Dubstepforum.com

okay just a quick mixing mastering question. before you start adding compressors or anything do turn your midi clips to audio clips ? or do you just master everything with midi clips ?

Reason I am asking is because in my latest track (one of the first one I feel I have done a decent job mastering) i left everything as midi and it was shooting my cpu through the roof.
Also generally mixing/mastering procedures/tips very welcome

I feel like you may have the wrong idea of what mastering is.

If you want to add compression (regardless of whether it's on a buss channel or single channel) then it doesn't matter whether it's on a midi clip or audio clip. Bouncing to audio will save cpu but isn't necessary.

I'd bounce out to audio...that's how it's done when sending to a ME, so that's how I'd do it self-mastering. Anymore, I don't self-master, however...just pointless to me.

It sounds like you don't distinguish mixing from mastering.
Mixing > processing and balancing many individual tracks to obtain a good stereo mix.
Mastering > processing a stereo mix to make it shine on all possible sound systems.
In which case are you?

Ohhhh. Last post helps tremendously. I am just mixing. No mastering so any advice there would be excellent

For mixing, I prefer to bounce stems to audio and then mix down...but sometimes I'll be caught mixing in midi. Thing is, there are no rules, so whatever is convenient, I guess.

I Will definitely bounce to audio. Save my cpu and my patience any other mixing tips ??

Mastering is usually done when everything is bounced down to one wav, but I don't see why you can't just put
the gear on the master bus in the actual project.

Don't over-do it. Sacrificing good tone for a sterile mix isn't generally a good idea.

Also, use good filters...I've taken a recent interest in "Engineers Filter" which is great IMO. Good sound, low latency, steep curves...don't see how anyone can go wrong with that.

AxeD wrote:Mastering is usually done when everything is bounced down to one wav, but I don't see why you can't just put
the gear on the master bus in the actual project.

I've never said you can't. They're two different jobs which are every difficult to achieve at the same time on the same speakers in the same acoustics with the same ears.
After many attempts, my personal conclusion is that two separate stages for mixing and mastering is a faster workflow, produces much better results than the all in one solution.
That's just my personal experience. It isn't an absolute rule. Everyone must experiment his own solutions when producing.

If you're running out of cpu then yes bounce some things down, just make sure to leave a backup project in case you need to change later obviously.

Some people prefer to 'master' as they go which is fine if you can do it properly. It's when people go overboard and rely too much on the master buss processing that things can go wrong. What happens if you then take those processors off to get it mastered somewhere else then the mix can fall apart and needs redoing.

laurend wrote:

AxeD wrote:Mastering is usually done when everything is bounced down to one wav, but I don't see why you can't just put
the gear on the master bus in the actual project.

I've never said you can't. They're two different jobs which are every difficult to achieve at the same time on the same speakers in the same acoustics with the same ears.
After many attempts, my personal conclusion is that two separate stages for mixing and mastering is a faster workflow, produces much better results than the all in one solution.
That's just my personal experience. It isn't an absolute rule. Everyone must experiment his own solutions when producing.

I never said you said you can't

You are mixing your tracks not mastering as has been mentioned.

Mixing = balancing relative levels, eqing and compressing individual elements of a mix down.
Mastering = final adjustment of tone/dynamics/enhancements of a well balanced and produced mix down using the best equipment possible.
(High end analogue equipment, the best possible loudspeakers, highly experienced engineer, very well treated room etc. etc.)

Depends how you produce, many people 'mix as they go', if you are a beginner you might want to split the
process. As electronic music production... composing, arranging, programming and then mixing can be an information / skillset overload
for a beginner. Make your tune with a rough mix down, get all the arrangement and track together and then bounce out in audio
then approach the mix down.

Later on you can start mixing as you go and assuming your CPU is up to snuff you can do it one project.

There will come a natural time when you will switch over to mixing at the same time as you program.

cheers

Another reason to bounce to audio is so that you can edit the audio creatively. Put in glitches, reverses, pitch shifts, timestretches, etc. You can also do this on a master bounce.

safeandsound wrote:There will come a natural time when you will switch over to mixing at the same time as you program.

Not necessarily...
I started put mixing as I went along, but now I prefer to bounce stems and mix separately. It seems cleaner to me...so it isn't safe to assume that everybody end up with mix-as-you-go as a preference.

jrisreal wrote:Don't over-do it. Sacrificing good tone for a sterile mix isn't generally a good idea.

Also, use good filters...I've taken a recent interest in "Engineers Filter" which is great IMO. Good sound, low latency, steep curves...don't see how anyone can go wrong with that.

downloaded for sure thanks man

Right now my mixing process goes something like this

adjust channel volumes (individual and then buss
EQ individual channels
Sidechain compress what I feel is necessary

Am I missing anything?

Depends how your track sounds and how you want it to sound. Its not really a cut and dry process.

Attila wrote:Depends how your track sounds and how you want it to sound. Its not really a cut and dry process.

well that was so informative.