This article sucks ; none of you should read it .

TIPS FOR BETTER MIXING
• Before you start moving faders and twisting knobs, have a clear vision of what you want the mix to sound like when it's finished, and stick to it.
Click to expand...
I like that this is tip #1. Especially considering that there was a disagreement with Glen, who was pretty much stating this same thing in this thread, that what Glen was proposing "is too hard" for a newb to figure out.
 
Another gem from the same article:
Nichols also finds roughs useful, but for different reasons. “I think the whole process of making a record simply revolves around listening and paying attention,” he says. “That may sound obvious, but in my opinion, a lot of people aren't doing it.
Click to expand...
 
There is sometimes an amazing grand canyonesque chasm between hearing and listening.

That's why folks say close your eyes so your not dividing your attention between processing visual incoming info and aural incoming info .


My wife seems to think I never actually listen to her ...........:rolleyes:
I'm not going to comment on the percentage of the time that is true!!!!!!!!!:eek:
 
flatfinger said:
There is sometimes an amazing grand canyonesque chasm between hearing and listening.

That's why folks say close your eyes so your not dividing your attention between processing visual incoming info and aural incoming info .
Click to expand...


I never got this until i switched from an eq plugin with a graph to one that involves twisting a knob.
Looking at the graph is distracting and I was finding I tended to try and draw the shape I thought I needed.
Now I close my eyes and listen to what happens when I twist the knob and I think I get a better result even though I may not know exactly what the frequencies are that I am changing or whether the graph would look "right"
 
noisewreck said:
I like that this is tip #1.
Click to expand...
And closely related is where tip #2 says "Be flexible, and let the needs of the song determine your approach."

The two tips are tied together in the first two paragraphs of the "Have a plan, Stan" section. Wanna read something else kinda spooky? Compare that second paragraph in that section with this thread on mixing tehnique

It's not so spooky, really; this is pretty much Mixing 101 stuff that can be found in any number of books and interviews and articles, and just from talking with your local bricks-and-mortar studio engineer who's actually got chops and not just a lot of daddy's money. I frankly don't even remember where I even first heard or read this kind of stuff, or if I heaven learned it elsewhere or just naturally figured it out. It seems like pretty common sense stuff, which is why I just don't get why it's always met with so many electronic blank stares or "I can't do that" replies in forums like this.

It also always amusing that when someone with a brand name says it, the general response is "wow, great advice", but when some Joe Punchclock comes along as says it, it's ridiculed or rejected. The only possible explanation for that is the the people reading it are not really judging for themselves if what they're reading makes sense or not, they just want to be told by an authority instead of thinking for themselves.

Just like "there's hearing and there's listening" like flatfinger wisely noted, there's also a difference between reading and comprehending.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
It also always amusing that when someone with a brand name says it, the general response is "wow, great advice", but when some Joe Punchclock comes along as says it, it's ridiculed or rejected. The only possible explanation for that is the the people reading it are not really judging for themselves if what they're reading makes sense or not, they just want to be told by an authority instead of thinking for themselves.
Click to expand...

That's probably fair - "brand name" advice is something that people are certainly more open to considering.

I also think part of it might be willful, though - everyone around here always bitches about people joining up and asking which plugin they need to sound like Bob Rock, etc. Maybe this is just because there's an American fondness to see a problem and try to fix it by throwing money at it, but it's certainly a lot easier to think your problem can be fixed by just buying more gear, and the only difference between you and a pro is budget. That may be part of it, but it's obviously only a small part.

The timing of this article was pretty interesting for me, actually. I read it the morning after the first time I ever recorded someone other than myself, a friend of mine with a spectacular voice. We'd just laid down an acoustic guitar, a lead vocal, and two harmony vocals, and were talking about it listening to my playback, and it was a really interesting/cool experience to be mixing something that I DIDN'T record, in that I didn't have a conception of what the song "should" be in advance. I probably won't be posting it here (there's a couple of rhythmic issues, and I overdubbed a drum performance, and I'm NOT a good drummer, haha), but in particular there was one melody in the backing vocals on the last line of the chorus that really hooked me, that just listening to it I knew that while the harmonies would be lower in the finished mix than they were at that moment, when I went to mix it down I'd also want to let that line poke through a bit more. Thankfully, Vanessa agreed with me - it was just too cool a moment.
 
Hmm, based on a quick look I really should read this article.

About the points you already said, I also want to say that it's weird how you kind of know them and many people have said them many times but still you just forget them (or are not even willing to remember!) while mixing. I mean things like "less is more" and "dont use eyes too much, listen!" and so on.

And I think the same thing happens elsewhere too, not only in music and mixing. For example I've played a little poker and there also are some basics that Ive been told thousands of times and still I have troubles in implementing them. It's very frustrating..
 
“I like to use 30 to 40 delays, from a 128th note to a half note, panned all over the place. I'll intentionally make some of the delays out of time, creating what I call asymmetrical delays. Just move them until they sound good."

Did I understood this right? Does he really add that many delays to the vocal track? I haven't tried it but I would imagine that it would end up as a huge mess even if the delays were quite low in volume.

And what about the reverb, will that be still added too and in which part of the signal chain?
 
I don't see what's so bad about that article. All those tips made sense to me.

Article said:
"When equalizing, subtract rather than add when possible."
Click to expand...

That's the same advice a sound engineer gave to me.

Dr. V
 
Dr. Varney said:
I don't see what's so bad about that article. All those tips made sense to me.



That's the same advice a sound engineer gave to me.

Dr. V
Click to expand...

Well that was the open posters point. He was saying in a sarcastic way that the article is absolutely great, which is very true. :)
 
Dr. Varney said:
I don't see what's so bad about that article. All those tips made sense to me.



That's the same advice a sound engineer gave to me.

Dr. V
Click to expand...

If you have a great mixing console with great EQ, there is no difference between additive or subtractive EQ.
 
Dr. Varney said:
I don't see what's so bad about that article. All those tips made sense to me.



That's the same advice a sound engineer gave to me.

Dr. V
Click to expand...
I thought it was a good article too so I can only surmise that the OP was having a merry laugh with us. Even if they weren't, it's still a good piece. Some of it I don't go with, some of it was over my head, some of it I agree with. I often find I'm already doing what a alot of these cats propose, but without their expertise, kudos or cash !:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top