1 hour recording time = 3 hours mixing time?

[jlsgear]

Hi all.

I am curious about what you think is a good average for recording time vs mixing time ... ie. I seem to spend 3 hours mixing for every hour recording !

Does that 3:1 ratio make sense in your experiences ?

Or am I spending too much time mixing ??

thanks,
jls.

[Kris]

Not for me...

[MMski]

Depends on how much automation and editing everything needs really. I don't think you can put a ratio on it, not even an estimate.

[HobbyCore]

Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I rather spend 3 hours on tracking and 1 hour on mixing. Much better result than vice versa.

Hell, I rather spend 8 hours of tracking and 15 minutes on mixing.

[chrysb93065]

It's a VERY subjective question. Sometimes I mix as I go - quick fades, balance, quick reverbs or compressors. If you're final mixing, then 3 hours would be average for 1 song. I'm assuming 1 song in the 1 hour tracking session.

[RKrizman]

Depends on how many instruments you're recoding at once and how quick the musicians are.

-R

[Preme Diesel]

if you include editing in the "mixing" process, then yes that is fairly accurate for a lot of my work

[Mike Brown]

Depends on how you break down where editing lies.

I like your ratio because if you include editing in "mixing time" than you see the importance of "recording it right" instead of "recording it then making it right".

1 EXTRA hour of recording (producing the artist to get that PERFECT take) keeps me from 3 hours of editing/hiding bad elements.

[Bodoc]

on how much editing and/or clerical work you have to do because of either a lack of pre-production or an on-the-fly creative process in the tracking phase.

It's like making a movie. If you have a mile of film, no story board and a bazillion script changes, you are going to be in a small, dark editing suite until you collect Social Security or die -- whichever comes first.

[thesteve]

There are factors you have to think about other than asking if there is a golden ratio...
If you are spending 3 hours mixing because you can't get things to sit in the mix, you need to spend more time choosing sounds, tweaking arrangements and in general making sure that what is going to tape is "good".
If you are doing 3 hours of insane automation, tweaking effects sends, supplementing performances with samples and virtual instruments etc. then you MAY be doing ok with 3 hours, but then the issue is will your sanity be intact in 2 years.
Does this apply to larger projects? If you track for 50 hours, are you mixing for 150, or do you only find that the shorter sessions take longer to mix?

The real important question is, are you getting paid for 4 hours?!
Are you billing per completed song or per hour? Just make sure you factor that in, and don't kid yourself. You need to present a sexy looking quote to clients, but if you end up throwing in extra hours on every song your per hour rate plummets.

[jonnymac]

if mixing my songs took 3 times longer than recording them then a mix would take 60 hours.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by jonnymac

if mixing my songs took 3 times longer than recording them then a mix would take 60 hours.

Or you're recording something that shouldn't be recorded in the first place.... Squirrel sex still sound like squirrel sex, even after autotune, melodyne and beat detective...

[Pat]

Depends on the budget and on the artist/producer/record company.

[RTR]

NO way....I mix as I go so, 3 hours tracking, 1 1/2 hours mixing....then maybe another 1/2 hour LATER or the next day to tighten things up!! Do not have to do much editing, I keep recording over and over until it is done right!!

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by jlsgear

Or am I spending too much time mixing ??

Your spending way to much time mixing.

If you spent 1 hour properly recording a acoustic piano and a vocal track, why would it take 3 hours mixing that, unless your including long naps in your mixing time?

I don't think there are any ratios that would be useful. Depending on the material and production, anywhere from one to ten hours mixing time per song seems like it would suffice. If there's a point where you start second guessing yourself and doing little minutia things that don't matter, it's probably a good time to stop.

More important than any piece of outboard board gear or latest plug is the monitor system and the room. Having a listening environment built around accuracy and translation and spending the time learning how to hear/developing you ear is key to any good sound imo.

[aidyhall]

In my experience, the ratio is more likely to be reversed with larger productions. In a typical 4 or 5 days per song, it's more like 3 or 4 days to totally track, overdub, edit and tweak a song, then a day to actually mix it ...

[Hdust]

Originally Posted by Pat

Depends on the budget and on the artist/producer/record company.

+1

I believe mixing takes as long as the budget allows for.

We have had bands that want to track and mix 5 songs in 2 - 3 days. In that scenario we tend to spend more time tracking and balancing things & minor edits as we go and then spend roughly 2 hours per mix on the last day. (10 hour days)

We have also had bands who book 10 - 15 days to track and mix so it really depends on the budget and what you, the artist/producer are trying to achieve

[Cameron Johnson]

Originally Posted by RTR

NO way....I mix as I go so, 3 hours tracking, 1 1/2 hours mixing....then maybe another 1/2 hour LATER or the next day to tighten things up!! Do not have to do much editing, I keep recording over and over until it is done right!!

Same here.

[Admiral James T.]

Same as most here - the more care I take when recording, the less time I need for mixing. Some of the projects I do are "already mixed" when recording has ended...

[teo]

Originally Posted by Thumper

Squirrel sex still sound like squirrel sex, even after autotune, melodyne and beat detective...

I always thought that squirrel sex was what vocals actually sounded like AFTER going through Autotune!

Ok, time to go back to tonight's tuning gig....

[jonnymac]

Originally Posted by aidyhall

In my experience, the ratio is more likely to be reversed with larger productions. In a typical 4 or 5 days per song, it's more like 3 or 4 days to totally track, overdub, edit and tweak a song, then a day to actually mix it ...

thats pretty much the same for me, except im not the one mixing. just spending the 20 to 30 hours on a tune, and the mixer spends a day mixing it.

[jonnymac]

Originally Posted by Thumper

Or you're recording something that shouldn't be recorded in the first place.... Squirrel sex still sound like squirrel sex, even after autotune, melodyne and beat detective...

Im talking about producing a full song from start to finish.
not just the engineers time. this includes fishing for parts, comping, editing, taking take after take till its right, etc...
20 hours seems even a bit conservative to me.
I know alot of producers that spend a full day on just drums for one tune. and it does not take a full day to mix JUST drums.

[Never1]

Originally Posted by aidyhall

In my experience, the ratio is more likely to be reversed with larger productions. In a typical 4 or 5 days per song, it's more like 3 or 4 days to totally track, overdub, edit and tweak a song, then a day to actually mix it ...

That's about my time line, per song. I spend a day on drums (including setup), a day on rhythms and bass, a day on vocals and another day on overdubbed things like percussion and solo things..etc.. It's quick enough to turn a song around in a short time, but also slow and relaxed enough to get things right wthout any pressure.

Some of my productions are involved enough to require a day to mix. I take tons of breaks and automate a lot of things. I can get a rough mix that sounds pretty good in a few hours. The last 10% always takes 90% of the time.

And another note: I do my edits after each part is finished, usually. I comp my vocals as I go and punch in 90% of the things that need fixing. It leaves me with very little actual "editing" to do. Wipes and cleanups get done during the mix.

[reggiesears]

Some Songs Take Longer Than 3 Hours To Mix & Some Take Less...It Depends On The Song, The Performance, How much stuff is going on, ect... and there isn't a magic compressor setting...

[peeweedrummer]

its hard to do a great mix when the band is not that great. especially when the drummer cant hit the snare propperly .in this case i spend alot of time editing to get the parts sitting right.

the normal rule applies, record it right and it will mix itself. unfortunately not all bands know how to record it right so there needs to be alot of studio magic,that takes time.

[cjogo]

Really depends on the involvement of the song and the budget But, generally a good 2~1 ratio, for sure. We have formula and try to keep the client happy within their budget.

[mdjice]

Depends who spent that hour recording.... I've had some session recorded in 1 hour by some crappy engineer and it took me well over 3 hours to get something out of it. If I recorded usually 1 hours of recording equal 1 hour of mixing if that

[nickynicknick]

Originally Posted by jonnymac

if mixing my songs took 3 times longer than recording them then a mix would take 60 hours.

if mixing a record took 3 times as long as recording it I would be mixing for 18 months sometimes....I'm really confused

[nickynicknick]

Originally Posted by reggiesears

Some Songs Take Longer Than 3 Hours To Mix & Some Take Less...It Depends On The Song, The Performance, How much stuff is going on, ect... and there isn't a magic compressor setting...

I'm gonna go ahead and say that if you are mixing on average one song every three hours...then you are not doing a good job...just putting that out there for all to use or abuse...c'mon man it takes 4 hours just to finish my coffee and figure out how to get rid of 10 of the 25 vocal tracks...i'm old and slow maybe

Nick

[domokunrox]

Every hour of recording = ~24 hours of mixing for me