Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-06-2015, 12:31 AM   #1
keyman_sam
Human being with feelings
 
keyman_sam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,562
Default Should a mixed track sound dull because it hasn't been mastered?

I get dull sounding mixed tracks of my songs, but the explanation is after mastering it will sound brighter. Is this true? What magic does mastering add, exactly? Are there pre-master and post-master versions of songs on the net?
__________________
The must-have sample library for shortcircuit :
Essentials Volume 1
http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?...3313#note14891
keyman_sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 12:54 AM   #2
EpicSounds
Human being with feelings
 
EpicSounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 7,570
Default

I wouldn't say they should sound dull. They should sound great on their own and even better after mastering. Sometimes the pre-master sounds duller once you compare it to mastered.

Here's a track I mastered back in 2013. The processing was nothing crazy but I did end up adding a fair amount of high end with broad shelf boosts.

Before (mp3)

After (mp3)
__________________
REAPER Video Tutorials, Tips & Tricks and more at The REAPER Blog
EpicSounds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 01:22 AM   #3
alex1073
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 628
Default

Absolutely not true. Ideally, a me shouldn't have to do anything (of course nobody will ever see something like that, because, even if they get a mix that is that good that they don't need to do anything, they will still at least touch something)


Cheers,
Alex
alex1073 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 04:26 AM   #4
mikeypee
Human being with feelings
 
mikeypee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 668
Default

I've been learning the difference between master bus processing, and actual mastering. I used to think you weren't supposed to put any FX on the master bus, and then send it like that to the mastering engineer - and then you could call the 1st version "unmastered", and the 2nd "mastered".

But while it's true you probably want to treat the master bus as little as possible before handing it off to the mastering engineer (so they have more control), mastering is sort of just like... final touches. It could be heavy master bus processing, or it could be normalizing, slight compression, EQ to make a set of tracks sound more cohesive, and many other things. I had a mastering engineer once decide to trim out all the "crap" that I intentionally left before and after certain tracks (guitar noises, people laughing in the background, shuffling, etc) because I thought it had a better vibe. The engineer in that case was a friend so he took liberties there, but I ended up agreeing with him eventually that it sounded more pro.

So think of mastering more of as the final touch. If your mix sounds dull, you might want to rethink your mix, at the individual track level and also at the master bus level, because you should be able to go pretty far before that final "uhmph" the ME gives you. Just make sure you talk to them first about whether they want a render that includes all your master bus stuff or not, I guess.

My 2 cents.
__________________
~~~ Proud Reaper License Owner! ~~~
mikeypee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 04:27 AM   #5
bladerunner
Human being with feelings
 
bladerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 4,846
Default

You can hear pre and post mastering examples at my website (the link in the sig) Sam. There are no rules. Some mixes I get need almost no eq'ing at all and some mixes are in dire need of brightening up when they come to me. There are so many variables involved (the system/room of the artist may be less than ideal for making high end frequency decisions when mixing down etc., the artist may not want an abundance of brightness etc. etc.) that you can't generalise about the subject really.

Mastering is all about making a piece of music 'suitable for distribution' to cut a very large subject short(!). There are many variables involved - for each and every track this will be different - so the explanation 'after mastering it will sound brighter' is completely and utterly wrong. I've actually reduced high frequencies on some tracks (electronica artists in particular do love to push those high shelves a bit too far!!).

In answer to your question more specifically - you can go back to the mix and eq individual parts to achieve the brightness you want. Sometimes you can just throw a high shelf on the master and hey presto - it's sounding how you want it - it completely depends. In mastering I use lots of methods to achieve brightness. Sometimes I don't use eq at all - multiband compression of the high end and saturation/excitement might be what's needed. So many variables and methods lol!!
