Farview
Well-known member
Maybe the song with more bass is in a different key and/or the arrangement has the bass player playing up the neck more than on the other tunes.
I dont want to say "mastering" software
- Thread starter jmorris
- Start date
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Yep, I agree. It's kind of similar to the phenomenon of a guitar "tone" that sounds perfect soloed but needs changing to fit in the mix. Just because a song sounds "best" on it's own with emphasized, extended bass (just to continue the already existing example) doesn't necessarily mean that's how it will sound best within the context of an album.
It also doesn't necessarily mean that if one trims back a bit on that bass that it'll ruin the song. This is one of the things that separates the men from the boys in the mastering engineer realm, IMHO; the ability to find that space where the songs all work together without sounding individually compromised.
Again, if the mix engineer is good, the amount of work in the form of EQ and such needed by the mastering guy should be relatively minimal as described earlier.
Why is it OK for a remote mastering engineer to EQ but not if it's your own mix? Kind of a double standard there, isn't it? (Again we're not talking about fix the mix mastering, we're talking about mastering high quality mixes.)
G.
R
RAMI
Guest
I'm no mastering engineer, by any means. So, I'm not going to try to convince anyone that I'm right and they're wrong.
I'm aiming my comments more at home "mastering engineers". I've heard way too many home mixes where people pile on the plug-ins for no good reason, and then wonder why "it sounds like crap on my ghetto blaster...or car stereo....or any other system besides the one I mixed down on"....Often, if not usually, the problem is that they made it sound WORSE by doing something like EQ'ing the master or stereo widening :rolleyes"....or any other "effect" that they didn't need.
Speaking for myself, as time went on, my mixes got better and better as I started to eliminate useless "effects" that I THOUGHT I needed.
I still stand by the opinion that not every song in a package has to have the same bass/treble response, etc....Why does everything have to sound so uniform??? I thought that's what most of us supposedly hate about the music industry these days???
The "White Album" has Paul's bass shaking the speakers in one song, and buried in the mix next song. "Led Zep 1V" has the bass cranked on "Ramble On", and not so loud the next,. Just quick examples, and probably not the best ones.
I'm aiming my comments more at home "mastering engineers". I've heard way too many home mixes where people pile on the plug-ins for no good reason, and then wonder why "it sounds like crap on my ghetto blaster...or car stereo....or any other system besides the one I mixed down on"....Often, if not usually, the problem is that they made it sound WORSE by doing something like EQ'ing the master or stereo widening :rolleyes"....or any other "effect" that they didn't need.
Speaking for myself, as time went on, my mixes got better and better as I started to eliminate useless "effects" that I THOUGHT I needed.
I still stand by the opinion that not every song in a package has to have the same bass/treble response, etc....Why does everything have to sound so uniform??? I thought that's what most of us supposedly hate about the music industry these days???
The "White Album" has Paul's bass shaking the speakers in one song, and buried in the mix next song. "Led Zep 1V" has the bass cranked on "Ramble On", and not so loud the next,. Just quick examples, and probably not the best ones.
joeym
New member
I completely agree. I never EQ after a mix, any EQ'ing is done in the mix itself and only on the elements that need to to be EQ'd and not the whole mix. After that it's just one single-band compressor and 1 limiter. If I start thinking it needs anything alse, then the mix was wrong.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
It's not necessarily a question of each track having the exact same characteristics - that's silly Har Bal talk
. But there is often a desire to have a level of coherency, an impression that the songs belong together: an "album" is, by definition, different from a simple compilation, and usually there is a desire for some kind of natural flow from one song to the next. This doesn't mean that they have to sound the same, but they (usually) should not sound like they come from entirely different albums, either. Sometimes just a little nudge here or there is all one needs to accomplish that, and that little nudge is actually easier and *better* to perform on the 2mix than to try and go back and synth it by individually re-mixing every individual track.The problem with this thread right now is that there are people talking apples, oranges and peaches. There are those talking about mastering a single, others talking about mastering an album, and yet others talking about mastering as a means of mixing. The answer is different for all three.
Mastering as a means of mixing is baloney and should be avoided whenever possible; there one needs to get the mix right and actually do the mixing in the mixing stage.
