4 most most important things to do in the mixing process

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elmo89m
  • Start date Start date
I believe if you use more than 2 db when adjusting bands after you record, then you must have not tracked properly. That's just my personal opinion though. Yay
 
There's never a cop around when you need one... :)

Man, where were all you guys when I was in the middle of this thread, which covered the whole EQ vs. miking vs. mixing thing just a few days ago? I could of used some of your help. ;) See the thread at:
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=1461625

But to get back to Elmo's question, I think maybe you had an approximate description of the three dimensions of sound and one dimension of interest that one shoots for in the mixing process:

- Width
- Length
- Depth
- Interest

WIDTH
Width is L/R placement on the soundstage. Motly handled via panning, though there are other tricks (e.g. precidence and phase effects) that can also be applied to this dimension.

LENGTH
As in waveLENGTH, referrs to populating the sonic frequency sprectrum properly. This is handled mostly via instrument selection, microphone selection and EQ, though other FX can play a part as well.

DEPTH
The front-to-back image; i.e. does that instrument or vocal sound close or in front of the mix or distant/behind the mix? This is accomplished mainly through volume levels and reverb, though other FX and tricks can be played for depth as well.

INTEREST
This deals with mixing the track in such a way as to keep listener interest. Aspects of this include identifying and building the mix around the main hook of the song, whether it be a rhythm, a riff, a vocal or something else, and shaping the mix sound to minimize listener fatigue.

There are a whole lot of other points within and outside of these areas to consider, but in general, if you go into the mix (or better, into the tracking) with the 3-D picture and the focus of interest in mind, you'll come out on the other end pretty close to a good mix.

G.
 
i was thinking of audio image more as this....but im probably wrong

front to back= reverb and volume
width= panning
height= eq
 
No, I don't think that's wrong. Perhaps just a little oversimplified as there is - or at least can be, if you use a full tool set - more to height (or length, depend on how you want to look at it) than just EQ, and more to width than just panning. But you are right that those are major tools (if not the main ones) in affecting each of those dimensions of the soundstage.

But, as I argued rather pedantically in that other thread, I am of the school that EQ should be used sparingly. The main uses for EQ, IMHumbleO, are

- for shelving unwanted/unnecessary frequencies at ends of the instrument's range to leave room in the width/height dimension for other tracks.

- for slight notching of an individual track's resonant, or "honking" frequency to reduce aural fatigue and "sweeten" the instrument's timbre.

- for slight final adjustment of the "sweet spot" of each individual track's location in the spectrum.

- for unnatural - but desired - special effect.

But for each of the first three uses, I'd personally rather try to get as close as I can "naturally" (without EQ) in the tracking phase by using good instrument selection and miking technique and keeping the use of EQ in the mixing process to a minimum.

G.
 
Elmo89m said:
i was thinking of audio image more as this....but im probably wrong

front to back= reverb and volume
width= panning
height= eq
Click to expand...

Sorta like a little 3 dimensional musical cube. How nifty. Isn't that from Blue Bear's Mixing 101 article?
 
Old school

The "3 Dimensions of Mixing" is an old idea that long predates this BBS. I first learned about it about 25 years ago when I built my first 2-track synth studio and got my first books on pro recording technique. I'm sure the idea pre-dates that and probably goes back almost as far as Les Paul's tape recorders. :D

G.
 
I use my EQ like Glen describes..but it's there.

i also think that the best mixes I have gotten have been minimaly processed..it takes a lot of newer mixers years to grasp this. they will overprocess to sound "pro" and instead it sounds like mud.

so one of the 4 most important things to do would proably be...........

"Less"
 
it could be...i dont know....everything i know about mixing and mastering is just a combination of what i have learned from people here and a little add-in of what ive experimented with
 
Elmo89m said:
it could be...i dont know....everything i know about mixing and mastering is just a combination of what i have learned from people here and a little add-in of what ive experimented with
Click to expand...

Now that's what I call a recipe for success.
 
The formula I've been using over the past few years is to set volume and panning then burn a copy of the disc. Listen to the disc and make notes about what needs work, using your ears instead of your eyes. Limit yourself to the use of only 2-3 compressors or EQs, as though you only have a limited number of hardware units.

If you find yourself opening up an effect before you know what you're going to do with it, you're probably ruining the mix.
 
ryanlikestorock said:
If you find yourself opening up an effect before you know what you're going to do with it, you're probably ruining the mix.
Click to expand...

I like Ryan's posts more and more, you must have a good mentor up there! :)

The same holds true for the use of EQ. While you may have to sweep a bit to hear the results of an EQ change on the overall mix, you should know in advance what ill you're trying to cure.
 
I'm an newbie in recording but I've been getting excellent results with eq'ing.

I have a very clear vision of what I want my band to sound like. I listen to recordings of other bands that I like to sound like and get a grasp of what is apealing to me - not really the polish of the recording but rather the actual sounds of the instuments and how they relate to eachother.

In my personal case I like the sound of Physical Graffitti. I find that my personal preference is having the bass guitar own the bottom end. I like the sound of the kick above the bass and I don't care too much if the bass has any "hi fi" upper end boost for articulation. So how does this translate for me?

I record the bass with a LPF (in a sense) using the instruments & amps own controls to get the sound I want combined with mic placement. Solo'd the bass sounds a bit dead, but together with the guitar it's powerfull as I can allow the guitar a little more lower frequencies etc.

Now this is just an example - you might hate my sound but the idea is the same. Try to envision the sound your after. Practice listening to other albums and focusing on certain instruments to see where they are eq wise in the mix - sometimes you'll surprise yourself and think - wow I actually don't like that guitar sound while at the same time loving the sound of the total song mix package. It takes a bit of dicipline to record that way - especially when your thinking "Man this guitar would rock if I turned the bass up on the amp". Bite your tongue - that's the hard part if your a musician and recording youself :)

In my case I don't have a good outboard EQ - so for me to have an excellent sounding EQ in the mix I *have* to do it in the tracking stage. So when it comes to mixing down, you won't need drastic eq changes (somehting I'd be totally clued about anyhow).

Ryan makes a great point too - burn it and listen to it like crazy. My problem is that I love my stuff hehehehe. I listened to one tune in my car probably 50 times (to get over the excitement of the tune itself) and it grew on me that I found my rythm guitars slightly mushy when two tracks were layered - a combination of a few things, but what I ended up doing was switching my tube pre to a TG2 for the rythm layers and used the tube pre on the solo's. Simple and it sounded wicked. I didn't even touch the eq.

In my limited experience I'm find my way of recording quite satsifying. I'm sure that once I can afford a good EQ I'll be able to tweak here and there with good results once I have more experience - but that will be gravy for me. I want it to sound great before that stage.
 
Cyrokk said:
You are looking at this as if tracking and mixing are two distinct stages applied separately, but in fact they are not. Many rough mixes are made during the entire process to see how things are progressing. This saves time, reveals potential problems, and allows for creativity to solve those problems down the road.
Click to expand...

The tracking and mixing stages are completely different. Night and day, use different equipment. Almost always found in two different buildings in commercial facilities. Uses two completely different kinds of AEs with different skill sets. Both tracking and mixing are applied seperatly at two different times seperated by a wall.............a really big wall

Like tracking...Good sounding consoles, 24 track and up.
Like mixing..... Huge SSL consoles with 24 *busses* and up. Ginormous amounts of tracks, aux busses etc.


Now, if you are talking about home recording/recording on a budget/friends helping you record/mix/master or any possible combination that is *not* a commercial product, you could be right. Sometimes.

How is this for making it clear?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top