THIS is THE proper ANSWER to any and ALL of your questions.
Let's Talk Basic!
- Thread starter Chem808
- Start date
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I'm all torn up not being able to display any credibility to you.
You go with that thought, but remember, your the one stuck without any answers.
Yeah...you certainly are.
jimmys69
MOODerator
The fact that your original question was so vague that there is no definitive answer, and your subsequent angst to the replies is the reason you feel you are in the wrong forum. You ARE in a forum that has members giving you quite appropriate answers to your question.
This may not be a good forum for you here. Sorry man. You don't seem to have the desire to ask direct questions nor the desire to listen to answers.
easlern
Boredom artist
Hi Chem808- sorry about your thread. I have a formula I've evolved over time, it gets me like 80% of the way to finished when I'm doing rock:
bass: high pass around 50hz, centered, compressed somewhere like 10:1-20:1. Goes to an amp sim (I always record direct). Another compressor sidechained to the kick, around 2:1 (just wanna duck bass on those kicks or I get mud).
rhythm guitar: double-tracked, one panned left and the other panned right. High pass around 150hz, no compression (usually overdriven pretty hard). One compressor side-chained to the vocal to duck the guitars just a couple dB to let the vocal come through. Sometimes the compressor is multiband so I can duck low-mids/high-mids specifically.
drums: these are actually software, I don't do much with the pieces, just the whole kit. Centered, high pass around 30hz, I make sure all the reverbs are high-passed around 150hz and maybe even high-pass the room if I have to. I just really don't like the kick bouncing around, it muds up everything. Parallel compression around 3:1-5:1, 50% mix.
lead vocal: high pass at like 100hz, double-tracked and panned just apart (like 11 and 1 o'clock). A leveler/auto-ride to get the levels close to consistent. Parallel compression at like 5:1, around 50% mix. Send that to master but also to two buses, one panned left and one panned right. Those left/right buses have the reverb.
Sometimes I put a pad in the low-mids, that's usually part of the rhythm guitar bus. A synth way up high sometimes, that's high-passed at like 500hz or higher.
Then I use the Harvey Gerst method (in an old post on this site, try the search) to get levels right and figure out where I need eq. I don't really use eq for effect, only to sort of round the pieces off so they fit better. I put a high-pass on the master around 30hz and a low-pass around 18khz. The rest of the mix is situational.
I think there a good number of these guides out there but I'm not sure there's a real concise one on this site so maybe this will be of some use to someone. . .
bass: high pass around 50hz, centered, compressed somewhere like 10:1-20:1. Goes to an amp sim (I always record direct). Another compressor sidechained to the kick, around 2:1 (just wanna duck bass on those kicks or I get mud).
rhythm guitar: double-tracked, one panned left and the other panned right. High pass around 150hz, no compression (usually overdriven pretty hard). One compressor side-chained to the vocal to duck the guitars just a couple dB to let the vocal come through. Sometimes the compressor is multiband so I can duck low-mids/high-mids specifically.
drums: these are actually software, I don't do much with the pieces, just the whole kit. Centered, high pass around 30hz, I make sure all the reverbs are high-passed around 150hz and maybe even high-pass the room if I have to. I just really don't like the kick bouncing around, it muds up everything. Parallel compression around 3:1-5:1, 50% mix.
lead vocal: high pass at like 100hz, double-tracked and panned just apart (like 11 and 1 o'clock). A leveler/auto-ride to get the levels close to consistent. Parallel compression at like 5:1, around 50% mix. Send that to master but also to two buses, one panned left and one panned right. Those left/right buses have the reverb.
Sometimes I put a pad in the low-mids, that's usually part of the rhythm guitar bus. A synth way up high sometimes, that's high-passed at like 500hz or higher.
Then I use the Harvey Gerst method (in an old post on this site, try the search) to get levels right and figure out where I need eq. I don't really use eq for effect, only to sort of round the pieces off so they fit better. I put a high-pass on the master around 30hz and a low-pass around 18khz. The rest of the mix is situational.