__________________
Mastering from £30 per track \\\
Facebook \\\ #masteredbyloz
bladerunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 04:35 AM   #6
bladerunner
Human being with feelings
 
bladerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 4,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1073 View Post
Ideally, a me shouldn't have to do anything (of course nobody will ever see something like that, because, even if they get a mix that is that good that they don't need to do anything, they will still at least touch something)


Cheers,
Alex
About 6 months ago I received a mix that I sent back out... with nothing done to it whatsoever - not a thing - it was produced and mixed perfectly from my point of view. It was quite a moment for me as I never thought I would see this lol! It was for a compilation so I didn't get any direct feedback from the artist but I do wonder if he noticed this or whether he heard it as 'mastered' (ie. different) when the compilation came out?!
__________________
Mastering from £30 per track \\\
Facebook \\\ #masteredbyloz
bladerunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 04:44 AM   #7
whiteaxxxe
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: United States of Europe, Germany, Mönchengladbach
Posts: 2,047
Default

the idea of mastering is caricatured if you mix before mastering with the mastering in mind. if you mix and think what the mastering will do you will work against the future mastering engineer. you will do the opposite so that he has to do his magic to end up with what you alone with the mix would have ended up with if you wouldnt have thought about mastering.

think for sourself and dont listen to people talking bullshit about anything. people have no clue. you have to think for yourself if that makes any sense what people talk. in that case, it doesnt make any sense. why would you mix dull? because of the mastering? what if there is no mastering? you sit on your dull mix. really not that bright as an idea. tell that to the poeple which blahblah about mastering.

and dont read Gearslutz. unless you have a so firm character that you can stand the pain.

and ... as nearly always: the concept is mastering is NOT to make your mixes sound good. the mix has to be good, exceptional, stellar. the mastering engineer will put the tracks together, so that they sound coherent. and will do the things that are needed for various distribution channels. and will tag the files correctly and and and ...

what a funny idea. are you willing to tell us who told you to mix dull? we will investigate where this stupid person lives ...
whiteaxxxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 04:48 AM   #8
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

Many albums I worked on sounded like great individual songs, very independent of each other, and then once back from the mastering lab actually sounded like an album that was born together. Of course this is all pre about 1998. After that, I usually got back what I sent, just louder
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 04:49 AM   #9
bladerunner
Human being with feelings
 
bladerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 4,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe View Post
the idea of mastering is caricatured if you mix before mastering with the mastering in mind.
Yes - this is true. Just mix your song as best as you can - try not to have the attitude that the ME will 'add' the final 'sheen' or whatever. Chances are that he will actually do this but it's only as an enhancement of what you, the mixer, has already done. It's not a magic 'layer' that didn't exist before.
__________________
Mastering from £30 per track \\\
Facebook \\\ #masteredbyloz
bladerunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 05:00 AM   #10
heda
Human being with feelings
 
heda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Spain
Posts: 7,239
Default

I think mastering should not change the EQ or dullness of the mix. If the master sounds much brighter, then I wouldn't like that master. Specially because it can change the tone of the voices to try to fix the instrumentation. This should be corrected in the mix.
heda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 05:22 AM   #11
planetnine
Human being with feelings
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
Default

It really does depend on the context and the reference. Pop music got much, much brighter during the 90s, partially to make it stand out and to allow louder mastering. You can't say that this is right or wrong without context and reference (and even then it's not black and white).

There are going to be warm mixes that need to fit in with a brighter context (and probably vice versa). It's not dull because it's not mastered, but it might be duller than the ME would prefer for their reference or the context (film, compilation album, etc) that it needs to fit -it may come back brighter.

However, Sam, if you think it's dull, you need to look at your mixing, or use reference mixes during the process -then you'll realise this earlier-on that something needs correcting or re-recording.

There are more preferences than absolutes than you would think in this business...



>
__________________
Nathan, Lincoln, UK. | Item Marker Tool. (happily retired) | Source Time Position Tool. | CD Track Marker Tool. | Timer Recording Tool. | dB marks on MCP faders FR.
planetnine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 05:53 AM   #12
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

It's funny how many (or at least it used to be) VST DIY mastering presets always boosted somewhere around 80Hz and 10kHz. Keep in mind some of this (including being brighter) is a leftover from the days of analog tape where simply playing the tape a lot caused a loss of clarity over time and, lows weren't as "solid" on tape as they are in digital. Of course back then we might add some brightness before it hit the tape which was typically better than turning them up after the fact (can't boost what was never there to begin with) but nevertheless much of it is from the analog days.

Due to ^this, it is less likely to be needed in digital notwithstanding poor tracking and the psychological assumption that more highs are somehow relevant to higher fidelity which is something that was also somewhat carried over from the analog tape days.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 08:45 AM   #13
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

I'm a big... non-advocate?... of DIY mastering for multiple reasons. I fully understand why we do it, but it rarely makes sense to me unless there is a collection of songs involved where things need to be given some consistency. Having said that... reference.

If your "known" (and great sounding) commercial reference songs are obviously much brighter than your mix then yes, your mix may be too dull, or too bass heavy.

But imo, mastering (an isolated single song anyway) is more about translation, frequency content and balance, and fixing bad general balances (M/S techniques help there). Songs that sound way, way better after mastering are not good mixes.

As one ME said... "An A mix results in an A+ master."

P.S. Unrelated. I asked some ME's about the low end, something that's typically more problematic for home studio mixes, and almost to a man they said they rather have too much than not enough. That's it's much easier to trim away unnecessary low end than to add what's not there.

Last edited by Lawrence; 05-06-2015 at 08:51 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 09:21 AM   #14
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,561
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keyman_sam View Post
I get dull sounding mixed tracks of my songs, but the explanation is after mastering it will sound brighter. Is this true? What magic does mastering add, exactly? Are there pre-master and post-master versions of songs on the net?
Absolutely no!

Mastering is putting a final mix into the 'standard containers for consumer delivery'. It often includes audio restoration duties in the cases where the final mixes in question were not full fidelity or some other issue. And sometimes just small level changes from song to song for the opposite example.

Always make the mix to the best of your ability and how you want the final production to sound.

Keep it simple.


Otherwise it devolves into...
"OK, I've got my 'mastering preset' so now I get my mix to this odd point that sounds a little messed up but that's how the last mix sounded that I made the mastering preset for and it helped so now I'll just shoot for that target instead of how I want it to sound because after mastering it will then sound how I wanted it to in the first place..."


If you are mastering your own mixes, keep it to level matching song to song only!

When you put on the mastering hat and start to compare the mixes to other mastered releases - if you start to identify shortcomings, go back to the mix to make adjustments. The only reason for going into damage control in mastering is when you don't have access to the mix. You certainly don't want to start pulling and tugging on the mix file when you have the tracks right there to continue working with.

It's normal for your brain to wake up and identify things when you start comparing mixes/masters that you just weren't hearing when you had the mix up. Take notes and go back and finish the mix!


Oh... and don't forget to carefully level match when you compare mixes/masters. Louder always sounds better to the brain (sounds closer to you). And brighter always sounds louder (again, sounds closer proximity to you).

Last edited by serr; 05-06-2015 at 09:37 AM.
serr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 09:21 AM   #15
SaulT
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 876
Default

Why settle for a mix that doesn't sound the way you want it to?
SaulT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 09:25 AM   #16
bladerunner
Human being with feelings
 
bladerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 4,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
P.S. Unrelated. I asked some ME's about the low end, something that's typically more problematic for home studio mixes, and almost to a man they said they rather have too much than not enough. That's it's much easier to trim away unnecessary low end than to add what's not there.
Now that it is interesting... I prefer too little (to a point) - gives me more room to work. I have a few ways of enhancing the low end or indeed creating more low end if need be.
__________________
Mastering from £30 per track \\\
Facebook \\\ #masteredbyloz
bladerunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 09:57 AM   #17
Bristol Posse
Human being with feelings
 
Bristol Posse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 642
Default

If you have stuff in the mix that you hope the mastering guy can fix, then you aren't done mixing.
