SLuiCe
New member
Adhering to a digital discussion here, I believe M. Brane explained probably better than I could technically. But I simply like the freedom of the headroom.
As I mentioned, my large mixes, sometimes with 4-6 simultaneous guitars, require a heavy amount of EQ. I could probably babble an answer for days, but essentially a lot of the "bigness" I think comes from careful attention to ...ummm....frequency interplay? In other words, Every instrument has it's own space. We know this. But we don't always know where that instrument's space is. But it's not just done simply with panning. Too much bass is just too much bass, and too much mid range is too much...and on and on. But if I can find a mix where ALL ranges are represented with considerations of each other, I get a full mix. It's kinda like maybe establishing an ideal government in Iraq or something. Whatever.
Solo the bass and guitar tracks. Anything clashing? Maybe something around 170 Hz making things a bit muddy? It's easier to tell by soloing. So Eq plays a big role in my "big" sound.
But reverb does as well. And if you know my music, with the exception of maybe The Passing, I'm not really hip to long reverb trails. I can't afford the clutter with the complexity of the instrumentation. So I try to achive that full sound by surgically adjusting my reverb settings to BLEND the instruments with each other. To make the very end of that sustained vocal dissapear into that guitar chord. Just as much as necessary to give it the depth that is appropriate. I'm not looking to mask anything or give a false sense of space. The notes dictate the reverb size and mix size. I listen to the notes and the rhythms. That tells me how big to go.
When all that is done, I adjust the levels to peak at -6. Some of them have reached that point already due to EQ or other effects. Which is why I needed the headroom.
As for compression, I say that with proper miking and attentive EQing (which takes time and experimentation), a lot of compression is superfluous. I find that it's usually only part of the frequency range that's doing the real damage. I personally don't like to risk losing even that slightest vocal twitch that could give the line the character it begs for, but would be lost deep in the trash compactor of a 10:1 ratio. Works for dance pop, not for me.
-12dB is what I shoot for during tracking. -6dB is what I shoot for in the mix, of both individual tracks and of the overall mix. I don't know enough about mastering, so I never really attempt it anymore. Maybe someday I can pay someone to do that for me.
Don't know if I helped...but much more detail than that would probably depend on a particular song I think. Anybody else got a different view or suggestion, or just clarification or elaboration they'd like to share on that? I don't really have an organized way of explaining this stuff.
Ya, I use them in the DR-008, sequenced with Sonar's piano roll. You'd have to look at their website to see if FL is compatible. I found them after taking PLENTY of shit for my drums.
(Thanks Drum Nazi's!)One of the most important things again, is get it right in the tracking.
And if you don't deliver a tight performance, you quite logically are not going to get a tight mix.
Ok there's my thoughts for the day. Hopefully some of it actually makes sense.
) . 
. And while you’re doing all that, keep your levels under control.