Hey dobro, I feel like I'm the one being swamped here!
So you're not a beginner mixer but looking for the next level, you may be mixing at a higher level than me already!
I doubt it.
I'm completely ITB now by the way (in case you were wondering).
If you read back over the various posts, I think I've answered what you're asking about already:
"Take another listen to the balance, it's off everywhere. Rethink the focus, for me get that snare cracking and bring it forward (along with the whole drum kit maybe). Eq needs tweaking and open up the whole thing by reworking the reverb. Let the song take off and fly don't clamp it down to the ground!"
and then:
"In answer to dobro, everything I did was on the master bus (for the reason Monkey explained, no tracks/stems for me) using EQ, 2 compressors (1 single band and 1 multiband compressing in places and expanding in others), reverb and saturation, basically all smoke and mirrors. Nothing was done in M/S (in case you were wondering)"
Too general maybe? Those comments weren't supposed to be mix notes!
Those comments weren't too general, but they were macro. I wanted to know a more micro level.
This won't help you one little bit because what I did wasn't mixing! (at best 'maybe' some kind of re-mastering) but here goes anyway:
Opened a session in my DAW.
Loaded the stereo file, played it and listened.
The first thing I heard was the levels being off and 'mud', then it lacked width, energy and excitement beyond it being a good catchy song.
EQ, applied an instance of Pro-Q3 and adjusted the EQ as necessary to clear out mud and add clarity, I will have boosted the highs but can't remember exactly where or at what level.
Applied a TR5 SSL Style Bus Compressor, selected the 'The Glue' preset (should I explain why?) and, I think, adjusted the release time from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds (or maybe not, I can't remember but it seems like the kind of thing I would do) and played around with the threshold.
This settles the debate as to what comes first, the EQ or the compressor. Always EQ into the compressor, unless it's needed the other way around. See, settled.
That's my way too. But it's a lot like the which way to load toilet paper debate.
The low end felt pretty empty so I applied an instance of Brainworx b
x_subsynth (some people don't like it but I do and I'm right). I can't remember the exact settings I used but I do remember I couldn't add as much as I wanted to. If I was mixing this I would have the bass more present in the mix.
That's what Kevin said, too. What I noticed was the bass was there, but only just. So I think you're both right.
For different reasons I introduced two instances of Pro-MB (a bit excessive isn't it) the first to try and raise some frequencies in the mix and tame various level spikes that still existed in the mix at different frequencies and create some energy in the mix, and one was used at a specific frequency range to try and tame the guitar I mentioned in another post (or they may have been used the other way around but I don't think so).
Introduced a second instance of Pro-Q3 to attend to EQ issues that were introduced by using the compressors.
I've never done this. Interesting.
I then added an instance of Cinematic Rooms Professional Reverb (a bit pricey but worth every penny, I love it!) to a parallel channel.
It *is* pricey. You use Pro-Q3 and Pro-MB, so you must know about Pro-R. It's my only verb these days (and I used to use Lexi verbs and Valhalla exclusively) because it's great, and because I'm into that 'learn your tools' thing you talk about.
Route the mix channel to the parallel channel additionally not exclusively (we know that right).
No, I'm not familiar with that one. I put the reverb on a bus, 100% wet, and then dial in the send amount to taste.
I selected the 'Ambiences - Hall Ambience' setting on 100% wet and made no adjustments to the reverb in terms of decay time etc. (although I might have brightened up the high end a bit) and adjusted the fader on the reverb channel down to a level I was happy with (and without starting a debate, I know that technically having the reverb in series and adjusting the wet/dry knob would yield the same result as having it in parallel but that's how I did it).
By the way, you might use terms like 'send' and 'return' and 'aux' but I don't as I know what I mean, especially when I'm talking to myself
.
Printed the file (I have a limiter on the master but I don't think it was doing anything) and shut down the session.
I think I said I got what I did to about 30% of where I think the mix should be. I may have exaggerated but it doesn't matter. It got Monkey thinking
and me...
and he moved his mix on. In all honesty I still think it's a relatively weak mix (sorry Monkey but a great song!) that could be improved step by step with even small tweaks here and there but none of this will help anyone in any way as I WASN'T MIXING, it was all smoke and mirrors as I said before (see, talking to myself).
I don't know if it's smoke and mirrors. Like I said, if you got that improvement just working the stereo mixdown, think what could have been done at a mix level.
Is this what you had in mind?
What would you do?
I'd've put Greg Wells Mixcentric on the sucker and dialed in a modest improvement.
Disclaimer: If I have left something out, it wasn't done intentionally (I've seen this written at the end of stuff before so it must be important). I talk funny sometimes too.
I've replied at length because you went to the trouble of explaining your process at length, but mostly I just want to say two things:
* Thank you. That was very useful.
* I'm returning to your macro level now.
Really appreciate it. Satisfaction like this isn't often found on the internet.
