Some Mixing Tips
- Thread starter Harvey Gerst
- Start date
- Status
Dracon
New member
Not to argue your point, but I think that's exactly what Harvey is saying. I have (had actually) an uncle who was a mechanic, a cousin, a brother-in-law, and I worked in the automotive industry. The difference between the crap you can buy at AutoZone or the Snap-on Tools, or Sears is a world of difference. It would be like me comparing a microphone that I bought at radio shack for $9 to the Sennheiser E835 or Shure SM58.Fed said:
Does the $9 Radio Shack record. Sure it does, but how well does it record, and what does it record.
If you are only going to use your 'tools' once, and don't care if they break the first time you use them or if they strip a nut, then buy the cheap crap.
If you are not a professional, but want a quality tool because you want it around for a little while then go with something a little more tough, and better designed.
You don't have to go with Snap-on Tools, but you can go with the LOWE's Kobalt or an even cheaper brand Drop Forge. Mics and audio equipement overall it's the same.
I originally asked the stupid question, of what should I get. My original decision was based on what I thought I was going to do.
It's like my first Skil drill. It was great 'cause I didn't have another one, and it serve it's purpose for four years. When I started fixing my first house, I went out and bought a real drill (cordless) from Home Depot, 'cause the other drill was just pissing me off, everytime I used it.
Dracon
New member
You and your grandmother paid more money (in '77 or '80s money) than you do now for the equipment. My wife and I have a T.V. that my wife got as a present in 1986. The Quasar we got in the bedroom has more features, plugs, and a better picture than any TV you could buy today for the same amount of money. The TV was worth $800 in 1986, now I would have to buy a TV worth $1,200 to get the same quality and I'm sure it would last me 18 years. However, the TV that we bought last year was worth $400, and it's digital ready not all analog. It doesn't have all the features that I want, but I don't want the TV to last 18 years, I want it to last 5 maybe 8 years at the most. The cost of living since 1986 has increase 50% roughly (avg of 3.25% a year). So those $800 from 1986 are really worth $1,600 in 2004.Speeddemon said:
Do the math, and you'll see that if you buy the equivalent today, it will last you just as long.
Dracon
New member
Oh! Man, no life commitment. Damn! I was getting ready to shave my head and join in on the chanting or was that some other forum.noisedude said:
I agree, with you. It's a little disconcerting, when people join, ask one question and you don't even know if they read your answer or they don't care.
However, I think for the most part is just the younger kids who do that sorta thing. I like to help people if I can. I'm obviously not qualified to tell anyone what do in the recording area, but I'm a little qualified to help people out with their computers and give them some advice.
Granted my advice is skewed with my view of the world, but they don't have to take my advice. There is no one answer for everyone, although some people in the Forum think there is.
They are giving their advice based on their experience, but it does not mean that it will be the same for the other person.
Most people I meet who find out I work on computers ask me computer questions. I personally, don't want to work on their computers and un-like most computer geeks. I will not tell you, that you need the latest and greates computer.
I geat a satisfaction out building a hall table with my garage tools, that looks nice. Is it cheaper, better, nicer than anything I could have bought at the store. Maybe, but mostly not.
I can probably go to the store buy a table that I can put together, looks nice, serve my purpose, and cost me less than what it would cost me to build it in my garage.
Why do I do it? I get a satisfaction out finishing a project and then using it. I can choose the wood I want, how the grain will look, the color of the stain, the exact height, width, and length but I can find something very similar for less which serve my purpose with a lot less work.
I would never recommend someone who is looking to buy a table, to go get the wood, the stain, buy the tools and build themselves a table. If they get a kick out of it. Sure go for it. You are not going to get a significantly better product, for the price. Anyway, I went off on a tangent again. I appreciate the compliment, it's hard to tell sometimes if anyone cares that you post at all.
Harvey Gerst
New member
Well, you've already screwed up this thread beyond belief. 
