Biggest mixing revelation I've had in years: Turn off your graphs and curves!

Oh jeez, wasn't it only a couple weeks ago we were talking about how similar our approaches were? :p

I realized this pretty recently too, that I tend to mix visually a lot, and that in many ways that's a handicap. What finally clicked for me was trying to mix with my eyes closed - not thinking about EQ points or volume adjustments in quantitative numerical terms, but rather just grabbing a slider, closing my eyes, and listening to what I was doing. It was a surprisingly powerful experience, and I think it really forced me to rethink a lot of things I was taking for granted.

6 months later, I've come full circle, to a certain extent. I think that for some things, it IS more convenient to work visually. Setting compression thresholds, for example - the ability to eyeball the break between the peak and sustain/body of a note and adjust your threshold accordingly I think is a pretty strong advantage of a DAW - it can certainly be done by ear, but if you know what you're trying to accomplish, it's often faster to work with visual cues as well. However, from there, adjusting the compression and attack by ear very well may be the better way to go, and while I still do find that I generally do EQ tweaks with my eyes closed, it seems less important now because I no longer really pay that much attention to what the numbers are saying.

Anyway, it's a pretty cool realization, isn't it? It suddenly turns mixing into a whole new act. :D
 
Chibi Nappa said:
Here is the gist of this whole thing: In evolutionary terms, we need our eyes way more than we need our ears. Our brains are wired to favor our eyes. If we get conflicting information from our eyes and our ears, we believe our eyes.

I started out with this whole music thing in the late 90's. I have known DAWs and digital interfaces my whole career. For a few years they were all I knew. For all the time I spent in "digital land" I never realized how much harm I was doing myself with visual EQ curves and compressor graphs and gain reduction meters and etc etc.

Not that my mixes have been bad. Just that they could have been better. And faster.

It seems preposterous to think that I would not use an EQ setting because the hills on the curve looked wrong. But after reading a discussion on the topic (I'll link at the bottom) it turns out that is exactly what I was doing. I turned off the visual aids, mapped the EQ to my control knobs, set it where it sounded best, and then took a look at the curve when I was done. I swear I almost altered it the instant I saw it. It just looked so wrong. Way too extreme. But it didn't sound extreme. In fact it sounded great. And it was STILL hard to not change it after seeing it.

I have also been setting compressors visually by watching the gain reduction. My eyes tell me 20 db of reduction that never recovers past 6 db of reduction can't be right. My eyes tell me that 1 db of reduction that only hits every now and then can't possibly be enough to make a difference. But my eyes don't know a damn thing about sound. Pity my brain believes everything they say.

And it goes on and on with pitch, tempo, where notes fall on the beat...



The very first time I mapped EQ and dynamics to my control surface knobs and turned off the visuals, the whole mix came together better and quicker than ever before.

Read these discussions:
http://thewombforums.com/showthread.php?t=13010

http://thewombforums.com/showthread.php?t=10363


Then turn your computer screen off.
Click to expand...

This is the most useful mixing advice I've heard in...years. Yup, years.

Thanks Chibi. :)

Chibi for President.
 
I remember reading an article in tapeop about someone (forgot who) who would cover the vu meters on the tape deck. He trusted his ears more than the peaking meter. And that was for sure before the daw.
 
Interesting/depressing related note: I have the 002 with faders and such... and I generally don't use 'em. I feel like I should though, unless I'm just editing...
 
Chibi you are absolutely correct. I started out in the analog domain where we didn't have anything BUT VU meters to look at. It definitely helps to keep your concentration up to not have a screen to watch the EQ curves or gain reduction. I too am now guilty of doing that same thing; Looking at the curve to set my EQ and wondering why I can't get things to meld together.

Here's another tip that I've found very useful:

Start mixing in mono.

Listen to each of the parts in mono and don't worry about "where" they are in the stereo spectrum. At this point it doesn't matter. It's much easier to get your balances and check for sounds working against each other if your hearing it from one point not 2. You can do your mutes and volume changes in mono then once it sounds good in mono, widen it out to stereo. You can even add delays and reverb in mono to tentatively get the timings, lengths, and levels set. Once its spread out you can fine tune everything, but it really does help to start in mono.

Try it.

Mike
 
Educate me. If you're working in mono, how can you usefully apply verbs? Doesn't it change everything when you pan stuff later? I mean, you'll have to redo all the verbs on the panned tracks, right? And doesn't that change the sound of the whole mix?
 
I agree about the mono thing. I do the first half of my mix in mono. Yeah, levels have to be readjusted after the jump to stereo. And yeah, you can't really do your verbs until after the jump to stereo...

But starting in mono gives you one hell of a solid foundation.
 
Okay, I'll try it. Cuz to tell the truth, the thing that takes me longest to get right is levels. Mono would help me work with that, I think.
 
Mono also really helps with tracking. When you don't have "left/right" to open up your sound, you really have to take care what you record so it fits with what is already there. Then for the final mix when you do have "left/right", there is no problem with anything stepping on anything else.

You will also know if any of your mics or delays are causing phase problems. Really obvious in mono.
 
Chibi Nappa said:
Mono also really helps with tracking. When you don't have "left/right" to open up your sound, you really have to take care what you record so it fits with what is already there. Then for the final mix when you do have "left/right", there is no problem with anything stepping on anything else.

You will also know if any of your mics or delays are causing phase problems. Really obvious in mono.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Interesting point - I'd always considered phase issues a reason to monitor any stereo instrument in mono while tracking, but I never considered recording everything in mono to see how it fits together. I'll have to give that a try.
 
leddy said:
Having three conversions (AD to the HD24, DA to the Mackie, AD to the Masterlink) is not exactly "analog". :):D
Click to expand...
yeah, I know ! what I meant was, the recording process i use is more user friendly and analog like to me than pro tools, etc. can i help it if i'm too old fashioned and set in my ways to where i looked for a simpler method to accomplish basically the same result.
 
I like as many charts and graphs up as humanly possible. I am almost to the point that I can "draw" a perfect mix on the screen with a mouse. Using your ears for sound is so 1990s. Use as much of the features that you can as often as you can BECAUSE YOU CAN.

I wish that they would make real digital reproducers that only play "1" and "0"


My mixes would be easier and sound like "1101110001010101011110001010101010101010000000001110010101010101010101010100000001110000101010111010101001010101100101010101010110"
This is my latest mix,
Enjoy
 
leddy said:
Having three conversions (AD to the HD24, DA to the Mackie, AD to the Masterlink) is not exactly "analog". :):D
Click to expand...
Thanks, i never meant to imply that it was. Just saying that my setup is user friendly to me because it has the same ease of use as working with analog tape recorders. Guess I miss spoke.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top