Musicians Collaboration Studio
How To => Production Tips and Tricks! => Topic started by: Benny on August 17, 2011, 08:41:19 AM
-
Here are some websites I've run across lately that have some good info on mixing, giving some specifics about EQ and compression settings...
Mix Coach
http://mixcoach.com/category/podcast/
Home Studio Corner
http://www.homestudiocorner.com/articles/
5 Minutes To A Better Mix
http://therecordingrevolution.com/5minutes/
EDIT: Fixed the last link.
-
Thnks Benny, that's some interesting stuff! Looks like the last 2 link are both the same thing though :) No matter, Home Studio Corner is probably all you need!
Mick.
-
Yep. Good stuff. :) I'm already looking through it. It seems no matter how much I think I know I still know very little. :P I find these sites quite useful.
-
I have a site...most of the info I have is from Charles Dye so Im definately not taking the credit for it (No plagiarism)
I just wanted all the info on one page and in case charles ever deletes his pages on website I wanted to still have the info.
There is no info on drums (I dont use his info for drums,bass and guitar)...I really only use this page to mix keyboard related items...lots of excellent info for that
This is where info came from.
Charles is the first person to mix in the box (using computer and plugins only)...song was "livin la vida loca"
They used analog gear for tracking though.
EDIT:Removed Links
-
I have a page of magic frequencies as well if anyone wants to check it out...I got this info from mixing books.
http://songsource.awardspace.biz/
One of the biggest tips I can give for mixing is to highpass and lowpass instruments then perhaps boost some magic freqs.
Here is a frequency chart
http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm
-
I have a page of magic frequencies as well if anyone wants to check it out...I got this info from mixing books.
http://songsource.awardspace.biz/
One of the biggest tips I can give for mixing is to highpass and lowpass instruments then perhaps boost some magic freqs.
Here is a frequency chart
http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm
Thanks for that Vinnie .. definitely useful. I agree on using highpass and lowpass filters. When I first started mixing I was wondering why I couldnt get a nice clean mix. After reading up on it I started cutting all the high and low frequencies, except for the bass, and it is like the song comes alive. Apparently this is a staple in professional studios so I have a template saved for it. But really helpful to know the "magic" frequencies to boost a little :)
Mick.
-
Your welcome mick... 8)
Boost or cut magic freqs...when you boost freqs you should widen bandwidth...when you cut you should narrow it...also known as Q.
Magic freqs for kick and snare are defintely going to be usefull to people...boosting kick at 80-100 hz and widen the Q/ bandwidth...kick sticks right out...or cut if kick needs to be cut.
boosting snare at 120-240 sounds pretty good too.
I dont highpass or lowpass kick and bass...I will highpass mix in mastering stage instead.
-
Ooops. Sorry about that last link. ::) I fixed it.
-
Ooops. Sorry about that last link. ::) I fixed it.
Thanks Billy. Hey that last link is well cool. Learned a lot already :)
Mick.
-
I like that last one too Benny... makes me want to go out and get protools also, instead of just using audacity. :)
-
I like that last one too Benny... makes me want to go out and get protools also, instead of just using audacity. :)
Meh ... just get Sonar Producer 8.5 ... does pretty much the same thing without the big price tag :)
Mick.
-
haha - you know me too well Mick, I'm a cheap S.O.B. ;D
-
I do find it useful to see how others do the job, but there is no silver bullet. EVERY mix is different, and there is no recipe that can be applied to the same instrument in different songs. Trust your ears and make sure you have a room with good acoustics. And NEVER reduce or boost frequencies unless you HAVE to! Your ears will tell you when that's the case. Don't do it just because you saw somebody else do it.
That's the only advice I can give.
Regards,
Steffen
-
Good advice Steffen... I read loads and loads of articles about mixing and mastering, there's no receip at all still there's some common facts.
Lately I've been trying a different approach on the mastering chain. Most of the people uses the eq as the first processor, I've been trying it as the last and I think that is better because, for example the compressor, change the tone of the mix, exciters do the same, etc.
If you have the eq in the first place, you end up changing the mix when you turn on the compressor.
-
I don't have a fixed mastering chain. Gear and order always depend on the song.
As for EQ: I often have multiple EQs in the mastering chain (before and after the compressors), and I seldom get along with just one or two compressors. Which compressor(s) I use also depends heavily on the song and on the mix.
Regards,
Steffen
-
Yep. Good stuff. :) I'm already looking through it. It seems no matter how much I think I know I still know very little. :P I find these sites quite useful.
Same here Dave. I read a lot of stuff on mixing every week too and I still feel like a beginner :)
Mick.
