Difference between Mixing and Mastering

caycay

New member
I was listening to some tracks by a producer and Im trying to get my mixes to sound like his somewhat. While I was listening, it sounded almost as though there was a limiter or compressor on the master, but I cant tell...

Here's an example of his tracks:

https://soundcloud.com/s-anthony-1/wake-up

https://soundcloud.com/s-anthony-1/let-it-take-you


I was trying to figure out if he was "mastering" his tracks? Or is he just mixing them really well?

Is he putting a limiter on the master, or a compressor? Or is he doing both?

Also, if he's "mastering" is he putting a reverb on the master? Should you ever put reverb on the master?

Any help appreciated. thanks
 
Judging by the peaks from the waveform, I'm not so sure he's using a compressor. Obviously he mixed it because there's an even tone, but he may have added a limiter to make it louder. If you want your beats to sound like a mastered or mixed track, then master it or mix it. Mastering and mixing is an art. and it must be learned. Also, to answer your last question you should NEVER put reverb on the master track because not every sound you use should have reverb. Most instruments sound good dry.
 
Last edited:
Judging by the peaks from the waveform, I'm not so sure he's using a compressor. Obviously he mixed it because there's an even tone, but he may have added a limiter to make it louder. If you want your beats to sound like a mastered or mixed track, then master it or mix it.

That's the point, I cant tell if he's just mixing or he's "mastering" his tracks too. I can make my mixes clean, and everything is panned and whatnot, but it doesn't have that radio mix feel. His mixes, especially the first one, sounds as though their hitting a "brick wall" or something...
So that's not compression? Is that possibly the maximus plugin on the master?
 
Mastering would be what ever you do on the master channel, or on an album as a whole, rather than individual tweaks to sounds at the track level. Generally I think it's pretty difficult to tell if one track has been mastered but much easier to tell if several songs have been mastered the same way.

On a side note; it really isn't the mastering that makes a track sound good, if it doesn't sound absolutely awesome before you start mastering, you have done something wrong.
 
Last edited:
So putting a limiter on the master won't really help with getting that radio feel?

Absolutely not. The radio stations probably has the sound going through some processing before it is being broadcasted, which will give it that "radio feel", I'd say there is some limiting, compressing and EQing going on. If you have a poorly mixed track, no amount of mastering is going to change that. Simply slapping a limiter on the master is only meant to be used as a means of keeping the signal from going over a given threshold, it does not make your track sound awesome, just louder if set correctly.

I would also say that if you hear a track that sounds real clean and great, it's because of the combination of sound selection, composition and mixing, not the mastering.
 
The funny thing about that radio feel is that there is a broadcast limiter applied on the signal before it reaches the transmitter, to ensure that nothing exceeds the input levels for the transmitter

trying to emulate that is fruitless imo, as you would only be attempting to duplicate the final version that makes it on the air

of more interest to me is the statements made about the waveform not being squashed - this suggests that it has not had a master channel limiter applied, only that it has been mixed well

I will review the tracks in the morning (after my new washing machine arrives)
 
Judging by the peaks from the waveform, I'm not so sure he's using a compressor. Obviously he mixed it because there's an even tone, but he may have added a limiter to make it louder. If you want your beats to sound like a mastered or mixed track, then master it or mix it. Mastering and mixing is an art. and it must be learned. Also, to answer your last question you should NEVER put reverb on the master track because not every sound you use should have reverb. Most instruments sound good dry.

You should never have used the word never. There is nothing wrong with putting a little reverb on the master if the occasion calls for it.
 
Last edited:
I was trying to figure out if he was "mastering" his tracks? Or is he just mixing them really well?

Is he putting a limiter on the master, or a compressor? Or is he doing both?

Also, if he's "mastering" is he putting a reverb on the master? Should you ever put reverb on the master?

Any help appreciated. thanks

I didn't listen to the links, but it will not matter for my responses.


1. just putting something on the "master bus" does not equal "mastering". That is not where the term "mastering" comes from. he may have put something across the master bus... but that does not mean has been mastered.

2. a good mix will not really sound different from a mastered track... at least not in a way that one can say "that's been mastered and I can tell from listening to it".

3. I would never put reverb on the master bus... unless maybe the whole song was essentially one instrument, which would really be no different from putting the reverb on the individual track... or some extreme situation... but it is definitely not a standard or common practice.
 
Last edited:
Judging by the peaks from the waveform, I'm not so sure he's using a compressor.

you wouldnt necessarily be able to tell simply by looking at a waveform whether a compressor has been used.



but he may have added a limiter to make it louder.

If there is a limiter on the track, there is a compressor on the track. Limiting is an extreme form of compression. If you think you don't "see" compression on the waveform, how would you think there is limiting on it?
 
His mixes, especially the first one, sounds as though their hitting a "brick wall" or something...
So that's not compression? Is that possibly the maximus plugin on the master?

The term "brick wall compression/limiting" does not come from "sounding like it hit a brick wall"...

It refers to a compressor/limiter having a super high ratio and a super fast attack time... the compressor/limiter acts like a brick wall... not soft... just, "bang!"... smack it right there... the audio hits a defined level and it hits the "brick wall" and is not allowed to go any louder.


but if you think it sounds like it is "hitting a brick wall", that may be the sound of a compressor/limiter you are hearing... Personally, the only way I could imagine describing audio sounding like it hit a "brick wall" would be through my understanding of what compression/limiting sounds like and hearing a "brick wall" setting...

