time spent on mixing?

[PT]

I've just finished tracking a pretty straight forward rock song with very traditional sounding instrumentation. No sounds to throw any curves, and you can pretty much tell how the song should sound from my rough mix.

Assuming there is nothing technically difficult with the tracking, how much time should be spent on the mix? Is there a general feeling that you shouldn't beat a mix to death? Or, do many feel the more time you spend the better it gets?

I'm asking because I plan to mix in a "real" studio and cost is a concern. I have a good rapport with the engineer. He'll get the job done in whatever amount of time I tell him. But I want to get a sense of how much time he really needs to do a professional job. I don't want to rush him, but I also don't want to get hung up on perfection.

[tmix]

You CAN beat it to death. I usually take a couple of hours max to do a straight ahead no frills or effects (except maybe verb) kind of mix.Some times they come together in less than one, but not often.Unless you are only talking about a 3-4 piece band with one vocal.

[Electricide]

This assumes that all of your songs are relatively similar, meaning that the drums are always on the same tracks, the guitars and bass, etc etc, and that only one lead vocalist was used.
If this is the case, I'd say spend four hours on the first song, at least. Here the mixer can get all the right patches, the appropriate outboard (using time to a/b his boxes), a good verb for the singer, eq all the drums/guitars, and basically get "the sound" right.

After the first song, the rest should only take two hours to automate, assuming the instrumentation is similar, and he doesn't need to repatch a bunch of crap.

Chris

[PT]

After the first song, the rest should only take two hours to automate, assuming the instrumentation is similar, and he doesn't need to repatch a bunch of crap.s

This makes me think. Right now I only have one song to mix. Perhaps I should record a few more, with similar instrumentation, and mix them all at the same session.

But I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this. 4 hours on the first song, two on the rest? That seem reasonable and I can afford that amount of time.

One thing that concerns me is, in the past, I've found it great to sleep on a mix overnight and come back in the next day to make final tweaks. I realize this is more time and money. But is this a luxury or a standard practice?

[Electricide]

I forgot to ask, but..
Is it being mixed in PT or another DAW? Then recalls are a snap. Otherwise, see if you can get the last session of a night, and the first session the next morning. Then they can leave the mix up on the board and save you time. Also, the benefit of having your tracks lined up identically is that pulling up a new song for 10 minute tweaking doesn't involve one hour or so of repatching and such.

[kwhatx]

I usually spend anywhere from 4-6 hours on a song (maybe more, maybe less) depending on different things like number of tracks (anybody else but me getting tired of sorting thru 60-100 tracks?) and final destination of said song (demos require less work than stuff going to a label. I also like to let a mix sit overnight and listen to it with fresh ears the next day. By doing that I can catch little things I missed before. But then again, I've heard that CLA mixes a lot of songs in one day. And he appears to have a pretty good track record going there (whether you like him or hate him ... lol).

[Russian Recording]

The most important part of mixing is tracking. If you spend a lot of time getting really great sounds to tape, you will find that mixing is much easier and less time consuming. You also find the overall quality of your recordings will have more integrity.

If this guy has a bunch of "fixing" to do, it could take a really long time to make it sound right. So the time it will take him to mix greatly depends on your tracks.

If you spend time getting a specific sound to tape by way of microphone placement and selection, dynamics processing and, if at all necessary, EQ, you've already made specific choices about the sound of the recording, and don't have t worry about it later. If you do this all during mixing however, you have an unlimited amount of stuff to mess around with, and an infinite number of variations on your mix that just might "work", and there is much more potential to overdo it.

Recently I have made a point to use as little EQ and processing as possible. I spend hours on mic placement and selection. The end result is a much more focused project with sonic integrity that I have not achieved in previous recordings.

