average mix time

[jmorris]

This has been interesting. It reminds me of how important it is to get tracks recorded correctly the first time. Some have stated that the mixes are quicker if they have good tracks to start with. Something maybe we all can convey to clients if ever complaints pop up about time tracking!

 

[bigtoe]

This has been interesting. It reminds me of how important it is to get tracks recorded correctly the first time. Some have stated that the mixes are quicker if they have good tracks to start with. Something maybe we all can convey to clients if ever complaints pop up about time tracking!

amen. i think this is crucial to bring up to client's over and over and over.

if you spend a small amount more time tracking - your mix time is cut exponentially. the less time you spend at the beginning/more stuff you put off, the more it is going to cost ya to get it done.

heck if i do the tracking to my satisfaction - i can do a 'normal' band's record start to finish in a couple 5 or 6 hour sessions and tell them not to worry about the heavy mastering bill unless it's going super pro.

if it's a more "creative" project this obviously doesn't apply.

tracking is mixing is mastering. it's all the same beast. your final product starts the second you hit record...i'm thinking about the mastering as soon as i see the drumset when i walk in the door.

Mike

 

[G-Jay]

Most of the pro mixers I've read interviews with say they take about a day to a day and a half to do a mix.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

if you spend a small amount more time tracking - your mix time is cut exponentially.

Absolutely true, but I'd like to take it back even a step further:

The more time you spend practicing, the less time you'll spend in the studio in general.

My biggest peeve recording/mixing other people's stuff is that they are in such a hurry to "get a recording" that they not only have no arrangements ready when they get into the studio - they all just hack their own way through a song, which is impossible to mix to everyone's satisfaction - but the parts they do play they just don't play that well yet.

It's like showing up at a photography studio to have your picture taken looking like you just had to run an Army obstacle course to get there.

G.

 

[bigtoe]

Absolutely true, but I'd like to take it back even a step further:

The more time you spend practicing, the less time you'll spend in the studio in general.

My biggest peeve recording/mixing other people's stuff is that they are in such a hurry to "get a recording" that they not only have no arrangements ready when they get into the studio - they all just hack their own way through a song, which is impossible to mix to everyone's satisfaction - but the parts they do play they just don't play that well yet.

It's like showing up at a photography studio to have your picture taken looking like you just had to run an Army obstacle course to get there.

G.

so true. as much as i like experimentation in the studio and off the cuff records...it's hard to explain to bands how much better they could have it if they planned it out a bit more.

sound of the "experimentation" often ends up really sounding like "practicing" or just learning the song as it goes by. it can be cool tho! sometimes you get that magic...but more often than not - you don't.

the more you do this stuff the more you know it's what's in front of the microphones not the gobs of gear behind em.

Mike

 

[jmorris]

so true the last two post. Even one step fuether...Have you ever been in a session engineering and things are not not sounding as they should. A band member or two kind of looks your way as if to have a thought bubble over them saying "does this guy even know what the fuck he's doing?" When in reality, their desire is have a recording sound just like The Rolling Stones or Dave Mathews when they cant play, write shitty tunes, guitars are shitty Hondos with rusted strings and througout the entire session they argue about what to play and how to play it. Then at mixing time bitch that its taking longer than 20 minutes to mix one song.....

 

[bigtoe]

so true the last two post. Even one step fuether...Have you ever been in a session engineering and things are not not sounding as they should. A band member or two kind of looks your way as if to have a thought bubble over them saying "does this guy even know what the fuck he's doing?" When in reality, their desire is have a recording sound just like The Rolling Stones or Dave Mathews when they cant play, write shitty tunes, guitars are shitty Hondos with rusted strings and througout the entire session they argue about what to play and how to play it. Then at mixing time bitch that its taking longer than 20 minutes to mix one song.....

try to educate these types in an non threatening way. play them some stuff you've done that rules and let them know how you got it that way. once you know it isn't "you" that sucks...i kinda think that's a good way to build a client base.

sometimes i have a stretch of great gigs...other times it's really like working in the minor or even little leagues and they get better each time.

sometimes it's honestly embarassing...but if someone who sucks looks my way like i suck it's not my job to tell them they suck...it's my job to get them to not suck.

i mean this stuff isn't rocket science - at ground zero you're basically holding up a mirror to a band...if they don't like it - you can only dim the lights so far.

Mike

 

[jmorris]

I have had experience all over the spectrum. Some really great top bands for the area have been to me and I have half expected a bunch of egomaniacs telling me what to do and how to do it,then most times that was not the case,they just let me do my thing and walk away happy.Other times I've had band that were at best fair and they are "advising" me to compress the bass gtr more or what we do or dont need mic'd on the drums! Pretty much these days I tell bands if you are hiring me to do a job, let me do it, or we dont work together.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Some really great top bands for the area have been to me and I have half expected a bunch of egomaniacs telling me what to do and how to do it,then most times that was not the case,they just let me do my thing and walk away happy.Other times I've had band that were at best fair and they are "advising" me to compress the bass gtr more or what we do or dont need mic'd on the drums! Pretty much these days I tell bands if you are hiring me to do a job, let me do it, or we dont work together.

