Question on Mixing Heavy Rhythms and the stereo spectrum

Hello all! I had been a member a long time ago, and finally joined back.
I wanted to know what you guys listen for, what you do, and what you use in order to create open sounding mixes where your rhythm guitars sound like they're pushed far out to the sides and the center of the spectrum left clear for kick, snare, and bass to punch right through in near perfect isolation. You can check my mix tests on the link in my signature.
I currently use an AxeFx II for guitars and bass into Cubase. On the more recent mixes I use two different rhythm tones hard panned Left and right. I High and Low pass guitars, with minor eq cuts around 3.5kH, maybe 800ish Hz and 250ish Hz to sit better in the mix. Multiband compress the low end so the palm mutes don't trigger my buss compressor when necessary. Rhythm bus goes into Slate VTM. I monitor through Adam A7x's in a completely untreated bedroom :(

So, let's share some tips and tricks and get these mixes to open up wide! I don't like that I can't get the guitars out wide, but maybe I need to look somewhere else.

All comments appreciated.

Thanks!

Carlos.

I just listened to your latest clip "Re-tweaked WIP Riff", I listened to some of your clips and among those I listened to, this clip was by far the clip I found to be of the highest quality, but considering that an AXE FX was used, this was not bad at all.

I did find issues, things like the drums being a little too quiet, the center and stereo image being a bit muddy, the bass guitar being a bit unclear, the guitars on the side being a bit harsh, slightly too loud and a bit too similar, the other guitar in the center too quiet and a few things around the use of compression contributing to some issues with transients and clearity (which also comes from the AXE FX) in regards to the overall sound. In order to improve things from here, if you can you should look into replacing that AXE FX with a really high end real non-virtual solution and try out the stereo miking approach I suggested. That will make the guitars more clear and provide some added clearity and vibe to the mix.

I also find you should look into the use of compression * EQ combo, the sound sources are now gliding into each other in the stereo image, causing center mud. (look into how you distribute the frequency density across the stereo field with your compressors, EQs and volume faders) In this last demo I found the SIDE to be a little too dense, just lowering the release time on the compressor a little and lowering the volume on the rhythm guitar a little should fix some of that - the guitar in the middle will cut through a little more and the drums and bass will also start cutting through some more. I also found that you should push the mix a little harder to add some detail, I'm not sure what kind of monitoring solution you have but with a good monitoring solution this should definitely clear things up even more. Another thing I found was your use of reverb, which I thought was too wet overall (especially on the drums), which usually contributes to these kinds of issues also.

illimmigrant, I think that you have come a long way with your sound, it's mostly a number of little bits and pieces that together cause a number of issues. If you try some of the techniques I've posted in this thread, you will very easily penetrate these without even addressing those issues the way I pointed out, in this post I just kind of explained some symptoms and some causes.

BTW. If you decide to stick to the AXE FX (which I find you should think carefully through also because it limits the project to 48 kHz sample rate), look into its routing capabilities some more. You can change the signal path on each speaker. I'm not sure if you are familiar to the attack features of it, but that's really great, so use that as much as possible to your advantage. Please note that, in this case you probably want loud clear powerful rhythm guitars on the side hence that's how you balance, but because the AXE FX is distorted in its timbre, then with the amount of signal you assign it is going to color the whole mix as somewhat unclear. In your case you reduced the high end of it and I think that's good it then goes from harsh to muddy, but at that point I do find that if you stick to the AXE FX, you should also not give it much enough signal to color the mix as a whole as somewhat muddy. So this is a scenario where you kind of need to re-consider the kind of sound/priority you are going for with those fat guitars on the side due to their quality, in order not to lose ceretain qualities about the mix as a whole. When this is the case, that's something you might decide is either OK and then you balance accordingly in mixing or you decide it is not OK and then you fix it in the recording, it all depends on what your goals are and what you feel you are able to achieve with what you have to work with in mixing.
 
