10 Tips to Improve Your Mixing Skills

[miroslav]

I'm just saying I'm surprised to hear/read how many (famous) engineers actually use them a majority of the time.

I don't deny that or am I surprised by that...but it's to easy to read about a few name engineers doing it, and someone gets the impression that many others are doing it that way too.
Look...worst case...there are as many using high grade monitors as there may be using crappy shit speakers.

AFA "impressing clients"...IMO, that's often referring to the HUGE, large field, wall/soffit mounted studio monitors...because they can fill out the biggest control rooms and provide that in-the-gut feeling for the low-end that impresses people.
The high-end near/mid field monitors that are on the meter bridge are probably used moire for mixing than the large wall mounted stuff...but hey, there are engineers who actually prefer to mix on the huge monitors, at loud levels...etc..etc.
So the take away is that I don't really see any major movement toward mixing on the crappiest speakers you can find...even there are a bunch name engineers doing that.

IMO...don't believe everything you read about what some engineers do.
Many of those mofos go out of their way to hide or misrepresent what they REALLY do in the studio....because they like to have some personal secrets/tricks that they never disclose or where they intentionally leave out one or two details about their signal chains, etc.
It is VERY competitive at that level.

When HR had that contest and Q&A with CLA...I asked him how often he uses all the Waves plugs with his name on them instead of the racks and racks of actual hardware that the plugs were modeled after...and he didn't give me any straight answer, because he wants to sell the Waves plugs, but in the studio he's going to use what he prefers.

 

[kidkage]

Also, since when is compression before EQ the correct order?
Lots o' people prefer to EQ before compression!

 

[miroslav]

Also, since when is compression before EQ the correct order?
Lots o' people prefer to EQ before compression!

Yeah....I saw that too.

He talked about using "filters" before the comp...but that's basically EQ, and it's not always just about HPF and LPF.
Sometimes you want to EQ other areas before the comp, based on what's hitting the comp the hardest that you might want to adjust in order to better control the comp.

But yeah...it's not unusual to also EQ after the comp.

 

[famous beagle]

There's a bunch of fake motherfuckers around here that don't back up their mouths with results. Fuck these frauds.

Heheh ... "idol worshippers." I didn't even know who CLA was until about 4 months ago when I happened to come across a video of him talking about mixing. When I saw his resume, I realized he wasn't exactly a schmuck and probably knew a thing or two. I certainly don't worship any mixing engineer, but until you or I are capable of producing the kind of quality that he and others do, I think I'll put more stock into his advice than ours.

And with regards to "results," I do have a track in the mp3 clinic right now called "Traffic." Feel free to go and tear it to shreds.

 

[famous beagle]

Many of those mofos go out of their way to hide or misrepresent what they REALLY do in the studio....because they like to have some personal secrets/tricks that they never disclose or where they intentionally leave out one or two details about their signal chains, etc.
It is VERY competitive at that level.

This may or not be true; I'd just be taking your word for it, since I don't know any world famous engineers, nor have I ever heard them speak to something like this.

And seriously, I don't doubt that CLA uses his outboard stuff more than the plugs. I'm sure he's gotten pretty good at working that way, and his hardware probably sounds better anyway. I don't think Waves is trying to say that these are the plugins that CLA uses. I think they're trying to say that these plugins are modeled after the equipment CLA uses. I don't know for sure, but that's the way it seems to me.

 

[Greg_L]

IMO...don't believe everything you read about what some engineers do.
Many of those mofos go out of their way to hide or misrepresent what they REALLY do in the studio....because they like to have some personal secrets/tricks that they never disclose or where they intentionally leave out one or two details about their signal chains, etc.
It is VERY competitive at that level.

Exactly! Oh my God I'm glad at least someone else gets it. Pros in any field lie constantly. Football coaches, race car crew chiefs, chefs, recording engineers, anyone. They're not just going to give away their "secrets". Many of them intentionally talk nonsense.