If you can't get the mix to sound right even with hours of time at the desk and tons of processing then you probably didn't track it right and shouldn't be even considering sending out for mastering.

Mastering was/is just preparing a song or collection of songs to be put on a final "master" for duplication.

If you are self releasing a single song over the web, then there really is no need to have a separate mastering process.

Unless you are hoping a mastering guy can fix all of the mix problems, which isn't his job.

Every one in the chain from the songwriter, to the musicians, to the recording engineer, to the mix engineer, to the Mastering engineer need to deliver the absolute best product they can rather than kick the can down the road and hope the next guy can fix it.

Then the consumer will listen to it on crappy limited bandwidth earbuds, in a low quality streaming format, while doing something else and not expect to have to pay for it..... but that's another story

Last edited by Bristol Posse; 05-06-2015 at 12:19 PM.
Bristol Posse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 11:13 AM   #18
bladerunner
Human being with feelings
 
bladerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 4,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristol Posse View Post
Mastering was/is just preparing a song or collection of songs to be put on a final "master" for duplication.
Well, I disagree with the 'just' sentiment here. I'm not going to go into the whys and wherefores too much but lets just say I'm with Emily Lazar on this - I believe mastering is a creative and artistic process - and that's the way I approach it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristol Posse View Post
If you are self releasing a single song over the web, then there really is no need to have a separate mastering process.
Strongly disagree here too! Why would a song not need a separate mastering process if it's 'self releasing a single song over the web'? How is that different to releasing a song in any other way or form?
__________________
Mastering from £30 per track \\\
Facebook \\\ #masteredbyloz
bladerunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 11:23 AM   #19
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bladerunner View Post
Now that it is interesting... I prefer too little (to a point) - gives me more room to work. I have a few ways of enhancing the low end or indeed creating more low end if need be.
Yeah. When I asked they all pretty much said the same thing...

"I'd prefer, if it's gonna miss, that it miss 'over', not under."

... as relates to the low end. Part of that is probably what I previously mentioned, that cutting is both easier and sounds better than boosting, generally speaking. I think it's a bit more problematic if (for example) a person has a badly aligned sub-woofer or something and the print is greatly lacking in bass content because they're hearing too much bass at the mix position.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 11:28 AM   #20
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bladerunner View Post
Strongly disagree here too! Why would a song not need a separate mastering process if it's 'self releasing a single song over the web'? How is that different to releasing a song in any other way or form?
Because - if it's a single isolated song, not a collection - you can do all of that on the main mix bus, with the full mix running. It's obviously a good idea to pause between those processes and maybe do it the next day with fresh ears, but there's really no reason to print a single isolated song and then load up a two track mix and "master it", unless it's with a collection of songs for an album or something.

If it's just one isolated song you'll have way more control doing it with the full mix running. If it's part of a collection, leave it alone and do them all at once in a 'mastering' project later.

I'd bet .. if you pass a two track mix to a guy who does both professional mixing and mastering to "master" it, and also give him the full mix (assuming he works with the same daw), the latter will likely end up sounding better.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 11:36 AM   #21
yagonnawantthatcowbell
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 344
Default

A lot (most? All?) of mixes aren't created in ideal monitoring environments. Mastering engineers have very expensive and accurate monitoring chains in rooms that are free of comb filtering, reflections, and resonances. Where your mix might be perfect, decisions have been made based on the influence of your monitoring and room on what you hear. The mastering engineer takes the mix and processes it so it translates to the greatest amount of playback environments, basically undoing the effect of the mix engineer's monitoring environment.

Well, that and the technical bit about creating a physical master, and ensuring the mixes match each other for a cohesive album.
yagonnawantthatcowbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 11:38 AM   #22
bladerunner
Human being with feelings
 
bladerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 4,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Because - if it's a single isolated song, not a collection - you can do all of that on the main mix bus, with the full mix running.