-
I thinks that's half the fun Mick. Always learning whether it's playing an instrument or doing the mixing. A constant learning curve. :)
Started watching '5 Minutes To A Better Mix' http://therecordingrevolution.com/5minutes That's got some cool stuff so far. 8) Visual helps me a lot. I'm really thinking I need to move to Pro Tools. I wish I had a better setup now.
-
I thinks that's half the fun Mick. Always learning whether it's playing an instrument or doing the mixing. A constant learning curve. :)
Started watching '5 Minutes To A Better Mix' http://therecordingrevolution.com/5minutes That's got some cool stuff so far. 8) Visual helps me a lot. I'm really thinking I need to move to Pro Tools. I wish I had a better setup now.
Yes, every one of those 31 vids is a gem, lotta good info. Pro Tools? You may want to look at other options before you go shelling out that kind of cash, Dave. What are you using now?
Mick.
-
Acid Pro & Sonar 7. I tend to fall to Acid Pro because I'm familar with it and use it for most of my recording. Sonar is better for mixing. I have a really good soundcard which makes all the difference in the world.
-
Acid Pro & Sonar 7. I tend to fall to Acid Pro because I'm familar with it and use it for most of my recording. Sonar is better for mixing. I have a really good soundcard which makes all the difference in the world.
I use Sonar Producer 8.5 and I was looking for an upgrade price for you. Seems Cakewalk isn't even selling it any more. I can't advise the Sonar X1 because I haven't heard anything good about it, although they just released the X1c which is probably a bug fix for everything they got wrong. Glad you have a good card though, that's half the battle right there :)
Mick.
-
I do find it useful to see how others do the job, but there is no silver bullet. EVERY mix is different, and there is no recipe that can be applied to the same instrument in different songs. Trust your ears and make sure you have a room with good acoustics. And NEVER reduce or boost frequencies unless you HAVE to! Your ears will tell you when that's the case. Don't do it just because you saw somebody else do it.
+1
I was about to post something similar but you already said it all Steffen
CD
-
I do find it useful to see how others do the job, but there is no silver bullet. EVERY mix is different, and there is no recipe that can be applied to the same instrument in different songs. Trust your ears and make sure you have a room with good acoustics. And NEVER reduce or boost frequencies unless you HAVE to! Your ears will tell you when that's the case. Don't do it just because you saw somebody else do it.
+1
I was about to post something similar but you already said it all Steffen
CD
If we never did something because we saw someone else do it, how would us beginners learn anything? Cutting out inaudible frequencies at the top and bottom end doesnt effect the sound at all, but it does free up some headroom on the master bus.
Mick.
-
I do find it useful to see how others do the job, but there is no silver bullet. EVERY mix is different, and there is no recipe that can be applied to the same instrument in different songs. Trust your ears and make sure you have a room with good acoustics. And NEVER reduce or boost frequencies unless you HAVE to! Your ears will tell you when that's the case. Don't do it just because you saw somebody else do it.
+1
I was about to post something similar but you already said it all Steffen
CD
If we never did something because we saw someone else do it, how would us beginners learn anything? Cutting out inaudible frequencies at the top and bottom end doesnt effect the sound at all, but it does free up some headroom on the master bus.
Mick.
Just saying never automatically 'do' anything just because you saw it in a video / article. Everything affects everything else, and it's all very much dependant on the material you're working with.
The only thing I would 'always' do to improve your mixes is get the best monitors you can and then spend at least as much on acoustic treatment. All the other tips are irrelevant if your mixing enviroment doesn't translate well elsewhere.
CD
-
Just saying never automatically 'do' anything just because you saw it in a video / article. Everything affects everything else, and it's all very much dependant on the material you're working with.
The only thing I would 'always' do to improve your mixes is get the best monitors you can and then spend at least as much on acoustic treatment. All the other tips are irrelevant if your mixing enviroment doesn't translate well elsewhere.
CD
I completely disagree. "Do" everything you see in a video ... "do" everything you read in an article. That's the only way you will learn if it works or if it doesn't. It's not some kind of mystical power that is bestowed on a chosen few, it's a craft that can be taught and learned. Most of the things we learn are taught to us, like from people that produce videos and articles, and then by trial and error on our own account. Really isn't difficult stuff, it's the ususal human process.
Mick.
-
There are no magic solutions, but I agree with Mick about trying these tips out and seeing what they do to the sound. Learning more possibilities to pull out of our bag of tricks when needed. 8)
-
Just saying never automatically 'do' anything just because you saw it in a video / article. Everything affects everything else, and it's all very much dependant on the material you're working with.
The only thing I would 'always' do to improve your mixes is get the best monitors you can and then spend at least as much on acoustic treatment. All the other tips are irrelevant if your mixing enviroment doesn't translate well elsewhere.
