Killing sacred cows

[The Kid]

Mixing and mastering in the same project, doing it with closed headphones (good ones though)...
Any more sacred cows worth killing?
Discuss

[Philbo King]

If it sells CDs, you're doing it right...

[poetnprophet]

haha, I've been mixing and mastering in the same project for about 3 years now, I just cannot go back to the old way of having a recording project, then a mixing project, then a mastering project for the same friggin project/song. Can you imagine the scenario if/when an artist who already had a song mixed/mastered but then wants to make a small change to a verse 1 year later, what it would take to re-record, re-mix, and remaster that same song while still retain the non-destructive nature and keep all versions (just in case)?

closed-backed headphones though.....yeesh!

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by Philbo King

If it sells CDs, you're doing it right...

CD's lol
Don't know about that but mixes translate ok

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by poetnprophet

closed-backed headphones though.....yeesh!

Shure SRH840, they sound great for me

[Wallaby]

Everything tape saturation and tube stuff, throw it out of the house

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by Wallaby

Everything tape saturation and tube stuff, throw it out of the house

I don't use tape saturation, but I do use (very subtle) generic saturation on some stuff, to make it work.
But you're right, those are overrated.

[poetnprophet]

Originally Posted by Wallaby

Everything tape saturation and tube stuff, throw it out of the house

well technically it's not in the house, so.....

[fred garvin]

Originally Posted by The Kid

Mixing and mastering in the same project, doing it with closed headphones (good ones though)...
Any more sacred cows worth killing?
Discuss

Sounds like the way to go to me. I'm kinda trying to build a template for that, ideally I'd like to just click a button and go into mastering mode, or back to mixing or even recording mode (I assume you do some recording?). But I have a set of mini monitors I prefer to headphones only. My goal is more mixing at living room, loudish (like not really objectionable even after hours) home entertainment levels rather than only headphones. I assume that doesn't preclude me from the discussion lol?

So what was your path to headphones only? There are obvious advantages, convenience, consistency... did you find any challenges? Do you compensate with software or etc. for your phones, or was it more a learning the sound of them kinda thing? If so, can you use other phones? What are your projects like?

[bobobo]

mastering ..pah

https://thirdmanrecords.com/location...t/record-booth

[cool]

Originally Posted by The Kid

Mixing and mastering in the same project, doing it with closed headphones (good ones though)...

My usual workflow. Why not?

[beingmf]

Yes to mixing, if
- you know your headphones inside out and
- if you are extremely disciplined about the monitoring level(s) - it shouldn't change, ever.

No to mastering. What exactly is it you refer to as "mastering"?

Originally Posted by poetnprophet

closed-backed headphones though.....yeesh!

Agreed.

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by fred garvin

Sounds like the way to go to me. I'm kinda trying to build a template for that, ideally I'd like to just click a button and go into mastering mode, or back to mixing or even recording mode (I assume you do some recording?). But I have a set of mini monitors I prefer to headphones only. My goal is more mixing at living room, loudish (like not really objectionable even after hours) home entertainment levels rather than only headphones. I assume that doesn't preclude me from the discussion lol?

So what was your path to headphones only? There are obvious advantages, convenience, consistency... did you find any challenges? Do you compensate with software or etc. for your phones, or was it more a learning the sound of them kinda thing? If so, can you use other phones? What are your projects like?

I run a commercial studio, I do production, recording, mixing and mastering. I do have nearfield monitors but I use them for a basic balance the first 15 minutes of the mix. I found the Shure headphones when I tried them in the shop and loved them. The transtition to mixing on them was organic, I just found that translation got better. I don't use any correction software. I learned the phones listening to good music on them. I haven't tried mixing on other headphones yet.
My projects are all over the place, it's a studio.
I have a sub-master folder with all the tracks, and there the mastering chain gets turned on or bypassed from time to time to do different things.
You don't need anything very complicated, just use the project and turn off the plugins that introduce latency when you want to record some more stuff.

[ggrey]

Originally Posted by poetnprophet

haha, I've been mixing and mastering in the same project for about 3 years now, I just cannot go back to the old way of having a recording project, then a mixing project, then a mastering project for the same friggin project/song. Can you imagine the scenario if/when an artist who already had a song mixed/mastered but then wants to make a small change to a verse 1 year later, what it would take to re-record, re-mix, and remaster that same song while still retain the non-destructive nature and keep all versions (just in case)?

