Mixing vs Mastering
- Thread starter jmandoman
- Start date
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
Mixing is just that; taking a multi track recording and mixing it down to a stereo pair, putting all the individual instruments and voices in their place in the context of the song. Mastering is taking a group of songs and putting them in the same space in the context of an over all performance (same apparent volume, the correct amount of silence between songs or cross fading them together to play as a single piece while preserving individual start/stop times, etc).
Think of it like this; mixing is like cooking a big 7 course meal and mastering is like setting the table and making a presentation out of the food.
Think of it like this; mixing is like cooking a big 7 course meal and mastering is like setting the table and making a presentation out of the food.
sonnylarsen
New member
oooh...that makes me hungry...reverb anyone?
Would you like fries with that?
Good description of mastering, though, Track Rat. I read an article by an expert on mastering and he says that he prefers to master CDs by first recording either to analog tape, then mixing down to the digital environment for final mastering, or by recording to a digital recorder first, then recording this mix to analog, and then finally back to digital again. He says this preserves the volume intensity of the instruments, as heard in their original performance, while making it possible to master to CD without any clipping or volume compromises. As I'm sure you know, when you're recording to analog tape, you want to record "hot," i.e. at a high volume, in order to get good tape saturation. If you take this approach in digital recording, however, you wind up having your high end clipped off, resulting in dropouts that make your CD sound like crap. So, in recording to CD, then, you have to ease the volume back a bit. However, if you've recorded your mix at full volume to analog tape first, you'll still retain all the distortion and feedback (if that's your thing) that was heard in the studio, and you can still drop the volume to avoid clipping.
Anyway, I thought I'd give this a try, myself, recording my compositions on my Ensoniq ASR-10, mixing down to my Tascam Porta 03 analog cassette deck, then sending this mix from the Tascam to my computer for final mixing. I'll let you know how it turns out.
Good description of mastering, though, Track Rat. I read an article by an expert on mastering and he says that he prefers to master CDs by first recording either to analog tape, then mixing down to the digital environment for final mastering, or by recording to a digital recorder first, then recording this mix to analog, and then finally back to digital again. He says this preserves the volume intensity of the instruments, as heard in their original performance, while making it possible to master to CD without any clipping or volume compromises. As I'm sure you know, when you're recording to analog tape, you want to record "hot," i.e. at a high volume, in order to get good tape saturation. If you take this approach in digital recording, however, you wind up having your high end clipped off, resulting in dropouts that make your CD sound like crap. So, in recording to CD, then, you have to ease the volume back a bit. However, if you've recorded your mix at full volume to analog tape first, you'll still retain all the distortion and feedback (if that's your thing) that was heard in the studio, and you can still drop the volume to avoid clipping.
Anyway, I thought I'd give this a try, myself, recording my compositions on my Ensoniq ASR-10, mixing down to my Tascam Porta 03 analog cassette deck, then sending this mix from the Tascam to my computer for final mixing. I'll let you know how it turns out.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Hmmmm.... just a point -- when a mastering engineer talks about sending it to analog -- he's talking about a high-end 2-track analog mixdown unit, NOT a budget cassette deck or PortaStudio - both of which are extremely noisy and lo-fi compared to hi-end gear.
I think you'll find you introduce a lot of unwanted artifacts to your mix if you run your mix to the PortaStudio, but hey -- give it a shot...
Bruce
I think you'll find you introduce a lot of unwanted artifacts to your mix if you run your mix to the PortaStudio, but hey -- give it a shot...
Bruce
@ Porta03 (Yeah, i bet professionals mixdown to cassette tapes )-GaryR50 , I'm guessing that you don't have an output expander for that ASR-10
-since you only got 4 tracks, you might as well ditch that portastudio and invest in a good sound card with like 4 inputs and record directly to the computer...you can get a decent one in the $200 range and download that Protoolsfree now you got a better setup
Hey Rat - I like the analogy, but I've got another one for you that seems to make my clients' light bulb go on pretty reliably: Mixing is like finding the proper ingredients and amounts of ingredients and baking a cake. Mastering is like frosting it and putting on the candles.
Ken Rutkowski
Outer Limit Recording Studio
Ken Rutkowski
Outer Limit Recording Studio
pyssdogg said:
-GaryR50 , I'm guessing that you don't have an output expander for that ASR-10
-since you only got 4 tracks, you might as well ditch that portastudio and invest in a good sound card with like 4 inputs and record directly to the computer...you can get a decent one in the $200 range and download that Protoolsfree now you got a better setup
Didn't read all of my post, did you? I said I HAVE recorded directly to the computer from the ASR-10. I mentioned this technique, though, because it is a way to introduce some analog "warmth" (what many cecry is missing from CD recordings), as well as to eliminate the clipping that can occur in CD mastering. No, I don't have an output expander on my ASR-10, but so what? When I record my eight to sixteen tracks (8 "real" and 8 "virtual") on the ASR-10, and mix it down, it's all ready to go to disk. It doesn't matter than the Porta 03 only has four tracks. In fact, the Tascam gives me two ADDITIONAL tracks I can add analog input to, such as a vocal track and a guitar track, for example. After that, it all goes to the computer for final mastering, where the analog hiss from those two Tascam tracks can be removed so that it sounds like it belongs with the rest of the mix. Then it's time to burn to CD. And, by the way, I've got a "decent" sound card (SB LIVE!), although it has one input. That's all it needs, since I'm recording sixteen to eighteen tracks directly to the computer at once, mixed down to a stereo pair. From there, if I want to, I can use any of several applications I have, including Cakewalk Home Studio, Power Tracks Pro Audio, Anvil Studio, Soundforge, etc. and add even more tracks, if I wish. If you measure the quality of music by the number of tracks recorded, then I can acheive virtuoso results.
sonnylarsen
New member
I got one, I got one!
