I dont want to say "mastering" software

[RAMI]

This ain't a debate; it's several groups of people taking about entirely different things, and doing so in circles so fast that if the thread goes around one more time I may just throw up from the vertigo.

Yet another example of a thread in the "Mixing/Mastering" forum getting all gummed up because nobody agrees on just what mixing and mastering actually means and what the difference is between the two.

G.

Really?

I see it more as a lot of people that think the only way to make songs sound uniform is to use an EQ.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Really?

I see it more as a lot of people that think the only way to make songs sound uniform is to use an EQ.

Maybe I missed it, Rami, but I can't find a single post in here that says that.

G.

 

[RAMI]

Maybe I missed it, Rami, but I can't find a single post in here that says that.

I guess I didn't put enough smileys after my last post.

But, here are a few quotes......I edited them down to make my argument stronger.

(is that enough????)

there are times when you've got to EQ during mastering.....to get the songs to sound coherent, they have to be eq'd individually.....none of my songs sound the same. I need EQ.

Well, regardless, EQ is good for getting the frequency balance to sit right between songs.....you have to do minor adjustments on one and/or the other to equalize it

I will eq. a little the entire stereo mix.Big mastering boys do it.

Mastering eq is where that falls into place....it is needed

 

[BushmasterM4]

I said needed from time to time.

 

[RAMI]

I said needed from time to time.

Hehe...I know, man. I'm having fun with it. I respect everyone's opinion in this thread, and don't disagree with most of what was said.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I guess I didn't put enough smileys after my last post.

But, here are a few quotes......I edited them down to make my argument stronger.

(is that enough????)

Ok, I missed the smiley and the sarcasm. D'oh, my mistake.

And yeah, I guess Chili's first quote is probably the strongest and closest to saying that EQ is the only way, but that's kinda cherry-picking out of the many other things he said and associated himself with.

Let me hit you with a hypothetical situation. You have a mix with one kick, one snare and two OH's, two guitars miked, one bass DI'd, one keyboard miked, one lead vocal and two accompanying vocals.

You have tracked and mixed well, but the mix would sound best (alone or on an album, your pick) if you shaved 1-2dB per band in a gentle curve between 640Hz and 2.5kHz and added a couple dB at most at about 12.5dB for some "air" on the mix. How would you reproduce that curve by editing the individual tracks?

G.

 

[Chili]

Let me hit you with a hypothetical situation. You have a mix with one kick, one snare and two OH's, two guitars miked, one bass DI'd, one keyboard miked, one lead vocal and two accompanying vocals.

G.

Okay.. no, no, no wait, wait, wait... are the vocals mic'd or DI???

he he he, sorry couldn't resist... okay, Game On!!!

 

[Nakatira]

Okay.. no, no, no wait, wait, wait... are the vocals mic'd or DI???

he he he, sorry couldn't resist... okay, Game On!!!

Rami allways DI, his drums and vocals.

thats why he dont need eq

 

[Nakatira]

This ain't a debate; it's several groups of people taking about entirely different things, and doing so in circles so fast that if the thread goes around one more time I may just throw up from the vertigo.

Yet another example of a thread in the "Mixing/Mastering" forum getting all gummed up because nobody agrees on just what mixing and mastering actually means and what the difference is between the two.

G.

Looks like a debate to me, maybe not a political one.

But diffrent ways to rome as been displayed, good arguments on each side.
thats a debate to me.

even if you dont agree with the opposing side, it still can be a debate.

 

[RAMI]

You have tracked and mixed well, but the mix would sound best (alone or on an album, your pick) if you shaved 1-2dB per band in a gentle curve between 640Hz and 2.5kHz and added a couple dB at most at about 12.5dB for some "air" on the mix. How would you reproduce that curve by editing the individual tracks?

G.

Very hypothetical, since my ears aren't good enough notice something that subtle. Because of that, I'd normalize all my tracks, and then throw a stereo widener on the mix.

But, seriously...In my case, since I record at home, don't pay for studio time, and time is free. I'd go back and see which instruments are causing me to think I need those changes. If they all lack hi end or have too much mids, then I either didn't track properly or didn't mix properly. I'd learn a lot more and improve at what I do if I re-mixed than if I just slapped a global EQ on the mix.

