SMOOTH, HOMOGENOUS, EXCITING mixes... Is it possible???

[littledog]

(no one believes me. that's ok. but i still say a lot of what people hear as the "pro" vocal sound is due to the fact that the top pros know how to use reverb and a lot of amateurs don't have a clue. plus they have access to a lot better reverbs. then people wonder why shania's voice "glistens" and theirs doesn't. no problem. i'll just hang over here in the corner all by myself...)

 

[chessrock]

Re: Sooooooo....

However, I've also noticed that if I only record ONE track and don't mix it in with anything else, it sounds a HELL of a lot like "that sound". . . .

B) Maybe some of us ARE achieving 'that sound' in our recordings. However, when we don't mix through a fantastic console that is sophisticated enough to maintain 'that sound' through the mixing process, it ruins it. It degrades it (or preserves, it in the case of digital, maybe?) in a a way that is unacceptable to the human ear - that little thing that makes you cringe when you hear your mixes and they just don't sound right. The individual tracks sound OK, but not the mix.

You see, now you're starting to get warmer here. I think your next step will be your biggest eye opener yet, and hopefully will open things right up for you.

The reason your mixes aren't retaining "that sound" throughout the entire process is because of the very fact that your individual tracks sound "close," as you put it, in solo mode.

What the f*&% says Mercuri to Chessrock? I'm not sure how much you already know, so I apologize if I'm stating the obvious to you . . . but the idea is to get the tracks to interact with one another from both a dynamic and sonic/tonal perspective. Your tracks no longer exist in a vaccum at this stage, so you can't treat them like solo instruments. Don't expect that getting a great mix is to get everything to sound brilliant on it's own and them just mix it together and it will all sound brilliant together. In a perfectly logical world, that would be the case, I know, but audio is a funny beast.

Example: I might start to sing a song, and I might sound great . . . on a good day, mind you, and after you've likely consumed some mind-altering substances. But I might sound great. Then, let's say Littledog were to start singing with me, brilliantly and flawlessly, but in a different key. Now suppose Pipeline added his vocal prowess to the mix, yet in a totally different key still.

It's very likely we'll all sound brilliant on our own, but if you mix us together, it will probably sound like a train wreck. Not the best example, but it's an illustration, nonetheless. The idea is to get us all to blend with one another, tonally and dynamically.

Now if each one of us were properly blending with one another, chances are we'd sound like shit in solo mode. Ever try listening to you or your friend's harmony track in solo mode? It can be a real gut-bustingly comical experience, and I highly recomend it, under proper conditions. The better it blends with everything else, the funnier it will likely sound on it's own.

Anyway, this is getting in to an area that has A LOT more to do with the knowlege aspect and a lot less to do with the technology. This is also where a lot of folks make the mistake of assuming it's "a gear thing" and subsequently throw a lot of money at it in a futile attempt to circumvent the inevitable learning process.

There are no shortcuts at this juncture. You're going to have to crack the books and get studying. If you don't have a thorough knowlege of the various frequency ranges, then it's time to get crackin'.

Pop Quiz: Do you know what frequency ranges can potentially be trouble when mixing bass guitar and kick? Are you aware that the accoustic guitar, if left alone, is one of your bassiest instruments and will likely compete / clash with even the bass guitar and kick drum?

Do you know what frequency ranges to focus on for each track when using EQ? Do you know how to use a specral analyzer? What do you know about multiband compression, and do you know how to use it effectively to solve some of these issues?

If your anser to any of these questions is "no," or vague, then chances are it's time to hit the books, enlist at full sail, or whatever it is you gotta' do . . . but understand that at this juncture about 5% of the issue is a gear thing, and the other 95% is a brain (and ear) thing.

 

[chessrock]

Re: Re: Sooooooo....

at this juncture about 5% of the issue is a gear thing, and the other 95% is a brain (and ear) thing.

