Three very big questions about mixing .....that have taken my life ...

Ya, less is more. You will find that in Arranger's Guide : ) Time to pull out those Mills Bros. albums
 

Attachments

  • mills_bros.jpg
    mills_bros.jpg
    42.4 KB · Views: 251
you have a song and after the mix you feel instruments are not sounding distinct as distinct as they sound when soloed (in best mixed songs I observe that even when all instruments are playing it feels every instrument is distinct ), and beat doesn't sound as punchy as it sounds when soloed what would be the first thing that would come to your mind about the problem

That I need to hear it first. Could be anything from musical issues with the arrangement or EQ or distortion creeping in somewhere or overuse of compression etc.
 
Thank you everyone , that's so kind that you gave so much time .. by secrets I did not really mean one recipe, all I meant was the approach or mindset or workflow that some of you have developed that are may be unusual and definitely lines that I might not be thinking on.... I think trial and error after good education is the only way I will continue doing that ...thank you ....
 
Too much of a good (?) thing.

1) MUDDY SOUND - I do everything that can be done to broaden the sound , compress, eq , cut lows, dip muddy freq , choose best of sounds while programming , use very little but best plugins , YET when I compare my sound with others, neither it sounds as powerful nor as sharp at mixing stage ..... this power all I can think of achieving might be by increasing loudness... and sharpness by increasing the high frequencies in mastering .....what do you all think how can it be achieved .....?

2) NOT SO MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MIXING AND MASTERING :Teachers say you should be quite close to the final mastered sound at the final mix stage , and not wait for mastering to make it sound good .....as far as I am concerned , my final mixes are nowhere close to those professional mastered reference tracks..... mine seem far unclear and muddy in the final bounced mix....is this the difference of hardwares in professional studios and limited softwares in home studios..?....or truly all magic happens in mastering and I am bad at it may be ? your views plz

3)ALL VSTS HAVE PROCESSED SAMPLES NOW A DAYS ..... and sometimes mixing engineers expect you to get untreated uncompressed dry sound ....does that mean you all programmers remove all effects (compression , reverb, delay etc)of the plugin and then record the sound ?, but you would not have chosen that sound had it been so dry .....so do you all remove all effects before giving for mixing ? is it unprofessional to give sounds with effects to the mixing engineer...?...but sometimes there are no options to remove certain effects that you can hear in the vst.... What do you do ?

Plz help ,thanks.

Don't depend so much on plug-ins. Try recording and mixing without them, and then only use what you really think you need (and always save a copy of your original, as insurance).
 
As you are building a track you should also be building your mix. Here is the thing, when you say you are choosing the "best" sounds that is measured how? By how they sound by themselves? Here are some simple but common examples. You ever hear that old school clink on a Fender guitar? Like a snare hit? By itself
t is not a "best" sound. If you were to play that out of context, and want it to sound good on its own, you would calm down the bite, and make it full range by incorporating more lower mid into the sound. Which of course is completely wrong for the part and what role it plays. If you were to hear what a kick drum sounds like soloed from a pro mixer without understanding the rationale and intended placement, you would probably barf. How something sounds like in free space is completely irrelevant, what is important is how it sounds contextually while it competes and interacts with its fellow signals. Do you know why if you check out, say, Chris Lord Alge's presets in Waves that everything sounds way overbright at times? It is because low mid and below starts compounding and combining to eat up available headroom. That is why the pro mixer sounds more powerful, the mix is not being hamstrung by too much low end content. Get very familiar with high pass filtering and low shelving, and experiment with what parrts of a signal you can lose without any impact on how the track works contextually in a mix. Another thing to try if it just sounds wrong is to augment your monitors with some kind of sub woofer, or additional support for low end content such as an EQ boost. Now you hear the low end that you expect, but it is only in playback and not to the actual mix. It is very hard to unlearn how you like to hear your music, the typical V-shaped smile that is the natural tendency when you start experimenting with system EQ sounds good. But it completely distorts your view of mixing, and listening to unenhanced tracks and learning to appreciate the sound of music without the loudness button engaged, etc. is just part of the process of ear training and is not an overnight voila omigod Watson i think I've got it kind of thing.....jjj666
 
A few simple things I learned here that were foundational:

a) Tracks may sound good alone (solo), but when in a mix, they have to find their place. Use LPF/HPF's or some EQ to give each part of the frequency spectrum, and reduce overlaps This is a big part of how you can "hear" lots of individual parts in a very pro mix. You may need to use automation to control this if you have parts where an instrument or vocal is solo (i.e. acoustic guitar alone in an intro needs entire freq spectrum, but once bass and stuff kicks in, it typically needs to be squeezed into the 250/300hz->6k range (and I often will cut it at 1k when lots of other competition).

b) be aware of compounding frequencies, especially low frequencies. Use HPF's to cut lows out of tracks that don't need them (I sometimes only let my kick and bass go below 40hz). I learned that buildup of lows, even un-audible lows, can cause your track to peak and make the mix unable to get louder.

c) layer your tracks as you build your mix -- but always keep in mind, getting one group of tracks sounding 'good' may not work when you layer in more tracks, you may need more separation (see a) above)

d) Solo/Mute are your friend and reveal much. EQ/Effects "sweeping" is also a huge friend to find issues, sweet spots, etc.


Be patient young padwan.
 
"b) be aware of compounding frequencies, especially low frequencies".

That could also read beware of incompetent monitoring
 
Post an example at the Mp3 Clinic. It is pointless the guess at what you are hearing.

From what I have seen, a frequent cause of problems like muddiness is the mixer's inability to make artistic choices when it comes to level and panning. You have to decide which are the showcase elements of the song and which are in a supporting role, and mix accordingly. This sounds simple, but in practice can be difficult for a home recordist who may have an emotional investment in every track because he recorded them all. He wants every track to shine and be heard. The result is a muddy mess.

A common form of this is guitar syndrome, where the mixer, whose primary instrument is guitar, will set the guitars twice as loud as they should be and pan them straight up the middle, even though doing so steps all over the vocal, obliterates the bass, and creates mud. Problems like that could be sorted in five minutes if the mixer could gain the artistic perspective to hear what is really wrong with the mix, and make the hard choices needed to fix it.
 
Mud is, entirely, playback distortions.

Unless you readily hear distortions, or, have some distortion spec from the MFG, one will, essentially, be working half-blind. If there is anything to brag about, the MFG will have a bass distortion spec/s. Still, the average dinky box can do pretty good compared to smaller dinky boxes with even less capacity : )
 
Don't depend so much on plug-ins. Try recording and mixing without them, and then only use what you really think you need (and always save a copy of your original, as insurance).

Most DAWs are no destructive editing. Which means, majority of them do not touch the original, but only reference the original. Never hurts to have a back up for sure. But, not for mixing reasons.
 
... this power all I can think of achieving might be by increasing loudness... and sharpness by increasing the high frequencies in mastering .....what do you all think how can it be achieved .....?

Yup, you just need to boost 17.4khz by the "secret amount" and it all becomes clear...

Dude, just post a clip. We cannot hear what you are hearing. Or...we can all just guess at the 2,623,681 things it could possibly be.
 
A few simple things I learned here that were foundational:

a) Tracks may sound good alone (solo), but when in a mix, they have to find their place. Use LPF/HPF's or some EQ to give each part of the frequency spectrum, and reduce overlaps This is a big part of how you can "hear" lots of individual parts in a very pro mix. You may need to use automation to control this if you have parts where an instrument or vocal is solo (i.e. acoustic guitar alone in an intro needs entire freq spectrum, but once bass and stuff kicks in, it typically needs to be squeezed into the 250/300hz->6k range (and I often will cut it at 1k when lots of other competition).

b) be aware of compounding frequencies, especially low frequencies. Use HPF's to cut lows out of tracks that don't need them (I sometimes only let my kick and bass go below 40hz). I learned that buildup of lows, even un-audible lows, can cause your track to peak and make the mix unable to get louder.

c) layer your tracks as you build your mix -- but always keep in mind, getting one group of tracks sounding 'good' may not work when you layer in more tracks, you may need more separation (see a) above)

d) Solo/Mute are your friend and reveal much. EQ/Effects "sweeping" is also a huge friend to find issues, sweet spots, etc.


Be patient young padwan.

