I’ve been experimenting a lot with running full tracks through my analog/hardware chain to add that last bit of analog mojo . Over the past months I’ve refined the workflow into something I’m pretty happy with, and a few friends (well, one friend and one relative, tbh) have been asking me to “run their tracks through the chain” as well.
I’m now considering whether this could turn into a small, focused service at some point — but before I commit to anything, I’d love to test it properly. And since this forum has taught me a ton over the years, I wanted to ask you guys first.
If you’re curious, I’m offering a limited number of free beta passes to try it out.
As a tester, you’d get:
Your track run through my analog/hardware chain (returned as a processed stereo file)
An optional short POV-style video of the run, if you like that kind of behind-the-scenes stuff
A few lines of honest mix/production feedback if you want it
All I’m after in return is your honest feedback on whether the result adds anything for you and what would make the workflow genuinely useful.
This is very much a testing / beta phase, nothing officially launched, and I’m deliberately keeping it low-key and community-focused.
If you’re interested, just shoot me a message and we’ll take it from there.
No strings attached — just experimenting and nerding out together.
Hm, i am recently doing my masters in the box with emphasis on “analog emulations and feel” vsts. Running it through actual gear might give me a good comparison how off or on point i am, and is there a point to think of investing in analog gear, or sending tracks to service like yours.
Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but would anybody be willing to share their before/after copies? I hear a lot about analog and how it adds something special but I’ve never actually heard examples of with and without. Would love to compare processed copies to originals!
So, just wanted to clarify that this flow is not really including the mastering part right now. I guess the correct label for the processed file here would be “pre-master” .
This sounds like a great idea but don’t you think this should be part of the mastering process and not just an extra step? Otherwise all you are doing is introducing another stage where things can go wrong, recall complications, etc. What you are describing is essentially what mastering is, even though some people just see mastering at getting the track to sound as loud as you can. It’s really getting it to sound the BEST it can, which seems to be what you are offering as well.
Not trying to discourage you, more just trying to say that I think you should think about this as the mastering stage and treat it as such, otherwise it’s usefulness is far lower.
My 2c. Also curious to hear what analog you are using if you feel like sharing.
Presonus Quantum 4848 —> TL Audio Fat track (w Gold Lion tubes) —> Midas Venice 320 —> possible parallel buses to AH and Klark Teknik BBD-320 —> SSL Fusion —> insert Behringer 369 and Jünger D03 —> back to DAW
Hey - I hear you and fully understand . I think that what I’m trying to test here is mostly to add those 5-10% extra to the existing mix that the analog chain might add, and then aim for a printed file with around -6 db peaks. Then this could be brought to your favourite mastering engineer, if you have one - or of course maybe do home grown mastering to it. In any situation, the pre-master would play its part, me-thinks.
I also HAVE done a bit of mastering (and taken some courses) but I would absolutely not call me a mastering engineer. If I’d go ahead with this, I might offer a simplified mastering addition but that one would then by entirely in the digital domain .
I’m all for people finding niches and getting paid, so I wish you success in your endeavors. Since you’re requesting feedback, I would say that it’s hard for me to imaging being post-mix, wanting a mastering-like service, and choosing to pay for “mastering lite” (which I think is a good faith, not dismissive way to frame your service as I understand it). If I want mastering, which I would if I had a project I was ready to release, why wouldn’t I just choose a mastering partner that has analog goodness baked into their process? I take it for granted that those folks are easy enough to find.
I have two tracks I’d love to send you tonight (6-7 hours from now) that I am actually ready to publish, but could send leveled… are you looking for -6dB max from us to have headroom for the chain?
I fully get you - pre-master or mastering-lite is probably correct label of what I sort of see this one to be. And it would absolutely be a niche service in many ways, no doubt about that.
But maybe there could be people out there that might want to get another human engaging in their track for a bit, adding something that they may not be able to add in their studio environments (along with a bit of free peer to peer feedback) to a fraction of “real” mastering services?
I’m sure those folks are out there, and this is the perfect place to find some of them. The trick will be finding them consistently, but if you can do that, at a minimum you might get your hobby to pay for itself, and maybe a lot more than that - good luck!
Thanks! I share your view and I’m just interested to see if there’s a value to provide here. I’ve got a little bit more free time to test things atm so I figured this could be a good area to explore
. Over the past months I’ve refined the workflow into something I’m pretty happy with, and a few friends (well, one friend and one relative, tbh) have been asking me to “run their tracks through the chain” as well.
got loads of mixed, unmastered 90’s detroit electro/house tracks that I haven’t been arsed to send to labels yet.