ecktronic
Mixing and Mastering.
The sentence makes perfect sense.
Indie music spawned from Britain in the 90s by bands such as Oasis and Blur. And Independent (Indie) record labels are businesses run on their own with no help from majors.
Eck
The sentence makes perfect sense.
Indie music spawned from Britain in the 90s by bands such as Oasis and Blur. And Independent (Indie) record labels are businesses run on their own with no help from majors.
Eck
osus
New member
i second the post on carl saff. we just had our project mastered with him, it ended up being $200 for six songs--he charges by minute of music mastered rather than by the hour. he did three passes for us, and considering the mix we gave him was already quashed by an overzealous mixing engineer, he did a great job.
i think there are two major perspectives you could take with mixing/mastering, and particularly in mastering--that it's either additive or subtractive. i think chessrock's comments about the seriousness of a project are born, quite rightfully, from the belief that the entire recording, mixing and mastering process can really only subtract, incrementally, from a brilliant original performance. since a good mastering on a brilliant performance will essentially be transparent, logically the opposite--an 'quick slap-together' mastering on a brilliant performance will likely destroy the recording.
logic would seem to extend further to state that a quick, inexpensive mastering on a budget performance will only serve to make it worse, but i don't think this is necessarily true. in the tracking process technology lets us make up for uneven performances by letting us do overdubs. in the mixing process technology lets us make up for uneven recording equipment and tracking skills by letting us balance levels, alter eq, add effects, etc. the mastering process can, to some extent, let us make up for artifacts and issues created by the mixing process.
of course, every step down this road also increases the chance that we'll make things worse instead of better, especially if we enter into each step of the process with the blanket assumption that we need to 'fix' whatever was done in the step before. mastering, from what i've heard (not read) is the biggest threat, and yeah, there are definitely some mastering houses it would be better not to go near.
but...
a lot of us aren't brilliant performers, tracking engineers or mixers. a lot of us are trying to make music ourselves anyway because we believe in our ideas, we're having fun, we hope to get as good as we can and it isn't all that expensive to try to be a jack-of-all-trades these days. but mastering is, because of its sensitivity and the counter-intuitively transparency of its desired result, is still something i would never go near trying myself. but i'd argue that mastering is something that, in the best situation, could improve a recording.
i think what chessrock was trying to say (in a highly abbreviated form) was that if you don't think your project deserves the best possible mastering, you shouldn't have it mastered at all--that 'sub-standard' mastering will only be a detriment to any project. but the problem is how do we determine a standard of quality for mastering? i dunno, i think i need to stop thinking about it.
i guess another point is that if you're trying to do just basic level matching from track to track, silence-trimming and track transitions and a super-delicate hit of album-shaping eq, the faintest water-color wash of reverb and a gentle, intimate squeeze of compression, there's really nothing stopping you from doing it yourself and calling the album 'mastered'. and if what you want is that louder than ass pop album squash loudness loud loud loud thing to make it sound 'professional,' then just buy the rane PI 14 and be done with it.
i think there are two major perspectives you could take with mixing/mastering, and particularly in mastering--that it's either additive or subtractive. i think chessrock's comments about the seriousness of a project are born, quite rightfully, from the belief that the entire recording, mixing and mastering process can really only subtract, incrementally, from a brilliant original performance. since a good mastering on a brilliant performance will essentially be transparent, logically the opposite--an 'quick slap-together' mastering on a brilliant performance will likely destroy the recording.
logic would seem to extend further to state that a quick, inexpensive mastering on a budget performance will only serve to make it worse, but i don't think this is necessarily true. in the tracking process technology lets us make up for uneven performances by letting us do overdubs. in the mixing process technology lets us make up for uneven recording equipment and tracking skills by letting us balance levels, alter eq, add effects, etc. the mastering process can, to some extent, let us make up for artifacts and issues created by the mixing process.
of course, every step down this road also increases the chance that we'll make things worse instead of better, especially if we enter into each step of the process with the blanket assumption that we need to 'fix' whatever was done in the step before. mastering, from what i've heard (not read) is the biggest threat, and yeah, there are definitely some mastering houses it would be better not to go near.
