latter part of mix

[stupidfatnugly]

I've been reading about multing and parallel compression and am wondering how often you all use these tricks.

I've been listening to my recordings and the professional ones and the difference is that they sound so full and rich and I sound....well bad

there must be something you do towards the end of the mix that finishes it off nicely. you know like you do your EQ; then compress; automate; pan and all that (this part I can do. I don't know how well) then comes the bag of tricks.

is the bag of tricks the multing and parallel compression? is there more than that?

[NL5]

Actually, the secret is all in the tracking........and, it ain't really a secret.

[Massive Master]

Word. "Full and rich" (and wide and spacious, clean and clear and focused, etc.) comes from the source - Not added after.

[Jaticus]

Don't rely too heavily on post-modification. As Massive said, the better the raw recording, the easier it will be to make your sound fill and rich. Imagine you want to win a photo competition, where the winner has to hand in the most beautiful nature scene of trees, a lake with the sunset etc etc. If you take a picture of central london and try to photoshop it to look like a beautful nature scene your aiming for failure.

[Massive Master]

Typically, comparisons from audio to photography fall flat. But in this case, a lot of it makes sense -

Go to the most scenic, picturesque place you can think of with two cameras --

A 2MB "instant" camera and a 12MB Nikon SLR with a Carl Ziess lens.

Shoot the same scene with both, put them both in Photoshop and perform the same operations on them.

Shrink the Nikon image to the same size as the "instamatic" image.

I would hope that it's obvious where this is going - The bad-ass camera with the Zeiss optics is going to have more focus and clarity from the start. You can put PS plugs all over the crappy image and it isn't going to "add" that clarity and depth to the image. It might "fake" a little, but if you applied those settings to the bad-ass picture, it might actually take away from it - or make it all that much more bad-ass. In any case, the Zeiss photo is going to be superior at every step - because it was superior from the start.

[stupidfatnugly]

I'm not capturing the sound right then?

I need to experiment more with the mics and amps?

[mixsit]

Inevitably, the stronger the performance and tracks the easier it is to just 'put them up there and they carrying the load, and due to those strengths even the options for 'where and how it can play out open up.
Where the more the opposite, the more time you spend tucking', fixing, fussing, looking for that 'particular way to make it work.
Hell of a thing. But perfectly natural when you think about it.

[mixsit]

Originally Posted by stupidfatnugly

I'm not capturing the sound right then?

I need to experiment more with the mics and amps?

By the way, I didn't intend for my other post to be directed at your question here. I surely wouldn't presume to know that.

[NYMorningstar]

Originally Posted by stupidfatnugly

I'm not capturing the sound right then?

I need to experiment more with the mics and amps?

I'd say experiment more with the sound treatment to your room. Creating the right sound is the fundamental and it's a hard thing to do when you have standing waves to deal with. If you can't change the room then do what you can to keep it out of the equation, mic closer to the source. Better yet though would be to find another room

Then having the right mic to hear it is next. Your mics can make a world of difference in your mixes, almost to the point that the tracks will mix themselves.

[stupidfatnugly]

alot of my stuff is direct from the keyboard to the interface.

Is there anything I can do to make that sound better besides get better samples and sounds?

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by Massive Master

Typically, comparisons from audio to photography fall flat. But in this case, a lot of it makes sense -

Go to the most scenic, picturesque place you can think of with two cameras --

A 2MB "instant" camera and a 12MB Nikon SLR with a Carl Ziess lens.

Shoot the same scene with both, put them both in Photoshop and perform the same operations on them.

Shrink the Nikon image to the same size as the "instamatic" image.

I would hope that it's obvious where this is going - The bad-ass camera with the Zeiss optics is going to have more focus and clarity from the start. You can put PS plugs all over the crappy image and it isn't going to "add" that clarity and depth to the image. It might "fake" a little, but if you applied those settings to the bad-ass picture, it might actually take away from it - or make it all that much more bad-ass. In any case, the Zeiss photo is going to be superior at every step - because it was superior from the start.

Very bad example. This would point to "you need expensive equipment to get a great sounding mix"

Tisk, tisk, the end of the year is not kind to you.........















Just busting you...............Happy New Year!!!

[Jaticus]

I used to think you were cool Massive...........

[NL5]

Originally Posted by stupidfatnugly

alot of my stuff is direct from the keyboard to the interface.

This is gonna make it tough.

What are some artists your are comparing your work too?

[stupidfatnugly]

Originally Posted by NL5

This is gonna make it tough.

What are some artists your are comparing your work too?

well if we're talking keyboard and electronic music I'm a fan of BT, paul oakenfold, dj tiesto, depeche mode, erasure you know and then I like a little of the hip hop stuff like outkast, akon, lil wayne

oh and also RnB like Jagged Edge, Ready for the World, Keith Sweat, Zapp and Roger, Usher

that's all I can think of at the moment

[jmorris]

I think mic'ing tech/placements and room will have the most effect assuming you are using decent mic pre's. It is amazing to me when Im out doing a live gig in a club how the sound differes so much from one to another. It depends greatly on the club(room) and how the band is setup and mic placement. Sometimes I have to just go with how the band wants it sets up and how they want their stuff mic'd.Example if a band does not want a bunch of mic's on stage, more than their normal, I only use 4 on kit. Or gtr amps are too close to drums or lead vocals.It all effects the sound in the end.

[stupidfatnugly]

I just have the mbox2, is that a decent pre?

[jmorris]

I think the mbox 2 ahs focusrite pres. Yes they are fine. Not a Neve 1073 but will not hold you back.

[stupidfatnugly]

Originally Posted by NL5

This is gonna make it tough.

why does this make it tough? what can I do differently?

[bigtoe]

Originally Posted by stupidfatnugly

why does this make it tough? what can I do differently?

you need to work on the sounds coming from your keyboards. also practice your mixing skills.

if you're comparing your stuff to commercial releases and they aren't cutting it - it can be really valuable to go to a good mastering person and sit in on the session. listen to what they're doing and pick their brain...not in an annoying way but just ask him how the next thing could be better across the board.

it does start at the source...but sometimes it takes to the final picture to figure out what yer doing wrong at the source.

in general...good mastering guys list at about 1200 a job and can do indie stuff for half that. it's worth it.

Mike

[stupidfatnugly]

good suggestion. I think I'll have to do that once I've learned more about mixing.

all I have is the roland xp-80, which sucks

should i try it through an amp and mic like brian eno?