Mixing or Mastering?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ace3
  • Start date Start date
A

ace3

New member
I'm pretty new to the mixing and mastering process and just had a quick question. Are vocal compressions/eq's mainly added during the mixing stage of a record or the mastering stage? I've had some people say that mixing is soley arranging the music and maybe changing some audio levels and that mastering will compress/eq etc... the audio to make it industry standard. Others have told me the mixing process is where your main compression and such is added and mastering is just the final leg where things are tweaked. Could someone clear this up for me?

Thanks
 
Mastering can be compared to the detailing of a car. The car is there, the paint is there. Mastering is the "showroom finish." And mastering is the creation of the production/replication master (hence the name). It deals with ALL the mixes that make up a project holistically - not just individually. So the mixes should be "done" before the mastering guy even hears it.

"Industry standard?" Buzzword...
 
Mixing is the process of creating the stereo (or 5.1 surround sound) mixdown from the original individual recordings. The sonic goal is to create the best-sounding mix you can.

Mastering is the process of assembling the individual mixdowns into an album and preparing those recordings for publishing in their final medium. The sonic goal is to fine polish any remaining small rough edges in the mixes, to get the individual mixes to sound like they belong together and sound like they have the proper relative volumes when played together, and to assemble the proper technical information to send to the publisher/replicator for publishing/replicating.

Compression, limiting, equalization, volume and gain adjustment, and delay and reverb are all part of both processes. There is no exclusive breakdown saying that compression is only used here or EQ is only used there, etc.

EDIT: Or, to put it another way; exactly what Massive Master said 60 seconds before I did :D

G.
 
Last edited:
While I agree with the above there are some "grey areas". I think that your comment "the final leg where things are tweaked" sums up mastering nicely.

EQ can change the balance of a mix as well as compression and all of the other "tricks" we use in mastering. I'm working on a project now for example where I'm using a combination of M/S processing and EQ to help bring out the vocal and snare from a mix where they are buried. Everything affects everything (kind of the "butterfly effect" of audio). Very little is black and white in audio production.
 
masteringhouse said:
I'm working on a project now for example where I'm using a combination of M/S processing and EQ to help bring out the vocal and snare from a mix where they are buried.
Click to expand...


I'm lost on this, as this sounds like it is salvaging a bad mix and/or is only a preference and the artist(s) are paying to have your preferences applied.

Or..is this for the purpose of matching other songs in a project?
 
mixmkr said:
I'm lost on this, as this sounds like it is salvaging a bad mix and/or is only a preference and the artist(s) are paying to have your preferences applied.

Or..is this for the purpose of matching other songs in a project?
Click to expand...
I can think of yet another possibility: The mix is just fine, and the customer expects the mastered version to sound differently. Especially when issuing a remastered album, this happens quite a lot. In forums, every one agrees that such a remaster sounds differently, but only a minority thinks that it actually sounds better. This is completely understandable in this case.
 
mixmkr said:
I'm lost on this, as this sounds like it is salvaging a bad mix and/or is only a preference and the artist(s) are paying to have your preferences applied.

Or..is this for the purpose of matching other songs in a project?
Click to expand...

Actually it's a very good mix made by a well-known engineer in Nashville. There are several reasons for it. Some has to do with client perspective after a mix session is done and after spending several thousands of dollars for a mix, it's difficult to go back, reschedule, and make changes unlike in a home recording situation. While there were vocal up/down mixes it still doesn't address the snare and there are only so many permuations that you can go through when mixing and having to commit.

Another reason as I mentioned previously is that after EQ and dynamic changes in mastering, the balance can change. In some cases these changes will be for the improvement of the overall mix, but can have a negative effect on individual elements of a mix. For example, to raise overall level you are going to have to limit transients which will make a snare or kick lower in relative level and can push it into a mix more. Also a bump on the bottom or lower mids to beef or round things out can remove some of the presence elsewhere and vice versa.