but...
a lot of us aren't brilliant performers, tracking engineers or mixers. a lot of us are trying to make music ourselves anyway because we believe in our ideas, we're having fun, we hope to get as good as we can and it isn't all that expensive to try to be a jack-of-all-trades these days. but mastering is, because of its sensitivity and the counter-intuitively transparency of its desired result, is still something i would never go near trying myself. but i'd argue that mastering is something that, in the best situation, could improve a recording.
i think what chessrock was trying to say (in a highly abbreviated form) was that if you don't think your project deserves the best possible mastering, you shouldn't have it mastered at all--that 'sub-standard' mastering will only be a detriment to any project. but the problem is how do we determine a standard of quality for mastering? i dunno, i think i need to stop thinking about it.
i guess another point is that if you're trying to do just basic level matching from track to track, silence-trimming and track transitions and a super-delicate hit of album-shaping eq, the faintest water-color wash of reverb and a gentle, intimate squeeze of compression, there's really nothing stopping you from doing it yourself and calling the album 'mastered'. and if what you want is that louder than ass pop album squash loudness loud loud loud thing to make it sound 'professional,' then just buy the rane PI 14 and be done with it.
ecktronic
Mixing and Mastering.
One of guys from the labels sister, who is from Ayr, heard our stuff and passed it on to the label.
Eck
pandamonk
Well-known member
Nice, who was it?
Somnium7
Noise Criminal
Wow, so much really incredible information - I'm overwhelmed!
Osus I also feel that I can, as you mentioned, do this...
In fact I have done it with one mix as an experiment. I used some plugins in my DAW. Multiband compression, EQ, enhancer, reverb etc. and tried doing tasteful tailoring with them. I actually got suprisingly good results after dicking with the multiband compressor for a few hours. But notice I said "dicking" above. While I have a good understanding of how I am changing the mix it isn't something I do normally on a daily basis. Mastering isn't my forte' so I feel that a person with more experience will probably do a better job.
And as I mentioned before, I can't trust just my ears alone. Some people maybe can but I know myself better, and I know I have an attachment to my music that may not allow me to be subjective and do what needs to be done properly. I actually feel this is a big weakness in the DIY mentality. You write the music, you play it, you record it, you mix it and by now you may as well marry it. Mixing and mastering should be done with an objective ear IMO. It's hard for an artist to be really objective about their own work.
The entire idea of amateur recordings not being worthy of professional attention is so bogus I don't even know where to start with that. I'm not going to begin to debate it because in my mind it don't apply to me anyway. In case you don't know, my music is almost entirely electronic to begin with. It doesn't take very much to get decent recordings of electronic instruments. Then add to that the fact that my material is also experimental/industrial at it's core. I spend a great deal of time just making my recordings intentionally dirty and even go so far as to build my own special processing gear for that purpose. I convert stuff to 8 bit pretty frequently because i like it.
So there isn't any careful mic placement and room treatment issues etc. to wind up making my mix sound crappy. I hardly ever deal with that stuff.
What I wind up with from my own efforts is mixes that usually come pretty close to my reference CD material. That's good enough for me and it keeps me happy. I'm not using a standard frame of reference and so opinions based on such simply hold no water for me.
Thanks to everybody for all the great referrals!
Osus I also feel that I can, as you mentioned, do this...
In fact I have done it with one mix as an experiment. I used some plugins in my DAW. Multiband compression, EQ, enhancer, reverb etc. and tried doing tasteful tailoring with them. I actually got suprisingly good results after dicking with the multiband compressor for a few hours. But notice I said "dicking" above. While I have a good understanding of how I am changing the mix it isn't something I do normally on a daily basis. Mastering isn't my forte' so I feel that a person with more experience will probably do a better job.
