miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
There are thousands of DAW owners who would probably debate that point.
"What's the best preset to use for bass guitar?"
There are thousands of DAW owners who would probably debate that point.
"What's the best preset to use for bass guitar?"
R
Rusty K
New member
Just like doing a painting...knowing when to stop is the hard part. I was over thinking and therefore over mixing. Those who helped me in the beginning with pointers like "make sure the recording is quality and mixing will be much easier" proved most valuable. The ears tell you the best. For me it was a combination of trial and error until my ears started taking over. Sounds like your still in the "trial and error" stage...keep pluggin.
Not that I consider myself any kind of expert....just trying to help.
G
Greg_L
Banned
Mixing is pretty much the last stage. If everything is done well up to that point - tuning, tones, performance, miking, tracking - then mixing is easy.
H
Harvey Gerst
New member
You might want to take a look at this thread, starting with post #16 down:
A thread that goes into the mixing process.
It might answer some of your questions.
Armistice
Son of Yoda
Personally I find tracking hard...
Mixing's the fun part for me.
I also have a 16 track limitation without bouncing, so that helps with the overtracking thing!
Mixing's the fun part for me.
I also have a 16 track limitation without bouncing, so that helps with the overtracking thing!
Todzilla
New member
True. That said, I've been recording/mixing in some fashion since the early 1970s. Mixing continues to be the most challenging part of the recording process. A quick basic mix is easily. A really popping mix with great energy and definition, that translates well on myriad systems - that's what's hard.
D_Vincent
New member
Just did a search on the "10,000 hours" thing I quoted before to become good or an expert at something.
6 years is an estimate...could actually take much longer (or less) than 6 years depending on the time you put into it.
Here is a break down of times it could take you to become good or an expert at something.
Ten thousand hours!
10,000 days or 1429 weeks or 333 months or 27.4 years at 1 hour a day.
5,000 days or 714 weeks or 167 months or 13.7 years at 2 hours a day.
3,333 days or 476 weeks or 111 months or 9.1 years at 3 hours a day.
2,500 days or 357 weeks or 83 months or 6.8 years at 4 hours a day.
2,000 days or 286 weeks or 67 months or 5.5 years at 5 hours a day.
1,667 days or 238 weeks or 56 months or 4.6 years at 6 hours a day.
1,428 days or 204 weeks or 48 months or 3.9 years at 7 hours a day.
1,250 days or 179 weeks or 42 months or 3.4 years at 8 hours a day.
----------------
Someone who has only been doing something for 3.4 years could actually be at the same level as someone who has been doing it for 27.4 years depending on the hours put into it.
Right now Im in the 5.5 - 6.8 year range in regards to mixing...I started recording/mixing in the summer of 2007...So If I want to become good or an expert I need to put in at least another 2 or 3 years (or more) at about 4 hours a day.
I remember when I started playing guitar...I played for long periods of time each day...perhaps even up to 8 hours a day so it didnt take long to get decent at the guitar...not saying im an expert guitar player however i did put in the time it requires thats for sure.
6 years is an estimate...could actually take much longer (or less) than 6 years depending on the time you put into it.
Here is a break down of times it could take you to become good or an expert at something.
Ten thousand hours!
10,000 days or 1429 weeks or 333 months or 27.4 years at 1 hour a day.
5,000 days or 714 weeks or 167 months or 13.7 years at 2 hours a day.
3,333 days or 476 weeks or 111 months or 9.1 years at 3 hours a day.
2,500 days or 357 weeks or 83 months or 6.8 years at 4 hours a day.
2,000 days or 286 weeks or 67 months or 5.5 years at 5 hours a day.
1,667 days or 238 weeks or 56 months or 4.6 years at 6 hours a day.
1,428 days or 204 weeks or 48 months or 3.9 years at 7 hours a day.
1,250 days or 179 weeks or 42 months or 3.4 years at 8 hours a day.
----------------
Someone who has only been doing something for 3.4 years could actually be at the same level as someone who has been doing it for 27.4 years depending on the hours put into it.
Right now Im in the 5.5 - 6.8 year range in regards to mixing...I started recording/mixing in the summer of 2007...So If I want to become good or an expert I need to put in at least another 2 or 3 years (or more) at about 4 hours a day.
I remember when I started playing guitar...I played for long periods of time each day...perhaps even up to 8 hours a day so it didnt take long to get decent at the guitar...not saying im an expert guitar player however i did put in the time it requires thats for sure.
Last edited:
D_Vincent
New member
Quoting from another site I read...I like the Eddie Van Halen quote so I decided to post it here.
"Extensive knowledge or ability requires more than ‘just grinding through the hours’. It requires an interest in the topic, and learning, growing, experiencing, failing, experimenting, discussing and so on. It’s about going in depth on the subject or ability, or climbing to the higher levels in the learning curve.
Examples of famous people who have done so are:
Tiger Woods – started playing golf at 2, won amateur championship at 15, went pro at 21. At 2 hours a day, starting at 2 years of age, you’ll be an expert by 15 years of age.
Richard Branson – started his first business venture in high school, and never stopped after that. In his autobiography you can read that doing business was his way of living.
