The cold, hard, facts

[tzer]

You need to hear in your head what you want your song to sound like when it's finished. Are there any other songs that have the sound you're looking for? Or at least something similar? Never go without a source of reference, or another few songs that you can listen to to get ideas. This is especially important in home recording.

Yes - Good suggestion. Currently in my head I am hearing it primarily based on how we play it live arrangement-wise. As for mix-wise - well, we play in a basement band room - the mix is "all in all the time" so I really don't have a clear picture of that aspect and I need to get one, as you and others have suggested.

Ideally, I want it to capture the spirit and energy of our live performance. I am not planning to do a "Dark Side of the Moon" thing - Nor am I trying to "Mutt Lang" it, ala Def Leppard (produce the hell out of it by saturating the vocals and layering the guitars, etc.)

To that end, I have been listening to groups that have similar instrumentation and sensibility - in this case, using Disc 2 of "David Bowie at the Beeb" - where he and his band perform many of his tunes in a "live, in the studio" scenario. Same instrumentation (Drums, guitar, Bass, Piano, vocals) and "live".

That scenario essentially maps to ours - live recording - similar instrumentation - similar attack and sensibility.

BUT - what I did not do was sit down with this recording and write down what I hear... Duh... so what I am going to do is put that recording on again and LISTEN VERY CLOSELY to the levels and placement of each instrument in the mix. As I become more clear about how this recording was mixed, I should have a much better idea about how I should mix mine.

And remember, there are no rules. Don't let yourself ask the one question that sets almost EVERYONE back, even some professionals, "Am I doing this the right way?".

Thanks again for the tips. I am not as concerned about some perceived "right way" so much as I am trying to avoid obvious "wrong ways" - like the inclination to start throwing effects at each track right away (or even at all). I know the rule about crap-in, crap-out - and I tried as best I could to ensure that I at least got "reasonable" results for my source material - not crap.

I know not to go effect-nutty - I had each player play what I wanted to hear in the recording - not provide me a source track that I could then destroy and reinvent - so that said, what I was hoping was that someone here would say something to the effect of, "In general, pan the lead guitar away from the lead vox to avoid similar frequencies stacking..." or something.

But again, it seems at this point my best course of action is to sit with my example recording (Bowie at the Beeb - disc 2) and pay very close attention to what I hear - then try to emulate that mixing concempt with what I have.

For example (not an actual analysis of the sample - just a "for instance"):
Bowie at the Beeb -
- bass is fat, centered and edgy
- Lead Guitar is off to the left about 50%, very strong
- Acoustic guitar is off to the right a little...
- Drums basically centered - hat is slightly panned right, toms pan slightly left to right from hi to low. etc...
- Vocals - clearly the lead is very high in the mix and has a small amount of reverb
- Backups are panned right slightly and very dry.

So based on that simple analysis, I would now have a model to pattern my project against. Then it comes down to the listening and tweaking.

Thanks a lot everyone! I think I have a good idea where I am going next. I will pop back in and let you know how I feel about my results and maybe even post a sample if I am feeling brave enough!

--tz

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Tzer,

Lots of good advice so far. A couple of points or embellishments I'd like to add to the mix (bad pun intentional.)

EQing tracks
First, regarding EQing the seperate tracks. nameless already touched on this pretty well, I just wanted to sharpen the point a bit. When getting "the right sound" for an instrument or track, what sounds best when the track is soloed is not necessarily what works best in the mix. Don't spend a million hours trying to get "just the right" sound on a track all by itself; instead work within the context of the mix.

Many mix engineers like to start with a "faders up" test mix. That is, arm all of your tracks and push all of your faders up to unity gain and pan usually all centered, just to see how things sound together raw. Ths is often a good launching point not only for figuring out good relative levels for the tracks, but also how well the sonics of each track play with each other and what may need to be doe to individual tracks in order to "carve out" the proper spectral space for each one.

Using a CD reference
While I totally agree on this as a good idea in general, it's best IMHO to apply this principle from the start, in tracking. If you're working wih tracks that are pretty much already set and hardened - i.e. if re-tracking is not much of an option - the train may have already left the station on that one. If your tracks are way off in character or timbre to what was used in a reference CD you like, you could be just trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.* Which is why I often prefer to reccommend...