But seriously, the whole point of the thread is for people to really think about the difference between products and how closely a particular product might meet their needs. Too many people ask "what's best", when they really wanna know "what may be better than what they already have". Big difference!
The "best" mic I've heard so far for recording an acoustic guitar is the Schoeps CMC-6 body with the MK41 hypercardioid head. It's $1,300, and I don't own one. Next choice down on my list would be the T.H.E. KR-2C or the KR-3H, at around $750 each.
But there are lots of other mics that do a good (and sometimes great) job on some acoustic guitars for a fraction of those prices, like the T.H.E. KP-6M omni, the AEA R84, the Oktava MK012, the MXL 603S, the Studio Project C4, and even the Behringer ECM-8000.
Any of these may be a "better" choice than what you already own, but the "best" choice is a function of the money you have, the rest of the recording chain, and the sound of the specific instrument you want to record, along with what is an "acceptable" level of quality that you want to achieve.
Ain't no clear cut answers or formulas; often, the only possible "correct" answer is: It depends. Every person must define their own upper and lower limits of "acceptable" and "good enough".
I can give you a long list of what I found that worked with all the acoustic guitars I've recorded over the last 50+ years, but none of them were "your" guitars, recorded thru "your" signal chain, in your" acoustic environment.
"Better" and "best" will continue to be a variable quantity, always changing, depending on a your particular needs, your particular setup, your budget, and your ultimate goal.
But seriously, the whole point of the thread is for people to really think about the difference between products and how closely a particular product might meet their needs. Too many people ask "what's best", when they really wanna know "what may be better than what they already have". Big difference!
The "best" mic I've heard so far for recording an acoustic guitar is the Schoeps CMC-6 body with the MK41 hypercardioid head. It's $1,300, and I don't own one. Next choice down on my list would be the T.H.E. KR-2C or the KR-3H, at around $750 each.
But there are lots of other mics that do a good (and sometimes great) job on some acoustic guitars for a fraction of those prices, like the T.H.E. KP-6M omni, the AEA R84, the Oktava MK012, the MXL 603S, the Studio Project C4, and even the Behringer ECM-8000.
Any of these may be a "better" choice than what you already own, but the "best" choice is a function of the money you have, the rest of the recording chain, and the sound of the specific instrument you want to record, along with what is an "acceptable" level of quality that you want to achieve.
Ain't no clear cut answers or formulas; often, the only possible "correct" answer is: It depends. Every person must define their own upper and lower limits of "acceptable" and "good enough".
I can give you a long list of what I found that worked with all the acoustic guitars I've recorded over the last 50+ years, but none of them were "your" guitars, recorded thru "your" signal chain, in your" acoustic environment.
"Better" and "best" will continue to be a variable quantity, always changing, depending on a your particular needs, your particular setup, your budget, and your ultimate goal.
Dracon
New member
Mixdown Question!
Hey Harv:
I write to thank you for all the information you have provided in this and all the other threads.
I was re-reading your mixdown (and mixerman) explanation, which is actually a lot of information. I need to start doing that during mine.
I have a question concerning mixdown. I have a track that is already mixed down (not done by me), so I don't have all the indivual tracks. I'm adding vocals to that track. I note that I have to turn down the music to -3dB or -6dB just to hear the vocal track, and sometimes I have to bring up the vocal to +3dB.
I don't want the vocals to overpower the music (which is suppose to be part of the background) where you can barely hear it, but I don't want people struggling to hear the vocals either.
Would it be better to pan the music, than it would to mess with the fader?
Hey Harv:
I write to thank you for all the information you have provided in this and all the other threads.
I was re-reading your mixdown (and mixerman) explanation, which is actually a lot of information. I need to start doing that during mine.
I have a question concerning mixdown. I have a track that is already mixed down (not done by me), so I don't have all the indivual tracks. I'm adding vocals to that track. I note that I have to turn down the music to -3dB or -6dB just to hear the vocal track, and sometimes I have to bring up the vocal to +3dB.
