
|
|
|
