please help me with my mixing dilemma....how do YOU mix?

F

freakkguitarist

New member
so ive been recording full time for about 5-6 years now, and im still never fully happy with most of my mixes, i can get one song to sound great, but it gets lost as i try and make the other songs sound great too. i used to consolidate my tracks and throw all the songs into the same session, so all the tracks are mixed equally, ive also tried just copying and pasting setting which takes forever...especially switching back and forth in logic...my sessions are pretty big and it takes 2 minutes per switch. so how do you guys mix? start from scratch on each song? im really curious cuz mixing is the one thing ive never watched anyone do, never sat in on a mix session, and never really asked about it.
 
i do as much as i can across the board, and when the basic elements are about where i want them i start to work individually.
 
how do I mix? with clothes on :D

If I'm feeling bold, I might take my shoes off.




on a serious note, if you don't find what you're looking for in the sticky, you can come back here and ask. I can throw a few pointers of my own.
 
freakkguitarist said:
so how do you guys mix? start from scratch on each song?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Songs are like women; they all have different personalities and require different care. Songs and women are also alike in that 90% of the answer lies in simply listening to them.

First, if you are doing the whole process yourself, from recording on through, then step #1 should be that you get an idea in your head *before you even start recording* of what you imagine you want to song to sound like when you're done. This includes instrument tones, instrument arrangements, panning, etc. Then you start building that idea right from the start, right from the recording stage. Don't just slap some tracks down that sound "k3wl" and hope or expect that you can just stick them together in the mix and have them work; plan ahead.

And as you work on the mix, let the mix tell you what to do. Don't try and force-fit it to some artificial scheme because that's what _____ used in some song if that scheme just doesn't sound good with your tracks. Instead, use your ears; actually listen to the mix and let it tell you what sounds good and what doesn't. Then keep and build upon what sounds good, and either change, replace or remove what sounds bad so that it fits with the good stuff.

G.
 
there are many ways . . .

of mixing

but there is a general pattern i follow, which i expect is not uncommon.

i also use Logic, by the way.

1 I most often start by muting everything, and with no effects, work on a good relationship between percussion and bass. In my mind I think of a kick and a bass being different components of a single instrument, so i aim for levels of bass and kick that bring these together (even though harmonically they are different)

2 I then work on the lead vocal, aiming for clarity and presence. (Some bands like their vocals to sit within the mix, whereas my preference is for a more up-front treatment). However, just as i couple bass and kick, i tend also to couple vocal and snare (which means that i like a prominent snare). These days, though, I'm just as happy with the snare taking a less prominent role.

3 At this point I would listen to see what any supporting vocals are doing, bringing them up so that the harmonies are clear, but don't overwhelm the main vocal.

4 With luck, the track should sound good just like this, i.e. drums, bass and vocals. Up to this point I don't do a lot of EQing; only looking for obvious problems (e.g. vocals too bassy or too nasaly). Nor do I work with high track levels on the board . . . I like to give myself plenty of room too move, which you can't do if everything is close to the red.

5 From this point I work on any other instruments; guitars, keys etc, bringing them up so that their presence is felt, but not so that they drown the stuff you've already worked on. If you are mixing with a band member in the room, this can be tricky, because you often hear "It needs more guitar" (or bass, or mandolin . . . whatever they happen to play). Resist their advice.

6 Relative levels are one thing, and the stereo landscape is another. I tend towards relatively narrow stereo mixes, with not much at the extreme left and right. Sometimes I do this with double guitar tracks, but even so, I like the outside edges of the mix to be areas for reverb to fill.

7 I'm not that adventurous in placing instruments in the stereo picture: kit, abss and main vocals are pretty much straight down the middle, with other instruments in a fairly tight group around them. I tend to mix for realism, i.e. as if I could see the band on stage in front of me. I am not a big fan of panning effects (e.g. a guitar swooping from left to right). However, there are occasions when you mix for effect rather than realism (e.g. a doubled guitar, or douled harmonies).

8 I use reverb and delay to create space and depth, pushing some stuff backwards with more effects, and vice versa.

9 It is possible you will get to this stage and everything will sound fine. But possibly some instruments will compete with each other because of their tonal characteristics. One answer is to separate them in the mix. Another is to apply EQ to vary their tonal characteristics (though i do the former more than the later).

10 There are some things I look for in a mix: good representation of a full range of frequencies (i.e. from bass to the hiss of an 's') and all stations in between; a good and credible stereo spread, and dynamic variation throughout the track. With the last point, if the track is already well-constructed, this should already be present. However, you may find you need to pull things out here and there, e.g. go right back to a sing vocal and guitar for a verse, or change the instruments that contribute to various parts of the song.

well . . . there are ten points that you can consider. It's probably been said before many times.
So far I don't
 
guitarfreak...


for me personally, I think the secret to a good mix is in the tracking (recording) process. It really takes a long time to fully grasp why this is such a huge deal, but having steped in on a number of commercial mixing sessions, you start seeing the rediculous level of care that is taken into just recording a song.

There's a bit of an official saying that goes, "as a mix engineer, you're only as good as the recordings you get". That to me is gospel.


How that translates to you:

-Take the time to listen to your favorite mixes and make notes. How are the levels relative to each other? how was panning used? what makes this mix come alive?

Good contemporary engineers to look into are people like Andy Wallace, Chris and Tom Lord Alge, Ron Saint Germain, David Botrill, Terry Date...or more importantly, people who mixed the albums you like.

-develop and organize a plan that you can take with you anywhere. Mics will change, rooms will change, preamps and other gear will change, people will change, even your ears will change, but your ability to setup a recording session to get you in a ball park range of where you want to be shouldn't.

-Listening is a mental thing, not a physical thing. "Golden ears" have nothing to do with mixing great tracks. As long as you have relatively healthy ears, it's your ability to pick out and understand tones, timbres, and general go to frequencies that gets you where you want to go, and quick.

-Mixing well really doesn't come over night. Alot of times, even 4-5 years isn't enough time. You'll see that many of the better engineers have been around since the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. Not that I'm stereotyping, but some of these older guys really do keep on top for a specific reason: they stick to the fundamentals better than your up and coming engineers.

In other words, take the time to understand the basics of a good recording. Don't worry about slapping delays and reverbs all over the place just yet because you're going to frustrate yourself.

Learn how to live with just EQ, ambient micing and dynamic FX first.

-LEARN TO REFERENCE. Reference your mixes to other commercial mixes appropiate to the times. This will help you stay consistent.

-I think the last thing for now is you have to remember, mixing is subjective. This is an art, not a law. So don't beat yourself up if your mix dosn't sound like someone elses...who knows, maybe you've invented the next best technique that'll usher in a new generation of mixes. :D

just a thought.
 
freakkguitarist said:
ive also tried just copying and pasting setting which takes forever...especially switching back and forth in logic...my sessions are pretty big and it takes 2 minutes per switch...
Click to expand...
2 minutes is forever? Holy fucking lazy dude, c'mon now!

Anyway, if your mixes aren't where you want them to be, then your tracking isn't where it needs to be. As an experiment, try listening to your absolute best mix, and single out one element that you like the sound of: the snare, for instance. Solo it. Listen to how it sounds by itself. Now, start a new session, and try everything you possibly can to re-create the mixed/edited/eq'd/whatever sound of the snare, just by tuning/mic selection & placement.

Try doing the same thing for guitars: try to get them to sound "mixed" before any post-eq or anything. Just use the controls on the amp, the guitar itself, the mic choice and placement, etc. Memorize what made big/small differences in sound, and use what you've learned in your next session. Most completely un-mixed "pro" tracking sessions will sound 100x better than many of our finished mixes, because the engineers have a great grasp of what kind of sound they'll end up needing when mixing, and getting that sound before needing to do anything extra to it.

If your mixes suck, your tracking sucks.
 
a very common problem in mixing that it sounds like you might be experiencing is when you try to get everything to sound the same. This goes double for trying to get all the instruments in a mix to be at the same volume. Its all about contrast.

Check out any jimi hendrix album. They usually start with a quiet ambient thing, then the second song is a slower, clean guitar thing...that sounds loud as hell because its contrasted against the quiet ambient thing. This allows the third song to sound even LOUDER when he finally kicks on the fuzz face.

My favorite mix engineer is brendan o'brien. Not only does he generally track his own stuff, which agrees with everything already said, but he also makes use of a ton of changes and contrasts within each song. After 10 years of mixing I finally realized that a lot of my favorite mixes are actually several different mixes spliced together...so each section has a different quality.

One of my favorite albums is evil empire by rage against the machine. This album was tracked by o'brien and mixed by andy wallace...that song Jackie O...where it gets all quiet and zach says "oh oh oh please dont die" and then the snare drops. perfect example. Either the drummer hit the snare exceptionally loud, or wallace boosted it for that one hit. listening to the drums though this song, it seems like wallace played with the levels all over the place...its awesome.
 
FALKEN said:
a very common problem in mixing that it sounds like you might be experiencing is when you try to get everything to sound the same. This goes double for trying to get all the instruments in a mix to be at the same volume. Its all about contrast.

Check out any jimi hendrix album. They usually start with a quiet ambient thing, then the second song is a slower, clean guitar thing...that sounds loud as hell because its contrasted against the quiet ambient thing. This allows the third song to sound even LOUDER when he finally kicks on the fuzz face.

My favorite mix engineer is brendan o'brien. Not only does he generally track his own stuff, which agrees with everything already said, but he also makes use of a ton of changes and contrasts within each song. After 10 years of mixing I finally realized that a lot of my favorite mixes are actually several different mixes spliced together...so each section has a different quality.

One of my favorite albums is evil empire by rage against the machine. This album was tracked by o'brien and mixed by andy wallace...that song Jackie O...where it gets all quiet and zach says "oh oh oh please dont die" and then the snare drops. perfect example. Either the drummer hit the snare exceptionally loud, or wallace boosted it for that one hit. listening to the drums though this song, it seems like wallace played with the levels all over the place...its awesome.
Click to expand...

i have that album in my car stereo as we speak. in fact, thats my main reference album for all my rock sessions :D

it's very gradual how the songs get softer as the album goes along, yet on loop, it's brilliant. It'll reset you everytime.
 
yeah me too. that one and sepultura roots.

I think the vocal compression gets a bit overbearing at times... but I love how the busses get "played" like an instrument... some of the best guitar solos ever.... but the mixing really keeps you glued in, all the stops and spots where you want to hear it drop, it drops, and the mixing has everything to do with it. Hey lee, we should hang out some time, if u ever come to my neck of the swamp.
 
One of my favorite albums is evil empire by rage against the machine. This album was tracked by o'brien and mixed by andy wallace...that song Jackie O...where it gets all quiet and zach says "oh oh oh please dont die" and then the snare drops. perfect example. Either the drummer hit the snare exceptionally loud, or wallace boosted it for that one hit. listening to the drums though this song, it seems like wallace played with the levels all over the place...its awesome.
Click to expand...

tire me is a pretty badass song, but revolver and down rodeo always were my fav's...and that album still has what i consider to be the best bass tone EVER, hands down

and there's an andy wallace interview floating around somewhere where he talks about how he always skips straight to the loudest part of a song, and mixes that to taste...from there, if things were properly performed and tracked, the softer passages should more or less take care of themselves. key word: should. he also mentioned that he typically pulls the OH's down 5-6db during verses or quieter parts to take the ambience out of the kit and just lower the overall energy of the track...then when the chorus or a breakdown or something hits, he'll jam the OH's back up again

he also said that he always, always, always mixes through the SSL buss comp, with gain reduction of up to 10db, depending on the mix
 
Ironklad Audio said:
he also said that he always, always, always mixes through the SSL buss comp, with gain reduction of up to 10db, depending on the mix
Click to expand...

and thats on a 4:1 ratio slammed way the hell in there on an SSL G-series console that he owns. Mixes almost entirely inside the board, with little outboard gear. He goes on to say that his kick tones are inspired from the disco days, etc. I've read that article so damn much, I've probably developed an andy wallace shaped mole on my back. :D
 
i guess i should have been more clear, i know most of a fundamentals of mixing, and actually on most mixes il have only a VERY few EQs running, and most of the time never any boosts, i just have a problem with getting multiple songs sounding exactly the same. say ill record a pop rock band, all of their songs have various tempos and feels but are all straight forward rock, 2 guitar tracks, a clean part here and there, maybe a solo. couple verse harmonys, and chorus harmonys thats it. i just want them all to sound consistant with eachother, and am curious how you guys do it


and i dunno about you guys but i have some sessions that have over 80 tracks, and 2 minutes to wait PER track is a long ass time of clicking copy.....paste..........copy.......paste
 
Can you not save your FX settings as presets? Or mix on the desk and run everything through the same processes?
 
freakkguitarist said:
i just have a problem with getting multiple songs sounding exactly the same. say ill record a pop rock band, all of their songs have various tempos and feels but are all straight forward rock, 2 guitar tracks, a clean part here and there, maybe a solo. couple verse harmonys, and chorus harmonys thats it. i just want them all to sound consistant with eachother, and am curious how you guys do it
Click to expand...
Tracking the parts to all the songs in the same location with the same gear is an excellent start. Sure, there may be some differences determined by the song, different sounding guitars, a different mic on the vocalist for a ballad vs. an anthem, etc. But if you track two songs in two different-sounding rooms or locations through different preamps/different board, the overall "timbre" of the two songs can be hard to match.

If you're talking about actually mastering the CD so that listening levels remain fairly coherent and consistant from song to song, there are a few different ways to attack that. The way I like to do it (it is not the ONLY way) is to first lay out the song order on the CD. Then I start the actual mastering with the quietest/lowest RMS song on the album by it's nature. Usually one of the quieter ballads with a more sparse arrangement. It doesn't have to be (and usually isn't) the first song in the album order, it's just the one I work on first.

I tweak the sound and levels of that song first to get the most out of it without messing it up. Then I use that as a reference for the rest of the songs, one by one, starting with the two songs on either side of that song in the album track order. Then I work to get the levels to match by ear, not by meter or RMS measurement. This is important because different song arrangements and sonic density can cause two songs that sound the same volume to actually measure out at two different RMS levels.

The basic theory here is that you set the reference loudness to the quietest song on the album, pushing that as far as it will go and still sound good, because it's almost certain that one can get a naturally louder song to match that level without any troubles or issues, but if you use a louder song for the reference, you might have a hard time getting the quieter songs up to snuff without sounding "pushed" or flattened to bricks.

But I know there are some MEs on this board who use a different method with a different reasoning than that, and that works for them. Maybe they'll check in here. But this is one method to get your mind going, at least.

G.
 
freakkguitarist said:
i guess i should have been more clear, i know most of a fundamentals of mixing, and actually on most mixes il have only a VERY few EQs running, and most of the time never any boosts, i just have a problem with getting multiple songs sounding exactly the same. say ill record a pop rock band, all of their songs have various tempos and feels but are all straight forward rock, 2 guitar tracks, a clean part here and there, maybe a solo. couple verse harmonys, and chorus harmonys thats it. i just want them all to sound consistant with eachother, and am curious how you guys do it


and i dunno about you guys but i have some sessions that have over 80 tracks, and 2 minutes to wait PER track is a long ass time of clicking copy.....paste..........copy.......paste
Click to expand...

I am not sure what it is you are copying and pasting.

I use Logic as well, but I don't load all the songs into the one session.

Instead I concentrate on getting each song right one at a time. I rely on consistency of tracking to get a cohesive sound across all songs. For example, I use the same mike set up for the kit, bass, vocals etc.

If I discover something wayward on one of the tracks (e.g. a funny sounding acoustic guitar), I will EQ it. Because I know that other acoustic guitar tracks are likely to exhibit the same problem (because they were tracked the same way), I save the EQ setting as a preset and apply it to the next song (maybe adjusting a bit if needed).

I also tend to monitor at consistent levels, so that I sense if something is too quiet or too hot when bouncing down.

When mastering, I work slightly differently to Glen, though the basic principle is the same. I tend to pick a mid-level song as the reference, and work the other songs to fit with that, using the main vocal level as the key reference point (allowing, of course, for different intensities in singing). But like Glen, I work by ear to achieve consistency. However, I don't use Logic for mastering. I use Soundforge, and here I do load up all the songs, saving and closing each when I am satisfied with it. Eventually all I have left is the reference song.

This is not the end of it, because my idiot check is to stick them all in Winamp or something, and play them in random to see if they are in fact complementary to each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top