Mixing trade offs

  • Thread starter Thread starter maxman65
  • Start date Start date
maxman65

maxman65

Member
Hi . I've noticed when mixing a track there are limits to what you can do . Example I have a track where vocals have alot of reverb and it works much better keeping everything else dry and relatively low in the mix . Is this a general rule
 
Guideline maybe? Certainly not a rule. The only real rule is that you don't ever break the rules, unless you need to and it works?

If lots of sources have lots of reverb, it degenerates into a swimmy mess - but equally, sometimes a nice mix reveals when using solo - that on their own, some sources seem to have a lot of reverb. In the mix, its fine? I really don't like reverb on bass, or a piano track left hand. Sometimes I even duplicate the piano, then remove the left and right hands so I can put reverb on the right hand and none or less on left?
 
Yea, to Rob's point, the rules are to help form a foundation, understand the basic principles, a guide if you will. But as it is said often, if it sounds good, it is good. That really is the bottom line in mixing.
 
One of the reasons why it can better to not print FX on tracks when tracking.
 
That's one of my rules - record everything, tweak this later.
 
maxman65 said:
Hi . I've noticed when mixing a track there are limits to what you can do . Example I have a track where vocals have alot of reverb and it works much better keeping everything else dry and relatively low in the mix . Is this a general rule
Click to expand...
I don't think keeping everything else dry is a general rule. My general rule is to introduce just enough reverb to make tracks sound like they are playing in a room or hall or whatever. I rarely put reverb on bass.
 
Hi. I think the most obviously correct answer is: it depends. Mostly on the arrangement, but also on the genre, etc.

The most important thing to remember is that even though we call reverb an effect, when mixing it is an additional sound source, thus it will take up space in the sound field .
That can be a help when the arrangement is too sparse sounding for the genre/song and unhelpful when it adds too much extra material to an already busy arrangement.

The best rule I know is to have an intention or end goal, and use whatever works to reach that goal. Including not using something if that is what the arrangement calls for.
 
Yes that's basically it . It's effectively taking up more space in the sound field . Ultimately the whole thing with mixing seems to be trading off one thing for another . You simply have to drive one thing out more to allow another prominence or space to breathe . For a long time I had this issue with strings . They smother everything particularly fake ones . In the end I was forced to push them lower than I really intended . But it just works better
 
It's not a rule but if your track needs to be up front and loud then having lots of reverb on it can help to make the track less obnoxiously loud. It turns the effect more into a feature if your other tracks are lower in volume giving lots of space around it but can be tricky to mix if your tracks are too low in volume from the (start to end of song) perspective. If your lead comes in a bit later on and your tracks are too low in volume your listener will more than likely have the volume up too high and when your louder track comes in. Ouch!

Normally necessary to Automate in the louder track slightly as it comes in so there is not so much of a shock, automate down the quieter tracks a bit also AS the lead comes in so it's not noticeable, sidechain the louder tracks to the backing so you can lower your louder track a bit more in volume, master buss compression to help smooth push down that louder track some more, bring up the quieter backing tracks a bit but push it back again with fastest attack peak compression for transient control, maybe add some parallel compression fastest atk/fastest rel to your loud track so you can turn that down a little. You should end up with exactly the same percieved balance as where you started except it will be a much smoother ride to listen to.

Or just keep it as you have it and keep it as natural as possible, but if your track jumps all over the place or you're tempted to reach for that volume knob at any point during the song. Do the above
 
maxman65 said:
Hi . I've noticed when mixing a track there are limits to what you can do . Example I have a track where vocals have alot of reverb and it works much better keeping everything else dry and relatively low in the mix . Is this a general rule
Click to expand...
No there isn't any rules like that - when doing a mix its a matter of balance - so what you do on one song might not be the same on another - and this is due to things like your mix where there is an overabundance on reverb on something - still it's a good idea not to saturate mixes.
 
Early on, I was having difficulties with rhythm guitar. Strumming a bunch of strings really creates a lot of noise when you let them ring into the next chord. I wasn't getting anywhere trying to fix that in the mix. Then, after listening closer to commercially produced tunes, I found that a lot of the problem was my left hand (fretting) technique - sloppy. Once I refined my fretting skills a bit the rhythm guitars came through much more well defined, cleaner, without all that extra sonic crap muddling up the space needed by adjacent instruments. This cleanup also helped with my bass guitar tracks - cleaner fretting with my left hand and some strategic damping with both hands. Reverb can muddle it all up again, so I just add enough to remove that sterile sound.
 
Papanate said:
No there isn't any rules like that - when doing a mix its a matter of balance - so what you do on one song might not be the same on another - still it's a good idea not to saturate mixes.
Click to expand...
^^^^^
I concur.
 
I blame the Youtuber intermediates-pretending-to-be-professionals for all of this “rule” stuff.