I think there a good number of these guides out there but I'm not sure there's a real concise one on this site so maybe this will be of some use to someone. . .
easlern
Boredom artist
I really like the idea of having software to basically automix, I already use presets so that's not much different. Computers could be great at the engineering half of the mix I think. It could get all the pieces sitting well enough together, clean up the signals, eliminate some nasty frequencies and hums, all that grunt work. Then the human takes over and does the artistic half.
BroKen_H
Re-member
Seriously, though. most of the people here are (to some extent) pointing a microphone (or multiple) at an instrument or mouth and recording a real sound. Some may use amps, some may use amp/cab simulators. Some may mike real drums, some may use Steven Slate/Superior/Addictive Drums, some may use no kit at all and opt for other percussion...
BUT
Every voice is different. Every speaker is different. Every microphone is different. Every bird outside your window sings their song uniquely. Music is about taking unique things and making something unique out of them. For the most part, the people here who do this because they love doing it in one capacity or another. Writing/singing/playing/tracking/mixing/mastering in some combination hold a special place in all of our hearts! Some love the challenge of a perfect take. Some will comp 20 takes together to get one good sounding one. There's a challenge we each face that makes spending $1000s on equipment and using huge chunks of our free time worth it to us. Not sure exactly what you were looking for in your initial (and subsequent) posts. But hopefully we've given you SOMETHING of an answer.
BUT
Every voice is different. Every speaker is different. Every microphone is different. Every bird outside your window sings their song uniquely. Music is about taking unique things and making something unique out of them. For the most part, the people here who do this because they love doing it in one capacity or another. Writing/singing/playing/tracking/mixing/mastering in some combination hold a special place in all of our hearts! Some love the challenge of a perfect take. Some will comp 20 takes together to get one good sounding one. There's a challenge we each face that makes spending $1000s on equipment and using huge chunks of our free time worth it to us. Not sure exactly what you were looking for in your initial (and subsequent) posts. But hopefully we've given you SOMETHING of an answer.
Farview
Well-known member
Just a note about the instrument ranges in that chart. It is only telling you the lowest and highest fundamental frequency of the notes the instruments can hit. That's not entirely useful most of the time.
Most stringed instruments have most of their power an octave or two above the fundamental frequency that they are playing. For example, the low end of a guitar is really heard mostly around 120hz, not the 60hz that the fundamental sits. EQing based on the fundamental frequency of the note doesn't really help much of the time.
Guitar is a perfect example, in a previous post someone suggested high passing at 100hz. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to do and proves that the fundamental of the notes being played aren't terribly important to the sound of a guitar. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to EQ out all the notes on the two low strings of the instrument and still end up with something usable.
Most stringed instruments have most of their power an octave or two above the fundamental frequency that they are playing. For example, the low end of a guitar is really heard mostly around 120hz, not the 60hz that the fundamental sits. EQing based on the fundamental frequency of the note doesn't really help much of the time.
Guitar is a perfect example, in a previous post someone suggested high passing at 100hz. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to do and proves that the fundamental of the notes being played aren't terribly important to the sound of a guitar. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to EQ out all the notes on the two low strings of the instrument and still end up with something usable.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
OK...but how will the computer know that you want to (Example) cut 5dB off of 250 Hz on your guitar tracks and what Q/bandwidth to use..etc..?
I mean...how does the compute *hear your music* in order to make the right decisions...?
So..are you ALWAYS doing exactly the same kind of edits to your tracks...and therefore yuo feel that a bunch of presets, automated by the computer, would be a good idea...?
Well if that's the case...if you always (Example) cut 5dB off of 250 Hz on your guitar tracks...then why don't you just take care of those "preset" conditions while you are tracking...?
IOW...just track with 5dB less of 250 Hz on all your guitar tracks if you are *always going to do that*.
Also...
Do all your mixes contain exactly the same number of instruments, with the exact same arrangements, and positioned in the exact same locations of the stereo field...?
I dunno...having some idea of how you want to treat a mix is one thing. It's nothing unusual to start formulating some editing ideas for the mix while you are tracking, because *you are hearing what is going on*...
