I'd say tracking is the most important thin. If you get the best sounds coming in, thats less you'll have to do in the mix. You don't want to "fix it in the mix". I'd say 80:20. You can't polish a turd.

At least 70/30.....certainly the musical style matters, but you have to have the basics down first.

You need both skills sets. But ideally I would rather spend the time in the tracking phase and get it right. So 70/30 sounds about right to me too.

The biggest complaint you hear about, is the mix specialists, at how poorly a lot of stuff is recorded.

There are people who make a huge living polishing turds.....They polish them so bright that the light fairly gleams off of em, blinding anyone looking at them to the point that they cant be seen as a turd until you've listened a couple of times. B that tim the record companies have your money and its too late.

So the answer I have is one cannot function properly without the other and they have to be equal in terms of importance and quality as well as being done in the proper order.

I just recorded my first album this spring. Me and my co-producer then sent it off to Portland to have a few more tracks laid down and then have it mixed proffessionaly due to self-inflicted time constraints. The guys doing the mix were good but were given only like a day before my co-producer jumped the fucking gun and had it mastered. What a huge mistake! After almost a month of me doing the tracking and getting some incredible sounds the project went from a potential "A" to a friggin "B-" in my book. I was a producer and was denied the opportunity to hear the mix before it got mastered. And boy were there some problems, differences between songs, certain stereo techniques that they didn't follow even though they were in my mix notes. All problems that could have been avoided had I been given a chance to critique the mix before it got mastered.

Indeed you need good tracking but a shoddy rushed mix can certainly be like a turd in a sterling bowl.

I just recorded my first album this spring. Me and my co-producer then sent it off to Portland to have a few more tracks laid down and then have it mixed proffessionaly due to self-inflicted time constraints. The guys doing the mix were good but were given only like a day before my co-producer jumped the fucking gun and had it mastered. What a huge mistake! After almost a month of me doing the tracking and getting some incredible sounds the project went from a potential "A" to a friggin "B-" in my book. I was a producer and was denied the opportunity to hear the mix before it got mastered. And boy were there some problems, differences between songs, certain stereo techniques that they didn't follow even though they were in my mix notes. All problems that could have been avoided had I been given a chance to critique the mix before it got mastered.

Indeed you need good tracking but a shoddy rushed mix can certainly be like a turd in a sterling bowl.

poor tracking + poor mixing = catastrophy
poor tracking + good mixing = possible?
good tracking + poor mixing = destruction
good tracking + good mixing = yeah!

So both of them: tracking and mixing are important. Simple adjusting levels is a part of mixing. So You cannot avoid it.
but, I would say that tracking is more important.

Halifaxsoundguy wrote: I'd say tracking is the most important thin. If you get the best sounds coming in, thats less you'll have to do in the mix. You don't want to "fix it in the mix". I'd say 80:20. You can't polish a turd.

i completely agree.

everyones right. just depends on what you what. if you want it to sound like shit. awesome. you want it to sound polished and clean. awesome

you can do it both ways.

but i agree with halifax, you really shoudlnt have to mix that much if the stuffs good.