Putting the last hand at what I think is the finest mix I have achieved so far for a rock song - it's getting closer and closer. This one I'm doing solely for educational purpose - and to provide my wife with a demo she can rehearse vocals over.
 
After listening to it on the alt set of monitors, in the car and in the gym (I love that little mono set up to check out my mixes), I was pretty happy with the results (something unheard of here). So I went back, fixed a few minor things, then, imported a reference song and compared.
 
Close.
 
Then, just for the sake of it, I put an EQ on the main bus and proceeded to see just how much tweaking it took to get me "there". 
 
A high pass at 40 just to be on the safe side, then shaving a couple of db's with a wide Q at 240 and a tiny bit of high shelving somewhere above 5k - can't remember exactly where. 
 
That got me very close to my reference mix - so far as my hear and set up could tell. 
 
So the idea now is to go back and make more adjustments on an individual track level to get similar results, without carving too much out I guess.
 
But I'm wondering if those rather minimal tweaks are anything out of the ordinary for mastering engineers. I mean, my reference track IS a mastered song - so some of that brilliance and some of tightness in the low mids and lows are most probably the result of the mastering process.
 
Keeping in mind that it's relatively easier to remove a few db's here and there than to trying to add back what's been removed, and that shelving high end is relatively easy, wouldn't it be preferable to provide the engineer with something that is a bit flatter?
 
Where do you trace the line? At this point, I'm wondering whether pushing forth could actually do more harm than good when it's time to (hypothetically) master?

when you get the feeling that your mix is great, then bounce the mix. There is a time to start mixing and a time to let go. You will always wonder if you just made one more tweak that the mix would be better. Most of the time it won't be. Be happy that you did your best and go mix something else.

My opinion is that if you are only needing to make subtle changes in your mastering eq then your mix is fine. It is true that at some point your perceptions will become numb to the point that you won't know if you are doing anything for the better or not. As was mentioned above, keep the process moving finish it and get on with another song. In my experience I have learned much more from mixing many songs and accepting that is the best I can currently achieve, (at least with the quality of my gear and monitoring environment) than I have spending a lot of time on just one and hoping for perfection.
My mixes are way off being spectacular, but they are when i compare them to the horribly over EQd mess I used to produce lol. My biggest realisation has been that 10 different mixing engineers would mix the same song ten different ways yet they would all sound great. I spent a lot of time thinking that there was only one specific way of doing stuff and believe me, I felt useless. But since I started using my knowledge to do my own thing, I have been pleased with my progress.

Bibs

wizard71
 I spent a lot of time thinking that there was only one specific way of doing stuff and believe me, I felt useless. But since I started using my knowledge to do my own thing, I have been pleased with my progress.

Bibs

Wizard - This is an awesome shift in perspective. Good for you man. Funny how this also applies to things other than mixing too...
 
 

Rain
 
Keeping in mind that it's relatively easier to remove a few db's here and there than to trying to add back what's been removed, and that shelving high end is relatively easy, wouldn't it be preferable to provide the engineer with something that is a bit flatter?
 
Where do you trace the line? At this point, I'm wondering whether pushing forth could actually do more harm than good when it's time to (hypothetically) master?

Rain - I think you nailed it right there.
I remember sitting in a class at Sweetwater at GearFest a couple years ago and watching a mastering engineer
work his magic on a song.
This song sounded GREAT when he first played it, before doing anything to it. Then after applying his changes
I was just blown away at the side by side differences he made during mastering.
I think we as home mixing engineers (ha) can learn from medicine (Physician, do no harm).
Glad to hear you made such good progress and achieved results you are so pleased with.
Plus you got to 'show off' for your wife... :)
 
Dave
 

It all depends on what you're expecting from a mastering engineer.
 
Back in the days of vinyl when Masters were cut into shellac disks, it was the job of the mastering engineer to apply all the frequency compensation and compression required to get the best possible transfer from the tape "master" to the disk, so that when the disk was played back it sounded as close as possible to the original tape master.
 
With CD and other "lossless" digital formats, that process is effectively redundant, but then there is FM radio and MP3, both of which will change what a track sounds like.  So a mastering engineer can create several versions, dedicated to specific media.  The aim being to ensure that the consumer hears the track the way the MIX engineer intended.
 
 
 
The current view, as expressed by most people in these forums at least, seems to be that once the mix engineer has done her/his job and created a track that the band and producer like, you then send it off to a mastering engineer who sprinkles pixie dust on it and it comes back sounding 20% to 40% better.  Well...  No.  That is simply post processing that the mix engineer could have done in the first place had he actually wanted it to sound like that...
 
 
I might be old skool,  but the sound of my mix is what I intend others to hear.  If it requires "mastering" for distribution then I expect the distributed product (MP3 or whatever) to sound the same as my original mix.  I accept that the "mastered" version used for duplication is not going to sound like my original, but then it's not actually intended to be listened to, it's just an intermediate step between my original and the product on the (virtual) shelf.

I don't believe in these unattended mastering sessions, where you hand over you music to someone without instruction or input.   Get the mix as good and polished as you can in every way, save some masterbuss compression and limiting. Sit down with the mastering engineer to get a final impression of the mix on great speakers.  If the ME has to do nothing except the final level then both of you have done your jobs perfectly.
 
A mastering engineer's job is to fix minor problems, set the final level in the most transparent way possible, and create a CD pre-master disk or DDP file for replication.  Not to fix your mix or change your sound.  If they think that, you shouldn't hire them.  

