How much can a decent mastering engineer polish the overall mix?

[T Boog]

Hi guys. I been taking my time recording & mixing my first couple songs. Although I'm still pretty new to mixing, Ive been a musician for decades and like what I hear in my mixes as far as gain balancing & how each track sits in the mix eq wise.

I wouldn't want anyone else mixing my songs nor could I afford that. I'm just curious how much a decent mastering engineer(like $50 per song range) can help a mix translate with overall eq-ing. I'm sure they can't polish a t*rd but I'm hoping they could take a 'somewhere in the ballpark' mix and make it sound pretty professional.

 I'm assuming an experienced pair of outside ears would help more than just using AI auto mastering. Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks 😉

 

[Max Arwood]

I don’t know how good your mix is, but the mix is  way way way more important than the Mastering. I’m not sure about a $50 master, but usually Mastering improves it to some degree. 

[Terry Kelley]

If it doesn't sound good without it, it probably won't sound better with it. Mastering can add some "edge" or "wall" but it won't fix a bad mix in most cases. The Raspberries "Go All the Way" is an exception.

[hsmusic]

Mastering isn't so much about polishing but making tracks translate on different systems. Also for balancing tracks of an album to make it cohesive. The price isn't necessarily reflective of the quality but the cost of the service determined by the individual or company.

[msmcleod]

I wholeheartedly agree with all the replies here.

What I would suggest is maybe getting someone else to mix one of your songs, just so you can compare to your own.  There are bound to be plenty of up & coming mixing engineers who would be more than happy to do a mix far cheaper than you'd expect, just so they can get some experience / add to their portfolio.

There was a youtube video not long ago, where the youtuber paid 5 mixers and 5 mastering engineers of different price scales to a mix / master. 

The best master came from some on fiver.com, and cost something like $20.  A similar thing happened with the mix.

 

[Max Arwood]

If you bake a cake and it taste really bad, putting icing on it is not gonna help that much. A good cake taste ok even without icing. 

[Milton Sica]

I liked the comparison to a bad cake and its frosting.

I would say that Mastering is the "yeast" that makes the cake rise, not the frosting.

[T Boog]

Ok guys. Let me see if I follow...

 In order to polish my t*rds, I first need to bake a cake using a"$20" mixer and plenty of "yeast".

 After the cake rises, I add "icing" to the "edge/wall" and finally, place a "Raspberry" on top 🍰. If done correctly, my cake shouldn't taste too sh*tty. 

Did I leave anything out?

[Max Arwood]

Yeast is more like unmasking. 

[Craig Anderton]

What many people forget about mastering was that its original purpose was to make music compatible with the limitations of tape and vinyl. Mastering for vinyl is especially challenging and few people know how to do it right. But those limitations no longer exist. Now, mastering is about adding final touches. It's also the last link in the creative chain. I worked on a project when the mix was done and it was being mastered, but I felt it needed a cello part. So, the cello was overdubbed in the process of doing a 2 to 2 digital bounce.  You can also do things like remove those four overindulgent bars in the guitar solo

Having mastered hundreds of tracks, I do have some thoughts that you might find helpful. Or not...

I still regard mixing and mastering as two different processes. Some people prefer to master by putting plugins in the master bus while you're mixing, and call it good. The problem I have with that is if you're, for example, using a compressor in the master bus, you're compressing every single track that went into the mix.  I think it's better to compress the tracks that need compression when mixing. Then if you add compression while mastering, you can add lighter compression, retain dynamics better, and gain both punch and loudness. 

To be fair, people who disagree with me say that mastering changes the sound of the mix (it does). So, if they mix through the mastering processors, they'll know what the end result will sound like. However, I think that leads to a less defined overall sound. Strive for the very best balance with the mix. Then master to bring out the best of the mix, and make it a cohesive listening experience.

Finally, another personal bias is I don't like using compression on a master. I prefer multiband limiting. Most of the dynamics processing is done in the mix, so all I really need to concern myself with is keeping peaks under control and hitting my favorite target LUFS reading. There are plenty of examples of this mastering style on my YouTube channel if you're curious about how it affects the sound of the music. "Unconstrained" is the most recent album project. (There are also some singles that are mastered in both stereo and binaural Atmos if you're curious about the difference.)

