I see a lot of post on here, some of them are mine about effective mixing. One thing people fail to include most of the time is what you hope to achieve when mixing a track. For example, when you mix a hip-hop track, are you trying to get all of the drums and instruments pretty much even on volume or are you trying to mix your kicks louder than your snares but lower than bass? What exactly should we be looking for when mixing? Is the point of mixing basically to get everything pretty even and not being more noticable in a mix than everything else; or should my kicks be louder than the rest of the track? I know there is isnt a set rule, and this question seems pretty dumb, but Im sure Im not the only one who wants to know what to look for when mixing. I think if people knew what they were trying to achieve, they would stop asking so many questions about how to use EQs and compressors, and just experiment with them in order to achieve the "industry" sound they want. Most people see the pros like Blue Bear on here discussing topics on EQ then they figure thats what the secret is, I know thats not true; but you guys just share your tips. Sorry for any typos. Thanks!
Whats The Point Of Mixing Anyway!!
- Thread starter Raydio
- Start date
I always look at mixing as the final step in the artistic development of the song. Of course, it is very subjective or is it objective, it IS personal taste along with some basics, like the guitar cannot be blaringly LOUD even if you are going for that. Juts doesnt work. BUT, to me mixing can be varied from song to song. No format other that making the actual "sounds" sound their best and then mix to what you want to hear from that song. maybe i am way off????? peace!
The approach depends somewhat on where you are trying to go.
Elevator music tends to be nearly constant in overall volume. almost like white noise in tune.
Symphony music tends to have very wide dynamic range. If you tune in to a SM radio station, sometimes you first think they're off the air as you hear nothing. A few seconds later the flutes begins to fade in.
Disco is heavy in bass drum and beat. Rock is all over the map. Hi-Hop is yet another story.
When I get a set of tracks, I first set all to default and see what it sounds like. I already kindof know what I want, and then begin to fiddle with bass/percusssion, etc to get a balance. When the dust settles, I burn a CD and then take to another Stereo system in a different room and listen. Then to a good car system. The combo of the three usually tells me what I need to change.
Ed
Elevator music tends to be nearly constant in overall volume. almost like white noise in tune.
Symphony music tends to have very wide dynamic range. If you tune in to a SM radio station, sometimes you first think they're off the air as you hear nothing. A few seconds later the flutes begins to fade in.
Disco is heavy in bass drum and beat. Rock is all over the map. Hi-Hop is yet another story.
When I get a set of tracks, I first set all to default and see what it sounds like. I already kindof know what I want, and then begin to fiddle with bass/percusssion, etc to get a balance. When the dust settles, I burn a CD and then take to another Stereo system in a different room and listen. Then to a good car system. The combo of the three usually tells me what I need to change.
Ed
Blue Bear Sound
New member
I think the point of mixing is to take multiple tracks of material and condense into a more listenable format (ie, 2-channels of stereo or on channel of mono).
If you didn't do this, then people would have to mix multiple tracks of a song, everytime they want to hear it!
Coming from that point is the idea of creating some sort of sound stage representation within the context of a pair of speakers.
Anything beyond thaose 2 objectives is pretty much creativity and open to interpretation (however - there are more common patterns of mixing that tend to occur, depending on the genre)....
If you didn't do this, then people would have to mix multiple tracks of a song, everytime they want to hear it!
Coming from that point is the idea of creating some sort of sound stage representation within the context of a pair of speakers.
Anything beyond thaose 2 objectives is pretty much creativity and open to interpretation (however - there are more common patterns of mixing that tend to occur, depending on the genre)....
Last edited:
Alanfc
New member
Raydio-
For Me, (less experienced) the mix is done in my head when the song is written. Occasionally more ideas about the mix come soon after the song is written. For me the kick/snare/guitar/bass/backing vocals etc.. are set. Some songs I want the Bass to rule the low end and some songs I want the Kick. One of those two must rumble in yer innerds , for me atleast. This is good and bad sometimes, I mean the kick and bass go back and forth with me - which one should rule. I'll change my mind on a daily basis and then draw the line and decide. I also sometimes dream up nearly impossible guitar or bass parts and then have to play them ! But after a few days of practice they get worked out and I play them fine..
Then the tracking is usually easy but the actual mixing is my enemy, I mean its great fun, but the Doing is the obstacle. Making it sound like its supposed to ( to me) ..I have in my head the snare sound I like from this band, the kick from that band, maybe a little different, cause I'm never 100% satisfied with most of the individual elements I hear from pro CD's these days. (me talking to myself : "I like the 'snap' on the snare with this band, but it needs a little more thud like that band", ,etc..)