Mastering a single (e.g. for meSpace release or as a one hit wonder) does not require any kind of "glue" or continuity mastering, and as such should not require EQ to make it sound good. But I still make the exception that I'm surprised nobody has commented on one way or the other of EQ required to keep the ubiquitous mastering compression/limiting in line (then again, that's what many people here seem to want to use MBCs for instead.)
Mastering an album, however, IMHO not only allows for, but often requires at least some EQing both for the compression control and for the "glue" across tracks.
G.
Chili
Site Moderator
It's not necessarily a question of each track having the exact same characteristics - that's silly Har Bal talk
The problem with this thread right now is that there are people talking apples, oranges and peaches. There are those talking about mastering a single, others talking about mastering an album, and yet others talking about mastering as a means of mixing. The answer is different for all three.
Mastering as a means of mixing is baloney and should be avoided whenever possible; there one needs to get the mix right and actually do the mixing in the mixing stage.
Mastering a single (e.g. for meSpace release or as a one hit wonder) does not require any kind of "glue" or continuity mastering, and as such should not require EQ to make it sound good. But I still make the exception that I'm surprised nobody has commented on one way or the other of EQ required to keep the ubiquitous mastering compression/limiting in line (then again, that's what many people here seem to want to use MBCs for instead.)
Mastering an album, however, IMHO not only allows for, but often requires at least some EQing both for the compression control and for the "glue" across tracks.
G.
Yup, that's what I was trying to say.
I understand where Rami and Joey and the others are coming from. These guys have their work flow dialed in tight and can get consistent results. I'd like to think that someday I will be at the point where my songs won't need any adjustments after mixing to blend together. But for now....
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I also understand and agree with where they are coming from. But there's all sorts of different places that mastering jobs can be coming from.I understand where Rami and Joey and the others are coming from. These guys have their work flow dialed in tight and can get consistent results. I'd like to think that someday I will be at the point where my songs won't need any adjustments after mixing to blend together. But for now....
There are albums - like someone mentioned around here somewhere just yesterday or the day before - that have songs that have been recorded and mixed over a period of two or three years. The chances that a recording made in 2006 will have the same "sonic feel" as one made today are not great, simply because of the disconnect in time. And even if there is not such a large disconnect in time, there are situations where gear changes, locations change, temperature and humidity changes, tape stock (where applicable) changes, capacitors and ears age, tastes evolve, and sometimes even studios and engineers change.
In such cases, sometimes mixing individual songs to sound their best solo at the time is sometimes not quite enough to lend the best in continuity when assembled into an album. Volume isn't the only thing that sometimes needs to be matched in album mastering.
IMHO, etc.
G.
R
RAMI
Guest
Just to clarify...I'm not suggesting for a second that mastering itself is never necessarry. Like I said, I'm talking about EQ'ing a stereo mix in particular. I know for a fact that there are people that have an "EQ Template" that they apply to all their songs. That's just wrong. I think there are other effective ways to make a bunch of tunes sound like a package.
Not only do too many people ruin their mixes with EQ templates, but most of them also have a "mastering template", with a bunch of useless processes like normalizing, stereo widening, etc....
I still say that if you need to EQ a mix, 99% of the time, you're better off going back and re-mixing, if not re-tracking.
Not only do too many people ruin their mixes with EQ templates, but most of them also have a "mastering template", with a bunch of useless processes like normalizing, stereo widening, etc....
I still say that if you need to EQ a mix, 99% of the time, you're better off going back and re-mixing, if not re-tracking.
jmorris
New member
Rami,
Ihave to disagree a little, a smig, a we bit with your statement about no eq. templete. I indeed do at times have a starting point with a few fav eq.'s. In the tracking I( as do others) have a certain way of setting up a band,of micing stuff,mic choice and mixing. Plus,Im in the same room with same monitors all the time.So....I tend to have somewhat of the same end product for better or worse. I will use some of my eq "templetes" to start out with. Mainly, certain freq.cuts. 200-500 range,cut a tad. Boost a little 1.8 -4000 or whatever.It just a starting point but it could be called a templete.
BushmasterM4
New member
I try to get my eq's right in the mix. But, when putting together a CD you have many different tunes and everyone knows each, (eq wise), will be different. No matter how hard you try to keep the same settings or what ever during the recording of many songs, they will vary. Mastering eq is where that falls into place. I believe most will agree its used with loving care and is not used to totally change the vibe. But it is needed from time to time.
