Heres the ONE definitive secret to getting a professional mix...

  • Thread starter Thread starter tubedude
  • Start date Start date
tubedude

tubedude

New member
No, not really, but it got your attention...
Heres another link that may help some of you... some have probably seen it already... good articles on DAWs and mastering and whatever....
www.digido.com/homeframe.htm
 
oh,

Internet explorer could not find the page.

But I can bet you( I can't really) that the one definitive secret to professional mixes is reverb.

or is it getting that punch through compression?

man, I don't remember anymore :)

peace
 
I was expecting to see something like "have a professional record it" or something like that :D
 
hi tekker,

have a professional record it? Heck no :)

All they do is slap a bunch of reverb and a bunch of compresiion on it anyway.

Don't quote me to any pro, but I think that what separates us from the pros is the equipment.

I mean, how unprofessional can a u87 sound through a neve pre, treated with a lexicon 300 reverb and all mixed on meyer hd-1 monitors in an anaechoic room. See what I mean?

And I do sometimes wonder why some professional mixes have so much freaking kick and bass in the mix.

peace
 
CJ,

what separates us from the pros is the equipment?.....Ed is gonna flame you, nah nah nah naaaaahh nah.....
 
*grin* Or I will.
Lets see, almost to sweet to get stuck into :) I can't answer for all pro's but................
From what I've heard , I most likely use a lot less reverb, and definately a damn site less compression, than homers with those tools. In other words, people have a tendency to use things like that because they have them, where I would use them selectively, where I need them.

"I mean, how unprofessional can a u87 sound through a neve pre, treated with a lexicon 300 reverb and all mixed on meyer hd-1 monitors in an anaechoic room. See what I mean?"
The answer is - very. Infinite set-up possibilities. Very sensitive to placement. Variable polar patterns. Sensitive pre settings, measuring levels at multiple stages of the signal path, and that is besides setting a suitable reverb from the 300. Mind you....... that reverb also has to fit in with the sound of all the other tracks that make up the song...........

Apart from all that, in a session last year I recorded vocals. set up 2 of my "normal" mics to try on the singers voice, one vintage U47 and a Stayne MagMike. We recorded on an old Shure 57 - it sounded better on his voice.

Hey Cyan ....... get your butt over here when the studio is finished and I'll let you loose on some gear, and I'll take bets on how soon you will change your mind.

Love Ya!!
 
Somewhat related to the points on compression...

... I was doing an LP transfer last night and I decided to have a little fun pulling out some of my old LPs (by order of year of release) and see if I can notice any sort of patterns in mix differences....

I started with stuff from the 70's/early 80's (10CC - Dreadlock Holiday, Nick Gilder - Catch 22, The Cars - first album, Donnie Iris - Ah Leah, more along those lines), then migrated to early-mid 80's (ATF - Der Kommissar, Thomas Dolby - Blinded Me With Science, Eurythmics - Sweet Dreams, Taco - Puttin' on The Ritz, more along those lines). Then the mid-later 80's (One To One, A-Ha - Take On Me, The Jitters - Red Hot Fool, etc...).

The (hardly scientific) point, (other to embarrass myself by revealing some of my past musical choices! ;) ), was that I was listening for sound quality differences and watching the meters... I noticed a big improvement in overall fullness to the sound over the years - more clarity, more definition to each mix element over each year (presumably as studio gear got better and better, duh!), but the BIG thing that struck me was that there was a full 15db or more of motion on the peak-reading meters on the earier tunes!!!!!!!!! That range got progressively smaller as we got to the mid-late 80's - being about 6-9db on the A-Ha tune. And of course, slap on any recent CD and those damn meters DON'T move more than 2-3 db!!!!!

As I said, hardly a scientific study, but it was interesting to note the apparent increase in compression use over a given time-frame..... and although it's probably not realistic given the current trend of overcompressing everything to death, but I'd like to get back to giving some dynamic air to recordings once again.... a lot of those recordings sounded very sweet - Dreadlock Holiday is a killer for smoothness!

Bruce
 
Funny how a guy who I don't even know, in the traditional sense of the word, can seem like an old friend.

sjoko2 - If I didn't say it before, then this is a great time to. Welcome, and thanks!

"From what I've heard , I most likely use a lot less reverb, and definately a damn site less compression, than homers with those tools. In other words, people have a tendency to use things like that because they have them, where I would use them selectively, where I need them."


"The answer is - very. Infinite set-up possibilities. Very sensitive to placement. Variable polar patterns. Sensitive pre settings, measuring levels at multiple stages of the signal path, and that is besides setting a suitable reverb from the 300. Mind you....... that reverb also has to fit in with the sound of all the other tracks that make up the song........... "

I have always said, if you haven't used some of this high end gear, you won't know the difference.

I HAVE heard where a U87 through a NEVE sounded horrible! I have heard 414's through a Focusrite Red sound like a lighting storm at the ground strike! I have heard a C12 through an API sound like cows on their last breath!

But not very often....:)

But, without the ears and the experience (the ears usually come from the experience) anybody can make class A discreet gear sound like a NT1 through a Mackie!

Talent is talent folks! If you got it, you will reconize it in others, and that includes engineers. If you are playing engineer, you will KNOW if you got it or not. If you don't, you WILL hire those that do.

CyanJaguar - I have heard it go both ways with recording. I have heard talented people with cheap gear get pretty damn good results, and I have head people with the best of everything make it sound like a chainsaw. I can say this too. If you have decent talent as an engineer, you then only improve with better gear. Although, good gear tends to be a bit more forgiving, so for someone who is looking for better results, but doesn't seem to have the time to learn the "art" of recording, you should probably invest in pretty good stuff if "pro" results is your aim. I may be your only saving grace.

Bob Katz has some great stuff on digital audio, but I really didn't find much good stuff on mixing. But to his credit, how could it be there. Mixing is about making the best with what you got, NOT about a bunch of tricks of the trade! Great mixing engineers are worth their weight in Platinum!

Just my thoughts on this.


Ed
 
Bruce:

I thought of a question regarding all this compression.

Do you think that the need for bit depth at the input conversion is as much to blame as the desire for hot output in overcompressed new recordings?

Seems like squashing the input is going to have some effect on the overall mix at output, doubly with an amateur mixing engineer.

There's a good argument for 24/96, isn't it? Highest bit depth at input conversion without having to squash the input signal?

I've only got a few years experience in recording (most of which were on a tascam 424), so please forgive a certain amount of stupidity in my questions. My amateur tendency has been to let individual tracks breathe as I'm recording them. I know now that if I compress the signal I'm just gonna pull up the noise floor, huh? This is, no doubt why you might endorse light compression on input and more complex mixing.

In addition, I could just be talking about the perceived fullness of a recording. In this case, more so than having 15dB of movement, it would be important to make better use of EQ and possible overdubbs. So volume may remain fairly consistent, but the fullness of the sound will change.

I'm not sure I've given anybody anything to go on, but if my logic seems incorrect please educate me. I suppose I'm trying to wrk out the division of labor in mixing. Thanks.
 
I would like to add, that I have heard some older recordings that sound much more honest, than a lot of new ones, and I'm sure they didn't have a lot of fancy equiptment.

I have also heard recordings made by you guys, that sound much better than "profesional recording engeneers". So who is really the pro?

I hate to say this because his head is allready big enough, but Ed makes damn good recordings. I often listen to one of his, and then one of mine to see where I might try to improve. There are also people here that make pro sounding recordings who aren't pros.

The love of recording will take you as far as you can go, with whatever gear you have.

It's nice to have Ed to dangle the carrot in front of us.

There are also too many "amatuers" here making some damn good recordings, to mention.
 
Thanks sonus **blush**. I really like it here. Why? I think this thread is proof, no other reasons needed.

Haa!! Compression! Don't get me going, you touched on a very sore point there. Also one difficult to answer in one go, as there are a couple of separate issues concerning compression.

Design stuff:
First of all, I think the design of compressors needs a complete re-think. Someone came out with the design for a compressor - which is nothing but a means to make something sound louder than it is, push the last bit of breath out for more volume - and everyone has since followed the same design principles, like the proverbial flock of sheep.
Furthermore, who the hell invented the "ratio" of compression? Put any compressor on a scope, and as soon as you leave 1 : 1, you enter the world of "each for themselves", which is lies, lies, lies again.
In all these years, I have heard ONE single compressor that broke the mould. This is one you cannot hear work, and it somehow enhances definition in a mix. Very strange experience!
Now this is something really weird - I know a lot of pro's who have listened to this compressor, it blew their minds, but somehow they are afraid of using it. Reason? You can't hear it work. I have had arguments about it. People saying I was fooling them and the thing was a trick, it simply didn't do anything. Until I showed them the levels of 2 channels on the output bus I used for playback. where the meters were virtually holding at 0 dB.


Blue Bear's observation is spot-on. People started compressing stuff more and more in order to get more volume when their stuff was played on the radio. Over the years it has just become the norm, and I'm sure most people have forgotten why they do it.

Don't get me wrong, use compression when you need to. I'm not saying its bad, never use it! But........ like everything else (in life) if you use it, use it with thought and care.
Example? I've seen (and heard!) this time and time again. Someone tracks drums, puts compression on the kick, the floor toms etc. When it comes to mixing, they compress it a little more, with different compressors and different settings. Then the mix is done - and the whole lot is compressed to get a bit extra out of it. The final mix goes for mastering, where they add some compression. The result? It sounds like total shit. What's more, there are no dynamics left whatever.

Which leads nicely into the next bit - DYNAMICS!
Anyone remember the Dutch band Focus? For a short time, in the early '70's Focus was one of the top live and album selling acts in the world. An instrumental band with a genial keyboard / flute player, and a genial guitar player. Of cause they hated each other, they still do, so it didn't last long.
The reason for their success? Well, apart from instrumental and songwriting ability, they understood dynamics. They understood how to play an audience, how to grab and keep their attention.
I did sound for them at an open air festival, with just over 100.000 people, in a fantastic field shaped like an amphitheater. One second they were full pelt loud rock, the next 3 minutes was Bach on acoustic guitar and flute, where I managed to literally turn the PA off. You could hear it everywhere, you could hear a pin drop, the audience hardly dared to breath. Next ... BANG, back to well over 110 dB,

Jesus, I'm writing a book here.

Oh yes, dynamics is one of the most important tools of music. Compression and digital sound stole dynamics, they went out of the window and people have gotten used to it.
The reason I say digital sound stole dynamics is because the standard adapted for CD's was very low, at 16 / 44.1. This, in addition to the low dynamic range of converters, does not allow for dynamics. Now add the usual practice of compressing it no matter what..........
Thank God this is all changing with the introduction of surround sound and high definition audio, as the higher sampling rates give back access to putting dynamics in a mix. Will people dare to use it? Most of them don't know how. Just listen to the way most DVD movies are mixed, the dynamics are totally out of proportion.

The last bit. You do not need compression to get maximum volume on a mix. Track right, and keep it right all the way through. Spend time on each aspect of production, never give up until you are totally happy with it. "We'll fix it in the mix" is bullshit.
When you use any outboard gear, use it with consideration. Avoid using effects when you are tracking. If you track with an effect, its there forever. Try recording the effect returns as separate channels, it will give you a lot more to work with. Spend time setting up your microphones properly. A mic in front of a guitar cabinet? What happens if I take another channel and put a second mic in the corner of the room? or just under the ceiling? or in the cupboard?
Amen :)
 
Okay some very simple questions:

Aren't the best recordings, the ones that capture the instruments and vocalists as realistically as possible?

Shouldn't gear be made to push us closer to that end?

I have only dealt with eq so far, but it is invaluable at removing coloration, if not pushed to far. I beleive this is the only thing eq is good for

Now what good does compression do, that makes it invaluable, what is the only thing it is good for? I personally don't use one at all.
Why should I?
 
Sjoko2

I dont question your remarks on the use of compression
and the rest of your post.
However for years musicians and engineers are fooling the public. You know a CD can be alike Hollywood. Lots of flash sells an image never tells the truth.
The use of all processors from compression to reverb to
Harmonizer to autotune. You name it we all use it.
Why dont we use natural sound all the time ?!?!?

Singers can't sing - Autotune
Drums sound weak - we pupm them up with reverb,compression
Bass cant play with a pumping full sound -we compress
Singer need shine -We EQ
Band cant play together - we Pro Tools them
Guitarist cant rock - we ghost play for him or triple them like hell

Reverb - HAHAHA give me a break do you know singers that sound so good in such wonderfull rooms...?

We are selling an image. Recording engineers make CD's that no group can produce with out that infamous compression -reverb - you choose.
Even live shows we are processing them. Today bass players come to gigs with rigs enough to power a full blown city......

Something to think about......:)
 
i think what im hearing coming out of
the mastering houses is more like
192k 48bit audio "smooshed" down a bit
to maybe 44.1k 16 bit..maybe..hey cool new
term or is that already being used? hehe
 
Can someone tell me, what actual good comes from using a compressor, or are we better off not even using one?
 
here's my take GT..from what I have read
and what I am gaining from my own practical
experiences and from what I am hearing ..
if you are making recordings that will
be going out to the commercial markets..
yes..you have to compress...the media itself
dictates that...Compact Disc...Vynyl..Tape

remember every consumer grade audio playing
device is in itself a compressor...if recordings
are not compressed in a controlled fashion..you
will have a product that sounds very inconsistent
on everything that its played on...as i am learning
from my own experiences i am beginning to see
the benefits of compression in my own recordings

during the tracking phase ..especially with vocals
i can see how it makes for a better mix by giving
every voice its own space..it also appears that the more elements you have in the mix the more you
are going have to compress..remember
we only have so much room to put everything.

also it appears that compression seems to make
the recording "consistent " for lack of a better
term even as the volume is increased.

If the recording is not going anywhere but your
own system(s)..then of course i dont suppose you
would have to compress at all.

The major labels have set the bar when it
comes to how a recording is going to sound
if it is to be played on the radio. I honestly
think that our mastering engineers are doing
a great job of doing what they are asked to do.

A lot of what I hear on the Radio
may be lacking something ,but it is not in
the recordings in itself. I am actually hearing
some great recordings! Maybe the days are
are coming when once again we will have
great songs to go along with our great
recording technologies. This due to the fact
that there is a growing number of people
like ourselves wanting to make great recordings
and can do so right in our own homes...

As for me, I suppose Iwill continue to try to be
as great of a songwriter, producer,tracking engineer
and mix engineer as I can be ,but when it comes
down to the nitty gritty, I think i'll let my buddies
with the $10,000 dollar compressors,limiters,EQ etc
Do what they have to do..because we all have to
compete with the Majors.. this is just my take
and no offense meant towards anyone...My thinking
has to be like this ...otherwise all I will be doing
is making Demos????...nah

I wanna thank all you guys for being here for me..
this forum has been a tremendous help thusfar
Again, just my way of keeping things in perspective.

Keep on keeping on! And" Keep reaching
for the stars"!!!!(the title of one of my upcoming
songs by the way) :)
 
elbenj, I don't agree that you need compression to make a recording sound "consistent" for a lack of a better word.

The better the playing, the better I can track.

The better I track, the better I mix.

The better I mix, the better I master.

The better I master, the better it sounds everywhere.

That is not to the point. Here is what I mean.

You will find yourself using less compression at any stage if the stages before it were done well.

I would be far more apt to eq something the compress it.

Creating tonal balance is about "shading" for a lack of better word. Yes, compression CAN provide tonal shading, but at a major hit to dynamics. Eq can of course tame dynamics too. It will do so most likely in a more friendly way.

I am not saying that compression is not usefull. It surely is! I just still don't think it is the final all solution for good results, and many with loads more experience then I agree with that.

Compression/Limiting at mastering time is doing a number on many recordings. Mastering engineers are having to compress and limit far and beyond what is musically useful these days to make label A&R and VP's happy, and happy means the check is cut for the services! Often, the mastering engineers are being ask to provide this much dynamic hacking at the expense of good sound.