CD
I completely disagree. "Do" everything you see in a video ... "do" everything you read in an article. That's the only way you will learn if it works or if it doesn't. It's not some kind of mystical power that is bestowed on a chosen few, it's a craft that can be taught and learned. Most of the things we learn are taught to us, like from people that produce videos and articles, and then by trial and error on our own account. Really isn't difficult stuff, it's the ususal human process.
Mick.
I defend your right to disagree 8) .....and of course you are right that any skill can be learned up to a point and natural aptitude will place people at different places along the learning curve..but ( you knew there was a but coming right ? )....my point was not that these skills are unlearnable or magical. Just that many of the people attempting these advanced techniques are being misinformed by the acoustics of their mix enviroment, so no matter how many of these things they try it'll only sound any better in their own studio and nowhere else.
There's a good article in this Month's Sound on Sound 'Top Ten Mixing mistakes and how to avoid them' .....if you don't get the magazine these are the 10 below. They were culled from years of listening to demos and their Mix Rescue column and also the 100 mixes of the same song the poor guy ( Mike Senior ) had to plough through and give feedback on to judge a competion on Mixoff.org ( Vincent , Argle & Myself all entered )
At least 3 of these are mainly down to the untreated room not telling you the truth ( 2,4,7 maybe 10 & 6 too)
Three of them are not really down to the mixer ( 1,5, 9 )
1: Dodgy Timing/Tuning
2: Mix Tonality Misjudgements
3: Phase Misalignment
4: Mix Mud
5: Unhelpful Arrangement
6: The Wrong Reverb
7: Harshness
8: Buried Details
9: Weak Payoffs
10: Inappropriate Processing on The Mix Buss
So I guess I'm saying Mick is right, nothing mystical about it but trying to do all the things the Pro's do before all the other stuff has been addressed probably won't lead to better mixes.
I'll get off my soapbox now ;D
CD
-
Mark, did you remove the links you posted today? I saw them at work, but they seem to have disappeared.
@Mick:
What I meant to say (and I think Mark's intention was the same) is: Don't do things just because someone told you it has to be done that way. Try and decide for yourself what works and what doesn't.
Low cuts, for example, are something very dangerous IMO. If you overdo them, you will end up with a sterile, cold/artificial sounding mix. Low cuts are a bad habit anyway. If you have to get rid of some of the low end, better use a shelving filter. If you use low cuts the corner frequencies will pile up.
Low cuts will also remove the lower frequency harmonics that are an essential part of the natural sound of a specific instrument.
Another bad habit IMO is master bus compression. It may certainly work well for some music styles, but it is not a splendid idea in general. Again: Try things, but trust your ears!
LCR panning is another poor practice (again IMO, of course). I listened to a couple of songs at work today, and some of them were mixed that way. They sound really strange and unpleasant on head phones. I would not recommend doing that at all. Your mileage may vary.
Videos and recommendations (like mine too, of course) are good to extend your view, but we must never forget that there are no rules that cannot be broken. What sounds good is good. And different people have different ideas of what sounds good and what doesn't.
The big guys don't all agree to each other either. And for a good reason.
Regards,
Steffen
-
Mark, did you remove the links you posted today? I saw them at work, but they seem to have disappeared.
They were only up for a few minutes because they didn't seem to work and I had to get back to work !
CD
-
I found a recipe that works for me (for now)...I can get my mixes sounding pretty similar to one another.
Highpass and lowpass instruments...vocals will sit in mix better once thats done...everything sounds cleaner with less mud.
Boost or cut freqs if needed
Only have 4 to 5 elements (maybe 6) playing in a song at one time...To many elements can make mix muddy. (most important tip)
I use compression and effects like outboard gear...I send receive to it.
I get creative with echo's to create depth and to have something interesting that will catch the ear...also use chorus,flanger and phaser as well to make mix interesting to listen to...Its nice to have a nice clean and clear mix however if it doesnt have anything ear catching its a bit boring for me.
Bass guitar is a big part of my mixes...Bass in general is what should fill in the bottom end... (another reason to highpass other instruments)
Drums are always a work in progress...I would say drums,bass and vocals are the toughest part of mixing.
-
Bass guitar is a big part of my mixes...Bass in general is what should fill in the bottom end... (another reason to highpass other instruments)
Your mix got referenced in the article a couple of times Vincent 8) Yours is mix number 23 in Mike's website. Mine is 38 and get mentioned near the end, I couldn't find a reference to Argle's though. I think most of them get a mention at some point !