Last edited:
I just listened to your latest clip "Re-tweaked WIP Riff", I listened to some of your clips and among those I listened to, this clip was by far the clip I found to be of the highest quality, but considering that an AXE FX was used, this was not bad at all. I did find issues, things like the drums being a little too quiet, the center and stereo image being a bit muddy, the bass guitar being a bit unclear, the guitars on the side being a bit harsh, slightly too loud and a bit too similar, the other guitar in the center too quiet and a few things around the use of compression contributing to some issues with transients and clearity (which also comes from the AXE FX) in regards to the overall sound. In order to improve things from here, if you can you should look into replacing that AXE FX with a really high end real non-virtual solution and try out the stereo miking approach I suggested. That will make the guitars more clear and provide some added clearity and vibe to the mix. I also find you should look into the use of compression * EQ combo, the sound sources are now gliding into each other in the stereo image, causing center mud. (look into how you distribute the frequency density across the stereo field with your compressors, EQs and volume faders) In this last demo I found the SIDE to be a little too dense, just lowering the release time on the compressor a little and lowering the volume on the rhythm guitar a little should fix some of that - the guitar in the middle will cut through a little more and the drums and bass will also start cutting through some more. I also found that you should push the mix a little harder to add some detail, I'm not sure what kind of monitoring solution you have but with a good monitoring solution this should definitely clear things up even more. Another thing I found was your use of reverb, which I thought was too wet, which usually contributes to these kinds of issues also.

illimmigrant, I think that you have come a long way with your sound, it's mostly a number of little bits and pieces that together cause a number of issues. If you try some of the techniques I've posted in this thread, you will very easily penetrate these without even addressing those issues the way I pointed out, in this post I just kind of explained some symptoms and some causes.

You seem to be talking in your own unique language man.

Please, please, try to make things more clear as to what you are talking about.

Your suggestions are so vague that I can't understand what you are talking about. Sorry man, but it just is not making sense to me.

Maybe I am stupid. Enlighten me please. :)
 
Music Water,
You wrote:
"...the clip I found to be of the highest quality, but considering that an AXE FX was used, this was not bad at all."
It is a good example of your confused written expression.
"...look into replacing that AXE FX with a really high end real non-virtual solution and try out the stereo miking approach I suggested."
This part points back to Greg' postion of getting it right at the recording stage doesn't it?
"...push the mix a little harder to add some detail..."
What? You'll really have to try to make sense of this for me.

From "...not bad at all..." to "...I did find issues..." you pointed out at least 10 problems all of which could be solved by your individual repair suggestions or by following your key lesson/processing - something we've not heard in action mind - you've come across like the archetypal TV ad life coach or Bob Clearmountain. I'm not sending my credit card details until "the special offer for the viewers" is disclosed.
I do hope it's a set of steak knives, I do need some after the lifetime guarantee of the last set ran out.
 
Last edited:
You seem to be talking in your own unique language man.

Please, please, try to make things more clear as to what you are talking about.

Your suggestions are so vague that I can't understand what you are talking about. Sorry man, but it just is not making sense to me.

Maybe I am stupid. Enlighten me please. :)

I'll try. :cool: In the last post I was talking about a lot of small issues with OP's mix, the product of those is why OP look for added qualities in regards to the guitar and the center. In reality what happens is that a product of various issues cause this mix quality and I'm trying to partly point out why those issues are there but instead of just looking at those issues I also go beyond those and try to provide him a different mixing model that addresses these kinds of things automatically for him so that he can focus beyond those classic issues and reach the next level of mix quality and much more.

So essentially I try to, as quickly as possible, move his focus towards where the real potential is... :guitar:
 
I'll try. :cool: In the last post I was talking about a lot of small issues with OP's mix, the product of those is why OP look for added qualities in regards to the guitar and the center. In reality what happens is that a product of various issues cause this mix quality and I'm trying to partly point out why those issues are there but instead of just looking at those issues I also go beyond those and try to provide him a different mixing model that address these kinds of things automatically for him so that he can focus beyond those classic issues and reach the next level of mix quality and much more.

