Dubstepforum.com

Shonky wrote:

ramadanman wrote:£60 / hour @ Transition last time i went. Did 2 tunes in an hour

Cheers, for some reason I was thinking it was £200 a track, that's actually pretty reasonable.

i've used metropolis in chiswick, west london before via the iMastering service
(basically send them the track and they master it - big boys they do kylie, oasis, dido etc)

£75 per track or £125 per track if you pick which engineer you want

http://www.metropolis-group.co.uk/content.html

Chunkie wrote:

Shonky wrote:

ramadanman wrote:£60 / hour @ Transition last time i went. Did 2 tunes in an hour

Cheers, for some reason I was thinking it was £200 a track, that's actually pretty reasonable.

i've used metropolis in chiswick, west london before via the iMastering service
(basically send them the track and they master it - big boys they do kylie, oasis, dido etc)

£75 per track or £125 per track if you pick which engineer you want

http://www.metropolis-group.co.uk/content.html

Is that the place Kate Moss was pictured taking coke?

DIRTY wrote:
Is that the place Kate Moss was pictured taking coke?

i reckon so

isleworth? - i grew up in osterley - big ups for the local boys!

ramadanman wrote:if you're going to do a digital only release, the least you can do is get the tunes professionally mastered

From downloading tunes and personal experience, I can tell you this is not happening most of the time. It's a shame.

I love vinyl but I would purchase a lot less of it and a lot more digital if labels would fix the fuck up.

abZ wrote:

ramadanman wrote:if you're going to do a digital only release, the least you can do is get the tunes professionally mastered

From downloading tunes and personal experience, I can tell you this is not happening most of the time. It's a shame.

I love vinyl but I would purchase a lot less of it and a lot more digital if labels would fix the fuck up.

in all simplicity i think this just stems from a budget issue

a lot of people see digital releases as the ultimate start-up business
- minimal expenditure (no manufacture, no distributor taking a cut, internet-only advertising especially via forums etc [ie free])
- maximum return (80p in the pound)

in order to maximise their gross profit they cut expenses - for example mastering, artwork, paying for advertising (online or hard copies)

i'm in complete agreement that tunes should be mastered before release and their should be artwork - for artistic pride if nothing else!

taking a simple numbers example -
at transition if it takes an hour per track then £120 to master the A and B side
lets say £100 (complete guess) on artwork
so outlay of £220, and if the margin is 80 pence per track sold then 275 units need to be sold to break even

i dont have inside knowledge of digital sales numbers so couldn't say if this is realistic or not, but if it is then theres no excuse really

i'd rather break even and have a product to be proud of then feather my cap and turn out shite

Chunkie wrote:

abZ wrote:

ramadanman wrote:if you're going to do a digital only release, the least you can do is get the tunes professionally mastered

From downloading tunes and personal experience, I can tell you this is not happening most of the time. It's a shame.

I love vinyl but I would purchase a lot less of it and a lot more digital if labels would fix the fuck up.

in all simplicity i think this just stems from a budget issue

a lot of people see digital releases as the ultimate start-up business
- minimal expenditure (no manufacture, no distributor taking a cut, internet-only advertising especially via forums etc [ie free])
- maximum return (80p in the pound)

in order to maximise their gross profit they cut expenses - for example mastering, artwork, paying for advertising (online or hard copies)

i'm in complete agreement that tunes should be mastered before release and their should be artwork - for artistic pride if nothing else!

taking a simple numbers example -
at transition if it takes an hour per track then £120 to master the A and B side
lets say £100 (complete guess) on artwork
so outlay of £220, and if the margin is 80 pence per track sold then 275 units need to be sold to break even

i dont have inside knowledge of digital sales numbers so couldn't say if this is realistic or not, but if it is then theres no excuse really

i'd rather break even and have a product to be proud of then feather my cap and turn out shite

I reckon that's about right, maybe even a bit expensive, you only need a couple of banner ads and a nice picture. And if the tracks are in a good state before they reach the masterers, then that'll be cheaper to.

Chunkie wrote: lets say £100 (complete guess) on artwork
so outlay of £220, and if the margin is 80 pence per track sold then 275 units need to be sold to break even

i dont have inside knowledge of digital sales numbers so couldn't say if this is realistic or not, but if it is then theres no excuse really

i'd rather break even and have a product to be proud of then feather my cap and turn out shite

I'd quite like to know sales figures for people that aren't affiliated with big labels doing purely digital releases - I'd say 275 sales might be quite optimistic.

At the end of the day...
If the material is top-notch it will sell, correctly?
If its not top-notch, it would probably not sell regardless format it is released on?