Farview
Well-known member
A group of songs not all having the same brightness, bass response, or mid presence isn't a mistake. Especially when all the songs aren't the same thing. It would be easier to make every mix the same if you were mixing and AC/DC album. Pink Floyd would be much more difficult.
If you only do your own stuff and the instrumentation is relatively the same on all the songs, the 'no EQ' thing might be valid. If you are doing other peoples stuff or if you write and record a wide variety of differet types of music with all sorts of instrumentation and textures, not so much.
If you only do your own stuff and the instrumentation is relatively the same on all the songs, the 'no EQ' thing might be valid. If you are doing other peoples stuff or if you write and record a wide variety of differet types of music with all sorts of instrumentation and textures, not so much.
R
RAMI
Guest
I agree. But I don't see why that would be a bad thing. So, the "EQ" for each song is a little different. And???? I still don't see the problem.
R
RAMI
Guest
That's fine. Everyone works their own way. For example, even though I record everything in the same room, using the same instruments (more or less), etc...I never use a template. I always start from scratch when I mix. Besides the benefit of not allowing me to get lazy, I also think that it's a great factor in helping me improve as an engineer, because it forces me to really LISTEN and make decisions based on a REASON, as opposed to simply because "that's what I always do".
BushmasterM4
New member
No problem at all if thats what you want. Everything I do personally sounds different. But I couldnt imagine Judist Preists overall sound of "Screaming for Vengance" sounding half like it does and the other half like "British Steel".
R
RAMI
Guest
No problem at all if thats what you want. Everything I do personally sounds different. But I couldnt imagine Judist Preists overall sound of "Screaming for Vengance" sounding half like it does and the other half like "British Steel".
I don't know the albums you're talking about, so i can't comment on them.
But, don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that it's not neccessarry to have some kind of uniformity. But it's not just EQ that creates that. The rooms, reverbs used, micing techniques and placements, amps, guitars, etc...probably play a much bigger part in that than just dialing up an EQ setting and applying it all the songs.
If a band recorded all the songs for an album in the same stuidio, using the same drums and mics, same mic for the vocalist, etc....Why would you need to apply EQ to the final mixes of all the songs to make them sound uniform???
I really think EQ on a whole mix is used too often by home recordists to "fix" a mix (even though it probably hurts more than helps more often than not), rather than because it's actually needed.
Nakatira
That Norwegian Bastard
Intresting debate.
I`m very poor at Mastering, I usually just usa a spectrum analyser, and go back to mixing if its bad in eq, I tend to be a bit to generous on the low eq`s in my mixes, so checkin the mix with the analyser plus my ears usualy gets me a bit closer.
after I decide its good enough I chuck it in a limiter use a mild settin so that nothing loses its dynamic.
I sometimes ad a bit of verb to master as well
anyways my bands next record witch is comming up quite soon will be mastered by an english bloke I found on the Internet.
Tube Mastering, not bad prices, and it helps that he used to master floyd
It might be a waste on my amateur band, but hey its nice having something in common with Pink floyd
I`m very poor at Mastering, I usually just usa a spectrum analyser, and go back to mixing if its bad in eq, I tend to be a bit to generous on the low eq`s in my mixes, so checkin the mix with the analyser plus my ears usualy gets me a bit closer.
after I decide its good enough I chuck it in a limiter use a mild settin so that nothing loses its dynamic.
I sometimes ad a bit of verb to master as well
anyways my bands next record witch is comming up quite soon will be mastered by an english bloke I found on the Internet.
Tube Mastering, not bad prices, and it helps that he used to master floyd
It might be a waste on my amateur band, but hey its nice having something in common with Pink floyd
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
This ain't a debate; it's several groups of people taking about entirely different things, and doing so in circles so fast that if the thread goes around one more time I may just throw up from the vertigo. 
Yet another example of a thread in the "Mixing/Mastering" forum getting all gummed up because nobody agrees on just what mixing and mastering actually means and what the difference is between the two.
G.
Yet another example of a thread in the "Mixing/Mastering" forum getting all gummed up because nobody agrees on just what mixing and mastering actually means and what the difference is between the two.
G.