So essentially I try to, as quickly as possible, move his focus towards where the real potential is... :guitar:

Oh my. Can you please be more vague?

Is English your native language? I feel there must be something lost in translation here because you seem to never give an exact direction. Your words seem to be genuine, but you have not yet explained or given definitive points for anyone to understand.

I do not mean to judge you, but you have not yet said anything that makes sense to me.


Again, please-Please clarify what the hell you mean. :)
 
I'll try. :cool: In the last post I was talking about a lot of small issues with OP's mix, the product of those is why OP look for added qualities in regards to the guitar and the center. In reality what happens is that a product of various issues cause this mix quality and I'm trying to partly point out why those issues are there but instead of just looking at those issues I also go beyond those and try to provide him a different mixing model that address these kinds of things automatically for him so that he can focus beyond those classic issues and reach the next level of mix quality and much more.

So essentially I try to, as quickly as possible, move his focus towards where the real potential is... :guitar:

Complete bullshit IMO.

Either give straight up response or go away. This is friggen stupid BS...

I call. Troll?
 
Oh my. Can you please be more vague?

Is English your native language? I feel there must be something lost in translation here because you seem to never give an exact direction. Your words seem to be genuine, but you have not yet explained or given definitive points for anyone to understand.

I do not mean to judge you, but you have not yet said anything that makes sense to me.

Again, please-Please clarify what the hell you mean. :)

I just pointed out what I meant, it was good enough English too.
 
I just pointed out what I meant, it was good enough English too.

I am done with this.

Obviously it was not as you have not explained yourself.

What is so hard for you to explain yourself? Can I repeat one more time? Could you please EXPLAIN YOURSELF?
 
OK, help him better then.

Please, do not get me wrong. I am likely the most willing to help those new to recording on this site. The OP had relevant questions.

The thing I find confusing is that each suggestion you have given either leaves more questions, or just made no real sense.

I only ask that you clarify what you are saying.


Last time I will ask. Do it or I just give up trying.

Maybe I am just a grouchy old man who doesn't understand indirect philosophy... It is possible.
 
Last edited:

No problems. The great thing about these videos also is how they let you think like Dave, you get a lot of value just from that, because achieving a great sounding mix is a lot about approaching-, analyzing- and thinking of the mix in a certain way. It's an awful lot of analyzing and I find that part very exciting about mixing! Essentially it's about paying attention. ;)
 
Sorry MW,
you're unable to back up your assertions with any evidence and you can't make your assertion
in clear, understandable language so I can only call your bluff.
You must be a troll or, worse, deluded.
 
Please, do not get me wrong. I am likely the most willing to help those new to recording on this site. The OP had relevant questions.

The thing I find confusing is that each suggestion you have given either leaves more questions, or just made no real sense.

I only ask that you clarify what you are saying.

Last time I will ask. Do it or I just give up trying.

Maybe I am just a grouchy old man who doesn't understand indirect philosophy... It is possible.

Hmm. It might be that a point by point explanation can add some of the clearity that you feel is not there. I'll try to extract a few of my points and hopefully be able to anchor this in something that makes some sense from your point of view, because this is not something I want to make sense only from my point of view, the reason I'm sharing is really to spread that insight so that you might also find that it makes sense and why it does so, hence maybe give it a try or at least a chance as something that can have a positive impact on mixes.

So, for instance, I mentioned that the Axe FX contributes with lack of clearity (among other things). Now, that is due to multiple things, but I'm going to cover a few aspects of it. The first one is that the timbre compared to the real thing is damaged by the digitization- and fx processing when running the signal through it, which basically reduces all nice qualities about the sound source (relative to the real thing) and its impact on the mix. The other thing is that the Axe FX specifically, cannot be configured to run at any other sample rate than 48 kHz, which means it puts a sample rate limitation on the whole project down to 48 kHz, you can do various workarounds, but it puts a clear limitation on your platform, your sound and your workflow. Now, what that limitation means, is what you make of it (I'll describe why later), but in the context of the issues that OP is having, it's definitely essential, but it's also essential in general, at least if you ask audiophiles like me.

