Mix before mastering

[ska]

Hello Masterminds,

I'm doing my first mix for commercial use, and I'm wondering about two things...

1.I A<>B with "Blood Sugar Sex Magik" and "Toxicity"...my mix's character is somewhere in the middle. Those two records sounds somewhat brighter than my basic mix. Do I have to use high-shelfs on the tracks or will the mastering engineer take care of that?

2.I checked what happened with the mix putting Cytomic's Glue preset 'radio squash' on the output and noticed the snare became softer. So I wonder how much the punch of the drums will remaining after mastering.

For now I'm happy with the mix using hi-shelfs to mimic the A<>B's character

Thanks for replies

[brethes]

Originally Posted by ska

Hello Masterminds,

I'm doing my first mix for commercial use, and I'm wondering about two things...

1.I A<>B with "Blood Sugar Sex Magik" and "Toxicity"...my mix's character is somewhere in the middle. Those two records sounds somewhat brighter than my basic mix. Do I have to use high-shelfs on the tracks or will the mastering engineer take care of that?

2.I checked what happened with the mix putting Cytomic's Glue preset 'radio squash' on the output and noticed the snare became softer. So I wonder how much the punch of the drums will remaining after mastering.

For now I'm happy with the mix using hi-shelfs to mimic the A<>B's character

Thanks for replies

Don't try to double guess what mastering will do to the track, and instead, make sure your mix sounds as good as possible and as you want it to sound without doing anything just for the sake of loudness. If a hi-shelf works for you, then use it.

If the mix is good, mastering won't affect the sound or soften the drums, but give you the level required and the translation to most playback systems.

[12ax7]

Originally Posted by brethes@mac.com

Don't try to double guess what mastering will do to the track [...]

I agree.

If you have a good mastering engineer (and if not, then what the hell's the point?), they're just touching up your mix with fresh ears.

If you second-guess what they're gonna do, its like your lying to them (and everybody else, including yourself)!

(Just my $0.02.)
.

[ska]

Thanks for replies guys....I'm comfortable now : )

[KyleDiSanto]

This is why its always good to establish a good working relationship with your mastering engineer. Once the two of you start to vibe with each other, the rest is no prob.

I agree, always get your mix as best as you can before you send it out!

[unclespark]

This whole masting thing is out of wack and is wack.

IT'S NOT MASTERING, IT'S PRE-MASTERING!

What is PRE-MASTERING? It's taking a collection of songs and making them sound as if they belong in the same package. This is ambiguous talk. In reality it means to make sure that a bunch of tracks have similar over all frequency curves, and overall similar volume. You usually want the highest volume of each track to be the same volume.

Now as for "mastering" a single song. This is simply stupid. A well mixed song does not need "mastering," whatever the hell that means nowadays. What I think "mastering" means to you n00bs is to somehow improve a mix by applying effects and edits to the final stereo output / master stereo track. This is simply absurd. If you want to correct a problem in your mix, you find the individual track or tracks where the problem lies. You don't go screwing with all the other tracks, which you will be doing if they are all mixed into one stereo track and you fool with this stereo track. That's not mastering! That's just a disaster!

Some people say you need a "fresh pair of ears." This may be true. You can take a break and come back with a "fresh pair of ears." If you want you can have a friend hear it or whatever. but at the end of the day, if there are corrections to a song, you make it when mixing. If all your songs are mixed with respect to the frequency curve and volume of a chosen song (typically a song that you think has a great mix), then all your songs wouldn't even need pre-mastering because they'd have similar freq curves and volume.

[andivax]

the workaround here is to put an envelope shaper before maximizer and increase attack to get those "punchy" sound.

and it is not about material.
if you want -6 dB RMS, for example, your peaks will be eaten by maximizer/limiter.

[Dave Rose]

Originally Posted by unclespark

This whole masting thing is out of wack and is wack.

IT'S NOT MASTERING, IT'S PRE-MASTERING!

What is PRE-MASTERING? It's taking a collection of songs and making them sound as if they belong in the same package. This is ambiguous talk. In reality it means to make sure that a bunch of tracks have similar over all frequency curves, and overall similar volume. You usually want the highest volume of each track to be the same volume.