Stuff like “5 WAYS TO MAKE YOUR MIXES SOUND PRO.”

There are certainly actions you can take more frequently than others but there’s no rules. If something sounds good, it is good.

I think it’s completely silly when I see someone have like 10 plugins on a vocal track. But there’s no rule that says nobody should do that. If that works for them and they believe they’re getting a better sound by doing that, then that’s that. My opinion doesn’t matter.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
If something sounds good, it is good.
Click to expand...
Big discussions on the thoughts of people who say this lately in my circles. Seems people who say this instantly lose every ounce of credibility they once had. Everyone knows it's far from as simple as that otherwise everyone would be doing killer mixes. The comment comes across as condescending even worse, it makes you look like a clueless buffoon.

Then if you look at the thumbs up that people get for saying that and see who it is.... you will notice it is people who are just starting out and don't know any better, or a half ass mixer that probably doesn't even believe in using any EQ because the tracks need to be perfectly recorded before a good mix is possible bro
 
JamEZmusic said:
Big discussions on the thoughts of people who say this lately in my circles. Seems people who say this instantly lose every ounce of credibility they once had. Everyone knows it's far from as simple as that otherwise everyone would be doing killer mixes. The comment comes across as condescending even worse, it makes you look like a clueless buffoon.

Then if you look at the thumbs up that people get for saying that and see who it is.... you will notice it is people who are just starting out and don't know any better, or a half ass mixer that probably doesn't even believe in using any EQ because the tracks need to be perfectly recorded before a good mix is possible bro
Click to expand...
I’m of the opinion that a track SHOULD be recorded as nicely as possible before mixing and should not be “fixed” in post. Anyone who has seen the pros work know they barely do anything because they’re already given amazing tracks to work with.

Of course it’s far more complex than the phrase. And the hard part is honestly GETTING to it sounding good. But once it’s good, it’s fine. Why should someone use EQ when they don’t have to?

It takes an experienced engineer to say “you know what? This doesn’t need my touch. It’s fine just the way it is.”
 
You'll probably hear the phrase (It doesn't matter what it sounds like in solo, it matters what it sounds like in the mix) just as often as (If it sounds good, it is good)
My point being you need to make something sound (not good). So you'll fight your instincts... how (not good) do I make this track? and what of the million different processes do I choose from to make it sound not good so it sounds good?

It's pretty insulting to have somebody who dedicates their life to studying EQ/Compression and mixing in general ask a question that on the outside seems simple but is far from it, to then have some newbie clueless kid (I'm not talking about you, just in general!) come along and say (just use your ears, if it sounds good it is good). That advice has never been helpful, it never will be, it makes everyone look bad and it's damaging to the art.

EQ is needed to fit things together no matter how perfectly you record something. Pro Mixing Engineers are receiving tracks from Pro Recording Engineers and I still see a fair bit of EQ. The better you are as a mixing engineer the less EQ is needed because you'll make small but incredibly powerful moves.
My mind got blown when I realised how powerful a 1db boost at 300 hz could be, De-harshes, adds power, cleans up the subs, gives a ton of space to a vocal and adds volume more than if you were to boost anywhere else. Inexperienced me was cutting a little 3k to deharsh and give space, then cutting some 7k because of ugly piercing freqs, then scooping some ugly mids out then reducing the bass, all when I could have just done a 1db boost at 300.......

So it doesn't mean much to me when I see pros not using many plugins, I've learned the hard way how a small but simple move can radically alter things all the way down the line. All of their processing is done with a strong purpose and they are good enough to know when something is not needed because they understand the frequencies on an intimate level. I'm getting impatient on waiting for Kush's new video on this. He gets it! He's really helping us all out here.

It's not a dig, I'm just forewarning people that when you start dishing out that kind of advice you're gonna lose work, respect and credibility very rapidly. Especially these days.
 
Well, I’ve only gotten more work, not less, so I don’t know what you want me to say? ??‍♂️

Making suggestions are just that. “Suggestions.” It’s not a RULE, which is the word OP used.

You can suggest things all day long and it may not be applicable at all to a track OP has.

So I’ll make a straw man, too.

It goes like this: are you just going to put every plugin on a track looking for an improvement and keep turning knobs—chasing for that extra 1%?

That’s a complete waste of time and money from clients. Meanwhile, I’ve moved on to the next project.
 
I'm only talking about the advice (If it sounds good, it is good). Of course there are no rules.

I don't care about the 1%. Once a mix translates to every speaker. I'm done. This is my number 1 priority at all times. I'd rather listen to a bad mix with a good song idea (as long as it translates) The lo-fi quality can be pretty desireable actually. This is also something that can make us engineers question our own abilities, almost all pro's out there have had their polished mix that they have worked so hard on rejected in favour of the demo!

So..... translateability is all I care about
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top