I recently received an email from a reader asking me this question: “Why is Mastering treated as a seperate process? Why cant it be assimilated into the mixing process as a final stage?”
It’s a fair question considering the digital and somewhat non-linear way we can work on audio these days. And it really comes down to a simpler question behind the question: should you (or can you) “master” your tracks while you mix?
Why Mastering And Mixing Are NOT The Same
Part of the problem with the question is that there is a misunderstanding of what the mastering process is really all about. Mastering is not mixing. Mixing is where you take a bunch of recorded tracks and make them come together into a focused, compelling performance. Mastering, on the other hand, is all about taking a bunch of previously mixed songs and making them come together into a focused, balanced, and palatable album or collection of songs.
Mixing is very narrow minded, all about that one song. It is a process in which you can zoom in so close that you are tweaking frequencies of syllables of back ground vocals, and then zoom back out to make sure that final chorus is bumping compared to verse 1. Mastering is a mindset and process that cares little about the background vocals or the dynamic of song progression. It cares about a mix translating nicely in the real world and playing well with the other mixes on that record.
Doing Too Much At Once
The best thing you can do if you are mastering your own material, is to consider mastering as a separate process and give it the attention it deserves, at the proper time. When mixing you should only care about mixing. You really shouldn’t worry much about how loud the final mix will be. You should devote all of your energy to balancing those tracks using tools like EQ, compression, reverb, delay, and saturation.
Then when you’ve got a great mix going, you can bounce it down to a stereo file and park it for mastering. When it comes time to master the album, you can pull in all the mixes and know that they are solid in the details. Now it’s time to balance each mix to the next and get the most punch and volume out of these final mixes in a uniform way. You’re mentally freed up to think like this when you have a separate mastering session.
Mastering Plugins On Mixes Can Do Harm
If you’re the type of person who likes to mix with a limiter strapped across your mix buss, you could also be doing your mix some harm. Limiters have their place to be sure. I use them in mastering primarily, but I’ll use them at the end of a mix for reference purposes to make it louder when sending a mix off to a client. But that limiter is coming right off before it goes to mastering, even if I’m the one doing the mastering.
There’s certainly no rules about taking so called “mastering plugins” and using them creatively in your mixes. I’m just warning about the dangers of doing too much on your mix buss that can drastically alter your mix balance. If your mix needs drastic change for the better, do it on the track level with subtle tweaks, not on the mix buss level with a giant preset or effect.
Put Mastering In It’s Place
The great myth about mastering is that it is a magical process that will make your mixes better. The truth is, mastering is a simple process that can’t do much for crappy mixes. If your mixes are good, then you won’t need mastering to improve them. You’ll only need mastering to bring them together in a compelling way and do a final check on translatability for the real world. You’ll be a better mixing engineer if you put mastering in it’s place and just get to work.
Do Not Create Another Song Until You Read This Guide
(Price: $17 Free Today)
Discover the 6 Steps for Creating a Radio-Worthy Song From Scratch
My name is Graham Cochrane and I'm the founder of The Recording Revolution, one of the world's most loved audio recording and mixing blogs with over 200,000 readers each month. 
Graham,
Great article! Mastering seems to be such a popular topic and is so misunderstood. I think part of the confusion stems from the age of music we are in. It seems like less albums are being made and more singles are being released. I think this gives the impression that mastering is a process of enhancing a song to make it “radio ready” and not so much making a cohesive sounding album.
With all that being said, I like to keep a mastering chain on the master bus for reference. The majority of the time this will be disabled but I like to have it there to reference every now and then. Sometimes mastering can impact the mix so I like to test that before completion.
I used to tryn do it all at once, but it got bad, so I started leaving -6db of headroom on my mixdown then pulling it into ozone to bring it up,im still learning,but a lot better than I was a year ago I feel,you can hear my stuff at http://www.cammlayne.com,,,help gram lolz
That’s a great point Graham, I used to think about mastering exactly like a “magic weapon” to boost my mixes, then I realized what mastering really is. I totally agree with you and now I focus more on my mixes than hoping that mastering will put everything in the right place!