Otherwise i don't think it sounds objectively like hitting a "brick wall".... sounds like "no dynamic range"... or "pumping and breathing"... etc.
 
The funny thing about that radio feel is that there is a broadcast limiter applied on the signal before it reaches the transmitter, to ensure that nothing exceeds the input levels for the transmitter

trying to emulate that is fruitless imo, as you would only be attempting to duplicate the final version that makes it on the air

exactly
 
Mastering would be what ever you do on the master channel

I would say while "mastering" is a process applied to the overall final mix (or on the master channel), it is not "whatever you do on the master channel.")

All mastering is done on the final stereo mix...

but not all processing which is applied to the final stereo mix is "mastering".

a person can throw a compressor or an EQ on the mix bus, but that does not mean he is "mastering".

Particularly when the person mixing is doing it (as would be implied by saying "on the master channel" since if it was not during mixing, it would be on a "final mixed stereo file"), it would really be considered an extension of the mix itself.
 
You're right, I admit I was being a bit flimsy in my response. I just wanted to get the idea that mastering is done to everything while mixing is more on a track basis through.

What exactly is the definition of mixing and mastering then?
 
This is just off the top of my head...


"Mixing" is the process of making individual elements of a song fit together properly to create a final master recording (typically "stereo") of a song. You can process the master bus during mixing... In the same way you EQ and compress (for example) individual tracks, and in the same way as you can EQ and compress drum/vocal/guitar/etc groups, you can EQ and compress the master bus if it is is what you want to do creatively with your mix.




"Mastering" is the process of preparing your finished album for duplication. Involves "sequencing" the album (which means setting which track goes in which position), setting the space between songs and fade outs, making sure all the levels sound consistent from one track to the next, making the overall tonality of the songs sound consistent from one track to the next, final attempt to have another set of ears fix any issues with the tracks if possible, dithering, sample rate conversion, setting ISRC codes, creating the final PMCD (different depending on release format) for the manufacturing plant to use, etc...




Kids who don't really know what "mastering" is simply think it means "limiting the track and making it as loud as possible"... (Though that can be part of mastering)


They also think mastering is something that will take your track from sounding like crap to sounding like a "real song"... It doesn't... You may be able to get some help for your song, but "mastering" is not magic... Putting a little eq and compression on a mix doesn't transform it into something it's not. Good mix = good master.


(Commentary at end not directed at anybody)
 
Last edited:
Well at least now I know that my own interpretation of what mixing and mastering is, wasn't far off at all. Sometimes it's probably better (I'm talking about myself here) to just leave it, instead of giving a half assed answer. That's the problem with me surfing around the forum on my phone, just can't really be bothered to write lengthy texts. But I'm glad you cleared it up.
 
The funny thing about that radio feel is that there is a broadcast limiter applied on the signal before it reaches the transmitter, to ensure that nothing exceeds the input levels for the transmitter

trying to emulate that is fruitless imo, as you would only be attempting to duplicate the final version that makes it on the air

of more interest to me is the statements made about the waveform not being squashed - this suggests that it has not had a master channel limiter applied, only that it has been mixed well

I will review the tracks in the morning (after my new washing machine arrives)

When I say radio feel, i don't neccesarily mean how it sounds on the radio. I mean more of the clean feel that's sounds squashed almost, or has a lot less dynamics...

The first track, especially has that feel...
 
That track doesn't sound all that good in my opinion. It sounds well enough, clean mix. But I don't think there is anything particular going on in the mastering stage that'd make it sound like that. Like it has been posted above, it's not the mastering that makes a track sound great.. it is in the mix where the magic happens.

Here's a track that I personally find has been mixed exceptionally well,
I hope I can sound anywhere near that at some point.

https://soundcloud.com/ticon/ticon-we-are-the-mammoth
 
Last edited:
When I say radio feel, i don't neccesarily mean how it sounds on the radio. I mean more of the clean feel that's sounds squashed almost, or has a lot less dynamics...

The first track, especially has that feel...

"clean feel" would come from a good mix, good recording, good sounds.


"squashed" and "a lot less dynamics" would be more compressed/limited. As Bandcoach said, when music is broadcast on the radio, an additional level of limiting is applied to the signal. They further "squash" the music when it is broadcast on the radio for technical reasons.

If you are talking only about the way the music sounds on the albums you buy on iTunes or on CD, then you are referring to the general sound of the songs and any compression/limiting applied to the songs to give them their "sound" as the artist wants them to sound.

If you are talking about how the songs sound on the radio (and if you're not, I can't imagine why you would say "radio feel") then you are talking about the extra layer of compression/limiting applied to the song. As Bandcoach said, it makes no sense to try to make your song sound like this because SONGS DON'T SOUND LIKE THAT under normal circumstances and if your song sounded like that on the album, the "radio" version would sound even more squashed and your song would only sound like a "radio" song when it is NOT ON THE RADIO.

It is like saying you want to make your mix sound like an MP3 because that is how you listen to music... you don't STRIVE for MP3 sound... you make a good mix then sacrifice quality later when someone makes it into an MP3.
 
Back
Top