Mixing a CD: how long?

[DavidK]

Yeah, thats right, you heard right.

Gimme YOUR guess as to how many hours it would take to mix a rockish album. Assuming the music was recorded properly, ready to go, with me and an engineer working in a pro studio. How many hours would you allow? I am asking for budget reasons.

Well? It wouldnt be that complicated musically, the drums would be samples, and there are a LOT of synth tracks....

[ikijapan]

Well, I'm a newb, so don't listen to me...but from what I've seen in the past 6 years I've worked with audio, you can really take as long or short as you want. Some people spend, literally, years mixing their perfectly tracked album. I've seen people mix a full length rock album in 2 days also.

Just depends on what all you want to do with the album. I know that doesn't really answer the question, but I just find it funny how much time people can spend mixing an album, versus people that have just as much experience taking little time at all. Maybe it depends on whether you already know exactly how you want it to sound when it's done or not.

[PhiloBeddoe]

As ikijapan said, there are no absolute answers. It's dependant on many things, perhaps most of all the desired quality.

Many engineers like to mix one song per day (probably a long day) and then return the following day to make a few final adjustments. OTOH, it could take half a day or 3 days easily.

[DavidK]

Thanks for the responses. I guess my question should be:

"How do producers set a budget for mixing time"? I am trying to figure out finances for a project and have to come up with a figure. I cant go over, it will come out of my pocket.

Maybe it depends on whether you already know exactly how you want it to sound when it's done or not.

I do, I know exactly how it should sound and exactly how to mix it. What I dont know is how to do pro-level eq and compression etc. I could do it in my studio except I want to use all the cool pro toys and have another set of experienced ears.


My guess: 60 hours of studio time. That would be relatively affordable, yet its a good amount of time.

[mshilarious]

Originally Posted by DavidK

My guess: 60 hours of studio time. That would be relatively affordable, yet its a good amount of time.

Probably 1 minute of track time = 1 hour of mix, so you might be right. However, if we are talking your stuff, or if there is a lot of variation between tracks, all bets are off . . .

[DavidK]

Originally Posted by mshilarious

However, if we are talking your stuff, or if there is a lot of variation between tracks, all bets are off . . .

Its not my usual classical stuff, its more rock and WAY less complicated. My classical stuff takes 60 hours just to spell.

I think I will use the 60 hours as a very close guideline. I have already made a demo of half the CD, so I pretty much know what's what, I just want to have the proper eq stuff. Actually, it will probably end up that I spend 15 hours on one tune and then the rest will basically use very similiar settings.

[TuoKaerf]

I'll take anywhere from 4-20 hours on one song, depending on how many tracks, song length, and how complex the effects and automation will be.

A 70 track session with a ton of automation will take way longer than a 15 track acoustic rock CD.

The real answer is that I'll mix a song until it is right, or the band is happy with it.

[DavidK]

Originally Posted by TuoKaerf

I'll take anywhere from 4-20 hours on one song, depending on how many tracks, song length, and how complex the effects and automation will be.

A 70 track session with a ton of automation will take way longer than a 15 track acoustic rock CD.

The real answer is that I'll mix a song until it is right, or the band is happy with it.

I dont know how long I took on my last CD. It wasnt at one time, I would come back to stuff months later, mix as I go, change things, cut things, add things.

The difference with this CD: real money. In my home I can mix all day 24/7 like most home recordists. In a pro studio, that clock is a-tickin. I have never done this to this extent. It doesnt have to be perfect, just unbelievably great. The main thing it has to be is ON BUDGET. If it goes over, it comes out of the producers pocket. Which is mine.

60 hours should make sure that it has a reasonable chance of being good and that everything gets a fair amount of attention. There are some tracks that I will deem possible "hits" and some "misses". I will spend more time on the "hits".

[BRIEFCASEMANX]

Originally Posted by TuoKaerf

I'll take anywhere from 4-20 hours on one song, depending on how many tracks, song length, and how complex the effects and automation will be.

A 70 track session with a ton of automation will take way longer than a 15 track acoustic rock CD.

The real answer is that I'll mix a song until it is right, or the band is happy with it.

i agree with this post, although i take about 6-20.

[andyhix]

Originally Posted by DavidK

The main thing it has to be is ON BUDGET. If it goes over, it comes out of the producers pocket. Which is mine.

