Mixing rock synth...

[Chris.]

I've never done any keyboard or synth stuff before and I can't seem to keep it in between "buried by the guitars" and "more out in front than the lead vocals." I don't even really know where to start.

Any tips?

The music is kinda poppy/indie/emo/rock stuff.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It's all in the arrangement, IME/IMHO. Don't have the synths compete with the rest for the same part, but rather cooperate with them with complimentary parts.

EDIT: I forgot to add... When they do compete, use track volume automation to fit them together like jigsaw puzzle pieces. When you want the synth to dominate, drop the gits a couple of dB while boosting the synths a dB or two. And vice versa.

G.

 

[pikingrin]

Just depends on what you want out of it. I have recently (within the last few months) started messing around with this stuff (it's too much fun with all the freebie synths out there), and really have only one thing to say...

If the song is based around the synth part, bring it out a c-hair to where you can actually tell it's there. It may play hell with the guitars, but a little subtractive eq work can go a long way...

If you're adding the synth parts to a song based on another instruments melody, treat it almost like you would a reverb or delay. Just enough to where you can barely tell it's there, then just a tad more to bring it out. Again, subtractive eq on the other parts will help bring it out more... Also, mess around with panning... A lot of the VSTi's I have been toying with seem to fill almost the entire stereo field if they are dead center, but if you duplicate a MIDI track (assuming that's how you're going about this), you can send the same VSTi to the two tracks and pan them seperately. For some reason, this usualy tends to yield better results. YMMV.

Play with it a little bit and see what happens! (Just don't let momma find out!)

Edit: And, as Southside Glen said, track automation is your friend...

 

[DavidK]

It's all in the arrangement, IME/IMHO. .

I agree, it is the arrangement and choice of synth sounds/patches. There is a reason that synths have 1000s of patches. Its an art to find one that works sonically as well as musically.

 

[LeeRosario]

It's all in the arrangement, IME/IMHO. Don't have the synths compete with the rest for the same part, but rather cooperate with them with complimentary parts.



G.

Excellent. To add...


Mixing wise, it would help you to identify what particular notes you're playing to emphasize that with EQ. In those cases, you'll find yourself figuring out ways to fit your synths into that used bit of realestate.

It can be a matter of judicious use of EQ (EQ and your synth range correspond to each other), panning, phase manipulation and even certain types of time based effects.

I mean a simple short delay may do the trick.

You could distort your synths (in many ways) to the point where they blend with the guitars, cut through enough to be heard and still maintain their original attributes for the most part.

I've learned that there's nothing against lightly distorting things to bring them out in more practical ways.

On the opposite, you may even have to look at ways of bringing the guitar down a notch to make that interaction more seemless. Which happens, too.

If you look at Muse, for example, you see that a lot.

It definitly starts at the arrangement, though.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Unified Field Theory

There's a whole lot of excellent points made here that I agree with. Perhaps I was a bit over-definitive when I said that it's *all* in the arrangement. Even with the perfect arrangement sent down from God's mind to your ears, there's still other factors like those mentioned that need to be attended to.

Please excuse my indulgance in trying to tie all these factors into a single theme (There's nothing on TV right now and I'm wide awake )

Perhaps it would be better for me to say that IMHO the arrangement is the skeleton or blueprint onto which all the other techniques should be overlaid. The more parts/instruments one adds to a mix, the more sharply defined the role of each instrument should be. As Lee so aptly put it, each instrument should have it's own sonic space or purpose. This can be done - based upon the intended arrangement - in the four dimensions of sonic space; frequency, frequency, pan, depth, and drama.

This is especially true when combining rock/pop guitar with rock/pop synth. While synth can go anywhere in the spectrum and fill any role, often times one finds guitar and synth competing for similar turf in both frequency spectrum and musical purpose.

FREQUENCY
As pikingrin first mentioned, EQ is important in defining the guitar and and synth differently. I'd recommend using two approaches.

First, make room for the synth inside the guitar. The guitar has harmonics and resonances all over the place, usually more than your typical synth patch. This can tend to crowd out the synth. Not all of those guitar resonances are necessarily needed or even good. USe the oft-mentioned-here parametric EQ sweep to ID those frequencies in the git that jump out and honk at you, and then cut them down to size with some narroq-Q cuts. This will serve not only to make your guitar sound "sweeter", but it will clear some room for the synth to fit through.

Second, consider both the arrangement and the overal timbre and feel of each instrument. Does the sound of the git seem to be the most attractive to the arrangement in the higher registers and the synth in the lower, or vice versa? Or is the synth purposed for a narrow band and the git for more broad coverage? Whatever it may be, use some (not much) differentail EQ to each track to emphasize their strong spectral suits and demphisize their week ones for each instrument track.

PAN
What you do here is also defined on a basic level by the arrangement. Is the synth doubling a guitar (this can be a very powerful effect which I love)? Or do they have seperate rhythm/accompaniment and lead parts? Or are they serving complimentary melody/harmony roles?

If they are doubling, stacking their pan can be very effective for a great fat or punchy sound. Use of the differential EQ mentioned above is key to a great doubled sound here, IMHO. Hard L/R panning can also be employed here, but I personally don't find that as attractive as hard-panned guitar doubling, and for a synth/guitar double, I personally like the stacking better. YMMV.

If the synths and gits have seperate roles in the rhythm/lead/accompaniment realm of arrangement, then I'd personally fall back upon the old "find the spectral balance in the pan staging" rule. In other words don't thorw a synth and a guitar that sound spectrally similar (even after EQing) too near each other on the pan stage, and usually not on the same side of center, if it can be helped. Have an equal balance of lows and highs on eackh side of center.

ETC.
You probably get the idea by now. Continue with the depth dimenison using volume and reverb, setting the instrument depth on the soundstage, as well as the dynamic mixing (drama) throughout the song based upon the purpose of each instrument as defined within the arrangement.

Thank you - and apologies - for the long post indulgence. Hope it helps some.

G.