Eddie van Halen – started playing the guitar as a teenager. In an interview when asked how he learned to play he answered:
“Practice. I used to sit on the edge of my bed with a six-pack of Schlitz Malt talls. My brother would go out at 7pm to party and get laid, and when he’d come back at 3am, I would still be sitting in the same place, playing guitar. I did that for years — I still do that.”
Stephen King – Started writing for fun in school, even sold short stories to friends at the time. King has a very simple formula for learning to write well.
“Read and write four to six hours a day. If you cannot find the time for that, you can’t expect to become a good writer.”
If you put in the hours, and are willing to learn, you’ll get to the higher grounds of expertise."
"Extensive knowledge or ability requires more than ‘just grinding through the hours’. It requires an interest in the topic, and learning, growing, experiencing, failing, experimenting, discussing and so on. It’s about going in depth on the subject or ability, or climbing to the higher levels in the learning curve.
Examples of famous people who have done so are:
Tiger Woods – started playing golf at 2, won amateur championship at 15, went pro at 21. At 2 hours a day, starting at 2 years of age, you’ll be an expert by 15 years of age.
Richard Branson – started his first business venture in high school, and never stopped after that. In his autobiography you can read that doing business was his way of living.
Eddie van Halen – started playing the guitar as a teenager. In an interview when asked how he learned to play he answered:
“Practice. I used to sit on the edge of my bed with a six-pack of Schlitz Malt talls. My brother would go out at 7pm to party and get laid, and when he’d come back at 3am, I would still be sitting in the same place, playing guitar. I did that for years — I still do that.”
Stephen King – Started writing for fun in school, even sold short stories to friends at the time. King has a very simple formula for learning to write well.
“Read and write four to six hours a day. If you cannot find the time for that, you can’t expect to become a good writer.”
If you put in the hours, and are willing to learn, you’ll get to the higher grounds of expertise."
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Then there are those people who are virtually "born into" it, or simply have a natural affinity for something so that it takes them no time at all.
And on the other end of the spectrum are those who will either never "get" something or have the ability to do something no matter how hard they try or how long they work at it.
The truth that many people don't want to hear (slight pun coincidental) is that when it comes to having the ear for mixing music, there are some people who are lucky enough to virtually take to it like fish to water, and those who are unlucky enough to just not be inclined to perceive and naturally analyze sound in that way, and find themselves out of their element in a studio no matter how they try otherwise.
The idea of putting specific numbers to anything like this pretends that all people are equally inclined to mix music. This is no more true than saying that all humans are equally inclined to be athletes or thinkers or artists.
G.
kcearl
I see deaf people
Ive taken to it like a goat to water 
D_Vincent
New member
I agree with what your saying...some people are just naturally gifted...like someone who can sing well without much effort or training...I totally agree with that however even naturally gifted people have to work on their specific skill to become good.
I agree not everyone is cut out for everything...thats why most quit doing it before they reach the 10,000 hour level...they realize its not for them or perhaps didnt put the time into it so they just gave up.
I agree with what your saying...its not just about hours put in...there are other variables as well however that doesnt dismiss the 10,000 hour theory.
To become a doctor takes a long time...some people make it and some quit...why do some make it and the others dont...could be the effort they put into it or perhaps that specific skill just wasnt for them...lack of interest ect...lots of variables.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I have to respectfully disagree. By definition, the introduction of added variables will change the value of any equation. Granted, if they are minor variables, they may not change the value by very much; but in this case the variable of individual capability is a huge one - arguably a deciding one.
Additional variables that factor large in the equation are the *quality* of the hours spent and the environment in which those hours are spent. An hour spent in a nice control room with a quality engineer/producer who is also a good teacher is worth a score of hours spent alone in a bedroom with a laptop and a podcasting mic. Or at the very least the lessons learned will be of a different nature.
And also, much of that depends upon how the individual is wired to learn. Some folks thrive in a schooling environment, others do better in a strictly DIY-style of learning situation. Where one spends their hours in that regard will cause the value of any given hour to vary widely. If someone is learning in an environment that that can naturally learn faster/better in, one hour can be worth five or ten hours in a less-conducive environment.
Taking all these major variables into account, any "10,000 hour rule" can easily be varied anywhere between a couple of hundred of hours to an infinite number of hours. Which kind of renders the quality of the number 10,000 as a very low quality estimation hardly worth stating.
It's not that I disagree that it takes time for anybody to get proficient at this stuff - it most certainly does take time. But putting a number on it is creating a false sense of specificity that's really not reflected in reality.
G.
D_Vincent
New member
Like I mentioned earlier...I dont disagree with what your saying...makes perfect sense.
The 10,000 hour thing is just a theory and like a lot of other theorys in life (big bang) you either believe it or not...agreeing or disagreeing with a theory doesnt make it right or wrong (not saying your disagreeing) ...A theory is what a person believes to be true more than it actually being true.
The 10,000 hour thing is just a theory and like a lot of other theorys in life (big bang) you either believe it or not...agreeing or disagreeing with a theory doesnt make it right or wrong (not saying your disagreeing) ...A theory is what a person believes to be true more than it actually being true.
