How do I get closer to that CD ?

[smellyfuzz]

ALRIGHT !!!

I was very much enjoying a mix of one of my songs.
Actually, I was practicing my mixing technique, my Otari half track should be repaired by the end of this week.

I liked the advice given on this web-site I received long ago, it stated that you should compare your mixes to professional mixes and try to make your mix closer sounding to the professional CD.

Well, first of all, when you compare a CD to your own stuff, and then try to match it, WOW IS THAT HARD TO DO.

BUT..... VERY USEFUL.

Now, my most recent obsession is COLDPLAY. Their new release is great, different sounding then their first album(PARACHUTE), but still very good.

So I did the comparisons...

I was relatively pleased with the results yet, still some things really did raise questions;

1) The lead vox had a great deal more of intimacy & clarity.

2) The drum had MORE reverb then mine, they were set back in the mix more yet, there was no muddiness at all.

3) The electric guitars, bass & keys actually sounded comparable.
I was surprised, although they sounded totally different, I would say that my guitars, bass & keys held their own against COLDPLAY

4) This is the biggy, I have heard this many, many times on good recordings.

DEPTH & SPACE.

The COLDPLAY CD sounded three dimensional & as if it were coming from wider speakers.
The sound actually sounded BIGGER then the space of the speaker distance.
In Audiophile terms, the sound stage was far wider & deeper then in my recording.

I guess my question is obvious,

How do I get closer to that CD ?

All comments welcome.

Sean

[sjoko2]

That's about a million questions in one go

First part, the lead vocal. What you describe as intimacy and clarity is something you normally get close to (if you want to, for the material) by using an outstanding microphone / pre combination which suits the singer's voice, as well as careful processing of reverbs etc.
To be absolutely honest, this is the one area (vocal recording), where in my opinion quality of equipment really counts. You cannot 'fake' the sound of a high-end mic, pre, reverb and compressor.

Working with the equipment you have available, while I have not heard it, try playing with a good EQ. Listen carefully to the frequencies of what you are trying to copy, and play around until you are as close as you can get. Do the same with the reverb sound.

Reading in-between the lines of your second point. Reverb should not add muddiness to a drum sound. If it does, there is something wrong with the frequency spectrum of the reverb. Choose very carefully what, and what kind off, reverb you use. Match the reverb to the instrument. A reverb should enhance and 'carry' not mask or make muddy, any sound.
Look at a snare for instance. What would you like to enhance? The low end? Then use a reverb that carries the low and not the high frequencies. You want a nice crack in the top of the snare? Shelf the reverb low end and play with delay. Toms? not a lot of high frequency verb etc. Putting reverb on a whole drum mix invariable will create mud. (as a rule I normally 'verb the snare and toms, nothing else).

The last one, the million dollar question, how to create depth and space. You'll most likely get a million suggestions to that one, but in reality, this is to multi-facetted a "problem" to offer you one, or even a few, usefull suggestions.

Depth and space are the end all and be all of a good mix, regardless of the kind of music. Naturally here it helps tremendously if the material has been well tracked. The better quality the tracking, the easier it will be to create an individual space for each component within a mix.
For example, say the track in question has an acoustic guitar rythm part. If you play and record that part well, you need to put the sound somewhere in the mix - somewhere between left and right, at a certain level.
Or, you doubled the track (played, not copied) to perfection, bang in the pocket, but now you delay one of those tracks by a couple of miliseconds (while staying in phase of cause), you pan the tracks at 9 and 3 o'clock, and now you find you have a much bigger, broader sound. As a result you can bring the volume down, while retaining the feel of the volume. Now your guitars sound fuller, bigger, 'deeper', and in reality you have reduced the overall space / volume they needed to make their present heard, and you have created more space for other things, which, as a result, will also sound clearer and better.
That is just one example. If you work towards a situation where everything has its own space in a mix, without pushing other sounds into the "black hole", you will start to create space, depth and dynamics.
Not a trick, just a lot of work and practise. The more you try and experiment, the better you'll get at it.

Finally, something I have typed over and over again... In the "real world" of pro audio anything between a day (long hour one!!) and a couple of weeks is spent PER SONG. Some are faster, some even longer. This is work done by pro's. Mixing takes time, patience and WORK. it doesn't just happen. If you are not happy, try again, make notes of what sounded like what, and keep going until you are happy. Very often its one one millimeter fader move which makes the whole thing jell.

By the way, the record in question is something I'd describe as a typical english recording. I love the quality / style, a lot of people over here don't.

[rambo]

That's Ambience Sean...... and to understand how to use it you have to know a bit of how human hearing reacts to different sounds, delays, reflections, compression e.t. ....
But also... when comparing we normally tend to compare with top sounding albums.....
One thing most engineers learn when they go into studios is that pros and studio musicans and unbeliveble good.... they will never stop amaze you.... and that's one big help for a good sound

good luck

[VOXVENDOR]

Originally posted by smellyfuzz
ALRIGHT !!!
Well, first of all, when you compare a CD to your own stuff, and then try to match it, WOW IS THAT HARD TO DO.

BUT..... VERY USEFUL.

Yeah.. I have always been a fan of doing this and was probably one of the ones doling out that advice...

It is very hard... and I go through alot of cd'rs, checking mixes.....

Exentually, you get down to the very minute aspects of the mix.... once you take care of the details, all the rest will come together...

For instance, so many people just focus on their rythym section and get the vocals sounding good.... But there are so many things in the mix that need attention...

I have been known to spend 3 hours trying to get my ride cymbal sounding good in the mix..... In fact that one is in the beginning of my song "Nothing to Hide" http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/...vendor/singles
It's clear and almost sounds like drum machine perfected, but I swear on my kids life it is live....

How did I get it like that... Time..


I don't know about yall, But I can hear when I turn on the radio, and the mix sounds decent, but sounds like it is "the luck of the draw"

Then on the opposite hand, you get Mike Shipley, Tom Lord-Alge and Bob Clearmountain, where everything has a purpose for being where it is in the mix.... Every thing sounds well thought out..... nothing is "luck of the draw"..

Mike Shipley eq's every single word on it's own.. Hows that for detail?.... And it shows.. You put on a Def leppard, or Shania album and there is a perfection to the mix, that you don't hear anywhere else..

Time and Patience.

Joe

[CyanJaguar]

I thought that the intimate vocal sound came from compressing the vox and raising it in the mix?

I think I understand what you are talking about when you say depth. I believe that one will percieve more depth if the average level is louder.

[regebro]

Originally posted by smellyfuzz
Now, my most recent obsession is COLDPLAY.

Oooh.

3) The electric guitars, bass & keys actually sounded comparable.
I was surprised, although they sounded totally different, I would say that my guitars, bass & keys held their own against COLDPLAY

Oooh again.

Try posting your mix in the MP3 clinic, and it will be easier for people to give accurate recommendations. I probably can't, but I wanna listen to anybody who is obsessed with Coldplay.

[smellyfuzz]

Sjoko2,

Thanks once again for your most valuable advice and time.

Question;

Putting reverb on a whole drum mix invariable will create mud. (as a rule I normally 'verb the snare and toms, nothing else).

I only have 2 tracks for my drums,

Should I lock myself into a sound on the toms & snare ?

Should I just continue to put reverb over the whole set as I have been doing ?

Is there another option ?

Sean

PS.

By the way, the record in question is something I'd describe as a typical english recording. I love the quality / style, a lot of people over here don't.

I have also noticed that style of recordings over the years.

I love, love that type of delicate sound (even on rock bands) and wish very much to achieve the ability & maybe the equipment in order to reach it.

I have heard this type of recording on American artist as well, usually smaller artist though.

Check out Ryan Adams first solo, GOLD. SOUNDS GREAT!

[sjoko2]

You're very limited with 2 tracks.
To much verb and the whole thing will loose its punch.

I don't know what kind of reverb you are using, but if you have all drums down to 2 tracks, you should ensure that the kick especially is not effected by the reverb. One way of doing that would be to run the reverb through an EQ and ensuring that the kick's dominant frequencies are eliminated.

[TexRoadkill]

Space, detail and clarity are tall orders for cheap pres and DAW mixes. I'm not saying it's impossible but it's VERY difficult and like Vox says, time is the key. It's a lot easier to do full on pop and rock with home equipment. Macle and DarthFaders do a great job with their rigs but I haven't heard them attempt anything very 'spacious'.

When you are limited by equipment you have to make sure you get perfect mic placement, levels and as little processing as possible. Over processing will really kill your detail and space. This is reall more of a tracking issue than a mixing issue. If you don't get the detail in the original tracks than some EQ plugin will not help.

Get it right while tracking and don't screw it up by over processing.

If you like clarity and space check out Sarah Mcglachlan's Fumbling Towards Ecstacy. That whole album sounds amazing.

[chessrock]

Originally posted by TexRoadkill
It's a lot easier to do full on pop and rock with home equipment. Macle and DarthFaders do a great job with their rigs but I haven't heard them attempt anything very 'spacious'.

I agree with that. Macle seems to compensate by using various interesting textures, and layering of track upon track -- kind of like a "wall of sound" idea. Darth seems to get there by a more raw, simple sound (with tasteful layering of vocal harmony).

"Spacious" is something achieved by good stereo micing . . .which requires more quality accoustics than a lot of people have available to them in a home recording environment. Lush, realistic reverbs can substitute, to a degree. But again, that requires a larger financial investment -- something else that a lot of home recording environments don't necessarily have ample quanitities of.

Spacious is certainly a goal within reach of the home-rec'er. It's a worthwhile challenge, for sure. Let's just keep hoping for more price/performance breakthroughs in the realm of quality 'verbs (RNRV?)

[crawdad]

I agree with good tracking as a foundation to build on. Lately, I've been listening to a lot of old mixes of mine and feeling like I was better off, in many ways with my old 4 track tapes and even ADATS as opposed to my DAW. As a result, I spent half the night last night just working with my method of tracking bass. I experimented with all my preamps and different compressors, etc. I was amazed at how different setups achieved different results. I also came to the conclusion that my bass has major limitations!

Anyway, getting the best sounding source and input signal is more than half the battle. If that bass sounds muddy and unfocused while tracking, there isn't a whole lot I can do to fix it in the mix. If it does sound great, then I have options.

[James Argo]

* OT mode ON

How do I get closer to that CD ?

Move your seat, get up your ass and reach that CD...


* OT mode Off

[chessrock]

I think we should all get a little closer to our CD's.

It's a rather touching thought, itsn't it?

Why do birds . . .

[PRiZ-one]

what do you all use to pan your tracks?
And how do you do it? as in steps. I can't really picture how, do you do it all at once in realtime somehow till it all clicks or do you just decide where you want the sound to be strongest loudest, then adjust the rest acoording to how it evolves.

[James Argo]

Originally posted by PRiZ-one
what do you all use to pan your tracks?
And how do you do it? as in steps. I can't really picture how, do you do it all at once in realtime somehow till it all clicks or do you just decide where you want the sound to be strongest loudest, then adjust the rest acoording to how it evolves.

Walk this way...

Explains the idea how to mix & pan...

[PRiZ-one]

thank!

[littledog]

It's pretty interesting to think about how all of our panning assumptions (lead vox, bass, kick down the middle, e.g.) were not as etched in stone in the early days of stereo. I'll be driving around listening to an oldies station in the car sometimes, and a song will come on from the early sixties and the drums will be in the right channel and the bass and guitars in the left, for instance. By playing with the balance knob i can completely eliminate instruments in the mix! Obviously they were still feeling their way around about how to deal with stereo.

Some of the surround mixes that some engineers are so proud of today might end up being the fodder for similar amusement for future generations. Food for thought, anyway...

[sjoko2]

a lot of them already are

[smellyfuzz]

He typed fodder.

[sjoko2]

Originally posted by smellyfuzz
He typed fodder.

:

smelly.......you are nuts