Hey, I have mastered a bit myself. On almost every product, the aim is to get it sounding loud and powerful, and to compete well with other product.

I remember a job I did a year ago. Sort of 70's porno funk stuff. Very cool music.

I just love listening to the original mixes, before mastering! They sound more wholesome and more ear friendly. Yup, the dynamics jump around a bit, and that adds more flavor to the mix.

The songwriter was at the studio for the first 3 songs that were mastered. I wanted to make sure that he was happy with a few, and the rest was mostly a simple excercise of matching the first few.

While we were working on these first few, I saved a couple different plug in settings and would play the mix with very heavy limiting and eq then play the one that was far less limited and eq'ed. Time and time again, our ears wanted the less processed mix, even though it lacked some overall level. The tonal qualities of the less processed mixes was much better!

We both though noticed that the mixes seemed to loose richness and character from the even moderate limiting and sparce eq we were applying. It was a very tough decision to continue doing this to the mixes, but we both agreed that the CD needed to compete at least SOMEWHAT with commercial product that was out. So hacking away at the beauty of the mixes we went......:(

I still just loved listening to the original mixes. So warm. So lovely. Very honest sounding. Translated very well on other systems, they were just a few dB down from what we wound up with, which was a couple or few dB down from big boy stuff.

I really don't agree that new product coming out sound "all that". It is not just the songs and the talent, the damn recordings just done have flavor and character and nice dynamics because all those lofty musical pursuits were discarded to gain another couple dB. It is very disappointing to throw in something Bernie Grundman did and hear digital overs on the converters! I hate having to turn the monitors down really low so the constant high SPL doesn't annoy me THAT much. I hate the new "in your face all the time" sound! It is garbage to my ears.

I am in a nice position to NOT have to answer to some VP or A&R guy telling me it needs to be louder! Once I talk with the client about their master, and how we can either pursue volume at the expense of nice sound, or just bump it up a bit and retain some musicality, they always opt to make it sound more musical. If they don't know, I run a couple versions, one limited heavily, the other not and let them take a listen in their car, or at home. They usually don't CARE that the more musical sounding mastering job is not as loud as some of the other stuff in their CD collection. What they realize is that it is still louder then a lot of older stuff, and that most of the tonal color that we worked so hard for in the mix is retained.

Hmmmmph......just slap compressor and reverbs on it! I wish it were that easy! I wish that less of those tools were needed to satisfy some ears, because too much of it winds up stealing honesty from the music, all more just a couple or few more dB.

elbenj, I am not per se picking on your here, but you should seriously reconsider, and possibly open your ears to the older stuff, pre heavy limiting, releases and ask yourself if these newer recordings really SOUND better. Most don't think so.

Ed
 
Here is something to try, and its worthwhile doing. Possible to do if you work on any DAW.
Next time you start a song and track something with compression, put the settings in memory.
When you are mixing and apply compression on the mix, do the same, store the settings.
If you master your stuff as well, do the same.

Now go back to one single track, like a vocal track, a clean one without processing. Apply your first level of compression from your memory - bounce the result to disk. Do the same with your subsequent stages.

When you are finished, play it, and a / b it against the original clean track - You will either say "Oh God" or Oh fuck!"
 
On the Focus dynamics story... This is SO very true... The band I mix for (bass drums guitars, all very good players...) started out with a good bass and drum behind an overprocessed guitarplayer. The guitar player did ok things, but he was nowhere without the other 2. Then he slowly learned to play, they got in some synths, and then they found the magic trick... Very silent and slow psychedelic stuff, then BANG heavy rock. It just works.
(The dynamics got in very logically. They played the synths themselves, so they had to put aside their instruments. Either bass drums or guitars got out. Here's your dynamics. I love it when I can see through them that easily... :) )

By the way, this is about the only local rockband I know that got away with a synth (and drums) only song. Same formula. As long as the synths are old (read analog) enough, it doesn't sound too cheesy... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top