Referencing with a "mastered" mix, what are the pitfalls

I read DDL's post on the mixoff thread where he said " remember this hasnt been mastered and it's not exactly like the mastered stuff you are referencing with."

My question is other than the mastered mix being a bit louder in volume/more compressed (maybe), What do you guys listen for and expect to be different between your mixes and those that you use as references?

I personally think of the mastered stuff that I use as refs as the sound of records and that is what I shoot for. I used to say to myself "the ref will be different sonically because it is mastered." But I think that led to me making excuses for fixing stuff in the mastering. Now I realize my job mixing is not done until the mix sounds like I want the record to sound, so I dont quit until I'm 100% THERE before mastering. Am I the only one thinking this way?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

My question is other than the mastered mix being a bit louder in volume/more compressed (maybe), What do you guys listen for and expect to be different between your mixes and those that you use as references?

Well if you want your mixes to sound as flat as a pancake,distorted,loud,overly bright with no depth than yeah your good in referencing your mixes with mastered mixes these days.

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Now I realize my job mixing is not done until the mix sounds like I want the record to sound, so I dont quit until I'm 100% THERE before mastering. Am I the only one thinking this way?

This is a totally different question all together.


It really depends if you are the producer/artist or not.


If you are then you determine when to quit.


If you are not than the client decides.

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Well if you want your mixes to sound as flat as a pancake,distorted,loud,overly bright with no depth than yeah your good in referencing your mixes with mastered mixes these days.

Most of the things I ref are older mixes that I prefer the sound of before things were made distorted/loud/overly bright etc... Most of today's stuff I hate the sound of.

LOL but I guess in usual Thrilfactor style the answer is "well it depends"

[robot gigante]

I try to mix so that the mastering engineer will hopefully have to do nothing... but pancake it, distort it and make it ear shatteringly bright.

So if the reference isn't pancaked/distorted/bright in a bad way and you like the way it sounds, shoot for it! Assuming that is what the client wants, like Thrill says, you are out to please them first and foremost.

I think DDL's statement is a little misleading at best.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Most of the things I ref are older mixes that I prefer the sound of before things were made distorted/loud/overly bright etc... Most of today's stuff I hate the sound of.

This can be tricky as well since what is in today compared to the past might cause a conflict with the client.

Like you i enjoy the older stuff.

Full sounding, wide, impactful.

The clients i work with are exposed to the "I-Tunes" sound.

If i give them a reference of their mix to take home and i don't make sure it sounds loud and pancaked i know i will get a phone call with the #1 complaint:

"When i play it in my computer/Ipod/car it just doesn't have the loudness as other songs that i play".

Even if i tell them a million times "you can make it as loud as you want in the mastering" it never registers.

Any suggestions about the mix? Levels ok? Does it have enough bass for you?

Nope.

"I can't feel the mix because it isn't loud enough" they say.

I played it for my friend in the car and he said the same thing.

Did you do anything different in the studio? Was there anything changed when the CD or MP3 was made?

Duh?

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

LOL but I guess in usual Thrilfactor style the answer is "well it depends"

Doesn't it always?

[eligit]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

"When i play it in my computer/Ipod/car it just doesn't have the loudness as other songs that i play".

Even if i tell them a million times "you can make it as loud as you want in the mastering" it never registers.

that really blows. i bet this is even true if you literally tell them "if i squash it NOW, as opposed to letting the mastering guy take care of that, the final product will not sound as good. period."

sad.

if you give a good mastering engineer a pristine and dynamic (less loud) 24bit mix he will be able to make it loud while preserving the maximum amount of clarity and "goodness".....

you can use your thousands of $ in gear to do your part and he can use his thousands of $ in different gear to do his...and it will sound great!

can't have it sounding great tho. wouldn't want that. just instant loudenized gratification.....

Thrill, in college I had a prof who would ask business ?'s and without fail the correct answer was always "Well It depends"

So yes, this is true 99.9% of the time.