The prophet and OP have spoken and spoken wisely. I have been doing this my entire recording life which spans over 40 years. Yeah, I'm pretty old. LOL. Now with digital I can go back and change a word, lick, edit etc. and render an almost exact copy of any song I care to change. Maybe even improve things too. We learn as we go.

[beingmf]

Originally Posted by beingmf

No to mastering.

With one exception maybe, IF it works for you. There are serious mastering engineers who claim to be able to achieve great results in Acustica Sienna.
I demo'd it, with mixed feelings, bought the software, bought a planar magnetic headphone, as I desperately wanted to get used to it - but I didn't, no matter how hard I tried.

[serr]

Originally Posted by poetnprophet

Can you imagine the scenario if/when an artist who already had a song mixed/mastered but then wants to make a small change to a verse 1 year later, what it would take to re-record, re-mix, and remaster that same song while still retain the non-destructive nature and keep all versions (just in case)?

Well...
Open the project session.
Record the new bit. Make sure it's gain staged the same as the original. Render the new mix.
Open the mastering project. Replace the file of the mix in question with the new render (a couple clicks with that feature). Render the new master. Label and tag.

Open those projects in tabs if you wish. I don't see how it would add any extra time or fuss. I have some projects all in one session too here and there. Same workflow. Record the new bit. Render a new mix revision. If your "master" is a clone of that with no level alteration or trimming, you're done at that point in either scenario.


Now if this was more aimed at the weirdo workflow that's in vogue in some circles of: Abandon the mix unfinished and then pull and tug at the unfinished mix to "fix" it in mastering. That's the issue. Just finish the mix!

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by beingmf

Yes to mixing, if
- you know your headphones inside out and
- if you are extremely disciplined about the monitoring level(s) - it shouldn't change, ever.

No to mastering. What exactly is it you refer to as "mastering"?


Agreed.

I'm not saying ANY closed back headphones. I just happened to find some headphones that translate well and they are closed.

[The Kid]

I just want to say that when I mix, I mix. Just a 2 bus compressor to mix into.
When I'm ready to send the v1 mix to the clients, I collapse the mix into a folder and I master that.
When I have a whole album, I use project tabs.
When I get mix revisions from the clients, I can do them in the mix, and hear them instantly with and without the mastering chain.
Just a workflow thing, but I have to be clear.
I'm not really "MIXTERING" lol

[kirk1701]

Originally Posted by Wallaby

Everything tape saturation and tube stuff, throw it out of the house

There are useless items in this category. I've tried just about all of them. I own way more than I should.

However, you've clearly never tried Sly-fi Kaya. Amazing. It can replace an EQ.

https://thehouseofkush.com/products/kaya

[vdubreeze]

Using reverb of any kind.

Using delay of any kind.

Using fx of any kind.

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by vdubreeze

Using reverb of any kind.

Using delay of any kind.

Using fx of any kind.

I love those lol

I use them a lot

[The Kid]

A couple of people freaked out about my headphones choice.
This sacred cow is hard to kill lol
Closed back for tracking, open back for mixing.
Andrew Scheps mixes with Sony MDR-7506. I'm not on that level, but hey I think I can easily tell good headphones from bad ones.

[Tod]

Originally Posted by The Kid

I just want to say that when I mix, I mix. Just a 2 bus compressor to mix into.
When I'm ready to send the v1 mix to the clients, I collapse the mix into a folder and I master that.

I mix and master at the same time all the time. The most important thing for me is to get the best sounding tracks to start off with that are also performed in a goodly manner.

Beyond that I couldn't live without my profiles for mixing and mastering. I've shown this a few times on the Reaper forum, but here it is again.

https://youtu.be/9N824U57D-0

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by Tod

I mix and master at the same time all the time. The most important thing for me is to get the best sounding tracks to start off with that are also performed in a goodly manner.