I don't want the vocals to overpower the music (which is suppose to be part of the background) where you can barely hear it, but I don't want people struggling to hear the vocals either.
Would it be better to pan the music, than it would to mess with the fader?
Harvey Gerst
New member
Dracon said:
OK, here's a trick that might help:
On the stereo tracks, put in a 1.5 dB wide notch at around 2 or 3kHz. On your vocal track, put a small +1.5 dB boost at the same settings. That gives you about 3dB more vocal control without changing the music substantially. Using 2.5 dB on each setting gives you 5 dB more seperation between the vocals and the music bed. Usually, just a small change in both places will solve that problem.
Dracon
New member
I love you Man!!!Harvey Gerst said:
I'm going to try this tonight and see how it turns out!
I've tried everything, and no matter what, it just never seemed right.
I tried compression (by selecting a few or by doing a manual one), and they all seem to 'cause clipping at some point.
I've lowered the 30Hz to the 200Hz range on the lower end by as much as 2dB in some areas and brought up the 1K through 5K range upto 3dB in some area for my vocals but it just sounds okay!
However, brining down the 2 or 3K range on the music and bringing mine up by the same amount. Well, what can I say that Genuis, man!!!
By the way, I got the Headphones this past friday!
They don't bleed (not even a little), unless I want to go deaf while wearing them.
Thanks for the information! I'll let you know how it turned out!
Dracon
New member
Yeah! Software, something I read somewhere (and it could have been this very thread) basically said, record the signal as 'pure' as you can and then mess with it later.noisedude said:
Anyway, I have a plugin from Wave as a demo that has EQ, and I've been testing it! Two plugins I would love to own are the 10 Freq. EQ from Wave and the Tube Plugin from Antares. My favorite is that Tube Plugin, it's awsome. However, I'm not so sure that you could not get the same result with some proximity effect and a nice condenser.
I registered at some site, and tried uploading the music, but it just didn't work, or they didn't seem to have it set up where I could navigate.
The guys in the Songwriting forum use it all the time, I can't remember what it is right now.
Do you have a site where I could post this for free? I could try my crapy Netscape page, but I'm not sure they'll let me.
Hey How, do you like my new Avatar?
noisedude
New member
The new avatar is a big improvement.
The digital era means we can record first and ask questions later. Before you not only had to ask questions but pretty much have the answers too. That's why the 'old-timers' seem to have an instinctive knowledge for these things ... because their instincts made or broke every track they ever recorded!!
The digital era means we can record first and ask questions later. Before you not only had to ask questions but pretty much have the answers too. That's why the 'old-timers' seem to have an instinctive knowledge for these things ... because their instincts made or broke every track they ever recorded!!
Dracon
New member
Yeah, it's like everything. I never thought of doing that. I tried a whole bunch of preset settings for the EQ (like vocal only) on the music, and it sounded like I was holding my nose.noisedude said:
Anyway, I thought I had tried everything. I played with the EQ settings on my vocals on the low end and the high end. However, something was always missing. I either sounded nasal or the nice bass was gone, and seemed to lack something.
However, I never thought of moving the EQ up a little on one and down a little on the otherone. I mean it seems so simple know that I know, but without someone telling you, it may not occur to you that there is an easier way.
Harvey Gerst
New member
I missed your response and just now found it. Glad that trick worked for you.Dracon said:
It's actually a trick from the old days, when there was no stereo, just mono. You didn't have any panning options, or a lot of separate tracks to play with, so eq became very important to control the balance between the instruments and the vocals. "Carving a hole" for the vocals with eq was a standard practice.
Harvey Gerst
New member
It might be helpful to some of the newer people to bump this thread back up.
thewanderer24
New member
GREAT GREAT Thread. Thanks for the bump. I've had trouble with the search function crashing again and again here. Feel free to bump other threads like this.
The mixing advice here alone is worth printing out for reference later (and no, the original point of this thread was not lost on me).
The mixing advice here alone is worth printing out for reference later (and no, the original point of this thread was not lost on me).
- Status