# Mastering



## robteehan (Oct 10, 2011)

What are you guys doing with your finished mixes for film/TV projects? are you mastering yourself, or do you send them out to a mastering house, or is there any mastering at all happening? 

I've worked mostly in bands and would never dream of trying to master a record myself. But it seems like the process is less critical for film music? I couldn't find much in searching.


----------



## charlieclouser (Oct 12, 2011)

No time / budget in the workflow / deadline to actually send out tracks for mastering - especially when there are 40-80 cues in a film with a five-week turnaround or 50 cues in a TV show with a five-day turnaround. Besides, what if changes to the cues are needed after you've mastered? I frequently make changes to cues when the mixers are in the middle of a reel on the dubstage - get a phone call, boot up the cue in question, make the changes, print and upload, usually in less than an hour for the whole procedure. 

I've learned to compose and mix through the mastering chain. This way, even when I'm auditioning sounds and building a template I'm monitoring through the mastering processor, which for me is just TC MasterX5 on each stem. As I'm picking kick drum sounds or stacking staccato patches I can hear how they are going to squish together when they hit the glue = no suprises.

Keep in mind that you're not providing the final mix for a TV or film project - that is created on the dubstage by the mixers and their final dynamics processing, so whatever mastering you do is going to be messed with after the fact, unlike album-type mixes where mastering is the final step before the listener.

For film cues I use a separate MasterX5 on each stem. For TV work I just put one on the final stereo pair, unless I'm actually delivering stems (which is rare); if I do provide stems then I use my film mix template.

When I prepare stereo mixes for CD release I take my final stereo mixes and re-smash them with MasterX5 again, usually with some automation of the threshold and ratio parameters to accommodate some of the dynamics of the various passages.

Then again, I'm lazy.


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Oct 12, 2011)

What about Ozone 4? Does anybody use that?

I've just been using Maxim on Pro Tools, for crunching the dynamics a tab to increase the overall level of the track. Hiring a mixer/masterer for each cue doesn't make financial sense, so I am curious as well what other composer approach for this is.

Personally I feel like I could use a visualizer of all the EQ going on in the track and Ozone 4 has that. I know hardcore engineers would say, "use your ears!" But I don't want to be an engineer, and honestly I'm not good at mixing so anything that could be useful.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 13, 2011)

I gave my first " mastered " mix to a local advertiser here 2 weeks ago and really didn't spend much time on it.
Used the ancient Opimaster DSP plug in Wizard Mode and thought it sounded OK. 
I then went to the big house where they were playing 4 different projects and decided to give me the gig.
My very first project where I went and did the trenchwork myself. Use to do these all of the time but was called to bring over my S760's and just record the parts.

Seems to be a good start to my future indoor performance reitrement program.
Im sure the pay in LA is much better, and the competition extremely fierce. This gig paid less than I make for a week of torture having people yelling Freebird at me.
But I spent a whole 3 hours on it.
Maybe there's hope.

I always like reading CharlieClouser posts. They give me hope and encouragement and totally dispell the myth of someone having the secret indgredients for " Your " success...


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Oct 13, 2011)

I don`t trust mastering houses when it comes to orchestral stuff...ever time i sendt something off for external mastering, it comes back hyped into some razoerblade string torture device and about as dynamic as a Lady Gaga track.

As if they were just going through the motions without bothering to even listen to what the material dictates...

I personally try to mix without any sort of mastering or dynamic processing at all going on, and when it sounds good, i slap on a multiband compressor to get the levels up and a bit more punch, and that is all....and in some cases i just deliver clean stems without any sort of compressing or limiting going on at all, there is no need for them if the mix is balanced and punchy in itself, imo.

But each to his own...of course, i just like hearing what i am doing and understanding why it sounds as it does, without all these cryptic Waves plugins and whatnot.

Also i think squashing mixes entirely made up from samples can sound awful...most of the time they simply don`t have the inherent quality to be brutalized that hard without sounding extremely harsh and unpleasant, to me at least.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 13, 2011)

I use a 12 year old DSP plug made by Algorhithmix with a Moron switch.
I can listen to the results, save up to 8 takes in a seperate buffer, pick the one I like the most, and be done with it.
I use Orchestral stuff and Synths together, the last one with lots of drums so the Limiting look ahead section worked pretty well, and I also have sidechaing options but didn't need them.
Perfect for dummies like me.


