Mastering mixes from "the masters"

[shelterr]

Originally Posted by kiopo

You can still have a "loud" mix that has a lot of headroom remember. A good mixer knows how to maximize loudness potential right from the start. A good mixer will also be working to some kind of monitor calibration. For example, the way my set up is, I know without looking at any meters that my mixes will never exceed -12dB, because my set up is calibrated and I would have to be playing the track ridiculously loud to reach that. But my mixes will already be crafted, as much as I know how currently, to maximize the potential for loudness, from drum EQ and compression techniques to what I'm using on the mix bus..

Receiving a mix that has already been heavily limited and is already at an RMS of -8 or worse just means you can't really do anything to it. The difference with amateur guys is that they will have done it wrong and smeared and killed the track. And a pro wouldn't be pushing it that hard to begin with, or using a limiter on the mix bus! But most mastering guys like having most of the mix bus compression already done, some places don't have that many suitable compressors for the job.

I don't expect, when I send my mixes for mastering, that the RMS will increase by a massive amount. And if my mix was fine, no EQ adjustment would not offend me in any way. A lot of the top pro guys are not doing as much (or any) of the fine EQ adjustments that I think people believe they do, and I can only tell you that from having sat watching them.

I agree with everything in this post.

[joaquin]

I'd pay top dollar for knowledgeable ears to do nothing...if you know what I mean
also. mixers focus mostly on songs...mastering, should also be about the, almost forgotten art form of, the album and it's cohesiveness IMHO

[greggybud]

One of the best mix projects I ever received was from Bruce Swedien.

It was an entire catalog of mixes all originally completed by Bruce in the early 80s. These were a bit carelessly remastered to CD in the late 80's and therefore needed to be remastered again.

I can honestly say these mixes needed very little. The most "damage" or noticeable thing if you can say that, would be making it relatively competitive to todays levels at the request of the label.

And when you have mixes like this...the extra volume is relatively simple to achieve! This is why it often goes back to the mix!

[Bob Olhsson]

Really clean, unprocessed audio can accept an amazing amount of limiting!

Distortion accumulates. Too many people fail to understand this and it begins with the quality of the tracking gain structure.

[smoke]

If you doing "1db" of anything, is that considered being really "needed"? Besides a -1dbfs or less to prevent a potential over, what other situation is there where a 1db adjustment actually "needed" in the real world? I understand situations where 1db or less is to taste, or for personal feel, but where is it a necessity?

This doesn't include 1db of this and that here or there adding to 20 db of change. I am referring to 1db adjustment to this shelf, or widen the Q just 1 value, and call it a day.

It seems to me, that it should be left alone in that regard.

[work2do]

Originally Posted by kosmokrator

On that kind of projects you're doing what management, artist and label want.

The mix engineer has mostly no say at all what happens to the tracks after they leave his studio.

I don't agree. When a label hires a "mega" engineer they usually have the "mega" mastering guy on deck as well. Usually it's the tried and true mix/master combo that they usually use in the past. They don't spend big $ on a Manny Marroquin and then send his mixes to the $50/song mastering engineer they found on GS

A good mix by any engineer will get subtle, but necessary, tweaks in mastering.

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by smoke

If your doing "1db" of anything, is that considered being really "needed"?

Why wouldn't it be?

Originally Posted by smoke

Besides a -1dbfs or less to prevent a potential over, what other situation is there where a 1db adjustment actually "needed" in the real world? I understand situations where 1db or less is to taste, or for personal feel, but where is it a necessity?

A 1/2 or dB gain change with a wide bell or shelf can be quite noticeable. If your cranking a couple, 3, 4 dB per band the mix is probably more than a little out of whack. Not sayin' that doesn't happen but a majority of time, on a decent mix you shouldn't need to exceed more than a dB or so on any one band.

Not really talking about the triage mixes here. .. more about the decent stuff.