And as I mentioned before, I can't trust just my ears alone. Some people maybe can but I know myself better, and I know I have an attachment to my music that may not allow me to be subjective and do what needs to be done properly. I actually feel this is a big weakness in the DIY mentality. You write the music, you play it, you record it, you mix it and by now you may as well marry it. Mixing and mastering should be done with an objective ear IMO. It's hard for an artist to be really objective about their own work.
The entire idea of amateur recordings not being worthy of professional attention is so bogus I don't even know where to start with that. I'm not going to begin to debate it because in my mind it don't apply to me anyway. In case you don't know, my music is almost entirely electronic to begin with. It doesn't take very much to get decent recordings of electronic instruments. Then add to that the fact that my material is also experimental/industrial at it's core. I spend a great deal of time just making my recordings intentionally dirty and even go so far as to build my own special processing gear for that purpose. I convert stuff to 8 bit pretty frequently because i like it.
So there isn't any careful mic placement and room treatment issues etc. to wind up making my mix sound crappy. I hardly ever deal with that stuff.
What I wind up with from my own efforts is mixes that usually come pretty close to my reference CD material. That's good enough for me and it keeps me happy. I'm not using a standard frame of reference and so opinions based on such simply hold no water for me.
Thanks to everybody for all the great referrals!
Last edited:
D
Daisy
Banned
Perhaps what "he" (
) was saying, is that if you don't feel your project deserves the best possible tracking and mixing ... then what is the point of suddenly springing for having it professionally mastered?Suppose if I was getting married, and I decided I wanted to bake the wedding cake myself. So I take a few cooking classes ... read a few books on making wedding cakes, etc. Then a few days before the wedding, I decide to call in a professional to touch up the frosting.
What chessrock
may have been questioning is ... why are you suddenly calling in a professional at this late stage of the game, when all he / she can really be expected to do is maybe put a few finishing touches on a cake that is essentially 99.9% a completed project? And another point ... How serious were you, honestly, about the quality of the cake, if you are admittedly an amateur baker? Not to mention that you're getting married and likely have a lot of other things to distract you? Best-case scenario, let's pretend that you are sort of an exception, and just have a natural knack for baking, and can make a real killer cake. Why not just complete the job, then? The cake is already 99.9% done! The frosting touch-up job is actually about the easiest part of the whole thing, and will ultimately have the least effect on whether the attendees enjoy eating it.
Just a thought, my sweeties!
Hugs and kisses everyone!
ecktronic
Mixing and Mastering.
pandamonk
Well-known member
Ahh right, cool.Shes called Anne, a good bit older than us.
Eck
R
Renascent
New member
Every CD should be mastered if you take it seriously regardless of how much money you spend on the tracking/mixing.
Postal Service was all self recorded, mixed at a studio in off hours, then mastered.
Your best bet is likely someone with mixing experience who is looking to get into mastering. I'd take someone like that over someone interning at a mastering studio using their equipment in off hours as a perk. I myself fit into the mixing experience who loves to master, and i've had 3 clients use my mixes mastered via Waves Diamond plugin's and running tracks through our Neve at the studio over low level engineers at expensive mastering houses in the city..
As a ballpark, I charge $50/singles, and usually between $180 and $300 for an album. I don't do the hidden tracks fun stuff that mastering guys do, but in terms of getting levels even/CD quality, taking care of major EQ problems and retaining dynamics.. I think I'm pretty darn good.
Check out some young up-and-coming mix engineers if you've got $200. At least they understand compression/EQ enough to not over do it, as I've seen some intern/low level mastering guys do who are still learning. The most important peice of gear engineers have are their EARS
Mastering is the FINAL PROCESS before your friends/fans listen to your music. Don't skimp it mate!
Postal Service was all self recorded, mixed at a studio in off hours, then mastered.
Your best bet is likely someone with mixing experience who is looking to get into mastering. I'd take someone like that over someone interning at a mastering studio using their equipment in off hours as a perk. I myself fit into the mixing experience who loves to master, and i've had 3 clients use my mixes mastered via Waves Diamond plugin's and running tracks through our Neve at the studio over low level engineers at expensive mastering houses in the city..