Since this is a new endeavor for you, I might suggest that going over budget isn't an "end of the world" scenario. I'd maybe go for the 60 hours, and if it takes you 100 hours, chalk it up to experience/OJT. You will be able to better budget for this next time. I'd personally do what it takes to get it as perfect as possible, even if it's over budget.

[Mindset]

60 hours for a full album? saying 15 tracks. From experience, this is what I saw... All of it is doable to them. If you wanted 2 tracks 60 hours, they'll do it, and it'll probably sound bad ass..., if you wanted 200 tracks in 60 hours, they'll do it.... it'll probably sound like ass... I suggest upping those hours to at least 135 hours for a full album. They'll have adequate time to mix each song equally, and then the album as a whole.
Of course, factor in if, the engineer is up to par or not.. You always want to know who's working on your music

[DavidK]

Originally Posted by andyhix

Since this is a new endeavor for you, I might suggest that going over budget isn't an "end of the world" scenario. \

Only if I want to be homeless.

I am paying 15 union musicians for this. If I plan in advance, it might have to be 13, goodbye flute player and oboe. I cant take the pay hit and pay for anything over, its just like any job. 40 extra hours of A+ studio time is a LOT of money.

When you hire union players you do it about a month in advance. If you go over budget and need to cut a few, you have to pay them regardless. I am hiring them soon, I stop by the union today. Therefore, I cant take the money budgeted to them, once you sign its over.

I figure that 40 extra hours of studio time is $3200. For a musician thats a lotta dough. I'll work quickly.

[DavidK]

Originally Posted by Mindset

60 hours for a full album? saying 15 tracks. From experience, this is what I saw... All of it is doable to them. If you wanted 2 tracks 60 hours, they'll do it, and it'll probably sound bad ass..., if you wanted 200 tracks in 60 hours, they'll do it.... it'll probably sound like ass... I suggest upping those hours to at least 135 hours for a full album. They'll have adequate time to mix each song equally, and then the album as a whole.
Of course, factor in if, the engineer is up to par or not.. You always want to know who's working on your music

There are 14 tracks. Anyone involved will be way more than up to par, trust me. I will be there for 95% of the mixing sessions, cracking the whip I am picking studios now, I think I found the appropriate ones. The mixing engineer has a lot of experience, nice toys and seems to be a good fit personality-wise with me. There will be a seperate studio to record the orchestral stuff, this guy has a ton of experience with major classical but doesnt have the rock background and he is way too expensive for mixing. I will just hire that studio for the string sessions, will be in one day.

What I dont know- how much time non-classical people take to do things. Classical people are nuts, really. We never talk, ever. There is no "Hows the wife, Joe" stuff, its solid work, we are used to it because we are union and ALWAYS on a budget with symphonies. I want the environment to be very cordial and friendly, but solid work.

I think I am worrying too much. I know the music real well, I wrote it. Its not very complex, I am relying on great playing over studio technique. It's going to be more of a " people playing stuff" CD than an autotuned Mariah Carey disc with teams of NASA scientists analyzing each note.

I'm frightened, hold me.

[bblackwood]

Most of my mixing buddies seem to like budgeting about 1.5 days/mix to allow for recalls and such.

[ecktronic]

Id say 3-4 hours per song to get them mixed averagely. Then could be another 8 hours of trying out production techniques to make the mix more interesting.
If it was on a budget then a half decent mix could be achieved in less than 2 hours.

Eck

For songs with lots of tracks (50+) I'd guess at least a day to get everything sounding good. But I'm by no means a professional. Most of my songs have at most 10 tracks. If I wasn't lazy and the tracking was done right I can make a good mix in about 1 or 2 hours for my simple songs.

I tend to always go back and change a few little things though.

Another thought though, if you're recording a whole album, you might just wanna mix each song good enough so you'll have an idea of how good it will sound. Then when all the songs are done mix them appropriately so they all sound good together on an album. I imagine that will also make the mastering process easier.

[TuoKaerf]

Originally Posted by ecktronic

Id say 3-4 hours per song to get them mixed averagely. Then could be another 8 hours of trying out production techniques to make the mix more interesting.
If it was on a budget then a half decent mix could be achieved in less than 2 hours.

Eck

That is quite true as well. My average mix time is around 8-12 hours, and I spend maybe 4 getting levels and EQ right. The rest is spent working effects, re-arranging parts if needed, automation, some tweeking, and final printing. If it was tracked well, it takes even less time.

