What is the best order in mixing tracks?

I don't take notes . . . I fix stuff as hear it.

However, there is a time when I do take notes. When I'm in a near-final stage of a project, I will listen to the set of mixed tracks, watching out for things that don't sit right and make a note of these. After having done this,I will go back into the tracks, progressively fix the issues, then re-render.
 
I used to take notes when listening to final mixes on other systems when I had shit monitors. I haven't had to do that with recent monitor upgrade. I still compare my mixes on other systems, but it hasn't been worthy of writing things down...Only slight changes needed.

Back in the day of mixing recordings in other studios, I would spend a bunch of time taking notes as I was not able to sit in the studio and spend the time to get it all right there. Especially after 10 hours tracking and editing. The ears get tired....
 
The very first thing I do is Gainstage!
Then I go from Bass, all way down to lead vocals, to get the best sound out from it, one track at the time
then I set the balance and level,
then I use headphones to hear if all balance is right and adjust if needed, then final check in Monitors. :-)
Same on every song
 
Theres a reason to start with drums beyond taste. Drums work your master compressor/limiter more. Bass is next. So I always get my drums up to bounce the needle. And like others have said, bring bass, vocals. Secondly, these are also usually the most centered tracks. And I like to work for a good basic centered mix before bring up panned tracks.
 
Drums will also set the level of the mix. That is another reason to do them first.

With the metal that I tend to get asked to do, the rhythm guitar and bass end up being two halves of one sound, but I still bring up the bass after the drums, then add the guitar and adjust the two until they work together and do their job in the song.

I end up doing vocals and solos last, but that is because of the genre.

When doing a more organic for of music, it's drums, bass, vocals, guitars and everything else.

The only exception would be if a different instrument drives the song. (Or the section)

Essentially, you need to figure out what drives the song and make that one of the first priorities at the mix stage. (That is the reason people mixing pop music start with the vocals)
 
zepfan59 said:
Theres a reason to start with drums beyond taste. Drums work your master compressor/limiter more.
Click to expand...

I question the wisdom of starting with dynamics processing on the main bus. I find it beneficial to save such things for the end, doing most of the dynamics control at the track level.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
I question the wisdom of starting with dynamics processing on the main bus. I find it beneficial to save such things for the end, doing most of the dynamics control at the track level.
Click to expand...
That's kind of down the personal preference.

In a lot of ways it makes sense to set up your master bus processing up front and mix into it so that you know what the final product will sound like and make your mix decisions based on that. Like if you were mixing to tape, it would make sense to monitor off the repro head rather than the mixer.

I do usually wait a while to add that stuff, though.
 
ashcat_lt said:
In a lot of ways it makes sense to set up your master bus processing up front and mix into it...
Click to expand...

So then...does that mean your bus processing is set for....what exactly?
I assume you have one default setting then that you like and you always mix into it...?

I guess you can do it that way, maybe if everything you mix has relatively the same basic kind of style, balance, EQ...but I think bus processing is usually decided on from/by the mix, at least the settings of the bus processing, even you always have the same devices on the MB...not the other way around.

I'll often use the same stereo comp on the MB...but I only engage it after I get the mix going pretty well...and then even when I do, I don't use the same stereo comp settings from the previous mix.
Also, sometimes I might add 1-2 more pieces on the MB...but not always, sometimes one or the other...all depending on the mix content.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
I question the wisdom of starting with dynamics processing on the main bus. I find it beneficial to save such things for the end, doing most of the dynamics control at the track level.
Click to expand...

I wonder that also. Though I do start with a few different templates that have groups and effects already loaded. Including a limiter on the master out.

But that is only for tracking. Everything changes when it comes to mix time. I typically mix as I track to a degree, though I kind of start over once everything is tracked. Like for instance I will use the stock eq in Cubase to HPF and take care of annoying things that don't sound right to me in tracking but makes it more ideal for the artists when overdubbing. When that is done I get rid of all that shit and work with each instrument with better 3rd party eq's, compressors.

There is no one right way to do anything. A whole bunch of wrong ways though...
 
I find that when I get the mix right all it takes is a limiter to trim off the peaks and get it to the proper LUFS level. Although it's rare to get a mix so perfect it doesn't need some eq, I very often don't need compression on the mix at all.
 
I like the comp on the MB for some glue usually and not as much for peak management...but not every comp is well suited for MB use. I'm using a hardware unit on my console MB...it's an Overstayer Stereo VCA Compressor...has some similarities to the Smart/SSL/API stereo comp units...it's really designed with MB use in mind.
 
miroslav said:
So then...does that mean your bus processing is set for....what exactly?
I assume you have one default setting then that you like and you always mix into it...? ..
Click to expand...
Right. :>)
I get the logic. 'If you put on last it -might- change the mix [too much], and make for more work instead of less.
But in going that way, do also you consider at times, the mix that 'could have been' had you gotten there without it. In my estimation in things like this, the different paths' tend to results in different ending.
As an example of taking the direct opposite manor;
Band comes in, and there is no experienced solid insight as to where their recording's sound ought to land.
I could, but wouldn't typically want to try to presume it.
My approach is to follow and sort through all the basic stuff, in do a 'least amount of processing first order.
I.e. How good can these tracks sound before we resort to 'verb, delays, compression..
It often ought to open some doors (alternates) to another approach.
When that happens :>) towards the end.. the master comp is like a last sweet dab on top. -Serving this existing really nice mix.
 
mixsit said:
Right. :>)
I get the logic. 'If you put on last it -might- change the mix [too much], and make for more work instead of less.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there can be that thinking too...though I would think if it changes the mix too much, maybe you're using too much, or it's not dialed in too good.
Also, when it's on the MB from the start, every individual track addition and/or change, causes the dynamics processor to react a little differently.

