Deep mixing: when you could not mix bad even if you wanted to

[CyanJaguar]

There is a technique that I stumbled on that I want to know if anybody has had the same experience.

I call it "subconscious mixing", where you dont hear the different instruments anymore, you dont hear different frequencies, you just see a picture and you try to do what you can to make that picture come to life because when something is different in that picture it is very glaring that something is wrong.

An illustration: in the banking industry, to train the workers to spot fake currency, they expose them to loads and loads of real notes and coins over a long period. They dont once show them a fake note. How it works is when the cashier eventually feels or sees a fake note, he spots it immediately because in his/her subconscious, its glaringly different from the real thing.

I have seen this first hand before. I went to my local exxon with a bunch of coins and she quickly returned a dime. I asked her why, and she said it was not american currency. To me, it looked like american currency but it was actually from another country that I had visited. I asked her how on earth she spotted it and she said that she works with coins all day and all night, so she just knew. She knew in here subconscious.

THis is a method that works great for mixing: pros say to use a few Cds to reference, but I think it goes much deeper than this. To spot a fake sound, one has to be exposed to real(and the same sounds) for a very long time.

So the theory is that if a person wants to mix rock, he should listen to the best rock mixes over and over for an extended period of time(maybe one week). He cant listen to anything else, as it could lead to second guessing. The way that country mixes sound is entirely different from rock or rap. And he also cant listen to ANY homerecordings in that period.

The fact is that it actually works. Listen to rock CDs for a week or even better, your favorite rock CD. After a while, the cd imprints itself in your subconscious, and when you listen to another cd or another genre, it now sounds strange. Suddenly, country vocals are too loud, or the low end in rap is too big, or the mids in dance are too prominent.

Of course, make sure you listen to the CD you want to sound like, because when you listen long enough on one set of speakers at one set level, that sound becomes imprinted in your mind and that is how your CD WILL sound when you mix it.

Any thoughts or additions are welcome.

ps. Coming next, how critical listening is just like that college class, critical reading.

[shortyc]

personally not ready to "imprint" yet. :P

look forward to the "coming next" post

[LooneyTunez]

Good theory, but it probably won't/doesn't work. First off, there are way too many variables involved in mixing, and the sources being mixed. They will in no way sound like the ones you've tried to imprint in your mind, and as soon as you start tweaking the original source sounds, you will lose your perspective as to what the imprinted sound was. Brings me to my second point...People are not very good at retaining (for any more than probably a few seconds) what something sounds like in relation to something else. This is why A/B tests often don't work. Unless you're able to A/B instantaneously between your mix, and your reference mix (constantly back and forth), you'll never be able to retain the memory of what each sounds like.

Unlike currency which is relatively static, audio is infinitely variable.

[cordura21]

Unlike currency which is relatively static, audio is infinitely variable.

Unless you live in Argentina.

[CyanJaguar]

LooneyTunez,

you should try this theory. You'll be amazed.

Just like with currency. once the real thing is imprinted, you can spot a fake even when you have not touched a real one for a while.

Same thing with audio. If you are new to a sound, it will only last seconds, but if you know it in an out, and then picture forms in your mind, then you dont even need to hear it for a long time and your mix will still sound like the reference mix.

[LooneyTunez]

CJ,

Have you practiced this theory, and have proof that it works? Do you have a mix of something you have done, and it's reference counterpart?

I'd be more than open to this idea if there were some solid evidence that it does indeed make a mix sound just like someone elses...regardless of what instruments, equipment, talent, and experience they have.

[c7sus]

Did you know that you can't remember a color?

Seriously. The mind can't remember between two "shades" of a color. maybe it's because of lighting conditions or whatever. That's why they use computers to match paint.......

[chessrock]

Originally posted by CyanJaguar
So the theory is that if a person wants to mix rock, he should listen to the best rock mixes over and over for an extended period of time(maybe one week). He cant listen to anything else, as it could lead to second guessing. The way that country mixes sound is entirely different from rock or rap. And he also cant listen to ANY homerecordings in that period.

. . . Of course, make sure you listen to the CD you want to sound like, because when you listen long enough on one set of speakers at one set level, that sound becomes imprinted in your mind and that is how your CD WILL sound when you mix it.

Been there - done that. I've listened to Dark Side of the moon probably over 5,000 times throughout my life, and my mixes don't sound a whole lot like Alan Parsons' Nor do they sound much like Radio Head's Okay Computer or Red Hot Chilli Pepper's Bloodsugarsexmagic, two more CD's I've probably listened to more times than I care to count.

I like how my stuff is sounding lately, mind you, but it is still much different.

Also, your theory seems to ignore the particular qualities the instrument imparts . . . it's strings . . . it's amplifier . . . the way the person plays it . . . etc.

All of that has way more to do with how it sounds than any knobs I twist or mouse clicks I make. In fact, if the band is good, my job is to make them sound the way they already sound, if you catch my drift. So maybe I should be just listeing to THEM over and over - something I should be doing anyway.

