Here is how i do it...is it wrong?

[jamesduysen]

Hey everyone,

I was just doing some mixing today and I was wondering if the way I go about things is the way the rest of you do. I'd like to get an outside opinion on what I could do during tracking/mixing to be more productive and efficient...

I usually do drums first: I use 8 mics and I try to track each mic at about -12 db. After tracking I'll usually try to get the drums to sound the way I like before tracking any other instrument. I use drumagog on any drums that I don't like in the mix. I like to put some verb on my snare track.

I then do guitars: I usually use 2 mics on the guitar cab an sm57 and a beta 52 I mix them to one stereo track and pan them both the the same side and do the same to the other guitars. These are usually distorted guitars. I do a little eq usually on higher freq so they dont get muddy.

Then I do bass: I usually add a little compression and eq to the bass.

Vocals are done like this: I sing the song through all the way even if I botch it and I do that about 10 times. After that I go through and pick the parts that I like from each take. I add a little compression and reverb...I also double track the vocals for a little more prescense(sp?) in the mix.

I mix until I like the way everything sits, by this point everything peaks at about -5 db. Then I bounce it to a stereo track and then import it back to pt. I add a little compression and some eq.

Does this sound like about what you do? Or am I just weird? I have really been self teaching myself so I am not sure of the "real" way of doing things. Here is a sample of what i come up with from my method:

Blame

Thanks in advance,

James D.

 

[Calwood]

Hey man,..i know your just looking to see how everyone else is doin' it,..but,..dont sweat it. Your mix sounds great.
Your obviously doing something right.

By the way,..the way I do things is similar to what you do,..but not the same,..but I have no clue if its the right way or not,...dont really care either.

Take 'er easy,...
Calwood

 

[danny.guitar]

Sounds about the same as most people do it from what I've read. If your mixes sound good then keep doing what you're doing.

One thing I've learned from this board is to mix in mono first, to get all the EQ/effects/levels right, and once that sounds good then work in stereo.

I find that after doing that, the stereo mixes sound much more clear, and open. And it only takes a few small adjustments to get it to sound perfect once the mono mix is good.

 

[Jillchaw]

song

Mix is ok. Drums sound dead in the snare a little. Too much of a double tracked sound in the guitar and it makes for a slightly cheesy effect heard on too many modern records. Singing performance isnt very engaging.

And as for the song itself... too many cliches heard on too many modern records. Sounds too much like the last 7 years of cheesy college rock. The lyrics arent very good because they instantly pander to women which is the cliche of cliches. They also have little or no rhyme, and have almost no variation in rhythm with the underlying meter, which is the death sentence in lyric writing. There is hardly any internal rhyme or any other kinds of lyrical tricks. The vocal melodic phrases start and stop in a very predictable manner when compared to the structural phrases which is too predictable. You should try to pay more attention to how many of your notes in your melodies are just repeating notes, called "saturation tones", which make melodies dull. It probably also wouldnt hurt to vary the length of at lest a few of the notes in your verses. Also, the song attempts to hit high points way too early which leads to fast habituation.

The mix isnt bad, but a better and more original song, with stronger and more engaging singing would make the mix sound alot better. You should try to make your songs sound good with just an acoustic and leave out all the weird stop and go parts that try to get the listener engaged. If you want to engage the listener use a more original lyric and a more original singing style. Its ten times more effective at getting their attention.

Im sure ill be endlessly flamed, but this is actually great advice. And free too.

 

[TelePaul]

Mix is ok. Drums sound dead in the snare a little. Too much of a double tracked sound in the guitar and it makes for a slightly cheesy effect heard on too many modern records. Singing performance isnt very engaging.

And as for the song itself... too many cliches heard on too many modern records. Sounds too much like the last 7 years of cheesy college rock. The lyrics arent very good because they instantly pander to women which is the cliche of cliches. They also have little or no rhyme, and have almost no variation in rhythm with the underlying meter, which is the death sentence in lyric writing. There is hardly any internal rhyme or any other kinds of lyrical tricks. The vocal melodic phrases start and stop in a very predictable manner when compared to the structural phrases which is too predictable. You should try to pay more attention to how many of your notes in your melodies are just repeating notes, called "saturation tones", which make melodies dull. It probably also wouldnt hurt to vary the length of at lest a few of the notes in your verses. Also, the song attempts to hit high points way too early which leads to fast habituation.

The mix isnt bad, but a better and more original song, with stronger and more engaging singing would make the mix sound alot better. You should try to make your songs sound good with just an acoustic and leave out all the weird stop and go parts that try to get the listener engaged. If you want to engage the listener use a more original lyric and a more original singing style. Its ten times more effective at getting their attention.