 

[miroslav]

... I don't know any world famous engineers, nor have I ever heard them speak to something like this.

But you're "famous beagle"...how do you not know them?


All I'm saying is....if you're just reading about stuff or taking someone else's word that famous engineers do this or that....then you should also accept they may not.
When you talk to people who regularly work with someone famous, or you personally get to sit in and watch them work...then you'll know what the real deal is.
Everything else that is talked about on audio forums is sprinkled with a large helping of "internet knowledge" and mythical legend...not to mention marketing hype.
The amount of mythical anecdotes that circle around in the audio world about tricks and who said/did what is enormous.

I've read where one guy's recollection of some studio happening is 180 degrees opposite from another's.
There's a very tip-toe, "don't speak the *real* truth" attitude in pro audio circles....because it's ALL about image and rep and clients conceptions...or managed misconceptions.
You ever notice how in a lot of the entertainment world (and that's where audio recording falls to a great degree) everyone tries to be politically "polite" even when the emperor has no clothes.
It's really a closed or private club community to a great degree at the upper levels of the pro audio world and entertainment biz.

 

[mjbphotos]

A young chap of my acquaintance who mixes and masters semi-professionally just bought some generic computer speakers to add to his mixing setup. He asked me to make up a special cable for him so he could do so. He told me that the first track of his that he played through them flagged up a rogue frequency in his vocal that hadn't shown up on his Adams and allowed him to notch it out. Let's not forget that most customers will listen to stuff on awful speakers like these, so you do need to check your mixes on them. You are not going to do the entirety of your mixing on shit speakers, that would be ludicrous, but they are an important tool to be used for a specific job. I mix on my Yamahas, I listen in the van, the car and on my 486-style beige computer speakers at work. They're all valuable in their own way.

Yeah, but chances are that rogue frequency was a function of the speaker, not the mix. Did he run a reference disc through the computer speakers?

My 2 cents on the 10 tips (repeating some of what was said): #9 and #10 conflict with each other - 9 says to use multiple speakers, 10 says to use crappy speakers. The example with Genelecs means nothing by itself. Using massive midfields in a tiny room with no acoustic treatment, yeah, they're going to sound like ass!
#4 - EQ before compression is common.

 

[miroslav]

Yeah, but chances are that rogue frequency was a function of the speaker, not the mix. Did he run a reference disc through the computer speakers?

My 2 cents on the 10 tips (repeating some of what was said): #9 and #10 conflict with each other - 9 says to use multiple speakers, 10 says to use crappy speakers.

They don't conflict if you use multiple crappy speakers.

 

[famous beagle]

But you're "famous beagle"...how do you not know them?


All I'm saying is....if you're just reading about stuff or taking someone else's word that famous engineers do this or that....then you should also accept they may not.
When you talk to people who regularly work with someone famous, or you personally get to sit in and watch them work...then you'll know what the real deal is.
Everything else that is talked about on audio forums is sprinkled with a large helping of "internet knowledge" and mythical legend...not to mention marketing hype.
The amount of mythical anecdotes that circle around in the audio world about tricks and who said/did what is enormous.

I've read where one guy's recollection of some studio happening is 180 degrees opposite from another's.
There's a very tip-toe, "don't speak the *real* truth" attitude in pro audio circles....because it's ALL about image and rep and clients conceptions...or managed misconceptions.
You ever notice how in a lot of the entertainment world (and that's where audio recording falls to a great degree) everyone tries to be politically "polite" even when the emperor has no clothes.
It's really a closed or private club community to a great degree at the upper levels of the pro audio world and entertainment biz.

It's true ... we all give advice, and we all could be lying and/or regurgitating second-hand crap with which we have no experience. The only real difference between us and the pros is that they have the pro results to back up their advice (true or not), and we don't.

 

[Paschalis I.]

It's true ... we all give advice, and we all could be lying and/or regurgitating second-hand crap with which we have no experience. The only real difference between us and the pros is that they have the pro results to back up their advice (true or not), and we don't.

