Possible Stupid Question Regarding Mix Levels

I'm trying to follow the topic, but he is being fed so much advice that can only be taken on board by doing it. He's looking at a Cubase screen that isn't that helpful - one minute he's fed advice from one person that is perfectly valid, but relates to their preferred system, then somebody else advises an alternative as their standard - and he's not made much progress from post one. My point being that the software is much better than a real mixer at managing channels too low v master too high OR channels too high and master too low. Getting it wrong produces distortion or noise - and you need to get a handle on that, rather than following some elusive number on a display. The two most important controls on a mixer are the output levels to track/recorder and the output level to your monitors.

I'd suggest that mastering is a long way away yet - as in presenting a finished mix to the mastering process. Surely, maximising the capabilities of a complete system need to be sorted first.

Bouldersound - instead of taking yet another pointless pop at me for at least trying, I suggest you go back yourself and see how many different methods he's been advised to do - he understandably picks up on some, but is still confused, and I think basics are being missed and he's being advised to jump straight to the hard stuff.

Knowing your equipment, and it's limits are really important - NOT blindly following advice that has to assume so much. Seeing a meter sitting at a certain level is NOT a Holy Grail, if it sounds worse than it could.

Recoding is not like guitar tab - where you do exactly what the books says and it will sound great (or not).
 
I'm trying to follow the topic, but he is being fed so much advice that can only be taken on board by doing it. He's looking at a Cubase screen that isn't that helpful - one minute he's fed advice from one person that is perfectly valid, but relates to their preferred system, then somebody else advises an alternative as their standard - and he's not made much progress from post one. My point being that the software is much better than a real mixer at managing channels too low v master too high OR channels too high and master too low. Getting it wrong produces distortion or noise - and you need to get a handle on that, rather than following some elusive number on a display. The two most important controls on a mixer are the output levels to track/recorder and the output level to your monitors.

I'd suggest that mastering is a long way away yet - as in presenting a finished mix to the mastering process. Surely, maximising the capabilities of a complete system need to be sorted first.

Bouldersound - instead of taking yet another pointless pop at me for at least trying, I suggest you go back yourself and see how many different methods he's been advised to do - he understandably picks up on some, but is still confused, and I think basics are being missed and he's being advised to jump straight to the hard stuff.

Knowing your equipment, and it's limits are really important - NOT blindly following advice that has to assume so much. Seeing a meter sitting at a certain level is NOT a Holy Grail, if it sounds worse than it could.

Recoding is not like guitar tab - where you do exactly what the books says and it will sound great (or not).

I think that's all valid, actually.
I bought some books to teach myself so I don't have to keep asking questions about the things that aren't entirely clicking. Most of it is clicking, though. The thread's been a big help. I realize people are saying to do things different ways. I'm a "why" person (i.e. need to understand why it works the way it does to really understand), and I think I'd need a book (or really patient people who want to teach) to get those answers. The thread has been super useful, though.
 
I think that's all valid, actually.
I bought some books to teach myself so I don't have to keep asking questions about the things that aren't entirely clicking.
What isn't clicking?
One thing that confuses people is getting the 'rules' of one part of the process mixed up with another part of the process.

For example, you don't want to get your levels anywhere near 0dbfs when you are tracking, but you do want to during mastering.

There are three separate processes
1. recording
2. mixing
3. mastering

During recording, you want your signal to be as close to line level as possible. This is because the mic preamps and all the other gear on the analog side of things is designed to work the best at that level. That is where the signal to noise ratio and distortion levels are at their optimum. This generally equates to an RMS level around -18dbfs on your digital meters, or about half way up the meter.

Once something is recorded digitally, you really don't have to worry about signal to noise ratio anymore. It will always be what it was when the tracks were recorded.

During mixing, you will be glad that you recorded at those levels because it gives you the headroom for the tracks to be summed together and for EQing and other processing. As long as the output doesn't clip, the actual levels of the mix really doesn't matter.

During mastering, you are taking the rendered mix and optimizing it for playback. It is nice if the mix still had some headroom for EQing and such, but the reality is that you are going to turn up the volume until it hits 0dbfs. If it is still not loud enough, you will use a limiter to get rid of the peaks that are preventing the volume you want to achieve. As you lower the threshold of the limiter, it might cause the balance of frequencies to change, which will need to be corrected at the EQ...

If you keep these three processes separate and don't worry much about anything but what you are doing in the moment, you should be good to go.
 
What isn't clicking?

It's hard to say exactly. I think it's just the nature of trying to self-teach without any background in electronics and such. I just feel overwhelmed trying to record, mix, and master all my own material, and learn all the technical details of each.

Then when I use something like a compressor, I honestly can't even hear it working unless it's on extremes. So I wonder what the point is sometimes. And if something is audibly louder, and I just automate or pull a fader instead of using a compressor? At least that I can hear. But it's not just that. Gain staging, the mic patterns, phase issues, etc. I'm trying to take it all in. In this thread I was only talking about mixing, but I have some others out there, and I realized for recording on my 244 I wasn't even using the right cable (it was unbalanced. doh). Just stupid things like that from having no formal or structured training. It becomes overwhelming trying to piece everything together. But, I'm starting to get a lot of it finally. It's just a lot... I guess many people learn from someone growing up or go to school for it?

Anyway, thanks. I appreciate it. This thread just opened up a lot of other questions.
 
Compressors are tricky things. They don't really do what you think they do, or at least not the way you imagine it from the description. Yes, they do ride the volume to a certain extent, but they are better at manipulating the envelope of a sound. They can effectively change the apparent length of a snare drum, for example. They also add more weight to vocals.

I really don't use compressors to deal with volume issues, I use them to get the sound of compression.

Phase issues can only happen when you are using multiple mics on the same instrument (or when multiple mics are picking up the same instrument) If you are only using one mic at a time, you won't have phase issues.

More than likely, all the mics you have a cardioid. Point them at the sound you want to record.
 
Compressors are tricky things. They don't really do what you think they do, or at least not the way you imagine it from the description. Yes, they do ride the volume to a certain extent, but they are better at manipulating the envelope of a sound. They can effectively change the apparent length of a snare drum, for example. They also add more weight to vocals.

I really don't use compressors to deal with volume issues, I use them to get the sound of compression.

Phase issues can only happen when you are using multiple mics on the same instrument (or when multiple mics are picking up the same instrument) If you are only using one mic at a time, you won't have phase issues.

More than likely, all the mics you have a cardioid. Point them at the sound you want to record.

Thanks again, especially regarding compression. It's hard for me to even hear it change the envelope. Maybe I just don't have great ears? I have great hearing, but maybe I just can't make out subtleties.

Regarding microphones, I have two ribbons that are figure 8, and two omnis (one condenser, one really old hi-z, blues harp dynamic -- I love this mic for distorted vocals). The rest are cardiod (3 condensers, 1 dynamic). I went through the learning curve on those months ago. I think I basically know how to use them, but if I'm going to use more than one I have to look up online how to set them up. So even that is pretty difficult. I have been recording for years, but my old philosophy was "turn on the machine and hit record". I'm actually trying to learn how to make more technical recordings now. It is quite a learning curve. The re-mix in my original post is a recording from 18 years ago. I'm doing it for fun and as a favor to the old bandmates. The studio engineer was absolute crap, because I made a better mix in a few hours knowing very little.

I'm way more into songwriting. This other side of music is so foreign.
 
You just don't know what you are listening for with the compression, that's all.

Phase problems are caused by distance. If one mic is further away than the other one, there is a timing difference between the sound in the two mics. That's what causes the phase problems.

As long as the sound in one mic is at least 9db lower than the other, you won't have any.problems.

Otherwise, you need to line the mics up so they are both the.same distance from the source.
 
You just don't know what you are listening for with the compression, that's all.

Phase problems are caused by distance. If one mic is further away than the other one, there is a timing difference between the sound in the two mics. That's what causes the phase problems.

As long as the sound in one mic is at least 9db lower than the other, you won't have any.problems.

Otherwise, you need to line the mics up so they are both the.same distance from the source.

I bought a book about mixing, and in it he says that you can have phase problems with one mic from a reverberant wall.

You are exactly right: I don't know what I am listening for with compression. In my mind it levels volume, but in the book he mentions it can be used for that, but usually in conjunction with fader automation and also more for shaping tone. I don't hear it do anything to tone except maybe make it duller. It could be my ears are just not good or sensitive to it, or it could be I need more time to learn how to hear. We'll see! I do notice the more I work on this mix the more I hear subtle differences, but with compression i have to set it pretty extreme to hear it work at all.
 
Well, I would say you may not be using the right compressor for the particular task. Or the sounds you are using them on are not right to begin with.

I had to let out a sigh just now....


See, it isn't about creating tone with plugins (eq, effects or especially compression), it is more about fitting each instrument into a full mix. The recorded sounds have to be right before you apply these effects before you will realize what they will do for you in the final result.

Meaning; there is no real reason to compress or eq any instrument just because it is something that is typically used. It is a 'by desire/best for' kind of thing.

There is no right or wrong but there are some basic guidelines as to what typically works. If you are frustrated and not hearing what things do, then you may have an issue with the two most important parts: Player and tone of the instrument being recorded.

