Why Can't I........???.

[chazba]

Whats wrong with having the same guy do the final mix AND the mastering. That way he(she) can get it right the first time and avoid all the problems that mastering engineers love to whine about. I'm a newbie here so forgive me if I ask the obvious......

chazba

 

[bennychico11]

it's not that mastering engineers are whining about what the mix engineers did....they just have different equipment and different expertise to accomplish what needs to be done. Another big thing is it's brings in an unbiased ear to the mix. The mix engineer has probably heard the song 500 times over and over again...so it's nice to give it to someone else who has never heard it.

Mastering engineers polish it. They clean up things maybe the mixing engineer never heard. They also have different tools for the job that most mix engineers don't have. A different room and different speakers as well.
Think of it like a car. The mix engineer puts all the peices of the car togther; the engine, the transmission, the body, the exhaust, etc. He makes it work and do what it's designed to do. The mastering engineer adds all the special features consumers love; the CD player, the paint job, the leather seats, the shiny rims, the cup holders, etc.

 

[KonradG]

this is a good option that every home recording MUSICIAN should consider. Being on this site to get help recording YOUR music (thats me, hi), you should consider tracking your songs with the highest quality possible (good mics, room, mic placement, MUSICAL PRECISION), then once you do that, if you cant seem to finish off the song as well as you would like, send it off to someone to polish, as benny said, what you started. This is practiced widely by unsigned bands that want to spend minimal amounts of money to get a demo (and once you learn enough, a sellable cd) and get it out to people at your shows.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Whats wrong with having the same guy do the final mix AND the mastering.

There's nothing wrong with it.

It's just not always the most ideal way to do it. But since we don't live in an ideal world, there are often instances where having the same guy do the mixing and mastering are perfectly fine - and sometimes even preferable.

If you're working on a limited budget and/or your project is meant to result solely in a product for personal enjoyment, a handful of demo CD-Rs to local clubs, MP3 distribution or web streaming, it can easily be argued that outsourced pro mastering is not necessary and maybe even a waste of money. Especially if the tracking and mixing are only of pro-am quality to begin with.

If, however, you're looking on creating a run of several hundred to a couple of thousand fully-packaged glass CDs for public sale, distribution to radio starions, indie label projects, etc. you really should do the rest "right" as well and have it pro mastered as well as pro tracked and pro mixed. You'd be wasting the rest of your investment not to take it all the way. It could be your one shot.

There is an exception I'd offer. If you have a pro producer - I mean an actual professional music project producer, not the hip hop definition of "producer" as a sound sequencer - who's driving the creative process during post and is in fact doing most of the mixing, it's not always a bad idea to have him do (or at least steer) the mastering as well. But even then he'll usually want to do the mixing and mastering in different studios with a different set of assistant ears and hands, and he'll take a signifigant break in time between the two to refresh his ears.

G.

 

[tarnationsauce2]

Tracking, mixing and mastering are all different, logistically, sonically, all different.
They are all different trades, requiring different tools and experience.

Analogy: Framing, drywall, painting. Yes all 3 things come together to make a wall... but you wouldn't want your painter to do the framing, or vise-versa.

However...
If you are experienced with all three then there really is no problem doing them all your self. In fact, if you ask me, if you're REAL good with all three, then you will get the best results possible since you know all the inner-workings and have a goal/vision of what the final product should be. BUT it is always nice to have another person's ears, brain, ideas, experience, gear, room, to influence the music in a way you may not have known possible.
If you are not well versed in any aspect of producing a song, it's either best to: practice, practice, practice, and gain experience (maybe 5-10+ years). Or hire a professional with experience.

 

[Massive Master]

I'm with Glenn - If the guy is a pro with a great ear, that's all good.

But a pro with a great ear is almost always going to *insist* on sending it to a dedicated mastering engineer anyway...

One issue that will definitely come up is the monitoring situation - Mixing and mastering in the same room... As no room is perfect, you actually *multiply* the imperfections in the room.

 

[RDMSstudio]

As an aside from the answers already given it's worth noting that if the person who mixes has a good idea of the processes involved in TRUE mastering, he is usually making a better than average mix. Meaning that the errant peaks in the mixdown are less pronounced ( without master bus compression) and the clarity of the mix is usually better.

I have found that most of the studio's that send me songs for mastering ask lots of questions regarding their product and how to improve it.
Mastering these days has a tendency to highlight all the deficiencies of the mix due to the required absurd final levels demanded by most customers.
No mastering engineer can fix poor signal to noise issues, masked vocals etc.
The final master is ALWAYS a reflection of the mix quality.

The end result of good studio rapport with mastering engineers is always better mixes and therefore better masters.

 

[chazba]

Thanks for the responses. You have made a great case for letting an experienced pro (or 2) do the mixing/mastering. I have done all the recording on an AW2816 and so far I'm lovin it. I have been a guitar pro on and off for 30+ years, so there are no musical or artistic issues. I will contact some guys . Would it be a really BAD idea for me to pack up my AW2816 and take it to a pro studio for the mixing/ mastering. What I'm asking is "Are there any issues with the 2816 that I don't know about ??? ( EQ, headroom whatever) that would compromise the results???

thanks

chazba

 

[masteringhouse]

Thanks for the responses. You have made a great case for letting an experienced pro (or 2) do the mixing/mastering. I have done all the recording on an AW2816 and so far I'm lovin it. I have been a guitar pro on and off for 30+ years, so there are no musical or artistic issues. I will contact some guys . Would it be a really BAD idea for me to pack up my AW2816 and take it to a pro studio for the mixing/ mastering. What I'm asking is "Are there any issues with the 2816 that I don't know about ??? ( EQ, headroom whatever) that would compromise the results???

I'm with John and Glenn.

The concept of having separate engineers dedicated to each task has merit ( if they are a experienced and good set of ears) but I don't see an issue so much with a seasoned pro doing both mixing and mastering. There is a Grammy winning engineer in my area that does both, and the end result of what he produces sounds fantastic.

I don't feel that a pro would actually use the aw2816 for either mixing or mastering, it's too limiting. More likely they will want to have you copy the tracks to a universal format (wav files etc.) and import them into the workstation that they use. That way they use any additional analog or outboard gear that they have. The cost of a single piece of outboard gear at most pro studios probably costs as much or more than the aw2816. There are definite reasons for this that mostly have to do with compromises in audio quality versus a more affordable price.

As an experienced axeman you know this, would you trade in your Gibson or Fender for an imitation?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

[QUICK OT SHOUT OUT]

Cool new logo, Tom!

[/SHOUT OUT]

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

Cool new logo, Tom!

G.

Thanks G!

New site coming soon too. Lot's 'o stuff happening shortly ...

 

[masteringhouse]

Oh yeah, I guess this is on topic.

I've been producing an artist for several months now and while I'm capable of both mixing and mastering it I went with multiple engineers for the reasons above.

Separate engineers for tracking, mixing (actually the engineer I mentioned above that both mixes and masters), and the mastering ... well I couldn't keep my hands out of that one.

Everybody is bringing their own perspective and skills to the project. The end result is that the whole is better than the sum of it's parts, the gestalt or whatever ...

 

[chazba]

Thanks again SSglen and M-house. Much to learn. More that I realised, but the real lesson is that there's a reason why these guys specialize, and it's 'cause they maintain a rep for quality product.



chazba

 

[Fishmed]

One issue that will definitely come up is the monitoring situation - Mixing and mastering in the same room... As no room is perfect, you actually *multiply* the imperfections in the room.

Most of my work is with musicians who are on a tight budget, so I often end up doing the mastering. In that process I focus on getting the final mixes louder and balanced to each other. I rarely touch the EQ at that point because I would feel that I would be second guessing myself from the mixing process.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Thanks again SSglen and M-house. Much to learn. More that I realised, but the real lesson is that there's a reason why these guys specialize, and it's 'cause they maintain a rep for quality product.

Again, you should look at it as a return on investment proposition. If you're just making something for fun, for friends and family, or for a handful of CD-Rs for live demo, spending a few hundred or more on a quality mastering finish may be hard to justify (unless you're already lighting your Cohibas with $20 bills ).

But for something you want to be the best and in which you're either already spending the money on gear, duplication services, etc. for a professional result, and gambling on actually making money on the indie release, then the money for pro mastering is well-spent.

G.

 

[mixsit]

Most of my work is with musicians who are on a tight budget, so I often end up doing the mastering. In that process I focus on getting the final mixes louder and balanced to each other. I rarely touch the EQ at that point because I would feel that I would be second guessing myself from the mixing process.

This is pretty much the boat I'm often in. And in that case, and since I'm mixing ITB, the project can go through a progression from the initial song mixing mindset, to the assembled 'listening to the project' context.
At that point the two mix is printed right there in the project, and along with tweaking final level and two-buss comp or limiting I (or we' -the band's in this process too ) will just as likely find a new focus.
Expectations in the context of 'Ok, now how does it sound as our album' tightens perceptions greatly. At that point it's just as easy to run the changes in a new 'saved as remix.

I'm finding this to be pretty effective. The two-buss is getting some comp/limiting but eq issues are nipped back in the mix.
The caveat of not having second set of pro ears in another facility goes w/o saying..
Wayne

 

[chazba]

More questions from the newbee.....

OK...I'm convinced. Next question from the newbee...What is a reasonable price to pay for a quality test master of 1 song to find out if I like his particular style ? Where can a guy find out who's who in the mastering biz.
Do some mastering engineers specialize in certain genre? I hate making cold calls and I know that I do not like to be disturbed with stupid questions. Some of this info you may not want to share in open forum, so PM me if it's appropriate.

Thanks again

chazba