A Fail-Safe Method for Mixing

  • Thread starter Thread starter markb287
  • Start date Start date
TexRoadkill.... haven't seen you round these parts for a few years!:thumbs up:

Have you been hiding, or do I just not frequent the forums where you post?
 
I mean fiddling with knobs is the key round here. FKR over here Fiddle Knobs Records. Its just the best way to get it done best creative way anyway. All thx to RAMI "The Great!"
 
jaynm26 said:
I mean fiddling with knobs is the key round here. FKR over here Fiddle Knobs Records. Its just the best way to get it done best creative way anyway. All thx to RAMI "The Great!"
Click to expand...

Dude, do you really need to mention my name in every single post of yours? Your obsession is getting a little creepy. :eek:

Send me your e-mail address. I can send you a picture if you want something to jerk off to.
 
grimtraveller said:
To be honest, I'm something of a "twiddle the knobs until it sounds good" merchant.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think that's the definition of mixing even for the top professionals. The only difference is that, the more experience you have, the more likely you are to go straight to the right knob. Even if you know that you want to EQ around 250Hz or whatever, the final decision should be based on how it sounds, not some arbitrary dB figure for how much to cut.
 
TexRoadkill said:
I though you were supposed to fiddle with the knobs until it sounds bad, then go back to the last version of the mix and call it done :-)
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's meant in jest, but....

Particularly in live sound using a board with swept frequencies on the EQ I'll often do something exactly like this.

Say I'm trying to get rid of a nasal sound on a voice--I know the problem is going to be in the lower mids so I'll crank that EQ knob up, then slowly sweep the frequency until it sound REALLY badly nasal. Having found the exact frequency to play with, I then cut rather than boost that freq and everything become hunky dory.
 
Armistice said:
Are you sure you're not confusing volume with signal/level? You can mix at low volume and still have everything peaking and clipping all over the joint... the two aren't related.

I'm a "mix as you go" person. I try to build up a song track by track (usually, until I try some other approach), rather than track a bunch of stuff and see if I can squeeze it in.... but I'm a solo recordist who plays everything and then adds my, or someone else's vocals at the end... so that's probably not the way someone running a real studio would do it.
Click to expand...
yeah, i did mean signal level. terminology is not always my strong suit.
 
I'm fairly new to mixing myself, but might offer this; first, start with a good mic, keep levels lower than you think for digital, around -6 DB, it just works better after multiple tracks. Don't add too much reverb, it's cumulative, think of a band in front of you, and begin mixing with that in mind, that's a good way to start. Almost every recording uses compression, so if things sound well integrated generally, and levels are good, but a part jumps out, use some compression to dial it back a bit, Get a good mastering compressor and a try a tape sim, (Ampex, Studer), for your final mix, it will glue those tracks together, less like a bunch of parts, more like a group playing together, and the compression will bring levels up closer to broadcast levels. Generally remember, if a part doesn't feel right in the first place, do not count on the mix or mastering to fix it. Finally, do what sounds good for the piece your working on, not what you think you SHOULD do. I always have a reference track or two readily available, so I can check on things like overall bass level, how wide the stereo image should be, vocal tone and placement in the mix. There are many examples of both in and out of the box recordings that sound great, but my opinion generally after hearing a lot of productions is that a hybrid approach works really well for most projects. A good pre amp in the front, or a summing mixer at the back end can make a song come alive. Good luck.
 
As a user of a TASCAM 244 the process is a bit different. First, I have to practice, practice, practice until the performance is as near perfect as I can get it before the tape machine is ever turned on. Any effects that I want, for example on the guitar, have to be worked out before recording and then recorded with the guitar track. There is no adding effects after the fact or using plugins. While recording, all signal levels and volume levels have to be worked out ahead of time. Once everything is tracked, I only have three tools at my fingertips to manipulate the mix; volume, EQ, Panning. When everything is mixed to my satisfaction, it is mixed down to my reel-to-reel, no compression or summing or anything else except for getting the volume level right. Of course as with digital, if I don,t like the result of the mix down/mastering, I can always erase it and try again. The upshot of all of this is, whether analog or digital, is to know your own abilities and limitations and know your equipment, and that only comes with practice, practice, practice.
 
