mastering tracks that mix

[john o]

in several parts of the CD i'm putting together the tracks will mix into each other so that there's no break in the music. for mastering, should i mix everything first and send off the final disc? or master all the tracks first then mix them together?

[Riccardo]

Mix the tracks as planned and then send them off. The M.E. will then create the track start IDs where needed/indicated.

[john o]

cool thanks

[Jacek Gawlowski]

Originally Posted by john o

in several parts of the CD i'm putting together the tracks will mix into each other so that there's no break in the music. for mastering, should i mix everything first and send off the final disc? or master all the tracks first then mix them together?

Send separate tracks for mastering and deliver your compilation as a guide.
Your mastering engineer will then listen to your compiled version and will perform
necessary editing on his masters in order to make it sound right.

Jacek

[Jacek Gawlowski]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

Mix the tracks as planned and then send them off. The M.E. will then create the track start IDs where needed/indicated.

Mastering of the individual CD tracks may be difficult to perform if the songs overlap.

J

[yeloocproducer]

Originally Posted by Jacek Gaw?owski

Send separate tracks for mastering and deliver your compilation as a guide.
Your mastering engineer will then listen to your compiled version and will perform
necessary editing on his masters in order to make it sound right.

Jacek

yes...

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by Jacek Gawłowski

Mastering of the individual CD tracks may be difficult to perform if the songs overlap.

J

I know what you mean but I personally prefer - when possible - to leave "the mix" or "overlap" that might be exactly as the artist intended it.....

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

I know what you mean but I personally prefer - when possible - to leave "the mix" or "overlap" that might be exactly as the artist intended it.....

Notice that there are two distinct opinions in this thread! I generally prefer to have the tracks separate and work with a guide CD from the client, and here's why:

Sometimes during the mastering we may discover the tracks need a separate EQ or level, or even a different compression or processing treatment. If we do the segue (matching up the timing to the artists' original intent) I can much more easily raise or lower slightly the incoming track, or apply a different EQ if he sends separate tracks. By sending separate tracks and an example CD where we can match the fades, you get the best of both worlds. That's my opinion.

Same reason I recommend that people do their own fadeouts, but also send an unfaded ending, in case in context when we do the mastering and assembly, something comes up where it would have been better not to fade out so fast or so slowly, or whatever. I do believe in having your decisions made----basically, be creative, do your thing, but don't paint yourself totally into a corner.

BK

[Timecode]

The last time I did this was for a local client - he brought the tracks in separately, I premastered them separately, and then gave the premastered, high-res tracks back to him. He sequenced them together and returned a single high-res wav with markers at the track transition points, which I SRC'ed and dithered down and burnt the master from. It took a little longer but at least you know the client's going to be happy with the final product. If I had a non-local client I'd still prefer to get the tracks separately with a sequenced ref and put it together after premastering.

Cheers
Matthew

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Notice that there are two distinct opinions in this thread! I generally prefer to have the tracks separate and work with a guide CD from the client, and here's why:

Sometimes during the mastering we may discover the tracks need a separate EQ or level, or even a different compression or processing treatment. If we do the segue (matching up the timing to the artists' original intent) I can much more easily raise or lower slightly the incoming track, or apply a different EQ if he sends separate tracks. By sending separate tracks and an example CD where we can match the fades, you get the best of both worlds. That's my opinion.

Same reason I recommend that people do their own fadeouts, but also send an unfaded ending, in case in context when we do the mastering and assembly, something comes up where it would have been better not to fade out so fast or so slowly, or whatever. I do believe in having your decisions made----basically, be creative, do your thing, but don't paint yourself totally into a corner.

BK

Bob my reasoning derives from practical experience. I have and still operate in the way you described sometimes. I do have however a few very ....uhm....let's say picky (I am being diplomatic here ) clients ...that is why I prefer to leave the songs that "overlap" mixed exactly as they intended. It can be done with automation, 2 different chains, editing and so on depending on the situation.
Another issue aarises from the very popular (at least here in Europe) mixed CD's where you have 15 tracks per disc or more all mixed by famous D.J's. The continuos recording can be edited (split, processed and re-joyned) without altering the "mix" points at all.
I am happy to have the separate tracks fro processing as you explained and aa guide from the client if he/she is willing to accept my close approximation/recreation of their mix but that is not always the case.


If i could choose the ideal scenario would probably be the one Timecode described above I guess

[john o]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

Bob my reasoning derives from practical experience. I have and still operate in the way you described sometimes. I do have however a few very ....uhm....let's say picky (I am being diplomatic here ) clients ...that is why I prefer to leave the songs that "overlap" mixed exactly as they intended. It can be done with automation, 2 different chains, editing and so on depending on the situation.
Another issue aarises from the very popular (at least here in Europe) mixed CD's where you have 15 tracks per disc or more all mixed by famous D.J's. The continuos recording can be edited (split, processed and re-joyned) without altering the "mix" points at all.
I am happy to have the separate tracks fro processing as you explained and aa guide from the client if he/she is willing to accept my close approximation/recreation of their mix but that is not always the case.


If i could choose the ideal scenario would probably be the one Timecode described above I guess

i'm mixing them in logic 7. what about sending the logic file with the 13 tracks mixed exactly how i'd like them with volume automation and markers to show where each track should begin? its a full vocal electronic music CD along the lines of froufrou/zero7/ltj bukem so some mixes are dj-esque and need to be precise. .

[Jerry Tubb]

I have to come down in the middle here and say, it depends.

Most of the time (99%), having them separate, with written instructions, audio examples, or my favorite... "use your best judgement, I trust you", works the best... it's just logistically easier.