Yes, of course - that's fair enough. I think I read the statement in a different way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
I'd bet .. if you pass a two track mix to a guy who does both professional mixing and mastering to "master" it, and also give him the full mix (assuming he works with the same daw), the latter will likely end up sounding better.
Yes, that would be the ideal situation. Stem mastering is a go-between.
__________________
Mastering from £30 per track \\\
Facebook \\\ #masteredbyloz
bladerunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 11:45 AM   #23
bladerunner
Human being with feelings
 
bladerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 4,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yagonnawantthatcowbell View Post
No one has really hit the nail yet. Mastering engineers have very expensive and accurate monitoring chains in rooms that are free of comb filtering, reflections, and resonances. Where your mix might be perfect, decisions have been made based on the influence of your monitoring and room on what you hear. The mastering engineer takes the mix and processes it so it translates to the greatest amount of playback environments, basically undoing the effect of the mix engineer's monitoring environment.

Well, that and the technical bit about creating a physical master, and ensuring the mixes match each other for a cohesive album.
What nail? All of that is kind of a given. At least I would have thought it's a given for anyone considering using an ME.

Yes, great monitoring and a great room that you know the sound of very well are essential as you're going to be making critical decisions that will be set in stone once it leaves the computer.
__________________
Mastering from £30 per track \\\
Facebook \\\ #masteredbyloz
bladerunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 11:49 AM   #24
Bristol Posse
Human being with feelings
 
Bristol Posse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Because - if it's a single isolated song, not a collection - you can do all of that on the main mix bus, with the full mix running. It's obviously a good idea to pause between those processes and maybe do it the next day with fresh ears, but there's really no reason to print a single isolated song and then load up a two track mix and "master it", unless it's with a collection of songs for an album or something.

If it's just one isolated song you'll have way more control doing it with the full mix running. If it's part of a collection, leave it alone and do them all at once in a 'mastering' project later.

I'd bet .. if you pass a two track mix to a guy who does both professional mixing and mastering to "master" it, and also give him the full mix (assuming he works with the same daw), the latter will likely end up sounding better.
And to add to this:

for a single self release over the web you don't need to worry about: comparative song to song perceived loudness across the album; EQing, compression and so on for a cohesive album production sound; Bass control to stop the needle jumping out of the grooves for a vinyl release, correct redbook authoring, PQ code for CDs; correct spacing between songs and other album/collection related issues; producing a vinyl or glass master for duplication, etc etc etc

While a mastering engineer may impart his own sonic signature to a single finished mix and give it a second listen before release (which may not be a bad thing), if the mixing guy knows how to use a bus comp, eq and limiter, then mastering isn't strictly necessary. The mix should be able to stand on it's own and not be a turd for a mastering engineer to try and polish.

Mastering shouldn't be mitigating the mix screw ups, mixing shouln't be mitigating the recording screw ups and recording shouldn't be mitigating the performance screw ups

Last edited by Bristol Posse; 05-06-2015 at 12:16 PM.
Bristol Posse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 12:04 PM   #25
grinder
Human being with feelings
 
grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,905
Default

Mixing first
Mastering to polish etc
If the material is good to start with and the recoding of the sounds mixing will sought out "dullness.
My $1.50c worth.
Grinder
grinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 12:47 PM   #26
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristol Posse View Post
And to add to this:

for a single self release over the web you don't need to worry about: comparative song to song perceived loudness across the album; EQing, compression and so on for a cohesive album production sound;
Yes. You do have to consider the reality of record production, that 8-9-10-12 songs going on an album have often been produced and mixed in multiple different places over the course of many months or even much longer, so part of making that "collection" final is providing some degree of continuity... even if many people don't even listen to full albums anymore like in the past.

Some songs will have more bass, more highs, another more mids, etc, etc. When I did the "home mastering" thing for friends (with the caveat that what I was doing was NOT professional mastering) what I typically did was find the best mix of the bunch, reference a great song against that one, tweak it, then bring all the other songs in the collection inline with that one... as best as possible. I also ran all the songs through my old ACP-8 analog comp to tighten them up a little and add a little warmth since (back then anyway) digital mixes were really cold.

