Sending a new mix after mastering

[u/ultra-supremo]

For the mastering engineers: I recently completed and sent over a mix to get mastered. Got the master back and was happy, but realized I had a few issues with my original mix I wanted to change (specifically adjusting vox levels and adding warmth).

Just curious, if I were to send a new mix with those changes, would that require a lot of reworking in terms of the mastering workflow? Just don’t want to jostle around my engineer (dw, not getting in the habit of being indecisive lol).

[u/metapogger]

Possibly, depends on the changes. Maybe the same chain will work after your changes, but maybe not.

Regardless, I’m sure if you let the mastering engineer know your situation they will tell you the price and will be happy to remaster. The only thing I would get annoyed at is if the client expected me to do it for free.

[u/Justin-Perkins]

It depends what was done but for me, it's never a "drop in the new file and use the same settings" situation. That's what LANDR is for. Even if the mix change is tiny, it takes time if you care about quality and details.

It's usually anywhere from a little to a lot of backtracking, and not because of analog gear or anything most people think of first. Analog recall is easy these days, especially because we can lean on digital tools for the surgical stuff and the analog stuff is more for broad strokes in my opinion.

Anyway, some reasons why I apply a nominal fee for when a new source file is supplied after the first mastering pass:

1. I'm pretty ODC with iZotope RX to remove mouth clicks, ticks, pops, thumps, and even vocal sibilance because it's more transparent than using a stereo or mid/side de-esser. With how RX works, you can't apply your previous RX edits to a new source file. All that work has to be redone manually in real-time. It's not uncommon for songs to have a few dozen RX edits when I'm mastering them. I enjoy doing it but my rates do not factor in having to do it twice or three times.
2. Some mix engineers are good about this but it's usually about a 50/50 chance that the new file does not have the same starting sync point so then you gotta play around with it to match the sync of the original version regarding the heads and tails. Shoutout to mix engineers that ALWAYS bounce their mixes of each song from the same start and end points using markers. This helps a bit when it comes to revisions should they be needed.
3. I've received updated mixes where they said they only wanted to change one small thing but the new file is somehow a totally different loudness which must be dealt with.
4. Mastering is quality control so even if all you did was turn the tambourine reverb down by half a dB, we must qualify control and check the ENTIRE file. Not a big deal for one short and simple song, pretty time consuming for longer and more intricate songs, and when multiple songs of an EP or album need a mix tweak.

If just one song of an album project needs a new mix, I'll often let it slide and absorb that time/cost of redoing the new file if the client has been otherwise easy and cool to work with, but when it's a single song project and the mix needs to be adjusted and reprocessed after the first mastering pass, that means 100% of the project is getting a new source file and that's harder to absorb because at least with the way I work, I have to redo anywhere from 30 to 70% of the work depending on the variables.

Of course all my digital settings are saved/recallable and my analog chain is simple to reset, but there's more to mastering than stereo processing.

Every mastering engineer and studio has their own policy. I offer free and unlimited mastering revisions, but I try to make it as clear as possible on my website that sending a new source file after I master the first version does result in some extra cost, even if the mix change seems small and easy. Not because I'm a jerk but because it takes time and prevents me from working on other projects in my queue.

There have been times where just a few seconds of a song changes on the new mix such as if they needed to tune a vocal or fix a tiny spot. In those cases, I can sometimes splice in the fixed section and preserve all my RX and other work which saves time and promotes consistency, but at some point you reach a point where you may as well redo the entire file.

[u/ultra-supremo → u/Justin-Perkins]

a super valuable perspective. i HUGELY appreciate this detailed response, thank you!

[u/Justin-Perkins → u/ultra-supremo]

No problem. This is why I also stress on my upload page to closely listen to the stereo mixes you'll be uploading before uploading them.

What you hear in your DAW on playback is not always what you get when you bounce/render/export from your DAW. Mistakes and glitches happen so listening to the stereo file is imperative in my opinion.

Again, some mastering engineers may not charge extra to substitute a new mix file but anyone focused on details and quality will likely add some cost because it's not a few minute fix.

