copying one mix template and apply it to the whole album?
- Thread starter mykie_a
- Start date
R
RAMI
Guest
Trust your instincts. Does it actually make any sense to you that 10 different songs, even if they were the same style, would require the same mix????
ido1957
9K Gold Member
Interesting topic. Obviously no two songs are the same, but you would want some kind of consistency in an album (CD)... Say we were talking level wise. With different pedals/gains/drumming etc you would have to ensure that the sources (guitar/bass/drums) were recorded with some consistency in level so you would mix them with the same template. But that would be difficult...
Thanks for the info guys. I've been frustrated mixing my own stuff ( www.myspace.com/sideaffectsmusic ) and found a craigslist dude that offered mixing rates at 20 bucks an hour. He said it would be easy for him to find one mix on one song I liked and then just paste it to the rest of my mixes. But hey, hey also advertises a 'tuned room' when he has no bass traps or diffusion/diffraction. lol.
He made a decent mix of one song then squashed it and ruined it once he ran it thru ozone.
I find some truth to copying and pasting, some level of consistency has to be there . . . but assume this is more of a mastering level edit.
He made a decent mix of one song then squashed it and ruined it once he ran it thru ozone.
I find some truth to copying and pasting, some level of consistency has to be there . . . but assume this is more of a mastering level edit.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Even if every song were the exact same style, applying the same mix "template" would be a mistake.
Think of it like this: Pick your favorite TV show, whatever it may be. Let's say it's a sitcom, because those tend to be the most alike from episode to episode. Pick ten episodes. They all are extremely similar, certainly all the same style of program. Now try to apply all the camera direction, editing decisions, actor marks, etc. from the first episode to the other nine; you'll have cameras pointing to empty chairs, actors standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, scenes cut right in the middle of dialog, etc.
Unless of course you don't actually mix anything and just lay your tracks on top of each other, like a TV production with one un-moving camera pointing at the whole stage and the actors not moving at all. But that's not something a lot of people are going to want to watch for very long.
Jockey those faders, get *mixing*. That's why we're called fader jockeys
G.
saul84aguilar
New member
IMO
The only thing I use a template for is just the initial setup of tracks when recording but not the mixing. No two songs are alike, too many variables(automation, panning, effects,etc.)
My 2cents
The only thing I use a template for is just the initial setup of tracks when recording but not the mixing. No two songs are alike, too many variables(automation, panning, effects,etc.)
My 2cents
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
I've used a template from time to time . . . but it has very specific and limited use.
For example, I've recently finished an album recording a female vocalist. Because of the characteristics of her voice, I've set up template tracks for her which have the same EQ, compression and reverb send levels. This means I get a good representation consistently across all the tracks she records, as well as when she does alternate takes, harmonies and so on.
This is a time saving and convenient device, but it also has its hazards, because even though I achieve consistency, the songs themselves may require different treatments.
I recently completed another project, which was a life recording to eight tracks. Theoretically, this too would lend itself to a template. But even with the broadly homogenous and consistent sound across the band's repertoire, when the time came for mixing, there were nuances that need to be accommodated . . . a template of itself is too limiting, too unimaginative and too much a soft option.
For example, I've recently finished an album recording a female vocalist. Because of the characteristics of her voice, I've set up template tracks for her which have the same EQ, compression and reverb send levels. This means I get a good representation consistently across all the tracks she records, as well as when she does alternate takes, harmonies and so on.
This is a time saving and convenient device, but it also has its hazards, because even though I achieve consistency, the songs themselves may require different treatments.
I recently completed another project, which was a life recording to eight tracks. Theoretically, this too would lend itself to a template. But even with the broadly homogenous and consistent sound across the band's repertoire, when the time came for mixing, there were nuances that need to be accommodated . . . a template of itself is too limiting, too unimaginative and too much a soft option.
Seafroggys
Well-known member
I have used templates for basic things...like I have developed a "drum sound" that I use in all my songs, but I still tweak things slightly to taste. I use compression, panning, and EQ presets for my drums but I almost always modify some aspects a bit (especially compression).
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
I think there's a world of difference between having a basic start position that you might begin from but experiment with each time and a fixed template from which you never deviate. Of course it might be interesting just to use the template idea just as a test to see if it makes a difference to you. Personally, I find too many variables from song to song for that. Also, I like randomness at times.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Chili
Site Moderator
I started using templates as a starting point. If it's always just going to be me using the same guitars, same vocal mic, etc, I want them to sound the same from song to song. Consistency as Ido suggested.
Once I start mixing, I don't stick to the template and will make changes as necessary. The song tells me what I need to do.
Once I start mixing, I don't stick to the template and will make changes as necessary. The song tells me what I need to do.
R
RAMI
Guest
I think the one thing that has helped me the most in improving my mixing skills was the decision to NEVER use a template.
Not using one has forced me to start each song from scratch and learn how to mix. If I settled for templates, I wouldn't have learned half the things I've learned through trial and error.