Shonky wrote:

Chunkie wrote: lets say £100 (complete guess) on artwork
so outlay of £220, and if the margin is 80 pence per track sold then 275 units need to be sold to break even

i dont have inside knowledge of digital sales numbers so couldn't say if this is realistic or not, but if it is then theres no excuse really

i'd rather break even and have a product to be proud of then feather my cap and turn out shite

I'd quite like to know sales figures for people that aren't affiliated with big labels doing purely digital releases - I'd say 275 sales might be quite optimistic.

so do i
(which is why i reckon the mastering expenses are thrown out the window - if you mix/master yourself and get some microsoft paint for the artwork its all profit baby!)

but seriously, if anyone has figures please inform us

Well if sold 20 copy's of Close The Door. lol Great.

on the topic of mastering for digital:

1. I agree that more labels need to sort this out.
I bought some tunes from some *major* dubstep producers (won't name names) off bleep.com; the WAV files are nowhere near the heaviness you hear on vinyl. The audio is thin. It's as if they just thought, "okay now the tune's been sent off for mastering on vinyl, we'll just send the unmastered file for digital"

2. But I think that to have all tracks mastered in a pro studio is financially very difficult to achieve for a small label. Dubstep is a growing market but I doubt you'd sell enough audio files to balance up the studio costs.

3. Fortunately, mastering for digital and mastering for vinyl are quite different things.

Mastering for digital does not have the same narrow rules and constraints as mastering for records.

With the right mastering plugins and decent speakers at home, you can, to a significant degree, get tracks heavy and punchy enough to play out to a dancefloor. (with some skill of course!). It won't match 100% up to a proper studio, BUT the result can be decent enough to not require splashing out cash that you might not have...

With vinyl mastering, you gotta work have an experienced engineer who works within the constraints of vinyl - making sure the track is as heavy as possible WITHOUT making the needle skip or jump out. This is a proper dedicated skill, thus engineers get paid the fees they do for it.

Chunkie wrote:

abZ wrote:

ramadanman wrote:if you're going to do a digital only release, the least you can do is get the tunes professionally mastered

From downloading tunes and personal experience, I can tell you this is not happening most of the time. It's a shame.

I love vinyl but I would purchase a lot less of it and a lot more digital if labels would fix the fuck up.

in all simplicity i think this just stems from a budget issue

a lot of people see digital releases as the ultimate start-up business
- minimal expenditure (no manufacture, no distributor taking a cut, internet-only advertising especially via forums etc [ie free])
- maximum return (80p in the pound)

in order to maximise their gross profit they cut expenses - for example mastering, artwork, paying for advertising (online or hard copies)

i'm in complete agreement that tunes should be mastered before release and their should be artwork - for artistic pride if nothing else!

taking a simple numbers example -
at transition if it takes an hour per track then £120 to master the A and B side
lets say £100 (complete guess) on artwork
so outlay of £220, and if the margin is 80 pence per track sold then 275 units need to be sold to break even

i dont have inside knowledge of digital sales numbers so couldn't say if this is realistic or not, but if it is then theres no excuse really

i'd rather break even and have a product to be proud of then feather my cap and turn out shite

???

Say my digital release ramadanman 001 for example...i got it mastered for £60...then i sold the wavs direct to people for £3 through paypal. 20 customers later and i've covered my costs.

ramadanman wrote:

Chunkie wrote:

abZ wrote:

ramadanman wrote:if you're going to do a digital only release, the least you can do is get the tunes professionally mastered

From downloading tunes and personal experience, I can tell you this is not happening most of the time. It's a shame.

I love vinyl but I would purchase a lot less of it and a lot more digital if labels would fix the fuck up.

in all simplicity i think this just stems from a budget issue

a lot of people see digital releases as the ultimate start-up business
- minimal expenditure (no manufacture, no distributor taking a cut, internet-only advertising especially via forums etc [ie free])
- maximum return (80p in the pound)

in order to maximise their gross profit they cut expenses - for example mastering, artwork, paying for advertising (online or hard copies)

i'm in complete agreement that tunes should be mastered before release and their should be artwork - for artistic pride if nothing else!

taking a simple numbers example -
at transition if it takes an hour per track then £120 to master the A and B side
lets say £100 (complete guess) on artwork
so outlay of £220, and if the margin is 80 pence per track sold then 275 units need to be sold to break even

i dont have inside knowledge of digital sales numbers so couldn't say if this is realistic or not, but if it is then theres no excuse really

i'd rather break even and have a product to be proud of then feather my cap and turn out shite

???

Say my digital release ramadanman 001 for example...i got it mastered for £60...then i sold the wavs direct to people for £3 through paypal. 20 customers later and i've covered my costs.

Well in theory, but no one really charges more for a wav than £1.50.
Also, people might think its odd pay-paling you the cash and waiting for you to send them the tune.
Then you would have to work out how you were going to send them a 60meg+ tune so they can only download it once.

ramadanman wrote:
Say my digital release ramadanman 001 for example...i got it mastered for £60...then i sold the wavs direct to people for £3 through paypal. 20 customers later and i've covered my costs.

I see your ruthless capitalism at play - we're watching you

ramadanman wrote:
???

