BroKen_H
Re-member
Mmmm. Bacon. Deep fried bacon. Deep fried bacon wrapped bacon. Deep fried bacon wrapped bacon with bacon bits...
Guitargodgt
New member
I'm 14 minutes in and wondering how well this thing would work on material that was recorded at home... you know the more likely demographic for this tool. It's obvious this was a very well tracked song.
I don't know what to feel about it, I don't shy away from new tech but this does indeed seem like auto mixing.
Of course I remember the same charge against EZ mix and it turns out it's just another mixing tool that produces a crap in crap out result. It more likely EZ mix will suck rather than it doing what you expect (and thus I almost never use it).
I don't know what to feel about it, I don't shy away from new tech but this does indeed seem like auto mixing.
Of course I remember the same charge against EZ mix and it turns out it's just another mixing tool that produces a crap in crap out result. It more likely EZ mix will suck rather than it doing what you expect (and thus I almost never use it).
BroKen_H
Re-member
T
timvracer
Member
This is a great point... just how often is a rookie mixing perfect tracks? The fact is that the biggest challenge facing home recording folks is dealing with less than ideal tracks (at least that's how it is for me), and most of my effort is trying to address that. I've never had the pleasure of mixing very well tracked material, but I can only imagine that it is a whole lot easier to get to a nice result. I assume that's why all the pros here emphasize how important the tracking phase is.
So, I would be very skeptical of how the auto-mix thing would do with mediocre tracks.
BroKen_H
Re-member
If we were honest, I believe there are a lot of us who could do a better job with our mixes if we did a better job with our tracking. Maybe a thread or two on the less than obvious (i.e. don't track too hot) aspects of tracking our music could be greatly effective here at HR. (I should probably have searched first. There's may be 100s.)
Steenamaroo
...
I can't claim to always practice what I preach, but I know "I can fix that in the mix" is the thing that usually kills mine.
I'm not even talking about major mess ups or mistakes, although it's true for that too. I'm talking about the basics like the tone and general recorded dry sound of an instrument.
Mic it - record it - decide how you want it to sound - eq/mix it to sound that way - fail.
The tone thread perfectly exemplifies this post after post. Get the sound at the amp/room/mic.
I remember someone suggesting that I should do a faders-only mix before anything else. If anything sounds wrong at that stage, assume it is and do it better.
I'm not even talking about major mess ups or mistakes, although it's true for that too. I'm talking about the basics like the tone and general recorded dry sound of an instrument.
Mic it - record it - decide how you want it to sound - eq/mix it to sound that way - fail.
The tone thread perfectly exemplifies this post after post. Get the sound at the amp/room/mic.
I remember someone suggesting that I should do a faders-only mix before anything else. If anything sounds wrong at that stage, assume it is and do it better.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Very rarely....but it's so hard to get them to accept that.
There is this mindset that it will all be great once it's in the DAW and a slew of plugs can be applied to it.
That's why this auto-mixing stuff will be more of a problem, a crutch, than some kind of learning tool.
If tracks sucked going in...people will make the assumption that using this (like all the other plugs) will fix it....rather than considering the original source and working on that.
I hate to say it...but it's all about people being in some rush, not wanting to put in the time and effort...they want to jump from songwriting to the "end result" in as few steps as possible.
MiamiMike
Musician - Composer
Ditto!
R
RFR
Well-known member
All this leads to technology replacing talent.
Sure, there will always be talented people, but as technology moves forward, that becomes less because there's no need for it.
For example, look how Brittany Spears and Milli Vanilli have been busted for relying on lip syncing and auto tune because they couldn't really sing. And these were huge stars!
Look at the bedroom hack who can't manage to play a guitar part all the way through for even one song, but can do one verse or bar, and can copy and paste like an MFer.
R
Robus
Well-known member
That describes 90% of the mixing I do. I am a primitive. EQ on guitars, bass, keyboards? Never, apart from a high pass filter. No reverb or compression ITB on any of those, ever. A little of that stuff goes on the drums, and a little more on vocals, but that's the extent of it. I always track all guitar FX, so there is nothing to do to the guitars from that point on. Advanced techniques like parallel compression, trippy FX? Not me. Mixes don't take long, because I'm not doing much and I've been making constant tweaks to the raw balance as I tracked. By the time it gets to a mix, all I'm really doing is judging levels--a little more bass, a little less? Guitars a little lower? Lead and backing vocals right? Good, render it. I've got pretty good ears, and can turn to others whose ears I trust for a second opinion.
As far as I'm concerned, apart from the very basics, the critical skills that go into mixing are musical, not technical. You listen to a mix where everything is basically well played and recorded, but it still sounds bad. That lead guitar is too loud by half. It is stepping all over the vocal. Those doubled rhythm guitars are masking everything else. That crap they put on the master bus to make the mix sound pumped is leaving a residue of nasty harshness all over everything. And they cannot hear any of that. You can point it out, but they still won't hear it. Those problems aren't really about mixing at all.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Yes.
It becomes more technical when people start reaching for the FX/processing...because then you need to know what you are doing, since now you've crossed over into source signal manipulation, but even then it's about the musical aspect of the FX/processing...though it's hard to avoid the technical skills needed to use that FX/processing.
DAWs have given people tons of FX/processing...and man, just about everyone is addicted to it these days, like heroin junkies, they can't stop.
It's like...they'll apply 1-2 processes..and if the track/mix still isn't sounding right...they add MORE...instead of taking a step back and asking what's the real problem, as Steen was saying...and often it points back to the source tracks and how they were recorded.
So yeah...tossing auto-mixing plugs on shit tracks isn't going to be of much value.
R
RFR
Well-known member
I agree.
A lot of my early analog recordings, that I'm still proud of, were done with one reverb. Thats it. I didn't even know what a compressor was at the time.
