Diving deeper into Mastering vs Mixing

[AcousticDreams]

This article by Izotope really did a great job of explaining the differences between Mixing & Mastering.
https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/wha...mastering.html

Here are some quoted highlights:
" The artist is the author. The mixing engineer is the editor, helping the author frame their project in the best light. The mastering engineer is the copyeditor, minding the Ps and Qs."

" Mix engineers reduce clashes between instruments, balances upwards of a hundred tracks in a single song."

" Mastering engineers predominately work with a single stereo track. they want to make each song fit with every other song in the project. A good deal of mastering these days involves purging problems on an artifact level. Mastering engineer also “tops” and “tails” the tunes. This means carefully positioning the start and stop points so the album has the right flow "

They have an example of a mixed song...and then the same song mastered. I was floored at how much better the song sounded after mastered. It went from plain, to full of life. In the old days I was explained that a Mastering engineer was needed to EQ the album from tape to Phono Bias. In case you are not an old timer like me, Phono input needs a different bias. Thus you can not play a source from a tape, or CD into a phono input. And vice versa.

While this article did a tremendous job of explaining the differences. I still have a few more questions:
* I am wondering if Fresh ears is the fundamental reason that a mixing engineer can not master the mix? As an artist, I know we are engulfed in our own creations. We become....acclimated to the music. Thus sometimes we can not see the true picture. Our minds artificially raise and lower volumes.

Someone from the outside sees our creation with fresh ears. So maybe the same for a mixing engineer? He focuses on balance and looses perspective of other things that are needed?

Or can a Mixing engineer also Master?

[Bob Womack]

Let me give you an example of the Mastering Engineer's work. This is a great, wide-range folk song by Michael Card that was produced by Norbert Puttnam, famed for being one of the original members of Gen 1 of the Muscle Shoals Rhythm Section and for having produced a boatload of artists. The original mastering job from 1988:



Updated Mastering:



You'll notice that the bass guitar, vocals, and guitar jump out more on this mastering job. The mastering philosophy that was afloat in 1988 demanded the first version with the light bass and the less-than crisp top end. These days we go for a more robust sound. Besides that, the song being quite a bit louder in the modern mastering version. In fact, you will probably have to adjust your volume back and forth as you compare them.

Bob

[min7b5]

For the simple solo and duo acoustic records I make I think of mastering primarily as a new set of trusted years at the very end to help me say I'm done. And someone else to deal with metadata, DDP file, etc. I prefer to do my own tops and tails, I don’t want any added compression..

I’m starting a third duo album with Jamie Stillway here pretty soon and this time I'm planning to do the mastering myself, as well as record it at Jamie's house. This is mainly because the profit margins are getting so painfully small for physical product these days. For the last record we spent $350 on studio time to track it and $750 for the mastering. I'd frankly rather have that extra $1100 going in our pockets come release week.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

* I am wondering if Fresh ears is the fundamental reason that a mixing engineer can not master the mix? As an artist, I know we are engulfed in our own creations. We become....acclimated to the music. Thus sometimes we can not see the true picture. Our minds artificially raise and lower volumes.

Someone from the outside sees our creation with fresh ears. So maybe the same for a mixing engineer? He focuses on balance and looses perspective of other things that are needed?

Or can a Mixing engineer also Master?

The mix engineer can master but, imo, it's not preferable. Mixing and mastering require very different kinds of focus. The mix engineer is listening to the individual parts and making decisions on how to make them coexist in a way that is complimentary. It's all about focusing in on details and interactions and you spend so much time listening for the individual parts that it becomes difficult to hear the song as a whole without continuing to focus in on those individual parts.

The mastering engineer, coming at it with fresh ears and not having spent time focused on the individual tracks, can hear the song as a whole without being distracted by the individual parts and, again imo, can make better global decisions to bring the song to the next level.

I don't know if this is true for everyone, but when I'm wearing my artist's hat and I record parts for a song, even if I don't mix it or master it, when the finished product is delivered I'm still listening to individual parts rather than the song as a whole. It takes me quite a bit of time before I can go back to a song and hear it as a song rather than a bunch of parts stuck together.

[b1j]

It seems the following might hold some truth:

You can’t fix a bad performance with effects.
You can’t fix a bad arrangement with a mix.
You can’t fix a bad mix with a mastering.

I have a long road ahead.