I would add that the Mastering process is also about making the track competitive against most mainstream recordings. I’m not talking about the overall volume level, but also about EQ balance/punch/clarity.
For some reason, it’s easier for me to work on the final stereo track in order to do minor tweaks. My brain is not focused on details like the volume of the guitars or snare anymore. I can’t even see them (literally)!
With this stereo mix, I can clearly focus (and compare against top engineered tracks) for the overall balance of the mix. Maybe it’ll need a 1 dB boost around 4 Khz or a couple of dB cut on the low end. At this point, if I add compression and limiting, strange things can happen to the stereo width and even EQ balance, so it needs to be addressed at this stage.
That being said, I do believe that handing it to someone else (who knows what he’s doing) is a huge advantage. And the biggest advantage I see is to have someone who’s listening to it for the first time. This is something that you just can’t do if you mixed the song or (even worse) if you wrote and recorded the song.
That is my most common scenario, and I’m so close to the details that I can’t see the big picture anymore.
Graham – absolutely agree. Historically, mastering was making a set of songs (mixes) all physically sit together side-by-side on one sheet of vinyl without the needle jumping the groove. It was a separate process because it had to be. As with many “vintage” approaches, it is useful on its own terms – even when vinyl is not used.
Then there’s the exceptions 🙂
As William points out, throwing on a quick-and-dirty mastering chain is useful for monitoring – particularly when trying to demo to a client what the final mix will sound like. But save it pre-mastering-chain to be mastered for real as a separate step.
The one time I use mix-and-master-at-once as a final product is burning a real-time CD direct off the sound board during a church service (or any live performance). Like many churches, we burn services to CD for immediately (free) distribution to parishioners’ friends and relatives who were unable to attend. A multi-band compressor and some overall EQ is almost *necessary* if you don’t want constant questions about why church CDs are so much softer than professional CDs. Here’s a *rough* mix that one of our FOH guys made during rehearsal Wednesday. It’s not perfect (gets better as it goes along; it will be better Sunday), but good enough for the band to practice to with their CD player: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26812475/I%20Need%20You%20More_USB.mp3
For the record – no click, no automation/comping/editing/tuning/pocketing/replacing, no post-production at all – this is raw off the board. (The board has multi-band and EQ on the output.) Could we do better if we took 16 stems into a DAW and re-mixed for distribution? Sure. But our sound folks are all volunteers with full-time jobs. So we provide a best-effort product for immediate, free availability.
Just to clarify, the way I see it (and I might be totally wrong), things like creating balance between instruments (both tonally and volume wise), making sure that all thing blend together, etc is a part of the Mixing process.
On the Mastering stage you are not supposed to try to address this issues, or even things like bass fighting the kick drum.
IMHO, all tracks must be already balanced, and the Mastering process can move the whole mix on a brighter/darker tone, add a little (perceived) dynamic to it, but in a very conservative way.
I just wanted to stop by and comment on this fantastic article. Having experience as both a mixing and a mastering engineer, I can honestly say that you nailed it in this write-up. Great summary and great content. The reality is, whether people want to accept it or not, the scope of mixing vs. the scope of mastering are two completely different beasts. Both stages are crucial, yet different.
Best of luck,
Ben (SoundsFromSound)
Thanks again for the great response, and also for elaborating more on the topic here. I think I understand much better how the two processes differ.
I find myself wondering; Is possible to make a mix sound good enough and loud enough without any ‘mastering plugins’ on the master bus, OR mastering of any kind?
Assume this is just for one song, or for a group of similar songs recorded in the same way (i.e. a generic rock or punk group)
If you ride all the parts with automated fades, and everything comes to the master bus at around -.3db, why compress it at all?
I suppose this is the same as my original question but from a different angle.
