is a mix supposed to be sounding "ready"?

[delay]

this post is mainly for mixing engineers.

ok, i will first explain briefly my situation.

-i almost only mix and master my own stuff
-i do the final mix through mastering chain, thus mix and master simultaneously so to speak
-i do rather marginal side of music, nevertheless take it serious enough to bring this post to high end forum. furthermore, this post is almost irrelevant to a style of music.

so, i have been doing my own albums since something like 5 years in a way that when i get close to finishing my mix in DAW i patch in my mastering chain and finish off the mix.
mainly just pushing the loudness up and bringing in only very subtle eq and maybe some "tape" sound from HEDD. mainly trying not to hurt the achieved mix anymore.

but to get the mix to a stage that it sounds ready...

now that's where i'm getting at.
i was wondering how mixing engineers of all ages and ideas, preferably working in commercial music business, tend to approach their mixes, knowing there will be mastering still ahead?
where do you aim? something that in your ears sounds like a "ready" song?
or do you leave some space whatever that is still for the mastering?
(i would like to assume we now speak of professional mastering where the mix won't be destroyed.)

i at least work a lot with reference tracks, comparing my mix to all kinds of stuff.
those people who do the same, how do you relate your mixes to commercially available (that is, mastered) reference tracks?
not meaning loudness-wise but regarding the feel and frequency side of things, do you try to achieve the same as the reference tracks in your mixes?
more importantly, can you? in your clients' opinion?

mind you, sometimes mastering engineers do NOT do much...

for me i'm just trying to figure out my stuff here regarding when to begin patching in mastering chain... how far i should push the "feel" of mix and saying it's ready.
before trying to not destroy the balance while bringing in the loudness to somewhat competing levels.


much thanks for reading the long post and maybe even giving it a thought and a reply.

respectfully,
Sasu

[Lonnie5]

well I always try to get the mix sounded "ready". The only thing I do is right when I finish, I push up the kick, snare, and toms 1db. Sometimes in mastering, the levels of those by seemed lowered.

[delay]

does the mix get better after mastering in your opinion?
which one, the mix or the master, would you use as a possible reference track for future mixes?

i'm seeing mixing and mastering fusing into one and trying to reflect on that from other points of views.

[Chris Lago]

Yes the mix needs to sound ready. My mixes are very close to the final mastering, without the added limiter of course. Even with buss compression etc.

[Trev@Circle]

You should mix the record to sound exactly the way you want it to sound. If it's a good mix the ME should do his best not to get in the way of that. If you aren't happy with the product you get back from the ME either send it back or find another ME.

(FWIW rather than 'adding eq or hedd tape at the end mix through it from the outset)

[mobilemozart]

+1

Yes, your mix "should" sound like the finished record.

Typically, and thats just my personal experience, the mastering engineer dials in the right amount of low end and high end when he compares your mix against other successful records in the same genre. A lot of the current digitally recorded and mixed productions have too much high-end (above 15kHz). Rolling that off makes it sound more "analogue".
Maybe he brings out a color in the mid-range that gives your mix a richer spectrum, etc. - you get the idea.

Finally, a good mastering engineer will "tighten" the dynamics with a high-end mastering compressor before running it through a brickwall limiter.

It's just another person who adds their taste to the product. Which will be an improvement, if you chose a great ME. I've also seen it go wrong, but most known mastering houses have good people who rather don't do anything drastical before messing up your mix.

[Whitecat]

A good mastering engineer will do whatever it takes to polish the mix. This may or may not involve compression, limiting, EQ, whatever. Depends on what you're after and what genre you do. In fact, the less they have to do, the better your mix is, and you're basically hiring them to cut parts. So yeah - get it as good as you can, then send it to mastering for a good objective final review with some impartial ears.

[delay]

sorry guys, maybe it's my non-native english.

i really wanted to get opinions from some professional mixing engineers and how they see this issue between final mix and master. it can't be so obvious issue anymore these days.

make it a concrete question; are you 100% satisfied with your mixes? or do they still need something?
if the volume/loudness wouldn't be an issue, would your mixes still need something called mastering?

what is being done in mastering etc comments are out of this topic.

thanks again.

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by delay

sorry guys, maybe it's my non-native english.

i really wanted to get opinions from some professional mixing engineers and how they see this issue between final mix and master. it can't be so obvious issue anymore these days.

make it a concrete question; are you 100% satisfied with your mixes? or do they still need something?
if the volume/loudness wouldn't be an issue, would your mixes still need something called mastering?

what is being done in mastering etc comments are out of this topic.

thanks again.

You should never leave anything to "fix" in mastering. That's not the intention of mastering. Always make sure that your mix sounds exactly like you would want to hear it on the final album. That's when you know you are done with the mix. If there's something bugging you and/or that you feel you want to correct, do it before mastering.

[tazman]

But don't brickwall limit your mixes before sending them to the ME.


Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

[DavieB]

I always mix in mono first on one monitor to get the front to back and levels sorted out and deal with any phase, canceling stereo issues first. I create a depth of field and width drawing like this for the arrangement:


-----------------------------------back
------------------------------- |
------------------------------Bass
--------------------------------|
------------------------------Kick -----Floor Tom
-------------------------Tom --| --Tom
---------Cymbals -----Hats ----| -----------------Cymbals
-----------------------------Snare
L-------------------------------------------------------------------R
--Reverb -------Guitars --------| --------Guitars -------------Delay
------------Soloist ------------|
------------------------Soloist | -------Vocal Harmony
-----------------------------Vocal
-------------------------------|
-------------------------------|
----------------------------------front

back = dark
front = bright
L = left
R = right ...

Once I have the mono mix sorted I take it to stereo and do the width and ambiance using pan, reverb and delay. This is all about left to right space so instruments can be given a position on the stage. What you achieve is a 3d mix and if you are happy with it and it stacks up well against reference recordings you don't need a mastering engineer.

The mix should be spot on, the mastering engineer shouldn't need to do anything to it...

[ray_subsonic]

Originally Posted by DavieB

The mix should be spot on, the mastering engineer shouldn't need to do anything to it...

Except Crush, Destroy and Decimate it (usually on advice from the client) ... This of-course is depending on where he/she sits in the spectrum of mastering engineers .. and don't take me too seriously here either ..

[peter_mavro]

when working for a label client, i like to get the mix to fall somewhere between how i want it to sound, and what the clients are pushing for, in the time dictated by the budget. after i work hard at achieving sonic excellence i then destroy my work, preparing a special shitty-sounding ultra-obnoxious loud version for the a&r rep. the good copy stays with me and is delivered only to the mastering engineer. the shitty copy ensures that the a&r person doesn't start having second thoughts.

[TacosWhenTwisted]

it is a mistake to mix into any mastering chain. mastering chain should be added later. you wont get a clear view of the dynamics when you mix into a mastering chain. well you will get a view, but not the best potential view.

[namsabnek]

FWIW, I try to leave the two buss clear for the ME. I do the best I can on the individual tracks and busses and tempting as it may be to compress or eq the twobuss I leave it alone (most of the time)

[ajv205]

Yup.

I don't want anyone to have to say anything or do any corrections. I just want the artist and producer to say "Its great, lets print passes". Whenever I think I'm done I always ask myself "Is the producer going to say something about this or that?". I hate having to do revisions.

Also, never fall in love with your "final" mix because someone up the ladder will always say something and there's nothing worse than being thickheaded about a change to the mix.

[Hotstuff]

Your job as a mix engineer is to make it sound finished, mastering is another step in the process.

Best

Hotstuff

[Hotstuff]

Oh yeah,

dont forget to leave headroom for mastering........

Best

Hotstuff

[jono_3]

I just had an album of great sounding mixes completely ruined by a bad master job that ended up getting printed by the impatient client. The mastering guy missed the point and didnt use his ears. Mastering isnt a game of presets and process, its a game of listening and judgement.

