Mixing theory...

[whjr15]

Just curious as to what you guys think the most productive approach to mixing is. The more I read and experiment, I now see why a soloed instrument/voice can't be judged (as far as if it will sit in the mix right).

But my main hangup is on the general process itself. (Let's assume you have all of your initial tracking done.) When you move on to mixing, where do you start? Do you ever find yourself re-tracking any parts because after hearing the full mix, it just lacked the tone you hoped to achieve?





Ok.... So I did have a point to this post, but totally lost it once I started writing it. But if any of you wanna chime in on the random questions I did ask, (or point me to a past thread) maybe I'll remember what it was.

 

[Massive Master]

My approach - All the faders at unity, no panning, no nothing.

If it doesn't sound pretty listenable just like that, find out why for next time.

 

[whjr15]

That makes sense. Then from there you can determine what you think will "drive" the song best.

So generally speaking, it's not good practice to apply any effects/eq during tracking? Or is it one of those things that everyone does differently? Sometimes I find myself doing so, and getting sidetracked on the eq, rather than the tracking.

 

[RAMI]

So generally speaking, it's not good practice to apply any effects/eq during tracking?

Can't say it's a hard and fast rule, but a "general" rule, for sure. I guess the main reason being that you can't un-do something once it's printed. And you're never sure how it will sound in the mix....but you can't change it if you need to.
Like you said, though, everyone will do things differently, and sometimes you might be sure that you want that specific delay on the guitar, for example. And many people will put a bit of compression while tracking vocals or bass. But, you're always stuck with what you recorded, as opposed to when you add it later.

 

[ez_willis]

The more I mix, the more I find it's almost already there after tracking.

I won't even start recording the drums unless the kit sounds good to my ear, then it sounds good mic'ed up. Same with every instrument, thinking about it.

After I'm done tracking, I just dial in the volume of each track and sit back and listen for anything that jumps out at me. When I hear it, I correct it.

I don't vary much with the pan settings of each track, so that is always consistant.

 

[Jack Russell]

Just curious as to what you guys think the most productive approach to mixing is. The more I read and experiment, I now see why a soloed instrument/voice can't be judged (as far as if it will sit in the mix right).

But my main hangup is on the general process itself. (Let's assume you have all of your initial tracking done.) When you move on to mixing, where do you start? Do you ever find yourself re-tracking any parts because after hearing the full mix, it just lacked the tone you hoped to achieve?

If each part is recorded faithfully, I mean with a straight E.Q., and the tone of the instrument is good to the ear, then your individual tracks will be good, and your mix will be good later. So, the key, I've found, is to get the tone and performance right even before you track it. It is bad to think "it will be o.k. because it will be buried at that point in the mix." (But, yikes!, this happens! )

For most things, the voice and the snare need to be on top and in the middle. From there, just about anything is possible.

You know you have done the first steps very well when you've set up a linear mix (all equal across the board) with straight E.Q. and you can play it, walk around the mixing room, and not much goes out of whack.

 

[travelin travis]

So, the key, I've found, is to get the tone and performance right even before you track it.

i agree with that 100%

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

get the tone...right even before you track it.

Very true, but it's important to note what is meant by "right" in this context.

What sounds best solo isn't always what works best in the mix.

The key is getting it right in tracking in anticipation for what the mix will need. What this really means, but what very few discuss, is having a sonic image if what the song will sound like in your head before you even start tracking. mentally select the sounds and the tone before you start tracking- in fact, before you even start setting up. Knowing the tones you need beforehand will simplify the equipment selection and setup process.

That's for those doing the tracking themselves. Not all of us have that luxury, unfortunately. I, for example, at this time do mostlly mixing of tracks the artists themselves lay down and then bring to me to mix. I have neither a say or a hand in the tracking process.

For that, I start the mixing process the same way as the self-trackers usually do, which is what John described; a faders-up test listen. But there the decision process get a little more complicated for me, since that is my first listen to the tracks and the song. There it's determining where the strengths and here the intent of the song lie. It it vocal-oriented? Is it instrument-oriented? Is it hook-oriented? Is it a power anthem, a sappy ballad, or something in-between? What is the style: headbanger shread, zydeco party waltz, or IDull pop? Are the lyrics REM disposables or Dylan poetics? Does it have a sunshine and birds feeling, a doom and gloom feeling, a wine and roses feeling, or a kill them now and sort it out later feeling? Usually there are some degrees of all of the above elements mixed in almost every song in some way, and the task then is to ID where they are and when they are important, and then use that as a blueprint for building the mix. Build arong the dominant elements at that time. Build around the hooks, or maybe around the lyrics, or possibly both equally if you have another "Highway 61 Revisited" on your hands.

