Deep mixing: when you could not mix bad even if you wanted to

[chessrock]

Just a side point here: I think knowing a genre really well is a prerequisite to creatively mixing music in that genre. You have to know whats been done, whats being done, and whats not being done but what could be done given what has been done.

Or you could just point a mic at someone and hit "record."

You bring up a good point. And I really don't think someone could get that kind of perspective from listening to just one album over and over.

 

[Lopp]

In order to chart new territory and create something compelling and original, there needs to be more discussion about contemporary production and what the future might be, less about the past.

Bravo!



Of course it is also important to learn from others, especially when mixing a genre we may not be familiar with. Thus, I liked CyanJaguar's idea. I also agree that the main problems in making our mixes sound like anothers deal mostly with limitations in execution, performance, abilities, and equipment.

 

[esactun]

I hear alot of guys on the board talking about great records from the 70s and 80s, I hardly hear a word about brilliant or at least interesting and talented new bands with engineers who grew up on grunge and are making todays records. Stuff like bjork, sigur ros, Lamb, Mr Bungle, cake, system of a down...

System of a Down's "Toxicity" was produced by Rick Rubin and mixed by Andy Wallace ....


I DO see your point-- I'm just being a royal, pedantic ass-pain.

 

[detuned6]

Originally posted by esactun

System of a Down's "Toxicity" was produced by Rick Rubin and mixed by Andy Wallace ....


That is a really good sounding album,theirs only two things "i" would change- the kick a lil more clicker and twat hair louder. And the bass guitar dosent really grab me. Other than that its a great heavy clean sounding album. System is the only radio band that i like.

 

[esactun]

I hear ya detuned6-- first record I've bought based on airplay I've heard in years and years and years. It's both slick-sounding and super-heavy. I did find the bass to be thin-ish, slightly distorted too. But it seems to me that in heavier stuff, like the SOAD record, the guitars seem to have more low content than the bass does--though mix advice usually sez something like "roll bass off the guitars at 100hz". It's tough to get a nice fat bass sound and then get it to play nice with boomy axes. I have lots more experimenting to do.... how's yer demo coming??

 

[CyanJaguar]

I've listened to rock music for my whole life constantly. I've listened to some albums repititively, nay, obsessively, for years at a time. And yet, my mixes don't sound like Rick Rubin or Butch Vig or the Radiohead guy or... anyone... could be because those albums all sound markedly different from each other. Each has a sonic imprint, and it's all rock and roll, but it's not like they're all mixing to sound like each other. They're mixing it to sound good to themselves.

I beg to differ. I still have your song drivebreaker early mix on my pc, and that song sounds very close to what I am hearing on radio. So you must be doing something right.

Hey, post a link to it please so that others can hear it

 

[flapo1]

Hi all.

I think both parts have some point in favor and against.

When you get to hear a lot of albums, you get the idea of what you want to hear, but by doing so, you are not automatically able to generate that sound.

It's a lot like playing guitar. I have heard David Gilmour and Eric Clapton for years now, and by doing so I can discern their styles, tones, how they play, what bends, what vibrato, etc. but yet not being able to play like them because maybe I don't have the chops or the gear or even the "feeling".

What Cyan says I believe can be true as getting to know what you want in a record, not how to get there. Kinda what happened in a thread I saw not long ago when some guy wanted to get that "Beatles" sound. He knew what he wanted but not how to get there.

Coming back to the coins example, it's like if I know how to identify bad coins but don't know what to do with them (keeping them, giving them back, etc.).

Anyways, It's very very interesting

 

[detuned6]

esactun

The demos coming along at the speed of a turtle, im waiting on the guest vokillist to finish up. Hes a 3rd shifter and im a 1st, so sundays have been a good tracking day. I passed up a pork chop dinner at my womans last sunday and did vokills insted-i think it was worth it, i had a good time.toke'n/drinking.Ill let up know as soon as im done. Metal thrashing mad..........

 

[charger]

I beg to differ. I still have your song drivebreaker early mix on my pc, and that song sounds very close to what I am hearing on radio. So you must be doing something right.

Thanks, man. I wish that were true! My most recent mix sounds better to my ears but I haven't posted it yet. The old mix is still at http://astron.iuma.com

 

[barefoot]

The critical flaw I see in CJ's theory is that having the ability to identify differences is a far cry from having the ability to create those differences.

The Exxon clerk may be extremely adept at identifying differences in coins, but that certainly doesn't make her an expert in minting coins. And if you threw her in a warehouse full of all the materials and tools required to mint coins, I bet it would be a long time, if ever, until she figured out how to make a good facsimile of a dime.