Letting the song and the tracks define the mix
Once comitted to the mix stage, instead of using a reference CD as a roadmap, I usually prefer to let the song itself be my guide. Use the "faders up" mix at the start to give the song a run through once or twice. Maybe make some rough fader adjustments and the occasional solo during listening, not as actual mix changes, but just to help with clarity while listening to see what's actually going on in the song with all the instruments.

While doing this initial listening, ask yourself the following questions:

What is the feel?
What is the mood or feel of the song? Is it a head-banging anthem or a syrupy ballad? Is it upbeat, melancholy, sarcastic, humerous, serious, painful, happy, etc. etc. etc? And then how can you perhaps accentuate certain parts of the mix and de-emphasize others in order to convey or support that tone/feel/purpose?

What is the lyrical weight?
What and how much of a role do the lyrics play? Are you mixing Bob Dylan where the lyrics are paramount, or R.E.M where the lyrics are mostly throwaway and more supporting a melodic or rhythmic line than actual verbal information? In general, the more important the lyrics, the more influence they will have in determining the mood of the mix and in defining the relationship between the vocal track(s) and the instruments; the less important the lyrics, the more I usually threat the vocals as a lead instrument instead of a lead vocal.

What is the vocal weight?
Similar to lyrical weight, but here we're looking at the skills and the voice of the vocalist him/herself. Obviously one would tend to want to accentuate Whitney Houston's voice at the front of the mix, whereas with Leonard Cohen the voice itself is not a key to the song.

Where are the major hooks?
What and where are the major hooks of the song? Ignoring or minimizing the importance of the main hooks in a song is IMHO tantamount to throwing perfectly good food in the garbage. ID the main hooks whether they be melodic hooks, instrumental hooks, rhythmic hooks, or lyrical hooks and build much of the rest of the mix around them.

Where are the minor hooks?
Especially important, IMHO, in busier mixes with more instruments, more tracks, and/or denser arrangements, I like to look for minor hooks in individual tracks within the song. Thing like small mini-fills or min-riffs by a particular instrument that sound neat and add some character to the track here and there, or particular tension or release chords in an otherwise potentially buried rhythm or accompaniment passage that seem to have an energy or feel of their own, little stuff like that.

The idea here is to, starting with the "faders up" listens and continuing through the mixing as tracks are added togeter for real, make note (write it down if you want) of the track number and the timecode/timeline position of each of these mini-hooks, so you cn come back to them later with some gentle vlume automation of the necessary tracks to let these little 1-beat or 2-beat accents of musicianship or emotion cut through the mix just a little bit more than the overall presence of the rest of that track. I find that this spot automation - and we're often only talking a 2-3dB or so emphasis in one track with an equivalent ducking in another track or two - adss an almost subliminal "spice" to the mix that makes it sound much more textured and musical than just layering tracks on top of each other will sound.

Summing up
There's a whole lot more to it all, but by asking these questions of the song itself and of the tracks at your disposal, the list of answers you wind up with will give you a retty good roadmap as to how the song "wants" to be mixed and will almost always give you great results.

HTH,

G.

*This passage is a finalist for the 2007 award for the most mixed metaphors in one paragragraph as decided by the Internet Blog and Forum Editors and Admistrators of Ames, Iowa.

 

[chessrock]

Is there like a competition going on for who can make the longest post with the most redundant and overstated information?

I see I already missed out on the "thread hijack" contest. Bummer.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Wrong thread, chess. The contest for the "Biggest Asshole With Dyslexia" is over in the microphone forum.

G.

 

[zed32]

i wanna hear chessrock's advice on the subject, and don't be afraid to make it wordy!

 

[tzer]

Apologies if I have hi-jacked this thread. I thought since the OP opened the door to discussion of mixing in general, that it would be correct to expand on his comments with questions that apply to the reality of an inexperienced producer/engineer's real situation. I certainly did not intend to derail an otherwise interesting discussion about the cold, hard, facts regarding mixing and producing music at home.

But back to the hi-jacking...

Thanks, SouthSIDE Glen. Your comments along with Nameless' are helping me be more clear in what I am going to try when I get back to my little make-shift studio tonight. Obviously I have a lot to do, but I hope that by following many of your suggestions, I will get closer to a mix that makes me happy.

Now, put this plane down in Cuba and have a van and $2 million in unmarked bills waiting for me on the tarmac!

 

[Ethan Winer]

3. Room treatment matters more than any gear you could ever buy.

Bingo.

4. Don't bother 'upgrading' preamps from entry level if you don't have at least a $500 budget.

That's silly.

5. Digital plugins suck.

That's preposterous.

9. Do people actually spend a grand or more on A/D converters? Wow. Congratulations. You just fell for a huge marketing ploy.

Agreed, but that directly contradicts your point #4 above.

--Ethan

 

[Nameless]

Agreed, but that directly contradicts your point #4 above.

--Ethan

A post about preamps contradicts a post about converters?

 

[Nameless]

Is there like a competition going on for who can make the longest post with the most redundant and overstated information?

I see I already missed out on the "thread hijack" contest. Bummer.

It'd be nice to be able to condense posts down to 2 sentences. But then they'd be about as helpful as your post.

 

[Fishmed]

Letting the song and the tracks define the mix
Once comitted to the mix stage, instead of using a reference CD as a roadmap, I usually prefer to let the song itself be my guide. Use the "faders up" mix at the start to give the song a run through once or twice. Maybe make some rough fader adjustments and the occasional solo during listening, not as actual mix changes, but just to help with clarity while listening to see what's actually going on in the song with all the instruments.

This is usually how I approach mixes. I try to get the best tracks as I can, but the limitations of the musicians' talent, their instruments, and/or egos will often keep the song from sounding "Pro".

Of course there is ALWAYS room for improvement on my side.

 

[noisewreck]

9. Do people actually spend a grand or more on A/D converters? Wow. Congratulations. You just fell for a huge marketing ploy. I'm not saying converters don't matter, they do. But if you keep your signal chain as short as possible and don't run your tracks through more than 1 A/D conversion, even the converters on most entry level interfaces are good enough. Spend your money elsewhere.

I have an issue with this comment as I have first hand experience at the huge difference a (relatively) good converter makes.

 

[Jack Russell]

Nameless' rant at the beggining is classic from the perspective of pro audio engineers. Well here then, is a classic rant from an amateur like me:

It is puzzling that a forum called "Home Recording" can be about anything but a place where people, who record audio in their homes, go to talk about it. And I assume that it isn't about people who walk around recording the noises that houses make as they sit and age on their foundations.

Thus, what you typically have here is a lot of people who are investing time and money into an amateur (there is that word again! ) studio in their house where they do the best they can to record music within definite constraints...here they are...(drum roll please...)

Time
Money

How many of us actually think of doing this as a business that would actually be profitable enough to pay for the dwelling in which the home studio is based? Few, I'd imagine. [Some of you might be kidding yourselves that you are in a business, but the botto line is: does it pay for it's own space and the mortgage as well?]

And why is such a business so difficult to get into in this day and age? Well, could it be that there are so many people doing it in home studios rather than real pro studios? I think so!

So, though we read with great interest the wisdom of nameless, and hang on each word about the real biz, I just have to shake my head when I'm told yet again that you "can't get there from here" without $$$ investment in real pro gear.

It isn't that he's wrong with this admonishment...no, he's quite correct. It is that he probably should be in some other forum. Perhaps the "Pro Audio Engineer" forum? Otherwise, why waste time here?

Or should they rename this forum? How about "The Home Recording Forum for Wannabee Audio Addicts With Nothing Better to Do?"

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

I hope this instead, could be a thread for "can the experts give some advice"?

OK, I'll take Nameless at his word that he is a knowledgeable experienced expert mixer.

Perhaps Nameless could share his general methodology for mixing a rock/pop/country song, i.e. something with vocals and a backing band with live instruments as opposed to hiphop or orchestral.

For example, some put all the faders up and just start randomly making adjustments. Others may start by balancing/separating the kick and bass, then onto drums. Others may do all the drums first, or the lead vocals first. Also discuss when time based effects like reverbs/delays are introduced and typical master bus processing.

 

[chessrock]

It'd be nice to be able to condense posts down to 2 sentences. But then they'd be about as helpful as your post.

Two sentences?

I'll give it a stab ...

Sentence one: Heed the good advice and knowlege on good practices and technique unselfishly passed on by the more knowlegable people on this board over the years.

Sentence two: Ignore the advice and faulty knowlege given by the dumbasses, and be weary of the advice given by those who may have outside agendas or who just like to hear themselves talk.

That pretty much sums up everything you said in your first post ... minus all the gobbledy-gook (recording 101 stuff with a few sprinkles of personal opinion, etc.).

 

[Nameless]

Nameless' rant at the beggining is classic from the perspective of pro audio engineers. Well here then, is a classic rant from an amateur like me:

It is puzzling that a forum called "Home Recording" can be about anything but a place where people, who record audio in their homes, go to talk about it. And I assume that it isn't about people who walk around recording the noises that houses make as they sit and age on their foundations.

Thus, what you typically have here is a lot of people who are investing time and money into an amateur (there is that word again! ) studio in their house where they do the best they can to record music within definite constraints...here they are...(drum roll please...)

Time
Money

How many of us actually think of doing this as a business that would actually be profitable enough to pay for the dwelling in which the home studio is based? Few, I'd imagine. [Some of you might be kidding yourselves that you are in a business, but the botto line is: does it pay for it's own space and the mortgage as well?]

And why is such a business so difficult to get into in this day and age? Well, could it be that there are so many people doing it in home studios rather than real pro studios? I think so!

So, though we read with great interest the wisdom of nameless, and hang on each word about the real biz, I just have to shake my head when I'm told yet again that you "can't get there from here" without $$$ investment in real pro gear.

It isn't that he's wrong with this admonishment...no, he's quite correct. It is that he probably should be in some other forum. Perhaps the "Pro Audio Engineer" forum? Otherwise, why waste time here?

Or should they rename this forum? How about "The Home Recording Forum for Wannabee Audio Addicts With Nothing Better to Do?"

If you read any of my posts you would realize:

1. My main goal is towards people wanting to get the best possible sound.
2. More aimed at home recordists with limited gear. The whole point of this thread (what I WISH it would be) is to help people make the most out of what they have.

Maybe you should re-read the thread again.

 

[flatfinger]

How many of us actually think of doing this as a business that would actually be profitable enough to pay for the dwelling in which the home studio is based? Few, I'd imagine.
And why is such a business so difficult to get into in this day and age? Well, could it be that there are so many people doing it in home studios rather than real pro studios? I think so!

You raise a good point Jack, The Fact that most home studios have crap acoustics severly limits there potential;; What say we go in fifty fifty on this place???http://www.4smp.com/

 

[Drumz519]

2. More aimed at home recordists with limited gear. The whole point of this thread (what I WISH it would be) is to help people make the most out of what they have.

From what I can tell, and I'm certainly still a newb here (but so are you ), that's what this whole forum is about; making the best possible recordings with the gear you have access too.

 

[Nameless]

OK, I'll take Nameless at his word that he is a knowledgeable experienced expert mixer.

Perhaps Nameless could share his general methodology for mixing a rock/pop/country song, i.e. something with vocals and a backing band with live instruments as opposed to hiphop or orchestral.

For example, some put all the faders up and just start randomly making adjustments. Others may start by balancing/separating the kick and bass, then onto drums. Others may do all the drums first, or the lead vocals first. Also discuss when time based effects like reverbs/delays are introduced and typical master bus processing.

What is the point of this question? Every song is different. I usually take the steps that seem logical. If it is not being recorded in a live setting, ie: 1 track at a time, I ask the musicians what they think would be easier/better for them. Sometimes this means a rhythm guitar track recorded at the same time as the drums. Then the bass follows, lead guitar, and vocals, etc. This is usually the band's decision. You want the best performance from them as possible.

As for the mixing process, I always start in mono. (This is how I setup mics also, while monitoring through headphones in mono). At least for most denser mixes.

This is how you, or I track for the mix. I could probably setup the mics without monitoring and know exactly where and how they will sit in the mix, but the band is paying for their time so I'd rather not waste it by doing an unnecessary re-track.

At this point it's easy to see what tracks will fit where and what won't. The bad ones stick out like a sore thumb.