Definitely a good “follow up” question. If doing just one song, I would still use a limiter on the mix buss when done mixing to squash the dynamics just enough to push the average RMS volume up. That’s what will make it seem as loud as a commercial release.
Good topic Graham. I pretty much agree however as i mix more and more, i realize how much a limiter can effect my mixes. For instance, i might feel like the vocals are sitting nicely on top and the mix is great, after bouncing a rough master, the vocals are too hot and i hear where i need some changes. So ive began using a limiter after each mixing session just to here the effects of limiting on my mix. Then i have some areas of adjustment for the next mix session. But i still def keep mixing/mastering separate. Thanks man great post!
I spent one hour recording acoustic guitar tonight. I am loving this web site. Learning a lot and getting motivated. My life is such that when I find time for music it is a blast. I have other things that I prioritize first such as family and grand kids and my real job. So if I am recording I must stop if recording starts to get in the way… It can be somewhat addictive.
However, when I can I make time and tonight was that night. The guitar is really sounding good and the song is coming together.
Great web site. I bought your Eq videos and learned a lot. My goal is to put some new songs together by the end of the year. At least 3.
Take care.
Fulton
Encouraging to hear Fulton!
I have a related question about the article.
Let’s say you don’t plan on putting together an album, you’re just recording and mixing separate songs independent of themselves. Is it a good idea to throw a few things like limiters or compressors onto the master bus?
Compression on the master bus is one thing: http://therecordingrevolution.com/2011/05/02/5-minutes-to-a-better-mix-mix-bus-compression-part-2-of-31/
Limiting is another. Yes, when I’m DONE mixing the song I would put a limiter on it to get the volume up to commercial standards. No problem there!
Graham,
Do you have a video or article on gain structure? One thing I can’t seem to grasp since I made the move to doing everything in ProTools and not having my board is seeing the main output level to gauge where my final mix should be so that I leave enough head room for mastering.
Thanks
Hi Andrew… have you watched this video yet: http://therecordingrevolution.com/2011/05/01/5-minutes-to-a-better-mix-proper-gain-staging-part-1-of-31/
Haha actually yes thank you. I sat the entire day and when through every video on your youtube channel. Amazing Job!
Thanks for the article. I was thinking of using “mastering” tools on my mix because i cant afford a mastering engineer. I have tried mastering in a final session but keep making the recording worse. I lose the tonality of the mix and the song sounds dirty and lifeless. Any tips?
IMHO with 30-plus years engineering experience, here’s my spin.
We can mark the birth of the “Mastering Engineer” at the industry’s transformation from acoustical recording (yes, the horn on the phonograph) to electrical recording. I am going to postulate that we are observing his evolution to extinction (other than vinyl production).
In the beginning when producing records, especially LPs, someone’s job consisted of balancing fidelity, dynamic range, distortion (manifesting as mechanical artifacts), length, and most importantly lathe gymnastics and finally playability on consumer players. Other than vinyl production the role of mastering is rapidly disappearing.
In the age of the DAW there are a plethora of tools available for the “mixing engineer” to get it right in the mix in the first place. There is apparently an aura about using a “mastering engineer” to finish the job. At the peak of analog recording the 16/24-track recorder holds the title–no automation. I can assure you that every studio, where no mastering took place, had plenty of limiters on hand and were regularly patched into the console. I say this because I keep hearing that it is essentially “verboten” to use limiters in the mix as this is in the domain of the “mastering engineer.” Note: few discussions mention the dynamic range and S/N ratios in our present setting in relation to the use of limiting in the mixing stage.
Is there a necessity to have an extra set of ears–ABSOLUTELY! Enter the record producer. Then there are always test mixes, so easily accommodated in the DAW world, to obtain feed back. I burn a CD, play it in both my cars (stock Toyota system and JBL system) as well as playing at friends and musicians houses for feedback, oh yes of course there are cloud services to email the recording anywhere. So there are no shortage of almost instant opinions. BTW: my studio monitors are Tannoys with a sub. I recently sold my Stax headphones and ear amp after too many trips to the re-diaphragm shop.
