Mixing question - when instrument is by itself

[famous beagle]

Ok, so I know that one of the pitfalls early recordists fall into is, during mixdown, they solo each instrument, make it sound as good as possible (with EQ, etc.), and then wonder why everything sounds like crap when you put it all together.

I understand that it's necessary (most often) to carve out frequency notches for each instrument so that they sit well within the context of the whole band --- not just by themselves.

So my question is this: When a song starts out with just a single instrument, does the EQ treatment of that instrument change from the intro to when the full band enters.

For example, in "Start Me Up" by the Stones, the guitar begins the song. Is the EQ on that guitar part by itself the same as when the full band comes in, or is that intro guitar given its own separate EQ treatment?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So my question is this: When a song starts out with just a single instrument, does the EQ treatment of that instrument change from the intro to when the full band enters.

The short answer is, "Sometimes."

Sometimes any number of mix dimemsions may change; possibly EQ, possibly compression, often panning and levels. Or any combination of them. Sometimes not. Whatever works.

Often times this is handled at the source, also, The guitarist may switch pickups or hit a stomp box or twirl the volume control on the guitar or simply change his playing style in order to change his sound from one song part to another.

I can't address "Start Me Up" specifically, I don't have a copy of it lying around to listen to, but it should be pretty simple to get a general answer by giving it a listen.

G.

 

[miroslav]

Glen is 100% correct.

These days with almost all editing being done in DAWs you have the ability to adjust portions of a track down to a single note if needed, and IMO it's valid, and yeah, sometimes necessary in order to get it to work/fit with your production plan.

The one thing you should watch out for is to not have it come off as too wierd, easpecially at transition points...though there may be times where it actually works to have the differences be very extream, if you want that type of effect. Like the classis "radio voice" that then kicks into a full frequency spectrum voice.

 

[LeeRosario]

an extension to what Glen said being that automation becomes a big part of that.


It's not uncommon to see a mix go through hundreds of automation points within a song. Fader rides, automation mutes, eqs, panning...I mean you name it. It gets ridiculous sometimes.

Alot of people tend to go section by section and annotate what settings worked best. It's very rare (because it's so difficult to do) to get a mix that can sit well from start to finish and that dosn't need some kind of dynamic "help" from the engineer. In fact, it's encouraged to feel and ride out the song that way.

Even if it means EQ single tracks differently through various parts of a song. When and if it calls for it.

 

[famous beagle]

Thanks y'all. I kind of figured it was probably a case-by-case basis, but I didn't know if it was maybe common knowledge that I wasn't privy to or something.

 

[gecko zzed]

I find myself disturbed by the frequent references in these boards to "carving out" niches so that instruments fit better together in a mix.

Instruments are what they are, each with its own particular sonic quirks. They are played together in lounge rooms, restaurants, back porches and in assorted sessions . . . no "carving" takes place there. In an orchestra, a conductor can control relative levels of groups, but he cannot carve out a spot for the oboes by adjusting their EQ (though he or she may seek a different method of playing). A jazz quartet recorded live to stereo undergoes no EQ carving of its components.

I have a feeling that much of the EQ work is not being done so that each instrument has its niche in a mix, but to correct recording flaws that prevent this in the first place. I am a strong advocate of letting the song take care of itself, and interfering as little as possible. Concentrate on getting a good source in the first place so that heavily tailored EQ is not necessary.

I agree with Lee Rosario that automation can take you to ridiculous extremes. I suspect that we can get easily carried away by what technological can do, and forget about what the instruments can do very well all by themselves.

To respond more directly to Famous Beagle's question . . . I would be very relcutant to change the eq of an instrument between when it starts a song to when the rest enter.

 

[famous beagle]

I find myself disturbed by the frequent references in these boards to "carving out" niches so that instruments fit better together in a mix.

Instruments are what they are, each with its own particular sonic quirks. They are played together in lounge rooms, restaurants, back porches and in assorted sessions . . . no "carving" takes place there. In an orchestra, a conductor can control relative levels of groups, but he cannot carve out a spot for the oboes by adjusting their EQ (though he or she may seek a different method of playing). A jazz quartet recorded live to stereo undergoes no EQ carving of its components.