----------



## ceemusic (Oct 13, 2011)

Pzy-Clone @ Thu Oct 13 said:


> I don`t trust mastering houses when it comes to orchestral stuff...ever time i sendt something off for external mastering, it comes back hyped into some razoerblade string torture device and about as dynamic as a Lady Gaga track.



Really? all the mastering services I've used were excellent.
Professional ME's are very willing to work with client asking what is preferred, desired or needed. In my case they all offered to redo anything over if I wasn't satisfied with their work.


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Oct 13, 2011)

ceemusic @ Thu Oct 13 said:


> Pzy-Clone @ Thu Oct 13 said:
> 
> 
> > I don`t trust mastering houses when it comes to orchestral stuff...ever time i sendt something off for external mastering, it comes back hyped into some razoerblade string torture device and about as dynamic as a Lady Gaga track.
> ...



Yes. Really.

Well i do not do that anymore, for many reasons...but the times in the past that i did, it was because i did not have enough faith in my own opinions and experience to make the right decisions, i thought, but i was never really happy with the results i got back. 

Don`t assume they weren`t professional... 
And i never voiced my disliking anyway, it was more a case of..."uhm, really? well..ok then"

It seemed ridiculus to me to add all that high end to already very hi-endy sample material...which is what they did, basically just hyped it up as if it were a rock tune, and maybe that was the right thing to do from an objective point of view, but the material and my specified intentions were something different from that, even if that is/was not the current trend. 

So i did trust the results to be better than my own, which i have later realized were not the case, or atleast not the results that i wanted.

Not suggesting mastering is not needed in many cases, just did not work out to my liking on the occasions that i did.

For band stuff and other types of material, the results have been more pleasing tho, but for sample based orchestral...yikes, not so much. 

Obviously a limited experience, but it just showed me that to get the results i want, the safest thing is to learn , or try to...learn it yourself instead of someone else to fix it for you.

Not saying my music would not benefit from good mastering, but i am happy with the sound i get now, so i don`t see the need for it. Danger is they just hype it up and squash it, which is a waste of cash to me.

And there are people doing all sorts of strange things out there anyway, once i recorded an album where the producer insisted on mixing trough a TC finalizer. 
Also a "professional" 

But i would not attempt to master a pop or rock tune myself, but as far as working with orchestral samples goes, that is different, imo.


----------



## tripit (Oct 17, 2011)

Like Charlie mentioned, I mix through a mastering chain on everything as well. There is no time or budget to take stuff out to a mastering house, although I have had mastering houses do stuff after the fact if it's being released as an album. 

I use TC MD3 in MS mode on the master fader and all the stems for prints.


----------



## tripit (Oct 17, 2011)

Pzy-Clone @ Thu Oct 13 said:


> For band stuff and other types of material, the results have been more pleasing tho, but for sample based orchestral...yikes, not so much.



I have had good results with sample based orch, but the mastering guy was someone who did primarily orchestra, so he had a good ear for orchestra. I think you can run into real problems with mastering guys who don't work with a lot of orchestra.

And, I have had some name mastering guys do band albums for me that I wasn't completely thrilled about and had to have them redo, so I can completely understand why anyone would be cautious. Not every mastering engineer is going to do a perfect job every time, even the name guys can get it wrong once in while. 

As with mixing, it can be very subjective.


----------



## John Rodd (Nov 20, 2011)

I do a lot of mastering of film & (high end) game scores...... as well as actually recording and mixing music for film and games 

I also do some recording / mixing / mastering for CD release.... a bit for TV shows too...

in all of my work - it is all genres of music - live orch / hybrid / all virtual / electronica / rock / jazz / electronica / you name it......

I would agree that many mastering engineers don't have a clue how to master orchestral / hybrid / virtual scores.

But there are a few of us that do it, and from what my clients tell me, I do it well.

:wink: 

A large part of my success has to do with asking what the client wants, and also having a lot of experience with score (in all it's various musical genres)

My website has examples. :mrgreen:

_*(Rob said) But it seems like the process is less critical for film music?*_

In many cases there is not the time nor budget to bring in a mastering engineer for quick turnaround TV stuff, or most game projects....

but for CD release..... many film and game score CDs are mastered.