As a ballpark, I charge $50/singles, and usually between $180 and $300 for an album. I don't do the hidden tracks fun stuff that mastering guys do, but in terms of getting levels even/CD quality, taking care of major EQ problems and retaining dynamics.. I think I'm pretty darn good.
Check out some young up-and-coming mix engineers if you've got $200. At least they understand compression/EQ enough to not over do it, as I've seen some intern/low level mastering guys do who are still learning. The most important peice of gear engineers have are their EARS
Mastering is the FINAL PROCESS before your friends/fans listen to your music. Don't skimp it mate!
D
danny.guitar
Guest
Here is what I don't understand.
People who want their stuff mastered are apparently good enough at mixing to have a final product. They've learned how to use an EQ, a compressor, reverb, and all the other little mixing techniques.
But when it comes to mastering, they seem to look at it as a whole different thing all-together when it's not. Remember how mastering used to be just getting it ready for duplication? Yeah...that means what you're wanting to do is called mixing.
A fresh set of ears is one reason I can see why, maybe more expensive gear, but other than that you should already know what you need to know to master your stuff if you were able to mix it.
Most "mastering engineers" who have really expensive gear are going to charge you more than you can afford. Most engineers who really know what they're doing and could possibly give your songs a more noticeable difference in quality will also charge you more.
Doesn't make sense to me.
I think Daisy put it better than I can.
People who want their stuff mastered are apparently good enough at mixing to have a final product. They've learned how to use an EQ, a compressor, reverb, and all the other little mixing techniques.
But when it comes to mastering, they seem to look at it as a whole different thing all-together when it's not. Remember how mastering used to be just getting it ready for duplication? Yeah...that means what you're wanting to do is called mixing.
A fresh set of ears is one reason I can see why, maybe more expensive gear, but other than that you should already know what you need to know to master your stuff if you were able to mix it.
Most "mastering engineers" who have really expensive gear are going to charge you more than you can afford. Most engineers who really know what they're doing and could possibly give your songs a more noticeable difference in quality will also charge you more.
Doesn't make sense to me.
I think Daisy put it better than I can.
TerraMortim
New member
There's absolutely no reason why someone who has a good ear for mixing in the first place cannot master their own music. What IS mastering anyway?
Mostly just fixing mistakes in the mix, and making sure everything is at a consistant level... why hold back in the mix to "leave room for mastering"? Seems a bit counter productive when people always do that...a waste of money. If the mix is capable of being good enough without the help of mastering then cool... of course, with vinyl there is a little different story.. but fuck, with digital releases and CDs, who bloody cares...
Mostly just fixing mistakes in the mix, and making sure everything is at a consistant level... why hold back in the mix to "leave room for mastering"? Seems a bit counter productive when people always do that...a waste of money. If the mix is capable of being good enough without the help of mastering then cool... of course, with vinyl there is a little different story.. but fuck, with digital releases and CDs, who bloody cares...
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
And would the reverse also be true? Maybe Bob Ludwig should mix.
They are different skills, mindset, tools, and hopefully rooms dedicated to the one or the other. Also two heads (or would it be four ears?) are better than one (two). Should the writer of a book also be the editor?
As another analogy why doesn't the guitar player of a band just cut the bass? Isn't it just the bottom four strings of a guitar an octave down? Yes, it's done, sometimes with good results, but perspective from those that specialize and live and breathe a certain area of expertise usually tend to be better IMHO.
D
Daisy
Banned
Which is exactly the point that some of us were attempting to make.
If it makes so much sense to not have the same person mix and master ... then what sense does it make to have the same person who performs on the record, actually track and mix it as well. Only then to suddenly figure out that maybe they're taking on too much?
Some of us believe it would make more sense to start specializing a little earlier on in the process.
Just a thought! One person's opinion!
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
Which is exactly the point that some of us were attempting to make.
If it makes so much sense to not have the same person mix and master ... then what sense does it make to have the same person who performs on the record, actually track and mix it as well. Only then to suddenly figure out that maybe they're taking on too much?
