What would you pay a mix engineer for a great mix ?

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:05 pm

glu, that is a wonderful way of staying on top of it. Lots of honest ears will turn to the general adjustments needed. It takes a secure ego to take a lot of suggestions on ones music. Kudos. I typically drop by the mastering engineer with my mixes too and make mix adjustments at home before the actual mastering session. I love watching them make little adjustments instead of gross turns of the dials.

superflat, yes i'm talking serious pro mix engineer and I believe i am one (Pardon me while I put on my fire suit) And for saying such things I will need to put up or shut up so i'll let you decide when my site goes up. But let me also say that even the greatest don't always go the distance and some short-time mixes that are not big budget oriented. I've seen it a bunch. Some who are unknown artists will spend thousands to hire the best mix engineer and get half the effort. I've seen a few of the best push mediocre mixes on clients that can never afford them again.

It's a weird click too. I went up against a famous mix engineer on a song we did separate mixes for that fucked up some long worked on relationships with some influential shakers and movers. It was a heartbreak. You've seen the mix dude plenty in audio mags. I cleaned his clock so bad on a mix that he made claims to people that i knew and admired that I f'd up the audio to botch his mix. It's the worst thing anyone can be accused of in this business. Anyway, I easily proved that was impossible to the artist and manager and they fully accepted that the star mixer was a dick. They never used him again but the damage to me was done and they also couldn't use my mix even though they wanted to. It's weird when you start tapping on the heals. It's a serious threat to some and power and influence seem to reign over what everybody is trying to achieve. I was too honest in some respects too.

I digressed, but 5,000 is what just a few make for mixes that come from million dollar production budgets. Your rock mix budget of 1500 is about right and the single or two may go to a 2,500 a mix mixer that may influence radio managers and publishers.

I'm sort of reflecting the iTunes model as in one at a time. But one gorgeous mix of the song you think will push you forward and be noticed has the best value for budget challenged artist. One great one can do much for the others

Right now my rates are on a per mix basis. There's no way I can throw down an honest base-line price. And If I don't have much going on one week, my rates get even more flexible, and that happens more than I care to admit. Last year I mixed and mastered a whole record for a dude that did it in garageband. He payed very little but was willing to wait quite a while for his masters because of it. He pee'd himself when he got the first mix and had no hesitation finishing the whole record in fashion.

Concerning all the walks of music makers out there, regardless of their setup and background, I find it increasingly difficult to find a business groove since greatness can come from very little means. You just don't know where the next surprise record will come from and I like to think I'm a helpful facilitator of that.

Are there mix engineers in the electronic genre' of note ?

glu · Post by **glu** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:39 pm

knotkranky wrote:glu, that is a wonderful way of staying on top of it. Lots of honest ears will turn to the general adjustments needed. It takes a secure ego to take a lot of suggestions on ones music. Kudos. I typically drop by the mastering engineer with my mixes too and make mix adjustments at home before the actual mastering session. I love watching them make little adjustments instead of gross turns of the dials.

Thanks for the input, I think it's the most level headed way to finish this album. I have done everything myself up to now, so I need to get myself out of the equation a little- especially at this stage of the game. I am (naturally) afraid of people not liking it, or think parts of it are weak (ego), but also looking forward to improving it and getting some fresh ears/brains involved.

I am proud of my songs (both structure and recording) and also excited about the concept of this album. I just need to push the quality up a few notches, re-record a few parts here and there, play with some structure.

To answer the original question, I wouldn't pay more than a few hundred dollars to get my radio-friendly tracks better, but that's because I am a student and trying to save up for a new computer.

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:07 am

i think total recall should be making dedicated mix engineers an unnecessary luxury for most folk. even now, if you're spending thousands a day for the room to record, it's likely worth also spending thousands to make sure the mix maximizes your investment (it's like buying insurance). but if you're doing tracks at home -- even with a sick mic and pre -- there's no overhead. so rather than pay the mixmaster, most folk will be better off recording great takes, and then mixing somewhat endlessly (mix, drive around in car and realize snare needs some dirt, remix, listen on ipod and realize harmony is too low, remix, etc.).

i can see the issue for you, though: how do you come up with a menu of prices? particularly where the client won't be there to see how long you spent on something (payment should be based on quality, but really). if you're in venice, do you know flex? or jon the bastard?

mdb · Post by **mdb** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:11 am

Well, its either come up with specific rates for certain criteria, or a flat rate for your time, tools, and know how. You got to start somewhere.

The guy i take my stuff to be mastered too, charges $185 an hour, and it usually takes him about 4-6 hours for 8 songs to be mastered and its worth every penny. I know where talking about a mix here, but thats just to give you an idea of a professional rate. He has tools and equipment i could only dream of having. Theres no way in hell id ever be able to afford the gear he has..

Musicians are broke in general. Its always been like that, and will continue. And i think people think they "know" what they are doing because they have a few waves plugins and some gimmicky "analogue mastering" plugin. And then ask themselves "Why pay someone to do it??" I think they think that anyone can just whip up a mix and its a hit record. Doesn't work like that. Very rarely, at least.. (sublime)

So, bottom line is, your essentially paying for the mix engineers equipment, years of experience with frequencies and tone, proper reference room and monitors, passion for his or her trade, and most of all, the unique sound that engineer is known for. His quality of work, so to speak.

Ive been trying to figure out why musicians generally cant justify paying someone to mix their music so that it is sonically pleasing to all who listen. You ever had a shitty sound guy mix your band at a show and then have a really good sound guy mix your show? Tell me how many people dance to your show when it sounds like shit. And then tell me how great your show was when you have a real sound engineer.

This is your final representation of your work. Why anyone would want to half ass that, aside from financial issues, is beyond me..