[Bob Olhsson]

A lot of mastering tweaks involve correcting unwanted tonal shifts that are caused by dynamics processing.

[MASSIVE Master]

If you doing "1db" of anything, is that considered being really "needed"?

Three or four various half dB EQ adjustments can take a mix to a completely different level.

[kosmokrator]

Originally Posted by work2do

I don't agree. When a label hires a "mega" engineer they usually have the "mega" mastering guy on deck as well. Usually it's the tried and true mix/master combo that they usually use in the past. They don't spend big $ on a Manny Marroquin and then send his mixes to the $50/song mastering engineer they found on GS

A good mix by any engineer will get subtle, but necessary, tweaks in mastering.

Doesn't have anything to do with what I said, does it?

I never said they don't hire a big name mastering engineer, I just said the mixing engineer most of the time doesn't have a say who the mastering guy will be.
I actually talked to Andy Wallace about that. That's what he told me. He also said the biggest gripe he has with mastering is the compression / limiting applied. Go figure.
It seems his mixes are not cut flat at all.

[smoke]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

Three or four various half dB EQ adjustments can take a mix to a completely different level.

I understand.

I was just thinking of the term "need" when such a mastering tweak is made. I get sonic improvement and correction, I understand it in context of "needing" to make the song as good as possible.

I don't know whether anything MUST have that 1db to prevent it from missing it's full potential, barring correctional fixes to keep the music at a standard of quality.

I'm not sure what I'm getting at. I hope that if a mix comes in perfect, it's not just adding .05db just because I need to do something because I just feel like it. It happens in other industries for sure. The boss just has to get his fingerprint on the final product...

[Huntley Miller]

Originally Posted by smoke

I understand.

I was just thinking of the term "need" when such a mastering tweak is made. I get sonic improvement and correction, I understand it in context of "needing" to make the song as good as possible.

I don't know whether anything MUST have that 1db to prevent it from missing it's full potential, barring correctional fixes to keep the music at a standard of quality.

I'm not sure what I'm getting at. I hope that if a mix comes in perfect, it's not just adding .05db just because I need to do something because I just feel like it. It happens in other industries for sure. The boss just has to get his fingerprint on the final product...

I'm capturing a track right now with +0.5@50 broad and +0.5@3k q1.4. Those two moves fill out the bottom and make the vocal more intelligible which makes the track substantially better. It needed those two EQ moves.

[Greg Reierson]

Originally Posted by Huntley Miller

I'm capturing a track right now with +0.5@50 broad and +0.5@3k q1.4. Those two moves fill out the bottom and make the vocal more intelligible which makes the track substantially better. It needed those two EQ moves.

Good example. A low Q has a lot of "area under the curve" as they say. It may not look like much but the proof is in the listening. Not many people outside of mastering work with filters that broad.

[Bob Olhsson]

To me the tricky part is the difference between "better and worse" as opposed to "just different." Every bit of signal processing helps one aspect while screwing up something else.

In the case of "just different," I tend to leave things as they were out of respect for the client's creativity. Often a fader move is a more appropriate solution than a compressor.

[Nonlinear]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

To me the tricky part is the difference between "better and worse" as opposed to "just different."

That applies to the entire process from the minute the song is written. Drives me crazy at times.

I read in Tape Op this month that Bruce Swedien created 91 different mixes of Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean". They ended up choosing mix #2 for the album.

Now, how in the world do you pick "the best one" out of 91 different versions that are all excellent?

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Nonlinear

...Now, how in the world do you pick "the best one" out of 91 different versions that are all excellent?

Michael got that habit at Motown where we would do lots of mixes and pick the very best. Some really can be surprisingly better after you've gotten away from the process a bit and listen with fresh ears.

I used to have fun at parties playing stereo Motown albums, listening to all the compliments and then putting on THE mono single and watching people's jaws hit the floor. It's the difference between "man that sounds great!" and "OMG, WOW!!"