What higher-level mixing techniques are a MUST for professional sounding stuff?

D

Divinejames

New member
As a beginner-intermediate, I sometimes get overwhelmed with the seemingly infinite mixing/mastering techniques people discuss. What I want to know is which of these techniques are actually necessary to learn, and which can I dismiss for now as extraneous and worry about later?

Here are a few examples of things I've seen that I'm not sure if I should bother myself with right now:

multiband compression(when, which tracks, how much etc)

reverb tracks (sending reverb to another track?)

bussing

What do yall think?
 
Multiband compression: Don't use it unless you have to, and then likely nothing else will work.

I don't submix bus things much anymore except when I have something like two separate tracks that are really two of the same instrument (e.g. bass mic and DI) and I want to process them as one.

I like using a shared reverb when possible. It's simpler, uses less processing and it conceptually pleasing to me. But if something needs a different reverb then it gets it.

Generally I keep mixing as simple as the tracks allow. Good tracking supports simpler mixing.
 
Mostly just "+1-ing" BSG.

Maul-the-band compression is usually a band-aid for a broken leg.

Aux sends to effects are almost a must... Rule of thumb would be only to insert when you're trying to *change* something (EQ, compression / expansion, etc.). Aux sends when you're *adding* something (verb / spatial, modulative, delay/echo, etc.). More than just that they're shared across instruments - They may need EQ on the send - or the return - or both, de-essing on the send to a vocal verb, potentially compression pre-or-post send, you're going to need any echo/delay return sent to the same verb as the source or it's going to sound weird and disjointed, etc., etc., etc.

Bussing / groups -- Meh... I tend to group quite a bit. If for nothing else, it's easy organization. Other times, for effect.
Generally I keep mixing as simple as the tracks allow. Good tracking supports simpler mixing.
Click to expand...
That's the most important part. One of the *highest* level mixing techniques is just leaving stuff alone because it already sounds right.
 
Remember it's "their" techniques they developed over time or if online tutorial could be just flogging the latest plug-in.
Concentrate on your technique and workflow and steal anything you can that makes sense to you,not just because.

G
 
Dont learn specific techniques themselves. Learn about signal flow and routing. Learn how different effects work and why. Learn to hear when and why things are weird. Then use your knowledge of the rest to find an appropriate solution. Most of the OP questions are answered that way.

You can use people's "tips and tricks" as a starting point, but if you just follow the instructions without understanding the underlying concepts - if you can't just hear a basic description and figure out how to accomplish it on your own - then you are lacking a fundamental understanding and basically just applying presets and fumbling in the dark. Learn how and why these things work and you can work with confidence, applying the "techniques" that are necessary without even having to name them. Any time you hear about so-and-so's fancy technique that is the latest Internet fad, it's really just that they knew what they wanted AND understood their tools well enough to connect them appropriately.

If you don't grasp the concept of "aux sends" and "buses" - how they work and why you might use them - then you are a beginner. Nothing wrong with that, but don't flatter yourself with the "-intermediate".
 
The best result comes from the best possible tracks and the best possible arrangement. Learning to hear, is as has been mentioned, critical . The old saw about songs that "mix themselves" is true, if the sounds and the arrangement all fit together it's all gravy, when they don't , no amount of mixing will make it sound more professional. Less bad maybe, but not best.
 
Gtoboy said:
The best result comes from the best possible tracks and the best possible arrangement. Learning to hear, is as has been mentioned, critical . The old saw about songs that "mix themselves" is true, if the sounds and the arrangement all fit together it's all gravy, when they don't , no amount of mixing will make it sound more professional. Less bad maybe, but not best.
Click to expand...
Nah, that's not exactly true.

First of all, we almost never end up with tracks that actually sound the best they can in a mix together without a little bit of massaging. Then, we're not usuallly looking for perfectly natural, but rather hyperreal and bigger than life. Third, there's a lot of "special effects" things that we might want to do that pretty much has to happen in the mix. Things can be easier when the "faders up" mix sounds good to begin with, but there's almost always at least a couple of things you can do to make it come across and translate a little closer to what you really want.