2. Mix tonality Misjudgments
" Example Mixes: There is a huge tonal range to the competition mixes, despite the band having provided a detailed list of commercial reference productions. Compare the HF crispiness of mix 43 with the stifled highs of mixes 35 or 58, for example, or line up the powerful low end of mix 32 with the slimline low frequencies in mixes 23 and 29. Mixes such as 19 and 43 have over-prominent mid-range, while others, such as 12 and 48, are recessed in that region. All that said, it's worth pointing out that even the mixes that feel most successful to me in this respect (mixes 04, 20, 31, 61 and 63, for instance) there is still a good degree of tonal variation -- every mix doesn't have to sound exactly the same to tick this particular box, and there's certainly some room for personal preference. "
6. The wrong Reverb
" Example Mixes: Mixes 17, 23 and 27 all have long reverb treatments that are rather too prominent in the balance, presumably in an attempt to gel the instruments and vocals together -- a task that's usually more successful carried out with shorter, ambience‑style patches. (The reverb tails are also quite bright in these three mixes, which only reinforces the sense that the effects are being artificially generated.) Mix 16, on the other hand, has the opposite problem, in that it's using too much short reverb to try to enhance instrument sustain and to create the illusion of a larger space. Here, a few longer delays or reverbs would have been more effective, allowing the blending treatment to assume a more natural‑sounding background role. Mixes 06, 10 and 23 also use too much reverb for me, and I think that stronger use of compression would have been a better alternative, not least in fattening the drums and keeping the mix as a whole clearer and more upfront."
9. Weak Payoffs
"Example Mixes: Managing the long‑term dynamics of this particular mix was probably the greatest challenge presented by the competition multitracks, the crux of the matter being that the middle section, with its strident additional guitar overdubs, tended to make the onset of the subsequent final chorus feel like something of a letdown -- as in mixes 21 and 64, for instance. Increasing the chorus vocal levels is the tactic taken by mixes 17 and 28, but this isn't actually that successful, as it makes the band sound rather small by comparison with the singer. Mixes 22 and 33 thicken the chorus texture using additional distortion and widening effects respectively, but fall slightly foul of harshness and mono incompatibility into the bargain. More successful, to my ears, are mixes such as 38 and 46, which seemed to deliberately restrain the middle‑section's guitars (so that the chorus can still trump them in some way) or those which surreptitiously inflate the final chorus with extra textural layers -- mixes 03, 07, or 20, for instance. There is also some excellent lateral‑thinking from mixes 20 (in its second version), 27, and 58, all of which use edited‑together arrangement drops as a means of partially side‑stepping the whole issue."
-
Interesting to read CD.
-----------------------------
Ive read a couple of mixing books since then and have improved drastically since I did mix for that competition.
------------------
What I also learned is that the person or people picking winning mixes dont always get irt right either...sometimes I see mixes that shouldnt be in the top few mixes so it makes me wonder how much the peron judging actually knows as well.
Not really talking about Mike Seinor however more so on a few other competitions i was involved in...I could see why a few of the top mixes were picked however Im left scratching my head at some of the choices for top mixes though...some are just not that good...so I cant take one persons word for what sounds good anymore...im not sure if the judges know whats good sometimes.
Not talikng about Mike though...he seems to know what hes talking about.
-
Ive read a couple of mixing books since then and have improved drastically since I did mix for that competition.
Did you read Mike's ? It's very good. Gives you a whole solid structure to work through from top to bottom. i must confess there's things in there that I didn't really bother with in every mix and just kinda of threw them together a little hap-hazardly. Hopefully I can get everything to sound consistantly good following the structure so I don't 'miss' anything.
That competition was the last mix I did before I shipped all my gear into storage but I read the book to pass the time and will read it again when I have my new studio set up at the next house. Persoanlly having seen Charles Dyes 'Mix It Like a Record' which cost $100 and read Mike's ' Mixing Secrets For the Small Studio ' for $26 I feel like asking Mr Dye for a refund, the much cheaper book is far more informative.
CD
-
As for EQ: I often have multiple EQs in the mastering chain (before and after the compressors), and I seldom get along with just one or two compressors. Which compressor(s) I use also depends heavily on the song and on the mix.
I don't use EQ for mastering. Seems to me if you have an EQ problem it's better to address it in the mix. In fact, I don't really do any "mastering" of any kind, other than a limiter for volume increase.
-
LCR panning is another poor practice (again IMO, of course). I listened to a couple of songs at work today, and some of them were mixed that way. They sound really strange and unpleasant on head phones. I would not recommend doing that at all. Your mileage may vary.
I first used L-C-R on one of Doc's songs "Oh No" , and a number of other songs after - quite interesting to try and I think it has fairly solid technical reasons why people use it. I used Haas delays to pan opposite the hard panned instruments.
Be interesting to know if you find the same unpleasantness on headphones as the other.
When I get set up again I'm getting mono speaker to mix on as well as the main monitors, see if I can take my results up a notch ;D
CD
Mix is here.. http://www.musicianscollaboration.com/forum/index.php?topic=6636.0
-
As for EQ: I often have multiple EQs in the mastering chain (before and after the compressors), and I seldom get along with just one or two compressors. Which compressor(s) I use also depends heavily on the song and on the mix.