I hope this helps but bear in mind there are many ways to do mastering. This is what works for me.

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

13 hours ago, Max Arwood said:

I don’t know how good your mix is, but the mix is  way way way more important than the Mastering. I’m not sure about a $50 master, but usually Mastering improves it to some degree. 

And the arrangement is more important than the mix 

And the performances are just as important too.

We could go on to the writing etc being more important than all of the above!

So yeah,  mastering is just the final few % difference. Honestly unless it's a commercial release,  one of the many AI assisted mastering services will get you 80-90% of the way there.  

[Helios.G]

You've gotten a lot of great advice here already, but I'd like to add this one thing.  Many novice producers/artists/musicians don't actually know what a good mix sounds like.  Most people are accustomed to what the final product of a major label release sounds like, and they compare their mixes to that.  Don't do that.  Beyond the fact that you're comparing a finalized project to your still unfinished one, there are usually tons of people who work on these songs, with lots of knowledge on arranging, sound choice, recording in optimal conditions, probably with top notch gear and more importantly with years of know how in implementing all of these advantages.  Your first/early projects will sound bad, that is part of this process.  You're going to go through some growing pains, but if you do lots of songs, and stick to it, eventually, you'll start getting better, and hearing things you didn't before.  Before you know it, you'll start to understand what people mean by the gear doesn't matter, only your ears do, cause fundamentally it's true.  Once you get your ears to a level of proficiency where you can hear what a song needs and what may be extra fluff that it doesn't, you'll be golden.  Then you'll start to make production, mixing, heck even gear acquisition decisions, based on what is actually important and not what you think makes you sound "professional".   Good luck man.

Edited October 11 by Helios.G

[gustabo]

On 10/10/2024 at 8:52 PM, Milton Sica said:

I liked the comparison to a bad cake and its frosting.

I would say that Mastering is the "yeast" that makes the cake rise, not the frosting.

Never heard of using yeast in a cake, bread; yes.

[Max Arwood]

7 hours ago, gustabo said:

Never heard of using yeast in a cake, bread; yes.

Must be baking soda. 

[Max Arwood]

It would be nice if we could have a list and rate what is most important in a good song. 
like

1) The actual song with the melody/rhythm/arrangement 

2) performance/passion of the performance

3)choice of instruments

4) quality of the recording

5) dynamics / feeling

6) mixing 10%

7)mastering 3%

And more ideas?

Edited October 12 by Max Arwood
Corections

[pwallie]

anyone can polish a turd, but a decent mastering engineer will tell you it needs re-mixing/arranging/playing/recording first before mastering

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

8 hours ago, Max Arwood said:

It would be nice if we could have a list and rate what is most important in a good song. 

Good is contextual , so it can vary but I think you more or less nailed it.

i.e. A good radio song Vs a good song for a TV show have different remits. 

[Craig Anderton]

1 hour ago, Mark Morgon-Shaw said:

Good is contextual , so it can vary but I think you more or less nailed it.

Another consideration is what can ruin a good song. I do a lot of mastering for Martha Davis of the Motels. She had a great song that was never released because the kick drum was mixed excessively high, and the original multitracks were lost. She wanted to know if mastering could salvage it. Long story short, nothing worked until I found an isolated kick drum hit. I put the master file in one track, and made a second track that had only the isolated kick sound everywhere there was a kick in the master file. I flipped the kick track out of phase, and could then adjust kick balance perfectly just by varying the level of the out-of-phase kick track.

[T Boog]

Thanks. I do realize that the song & performances are most important. IMO Beatles' production & performances are kinda overrated just cause the songs are so good.

 Btw, I see online that some mastering engineers let u hear a sample before u pay. I'll prob just sample a couple in the under $50 range and see how they sound vs the Auto Master. If nothing else, it'll be a leaning experience.

 Actually, Id like to get 0zone 11 for mastering but Im not sure my lil i5, 3.10gz, 16 ram would handle it.

(Yeah I know...  I really need to upgrade 🫣)

 

[Craig Anderton]

Give Waves Online Mastering a shot. You can try out different mastering styles for free. If you like what you hear, you can buy credits to download the mastered file(s). I think it does a good job as long as the mastering isn't a salvage job. 

Waves asked me to evaluate the process and write about my opinions. The results made most of the same choices I would make for the different styles that clients want.