But paint by numbers is no way to do it either. An Engineer doesn't just build the same bridge as somebody else because it worked the last time. They consider the specific circumstance and the tools and materials available and then use their understanding of the underlying principles to come up with a unique and effective design. It might end up having a lot in common with other bridges in similar spots, but that's because it's the right answer, not because it's the only way they know how to build. Or at least we hope so. ;)
 
ashcat_lt said:
Nah, that's not exactly true.

First of all, we almost never end up with tracks that actually sound the best they can in a mix together without a little bit of massaging. Then, we're not usuallly looking for perfectly natural, but rather hyperreal and bigger than life. Third, there's a lot of "special effects" things that we might want to do that pretty much has to happen in the mix. Things can be easier when the "faders up" mix sounds good to begin with, but there's almost always at least a couple of things you can do to make it come across and translate a little closer to what you really want.

But paint by numbers is no way to do it either. An Engineer doesn't just build the same bridge as somebody else because it worked the last time. They consider the specific circumstance and the tools and materials available and then use their understanding of the underlying principles to come up with a unique and effective design. It might end up having a lot in common with other bridges in similar spots, but that's because it's the right answer, not because it's the only way they know how to build. Or at least we hope so. ;)
Click to expand...

I contend we are saying the same thing-all the things you mentioned are used to get the end result of the best possible tracks and arrange in the best possible way. Massaging, eq'ing , special effects,etc. all used to take each track to a point where it blends, supports and doesn't detract from the sum. Wasn't saying you have to start with perfect source material. And my point about arrangement I just added as we all know that when solo'ed a track may sound terrible but fit perfectly in the mix. I guess my point is to not do anything that will get in the way of the mix .
 
bouldersoundguy said:
Multiband compression: Don't use it unless you have to, and then likely nothing else will work.
Click to expand...

Massive Master said:
Mostly just "+1-ing" BSG.
Maul-the-band compression is usually a band-aid for a broken leg.
Click to expand...

Hi DivineJames. I see you're new here, welcome to the forum.

I respectfully disagree with both of these comments, though I won't take anything away from BSG and Massive Master's experience. They are certainly great guys to get advice from! Here's a good example of how I use Multi-Band compression, but I do this on many instruments as well as vocals. Tony Maserati in this video does a much better job illustrating it than I would.



I personally think this is a great tool to invest time in learning to use, but you'll want to have a good grasp on both EQ and compression before pursuing it. Make sure you're comfortable looking at any equalizer by any plugin maker before tackling a multi-band compressor. Also, make sure you can clearly identify the main functions of compressors such as knee, release, threshold, attack, ratio, and gain reduction.
 
It seems like it would be very genre dependent. In Maserati's case the music he's mixing is meant to sound heavily processed so it probably doesn't sound out of place. I could hear how it sounded "better" in a sense but also not better in another sense. I would have started with eq and full band compression before jumping in with the MBC.

Funny thing, the singer in one of my current mixing projects motivated me to use multiband compression. I did almost exactly what he did with his second C4, in my case using a C6. There was a harshness in her voice when she went to higher registers and the C6 was just the tool to fix it. So I'm not really that far off from what he's doing, just less aggressive with it.

I've also used MBC on bass and kick drum pretty successfully.
 
Divinejames said:
As a beginner-intermediate, I sometimes get overwhelmed with the seemingly infinite mixing/mastering techniques people discuss. What I want to know is which of these techniques are actually necessary to learn, and which can I dismiss for now as extraneous and worry about later?

Here are a few examples of things I've seen that I'm not sure if I should bother myself with right now:

multiband compression(when, which tracks, how much etc)

reverb tracks (sending reverb to another track?)

bussing

What do yall think?
Click to expand...

