"Mastering is not Mixing...", but is it "fixing"?

timvracer

Member
Hi all,

I am interested in perspectives, especially from those of you who master for money, what you believe should be expected and not expected from a mastering expert. I once had a CD mastered about 10 years ago, and found a great guy who was willing to work with me and my very terrible mixes. He fixed all sorts of problems that existed in the mix, and I ended up hugely satisfied with a firm understanding that issues in tracking and mixing would prevent me from having an awesome/pro sounding mix, but it still was good enough for distribution, and got lots of positive feedback. He also offered me some iteration on the mix, by giving me feedback on what I could do on my end to then help the master come out great.

However, and pardon me for being provocative, I sometimes feel that specialists either in mixing or mastering don't want to deal with issues, but rather just put on the things they know how to do with a pure mix that leads to a great sound, and when the mix has issues that "should" have been fixed in a prior stage, (i.e. frequency spikes, etc.), I often sense sentiments such as "you have to fix your tracking" or "Mastering is not mixing..." :-)

Ok, I know I am being provocative, but the world is filled with imperfect tracking/recording folks, and imperfect mixing folks. I have spent hundreds of hours as the mixer on my project fixing absolutely sucky tracking, especially the drums. However, with lots of attention, and some tricks you guys have shown me, I am getting some really good results that the artists/band is thrilled with (knowing we will never sound like a band recorded in a pro studio, with pro equipment, and with pro mixers -- because well, we didn't, can't, aren't).

I do need this project mastered, and really want to find (and will pay appropriately) someone who can spend the time really making the the end result as best as possible with what we got, rather than doing what they might do with a pro mix, and then saying "well, your mix/tracking sucks". I hope you get where I am coming from, please don't educate me on the importance of tracking and mixing great, I get that... but now I want to challenge the mastering experts with what can I expect from you beyond a simple mastering chain that works great with good mixes. I am not looking for a mastering factory, but someone who will work with me to get the best end result.

What say you? Is this a reasonable expectation?
 
Is it reasonable? I think that comes down to the mastering engineer and what he is capable of doing balanced how much you're willing to spend. Yu can send your imperfect project off to a fly-by-night, not pay a lot and not get a lot. Or you can send it off to an industry veteran, get a great sounding project and pay his fees.

I'm no pro, listening to songs in my links prove that, but I have a solid understanding of what should be done where. Your thinking that issues should be addressed in the prior stage is correct, but not always doable, especially tracking issues. The mixer has a lot of tools to fix tracking issues. Much more so than the mastering engineer. I've heard of mxing engineers getting previously tracked songs and retracking guitar parts themselves because the submitted tracks were horrible. Or mixing engineers using samples to get a better drum track. So, the mix engineer should be fixing all the issues before sending to the mastering engineer.

The mastering engineer should be preparing the project for distribution. Getting all the mixes to sound coherent on an album and, what I think should be added to his standard tasks, remove the home studio from the mixes.
 
I am curious too. We are about halfway through a project that we expect to have mastered professionally. The mixing is mine, and while I do think my mixes manage to convey a certain aesthetic vision, on a technical level they are far from perfect.

Listening to hundreds of tunes on the clinic, I've come to think that mastering--at least amateur mastering by the typical home recordist--is more likely to compound mixing problems than fix them.

Hope some of the pros can weigh in.
 
There's are some mastering guys here who do nothing but that as their biz...they may chime in with their perspectives.

IMO...while mastering can do some "fixing"...I can understand why a really bad mix may not be acceptable to some mastering guys...or they may do it, but with a full disclaimer that it's going to be less than perfect.

Too often, the amateur home rec guys have some unrealistic expectations from what mastering can do to an really bad mix...and then when the mastering fails to meet those expectations. they end up feeling like the mastering didn't do a good job to salvage their shitty mixes and deliver a ready for prime time product.

Also...most of those amateur home rec guys hate to hear that their problems started the minute they pressed REC...because they probably put in way too much time and effort, and now they just want the end-product.
If they asked for opinions early on, from people that know...they could potentially correct the issues before getting in too deep...but it seems some tend to avoid that...they know they are struggling with their recording, yet they don't want to ask for help...or feel too embarrassed to show what they have.

There's a thread somewhere here on HR...it talks about knowing your limitations, and if you can come to grips with that, and consider that your goal should be the delivering of the best finished product...then you do what you can, up to you limitations, and take the rest of it to someone who is more capable.
If it's just some personal goal...to do it mostly yourself, no matter what...then when you take that to someone and ask them to "polish it off" (which IMO is what mastering is more about than "fixing" a bad mix)...you have to be realistic about what you will get, because your limitations have already become part of the mixes...and it's no easy task to surgically remove them in the mastering stage.
That said...I think most good mastering engineers can always improve a bad mix...how much, depends on how bad it is. :)
 
I don't master much, I mostly mix other peoples tracks, but the same sort of mentality and logic applies.

