mixing and mastering in one swoop

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

pucho812

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
14,830
Location
third stone from the sun
Was talking with an engineering buddy who has some clients who can't afford real mastering so they been running eq,compression, a de-esser and a limiter accross the stereo buss. They are not even printing un "mastered" versions of mixes.

Discuss?
 
I run a dinky commercial basement studio in the woods. I charge a paltry fee to master projects, but recently after mixing I think oh wtf and slap some multiband on the mixdown followed by a limiter to pump it up then give it to them that way.

Least it sounds good, loud and proud when it leaves here.
 
I would say that they are doing heavy stereo bus processing while mixing. That's not mastering. It's not necessarily bad if it sounds better. And I do understand the need to bump up the level if it's not getting a proper mastering job.

I bet those processors come in a shiny wrapper that says MASTERING. Suckers.

When those mixes show up all you can do is swear at the screen and make the disc.
 
I do this in a way for my clients. I print 2 mixes, one is at a friendly level, with whatever mix bus eq and compression it needs, I monitor this the whole time. Then I print another simultaneously with Massey L2007 on it and I bring it down till it sounds like shit then I put it back up a db or two so it's loud but not distorted. I give both mixes to clients and tell them that I'm not a mastering engineer but they have a mix they can reference next to commercial releases and it's not 10db quieter, but the real mix to critique is the quiet sounding one. I personally like getting a loud mix to listen to, my clients like to as well. Nice thing is that I can print both of these in one go.
 
Yeah, I'm totally fine with a quick and dirty mastering... to take home.  When it comes to printing to disc, I totally separate the processes.  I finish mixing all the songs, and then bring em all into a separate mastering session (you gotta get rid of all that access to the individual tracks, commit to a stereo mix and work with that).  Mastering is not just about making each song loud and sound good by itself.  Its all about making each section sound consistent within the song, and each song within the record -- creating a flow.  (remember, I'm not a mastering engineer, just the guy who can "do it all" for cheaper than taking it to a real mastering engineer.)  Last record I did, since I don't have much good mastering gear, I went to a rental shop in town and rented a pair of apogee converters, a manley varimu, and since they didn't have the eq i wanted, they rented me api 550b's for cheap, so i worked with that.  Not the best choice for mastering eq, but it worked great.  Using the outboard instead of doing it all in the box like the mixes were done, it separated that process completely from the mixing process.  I guess for one off songs doing it all in one fell swoop is just more convenient, but for ep's, records, etc, should be separated.  Just so you can have the time to get used to your new hat.  :p
 
Gold said:
I would say that they are doing heavy stereo bus processing while mixing. That's not mastering. It's not necessarily bad if it sounds better. And I do understand the need to bump up the level if it's not getting a proper mastering job.

I bet those processors come in a shiny wrapper that says MASTERING. Suckers.

When those mixes show up all you can do is swear at the screen and make the disc.

Well actually the main bulk of that processing is done via inwards connections eq and inward connections compressor. So hardly that tc finalizer or the like. You know Doug Sax told me that he like the finalizer very much because it did what they claimed it would do. Make stuff loud.

As for myself I usually print 2 versions of mixes as do some of us... One is the final. The reference has the limiting./compression on it to make loud. seems to give a rough idea. But lets not forget that all mastering is not just adding a compresor or limiter to an already compressed/limited stereo  mix. Last project I did, there was a song or 2 that when getting mastered we didn't compress or limit at all as there was already enough of that going on...

However That fact they are not doing 2 versions IMO is painting yourself into a corner. Whit digital so inexpensive these days why not record to versions?
 
Most of my work is Library Music for TV (I do maybe 5-6 albums for other people every year), Ozone 4 across the stereobus as soon as I´m done tracking...I´ve mixed two records in two weeks for other people, same thing.  I even asked, and explained the advantage of having a noncrushed version, and I always do this , but no, most clients have a "louder is better" attitude...Of course storage space is not an issue in 2010, but paying for that extra hour PT will use to bounce 10-12 extra mixes apparently is. I´m not saying it´s all good or all bad, just what I´ve experienced.
 
the advantage of mastering in a different room, is the acoustic and listening situation and a different pair of ears.
nicholas
 
I usual print three mixes.

1.  A mix with an final eq with subtle, broad curves to shape the overall mix, and a limiter keeping things from clipping.

2.  Everything from 1, plus some help from the STC-8 or SMC2B providing a small amount of compression to get the "volume" up.

3.  Everything from 1 and 2, plus S1 if needed, then finally some L1 to make things louder still.

I'll send all three to whomever is mastering and let them decide.  But mix 3 is mainly for band to get a hint of what a finished product might be like.
 
