Concept of Fixing Things in the Mix

S

SuicideNote

always improving
For a while now I have been contemplating the concept of “fixing the recording in the mix”. Now I haven't been recording music for a long time, but I can make a few observations based on my experiences and others that I have read about. I have probably invested 500 hours over the past 6 months trying to learn as much about recording as I can. Not necessarily because I want to be an AE or even to dabble with recording other musicians. I just have this great quest for knowledge and now my interests are focused on the recording process. Applying this information to my own home recordings is my primary benefit for any knowledge that I have gained. Anyway, on to the concepts and questions.

I have invested some money in recording software and plugins that might allow me to modify any sounds that I magically was able to capture. In addition to the computer applications, I also have a few hardware rack modules, that I can apply to sounds as they approach my workstation. It has been stated by many people, that you should try to get the “sound” that you are looking for right at the source, or at least by the time it hits your hard disc the track should sound the way it was intended to sound. Is any modification to the audio track after the recording process considered wrong? Is this fixing in the mix? If not wrong, at what point does a little level adjustment and track modification become fixing it in the mix?

Now during my little adventure to record my songs, I could decide that this reverb plugin is really going to benefit my song and I plan to apply the filter to a track or two after I record them. If you plan for plugin help, are you cheating?

I think that the “mixing” process officially starts the second you hit the stop record button. A lot of times (most times) I feel that applying a moderate amount of compression to vocal tracks after they have been tracked is beneficial and is much better sounding than hammering them before they get to disc with my hardware compressor. Does my hardware suck that much? Do my ears fail me? Or am I okay to do things like this?

I guess I feel that post-recording track modification is necessary to get the best sound out of my current equipment. Sometimes I will hear guitar frequencies that conflict with vocal passages or that cover up keyboard parts that should stand out. When I make EQ adjustments, did I admit a failure for this song?

Well, that's probably enough to get this thread started. Thanks for the insight.
 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing whatever you want to with a track. What most folks mean by "fixing it in the mix" is when a track is damaged or captured poorly (something like recording a drum kit and after the band goes home you discover that the hi hat leakage in the snare track is taking the top of your head off) and you want to fix it in the mix rather than re-recording it. That's the problem. Other than that, I feel free to mangle anything after the fact as long as it suits my needs.
 
I think you're OK. "Fix it in the mix" usually means some sort of rescue operation to correct an error that could have been fixed tracking, such as pitch problems, bad mic placement, etc.
 
i think it also depends on the lines between recording and mixing. i never have an arrangement complete, then decide "it's now time to record", and later, "it's now time to mix". so for me, it's not possible to know ahead of time that this track may conflict with that track. i think lots of home recorders work this way if they're working alone. from that perspective, the tracking and mixing processes become one, and the song forms in a sense as a completed mix. of course, i'll still go back over it once it's relatively full and adjust things. if a part doesn't jive well with the rest of the track, you can try to make it work or you can get another part. that's where the "fixing" comes in. often it's better to not try to salvage something when you can redo it from a better perspective.

but yeah, if we couldn't adjust levels or EQ or pan, music would sound pretty different. and in my opinion, not in a good way.

now if you have an arrangement all ready, then most definitely, record it properly from the start. laziness can often bite you in the butt during mixing.

-marcus
 
There is only one time that I think that "fixing it in the mix" is wrong. That time to me is when the tracking engineer is just lazy and uses that as an excuse to just get through tracks. Fixing things in the mix is a reality, not a mistake necessarily. Sometimes by the time a song gets fully tracked it has taken a direction that no one saw coming. Does that make the tracking decisions and techniques wrong? No in the least. With todays software environment, this has been taken to yet another degree. Adding a plug in to a track to enhance the quality or tone of that track is perfectly acceptable to me. In the software realm, often times it is nearly mandatory. Many engineers track with EQ and compression on the tracks before it hits the tape (or disk). Unless you already have all the outboard you need to get what you want, you will need to use software. If you are using software, than you really don't have a choice but to process after the track has been laid. I would not consider that a problem:)
 
xstatic said:
There is only one time that I think that "fixing it in the mix" is wrong. That time to me is when the tracking engineer is just lazy and uses that as an excuse to just get through tracks. Fixing things in the mix is a reality, not a mistake necessarily. Sometimes by the time a song gets fully tracked it has taken a direction that no one saw coming. Does that make the tracking decisions and techniques wrong? No in the least. With todays software environment, this has been taken to yet another degree. Adding a plug in to a track to enhance the quality or tone of that track is perfectly acceptable to me. In the software realm, often times it is nearly mandatory. Many engineers track with EQ and compression on the tracks before it hits the tape (or disk). Unless you already have all the outboard you need to get what you want, you will need to use software. If you are using software, than you really don't have a choice but to process after the track has been laid. I would not consider that a problem:)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input.

So in reality software can make the recording process more complicated in some ways by allowing flexibility to edit tracks in ways that the "fix it in the mix" generation could not. Also, fixing in the mix become a moot concept when digitally altering tracks unless there is a technical mix up like mic bleed.
 
Yeah, my take is that "fix it in the mix" applies to something that you know that you should fix now, but will instead wait until later down the recording chain.