Honestly, I dont like the sound of most records today. If I want stuff to sound like most of them, then I might as well skip mastering and make it loud, bright, and flat in protools myself

I usually look to a mastering engineer to do something that I CANNOT do and to bring a BETTER new perspective to the song.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Thrill, in college I had a prof who would ask business ?'s and without fail the correct answer was always "Well It depends"

So yes, this is true 99.9% of the time.

This will be the signature on my tombstone.

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Honestly, I dont like the sound of most records today. If I want stuff to sound like most of them, then I might as well skip mastering and make it loud, bright, and flat in protools myself

I usually look to a mastering engineer to do something that I CANNOT do and to bring a BETTER new perspective to the song.

Same here.

There is one ME that i work with a lot in town and i know if i can get the client to dish out the bucks and get him the mixes he will take it from there and make me look good.

I know if he has a question about something like if the client forgets the Mix CD and brings over the squashed refs i can send him the unsquashed mix files in an instant(and sometimes without the client knowing).

Personally i don't use other people CD's as refs anymore(haven't for years).

The game has changed so much that its not about the sound anymore its more about how fast the label can get it out there and it "sounding good enough".

My thinking is it maybe up to me to determine the sound through the mastering(if it never gets there which happens way too many times these days) so basically i will call the shots.

[RainbowStorm]

I am referencing my mixes against mastered versions. The reason why I do that is because I want the mix to be balanced 100% correctly before it enters mastering. There are so many things that the mastering engineer can't do anything about or only mess up due to the low isolation level. Mastering as it is done today is a lot about trying to prove that the mix is not "ready". That means the mix should already be very well polished and ready before it enters mastering. That doesn't mean it should be very gained, what it means is that when you turn up the master volume fader it should sound great and compete well with a reference CD, both in the control room and elsewhere.

[Branislav]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Referencing with a "mastered" mix, what are the pitfalls

Is there any other option, I mean where would you get the unmastered versions to be able to compare your mixes to? So, the worst thing that can happen (if you get your mix to sound exactly like the mastered version) is that you wouldn't need mastering. Maybe?

Branislav

[belairstudio]

I don't have enough experience to avoid referencing, so I do it with records.

But I match volumes externally to avoid any artifacts to my mix

I do it mainly to check fq spectrum and regain fresh perspective

[DigitalDrugLord]

Originally Posted by Branislav

Is there any other option, I mean where would you get the unmastered versions to be able to compare your mixes to? So, the worst thing that can happen (if you get your mix to sound exactly like the mastered version) is that you wouldn't need mastering. Maybe?

Branislav

Then what happends when this mix is added with the songs on a album project done by other mixing engineers?

[amost]

Now I realize my job mixing is not done until the mix sounds like I want the record to sound, so I dont quit until I'm 100% THERE before mastering. Am I the only one thinking this way?

Gotta go with Thrill's answer to this.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by amost

Gotta go with Thrill's answer to this.

Depends on how you want the record to sound :-). But seriously, anything goes except for "loudness maximizing." In other words, turn up your own monitor volume and if your mix sounds great, you're done. Anything further you attempt will take things downhill and probably produce a worse master at the mastering stage.

I know, there's a whole subculture that will respond differently to my "in other words" sentence above, in terms of "anticipating what the masteirng engineer will do to ruin my record", but there is/was another thread in this forum that I think nicely answered that with this summary, "don't try to anticipate what the mastering will do, just make a great mix and get a mastering engineer who won't alter your mix."

and 1000 words more :-)

BK

[SK1]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Depends on how you want the record to sound :-). But seriously, anything goes except for "loudness maximizing." In other words, turn up your own monitor volume and if your mix sounds great, you're done. Anything further you attempt will take things downhill and probably produce a worse master at the mastering stage.