...but how the heck does a computer pull that off, and also know what it is that you want to do with the mix...?
How do presets do that...unless again, every song you do is exactly the same as the song before (which I highly doubt)...?
I listened to a few of your mixes...and there aren't two in the bunch that are even close to being the same...so then how would presets really apply...?
Just curious about this type of thinking.
Just curious about this type of thinking.
Don't be. Nothing good can come from it.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I'm not trying to be negative...but I agree, I can't see any good coming from that approach.
Back in the day...with the "old school" way of recording mixing...one of the fundamental steps that many engineers would do at the start of a recording and/or mixing sessions...was/is to "zero the board". Every fader, every knob, every setting would be set to "0" or its nominal/defualt position.
Now that may seem like a lot of work....especially for the guys who "always cut 5dB at 250 Hz on the guitar tracks", so why "zero" that out on the console every time...?...but the main reasons behind that was so you could start with a fresh perspective and NOT fall into a cookie-cutter approach.
With outboard gear and large format consoles...that's a LOT of knobs to reset...yet that was/is a common way to do things.
I mean, would you as an artist want to walk into a studio where the engineer had a bunch of presets from the previous sessions and he was going to apply them to yours...???
Theses days, with DAWs...you don't even need to manually "zero the board" because a soon as you start a new session, everything is already zeroed for you...and yet here we have people who now WANT presets for all their mixes.
Mmmmmm...OK...the times they are a changing
Back in the day...with the "old school" way of recording mixing...one of the fundamental steps that many engineers would do at the start of a recording and/or mixing sessions...was/is to "zero the board". Every fader, every knob, every setting would be set to "0" or its nominal/defualt position.
Now that may seem like a lot of work....especially for the guys who "always cut 5dB at 250 Hz on the guitar tracks", so why "zero" that out on the console every time...?...but the main reasons behind that was so you could start with a fresh perspective and NOT fall into a cookie-cutter approach.
With outboard gear and large format consoles...that's a LOT of knobs to reset...yet that was/is a common way to do things.
I mean, would you as an artist want to walk into a studio where the engineer had a bunch of presets from the previous sessions and he was going to apply them to yours...???
Theses days, with DAWs...you don't even need to manually "zero the board" because a soon as you start a new session, everything is already zeroed for you...and yet here we have people who now WANT presets for all their mixes.
Mmmmmm...OK...the times they are a changing
Dave Matthews
Dave's not here
To me, mixing is as much an art as playing/creating the music that is to be mixed. I don't play guitar "exactly" the same way each time I play the same song and neither do my bandmates.
Creativity and spontaneity have an important part in playing, recording, mixing, and mastering music.
Creativity and spontaneity have an important part in playing, recording, mixing, and mastering music.
easlern
Boredom artist
Yeah there will always be some variables but I think there's a lot of routine in the mix prep stage. At least for me, it's setting up some compressors, setting some high-passes, make a few tracks, blah blah. If there's a different arrangement, it'll be different. I don't know too much about how other people work but most of the stuff in my daw doesn't really change much between songs, as much as it might sound like it does haha
I think you hit it right on miroslav, you couldn't have the computer make taste choices. But if it could at least figure out how to keep the information you'll actually hear and reduce the information you don't want, like freqs obscuring the vocal, mud, etc, I think that'd be awesome. MP3 kind of does this already so someone must have a pretty good understanding of how that stuff works.
I'd just like the daw as transparent as possible and let me throw my effects on, make adjustments, sweeten things up, that would be my ideal setup. I feel like if we were painters we'd be spending a lot of time mixing paint, sometimes it gets in the way of the painting. BUT that's just my goal, other people really love the mixing stage, rebuilding from 0 each time, that's perfectly cool. I know probably no one made a hit record using a preset but for my goals that would be sufficient.
I think you hit it right on miroslav, you couldn't have the computer make taste choices. But if it could at least figure out how to keep the information you'll actually hear and reduce the information you don't want, like freqs obscuring the vocal, mud, etc, I think that'd be awesome. MP3 kind of does this already so someone must have a pretty good understanding of how that stuff works.