[Aaron Miller]

I think it's wise to shoot for a finished sound when mixing, especially if "finished" is defined as balanced and not slammed. One caveat I can think of would be if you plan to hire an ME (I know this may not be the case in your situation) that has better gear/knowledge and you know better results can be had with global mastering adjustments. For example, I've had mixes that I've known to be a bit dark across the board. On those, I wouldn't think that going back and inserting stock Logic plug-ins on individual tracks or the master buss would be as nice for overall brightening as allowing an ME to use his gear and knowledge do it. Barring situations like this, I say go for the finished sound you hear in your head at mix (and on some level, at tracking).

Also, I know there's some guys on here who, rather than throw on master buss comps/EQs when the song is almost done, they have them on from square one. The idea is that it changes the way everything reacts while mixing so it helps the mix engineer to be aware of that and make good decisions. I haven't done this but would like to try it on a future project where I know that I'll be doing light mastering anyway.

[DarkSky Media]

Originally Posted by Azriel_7

As others have stated the mix is the sound...You have far more control over what you can correct during the mix than the mastering stage, use that to your advantage.

+1

[delay]

hi again.

it's surprising how this is taking its own life which is not what i was about at all.

anyway i could pick up some ideas there between all the "you should use ME" etc instructions.

the thing i would like to offer for people to at least consider is the simultaneous mix/master.
i actually think highly of it after quite many years of doing it, and having also experience in mastering as a client as well as an engineer.

i find it much much easier to fix balance problems in the mix stage than mastering (someone mentioned a dull mix that needs brightening). almost opposite, trying to fix something in mastering the 2 tk is always a massive compromise.

beyond that i find it quite superior to mix into master bus.
it is no secret that mix balance changes when pushed through compression/limiting.
i talk about gear like Manley, Tube-Tech, Weiss, the usual good stuff. even they do change the sound to a point that you need some correctional eq only for the dynamics process.

now, when you mix into the master chain you can get an idea how it is affecting your mix and by few db changes in maybe bass or vocals etc the whole thing becomes much easier to finish off.
i still find it very hard to anticipate which elements, and how, the mastering will change in the mix.

i'm not of course suggesting this practise for everyone but those who do their own stuff at least and have good gear and room i would suggest doing your own master together with mix and a normal commercial one and comparing the results.
i'm quite sure you will have at least less work to do compared to ME sitting in with your closed file compared to your open one.
most likely he will have something bigger and better than you on the other fields like ears and gear.

still, i don't think it's so obvious anymore.

[steffo]

If the mix sounds better than the mastered version at the same volume the mastering is not good. I only reference mastered material but at the end of the mix I often mix through a limiter that I remove when It is sent to mastering.

Theres not a rule that says the mix should be very close to the final master, a friend of mine sent a very dynamic ITB mix to a great mastering engineer and the mastering made the song WAY better and the ME was very pleased with the whole situation since he had a lot to work with. Another friend of mine had an album mastered by Brian Gardner and it was not the same mix that came back, I'm pretty sure he somehow extracted the tracks and remixed the songs.. The mixes were good but but the mastered album sound way better, very analog (the mixes were done ITB) and wide.

It is hard to "reverse" lots of bad compression and strange overall eq, if the ME get a lot of dynamics to work with he can be more radical and really make a difference. I would never dare to give him that chance though and even If I did I'm not sure I would feel comfortable playing a mix like that to a band with that approach in mind.

I sometimes master myself but I try to wait a few days. If I mix hybrid or ITB I recall the mix to do eq tweeks. I prefer to send the mix to someone else. It's hard to listen to your mix with some one elses ears..

[Jim Kerr]

The Sgt Pepper Multitracks had a note on them that read something like "DO NOT MASTER!!" The label or ME's, whoever.. flipped out but the Beatles and George Martin clearly were satisfied with the mix. They eventually agreed on certain terms and one was that I think the band or G. Martin had to be present and the adjustments were minor.

Mastering was a process solely for protecting record lathes and transmitters.

[AllAboutTone]

Originally Posted by Lonnie5

well I always try to get the mix sounded "ready". The only thing I do is right when I finish, I push up the kick, snare, and toms 1db. Sometimes in mastering, the levels of those by seemed lowered.

That really pisses me off lowering the drums in mastering, they are always the foundation and when no dynamics is going on sucks. Well I cannot speak for you but 95 percent of artist I do want the real mix and cannot afford mastering.