Some of us believe it would make more sense to start specializing a little earlier on in the process.
No argument here, breaking down even further it's good to have someone listen from an overall perspective as a producer rather than as an engineer trying to listen to the performance as a whole, look at levels, punch, etc. Often it's a matter of what budget there is available for a project, not always what is "best".
There are occasions where musicians doing it on there own is an advantage though. Better more relaxed environment (especially for vocalists with a shy bladder) more time at less cost, the chance to experiment and re-write.
I think that a hybrid approach is often best or a good compromise depending on the circumstances. Once pre-production is complete, record the basic tracks at a good facility (drums in particular), get or rent a good mic/pre and record vocals at home, maybe guitar overdubs, and things like electronic keys that are usually just run direct to "tape". Then finish recording and mix back at a good facility and master somewhere dedicated to the task.
I think that a musician who is strapped for cash should spend their money on getting the best possible instruments first rather than trying to do everything on their own and being forced to compromise on the important things.
TerraMortim
New member
You are correct...my point however, isn't that there's no point in getting someone else in on it, or that there is no special skill involved in mastering, but just that it's not as much of a nessecity as most people think. The fact that there are some people that actually hold back in their mixes to "leave room for mastering" seems a bit stupid to me. I'm going to mix this with less quality so that I can pay someone to fix the problem that I've created in order to give them money to fix what I....and around and around it goes. If you have good ears for mixing, you could probably do a decent mastering job on your own stuff... Or maybe even mix it to the point that it doesn't really need much in the way of mastering.
In my mixing style, I tend to do most of the mastering type stuff with my mixes..and just do a little bit of eq and extremly light bits of multiband compression to keep consistancy between tracks.
Of course, it depends on a person's professional "maturity" for the lack of a better word. Just as in with when artists will mix their own stuff.. someone with some maturity in their approach, will not just mix themselves way higher than everyone else (or the opposite) but will mix it in an objective way that someone would approach it from the outside. The same for mastering. You have to step back from it, throw your ego out the door, and listen to it objectively against other music that you wish to achieve a similar result, and just sculpt it until it gets there... It's a skill that more people than mastering engineers are willing to admit could attain with some practice..especially if they allready have some skills in mixing.
It's a different hat, but as musicians, and/or audio professionals, aren't we all pretty used to wearing a number of hats on a regular basis? Who's to say that mastering is this special golden calf, only attainable by the few that have the wealth of a small country invested in their gear. There's a place in the world for mastering engineers, the same that there is a place in the world for large recording studios... but just because of that fact doesn't mean it's needed for absolutely every project out there.
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
I think that you're misunderstanding the term "hold back their mixes". This is in regard to level and overall EQ for the most part. How can you determine what the overall level of a song should be until you hear it in the context of the album? The same goes for frequency balance. Mixing is about getting the tracks to work together, mastering is mainly about getting the songs to work together. Unless you're mixing all of the songs in a single session, can automate all of the parameters for both mixing and mastering, and then go back and forth between all of the songs to check for consistency, I don't see how you can do both at once (or would want to).
I agree that not every project needs professional mastering. Demos, hobby CDs, and in most cases "vanity releases" don't require it. If on the other hand it's to be released as a professional product, or to help promote the band to a larger label, I would advise professional opinion at the least.
D
Daisy
Banned
Good point. On the other hand, if it is to be released as a professional product, wouldn't it be even more advisable to have it tracked and mixed by a professional?
My guess would be that at least 80% of the time, self tracked and self mixed projects tend to go no further than the "vanity release" level, regardless of their original aspirations.
I would tend to agree, however, that if someone is going to spend the time and money on having it tracked and mixed professionally, that it wouldn't make a lot of sense at all to suddenly cheap out on the mastering.
It's an interesting topic, and the thoughtful answers posted so far have been fun and enlightening! You are ALL very intelligent posters here!
TerraMortim
New member
not so much really about the last statement.. there are plenty of professional releases these days that don't have third party mastering. It has nothing to do with professional/vs. hobby. I release a great deal of professional music, which is taken quite seriously by myself as well as by my listeners (for both the songwriting, and the production value) and I master all of my own tracks...always. Not a single mastering house has gotten a dime from me.
With regards to myself doing some of the mastering pre-bounce, I dunno, I guess my mixes are somewhat consistant, since it's always worked for me to do it that way. That's the thing tho, there are a million different ways to do things.
It's just typical of the pompous mastering community to have the view that anything professional HAS to be mastered by a professional mastering engineer to be taken seriously. This is just silly. It's very possible to bring a mix to the same quality as the standard "mastered" track... And is starting to serve less and less of a purpose as it's almost becoming a glorified "loudness" process... which doesn't in itself do anything for the music, especially these days... Radio play on conventional radio is on the steep decline, more and more it's all being consolidated into a few corporations that will only play music as a result of illegal payola scams (which they get away with for some reason). In other words, if you don't have vast resources behind you allready, like one of the big 5 labels, don't expect to see much mainstream radio play... at least not on a commercial station.
The industry is changing, and things like a mastering engineer, will still have their place, but not as front and center as it once was... just the same as in the case for big commercial recording studios. Now, most people with a bit of sence only use them to track things they absolutely couldn't do somewhere else, and leave the rest for their project studios..even some fairly well known people are going that route, because it just MAKES SENSE. The same can be said about professional third party mastering... There are more and more people who are getting access to tools via software something that could bring the quality of their recording to just as good as any mastered piece of music, without the need to shell out thousands.
With regards to myself doing some of the mastering pre-bounce, I dunno, I guess my mixes are somewhat consistant, since it's always worked for me to do it that way. That's the thing tho, there are a million different ways to do things.
It's just typical of the pompous mastering community to have the view that anything professional HAS to be mastered by a professional mastering engineer to be taken seriously. This is just silly. It's very possible to bring a mix to the same quality as the standard "mastered" track... And is starting to serve less and less of a purpose as it's almost becoming a glorified "loudness" process... which doesn't in itself do anything for the music, especially these days... Radio play on conventional radio is on the steep decline, more and more it's all being consolidated into a few corporations that will only play music as a result of illegal payola scams (which they get away with for some reason). In other words, if you don't have vast resources behind you allready, like one of the big 5 labels, don't expect to see much mainstream radio play... at least not on a commercial station.
The industry is changing, and things like a mastering engineer, will still have their place, but not as front and center as it once was... just the same as in the case for big commercial recording studios. Now, most people with a bit of sence only use them to track things they absolutely couldn't do somewhere else, and leave the rest for their project studios..even some fairly well known people are going that route, because it just MAKES SENSE. The same can be said about professional third party mastering... There are more and more people who are getting access to tools via software something that could bring the quality of their recording to just as good as any mastered piece of music, without the need to shell out thousands.
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
In the note above I said "would advise professional opinion at the least", not that it had to be mastered by a pro. If you don't want it mastered by a pro and it has the quality that you want, good on you. Maybe a pro would say that the quality of what you're putting out doesn't require any further work. Might be nice to know or and have an affirmation of one's work or areas where it might be improved.
For the vast majority of artists having someone with a good number of years experience, ears, dedicated gear and monitoring that is most likely beyond the reach of most here, tools to perform quality control on a disc before pressing, and even sometimes connections to others in the industry that may help the artist, seem to work well.
No successful artist that I know of is an island unto himself.
S
Sinistah
Plutonium Bundle Advocate
yeah i can imagine the Wu saying that, because RZA has came along way from the earlier "dusty" sound they used to have as their own personal equiptment obviously improved over the years, i'm sure RZA made sure every auxillary producer in the Wu can also control the boards as well...... plus you know the saying, "why pay a fee for what you can get for free"
it is what it is......
so you master professionally or just freelancing?
oh and the mix/mastering engineer i was speaking of was "Dr. No"(lan) Mofitte of Clinic Recordings (i'm sure the website is named the same)