I don't use EQ for mastering. Seems to me if you have an EQ problem it's better to address it in the mix. In fact, I don't really do any "mastering" of any kind, other than a limiter for volume increase.
Except when you're trying to get 10 songs to sound like they belong together on a CD...That's when mastering eq comes in handy 8)
CD
-
I agree about the "Mix It Like A Record" video...its good for beginners...it gets you starting.
For intermediate and above mixers (Like most of us) it didnt offer much.
Knowing all the plugins he was using in video is priceless though...definately worth $100 to find out what plugs these guys are using.
Good plugs=good/better mixes...thats the truth.
Also having song tracked in studio with nice gear and unlimited top of line plugs makes mixing much easier...I think a lot of us could do a nice job if we had the tools to do it.
8)
-
Good plugs=good/better mixes...thats the truth.
Not necessarily, I've heard plenty of poor mixes done with expensive plugins and great mixes by folks who only use the plugins that come with the DAW. Plugins aren't usually the weakest link in the chain because there's so much good free stuff out there now you don't have to use nasty sounding plugs. ( Mike often does the Mix Rescue with mostly free or cheap plugins if you read it regularly )
Also having song tracked in studio with nice gear and unlimited top of line plugs makes mixing much easier...I think a lot of us could do a nice job if we had the tools to do it.
For tracking it could make a big difference having all the nice mics & preamps to record with , but for mixing the main benefit would be the quality of the acoustics more than the plugins or monitors.
CD
-
There are definately some good free plugs out there...I use them myself.
Im thinking about getting a UAD card though...I want to try those plugins...LA2A and the fairchild 670 ect.
I cant seem to find any free plugins for LA2A and other plugins like that...I searched with no luck yet.
EDIT:...just downloaded Optron 3A free plugin from phoenixflight site...opto-electric design
similar to that found in hardware devices like LA-2A or LA-3A.
http://phoenixinflightaudio.blogspot.com/
-
I cant seem to find any free plugins for LA2A and other plugins like that...I searched with no luck yet.
Not tried them , but give these a go - the Antress Modern plugins have alot of fans
http://www.untidymusic.com/wordpress/vst-plugins/free-limiter-fx/free-vst-plugin-leveling-amplifier-limiter/
http://www.dancetech.com/item.cfm?threadid=4130&lang=0
( BTW I have the focusrite Liquidmix with all the eq & compressor plugs you could want and no CPU load , pretty great value if you get the Liquidmix16 ...Don'tt know how it compares to the UAD)
CD
-
Thanks...I will check those out.
I think I may have tried those plugins years ago however my old computer couldnt handle the CPU...time to download and try them again.
-
Here's a totally moronic question from a total moron. ::)
What's the difference between mixing and mastering?
-
Masteing is making the song CD or album ready
Basically taking the mix and trying to get it up to commercial Album/CD standards.
From what Im reading "Real" mastering is pretty technical however they probably have software programs to do most of the tech side of it...Im guessing they do.
Programs like sequia and the like.
http://www.magix.com/us/sequoia/
-
John, mixing and mastering are two different tasks usually done by two different people in the "real world".
Basically (pre-)mastering means taking a mix and making it sound consistent and "loud" using sum compression and equalization (and some more detailed techniques, if necessary). The plain mix should usually not have any sum procession at all and thus have a large range of dynamics (i.e. the difference between the lowest and the highest volume peaks throughout the song should not be too small on average). So the mix will sound rather low in terms of volume and loudness.
Compressing the material will decrease that dynamic range, making the mix sound tighter and denser. Since compression also reduces the volume, the compressed material is then brought back to the original peak volume, but the result will sound louder than the original mix since the density is more consistent.
There is much more to mastering, but that's the basic goal of pre-mastering a song.
The whole mastering task though is not just dealing with one separated song but with a whole album, so mastering also includes bringing the songs in a decent order that "works", and adjusting all the songs to a consistent level.
Mastering an album without an EQ would be impossible because if the songs on an album have completely different frequency response characteristics the album would not sound coherent.
Anyway, for us hobby guys mastering usually just means sum compression to make the song competitive in terms of loudness and punchiness.
Regards,
Steffen
-
Some of the Antress freebies are quite nice. Not comparable with pro plugins IMO - or even with the hardware they intend to mimic, but definitely worth trying. Lost Angel can be nice on vocals, e.g. - but it always depends on your song material, of course.
Regards,
Steffen
-
Good plugs=good/better mixes...thats the truth.
I have to disagree here. IMO it's best to learn with the on-board tools of a DAW and not start looking for "better" tools before you are able to get a decent mix using that gear.
In general I'd even say better (= more complicated) plugins often decrease the quality of a newbie's mix as they don't know how to handle it. This especially holds for tools like compressors/limiters or reverbs.
Once you know what all the parameters mean and how they work, it is, of course, desirable to get higher quality tools. But you don't learn how to drive a car on a Ferrari. ;)
Also having song tracked in studio with nice gear and unlimited top of line plugs makes mixing much easier...I think a lot of us could do a nice job if we had the tools to do it.
Again, this is not true for most hobby mixers IMO. Most will be swamped by the arsenal of tools and not know how to use them correctly.
But I agree that it would be nice to have the possibilities - us boys always want new toys. :)
Regards,
Steffen
-
For tracking it could make a big difference having all the nice mics & preamps to record with , but for mixing the main benefit would be the quality of the acoustics more than the plugins or monitors.
CD
+1
Most mixes done by home-recorders here or elsewhere (and that includes mine) suffer from room acoustics that are not optimal.
Regards,
Steffen
-
I first used L-C-R on one of Doc's songs "Oh No" , and a number of other songs after - quite interesting to try and I think it has fairly solid technical reasons why people use it. I used Haas delays to pan opposite the hard panned instruments.
Be interesting to know if you find the same unpleasantness on headphones as the other.
I'll give it a listen on head phones later and get back to you. But I must say that I have never heard a LCR-panned mix that I liked. It sounds too unnatural to my ears when there are only three distinct sound sources.
I usually listen with in-ear buds that lock out most of the environmental noise, so you really just hear the song.
One song I recently listened to that used LCR panning was "Jailbird" by "Primal Scream". It says "original mix" on that CD, so there may be several different mixes available. That extreme panning really stresses my ears (or my brain?) too much - even when I listen on normal speakers.
Which is a pity as the song itself is nice. But I just cannot listen to it.
Regards,
Steffen
-
I'll give it a listen on head phones later and get back to you. But I must say that I have never heard a LCR-panned mix that I liked. It sounds too unnatural to my ears when there are only three distinct sound sources.
Yep, same holds for that song. I just listened, and I don't like it at all that way. The production is great otherwise, but those holes confuse my old brain too much. Probably a simple matter of taste and custom. I guess I'll never like the modern way of mixing anyway (dry, agressive, over-compressed). I'm a dinosaur. ;)
Regards,
Steffen
-
Here's a totally moronic question from a total moron. ::)
What's the difference between mixing and mastering?
Mastering engineers were originally there to prevent problems when music got pressed to vinyl. If you had any bass notes that were too sub-sonic it could cause the needle to literally jump out of the groove. This becomes more likely as you get nearer the centre of the record because the grooves are closer together and the dividing walls thinner.
Today they ensure album makes sense tonally and in terms of level and also running order.
From what Im reading "Real" mastering is pretty technical however they probably have software programs to do most of the tech side of it...Im guessing they do.
Programs like sequia and the like.
Vincent - the software that Jon Astley ( http://www.closetotheedge.biz/about.htm ) used when we attended the mastering session for the Cool Beyond Zero album was Sadie , but that really wasn't the most technical bit. It was more or less used as a tape recorder and no more involved than any DAW I've ever used. He also used some of the same Waves & Sonnox plugins I have myself.
Most of the 'magic' came from the analogue stuff he routed the songs through and his experienced ears just honing in on problems right away.
For those that never saw the original thread there's a full account of what happened on that mastering day here which is probably a typical days work for a Mastering Engineer:
http://www.musicianscollaboration.com/forum/index.php?topic=7466.0
I think the divide between mixing and mastering in hobbiest music has become somewhat blurred, as alot of folks will compress/limit/eq a song afterwards but I would always keep a version without any of that processing on too because we had trouble with some of the CBZ songs where Marc the bass player had mixed them with these things in place and we couldn't undo them, so it ended up being somewhat compromised.
CD
-
One song I recently listened to that used LCR panning was "Jailbird" by "Primal Scream". It says "original mix" on that CD, so there may be several different mixes available. That extreme panning really stresses my ears (or my brain?) too much - even when I listen on normal speakers.
Which is a pity as the song itself is nice. But I just cannot listen to it.
Great song, I really like it. I think the general production of that era is more in line with my own taste than anything from the past few years. Not too dry like you said.
I just had a listen on my headphones ( Spotify is great for this if you never used it ) , it is more extreme on this song for sure. I don't find it uncomfortable though. Maybe it's all those Beatles records I listened to as a kid with half the song panned one way and half the other ;D
It doesn't sound like they made any attempt to 'fill' the spaces between the L-C-R positions , which is what I tried to do with the delays and reverbs on Doc's track.
You could always make it mono :D
CD
-
Well...everyone has their own opinion I guess.
For me
Better gear (guitars,amps,preamps,mics ect recorded in studio) and better plugins or outboard gear to mix with = better mixes.
Its obvious for me.
-------------------
From what im reading over at gearsluts...the Antress plugs are pretty much junk...That was my feeling on them as well...they look good but sound bad.
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/176940-antress-free-modern-plugins.html
-
Better gear (guitars,amps,preamps,mics ect recorded in studio) and better plugins or outboard gear to mix with = better mixes.
Its obvious for me.
I'm reminded about something that bugs my wife...she's spent the last couple of years learning more about photography..........
It usually goes something like this:-
" Wow....that's a really nice photo "
" Why thankyou "
" What camera did you use to make it come out so good "
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o
CD
-
From what im reading over at gearsluts...the Antress plugs are pretty much junk...That was my feeling on them as well...they look good but sound bad.
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/176940-antress-free-modern-plugins.html
Did you read the whole thread ? ....just as many people liking them as not...I've never tried them but read good things in SOS.
Did you watch any of these vids ? http://www.audiofreebie.com/2010/01/antress-vs-uad/
The GREAT thing about the Liquidmix is it just has one uniform interface, so you don't get seduced because the GUI 'looks' like a classic bit of gear. You just have to use your ears to decide if compressor X really sounds better than compressor Y on your track.
CD
-
I'm not sure how much of this discussion I agree with. I have mixed alot of tunes. Some really well, most only better than average. I have my work flow.
I always start with a fader mix to get an idea of what I have to work with.
I tend to start with drums. EQ and comp so they are solid.
Then bass, guitars, keys and then vocals to sit on top. I want to hear every word sung. Of course I build my fx as I work on each group. I treat the fx as part of the instument.
Panning, depth (delay) and eq help with the placement.
I also like a little compression on the master buss. Acts as glue and also won't deliver as many surprises in the mastering phase.
Good discussion.
Nick
-
I have my work flow.
Nick
I plan alot more strict with my workflow when I get back to mixing , I have a tendency to hear something that I simply have to attack before everything else which probably isn't the best way ;D
CC
-
I will do that too. Nothing wrong with that. But I really like to get a working mix of the rhythm section before I start noodling about.
8)
I have my work flow.
Nick
I plan alot more strict with my workflow when I get back to mixing , I have a tendency to hear something that I simply have to attack before everything else which probably isn't the best way ;D
CC
-
Better gear (guitars,amps,preamps,mics ect recorded in studio) and better plugins or outboard gear to mix with = better mixes.
Its obvious for me.
I'm reminded about something that bugs my wife...she's spent the last couple of years learning more about photography..........
It usually goes something like this:-
" Wow....that's a really nice photo "
" Why thankyou "
" What camera did you use to make it come out so good "
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o
CD
I hear what your saying...even with not so great gear you can still do a decent job...which is true....I guess my point is imagine how much better it could be using the best of the best.
My brother is good at taking photos as well...he has a natural gift for it...a steady hand...When I take pictures they always look blurry like im suffering from parkinsons or something.
-
As for mixing...if possible (If I have all the stems)
I will mix bass,drums and vocals first...then add guitar keys and filler.
I think its good to bring vocals into the mix as soon as possible since its the star of the show in most cases.
-
I hear what your saying...even with not so great gear you can still do a decent job
;D ;D ;D :D ::)
No No No, you missed my point :P
A great photographer will take great photos with any camera. A basic photographer ( like me & you ) will still produce basic photos with a great camera. But with more pixels.
It's not about the camera ( or studio) It's how you use it. Better gear does not = better results. My wife's most succesful photo which has sold on stock photo sites and won 2 prizes in photography contests was taken on a camera that cost a fifth of the one she has now.
CD
CD
-
Ok, here´s my list of mixing info websites.
I signed in for their email service and really appreciate and learn a lot of it!!!
http://www.homestudiocorner.com/ >>>>> sends emails on a daily basis for free with funny hints, tips and tricks
http://therecordingrevolution.com/ >>>>> check out his video series 5 minutes to a better mix
http://www.pensadosplace.tv/category/into-the-lair/
-
Ok, here´s my list of mixing info websites.
I signed in for their email service and really appreciate and learn a lot of it!!!
http://www.homestudiocorner.com/ >>>>> sends emails on a daily basis for free with funny hints, tips and tricks
http://therecordingrevolution.com/ >>>>> check out his video series 5 minutes to a better mix
http://www.pensadosplace.tv/category/into-the-lair/
Did you read the 'Mixing secrets for the Small studio' book ?
I think that's the best book I read about mixing because it explains everything you need to do before you even start the mix, and all the workarounds for a home studio that can cripple you before you even start.
CD
-
How you finding it Paulo ?