M
mcmetal
New member
The funny thing is that the bloke who came up with that theory would have had to put in like 10,000 hours of research just to justify his theory.
If,in fact,he put any less time into it would prove his theory wrong,and prove he is just another idiot rather than an expert in his field.
U
underp
Member
I agree. XD
But mixing is HARD for you right now, because you're not aware
of the tools that help you archive what is in your mind's ear.
The only way to become a master, is to document yourself
everyday with experience.
Think: Bread & Butter.
You add butter to your bread, cause you've exprience the taste of the butter
before and you know what you're after. You know you want butter.
And you know what the butter will archive with bread so you can experience
that taste.
Is the same with sound... you just don't know the taste of these tools around you.
Keep eating them (Keep using them), until you know what they do.
One day, you will put a couple of effects together in a vocal track
and you will succeed at trying to archive what you want.
This cannot be teached.
You must collect EXPERIENCE.
That is why you don't see young grammy winning mixing engineers.
You cannot cheat on this. You must LIVE.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
It's not even a theory, regardless of what they call it. A theory is a reason that someone comes up with to explain a certain set of data or phenomena. A theory must also postulate some new(ish) idea which is testable, so if that idea turns out to test as true, can be used as evidence to support that theory (versus some other theory that tries to explain the same thing but predicts something different.)
In this case there is no data or evidence to suggest the 10,000 hour "theory" or even give it a reason to be proposed - in fact the evidence seems to suggest quite otherwise. Nor does the idea propose or predict anything testable to support it. It's not just a question of belief; before one even gets to that point, there should be a reason for posing the theory to begin with. I see none of that with this idea
G.
In this case there is no data or evidence to suggest the 10,000 hour "theory" or even give it a reason to be proposed - in fact the evidence seems to suggest quite otherwise. Nor does the idea propose or predict anything testable to support it. It's not just a question of belief; before one even gets to that point, there should be a reason for posing the theory to begin with. I see none of that with this idea
G.
diggy_dude
Now 169% diggier!
This is from a total n00b, so take it with a grain of salt.
Don't use "the room" to mix. Use headphones to mix, then use the room (and several other rooms) to audition the results. You're producing something that will be played back on a variety of equipment in a variety of listening spaces. Capturing the nuances of your particular space is all right if you're going for a certain effect that the space provides. Just be aware that the end user's space will add its own nuances and coloration as well. Most of those spaces won't be as carefully treated as your space.
Don't use "the room" to mix. Use headphones to mix, then use the room (and several other rooms) to audition the results. You're producing something that will be played back on a variety of equipment in a variety of listening spaces. Capturing the nuances of your particular space is all right if you're going for a certain effect that the space provides. Just be aware that the end user's space will add its own nuances and coloration as well. Most of those spaces won't be as carefully treated as your space.
D_Vincent
New member
Regardless of the 10,000 hour theory we can all agree it takes time to learn a skill.
I remember not less than a year ago not really hearing the difference in compression settings...now my ear can definately hear the difference...ear/sound reconition is a big part of mixing as well...which comes with time.
Having said that I do believe in the 10,000 hour theory...dont really care if anyone agrees with it or not however regradless of the # (10,000) I do realize it takes time to learn a specific skill...I think we all agree on that...we just disagree with the actual #'s it takes to get there.
I remember not less than a year ago not really hearing the difference in compression settings...now my ear can definately hear the difference...ear/sound reconition is a big part of mixing as well...which comes with time.
Having said that I do believe in the 10,000 hour theory...dont really care if anyone agrees with it or not however regradless of the # (10,000) I do realize it takes time to learn a specific skill...I think we all agree on that...we just disagree with the actual #'s it takes to get there.
Last edited:
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
Conspiracy Teary
You tell newcomers it'll take them 10,000 hours or six years to get good at this and there's likely to be a whole load of used gear flooding the market !
{If a Tascam 2488 or AKAI DPS 24 comes on the scene, save it for me !}
Which is precisely why putting any number of hours on this matter can never make sense. And I'm a person that avoids words like 'only', 'always', 'never' and 'all'. I mean, let's be specific for a moment ~ how many hours has it taken you to be able to hear the different compression settings ? How many times have you listened out for this ? Would it be the same for me ? Could I get there quicker ? Etc, etc. Can of worms territory, how can anyone possibly know and how can anyone possibly know for everyone that takes this endeavour on ? It's a bit like saying that it takes 44,000 hours to learn sarcasm or 52,947 hours to learn the difference between 'flammable' and 'inflammable'.
You tell newcomers it'll take them 10,000 hours or six years to get good at this and there's likely to be a whole load of used gear flooding the market !
{If a Tascam 2488 or AKAI DPS 24 comes on the scene, save it for me !}
Todzilla
New member
Here's an example of a recent mix that I struggled with:
I've mixed and remixed this so many times, I think I'm done. But man, it was killing me to get the best, or rather the "least bad" mix.
I've mixed and remixed this so many times, I think I'm done. But man, it was killing me to get the best, or rather the "least bad" mix.