I have a feeling that much of the EQ work is not being done so that each instrument has its niche in a mix, but to correct recording flaws that prevent this in the first place. I am a strong advocate of letting the song take care of itself, and interfering as little as possible. Concentrate on getting a good source in the first place so that heavily tailored EQ is not necessary.

I agree with Lee Rosario that automation can take you to ridiculous extremes. I suspect that we can get easily carried away by what technological can do, and forget about what the instruments can do very well all by themselves.

To respond more directly to Famous Beagle's question . . . I would be very relcutant to change the eq of an instrument between when it starts a song to when the rest enter.

I know what you mean certainly. And the best decision you can make so that instruments aren't competing in a mix takes place in the arrangement process before you even press record by writing parts that don't compete in the same register. But there's no reason that you shouldn't be able to tweak things if you'd like.

I don't view "carving out EQ niches" any different than panning choices. Most people usually try to keep things out of the way of the main vocal (which usually lies in the middle) so that they don't compete with it.

I think comparing live music to that recorded in a studio is a slippery slope, because the studio is just a different animal all together. Normally, a singer (or an acoustic guitar) can't compete with drums blasting and Marshalls cranked to 10. But put a close mic on them, and everything changes.

Granted, sometimes the recording is meant to try and capture the live sound (as in classical and some jazz), but that's usually not the case in pop, where you're likely to hear a fingerpicked acoustic next to a drum kit.

 

[dintymoore]

... When a song starts out with just a single instrument, does the EQ treatment of that instrument change from the intro to when the full band enters...

There's no rules, it's whatever you want to do.

Usually I'd say no, and I'd start there, and if it sounds weird, then do something.

It could be that what you're hearing is that when the guitar is by itself it has all kinds of headroom, like if you were alone in an elevator.

Then when the band enters it's like when the elevator stops and 20 people cram in. Now the compressor mashes everything together and the sound of that guitar is different 'cause there's less room for the harmonics.

I've had times when a song started out with solo piano and then the band came in that I rolled off the bass on the piano when the band came in because that much bottom wasn't needed when the bass guitar entered.

So just use your ear and do what's right for the song.

 

[miroslav]

I don't really carve...but I do shave here and there to make things sit together better.

But I know what you guys mean...if you have to really scoop out too much or add to much EQ...something is wrong.
That said...we must also keep in mind that a bunch of guys playing live in a room isn't 100% identical to a recording mix...so you have to make some adjustments with a recorded mix that you wouldn't do in a live situation.

As an example...
On the album project I just finished...the title song has some very low, loud, drum beats during the intro...and throughout the song.
At one point, I was close to buying some timpani to achieve the big low drum beats, but ended up doing it with an 18" floor tom, and then I layered some sampled drums with it.
Anyway...in a live environment, I would and could have those drums sounding like small nuclear detonations while the rest of the music is also cranking away and I could get away with it.
But I could not quite get that much low end loudness in the recorded mix. Yeah, I still have a nice BOOM, but I had to pull them back a bit and EQ them so they would not overload everything else.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I've been thinking about the example given in the first post: "Start Me Up", and would like to highlight a way of looking at the question in reverse.

While that opening riff has Keith Richards' signature playing style all over it like white on rice, which is half the reason it sounds like it does, go past that for a minute and think of the technical sound of that riff. It s it really - *REALLY* - what a majority of listeners here would shoot for as a target "tone" when going for a quality solo sound by the typical methods and sensibilities they would follow when trying to process the sound soloed?

I think an honest answer would more times than not be "No." Come on, be honest, folks . I'm not saying there's a single thing wrong with it, there isn't IMHO. But it simply does not have that stereotypical phat "tone" that most home recordists typically want to target when solo processing their guitars. Yet it sounds just fine, doesn't it? The fact alone that the OP used it as an example for such a solo riff illustrates that pretty well.