Beyond that I couldn't live without my profiles for mixing and mastering. I've shown this a few times on the Reaper forum, but here it is again.

https://youtu.be/9N824U57D-0

I only use one folder as a submaster, but I put the compressor and the mastering plugins (usually an eq and a limiter, very minimal) on there, I don't use a master FX submaster.
I put SPAN on the master bus, but now that Reaper has a loudness meter I don't bother.
I don't analyze EQ curves and all that, but probably should lol

[Tod]

Originally Posted by The Kid

I only use one folder as a submaster, but I put the compressor and the mastering plugins (usually an eq and a limiter, very minimal) on there, I don't use a master FX submaster.
I put SPAN on the master bus, but now that Reaper has a loudness meter I don't bother.

My projects aren't necessarily that big compared to what many Reaper users say they are using, but I still use a lot of tracks both audio and midi.

The only tracks I have in the TCP are tracks that have audio or midi items on them as well as folder tracks. Nearly all the other tracks go in the MCP.

I don't analyze EQ curves and all that, but probably should lol

Using Span like I show in that video is not only a great mixing tool, it's also a great learning tool, especially for EQ. I've been a professional audio engineer and producer for over 50 years but I'm still thankful for having Span to help me make my mixing and EQing decisions.

[ramses]

Never internalize even well-meaning advice out of the blue. Be sceptical. Try it all, evaluate and draw your own conclusions. People are different, hear different and have different states of mind and cognitive biases.

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by ramses

Never internalize even well-meaning advice out of the blue. Be sceptical. Try it all, evaluate and draw your own conclusions. People are different, hear different and have different states of mind and cognitive biases.

Makes sense

[poetnprophet]

Originally Posted by serr

Well...
I don't see how it would add any extra time or fuss. I have some projects all in one session too here and there. Same workflow. Record the new bit. Render a new mix revision. If your "master" is a clone of that with no level alteration or trimming, you're done at that point in either scenario.

First of all, re-recording anything the exact same is next to impossible, and especially true when it's a long time later. Both the artist and the engineer have a hard time matching things exactly. I discourage this every time but sometimes artists want what they want. Therefore if the recording doesn't null cancel or even come close then you cannot just re-render the mix because it's different.

Secondly, yes absolutely it adds extra time. If you've never gone from recording to mixing then to mastering inside the same project window without rendering, opening, etc then you don't know the difference at all and you'll never understand the value.

Sure, remastering isn't a big deal as that part shouldn't change, but at the end of it all there are 3 projects, 3 file structures, and extra disk space used....which is all avoidable, on top of the extra time needed to open/close those extra project files plus re-rendering.

[Time Waster]

Recording, mixing and mastering as separate projects? Hmm... I should try that one day.

[karbomusic]

Originally, much mastering was about getting the product onto the medium (media) and still sound as expected, because the medium had it's own requirements and shortcomings. A second set of ears and consistency between songs. It "kind of" couldn't be done at the same time so easily "back in the day" for commercial releases.

Fast-forward to now. Yes you can, the main things that still matter are...

1. A second set of ears but you don't need a second mastering step to get that advice.

2. Song-to-song consistency. It may be more work to make sure all songs translate consistently with each song in it's own huge/complex un-rendered project. But in today's world of everything's a single where albums are not a thing in consumer's minds but playlists are... Meaning even less of an issue when releasing song by song.

That last big project I mixed, I made one mistake that I truly regret. I mastered as I mixed for the entire project (12 songs). When I got done with the mixes, I bypassed all that "2-buss mastering", exported the songs into one big mastering project, mastered each song and got them all consistent and all those things everyone parrots that you should do...

My regret was that 2 years later when I listen to the original, master as you go versions, they are simply better but I had allowed all this you must master separately advice to poison my thinking. 2 cents.

[Tod]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Originally, much mastering was about getting the product onto the medium (media) and still sound as expected, because the medium had it's own requirements and shortcomings. A second set of ears and consistency between songs. It "kind of" couldn't be done at the same time so easily "back in the day" for commercial releases.

Fast-forward to now. Yes you can, the main things that still matter are...

1. A second set of ears but you don't need a second mastering step to get that advice.

2. Song-to-song consistency. It may be more work to make sure all songs translate consistently with each song in it's own huge/complex un-rendered project. But in today's world of everything's a single where albums are not a thing in consumer's minds but playlists are... Meaning even less of an issue when releasing song by song.