When i get a song that was tracked well, I can spend my time and mental energy making the mix compelling, energetic and bigger than life.

When a song is tracked poorly, all of my time and thought process is spent fixing issues and just trying to get it to fit together somehow.

In both cases, the mix ends up sounding better than the scratch mixes from the band, but one is clearly compromised.

No matter what, if you are paying someone to do work for you, there will be a certain amount of work that they will be willing to do for that price. Whether that time is spent doing their job of fixing your errors will depend on what you gave them.

With mastering, it's much the same way. Mastering is supposed to be about bringing the mixes together into a cohesive CD that translates well to the outside world and flows well as a CD. It really shouldn't be about fixing tracking and mixing mistakes.

There are some projects that I get in that are so poorly recorded that I won't do it. It's not because I'm an asshole that only wants to work on pristine projects, it's because someone will be paying me to make a good mix. If I don't think I can work with what they gave me, I don't want to take their money. Some people really think there is some magic that only pros know how to do, and they will be disappointed with the results. I don't like having to tell people that their tracking/performance sucks, and I don't want to beat my head against the wall fixing everything.
 
Good mix, ok mix, not so good mix.......a good ME can make them sound better.

While the goal is always (or should be) to make as proffessional recording as possible, a good ME can make it better.

And better is better, right?
And I doubt that a good ME would take on something horrible. Mastering junk could hurt HIS name.
So if your ME tells you he'll sue you if you give him mastering credits.........well...... could be a sign. Lol
:D
 
The idea behind "we'll fix it in the fix" when tracking applies also to mastering. "We'll fix it in the mix" means remedial action to repair poor tracking performance. It can be done, but the basic rule is "you should not be using a subsequent stage to remedy problems from an earlier stage".

In my view, performance problems should not be fixed in mixing, and mixing problems should not be fixed in mastering. The fact that some engineers are willing and able to do this is a credit to them, but I feel they are sometimes relied on too heavily.
 
The idea behind "we'll fix it in the fix" when tracking applies also to mastering. "We'll fix it in the mix" means remedial action to repair poor tracking performance. It can be done, but the basic rule is "you should not be using a subsequent stage to remedy problems from an earlier stage".

In my view, performance problems should not be fixed in mixing, and mixing problems should not be fixed in mastering. The fact that some engineers are willing and able to do this is a credit to them, but I feel they are sometimes relied on too heavily.


I completely agree with the above.

All I was pointing out was that in a home environment, with the tools and skills available to the average home recordist, they will almost always benefit from a skilled ME. Of course factoring in him being willing to take on the project.

His equipment and skills, as well as room and EARS are probably light years ahead of the average guy, and bound to have a positive bettering effect on what has been submitted.

Also, being a "golden eared" impartial participant in the music making process, he/she (for the politically correct) can recommend mix changes to the submitter to produce a better result.



**disclaimer**

I doubt any of our opinions mean jack shit. An actual ME would have real world input. :D
 
Mastering junk won't hurt the mastering engineer's name. He certainly won't use it on his website to show people how awesome he is, but it won't damage his reputation.

Chances are, if the project was done poorly, it will also be received poorly and not be heard or noticed by enough people to make any difference at all. Also, if the ME does good work, people will know that the bad project was just that, a bad project.

The only time I wanted my name off of a project was when a group decided that instead of paying me to mix the album, they would simply release the quick scratch mixes that I did when we finished tracking. They weren't even mixed...it was basically the headphone mix for the vocalist.
 
Is this a reasonable expectation?

I think it's possible to find an ME that you gel with who might have a background in mixing and possibly production to help put the final touches on the project.

It seems the jobs in music engineering that used to be somewhat more definable 10 to 25 years ago, no longer are as much, ..so using a hybrid approach as you're looking to do seems reasonable and do-able. Just do a decent back ground check. gl
 
Quick Update:
I have mastered my track 3 ways: a) myself, b) sample from a pro, and c) LANDR (I only did this so I can blow up this thread :-) )

Results so far:
a) Using Waves VEQ4, MaxxBass, and L3-LL I got a very good result. I did not do any Multiband compression, but rather just used the multi-band limiting of the L3.
b) the pro master sample is slightly clearer/better, but subjective (I get mixed reviews), but EQ is not right (which is of course, very fixable). (Note, whether we go with him or not, I will pay him $$ for his great service and cooperation).
c) omg... absolute garbage. It is terrible, really.

Loudness is equal with A and B, and less loud with C (and just messy)
 
From listening to the mix clinic, the idea of mastering seems to be putting a brickwall limiter on a track to make it as loud as possible. These tracks are essentially unlistenable due to the harshness combined with lack of dynamics. An artist would be better off not doing that and relying on the listener to turn up the volume or getting more volume from the mix.

To me mastering should be subtle. Like making the tracks equal in volume or subtle EQ (to me subtle moves around 50hz to cut boomy low end, 200-400hz to fix mud, and then top boost to add shine makes sense but nothing more). That assumes it's recorded well. If it's not recorded well the artist needs to record better tracks or just not master it and do with a "character" type recording, which is fine and those can be very enjoyable. Fixing performance during mastering makes zero sense. It barely makes sense during mixing unless it's a very minor error.

