10 Tips to Improve Your Mixing Skills

ProToolsHelp said:
So do you see why I like to compress first?

...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...
Click to expand...

Look...don't play word games, OK?

FILTER = EQ....so why are you saying that you like to compress first, when in fact you are actually applying EQ in front of the compressor...which is what kidcage was getting at.

That whole point of getting your EQ balanced before the comp is so that you then hit the comp with the most correct signal...that way the comp will not over/under react to frequencies that are out of place.

You're just trying to be clever in your wording as though you're recommending something original to your students, and here again...but it's friggin' old studio news...EQ cut before compression EQ boost afterward if needed to sweeten.
I heard that 30 years ago...before Pro Tools.
I've got stereo bus comps that have built in EQ before to cut, and boost only EQ after the comp circuit....because that was/is the most correct order....but it's not an absolute need to always do that.
 
Paschalis I. said:
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
Click to expand...

Okay, well, you said this:

"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."

So I checked out your site and you are advertising tips to achieve "commercial quality", "analog" and "radio ready" recordings, yet you do not achieve that yourself, so I guess I am just pointing out what is obvious in that the above statement you made applies to you.

Not trying to get into it here. Nothing personal. I don't know you. It just is what it plainly is, that's all. I just thought it was weird to see someone rally against what they are doing, that's all.
 
ProToolsHelp said:
eq's are noisier when boosted and can cause a lot of phase shift, so I generally use subtractive eq as a rule.
Click to expand...

Cutting causes the exact same amount of phase shift as boosting by the same amount with the same Q, but the phase is shifted in the opposite direction. Now that noise is not an issue there is no technical advantage to cutting over boosting. The whole cut vs. boost thing is a gigantic pointless waste of time.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
The whole cut vs. boost thing is a gigantic pointless waste of time.
Click to expand...

Mmmmm...I wouldn't really say that.

Maybe from the phase shift perspective it makes no difference....but it's usually less destructive when you for example....cut your low-end to remove some mud, rather than boost all your high-end to change the perception of mud.

IOW...it's easier/safer to remove too much of something that is already there...than it is to add more of something that is not there...
...if that makes any sense.
 
@ProToolsHelp

Are you planning on contributing to these forums in other ways, or were you looking for a way to drive people to your website? Looks like the latter so far, but that could just be perception based on low post count. Nobody starts with thousands of posts, but this look suspiciously like "street team marketing" so far. Forgive me if you are sincere.

So, after looking over your tips a little more with an open mind, I will say that you seem to be generally giving pretty decent advice in most cases. Some of your thoughts are oddly specific and others still are too light and generic, but all in all, seems like some pretty reasonable thoughts and suggestions are being put forth.

However, let's see if you walk the walk. None of these tips are really anything new at all. They have all been around in one form or another (and debated) for many years. Post some material. Let's have a listen.
 
kindafishy said:
@ProToolsHelp

Are you planning on contributing to these forums in other ways, or were you looking for a way to drive people to your website? Looks like the latter so far, but that could just be perception based on low post count. Nobody starts with thousands of posts, but this look suspiciously like "street team marketing" so far.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what it is. Totally insincere and 100% spam. I'm surprised it was allowed to stay up. Not the first person that's come here recently under the guise of trying to "help", when the only result they were looking for was traffic to their site. Completely phony.

I said it earlier in this thread. If I was a mod, I'd at least remove the link to his website until he actually pretends to participate in the community.
 
Last edited:
miroslav said:
Mmmmm...I wouldn't really say that.

Maybe from the phase shift perspective it makes no difference....but it's usually less destructive when you for example....cut your low-end to remove some mud, rather than boost all your high-end to change the perception of mud.

IOW...it's easier/safer to remove too much of something that is already there...than it is to add more of something that is not there...
...if that makes any sense.
Click to expand...

Only true if not using equivalent curves, which of course means you're applying different eq, which is not what I'm talking about.

What do I mean by equivalent curves? I mean the frequency response is the same. A low shelf cut and a high shelf boost can have exactly the same frequency response, and will therefore have the exact same phase response. The only difference would be the gain, overall positive for the high boost and negative for the low cut. Once the gain is accounted for there is no difference between the cut and the boost.

If one eq setting is "less destructive" than another they must be have different frequency responses. Whether you get there by cutting or boosting is irrelevant.
 
Just like to add the ns10's and crappy monitors are 2 different things. Although the ns10's may sound shit (to some) and the frequency response is very poor, the transient response is very good. Many people over look the point that transient response can be more important than how flat the response is and how low it stays flat. A flat response means nothing in an untreated room and unflat can be learned... Poor transient response is useless.

Also... Ports add noise and are out of time, the ns10 doesn't have them. I'd love to actually try a mix on some.

I wish this education would spread so that we can see a shift from ports in mid price studio moitors. If we want that low response we can add a sub... those +/- 3db at however low is pure marketing it doesn't need to be there but it's what buyers want, yet they don't understand what they are trading it for... I normally don't post but need this info to be known!!! I can't afford Barefoots!!!

There's also a load of other reasons not having the extra bass extension can improve your mix and vice versa.

I love my Dynaudios but I hate the port noise... And yes my mixes stink before people start attacking my opinion as invalid...
 
Last edited:
bouldersoundguy said:
Only true if not using equivalent curves, which of course means you're applying different eq, which is not what I'm talking about.

What do I mean by equivalent curves? I mean the frequency response is the same. A low shelf cut and a high shelf boost can have exactly the same frequency response, and will therefore have the exact same phase response. The only difference would be the gain, overall positive for the high boost and negative for the low cut. Once the gain is accounted for there is no difference between the cut and the boost.

If one eq setting is "less destructive" than another they must be have different frequency responses. Whether you get there by cutting or boosting is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Just out of curiosity....are you talking analog outboard or digital EQ...?

Again...I'm not making any comments about phase differences and response.
I'm talking about basic use and the fact that boosting a lot will get you into trouble faster when instead you can cut a little ....well, not *you*....just taking in general, and mostly to newbs. :)

I mean like...removing some low-end mud by cutting a little at 250 Hz...but if you don't touch the 250 Hz, it will then require more boosting of multiple higher frequencies to override and change the impression of that same mud.
 
RAMI said:
Personally, I think we should go back the 10 post rule.

Nothing bothers me more than fly-by-night posters with 5, 6, or 7 posts, using "creative" ways to direct traffic to their site, under the guise of trying to educate a website full of people he knows nothing about. I'm betting the OP isn't even coming back.
Click to expand...
I called it about a week ago.
 
I need one of these guides for my life. I wonder if he'd knock one up for me? More lucrative than mix advice, I'm sure.... :laughings:
 
AFA #4 goes, I had always understood that you should use EQ to cut the bad, then compress, then use EQ to boost the good. Something about not compressing the stuff you don't want pushed, and not pushing the good too far. Is this wrong?
 
BroKen_H said:
AFA #4 goes, I had always understood that you should use EQ to cut the bad, then compress, then use EQ to boost the good. Something about not compressing the stuff you don't want pushed, and not pushing the good too far. Is this wrong?
Click to expand...

Do whatever makes it sound how you want it to sound. For me that's almost always eq into compression, but I did find a case recently where I needed to add a high shelf boost after de-essing, so it was general eq (cuts and boosts) into the de-esser into the high boost.
 
Oops! I missed this in my absence (I had the flu for 2 weeks last month, the flu went away but left some bronchitis :( ). Looks like RAMI and Miroslav had it covered though.

Just to touch on his monitor thing - I'll avoid name-dropping and humble-brags since OPs done enough of that, but here's something that has really stuck with me: "If you rely on a monitoring system for a good mix, you are not a good mixing engineer." You think Andy Wallace or Ken Andrews or whoever will ever pump out a shitty mix and blame it on their monitors? A good mixing engineer will create a good mix whether they're working on a mono grot box, or some fancy mains in a hyper treated space, or headphones in an airplane. Sure, use whatever you want, but there is no reason for anyone who knows the frequencies and tools of the trade to ever be at the mercy of their monitoring system.

I can appreciate what this guy is trying to do, but I can't stand the spreading of misinformation.
And there's a ton of it in his article. But that's the internet though, right? No point in further feeding this troll.


On a more positive note: Thanks to all you long-time members here who have kept me and others learning without bias!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top