Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Juzblome]

Yesterday we finished up a project that was started in February.
We tried something different with the mix downs on this album. We
I've had the option but no one previous till now was willing to spend the time to mix analog.  So we did and it was a learning experience for the producer and myself.

Now it is all done.  To avoid having to go back and recall the entire room to change the mix, we ran several mixes of the songs with vocals up, vocals down, vocals in the middle.

Which one of these would a Mastering engineer prefer?
Is it easier to bring the vocal out of the mix or to push them back into the mix?  Should I send both runs and let them decide?
What would you prefer?

[lucey]

Juzblome wrote on Fri, 06 August 2004 13:37

Should I send both runs and let them decide?

yes

Just be sure that nothing else is different or the whole process will get very complicated.

[masterhse]

Juzblome wrote on Fri, 06 August 2004 14:37

Which one of these would a Mastering engineer prefer? Is it easier to bring the vocal out of the mix or to push them back into the mix?  Should I send both runs and let them decide? What would you prefer?

You could also send stems. I've been working with a client that just did this with a stereo guitar track and mix, it worked beautifully ...

[Bob Olhsson]

I prefer up 1/2 dB. and down 1/2 dB. Any more than that is often too much or too little.

[dcollins]

Heywood Jablowme wrote on Fri, 06 August 2004 11:37

Which one of these would a Mastering engineer prefer? Is it easier to bring the vocal out of the mix or to push them back into the mix?  Should I send both runs and let them decide? What would you prefer?

You send all of them.  I agree with Bob O. that plus and minus a half dB is the spread that works best.  Any more and the track should probably be adjusted somewhere, any less and you're just wasting tape.

But I tend to use the master mix unless things are really out-of-whack.

DC

[mcsnare]

I agree with DC, I almost always use the master mix unless instructed otherwise.
This reminds me of a situation on a record I mastered a while back. The artist and producers had made their picks of which mixes to use, as is usually the case. When we got to the mastering stage, everyone realized the vocals on the 1/2" really popped out a LOT more than the digital mixes. This caused me to substitute several master mixes vs., vocal up mixes as this became apparent. Anyone have a similar experience?
On a related note, I recently got my old 1/4" ATR 102 rebuilt by ATR Service Co. Also got a 1/2" block with Flux extended low freq AND normal 1/2" playback heads. The machine sounds incredible now. Those guys do a fantastic job. So far, doing comparisons of the heads, I think the NORMAL head sounds way better than the extended low freq head.
Dave McNair

[Bob Olhsson]

When I use them, it's often a matter of splicing in just a small bit to make part of a phrase or a transition work better rather than using the whole thing. Sort of like back before automation when we used to mix our songs in pieces and then "comp" them together.

[bblackwood]

Like several above, I default to the master mix, only using the voc +/- versions if the processing in mastering alters the voc level enough to warrant it.

Def. include both voc +/-, though ime most mixers print +/-1dB.

[Nathan Eldred]

mcsnare wrote on Sat, 07 August 2004 08:18

I recently got my old 1/4" ATR 102 rebuilt by ATR Service Co. Also got a 1/2" block with Flux extended low freq AND normal 1/2" playback heads.  So far, doing comparisons of the heads, I think the NORMAL head sounds way better than the extended low freq head.

Thanks Dave, that's very good info.

[Bob Olhsson]

mcsnare wrote on Sat, 07 August 2004 07:18

... So far, doing comparisons of the heads, I think the NORMAL head sounds way better than the extended low freq head.

One of the main things I remember about my first mastering session with Bob Ludwig was that he wanted to know what kind of heads were on the machine I mixed to so that he could duplicate them at least as his starting point. Mixers generally optimize their mixes for playback on the machine they mix to. It makes perfect sense that mixes made on a machine without extended LF heads ought to sound better with regular heads much of the time.

[Juzblome]

I just want to thank everyone for the help and advice.

Is it a big issue if some other things are changed from take to take?  We mixed all analog with no analog automation. So somtimes
things like gtr solos are a little different in volume. Is it a big deal to let the mastering engineer pick wich they would prefer most?

[Juzblome]

And one more thing....

Why does the post count here differ from that at the Marsh?

[dcollins]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sun, 08 August 2004 16:53

It makes perfect sense that mixes made on a machine without extended LF heads ought to sound better with regular heads much of the time.

Isn't the record flatter than the repro?  With the regular Flux head (not extended) you can get to like 0.2dB spread between 50 and 100, but I sometimes wonder if this is desireable, since the mixer has been hearing it with a head-bump all along..........

Not going to affect sales, in either case.

DC

[bobkatz]

Juzblome wrote on Fri, 06 August 2004 14:37

Which one of these would a Mastering engineer prefer? Is it easier to bring the vocal out of the mix or to push them back into the mix?  Should I send both runs and let them decide? What would you prefer?

Are you asking, "given the choice of "too much vocal" or "too little vocal", which would a mastering engineer prefer to get?  Of course, "the right level of vocal" is the answer, but, if I had to choose between the two choices, the lesser of two evils for me is too much vocal---because using a tetch of M/S I can reduce the vocal and still retain or increase the stereo separation. Whereas with too little vocal, (if they complain about it), the M/S technique will reduce stereo separation and the song will not sound as "rich" or "spacious".

Bottom line: Try to be as "right as you can be" with the vocal, such that if you're going to provide a vocal up or down, you should be so sure about your choice that only 1/2 a dB up or down is the most anyone would need to do. Often when someone sends me a 1 dB vocal up, it's just too much, indicating they were so darn close in the first place their original decision was probably just right. Or, conversely, when the 1 dB version proves to be the best choice, I fear that some other problem will rear its head in the mix as they may not have spent enough time with the mix.

BK

[mcsnare]

When I first did the shootout with the heads, I expected to hear differences in the low end. What I heard was more energy and excitement in the high mids and top, when using the non-extended head. I do not think this was a perceptual thing based on the low end being down on the non-extended heads and tricking the ear into hearing more top. The low end on both heads sounded very similar, but the extended head was a lot "drier" and analytical sounding for some reason. The original tape was recorded on an ATR 102 with non-extended heads, and contained lots of ultra lows and lotsa dynamics( an Afro/Cuban/Latin Jazz type song).  I don't know if the record head was a Flux or some other type.
Dave McNair