In dense mixes, 90% of the time you will just have to use EQ, there's no way around it. Years of experience has taught me what instruments will conflict with what other, how one tone might sound mixed with another. You can look at frequency charts all day long (and they might help) but there is a point where experience comes into play.

I do most EQ and compression in mono. I start with the drums. Then I'll go to the bass. Then I might go back to the drums to get them right with the bass. then I'll go to the rhythm guitars. Might EQ them to give the bass some room. Then I go to the vocals. Everything else can take compromises for the vocals.
I usually try to give the lead guitar about the same volume/overall level as the vocals (in most songs), it sounds more natural when transitioning from a chorus to a guitar solo, for example.

When switching to stereo and starting with panning it's a nice, open, airy sound stage to work with. I may adjust EQ again on the tracks if it sounds thin. Then check again in mono. I never sacrifice a good stereo mix for a perfect mono mix. Mono compatibility is important, but technology has advanced far passed mono playback. As long as everything can be heard in mono, and not sound like total shit, then you're ok.

At this point, I think of the mix as a 3D stage, like a live setting/concert. This is where I start using reverb. And let me tell ya, it's one of the hardest parts (for me) when it comes to mixing. It takes the longest. It's also where a nice reverb unit (or plugin if that's what you're forced to use) comes in handy. One tip: You should not hear the reverb on the track when listening to the whole mix. It should just sound further "back" and not just "down in volume". Mess with pre-delay, frequency roll-offs, room size, and wet/dry parameters on your reverb unit. I've spent hours on this alone!

I could go through the entire process but for one, it would take ages. And believe it or not, it's mostly common sense and logical thinking. The majority of it is also probably what has been discussed on this board for awhile now.

It's much easier to answer more specific questions.

 

[Nameless]

Two sentences?

I'll give it a stab ...

Sentence one: Heed the good advice and knowlege on good practices and technique unselfishly passed on by the more knowlegable people on this board over the years.

Sentence two: Ignore the advice and faulty knowlege given by the dumbasses, and be weary of the advice given by those who may have outside agendas or who just like to hear themselves talk.

That pretty much sums up everything you said in your first post ... minus all the gobbledy-gook (recording 101 stuff with a few sprinkles of personal opinion, etc.).

You tell me, but I get the feeling if I had said just that, I'd get a lot of

ok?

responses. No? Get real.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It is that he probably should be in some other forum. Perhaps the "Pro Audio Engineer" forum? Otherwise, why waste time here?

One simple reason, Jack.

If I had two bucks for every time a rookie/amateur/newbie/home recorder came on this and other similar boards, in person, or by PM, e-mail or telephone, and and asked, "how can I make my stuff sound like the pros", I WOULD be able to pay a house morgage.

"This is home recording" is no longer an excuse. The average gear in the average home studio is more powerful and more capable than your average Big Boy studio was back when "Thriller" came out, and is like a human compared to an insect compared to what George Martin had to work with at Abbey Road.

Like it or not, big studios are going the way of the paneled station wagon and being replaced by the XUV hybrids of the home studio. More and more music is being recorded "in the home" by everybody from the big named artists to people like you and me.

What's missing far more than anything else is not gear or environment; it's technique. A Shoeps mic into GML pre is not going to do your average rookie home wrecker any good whatsoever if they don't know proper miking technique and gain staging. All the bass trapping and bounce diffusion in the world isn't going to help make a great mix if the person running the dials can't tell the difference between 400Hz and 4khz. And all the drums in the world and all the recording gear in the world will not make someone who can't hit a snare drum with any consistancy whatsoever sound like John Bonham.

THAT is why some of those who have been around the engineering block a few times and understand all that stuff come here, to try to explain:

- that doesn't matter if this is home recording or not. If you are asking how to make somthing sound pro, you are asking how to make a pro recording. Period. And, yes, you can get there from here if you're willing to actually learn HOW.

- that, like it or not, "home recording" is the future of "pro recording". As such, not only are there more pros working from home (which means they belong here as much as anyone else), but they have a vested interest in making sure that the pro techniqes learned over the years do not die along with the pro studios in which they were first discovered or developed.

The real name change that should happen to this forum is the word "home" should be dropped. Home recording died with the cassette tape. Its just recording now.

G.