Say my digital release ramadanman 001 for example...i got it mastered for £60...then i sold the wavs direct to people for £3 through paypal. 20 customers later and i've covered my costs.

from 25th jan to today i've bought 91 tunes online and the most ive paid is £3.30 for a 3 track ep

plus on digi-tunes your bits are up for £1.12 a go.... my example is not the one-size-fits-all scenario but you see where i'm coming from

plus, your ones on digi-tunes dont have artwork now do they

seriously, i think going the solo route through paypal is commendable enterprise

high rankin wrote:Well in theory, but no one really charges more for a wav than £1.50.

he charged £1.50 per tune, it was two tunes..

high rankin wrote:Also, people might think its odd pay-paling you the cash and waiting for you to send them the tune.
Then you would have to work out how you were going to send them a 60meg+ tune so they can only download it once.

People didn't think it was odd when it happened. I guess now the scene is bigger they might do, but generally it was applauded that someone actually got something done properly and efficiently by themselves without resorting to flogging poor quality unmastered files.

stormfield wrote:With the right mastering plugins and decent speakers at home, you can, to a significant degree, get tracks heavy and punchy enough to play out to a dancefloor. (with some skill of course!). It won't match 100% up to a proper studio, BUT the result can be decent enough to not require splashing out cash that you might not have...

when you take your stuff to a pro studio you're paying for the ears of the engineer essentially, for the expertise of someone who's been doing this a lot longer than any of us. regardless of equipment when you go to a mastering house you're going to get your stuff heard by someone who's job it is to listen... I think the results of people doing what you're suggesting can be heard in the fucking awful, loud beyond loud, distorted mixdowns in a lot of mainstream dnb and to some extent dubstep as well. Added to this every time you go to a studio you'll learn something, it's a good way to learn about how sound works.

Also, if you can't afford £60 to go to a studio you certainly can't afford £800 for monitors or something.

UFO over easy wrote:

stormfield wrote:With the right mastering plugins and decent speakers at home, you can, to a significant degree, get tracks heavy and punchy enough to play out to a dancefloor. (with some skill of course!). It won't match 100% up to a proper studio, BUT the result can be decent enough to not require splashing out cash that you might not have...

when you take your stuff to a pro studio you're paying for the ears of the engineer essentially, for the expertise of someone who's been doing this a lot longer than any of us. regardless of equipment when you go to a mastering house you're going to get your stuff heard by someone who's job it is to listen... I think the results of people doing what you're suggesting can be heard in the fucking awful, loud beyond loud, distorted mixdowns in a lot of mainstream dnb and to some extent dubstep as well.

Like I've already stated - it's a) not the same as a proper studio mastering, and b) the quality is largely down to the skill of the person doing it.

If someone squashes all their audio in a loudness war with no regard for subtley and space within the track, then of course it will sound shit.

Not to knock professional studios, but I've heard home "mastering" by Jamie Vex'd that sounds way heavier, crisper, clearer and dynamic that the pro studio version. Granted, in that one case it was because the engineer had no idea how the artist wanted the track to sound, but the point still stands - A pro studio does not guarantee perfection. Why else do you think people are so picky about which studio masters their tunes?

Added to this every time you go to a studio you'll learn something, it's a good way to learn about how sound works.

We've done sixteen releases, have sat in on a fair number of cuts, and use our ears to check the result at every gig

Also, if you can't afford £60 to go to a studio you certainly can't afford £800 for monitors or something.

Find a friend who happens to already own the speakers

I know this is a bit away from the topic but...what really is the problem with buying records ?

what has changed over the last few years ? are we really all living in shoe boxes now ? (that's one common excuse - not enough room)

are we all beyond dirt poor ? (too expensive - excuse number 2)

no.

what has happened is that we now have a choice, which is super easy - you don't even have to leave the house, and its cheap (or even free)

in terms of straight cash, records are only a bit more expensive than they were years ago - but that's just inflation - i don't see anyone saying - "I only eat digital food now cause i can't afford to go to the shops..."

I always spent my last money on records even when i was dirt poor - i know loads of other people who have done the same.

I feel for those peeps who have no record shop in their town or who live in the countryside, but there is always mail order..

before CD copying came along, you either had a cassette copy off your mate, or you had THE REAL THING.

that was it.

and if someone was DJ'ing, you knew that they had the vinyl record. or a dubplate. or the original CD single/album.

so to me, Vinyl has always had the same 'problems' but now we just have an easy escape route from it.

what do you think ?

Its all about getting the music out to as many people as possible. So whatever way you decide to do it it should be supported and hopefully the tune you buy has been mastered nicely and then you can bop your head to it nicely and then continue on with your journey.

stormfield wrote: Like I've already stated - it's a) not the same as a proper studio mastering, and b) the quality is largely down to the skill of the person doing it.

If someone squashes all their audio in a loudness war with no regard for subtley and space within the track, then of course it will sound shit.

Totally fair, and I certainly wasn't aiming at you or anyone else when i was talking about any of that stuff, but generally the people who don't think they can get to pro mastering studios will be up and comers.. surely it's those guys that need to go speak to people with know how more than anyone else? it's surely pretty difficult to get to the skill level you're talking about without popping along and seeing how the pros get the job done, asking for advice etc.. £60 really isn't a lot of money.. even £30 for two tunes on a dubplate isn't much if you're the producer of the tunes, getting useful feedback from an engineer