Not using one has forced me to start each song from scratch and learn how to mix. If I settled for templates, I wouldn't have learned half the things I've learned through trial and error.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Yeah, I think we all have some SOPs that we may use as starting points.
For the album I recently completed, I followed that mentality...as I wanted a consistent vibe to the album rather than just a collection of individual songs.
But it's a double-edged sword doing that, as there is narrow line where you could end up having all the songs sound too much alike.
I know with my album, there are 2-3 that are close...but I split them apart with other songs so they didn't follow each other.
Now I'm starting another album project and thinking for this one NOT using any similar SOPs/starting points and letting the songs go into whatever direction they want, without concerns for album consistency...though I think there is always some consistency, especially when it's a solo project for the most part and you play/sing almost everything.
Your personal style/sound will automatically tie everything in to a degree without the need to use the same setups.
It should be fun...I want to see where the songs go without any consciously imposed *global” SOPs or vibe.
Chibi Nappa
New member
Even if you do want the exact same sound across all of your songs, and even if you do adjust the template as you proceed, it is still not a good idea.
A template assumes that you were correct at the time you made the template, and your skills will never progress past that. What if you made the template last month and since then you learned something new and better? Chances are if you get stuck in the template habit, you won't learn anything new and better anyway.
Stay clear of all that. Start each mix with faders up, all plugins/inserts removed, and EQ flat.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
There are templates and there are templates, just as there is mixing and there is mixing.
Yes, I start my projects out with a generic template, but the purpose of that template is nothing more than setting up the DAW to get ready to mix, but with absolutely no plugs active, no settings assumed. I'll start with 20 tracks activated and locked, with track faders and track trim levels set to unity gain, and gain automation activated in each one and set flat to -3dBFS, just so I don't have to go through the process of setting all that up before I mix every time I start a new song.
But the idea of setting levels, EQ, compression, panning, etc. in a template for "consistency" across tracks - while it apparently may work OK for some people - for me just doesn't make sense, for a few reasons:
First off, as ido alluded to, consistency in mix settings assumes consistency in tracking. And consistency in tracking relies greatly upon consistency in *performance*. Whether one is self-recording or recording someone else, how many drummers have you come across that play song A with the same energy/pressure as song C? How many electric guitarists manage to turn their knobs back to the exact same position at the beginning of song B as they did at the beginning of song A? How many vocalists hold the same energy/emotion consistant through several songs? And so forth.
Even more so, how many *WANT* to? Just because it's one band, one album, one music style doesn't mean that everybody really wants to hold the same tone and levels and energy and so forth for every song - let alone within different parts of a singe song. And to assume otherwise when mixing just doesn't make sense to me.
Which leads to the whole point of mixing, IMHO; that is *LISTENING* to what the mix wants and taking inspiration and direction on what to do to the mix from the song/mix itself. "Templates" completely ignore that main, basic function of mixing.
But you can start from that template point and change as needed, right? I really don't want to get into this with miro again (
), but IMHO "SOP starting points" are not only useless, but counterproductive. They are nothing more than fancy versions of "presets". By starting making no assumptions as an SOP starting point, one is no further away from the final ideal then they are by picking what is ultimately an arbitrary assumption of a starting point; i.e. in that regard one is no better than the other. But by starting with assumptions as to how it probably "should be", one is biasing themselves and often inadvertently coloring what they are hearing from the mix, making such assumptions or SOPs IMHO inferior starting points to starting with a blank slate.
Mixing is a collaboration between the material and the engineer. Even the best engineer cannot take a mix where it does not want to go. But the best engineers do *MIX* the individual tracks together to bring out the best components of what the mix has to offer. This means plenty of automation (amongst other things), It means riding those faders like a jockey rides a horse.
It DOES NOT mean just compressing every track and laying those flat tracks on top of each other at relative gain levels that sound "about right", and then trying to correct the problems that creates by attacking the bad mix during mastering with Blowzone and MBCs and so forth.
This is the biggest problem I see with the OPs proposition, based upon what the mail order shyster of a "mixer" he was dealing with. I get the strong impression that there's no actual mixing going on there; that they are just for the first track laying the tracks on top of each other like lasagna noodles, and then doing even worse for the rest of the tracks by just copying those settings even though the rest of the songs are different.
That's not even mixing.
G.
Yes, I start my projects out with a generic template, but the purpose of that template is nothing more than setting up the DAW to get ready to mix, but with absolutely no plugs active, no settings assumed. I'll start with 20 tracks activated and locked, with track faders and track trim levels set to unity gain, and gain automation activated in each one and set flat to -3dBFS, just so I don't have to go through the process of setting all that up before I mix every time I start a new song.