-
I'm reading that book
-
How you finding it Paulo ?
I like it, so far... read about a quarter of it... like you said it goes into interesting details that might be boring but makes big difference in compreending the whole
-
How you finding it Paulo ?
I like it, so far... read about a quarter of it... like you said it goes into interesting details that might be boring but makes big difference in compreending the whole
I know...I think most people tend to like to jump in and start twiddling stuff...but there's a world of stuff to sort before you get tp that point.
CD
-
How you finding it Paulo ?
I like it, so far... read about a quarter of it... like you said it goes into interesting details that might be boring but makes big difference in compreending the whole
I know...I think most people tend to like to jump in and start twiddling stuff...but there's a world of stuff to sort before you get tp that point.
CD
Absolutely
-
How you finding it Paulo ?
I like it, so far... read about a quarter of it... like you said it goes into interesting details that might be boring but makes big difference in compreending the whole
I know...I think most people tend to like to jump in and start twiddling stuff...but there's a world of stuff to sort before you get tp that point.
CD
Absolutely
And you're right it is a bit boring ...that's why the Big Guys have assistants that do all that for them first :o
-
Did you read the 'Mixing secrets for the Small studio' book ?
Yes! We´ve been talking about it last year when I remember right ;)
It is or it may be the basic literature and covers almost everything important.
The quoted www sites just go "on top" of all them basics :)
-
Watching this 5 minutes to a better mix series is almost a live version of the Mixing secrets book ;)
You find lot´s of things that are covered in the book and the vids :)
-
Watching this 5 minutes to a better mix series is almost a live version of the Mixing secrets book ;)
You find lot´s of things that are covered in the book and the vids :)
I will take a look when I get chance ....you shuold book a day to work with Mike Senior...you can pay to sit with him while he mixes....ask questions etc....he lives in Germany.
I learned more about the mastering process in the 4.5 hours I spent with Jon Astley watching him master the CBZ Album than hours of watching and reading stuff.
CD
-
The 5 minutes series is for - more or less - absolute beginners, but Graham does a good job.
Mike Senior knows his stuff, and his book is very good. I don't like his mixing (we have VERY different ideas of good or adequate sound), but I would still agree with Mark: If you get a chance to do a mix with him (or watch him do one), take it! That holds for any other mixing engineer too, of course.
Regards,
Steffen
-
you shuold book a day to work with Mike Senior...you can pay to sit with him while he mixes....ask questions etc....he lives in Germany.
He lives in Munich. I would not call that Germany.
... just kidding. ;) :D
Regards,
Steffen
-
thanks Doc!
-
As a "wanna be", I'm always watching so, thank you all for great tips...
... I believe there's a few common things and the rest is personal taste...
... Been thinking of some coherense on the overall sound of the pros and, I think that this is written somewhere but I never read it...
... I thought - "Damn, those guys are behind a hot desk wether it's a Neve, SSL, API, Sonnox, whatever, so there's a common tone"...
... Lately I've been trying to emulate one kind of desk in all of the channels, with the exact same comps and eqs from the SSL desks in all channels...
... Oh!!! I don't think that I'm a great mixer but my mixes are sounding more coherent to my ears only by doing this...
... There's some more stuff going on but, the basic sound that I'm starting to recognize comes from the same pair of comp and eq.
-
... Lately I've been trying to emulate one kind of desk in all of the channels, with the exact same comps and eqs from the SSL desks in all channels...
... Oh!!! I don't think that I'm a great mixer but my mixes are sounding more coherent to my ears only by doing this...
... There's some more stuff going on but, the basic sound that I'm starting to recognize comes from the same pair of comp and eq.
Yeah, that´s my starting point as well (opposed to what I did in the past just tweaking presets ;D).
I start with the SSL plugin on my channels - most of them - and try to dial in the sound I like by substracting EQ moves as opposed to adding frequencies.
I also have all my tracks set to -8db to have enough headroom in case of adding stuff.
-
... Lately I've been trying to emulate one kind of desk in all of the channels, with the exact same comps and eqs from the SSL desks in all channels...
... Oh!!! I don't think that I'm a great mixer but my mixes are sounding more coherent to my ears only by doing this...
... There's some more stuff going on but, the basic sound that I'm starting to recognize comes from the same pair of comp and eq.
Yeah, that´s my starting point as well (opposed to what I did in the past just tweaking presets ;D).
I start with the SSL plugin on my channels - most of them - and try to dial in the sound I like by substracting EQ moves as opposed to adding frequencies.
I also have all my tracks set to -8db to have enough headroom in case of adding stuff.
2 of us thinking the same, can't be bad
-
I don't bother , but sometimes I try it on certain tracks and it works...others not so much >:D
I do quite like Waves NLS on the 2 buss though
CD