Question for the mastering engineers

[BrettB]

Hi all,

I have a question for the mastering engineers among you.

This spring, I recorded and mixed the single of my band (you can download it at www.madralyss.be) in a pretty good studio and had it mastered by a professional.

When I mixed it, I had a pretty good feel about the mix. But after it wat mastered I felt I had lost balance. While I had a great feel on the balance of the drums during mixng, suddenly the hihat seemed way louder and the snare had lost it's bottom.

I don't blame the mastering engineer, he made a good master and added the high to the song it needed! But this really effected my mix.

Since then I often mix with a EQ on my master track adding a bit more sparkle and hi-end on my mix; I also often bypass it, but having this EQ gives me the certainty my mix won't soun dradically different after mastering EQ.

My question: What do you think of this method? Is it reasonable or not?

 

[Massive Master]

I think it's pretty acceptable for the most part - I'd "rather" have the EQ applied to whatever track(s) need it during (or before) the mix.

My little "rule of thumb" is 2dB of anything. If it needs more than 2dB - EQ Boost, cut, compression gain reduction, etc., it's probably something that would be better utilized in the mix.

Of course, no "rules" - that's just something I try to adhere to myself.

It's certainly not unusual to get recordings in with notes like "I love the highs - If you can try to keep them just the way it is..." and such. So, if mixing it in is what the mix needs, go for it.

 

[mixandmaster]

If you have a relationship with the mastering engineer you could ask him what in your mix made it so that he felt he needed to raise the highs.

Maybe the vocals were muddy/not cutting through? If so, treat your vocals different next time. Maybe he needed more high end out of the guitar? Now you know to try a different approach on the guitar tracks.

That would eliminate some of the guesswork on your end, AND the next master that comes back to you won't have the cymbals driving you crazy.

There's a recording studio that often refers people to me for mastering ALWAYS has issues where there crossovers are with their monitors. Before I get the tracks, I know ahead of time that I have to pay attention to certain frequency ranges. I know this because we have good communication together, and that helps THEM mix better and me master better. And less mastering is usually better mastering.

 

[ryanlikestorock]

I find that many of the amature mixes I get are lacking in the 1.3k range and above 8k. It's a general statement, but seems to be the majority anyway. Try toggling between your mix and a reference CD every once in a while to see what you might be missing.

 

[LRosario]

I personally like to take everything through a step by step process.

You shouldn't have to apply any EQ when you're tracking (recording). Unless you're recording many instruments into one track (live shows for example) or you're trying to kill an annoying frequency. Once you start applying EQ, you risk changing the characteristics of the sound.

Remember, thats the definition of a recording. You're simply capturing the sound as it is. Alot of people start off wanting to abuse EQ and FX from the get go, but all it does is set you back.

You should be concerned about tracking your instruments with no EQ, no panning and no FX. Then once you're ready to mix, then you can start tweaking.

Also, as a side note, reading up on how certain frequencies cause certain outcomes will make your mix that much better.

 

[fenix]

i think it's a pretty decent job as well. What I was referring to in another thread might be apparent here--that was that the drums might have gotten cuz when you start ultra squashing, the guitars really jump out. I think that's the case here, the guitars seem to be a little too dominant. I know it's guitar driven rock, but I feel the guitars could be notched down a bit.

 

[masteringhouse]

Since then I often mix with a EQ on my master track adding a bit more sparkle and hi-end on my mix; I also often bypass it, but having this EQ gives me the certainty my mix won't soun dradically different after mastering EQ.

My question: What do you think of this method? Is it reasonable or not?

I think it's fine to add EQ and compression and limiting to get a prespective on what the mix will sound like post mastering as long as you do not apply it to the final mix. Keep the settings and make recommendations to the ME. It's very difficult to undo something if it isn't right. Also the additional processing needed isn't going to help in the overall quality, best to do it once. Whether processing in analog or digital, each leave artifacts behind.

Also watch when your mixing. There can be a tendancy of "mixing to the compressor/limiter" rather than taking care of any issues on the individual tracks. Always listen to the mix with the processing and the processing bypassed for a comparison of what your are actually doing.