[DupleMeter]

If the mixer does his job, the mastering engineer will not have to "fix" anything, only add some final polish. If it's an album or EP project a mastering engineer will also make sure everything is sonically cohesive.

The tools used by a mastering engineer are typically far more subtle than those you'd use in a mix. Though, there are some surgical tools that came about through mastering, but mostly to fix where the mix engineer didn't do their job & the track can't be fixed at the mix stage & has to be fixed in mastering (a very undesirable scenario).

A mastering engineer listens differently than a mix engineer & I strongly believe they should be different people on any project. Even if a mix engineer also masters, they shouldn't do both on a project...though I know it happens to save money and keep budgets lower.

The following is my opinion, but I do not like Izotope plugins for mastering. Izotope has generally fallen out of my favor the past several years as they push their "smart assistant" thing that really does more harm than good IMHO. I also think other companies make much better tools for the job.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

The following is my opinion, but I do not like Izotope plugins for mastering. Izotope has generally fallen out of my favor the past several years as they push their "smart assistant" thing that really does more harm than good IMHO. I also think other companies make much better tools for the job.

I like a few. I've tried other limiters but Maximizer continues to be my limiter of choice. I also like the multi-band compressor (or at least I don't not like it) and the re-balance tool comes in handy on occasion. I do agree that handing a song over to iZoptope's AI is not a good option. I tested it against my own mastering results a few times when I first got the Ozone version that introduced it but the masters sounded thin. I haven't tried that with the latest version yet to see if it has improved.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

The following is my opinion, but I do not like Izotope plugins for mastering. Izotope has generally fallen out of my favor the past several years as they push their "smart assistant" thing that really does more harm than good IMHO. I also think other companies make much better tools for the job.

I have not tried any Izotope other than the RX repair and have only ever use the spectral repair module

Wondering if you are familiar with the Massey L2007 Mastering limiter plug in ? I use it but generally do not push the threshold much over the output setting

One nice feature is there is a free demo with full function other than it will not save settings once you close the session

https://www.masseyplugins.com/plugin/l2007

[FrankHudson]

The Izotope mastering suite (Ozone) -- like most of their tools I've experienced -- has a lot of features/modules at a reasonable price. I don't want to talk over the better and more experienced folks here, but I will but in to say that Ozone, has:

The "AI" stuff, were you play it a portion of your mix and it suggests a how a bunch of the Ozone modules (EQ, limiters, and so on) could tweak the audio. Depending on the version you may get some ability to say what style of music your mix to be mastered is and/or how aggressive you want it to be. You select it, perhaps select from those option, play a representative section of your audio, and bang it load the modules with the settings it thinks are appropriate.

The Presets stuff. Again, over the year the number or types of presets have changed, but in those you're given a menu of recording/music genre styles, and when you select one it loads a bunch of modules that suggest how one might master in that genre.

In both of those cases, how well it works depends on one's tastes and the hit or miss nature of dealing with the universe of audio it might be presented with. So when folks say "I don't like what it does" -- those are honest and informed reports. However. here's what I want to add:

You can (and almost always should) tweak what settings it plugs into the modules for you, and even turn suggested modules all the way off.* It's your audio, your goals, your ears. If that's so, what good is what Izotope Ozone does there? Well, it suggests things you might not stumble upon, particularly if you are less experienced. You can look at the suggested EQ curves for example and in concert with your ears see what "someone else" might suggest with your mix. AB'ing those suggestions can be a learning experience.

Does that still sound like the presets and AI features are training wheels you want to skip? Don't use them. Make your own default "mastering racks" with your own start from scratch settings, and use it like a conventional suite of plugins using the modules it supplies, even adding your own favorites 3rd party plugs.


*My uneducated personal opinion and taste is that Ozone's automated guesses are much better at mastering rock, electronic, and whole band mixes than solo acoustic guitar. But there's no reason you can't master acoustic guitar music with it, you just need to tell it back off or roll your own.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I have not tried any Izotope other than the RX repair and have only ever use the spectral repair module

Wondering if you are familiar with the Massey L2007 Mastering limiter plug in ? I use it but generally do not push the threshold much over the output setting

One nice feature is there is a free demo with full function other than it will not save settings once you close the session

https://www.masseyplugins.com/plugin/l2007

I have used the Massey mastering limiter. It's nice. I prefer the MDWDRC2: https://massenburgdesignworks.com/products/mdwdrc2/

It's 4x the cost, but well worth it to me as a professional tool. Probbaly nota good investment if you aren't getting any ROI from the purchase. I also have a few "secret sauce" plugins I use to create a mastering chain that works well for me & my clients.