Then start building based upon that blueprint. For me typically (but not always) it's build the rhythm section foundation first. Percussion and bass. Leave them as seperate tracks, but be ready to stereo stem them as the rhythm stem later in the mix. Then build upon that with the rhythm and accompaniment instruments (rhythm guitar, heyboards, etc.) Again keep them as seperate tracks, but prepare to stereo stem them as an accompaniment stem later. Then similar with wind and horn, if applicable. Then the same with backup/accompaniment vocals and lead vocals.

I rely heavily on fader automation and soundscape panning in my mixing style (I really do not care for heavy-compression LCR layering myself, easy as that may be.), and this is all done in conjunction with the track building mentioned above, and with the same goals mentioned earlier.

Then it's mixdown time at which I either just mix it down myself, or if I'm prepping to send to a mastering house, I'll do not only the mixdown, but the aforementioned stems, just in case the ME can use them to benefit.

G.

 

[Jack Russell]

What sounds best solo isn't always what works best in the mix.

The key is getting it right in tracking in anticipation for what the mix will need. What this really means, but what very few discuss, is having a sonic image if what the song will sound like in your head before you even start tracking. mentally select the sounds and the tone before you start tracking- in fact, before you even start setting up. Knowing the tones you need beforehand will simplify the equipment selection and setup process.

Absolutely. For artists who write and record, such as myself, you usually have to go through a rough demo stage, where you test out various sounds and arrangements. Sometimes the first demo can work great, but not very likely.

I'm assuming that when an artist is recording a tune seriously, they have gone through the demo stage and are now at the point where they know the blueprint very well. At least the should!

There is an old rule I used to harp on:

"Never compose in the studio."

This used to be for bands who are paying hard-earned bucks to record in a studio. The more they have their arrangements, instrument tones, voices, and harmonies determined, the better the outcome in the studio and less cost. Well, at least more "bang for the buck."

Nowadays though, so many record themselves, so there is more freedom to DIY, and to experiment in the studio.

 

[Jack Russell]

Funny, but my own band went through this problem lately. We have been playing the same tunes, some for about 3 years, out in gigs, and recording rough live takes during practices. My feeling was that we should each have a fairly good idea about what tones and settings are appropriate for each tune. Or what sort of drum kit setup to use.

Then we began laying down tracks seriously. I am the bassist. The drummer and I have done many many demos of our own separately in the past. We all play guitar and bass, so each of the three members of the band is able to slap together their own first demo. However, our guitarist is a little bit intimidated by the recording process.

So, it was a shock to hear our guitarist suggest that we should listen to lots of other music and then pick out tones that we like and should use in the recordings.

I was taken aback, and so was the drummer. After playing these songs for 3 years and having gone through the demo process sometimes multiple times, I felt we should be well beyond the setting of tones. Further, why should we be copying sounds of other bands, when, correct me if wrong, bands should have their own sound?

Granted that all musicians tend to steal guitar sounds from each other, as well as equipment approach, etc. etc....still there is no reason to be confused (nor shy) when recording your songs.

Just my little beef. Sorry. Of course, if there is a trend in production in current music, then you should be trying to learn and follow such a trend.

 

[Fishmed]

Funny, but my own band went through this problem lately. We have been playing the same tunes, some for about 3 years, out in gigs, and recording rough live takes during practices. My feeling was that we should each have a fairly good idea about what tones and settings are appropriate for each tune. Or what sort of drum kit setup to use.

Then we began laying down tracks seriously. I am the bassist. The drummer and I have done many many demos of our own separately in the past. We all play guitar and bass, so each of the three members of the band is able to slap together their own first demo. However, our guitarist is a little bit intimidated by the recording process.

So, it was a shock to hear our guitarist suggest that we should listen to lots of other music and then pick out tones that we like and should use in the recordings.