Only on rare occasions, and I usually have regrets.  I've taken the attitude more and more that the client will stay and pay for as much work as I feel it needs, and I won't be rushed at the detriment, within reason.    I almost always have a Pico knocking 0.5-1.5 dB at 1.2:1 on the mix bus, and nothing more.  Ref mixes will generally get a second software clipper pass for loudness.  I never present a final mix with any additional loudness, and it's never been questioned. 
 
i use to mix and master in one project. Most bands i record are local hardcore/metal bands with a small budget. They expect a complete product after leaving the studio. So mastering need to be done one the same speaker/room as the mix.


 
  the advantage of mastering in a different room, is the acoustic and listening situation
  and a different pair of ears.
    nicholas

+ 10

mastering engineers generally have more accurate rooms (or that used to be the case)
and as or more importantly, a different sounding room.
so you don't eq to your own room's acoustic problems twice.

with 875 million clowns with a DAW in a room at home, and over 50% of those saying
they can master, it's easy to not know what a real mastering professional can and does do.

it's worth the effort to find one and pay the extra bucks...
look at the difference in dollars (euros, yen, whatever...)
then ask what percentage would that add to the total project budget ?

but when the client decides to have some one master it  a clown who will do it
for 25 - 50 bucks a song often gets the gig, but has not the monitoring environment
or the optimum "rig" ...not to mention refined ears and the knowledge of experience.

i speak in general here so don't be pissed or offended, this is not an attack at anyone
in particular or in general, it's just an observation of the situation.

i will say i hate most of what passes as mastering these days.
ya gotta love it when there is the money and sense to send to one of the
big guys that have been doin' it for years...usually label work will do that
i have a short list of people in town i like, one at most price points,
and recommend one of those according to the max budget i can coax for mastering

i wish i had a copy of that rate card from the eighties, can't remember the mastering house.
it was in L.A. i think 

  Rates:  $175.00 per Hr.
               
              $250.00 per Hr.  with client present

true
 
175/hr is what I pay now and im glad to pay it.
Around here Every time I use another mastering engineer I get a bunch of excuses and crappy work you want pro you pay pro. Mastering is part of a discussion I have with clients at the outset of a project. I respect the need to stick to a budget, but when I go in for surgery Im not telling them what to do, I'm telling them they better do the best job they can.
More often than not those who want to cut out mastering dont understand what it is. I have a before and after file I keep of previous work and mastering just sells itself. In a word of mouth industry I tend to attract people who would rather do things right or not do them at all. Another way to look at it is in the scheme of hundreds of hours worth of work to get to an album mastered is a drop in the bucket. I guess I dont work with just anyone who shows up at the door anymore.
I will say I often send mixes through the L2007 for a LISTENING version.
-s
 
try this. if they dont have enough money to master then say youll do it for free for a percentage of cd sales in the end. if you dont think its worth doing for free and getting repaid in the end, it proably doesnt need to be mastered.
 
amorris said:
try this. if they dont have enough money to master then say youll do it for free for a percentage of cd sales in the end. if you dont think its worth doing for free and getting repaid in the end, it proably doesnt need to be mastered.


That's like my voice mail message.  "leave a message and if it's important I'll call you back. If I don't call you back, you know why."
 
sometimes most often i like my first fast done mixing steps more than after days when i mixed the sounds till they sound shit.
as more i listen to the sounds i want to eq it softer and smoother... at least i do a mix with from my first version and last. Everytime the same game.  :)

... i like my own masters that i do after mixdown in a second program. i never did it in one swoop... only for demo reasons. not that it would sound bad but in my case the project is stuffed to the limit and using some larger mastering plugins would kill my last project dsp ;)
 
i think the ruff mix thing is due to intent.

after yer done tracking you do a quick mix so people
can listen to it.
since people are gonna be listening to it, you do a quick mix
and and your goal is to make it sound good.

when you "mix it for real" yer goal is to make it perfect.
and you might take as much time as you need.
if it's real music, that can be a mistake.

listening to the ruffs you might think "crap those guitars are too loud,
and the keyboards are too low".  the only stuff on the vocal might be
a little verb or some slap.

maybe it's the guitars being too loud and raw sounding that
gives it an aggressive vibe.
your goal was to make it sound good.

perhaps the vocal didn't need all that shit in the final mix.

perfect has never been what rock is about.

not gonna say that about jazz either.

or blue grass, or any number of others.

sorry, i just got outta another safety meeting and i'm startin' to go off.

i guess what i'm saying is it's not about making stuff just right,
it's about presenting what will connect with the listener in an effective way.

 
Back
Top