Sitting in the Mix-- Big Picture Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scottgman
  • Start date Start date
Scottgman

Scottgman

Legend in Own Mind
Hi all,

I guess this is more of a philosophical question about mixing but I'll certainly accept unsolicited advice about this specific situation... hehe.

I've recording a pretty simple song with two acoustic guitar tracks and a couple vocal tracks. The "main" guitar part is pretty dynamic switching from strumming to picking several times. The second guitar part is really a bass line (playing 2 notes on only the low E) that is played while the "main" part is picking.

When I went to mix this song, I found that the second guitar part (the bass line) was practically absent in the mix and even boosting the level didn't help it "sit" well in the mix.

Having lurked around this board for a month or two, I've learned a little about using an EQ to get certain parts to sit in the mix (did I mention I'm a newbie to home recording?), so I applied some EQ to the second guitar part (bass line). I boosted some of the low frequencies and cut some of the high. The result... I liked it! The second guitar part now fits in the mix much nicer than before. However, when I solo the second guitar part (bass line), it sounds like ass-- very muddy and bassy. So here comes my question...

When mixing, should I even care what an individual track sounds like on it's own (assuming I got the sound I wanted when I tracked it)? The EQ made it fit much better in the mix but made it sound worse on it's own. Does it even matter what an individual track sounds like as long as it sounds good in the mix?

I think I've answered my own questions but I wanted to hear your thoughts/opinions.

Cheers!
 
I've wasted too much time myself messing around with stuff "soloed", only to find I've either made it worse in the overall mix, or that I can't hear the difference.:p

I try to track in the best possible sound to begin with, and tweak as needed.

Sometimes, if you can track and mix at the same time, you can get the picture of what kind of EQ you need to achieve the best mix. I try to do this when I record bass guitar. I can get a bass sound that is killer, but when I play back, it doesn't "sit" right, or it's too bright, boomy whatever. So I try to get the best sound going in, so I need less EQ/compression later.

Yeah, you know the answer already, sometimes it's good to get confirmation though huh?:D
 
maestro_dmc said:
Yeah, you know the answer already, sometimes it's good to get confirmation though huh?:D
Click to expand...

Boy that's the truth! Thanks for the reply.

Sometimes, if you can track and mix at the same time, you can get the picture of what kind of EQ you need to achieve the best mix.
Click to expand...

This leads me to another question. When recording, should I be trying to get a sound that I think will sound better in the mix (that doesn't even exist yet-- sorry not trying to get existential on you) or should I be only concerned with getting a sound that sounds good on it's own?

I'll use the song I mentioned above as an example. When I tracked that second guitar part, should I have planned ahead and mic'd the guitar in a way that would get a more low-end sound? What I actually did was mic it in a way that sounded good on it's own without thinking about the future "mix".

I realize these are probably stupid newbie questions... feel free to flame if neccessary.
 
Here's another thing to try: Instead of boosting the eq on the second guitar, try cutting the eq at the same frequency on the 1st guitar to sort of "dig" the second guitar out from under it. Might end up with less mud.
 
Just make sure that after you pan the guitars, they still work well in mono.
 
Try panning one guitar to 11 o'clock and the other to 1 o'clock. This has worked for me (may not for you, just an idea).
Also, you could try some soft knee compression on the "weak" guitar.
 
Thanks for the replies. I guess I didn't mention enough about the recording. Even though there are only two guitar parts, I have four guitar tracks. I cloned the first guitar part and have both those tracks panned heavily. Then I cloned the second guitar part and panned those tracks only slightly. There are two vocals parts, a main vocal line and then some harmonies. Those are dead center I believe.

Like I said, the final result after applying EQ to the second guitar was a big improvement over no EQ. Although I am a newbie, I'm not sure if this is necessarily a panning issue.

So to rehash my second question, is this something that I should plan for when tracking (assuming I have the foresight to predict this kind of thing)? So in this case, would I want to mic the second guitar part so that I get a more low-end sound to avoid needing EQ in the mix-down? My approach to date has been to mic the guitar so that I like the sound on it's own without worrying about how it might fit in the future mix.
 
Scottgman,
Everyone so far has given you good advise. I would'nt call your questions dumb at all.
Basically you've got the right idea about getting the right sound for the part to fit in mix. Thats half(maybe more) the battle of being musician and the engineer. Keep it up, and try different things, it takes a while. But it always helps to have a idea on how you want it to be. Then you can spend time trying to capture the instruments(and the tune of course) the way you planned instead of wasting time trying to "fix it in the mix".
don't use solo for the puspose to get the sound right, use it to double check nothing is funky with the track.
Keep at it mate, you'll get it

Good luck
T
Scottgman said:
[

This leads me to another question. When recording, should I be trying to get a sound that I think will sound better in the mix (that doesn't even exist yet-- sorry not trying to get existential on you) or should I be only concerned with getting a sound that sounds good on it's own?

I'll use the song I mentioned above as an example. When I tracked that second guitar part, should I have planned ahead and mic'd the guitar in a way that would get a more low-end sound? What I actually did was mic it in a way that sounded good on it's own without thinking about the future "mix".

I realize these are probably stupid newbie questions... feel free to flame if neccessary. [/B]
Click to expand...
 
Tonio said:
Scottgman,
Basically you've got the right idea about getting the right sound for the part to fit in mix. Thats half(maybe more) the battle of being musician and the engineer. Keep it up, and try different things, it takes a while. But it always helps to have a idea on how you want it to be. Then you can spend time trying to capture the instruments(and the tune of course) the way you planned instead of wasting time trying to "fix it in the mix".
Good luck
T
Click to expand...

Thanks Tonio... that puts my mind to ease on this issue. Thanks for all your replies-- I really am loving this board.
 
Yeah, the solo sound doesn't matter. Nodbody's going to hear it anyway, right? I've been told that you should always eq in the mix, not individually. As for the other part, yes. Definitely try to record the best sound possible rather than trying to fix it with eq. The less eq the better. Also, cutting eq is much better than boosting or at least that's the current school of thought. When you boost eq, you are also boosting the noise that exists with the track. And so the opposite is also true. When you cut eq, you cut the noise.
 
True Story . . .

I used to work at a high end restaurant while attending college several years ago.

One of our customer favorites was the House Salad. And rightfully so . . . it was incrediblbe. The senior cooks put together a recipe for the salad dressing (which was mixed together, daily, right there in the kitchen -- no cutting corners), and it was really the tasty dressing that made the salad.

One day, while I was being trained in the salad / desert prep side of things (making my way up in the world, so to speak, at that time :D ), the senior cook was walking me through the steps of putting together their secret recipe for the salad dressing.

I was mentioning how popular it was, and how much I liked it. The senior cook told me it was all in the Anchove paste.

Chessrock: "Anchove paste?"

(I looked over the ingredients, and sure enough, it called for about 1/4 cup of it)

Cook: "Yea, try the Anchove paste. It's really good. Tastes kinda' like peanut butter. Try a great big, heaping spoonful of it."

Needless to say, if it weren't for an amazing feat of stomach control, I probably would have barfed up my entire lunch right there. It was probably about the most disgusting thing I had ever tried . . .

. . . on it's own. :D
 
Sometimes the 'disappearing guitar track'(and we've all experienced this) can be dealt with simply at tracking by using a different guitar...its one reason i have several acoustics around..different flavors..the other reason has to do with a certain gear-sluttiness ....switching to a different mic technique for different tracks helps...gets a different set of frequencies leading the way...Always get the clearest cleanest recording without eq you can get at tracking and it will help at mix..
Dont be afraid to eq at your mix...scoop out a section for that evil guitar track...all the similar instruments around it may have to move out-da-way for it ...
this leads to one other suggestion i have...plan your tracks...if you know you're going to put five guitar tracks on, then plan the instruments accodingly....when you get a LOT of the same frequencies from instruments that are pitched the same, this will indeed cause a buildup of crud or cause some things to simply dissappear.......GOOD LUCK!!!yer on the right path....ahhh
one other thang....when i do two or three acoustics in 'bed' tracks, i'll use a capo on a couple of them and play the same part in three different positions on the guitar...its amazing how rich this gets and how easy it is to mix......peece
 
cavedog101 said:
when i do two or three acoustics in 'bed' tracks, i'll use a capo on a couple of them and play the same part in three different positions on the guitar...its amazing how rich this gets and how easy it is to mix......peece
Click to expand...

Cool, I'm going to have to try that sometime!

Chessrock: The point of your story wasn't lost on me... but, I do love peanut butter. By the way, I have a killer recipe for a peanut butter fruit smoothie if anyone is interested... heh.


Ok, I think I get the point. I'll post this song when I'm finished so maybe you guys can give me some feedback. I have to retrack the vocals-- they are way too hot. It was my first experience with a condensor mic and I got a little trigger happy on the gain. Which brings me to another big picture kind of issue that has been bothering me (I think this is called the foot-in-the-door approach to begging for advice).

When tracking, is the ultimate objective to get as hot a signal as possible without clipping? This is what I've been trying to do but I keep getting burned on the clipping (especially with vocals). I assumed that a hotter signal would improve the signal-to-noise ratio. I'm sure the solution is to just make damn sure that the loudest part of the track isn't going to clip, but I'd love to hear what you guys have to say about the issue.
 
That's kind of the common wisdom I heard too (hottest without clipping). But thru my Audiobuddy if I try to do that it turns to crap. I just do some sample tracks at various gains to find the one I like. Right now I'm sitting at a gain of 3 for vocals which is not even close to clipping, but it sounds good.
 
Well if you KNOW that a track will be lower in volume, why not track it lower? You might get some rounding issues on a digital thing and some more noise on an analog system, but I once (accidentally) had one song that sounded just like I imagined, directly after tracking... Just using mic placement and the original recording levels...

IMO, the 'track as hot as possible' is kinda unnecessary ifr you track on a digital 24bit system. Everything else is VERY likely to add more noise than your recorder... I work in 16 bit, so I have to be a little more careful...

aXel
 
Scottgman said:
When tracking, is the ultimate objective to get as hot a signal as possible without clipping? This is what I've been trying to do but I keep getting burned on the clipping (especially with vocals). I assumed that a hotter signal would improve the signal-to-noise ratio. I'm sure the solution is to just make damn sure that the loudest part of the track isn't going to clip, but I'd love to hear what you guys have to say about the issue.
Click to expand...

Try recording two tracks - one main track where you've got the gain levels set to where you think they should go, and then send that to another channel, but 3 or 6 db lower than the main track, just as a safety so you don't completely blow "that" take.
 
you also said that you created clones of the guitar parts and panned them away from each other.

did you record the guitar parts twice or just copy the original tracks. if you just copied that original tracks then you really didn't do anything but make the track louder.

some like to use a delay on the cloned track, but i prefer recording it twice.

sometimes, i'll pan the rhythm tracks hard left and hard right and pan the lead tracks 50% left and 50% right.

sometimes, i'll pan the 1rst guitar 100% left and 50% right and the 2nd guitar 100% right and 50% left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top