Hello friend,

When I learned about parallel compression for drums, it was a real upgrade in my works, don´t waste time searching for the vst of your dreams, like I used to do, try to learn as much as it possible about tracking, the less you mix, the best is your work.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
It seems like it would be very genre dependent. In Maserati's case the music he's mixing is meant to sound heavily processed so it probably doesn't sound out of place.
Click to expand...
In my opinion it isn't genre dependent. Its more application dependent. To me, it comes down to the question of achieving control over a certain range of frequencies, only at certain times, without damaging everything else going on around it. Vs just bring all of 400 hz down and whatever happens to the rest happens. So its a difference in how the processor responds to the source.
I could hear how it sounded "better" in a sense but also not better in another sense. I would have started with eq and full band compression before jumping in with the MBC.
Click to expand...
On a Waves C6, if you change the gain without changing the threshold, you have a basic EQ. The sliders then become your Q. The two bands on the ends (the blue humps) are simply EQ bands that exist independently of the multi band crossovers. Like you said, I start with the EQ bands as if it was a regular equalizer then adjust the compression once I have the EQ dialed in.

Funny thing, the singer in one of my current mixing projects motivated me to use multiband compression. I did almost exactly what he did with his second C4, in my case using a C6. There was a harshness in her voice when she went to higher registers and the C6 was just the tool to fix it. So I'm not really that far off from what he's doing, just less aggressive with it.

I've also used MBC on bass and kick drum pretty successfully.
Click to expand...
Ah! I gotcha. So the WAY he used it was what you meant by genre dependent. That makes sense.

I use these things on pipe organs. They're great at squashing particular frequencies resonating within concert halls and church cathedrals without damaging everything else going on. I use them on choirs when some of the sopranos start to get real shrill on the finale of Handles Messiah - I'm quite certain its not a genre thing per se. ;) I mean - in general, this thing works wonders wherever there are certain frequencies you want gone once they cross the line, without doing damage to everything else around them. Reducing artifacts. That's the main use I view this thing for.
 
Yes, the way Maserati was using it so aggressively seems genre specific. Hitting one band with all the others bypassed is fairly generic.
 
Over the years I have found that a lot of people tend to want to over use reverbs and other time based effects to try and make things "bigger" without regard for the "time" part of it. Deep verbs of different times and repeats layered into various instuments and voices in a mix is bringing mud. Using verbs and delays with different repeat times from the meter of the song is another thing to muddy things up. There's so many recordings that people would swear are DRY but in reality are really wet. Just timed appropriately.

The overuse of that thing they call compression is another way of making things small. I'm more about limiters these days. ie: controlling the outputs into the sub bussing.

Buss everything and anything. Separation is your friend.

I avoided multi-band compression for a lot of years...including years of tape based recording.....the tape machine is a great multi-band comp in so many ways....Now I'm really digging on what I can make the tracks do and how they can gell with a multi-band. I really like that C6 and have used it extensively. I'll put it up after a basic EQ and then when I'm close to completion on a mix and things are working well together, I'll go through all the tracks with the C6 on them and turn off certain frequencies bands in each one. The mix will generally pop like crazy at that point.

As far as using specific techniques, it's much better to learn what all these devices in your library of plug-ins do. It's then you'll be making informed decisiona about what to use instead of simply assigning things you have used in the past.

The only time I will use the same or similar mix chains is when I'm really familiar with the genre and I was the one who tracked it. I track with a vision of purpose in mind. Not just capturing a performance but capturing it with a goal in mind for it's final mix.
 
cavedog101 said:
... I avoided multi-band compression for a lot of years...including years of tape based recording.....the tape machine is a great multi-band comp in so many ways....Now I'm really digging on what I can make the tracks do and how they can gell with a multi-band. I really like that C6 and have used it extensively. I'll put it up after a basic EQ and then when I'm close to completion on a mix and things are working well together, I'll go through all the tracks with the C6 on them and turn off certain frequencies bands in each one. The mix will generally pop like crazy at that point. [snip]
Click to expand...
I'm curious about this last bit. If I'm understanding it right. Quite a few MB's on tracks in the mix?
But then pulling various bands back out of the comps. Sounds, 'reads :>) like injecting a bit of 'raw back into the mix then? ;)
 
Since this is all over the place anyway...