This reply is spot on. Your comment that different mixers have different approaches is not true. They might have different pre-amps and some have effects and even limiters but the approach on all of them is the same. The secret to good mixing is great tracking. You want to go for accuracy. The play back should sound like the instrument or singer is in the room. During a mix I had a track up that I didn't need and the guitar player spoke and said "stop" Since it was his song, I kept stopping, thinking he was saying it right behind me. That is good tracking. (I muted the track and we continued.) I also had two guitarists come back to redo their tracks. They thought I was going to fix everything about their sound in the mix. I had told them to get the sound they wanted from their amps but they didn't know how. On the tr-do, I had a guitar tech come in and help them. Then we re-tracked. If you have great tracks, mixing is easy. The truth is, you can never "fix it in the mix".
 
The truth is you can never really know how it's going to sound mixed until it's mixed due to a phenomenon called masking. And accuracy is not necessarily always the goal of tracking because recording is a creative process, not a scientific documentation of a real event. I have no objection to making it sound better than real. Of course getting good tones up front helps, but it's not some kind of guarantee of a great mix. All parts of the recording process are opportunities to be creative. That starts long before tracking and goes all the way through marketing of the product.
 
GoodQuestion

If you figured out how you read a book by your methods, then there's your answer.
 
Rod Norman said:
Your comment that different mixers have different approaches is not true. They might have different pre-amps and some have effects and even limiters but the approach on all of them is the same.
Click to expand...
Of course different mixers have different approaches. Even on this forum, you've got a variety of approaches, not to mention the different things different engineers have said over the years. Just as an example, some view mixing as a performance in itself and would get a number of hands on board to work the faders, while others would mix in sections alone and edit together their sections. They are not the same. Different mindset, different approach.
Rod Norman said:
The secret to good mixing is great tracking. You want to go for accuracy. The play back should sound like the instrument or singer is in the room.
Click to expand...
Great tracking is no guarantee that the mix will be good. And there is a whole swathe of music out there that is supposed to sound "otherworldly" in which sounds are placed all over the spectrum, come in at weird times from different places and exit at different points from which they entered. Realism and accuracy are by no means hard and fast desirables. They can be, depending, as ever, on the intent of the artist and production team. But they are not "givens".
Rod Norman said:
The truth is, you can never "fix it in the mix".
Click to expand...
There are lots of wealthy producers and engineers over the last 50 years who are wealthy and well known and respected and sought after partly because they know how to fix it in the mix if they have to. Multitrack engineering has been a progressive craft in which all manner of trickery has been utilized. It may prick a purist vision, but the presence of purism is no reason for the denial of what is possible and what actually happens.

bouldersoundguy said:
The truth is you can never really know how it's going to sound mixed until it's mixed due to a phenomenon called masking. And accuracy is not necessarily always the goal of tracking because recording is a creative process, not a scientific documentation of a real event. I have no objection to making it sound better than real. Of course getting good tones up front helps, but it's not some kind of guarantee of a great mix. All parts of the recording process are opportunities to be creative.
Click to expand...
:thumbs up:So it should come as no surprize that I agree with this wholeheartedly. :D
 
I am new to the realm of mixing myself, and I have found this site as well as others to be my most helpful tools, as was stated earlier in the thread. I am curious about the statement that "subtractive EQ > additive EQ," though. Does that mean that it is actually better to go into the negative of certain frequencies?
Here is one trick I have used: Think of one of your favorite producer/sound engineers, or albums, and look him or her, or it, up on The Internet.
For example, I've always loved the way Steve Albini makes a drum kit sound, huge. So, I did a little research, and he apparently achieves that sound by placing a room mic as far from the kit as the room will allow, to get a natural slap-back. So the last time I tracked, I tried placing a mic about 12-15 ft from the kit and am very pleased with the ambience it provided.

One last question. I noticed everyone talks about the importance of preamps in the tracking process. I have never used nor owned one, but I have come up with some great sounding recordings before. I am currently using Logic Pro 9 and tracking straight from the mics, and it sound sounds damn good. So how important is having a preamp in tracking?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top