For instance, lets say you record a drum track, and you find that your overhead image is skewed to the left. You know that you should adjust the mic placement, but instead you decided that the mix engineer can adjust the panning and volume to compensate. Now instead of taking maybe 10 minutes to fix this problem, the ME has to spend potentially hours to adjust the mix of every track to compensate. Furthermore, the image gets screwed up due to weird compression and phase issues that have to be dealt with.

Similarly, let's say you're mixing something. You find that after EQ'ing each track and bringing all the faders up, the mix sounds a little dull. You know that you should EQ the tracks or groups to get the mix right, but instead you decide that the mastering engineer can fix it. This, of course, adds time and money to the project, and might bring out other issues for the ME.

What you're saying is that you find that EQ and compression after tracking help the track. That's normal. I have never really had much of a chance to use outboard compression, so I don't compress to tape. I usually find that when I do, not only are my compressors pretty bad, but I like to play around with the settings quite a bit. That might be a better idea for you, if you can run out and back in to the hardware compressor. Personally, I use all software, but that's because I can't afford lots of hardware units and the software ones work well enough for my limited skills.
 
And on another note, not fixing it in the mix usually leads to bad mixes. If you always do the best job you can tracking, and the best job you can do mixing, you will always get the best result that you can get:D
 
It also applies to the effort (or ease) that will be faced not only to tracking skill or attention, but musicianship.
Both contribute to whether the tracks can be brought up -and they stand well.
The reciprocal -having to use every trick in the bag to eke out their best. Time spent fixing things. At some level, this is time doing damage control.
At the track/performance energy level it manifestoes as meek tracks Vs 'Nailed!' One is a challenge and joy to tame.
One ain't. ;)
 
You should do whatever you need to do. Especially if your client wants it that way. Morally, I personally could care less. They say that turds cannot be polished. In Stanley Kubrick's words, 'you can if you freeze it'. Such I believe is the case with digital. I've had bands thank me profusely for fixing a bad vocal note, or a missed snare hit when they really didn't want to redo anything. Fixing those little mistakes isn't gonna make the band any better. Leaving them in, isn't gonna make them any worse. If they suck, they suck. If they're great, they're great. If they're paying you, it's really up to them anyway.
 
I "fix it in the mix" all the time.... not because I want to - but because I do a lot of mixing for other people and the tracks that come in were recorded elsewhere and have all sorts of stuff that needs correcting/rescuing/replacing..... you do what needs to be done to make the mix sound "right".......

That being said, when I'm working on a full project involving both tracking and mixing, you can be damn sure I'm tracking it the way I want it to sound during mixing.... but even then, the odd time I've had a song after tracking is complete that the client wants a change of direction that involved resampling or changing certain aspects... to me that's NOT "fixing it in the mix".

I agree with these other guys in that the only negative connotation of "fixing it in the mix" applies to stuff that should be handled during tracking but isn't due to laziness/ineptness/incompetence of the tracking engineer.
 
SuicideNote said:
Now during my little adventure to record my songs, I could decide that this reverb plugin is really going to benefit my song and I plan to apply the filter to a track or two after I record them. If you plan for plugin help, are you cheating?
Click to expand...

This is probably the better way of doing it. In this instance you are better of tracking with as few effects like reverb as you can and then adding it later with a plug in. Otherwise if you track with, say, a reverb, and then when you play it back and you don't like it, you are stuck with it, and will either have to live with it or retrack. Using an fx plugin afterwards isn't 'fixing it in the mix', its just a logical way of doing things.
 
Yes. As one who has in the past leaned on the 'fix it in the mix' concept (and vowed never to record that way again), I think you need to make the distinction between 'fixing it in the mix' and 'mixing.' Adding a bit of compression, eq, etc. IS mixing. But if you are doing it as a substitute for something you could have done during tracking you will always end up with a sub-par product.

However, FX like reverb, delay, etc. usually ARE best left till after the fact for the reasons listed above.
 
Sometimes, you just gotta fix it in the mix.

You can't change the fact that a client might not have much money to spent obscene hours trying to find a magical guitar tone with a shitty Ibanez thru a Crate solid state amp. The bass player who can't seem to pluck anything without "farts" in the sound? That drummer who still has the original factory heads on his PEACE drums? That singer who CANNOT seem to sing at the same volume each take?

You fix it in the mix.

Also, there are times when you KNOW the session is just going to go downhill as far as performances, and you already have the best take tracked, but it isn't quite what you were looking for in the sound.

You fix it in the mix.

Really, mixing starts while you are tracking! After all tracking is done, then you "re-mix" (in the old days, that is what it was called, "re-mixing") This further supports that you start off with the best intentions of getting everything right during tracking.

But, the real world of recording music doesn't work out that way. Doesn't matter WHO's fault it is, sometimes, the track just isn't right, and needs a "fix" to make it fit better in the final product.

It sadden's me to see people claim that they don't do "fix it in the mix". They are either liars, or turn out some poor audio sometimes. I have associated with many big time engineers, and all of them have said that they have to "fix" stuff that wasn't quite right in tracking all the time! My experience is that this is the way of it too.

Do whatever works man! There are no "rules" you "have" to follow in audio!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top