Hello everyone, my head is hurting!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Merwyn
  • Start date Start date
M

Merwyn

New member
Hello Everyone :)

I joined HomeRecording.com today as I have been home recording for some time now and wanted to connect with other home recordists. Whilst I have a reasonably good grip on recording - mixing and mastering are really hurting my brain.

I only recently decided to take my music beyond the composition and recording stage, after paying a local studio to mix and master some of my tracks and not being entirely happy with the results. My hope was to extend my skills to include mixing and mastering but I really don't think I've got the brain for it! I don't understand the terminology, haven't a clue about the science of it all and am tearing my hair out with my latest soundtrack...eek! Help!

This latest soundtrack has a violin melody with various other solo instruments helping it along, backed up by a string orchestra and choir. The problem is, I just can't hear the orchestra. Having worked on this piece since last September I am ready to throw the towel in...but before I do, thought I may just ask the experts here for some advice.

Please remember, the chances of me understanding what you say is remote. High Shelf, low pass, bell, compression...I don't know what it all means! If somebody could give me a layman's explanation on how to bring out the orchestra / choir without drowning the melody I would be eternally grateful :thumbs up:

I panned the orchestra and choir to reflect real orchestral seating arrangement, with first violins one side and second violins the other. The choir is supposed to be behind the orchestra with the melody centred. If I strengthen the orchestra and choir, the melody is lost...and visa versa. I have the track uploaded to soundcloud but not sure how to post a link here.
 
I think I might know your problem. Mixing is sort of like playing an instrument. It's less of a knowledge-based thing and more of a listening and feeling type thing. Even if you had all the mixing knowledge in the world but didn't have any past experience to train your ears so you would know what to listen for, you still wouldn't be able to make a very great mix. Of course it's necessary to have some knowledge so you know what you're doing. But what counts is the experience and the trial and error. That's what makes a great mixing engineer.

You need 10 posts on this site before you can post a link. You can get those posts real quickly right here: https://homerecording.com/bbs/general-discussions/newbies/get-your-10-post-here-329241/207/ Once you're able to get a link up here we can start guiding you in the right direction to help you develop those trained mixing ears. And we can also help fill you in on those terms you're unsure about :)
 
Two simple things that don't require a lot of skill....just your ears.

Level balance and panning.

Once you get the levels of the various instruments balanced how you like them, and also pan each of the instruments/tracks to where it needs to sit in the L-R stereo image....the other stuff becomes a little more obvious, and even easier.

So...if you have a cacophony of sound....before you start equalizing and compressing and trying to process it into something decent.
Set it all back to "0" or "12:00" and start the mixing by getting levels balanced and pan positions assigned.
You will come back later to trim both after you Get to the equalization, etc, etc..., so this is a "rough-mix" step, but if you recorded the tracks well to begin with, this rough-mix step is like 80% of the mix...IMHO.

All you need are your ears for getting the levels and panning assigned.
 
I'm a total amateur who's mixed some rock oriented stuff, but one thing I found useful was to think of mixing as best done in a subtractive manner.

When I started my inclination was to turn things up, but I gradually learned that I was almost always better off by finding out what was conflicting with what I wanted to stand out, and then turn that element down/or EQ so it wasn't conflicting. I loved big thick mixes - still do to a degree - but if I want something to stand out I have to thin them out, especially carve out lower frequency EQs. My tendency was to try to make everything stand out. Big drums, big bass, big guitars, big vocals... and they'd sound good by themselves - but mix them together and I got mud. They simply all can't be big.

Again, I'm total amateur, but hope sharing this little bit of my experience helps
 
smili said:
I'm a total amateur who's mixed some rock oriented stuff, but one thing I found useful was to think of mixing as best done in a subtractive manner.

When I started my inclination was to turn things up, but I gradually learned that I was almost always better off by finding out what was conflicting with what I wanted to stand out, and then turn that element down/or EQ so it wasn't conflicting. I loved big thick mixes - still do to a degree - but if I want something to stand out I have to thin them out, especially carve out lower frequency EQs. My tendency was to try to make everything stand out. Big drums, big bass, big guitars, big vocals... and they'd sound good by themselves - but mix them together and I got mud. They simply all can't be big.

Again, I'm total amateur, but hope sharing this little bit of my experience helps
Click to expand...

Your gonna do fine smile, would I also encourage a little reading and research as well, learning the basics of EQ & Comp will help in the long run these things not only will be spoken and reference by use but you your self will use them everyday.
 
Merwyn said:
after paying a local studio to mix and master some of my tracks and not being entirely happy with the results.
Click to expand...
This above all stood out to me. What was it about what the studio did that you weren't satisfied with ? Did you feel that they didn't bring out the essence of the particular tracks ?
The reason I ask this is because there might be a correlation between their inability to mix as you wanted......and the difficulty you are facing with your own mixing.
When I first started mixing, I was as clueless as most newcomers that teach themselves to do something that takes years of experience and practice to get good at. I'd relate all the instrumental parts to the melody of the bass or chords of the guitar and individually, in relation to those instruments, everything would sound awesome. But put together I'd have 7 or 8 melodies competing and of course, you couldn't work out what was what ! On top of that, everything would be swimming in effects, set far too high, and if I started a song in the middle, I'd never know what song it was ! Some great ideas were lost in lame mush city execution.
Merwyn said:
I panned the orchestra and choir to reflect real orchestral seating arrangement, with first violins one side and second violins the other. The choir is supposed to be behind the orchestra with the melody centred. If I strengthen the orchestra and choir, the melody is lost
Click to expand...
That can sometimes work. But one of the most important things I've discovered, expanding on what Guitarplayr82 said
Mixing is sort of like playing an instrument. It's less of a knowledge-based thing and more of a listening and feeling type thing
Click to expand...
is that to a large extent, you are creating an artificial soundworld and therefore it's what feels right in your ears and head that really counts. For example, if I'm mixing in orchestral instruments that are playing a piece, I'm not interested in where the instrument players would sit in the pit. Where the sounds should be coming from becomes secondary to whether or not where I put them feels right. Few people are going to slap me because the trumpet and violin are coming from 2 o'clock and the bassoon is coming from 5 o'clock or whatever.
Panning and volume are important elements and if the melody is the centrepiece, then it has to stand out. Sometimes, other elements that you really like may have to go altogether. It hurts, trust me !
But when all is said and done, just keep at it, practice and be patient.
 
Hello all :)

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply. I didnt realise so many had replied (* note to self: check junk box as only received notification of first reply).

Rather than reply to individual messages I will truck on and post my sample. Since my first post I went back to the studio and re-structured the panning and levels, and then added some EQ to the strings section. Dont know if what I did was right but after listening to the mix I ended up adding strength to the mid-tones on the strings. I am dropping in a set of both versions...before and after the re-structure, so for those interested in bearing with me for just over nine minutes of music there is something to compare.

I prefer the second version - Running Free 02, but very interested to hear others opinions as I have heard this tune so many times My ears are saturated. I have noticed a huge difference in the way the mix balances when I listen on headphones and then on monitors. Likewise, huge differences between different players. On Running Free 02 the strings are drowning the melody on my headphones.

Here we go, hope I get this right now...

(PS apologies for the appallingly over-reverbed woodblock at the beginning of Running Free 01)

https://soundcloud.com/merwyn/sets/running-free/s-toXg8
 
As Grimtraveller said sometimes its best to cut some stuff out. the mute button is your friend.
The mix is very busy from start to end and no one thing sticks out or shines at any one time.
It's very fatuiging on the ear.
This is an arrangement problem though not a mixing one.
Sure the violin sounds upfront but all the other stuff is just too much for my ears and no amount of compression and eq would fix that.
Thats just my ears I just dont get a story from the music if you see what i mean theres no begining no middle and no ending.
Theres no rise and fall. No lift and expectation. no climax and conclusion.
anybody else feel the same?
I'm not having a go its well recorded i just think you have all the elemants you need you just need to use them differantly to create a mix that will take you on a journey.
 
kip4 said:
As Grimtraveller said sometimes its best to cut some stuff out. the mute button is your friend.
The mix is very busy from start to end and no one thing sticks out or shines at any one time.
It's very fatuiging on the ear.
This is an arrangement problem though not a mixing one.
Sure the violin sounds upfront but all the other stuff is just too much for my ears and no amount of compression and eq would fix that.
Thats just my ears I just dont get a story from the music if you see what i mean theres no begining no middle and no ending.
Theres no rise and fall. No lift and expectation. no climax and conclusion.
anybody else feel the same?
I'm not having a go its well recorded i just think you have all the elemants you need you just need to use them differantly to create a mix that will take you on a journey.
Click to expand...

Thank you Kip, both for listening, and commenting.

First, apologies to everyone for posting my mp3 here instead of the mp3 clinic. Next time I will post in the right place.

Secondly, in reply to your comments Kip, big lesson for me! I spent so long convinced it was mixing errors that it didnt occur that the arrangement may need re-structuring. Now it has been pointed out, I hear the busyness and the lack of dynamics. So...back to square one for me.

I appreciate your honesty and only wish I had dropped by a couple of months ago instead of trudging on :)
 
Its just my opinion other may feel differant and you know what makes a piece big sometimes? Its the space, the suspence, the build.
Less is more as they say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top