[Gidge]

ok, you guys here smoke TOOOOO much shit.....

put it this way...i can spend 4 weeks in Mexico, but that wont help me know how to get there.....know where im going?......

i could listen to pro CD's for a year straight and nothing else, and i still couldnt mix something to save my life.....i just dont have the chops.....

and those that do have the chops to do a pro mix have enough experience that they dont have to rely on their subconscience.....

[JuSumPilgrim]

Well put, Gidge.

What immersing yourself in a genre does do, within your gear and mixing limitations, is give you general guidelines about where things should be. It gives you that instinct that says--the guitars have too much top end, the snare is too boxy, the cymbals too thin, etc. as compared to whats typical for a band in that genre. There are cutoff switches so to speak in your head that get tripped when something is too this or too that. Your job is too find something in between. Thats what getting a "sound" is about altogeather. Immersing myself in a genre is what I do when Im working on a project in a genre that I havent done before. (Country for instance). I think the process is both conscious and unconscious. The more talented you are, the more you work by instinct. The more you have a picture in your head that you try to match your mix to.

Being able to tell the difference bet A and B does not last a few seconds. There are guitar sounds that are unique and instantly familiar to everyone. When you hear adema and say they sound like korn, thats bec your brain remembers korn and knows their general sound; thats how you make that call.

[CyanJaguar]

Originally posted by JuSumPilgrim
Well put, Gidge.

What immersing yourself in a genre does do, within your gear and mixing limitations, is give you general guidelines about where things should be. It gives you that instinct that says--the guitars have too much top end, the snare is too boxy, the cymbals too thin, etc. as compared to whats typical for a no doubt kind of band, for instance. There are cutoff switches so to speak in your head that get tripped when something is too this or too that. Your job is too find something in between. Thats what getting a "sound" is about altogeather. Immersing myself in a genre is what I do when Im working on a project in a genre that I havent done before. (Country for instance). I think the process is both conscious and unconscious. The more talented you are, the more you work by instinct. The more you have a picture in your head that you try to match your mix to.

Being able to tell the difference bet A and B does not last a few seconds. There are guitar sounds that are unique and instantly familiar to everyone. When you hear adema and say they sound like korn, thats bec your brain remembers korn and knows their general sound; thats how you make that call.

what he said.

Chessrock, the fact that your stuff does not sound like Steely Dan is not because you dont know how it SHOULD sound. You know how you want it to soound, but sometimes one might not have the gear or the know how to get the sound.

When you listen to steely dan 5000 times then try to mix, if something in your mix sounds off, you instantly know, and you know what it is too, but you might not have the resources to fix it.

[JR#97]

Interesting concept. Whether or not I my subconcious mixes or not, I have no idea... but what I do know is that the brain can filter and change the way it interprets the audio waves hitting our ears. I've blown my left ear drum a few times and I know that I've lost a lot of detailed hearing ability. Test myear with tones and all that audiology stuff and I'd probably fail... yet recordings that I know very well sound the same to me now as they always did. They didn't right after the accident's though... weird eh?

[UberGawkman]

Hey, I kinda already do this..... I spend a lot of time surfing the net, listening to a few select cds that I want to sound similar too.

Sure, my mixes don't sound exactly like them, but the relativeness is there.... the amount of low end from the kick drum is really close to the other mix..... the amount of hi end in the guitars is similar.... the loudness of the vocals, etc.....

[chessrock]

Originally posted by CyanJaguar
When you listen to steely dan 5000 times then try to mix, if something in your mix sounds off, you instantly know, and you know what it is too, but you might not have the resources to fix it.

That's because usually, whatever needs to be "fixed" happened during the tracking phase - perhaps it was an out-of-tune G-string or a noisy amp or something to that effect. Were I recording Steely Dan, I don't suppose I'd run in to those same types of issues, because Steely Dan do a much better job than the average Joe of keeping their guitars tuned and their amp tubes changed.

I like your concept, and this is one of the coolest threads I've read in a while. Yea, I must have been smoking too much of the funny stuff, Gidge. But, when I mix someone, my first thought isn't to impart anything to their sound that isn't already there. Unless it's for fun. I simply go with what I'm hearing, and try to make them sound like I think they are trying to sound like.

All four bands I've worked with, that is.

[crawdad]

I don't know whether I agree with this theory or not, but there is one point you make that I do agree on. Every genre of music does seem to have its own mix style and its own formula. Part of that is the difference in sounds, but another part of the sounds is the way things get mixed. If you want your tunes to have a specific style and sound, it pays to listen to that genre a lot.

When I was a staff songwriter, writing country songs, I had to make demos of the tunes i wrote. I spent a long time listening to modern country records, listening to the elements of the mixes--what the drums sounded like, where the bass and guitars were put in the mix, how the vocals were treated, etc. Using the records I heard as models, I was able to get in that same ballpark.

I've done similar studies in blues and rock, but those tend to be more varied. The one thing that makes things difficult is that we don't generally get to hear what each instrument sounds like soloed. In a mix, a bass can sound radically different from its pure isolated form. Things tend to overlap in frequency and it can be hard to tell just what those original tracks sounded like. Plus, studio pros spend hundreds of hours tweaking their rigs to be able to nail different sounds on demand.

Anyway, I think it takes more than listening. You have to listen to each instrument in a track and figure out whats going on--double tracking? compression, EQ? chorus? Stereo micing? Ambient micing? What mic? What amp? What instrument? So on and so on. Once you know what you are after, you still have to learn how to get it. You can't just put a CD on while you sleep and wake up an expert in mixing heavy metal. Ya gotta know in some detail what you are trying to create or duplicate. That takes experimentation and practice--and good ears. Not to mention killer tracks to work with.

[Lt. Bob]

I think there is truth to all these positions. It's certainly gonna affect the sound you want to hear if all you listen to is a particular genre but there is a wide varience in mixes by different engineers even in the same genre. Plus I'm not sure that to be a good engineer means copying what others do to an excessive degree. Doing good mixes is much the same as being a good musician. It's not just a matter of knowing what all the rules are. The good ones have an instinctive quality to their work that is innate and not teachable. We've all known musicians that were great at reproducing other peoples music but ended up sounding like karaoke. All sterile with no fire to the playing. The same, I think, applies to mixing music.

[crawdad]

Lt. Bob--I agree! Its not just about knowing what the rules are. Thats just a starting point. Beyond that, I think the great mixers let the tune dictate where the mix should go and find ways to bring out the best in that performance. Having a frame of reference is essential, but that is just the beginning. If you tried to mix U2 like they were Alabama, they'd probably sound pretty weird. Its the difference between learning a solo that will fit over a set of changes and being able to improvise a new one every time. Both solists may sound good, but one's a master and ones a parrot! The masters just know their stuff cold.

One of my favorite producers is Don Was. His records sound great. The guy who engineers for him could mix any style of music and make it sound incredible. Thats a master there.

[Lt. Bob]

Originally posted by crawdad
..... one's a master and ones a parrot!....

[charger]

I've listened to rock music for my whole life constantly. I've listened to some albums repititively, nay, obsessively, for years at a time. And yet, my mixes don't sound like Rick Rubin or Butch Vig or the Radiohead guy or... anyone... could be because those albums all sound markedly different from each other. Each has a sonic imprint, and it's all rock and roll, but it's not like they're all mixing to sound like each other. They're mixing it to sound good to themselves.

[JuSumPilgrim]

Just a side point here: I think knowing a genre really well is a prerequisite to creatively mixing music in that genre. You have to know whats been done, whats being done, and whats not being done but what could be done given what has been done.

The chonological context which all music exists in. You have to have your finger on the pulse and know where things are going. I hear alot of guys on the board talking about great records from the 70s and 80s, I hardly hear a word about brilliant or at least interesting and talented new bands with engineers who grew up on grunge and are making todays records. Stuff like bjork, sigur ros, Lamb, Mr Bungle, cake, system of a down, and others doing dynamic new interesting stuff with vocals, drums, guitars, etc In order to chart new territory and create something compelling and original, there needs to be more discussion about contemporary production and what the future might be, less about the past.

[CyanJaguar]

charger, maybe you are listening to widely different albums.

For example, in my rock playlist, I have bands that sound very alike. There are differences, but with a small window,

nickleback,
Fuel,
staind,
Hoobastank. These guys sound have a sameness of sound.

In the same playlist, I have Aerosmith and The cult, and they sound very different from the ones I previosly mentioned. So much high end its irritating

Then you have U2 and goo goo dolls with their own unique sound. That's why it may be the best idea to stick with one album and then know it intimately

[chessrock]

Originally posted by JuSumPilgrim
Just a side point here: I think knowing a genre really well is a prerequisite to creatively mixing music in that genre. You have to know whats been done, whats being done, and whats not being done but what could be done given what has been done.

Or you could just point a mic at someone and hit "record."

You bring up a good point. And I really don't think someone could get that kind of perspective from listening to just one album over and over.

[Lopp]

Originally posted by JuSumPilgrim
In order to chart new territory and create something compelling and original, there needs to be more discussion about contemporary production and what the future might be, less about the past.

Bravo!



Of course it is also important to learn from others, especially when mixing a genre we may not be familiar with. Thus, I liked CyanJaguar's idea. I also agree that the main problems in making our mixes sound like anothers deal mostly with limitations in execution, performance, abilities, and equipment.

[esactun]

Originally posted by JuSumPilgrim
I hear alot of guys on the board talking about great records from the 70s and 80s, I hardly hear a word about brilliant or at least interesting and talented new bands with engineers who grew up on grunge and are making todays records. Stuff like bjork, sigur ros, Lamb, Mr Bungle, cake, system of a down...

System of a Down's "Toxicity" was produced by Rick Rubin and mixed by Andy Wallace ....


I DO see your point-- I'm just being a royal, pedantic ass-pain.

[detuned6]

Originally posted by esactun

System of a Down's "Toxicity" was produced by Rick Rubin and mixed by Andy Wallace ....


That is a really good sounding album,theirs only two things "i" would change- the kick a lil more clicker and twat hair louder. And the bass guitar dosent really grab me. Other than that its a great heavy clean sounding album. System is the only radio band that i like.