Mastering/Mixing Question

[3Liter]

I have been watching on Prime some of those Classic Album shows. They run through an older album with the artists and talk about how it was made. Often have the master on the console and bring up tracks that weren't used, or isolate others to highlight something.

I don't have any real studio experience, but have messed with Tascam recorders and a DAW program.

I have seen many music videos where the engineer presses a button and the sliders snap to or from a position. I assume this is some preset the engineer likes.

When a song is actually being mixed, assume the guitar comes in a little hotter than expected for the first 10 seconds and they want to keep the take, but just even it out a bit. In the old days, when they create the final mix, do they do it manually? Or is is bounced to another track the way they want it and it's now "fixed"? What about with with the modern studios, can the board remember to pot it down for a bit and bring it back up? This is one track, what about multiple tracks, correcting/adjusting for various things? And then, running it over and over again through all the tracks. How was/is this done? Like I said, my experience is mostly with the portastudio, and I would do it manually in the moment, but I was only making demo recordings, not Classic Albums.

thanks

 

[silky smoove]

I have seen many music videos where the engineer presses a button and the sliders snap to or from a position. I assume this is some preset the engineer likes.

It's more likely that they've either banked their faders up or down, or they've toggled the faders to control something other than channel volume.

In the old days, when they create the final mix, do they do it manually?

If live bouncing to tape you would need to rider a fader in real time during playback as you were bouncing the mix down.

What about with with the modern studios, can the board remember to pot it down for a bit and bring it back up?

You do this with automation in the DAW which can either control a gain plugin or a volume fader in the DAW itself, or can control the board depending on the setup.

This is one track, what about multiple tracks, correcting/adjusting for various things?

Same process

And then, running it over and over again through all the tracks. How was/is this done?

I don't understand the question. It's just automation or manually riding faders, both of which are a common practice when mixing, and in some cases when tracking.

 

[3Liter]

I don't understand the question. It's just automation or manually riding faders, both of which are a common practice when mixing, and in some cases when tracking.

Thanks.

When you mentioned manually riding faders, I would guess that each time you'd have to do this every time you rewound the tape and wanted to listen to it again while adding a new track.

 

[And I]

manual fader riding during mixdown was pretty common before the DAW era (or SSL boards with automation). often the engineer would assign manual fader rides to assistant engineers, the producer, the musicians, etc, until there were enough hands to handle it all (assuming there was too much for one person to do themselves). they would probably not be bouncing down a copy of the tracks with the volume rides applied. they'd listen to the mixed version and re-do it if it wasn't right. the mix was as much a performance as the music.

you also would not worry too much about doing manual fader rides during tracking. you'd get the headphone mix to a reasonable point, make whatever adjustments the player asked for, and then just go with it. assuming a pro studio with a "real" analog board, the sends to the headphones are completely separate from the faders that control the levels for mixing.

 

[silky smoove]

the mix was as much a performance as the music.

This is the key distinction to consider as it relates to modern practices versus ones developed before DAWs were a thing. A recent Puremix Start-To-Finish video with Ken Sharp illustrated this well. He had the assistant engineer run the session back multiple times so he could rehearse his fader moves as a performance before they bounced to tape. He did a few passes as rehearsals, one pass that he didn't like, and then got it on the next attempt. In modern times, even if bouncing to tape, you can do any combination of ITB automation and real time performative fader rides. Both have value in different ways.

 

[And I]

(mostly joking around here) by modern standards, even the music performance matters less and less...

old days: "you can do better, try it again"
now-a-days: "that sucked, c'mon back to the control room, the intern will fix it"

 

[3Liter]

the mix was as much a performance as the music.

.

I remember when I'd buy CDs the same names would come up and be listed on the back cover. That explains why.

He had the assistant engineer run the session back multiple times so he could rehearse his fader moves as a performance before they bounced to tape. He did a few passes as rehearsals, one pass that he didn't like, and then got it on the next attempt.

Ah, perfect! Exactly the question I was asking!

 

[LowendG]

As someone who has done a lot of hours in traditional studios including places like Sunset Sound, The Plant, etc, when it comes to big complex old school analog mixes, all I have to say is...all hands on deck!
These days it's sooooo easy to automate it all in our DAWs, but man, I miss those visceral, seat-of-the-pants sessions.
Some of the greatest recordings/mixes of all time are compromises with warts and all, where the mix was actually a "live" performance.

 

[vvvmmm]

I do like, "pot it down".

 

[sawzalot]

Back in the day they’d ride faders at final mix time. Sometimes it took the entire band. Every final mix was itself a performance.