But the idea of setting levels, EQ, compression, panning, etc. in a template for "consistency" across tracks - while it apparently may work OK for some people - for me just doesn't make sense, for a few reasons:
First off, as ido alluded to, consistency in mix settings assumes consistency in tracking. And consistency in tracking relies greatly upon consistency in *performance*. Whether one is self-recording or recording someone else, how many drummers have you come across that play song A with the same energy/pressure as song C? How many electric guitarists manage to turn their knobs back to the exact same position at the beginning of song B as they did at the beginning of song A? How many vocalists hold the same energy/emotion consistant through several songs? And so forth.
Even more so, how many *WANT* to? Just because it's one band, one album, one music style doesn't mean that everybody really wants to hold the same tone and levels and energy and so forth for every song - let alone within different parts of a singe song. And to assume otherwise when mixing just doesn't make sense to me.
Which leads to the whole point of mixing, IMHO; that is *LISTENING* to what the mix wants and taking inspiration and direction on what to do to the mix from the song/mix itself. "Templates" completely ignore that main, basic function of mixing.
But you can start from that template point and change as needed, right? I really don't want to get into this with miro again (
), but IMHO "SOP starting points" are not only useless, but counterproductive. They are nothing more than fancy versions of "presets". By starting making no assumptions as an SOP starting point, one is no further away from the final ideal then they are by picking what is ultimately an arbitrary assumption of a starting point; i.e. in that regard one is no better than the other. But by starting with assumptions as to how it probably "should be", one is biasing themselves and often inadvertently coloring what they are hearing from the mix, making such assumptions or SOPs IMHO inferior starting points to starting with a blank slate.Mixing is a collaboration between the material and the engineer. Even the best engineer cannot take a mix where it does not want to go. But the best engineers do *MIX* the individual tracks together to bring out the best components of what the mix has to offer. This means plenty of automation (amongst other things), It means riding those faders like a jockey rides a horse.
It DOES NOT mean just compressing every track and laying those flat tracks on top of each other at relative gain levels that sound "about right", and then trying to correct the problems that creates by attacking the bad mix during mastering with Blowzone and MBCs and so forth.
This is the biggest problem I see with the OPs proposition, based upon what the mail order shyster of a "mixer" he was dealing with. I get the strong impression that there's no actual mixing going on there; that they are just for the first track laying the tracks on top of each other like lasagna noodles, and then doing even worse for the rest of the tracks by just copying those settings even though the rest of the songs are different.
That's not even mixing.
G.
mattr
Resident moody teenager
Only time I would do this is quick mixdowns of live gigs, where the entire set is in the same project and the mic'ing setup and instrument tones remain fairly constant throughout... in this case, EQ/compression that sounds good for one song usually translates well if you skip across to another, though I would probably still make some level changes between songs and add touches of automation here and there for troublesome areas. Other than that, would never do this for anything else.
Here's another example, mostly SOPs and stuff already touched on.. I'm tilting this to a 'several song tracking session here. And I see no distinction between tracking vs a mix template, other than tracking' opens with a stripped down view.
I've always pre-prepped a template adjusted as close as I can guess for the gig coming in, then made a complete set of projects, file folders and run one per song.
This last gig I tried it like a big live gig -all strung out in one proj.
Differences-
What generally happens ('old way) is right off adjustments on the layout to the gig as it actually lands. (Inevitable shit. > And a bunch of layouts' that also need same adjustments.
Some up-sides. This time, the whole session grew and refined under one house'.
I got to do a whole bunch of mix experimenting in phones on the monitor/mixer split side during tracking, and more importantly in Sonar during playbacks.
On 14 tracks, two guit's, bass, drums and keys this has saved me a ton of clicking, and a lot of the refinements carry over just fine thank you.
Not playing catch-up during playbacks with each new song is huge!
Downside- I have now split all these songs into save-as per song projects, which added a few hours (Ok, I'm a little anal about file house keeping, not f**king up, and avoiding 'Sonar files not found stuff like that..
Another up side, roughs done, and much easier than otherwise.
But also that is the end of template mode'.
I've always pre-prepped a template adjusted as close as I can guess for the gig coming in, then made a complete set of projects, file folders and run one per song.
This last gig I tried it like a big live gig -all strung out in one proj.
Differences-
What generally happens ('old way) is right off adjustments on the layout to the gig as it actually lands. (Inevitable shit. > And a bunch of layouts' that also need same adjustments.
Some up-sides. This time, the whole session grew and refined under one house'.
I got to do a whole bunch of mix experimenting in phones on the monitor/mixer split side during tracking, and more importantly in Sonar during playbacks.
On 14 tracks, two guit's, bass, drums and keys this has saved me a ton of clicking, and a lot of the refinements carry over just fine thank you.
Not playing catch-up during playbacks with each new song is huge!
Downside- I have now split all these songs into save-as per song projects, which added a few hours (Ok, I'm a little anal about file house keeping, not f**king up, and avoiding 'Sonar files not found stuff like that..
Another up side, roughs done, and much easier than otherwise.
But also that is the end of template mode'.
Last edited: