Audio Mastering Engineer with question for Mix Engineers

[Chris Graham Mastering]

Jon,
What a fantastic and well articulated response. I think you're right, but my only objection would be that often, when mix buss compression is added, while it might sound great in the mixing stage and create no "pumping" effect, it's not uncommon for me to find that my mastering process reveals the mix buss compressor pumping after it's been mastered.

It doesn't happen very often, mostly if I get a mix that's been compressed, it's not "light" compression. It's kind of unsettling when it is light, but might not be releasing or attacking the way it should, and at some point during mastering, I'll start looking for where the odd pumping effect is coming from in my chain, only to find that as the song get's closer to the final master being finished, that the pumping was there all along, it's just been made more evident by my mastering, the added sparkle and clarity makes it come out a bit more.

It's crazy when it happens. Freaks me out! haha!

My recommendation would always be to send a compressed and uncompressed version, but hey, I'm the M.E. - I almost never get what I want. haha!

[jhharvest]

The oddest part of it- these are almost always from America, I never encounter it with projects from europe or elsewhere.

I take it you don't see much work from Africa. Here it seems they think it doesn't sound right unless it's clipped. I think it might have to do with bootlegs of American artists...

[Gregg Juke]

Strange, but I'm thinking that that may be a cultural thing for whatever reason. It seems to be true on a lot of "mixtape" type stuff from Jamaica, from the US, and from quite a bit of the indigenous African music that I've come across. And there seems to be a propensity for _loving_ overdriven, smeared delay and reverb signals.

My wife lived in Liberia for quite a few years, and she mentioned that a lot of the radio jocks tend to overuse those sorts of devices as well.

GJ

[Nick Sevilla]

One theme I have noticed on here is some of you "put on" limiting just to make a reference louder.

When I am mixing music that traditionally more compressed, I start the mix from scratch with all the mix buss elements in.
And I mix "into" the compressor/limiter plus whatever else is on there. This always ends up with better results than adding level after the fact... That usually just messes up the balance.
With these more processed mixes I am also not hitting digital maximum, but peaks at around -3dB.

I have to explain to the artist that they just need to turn up their monitoring. They agree, and usually, know that during Mastering, it will be turned up to a more commercial level.

Educating your clients as to what a mix is VS a mastered release is never a bad lesson.

[joninc]

this was one of the tchad blake things i was thinking of... interesting:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/q-tchad- ... u-mix.html

[Jeff White]

Thanks for this thread. It's been really eye-opening from both a mix and mastering perspective. Lots to put into practice here.

Jeff

[Jesse Skeens]

One theme I have noticed on here is some of you "put on" limiting just to make a reference louder.

When I am mixing music that traditionally more compressed, I start the mix from scratch with all the mix buss elements in.
And I mix "into" the compressor/limiter plus whatever else is on there. This always ends up with better results than adding level after the fact... That usually just messes up the balance.
With these more processed mixes I am also not hitting digital maximum, but peaks at around -3dB.

That's how I approach producing as well, limiter is on from the very start. I use refs within the project right away to get everything sounding on par with other mastered material.

Seems there's less surprises later on this way. The elements of the mix generally define the level of loudness something can go. Hearing them in the context with master buss compression and limiting helps make decisions early on that give a better result later on.

[fossiltooth]

i think you should get your mix AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to what you want to hear in the end and not be afraid to do what it takes to arrive there. most mixers i admire have the same philosophy.

i got to watch peter katis do some mixing and he applies subtle compression ALL OVER THE PLACE in MANY STAGES on individual elements as well as buss groups and the mix buss which hits a few comps/tape/peak limiter before being printed.

his mixes sound amazing IMHO and huge, not over compressed, very tasteful and natural.

there's not a whole lot of headroom left at this point because he has it so close to being "done".

so sure, it might not be leaving a lot for the mastering engineer to do. but that isn't the goal - the goal is to make amazing mixes. if it sounds great as is then the mastering engineer really doesn't have to do that much (and i suspect in the case of many pros like peter, they don't really do that much just some subtle overall shaping and some additional juice). it's more like a final stage of QC as well as sequencing, encoding etc...

read a bunch of tchad blake stuff too and i think he is very similar in that his final mixes are quite loud by the time they are heading to mastering.

so... i am not sure i buy the whole "NEVER COMPRESS OR LIMIT YOUR MIX BUSS THING - LEAVE IT TO THE M.E. - HE WILL BE BETTER AT IT THAN YOU" ...

that said, if you are just starting out and unsure, it's always better to print one with and without.

EXACTLY.

[cgarges]

I'm generally giving the clients what the mastering guy gets, but oftentimes I might normalize it. That way, the dynamic range stays the same, but the reference is louder. I almost never print mixes all the way up to zero (and I usually mix to 24/88.2). That way I can leave some headroom in the converters, both on the way in and with the mastering engineer's playback converters (before any analog processing). At 24 bit, there's no advantage to printing all the way up to digital zero over printing up to, say -4 or so, but there can be disadvantages, so I like to leave that little extra bit of space.