Im sure ill be endlessly flamed, but this is actually great advice. And free too.

Comment on the mix not the song, songwriting comments = songwriting forum.
He's obviously going to write whatever style he likes and encompass whatever songwriting techniques he wants too. So you could summarise what you said into ''the mix isn't bad''. I don't see how anyone could call that 'great' advice, but based on your rep, you don't seem to be handing out too much of that these days.

 

[jpw23]

Mix is ok. Drums sound dead in the snare a little. Too much of a double tracked sound in the guitar and it makes for a slightly cheesy effect heard on too many modern records. Singing performance isnt very engaging.

And as for the song itself... too many cliches heard on too many modern records. Sounds too much like the last 7 years of cheesy college rock. The lyrics arent very good because they instantly pander to women which is the cliche of cliches. They also have little or no rhyme, and have almost no variation in rhythm with the underlying meter, which is the death sentence in lyric writing. There is hardly any internal rhyme or any other kinds of lyrical tricks. The vocal melodic phrases start and stop in a very predictable manner when compared to the structural phrases which is too predictable. You should try to pay more attention to how many of your notes in your melodies are just repeating notes, called "saturation tones", which make melodies dull. It probably also wouldnt hurt to vary the length of at lest a few of the notes in your verses. Also, the song attempts to hit high points way too early which leads to fast habituation.

The mix isnt bad, but a better and more original song, with stronger and more engaging singing would make the mix sound alot better. You should try to make your songs sound good with just an acoustic and leave out all the weird stop and go parts that try to get the listener engaged. If you want to engage the listener use a more original lyric and a more original singing style. Its ten times more effective at getting their attention.

Im sure ill be endlessly flamed, but this is actually great advice. And free too.

This was a bit harsh but, not altogether wrong.....If I were you, I would post this in the mp3 clinic and the songwriting forum for more views than you will get here. Your ways of doing things works for you so, go after critiques on how to make the mix and the song better.....just my 2 cents!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

And free too.

More proof that you get what you pay for.

The merit of what was said in jill's critique is irrelevant because the issues it addresses are irrelevant to the thread and to the forum. None of it has anything whatsoever to do with the question on the table, whether the process James uses in recording and mixing his music is valid or flawed or any mix thereof.

As to THAT question, James there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" with how you go about creating your productions; whatever works for you is fine. That said, there are a few comments I'd like to make for the sake of consideration.

I usually do drums first: I use 8 mics and I try to track each mic at about -12 db. After tracking I'll usually try to get the drums to sound the way I like before tracking any other instrument. I use drumagog on any drums that I don't like in the mix.

While it is very common to work on the rhythm section early in the mix process - I do that myself - I have some trepedations regarding this passage.

First, Doing any mixing before the tracking is complete can be a bit on the dangerous side, unless sheduling demands it or the engineer has his ear and technique down so well that they *really* know what they're doing and really have complete control over the rest of the tracking. As most of us know, what sounds good soloed does not necessarily sound right when blended with the other instruments.

It's good to get a rough submix of the drums going, but a lot of time can be unnecessarily wasted fine-tuning the stem and working with 'gog punches until you have an opportunity to rough fit that stem into a rough cut of a more complete mix with other instruments. It could very well be that some (just for examples) toms that you spent an hour 'gogging until they were perfect could have sounded just fine with a 4 minutes of automaton tweaking wonce righ mixed into the song, or that the smare that sounded perfect soloed wound up arguing with the lead guitar too much once they got together, and you just had to undo the 30 minutes of EQ and verb tweaking that you made polishing the submix too early.

Second, the implication to the "shoot the drums first and ask the rest of the questions later" method implies that you always - on every song - want to build your mix around the drums. While not the worst idea in the world, following that same recipe for every song can not only get monotonous, but can wind up whitewashing over some of the best things that the song may potentially have to offer. It totally ignores the intrinsic mood of the given song and also totally ignores any natural hooks buried in the song that may want to be foundation hooks around which much of the rest of the mix may want to be built.

Ask the song what it wants. Shape it like a diamond cutter cuts a diamond, by looking at the raw stone and then determining the right cut and style for that stone. Then plan your tracking and build your mix around that plan, rather than sticking to a steadfast cookie-cutter formula of "lets get some awesone drums first as a foundation and the fit everything around that." And don't build the mix until the tracking is done. You never know what you'll find during the tracking journey that may alter how you want to arrange or focus parts of the mix.