+1
All you need to know is right there. Listen to tony Visconti video on david bowies heroes deconstruction-the individual tracks sound terrible because when it was recorded tony made space for each instrument by scooping out frequencies to create a tonal balance. If each of your tracks sounds "great" in solo its usually because your hearing all the frequencies the inst/vocal produced. when you add these great full frequency tracks together you pile up frequencies, and using samples with effects already on them piles even more buildup. to build a house takes cutting boards to different lengths and connecting them in a planned sequence. to build a mix each track has to be shaped using eq , compression ,volume, panning and phase relationships to fit together so that each part can be something that complements the others to support the resulting songs arrangement and hopefully get across the intended feeling/idea
 
Agree with all the above. One of the most important things that a mix engineer has to do is decide what is important where, and bring the listeners' attention to that thing at that moment. That doesn't necessarily mean raising the gain...I've watched a few pro sessions, and just as an example, one that I watched, the guy (Fab Dupont) had about 12 tracks JUST FOR THE KICK DRUM. End result sounded wonderful, but I watched a different one where the guy played around with a single recorded actual kick and by the time he was done, the solo'd kick sounded like someone was dribbling a basketball on a hardwood floor...But it was great in the mix.

There's no set RIGHT way to track or to mix. Miking techniques differ according to the artistic need of the track in question. If you are looking for a standard sound from a standard instrument, there are techniques that are tried and true. All available by doing simple searches on youtube or other places.

Having said all this. The foundation has to be in place. You don't have to spend 10s of 1000s of dollars to get a good mix. You probably will have to spend something. Decent cans, decent monitors, room treatment all come at a price. If your environment lies to you, you cannot tell what is truth... Doesn't mean you need the perfect room, and the best monitors/headphones. It means you need to get SOMETHING. Get used to whatever it is (practice and tweak and gain experience with the tools). Using the example above, carpenters don't normally cut perfectly straight lines or drive every nail with one blow their first week on the job...
 
A Carpenter should have no problem with that with a $10 saw and a $10 hammer

....". the carpenter foreman will, by necessity, dismiss any worker who presents the card but does not demonstrate the expected skill level".

I suppose one could get a skill level by mixing 32 live tracks to the cutting disk. Planned setup for each song, etc..
 
A Carpenter should have no problem with that with a $10 saw and a $10 hammer

....". the carpenter foreman will, by necessity, dismiss any worker who presents the card but does not demonstrate the expected skill level".

I suppose one could get a skill level by mixing 32 live tracks to the cutting disk. Planned setup for each song, etc..


Dood, you confuse me in the way you reply sometimes...

Had you said 'an experienced carpenter', then that post would have made more sense. Where did your quote come from? This one: ". the carpenter foreman will, by necessity, dismiss any worker who presents the card but does not demonstrate the expected skill level"

That being said I have been remodeling bathrooms for 29 years. I still learn to this day. Same with recording.

Mixing is the same I suppose. An experienced engineer could do better with '$10' tools than someone new to recording/mixing, but they wouldn't.

BTW, saws and hammers are way cheaper than monitors/room treatment/software/etc.., so what was your point?

Just curious. Not trying to be a dick in any way. :)


And to the OP, post a track or you are spinning your wheels here.

And great advice timvracer.
 
I don't think one has to be experienced, just competent . Rather than B_H's carpenter, most of us have been through schooling and can observe its evolved form, today. hah haha. mew hah hah hahahaha Bless the teachers that made a diff..

Believe me, it is harder to drive a nail with only one eye. With a pirate patch, you might be a few days or a week, before you are competent to one hit.

One engineer can loose his monitors on a flight and rebuild his monitoring from what in laying around in the studio, while another with the same experience has to wait for new monitors
 
I don't think one has to be experienced, just competent . Rather than B_H's carpenter, most of us have been through schooling and can observe its evolved form, today. hah haha. mew hah hah hahahaha Bless the teachers that made a diff..

Believe me, it is harder to drive a nail with only one eye. With a pirate patch, you might be a few days or a week, before you are competent to one hit.

One engineer can loose his monitors on a flight and rebuild his monitoring from what in laying around in the studio, while another with the same experience has to wait for new monitors

Well there is that thing about this being home recording and most who join are not so experienced as the carpenter you talk about.

Pirates driving nails with one eye? Well, first off that is a bit off but I actually get your point.

But, the OP has not an eye patch, nor time on a pirate ship....

And I'm not sure seeing in the dark or light really applies here. Or does it? hmmm...
 
And yes, one definitely has to be experienced to do a good job. Competence comes from experience. I surely wouldn't hire anyone who didn't have experience in what I hired them to do. That would be lack of competence right?

Anyway... You are an odd one garww. Still trying to figure you out.

Sorry to derail the thread. I shall neg rep myself now. Argh...
 
Back
Top