L
littledog
New member
I think you need to give us more information before we can give you more specific answers.
•How many songs?
•How many tracks per song, and what is the typical track layout (how many drum tracks, how many other instruments, how many vocals, back up vocals, etc.)
•Are your instruments "real" or samples?
•Are there drum tracks at all? (You didn't mention them)
•How long is the average song?
•How much fixing/editing do you anticipate (cutting and pasting between takes, tuning vocals, editing the song forms, etc.)
•You are retracking the bass? How good of a bass player are you? Can you do each song in one take? One take plus a couple of punch-ins? Multiple takes and comp the results?
•Are there multiple lead vocal tracks that need to be comped?
•How "clean" are the tracks? Will a lot of time have to spent setting up noise reduction or editing out pops, clicks, mouth noises, coughs, grunts, etc.?
•Are you going for a purely natural sound, or will you be using a lot of mixing special effects (delays, autopanning, changing ambiences, etc.)
Typically in pop music, when you have 24-48 tracks, a quality "pro" mix would take at least 4-6 hours per song for mixing. This is NOT including major editing or retracking or other major surgery.
Even in a budget situation, unless your raw tracks already sound fantastic, figure at least 4 hours for the first song, and then if all the other songs were tracked with the same instrumentation and mic positions MAYBE you can mix the rest in 2 hours each using the same basic mix settings as the first song.
I'm not sure if this advice qualifies as "negative", as I would say the same thing to you (or any potential client) if you asked the question without telling me about your 45 minutes per song estimate. I haven't heard your music - if the songs are incredibly well recorded, not many tracks per song, and really short in length - then maybe the 45 minutes is "possible". I don't think I've ever managed to mix a song that fast, unless it was just a solo or duo recording, or else vocals added to a premixed sequence. But maybe they are incredibly skilled mixers. In may case, I would categorize 45 minutes as qualifying for a rough mix, not a final one.
The best way to find out some of these answers is to ask for a client list. Then call some of them and see how long their mixes took and how happy they were with the results - especially if you can find a previous client with a project similar to yours.
Please let us know how you like the ultimate results of this studio's work. I think a lot of us are really curious by now!
And the main reason you want to use a different studio for mastering is two-fold:
•A mastering studio supplies the engineering skills, hardware and software, and acoustic space that is optimal for mastering. A typical mixing studio does not. It's kind of like why you might prefer to get your transmission done at a transmission specialist, and not a car wash.
•One of the main goals in the mastering process is to fine-tune the mix as provided by the mix engineer created in the mixing room. If you assume that the mix engineer has already done the best possible job he/she can with their ears on their equipment listening on their speakers in their space... than it would besomewhat redundant to have them relisten to it again and master it. BUT... if you take the mix to fresh highly trained ears with better mastering equipment on better speakers in a better space... then you are actually accomplishing something constructive.
Is that more understandable?
•How many songs?
•How many tracks per song, and what is the typical track layout (how many drum tracks, how many other instruments, how many vocals, back up vocals, etc.)
•Are your instruments "real" or samples?
•Are there drum tracks at all? (You didn't mention them)
•How long is the average song?
•How much fixing/editing do you anticipate (cutting and pasting between takes, tuning vocals, editing the song forms, etc.)
•You are retracking the bass? How good of a bass player are you? Can you do each song in one take? One take plus a couple of punch-ins? Multiple takes and comp the results?
•Are there multiple lead vocal tracks that need to be comped?
•How "clean" are the tracks? Will a lot of time have to spent setting up noise reduction or editing out pops, clicks, mouth noises, coughs, grunts, etc.?
•Are you going for a purely natural sound, or will you be using a lot of mixing special effects (delays, autopanning, changing ambiences, etc.)
Typically in pop music, when you have 24-48 tracks, a quality "pro" mix would take at least 4-6 hours per song for mixing. This is NOT including major editing or retracking or other major surgery.
Even in a budget situation, unless your raw tracks already sound fantastic, figure at least 4 hours for the first song, and then if all the other songs were tracked with the same instrumentation and mic positions MAYBE you can mix the rest in 2 hours each using the same basic mix settings as the first song.
I'm not sure if this advice qualifies as "negative", as I would say the same thing to you (or any potential client) if you asked the question without telling me about your 45 minutes per song estimate. I haven't heard your music - if the songs are incredibly well recorded, not many tracks per song, and really short in length - then maybe the 45 minutes is "possible". I don't think I've ever managed to mix a song that fast, unless it was just a solo or duo recording, or else vocals added to a premixed sequence. But maybe they are incredibly skilled mixers. In may case, I would categorize 45 minutes as qualifying for a rough mix, not a final one.
The best way to find out some of these answers is to ask for a client list. Then call some of them and see how long their mixes took and how happy they were with the results - especially if you can find a previous client with a project similar to yours.
Please let us know how you like the ultimate results of this studio's work. I think a lot of us are really curious by now!
And the main reason you want to use a different studio for mastering is two-fold:
•A mastering studio supplies the engineering skills, hardware and software, and acoustic space that is optimal for mastering. A typical mixing studio does not. It's kind of like why you might prefer to get your transmission done at a transmission specialist, and not a car wash.
•One of the main goals in the mastering process is to fine-tune the mix as provided by the mix engineer created in the mixing room. If you assume that the mix engineer has already done the best possible job he/she can with their ears on their equipment listening on their speakers in their space... than it would besomewhat redundant to have them relisten to it again and master it. BUT... if you take the mix to fresh highly trained ears with better mastering equipment on better speakers in a better space... then you are actually accomplishing something constructive.
Is that more understandable?