Mastering is a balancing act. The mix is never really "done" until it's on the way to the replication plant. Hopefully it doesn't change after that.
 
masteringhouse said:
The mix is never really "done" until it's on the way to the replication plant. Hopefully it doesn't change after that.
Click to expand...
Not until the listener sticks the CD into his mini-stereo with the crappy little 7-band EQ set for death scoop, anyway ;) :D

G.
 
I third this outburst of laughter! Death scoop, why oh WHY?!
 
masteringhouse said:
While I agree with the above there are some "grey areas". I think that your comment "the final leg where things are tweaked" sums up mastering nicely.

EQ can change the balance of a mix as well as compression and all of the other "tricks" we use in mastering. I'm working on a project now for example where I'm using a combination of M/S processing and EQ to help bring out the vocal and snare from a mix where they are buried. Everything affects everything (kind of the "butterfly effect" of audio). Very little is black and white in audio production.
Click to expand...

i might be a lil slow but neway...if an artist is looking for a certain type of compression it is going to mainly be done in the mixing stage?? and the mastering engineer will just eq this to the other instruments involved in the mix? i was just wondering because ive heard some singers where the compression that was added was very strong where as others it was hardly evident and almost sounded dry (which probably was the effect they were looking for) i just tlked to a mastering engineer that said just make sure all the vocal files you send me are dry with nothing done to them and this is where i ran into confusion
 
masteringhouse said:
Actually it's a very good mix made by a well-known engineer in Nashville. There are several reasons for it. Some has to do with client perspective after a mix session is done and after spending several thousands of dollars for a mix, it's difficult to go back, reschedule, and make changes unlike in a home recording situation.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but something just doesn't seem clear to me. A well know engineer, thousands of dollars, etc ... I'd be pretty upset if I had to then go and have someone fix my "buried snare and vocal" when I should have been happy walking out of the studio in the first place. I've been led to understand that mixes shouldn't need fixing when mastering, but rather a consistancy from one to another on a like project. But I also understand changing opinions and "hearing it another day." Or is it a case of making a batch of songs "go together", and in doing so, the snare and vocals were "lost" so to speak, and therefore needed that correction then?
 
mixmkr said:
IBut I also understand changing opinions and "hearing it another day." Or is it a case of making a batch of songs "go together", and in doing so, the snare and vocals were "lost" so to speak, and therefore needed that correction then?
Click to expand...

The above are two of the factors that can contribute. Other factors include how the mix translates from the studio environment, processing and compromises that may be needed during mastering to achieve a "competitive" product, politics and ego within members of the band, stylistic and taste issues, even possibly changes in the way the product is to be promoted and the audience it is being marketed for.

In this particular case though I believe it was mostly about changing perceptions of the mix after it was completed and opinions of other personnel not directly involved with the recording. The engineers did a fantastic job. They are looking for mastering to help move this is a slightly different direction which it can do (or doesn't need to do) depending on how the client perceives the mixes should go. BTW we're only talking about a db or so here, "buried" may be too strong of a term.
 
Last edited:
ace3 said:
i might be a lil slow but neway...if an artist is looking for a certain type of compression it is going to mainly be done in the mixing stage?? and the mastering engineer will just eq this to the other instruments involved in the mix? i was just wondering because ive heard some singers where the compression that was added was very strong where as others it was hardly evident and almost sounded dry (which probably was the effect they were looking for) i just tlked to a mastering engineer that said just make sure all the vocal files you send me are dry with nothing done to them and this is where i ran into confusion
Click to expand...

Absolutely you should try to get the compression and eq of the individual tracks nailed in the mix (vocals and instruments), even possibly a touch of compression or limting on the overall mix. My main point was that it doesn't necessarily have to end there. It can be "tweaked" further during mastering and very often is.

I'm not clear on why this particular ME said to make sure that all vocals are "dry". Dry, at least to me, connotates the use of reverb and delay more so than compression. You should mix the vocals as you need to within the mix including EQ, compression, delay, reverb, and anything else required to get them to fit within the mix. This is assuming of course that you are sending the ME a stereo mix. If you are planning on sending stems (submixes) to the ME then "dry" makes more sense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top