And I might add that this 5% is probably the most coveted, and therefore most expensive thing to attain.

 

[mixmkr]

Re: Re: Sooooooo....

Do you know what frequency ranges to focus on for each track when using EQ? Do you know how to use a specral analyzer? What do you know about multiband compression, and do you know how to use it effectively to solve some of these issues?

If your anser to any of these questions is "no," or vague, then chances are it's time to hit the books, enlist at full sail, or whatever it is you gotta' do . . . but understand that at this juncture about 5% of the issue is a gear thing, and the other 95% is a brain (and ear) thing.

I disagree on the first part...about knowing numbers and such. I can agree it helps, but is NOT the answer. Kinda like being able to read music... It helps, but is not a requirement to play well IF you can HEAR. I studied that stuff a long time ago, and basically forgot it, because I don't look at numbers when I twiddle a knob. I can't give specific examples, but I think there are many great engineers who could give a hoot about being so technical, but use their ears to mix...

,,which brings me to the 2nd point in the above quote. I agree about the gear thing / brain thing...but think the issue is still more like 50/50 rather than 5%/95%. if you are talking about the best of the best. for home recordings and CLOSE>.. I think the 5/95 ratio is about right.

Littledog...reverbs are cheap nowadays... a PCM81/91 isn't so much for the home reccor...really... and they are pretty hard to make them sound lousy..even if you are a rookie. Even the $500 lexi verbs sound great. I even love my Alesis Wedges too!!... I have three of them... 5O bucks on EBAY.
But yes...to sound GREAT...a little tweaking is always involved...or how to mix 4 reverbs together.

 

[chessrock]

Re: Re: Re: Sooooooo....

It helps, but is not a requirement to play well IF you can HEAR.

Well, I suppose if your ears are that good to where you can spot, for example, that the kick and bass are clashing at 110 hz just by listening. . . I commend you for it, but using your analogy of the guy who doesn't read notes: this would be closer to a guy who doesn't have to read them or even use a tuner because he already has perfect pitch, as opposed to just being able to hear well. Fine and great for him, but most of us can't hope to get to that level.

I've met some people like that, though, so I'm certainly not discounting their existence.

 

[Mercuri]

=)

Lol... Littledog, I believe you. Half the time all it takes is a decent reverb and you can make almost anything sit in a mix. It really really helps in imparting the sound you're looking for, but my main issue is that little elusive something that is making things sound "wrong."

Chessrock - thanks for the post. Very informative... However, I'm aware of 'carving' the mixes to avoid 'frequency clashes'. I cut bass out of bass guitars, high pass my acoustics, almost always cut when I EQ (instead of boosting), position mics for natural EQ, and I'm that much closer for it. But I don't see how much further I can go, and I don't see my mixes making the leap to "that sound" just because I EQ'd it right.

The only thing I disagree with you on is things sounding bad when solo'd. Right now that seems to be the case - If I do wacky sounding backup vocals, they work when mixed but sound hideous by themselves. =oP However, I have to get the timing TOO perfect, and the pitch has to be TOO perfect or else it makes you cringe and notice it. If you listen to, say, Martina McBride's "My Baby Loves Me", the backup vocals are awful from a production standpoint. But they sound great anyways. They have that something that makes them sound professionally acceptable even though they're imperfect.

When the guys in Nashville sit down for a studio session, they get it right EVERY time. Dammit, why don't they post on this board??

 

[mixmkr]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sooooooo....

Well, I suppose if your ears are that good to where you can spot, for example, that the kick and bass are clashing at 110 hz just by listening. . . I commend you for it, but using your analogy of the guy who doesn't read notes: this would be closer to a guy who doesn't have to read them or even use a tuner because he already has perfect pitch, as opposed to just being able to hear well. Fine and great for him, but most of us can't hope to get to that level.

I've met some people like that, though, so I'm certainly not discounting their existence.