I will still spend 1-2 hours per song. I then walk away from it for 30-45 minutes, come back to it and print it.

good luck
mike

[cgarges]

It sounds like the engineer at this studio is a buddy of yours or at least friendly. See if you can take a copy of your rough mixes to the studio just to hear them in his room. Just be prepared for your tracks to sound WAY different when you get into a different environment. I'm a freelance engineer and deal with this all the time. It doesn't mean that you didn't do a good job tracking, it just means that his control room has different deficiencies than yours and it may take some time to sort it out. I'd say work on it 'til it's done. Tell him you want to spend four hours on it, but secretly budget for 6 or 7. In the end, you'll be much happier if you don't set too many limitations. Once you've done one, you'll know a little more about what to expect for next time. Good luck!

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[AnalogElectric]

A mix is never finished, only abandoned. I've spent weeks on an album mix and I've spent a few hours. Either situation had its pros and cons. I have come to the point where I'd mess with something too much and call it the day, come back to it another day, go with the raw tones, and find it to be fine to begin with. I've had bands say, "wow, it sounds amazing" while in my head I'm thing "it sounds like crap". I'll continue to tweak the mix while the band doesn't understand what I'm hearing differently. I've chased a mix for weeks on end and can still have issues with picky little 'engineer' things.

Always reassure the engineer that it sounds great (I mean when it does of course). It really matters what the initial tracking tones sound like. Some bands think to themselves, "well it sounds good now but I'm sure there's some wizardry the engineer can do to fatten it up"...Arg! The better initial feeling is, "wow, it sounds amazing just in a slop mix how could it be any better? We could go ahead and press it how it is".

If initial tones are there during tracking there shouldn't be much tweaking during a mix but to only even things out so things fit where they should.

If I ever at any point hear, "we can fix that later, right?" I'll reply, "no, we should figure that out right now"

Since this approach for me I find the mixes going faster and faster thus bringing my stress level down and the band more satisfied with the results.

So, what's normal for me after things are said and done? I'll spend a good 4-5 hours on a song that has a good representation of the overall record (and plenty of tom hits), while making CD-R's to listen in various places throughout the process. Then once the initial mixed sound is accomplished the rest of the songs fall in to place. I'll spend from 5 minutes to at the most an hour on each song afterwards (depends on how many vocal parts, shared tracks, and/or mixing verse/chorus dynamics--fader moves).

--Adam Lazlo

[PT]

I think I did a good job tracking. Right now I'm using no EQ. Just a little panning and level adjustments and you can hear everything in it's place. I definitely have a rough mix that more than illustrates what I'm going for. But I hope, as cgarges mentioned, that I'm not too shocked when I hear the tracks in a new environment. I've A/B'd my rough mix on different speakers in my house, an it's pretty consistent.

[cgarges]

But I hope, as cgarges mentioned, that I'm not too shocked when I hear the tracks in a new environment. I've A/B'd my rough mix on different speakers in my house, an it's pretty consistent.

Trust me on this. Try to at least hear it over there before you start mixing.

Chris

[black ark]

when you get to the point where things begin to sound good, print an early mix even if you think it's too rough. print an experimental mix too, just to try an idea (something on the snare, take out the guitar @ beginning ect..) and then you'll have something to go off of. don't worry this first mix to death... go by instinct and feel. worry the rest of the mixes to death...

it's only one song, right?

-paul m.

[vvv]

"A mix is never finished, only abandoned."

Thank you, AnalogElectric.

But then, I feel that about many of the tracks I perform on, also.

[Toddf]

Of course usually the more time you have the better. The budget dictates how long I get to spend. I have mixed a song in an hour and spent a day and a half on a song. It always depends on how things are tracked the length of the song and the amount of tracks. I don't take any longer than I need to though. A 8 minute prog rock song with 3 guitar solos and a keyboard solo will mix slower than a 3 minute punk rock song. Usually. The answer to your question is, it all depends? Todd F.

[@?,*???&?]

When I mix a project for a band, the time spent mixing is no less than 8 hours and if in the DAW domain, probably closer to 18 hours.