But once in a while, you get someone that's super picky and you need to be as precise in timing and level relationship as possible. Probably best to have them attend the session.

JT

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by john o

i'm mixing them in logic 7. what about sending the logic file with the 13 tracks mixed exactly how i'd like them with volume automation and markers to show where each track should begin? its a full vocal electronic music CD along the lines of froufrou/zero7/ltj bukem so some mixes are dj-esque and need to be precise. .

As Jerry said it depends and it helps to attend.
We all have different ways of doing things and this is not a dispute as I don't believe there is a right or wrong way to do it. it depends on the project and on personal modus operandi . It is alwayg good - at least for me - to look at how other engineers would approach their work. it is a life long learning process after all and not an exact science!

With 13 mixed tracks I would open them in Logic identify the regions. By that I mean put markers (or use the ones provided if possible) and process the regions individually, capturing the processed region in a new track just below so to replicate the Mix above.
Depending on the music (genre) I'd try to locate the "spots" where the transition or change of processing is less obvious (i.e the downbeat of a kick lets say in a house mix) and change there.

Again I believe there are many ways of doing this as Bob and others explained.
Speak to your ME to see how she or he would like to proceed.

[jayfrigo]

Perfect world, I like the separates, but if it's a project with some very complex transitions and it's important to the artist that his long hours of tweaking his creative vision are preserved, then certainly I'll take it joined together. The most important thing in the end is to serve the artist's vision, and if this is a critical point for a particular artist, then I'm here to support that. The music is more important than the technology.

If it's "6 of one, half dozen the other," or the edits are easy to copy from a reference disc and/or some good, detailed notes, then I suggest to err on the side of separate tracks. Also, in a situation where the editing is complex and critical, it is certainly preferable to have the client in attendence.

[john o]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

With 13 mixed tracks I would open them in Logic identify the regions. By that I mean put markers (or use the ones provided if possible) and process the regions individually, capturing the processed region in a new track just below so to replicate the Mix above.
Depending on the music (genre) I'd try to locate the "spots" where the transition or change of processing is less obvious (i.e the downbeat of a kick lets say in a house mix) and change there.

cool. this way makes the most sense to me. i'll ask the ME if they can do it this way, hopefully so. otherwise i sit in on it. thanks to everyone for the help.

[mrlouie]

not sure about logic but ... for my clients who work in PT alot of times we do this ..

in PT make a project with 2 stereo tracks then checkerboard the songs... song 1 (track 1) song 2 (track2) song 3 (track1) song 4(track2) this way you can place the mixes in the exact locations how they should crossfade but they will be on seperate tracks so they can be mastered seperate. You can also put markers where you think the start ids should be.

All i have to do when i work on the session is open the project and everything is already sequenced ... i can EQ & set levels per song differently .. when i work on a song thats in track 1 i just mute track 2 ... very simple ... cutting the mastered versions back together is easy and exactly how you had them placed.

if the mastering place doesnt have logic .. maybe you can take the final mixes over to someone with PT and set up a project before sending it off to mastering

[john o]

Originally Posted by mrlouie

not sure about logic but ... for my clients who work in PT alot of times we do this ..

in PT make a project with 2 stereo tracks then checkerboard the songs... song 1 (track 1) song 2 (track2) song 3 (track1) song 4(track2) this way you can place the mixes in the exact locations how they should crossfade but they will be on seperate tracks so they can be mastered seperate. You can also put markers where you think the start ids should be.

All i have to do when i work on the session is open the project and everything is already sequenced ... i can EQ & set levels per song differently .. when i work on a song thats in track 1 i just mute track 2 ... very simple ... cutting the mastered versions back together is easy and exactly how you had them placed.

if the mastering place doesnt have logic .. maybe you can take the final mixes over to someone with PT and set up a project before sending it off to mastering

yeah that's exactly how i've done it except each song has its own track. song 1(track1) song 2 (track2) song 3 (track 3).

and we're neighbors, your studio is a block from my place

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by mrlouie

not sure about logic but ... for my clients who work in PT alot of times we do this ..

in PT make a project with 2 stereo tracks then checkerboard the songs... song 1 (track 1) song 2 (track2) song 3 (track1) song 4(track2) this way you can place the mixes in the exact locations how they should crossfade but they will be on seperate tracks so they can be mastered seperate. You can also put markers where you think the start ids should be.

All i have to do when i work on the session is open the project and everything is already sequenced ... i can EQ & set levels per song differently .. when i work on a song thats in track 1 i just mute track 2 ... very simple ... cutting the mastered versions back together is easy and exactly how you had them placed.

if the mastering place doesnt have logic .. maybe you can take the final mixes over to someone with PT and set up a project before sending it off to mastering

Yep, exactly what I do. I said Logic as we happen to have both PT and Logic and therefore open the session from there....

[mrlouie]

Originally Posted by Riccardo

Yep, exactly what I do. I said Logic as we happen to have both PT and Logic and therefore open the session from there....

i dont do any processing or capturing in logic or PT its only a playback machine for me, i dont have to worry about where the processing of each song changes, the mastered versions are all seperate files, they only overlap when i edit them together at the end.The processing(EQ/level) is done from the start of each new track till its end. If the client deciedes to resequence or wants more or less of a crossfade later on it doesnt matter because each song is recored with the processing, all i do in the computer is edit (and make stuff).

Even if there are no crossfades having a project setup this way works out great if a client cant attend a session and wants specific spacing(unless you have diff. sample rates or formats then ur screwed). Matching to an audio cd template or mp3 works in those cases, i can still get it exact, but i always like this way better if possible, for me its just a faster way to work and a lot more easy ..

"more easy" is a technical term .. serious ..