Mixing is maintaining several girlfriends at the same time...Mastering is having sex with them all the same night!!!
Hmm.....Doesn't really fit does it...oh well, fun though...
Mixing is maintaining several girlfriends at the same time...Mastering is having sex with them all the same night!!!
Hmm.....Doesn't really fit does it...oh well, fun though...
As far as I'm concerned, mastering starts at tracking phase. As each instrument is mic'ed or tracked, you should always keep in mind how that instrument, mic, or technique will effect the balance of the final master.
And it's the same with mixing. With each twist of the knob, you are ultimately crafting and shaping the tone and balance of your master. So in a sense, you are always mastering.
I don't think it can be called mastering unless you take that approach. Otherwise, a more appropriate term would be "last minute tinkering."
And it's the same with mixing. With each twist of the knob, you are ultimately crafting and shaping the tone and balance of your master. So in a sense, you are always mastering.
I don't think it can be called mastering unless you take that approach. Otherwise, a more appropriate term would be "last minute tinkering."
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Ignoring the whole "digital cold, analog warm" nonsense for a minute; aren't you the least bit concerned about the crippling effect bouncing to the Portastudio will have on your sound???GaryR50 said:
As far as "cold digital" - it's complete nonsense. If you have good converters, and record at hi-res, digital is more than equal high-end analog.
But, again, as I pointed out above -- a PortaStudio IS NOT high-end analog and further, even budget digital will outperform it.
Good luck,
Bruce
Blue Bear Sound said:Ignoring the whole "digital cold, analog warm" nonsense for a minute; aren't you the least bit concerned about the crippling effect bouncing to the Portastudio will have on your sound???
As far as "cold digital" - it's complete nonsense. If you have good converters, and record at hi-res, digital is more than equal high-end analog.
But, again, as I pointed out above -- a PortaStudio IS NOT high-end analog and further, even budget digital will outperform it.
Good luck,
Bruce
Well, I concede that you're correct about the Tascam - it's not pro level equipment, by any means. It's just what I happen to have on hand. Again, I stress that I haven't actually used it, as yet, for recording digital output intended for digital mastering. However, the article I mentioned WAS written by a professional mastering engineer who, I'm quite sure, knows more about the the "cold vs. warm" debate than either of us does. Personally, I've never had a problem with the digital sound, myself. I LIKE not hearing tape hiss in my music. I only mentioned this technique that I had read about because I wanted to get some feedback on whether or not I should bother using it, or just write this engineer's writings off as garbage. It would seem, judging by the responses I'm getting, that I should scrap the idea and just record in the digital domain entirely, as I have been doing. If that's a fair assessment of everyone's consensus on the issue, then I'll just say thanks and drop the subject.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
The engineer is not wrong - but he's not talking about dumping the audio down to a budget recorder either!
And I'm sorry - the PortaStudio and its kind has its place, but not in PRO audio.......
Bouncing to analog is akin to running thru an outboard effect, but just like you run a track thru a good reverb, you would bounce to hi-end analog. If there's a benefit to the technique that's where you'll get it.
There's nothing wrong with what the engineer said - he's using the right gear to accomplish his goal. In YOUR case, you've got the idea, but the wrong gear to make use of it................
Geez... I didn't think this was a difficult concept... nowhere did I dispute the "pro mastering engineer" -- (not to mention I have some fair experience at this myself!) -- you're just getting the scale of gear involved confused.
Bruce
And I'm sorry - the PortaStudio and its kind has its place, but not in PRO audio.......
Bouncing to analog is akin to running thru an outboard effect, but just like you run a track thru a good reverb, you would bounce to hi-end analog. If there's a benefit to the technique that's where you'll get it.
There's nothing wrong with what the engineer said - he's using the right gear to accomplish his goal. In YOUR case, you've got the idea, but the wrong gear to make use of it................
Geez... I didn't think this was a difficult concept... nowhere did I dispute the "pro mastering engineer" -- (not to mention I have some fair experience at this myself!) -- you're just getting the scale of gear involved confused.
Bruce
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Of course I did -- But from some of what your last post indicated, you still have more misconceptions that needed cleaning up!
Cheers dude...........
Bruce
Cheers dude...........
Bruce
Blue Bear Sound said:
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but, I assure you, I have no misconceptions at all. If you'll re-read the thread, you may come to actually understand what I said. I never claimed tha Tascam, or any similar consumer cassette deck, is professional level recording gear. You're trying to make an argument where none was ever intended. I came to this board to share ideas and learn from others - not to have pissing contests with people who like to fight. End of discussion, okay?
sonnylarsen
New member
Dude, I don't think Bruce was trying to have a pissin' contest, he was just trying to help you out and possibly stop you from doing something that would be time consuming and of little or no value. If you weren't goin to anyway, fine. No harm done, let's all just chill and have some Kool-aid...
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Then you've failed.... I've been TRYING to teach you something but apparently, you're not getting it! Oh well... do what you like....GaryR50 said:
...it's amazing how many clients bring me "rescue operations" from doing things the way you've described:
"Well... this PRO engineer told me to use a compressor to 'master' my mix - so I plugged in my 3630 and did it - how come it doesn't sound 'pro'???" OR "This PRO mastering engineer suggested bouncing the mix to analog to 'warm' the sound - so I sent my mix to my Radio Shack deck -- all it seemed to do was make it muddy!"
Anyways -- no malice intended here - just illustrating my point. Maybe you'll have better luck learning things from some of the other pros that hang out here!
Cheers!
Bruce