[ecktronic]

Originally Posted by TuoKaerf

If it was tracked well, it takes even less time.

God yes.
The better the tracking the easier the mixing.
I love mixing well tracked songs, and detest badly tracked songs.

Eck

[SouthSIDE Glen]

David, that's a tough question you ask, because there's so many variables involved. Ooften times one is forced to work to a budget instead of setting a budget to match the work.

But let's go with your question anyway. One of the big variables not ID'd here yet (I don't think) is the number of full tracks/instruments involved in the mix. It's (usually) a lot faster mixing a jazz trio than it is a 15-piece ensemble. Then you have to consider the complexity of the arrangement. If, of those 15 pieces, 4 of them are a string section just providing background fill, that'll probably go faster than if those 4 pieces were showcase world music percussion stylings.

Maybe a rough calculation you could try for the mixing would be something along these lines:

1.) Estimate the total number of "track minutes" you have to work through, with "track minutes" equalling the length of the piece multiplied by the number of instrument/vocal tracks you have to work with - alternate take clip tracks not included.

2.) Multiply that number by somewhere between 3 and 10. The better the tracking and the more experienced the engineer, the lower the multiplier. The more work the tracking needs or the less-experienced the engineer, the higher the multiplier.

3.) Divide that multiplied number by 60 to give a first approximation of the number of hours of studio mixing time to budget for. Round up to the next full hour.

4.) Add 2 hours on top of the result from step 3 to account for intangibles.

That may give you a rough reasonable budget estimate to work from.

G.

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by DavidK

Yeah, thats right, you heard right.

Gimme YOUR guess as to how many hours it would take to mix a rockish album. Assuming the music was recorded properly, ready to go, with me and an engineer working in a pro studio. How many hours would you allow? I am asking for budget reasons.

Well? It wouldnt be that complicated musically, the drums would be samples, and there are a LOT of synth tracks....

40 hours. No more. Any more would require more time and time = money, so, no more than 40 hours.

[zacanger]

Myself, I'd spend a weekend solid doing it, and at the end of the weekend, leave it how it is, no more changes, cuz I'd be sick of it.

[TexRoadkill]

A mix is never done. At some point you just decide to stop.

A high quality mix usually takes about 8-16 hours. A decent but cheap mix is 4 hours per song. A really cheap mix is 2 hours per song.

[Freudian Slip]

I assume you're going to record everything all at once for the most part. So if you do that the players are paid and gone before the mixing starts. I would personally devote the time needed to get a really good performance from everyone and then send them down the road.
At that point you could delay mixing for a bit if you need to come up with more cash.

F.S.

[DavidK]

Thanks for the swell responses fellers.

I am gonna go with 64 hours, 8 days of 8 hours. The rock tracks will get the majority of the time since I need the most help there. The more classical stuff is my thang and will be much easier for me as producer.

I assume you're going to record everything all at once for the most part.

Not really. There will be a LOT of synths. The orchestral stuff will be done in one day, people will just read the parts down. All the players are close friends and I literally work with them every day, they are all serious pros.

It will be a VERY unusual album Hopefully there will be a few things never tried before. Its a genre-morpher, almost genre-less. Its been a good learning experience, as I dive into the commercial world, I cant help but put a lot of my stamp on it, even if I try not to. There is some weirdness. Oh yeah, its a Christmas album Mozart meets Mannheim Steamroller meets Pink Floyd meets DavidK.

[TerraMortim]

Originally Posted by ikijapan

Well, I'm a newb, so don't listen to me...but from what I've seen in the past 6 years I've worked with audio, you can really take as long or short as you want. Some people spend, literally, years mixing their perfectly tracked album. I've seen people mix a full length rock album in 2 days also.

Just depends on what all you want to do with the album. I know that doesn't really answer the question, but I just find it funny how much time people can spend mixing an album, versus people that have just as much experience taking little time at all. Maybe it depends on whether you already know exactly how you want it to sound when it's done or not.

not a newbie viewpoint at all. Some albums take a long time, some don't It all depends on the record. There are some revered albums that took years to do, and some that took a week. there are just simply different ways to put things together, and sometimes things happen quickly and sometimes they take forever. But then again, I make a point to NEVER use a commercial studio for mixdown. Doesn't seem nessecary or to have much of a point these days. What gear you don't have in a daw you can rent for cheaper than a good studio would cost in the long run, as long as you know what gear you're gonna use in the mix beforehand.