True story. I ran one guy's mix through the ACP-8, added a tiny bit of compression, and he thought I did magic. "What did you do? Sounds great!". I didn't even EQ anything.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 01:50 PM   #27
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keyman_sam View Post
I get dull sounding mixed tracks of my songs, but the explanation is after mastering it will sound brighter. Is this true? What magic does mastering add, exactly? Are there pre-master and post-master versions of songs on the net?
From your wording, it sounds like someone else mixed your songs.

If so, they are not telling you the truth. It is an excuse for bad mixing.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 02:31 PM   #28
Nystagmus
Human being with feelings
 
Nystagmus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 509
Default

Mixing is a learned skill.

Professionally trained and/or experienced mixers will have better results than amateurs unless they aren't so good at mixing or for the particular tune or genre.

So first thing to consider is the skills of the person mixing.

So if you mix your own material, maybe your mixing skills aren't yet enough to keep your mixed tunes competitive. But don't give up, keep trying and learn along the way.

As for mastering, that can't fix events that should've happened in the mix, and that's pretty much EVERYTHING.
Nystagmus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 02:42 PM   #29
keyman_sam
Human being with feelings
 
keyman_sam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,562
Default

Ok I guess I have to push the mixing engineer to get the final sound then. I had a gut feeling about it, but listening to all your advice it sounds like the songs should sound strong out of the mix.

I'm seriously considering mixing my own song because when I A/B my rough mix with the mixed version, mine sounds crisper and cleaner (I did use a mastering preset though) and the vocals sound less compressed.

I'm at a crossroads here - on one hand, one of the mixed songs sounds pretty good (A/B), but the other song isn't there at all.

Another problem I have is to convince a mixing engineer to automate/give more reverb where its necessary (i.e. he's only comfortable with minor edits). Aggghh...decisions, decisions..
__________________
The must-have sample library for shortcircuit :
Essentials Volume 1
http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?...3313#note14891
keyman_sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 02:57 PM   #30
Stevil Kinevil
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keyman_sam View Post
I get dull sounding mixed tracks of my songs, but the explanation is after mastering it will sound brighter. Is this true? What magic does mastering add, exactly? Are there pre-master and post-master versions of songs on the net?

It sounds like you are having a similar issue I have been dealing with the last few weeks. I asked a similar question in this thread:

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=159381

and got some great advice. What kind of music do you make? Instrumentation? Consider deeper individual track eq'ing if you aren't already.

Whiteaxxxe's advice especially regarding the whole 'cut don't boost for clarity' issue has helped me tremendously. I can't see why I would need any mastering at all once I get tracks to gel. Maybe just to get similar volumes of songs for an album. I see you whiteaxxxe! Haha Cheers
Stevil Kinevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 03:58 PM   #31
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keyman_sam View Post
Another problem I have is to convince a mixing engineer to automate/give more reverb where its necessary (i.e. he's only comfortable with minor edits).
Walk away briskly and don't look back.

If you hired a 'mix engineer' that isn't comfortable with automation or editing (??) then you hired the wrong guy and you're probably better off doing it yourself.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 04:03 PM   #32
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevil Kinevil View Post
Whiteaxxxe's advice especially regarding the whole 'cut don't boost for clarity' issue has helped me tremendously. I can't see why I would need any mastering at all once I get tracks to gel. Maybe just to get similar volumes of songs for an album.
"Mastering" has become like everything else related to the (home) recording arts, a supposed magic bullet, like the great new plugin or some fanatical level setting, or (insert multiple similar things here) that many people think will make a major difference when it typically won't, except of course when giving a somewhat decent home mix to a really good ME, which will, 99% of the time, sound better when you get it back mostly because he or she hears it better than you, has many years of critical listening under his or her belt, and EQ's better than you, and has better monitors and acoustics than you.

