Mastering guys - What are the biggest mistakes made in mixdowns pre-mastering?

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by graincloud

...i'm working on experimental electronica most of the time what means really wet signal, busy mixes and loads of dsp processing... also mean experimental way of mixing that could turn out great but doesn't have many point of reference to judge the mix... you'd better know the genre and intentions to work on it...

That's exactly the kind of project I learned this lesson on. We found only a monitor system that could do an extraordinary job of reproducing acoustical-sourced music was capable of producing masters of abstract music that would translate well. I assume this worked mostly because reasonable reproduction of acoustical events is the design benchmark that most speaker designers use. The idea of being able to "learn" speakers doesn't work when the sounds are really abstract.

[Fat larry]

A high boost(more than a couple of db's) with a narrow Q especially on vocals.
Fat Larry

[SCDBM]

Crunchy mixdowns, people who just overdrive with "tube" distortion ITB to get that "Tube warmth" especially when the track sounds like an overdriven car stereo or Behringer mixing desk. bad distortion and a bad idea. just mix as clean as possible

[Umami Uni]

Originally Posted by Darius van H

^^^^^

???????

i'm with you on that. You should be a politician, just words that don't really lead anywhere or answer anything except for whats already known.


--------------------
But to answer your question I'd say simply, the mis-use of limiting,compression,and eq.

[Ben F]

Mostly it's vocal levels and bass/kick levels that are inconsistent (even with some of the best mix engineers) so check those on a lot of systems. Low end (and low mids) can also be congested due to not removing low end from instruments that doesn't need to be there, and also effect returns.

Some other annoyances:

• Not labelling files or knowing which scratched/badly labelled DVD they are on
• Getting to the studio to download files that were 'supposed' to be there, but are not
• The engineer posting the wrong mixes, and now they have gone home
• Compilations with little or no communication with artists, so you get loads of mastered and unmastered files, even mp3s sometimes
• Distorted M-box pre amps (or similar) when recording vocals
• Heaps of 2.5kHz boost on a distorted vocal that knocks your head off
• Digital distortion in general- it's so hard to do anything with!

[macc]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Another problem is so much signal processing that the mix only sounds balanced on the same speakers at the very same volume in the room where it was mixed. Sometimes this can be straightened out with radical overall eq. but it's often pretty hopeless.

Man oh man.... I know that allllll too well. Drum n bass forums seem to churn this out on a regular basis. You must layer/MB compress/saturate/every snare drum hit with 15 other snare drum hits and make sure that every sound and the mix all together looks flat on an analyser or your head will explode.

DZGGHHH

[Joe_caithness]

untitled.wav

[dualflip]

You gave me an idea of a new post "Whats making the ME to piss off the Mixing engineer when he hears the songs back", thats been my case lately. When i get the mastered versions back to give my point of view i find them squashed with mostly all the dynamics gone, makes me wonder why do i even bother on riding the faders, or mixing for that matter.
Its a common mistake ppl do by creating the idea that the ME is literally GOD when it comes to audio, but it is true that he can totally f**k up your work, or enhance it. Im not saying that my mixes are perfect (actually they are far from it) but i just find it funny that when the final product sounds bad, the mixer gets the blame, but when it sounds good you get the "that mastering engineer is sooo great and elegant" kinda comment.
Some mastering engineer in another post said "they mix it, we fix it", when in fact i think most of the time it is "we mix it, they give us back a brick".
Sorry for the flaming guys i've been kinda disapointed with ME's lately and my psychiatrist doesnt know what im talking about hahahahahaha

[ves]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

That's exactly the kind of project I learned this lesson on. We found only a monitor system that could do an extraordinary job of reproducing acoustical-sourced music was capable of producing masters of abstract music that would translate well. I assume this worked mostly because reasonable reproduction of acoustical events is the design benchmark that most speaker designers use. The idea of being able to "learn" speakers doesn't work when the sounds are really abstract.

can you please elaborate on this?

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by ves

can you please elaborate on this?

I'm not Bob, but I'm another Bob so I'll throw in my two cents:

I'm not even sure that the idea of "learning speakers" works that well even with acoustic-based music! I subscribe to the adage that the more accurate your monitor system, the more likely your mix will translate to every system, the wider it will spread!

I can't tell you how many times I've gotten mixes with thundering kick drum from someone who should know better than to trust his NS-10's. So much for the idea of "learning speakers". The exceptions still "prove the rule" in my book.

BK

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by dualflip

Some mastering engineer in another post said "they mix it, we fix it", when in fact i think most of the time it is "we mix it, they give us back a brick"...

This problem for me and a number of my friends was exactly how I came to return to mastering after twenty years away from it doing recording and mixing. The challenge today is the number of people who really want to get "a brick" back.

[kundevelop]

Probably electronic and dance music could mixed well in a real club with a huge sound system ...anyones did it? i guess no...it could be interesting...isn't it? ...but I am not saying to mix a rock track in a open air stadium.

[ves]

Originally Posted by bob katz

I'm not Bob, but I'm another Bob so I'll throw in my two cents:

I'm not even sure that the idea of "learning speakers" works that well even with acoustic-based music! I subscribe to the adage that the more accurate your monitor system, the more likely your mix will translate to every system, the wider it will spread!

I can't tell you how many times I've gotten mixes with thundering kick drum from someone who should know better than to trust his NS-10's. So much for the idea of "learning speakers". The exceptions still "prove the rule" in my book.

BK

thanks for your response mr.Katz but that leads to a next question on how to define that a monitoring system is “accurate enough” and as said earlier how can you judge that something is accurate if it's an abstract electronic sound?

[macc]

Originally Posted by kundevelop

Probably electronic and dance music could mixed well in a real club with a huge sound system ...anyones did it? i guess no...it could be interesting...isn't it? ...but I am not saying to mix a rock track in a open air stadium.

You'd need to fill the club out with punters, have burly doormen, the obligatory attractive barmaid and drunk people slumped in the corner to get a truly accurate picture though. Could get expensive.

[kundevelop]

yes I definitely agree...a club sound system sounds really different if dancefloor is empty or crowded. sorry to get a littlebit off topic.

[Bob Olhsson]

The problem with "learning speakers" is that you can't fix anything you can't hear because the speaker couldn't reproduce it. Learning speakers is real important for mixing but mastering is largely about catching problems any mixer most certainly would have fixed had they been audible.

Abstract music is a special case where only the artist really knows what they had in mind. Mastering it is making adjustments so that their intentions make sense on most playback systems.

Back in the 1960s signal processing was so limited that everybody had no choice but to be pretty conservative. We learned to trust monitors that were very colored but still full range. As signal processing became more sophisticated in the '70s, it was found that having high resolution monitoring in the mastering room allowed making adjustments that resulted in a pretty big improvement in translation. The real pioneer in this was Bob Ludwig at Sterling Sound. His masters simply sounded better in more places than virtually anybody else's. There were literally weeks when Bob had mastered over 50 of the top 100 albums and Doug Sax at the Mastering Lab in LA had mastered most of the rest! The two of them changed mastering into what it is today and we are all really standing on their shoulders.

[Bob Olhsson]

Knowing what's accurate enough really requires having extensive experience with accurate speakers. Even then there's a learning curve in how to set up a room.

Attending mastering sessions is probably the easiest way to begin today since full range speakers are not nearly as common in stores as they were twenty years ago. For that reason, interning in a mastering facility is probably more important now than it has ever been in the past. If that isn't a possibility, I'd attend mastering sessions and buy the speakers I liked best. Then I'd do a lot of listening.

[ves]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Knowing what's accurate enough really requires having extensive experience with accurate speakers. Even then there's a learning curve in how to set up a room.

Attending mastering sessions is probably the easiest way to begin today since full range speakers are not nearly as common in stores as they were twenty years ago. For that reason, interning in a mastering facility is probably more important now than it has ever been in the past. If that isn't a possibility, I'd attend mastering sessions and buy the speakers I liked best. Then I'd do a lot of listening.

thanks for the responses Bob

ps. sorry for hijacking the thread

[Peakly]

Originally Posted by macc

the obligatory attractive barmaid and drunk people slumped in the corner

Ha ha! Nothing like a little ambience!

