Several mixing questions

P

paperhatrecords

New member
I'm self-producing my own music and I have several question regarding how I can get the best mix on my music. The music I make is very dense and layered, lots of vocal harmonies, varied instruments and polyrhythms, kind of weird and experimental art-pop. My gear is rather "budget" - I use a Tascam Portastudio 414 as a mixing board/pre-amp into my computer on which I use Magix Audio Studio 7. I use a pair of SM57s to do most of my micing, and I sometimes plug electric instruments in direct, sometimes mic an amp, depending on the kind of sound I want to get. My speakers and headphones are ok, but they are nowhere near studio quality.

The questions:
1.) Because my mix is often very dense, how can I use equalization to make certain elements have more depth and emphasis (specifically drums and vocals)? They sound very flat compared to other productions I listen to, and I'm not sure if it is the mics, the eq on my four-track or the way I'm mixing on my computer. Or is that something that really comes out in the mastering process? I'm not expecting studio quality, but I would like the final mix to sound a bit less flat.

2.) I recently read a quote from proto-electronic musician and producer Raymond Scott saying that mixes should be done at a level where the sound is barely audible. This is because when you mix at loud volumes, everything blends together, whereas when you mix at low volumes, you can hear what is too loud and what needs to come up. I usually mix at loud volumes (too loud probably), because I can't hear all the elements at low volumes. Is Scott correct - at what volume do professionals mix at generally? (Perhaps that could solve my problems in question 1).

3.) When mixing, is it better to fine tune each element's equalization until it sounds perfect and forgo a final eq, or is a final eq a better approach to finishing the mix as each element's eq would invariably be altered by a change in the final eq anyway?

4.) I really hate that I have to use digital recording in order to build the production that I want, but I was wondering if sending the whole final mix down to my Portastudio, and then sending it back to the computer would get a significantly noticable analog feel? Should it be re-eq'd digitally if I were to do this?

Thanks in advance for your answers.
 
paperhatrecords said:
I'm self-producing my own music and I have several question regarding how I can get the best mix on my music. The music I make is very dense and layered, lots of vocal harmonies, varied instruments and polyrhythms, kind of weird and experimental art-pop. My gear is rather "budget" - I use a Tascam Portastudio 414 as a mixing board/pre-amp into my computer on which I use Magix Audio Studio 7. I use a pair of SM57s to do most of my micing, and I sometimes plug electric instruments in direct, sometimes mic an amp, depending on the kind of sound I want to get. My speakers and headphones are ok, but they are nowhere near studio quality.

The questions:
1.) Because my mix is often very dense, how can I use equalization to make certain elements have more depth and emphasis (specifically drums and vocals)? They sound very flat compared to other productions I listen to, and I'm not sure if it is the mics, the eq on my four-track or the way I'm mixing on my computer. Or is that something that really comes out in the mastering process? I'm not expecting studio quality, but I would like the final mix to sound a bit less flat.

2.) I recently read a quote from proto-electronic musician and producer Raymond Scott saying that mixes should be done at a level where the sound is barely audible. This is because when you mix at loud volumes, everything blends together, whereas when you mix at low volumes, you can hear what is too loud and what needs to come up. I usually mix at loud volumes (too loud probably), because I can't hear all the elements at low volumes. Is Scott correct - at what volume do professionals mix at generally? (Perhaps that could solve my problems in question 1).

3.) When mixing, is it better to fine tune each element's equalization until it sounds perfect and forgo a final eq, or is a final eq a better approach to finishing the mix as each element's eq would invariably be altered by a change in the final eq anyway?

4.) I really hate that I have to use digital recording in order to build the production that I want, but I was wondering if sending the whole final mix down to my Portastudio, and then sending it back to the computer would get a significantly noticable analog feel? Should it be re-eq'd digitally if I were to do this?

Thanks in advance for your answers.
Click to expand...


1, 2 and 3.) A quick primer on mixing: different instruments/vocals "live" in different frequency ranges. Getting them to coexist is an art and a science.

True, changes you make on different tracks are interrelated. So people go back and forth between individual tracks and the whole mix.

Pros mix at all volumes, on several different playback systems, and attempt to achieve a mix that is good->great on all of them.
 
2,
I mix at very low volumes - and I do not trust my ears for the low volume: I have a SPL meter, what I use to check those low volumes. I use often 65-75 dB SPL.
trif.
 
