Why don't we Mix like we Master?

[barefoot]

Ok, at the risk of beating the dead horse into oblivion, I need to ask a slight twist on the perennial Mixing versus Mastering question.

I've been reading a lot about mastering recently and three points seem to ring out the most to me. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these:

1. Don't master your own music. Have it done professionally because they have better equipment and a fresh set of ears.

2. Monitoring for mastering is different than monitoring for mixing. Mastering setups use broad frequency response speakers with wide dynamic range in extremely well tuned rooms with a minimum of acoustic obstructions in or near the sound path. Near fields are not suitable for mastering.

3. Get the most out of your mixes prior to mastering. You should try to get your mixes as close as possible to the finished sound. Theoretically the mastering engineer should just need to add the final polish to your tracks and shouldn't need to 'fix' anything.


Now the first point I have no problem with. I have no doubt that it's a very good idea to send your mixes out to be mastered by someone with a lot of experience, an outstanding setup, and a fresh perspective on your music.

Points 2 and 3, however, seem contradictory. If the whole point is what you hear in the end, and you want to try and get it as close as possible to it's final incarnation in the mixing stage, why in the world would you want to have a monitoring system which differs so dramatically from what mastering engineers use? From most everything that I have read, the wide flat responds and high dynamics of mastering systems (speakers, rooms, etc.) are designed to most universally "translate" to other systems (car, radio, home). They give the best vantage point to hear everything that's going on.

If this is true, then why is everyone using nearfields planted on their mixing consoles with loads of gear all around to reflect the sound? A mastering engineer would never consider doing this. Why should a recording engineer? Shouldn't we be pushing our systems as much as possible to resemble those used in mastering?

barefoot

 

[atomictoyz]

There are lots of things that seperate the 2 different worlds. For instance the location of an engineering to mix is right up against a console, so the need nearfields to be respresent the raw audio within that distance. The mix is supposed to be free of alot of the acoustic complications of a room to help keep things clean. Mixing is very technical, much like assembling an engine as sjoko would put it, it takes entirely different equipment and environment to tune that same motor to get the best possible performance. The reason wide freq. and highly accurate monitors are needed for Mastering to make sure the music will translate not just to a ghetto blaster, but also a 25,000 watt system. In the old days you could have blown a cutter head if the mastering engineer hadn't toned down some dynamics that the mix had left on it from the 2 track pre-master. Mixing is building the engine, Mastering is tuning the engine. A mastering room is a culmination of the living room, the car and the ghetto blaster in one shot. Too much more and Im going to run out of breath. Whew!


I comment further as the thread developes :0)

Peace,
Dennis

 

[barefoot]

I don't know Dennis, that doesn't seem like a very convincing argument.

Here's a theory:

Maybe the two "traditions" just developed from pure logistics. Recording engineers have always needed to be surrounded by loads of gear, so the traditional monitoring arrangement resulted from the best compromise which could be struck under those circumstances. Mastering requires a much smaller mass of gear, so the monitoring setup could be more optimally arranged.

But nowadays, with everything becoming increasingly software based, there is far more potential for reducing the "mass" of studio equipment directly surrounding the recording engineer. Maybe it's time to brake with tradition and find a more optimal recording monitor arrangment... like that used in mastering?

barefoot

 

[atomictoyz]

Some Mastering facilities are going to laptop/remote control during the sweetening process, to totally remove console and equipment reflections that interfere with listening. Im always trying to come up with analogies to describe things, and sometimes it won't make sense or seem weak. Oh Well. How about a mastering engineer telling someone in a remote booth what to change to make him happy. That way the analog guys can still have jobs in an industry that is steaming down the digital hiway. I actually wasn't trying to present an argument, just an idea. To actually explian the technicalites of the why and how I would need to venture into the realms of the metaphysical reductionism. I was sure my post would have been buried in a flame of fire by now...Mnnnnn.....


Peace,
Dennis

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Don't forget, mastering started out life as the black art of getting a mix to sound great on laquer disks known as "records"....

From there, the process evolved into the fine-tuning and polishing process.

Bruce