That's a great post. +1 !! Exactly.

Since we're talking about getting as commercial sounding recordings as possible in our home studio,
then words matter only if someone has the guts to show to the public the results of his own teachings.

Giving advice without giving the opportunity to the person that's asking for advice, to actually listen to your work, is misleading.
If someone is talking with huge self-esteem that what he's teaching actually work, if by any case it's a lie, then give him the chance to LISTEN so he can decide if your text is crap or not, so he won't be mis-leaded.

It does not matter if we think that our advice is better and others are wrong.
We all used to love our productions when we first started even though they sucked, but our enjoyment for getting a bit better didn't help us actually hear that we've got a long way to go.
And because of this... everyone thinks that his advice is better than others.

What truly matters is the result.
You may think that you've got the best production in the world, but if it sucks compared to the commercial sounding records then your opinion is just an illusion not a fact.

 

[RAMI]

I don't want to get back into this argument and take sides. But I will say that if you're suggesting Greg can't back up his words with his recordings, you're mistaken 100%. He posts his music here on a regular basis, and has posted numerous and countless recordings of his different guitar set ups in the "New Tone Thread" which is in the Guitar and Bass forums. Maybe you weren't directing your last post at him, but it looked like you were. Believe me, and I'm sure Famous Beagle knows this, Greg has posted his songs and they're probably the best sounding guitar tracks you'll hear on this site.

 

[famous beagle]

I don't want to get back into this argument and take sides. But I will say that if you're suggesting Greg can't back up his words with his recordings, you're mistaken 100%. He posts his music here on a regular basis, and has posted numerous and countless recordings of his different guitar set ups in the "New Tone Thread" which is in the Guitar and Bass forums. Maybe you weren't directing your last post at him, but it looked like you were. Believe me, and I'm sure Famous Beagle knows this, Greg has posted his songs and they're probably the best sounding guitar tracks you'll hear on this site.

No I wasn't directing it at Greg at all. If anything, it was more in a reply to Miroslav. But it was also just a general statement saying that, until we mix some hit records or win some Grammy awards, then maybe our opinion shouldn't hold quite as much weight as those that have.

And again, I know that tastes comes into it and all, and we obviously probably don't like the mixes of every world-class engineer, but we certainly do like the sounds of some professional mixes, and the chances are good that many of the engineers behind them are world-class.

Edit: Oh, ooops ... I see that you were probably talking to Paschalis there. My bad.

 

[RAMI]

Edit: Oh, ooops ... I see that you were probably talking to Paschalis there. My bad.

Yeah. I might be wrong, but I read his post that way. Just wanted to set the record straight in case he was suggesting Greg can't back up his words. That's all.

 

[Greg_L]

Yeah. I might be wrong, but I read his post that way. Just wanted to set the record straight in case he was suggesting Greg can't back up his words. That's all.

Lol. Thanks. He was, no doubt. It's no skin off my back. I'm not the one using a bunch of sims and samples. Maybe I should so I can have their respect!

Lol. No, I don't want it.

 

[ProToolsHelp]

Also, since when is compression before EQ the correct order?
Lots o' people prefer to EQ before compression!

First of all, there is no "Correct Order" when setting up dynamics as everything is situational dependent

Second of all if I put the EQ before the compressor, and then decide to boost the EQ (which most rookies do) how does that affect the compressor? The answer is, the compressor is now receiving more signal, which in turn causes the compressor to clamp down more. If you put the EQ first and do subtractive EQ it will drive less signal to the compressor. So do you see why I like to compress first?

Third of all, One of the most common things I would hear from my former students is that my advice of FILTER-> COMPRESS -> EQ was one of the best pieces of advice they ever got from any instructor. They all mentioned how much more professional their mixes sounded after trying what I told them. Remember, if it sounds good, it is good. No one cares how you got there...

I held a 9-year tenure at one of the largest recording arts schools in Hollywood teaching Pro Tools and digital audio theory. If I was giving bad advice to my students, I'm pretty sure I would have been let go a long time ago...