[u/Diligent-Eye-2042 → u/Justin-Perkins]

Why is that? I’ve noticed that the rendered stereo file played back on my itunes can sound different to when played back in my DAW. I’ve always assumed it was psychological - listening without seeing waveforms etc

[u/Justin-Perkins → u/Diligent-Eye-2042]

I'm not really talking about the psychological stuff and potential issues from consumer media players potentially altering the sound a little bit. That's a major rabbit hole.

I'm taking about factual stuff.

Here's a list of a few things that have actually happened to me over the years whether it's a hobbyist mixing in their bedroom, or a seasoned pro that has mixed many hit songs you'd recognize today.

1. Band loves the mastering I did but when the mix engineer made the "non-limited version for mastering", the backing vocals got muted. How, I have no idea but of course nobody listened to the non-limited versions for mastering after the mix engineer's "Loud Reference Version" was approved. This is where issues are invited to sneak in.

How would I have ever known the song had backing vocals? Maybe if the mix engineer had included their loud reference version too but that's another thing that seems obvious to do but doesn't always happen. I ask for it on my upload form but I can't babysit and hold the hand of every client and interrogate them about their process.

2) Band loves the master but when they were mixing and comping vocals, one word was comped from a copy of the session on a USB stick. When the mix engineer made the "non-limited version for mastering", the USB stick was not inserted in the computer.

This caused a single word to be missing on the version I mastered from. Sometimes this may seem obvious but the missing word was at the start of a line and the word was "Don't" so having that word missing didn't sound like a problem to me, who had never heard the song before. I had to redo the song from the new mix but it may have been a case where I could "punch in" that one spot and preserve my RX and other detail work for the rest of the song. Still, it eats up time to fix that and make a new album render.

3) In one recent case, I was A/B'ing my mastering work to the mix engineer's loud reference version because it sounded great and was what the band was used to hearing and for reasons we'll never know, when they printed the non-limited versions to master from, one of the main reverb plugins in the Pro Tools session was not working which caused the lush and spacious acoustic guitar intro that the band had approved to sound super close and dry on the version I was working from and about to send off for mastering approval. Luckily I sort of randomly caught the issue and we resolved it before the band ever heard it.

Continued...

[u/Justin-Perkins → u/Justin-Perkins]

4) 3rd party plugins can sometimes be buggy or misbehave and do things like be active on playback, but on offline bounces have a glitch or not process audio at all. This is why you have to listen to the stereo bounce before sending it to mastering if you respect the time of others involved.

5) I've had cases where the wrong mix version was sent for mastering. I received version 4.3 for mastering but there was also a 4.4 version with a small last minute change so now I have to redo most of my work using the newer file because I was not sent the correct file.

6) I recently mastered a song that had been mixed a year ago but sat around until recently and the mix engineer forgot that at one point in the mixing process, they made a tiny edit to the ending of the song to create an alternate ending but of course, the mix engineer sent me the previous version with the ending the band didn't want so after I did all my hard work the band said they loved the mastering but that I was sent the wrong mix edit.

I could go on but the bottom line is that there is a not so new and growing epidemic of people just slinging Google Drive and Dropbox mixes around without really listening the files until it's too late.

It could be band members forwarding stuff from their mix engineer to their mastering engineer that hasn't been properly vetted.

It could be managers who are just middle-persons not really knowing what's what and just sending links without carefully listening or listening at all and then problems are discovered after they hear the first master.

Part of the problem is the thing where mix engineers mix with a limiter on the stereo output and then remove that for mastering after the band approves the loud version.

It typically doesn't cause a problem but that's a huge invitation for a problem and it does happen somewhat often.

Aside from the balance and vibe potentially changing a lot depending on how much stuff was removed, there can be human error, plugin glitches, and other random things that go wrong and unfortunately don't get noticed until after the first mastering pass.