Often when I am mixing a score (such as 2 of the 3 *Assassin's Creed* games that I have mixed for Jesper Kyd) I also did the mastering, at the same time I mixed.

and when I mix a score for a film or a game, I almost always do at least a 'quick' mastering - so I create a peak-limited, mastered stereo fold-down for the composer - so they have great sounding stuff to show off (or put on their demo reel or website) right away. They really dig this. 8) 

cheers

John


----------



## Andrew Christie (Nov 20, 2011)

Patricia Sullivan at Bernie Grundman seems to be the 'go to' ME for all the big name composers. Wonder how much she charges per track/project.


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 20, 2011)

John Rodd @ Sun Nov 20 said:


> I do a lot of mastering of film & (high end) game scores...... as well as actually recording and mixing music for film and games
> 
> I also do some recording / mixing / mastering for CD release.... a bit for TV shows too...
> 
> ...



Just wanted to wanted to say I dig your name too.


----------



## Andrew Christie (Nov 21, 2011)

Diffusor @ Mon Nov 21 said:


> Just wanted to wanted to say I dig your name too.



Oh yeah for sure! Just adding Patricia to the list along with John  

Good thread, mastering film score/hybrid/trailer/whatever you want to call it must be a pretty specialised area, it's hard to think of many well known names in that field compared to the endless list of great pop/rock/dance/hip hop etc. ME's.


----------



## rgames (Nov 21, 2011)

Can someone explain what is the difference between mixing and mastering in the case discussed here?

I think of mastering in terms of an entire album or the final audio mix for a film where the artistic piece makes sure there's good flow (mostly in terms of levels) and the technical piece makes sure the delivery format is correct. I guess I'm not really sure what "mastering" means in terms of individual cues.

Most of the cues we deliver are going to be mixed with dialog, FX, etc. so everything would be "mastered" to create the final master (there ya go!) audio track. But what we deliver is really just a "mix" or "submix" in the context of the master audio track.

I've discussed this with folks before and have come to the conclusion that what they mean by "mastering" is some combination of loudness increase and output bus EQ/compression, maybe a few other elements like harmonic excitation. I guess I just consider that part of the mix process.

Thanks,

rgames


----------



## John Rodd (Nov 21, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Nov 21 said:


> Can someone explain what is the difference between mixing and mastering in the case discussed here?
> 
> I think of mastering in terms of an entire album or the final audio mix for a film where the artistic piece makes sure there's good flow (mostly in terms of levels) and the technical piece makes sure the delivery format is correct. I guess I'm not really sure what "mastering" means in terms of individual cues.
> 
> ...



a very short answer - i am running out the door.

combining audio tracks (the multitrack) to a stereo (or 5.1) mix is MIXING

taking a stereo (or 5.1) mix and polishing it using some of the following (but it does not have to be ALL of the following) - eq, compression, peak limiting, etc is called MASTERING - usually done for CD, but sometimes for gaming. 
Film scores should not generally be peak limited before they go into the film.

Taking the music mix, (or stem mixes) the dialog premixes and the sfx premixes and adding them all together to go into the film is called RE-RECORDING or DUBBING (at least those are the terms in North America.

8)


----------



## Andrew Christie (Nov 23, 2011)

To add to John & Patricia, Louie Teran from Marcussen Mastering seems to be quite renowned for film scores, notably The Dark Knight & The Da Vinci Code.


----------



## John Rodd (Nov 27, 2011)

Composers should be aware that there are 2 different ends of the spectrum when it comes to mastering : do as little as possible, and do whatever it takes to end up with a great sounding end result. Take one look at the racks of analog gear in my studio to see what I often lean towards, when need be.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 27, 2011)

Interesting thread. To date for my humble TV stuff it's just DIY. I've just gone mad in the Waves sale, and a lot of the reason is to master a little better (obviously won't be in the same league as the dedicated mastering engineers, but that ain't gonna happen at my current level!)

I tried the Waves L1 - not bad, but it didn't cope with 3db of squish at one LF swell, it distorted. Then I demoed the L3-16, despite a lot of very sniffy forum comments scattered over the net. Demoed - in within 20 minutes I'd bought. That was stunning, the same dodgy bit of the orchestral cue was handling 7-8db and sounding clean. Even the inevitable companding effects weren't as bad as I expected. Obviously in the real world I wouldn't be using it this much (honest), but it was a terrific exercise in seeing how it would react under stress. I'm gonna try it on my post audio work as well, I loved the hardware L2 when I used that recently on a show.