 

[Paschalis I.]

Yeah. I might be wrong, but I read his post that way. Just wanted to set the record straight in case he was suggesting Greg can't back up his words. That's all.

Hey, no my post above was a general statement I wasn't referring to someone specific like Greg, I haven't even read the whole thread to say the truth, I just entered and quoted famous beagle

 

[kindafishy]

That's a great post. +1 !! Exactly.

Since we're talking about getting as commercial sounding recordings as possible in our home studio,
then words matter only if someone has the guts to show to the public the results of his own teachings.

Giving advice without giving the opportunity to the person that's asking for advice, to actually listen to your work, is misleading.
If someone is talking with huge self-esteem that what he's teaching actually work, if by any case it's a lie, then give him the chance to LISTEN so he can decide if your text is crap or not, so he won't be mis-leaded.

It does not matter if we think that our advice is better and others are wrong.
We all used to love our productions when we first started even though they sucked, but our enjoyment for getting a bit better didn't help us actually hear that we've got a long way to go.
And because of this... everyone thinks that his advice is better than others.

What truly matters is the result.
You may think that you've got the best production in the world, but if it sucks compared to the commercial sounding records then your opinion is just an illusion not a fact.

I might regret chiming in here as I have no desire to get into a back and forth over it, but I feel compelled to say that I'm a little bewildered by this post to be honest. You seem to be arguing hard against the very thing that you do. You have a web site that is giving people advice about advertising "commercial quality", "analog sounding", "radio ready" recordings, yet I just listened through all your samples and they are not that. So, what is going on here?

 

[Paschalis I.]

I might regret chiming in here as I have no desire to get into a back and forth over it, but I feel compelled to say that I'm a little bewildered by this post to be honest. You seem to be arguing hard against the very thing that you do. You have a web site that is giving people advice about advertising "commercial quality", "analog sounding", "radio ready" recordings, yet I just listened through all your samples and they are not that. So, what is going on here?

It's going exactly like I said and I said it's wise to to give audio samples to the viewers/listeners to back up words and advice. This way, people that don't like the audio can ditch me completely. People that like to achieve the sound I managed to achieve, they follow me.

It's ok if some people don't like the quality of my audio, it's not like I lose something I am not making any money of it, we're here to share. If someone believes he can gain something from me with audio proof of my words, then I am happy. If not, he can find other mentors why not. It's pretty simple really

 

[RAMI]

First of all, there is no "Correct Order" when setting up dynamics as everything is situational dependent

You should have left it at that.

Second of all if I put the EQ before the compressor, and then decide to boost the EQ (which most rookies do) how does that affect the compressor? The answer is, the compressor is now receiving more signal, which in turn causes the compressor to clamp down more. If you put the EQ first and do subtractive EQ it will drive less signal to the compressor. So do you see why I like to compress first?

Your logic is flawed. Using the same train of thought, if you put the compressor before the EQ, it might have to clamp down too much un-necessairlly because there are frequencies driving it that shouldn't be there (since you're going to subtract them after). Like I said, you should have stopped at "It depends".

They all mentioned how much more professional their mixes sounded after trying what I told them.

Blah blah blah....And I'm sure they'd be saying the same thing if you gave them the opposite advice. IT DEPENDS is the right answer.

Remember, if it sounds good, it is good. No one cares how you got there...

Actually, YOU need to remember that. You're contradicting yourself, saying "if it sounds good, it is good", and then you're giving definitive "advice" as if there's only one way to do everything.

I held a 9-year tenure at one of the largest recording arts schools in Hollywood teaching Pro Tools and digital audio theory. If I was giving bad advice to my students, I'm pretty sure I would have been let go a long time ago...

Oh Christ, more bah blah blah.....Get over yourself. There are as many "experienced" engineers, producers, and teachers who might give different advice from what you're giving and haven't been let go either. You sound pretty insecure.