All the other stuff goes back to "Karbo's Rule of Music". Make good songs, leave space in the arrangement, don't use a kazillion plugins, and if you have talent, it will shine through regardless.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 04:14 PM   #33
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,561
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keyman_sam View Post
Ok I guess I have to push the mixing engineer to get the final sound then. I had a gut feeling about it, but listening to all your advice it sounds like the songs should sound strong out of the mix.

I'm seriously considering mixing my own song because when I A/B my rough mix with the mixed version, mine sounds crisper and cleaner (I did use a mastering preset though) and the vocals sound less compressed.

I'm at a crossroads here - on one hand, one of the mixed songs sounds pretty good (A/B), but the other song isn't there at all.

Another problem I have is to convince a mixing engineer to automate/give more reverb where its necessary (i.e. he's only comfortable with minor edits). Aggghh...decisions, decisions..
Ok, yeah... I'll just be blunt and say fire that guy. He's making excuses and trying to bs you. Getting help from a friend who is also an amateur is one thing if everybody is hungry to do their best and learn. He's making excuses - he's checked out. Take his statement as "I'm done. Get someone else to do it." Move on and work on this project yourself.
serr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 05:46 PM   #34
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keyman_sam View Post

Another problem I have is to convince a mixing engineer to automate/give more reverb where its necessary (i.e. he's only comfortable with minor edits). Aggghh...decisions, decisions..

It could be that he is more old school, great at what he is good at but that not being a good fit for you. Happens all the time. I also think there is some irony to the idea that major edits equals "good mixin'" because IMHO that isn't mixing, it's editing. I know, I'm being captain obvious here.

Not that you implied any of that that but it has been a very "popular" idea over the last 15 years to move all the major work over to the mix engineer. Not saying that's you at all; I'm sure it isn't, just reflecting on the times as a whole at the expense of your post so apologies for that hijack.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 06:31 PM   #35
Stevil Kinevil
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
"Mastering" has become like everything else related to the (home) recording arts, a supposed magic bullet, like the great new plugin or some fanatical level setting, or (insert multiple similar things here) that many people think will make a major difference when it typically won't, except of course when giving a somewhat decent home mix to a really good ME, which will, 99% of the time, sound better when you get it back mostly because he or she hears it better than you, has many years of critical listening under his or her belt, and EQ's better than you, and has better monitors and acoustics than you.

All the other stuff goes back to "Karbo's Rule of Music". Make good songs, leave space in the arrangement, don't use a kazillion plugins, and if you have talent, it will shine through regardless.
Yes,I agree, and I am definitely guilty of this thinking as well. I think human nature defaults to the path of least resistance, or trying to be efficient.

As I get older, I am less surprised or disappointed when things take a longer time or more effort to get a good result.

This has been a definite marker for me that I'm getting a better mix (besides how it sounds), because it takes more time and effort than just trying to find a quick fix.

So, if you end up having to start completely over on a mix, but with more knowledge, you'll probably get way better results,and be glad you did in the end.

Edit: moral- if it takes more effort and time, the end product usually reflects said effort/ time.
Stevil Kinevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 06:32 PM   #36
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
I also think there is some irony to the idea that major edits equals "good mixin'" because IMHO that isn't mixing, it's editing. I know, I'm being captain obvious here
Very true K. I do think you have to view it in "levels" or contextual stages. It's probably much less the case that full time professional music producers need lots of editing at the mix stage but for a good range of home produced stuff what I personally find is lots of things the artist didn't even hear.

Editing sibilant noises, clicks, pops, EQ matching where different vocal takes sound very different fundamentally, tuning and timing adjustments, and like the other poster said, sometimes a really rough arrangement needs more complex automation to bring everything into focus. Obviously, the better the music producer the less of that stuff is left to do and the less work overall to mix in general.

So ... yeah... if the guy isn't willing to put in that kind of work he needs to step his client base up a few notches where it's maybe much less ordinary.