Most all of my mixing time is experimenting. Occasionally I 'll run to an online bulletin board/forum and say "help! why can't I make this sound"? The usual answer is : "you're low budget and inxeperienced DUDE". OK fine, So then I make up a poor man's work-around learning from answers to other peoples' posts. Then after I think I'm done with the first mix, I close my eyes and listen over and over and over. Usaully for a couple days. (a luxury the home recordist has).. I rarely stop something and fix it on the spot. I print the whole picture in my head, then I micro-manage problem areas later. I'm listening for big problems, like ==what if this was someone elses' tune and I was listening to it on the radio for the first time, what would my reaction be==.
So I'm basically still in the horse-sense school of mixing and am gradually learning the real tech details like how some of this gear really works through and through.
For Me, (less experienced) the mix is done in my head when the song is written. Occasionally more ideas about the mix come soon after the song is written. For me the kick/snare/guitar/bass/backing vocals etc.. are set. Some songs I want the Bass to rule the low end and some songs I want the Kick. One of those two must rumble in yer innerds , for me atleast. This is good and bad sometimes, I mean the kick and bass go back and forth with me - which one should rule. I'll change my mind on a daily basis and then draw the line and decide. I also sometimes dream up nearly impossible guitar or bass parts and then have to play them ! But after a few days of practice they get worked out and I play them fine..
Then the tracking is usually easy but the actual mixing is my enemy, I mean its great fun, but the Doing is the obstacle. Making it sound like its supposed to ( to me) ..I have in my head the snare sound I like from this band, the kick from that band, maybe a little different, cause I'm never 100% satisfied with most of the individual elements I hear from pro CD's these days. (me talking to myself : "I like the 'snap' on the snare with this band, but it needs a little more thud like that band", ,etc..)
Most all of my mixing time is experimenting. Occasionally I 'll run to an online bulletin board/forum and say "help! why can't I make this sound"? The usual answer is : "you're low budget and inxeperienced DUDE". OK fine, So then I make up a poor man's work-around learning from answers to other peoples' posts. Then after I think I'm done with the first mix, I close my eyes and listen over and over and over. Usaully for a couple days. (a luxury the home recordist has).. I rarely stop something and fix it on the spot. I print the whole picture in my head, then I micro-manage problem areas later. I'm listening for big problems, like ==what if this was someone elses' tune and I was listening to it on the radio for the first time, what would my reaction be==.
So I'm basically still in the horse-sense school of mixing and am gradually learning the real tech details like how some of this gear really works through and through.
Last edited:
ashgallows
New member
i think of it as when you record, you are typing. when you mix, youare adding font face, bold spots, commas, ect. hell yeah, mix the kick louder if it sounds good. The "point" of mixing is m aking it so that people can hear the mix as you envision it in your head.
mstudio1224@aol.com
New member
each type of music is different but MY OPINION is:
The MIX - gives life to the individual components of sound
(the drum does not exceed the snare, the string is at calm level yet searing enough to feel the emotion, the bass accentuates the kick to feel the pattern of LOVE, DANCING, PAIN or EXCITEMENT.
A MIX (broken down in laemen terms)
A recorded track is like watching videos on a old black &white TV
A mixed track is like watching videos on 20" flat panel HD system
A recorded track is like watching a movie at home
A mixed track like watching a movie inside a theatre
if you can invision the differences there, that would be the difference what a MIX has on a track, it's great to hear a song in it's inception, but once MIXED it's a BROADER & a BIGGER BEAST,
louder but not distorted, effective but not overbearing, sounds like a lot is going on, when there really isnt much to it at all.
THAT'S A MIX, to have --that-- MASTERED is to only have it elevated to whole other level
The MIX - gives life to the individual components of sound
(the drum does not exceed the snare, the string is at calm level yet searing enough to feel the emotion, the bass accentuates the kick to feel the pattern of LOVE, DANCING, PAIN or EXCITEMENT.
A MIX (broken down in laemen terms)
A recorded track is like watching videos on a old black &white TV
A mixed track is like watching videos on 20" flat panel HD system
A recorded track is like watching a movie at home
A mixed track like watching a movie inside a theatre
if you can invision the differences there, that would be the difference what a MIX has on a track, it's great to hear a song in it's inception, but once MIXED it's a BROADER & a BIGGER BEAST,
louder but not distorted, effective but not overbearing, sounds like a lot is going on, when there really isnt much to it at all.