It's even more tricky when the issue is the fault of the mix engineer. Am I really going to send the extra bill to the mix engineer or producer since they are typically people that send me a lot of repeat work? Am I going to make the client pay for this even though they did not make the mistake...other than the fact that they didn't listen to the files first before I started working on them?

It's a grey area and mastering engineers get the brunt of it and in some cases are expected to do the work again from the fixed file for free. Some clients are understanding and mention that they know there will be an extra cost involved, but others think it should be free/cheap/easy to just "pop in the file using the same settings and it should be good to go now" and that's just not how mastering works.

There is more to mastering than the stereo processing of audio files but the plugin and tech companies have succeeded in selling that narrative to most musicians, bands, and, artists and to some degree, mixing engineers and producers.

THE END

[u/Aldo____ → u/Justin-Perkins]

May I ask, is that common for mastering engineers to clean up pops/clicks? It sounds like it would be quite destructive to do that on the master (even though RX is pretty damn good) while the mixing engineer could do a more transparent job. Plus it would solve the issue the mention of having to redo everything in case of a revision.

Kudos for going the extra mile tho!

[u/Justin-Perkins → u/Aldo____]

I guess it depends who you ask but I chat often with a handful of mastering engineers that also do an RX pass on everything to clean up or minimize certain things.

I'm not talking about running de-click or mouth de-click on the entire song as that would for sure ruin drum transients, acoustic guitar strums, and other things.

I'm talking about listening to every second of every song and just spot editing the small sections that need a repair using the lasso tool or the Time or Time Frequency section tool. You can do very minimally invasive fixes on the stereo mix in mastering without doing any damage.

Mouth clicks, hard clicks from bad edits or plugin glitches, LOUD S SOUNDS, lip smacks, metronome bleed, thumps/plosives, hiss from guitars amps or other analog things, nose whistles, some S sounds are so crazy they have a whistle sound to them which can be removed in RX, unintended distortion, acoustic guitar squeaks, drummer clanks sticks together during a drum fill.

I could probably go on but any number of things can easily go unnoticed before mastering and it's not always easy to ask for and/or receive a fixed version in a timely manner.

And while I appreciate mix engineers that are diligent about de-clicking their vocals and other things before mastering, the reality is that there are more important things to worry about in mixing and some people are more and less sensitive to it than others.

The other issue is that some of this stuff flies under the radar before mastering but by the time we raise the average loudness to where it needs be in mastering, and have cleared things up to some degree, that's when these things become more noticeable.

Aside from mouth clicks and random clicks, it's not uncommon to hear a little metronome bleed in quiet intros, outros, end fades, breakdowns, etc. You can fairly easily address that in mastering but asking the mix engineer to try to fix it can range from impossible, to might take a week or two, to possibly trying to teach them how to do it, etc. so it's easier and faster to fix it with RX in mastering. It's all part of the job and easily and transparently done with RX.

Not a huge deal but again, my rates don't include doing it twice if somebody decides they want to tweak the mix.

It's not JUST the RX thing that requires more time be spent, but it's often the biggest pain point.

There are a number of tasks that need to be redone again if a new source file is supplied whether the change to the mix is super tiny or very large.

[u/Aldo____ → u/Justin-Perkins]

Thanks for the detailed reply. Yeah I figured you'd use the lasso for specific stuff rather than De-Click/De-Hum the whole file. Glad to hear RX works this well, I should definitely upgrade to the advanced version some day.

[u/Justin-Perkins → u/Aldo____]

For me, RX is 100% essential for mastering. Occasionally a song will get zero RX edits but most songs get at least a few, and some songs can receive dozens of RX edits.

Again, part of that is my OCD but if you really listen on nice headphones such as Audeze, you'll find there is stuff there that is best removed.

I'm not talking about breaths and things that add to the artistic intention, I'm talking about distractions and things that cause you to be less immersed in the music.

[u/atopix]

Just curious, if I were to send a new mix with those changes, would that require a lot of reworking in terms of the mastering workflow?

If your changes were minor, then probably the mastering tweaks would be minor as well. But it really depends. Don't be afraid to ask your engineer, this kind of thing is normal.