Bottom line, if you’re comfortable and accomplished enough to do micro-surgery on tracks given today’s DAW environment and plug-ins, you listen to your mix in various environments, you have a solid person as your second-opinion, a.k.a. producer, you have to be introspect into your capabilities as a “mixing engineer” if you have to rely on a “mastering engineer” to polish and fix your mixes!
There can be upwards of 140 db dynamic range in DAW-World and about 96 in standard CDs. You know what the dynamics are in your system. With todays plug-in dithering modules, level and loudness meters, and GREAT limiters and EQ—with all due respect to my colleagues—DIY! You’ve mastered FFT-directed EQ surgery linked to band-limited compression, expansion, and limiting; side-chaining with look ahead for dynamics, de-essing, and gating; AMAZING reverb collections and control; multi-dimensional spectral enhancements; independent multi-band compression/expansion/limiting; and oh yes practically unlimited non-destructive automation of virtually every paramour in your DAW. And you want my friend Bob Ludwig to give your mix a db here and there of EQ!
respectfully,
Jesse Klapholz
215-837-3722
Thanks for your thoughts Jesse!
Yes, thank you for this article. I always find myself naturally doing this anyway. Fact is, I’m never going to a mastering pro. (Sorry guys, no reflection on you. Just dealing with my own reality.) For pro mixes, you’re still the preferred option. But I have no aspirations of going entirely pro, so Graham’s concept is an appealing compromise.
Well maybe I’m doing it all wrong. I tend to put in place my mastering chain about 3/4 of the way through the mixing process. That includes tape saturation, compression, stereo width control, overall EQ shaping, a little saturation (if appropriate) and finally a limiter, meter, MagicAB and a whole bunch of EQ options, each set to isolate a different frequency band.
Generally speaking the overall EQ adding only a subtle level of control to the lows and highs. The tape saturation and compression allow me to fatten up my mix and get it nearer the sweet spot earlier on in the process.
The limiter and everything after it allow me to reference any aspect of my mix against my carefully selected reference tracks … including the band pass technique that David Glenn Kulp describes … incredibly useful for identifying whether the kick / bass and low mids are working well … but also useful for checking clarity in the mid-range and harshness or sparkle in the upper frequencies.
I like to include overall automation of mix width and volume level pushing into my mastering compression. I tend to do this towards the end of the process. But I don’t feel I’m finished mixing until I’ve established the drama / interest that these things can provide.
I do understand the difference between working on minute details and listening to the big picture. But I contend that we, as mixers, have to be able to make that leap.
I will often disable some or all of my mastering plugins and reapply them with final tweaks, near the end of the process. And I will always leave the song alone for a day or two before coming back and assessing it from an overall point of view.
Graham, I like your idea of putting a limiter across your mix when showing it to the client, but taking it off for mastering. But I would suggest to take it one step further: Have a separate project for actually mastering the song. Build this into your workflow for every mix you do. I don’t mean to suggest that the mixing engineer do the mastering, but rather mastering it as a proof of concept, before sending the unmastered version to the mastering engineer. You will see your mixes improve when you see what happens in the mastering, due to the mixing decisions you make. Think of it like a proof of concept of the master, but not the actual master. If you make this a part of your workflow, and keep practicing and getting better, you may eventually find that the masters you’re doing as a proof of concept are equal or higher quality than that which you get from the mastering engineer. Perfect practice makes perfect.
Great thoughts.
The more I read, the greater your material is. I have covered lots of the other
sources, like this on https://moonrisebaywine.com; however, only here, I’ve found legitimate information with
such necessary facts to keep in mind. I suggest you will publish articles
with many topics to update our knowledge, mine in particular.
The language is another thing-just brilliant! I believe I’ve already found my ideal supply of
the most up-to-date information, thanks to you!