"Real" Mastering Engineers: Do you prefer . . .

[Gordon]

. . . that the mix engineer provide you with a track that's still got all of it dynamic-range in tact (noticeable transients on snare, kick is a little boomy but sounds great when the volume is cranked, not every peek is at 0, etc . . .) or is it better if the mixer keeps in mind that the songs going to get squashed to -10 RMS (or louder) and makes allowances for this when mixing?

I ask this because I'm a hobbyist at this point in my life, I'm a real bass player who pretends to be an engineer. The stuff I'm producing for a friend of mine IMHO sounds pretty good. What sounds good to me when mixing is "loud and punchy" with a large dynamic range. This sounds great on my monitors and passes the car stereo test as long as the volume is turned up. The problem I'm finding is that when I "master" the material I wind up having to suck the life out of it in order to reach -9 RMS or so in the choruses.

What I've found is that if my mix isn't as "punchy" to begin with, it sounds better when smooshed. Maybe it's because I'm using plugins or I just don't know WTF I'm doing, I figured I'd ask here and see if anyone noticed the same thing.

By "real" I mean engineers who master more than they mix.

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by Gordon

By "real" I mean engineers who master more than they mix.

mastering engineers master they don't mix or at least the vast majority (that doesn't mean that they are not capable of mixing of course)

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by Gordon

. . . What sounds good to me when mixing is "loud and punchy" with a large dynamic range. This sounds great on my monitors and passes the car stereo test as long as the volume is turned up. .

thumbsup

The volume control is there for a reason or they would have it with just an on and off position!.

Yes properly tracked and mixed dynamic material has greater potential........ when squashed.

[Bob Olhsson]

Stick with "loud and punchy!"

We often get better results by using a couple different limiters which may explain the effect you heard however having "loud and punchy" available as the starting point could really serve you well if you ever need to do a video or anything else where there is no need to slam the level. You'll also be amazed by how much better MP3s sound made from that kind of mix.

[DSD_Mastering]

dynamics = good!

I'm doing a project now and I asked him if he wanted it dynamic and punchy or loud and crushed. I swear he told me "so make us as loud as possible. Dynamics are for emo kids who need a part to cry...".

Shame....tutt

Regards,
Bruce

[MarkRB]

Sent a project to manufacturing and the average was -3 RMS.

Major label thing and I think they pressured the ME to push it to compensate for the overall crap sound of the record. Now it's crap and REALLY loud.

[krytikal1]

Originally Posted by DSD_Mastering

dynamics = good!

I'm doing a project now and I asked him if he wanted it dynamic and punchy or loud and crushed. I swear he told me "so make us as loud as possible. Dynamics are for emo kids who need a part to cry...".

Shame....tutt

Regards,
Bruce

haha. darn sensitive musicians.

K

[macc]

Originally Posted by MarkRB

Sent a project to manufacturing and the average was -3 RMS.

[Virtalahde]

Please retain the dynamics in the mix!

If the mix is good, everything is balance and has a lot of dynamics left, it is usually very easy to make a good master out of it. From such a source you can have everything you want, from dynamic to loud. My best loud masters came from hugely dynamic mixes.

In general, it's perfectly OK to have the kick slightly boomy, maybe some lack of high end and not a completely in-your-face sound. Experience will tell what kind of mixes translate well.

It is sometimes very surprising to see how great sounding masters come up from something that wasn't instantly impressive at first hear. That's because everything was in order, just a little hidden. Sometimes my first reaction of a mix is "wow!", but after I start working with it I realize the potential is already used, too much done in the mixing stage and it just won't go further. The result is an OK sounding master instead of a great one.

I find the worst cases are when the mixing engineer comes in and says that the mastering process was "in mind" when doing the mixing and they, say, turned up the snare because I'm going to lose it anyway, or they used a limiter to help me make it loud. Hell, sometimes they even may have tested it with a limiter, hated what they heard and changed the balance according to that!

If you don't have a working history with the ME, don't try to quess what he/she is going to do. Just do a good mix, turn up the volume to see how it hits you in the chest and let the ME do the ME's job.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Gordon

The problem I'm finding is that when I "master" the material I wind up having to suck the life out of it in order to reach -9 RMS or so in the choruses.

A dynamic mix, that's proportional (eq and dynamics), should come up to -9 in the hot spot without too much trouble. It's not about the L3 plug, it's about small gains, beginning with a balanced eq.

[DBarbarulo]

I think the smoothest way to work is when the mixing engineer has a clear idea of what he (and or the producer) wants and, assuming that is impossible to "preview" the processing of another stage (mastering) in another studio, the mix should be the closest possible to the defined sound of the tune.

DB