Chess...I think most great engineers worth their salt CAN hear if the bass and kick are clashing at 110htz. They don't stick them on analyzers and THEN figure it out. I want to think that I can "partially" do so...but I am a loooooong way from a Bob Clearmountin, and the FIRST to admit it.

and about the guy that doesn't read... look at all the great musicians that can't read a note. And...about getting to that level. ...on your own, possibly could be very tough... But surrounded by better musicians and those that can... I believe you can learn to do so. When I finished my 8 semesters at Berklee in 1978, I was floored at how much some of the people who were NON players when they basically entered the school, became monster players in such a short time. ...but in this case, theory, etc., DID help...but the ears helped MUCH more.

Also...picture the guy who spends 10hrs/day for 4 years VS the guy whole only CONSTRUCTIVELY works at his craft for 2hrs/day. Do the math and you'll see the 4 year veteran will probably smoke the 15 year 'occasional' player.

 

[mixmkr]

Re: =)

... However, I'm aware of 'carving' the mixes to avoid 'frequency clashes'. I cut bass out of bass guitars, high pass my acoustics, almost always cut when I EQ (instead of boosting), position mics for natural EQ, and I'm that much closer for it. But I don't see how much further I can go, and I don't see my mixes making the leap to "that sound" just because I EQ'd it right.

The only thing I disagree with you on is things sounding bad when solo'd. Right now that seems to be the case - If I do wacky sounding backup vocals, they work when mixed but sound hideous by themselves. =oP

having it suck when solo'd is a common thing...as compared to it sounding great in a mix. That is what happens when you "carve" out niches for other instruments to occupy. This is especially true for acoustics in a thick mix, and stuff like that, as you are aware of.

However...try recording stuff with out "fixing it" with EQ, and don't forget that magic word "PRODUCTION". That seems to be left out of the equation, and most home reccors think if they can record a hiss free sound of a guitar, it should sound like magic. Having it be a PART of a musical piece is another piece of the pie, that seems to be consistantly NOT thought of around here.

 

[Tom Hicks]

Good post Mixmkr
My mixes biggest weakness is definately in the instrumentation and arrangement areas.I like to think of the tones as colors in a paintbox.Too many reds,browns and blues mixed together will make mud.Just like mixing keys,guitars,vox and all the other low-mid producers makes sonic mud unless they are all carefully jigsawed together.
Lately,I have been trying to make my mixes more sparse and try to be hyper-aware of possible conflicts between different tracks.Anyone have any tips on arranging and instrumentation to help thin out muddy mixes?

 

[chessrock]

Just like mixing keys,guitars,vox and all the other low-mid producers makes sonic mud unless they are all carefully jigsawed together.

I hear ya on that one. My biggest nemesis lately has been the keys. I love what a classic Hammond-style organ brings to a band's sound, but finding it hogs up so many vital frequencies . . . which wouldn't be a bad thing if it were a solo or featured instrument, but an organ is supposed to be background.

I've been having a lot more luck lately by killing just about all the mids and just going with the extreme lows and highs. It doesn't sound much like an organ after I'm done, but it beefs up the mix.

 

[littledog]

Re: Re: Sooooooo....

Then, let's say Littledog were to start singing with me, brilliantly and flawlessly, but in a different key.

Here is a man who obviously never heard me sing. That's about as likely a premise as: "start by hanging your microphone off of the the tail of a flying pig..."

 

[Hard2Hear]

Re: Sooooooo....

Nashville's top label mixes have always intrigued me because they've ALL got 'that sound', even when most of the mix is acoustic. 99% of the Nashville cats also use Pro Tools, so it's not the audio hitting the digital domain that's killing the sound, right?

No. This is wrong. Nashville hates Pro Tools overall. Everyone uses 2" and those who don't and are using digital are using RADAR. Nashville is about the pure tone of the music. To be fair about your headphone thing, alot of country acts are not being done in Nashville right now.

The pros I know who use Pro Tools for albums (and not demos, very important) use 2" to track anyways and dump it to PT for the editing. Most of the albums that make it to Billboard still use tape to a great extent.

I have heard music tracked to 2" and then in PT, it sounds very different from music tracked straight to PT.

Also mind this. All radio hits are major label songs. They all get mixed by a few select guys who the labels feel comfortable with mixing their $$ records. Tom and Chris Lord-Alge, for instance. And their mix will have a certian quality because it is them and not you. In this case, we're talking like Jeff Balding or Bob Bullock working on Shania's stuff. Each persons ears are different.

"Anyone have any tips on arranging and instrumentation to help thin out muddy mixes?"

Using more key/synth parts, which tend to be scooped, to blend with the mid-range heavy guitars. Also if it's electric guitars, using a mid-heavy vox-y sound and a Mesa sound together, doubled and panned.

H2H

 

[Hard2Hear]

Re: =)

When the guys in Nashville ...Dammit, why don't they post on this board??

What happened to Shakestheclown ??

H2H

 

[Mercuri]

Re: Re: Sooooooo....

The pros I know who use Pro Tools for albums (and not demos, very important) use 2" to track anyways and dump it to PT for the editing. Most of the albums that make it to Billboard still use tape to a great extent.

I have heard music tracked to 2" and then in PT, it sounds very different from music tracked straight to PT.

Okay, maybe my sources are wrong... Shania's album was done in PT, though. It states it on the album insert. And it also doesn't really make any strong references to Nashville. =)

I had a feeling they were hitting tape before actually going digital. What do you mean by the music sounding different when it hits tape first... Do you mean different as in better and more natural? Or just a different flavor?

I'm curious... How would one of their mixes sound if they recorded it straight to digital and then mixed it in the box with no analog summing whatsoever? (Without even running through a console at all!) This would answer a few questions. If it still had "that sound", maybe there would be hope for home recorders?

Hard2Hear - you sound like you've been around the vicinity of the guys who hammer out the top tunes. Do you have any other input you can help us out with?

 

[sonusman]

I remember how Mackie advertisements used to suggest that whole CD productions were done on their consoles. What was reality is that a Mackie console was usually used as a monitor console for the musicians headphone mixes.

Ed

 

[Mercuri]

=)

LOL, Ed... That's awful...

 

[JesusFreak]

I find this to be a very good subject because "that sound" is what most of us are looking for in our recordings. Or at least those that want to do this as a career either in music or production. I'm just trying to figure out whether to be discouraged or encouraged. Some of you say that it doesn't matter what gear you use, you can still get that sound (I like the sound of that). And others are like it doesn't matter what you think you know, if you haven't dumped over $100,000 in equimpent, your never going to get "that sound" (obviously discouraging news).

But I have to say, (please remember I am a super duper novice at this stuff, recording that is and not music), that if you have some half way decent gear, and I mean stuff that won't make your stuff sound bad all by itself like tube gear that the tubes are worn out, that you should be able to get comparable quality music out of it. This is of course considering that you have a good ear. Which makes the point that was made earlier seem right which is you should be a good musician before you try to become a recordist. If you don't understand what music should sound like, doesn't matter the gear, doesn't matter the time spent, it will never be right.

Here is an example. I've just recently started recording. I probably have less gear than any of you and it probably sucks more than most of you. Anyway, I had my dad over so that I could get some good practice using this stuff. He has a very unique Takamine that's made from rosewood and just a beautiful guitar. Perfectly matched pickups straight from the maker. He plays through a very good sounding Ampeg amp. One of the old ones that just sounds good no matter what. So I'm playing with some mic positions using nothing more than a couple of SM57's. Monitoring through headphones. It sounded good to me and so I recorded it. We were playing with Georgia Satelites song "Change in my pocket". Anyway, I threw in the lead and the vox and burned it. When I played it back through my home system (nothing special I might add), it sounded just about as good as the orginal. I didn't do much EQ or much of anything else for that matter. It just tracked good. Of course once my lead and vox came it, it pretty much started to sound like crap but I was playing a stock Ovation with probably year old strings. But the point being that the great instrument, on a great sounding amp, sounded great without much of anything. So I have to agree with those that are saying that it's not always about the gear.

And for those of you that feel it's all about gear, do you think that Mutt Lange could come to your or my home recording studios and get "that sound" out of our gear?? I'm really curious about your feelings on this one.

Sorry about the long post. God Bless!

 

[chessrock]

do you think that Mutt Lange could come to your or my home recording studios and get "that sound" out of our gear?? I'm really curious about your feelings on this one.

I think we're getting some confusion on the term "gear."

The really sad, sad truth of the matter is that gear really does play an enormous role in getting "that sound." Only it isn't as much the gear that we, the engineer are fiddling with. It's really more about the gear the musician is fiddling with. Think about it. Skilled musicians playing better instruments just sound better. They require far less compression, eq, etc. They expose much less of whatever weaknesses are in your signal chain, and they don't need expensive processors to make them sound right.

The kind of strings your dad uses on his guitar will have a far bigger impact on the sound than what kind of microphone you're using.


After that, it's all about the mic, imho (But then Mercuri already indicated he's got kickass mics). This is already assuming, of course, that you've got ideal accoustics (ie - non-parallel walls, complex surfaces, high ceilings, etc etc).

Turning in to quite the intellectual masterbation session, I see!

 

[JesusFreak]

Chessrock,

I completely agree with you....I guess that means that I now need to go and spend another 5000$ on new guitars and amps....crap!!...spent my wad on my recording gear....should have known all I needed was an old tape deck as long as I had an 80's model Taylor and I could make it to the cover of Rolling Stone....crap!!..always a day late and a dollar short...

God Bless!!

 

[Middleman]

The sheen is applied ambience, mix placement and expensive hardware effects as well as multiple vocal tracking with compression and EQ applied delicately to different versions of the voice to make sure the key tonal range for Shania's voice stands upfront, is breathy, or growling depending on the songs requirement. Most Home recordists don't spend that much time on the vocal. One vocal track, covered in reverb is what I hear mostly in the MP3s I have grazed lately.

As far as the music itself, simple well constructed songs usually are the hits on the radio. Excessive chording on keyboards and guitars is not something you hear a lot of in Shania type of music. Many home recordings have musicians playing too many notes or, at the other end of the spectrum, too many keyboard pads. As well, song construction seems to be weak in a lot of mp3s I have heard lately.

The vocal is the main thing in Shania type of music, backed by a strong and different rhythm (can be created by drums or other percussion, synths, whatever) and a bass that leads the music and participates with the rhythm. The voice passes through this rhythm and needs to be center stage.

Other than rhythm instruments, all other instruments should be a side show to move around the vocal or fill in the spaces between the vocal. Guitars should be mainly for intros or fills, the same with keyboards. Chording should be light and in the background (We are talking about Shania type of tunes, not metal, or hip hop which has its own general themes). Actually hip hop is somewhat similar with an emphasis on rhythm and the voice moving through the rhythm.

Professional musicians, or at the least producers, understand the role each instrument needs to play in a song and I agree that Mutt probably already has an idea of this after a few rehearsals. Professionals also look at coloring a basic mix with different sounds, percussive, instrumental whatever. These are short phrases added to non-vocal spaces or as a lead in or out of major changes in a song. These continually attract the listener throughout the song and keep things interesting.

After all of the above has been applied by numerous people, and thus numerous ideas, not to mention numerous ears, there are general mastering practices on very expensive gear, as others have said, that add the final polish. Even with a well recorded song and good production, this last piece is something home recordings can emulate not duplicate.

If one concentrates on all this, results can be 85% there. Good enough to impress most listeners.