One reason the mixing engineer might keep the mix files is that you may want to go back for a different variation. For example, after mixing my CD, I went back to get music-minus-one mixes (some of my colleagues call these TV mixes, as in perform on TV to your own backing tracks). It wasn't just a case of taking my part out; we remixed with several changes. I had alternate mixes made with and without other players who might appear with me. It was far easier to modify the existing mixes than start over, yet this still required additional time for the mixing engineer for which he should be compensated.

I would hazard a guess that the mix engineer has certain methods and techniques that he or she considers "secret." It may be that they have a trademark sound and that they don't want anyone taking a look at how they did it. After all, you may be able to get enough clues about their methods and techniques and any "magic" that they use, that you would possibly consider having a crack at it yourself the next time instead of hiring him. 


The closest analogy I can think of would be when you hire a professional digital photographer. What you get at the end of it is a disc containing the finished flattened images. What you don't get is a disc full of Photoshop files which show all of the layers, masks and settings that they used to work their magic. They don't consider their techniques to be "open source," and so that stuff stays with them. 

I don't think it's that unreasonable to be honest, although it's probably something that you would need to discuss with them beforehand. If you would prefer to have the mix files, then find an engineer who doesn't mind releasing them. 

"I would hazard a guess that the mix engineer has certain methods and techniques that he or she considers "secret." It may be that they have a trademark sound and that they don't want anyone taking a look at how they did it."

Exactly.

Most mixers I know would not just give me a stereo mix and that's it (of course that may depend on how much you paid).    At bare minimum my mixes would include stems, which take more time and I pay for his time...   

Sounds a bit petty to me.  Again that's without knowing much of the story...

just pay him for his time to give you the files. 

money has a way of clearing up misunderstandings XD

Using the photographer analogy again, I know from my personal experience that they usually keep the negatives in order to cultivate you coming back for more prints, enlargements, etc.  When I shot weddings "on a budget", I always gave them the negatives, and then when it went digital, I gave them a DVD of all of the raw files that I shot, but I kept a safety copy at home.

riojazz


One reason the mixing engineer might keep the mix files is that you may want to go back for a different variation. For example, after mixing my CD, I went back to get music-minus-one mixes (some of my colleagues call these TV mixes, as in perform on TV to your own backing tracks). It wasn't just a case of taking my part out; we remixed with several changes. I had alternate mixes made with and without other players who might appear with me. It was far easier to modify the existing mixes than start over, yet this still required additional time for the mixing engineer for which he should be compensated.

Sure, if you had the mix files, you are not required to go back that engineer and pay him. If you chose to, then you could, but not required to. If you don't have them, what choice do you have?

sharke


I would hazard a guess that the mix engineer has certain methods and techniques that he or she considers "secret." It may be that they have a trademark sound and that they don't want anyone taking a look at how they did it. After all, you may be able to get enough clues about their methods and techniques and any "magic" that they use, that you would possibly consider having a crack at it yourself the next time instead of hiring him. 


The closest analogy I can think of would be when you hire a professional digital photographer. What you get at the end of it is a disc containing the finished flattened images. What you don't get is a disc full of Photoshop files which show all of the layers, masks and settings that they used to work their magic. They don't consider their techniques to be "open source," and so that stuff stays with them. 

I don't think it's that unreasonable to be honest, although it's probably something that you would need to discuss with them beforehand. If you would prefer to have the mix files, then find an engineer who doesn't mind releasing them. 

If I asked a photographer to take pictures and digitally manupulate them, I would expect all the photoshop files also. If I need to edit them or change them or need to send in a differrent format, whatever. They would never have existed if I didn't pay for them to be created. Mixes are no differrent! I paid to have the guitars eq'd, the bass eq'd, automation etc. Why would I not get that back also. If I ever need or want to change them, I would have it. Again, it would never have existed if I hadn't paid for the guy to do it!

When an mix engineer advertises their services within this forum, what would make them think that whatever they were paid to do, that I would not want to see what they did or how they did it when I paid for it?! And why EXACTLY would this be unreasonable????  I don't have any issues paying for someone to mix, or pay for help. But I do have issues paying for a "secret". Especially at the prices I was quoted. 
  
Bottom line, I will only hire someone to mix with the expectation of getting the mix files. Its not unreasonable. 
  
 
BTW, the person I communicated with was very nice, I'm sure they do a great job. In fact they have answered many of my posts and have been very helpful. I am not angry or upset, just don't understand this part. :)
I'm done with my rant. LOL.
Thanks all!! :)

"Bottom line, I will only hire someone to mix with the expectation of getting the mix files. Its not unreasonable."

Yep, get it writing from now on.