Now as for "mastering" a single song. This is simply stupid. A well mixed song does not need "mastering," whatever the hell that means nowadays. What I think "mastering" means to you n00bs is to somehow improve a mix by applying effects and edits to the final stereo output / master stereo track. This is simply absurd. If you want to correct a problem in your mix, you find the individual track or tracks where the problem lies. You don't go screwing with all the other tracks, which you will be doing if they are all mixed into one stereo track and you fool with this stereo track. That's not mastering! That's just a disaster!

Some people say you need a "fresh pair of ears." This may be true. You can take a break and come back with a "fresh pair of ears." If you want you can have a friend hear it or whatever. but at the end of the day, if there are corrections to a song, you make it when mixing. If all your songs are mixed with respect to the frequency curve and volume of a chosen song (typically a song that you think has a great mix), then all your songs wouldn't even need pre-mastering because they'd have similar freq curves and volume.

Not just a fresh pair of ears but a second opinion from a professional with an accurate (and different) listening environment. 99.9% of the time a good mix will benefit in some way from (pre) mastering, albeit often very small adjustments (tone shaping eq, compressor character, maybe a little saturation) that make a big difference.

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by unclespark

This whole masting thing is out of wack and is wack.

IT'S NOT MASTERING, IT'S PRE-MASTERING!

What is PRE-MASTERING? It's taking a collection of songs and making them sound as if they belong in the same package. This is ambiguous talk. In reality it means to make sure that a bunch of tracks have similar over all frequency curves, and overall similar volume. You usually want the highest volume of each track to be the same volume.

Now as for "mastering" a single song. This is simply stupid. A well mixed song does not need "mastering," whatever the hell that means nowadays. What I think "mastering" means to you n00bs is to somehow improve a mix by applying effects and edits to the final stereo output / master stereo track. This is simply absurd. If you want to correct a problem in your mix, you find the individual track or tracks where the problem lies. You don't go screwing with all the other tracks, which you will be doing if they are all mixed into one stereo track and you fool with this stereo track. That's not mastering! That's just a disaster!

Some people say you need a "fresh pair of ears." This may be true. You can take a break and come back with a "fresh pair of ears." If you want you can have a friend hear it or whatever. but at the end of the day, if there are corrections to a song, you make it when mixing. If all your songs are mixed with respect to the frequency curve and volume of a chosen song (typically a song that you think has a great mix), then all your songs wouldn't even need pre-mastering because they'd have similar freq curves and volume.

You should tell that to all the people who send me mixes. There's always something that needs to be fixed, either EQ, more Compression etc, there's always something. There's a reason why mastering is there, is to get the remaining 10% to get a finished product. I've never heard a mix that was so good it didn't need at least something small in the mastering process.

[Red Mastering]

Originally Posted by andivax

the workaround here is to put an envelope shaper before maximizer and increase attack to get those "punchy" sound.

and it is not about material.
if you want -6 dB RMS, for example, your peaks will be eaten by maximizer/limiter.

hohoho...

my favourite user is back on forum..))
this time, no more mistakes by 'bad' site admin ?....
no more 'already used photos' ....

[unclespark]

Originally Posted by Chris Lago

You should tell that to all the people who send me mixes. There's always something that needs to be fixed, either EQ, more Compression etc, there's always something. There's a reason why mastering is there, is to get the remaining 10% to get a finished product. I've never heard a mix that was so good it didn't need at least something small in the mastering process.

This is absolute BS. You only gave that answer because you want to keep your business!! you master for profit and don't want to tell people the truth, i.e. what they are paying you to do is unneeded and they just need to improve their mix. Applying compression or saturation on a bus is part of the mixing stage too. If you are doing a lot to the stereo master like running it through 20 different effects, then you are doing something wrong when mixing individual tracks or stems. If the entire song needs to be brightened up, then it's best to brighten each individual track and make sure they all work together. You have way more control this way and you don't brighten up what you don't want to be brightened up.

[Cracyd]

Originally Posted by unclespark

This is absolute BS. You only gave that answer because you want to keep your business!! you master for profit and don't want to tell people the truth, i.e. what they are paying you to do, is not needed and they just need to improve their mix. Applying compression or saturation on a bus is part of the mixing stage too. If you are doing a lot to the stereo master like running it through 20 different effects, then you are doing something wrong when mixing individual tracks or stems. If the entire song needs to be brightened up, then it's best to brighten each individual track and make sure they all work together. You have way more control this way and you don't brighten up what you don't want to be brightened up.