Mixing metaphors, you could say that knowing how to shoot the arrow is just as important as knowing what you're aiming for.

barefoot

 

[flapo1]

Barefoot

You said in one paragraph what I wasn't able to articulate in my whole post!

 

[Roel]

I once had a workshop with Kenny Werner, a jazzpianist, and he had a theory that was kindof alike. Not the recognition thing, but the subconcious. His idea was that your goal in playing should be playing from your subconcious. Like when you eat, you don't think how to use your fork, hardly think about what you're gonna pick up and bring to your mouth. Well, play like that. That was his idea. I belief in it to a certain extent. Kindof switching of your conciousness while playing.

If you work on it, you might be able to achieve it with mixing also. After mixing for a while, when you hear something really sharp, you're not gonna think what it is, just grab to those EQ buttons and get highs out. The theoretic link that you used to make is absorbed into your subconciousness...

At this level of mixing, it would work... At this level you don't think about what which button does, you just know it. Kindof one with your equipment. You just execute what you have in mind. Ofcourse, to do that, you really gotta know your equipement.

 

[flapo1]

Roel

I can completely agree with that. Maybe that'a what Cyan tried to say from the start.

The point is, in order to do the "subconscious" thing you have to master the craft in question, be it playing, recording, mixing, etc.

 

[Lopp]

At this level of mixing, it would work... At this level you don't think about what which button does, you just know it. Kindof one with your equipment. You just execute what you have in mind. Ofcourse, to do that, you really gotta know your equipement.

Great point.

I was once at one with my guitar when I played/practiced 8 hours a day. (I ain't nowhere close to that no more ). It would be great to get a hint of that with mixing. Hell, it would be great to understand what all these funny knobs do on my mixing board.

 

[barefoot]

Barefoot
You said in one paragraph what I wasn't able to articulate in my whole post!

flapo1,

Well, it looks like we were thinking along the exact same lines and I just reiterated your argument. Sorry, I skimmed through the thread and missed your comments.

Btw, you're obviously an exceptionally intelligent individual!

barefoot

 

[flapo1]

You bet! I think the same about you!

And of course about everyone else in the thread. Even c7sus! lol

 

[CyanJaguar]

I once had a workshop with Kenny Werner, a jazzpianist, and he had a theory that was kindof alike. Not the recognition thing, but the subconcious. His idea was that your goal in playing should be playing from your subconcious. Like when you eat, you don't think how to use your fork, hardly think about what you're gonna pick up and bring to your mouth. Well, play like that. That was his idea. I belief in it to a certain extent. Kindof switching of your conciousness while playing.

If you work on it, you might be able to achieve it with mixing also. After mixing for a while, when you hear something really sharp, you're not gonna think what it is, just grab to those EQ buttons and get highs out. The theoretic link that you used to make is absorbed into your subconciousness...

At this level of mixing, it would work... At this level you don't think about what which button does, you just know it. Kindof one with your equipment. You just execute what you have in mind. Ofcourse, to do that, you really gotta know your equipement.

Thats an outstanding way to put it.

Of course, I've been thinking about the theory and practice more and I think it has a lot to do with translating. For example, on my ns10ms, I like to turn the vox and kick way up to where it sounds good here. WIth imprinting though, you learn to know how other pro CDs sound on THAT system, so its a way to overcome the inadequacies of a monitoring environment. With the little imprinting I have, I know to how low to turn down the vox and kick. Of course, this subconscious knowledge did not come in one day, or a week, or a month , as some would want it to.

I listen to playlists on my monitoring system about 5 hours a day at a set level that was calibrated with a meter, at a set distance. After long enough, you just start to feel the sound, then you REALLY start to hear whats going on

 

[barefoot]

...WIth imprinting though, you learn to know how other pro CDs sound on THAT system, so its a way to overcome the inadequacies of a monitoring environment....

CJ,

I don't mean to spark a whole other debate, but I disagree that you can overcome all of the inadequacies of the complete monitoring system this way. Some yes, but not all.

If your monitoring system is sufficiently masking certain frequency, temporal, dynamic, or spatial information, then all you can say is that those particular aspects of the mix are out of your control. You can't control what you can't perceive.

barefoot

 

[CyanJaguar]

I didn't say all barefoot. I agree with you, you can overcome some., but its surprising how much you can overcome.

 

[barefoot]

...but its surprising how much you can overcome.

Of course you don't really know how much is "much" unless you compare results on a highly linear reference system.