 

[NYMorningstar]

You have tracked and mixed well, but the mix would sound best (alone or on an album, your pick) if you shaved 1-2dB per band in a gentle curve between 640Hz and 2.5kHz and added a couple dB at most at about 12.5dB for some "air" on the mix. How would you reproduce that curve by editing the individual tracks?

G.

Can't seem to figure out how to add a couple db at most at about 12.5db and get "air" on the mix.

Seriously though, if you tracked and mixed well wouldn't you already have air in the mix? If you don't, wouldn't looking at a better mic, fixing your room and/or EQing at the tracking stage be a better option?

 

[RAMI]

Rami allways DI, his drums

I actually take a wire and run it from the soundhole in each drum into my mixer.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Very hypothetical, since my ears aren't good enough notice something that subtle.

That's not going to be very subtle. If you use a 2/3rd octave band graphic, that's going to be in the area of 6-8dB worth of physical cuts overall across that frequency range. If you can't hear that level of modification, there's more problems than argument over technique.

But, seriously...In my case, since I record at home, don't pay for studio time, and time is free. I'd go back and see which instruments are causing me to think I need those changes. If they all lack hi end or have to much mids, then I either didn't track properly or didn't mix properly.

Time is never free. But let's not worry about that part of it. There's no one instrument or two instruments that stick out at any of these ranges, nor are any of them truly lacking high end. It's the summing of the instruments that winds up being just a bit fat in the low mids and the overall mix that could benefit from a bit of air.

You could go into the mix and try cutting a third dB per instrument per band or adding a tenth of a dB per band on the topside. But now we have a situation where none of us truly can hear those subtle changes as we make them, not to mention winding up with a whole lot of plug instances muddying up the signal chain. And even if we could accurately make such fine adjustments per track, the end result is simply not quite the same as strapping a single EQ across the 2Mix.

I'd learn a lot more and improve at what I do if I re-mixed than if I just slapped a global EQ on the mix.

The main thing you'd probably learn is that spending an hour trying to fine-tune an already perfectly fine mix instead of simply fine-sanding the result in a 30-second adjustment just doesn't pay in such an instance, not only because it takes too much time, but mostly because the end result probably will make the mix worse instead of better because that kind of fine-sanding on a per-track basis is just way too difficult to pull off.

On doesn't blame the plane job because they still have to fine sand the wood to get the right finish, and they don't instead try to go back and plane the wood some more in order to get that last velvety finish. They understand that planing and rough sanding will only work so well and that these things are best done in stages, and that sometimes you have to give it a go with the fine stuff at the end even if the planing and previous sanding jobs were perfectly good..

G.

 

[RAMI]

That's not going to be very subtle. If you use a 2/3rd octave band graphic, that's going to be in the area of 6-8dB worth of physical cuts overall across that frequency range. If you can't hear that level of modification, there's more problems than argument over technique.

Jesus Glen, you need to loosen up a bit. I've now learned that one smiley is just not enough for you.

There's no one instrument or two instruments that stick out at any of these ranges, nor are any of them truly lacking high end. It's the summing of the instruments that winds up being just a bit fat in the low mids and the overall mix that could benefit from a bit of air.

I thought you said it wasn't subtle. What you just described sounds pretty subtle to me.

But now we have a situation where none of us truly can hear those subtle changes as we make them, not to mention winding up with a whole lot of plug instances muddying up the signal chain.

I wouldn't be using plug-ins and I wouldn't be muddying anything up. I don't mix in the "box". I have seperate EQ's for each channel on my mixer.

And even if we could accurately make such fine adjustments per track, the end result is simply not quite the same as strapping a single EQ across the 2Mix.

Not the same doesn't mean worse.

The main thing you'd probably learn is that spending an hour trying to fine-tune an already perfectly fine mix

If it's already a fine mix, it wouldn't need the supposedly not-so-subtle changes you say it needs, would it???

On doesn't blame the plane job because they still have to fine sand the wood to get the right finish, and they don't instead try to go back and plane the wood some more in order to get that last velvety finish. They understand that planing and rough sanding will only work so well and that these things are best done in stages, and that sometimes you have to give it a go with the fine stuff at the end even if the planing and previous sanding jobs were perfectly good..