Amen to that last sentence!

I can second your experiences with experience (and I'm glad for a change to hear someone else say this, and that it's not just my own little island of exposure.) For me, I find that the better or more experienced the musicians, the more they leave me to do my job and the more they listen when I ask for something or understand when I need to make mic adjustments, etc. There seem to be two things happening;

First they kind of expect that I know what I'm doing at least as much as they do, and they wouldn't tell me what to do any more than they would want me to tell them how to play their instrument. Of course, they'll recognize hacks pretty quickly, too; that kind of respect comes only if I do my job as well as they do theirs (imagine the difference between Andy Taylor and Barney Pfife running the production).

The other factor, at least IME, is kind of a shame, actually, but it does keep the musicians out of the way, and that is it seems the better or more experienced the musician, the less interested they are in the recording process - or indeed, to a degree, in sound in general. They are interested in creating and in playing, and many of them view recording as a necessary evil, at best. It kinda sucks; the best musicians I know aren't any more interested in recording than they are in filling out their tax returns, they just want to play.

The exception is if you hire them as session cats; for forty silver pieces they will be at the studio on time and properly prepared to lay down some great tracks very cooperatively with the engineer/producer, but usually only as an income supplement, and not as something they necessarily enjoy doing full time.

G.

 

[bigtoe]

that is so true...the better they are the musicians are the less they seem to care...and less they really need to...set up a mic and let them boogie....though i did just record a sax player who has his own set up and was way interested just in the process and and what i was using so he could get some better tracks at his set up.

jmorris that's a really good point on working with people who let you do your own thing. in the pursuit of customer service i sometimes forget that sometimes the whole thing needs to be reigned in with less experienced folks...and when i don't man i do i regret it...

laters...

Mike

 

[MCI2424]

This has been interesting. It reminds me of how important it is to get tracks recorded correctly the first time. Some have stated that the mixes are quicker if they have good tracks to start with. Something maybe we all can convey to clients if ever complaints pop up about time tracking!

True, except there is really no way of knowing if the tracks were recorded "correctly" until after the mix is done. Engineers re-track problem tracks all the time. This is kind'a lost here as most home-reccers try to fix tracks that they thought were recorded "correctly". As I record tracks, I do rough mixes and the further you go into it, sometimes an original guitar track that was great by track 3 becomes unuseable by track 12. This is mainly why albums can take a group 6 months to finish. There are lots of takes and lots of different tracks with different sounds/mic placements or whatever they think evolved through the mix.

 

[jmorris]

MCI2424, What Im talking about regarding tracks being recorded properly is for example. I had a gig this past fall,long story short I had to work with a sound guy that ran every di instrument way to low with regards to gain. Had almost no signal at all.I was tapping off his ALLEN AND HEATH console. That is an improperly recorded track. Or, like the drummer that does not feel I need to mic the hi hat or that matter does not feel I need to mic anything more than kick, snare and 2 overheads. Those are improperly recorded tracks IMO. Let me do my job. I dont tell them how to play. I dont really agree that you cant tell what was or was not properly recorded until after. Yes you can.You can be pretty damn sure you have a good sound if you follow proper mic tech, gain structure etc. Ok, you may want to change things for a different sound or mood but the basic fundimentals followed should get you there 95%. I never monitor on a live gig. I feel I know how to mic a drum kit or guitar rig and take a di from a bass or keyboard. I also feel I am able to suggest how a band may want to setup to help in getting a very good result.
www.livebandrecordings.com

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The way I look at it, one's ability to tell if a track is good enough or not is directly proportional to how detailed of a sound plan the producer has from the start. If you've already given thought and plan to just how you want the song to sound at the other end of the mix - and you have at least some experience in hearing and mixing raw tracks already - you can pretty much tell if any given track is close enough to the desired target.

That doesn't mean you can't change your mind and come up with a better idea during the mixing process. This is, IMHO, why the majority of the re-tracking on the Big Boy 6-month projects happens. Either because they follow a game plan of "let's get this on tape and see what we got, and let the first-draft inspire us as to where we want to take it", and then re-track to follow the faders-up inspiration, or there is a solid game plan from the beginning, but halfway through the mix it's decided either that the original idea just didn't work in person the way we thought it would on paper, or that some new situation or inspiration came up and they call an audible.

Also let's not forget that on many of the grown ups' projects, they are still songwriting in the studio; the first round or two of tracking on many instruments are little more than test demos. Must be nice to have that budget .

G.

 

[protein]

depends on the project really. if it's something that's going to be released in several countries with quite a bit of fanfare i spend more time on it. i've spent a day on a mix, gone back to it for another day, given up and spent more time on it. other times if i'm producing rather than just mixing i've mixed pretty much as as i've tracked and just tweaked it at the end.

rich costey mixed our last album and we're mixing this one to some pretty high expectations, so we're not going to take the mix lightly!