What you say above is absolutely true in a certain context though. It's just probably not the typical reality at the low mid home music production level. Honestly, most of the projects I get aren't even correctly named, the tracks, forget about the guy actually doing most of the tedious editing work and trying to save some money.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 06:48 PM   #37
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevil Kinevil View Post
So, if you end up having to start completely over on a mix, but with more knowledge, you'll probably get way better results,and be glad you did in the end.

Edit: moral- if it takes more effort and time, the end product usually reflects said effort/ time.
I'm hardly an expert but I do think one problematic thing with mixing for some people is that some approach it in a formulaic way, mix by the numbers, when it's probably more the case that every song should be approached as a unique thing.

In other words, the tendency of some is to "keep doing what worked before", slap on fave comp A, throw plugin B saturation on all the tracks, etc, etc. When I watch (like at my nephew's studio) they mostly don't even bother to really listen to the tracks before they start slapping on plugins.

Truth be told, half the money I made mixing for local people was mostly taking off all the unnecessary stuff they had put on the song. Guys would send me a Cubase song with a kazillion plugins, sounds like crap, turn off all the plugs, not so bad, a few tweaks, a few practical plugins and effects, a little automation, done.

Anyway, Karbo posted a song he did with his sister or daughter or something and the sheer simplicity of it illustrates the point. If the talent is there, the job of the mix engineer isn't to "mimic famous mix guy X", it's really his job to get out of the way and let the music speak... and fix any issues that prevent him from doing that along the way.

Last edited by Lawrence; 05-06-2015 at 06:57 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 07:50 PM   #38
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
It's just probably not the typical reality at the low mid home music production level.
I'm sure it isn't. One of the reasons I exited opportunities to mix records for a living was the realization that it wasn't going to be the Beatles day in and day out. That's nothing negative on the customers because every customer pays the bills AND they deserve someone who cares during that time regardless of their personal chops and "prodom"; which results in a lot of fixing stuff. I knew I wouldn't have the patience for that and is why I surely admire those who can.

On the flip side and a little off topic, I now find myself also enjoying and admiring flaws, not fixing them but allowing them to shine through and become part of that irreplaceable magic. Perfect isn't the perfect I always dreamed it was. Sometimes the underlying message in my rants is in reality, urging all of us to not be overly exact and perfect for "music" aka my sig.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 05-06-2015 at 07:59 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 07:53 PM   #39
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
when it's probably more the case that every song should be approached as a unique thing.
Amen brother. It's not just mixing a bunch of tracks to "sound good", it's the pulling out of the emotions and personalities hidden in those tracks and somehow massaging that into the hearts and minds of the listener. There "ain't" no VST for that. It's obviously not always going to work out that way but it's a great place to start.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 08:02 PM   #40
Stevil Kinevil
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
I'm hardly an expert but I do think one problematic thing with mixing for some people is that some approach it in a formulaic way, mix by the numbers, when it's probably more the case that every song should be approached as a unique thing.

In other words, the tendency of some is to "keep doing what worked before", slap on fave comp A, throw plugin B saturation on all the tracks, etc, etc. When I watch (like at my nephew's studio) they mostly don't even bother to really listen to the tracks before they start slapping on plugins.

Truth be told, half the money I made mixing for local people was mostly taking off all the unnecessary stuff they had put on the song. Guys would send me a Cubase song with a kazillion plugins, sounds like crap, turn off all the plugs, not so bad, a few tweaks, a few practical plugins and effects, a little automation, done.

Anyway, Karbo posted a song he did with his sister or daughter or something and the sheer simplicity of it illustrates the point. If the talent is there, the job of the mix engineer isn't to "mimic famous mix guy X", it's really his job to get out of the way and let the music speak... and fix any issues that prevent him from doing that along the way.
Yes, I also default to formula if I find a workflow that suits me. I think there is some validity to this, especially if all other things are equal (similar instrumentation, recording setup, same gear, similar track levels, aiming for similar aesthetic, same DAW).

I agree about the 'getting out of the way'. Great point!
Stevil Kinevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.