Alright, I'm done.

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:50 am

superflat, that's it exactly. Total recall and mix tweeks available at any moment has changed everything. In console days, we would do it in a day cuz we had to. Recall even on an ssl is a drag besides the extra day booked to nudge a few tracks. Print anxiety is a thing of the past. I never print the same day I mix it. It's always the next day cuz I can. It's nice.

But a great mix is not proportional to the time spent on the mix. Setting the sound of experience aside, It will work backwards especially if one has spent a better part of their time programming and recording every nuance. Ear fatigue isn't just a too much too loud thing, it's a too long on the same song thing too. Perspective is easily lost if you do it all. We've all been there, and now you gotta mix?

Also one can still chase their mix tail at any pace. That said, yes, it is now possible for one to give it a crack on their own. And that's fun. It will be mixed eventually, but does it compare to your favorite big budget record. If that is not a concern, then there is no need to compete and you don't need me. I think fewer can handle there own mix than you think, but I don't doubt that you can. I can't say i'm familiar with the dudes you mentioned. Cheers mate

mdb, I am in agreement completely. The mix step will make or break all the steps taken before. Mixing is the most crucial and specialized last step. Why chince out there. I rather record through an m-box and hire a great mix engineer than buy a couple pieces of recording gear and come up short on the mix. If one is thinking about the gear more than who will mix, the reason for doing it at all will certainly suffer.

I just don't think very many have experienced their tracks getting a world class mix treatment. Though I understand that's hard to come by.

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:24 pm

i think the reason many musicians don't want to pay for mixing/mastering is that it's a recurring cost. that is, you only pay once for the great mic or great guitar amp, so people find a way, but paying for every song to be mixed/mastered seems opressive, even if it's likely way more important in the end. (same thing with sound guys -- any band w/o a dedicated sound guy is just being silly, but that same band will obsess over new amps, etc., not realizing it's almost all up to the sound guy.)

so my vote is for low, set prices (i.e., per mix) that bring in more work than you can handle, you bump up rate as you need to keep work at appropriate level. put another way, i'd take the new boutique mic pricing scheme as a model -- low enough initially to get them in people's hands, then increase the price as demand increases, people realize it's the bomb, etc. i'd also do two-for-ones initially to draw folk in, things like that to get the random guy in sweden to use you.

but i also think at some point there are going to be more amateurish musicians who realize they prefer mixing to making music. that is, there will be content generators -- people who write songs/beats/whatever -- who then post the material for others to manipulate/mix. rather than being in a band like most musicians used to be, you might be in a collective of folk who each do what they're best at (this is likely just wishful thinking on my part). anyways, it's an interesting new world. good luck.

(re ssls -- used to drive my nuts, even with "total" recall did you little good when you had so much outboard gear in use, you could never really get back to exactly where you were and then just bring down that lead a little or bump the harmony, etc., and there are some things even the best mastered cannot fix (because you screwed it up in the mix). i don't miss those days much, but i do think there was a benefit to gearing up to record. that is, there wasn't this constant writing/recording cycle. instead, you'd work on songs for a year or two, practice, play them live, work out arrangements, kinks, then go in a do them in a set period that forced you to make decisions, get things down. the downside is that there were always a few songs you just didn't get quite right, but often could have easily fixed if you really had total recall as we do now. i ramble.)

ChiDJ · Post by **ChiDJ** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:16 pm

I've had a few engineers mix my tracks for different labels and radio play. For me, I was fascinated by their ability to create that shine and sparkle. It is truly an art.

I wanted to learn, so I paid a few engineers to mix some of my tracks and let me sit in, watch them work and ask a million questions, (on my dime). It was worth every penny. I walked away with a lot of new knowledge and my own mixes have really improved from this education.

I just get a thrill by always improving my art.

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:28 pm

Thanks fellas, the replies have been a huge help. Yes I think I will set a middle rate. Some mixes end up below some above. Concerning price priority, yes, you pay once for certain things and get a certain satisfaction of owning something tangible. But I believe it's just as true for a mix that lasts a lifetime. It's more timeless than a mic. I see my gear as throw away, no big deal stuff, but I'll be pulling up my best work and showing with confidence my life dream art in it's best light forever.

Also, I may not be priced for some in a comfortable range for every song in their project. Most times, 1 or 2 fine mixes will compliment the rest of ones work. Some can afford 10, some only 1 but you only need one. Most musical successes start with one single song. If you know which one will have it's best shot to bring on that chance, give that song it's best possible mix. You'll also have a realistic template to mix the rest yourself. What can be better than matching your own great sounding song.

Certainly the one constant theme is that everybody wants to pull off a great mix themselves. Both you guys make that obvious. What has changed in the regards of learning this craft is that the studio community has vanished and so has the learning chain that was around for 70 years previous. Now that computers dominate, most must learn in the computer bubble. It is so incredibly difficult to learn how to mix looking over someone's shoulder at a computer. The last ten studios that I mixed at, not one assistant sat down behind me to check out what was going on, and most mixes happen in my home with nobody around. So It's very easy for me to see those drawbacks for new learners, but that is because I was very lucky to have been trained at the end of a golden age. It was hard not to learn when they needed you.

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:36 pm

yeah, half of what you were paying for with studios like bearsville and killer producers/engineers like XY&Z were the incredible lessons in what to do and, perhaps more importantly, what not to do. not literally, but that was the end result (because few bands really came out that much better spending $150K on a record rather than $50K (and a lot came out worse, sucking the life out of their songs by trying to perfect things).

so i think you're right that there will be fewer folk with the old school knowledge. but the kids will find their own way, stumble on things that wouldn't even occur to folk working from the analog side of things. much of it should even out in the end.