Rain
But I'm wondering if those rather minimal tweaks are anything out of the ordinary for mastering engineers. I mean, my reference track IS a mastered song - so some of that brilliance and some of tightness in the low mids and lows are most probably the result of the mastering process.
 
Keeping in mind that it's relatively easier to remove a few db's here and there than to trying to add back what's been removed, and that shelving high end is relatively easy, wouldn't it be preferable to provide the engineer with something that is a bit flatter?
 
Where do you trace the line? At this point, I'm wondering whether pushing forth could actually do more harm than good when it's time to (hypothetically) master?

Hi Rain,
 
I'll give you my take for what it's worth. First off, you've gotten some pretty good feedback here so far from everyone. Now I'm going to give you another side to it. :)
 
Reference material: I think this is just about useless and I'll tell you why. They used different instrumentation and even if the mastered version of your reference is you, it's STILL going to be rather useless to try and use it to better a mix that is:
 
a) in a different key
b) using different instrumentation
c) a different room
d) a different eq curve
 
To me, you mix and master for the song while not comparing anything hard core to anything else. For example, if you are listening to a song by Fuel or someone and referencing your tune...you may want to grab the sizzle in their cymbals that you may not have in your mix. This is ok to do and very easy. You will NOT be able to get their guitar sound via mastering.....and chances are, you won't get their sound in the mix end of things.
 
You may want to grab some of the bottom end they get in their mix, but you have to be careful as boosting low end here may go against you. If your bass guitar is louder than your kick, it will be accentuated. If your kick is louder than your bass, it will be accentuated. So to me....don't hold too much stock in ANY reference material. There are just too many variables.
 
Little m mastering by you: There's nothing wrong with the subtle changes you mentioned, but here's what you have to ask yourself. You've already mixed what you thought was one of the best mixes you've done to date...how do you know what to even master at this point?
 
Why high pass 40 Hz if you may not need to?
Why mess with 240 or 5k "just because"?
 
I say that to people that try to mix off of what others tell them. You know...the ones that say "well, you should always high pass here and low pass here while removing a little of this, and adding this. It always works great for me!" This never works for other people. You need to make the right decision based on what you hear more than what you learn or what you see on a graph. And, of course you have to hope your monitors are giving you proper representation at all times. :)
 
You have to know when to touch this stuff. What if you may be lacking frequencies in this range and the mix is bass light? A little 40 Hz rumble in moderation is now industry standard if the mix is right.
 
240 Hz used correctly is nice to make something thin, a little thicker. Removing it can also take away a little "honky sounding" congestion. But, you have to hear a problem to remove "something". Anything you "just do" because you read you're supposed to or because you're referencing....may not be the case in reality in regards to YOUR song.
 
That said, if you really have a good mix....don't feel you need extensive mastering to make it better. There are various jobs that the mastering engineer has. I'll list a few just so you can see where things may fall in.
 
1. The "save your butt" Mastering Engineer: Though it's rare for me to disagree with Daniel, there are times when I've been presented with a mix that needed me to change it drastically or I would refuse to work on it. Other times I was told to please enhance it to the best of my ability, which in turn changes the mix. So there are times when the ME is going to make suggestions and possibly change the entire mix. There are times here when major surgery can be performed. I try not to take on these types of mixes, but sometimes the client may not have the mix files to remix and we're stuck with it. Surgery consists of anything and everything. From clicks, pops, glitches and 60 cycle hum to hiss, artifacts, rebuilt eq curves and oscillations.
 
2. The polish Mastering Engineer: Sometimes a mix is really good right out of the gate. When that's the case, I do my best to only fine tune and touch things that I hear need tweaking. There has never been a mix that didn't get a little TLC from me, but I've had a few that were just darned near perfect. A little polish is a good thing. It shows the mix engineer had a clue. Not everything needs to be extensively mastered. Most of my material that I mix here (whether it be my stuff or clients) doesn't need much mastering because I am finishing my final mix in preparation for mastering.
 
3. The Real Mastering Engineer: This guy receives a mix from a mix engineer that is flat all across the board. It's not like the mixes you hear from people posting on forums that already are loaded with frequencies that shouldn't be there. The labels today mix according to the producer. The producer RARELY allows a mix to be over-accentuated. It's supposed to be rather flat while staying completely audible. This way, the ME has complete control and can artistically color and create the final master to perfection. These are the kinds of mixes I love working on as they allow me to help create the actual sound.
 
So as you can see, there are quite a few variables as well as choices. Everything depends on how your mix sounds as well as what your vision may be. Sometimes less is more....other times, less needs more. Best of luck brother. :)
 
-Danny
 
 

Great info Danny!  I never knew that mixing engineers like to present a "flat" mix to the ME.  I never did that in my day but in today's digital markets, it does make sense to me the way you described it.  I think I will try that on my next song.  Try to mix flat and then do the color shaping in the mastering.  
 

4. The Actual Mastering Engineer: This guy dishes out a huge load of baloney about knowing what he is actually doing by spewing out random acoustical technical terms. He convinces people that his mastering skills and "special sauce" can turn an average mixed song into gold, when in actuality he screws up the song, sometimes until it is unrecognizable. The bottom line is, if your mix needs something, you're not done mixing. The true "mastering" really is only applied in the old time shellac applications.

My perception from experience is 9/10 mastering engineers suck. There's only a few that are any good and they cost a lot of money.