New way of mixing for me.

[ManInMotion711]

Ive gotten into the habit of mixing as i would call it kinda weird. For instance ill record drums, get it all how i want it, then mix it down into a solid track. Open a new project import the mixed track of drums into it put in my guitar and bass. same thing get it sounding how i want it then mix it down. Again open a new project import the mixed down track and lay vocals down and do it all like i want and then mix it down a final time. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

 

[Greg_L]

Yes, I'd say it's a bad thing. You're basically just mixing with stems, and that leaves you no options for later tweaks. Why are you doing this?

 

[miroslav]

Yeah....what's the point of doing that...????

People use to do that kind of stuff back in 4-track/8-track tape days....but with DAWs, there no reason to.

 

[ManInMotion711]

Just something different. I'm going to stop doing it though. Obviously a terrible idea

 

[Steenamaroo]

Obviously a terrible idea

I wouldn't fancy it.
I expect maybe Greg and RAMI could get away with it 'cos they know their setups and procedures so well, but anyone else would be fooked!

I've made a conscious effort to stop mixing (not mixing down) as I record. I've realised it's a very bad habit and it doesn't save me time at all.
I always end up having to undo stuff to figure out where it went wrong.

Starting a fresh mix from 100% raw recorded tracks is a much better approach, in my opinion.

 

[Greg_L]

Just something different. I'm going to stop doing it though. Obviously a terrible idea

Some people master in the way you're describing. They'll use stem tracks, or use stems to bolster elements of the stereo sub mix. I don't know why you'd want to mix like that though. If you like it, do it, but you're short changing yourself.

 

[ManInMotion711]

When I do it ill keep the other projects incase of needing more edits and what not. I see where your all coming from. I wasn't sure if it was a terrible idea or not though

 

[Greg_L]

When I do it ill keep the other projects incase of needing more edits and what not. I see where your all coming from. I wasn't sure if it was a terrible idea or not though

I do something slightly similar because my old computer can't handle a ton of processing. I don't use stems, but I'll sometimes print effects onto my tracks permanently to save CPU power. Say I have a guitar track that I want to do some EQ on. I'll duplicate the track, and mute the original. It stays untouched, but muted. With the duplicate, I'll dial in whatever EQ I want, and burn it onto the track, then turn the EQ off. If I don't like it later, I just go back to the original unaltered guitar track and start that little process over. It saves power. I also kind of like the finality of it, even though it isn't actually final. It's like I'm making this decision and I'm going to live with it. I like that.

 

[ashcat_lt]

There's something to be said for just committing to what you're doing RTFN. How far and for how long do you really need the ability to second-guess yourself? If you know what you're shooting for, and you're confident in your ability to get there, then just go ahead and go for it. What happens if the snare is .5db too loud in the chorus? You cringe every time you hear it. Nobody else gives a damn, as long as the material is worth recording in the first place.

'Course, I spent so much of my recording "career" with nowhere near enough simultaneous tracks or mixer channels or effects to actually achieve what I had in my head that I am now running around like a kid in a candy store. I started out bouncing between consumer cassette decks, mixing the new track with the old as I played it and if I got three layers deep and then found out the drums weren't quite right... Now I tend to want to keep all my options open until my machine can't keep up. Then I bounce, or create "child projects". And I actually finish a lot less...

There's a line somewhere between keeping your options open and crippling yourself with those same options. LMK if you find it!

 

[wtfuhz]

Go analog. You might enjoy it better

 

[miroslav]

When I do it ill keep the other projects incase of needing more edits and what not. I see where your all coming from. I wasn't sure if it was a terrible idea or not though

Just leave all the individual tracks within a single project...no need to keep sub-mixing into new projects for every step.

There's some reasons to sub-mix several tracks down to one or two....but it sounds like you're just doing it without any specific reason.

It may feel "simpler" to keep layering and sub-mixing after every track or two, and having all those projects....but if you just keep all the tracks individually, you actually have a better shot at getting the final mix how you want it...or at least go the real "stem" route and only sub-mix certain groups of tracks.....like say, you want to do a drum stem/sub-mix of your 8 drum tracks down to a stereo pair....or if you have a bunch of guitar rhythm tracks and you want to sub-mix them down to a stereo pair...etc....
...but unless you have like 50-100 tracks or some crazy number, it's actually simpler in the long run to just mix them all as individual tracks, and then making any changes will not turn into a messy process of stepping back through multiple subs and projects.
If you wish to commit to certain tracks as-is, then just leave them alone, don't make any more changes, but no need to hamstring yourself by creating a situation where making changes becomes a complex stepping-back process or where it's not even possible because you've sub-mixed a sub-mix....etc...etc.

