Mastering with one fell swoop

[BohoProAudio]

Mastering is a separate process from mixing. I want my mix to be finished in the full sample rate/bit rate that it was recorded in. Give yourself the benefit of full dynamic range, full detail to mix in. The higher quality file you have to mix with, the better it will sound after it's been cut and boosted and eq'd and piped through reverb.

What happens between mixing and mastering is really the final step in mixing. I export my mix output(Output L/R) into multiple mono files(not interleaved, not mp3) at a bit depth of 16bit, sample rate of 44.1kHz. This is where the 24bit 96k/88.2k/48k/44.1k pro tools file is converted to the two wav files at the final bit depth and sample rate. I change this within the project; it should happen after mixing is done, but before mastering can begin. I then open a mastering project file which is already set at 16/44.1, and then import my right and left wav files.

Whatever procedure you decide on, understand why you're doing it, and do it the same way every time. It's just good work practice, and it's one difference between pros and amateurs. Actually, most established mix engineers will outsource their mastering process, but that costs money.

[YYR123]

Originally Posted by CME

It's still a hobby mostly for me. But one I'm def addicted too.

Same boat just a tad further south - my okie friend

But to the op - yes read read read - then listen listen listen - then experiment - but yeah you can usually find a pretty good deal for a decent master job

I try to focus my energies on recording tech - better quality recordings will sound better - then mix tech's - and most mastering engineers have really nice outboard gear not to mention those really nice speakers that cost about 5k for the pair!!!!

[CME]

Originally Posted by BohoProAudio

Mastering is a separate process from mixing. I want my mix to be finished in the full sample rate/bit rate that it was recorded in. Give yourself the benefit of full dynamic range, full detail to mix in. The higher quality file you have to mix with, the better it will sound after it's been cut and boosted and eq'd and piped through reverb.

What happens between mixing and mastering is really the final step in mixing. I export my mix output(Output L/R) into multiple mono files(not interleaved, not mp3) at a bit depth of 16bit, sample rate of 44.1kHz. This is where the 24bit 96k/88.2k/48k/44.1k pro tools file is converted to the two wav files at the final bit depth and sample rate. I change this within the project; it should happen after mixing is done, but before mastering can begin. I then open a mastering project file which is already set at 16/44.1, and then import my right and left wav files.

Whatever procedure you decide on, understand why you're doing it, and do it the same way every time. It's just good work practice, and it's one difference between pros and amateurs. Actually, most established mix engineers will outsource their mastering process, but that costs money.

Why dither and use SRC between mixing and mastering? I've always thought it best to keep the dynamic range and sample rate at the highest level all the way through. Give the ME the highest resolution file possible. Then let them, or yourself as the case may be, comp/limit/EQ/ect as needed to the file. Then at the very end SRC and dither. Just makes the most sense to me. Ymmv.

[BohoProAudio]

Well, the conversion itself induces some loss of dynamic range and sound quality. What you are doing is controlling the product all the way out. If you leave it till after mastering is finished, you risk additional changes that can't be controlled by your mastering process. Better to hear it after conversion, polish it up, then slap it onto cd or into mp3.

It's about process control. When you drop the bit depth down to 16bit, the noise floor and peak level move closer together. Either the peaks will not be as loud, or the noise floor will be louder. In mastering, you can throw a light gate on it to tame that if necessary, but that belongs in a multi-band process, if it needs to be there at all. I like to keep my noise reduction in the realm of the mix phase, with removing silence, EQ after compression(most of the time), and judicious high-pass and low-pass filtering.

Keep the noise floor as low as possible during mixing, but assume that what you hear in the 24bit, 96k is not exactly what the consumer will hear. You want to hear what they will end up hearing, and then shape that to what you want it to be.

[CME]

Definitely a different perspective. I just tend to compress and limit my mixes. Not heavily. But enough that the loss of headroom and raised noise floor (and increased noise of dithering) by converting first concerns me. But honestly I've never tried converting first. I will give it a go and see what I think. :)

[dr_daw]

I think in this situation it's all about what you're trying to do, as has been previously mentioned. I've always been a believer that if the session is tracked and mixed at, say, 24/48k then I would leave it at that until the end of mastering. I never 'seriously' master any of my own mixes for commercial distribution. It takes years, and years to be a great recording engineer and mix engineer. It takes even longer to be a great mastering engineer. I've heard many great mixes get destroyed by bad amature mastering techniques.

In my experience the ME's I've used always ask for the sessions mixed down in whatever bit and sample rates they were recorded in. From my understanding they want to maintain that dynamic range for as long as possible. I always do rough mixes to *wav and MP3 to reference, but know that when I send them off to master they are going to come back a little more radio ready.

In short...focus on getting good recordings and strong mixing techniques, then spend the few bucks on having them mastered professionally (You can learn alot about your mixes from the ME as well) I've never regretted doing that, maybe in another 20 years I'll have the right room, gear and ears to be a 'mastering engineer'.

[CME]

Good points. And just to point out, the work I do isn't for big distribution. I mostly mix our church services for the congregation and some other little odds and ends. I would never consider mastering my own stuff it was any kind of "professional" session. Not for a long time anyways.

[YYR123]

I know 2 preachers from okie - oral from Tulsa and Duane sheriff from durant

[BohoProAudio]

I guess the important thing that I've always tried to remember is: Get it right in tracking. Then get it right in mixing. Don't expect the mixing process to fix tracking mistakes, and don't expect mastering to fix bad mixing. Take your time listening. Take the time to listen in as many environments as possible. And mastering is all about small adjustments. If it requires heavy-handed, drastic steps, it needs to go back to mix.

[YYR123]

Originally Posted by BohoProAudio

I guess the important thing that I've always tried to remember is: Get it right in tracking. Then get it right in mixing. Don't expect the mixing process to fix tracking mistakes, and don't expect mastering to fix bad mixing. Take your time listening. Take the time to listen in as many environments as possible. And mastering is all about small adjustments. If it requires heavy-handed, drastic steps, it needs to go back to mix.

You have a website ? How do you charge ? Per song or per album ?