Last edited:
paperhatrecords said:
2.) I recently read a quote from proto-electronic musician and producer Raymond Scott saying that mixes should be done at a level where the sound is barely audible. This is because when you mix at loud volumes, everything blends together, whereas when you mix at low volumes, you can hear what is too loud and what needs to come up. I usually mix at loud volumes (too loud probably), because I can't hear all the elements at low volumes. Is Scott correct - at what volume do professionals mix at generally? (Perhaps that could solve my problems in question 1).

3.) When mixing, is it better to fine tune each element's equalization until it sounds perfect and forgo a final eq, or is a final eq a better approach to finishing the mix as each element's eq would invariably be altered by a change in the final eq anyway?
Click to expand...

As to 2.) I don't know who Raymond Scott is, but that's not good advice. If you mix at very low levels, you will not be able to hear bass frequencies and your natural tendency will be to turn up the bass in your mixes, and the overcompensation will make your mixes very bass heavy when you turn the volume up.

I recommend mixing at a fairly loud level, especially at the beginning, and then adjusting your volume levels throughout the mixing process to give your ears some rest and help you catch frequency differences.

As to 3.) Your goal should be to record tracks that sound good enough so that the song mixes itself, with no eq. While true, this may not always be the case, it's something to keep in mind: if your board has a bunch of eq adjustments, then you didn't track very well, and your mix will suffer.

However, you are still fairly new to the whole process and you probably tracked as best you could with what you know and what gear you have, so keep that in mind for the next time.

For your current situation, you should NEVER eq an instrument on its own. Any and all adjustments during mixing (and recording), should be done in the context of a mix. Instruments by themselves sound like complete shit on their own, but sound fantastic within the context of the mix.

Also, if an instrument needs, say, more treble, then consider cutting the lows and mids before boosting the treble. Boosting raises the overall level of your instrument and will increase the noise level in your mix.
 
I think you're misinterpreting his advice. He surely means you should mix loud first... then (after you've allowed your ears to rest) turn things down and see how it sounds.. it's an interesting approach, but I wouldn't make it a staple of every mix.. mostly useful as a quick reference.
 
paperhatrecords said:
1.) Because my mix is often very dense, how can I use equalization to make certain elements have more depth and emphasis (specifically drums and vocals)? They sound very flat compared to other productions I listen to, and I'm not sure if it is the mics, the eq on my four-track or the way I'm mixing on my computer. Or is that something that really comes out in the mastering process? I'm not expecting studio quality, but I would like the final mix to sound a bit less flat.
Click to expand...
General rule number one: Do not wait until mixing to fix what can be fixed in tracking, and do not wait until mastering to fix what can be fixed in mixing. With that in mind, the first step is to try to get your tracking to sound as good and clean as well as as close to what you really want as possible. Of course you're going to have to EQ in mixing no matter what, but attempting to keep the EQing that is needed to a minimum is always a good idea.

Try to do this with as little of the 414's EQ as possible. The Portastudios are not bad machines, but they do have a distinctive-sounding EQ if when they are overused. By that I mean that there is a paradox in some inexpensive EQ, especially those found in encono-mixer channel strips: that while they are working to change the fundamental sounds of the signal going thorugh them, they at the same time have a tendancy to also add their own particular "timbre" or flavor to the overall sound. It may not be noticed on one or two tracks, but when you start adding layers of EQ together, the piling on of EQd signals can cause a build op of that flavor which results in a muddiness or "samenees" that can flatten the mix.

So use the on-board EQ sparangly during tracking. Use it when you have to, of course, but otherwise save your EQuing for either a higher-quality outboard EQ or for mixing. And even more, reduce the amount of the EQing necessary by setting up your instruments for tracking with the best of care. if you're coming in direct, setting the right tone at the source. If you are miking, it's setting the right tone and using the best miking technique. Don't just stick a mic up to the amp, but listen closely and find just the right square inch of amp in which to stick the mic for the best sound.

And finally, get something other than a 57 in there. The 57s are fine mics, but when you use the same mic for everything - again, especially with doing heavy track layering - it's just like I explained with the EQ, but even more so. Everything starts sounding like one bug SM57 instead of having a sharp and distinct character. Borrow another mic from a friend, rent one from a theatre supply house or save up and buy one. Just add some variety to your mic selection.

paperhatrecords said:
2.) I recently read a quote from proto-electronic musician and producer Raymond Scott saying that mixes should be done at a level where the sound is barely audible. This is because when you mix at loud volumes, everything blends together, whereas when you mix at low volumes, you can hear what is too loud and what needs to come up. I usually mix at loud volumes (too loud probably), because I can't hear all the elements at low volumes. Is Scott correct - at what volume do professionals mix at generally? (Perhaps that could solve my problems in question 1).
Click to expand...
There is a trade off. The louder the volume, the less dynamic range one can hear. That's what he was talking about. On the other hand, at low volumes, the human hear doesn't hear all frequencies evenly, so low volumes are lousy for working EQ, for example.

This is why good mixing engineers do both.

Typically the cliche answer is to det your monitoring levels at 80-85dBSPL to get the bestfrequency response. But that can get fatiguing at that level after a while, so that volume is not recommended to be set in stone all the time. Start there do most of your main mixing there, but don't be afraid to turn it down and check there as well. It all works together.

paperhatrecords said:
3.) When mixing, is it better to fine tune each element's equalization until it sounds perfect and forgo a final eq, or is a final eq a better approach to finishing the mix as each element's eq would invariably be altered by a change in the final eq anyway?
Click to expand...
The best answer is in between those two. You want to het each individual track sounding right, BUT sounding right as a piece of the puzzle that has to fit in with the other pieces, not as a solo track that sounds perfect on it's own. Often what sounds right when soloed is not what sounds right when mixed with other tracks. The use of tongue-and-groove EQing, parametric sweep EQing and such to both sweeten the individual tracks and to simultneously fit them together well in the mix should be 90% of your EQ heavy lifting. Any EQing done to the stereo mixdown should usually be for polishing and fine-tuning only.

paperhatrecords said:
4.) I really hate that I have to use digital recording in order to build the production that I want, but I was wondering if sending the whole final mix down to my Portastudio, and then sending it back to the computer would get a significantly noticable analog feel? Should it be re-eq'd digitally if I were to do this?
Click to expand...
The problem that you'll run into real quickly when doing a lot of bouncing inside or to/from the Portastudio is that you'e going to get build-up of tape hiss very quickly. Sure there are plug-ins on the digital side that can help combat that, but it's extra work and extra processing that will keep taking you another step away from "pristine". Add to that it sounds like you are using off-the-rack converters between the analog world and the digital one, and I'd recommend pretty much leaving stuff on the digital side once you get it there. If you want to add "analog sound" like tape saturation or overdriven tubes and such, there are plugins that'll do that. They may not be as good as "the real thing", but it beats buildup of generational tape his combined with multiple conversions through inexpensive converters. And besides, it's not like the Portastudio exactly has the "classic analog sound" of a 2" Studer, a Rupert Neve channel strip or a Manley preamp. Great analog sounds great. Not all analog is great analog.

HTH,

G.
 
Thank you all for your advice - it was very helpful.

One of SouthSIDE Glen's answers brought about two more questions - if I am using the Portastudio as a mixing board, will setting the hi and lo eqs to the middle be using "as little of the 414's eq as possible? SM57s tend to be a bit bassier than the other mics that I use - is no pre-eq recommended for everything, including vocals, which sound unnaturally bassy at such a setting?

Thanks again!
 
paperhatrecords said:
I'm self-producing my own music and I have several question regarding how I can get the best mix on my music. The music I make is very dense and layered, lots of vocal harmonies, varied instruments and polyrhythms, kind of weird and experimental art-pop. My gear is rather "budget" - I use a Tascam Portastudio 414 as a mixing board/pre-amp into my computer on which I use Magix Audio Studio 7. I use a pair of SM57s to do most of my micing, and I sometimes plug electric instruments in direct, sometimes mic an amp, depending on the kind of sound I want to get. My speakers and headphones are ok, but they are nowhere near studio quality.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'd have to say, personally, that you have a few obstacles in your path to mixing greatness.

First off, the stuff you're doing is complex and layered, which would invariably create some challenges ... even to someone with a lot of experience. Add to this the fact that you're working with some limitations in the quality of your recording and mixing setup. Your monitors likely aren't giving you a fully accurate picture of what your mix "really" sounds like (You're probably finding that you might get you think is a decent mixdown, only to have it fall apart when you listen to it on other systems; i.e. car stereo or a friends' stereo, etc.)


1.) Because my mix is often very dense, how can I use equalization to make certain elements have more depth and emphasis (specifically drums and vocals)? They sound very flat compared to other productions I listen to...
Click to expand...

That's a really tough one to answer. It's a very common problem, and something that most of us have to wrestle with ... especially those of us who use a lot of layers in their mixes. You'll hear this one used pretty often, as well: But possibly the best tool you can use in this sort of mix is the mute button. If a track is competing with other elements in a mix, then it might be time to ask yourself whether it's truly necessary.

You might also just need to look at your mixing a little differently. Imagine your mix as if it existed in a vessel. The vessel is only so large, and the amount of space is limited. So you need to force yourself to be economical about how much "space" each track occupies in that vessel. If a given track is up unusually loud in a mix ... yet it's still not holding it's own against the other tracks or just never quite "pokes through," ... then you can be sure that it's occupying a lot of wasted real estate in that vessel.

The secret to avoiding cluttered mixes -- or those where the individual elements just aren't quite holding their own or occupying their space -- is to avoid it in the first place. And this goes back to the tracking phase. When you're tracking that guitar part or adding that extra keyboard part ... you have to listen. And I mean really listen to how that new track you are adding interacts with everything else. It really adding to the mix? Can you decipher it on it's own, yet still hear all of the elements of the mix just as well as you did before you added it?

If not, then you need to get comfortable with tweaking your sound, on the spot, and "fitting it in" right then and there ... before you even hit record. This means playing with the tone controls on your guitar or your amp. This means moving the microphones around until you can hear it "snapping in to focus." This could also mean swapping out the guitar or amp for a different one entirely. This could even mean moving in to another room entirely. Whatever it takes ... just try and get it right at the source. You do that, and your job come mixdown time will be infinitely easier.

... I'm not sure if it is the mics, the eq on my four-track or the way I'm mixing on my computer. Or is that something that really comes out in the mastering process?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there really is no specific answer to that question. It could be any and/or all of the factors you mention. Or it could be a combination of several ... or even something else entirely that you might not be aware of. Yet. Unfortunately, getting better-sounding mixes means becoming a better tracking and mixing engineer.

I will repeat this, again, because I think it's important. Getting better-sounding mixes cannot happen without first becoming a better tracking engineer and mixing engineer. This is not an easy task, but the good news is that the reverse also applies. Once you become a better tracking and mixing engineer, then your mixes will improve. And becoming a better tracking and mixing engineer means putting in a lot of practice and experimentation. It's just like learning to play a new instrument.

As for the mastering thing ... don't look at it as a fix-all. Mastering isn't a lot difference from a wax or polishing job. You start with something that's good already, and the mastering just adds that last bit of polish / spit shine. On the other hand, if you start out with a turd ... then, in the end, you simply wind up with a shiny turd. The whole concept of "turd polishing" is something you'll see brought up a lot around discussion boards like this one.

2.) I recently read a quote from proto-electronic musician and producer Raymond Scott saying that mixes should be done at a level where the sound is barely audible.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things people say in magazines that I think are kind of questionable. This one being one of them.

You should mix at a level that you feel comfortable with. And then you should check it at all possible volumes to hear how it holds up. Mix comfortable ... then check it loud, check it soft, and check it everywhere in between and see what happens.

3.) When mixing, is it better to fine tune each element's equalization until it sounds perfect and forgo a final eq, or is a final eq a better approach to finishing the mix as each element's eq would invariably be altered by a change in the final eq anyway?
Click to expand...

There's no hard and fast answer to that one. But for the most part, you should strive to get a mix where everything's EQ and tone sound right relative to all the other tracks. Don't worry about tweaking the final mix until later. Get everything to sound good and balanced relative to everything else.

Then sit down with your final mix, and tweak with it and get it to sound good relative to other mixes that you think sound good.

4.)I was wondering if sending the whole final mix down to my Portastudio, and then sending it back to the computer would get a significantly noticable analog feel?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't advise it.

Degrading your audio by going through two more generations of A/D conversion and then another generational loss of going through a cheap portastudio ... not a good idea. Once it's in the box, then keep it in the box for now. Wait on the other stuff until you get a better grasp of this stuff, and until you get some better equipment to work with.
.
 
Thanks guys for an interesting and informative thread. I'd like to ask a related question. A long time ago an engineer said that he checks his mix by turning it down till the last thing he can hear is the vocal, then up a touch till the drums become audible. He said that this was the best way for him to get those two critical elements into balance. Any comments????
Thanks

chazba
 
After doing this long enough, everyone develops ways of doing things. Tricks, techniques, etc. Sounds like he stumbled on one. Cool for him.
.
 
I'll admit that I only quickly skinmmed through all of the above responses, which seem to have a lot of excellent advice.

I may have missed it, but I'm not sure anyone has mentioned the importance of panning in clarifying a dense mix, which can be every bit as important as EQ. By seperating elements into unique positions on a virtual stage, it can clean things up quite a bit. You may also want to limit reverb to just a few key elements and leave other things dry.
 
1.) Well are you sending your mixes to a mastering engineer? Keep in mind that mastering engineers exist because their jobs are very important. I've heard Bob Clearmountain mixes pre mastered, and they sound very different. If you aren't happy with the high end in your mixes, maybe you should do some quasi-mastering to your mixes after they are done. A little bit of limiting, and small amounts of eq to get them where you want.

2.) Everyone has thier own way of mixing. No one was is right. I tend to start off at a medium volume, refrencing down every now and then. When i feel I'm close to getting it, I'll bring the volume pretty down, do a pass and listen back.

3.) Listen in context. Don't solo everything until it sounds great, then throw them all together. Put everything up and see what is getting in the way of what. Then fine tune the things that need it.

4.) It will definately change the sound. Many mixing engineers in the digital domain mix down to analog, though I doubt many use cassete tapes. I think it would make it sound a bit duller, but who knows, that could be what you're looking for.

In the end, you should develop your own style. Listen to things you like, then try to recreate them.
 
paperhatrecords said:
One of SouthSIDE Glen's answers brought about two more questions - if I am using the Portastudio as a mixing board, will setting the hi and lo eqs to the middle be using "as little of the 414's eq as possible?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I meant my that. While on a smaller device like the 414 center position probably does not engage a true bypass of the EQ cricuit, it is sending the signal through as unmodified as it can, and therefore as uncolored as it can.

I don't want to give you the impression that you *can't" use the 414s EQs. Use them when you really need to use them. All I'm recommending is that you don't lean on them for the lion's share of your sound shaping because the more you use them on multiple layers of tracks, the more their "color" will add up and become noticable as a definitive "flattening" of your sound, which is something you were concerned about.

Note, however, that this is far more true in EQ boosting than it is in EQ cutting. If you're using the EQs to cut frequencies, they will still color. but often noticibly less so than when using EQ to boost.

paperhatrecords said:
SM57s tend to be a bit bassier than the other mics that I use - is no pre-eq recommended for everything, including vocals, which sound unnaturally bassy at such a setting?
Click to expand...
Any recommendations here are very general, there are no rules chiseled in marble. However, in general one should not have to regularly compensate for a mic type. If a mic tends to be too bassy or too something else, it's usually either because it's simply not the best microphone in the world for that particular application, or because the mic isn't being placed properly or optimally relative to the instrument.

In you case of vocals, if the vocalist os right up on the microhone. kips toughing or practically touching, you be getting definite prokimity effet bass boost. Having the vocalist back offf the mic can reduce the bass.

If that's not the issue, but you just think the 57s are to bassy in general, swithc to other mics if you can, of course. If that is not a option, then choose your EQ wisely. As mentioned above, if you are EQing to cut frequencies (in this case bass), you may be able to get away with it more.

But rememer two things here (again and as always, in general), the less signal processing you do during tracking, the cleaner the slate you're starting out with in mixing, and, there are many, many EQ plugins (often times free) that you can use during mixing that supply more variety in coloration and just plain sound better than the EQ sections inthe 414.

Think of this example: If you have, let's say, 3 vocal tracks all recorded with 57s and all needing their own EQ tweaking for whatever reason, you could always use the 414s EQ during tracking on one of the tracks, leaving the other two au natural EQ-wise. Then in mixing EQ the second one with, say, Kjaerhus' Classic EQ plugin (free from Kjaerhus) and one with, say Voxengo's EssEQ plug (also free, from Voxengo). Now you'll have all three tracks optimally EQ'd and each having their own "character" because no similar coloration was added in the processing to compound the similar coloration of using the same mics.

As far as which EQ to use for which track, that takes a little playing around with the different EQs at first an learning what each one's strengths and weaknesses seem to be. Fo example, I prefer the Kjaerhus for stronger sound shaping and the Voxengo more for fine polishing of a sound, rather like different grits of sandpaper. Your mileage may vary, though, whatever you like. But the main point is that you're cutting down on the buildup of sameness that can easily happen when layering tracks fairly deeply.

G.
 
Another important point is that the arrangement has a HUGE effect on the mix, in fact, part of a great mix is the arrangement itself.

So, I think it is a mistake to think of the mix as seperate from the arrangement - in order to get a coherence, clear mix it may in fact often be necessary to remove certain instruments/parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top