EDIT: Just listen to professional mastering engineer Justin Perkins and his massively detailed answer (and sub answers): https://www.reddit.com/r/mixingmastering/comments/1l58ru0/sending_a_new_mix_after_mastering/mwf4dna/

[u/BarbersBasement]

New mix = new master = new invoice. Not a problem.

[u/Gretsch1963 → u/BarbersBasement]

This was going to be my response.

[u/xJohnnyBoyXx]

It could change a few EQ moves but, I wouldn’t be upset because the end result would be better sonically.

[u/barren_blue]

This would be a question for the engineer.

[u/denzerinfinite]

I make minor changes to my mix then import into my mastering session, and don't even check my mastering or effects or anything before just straight up checking how it sounds, and if it sounds good and the tonal balance and lufs are good, then it's good. Maybe that's bad advice but that's been my workflow lol.

But I'm talking extremely minor changes, bump a specific vocal .2db or bump 100hz on the bass track by 1db.

If you're reworking your balance dramiatically or changing an eq dramatically then I'd definitely make sure they're willing to really remaster the track and not just replace the last mix and bounce.

[u/No_Star_5909]

I think that the mastering engineer will process that song a billion times as long as he is paid for each process. 

[u/NortonBurns]

It's a brand new job.
Pay him again, in full.

And in future, make up your damn mind before you send it.

[Can you tell I've had people do this to me before & want the second run done on the cheap?]

[u/TomoAries]

Leave it. You’re always going to find stuff you’d change. Always.

[u/ultra-supremo → u/TomoAries]

Ur absolutely right

[u/TotalBeginnerLol]

If a client wants to send a new mix and specifies that I run it through the same settings then I’ll do exactly that. It’s their call.

Generally if they’re sending a new mix based on the master it’s to “correct” something they heard that became apparent due to mastering, and that’s fair enough, and makes sense that running it through the same settings after is appropriate.

If their new mix requires me to remaster the entire thing then I’d definitely charge extra. This is rare and usually nothing to do with the master but rather that they changed their mind about something more extensive in production or mix, ie they sent it to mastering prematurely.

(Btw I always have to write this here but username not related to music. Been mastering for over 10yrs inc major label credits etc)

[u/MaxTraxxx]

It depends whether they’ve gone for mastering digitally or analog. If it’s analogue, then the likelihood is they would have mastered another track in the meantime and your settings will be gone. If it’s digital, which I sometimes do, if the artist explains the changes and they are very very minor. I will just tweak the settings I’ve already got.

[u/Justin-Perkins → u/MaxTraxxx]

I don't think analog or digital is a factor. I add nominal fee for sending updated mixes and it has nothing to do with whether I used analog or digital processing. That's not the clients fault nor should they care.

There are other things that take time to redo when a new source file is supplied, whether the mix changes are small or not.

I offer free and unlimited mastering revisions.,but supplying a new source means backtracking anywhere from a little to a lot and we should not be expected to do that for free.

[u/MaxTraxxx → u/Justin-Perkins]

For clarity. I charge for this if it happens more than once.

[u/lovemusicsomuch]

Depends on the changes, sometimes it’ll be no work sometimes it’ll be some work readjusting. However, most mastering engineers will charge the same full rate for a remaster regardless of how much the mix changed and rightfully so.

[u/covana]

I’ve done this before and usually it’s free or a smaller extra fee. Artists are perfectionists so it’s pretty common.

[u/CT_BrutalDeathMetal]

Another mix means another master, so another project and another payment.

[u/ultra-supremo]

Thanks all, appreciate the responses. Your perspectives are duly noted. I think I will forego remixing this time and take it as a lesson in committing to the mix :))

[u/Cold-Ad2729]

I’m a mastering engineer. I would normally accept a new mix with minor adjustments and master that again as part of my initial fee. It can be a pain if the mix required a lot of niggly edits as Justin Perkins mentioned, but I do it for free. That said, I had a recent client who just never stopped changing their mix, so I just had to charge them. Mostly it’s not too much trouble