I then do guitars:
...
Then I do bass:

While this is optional and subjective, I personally like to mix the bass in after the drums in order to get a full rhythm section stem rather than treat the bass as a secondary string instrument.

I add a little compression and reverb...I also double track the vocals for a little more prescense(sp?) in the mix

It's "presence" . Again, nothing necessarily "wrong" about that recipe, other than the fact that it's a recipe decision being made before you actually start mixing, and one that sounds like you want to use as a standard for every song (since it's your process for tracking and mixing.) Put that together with

(then) I mix until I like the way everything sits

and this is where I have the real problem with much of today's home recording processes.

It's what I call the "lasagna approach" to mixing. Every song is a lasagna made from the same ingredients, prepared the same way with the same compression, same panning, same reverb applied to each iingredient (track) every time. Then they are just laid on top of each other like layers in a lasagna, with no mixing actually done other than a little fine tuning of the levels of the individual tracks, and the only thing that holds the layers together is some compression or reverb (or both) ladled over the top of the mix like a gallon of red sauce.

What if the song is a casserole of sounds and ideas? Or if you wanted to make a stew or gumbo out of it instead? The lasagna recipe for mixing just isn't going to work.

Listen to the song in your head before you even start tracking. How do you want it to sound? Do you want it to sound exactly like the last five songs you made or do you want to mix it up a little? What does the song itself want? Where are the hooks in the song? Where and when are the lyrics more imprtant than the instruemnts, and vice versa? What is the overall tone and mood of the song? You you want to play that mood stright up or do you want to play it sarcastically or humorously?

After answering those questions (for the most part, at least; there's always room for change in the process as you go along), then start arraning the sound of the mix in your head, making notes on paper of points you want to cover in the mix, building the mix around the hooks, the lyrics and the mood in the combination you see fit. Then when you have that game plan pretty well worked out, start tracking your instruments with the goal of making that mix as easy as possible to build.

Just something to consider when you're ready to try the next level .

G.

 

[flamin-gitaur]

I don't think the overall mix of things was too bad, the only thing that bothered me was the sound of the kick drum, it kinda sounds like a plastic 5 gallon paint bucket, and was a little distracting to the rest of the song. Just my 2 cents.

 

[jamesduysen]

Thanks everyone for all the advice! After reading of the one with all of the songwriting advice I can see where you are coming from with the cliche talk. I guess you don't really realize all the cliche and such in music when you are trying to write a personal song...Anyway thanks again everyone!!!

James

 

[Yareek]

Didn't really like the sound of the drums...it felt a little stale and dead, maybe get some fresh heads on them? Remove some muffling? Depending on what kind of drums they are nice new bearing edges might helps as well. Especially with the kick, I'd tune to the lowest frequency you can hear, then tune it up just a bit. Don't put any pillows in there, use either muffling heads (like the EMAD or Powerstrokes) or rest a towel against the edge of the head to kill a bit of ring. And $5 for Moongel pads is a great investment and should be considered instead of tape or rings on top of heads.

I think the approach I would take is get the instruments sounding as killer as possible in the room...then try to capture it. If the drums don't knock your socks off in person they'll never be amazing on tape. At least at this level of recording, it's better to strive for that than to try and "fix it in the mix."

Same with the guitar...it kind of sounded like a Metal Zone pedal running to a tiny amp...depending on what kind of speaker/mic you've got, I'd try putting some more mids and bass on the amp and backing off the gain. Then compress it a bit more in the mix and notch out any annoying buzz sounds in the high end so it's fatter in the mix. If you want to go all out and don't have a great amp, I'd recommend picking up a Marshall Guv'nor Plus pedal, they're about $60 and can get anything from a light Marshall-esque crunch to a really heavy modern tone a la the DSL100. I run one through a Fender Hot Rod tube amp and it actually gets me in the ballpark of my roommate's DSL50 (even the low end "chunk").

Didn't really listen much to the bass, sorry.

Vocals were a bit whiny I guess, I'm not a fan of this kind of music so I'll stay away. But at least the singer was on pitch! I might either try a different mic to get a bit more of a "present" sound and then step back from the mic when doing harmonies and roll off the high end so it's easier to blend. Also try mixing the background vocals on their own buss or down to a stereo track and compress them together so they "mesh" better and it's easier to kind of "rest" the lead vocals on top.

Oh yeah pan everything off to the left or right when you're mixing. All to one speaker. Get your levels and EQ to where you like it, then pan everything back to how you'd like it in stereo and fine tune. It really does wonders to help you avoid phase issues and get levels a lot better. And you focus on the sounds instead of the location.