Iterative mixing and mastering

smokeAndMirrors

New member
I often find myself listening to a mastered version of my tracks and thinking "that sounded decent in the final mix, but my multiband compression (or excitation or stereo with adjustment or EQ tweak) has actually made an instrument sound relatively louder." And so I go back to my mix project and pull the instrument levels down a bit.

Is this contrary to the spirit of "pure" mastering which deals only with an audio track? Is it common practice? Or is it better to try to find a compromise setting which reduces the relative boost whilst partly fixing the compression issue?
 
I'd say it's contrary to the spirit of mastering - if you're going back to the mix then perhaps the mix isn't finished, or you're attempting something unrealistic during mastering (too much/too little/inapropriate processing).

There are bound to be changes to the overall sound during mastering. Any kind of compession on a mix will probably bring up/down transients, decay and ambience levels for the mix overall, which is bound to affect different instruments differently. Likewise, if you're adding saturation anywhere in your mastering chain it's going to change things too.

I guess this is the number 1 reason why it's quite common for mix engineers to send their work elsewhere to be mastered.
 
I often find myself listening to a mastered version of my tracks and thinking "that sounded decent in the final mix, but my multiband compression (or excitation or stereo with adjustment or EQ tweak) has actually made an instrument sound relatively louder." And so I go back to my mix project and pull the instrument levels down a bit.

Is this contrary to the spirit of "pure" mastering which deals only with an audio track? Is it common practice? Or is it better to try to find a compromise setting which reduces the relative boost whilst partly fixing the compression issue?

Like most things, but especially with multi band compression, it can be easy to go overboard, where over applying a process can have an adverse effect on your mix.

If the mix is already well balanced the key is doing the least amount of processing possible to get it to where it needs to go. Less is more.
If something in the mastering process is screwing up your mix, it's usually not the mix that needs attention, it's the mastering process that probably needs a lighter touch.. gl
 
Like most things, but especially with multi band compression, it can be easy to go overboard, where over applying a process can have an adverse effect on your mix.

I dont know if this is a common experience, but I've always found that multiband to be finicky - it can work wonders but only where there is a specific dynamic problem with the mix in a certain frequency band. I've gradually come to the conclusion that using it as a first resort (as I used to, a few years ago) is problematic - if there isnt a specific problem then effectively splitting your mix up into separate bands and processing them separately is far from transparent. Be interested to hear if this is just me though...
 
Like most things, but especially with multi band compression, it can be easy to go overboard, where over applying a process can have an adverse effect on your mix.

If the mix is already well balanced the key is doing the least amount of processing possible to get it to where it needs to go. Less is more.
If something in the mastering process is screwing up your mix, it's usually not the mix that needs attention, it's the mastering process that probably needs a lighter touch.. gl
Agreed. Right off the top- why, and in particularly if you mixed it, and now also 'mastering' it,, why the heck are you going to Mall-the-band as some sort of default!
It's one thing to get someone else's mix you're charged to fix with just the two track. But this is your mix. Fix the mix. Make sense?
 
I find it not unusual for mastering to bring out parts of the mix. Usually I find this an advantage as the mastering is bringing out some detail that may have been there but not as obvious as when the mastering is carried out. Sometimes there is some change that occurs like the bass may become stronger or the mids or highs stand out more, due to the compression added. This is why a good eq is essential in mastering.

I would investigate the mastering you are doing a bit more rather than revisiting the mix over and over, unless there is a real big problem with the mix to start with.

Alan.
 
It's easy to go overboard when mastering stuff. Sometimes, if a mix is how you want it, it might not need anything doing to it. Sometimes I get tracks in for mastering that are mixed so beautifully, all they need is a couple of EQ tweaks (I use Sonnox if it's ITB because it's so transparent) and limiting ever so slightly. Don't use processing that isn't needed.

Chances are, if you mixed it a certain way, it means you like it, so you probably shouldn't try and change it in mastering. Keep it simple and you can't go wrong.
 
Agreed. Right off the top- why, and in particularly if you mixed it, and now also 'mastering' it,, why the heck are you going to Mall-the-band as some sort of default!
It's one thing to get someone else's mix you're charged to fix with just the two track. But this is your mix. Fix the mix. Make sense?

Yes, it does indeed make sense! Aside from simple historical precedent, there are a few reasons why I might separate the processes, though.

1. When mastering multiple songs, to get the same tonality and loudness in the end results without having to continually switch projects
2. Because a mix generally has a high CPU load so it's easier to work with a stand-alone project.
3. There's just less clutter in the mastering project

This sort of raises a question: should I generally master a single stereo track, or is it now a case where I can compromise and master from multiple stems? Have considered this for a while.
 
Yes, it does indeed make sense! Aside from simple historical precedent, there are a few reasons why I might separate the processes, though.

1. When mastering multiple songs, to get the same tonality and loudness in the end results without having to continually switch projects
2. Because a mix generally has a high CPU load so it's easier to work with a stand-alone project.
3. There's just less clutter in the mastering project

This sort of raises a question: should I generally master a single stereo track, or is it now a case where I can compromise and master from multiple stems? Have considered this for a while.

He's asking why you think you need to apply multiband compression ("maul-the-band"). It's normally a corrective process used when you can't go back to the mix. If something is so wrong in the mix that it makes you want to use multiband compression then fix it in the mix. If you're just putting multiband on there as a habit, don't.
 
He's asking why you think you need to apply multiband compression ("maul-the-band"). It's normally a corrective process used when you can't go back to the mix. If something is so wrong in the mix that it makes you want to use multiband compression then fix it in the mix. If you're just putting multiband on there as a habit, don't.

Hey thanks you got me covered there :>)
And to that 'position I/We took I'll add.. I find when after doing abunch of mixes that I think are 'dialed in'..
Lining them up and hearing them in a new 'master proj context- kicks in another whole level of perspective.. How different they can sound, how some stack up 'under par to others etc..
This is where we get to use this difference, we can go back to the mix- and do a better job of improving them than if all we had is the 2-tracks'.
There's that thing' about one of the addvantages of a good 'second ear is it brings a new perspective to the effort.
Getting us to stepping away from our head being up in the mix process' -either in time away, and/or 'the new master proj helps in that regard.
 
I typically do mastering in a separate project because I'm doing it at home rather than at my friend's studio. Different room and different speakers, and the fact that I listen to just about everything here, gives me a perspective on the mixes that I can't get when using the same room and speakers as I did on the mix.
 
Back
Top