There are many other things that contribute to the best recording you can achieve, but if the original recording does not already sound good, then it is a fight to fix it. The best sounding recordings do not start with a poor sound. Nor do they need much help with plugins.

That being said, a little bit of some and a lot of others tends to sculpt each instrument to work in any particular mix.


I'm going to sleep now. It been a really long day...
 
Phase problems with one mic are actually cancellation in the room. But you would hear that as you record it. This really only happens when you are really close to a wall or dead center in a room. (Or if your room is worse than most bedrooms) That is not a terribly common thing to have to.worry about When close mixing something.

Yes compression can make something sound duller, but as it is doing that, it also adds thickness and makes it more in your face. On vocals, it can bring up the breaths and make it sit on top of the song, without it necessarily being louder than anything else.

Also, if you are judging the Compression on a soloed instrument, you are missing how it affects the mix. Something that sounds too compressed by itself can sound perfect in a mix.

Things like distorted guitars are already compressed naturally. Putting a compressor on them Won't do much a lot of the time.
 
Thanks guys, that helps. Between the forum and the book I'm starting to get it more.

I'm a photographer for 15 years or so, and since I understand that well, I try to find similarities...I'd view audio compression almost like a telephoto lens. With photography, it makes things a bit "duller" (2d/flat) but serves a purpose (distance, or the flatness can be used for effect). A lot of people can't see visual compression of a telephoto, but photographers who've done it for years can spot it easily and know when to use it. My guess is that will happen more as I work on this mix. I can already feel my ears honing in better. One thing I have to fight is the urge to compress just because I read/hear it should be used on a certain instrument (e.g. voice). I recorded my vocal and then used compression vs fader riding, and I actually liked the fader ride more. I also tend to like putting the vocal slightly lower since I'm a so so singer (think lou reed, ira kaplan, stephen malkmus, etc), and don't necessarily want to highlight it up front all the time. A band I really like who constantly buries their vocals is Polvo. Also my bloody valentine and dinosaur jr were huge influences on me, and they have fairly low vocals. Anyway, I am rambling, but I think the big lesson I learned in the past day is to reach for the compression as a last resort when the other things I do like don't work, and thinking of it in terms of visual arts that I already understand helps me, even if the analogy isn't exact.
 
Something you might want to try is going on youtube and find isolated tracks from classic songs. It's eye opening to hear what the individual instruments sound like by themselves. These things are ripped from guitar hero and rock band, so there are tons of these things out there. It might help.
 
Something you might want to try is going on youtube and find isolated tracks from classic songs. It's eye opening to hear what the individual instruments sound like by themselves. These things are ripped from guitar hero and rock band, so there are tons of these things out there. It might help.

This is really a great suggestion. What you will learn is hard to describe.
 
Phase problems with one mic are actually cancellation in the room. But you would hear that as you record it. This really only happens when you are really close to a wall or dead center in a room. (Or if your room is worse than most bedrooms) That is not a terribly common thing to have to.worry about When close mixing something.
It can also happen when you mic something that is very close to the floor - like a speaker on a combo amp. It's a good idea to put them up on something (that doesn't rattle or resonate) or at least kick them back at an angle.

Also when you have a mic very close to a hard ceiling - like drum overheads in a low-ceiling basement. In fact, this is probably the most common instance of single-mic phasiness. That hollow, washy cymbal sound. A "cloud" over the kit can help there, as can actually just putting the mic as close as possible to the ceiling.

Like you said though you'll hopefully hear this at tracking and fix it there. If you don't, there's very little to be done at mix time.
 
I did this too .... And also with 4 track cassette-tape from a Fostex. Still got all the reels from an old Tandberg reel2reel.

I use cubase too and Cubase HAS A TRIM CONTROL above the fader. This is 'on top of the chain' so to speak, so it diminishes your input level. If you say 6 ["they go as high as 6"] and mean 6 db, that is really HOT!
So you can enter a value into the little box, lets say : -9 or -12 for some extra headroom.

This applies to the trackchannel but ALSO to the masterfader channel.
So counting all the tracks and its still too hot? put a -6 into the little Trimbox on the masterfader. It works like a charm.

Cubase, if you click right on the masterfader has an option to see the INPUTLEVELS. [meter-display]
you can toggle that on and off. So now you are aware how much the level is of all the tracks coming in to your masterbuss.

You can also use a meter on the first insertslot of your masterbuss. Like the famous TT-meter or something else like FreeG [vst]
So you can have the input on the TT-meter and the output [on the CubaseMasterfaderDuisplay] together.

So trimcontrol and meters to keep an eye on things. What more do you need :-) lol, Good luck!
 
Back
Top