mix quality --> recording quality

participant

participant

New member
Many new to recording seem to believe that quality mixes come from DAW fx, plugins, settings, EQ, or computer tricks. Mixing should be where you make artistic choices... not where you improve sound quality! (IMO ;))

Seriously... who here believes that if you had X plug-in, or Y eq you could make a thin guitar sound fat? Or poor drum samples sound real? Or badly recorded vocals sound tight?

You're NOT going to do much for the QUALITY of your final mix with your DAW, or recording software.... at least RELATIVE to the huge improvement you'd get by:

1) mic'ing properly
2) gain staging properly
3) putting together an arrangement with sounds that fit
4) recording great sounds in the first place!

Recording software can damage your sounds more than fix them. knightfly's posts about EQ and phase shifts was eye opening. If one side of stereo cymbals, for example, is delayed even slightly, phasing/comb filtering takes place. Software isn't accurate enough to ensure this won't happen. Is it coincidence that many complain "where are my highs"?

"Fader math" errors are also destructive to sound quality... Recording as close to mix level as possible is your best bet if using the computer. Then leave the faders at unity gain.

From now on, I'm using no EQ, very little compression, and few FX and save all the mixing headaches... until I can afford a good analog board, a RADAR and great converters. It's all about capturing better sounds, not conjuring 'em with Cubase.

Don't try and fix your mix w/plugins. If it doesn't 'work', and you have the time, retrack first. Move the mic. Fix your room.


littledog, sonusman, knightfly, shailat, blue bear, mixmkr, or anyone else care to add to this? please? :) thanks


Chad
 
I'm sure you're right on all those points.

But...
When you're not a pro, you don't always know how to do it right in the recording process. Sometimes you don't realize until later. Other times the musicians get impatient while you're fussing around. In most of the stuff I do when recording, we write the song as we record so we don't really know what we're after yet when recording.

So I still grab the mouse and slide those virtual eq faders on probably 75% of the tracks I lay down. I realize that as I'm eq-ing I'm detracting from the sound in a way, but I think the positive more than makes up for the negative when I do it right.

I hear you. A lot of people over do it with the plug ins. I'm sure I'm one of them. But they still can be pretty valuable. I'd think twice about your "no eq" policy.

I gotta go check out knighfly's post that you referred to. Sounds informative.
 
That's right Chad !!! I post a link to this thread in Newbie forum. In my thread about "What musicians should know before take their first recording session..."

;)
James
 
fprod south said:
When you're not a pro, you don't always know how to do it right in the recording process. Sometimes you don't realize until later. Other times the musicians get impatient while you're fussing around. In most of the stuff I do when recording, we write the song as we record so we don't really know what we're after yet when recording.

This bbs has a wealth of info, and many people who can help with the recording process. If the quality's suffering, my point is ask questions about tracking and get that as good as possible, and the "mix quality" questions won't even happen.

So I still grab the mouse and slide those virtual eq faders on probably 75% of the tracks I lay down. I realize that as I'm eq-ing I'm detracting from the sound in a way, but I think the positive more than makes up for the negative when I do it right.

If you're pleased with the sounds you're getting, you can do no wrong. If you'd like better quality, or if you're curious if it's possible, then increasing your knowledge about arranging, getting great sounds, and tracking should be where you look first (IMNSHO).

I'd think twice about your "no eq" policy.

Mmm... I wouldn't. Software EQs create phase issues. Why not track everything the way it should sound in the mix? You can do 95% of your EQ with mic choice/position!
Click to expand...

No pipelineaudio, or Track Rat, or Light, or sweetnubs :eek:, or any other voice of experience to deepen/continue this rant? :)


Chad
 
participant said:


Seriously... who here believes that if you had X plug-in, or Y eq you could make a thin guitar sound fat? Or poor drum samples sound real? Or badly recorded vocals sound tight?


Don't try and fix your mix w/plugins. If it doesn't 'work', and you have the time, retrack first. Move the mic. Fix your room.


littledog, sonusman, knightfly, shailat, blue bear, mixmkr, or anyone else care to add to this? please? :) thanks
Click to expand...

Well, you called me out on this one, so...