[mosrite]

1. Artists considering releasing un-rehearsed, poorly arranged, poorly played, derivative drivvle that does nothing for anyone except the artists involved.

2. Cheaply recorded crap engineered by part timers who have have the strange assumption that their £100 microphone through their computer will yield professional results.

Oops I went slightly OT, been that kind of a week

Sticking to the topic:

Anything that is already pushed to hell or has the air sucked out by badly executed compression or has unintentional distortion or is completely unbalanced.

If those things are a reality then poor labelling is the least of my worries...

[twwalsh]

very dynamic vocals

[wado1942]

Some mastering engineer in another post said "they mix it, we fix it", when in fact i think most of the time it is "we mix it, they give us back a brick"...

As part of my research, I had a tune I recorded mastered by several different engineers. I basically let the engineers do whatever the heck they wanted to it. The results varied slightly in style but they were all totally listenable and all of them sat around -10dBfs RMS which is about where I put it on my own version of the master.

The problem with "learning speakers" is that you can't fix anything you can't hear because the speaker couldn't reproduce it. Learning speakers is real important for mixing but mastering is largely about catching problems any mixer most certainly would have fixed had they been audible.

I just had to make that point with somebody yesterday. He wants to be a one man shop, shooting/editing video and being able to do the sound himself. He's using cheap PC stere speakers and headphones to do his mixes. I planted the idea to at least mix to stems and let me handle the rest. His reply was "Well, the thing is, I really want to learn this stuff and get used to using the tools that I've purchased."
My reply was "I can understand that, but you wouldn't want to edit and color correct a movie on a 3" B&W Fred Meyer TV. Likewise, you don't want to mix audio you can't hear properly." That got him to agree to letting me master from 3 stereo stems.

[dualflip]

Originally Posted by wado1942

As part of my research, I had a tune I recorded mastered by several different engineers. I basically let the engineers do whatever the heck they wanted to it. The results varied slightly in style but they were all totally listenable and all of them sat around -10dBfs RMS which is about where I put it on my own version of the master.

-10db RMS its exactly what i consider a brick

[scraggs]

man, these days -10 is a breath of fresh air.

[dave-G]

Originally Posted by Joe_caithness

untitled.wav

That, coupled with an exacting sequence list with proper titles, is always a source of grins. Include unintelligible or cookie monster vocals and you've got the trifecta!

-dave

[macc]

Originally Posted by dave-G

cookie monster vocals

[wado1942]

-10db RMS its exactly what i consider a brick

I should specify, the loudest section of a song is usually -10. I don't average that high. A lot of tunes, especially fron the early 70s sit that high without any limiting at all.

man, these days -10 is a breath of fresh air.

No kidding, -6 has been pretty well standard for the last 5-6 years and this year it seems like -3.5 is what everybody wants.

[dualflip]

Theres a point i loudening a track where i start hearing (or not hearing for that matter) the kick and the snare being completely distroyed, that usualy happens above -12dbfs RMS

[flatfinger]

How to Correct Common Mixing Mistakes | Electronic Musician shows you twelve techniques for repairing problem mixes | tips, techniques on how to avoid mixing mistakes



the biggest problem is they don't know how to use an RTA








(no , I was'nt serious)

[Bill Wolf]

A few I didn't see here (maybe I missed them):

Mixes submitted on scratched audio CDs

Bad edits on individual tracks of the mix (left-right and in between)

Digital overs on acoustic music (rarely appropriate)

At the session: "We're ready to master, but we haven't finished the first song on the CD."

"I thought you said the titles of the tunes are on the CD. When I put the ref in my computer, they come up untitled." Variation: "They come up as some other band."

Playing the ref in iTunes (e.g., "The CD sounds great but the songs are in the wrong order.")

iTunes



I have sympathy for the mixer who complained about getting bricks (or worse, sticks of butter) back from mastering. Some mixers make mixes that in a different universe could be released as is. Thanks to Bob Katz and others there is a MINOR trend away from "only louder is better."

But, there are clean, shiny bricks as well as crumbly, scratchy ones. And, creative "mesa-making" is an art.

Here's to better sound.

BW