Now, the reason why the Axe FX issue might seem to be a minor issue, but is not especially in this case, is due to this:

Each sound source's all frequencies bring about a set of qualities to the mix as a whole, these are found in the timbre of each sound source, the product of how the signal was created/captured and processed (and also of course a natural property of the sound source). The less mix signal you assign to it, the less dominant those set of qualities will be on the mix as a whole. In this case, OP is doing rock/metal mixes where one of the qualities is to have big/fat guitars that also contribute to a high quality stereo image. That is not possible to achieve without assigning a certain amount of mix signal to it, in fact quite a lot of mix signal. Now, going back to what I explained that each sound source brings about a set of qualities to the mix, these are however not in equal "doses" relative to each other, the doses are sitting on a logarithmic scale, because the underlying Voltage RMS is logarithmic. In other words, the more dominant you make a sound source in the mix, the more dominant all its qualities will be on the mix as a whole, cumulatively more dominant the more of the mix signal it consumes. That's an aha-moment, why, because it is something that is not commonly understood like that, it's understood to be something linear, but it's not. For this reason, it is important to understand what qualities each sound source brings to the table, because even small undesired qualities related to individual sound sources can become very dominant on the mix as a whole.

What happens is that when OP adds the signal he/she wants in order to create that big rhythm guitar section and big mix sound, its negative qualities are brought with it, of course not entirely "blamed" on the natural limitations of the device but also due to how it has been setup and recorded. For instance you can record two separate guitar sounds on each channel that you hard pan L or R, or you can record a significantly inefficient stereo signal and then give it too much signal as well. It's all going to add up to the issues OP is facing.

For this reason, as soon as you have any issues related to any mix, it's important to look at what the product is consisting of.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. It might be that a point by point explanation can add some of the clearity that you feel is not there. I'll try to extract a few of my points and hopefully be able to anchor this in something that makes some sense from your point of view, because this is not something I want to make sense only from my point of view, the reason I'm sharing is really to spread that insight so that you might also find that it makes sense and why it does so, hence maybe give it a try or at least a chance as something that can have a positive impact on mixes.

So, for instance, I mentioned that the Axe FX contributes with lack of clearity (among other things). Now, that is due to multiple things, but I'm going to cover a few aspects of it. The first one is that the timbre compared to the real thing is damaged by the digitization- and fx processing when running the signal through it, which basically reduces all nice qualities about the sound source (relative to the real thing) and its impact on the mix. The other thing is that the Axe FX specifically, cannot be configured to run at any other sample rate than 48 kHz, which means it puts a sample rate limitation on the whole project down to 48 kHz, you can do various workarounds, but it puts a clear limitation on your platform, your sound and your workflow. Now, what that limitation means, is what you make of it (I'll describe why later), but in the context of the issues that OP is having, it's definitely essential, but it's also essential in general, at least if you ask audiophiles like me.

Now, the reason why the Axe FX issue might seem to be a minor issue, but is not especially in this case, is due to this:

Each sound source's all frequencies bring about a set of qualities to the mix as a whole, these are found in the timbre of each sound source, the product of how the signal was created/captured and processed (and also of course a natural property of the sound source). The less mix signal you assign to it, the less dominant those set of qualities will be on the mix as a whole. In this case, OP is doing rock/metal mixes where one of the qualities is to have big/fat guitars that also contribute to a high quality stereo image. That is not possible to achieve without assigning a certain amount of mix signal to it, in fact quite a lot of mix signal. Now, going back to what I explained that each sound source brings about a set of qualities to the mix, these are however not in equal "doses" relative to each other, the doses are sitting on a logarithmic scale, because the underlying Voltage RMS is logarithmic. In other words, the more dominant you make a sound source in the mix, the more dominant all its qualities will be on the mix as a whole, cumulatively more dominant the more of the mix signal it consumes. That's an aha-moment, why, because it is something that is not commonly understood like that, it's understood to be something linear, but it's not. For this reason, it is important to understand what qualities each sound source brings to the table, because even small undesired qualities related to individual sound sources can become very dominant on the mix as a whole.