Music is trending away from the loudness wars except at the amateur level. At least that's what people tell me. I don't listen to enough mainstream music to know if it's true. Sure hope so because loud and poorly limited music is almost always harsh and unlistenable music. A little bit of limiting to chop off stray peaks is fine, but many people here manually fix those in the mix stage, which is a better approach, imo.
 
I respect this point of view, but have to disagree just a bit with the notion that you cannot fix performance issues during mixing (or that it doesn't make sense). I just spent months doing it because it simply was not possible to retrack. I (and I bet most everyone) understands the notion of good tracking/performance is the best way to start, and as well, getting a mix so solid that mastering is nothing more than what you say, well.. that is the ideal.

But then again, there is reality, and sorta like my job in technology, I get paid to solve the tough problems (like managing a team that has poor performers, and getting it in shape, or dealing with old legacy technology full of tech debt that needs to be improved while continuing the business). These are the realities I am used to. Those who can "do it right" have a luxury, and will certainly get the best results -- but I actually am pretty stoked about how much I learned can actually be done with a poor performance with today's tools. I know this might be philosophical, and purists hate things like pitch correction I suppose, but why not? My job is to make the band sound as good as possible.

The band I am mixing is good, and the "fixes" were not super huge (pitch correction, timing issues, some bad notes here and there, poor EQ, etc.). The hardest fixing was the poor mic techniques, especially on the drums -- had to do lots of processing and drum replacement/layering, but ended up with some really nice sounding drums. IMO, fixing in mixing is doable, and can be made to sound "good" (meaning, not distracting, sounds right), but sure, it will always sound weaker when compared to stuff done right.


From listening to the mix clinic, the idea of mastering seems to be putting a brickwall limiter on a track to make it as loud as possible. These tracks are essentially unlistenable due to the harshness combined with lack of dynamics. An artist would be better off not doing that and relying on the listener to turn up the volume or getting more volume from the mix.

To me mastering should be subtle. Like making the tracks equal in volume or subtle EQ (to me subtle moves around 50hz to cut boomy low end, 200-400hz to fix mud, and then top boost to add shine makes sense but nothing more). That assumes it's recorded well. If it's not recorded well the artist needs to record better tracks or just not master it and do with a "character" type recording, which is fine and those can be very enjoyable. Fixing performance during mastering makes zero sense. It barely makes sense during mixing unless it's a very minor error.

Music is trending away from the loudness wars except at the amateur level. At least that's what people tell me. I don't listen to enough mainstream music to know if it's true. Sure hope so because loud and poorly limited music is almost always harsh and unlistenable music. A little bit of limiting to chop off stray peaks is fine, but many people here manually fix those in the mix stage, which is a better approach, imo.
 
Hi Tim. Yeah, if you can't retrack and need to fix things in the mix because of that then do that. Whatever it takes to get the job done.
In the situation you described, go back and figure out why the mic placement wasn't right or why there were out of time notes or bad notes. That is where you should invest most of your time.
 
Last edited:
IMO, fixing in mixing is doable, and can be made to sound "good" (meaning, not distracting, sounds right), but sure, it will always sound weaker when compared to stuff done right.

Yeah, there's always two sides to this.
Plenty of guys will know all about it because they are sent work where re-tracking isn't an option.
Your job (Looking at you Jim) is to make the best of something that's less than ideal.

Ideal is the key word there. If it's possible you should always aim to go back and get these things right at the source but, yes, a hell of a lot can be fixed or replaced later with great results too.
I suppose the problem, and I've certainly been guilty of it, is when the mindset changes to skipping over things and being lazy because you can fix it later.
That's a slippery slope. :p
 
I suppose the problem, and I've certainly been guilty of it, is when the mindset changes to skipping over things and being lazy because you can fix it later.
That's a slippery slope. :p

No doubt, I have already gently lectured the band... "if there is a next time, it's going to be in a studio, with proper equipment and knowledge". They know. Heck, they were tearing down and setting up every friday night in a basement to record 1 song each week. Every track was different. ugh.
 
Haha. Been there.
It's all experience man. :)


To answer your original question, which I've only just read, I think it's perfectly acceptable to blur the lines between roles these days.
It all boils down to how flexible the particular M.E. is but I'd guess a lot of them expect to have to fix issue these days, given how accessible and common home recording is, unless they work exclusively with professional studios.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that anyone worth working with will be glad to discuss your needs an expectations in advance.
If you're open and honest about the quality of your work and your expectations of the M.E., then reading from the same script before work is done or money is spent.
 
I definitely don't think that your expectations are too high. For me a large part of mastering is making sure that the client is improving their mixing skills even if its means that on the long run they might not require my services at some point. There is nothing more satisfying than know that the client has actually learned something from the process.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top