But the playing, that signature Keith Richards hammer attack is what really sells the first cycle and makes the riff what it is, and when Watts and Wyman come in on the second cycle and fill in the bottom with the kick and the bass, the "tone" of the guitar suddenly "makes sense".

I still have not listened to it again - I'm going strictly by memory here so I'm not positive - but I don't believe that except for maybe pan and level, there's much of anything further done to the guitar in the song; it is already tracked and processed to fit the mix/arrangement, and it's that same sound that's used in the opening riff.

This, IMHO, illustrates and reinforces by example three important points already made here and elsewhere; that getting something to sound "awsome" soloed means nothing without considering how it fits the mix, that getting something to fit in the mix does not necessarily mean bad sounding solos, and that "awsomeness" and "tone" is more of a function of the playing than it is of the engineering.

G.

 

[mattdee1]

I used to struggle with this question a lot. I'd get a mix I liked of the song as a whole, but that intro where the guitar rocks out on the chords by itself always sounded a bit strange to my ears. Through automation, duplicate tracks (and such) I'd do downright retarded things to "remedy" the situation, and actually convince myself it was working. I dusted off a few of those old mixes recently and reworked the intros to remove all of the trickery. Wow, do they ever sound better. I'm now finding I kind of like the somewhat "thin" sound which suddenly fills in when the rest of the band chimes in. It dawned on me that if you're going to start a song with just guitar, achieving that very effect is pretty much the whole point, right? Of course, I don't doubt that recordists with much more skill than me could go with some kind of trickery and actually get it to sound seamless, but I thought I'd share my personal experience.

 

[gecko zzed]

I used to struggle with this question a lot. I'd get a mix I liked of the song as a whole, but that intro where the guitar rocks out on the chords by itself always sounded a bit strange to my ears. Through automation, duplicate tracks (and such) I'd do downright retarded things to "remedy" the situation, and actually convince myself it was working. I dusted off a few of those old mixes recently and reworked the intros to remove all of the trickery. Wow, do they ever sound better. I'm now finding I kind of like the somewhat "thin" sound which suddenly fills in when the rest of the band chimes in. It dawned on me that if you're going to start a song with just guitar, achieving that very effect is pretty much the whole point, right? Of course, I don't doubt that recordists with much more skill than me could go with some kind of trickery and actually get it to sound seamless, but I thought I'd share my personal experience.

I like the way you are thinking.

We can twist ourselves into technological knots trying to achieve something that is actually present without the knots.

 

[famous beagle]

We can twist ourselves into technological knots trying to achieve something that is actually present without the knots.

That's certainly true. Very well said.

 

[Greg_L]

I find myself disturbed by the frequent references in these boards to "carving out" niches so that instruments fit better together in a mix.

Instruments are what they are, each with its own particular sonic quirks. They are played together in lounge rooms, restaurants, back porches and in assorted sessions . . . no "carving" takes place there. In an orchestra, a conductor can control relative levels of groups, but he cannot carve out a spot for the oboes by adjusting their EQ (though he or she may seek a different method of playing). A jazz quartet recorded live to stereo undergoes no EQ carving of its components.

I have a feeling that much of the EQ work is not being done so that each instrument has its niche in a mix, but to correct recording flaws that prevent this in the first place. I am a strong advocate of letting the song take care of itself, and interfering as little as possible. Concentrate on getting a good source in the first place so that heavily tailored EQ is not necessary.

I agree with Lee Rosario that automation can take you to ridiculous extremes. I suspect that we can get easily carried away by what technological can do, and forget about what the instruments can do very well all by themselves.

To respond more directly to Famous Beagle's question . . . I would be very relcutant to change the eq of an instrument between when it starts a song to when the rest enter.

That's all very fine and dandy if you have a shitload of mics, guitars, amps, etc to try in perfect rooms.

The simple fact is that most of us are HOME RECORDERS so we do what we can with what we got in whatever space we can do it in. If that means having to carve out some EQ, then that's just how it is.