I was taken aback, and so was the drummer. After playing these songs for 3 years and having gone through the demo process sometimes multiple times, I felt we should be well beyond the setting of tones. Further, why should we be copying sounds of other bands, when, correct me if wrong, bands should have their own sound?

Granted that all musicians tend to steal guitar sounds from each other, as well as equipment approach, etc. etc....still there is no reason to be confused (nor shy) when recording your songs.

Just my little beef. Sorry. Of course, if there is a trend in production in current music, then you should be trying to learn and follow such a trend.

To add to the humor, I am always astounded when a band comes into record and wants to sound like "BAND X" not having the same chops or quality of gear.
Also, I try to discourage bands from rewriting their songs in the studio. I tell them upfront to practice their music before coming in to record. Rewriting parts in the middle of the tracking process kills the momentum of the session. It is usually one member who wants to rewrite his part, which then may mess other parts of the song. Last minute changes like that can also be impulsive without much thought behind them, creating a disjointed song.

I know that many bands hate having the outside influence of a good producer, but sometimes they can give a non bias perspective to the material that will help reduce the time spent in the studio.

 

[1tonio]

Absolutely, this would seem so important. But is almost non existant @ HR. The thing is, the mp3 board is a good place to post and relay this information.
Yet, it seems people really don't seem to comment on "rough drafts" as much as finished or close to being finished tracks.
And speaking of teh mp3 board, why do you not visit Glen?
I personally would like to see/converse more about it.

Jack, great points from you too. Sometimes roughing it out "in the studio" is a good thing these days, since its DIY. Not necessarily about what patch your using, but more about getting different tones to gell with other tracks or looking for different approaches.
Though sometimes I loose the inspiration or need some new ears to comment. Tracking the same instrument a half dozen times does get old.


This area needs to be expored more !!

T
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen
What sounds best solo isn't always what works best in the mix.

The key is getting it right in tracking in anticipation for what the mix will need. What this really means, but what very few discuss, is having a sonic image if what the song will sound like in your head before you even start tracking. mentally select the sounds and the tone before you start tracking- in fact, before you even start setting up. Knowing the tones you need beforehand will simplify the equipment selection and setup process.

Absolutely. For artists who write and record, such as myself, you usually have to go through a rough demo stage, where you test out various sounds and arrangements. Sometimes the first demo can work great, but not very likely.

I'm assuming that when an artist is recording a tune seriously, they have gone through the demo stage and are now at the point where they know the blueprint very well. At least the should!

There is an old rule I used to harp on:

"Never compose in the studio."

This used to be for bands who are paying hard-earned bucks to record in a studio. The more they have their arrangements, instrument tones, voices, and harmonies determined, the better the outcome in the studio and less cost. Well, at least more "bang for the buck."

Nowadays though, so many record themselves, so there is more freedom to DIY, and to experiment in the studio.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

And speaking of teh mp3 board, why do you not visit Glen?
I personally would like to see/converse more about it.

Thanks for the encouragement, tonio . There are couple of reasons I don't go there much:

First, I spend waaaay too much time on the Internet just limiting myself to the recording forum and the mixing/mastering forum. I add another forum to my beat, and I'll need to be slapped out of the house and into the fresh air with my own keyboard!

Second, there is too much of a subjective jugdement nature on the MP3 forum for my tastes. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it's not for me.

Third, I have no problem sharing opinions, ideas, and techniques as to *how* to do things, but if you want me to take an advisery role, to tell you *what* to do - i.e. if you essentially want me to remix your mixes for you - I'd prefer to get paid for it

That said, though, I do occasionally (when time and bandwidth permit) listen to MP3 submissions as they come across my bow and give my impressions in return. I just don't make it a full-time pursuit.

Which leads me to #4...

You want me to move to a third forum and piss Chessrock off even more? Even I don't dislike Chess that much.

G.

 

[1tonio]

Thats cool Glen. I had my suspicions, but I am not suggesting you critique as
a go to person. I spend too much time on the internet too-sometimes I need to say no internet tonight, need to do some work

There is alot of entries, so yeah -anyone should get paid for that Agreed about the subjective matter, some folks here can be testy.

hmm I have'nt seen Chessrock there in a while.

I for one appreciate having your knowlegde on HR in either case.

T