Although I understand and admire the spirit of your posts, sometimes as a paid professional your job is to turn a sow's ear into as close to a silk purse as is possible.

I will have to admit that many times I have fattened up many a thin guitar, turned shitty drum samples into slammin' ones, tuned and tightened vocals. Unless you are fortunate enough to accept work only from top talent, this is part of the dues you pay.

As a result, you develop all kinds of tricks. And, yes, many of them involve plug-ins.

Is the result going to sound like Nirvana's "Nevermind"? (Or whatever appropriate example for the style invovlved...) Probably not. But an order of magnitude or two of improvement is sometimes possible with the right combination of mixing skill and tools.

Unfortunately, sometimes you have to deal with whatever raw material is handed you...
 
Thanks for responding, LD. And everything you said works for me. My point was... those who are here trying to fix problems in their "mix" would be better served getting better arrangements and tracks first.

Of course, there being no "right" or "wrong", it seems there's a preference of many to just do a bunch of poor takes and try to make 'em work in the DAW. Why not fix it before then?
 
Amen Chad !!!


This "rant" of yours is one of the simplest, and most important things I have learned on this board.
The immediate benefit of concentrating on this method is you learn how to use the equipment you have to its fullest before ever moving to the mixing stage. If something isn't kosher from the start it forces you to retrack, and search for a better sound at the source.

The best "sounding" stuff I have ever done took very little time to mix. It was there to begin with.

Great info !!

Joel
 
To add to what you're saying, I've always felt that the problem lies in the fact that we have these "phases," and distinctions between the phases. First tracking, then mixing, then mastering, etc etc. When doing everything yourself, I think it's even more important to always be thinking the way a mastering engineer would. :D In other words, always be cognizant of how each track and the way you are recording it is going to fit in to a much bigger picture . . . how it will interact with the other tracks, and how those will ultimately piece together and affect the final master.

It's too easy to say "fix it in the mix." I say pretend there is no "mix," and treat it like you are creating a master from the very beginning. Not sure if that makes any sense, but I just figured I'd chime in my senseless babble. :D
 
"You can do 95% of your EQ with mic choice/position!"

The problem with that is that you can't EQ with the mic to make the track blend well with a track you haven't recorded yet.

I agree that you should always get the best possible sound when recording. I don't get the best possible sound at recording because I'm a newbie. And more experienced people don't always get the best possible sound because they don't know what that is until other parts are tracked (or so it would seem).

Anyway...not trying to start an argument. I just think eq is too good a thing to give up.

When my band used to record in the studio, sometimes we'd say "should we do it again?", and the engineer always responded "well you won't make the SAME mistakes". I'm sure we were exactly what little dog is talking about, eh?
 
fprod south said:
The problem with that is that you can't EQ with the mic to make the track blend well with a track you haven't recorded yet.

That's where the "arrangement" comments come from. You should be able to imagine, in your head, what your arrangement will sound like before you've recorded a note. If not, some practice recordings aren't going to hurt. If the guitar part isn't fitting, for example, instead of reaching for EQ... track again... and attempt to capture the guitar sound which will fit. Sometimes it means a different amp/mic/room.

Reference CDs give you an idea, or an example of sounds/arrangements that work together... not just an example of great mixes.

BTW you're not really "EQing" a mic, either... although that's sometimes desirable. What I'm talking about is moving the mic around; placing it on-axis, off axis, parallel to the axis... whatever... mic placement will offer you plenty of tone control without EQ.

I agree that you should always get the best possible sound when recording. I don't get the best possible sound at recording because I'm a newbie. And more experienced people don't always get the best possible sound because they don't know what that is until other parts are tracked (or so it would seem).

No, IMO most good engineers know what sound they're looking for before they record a note. Check sonusman's thread in the mixing clinic (probably dropped to page 3 by now). Check the one where it's just "faders up"... no FX... no EQ... it's about 95% there.

And I'm not arguing with you... this is still a civil discussion... nobody's picked up any mud to sling yet :D
Click to expand...

BTW good insight, chessrock. Another great reason to have a good "producer", as IMO this person would somewhat have an idea of what a whole album might sound like.


Chad
 
Amazing how many of these issues we're discussing would be solved by just a day or two of pre-production.

Too many of the guys I record treat it like a McDonald's drive-through . . . drive up, record and drive away with a final product the same day.

That's why things like EQ, re-amping, etc. become so important come mixdown.
 
"No pipelineaudio, or Track Rat, or Light, or sweetnubs , or any other voice of experience to deepen/continue this rant? "

boy am I gonna WHACKED around here from now on

youll usually find me on your end of the spectrum, but of course I always gotta get a little more complicated with it

I dont agree in the slightest bit with Nika's stuff, he can back it up all he wants and the theory is all there but it just doesnt SOUND right, BUT.....

This is a matter of degrees

I spend time on both sides of digital and analog summing. I dont blanket dismiss plugins any more than I would blanket dismiss hardware. Theres good and bad in both. Your point about fader math problems are spot on, but then again, you CAN usually deal with them. Computer tricks are no worse than any other trick, its the use of the trick that determines the shade factor.

In this day and age many times the music is mostly created in the mix. A bunch of slop thrown together during recording then tricked out to become a final product. Thats what a LOT of popular realeases are, so that way has SOME validity.

A plug has just as much chance as a analog EQ of making a thin guitar sound fat, but it has its own artifacts, as does analog. There ARE ways of making zero pole filters in DSP to avoid phase shifts, and oddly enough, they dont usually sound good...in fact I bet that DSP EQ's sound bad sometimes because they have too little phasiness.

As for improving the quality of your final mix in a DAW, it may be that since the song and the performance of the song are about 8 zillion times more important than the hi-fi-ness, you might be able to schlep together a bunch of incongruent crap into a wonderful performance of a song, and in the end thats REALLY all that matters, tho Im always trying to wring out that last little bit of fidelity.

Then again, the four things you mentioned would always make it that so much better

Software can damage your songs just as much as analog can, and worse, most arent too familiar with many of the pitfalls DSP can cause. About the " where's my hi's" ? usually thats what I say when I summ analog, in digital I can keep them easier, but they are WEIRD

these are just nitpickings tho....in the end like you say, track it right and itll mix itself
 
You've got me thinking participant.
I'm actually pretty snobby about getting a good sound at the source. I always use tube amps for guitar, rarely use pedals, never use synth, midi, samples, or drum machines. I've caved on the whole POD thing (but I'll never use one on my own playing). But at the same time I'm quick to grab software eq. I will think twice next time.

But still, I say while you should always try to do the best you can while recording, sometimes at mixdown you have to say "I should have recorded that better/differently" and then make it sound the best you can with eq.

I understood what you meant by eqing with mic placement. I've only got 2 mics that I'd ever record guitar with. I've spent time recording them in differnt positioning just to get a feel so that when the band is in the house I don't have to waste as much of their time (ruin the vibe) messing with mic placement.

I heard sonusman's thread when he posted it. You're right. The thing is I don't have his expertise or gear. If there is something in the mix I can do to make things sound better, I'll do it.

But again, this is making me think. I will be more careful in asking myself if those tweaks are going to make it sound better or worse.
 
I agree with what's been said so far....

...what you're basically describing is the same as in Physics lab years ago -- there's the theory, and the practical applications.

The theory is "track it right and it will mix itself".... sure enough, and some (many) follow that ethic (or try to)....... many times though, that isn't reality..... more often than not, you're mixing a project that ISN'T well-recorded (and tracked by someone else!)...

Either way, your job as a mixer is to make blend AS IF it were well-tracked (whether it is or isn't!).... and you use whatever tools you have at your disposal to accomplish this.

Experience allows you to use the tools well and without degrading the value of the tracks -- inexperience means you'll waste a lot of time using a hammer as a screwdriver before getting the results you need to.

In the end, you do what has to be done.... if it sounds goods, it IS good.... but if it doesn't sound good, then you didn't do your job properly!
 
Good points, guys. I'll respond more fully when I get home.... you're coming from the audio-professional world where often you'll have to do as LD says... make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Yes there are many tricks to help clean things up and give you a good mix.

My direction was from the DIYers, who are probably recording themselves/their own band. There's no reason to just record and use sloppy tracks when you could save yourself a ton of work by tracking it the way it should sound when mixed.

Besides, these so-called "mixing tricks" can & would be abused by people who'd be better served learning how to record first!


Chad
 
participant said:

"Fader math" errors are also destructive to sound quality... Recording as close to mix level as possible is your best bet if using the computer. Then leave the faders at unity gain.
Chad
Click to expand...
There are some interesting comments in this post by Paul Frindle that it could help some plugin's performance by NOT sending them max level signals, leading some credence to the idea that recording a little lower (or loosing some gain after recording if you recorded maxed out) could help keep things healther in a DAW mix.

http://www.musicgearnetwork.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=004368;p=3 (about midway down the page)

Great thread! Keep them comming.:D
Wayne
 
if you have your instruments, your mics, your daw, and everything in one small room like me. You CANT always tell whats best until you've recorded it. Sure i can move the mic around while my brother is playing accoustic guitar and try to find the sweetest spot for the sound i want. But hes playing his damn guitar right in front of me and my headphones only seal so much out. I could record it and realize it sounds totaly crappy. Or not really be able to tell until a few days later. I don't have expert ears so i can't always tell what will be best in the mix while i'm recording it, so i use plugins to help fix it. I use a lot of plugins to be honest, but i use them lightly when i can. I try not to boost or cut more than 2-3 dba on eq (unless i'm rolling off some rumbly bass or somethign like that). I try to keep my compressors at 2:1 and have the threshold only at about -2 or -6 max. Reverb i use it so i can hardly tell i even used it, etc... Small touches that make a big difference but don't really mess the mix up TOO much. Until i can really understand that different isn't always better, i'm gonna have to just use small ammounts of everything and be conservative.
 
In my VERY limited digital experience, I have found myself spending the most time with plug ins, or anything that would SAVE a track I should have tracked better to start with.
Only when I was able to get something consistent from each track at the start have I been able to learn how to EQ for seperation of frequencies, or placing sounds in different areas for blend. Though my equipment and knowledge are very basic, I am slowly making progress in the right direction.

As many people on this board have said.
You can't polish a turd.
And if the track stinks to start, you need to follow the scent and replace what is spoiled.
After that I am finding that it doesn't take much to basically get it in place, and once its there.................leave it alone until you have a reason!
 
ambi,

I think that you're validating the point. If I'm listening to my mix, the sound might suck. It might be because I'm not a pro, and need more experience with my room, or my mic, or my gain staging was off, or the guitar sounds like shit. But in the end, if the sound sucks, I'm better off going back, and trying again. If it still sucks, keep trying something new until it doesn't suck. It'll take a little more time than searching through plugins, and tweaking them (and it's a little more work), but the rewards are much greater.

Good decisions come from experience.
Experience comes from bad decisions.

You gotta be willing to track some terrible stuff, to learn what not to do. And you gotta be willing to say "damn, that's terrible; I'm going to do it over again". That's the first step towards experience.

-mg
 
That is true. and in theory i agree 100 percent. But i just don't have the room/mics/preamps to pick the perfect combination and get the sound i want. I'm lucky to have one preamp and one mic for everything. Sometimes i just have to settle with what i get. But i do agree in getting the best sound you can at the start 100 percent. I've spent 3 hours getting a kick drum to sound a little better, and the snare to have more umph, and it payed off big time. Still amature and i still don't know what i'm doing but you learn a lot. But isn't that what home recording is? Making do with what you have and doing whatever you can to make it sound as good as possible. In my signal chain, which sucks, high end plugins and softwear are my best part. I try to get the best sound in tracking, but it doesn't hurt to beef it up a bit, or down, with some effects and computer wizardry. But for the record i agree, and if you can spend an extra 4 hours getting that guitar sound right, instead of spending 4 hours with plugins getting it right, do it in the tracking stage. Personally i don't play any instruments, just learning guitar and about to learn to sing, so i borrow other peoples time and talent and they don't have 4 hours to sit around while i skratch my nuts and inch a mic around the entire room. but YES, you are right!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top