LEARN YOUR MONITORS. The very best thing you can do for your mixes is to be intimately, unconsciously, automatically familiar with how things actually sound on your monitors in your room and how that compares/translates to other systems in other places. That means listen to things other than what you're mixing. A lot. As often as possible. Im lucky in that my mix room is my living room so literally everything I listen to - music, YouTube, Netflix, etc - comes through the same system on which I do my mixing. I know what things are supposed to sound like.
 
Yes. So it would seem. I think my mindset is to get as much control I can of the mix and then let it breathe again.
 
Source/content/room/capture/monitoring. Any of these lack then it is work time to fix.

From there it just experience or guessing how to make things right.

It just works easily when the tracks are good. Then it merely personal preference.
 
Its been a month since the OP, but I had some thoughts I'd figured I'd share anyway.

At the absolute highest level of this industry mixing, technique has very little to do with audio processing tricks. When I say absolute highest level, I'm talking about media projects that enter the audio production process with $100,000,000 to $180,000,000 budget and pull gross revenue sales in the billions off direct sales, not including licensing royalties and streaming revenue. $1 billion + on direct consumer sales.

A studio or mix engineers ability to handle projects at this level is defined by completely the scale of their facility and their experience managing workflow. The design, recording, implementation, and mixing of the sound is all secondary to the methods by which the product is completed. Parts of the performance, design, and tracking may be extremely complex, but the mixing itself... its pretty basic. Automation. A little EQ. Reverbs. Minor Compression. Panning. That's all. At the audio industries highest tier of mixing, the pluging choices and techniques are hilariously simple. All of the heavy lifting is done AND DONE CORRECTLY before it gets to the final mix stage.

High level mixing facilities have tools that you will never see in home studios. And they're quite necessary, but only in the sense that they allow enormous teams of audio professionals to collaborate. They're work flow tools - and have nothing to do with sound processing. The arguable exceptions is the monitoring.

Its an oversimplification to say that only the person matters. The worlds highest paid mixers can not mix in a bedroom with a laptop. The suggestion anyone can is a widespread blatant fallacy that only comes from people who do not understand what goes on in a multi-million dollar production room. Self proclaimed 'audio experts' thrive on the ignorance of the general population, happily selling this pipe dream to DIY-ers. You can make an outstanding mix in a bedroom, but don't expect it to compete with anything that a major production company has sunk eight or nine figures into developing.

Regarding advanced techniques

- The majority of highly complex and creative techniques are actually implemented in what most people here would call the tracking stage. There isn't a huge distinction between the tracking phase and sound design phase, though the sound design phase normally precedes the tracking phase, but I see no reason to distinguish them.
- The majority of 'advanced' techniques that operators get paid (not a lot of money) for are importing, editing, and exporting. Again, workflow. Key commands. Having special equipment that can process, archive, render, and print files faster.
- The studios have massive multi-operator Pro Tools rigs assembled to servers that send and upwards of 6000 channels of audio across networked server systems, but at the front of that channel is the same stock Pro Tools digital equalizer that we all love for its ~cough cough~ 'vintage' sound..
- But the advanced 'mixing techniques' themselves. EQ. Panning. Bussing. Gating. Automation. EXACT Same stuff you and I do on our computers in our home studios. Just with a hell of a lot more channels.

So. What higher level mixing techniques are a 'MUST' for professional sounding stuff.

My answer is NONE OF THEM. Simply that perfecting the basics will go a VERY VERY long way. I could rattle off a list of complex techniques like verb transient imaging, envelope re-shaping, using voltage control simulators for automate soft synth behavior etc... but NONE of them are a 'MUST' for professional sounding stuff :)
 
Last edited:
jkuehlin said:
Simply that perfecting the basics will go a VERY VERY long way.[/I]
Click to expand...

This, really. If I were to take it a step further, the only other thing I might suggest spending a LOT of time thinking about early on is gain staging.

Re: bussing - I do it a ton... But, I don't do much buss processing. Rather, I'll mix all my drum tracks into a drum bus, my guitar tracks into a guitar bus, etc etc etc, so that I can set the relative balance of, say, all my rhythm guitar tracks relative to each other, and then quickly adjust the relative loudness or softness of guitars in the mix with a single fader. It's totally a product of my workflow, I guess, for what it's worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top