lack of clarity in a large mix

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rocket Boy
  • Start date Start date
R

Rocket Boy

New member
im using the pre's in a mackie 1604. im overall noticing more and more that compared to cds that i listen to theres just a lack in clarity and openness.

how much of this comes from the pre's im using, and where would be a good place to start looking if i want to get a more clear and big sound? is this the 'midrange buildup' i hear about with the mackie pres? thanks.
 
It might have a little to do with it and it might have a lot.

How comforatable are you with the tracking/mixing process? I mean do you consider yourself closer to novice or expert level? How about in terms of experience: do you do audio full time or part-time? Do you have any tutorship under your belt or other formal training in tracking and mixing technique?

How is the rest of your gear? Your accoustic space? Your monitoring setup? Would you consider any/all of these to be of the highest, professional calibre? How about the instruments you're using to track with? Where do they fall on the sonic quality scale?
 
No, I'm not trying to put in a plug, but it could just be a mastering issue...

Most mixes I get seem a bit "less than airy" in the top and a bit tight in the stereo image (sound examples are on my site if you care to).

Comparing most mixes to properly mastered CD's will normally reveal similar characteristics...

John Scrip - www.massivemastering.com
 
John, that was the first thing that came to mind.

Second, Rocket Boy, are you also using your 1604 to mix on? If so, that may be part of the problem.

I've noticed with my own mixes, if I mix something that on a Mackie (Something I do all the time now, since 2001!!!), my mixes end-up with something in gerneral, that just doesn't sound right overall; just as you desribed. There's just something about it I can't explain. The mixes just don't seem to have enough focus, definition, and openess (especially)... Almost a little lifeless in a way.

This is usually the case with dense mixes. It doesn't help the EQ sucks and there is no headroom to speak of about a Mackie mixer.

Over the past 3 years, I've kinda learned how to handle it, as best it can be. I can now get reasonable results with a very dense mix, but it takes A LOT more effort than otherwise.

Next year I'll finally have the console of my dreams (quite literally). So while it will be another learning-curve, I know the effort with be much more minimal with significantly nicer results.
 
i use a smackie 24*4 for the pres (going into a delta 1010) and yeah, they're a little "thin" in a dense mix. especially on drums. but i mean, it's a mackie. it's not gonna sound like an SSL, an API or a Neve (or even a Ghost or A&H for that matter). there's a reason large-budget albums are tracked in such high dollar studios. the gear (and the room itself) is a large part of that equation. as is the rest of the signal and monitoring chain, and when you couple in the skill of the professional engineer......you see where i'm going with this.... :p

those of us who are using a smackie in a basement really need to keep our heads about us. especially when wondering why our mixes don't sound like the latest Matchbox 20 cd. I think my mixes sound pretty good for what they are. But I don't expect them to be more than they are. expectations are a HUGE part of this.

and yes, professional mastering will have a solid impact on even a shitty mix recorded poorly. conversely it'll have a STAGGERING impact on a fantastic recording that's spectactularly engineered and mixed. polishing a turd versus polishing a room full of gold bars and all that.


so yeah, upgrade your pres and you'll notice a difference. upgrade the rest of your chain and your room and you'll notice even more of one. but i haven't said anything you didn't already know, right? :D


cheers,
wade
 
i dont know why i stated the question so badly. Yeah, I also think alot of it has to do with my shitty tracking environment.

i'm going to start building some new rooms in a month or so, so I guess when I'm in properly treated rooms I'll be in more of a posistion to blame something like the pre's im using.
 
Rocket Boy said:
im using the pre's in a mackie 1604. im overall noticing more and more that compared to cds that i listen to theres just a lack in clarity and openness.

how much of this comes from the pre's im using, and where would be a good place to start looking if i want to get a more clear and big sound? is this the 'midrange buildup' i hear about with the mackie pres? thanks.
Click to expand...

Some is from the pre-s, some is from the summing bus amplifiers. Summing bus amps take all the tracks and mix them together. There are different designs and the more expensive consoles have the right type of design (A&H, Soundcraft)The whole problem in the Macks and Behrrys, is that the summing bus amps don't have the huge headroom that more expensive consoles have. If you mix alot of tracks, you have to be sure to keep your faders well below "0". On a better designed console with SB amps that have large amounts of gain, the faders usually hang around "0". But, try keeping the faders as low as you can while still getting a good S/N level. This should bring back some clarity and stop killing those SB amps.

Good Luck.
 
Re: Re: lack of clarity in a large mix

acorec said:
There are different designs and the more expensive consoles have the right type of design (A&H, Soundcraft)
Good Luck.
Click to expand...

LMAO

sorry had to laugh when you said the more expensive ones and said sound craft and A&H....i'd think you mean SSL, NEVE, API etc...
 
mrface2112 said:
those of us who are using a smackie in a basement really need to keep our heads about us.... I think my mixes sound pretty good for what they are. But I don't expect them to be more than they are. expectations are a HUGE part of this.
Click to expand...

Great point... worth repeating
 
thanks SubA. I think that "expectations" are one of the biggest "problems" around here.

people expect their mixes (recorded with pro-sumer mixers and effects, crappy guitars, entry level drums, "inexpensive" mics, low-end ADCs, cheap monitors, budget cables and recorded in untreated basements) to sound like "professional" recordings.

the simple fact of the matter is that they WON'T. that's not to say that you can't get some fantastic results (maybe inspite of the gear? :p), but Dark Side of the Moon it won't be. And we shouldn't expect it to be.

rule #1: check your head :D


wade
 
Re: Re: Re: lack of clarity in a large mix

Teacher said:
LMAO

sorry had to laugh when you said the more expensive ones and said sound craft and A&H....i'd think you mean SSL, NEVE, API etc...
Click to expand...

Nope, actually I do mean A&H and Soundcraft as being the lowest $$$ boards with a different (higher headroom) design. Summing bus amps are expensive to do right. The SSLs and Neves actually use the same design technique as the A&H and Soundcrafts. The Mackies and Behringers use the cheaper design to cut costs. The headroom on these boards is low and the only way around it is to lower each track's volume to utilize the available headroom at the output.
 
There was an article in a recent TapeOp in where the guy being interviewed was talking about expectations. Basically talking about not trying to live outside the boundaries of your equipment. Shitty instruments and bad acoustics is another good point. I've got a decent recording chain, but our drum set is really bad and the drummer can't tune them. On top of that, the room doesn't help. I don't care who is here and with what gear... no one could get a big, open, and clean drum sound with that set in that room. It would be like expecting to find Jenna Jameson in a Bangkok whore house with a $2 price tag around her neck.
 
SubA said:
I've got a decent recording chain, but our drum set is really bad and the drummer can't tune them. On top of that, the room doesn't help. I don't care who is here and with what gear... no one could get a big, open, and clean drum sound with that set in that room.
Click to expand...

This is the part that people need to be reminded of more. Good-sounding, well-maintained instruments not only track well; they also have an enormous impact on the openness, clarity, and depth of the final mix.
 
well. to be honest. i think my question(bad as it was) was asking for what pre's would be a good place to look that would help, when i get around to that part of it(room will probably be first thing). i definately did not intend to say 'why cant a mackie sound good and what pre under 100 dollars will improve my sound!" although i think i stated it badly and it sort of came out that way.

what i meant to say was 'i know a mackie sounds like shit, and im noticing it more and more as i use it. what are some good places to start look for an upgrade'

okay. yeah.
 
What do you record to (I didn't see mention of it)? I ask because if you want to mix though your board (instead of in a pc, for example), you'll want one with a B mix, which rules out something like the Soundcraft M12. I used to have a Mackie and hated it, but I love the Soundcrafts. The pres are more respectable, and the eq is very nice. Anyway, how many channels do you need, and how much money do you really want to throw toward this? You could get a Soundcraft Ghost B stock for $4000 if you're lucky, or an older series SC. The jump from Mackies, A/H, SC M series mixers is an expensive one, but maybe you could get a nice Studiomaster or Midas for a better price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top