I guess mulitband maximising is a better way to go for orchestral, that one example sold the concept to me... on the L3-16 you get that whizzy display showing you how hard it's working, and you'd suddenly see the LF bulge out at that point, but it just sounded normal. Great.

Of course, someone will now point out that I should have tracked / mixed it properly in the first place. Like THAT's ever gonna happen.


----------



## nickhmusic (Nov 27, 2011)

Interesting topic.

What about levels though - are you generally sending things out to sound LOUD - but still reasonable? 

I write for a few libraries and a lot of them don't know exactly what they want, except that they want it to sound good.

I often master in terms of level - to what sounds like it has plenty of dynamic range - so if it were to be re-mastered or included in a TV mix etc. - it still has a little bit of headroom and isn't smashed to the ceiling.

EDIT: The EQ stuff I feel has to be gotten right during the mix stage.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 27, 2011)

nickhmusic @ Sun Nov 27 said:


> Interesting topic.
> 
> What about levels though - are you generally sending things out to sound LOUD - but still reasonable?
> 
> ...



We're in danger of having another loudness war debate! Loud and reasonable sounds good to me. I suppose my rule of thumb on everything is I don't wanna see any tiny really thin (usually) pointless spikes on the waveform. First I normalise to get the tallest peak at 0db. Very rarely are these tallest peaks important in my experience. So I sorta look by eye first, and think... "ok, the real general peak is currently -3, I'll try and bring that up to 0 and let the maximiser handle those peaks". Then the ears take over, and it's trial and error.

The rest depends on the content, what its for and my mood at the time. Some pieces I try to preserve as much dynamic range as possible, others it's just an irritant being so wide. Then for rock / pop, that's another whole art in itself (which I'm barely learning), but in general I take the view that if every CD I buy is professionally maximised, I'm not going to start a one-man crusade in the opposite direction.


----------



## nickhmusic (Nov 27, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Sun Nov 27 said:


> We're in danger of having another loudness war debate! Loud and reasonable sounds good to me. I suppose my rule of thumb on everything is I don't wanna see any tiny really thin (usually) pointless spikes on the waveform. First I normalise to get the tallest peak at 0db. Very rarely are these tallest peaks important in my experience. So I sorta look by eye first, and think... "ok, the real general peak is currently -3, I'll try and bring that up to 0 and let the maximiser handle those peaks". Then the ears take over, and it's trial and error.



Sounds like a great way to do it in my book. 

With pop/rock music, yes - in general there is so much more to do regarding compression and potential limiting - that the whole track will invariably have (much) less dynamic range.

For orchestral music - from the soundtrack CDs I tend to use as reference (particularly the Abbey Road-recorded ones) - there seems to be a decent trade-off between too much dynamic range - and too much peak limiting. 

I visited Abbey Road last year to have a track mastered (all orchestral) and the ME did little to no compression on those tracks, some EQ - and no peak limiting except to just normalise what I'd given him up to 0.


----------



## nikolas (Nov 27, 2011)

I would be EXTREMELY interested to know what's happening when mastering classical music... I mean there's very little to do with 'loudness' in classical music and even normalizing tracks don't work: You get a 30 minute work with 1 single peak at 0 db... Everything else is bellow that...

So what else? EQ? For a classical orchestra and lots of mics (perhaps)? Something else?

Very curious to know...


----------



## nickhmusic (Nov 27, 2011)

nikolas @ Sun Nov 27 said:


> I mean there's very little to do with 'loudness' in classical music and even normalizing tracks don't work: You get a 30 minute work with 1 single peak at 0 db... Everything else is bellow that...



If a decent mix has been produced - that isn't far too quiet, then normalising is just some engineers' way to get to 0 without applying any unnecessary limiting. From experience, the EQ then further raises the level some - and then - if determined necessary - there can be some gentle peak limiting applied.

This obviously depends on where the track is going. I would imagine (from what I can tell) CDs of scores are mastered up to a reasonable listening level - because people are listening on their hifi/iPod etc. 

I guess each piece is different. Inception OST for example is slammed to the wall - but then again this was produced in that sort of a way. I Am Legend OST by comparison, is rather quiet and extremely dynamic.

If it's going to the dubbing stage or to someone who will integrate it into another mix - they prefer to receive a mix that has plenty of room for them to work with (again not too quiet or loud).


----------



## John Rodd (Nov 27, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Sun Nov 27 said:


> ...... (re L3-16).......
> I guess mulitband maximising is a better way to go for orchestral.....



Not necessarily.

I find really good hardware compressors (such as the Crane Song STC-Eight) when used in conjunction with really good single band peak limiters (such as the Massey L2007, or the TC Electronic System 6000 - Mastering hardware unit) you can get great results with any genre of music, including orchestral.

I would not always reach first for a multiband peak limiter for any mastering job. They have very specific uses..... but for me they are not the first thing that comes to hand, for any genre of music.

:wink: 

I would caution the usage of multiband peak limiters as they can easily squeeze the life out of music..... for anyone reading this thread. (not just directed towards the original poster)

~o)


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 27, 2011)

Fair enough John - certainly bow to your experience and formidable gear. But my point really regarded the best option is in a DIY small composer scenario. Although I read a lot of folks being very sceptical of mutliband, I approached with an open mind - and in a straight shootout between the relatively humble tools of an L1 and an L3-16 - absolutely no comparison to my ears. No doubt real top end hardware will improve on it though.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Nov 27, 2011)

charlieclouser @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> No time / budget in the workflow / deadline to actually send out tracks for mastering - especially when there are 40-80 cues in a film with a five-week turnaround or 50 cues in a TV show with a five-day turnaround. Besides, what if changes to the cues are needed after you've mastered? I frequently make changes to cues when the mixers are in the middle of a reel on the dubstage - get a phone call, boot up the cue in question, make the changes, print and upload, usually in less than an hour for the whole procedure.
> 
> I've learned to compose and mix through the mastering chain. This way, even when I'm auditioning sounds and building a template I'm monitoring through the mastering processor, which for me is just TC MasterX5 on each stem. As I'm picking kick drum sounds or stacking staccato patches I can hear how they are going to squish together when they hit the glue = no suprises.
> 
> ...



Good to hear another person working the same way I do, with mastering plugins on the master as you write/mix the song.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 27, 2011)

I think the best mastering of orchestra recordings can only be done, if the mastering guy gets all your sub-group audio files, where you have used no reverb, compressor e.t.c. at all..... .


----------



## John Rodd (Nov 27, 2011)

germancomponist @ Sun Nov 27 said:


> I think the best mastering of orchestra recordings can only be done, if the mastering guy gets all your sub-group audio files, where you have used no reverb, compressor e.t.c. at all..... .



Well then that means both mixing and mastering. 

Seriously. 

The process you describe IS both mixing and mastering


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 27, 2011)

John Rodd @ Mon Nov 28 said:


> germancomponist @ Sun Nov 27 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the best mastering of orchestra recordings can only be done, if the mastering guy gets all your sub-group audio files, where you have used no reverb, compressor e.t.c. at all..... .
> ...



For sure. But I think in this way you could do the best mix. Yes, no?


----------



## RiffWraith (Nov 27, 2011)

germancomponist @ Mon Nov 28 said:


> John Rodd @ Mon Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> > germancomponist @ Sun Nov 27 said:
> ...



Well, if you aren't capable (and I don't mean _you_, Gunther), of getting a good mix yourself, then yes. But you'd have to get someone who is proficient in both. I am sure most good mastering engineers could put together a good mix, but personally, I would rather the mastering engineer concentrate on the mastering. If I wasn't able to do a good mix, I'd hire someone - and it wouldn't be the mastering engineer. One of the big sticking points behind hiring a mastering engineer is another pair of quality trained ears.

Cheers.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 27, 2011)

I am with you, Jeffrey, but I heared that more and more mastering guys here in Germany are getting group tracks to mix. 

I think the idea behind this is not bad.......? 

It is no secret that people like John have the best reverbs / hardware in their studios, so why not benefit.....? We all know that the best mastering guy can repair a (very) bad mix. But ok, if someone can`t do good group mixes....., hm...... .


----------



## Andrew Christie (Nov 27, 2011)

germancomponist @ Mon Nov 28 said:


> I am with you, Jeffrey, but I heared that more and more mastering guys here in Germany are getting group tracks to mix.