Wow, you must either be wayyyy old school or just a total purist. I agree with you on a lot of your points though, I've been learning about "pre mastering" for the last 6 years, and I learn more and more about it as I grow more in my experience with it. I think the long and the short of it is that there area a lot engineers these days don't know how to properly compress a stereo master while keeping the compression transparent enough to keep the integrity of the song itself. Though in different genres it would fit your definition of "mastering", because everything is pushed so hard in the end that its all hitting all the way up to the ceiling. So wouldn't this be the getting all the songs at the same level for playback to be consistent in terms of volume? I'm curious about your view on this.

Its seems when I look at the wave forms of songs from the 60's and 70's everything has a generally uncompressed dynamic to the wav, but as things progressed it seems that everyone was trying to get more and more volume out of things and just squashing songs all to hell, where from a full zoomed out point of view looks like a square block. I personally like that sound to an extent (for some genres of music), but if an engineer doesn't know how to get that kind of push out of a wav they just end up adding all this extra distortion and ruin the dynamics of the tracks. Thats why I personally think its important to have those guys that do mastering out there, for all the engineers who don't know what they're doing Its a new market thats opened up that needs to be filled, it supports our industry in a big way, now that we have the whole home recording thing ruining it for a lot of studio's, its good to have all these home recorders coming to us for "pre mastering" to help keep audio engineers working and making a living.

I personally do all my own mastering, I dont trust anyone with my mixes, I've had mixes I've done sent out for mastering and it really ruined all the hard work that I did because this guy was one of those "engineers" fresh out of collehe who was just trying to make a quick buck off some people who didn't know what they were doing. Though 6 years later I coincidentally found a client of his in another country who came to me for mastering after being unsatisfied with his work He

[Marando]

Originally Posted by unclespark

This whole masting thing is out of wack and is wack.

IT'S NOT MASTERING, IT'S PRE-MASTERING!

[..]

Originally Posted by unclespark

This is absolute BS. You only gave that answer because you want to keep your business!! [..]

What is wrong with you, unclespark? When I read your messages I get the feeling you are angry and rude. Did somebody attack you? I don't think so, so perhaps next time, you should consider writing a bit more with a friendly tone.

I agree with you on many things. It's indeed a good idea if the mixer engineer does his very best to make a good mix that sounds great! However, I still believe there is room for a mastering engineer to make sure the track translates good on many different systems (in the car, on a hifi set, on a mp3 player..etc..) I once attended a mastering session of a song I mixed. The mastering engineer only used a Massive Passive and with only 1 or 2dB cuts and boosts, the song sounded so much better. You see, I don't have a Massive Passive, but it's nice that my song benefits from it! The same for his modded Fatso. He didn't do much compression, but the song again improved a lot from it! I think the session only took half an hour, and normally he did it faster, but he wanted to explain everything he did so he took some more time for me.

So, in short: I believe a mixer engineer should mix at his best, and a mastering engineer should make sure your song translates good on many different systems. If that includes a little bit EQ and compression/limiting, be my guest, as long as he knows what he is doing!

My €0.02

[offtrail26]

so I've been working on by best work to date for about ten months. the mixing process for each track was extensive and extremely careful. I have shared my mixes with a trusted friend. he loved them. although I feared losing the "integrity" of my mixes, i used compression on each of the tracks. sometimes i noticed pumping, or noticable compression. to avoid this i was careful not to over-compress.
before i started this "mastering" process, i listened to each of my mixes in a variety of the most common listening platforms. the results were good and important to the success of my stuff. I listened in pretty decent tascam over-ear headphones that came with my interface. I always checked it out through computer speakers with a typical little subwoofer. I listened with a little bass and more bass. I listened to mixes through in-ear headphones through my ipod as the process went on. i listened through really nice Bose over-ear headphones. listening in the car was crucial. I have a pretty new car stereo that comes in a toyota corrola. I would try various EQs in the car.
taking breaks provides me with "fresh ears." I have made a ton of small changes that have added up to a vast improvement over the product that seemed done to me a few months ago.
I have considered seeking the help of a mastering house, but I am reluctant to do so. I feel that my stuff is sounding great right now.
I whole-heartedly agree with the assertion that doing all you can to match the quality of your mixes to one that you feel is strong will pay huge dividends.
here's an interesting story. I've been working on my mixes through a four-track tape recorder with mixdowns for more tracks for years. I just got the computer last december. I had some experience with my friend's computer with a program called n-track. he did not have an ADC at the time, and the signal quality was understandably low and weak.
the point that comes from this is a principle that i stand by. the best producers, musicians, or writers of any kind, will put content first in everything they pursue. don't put the cart before the horse. if you can't make a mix sound good on a four-track, you might not have the ear. Sorry. no amount of plug-ins or processors can compensate for a lack of wit and wisdom. once you know what you want, and you know how the mix sounds in your head, and could realistically shape and mix this sound if you only knew how to use the equipment, then you can deftly move up the technology curve. you will sound better as you learn more.
I think I am a purist, like somebody called that guy with the strong opinions. I just don't want to let pride interfere with obtaining the best possible outcome for my tracks. I don't really trust anyone with my mixes, but I will feel better if i try it. it's not like my stuff can be ruined. i have the stuff in the condition tha i prefer anyway. the guy that said his hard work was ruined? did you not keep a copy of it before you turned it over to the people doing the mastering? man, that sucks. But I gotta say it's also pretty stupid.

[Dave Rose]

Originally Posted by unclespark

This is absolute BS. You only gave that answer because you want to keep your business!! you master for profit and don't want to tell people the truth, i.e. what they are paying you to do is unneeded and they just need to improve their mix. Applying compression or saturation on a bus is part of the mixing stage too. If you are doing a lot to the stereo master like running it through 20 different effects, then you are doing something wrong when mixing individual tracks or stems. If the entire song needs to be brightened up, then it's best to brighten each individual track and make sure they all work together. You have way more control this way and you don't brighten up what you don't want to be brightened up.

While fixing real problems in the mix is a must, it just isn't feasible to fix everything in the mix. The first time the me hears the track he can make a judgement on what needs to be fixed, based on experience and his room/monitoring system. The fact he is able to make that decision immediately having never heard the track is key. A responsible me would point out any problems to the mixer and if possible have a remix, which often isn't possible. The 2nd opinion is vital, I don't know many, or any mixing engineers that can get it spot on all the time. Having your mate pop his head through the door isn't really as effective as using an experienced me with great equipment in a great room. I see where your coming from with some if your points, after all mastering is a compromise. But do you really think me's would exist if they weren't fulfilling a purpose? I don't think they have single handedly managed to con the world of audio somehow.

[12ax7]

.
In my experience, the really GREAT recordists and mixers (ya know, the ones who can be selective about what projects they do, and can just about name their own price) have nothing but great respect for good mastering engineers.

(I guess they're in on the conspiracy, too.)
.

.

[jackthebear]

There's no law that says people have to use MEs......if you're self-sufficient in rolling your own......God bless ya.......

[12ax7]

.
I must point out that Frank Zappa was one of the most multi-talented folks ever to work in the industry. He could do many things well (on both sides of the glass). In fact, there wasn't much in the recording process in which he did not excel.

...STILL, he hired folks (including Mastering Engineers).

And there was a reason for that: He was not so cocky as to believe that he would be wasting his money to do so!
.

[Cracyd]

Originally Posted by offtrail26

man, that sucks. But I gotta say it's also pretty stupid.

Who sends mixes to a mastering guy and doesn't keep a copy of their mixes? Final choice wasn't mine, it was the band I was doing the album for that decided to send it to this guy etc etc.

[wado1942]

Originally Posted by brethes@mac.com

Don't try to double guess what mastering will do to the track, and instead, make sure your mix sounds as good as possible and as you want it to sound without doing anything just for the sake of loudness. If a hi-shelf works for you, then use it.

Right, while you're at it, do all your buss compression, limiting, clipping, more clipping & extra clipping on top of that yourself. You never know if the mastering engineer's going to do it or not. You should also put all the songs in order and make sure all the fades are done properly first.

Sorry to sound like a jackass, I'm just saying "where does it end?"

I FREQUENTLY get mixes where the client says "can you make it a little brighter" or "it doesn't quite have the punch in the low end that I'd like". I can take care of those no problem. It's part of the job as long as you let me know that's what you'd like. If you under-do the top end, I might bring out more. If you overdo it, I might pull it back a little. I have a full range monitoring system. I know my system well and how my masters translate to other systems so I'm able to judge what will sound best on the widest range of systems.