I know, there's a whole subculture that will respond differently to my "in other words" sentence above, in terms of "anticipating what the masteirng engineer will do to ruin my record", but there is/was another thread in this forum that I think nicely answered that with this summary, "don't try to anticipate what the mastering will do, just make a great mix and get a mastering engineer who won't alter your mix."

and 1000 words more :-)

BK

Interesting.
Bob and Thrill .......( others feel free to chime in as well ) ......... are there any guidelines, as far as RMS and overall level that you like to see/have pre mastering ?

What rms ? what level ?

Thanks !

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by SK1

Interesting.
Bob and Thrill .......( others feel free to chime in as well ) ......... are there any guidelines, as far as RMS and overall level that you like to see/have pre mastering ?

What rms ? what level ?

Thanks !

If I said, a "K-20 to a K-14" that is only dangerous because it implies that a meter can tell you what the music sounds like. For example, a piece can still sound somewhat dynamic if you have a snappy snare drum but a compressed vocal. So the best guideline I can suggest is that you find a piece at the digido.com honor roll that you like to reference to and if your piece is not as dynamic and open as that, keep on working until it sounds that good!

[robot gigante]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Depends on how you want the record to sound :-). But seriously, anything goes except for "loudness maximizing." In other words, turn up your own monitor volume and if your mix sounds great, you're done. Anything further you attempt will take things downhill and probably produce a worse master at the mastering stage.

I know, there's a whole subculture that will respond differently to my "in other words" sentence above, in terms of "anticipating what the masteirng engineer will do to ruin my record", but there is/was another thread in this forum that I think nicely answered that with this summary, "don't try to anticipate what the mastering will do, just make a great mix and get a mastering engineer who won't alter your mix."

and 1000 words more :-)

BK

[Bob Olhsson]

I'd say just do your comparisons by turning the mastered CD down to the same subjective listening level. Then don't be afraid of your mix sounding better.

[MASSIVE Master]

And for cryin' out loud, pick a reference *that makes sense*!!!

Band comes in - Black Album (Metallica) in hand. "We want it to sound like this."

This is when I was a tracking / mixing guy, BTW...

Anyway, they don't sound anything like Metallica. They were a metal band, would've fit well with Metallica, but nothing similar in the sounds.

So just for fun one evening, we mixed it to sound *like* Metallica - Concentrated on the kick, snare, EQ'd the piss out of the gutars, got the bass in the same vein - Sounded like complete a$$.

They really seemed bewildered until I said "If you want to sound like Metallica, the first thing you have to do is BE Metallica.

Long story short - We finally mixed it the way it "wanted" to be mixed and everything turned out fine. It didn't sound "like Metallica" when it was done, but they were happy campers after failing at forcing the mix somewhere it didn't want to go.

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

But I think that led to me making excuses for fixing stuff in the mastering. Now I realize my job mixing is not done until the mix sounds like I want the record to sound, so I dont quit until I'm 100% THERE before mastering. Am I the only one thinking this way?

Nah.

IMO that's the right way to be thinking. I try not to rely on mastering to "save" a record but sometimes that's the way it's gotta be if say...after mixing 14 songs the artists or someone wants another 4dB of low-end piled on.

I dunno what you mean by "K-14" or whatever, but I mix to around 0VU on the console meters & have the ADC's cal'd to 0VU = -18dBfs...usually we're peaking anywhere from -1 to -5dBfs and the mixes are about as loud as a release from the 70's or 80's.

[confooshus]

This is going to sound like a troll comment, but it's not... I love the sound of todays records. Bring on the modern mixes and mastering, you gotta give the people what they want!

The only reason I'm even posting this is because usually when I browse this forum, I get the impression that everyone is moaning the current state of mainstream music. What kind of business survives by resenting the customers choices? If I went to a restaurant and ordered a Dr. Pepper, and the server rolled his eyes and started telling me that I should drink Tab, cause that's what they drank 20 years ago... I'd just leave and go to another restaurant that would give me what I want without whining about it!

So if there is anyone else on here who actually likes modern music/production, you're not alone! Don't let the old school make you feel foolish for liking what you like... Nothing wrong with the old school, there's alot to be learned from them. But hey, the times are a changin'...

[trippy]

good point, and I really like the way a lot of new records sound, but sometimes the ultra-hyped/no dynamics thing gets to be too much. I remember years back hearing "Doppelganger" by Curve and wondering what they were thinking..

but I also remember when I was a kid I would tape stuff off records on my reel-to-reel Sony, and I'd watch the VU meters while I listened on my big blue Stanton headphones. I noticed that on "Jet" by Wings/Paul McCartney the meters just sat right on "0" the whole time...so I guess it's nothing new, right?...

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Jay Kahrs

Nah.

IMO that's the right way to be thinking. I try not to rely on mastering to "save" a record but sometimes that's the way it's gotta be if say...after mixing 14 songs the artists or someone wants another 4dB of low-end piled on.

I dunno what you mean by "K-14" or whatever, but I mix to around 0VU on the console meters & have the ADC's cal'd to 0VU = -18dBfs...usually we're peaking anywhere from -1 to -5dBfs and the mixes are about as loud as a release from the 70's or 80's.

Way to go, Jay! I have a mixing engineer who calibrates his SSL the same way... This is my highest recommendation, DON'T WATCH THE PEAK METERS... concentrate on the sound. To keep from overloading the peaks, you simply have to calibrate to a lower RMS and turn up your monitor.

I was mixing rock over the weekend (I still occasionally get somework to mix) the old fashioned way that Jay described. It's the bees knees! And a mix like this, which is open, clear, dynamic, punchy, and rocks----can be taken to mastering and it can be left the way it was, improved, or ruined... it's your choice. I always tell my mix engineers, "if anyone is going to ruin your recording, let it be me, not you!"

[Masterer]

Get the mix to sound the way you want it to sound.

Don't mix it so loud that it distorts.

Send it to a mastering engineer with a brain.


Done.

[Masterer]

One more thing [almost forgot the original question].

If you must compare your mix to a finished master, please turn that master DOWN enough so that you don't distort your mix in an attempt to match the mastered level.

[Groove Dog]

i'm in the same boat as robot gigante above...

i'm comfortable with my skills and ears enough to give the mastering guy as little to do as possible. it took me years to find a mastering guy who doesn't screw with my mix (one girl actually asked for my stems), and now i only send my stuff to him, so i know what he's going to do for me.

but i have no problem using a phase-linear eq and a quality bus comp on the 2-mix and getting it as close to "cd ready" as possible when needs be. i look at mastering as being the icing on the cake and that's it. good luck finding a mastering engineer who shares that view!

that said, as to the original question, i like to reference CDs that either don't sound over mastered - as in - you hear the dynamics of the music and not the mastering, OR that i really like the mastering job on and i try to pull some of that out in the mix.

so go-tos are:

dark side of the moon
yankee hotel foxtrot
sumday (killer vocal sound, nice compression)
the last johnny cash record

but as you might tell, i don't do a lot of music that's famous for dynamic-less mastering.

cheers!

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by Groove Dog

but i have no problem using a phase-linear eq and a quality bus comp on the 2-mix and getting it as close to "cd ready" as possible when needs be. i look at mastering as being the icing on the cake and that's it. good luck finding a mastering engineer who shares that view!

It's quite easy to find a mastering engineer that looks at mastering as the "icing on the cake". You don't have to look very hard either as many of them are kinda famous.

Originally Posted by Groove Dog

that said, as to the original question, i like to reference CDs that either don't sound over mastered - as in - you hear the dynamics of the music and not the mastering, OR that i really like the mastering job on and i try to pull some of that out in the mix.

The "icing on the mix"?

Originally Posted by Groove Dog

but as you might tell, i don't do a lot of music that's famous for dynamic-less mastering

How can we tell that?