 

[jmorris]

True, except there is really no way of knowing if the tracks were recorded "correctly" until after the mix is done. Engineers re-track problem tracks all the time. This is kind'a lost here as most home-reccers try to fix tracks that they thought were recorded "correctly". As I record tracks, I do rough mixes and the further you go into it, sometimes an original guitar track that was great by track 3 becomes unuseable by track 12. This is mainly why albums can take a group 6 months to finish. There are lots of takes and lots of different tracks with different sounds/mic placements or whatever they think evolved through the mix.

I have to touch upon this one more time. If a SOUND isnt working while later on down the road ,I would not define that as not being recorded correctly. It may be more of a taste thing or production thing but I would not lable that as a "track not being recorded correctly".

"True, except there is really no way of knowing if the tracks were recorded "correctly" until after the mix is done"
and that thought is just wacky!To say you cant tell if a track is correctly recorded until after the mix????I know upon tracking if I'm recording correctly as that is what Im paid to do!I mean,ok ,maybe I can go with you cant tell if it was recorded correctly until you throw up the faders but even that is a stretch.

 

[MCI2424]

I have to touch upon this one more time. If a SOUND isnt working while later on down the road ,I would not define that as not being recorded correctly. It may be more of a taste thing or production thing but I would not lable that as a "track not being recorded correctly".

"True, except there is really no way of knowing if the tracks were recorded "correctly" until after the mix is done"
and that thought is just wacky!To say you cant tell if a track is correctly recorded until after the mix????I know upon tracking if I'm recording correctly as that is what Im paid to do!I mean,ok ,maybe I can go with you cant tell if it was recorded correctly until you throw up the faders but even that is a stretch.

It's really not whacky at all. Done all the time. I have a good friend in New York who runs a mix shop (does many big name records) and he has the constant job of doing major EQ work to tracks just to fit them right into the mix. RUSH recorded one of their last albums so many times they were sick of it at end. Many times tracks just don't work in a dense mix without whacky EQ (which if done on a Neve, is border OK). Just because a track is recorded with the proper gain settings etc. does not mean it will be OK in a final mix.

People can bash away all they want, but this is done all the time.

 

[jmorris]

MCI2424, but saying a track was not recorded corretly implies it was recorded for example too hot and clips, distorts. Or recorded with way too much processing, or with way too much bleed form drums or whatnot. I sure know before the end of a mix if the tracks were recorded properly.I know at the begining when I put up the faders.My only point is you may want to re track something to alter sound or feel once the mix has begun,that does not mean an improperly recorded track. And any engineer should be able to tell when playing back a take or overdubbing if a track is/was not recorded correctly.I'd be very pissed if it came up at end of mix if I was in the band.
Jim

 

[Agent47]

Usually a whole day, although I tweak and mix bits as I go. Once I load in the vocal, then I'll spend a final 'mix day' tweaking it.

 

[MCI2424]

MCI2424, but saying a track was not recorded corretly implies it was recorded for example too hot and clips, distorts. Or recorded with way too much processing, or with way too much bleed form drums or whatnot. I sure know before the end of a mix if the tracks were recorded properly.I know at the begining when I put up the faders.My only point is you may want to re track something to alter sound or feel once the mix has begun,that does not mean an improperly recorded track. And any engineer should be able to tell when playing back a take or overdubbing if a track is/was not recorded correctly.I'd be very pissed if it came up at end of mix if I was in the band.
Jim

I'll just give you an example of what happened last week. We recorded a song, 15 tracks and in the mixing, the acoustic guitar (which was a great sounding track BTW) would not fit into the mix. On its own, it was a perfect sounding track. Noithing at all wrong with it. In the mix, it needed like all the bass cut and too much boost in the highs to even come close to sitting in the mix. I changed mics from a royer ribbon to a U87 with the same placement and it worked perfect in the mix. So, in the end the track was recorded wrong for this particular song and mix. Like I said before, professional mix houses cannot re-track a track and they work the SSL's compressors, EQs, pads and everyother imaginable tool to make a good mix. If a band has a good producer and they will oversee the tracking, and mixing (most great producers do) then they make the artist re-record tracks that just need too much work. A good video is Joe Satriani's studio video. Glynn Johns made him re-take every guitar track performed exactly the same while he was working along. He tracks and mixes along the way and stops when there is a problem. Not everyone will do this but it is the right way to do it if you have the $$$ (or time for the homereccer).

Find the interview with RUSH. It is interesting because they scrapped the album and started new because of lousy mixes happening.

And in the end, we all do it our own way. I would rather re-track than put all three of my racks of tools to fix a track that does not fit into a mix.

BTW, my new project has some songs that were totally re-recorded up to 5 times (all except the drums). After all is done, I listen days later to the first mix and the last mix (re-recorded tracks) and the difference is amazing.

 

[iownrocknroll]

assuming you have....good instruments, good sounds, good performances.....a day a song
if not, well then it never sounds right.