I did a shootout of mastering compressors/limiters with some engineers I truly respect & a standout for all of us was the Elysia Alpha mastering compressor.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

I have used the Massey mastering limiter. It's nice. I prefer the MDWDRC2: https://massenburgdesignworks.com/products/mdwdrc2/

It's 4x the cost, but well worth it to me as a professional tool. Probbaly nota good investment if you aren't getting any ROI from the purchase. I also have a few "secret sauce" plugins I use to create a mastering chain that works well for me & my clients.

I did a shootout of mastering compressors/limiters with some engineers I truly respect & a standout for all of us was the Elysia Alpha mastering compressor.

Interesting on the Elysia Alpha are you talking plugin or hardware ?
I have the Alpha plugin. package from Plugin Alliance and used it as my go to 2 bus Comp until I got my Hardware IGS 3U

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Interesting on the Elysia Alpha are you talking plugin or hardware ?
I have the Alpha plugin. package from Plugin Alliance and used it as my go to 2 bus Comp until I got my Hardware IGS 3U

It was all plugins. It started out testing the Sontec EQ to see if it lived up to the hardware, but we moved to limiters & compressors. I think because the AMEK Mastering Compressor was released in the middle of the testing, so we all got curious.

I keep telling myself I need to use the Alpha more, since it was a standout that everyone agreed sounded superb

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

It was all plugins. It started out testing the Sontec EQ to see if it lived up to the hardware, but we moved to limiters & compressors. I think because the AMEK Mastering Compressor was released in the middle of the testing, so we all got curious.

I keep telling myself I need to use the Alpha more, since it was a standout that everyone agreed sounded superb

I am a bit unclear on the Mixing & Mastering engineer's use of compressors & EQ on the Stereo output.

If a Mixing engineer uses a Compressor & EQ on his Master bus(Final stereo Channel), does then a Mastering engineer also uses another compressor & EQ, On Top of the already compressed & EQed stereo signal?

Or does the Mastering engineer remove the compressor & EQ on and start fresh on the Stereo output?

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

I am a bit unclear on the Mixing & Mastering engineer's use of compressors & EQ on the Stereo output.

If a Mixing engineer uses a Compressor & EQ on his Master bus(Final stereo Channel), does then a Mastering engineer also uses another compressor & EQ, On Top of the already compressed & EQed stereo signal?

Or does the Mastering engineer remove the compressor & EQ on and start fresh on the Stereo output?

It really depends. Most mixes are compressed (over compressed), so I typically don't add more, but I will engage a compressor that adds some tonal flavor without the compression engaged. On more dynamic tracks, I will use a compressor before the limiter to help tame peaks & get a louder master without as much limiting. I can also achieve peak reduction with saturation, if the track isn't already over saturated.

For EQ, yes...I almost always add EQ to help smooth out or add what a track needs. I also choose an EQ for the color it adds. Adding a little low & high is quite common, but different EQs have very different characters when doing that. A 0.5dB boost on one EQ can sound & feel very different than on another. It's also amazing how a dB of boost or cut in the right place can emphasize or tame different aspects of a mix (like a vocal or a guitar). EQ in mastering can be used to help balance a mix better.

When I master a track the first thing I do is check the phase correlation & mono compatibility. I typically have to address something here, even if it's small. Then I can decide what else is needed.

I also have to weigh the request for loudness into anything I do. Trying to hit -16LUFS is different than trying to hit -8LUFS.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

I am a bit unclear on the Mixing & Mastering engineer's use of compressors & EQ on the Stereo output.

If a Mixing engineer uses a Compressor & EQ on his Master bus(Final stereo Channel), does then a Mastering engineer also uses another compressor & EQ, On Top of the already compressed & EQed stereo signal?

Or does the Mastering engineer remove the compressor & EQ on and start fresh on the Stereo output?

I won't pretend to be an expert but this is a fairly good example of using the Elysia Alpha ( that Steve mentioned ) on a stereo track with both Compression and Some EQ ing going on He is using it in M/S mode for the most part