That last big project I mixed, I made one mistake that I truly regret. I mastered as I mixed for the entire project (12 songs). When I got done with the mixes, I bypassed all that "2-buss mastering", exported the songs into one big mastering project, mastered each song and got them all consistent and all those things everyone parrots that you should do...

My regret was that 2 years later when I listen to the original, master as you go versions, they are simply better but I had allowed all this you must master separately advice to poison my thinking. 2 cents.

I couldn't have said it better Karbo, now days there's no reason to not mix and master at the same time, especially with all the ways Reaper can be setup for it.

[norbury brook]

I've been doing this for 35 years and so I'm used to the 'old' way.

For me personally when I mix I want to have just consolidated audio files in my project without any edits etc , that stuff should have been taken care of by the producer/band before it gets to the 'Mix ' stage IHMO. MAKE DECISIONS!!!! in the days of tape we had to and it was a good thing.

I usually will limit/dither the MP3 mix for the client just so it sounds reasonably loud enough. Once the mix is Signed off by the client it gets sent to a mastering engineer...with NO limiting.

if you've spent ages on a song having a clear objective 3rd set of ears is a great final stage. I've been using the same mastering engineer for over 25 years now and have built up a great relationship and for me it's a worth while 3rd-separate stage if the client has the budget.

My mastering guy has a great studio with $200,000k worth of high end analogue equipment and monitors , he also , more importantly has great ears and judgement.
He can also cut vinyl masters on the lathe too so that's a skill worth paying for if my clients want vinyl releases, as that's a whole different skill set knowing how to EQ/master for vinyl.


So that's how I work, yes, I sometimes master other peoples work and if I have to I master my own clients mixes but as I said , I feel a 3 rd set of highly qualified ears is a nice final link in the chain.


M

[The Kid]

If you know what you're doing when mixing, and you can trust your monitoring, I'd say mastering is just a step to have the mix at the proper level.
If the mixes translate, who cares?
I trust my ears, I always have, and I think mastering guys, especially analog ones, are always trying to make themselves indispensable.
The 2nd (or 3rd) set of ears migth help, or not. Depends on the 1st set of ears.
When I advertised my mastering services on facebook, people instead of asking for examples of my work, asked if my mastering was ANALOG lol
This is a big, fat sacred cow.

[norbury brook]

Originally Posted by The Kid

If you know what you're doing when mixing, and you can trust your monitoring, I'd say mastering is just a step to have the mix at the proper level.
If the mixes translate, who cares?
I trust my ears, I always have, and I think mastering guys, especially analog ones, are always trying to make themselves indispensable.
The 2nd (or 3rd) set of ears migth help, or not. Depends on the 1st set of ears.
When I advertised my mastering services on facebook, people instead of asking for examples of my work, asked if my mastering was ANALOG lol
This is a big, fat sacred cow.

well, Dave Pesado, Serban Ghenea,CLA or Bob Clearmountain all send their mixes for mastering and I would say they all have a great set of ears no? A bad mastering engineer could ruin things but a good one will know exactly what to do for the genre/delivery format etc.

Obviously you don't become a great mixer or mastering engineer without having a great reputation and catalogue of work people can hear and make a call on. Obviously everyone has to start somewhere and we all get better the more we do.

A great mastering engineer will have digital and Analogue equipment as they both do their own thing and it's up to the ME to know which to use where. Obviously it's not about the tools and experienced ears are what you're paying for, bit like a therapist the experienced ears usually come with a great sounding room/monitors and equipment however,

I think it's very easy now for people to think mastering isn't important as there are tools now that will do a reasonable job that are available to everyone. I still feel for most people if they can, getting their tracks mastered by a top professional is a worthwhile last step. If nothing else just to hear what they do and perhaps talk to them about your mix and it's good/bad points.

As I said I've used the same guy for a long time so I trust him, same with the graphics design company I've used for artwork, it's all about building a relationship with people who know their sh*t so you can guarantee a great end product for your client.

I don't think it's a sacred cow, there's a reason this flow has worked for the entire history of recorded music yes things move on but you stand on the shoulders of giants.




M

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by norbury brook

well, Dave Pesado, Serban Ghenea,CLA or Bob Clearmountain all send their mixes for mastering and I would say they all have a great set of ears no? A bad mastering engineer could ruin things but a good one will know exactly what to do for the genre/delivery format etc.

Obviously you don't become a great mixer or mastering engineer without having a great reputation and catalogue of work people can hear and make a call on. Obviously everyone has to start somewhere and we all get better the more we do.

A great mastering engineer will have digital and Analogue equipment as they both do their own thing and it's up to the ME to know which to use where. Obviously it's not about the tools and experienced ears are what you're paying for, bit like a therapist the experienced ears usually come with a great sounding room/monitors and equipment however,

I think it's very easy now for people to think mastering isn't important as there are tools now that will do a reasonable job that are available to everyone. I still feel for most people if they can, getting their tracks mastered by a top professional is a worthwhile last step. If nothing else just to hear what they do and perhaps talk to them about your mix and it's good/bad points.

As I said I've used the same guy for a long time so I trust him, same with the graphics design company I've used for artwork, it's all about building a relationship with people who know their sh*t so you can guarantee a great end product for your client.

I don't think it's a sacred cow, there's a reason this flow has worked for the entire history of recorded music yes things move on but you stand on the shoulders of giants.




M

Fair enough. It's true that great mastering people will do a great job, but there are a lot of butchers out there, those I worry about.
If you have the money, sure, go for it, but I don't think it's the magic bullet people think it is.
The mixes have to be tip top.

[The Kid]

I have another sacred cow I'd forgotten about:
Vinyl.
Overrated.
I think it should dissapear from this planet.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by norbury brook

well, Dave Pesado, Serban Ghenea,CLA or Bob Clearmountain all send their mixes for mastering and I would say they all have a great set of ears no? A bad mastering engineer could ruin things but a good one will know exactly what to do for the genre/delivery format etc.

Something to consider is those guys have done it that way for decades, they keep each other in business via referrals, there's a budget for it (and that's fine) but there is at least some sacred cow going on there because it's simply what they are setup for and have always done.

[norbury brook]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Something to consider is those guys have done it that way for decades, they keep each other in business via referrals, there's a budget for it (and that's fine) but there is at least some sacred cow going on there because it's simply what they are setup for and have always done.

I think you're being a little unfair on some very talented people there, yes what you say is true but they didn't get and stay there without being the best in the business. I work with these people and they have a depth of knowledge and experience most can only dream of.

I agree a bad mastering engineer is worse than NO mastering engineer.....a bit like drummers.. ....and it is always budget dependent....As i said for some clients I have to master as they don't have a separate budget so I get that


personally I think it's always best to strive for the very best in whatever you're doing rather than let the bar drop to the lowest common denominator so I will always champion experts in their fields and even if you're in your bedroom with a laptop you can learn from all these 'giants' that have gone before you even if you're doing something completely new and unheard before. The core principals of recording and mixing/mastering are still the same.

Why do visual artists still paint still lives and landscapes? it's because if you get the basics done you can then throw away the known rules and do your thing like David Hockney for example , the same could be said in the audio world. learn your craft, you're an 'Engineer' if you're mixing or mastering , that's a term that should be earned


M

[The Kid]

In Argentina there are a bunch of excellent mastering engineers, those are well known and have their reputation well earned. Those I would trust.
But I've seen bands go back to the mixing engineer to master the record after paying for "professional mastering" that totally destroyed the nuances of the music.
My clients usually have a very tight budget, and I put a lot of effort to learn how to master digitally so I can provide a good service.
My work is "what you hear now is what you get" basically.
This is only for budget and logistical reasons.
I'm not an idiot. Of course one of the great mastering guys from Buenos Aires can bring a lot to the table, but NEED is a bit of a strog word for most of the projects, that don't spend a lot on any of the stages of making the record.
It's all about keeping it real.
I don't feel that I'm doing anything wrong with mastering my client's music.
I've been listening to good music on all sort of systems for decades.
I take care of the digital chain, so no bits are unaccounted for lol

[vdubreeze]

You can also have a project mastered by an excellent mastering engineer who does a fantastic job on it but you don't like it. Mastering's end product is as subjective as a mix is.