I'd just like the daw as transparent as possible and let me throw my effects on, make adjustments, sweeten things up, that would be my ideal setup. I feel like if we were painters we'd be spending a lot of time mixing paint, sometimes it gets in the way of the painting. BUT that's just my goal, other people really love the mixing stage, rebuilding from 0 each time, that's perfectly cool. I know probably no one made a hit record using a preset but for my goals that would be sufficient.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
OK...I get it...there are certainly some "tedious" tasks with recording/mixing...but from my perspective, it's often during that tedious process that things are revealed...ideas spring forth...etc.
I guess what I'm saying is...imagine you could walk into the studio and never have to tune your guitar or patch a cable or set up a mic...etc...because you feel all those "tedious" tasks (which I think you are referring to when you say "mixing paint") appear to be stuff that gets in the way of your creativity and you just want to get on with it, and here you are setting up a mic.
So then...why not just leave that mic in the exact same position...forever, and never once h8ave to set it up again...?
Yeah...maybe that sounds like it would help, but from my experience (I am and have always been totally immersed in the studio process)...the time I take to set up mics, or tune my guitar...I'm also thinking about the production and where/what is going to happen next. I feel that if I didn't have those things to do...my creativity would actually be less productive, and I would just be repeating the same things over and over.
I dunno if that makes sense to you...but there's something about actually turning the EQ knob from "0" to -5 dB at 250 Hz that makes the process totally different than simply always having the knobs preset in that spot. You would be hearing the sound as you turn the knob...and maybe you would decide that -5db or 250 Hz really doesn't quite do a given guitar track justice....etc...and you would do something different. Whereas with presets...they get forgotten...so all your stuff has that same imprint.
Also...if you start with presets...and then you end up adjusting them anyway to change things...that's not any different than starting form "0" and simply finding the one correct setting for the given track.
Right...but "transparent" to me implies that the DAW is doing nothing...you are making all the decisions in real time.
If you use some sort of presets...doesn't that make it less transparent...?
Anyway...to each his own..but I would bet most painters enjoy mixing the paint before they start painting.
There is something creative and meditative/contemplative that happens while you mix paint...IMO.
All i know, is that I see a hell of a lot of foolishness and laziness going on.
You ever see those cheap car and home stereos? The ones that have a 'rock preset', 'jazz preset' etc?
That's where it's going.
I see as it the never ending devaluation of skill and experience. People have already allowed the computer to place mics for them. And they've allowed the computer to play the music for them. So all that's left is for the computer to mix for them. If they can get other computers to listen then humans will have effectively been eliminated from one of the most human things you can do - make music.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Well...with all these new apps that analyze your audio and then apply mastering algorithms based on some preconceived "norms" that some programmer worked out mathematically... I guess that's about as close as a computer can get to listening.
Here's the problem with all that stuff and with algorithmic presets that judge your music by some formula about how certain frequencies should blend and at what levels, etc...there is NO subjective/emotional feeling to base any decisions on.
Music is NOT just about the numerical quantities...that if you x-amount of frequency A, then you should have y-amount of frequency B...that's not what music or mixing or mastering is about.
It's about the feeling...the mood...the intent...and no amount of analysis by a computer is EVER going to be able to "hear" the music from those perspectives...rather it's just a numbers game...a math equation, executed by the computer.
The numbers may say that -5 dB at 250 Hz is what the math indicates...but your ears, your emotions, your intent may tell you to BOOST by 5dB because that's the mood you want to create. A computer or a preset will never do that.
Anyway...the real concern is that over time presets and computer algorithms may get music to a "listenable" point...but everything will be the same...homogenized.
Agreed. I can't think of many things worse than computer auto-mixing.
Chili
Site Moderator
You're a prime candidate for templates and channel settings. If you're songs are similar in genre, same instrumentation, same mic, same vocals, effects, etc, you can save your channel strip settings and recall them for a new song. Or save your entire mixer section, loaded VSTi's, effects as a song template. This approach helps maintain a consistent sound from one song to the next.