I figure that clients can turn up their reference copy and address certain decisions before the mastering process more accurately if everyone's got the same reference. It also tends to deter less-conscientious clients from putting unmastered material on their websites and it makes the mastering engineer look good when the clients finally get a nice mastering reference with an appropriate level.

On rare occasions, I may make a reference copy with some "after the fact" digital limiting on it, just to see how the mixes are going to stand up to certain kinds of limiting at mastering, but I don't do that all the time.

As far as what I put on the mix buss, that changes all the time. Honestly, there's usually a bit of compression and maybe 60% of the time, there's some EQ --for two reasons. One, I know how to get mixes sounding good in my usual work area and then make some improvements that will help them translate (we're talking less than 2dB increments in a couple of frequencies) and two, I REALLY like the sound of the top end on my Sontec EQs. So if I feel like a mix needs to be brighter, I like to impart the sound of those EQ on the mix. If I feel like the mix needs a kind of a "vintage" character to the EQ, I might send the stereo buss through a pair of APIs or Spheres instead.

I also cannot stress enough (and I've said it here before) the importance of having a good relationship with a mastering engineer (or several mastering engineers). Someone whose work you like and trust and someone who understands what you want. Finding the right person and developing a relationship with them can take some time and effort, but it's SO worth being able to work with someone who's got your back on a regular basis.

Hope this helps.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[MoreSpaceEcho]

it makes the mastering engineer look good

which is the whole idea.

it's SO worth being able to work with someone who's got your back on a regular basis.

agreed. we are here to help!

also, fwiw, i wouldn't ask anyone to leave the compression off their mix. the limiter, yes, but not the compression. i've mastered a lot of songs and can't think of any where the mix compression was a problem. i could rattle off a laundry list of common problems, but mix compression isn't one of them.

[wren]

i could rattle off a laundry list of common problems, but mix compression isn't one of them.

Would you mind rattling off that laundry list? I'm curious to read it.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

sure. pick an octave:

out of control subs
boomy bass
muddy low mids
cloudy mids
harsh high mids
stabby treble
icepick hihats/cymbal crashes

sometimes all at once!

these problems are rarely egregious, most records come in sounding pretty-to-really good. that's just the stuff i notice most often. crazy subs and super SSSSSSSSy vocals are really the biggest offenders. this article i wrote for justin fossiltooth's mag talks about this stuff in a little more depth:

http://trustmeimascientist.com/2011/08/ ... -engineer/

[chris harris]

I agree with everything Chris said. I'll also add that while mixing into a limiter to learn how certain mix moves translate on a limited master is all fine and good, it's something that you shouldn't have to do after a couple of your mixes have been mastered.... learning how your mixes will translate on a compressed/limited master, or a clock radio, or a boom box with one broken speaker, or ear buds, or a home stereo with a smile curve and the loudness button turned on, etc, are all things that you learn as you go and those lessons inform the way that you mix. But, you shouldn't have to reference every possible scenario every single time. At some point, you need to take the training wheels off and just do the best mixes that you can.

[Chris Graham Mastering]

Hey guys, I'm super pleased that so many people have responded with a variet of viewpoints on the subject! I'm a little confused by the comment below:

so sure, it might not be leaving a lot for the mastering engineer to do. but that isn't the goal - the goal is to make amazing mixes.

Isn't the goal to make amazing recordings, not just amazing mixes? My point with sending mixes to an ME that have been compressed is that, yes your mix might be better as a result of it, but it ties the hands of the mastering engineer which can lead to a less amazing recording when it's finished. From totally biased standpoint, it seems that how amazing the final product is is just about the only thing that matters.

That being said, I think the issue there is the mix engineer getting approvals from clients. If it doesn't sound commercial before it's been mastered, clients who don't understand the role of mastering aren't going to react well.

I couldn't agree more with Nick and what he says below:

Educating your clients as to what a mix is VS a mastered release is never a bad lesson.

[cgarges]

Isn't the goal to make amazing recordings, not just amazing mixes? My point with sending mixes to an ME that have been compressed is that, yes your mix might be better as a result of it, but it ties the hands of the mastering engineer which can lead to a less amazing recording when it's finished. From totally biased standpoint, it seems that how amazing the final product is is just about the only thing that matters.

Yes, but if the mix is so awesome that it doesn't require any compression in mastering, then it shouldn't matter. Personally, I like to leave a little room overall, but some people don't. If there's a problem with it, the ME can ask for mixes with less limiting or let the mix guy use it as a learning experience.

Again, if the mix guy has a relationship with a good ME, then this stuff gets figured out pretty quickly.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC