mastering and mixing simultaneously?

[Wayne]

Originally Posted by boneshowell

...im thinking about setting up a mastering chain that i can put in front of my tape machine when im printing my mixes.

...my mix buss is an a designs nail compressor, a designs hammer eq and a designs em-eq2

...considering what i have on my mixbus would you still put more eq and compression after going out the console before hitting tape? ..

I'm no mastering engineer, but I'll chime in. When I've had to do mixes and the finals, the only way I could see pulling that off is to allow time enough for some perspective change between the two tasks. It's one thing to work a mix up into the bus compression for that purpose, but to then manage a second-purpose layer of compression, and manage the song to song balancing needs.. Seems like a lot to bite off in one pass.
Wearing both hats' here means assembling the mixes into a new project, (and the shift to 'album context), but also the option and easy access to going back to the mix for further tuning.
At this point whether you want one, two comps plus the limiter and where, are wide open questions.

[Camera]

Originally Posted by boneshowell

im thinking about setting up a mastering chain that i can put in front of my tape machine when im printing my mixes.

Mastered tracks could never hit tape at full volume. Not in today's expected levels.

What you're implying is 2-bus compression.

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by boneshowell

im thinking about setting up a mastering chain that i can put in front of my tape machine when im printing my mixes.

Might be best to mix to tape and then master from that down the line.

[IIIrd]

you wont be mastering as such as you wont be making a production master

[Greg Reierson]

Originally Posted by boneshowell

considering what i have on my mixbus would you still put more eq and compression after going out the console before hitting tape?

Before doing any of that stuff, ask yourself why? Why are you adding EQ and compression to your bus? Why are you printing to tape? Does is make the mix sound better at comparable listening levels? If so, do it. That would be a valid reason. But if you're chasing loudness and magic from extra processing but loosing sound quality in the process, you're on the wrong path.

Less is almost always more in mastering - and it's damn hard to know what is most appropriate before all of the mixes are done. Doing all of that stuff paints you into a corner and there's no undo button once you've added compression, tape, whatever to the mix.

Mastering engineers hear mix after mix after mix and some patterns become apparent. One of them is that better tracking and less processing after the fact usually results in better sounding mixes - which make better sounding masters.

[wado1942]

"mastering and mixing simultaneously?"

Don't do it. Mastering is all about taking completed mixes and tweaking them individually to work better together. You can't do that while mixing. There's other steps that absolutely have to be done separately any way (unless you plan to dup directly off of the 1/4" tape to cassette or something), so it's best to just get the greatest mix you can get without mastering in mind and do all the polishing later.


Also, Greg R. speaks the truth. Another reason to not attempt that is if you over-compress, over-limit, over-EQ the mix buss, you have to go back and remix. If you just have good clean mixes, you just need to listen to the printed mixes polish them so they jive a little better. Also, habitually mixing through buss processors often prevents growth as a recording engineer. If you want to mix through a real board to tape, great, do it! I applaud such workflows, but I would go directly from the outputs of the console to tape, then run from the tape later through your various processors to computer. You can do your EQ & compression there, leaving fades & hard limiting etc. for the computer. This is the way I prefer to work, though I generally record to tape as well.

[Andrew Kinsey]

Originally Posted by wado1942

"mastering and mixing simultaneously?"

Don't do it. Mastering is all about taking completed mixes and tweaking them individually to work better together. You can't do that while mixing. There's other steps that absolutely have to be done separately any way (unless you plan to dup directly off of the 1/4" tape to cassette or something), so it's best to just get the greatest mix you can get without mastering in mind and do all the polishing later.

Deffinately not about trying to do the mix, and master all in one pass. Two different processes that will require different approaches. Even if you like the sound of the mix going through two stages of processing its still mixing IMO.

[Silvertone]

Good advise from everyone.

I have a "mastering room" attached to end of my mixing console (room). I will reference through the mastering chain while mixing (walking between the rooms) but I would never print a "mix" with a mastering chain applied.

In fact I wait weeks before I master anything I've mixed, even then I'll sometimes drop back and tweak the mix while I'm mastering (but never the other way around) to get the best possible mix (and master). It is the best of both possible worlds... and they are two separate worlds.

[nznexus]

Originally Posted by wado1942

"mastering and mixing simultaneously?"

Don't do it. Mastering is all about taking completed mixes and tweaking them individually to work better together. You can't do that while mixing. .

i agree. dont master and mix at the same time. mix then master..

[wado1942]

Originally Posted by Silvertone

I will reference through the mastering chain while mixing (walking between the rooms) but I would never print a "mix" with a mastering chain applied.

Hmm, still not something I'd do. Check the mix in the mastering room, sure, I have a digital pipe running between rooms for that purpose, but not with any processors engaged. I tend to approach mixing as if that just might be IT and that no mastering will happen. I mean, I don't apply fades or limiting etc. in the mix, but I don't even think about the mastering process till the time is upon me so I try to get what I want right then & there. Listening through a mastering chain while mixing often compromises the mix itself so you HAVE to use that processing in mastering to get the right sound.

[lucey]

You cannot mix and master at the same time. Mastering is not only processing ... but if it was, the mindset of the mixer is to exploit tracks in a mix, the mastering engineer exploits musicality in the whole and the single at the same time. TOTALLY different minds. Best with totally different rooms and people.

It's not "mastering" because you're using comp and eq ... that's mixing. Processing the stereo mix is some 40 years old.

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by boneshowell

the only piece that I think I'm certain on is the Pendulum PL2 because it seems like it would be a good box for making my mixes sound as loud as possible.

I wouldn't put a PL2 before an analog deck. I find that tape itself does a nicer job taming transients than any analog limiter.

[lucey]

Loud mixes are the single worst way to loud masters. Just make a great mix.

Monitor the tape repro and adjust your gain to suit the compression of tape you want. Tape is best used at tracking however. Or just go nice Metric Halo conversion and make color ITB.