That's very poetic. But, I've never been in a situation where I've felt I've needed such a drastic ( since it's supposedly not subtle) change in the overall EQ of a tune. If I did, than I'd consider it a shitty mix that's not ready for mastering.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Can't seem to figure out how to add a couple db at most at about 12.5db and get "air" on the mix.

Seriously though, if you tracked and mixed well wouldn't you already have air in the mix? If you don't, wouldn't looking at a better mic, fixing your room and/or EQing at the tracking stage be a better option?

If all your mix needs is a little bump or fine adjustment, it makes no sense to attack it by tearing down your studio and re-building it, especially if the next song doesn't need the same changes.

As far as changing mics, that's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that'll change a whole lot more in the sound than adding just a little air.

Grab yourself a copy of Voxengo's free little cheapshit 7-band EQ, the essEQ. Looks like something no respectable engineer would ever use, right? Especially someone like me who uses the complicated Roger Nichol's stuff from breakfast through dinner, right? Try slapping that cheap little EQ across your 2mix sometime and play with subtle changes in the 15k slider. Depending on the mix, your results will vary, sometimes you can push that slider to either wall and not hear a damn thing. Other times it can make the difference between an average-sounding mix and an above-average one, and will do so in a way you just cant get to by re-tracking or re-mixing individual tracks.

C'mon guys, telling people not to use mastering to do their mixing is one thing, and you know I'm with you all the way on that one. But the idea that mastering involves nothing other than volume adjustment, and that fine-tuning the EQ on the 2mix is a bozo no-no is just not reality.

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Jesus Glen, you need to loosen up a bit. I've now learned that one smiley is just not enough for you.

if you're simply being sarcastic and not serious, it's not working very well, since everyone seems to be arguing and debating with you (or agreeing with you) instead of laughing with you.

We've seen people in the past who left a smiley at the end of every one of their posts, even when they were sticking a shiv in their ribs. My lawyer smiled at me all the way through the conversation where he told me that he lost my brother's estate to foreclosure. Smileys alone mean very little if they just don't fit the content

That's very poetic. But, I've never been in a situation where I've felt I've needed such a drastic ( since it's supposedly not subtle) change in the overall EQ of a tune.

Wow, everything is either drastic or subtle with nothing in-between?

Well, if you have never needed any mastering done to your mixes, you are one hell of a better mixing engineer than anyone else I have ever met. More power to you my friend. (how's that for a smiley? Does that loosen me up just because I added a few smileys to my post . How about if I also stuck my tongue about and winked )

Oh yeah, and let's not forget the old YMMV, IMHO, HMO, FDIC, TARP and all those other conventions of Internet text messaging.

G.

 

[NYMorningstar]

If all your mix needs is a little bump or fine adjustment, it makes no sense to attack it by tearing down your studio and re-building it, especially if the next song doesn't need the same changes.

As far as changing mics, that's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that'll change a whole lot more in the sound than adding just a little air.
G.

I'm sorry if I'm seeing this wrong but your response seems extreme. I didn't in any way suggest you tear down and rebuild your studio.

I disagree with your point that you're throwing out the baby with the bath water when you swap out mics. Mic choice and placement is your first shot at EQing. Subtle or not problems are problems.

You seem to be saying that addressing your room problems and swapping out mics is too much trouble when you can simply fix the problem later with EQing.

 

[RAMI]

if you're simply being sarcastic and not serious, it's not working very well, since everyone seems to be arguing and debating with you (or agreeing with you) instead of laughing with you.

Well, my only attempts at "humor" were responses to your posts. Sorry.

And it's rare that you skip most of what someone posts to only quote the least important stuff. So, that tells me something right there. I'm not as far our in the left field as you're trying to make it look.

As long as we're pointing out things that were never said, please tell me where I said I've never needed mastering on any of my mixes. I've already said more than one time in this thread that my comments were directed towards home recordists who throw an EQ on their whole mix, usually making matters worse.

I'm pretty sure it's clear (to almost everyone) that I'm not saying I don't need mastering, or that a Mastering Engineer shouldn't EVER throw an EQ on a mix. I think I responed to your last post as honestly as possible, and I'm also sure I made some great points, as has pretty much everyone in this thread. But you can read it how you like. Gives you an excuse to type SOMETHING.

 

[XLR]

Spot on, Rami.