 

[Mo Facta]

Nothing wrong to committing to sounds. If you want to lock yourself out of options anxiety later, keep doing it. Just know you have to live with your choices forever, kind of like how it used to be done in the old days.

If you're now convinced it's a weird approach, why don't you just mix into groups and adjust from there?

Cheers

 

[ManInMotion711]

If you're now convinced it's a weird approach, why don't you just mix into groups and adjust from there?

Cheers

i considered it a weird weird approach simply because i havent really heard of anyone else whos doing it to my knowledge. To me its different.

 

[grimtraveller]

i considered it a weird weird approach simply because i havent really heard of anyone else whos doing it to my knowledge. To me its different.

But how did it sound to you ? Did you like your mixes ? I'm a little alarmed that because no one came out in flowing praise, you so quickly abandoned what you'd been doing. Does it really matter if everyone thinks your method is bizarre/rubbish if you like what you come up with ? You never did say how you actually felt about what you were doing.
Think for yourself, Man !

 

[ManInMotion711]

But how did it sound to you ? Did you like your mixes ? I'm a little alarmed that because no one came out in flowing praise, you so quickly abandoned what you'd been doing. Does it really matter if everyone thinks your method is bizarre/rubbish if you like what you come up with ? You never did say how you actually felt about what you were doing.
Think for yourself, Man !

Personally i think it sounded pretty damn good. Along with the band i recorded for. and i dont wanna do something thats not the right way of doing it. im trying to learn what i can to make it all sound right. and it just seemed like everyone told me its not really a good thing to do in the long run.

 

[fritsthegirl]

But how did it sound to you ? Did you like your mixes ? I'm a little alarmed that because no one came out in flowing praise, you so quickly abandoned what you'd been doing. Does it really matter if everyone thinks your method is bizarre/rubbish if you like what you come up with ? You never did say how you actually felt about what you were doing.
Think for yourself, Man !

LOL. I have to agree with this is part. Maybe if you try the traditional way, see how it goes for you. But yeh, if you prefer the way you work, and you can get it to sound good without needing to hear the tracks together. Then do it how you want.

I think you could probably do what you're doing, by keeping the tracks within the same project but just muting them once you've finished working on them though? I think that's what Miro was saying to try too. I'm always just copying what other people say. I would imagine doing it in this fashion would save you a bit of time at the end collating all the tracks from different projects.

But I kind of like the idea of how you work. You know finalise each individual track, then bring it all together at the end to see what happens. Thing is, I have a really bad memory so I'm constantly having to go back to listen to what I recorded.

 

[ManInMotion711]

Ive only done it for a handful of songs and it works fine. I keep all the projects with the tracks separate in case i need to go back and do further editing. I know i dont wanna shoot myself in the foot

 

[fritsthegirl]

I should point out I don't have any of the experience any of the other people have around here. I'm a loose canon, and a total newbie to recording. But I'm just one of those people that think if it works for you, do it. As long as you know why you're doing it like that, no prob. If and when it stops working for you, admit it, move on, and try something else.

 

[propman]

I actually used to do this out of necessity. My computer wasn't very speedy and once I got about ten tracks going, things started to go wrong; freezing, sputtering, crashing, etc. Since my equipment upgrade, I haven't ran into a project big enough to do that again and I find it much more efficient to group the tracks and collapse them to make less screen-clutter but have them available for editing in one session.

 

[miroslav]

I keep all the projects with the tracks separate in case i need to go back and do further editing. I know i dont wanna shoot myself in the foot

OK....but say you record the drums and then sub-mix them down.....then you add the bass and a rhythm guitar and combine them with the sub-mixed drums and then you sub-mix down again.....then you add some more guitars and again sub-mix and combine with the previous sub-mix(s).....then some vocals, and again sub-mix plus the previous sub-mix(s).....then finally some lead guitar...etc...etc….and I’m keeping it REAL simple here. Imagine if you are also adding all kinds of processing to the tracks at each sub-mix step.

Now you realize that the drums are too loud for the rest of the mix......so then what, you go back through all those projects and then repeat that crazy sub-mix process....????

If you leave individual tracks in one project, you can mix at the end any way you like. Drums too loud, lower the drum tracks....bass too soft, raise the bass track....guitars need some midrange EQ, add it to the individual guitar tracks....vocals need some de-essing, apply it to the vocal track......
....all the time you are hearing in real time, how the changes affect and interact with the whole mix, and not just each sub-mix step of many sub-mix steps.

Again....I ask…. why you are doing it the way you are doing it…..what made you chose that process…what was/is your logic…?
If you don't see the difference, then just keep doing what you are doing.....but if you are talking about shooting yourself in the foot, your way is going to leave a lot of bullet holes in your shoes.