THAT'S A MIX, to have --that-- MASTERED is to only have it elevated to whole other level
Blue Bear Sound
New member
I don't understand this at all....[email]mstudio1224@aol.com[/email] said:
A mix is a combining of 2 or more tracks into a cohesive sonic event (song/narration/etc...)
I have no clue what you mean by saying "...the difference a mix has on a track...!!!"
dafduc
New member
I think he's using the other meaning of track - like CD track #7 follows CD track #6.
He shore does talk purty, don't he...
Daf (a recorded track is like eating a bowl of cornflakes with skim milk, but a MIXED track is like eating a bowl of corn flakes with cream, brown sugar, and raisins, served in a sterling silver cereal bowl at a temperature of 55 degrees fahrenheit by a trio of nubile dancing virgins wearing skimpy veils)
He shore does talk purty, don't he...
Daf (a recorded track is like eating a bowl of cornflakes with skim milk, but a MIXED track is like eating a bowl of corn flakes with cream, brown sugar, and raisins, served in a sterling silver cereal bowl at a temperature of 55 degrees fahrenheit by a trio of nubile dancing virgins wearing skimpy veils)
mstudio1224@aol.com
New member
I think the point of mixing is to take multiple tracks of material and condense into a more listenable format (ie, 2-channels of stereo or on channel of mono).
Though I may have worded it way differently I mean the same as you Bear, you say "Multiple tracks of material", I said "each individual component" granted I did not say mixed down to stereo they are along the same vain.
my analogy was only to give RAYDIO an idea of what a mix MAY sound like, as he asked "Why mix anyway" the difference in watching TV to seeing a movie in a THEATRE is a tremendous (SOUND) difference. When a project is mixed, there's a little more "ooomph" than it's initial recording right ?
Yes a mix is 8,16,24 channels of audio dwindled down to 2 channels, placed appropriately to be heard, hence MIX.
But I was merely trying to paint a picture for RAYDIO to understand WHY a MIX is suitable and is needed, that's all
THE DUDE --- sorry to confuse too
Later
Though I may have worded it way differently I mean the same as you Bear, you say "Multiple tracks of material", I said "each individual component" granted I did not say mixed down to stereo they are along the same vain.
my analogy was only to give RAYDIO an idea of what a mix MAY sound like, as he asked "Why mix anyway" the difference in watching TV to seeing a movie in a THEATRE is a tremendous (SOUND) difference. When a project is mixed, there's a little more "ooomph" than it's initial recording right ?
Yes a mix is 8,16,24 channels of audio dwindled down to 2 channels, placed appropriately to be heard, hence MIX.
But I was merely trying to paint a picture for RAYDIO to understand WHY a MIX is suitable and is needed, that's all
THE DUDE --- sorry to confuse too
Later
mstudio1224@aol.com
New member
dafduc -- ha ha haha good one., he shore does talk purty, I deserve that one ha ha hah a (I guess)
Fa real, fa real, I was just trying to help out , guess I'll leave stuff up to BLUE BEAR, he's been here a loooooong time.
BlueBear -- dont get in a tiff, I've seen you in here for 3 or so years at least, with Sonusman, MisterCQue and the boys, so you are respected in my book -- I'll now go onto my DP3 & Pro-Tools site and leave your territory well alone
Fa real, fa real, I was just trying to help out
, guess I'll leave stuff up to BLUE BEAR, he's been here a loooooong time.BlueBear -- dont get in a tiff, I've seen you in here for 3 or so years at least, with Sonusman, MisterCQue and the boys, so you are respected in my book -- I'll now go onto my DP3 & Pro-Tools site and leave your territory well alone
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Ok.... problem is, I wasn't in a "tiff" -- I was simply commenting that I didn't understand your post at all...[email]mstudio1224@aol.com[/email] said:
zer0sig
headpiece full of straw
bleyrad, i'd pay seriously good money to be able to do that. imagine the skills an amateur could learn by having known good tracks to mix.
mixing is what makes recordings into a real viable transferrable medium. noone wants to set up 16 speakers around the room and buy cd's to play (er, aside from me, that is, the thought of it seriously excites me) when they can get the best non-live representation of an artist's vision on one cd without having to tweak anything.
mixing doesn't make recorded songs complete (in 99.99999999% of cases or so), it makes songs. you do not have a song without cohering mixing of its elements.
mixing is what makes recordings into a real viable transferrable medium. noone wants to set up 16 speakers around the room and buy cd's to play (er, aside from me, that is, the thought of it seriously excites me) when they can get the best non-live representation of an artist's vision on one cd without having to tweak anything.
mixing doesn't make recorded songs complete (in 99.99999999% of cases or so), it makes songs. you do not have a song without cohering mixing of its elements.