When you first generally set the mix, and then apply MB dynamics processing, you're hearing the sum going to the MB and the processing, and then you adjust the MB processing for the mix...not the other way around, adjusting the tracks/mix for the MB processing.

Just seems kind bassakwards starting a mix with MB processing already on...but I can see if you mix similar music all the time, having a sorta default MB processing start point that you engage once your mix is almost there, then you tweak the MB processing to suit the new mix.
These days, with how people use their DAWs, processing is all over the place. People are often "mastering" individual tracks before they've even finished recording the rest of them. :D
 
miroslav said:
Yeah, there can be that thinking too...though I would think if it changes the mix too much, maybe you're using too much, or it's not dialed in too good. ..
Click to expand...
I specifically avoided going there. :)
'Cause... there's a world of engineers that can and do.. kick my but out there.
And, they can do it better and faster.
Nope. I get it. 'Would not be prudent at this juncture' ;)
 
IDK what other people do. Most of the time, my master bus is just a touch of "glue" and a soft knee into a hard limit, and maybe a tiny bit of "frequency bias" or overall color. It is very much like pushing the mix to tape. It's not really meant to emulate anything specifically, but I apply some similar principles. Mostly I just push it as hard as I need to get what I want, and if it ain't working, I go back to the track level and fix it there. Not that I'm afraid to adjust the settings at the bus level when it's obviously necessary. None of it is set in stone until it's rendered to a file marked "final". ;)

Like I said, though, I personally have been holding that off til I'm pretty much done anyway, and if I'm doing a whole bunch of very different tracks as an album, I usually bypass this for the "mix for mastering" render, and then push all of them through the same final master chain, and adjust levels and EQ at the track level to make everything play nice.

Again, this isn't a right or wrong argument. Plenty of people make great recordings both ways, and you don't have to look far beyond this forum to find people you've heard of who prefer one of the other or somewhere in the middle.
 
ashcat_lt said:
Again, this isn't a right or wrong argument. Plenty of people make great recordings both ways, and you don't have to look far beyond this forum to find people you've heard of who prefer one of the other or somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...

I agree...it's what works for you.
I was just curious how a preset MB process that you mix into would work say....if you've got a real full, punchy, loud Rock mix and then after that you do a real sparse ambient mix...?
I mean...the two would probably warrant a different MB processing approach, which is why I questioned about mixing into preset MB processing.
Not saying you can't do that...and then bypass the MB processing when you reach the end, and opt for something totally different...just saying it would feel kinda bassakwards in my mind. :)
 
This is a very interesting discussion. I like it. As for compressing the MB I usually only use a light limiting and if it gets out of hand then I trim the input.

So, in light of that....I have a question for the responders....

If you are 'in-the-box' do you mix primarily to a master two buss? And there's more....and then do you render from there or do you export at the bit and sample rate the original tracks were recorded at?

One other thing and this is NOT a poll......I use PTHD and this requires certain protocols around the 2 buss....Maybe you all don't have these issues. So what are you using as your main DAW. If you are analog to tape this is a moot point. I was analog to tape for many years.......sigh
 
Post Traumatic Head Distortion? :)

Sorry man, just kidding. Seriously, no offense.

Curious what you mean though.


I only use a stock Cubase limiter on my master out buss while tracking to keep the levels from going to shit level while tracking. It is just part of my template when recording bands in my studio. It has absolutely nothing to do with my final mix.


When I am in mix stage it all changes. Everything. I could not even possibly state what goes on there because every project is different.
 
cavedog101 said:
If you are 'in-the-box' do you mix primarily to a master two buss?
Click to expand...

I sometimes use PT, non HD. Whether or not you have a master fader, you're mixing to a master bus. Without an explicit master fader you might not see it, but it's there. I also use Vegas Pro. You can show or hide the master bus, but it's always "there" in function.

cavedog101 said:
And there's more....and then do you render from there or do you export at the bit and sample rate the original tracks were recorded at?
Click to expand...

For projects where I'm in control of the whole mix process, I bounce/render/export/whatever to the same word length ("bit depth") and sample rate as the project. There's almost never anything on the master bus, during the mix or for the render. Anything that might be done on the master bus can be done in mastering. When I master my own mixes I generally do them in a different place than where I mixed them.
 
jimmys69 said:
Post Traumatic Head Distortion? :)

Sorry man, just kidding. Seriously, no offense.

Curious what you mean though.


I only use a stock Cubase limiter on my master out buss while tracking to keep the levels from going to shit level while tracking. It is just part of my template when recording bands in my studio. It has absolutely nothing to do with my final mix.


When I am in mix stage it all changes. Everything. I could not even possibly state what goes on there because every project is different.
Click to expand...


Well, I wasn't really referring to tracking. Since I track all analog into ProTools, I don't have a need for any sort of master and certainly nothing across a buss to control things such as the levels...I don't add a master fader at all until the overdub tracking and only as my playback master through the monitors.

My question is more about whether you use a master 2 buss as your final destination in your MIX and do you export this @ the bit depth and sample rate the project was tracked at or do you 'render' at a different rate before mastering?

I'm just curious as to how people who are here on this site work their art.

Bouldersoundguy got what I asked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top