You mean Stem Mastering? From what I've gathered, it's becoming a more popular due to the growth of bedroom composers/producers who are more than likely not in an ideal mixing environment.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 28, 2011)

germancomponist @ Mon Nov 28 said:


> I think the best mastering of orchestra recordings can only be done, if the mastering guy gets all your sub-group audio files, where you have used no reverb, compressor e.t.c. at all..... .



I don't really get this, I must admit. Like John, that sounds like mixing. Also, I have a specific problem with the reverb - I never apply reverb at a stem level. With VIs every instrument has a very different reverb requirement. Some libs are wet and have nothing added, some are anechoic and need ER as well as tail, and there's every shade of grey in between. I just don't know how you'd do it at a mastering level. I understand that some people add a final sheen over everything when mastering... dunno about that myself, it still doesn't make much sense to me, given the disparate elements that go into a VI piece - even there you'd need more reverb when mixing anyway.


----------



## John Rodd (Nov 28, 2011)

Some of the posts above are discussing mastering from *submixes*, and mastering from *stem mixes.*

I have done both in the past with music, numerous times. (I only do music. No SFX, no dialog, ever)

(*Submixes* would be dry, no reverb..... given to create a mix - that is mastered.

.....where *Stem Mixes* all add up to be the Full Mix..... but are given to allow control on the mix)

The bottom line for me is that every single project - no matter how big or small - has a budget. I enjoy the challenge of being creative and finding ways to get the best sounding end result possible.

If it means that I am doing the entire mix, with multitracks of audio that are wide (dozens of tracks per cue - often over 100 tracks per cue in the multitrack) then cool.

If time or budget limitations mean I am mixing sub mixes..... then I still have access to all my great analog hardware, and various reverbs, so I can make it happen. 

When I am just mastering a project ....about 97% of the time it is just from full stereo mixes, and not from stem mixes. It just works out this way..... nothing to do with my preference. 8) 

It is always my clients who decide if I am recording.... if I am mixing... and if I am mastering.... (or record & mix & master...... or mix & master) 

I am always happy to do whatever my client wants me to do. :mrgreen: 

Cheers

John


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 28, 2011)

John Rodd @ Mon Nov 28 said:


> If time or budget limitations mean I am mixing sub mixes..... then I still have access to all my great analog hardware, and various reverbs, so I can make it happen.



This is exactly what I meant. I think this is a very good way to get a cool master.


----------



## John Rodd (Jan 14, 2012)

germancomponist @ Mon Nov 28 said:


> John Rodd @ Mon Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> > If time or budget limitations mean I am mixing sub mixes..... then I still have access to all my great analog hardware, and various reverbs, so I can make it happen.
> ...



Looks like I'm about to mix from stem mixes... then master some music for a high end game project coming up.

The composer is an accomplished engineer / mixer.... .but he works just in the box, so does not have access to tons of analog gear to breathe some life (tubes & transformers) into the project.

I may also add some Bricasti M7 and TC Electronic System 6000 to the mix....... then do my mastering as well.

If I'm not able to record & mix the whole project.... due to time and/or budget constraints..... if I'm mastering.... then sometimes it works out really well to have me mix from stem mixes, then master (as opposed to just master)

:mrgreen: 

cheers

John


----------



## nikolas (Jan 15, 2012)

Although I've not worked with John (yet) I find that everything people talk about him are absolutely true! At least my very short experience with Jonh (exchanging a few PMs) was very nice... 

On another issue, I find that I'm probably the worst mixer/masterer for live recordings... I find it extremely difficult to apply the proper reverb and EQ to a single stereo recording... :( I think I'm an idiot.

And I also think I should stick to:
a. Working with samples which sound great out of the gox.
and
b. Deal with what I do best: Composition, orchestration (and teaching but irrelavent here)... 

I have decided that I CANNOT do everything myself. :( So welcome me in the real world, please!


----------



## John Rodd (Jan 23, 2012)

tmhuud @ Sat Jan 14 said:


> John Rodd @ Mon Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> > I am always happy to do whatever my client wants me to do. :mrgreen:
> ...



Hey Terry

Thanks for the shout out. 8) 

Yes I do listen very clearly to my clients... and I ask lots of questions - even before I'm on the job - to make sure I always know what the client is after - sound wise. :mrgreen: 

and... I would like to think that I don't have a *massive *ego...... perhaps I'm just fairly *self confident*? :wink: 

cheers

John


----------