 

[Micha84]

old days: "you can do better, try it again"
now-a-days: "that sucked, c'mon back to the control room, the intern will fix it"

I know you are joking, but I still like to reply to that because it is such a common stereotype.
Today is no different from "the old days" in the sense that the foundation has to be right to get a good end result. Yes, digital workspaces and tools offer so much more precision and speed that it is possible to do things today that weren't possible before (or they were possible, but way too much work). However, at the end of the day, if a musician lays down a bad track the end result will suffer significantly. You can pitch correct, but the more you want to preserve the natural sound, the more work you have to put in. And the more you habe to correct, the harder it gets to preserve the original sound (up to the point of impossible). You can cut tracks, change between takes, correct note length etc., but if a musicians timing is off, you ultimately have to spend a whole lot of time doing very unpleasant work and still not get a great result.

Unless your name is Bad Bunny and you're turning your complete lack of musical abilities into a whole new style, the old "fix it in the mix" is still a bad philosophy today. Business wise and from a musical standpoint. It is still easier, faster and therefore cheaper to get good people in who can deliver solid takes from the getgo.

 

[shastaband]

It is still easier, faster and therefore cheaper to get good people in who can deliver solid takes from the getgo.

Hence the ubiquity of the Wrecking Crew, the Funk Brothers, and all the other studio pros on so many classic recordings.

 

[Dynacord]

Yep, riding faders... In the 80's I worked in Jim Messina's studio and doing overdub punch ins/outs was nerve wracking, "In on the 'and' of 3 in the third bar and out on the 2 in bar four", etc and no undo/command Z options...

 

[Carl Hillman]

I have been watching on Prime some of those Classic Album shows. They run through an older album with the artists and talk about how it was made. Often have the master on the console and bring up tracks that weren't used, or isolate others to highlight something.

I don't have any real studio experience, but have messed with Tascam recorders and a DAW program.

I have seen many music videos where the engineer presses a button and the sliders snap to or from a position. I assume this is some preset the engineer likes.

When a song is actually being mixed, assume the guitar comes in a little hotter than expected for the first 10 seconds and they want to keep the take, but just even it out a bit. In the old days, when they create the final mix, do they do it manually? Or is is bounced to another track the way they want it and it's now "fixed"? What about with with the modern studios, can the board remember to pot it down for a bit and bring it back up? This is one track, what about multiple tracks, correcting/adjusting for various things? And then, running it over and over again through all the tracks. How was/is this done? Like I said, my experience is mostly with the portastudio, and I would do it manually in the moment, but I was only making demo recordings, not Classic Albums.

thanks

I’ve been in on a couple of manual mixdowns. If there are a ton of tracks to ride, it’s not uncommon for the engineer to enlist whoever is around to help.

Even the studio janitor can bring a solo section up and down if you tell him “now!” and mark the positions on the fader with tape.

 

[Five or Six]

All good info! Now, when exactly were these "old day's " that you speak of?

 

[jj.833]

All good info! Now, when exactly were these "old day's " that you speak of?

I'd say 70s till 90s. After more than 4 track recording became available, before digital became cheap.
I remember studios in early 2000s where the manual riding was still used for final mix, on demand of the musicians who wanted to sound ... more analog; other studios were throwing the super large and expensive mix consoles to the trash.
Analog studios still exist till today, at least where I'm located, but moved to garages of the enthusiasts. I don't believe you find a mainstream pop today done on analog.

I feel I wrote this post without giving away my opinion on what is better ;-)

 

[JazznFunk]

One quick thing: mastering is not mixing.... 2 very different things, but automation can be used in mastering for sure. You can't fix mix problems in mastering.... but you can make them stick out more!

 

[And I]

I know you are joking, but I still like to reply to that because it is such a common stereotype.
Today is no different from "the old days" in the sense that the foundation has to be right to get a good end result.

I agree. And this actually does happen these days in ways it never or rarely used to and it can often be a good thing for the end result and the artist's bottom line. Not to fix bad takes but to make "almost" takes with a good vibe but a few ugly mistakes usable.

But even back in the day, editing was done to make legit poorly played takes work. if you listen to "celebrate" by kool and the gang, the kick drum is steady cuz the engineer literally spliced that track on the 2" tape and moved it in time. Few artists had the budget for that or an engineer that was competant enough to do it. In a daw these days that's no problem. But it was done even in the tape days... Celebrate is one of the biggest hits of its day and the drum take was legit unusable until the engineer fixed it...

 

[3Liter]

One quick thing: mastering is not mixing.... 2 very different things, but automation can be used in mastering for sure. You can't fix mix problems in mastering.... but you can make them stick out more!

Good point. I found a nice article on it. I didn't realize that much more work could go into mastering. There's two samples in this article that sound quite different. Pretty cool!
https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/what-is-the-difference-between-mixing-and-mastering.html

 

[3Liter]

... Celebrate is one of the biggest hits of its day and the drum take was legit unusable until the engineer fixed it...

I'd hear tales of "unnamed" studio guys coming in to fix "known" or "emerging" musician's work after hours. This (which I've also heard of in the modern age) is really interesting because I've actually hear this song.