What happens is that when OP adds the signal he/she wants in order to create that big rhythm guitar section and big mix sound, its negative qualities are brought with it, of course not entirely "blamed" on the natural limitations of the device but also due to how it has been setup and recorded. For instance you can record two separate guitar sounds on each channel that you hard pan L or R, or you can record a significantly inefficient stereo signal and then give it too much signal as well. It's all going to add up to the issues OP is facing.

For this reason, as soon as you have any issues related to any mix, it's important to look at what the product is consisting of.

My head just exploded... I'm done. :)
 
Hmm. It might be that a point by point explanation can add some of the clearity that you feel is not there. I'll try to extract a few of my points and hopefully be able to anchor this in something that makes some sense from your point of view, because this is not something I want to make sense only from my point of view, the reason I'm sharing is really to spread that insight so that you might also find that it makes sense and why it does so, hence maybe give it a try or at least a chance as something that can have a positive impact on mixes.

So, for instance, I mentioned that the Axe FX contributes with lack of clearity (among other things). Now, that is due to multiple things, but I'm going to cover a few aspects of it. The first one is that the timbre compared to the real thing is damaged by the digitization- and fx processing when running the signal through it, which basically reduces all nice qualities about the sound source (relative to the real thing) and its impact on the mix. The other thing is that the Axe FX specifically, cannot be configured to run at any other sample rate than 48 kHz, which means it puts a sample rate limitation on the whole project down to 48 kHz, you can do various workarounds, but it puts a clear limitation on your platform, your sound and your workflow. Now, what that limitation means, is what you make of it (I'll describe why later), but in the context of the issues that OP is having, it's definitely essential, but it's also essential in general, at least if you ask audiophiles like me.

Now, the reason why the Axe FX issue might seem to be a minor issue, but is not especially in this case, is due to this:

Each sound source's all frequencies bring about a set of qualities to the mix as a whole, these are found in the timbre of each sound source, the product of how the signal was created/captured and processed (and also of course a natural property of the sound source). The less mix signal you assign to it, the less dominant those set of qualities will be on the mix as a whole. In this case, OP is doing rock/metal mixes where one of the qualities is to have big/fat guitars that also contribute to a high quality stereo image. That is not possible to achieve without assigning a certain amount of mix signal to it, in fact quite a lot of mix signal. Now, going back to what I explained that each sound source brings about a set of qualities to the mix, these are however not in equal "doses" relative to each other, the doses are sitting on a logarithmic scale, because the underlying Voltage RMS is logarithmic. In other words, the more dominant you make a sound source in the mix, the more dominant all its qualities will be on the mix as a whole, cumulatively more dominant the more of the mix signal it consumes. That's an aha-moment, why, because it is something that is not commonly understood like that, it's understood to be something linear, but it's not. For this reason, it is important to understand what qualities each sound source brings to the table, because even small undesired qualities related to individual sound sources can become very dominant on the mix as a whole.

What happens is that when OP adds the signal he/she wants in order to create that big rhythm guitar section and big mix sound, its negative qualities are brought with it, of course not entirely "blamed" on the natural limitations of the device but also due to how it has been setup and recorded. For instance you can record two separate guitar sounds on each channel that you hard pan L or R, or you can record a significantly inefficient stereo signal and then give it too much signal as well. It's all going to add up to the issues OP is facing.

For this reason, as soon as you have any issues related to any mix, it's important to look at what the product is consisting of.

My head just exploded... I'm done. :)

MW's post kind of reminds me of people doing hospital shows (or any professional occupation) and they are saying lines that they really don't understand.

I mean, MW could be right and I am just too uneducated to understand it. Or he could just be spewing stuff he has no idea of what he is saying. Kind of entertaining is a small way, like a TV drama. ("Quick, he is crashing, do a post operative, ventricle valve by pass and get him prepped STAT!) Kind of like that.
 
Back
Top