mixing and mastering together?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ollie99
  • Start date Start date
ollie99

ollie99

New member
Because this is a question about mixing and mastering, I wasn't sure where to put it, so I put it here and its probably quite a newby question anyway.
So basically, obviously I've known for a long time what the mixing stage is, but only recently have I actually researched further detail into mastering. And, after doing so, I still can't help thinking that mastering is something that can easily be done by the sound engineer and straight after the mixing process, mostly mixed in with the mixing process).
In which case, when I come to the end of a mix, can I just do my best with that and leave it?
 
You're right, it can be done my the mix engineer straight after mixing, and many budget guys or home recording guys will do that.

Some of the benefits of mastering are worth considering though.

A proper mastering house will have (and know how/when to use) gear that we only dream about.
They will have a very good environment and monitoring setup, which most home recording guys don't have.

Basically, if something's wrong, they will have the tools and the experience to pick it out.
They will be familiar with the modern standards.. Levels, formats, any embedded information, and will provide a proper master.

Also, they are impartial and detached from your project.
I know if I listen to a bad mix for long enough, it will begin to sound good through familiarity.
A mastering engineer will immediately tell me it sucks, and why.

That's said, I'd suggest paying ridiculous amounts of cash, or none at all.
It's my opinion, but I believe it's one of those things you just can't skimp on, and with so many cheap online 'mastering houses', it's either DIY or top dollar for me.

I sorta feel like I can get the sound I want, and that's fine, but I can't guarantee that it'll translate well across many systems, and I can't guarantee that it'll broadcast well.
With professional mastering, that's about as close as you'll get to a guarantee.
 
with so many cheap online 'mastering houses'
Click to expand...
Is that something where you would send your mix to then they would send it back to you in a few days or something?
 
Yeah, there are a lot of these guys, and I suspect a lot of them know and own a lot less than the average HR.com cruiser.

You know what; For all the time it takes, give it a go yourself if that's the way you're thinking, then post in the clinic.
You'll get honest feedback soon enough, and if it's conflicting, you'll know your masters don't translate well.
If the feedback's great, then you're quids in.
 
and it does seem like they would only change the things that would be the most obvious to make it seem like they've changed it alot
 
I guess so.
It all depends on how your mixes sound. Any given track might need a lot of processing, or literally none.

Is this hypothetical, or do you have some mixes on the go?
 
yeah this is hypothetical, I have one song in its very early stages with about 30% of the tracks recorded.
you see, I used to get really poor sound quality in my recordings, half because of equipment, half because of me. So basically, even if I got someone who knew what they were doing to mix it, then it would hardly improve it, so I never properly looked into it at all (my knowledge then was that you do levels and everything as you record each bit). Its just now, I've got a lot better equipment, including some proper studio monitors, and already after just recording bass and rhythm guitar the quality is miles better. So now I've looked into a lot of the other half of the making-a-song process, the mixing, and as I record the tracks, pretty much every time Im now thinking that I can sort that out when it comes to mixing, whether its unwanted noise, bad sound levels, panning, and everything else. So I am really looking into the mixing and mastering stage just so I nail it....

and it has also come to my attention that my friend has taken up recording and has already put something out. Even though I know that he has 10% the knowledge and equipment of what I do, he's got a little vocal and guitar track and I know not many people realise how much the difference between my results will be to his - and I want to make them as big as possible :D
 
ollie99 said:
I can sort that out when it comes to mixing, whether its unwanted noise, bad sound levels, panning, and everything else.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, but try not to think this way.
If you track something and have the choice between fixing it digitally, or re-recording it, it should be a re-record about nine out of ten times.

The luxury of digital editing and manipulation has mislead a lot of people into believing that tracking doesn't really matter anymore.

The truth is, if you put 100% into performance and tracking, the mixing job often becomes a doddle, and mastering in turn because much more straight forward.

Same applies when looking at mixing vs mastering.
When mixing, you should never think "X,Y,Z can be fixed at the mastering stage".
To some extent, the work of the mastering engineer should be a surprise to you; You shouldn't be sending him stuff knowing what he's going to fix, unless it's something completely out of your control.

Does that make sense?
 
Yeah I do get what you mean with the mastering bit.

And my plan is for my current song is to do the rhythm guitar, then bass (which I did today), then drums, then record all the lead parts and then take a good listen to what I have redo any parts that are faulty (I will try and get the drums perfect in one session though to avoid having to set it up for about 5 seconds worth of the song, not that. Wouldn't do that if I needed to), and then go on to the mixing and so on
 
Cool. That's the way forward.

The only bit that concerns me is that you're doing drums after rhythm and bass.
I know it's not really what you asked, but I'm intrigued. How come you're doing it that way round?

Are you working to a click?
If not, consider doing the drums first; They are almost always the foundation of a track.
 
Yes, I wondered whether you would mention that. yes I am doing it to a click, and there are a few of reasons why I do it this way round. First of all, I always did it this way from when I started so I've kinda got used to it. Secondly, even though I am in a band, I compose songs myself because they don't like all the same music I do, so I dont exactly know if parts sound together so I will often change the drum part when I come to recording it. And lastly, the first, and only, song I did that way round, I recorded the drums, packed everything away, next day went to record guitar and realised that a 10 second part which occurs about 6 times in the song didnt fit in correctly with the timings, so I got angry and scrapped the song.
 
That's cool man. The order isn't so important as long as the arrangement's down and there's a click to follow.

Best of luck with your recording.
Glad to hear things are on the up. :)
 
yeah, I generally just find it easier to build the song up from the guitar.

Yeap they sure are :) just need to wait till my football seasons over so I can get a lot more free sundays like I did yesterday
 
Steenamaroo said:
The only bit that concerns me is that you're doing drums after rhythm and bass..
Click to expand...

I always do my drums last. I agree that most people don't do it that way. But I find it a lot easier to work that way. I record everything to a dummy drum beat, and then play drums along with the rest of the tracks.
 
That's cool. I do that myself a lot of the time, but always working to the grid/click/dummy beat.

Would hate to see the op start without a click and really learn the hard way! :p
 
RAMI said:
I always do my drums last. I agree that most people don't do it that way. But I find it a lot easier to work that way. I record everything to a dummy drum beat, and then play drums along with the rest of the tracks.
Click to expand...

Same here. . . Is it THAT unusual ?. . . Maybe it is, IDK. . . I've always done it like that too. . .
 
AtoDeficient said:
Same here. . . Is it THAT unusual ?. . . Maybe it is, IDK. . . I've always done it like that too. . .
Click to expand...

I think it's traditionally unusual, but with home studios and one-man-bands becoming more common, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a little more common now.
 
Steenamaroo said:
The luxury of digital editing and manipulation has mislead a lot of people into believing that tracking doesn't really matter anymore.
Click to expand...

I think it also has mislead alot of people into believing that mastering doesn't matter anymore as well. . . It seems to have gone the way of pre-production. . . decisions, re-writes, preparation and arranging, and maybe even NOT recording a song. . . But I think IF a song is worth recording and releasing, (and that question should be asked, BTW), then it's worth having it mastered by a pro with a great room and experienced ears. . . To me, self-mastering isn't mastering. . . It's just further mixing, and not yet mastered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top