How vocals were handled was with a VU meter. The singer's job was to keep the needle in the "sweet spot". This was accomplished by that old fashioned thing called mic technique.
When it came to mixdown there was only minimal fader rides needed.
A lot of my early analog recordings, that I'm still proud of, were done with one reverb. Thats it. I didn't even know what a compressor was at the time.
How vocals were handled was with a VU meter. The singer's job was to keep the needle in the "sweet spot". This was accomplished by that old fashioned thing called mic technique.
When it came to mixdown there was only minimal fader rides needed.
Guitargodgt
New member
From experience it's significantly (IMO of course) easier to mix stuff that was tracked well. In fact I would say 90% of what makes a mix sound good is how well it was tracked, which is why I have some really really bad mixes (they were tracked really really badly).
No matter how you slice it an U87 through a rebuilt 1073 is going to sound better on vocals than most home studio setups because on top of having an almost $7000 signal chain usually there is a nice room to go along with it.
Drums are the biggest thing for me, drums in the studio in Syracuse are lightyears easier to mix than drums in my sub par home studio room. That and the multi thousand dollar signal chain they have for recording them.
For me when it comes to gear in my home studio I'm much more likely to drop $1200 on a source piece of gear than I am anything in my signal chain. I find that is where the most bang for buck lies. I would rather have a $1200 drumset over a $1200 mic and so on.
jkuehlin
New member
That's just frickin pointless. Come on dude. Use 2 buns, and make 2 reasonable sized burgers instead of that weirdo thing. Who's gonna eat that? Steven Tyler?
BroKen_H
Re-member
Yes, people are like that. If you polled 100 members here to list Songwriting, Practicing, Tracking, Mixing and Mastering, as they rate them 1-5, you'd probably have 80+ different lists. It's pretty rare to find someone who LIKES to do all five. It's REALLY hard to find someone who takes the time to do all five correctly, and with the patience they deserve.
Mastering is something I'm still learning, but the first thing I've learned is that if the mix isn't RIGHT, the mastering doesn't stand a chance...and that follows right back the chain. Failing to track well will make your mix fail. If you haven't practiced and your notes are not solid on the grid, you either move them or quantize them (making you sound like a robot) or you retrack...so your tracks won't sound good if you haven't practiced. And of course, if you have a poorly written song, no matter what you do down the chain, it's just a waste of time.
Practicing has always been the one I like least. I usually learn how to sing my lyrics with the mike on and then comp the vocals to make a guide track. Sometimes I even keep the guide track...Do the same for guitars, bass, etc. I learn to play different parts as I record. Usually the only thing I've practiced is the initial guitar or piano part...working on that. There are things I don't have to practice much. I can usually get a good bass line in two takes because what I visualize just comes out the fingers...piano is pretty much the same. Lots of experience with those.
VomitHatSteve
Hat STYLE. Not contents.
Cheezy Petes!
Why is it always such a religious war when someone says they like a tool that (ostensibly) helps with one of the steps in the recording process?
We don't all write our own songs. We don't all build our own amps or instruments. Almost none of us build our own AD/DA converters or rack FX. We use tools that other people smarter than us built.
So why is it a big deal if someone wants to use a tool for mixing or mastering that knows more about it than they do?
Why is it always such a religious war when someone says they like a tool that (ostensibly) helps with one of the steps in the recording process?
We don't all write our own songs. We don't all build our own amps or instruments. Almost none of us build our own AD/DA converters or rack FX. We use tools that other people smarter than us built.
So why is it a big deal if someone wants to use a tool for mixing or mastering that knows more about it than they do?
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Same reason you don't use a player piano or a robot guitar to play your music.
Your premise that these "tools" know more about mixing and mastering is IMO way off.
It's just presets...there's no "knowing" involved. That's why it's lame, same as the auto-mastering.
If someone doesn't know how, and doesn't want to learn how...that's fine....send it to someone that does, but don't reach for crutches that will make you *think* that YOU did the mixing and mastering which is what these tools will do.
I can see a whole new crop of audio "engineers" and "producas" stroking their egos with this stuff...when half of them don't know if they should plug the output of their brand new standalone preamp into the interface's mic or line input.
It's not about a "religious war"...it's about actually learning to use the tools you already have, instead of reaching for a new tool that allows you to NOT learn.
It's about not using a hammer when you should be using a screwdriver...and if you don't know how to use a screwdriver, then learn or let someone else do it.
These new "tools" are just crutches that are easily created in the computer world, and the manufacturers see that there are a lot of people who want to play at being engineers but don't want to put in the time...so they will make money off these people by giving them new crutches to use.
It's no different than those cheesy keyboards that have a single button that will play a full chord for you so you don't have to learn how to do it yourself. That's not a tool...that's BS.
Steenamaroo
...
It can't be way off if it's relative.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
The implication was that this is some sort of "artificial intelligence"...that "it knows".
That is IMO way off because all it does is apply per-programmed algorithms...aka - presets.
It may seem like "it knows"...but that's all. It's just matching input to some preconceived processing.
It would be like saying that one of those cheesy push-button keyboards "knows" that it's playing a "C" chord when you press the "C" button...but that too is just a reprogrammed response.
Maybe that's a fine point to some...but it should be very clear that these are presets...there is no magic involved or some higher artificial intelligence making decisions that the user is unable to.
That is IMO way off because all it does is apply per-programmed algorithms...aka - presets.
It may seem like "it knows"...but that's all. It's just matching input to some preconceived processing.
It would be like saying that one of those cheesy push-button keyboards "knows" that it's playing a "C" chord when you press the "C" button...but that too is just a reprogrammed response.
Maybe that's a fine point to some...but it should be very clear that these are presets...there is no magic involved or some higher artificial intelligence making decisions that the user is unable to.