Speaking of which, I just did one yesterday where I pulled down 2.4KHz by 5dB for a great band with an excellent (and somewhat well known) mixing engineer. That's pretty extreme, so who knows if the clients will like it. That's why I send proof copies. If a client doesn't like what I did, they can tell me and I'll revise it. The important thing I'm stressing here is communication. If you think your mixes need to be brighter, just let the engineer know. There may be some other problem that you're missing and simply adding a high shelf may not fix it. The mastering engineer can tell you that too. I'm working on a project now where the client sends what he feels is a good mix. I listen to it on my full range system and point out some issues that are better handled on his end. Then he does a remix and goes "wow, you're right!" Then I (and the final listener) get much better material in the end! Another master I did last week, the artist felt the mix was dull and lacking punch so he was ASKING for suggestions on a remix. I discovered that there was just too much low-mid. So I cut that a couple dB and that's all it needed to sound fantastic!

So I guess communication AND TRUST are the points I'm making!

[jackthebear]

Most of these issues are usually resolved with a friendly chat over the phone or email....

I'm convinced the majority of clients who send in slammed mixes do so.....not understanding how it makes the mastering process more cumbersome....

When they are getting their mix(es) signed off from a label....they are under pressure to make sure when an A&R person hits play.....it's gotta blast out at the level they are accustomed to.......OR they usually put some kind of limiter so they can test it out and print a mix accidentally leaving it on.......

Then you get the odd one here and there who feels they are the best solution and that you are irrelevant and the lowest form of life.......you just move on....

Despite these "problems".....this gig still beats working for a living......

[jackthebear]

Originally Posted by 12ax7

.
In my experience, the really GREAT recordists and mixers (ya know, the ones who can be selective about what projects they do, and can just about name their own price) have nothing but great respect for good mastering engineers.

(I guess they're in on the conspiracy, too.)
.

.

No doubt about that brother...... but there are also those upper echelon guys who feel very precious about their mixes and feel that MEs ruin their creation.....these same guys also have a deeper understanding of the process and do have the skillset and tools to do a more than reasonable job.......I say more power to em'......

I remember seeing several posts here a while ago about CLA presenting mixes for mastering where it was slammed as well.......you can't tell me he isn't aware of what he's doing.....

On the other hand in my experience quite a high proportion of the mid level cats I get are still bamboozled by this "black art" and see it as some kinda (again I hate to use the word).....magic.....that or by the time they get to the (optional) mastering stage they couldn't be bothered doing it themselves.....

Just goes to show no matter how flat you make a pancake there will always be 2 sides......

[brethes]

Originally Posted by wado1942

Right, while you're at it, do all your buss compression, limiting, clipping, more clipping & extra clipping on top of that yourself. You never know if the mastering engineer's going to do it or not. You should also put all the songs in order and make sure all the fades are done properly first.

Sorry to sound like a jackass, I'm just saying "where does it end?"

Mastering seem to be perceived more and more as a "creative" process, shaping the sound of mixes and using all sort of trickery to reshape songs.

Call me old fashioned (i have probably been too long in the business), but to me this is wrong. I am also a mixing engineer and take pride in the quality of my work. Once my mixes have been approved by the artist and the label, the last thing I want, is someone being "creative" with them. Actually, the only reason I became a mastering engineer nearly 20 years ago was out of frustration of having good mixes "damaged" by incompetent mastering engineers who thought that the more changes they make to a sound, the more they can justify their fees.

The goal of every mixing engineer should be to make the mixes as good as possible, with mastering being more of a safety net, rather than the prevalent attitude "the mix doesn't sound right... Never-mind, it will get fixed in the mastering!"

So I am all for encouraging budding mixing engineers to try to get their mixes just right, without assuming first it can be fixed later on during mastering.

My livelihood doesn't feel threatened by perfect mixes (or someone using a high-pass filter) as there is still plenty left to do to justify my expertise (knowing when not to use any EQ or compressor is one of the most difficult decision facing an ME as "less is more" is not always obvious in these days of gear driven market).

Originally Posted by wado1942

So I guess communication AND TRUST are the points I'm making!

Yes, this is one of the key elements of getting great results. Finding a good mastering engineer also helps.

[Audio Online]

Ehi Ska, the better is your mix down the better will be the mastering, there are no audio mastering secrets.

Good Luck!