Your best advanced mixing techniques

[WhiteStrat]

Guitar ideas:

Double track-electric or acoustic: (I'm sure you know this one) don't bother duplicating and panning the same track-it doesn't do anything. Actually play and record it twice, panning one left and panning one right. I often go 100% L and 100% right, but play around with it.

Double track with 2 mics--electric (if you have 2 different enough mics): I'll record a guitar with 2 contrasting mics (a ribbon-dark and smooth) an i5 (bright and edgy). Then I play the same part and record it again. Now I match up the ribbon from take one and the i5 from take 2 and send 'em left. Then the i5 from take one and the ribbon from take 2 go to the right. Now with just 2 takes you have an even fuller sound.

Octave double tracks-electric or acoustic: either of the above but with take one and take two played at different parts of the neck (i.e. open chords on one; A string bar chords on the second). Lots of texture there.

Pick track--electric: If you've got two mics, put one of em on the amp like normal, and put one of 'em up on the hand of the guitarist. The further from the amp, the better, so you're just getting that clicky pick sound. Mix this track with the regular amp track to add some attack and dynamics to the guitar part.

Got a bright Chinese condenser mic that sounds like crap on your amp? Put your dynamic mic up on the amp like normal, and use the bright condenser up in the middle of the room. Cut the low on the room mic track and just use it for reverb or delay plugs; some cool sounds there.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

it's just harder for me to tell what I'm tasting for when it's my own mixing, when I see someone else doing it, I know it's right.

Ah, but you see Beni, that's the whole point of "trust your ears", as MadAudio put it. This is one of those unaviodable fundamentals, like room acoustics and performer proficiency and things like that, one of those "professional secrets" that nobody is keeping secret, but that the rookies to this racket just continue to underestimate and fail to recognize as the "secret" that's in plain sight right in front of them.

You are apparently at a point in the process now where you can't (for whatever reason) trust your own ears, or at least you own tastes, yet. This is common, no need to take offense. But to go back to the cooking analogy, imagine if the master chef you're working next to asked you if you thought this dish tasted good or not, and your reply was that you needed him to tell you (show you by example) what tasted good and what didn't. Frankly, he'd probably ask you to leave his kitchen and ask you what you're even doing in cooking to begin with. Luckily we're not as vain here and won't toss you out of the kitchen .

In order to know how to engineer audio well, one has to have a goal in mind sooner or later in the process of what they want something to wind up sounding like, or at the very least to know if what they have sounds good or not. There are no recipes or "advanced techniques" that will promise that, when used, the result will sound good. Everybody has provided a lot of great tips here, but there's not a single one of them that will do you any good whatsoever until your ears can tell you which one of them - if any - will actually apply positively *to your specific situation*. There's not a single one of them, including mine, that can't easily make a mix sound worse instead of better if used in the wrong place or in the wrong way, and the only way you can determine that is by tasting the mix yourself.

If one needs to learn by example, they need to be able to take those examples and analyze them and figure out WHY they sound good. This is what is commonly referred to as "critical listening" or sometimes "an engineer's ear". Listen to some of your favorite-sounding CDs, and dig into the sound and ask yourself. "WHY does this mix or that mix sound so good?" Is it the groove? Is it the incredible tone of one or another instrument? Is it the way the arrangement works? Is it because of the clarity of this instrument or the lack of clarity of that one? And so forth.

Once you can ID the "whys" you can start asking yourself the "hows"; what spices or techniques or tips or tricks will deliver those qualities that work for that mix, and which ones would actually take you farther from those qualities instead of closer.

G.

 

[Daisy]

I've actually gotten to a point where I realized my (musical) equipment is limiting me on my recording abilities, because the crappy recording I get is really the best that amp/guitar/drumset sounds.

If you've gotten your stuff to sound as good as it can sound ... then you're probably much further along in your skills than you think.

I remember the first time I recorded a real drummer about 8 years ago. I mean this guy walks in with a crash cymbal that costs more than a few month's worth of my rent. And he unloads and has everything set up in 10 minutes -- like he's done it a thousand times or more (which he probably has). Hits his snare a few times, then pulls out this funky high-tech looking tool kit and goes and tightens a few things, and suddenly his snare sounds all tight and snappy like a Stuart Copeland recording, only it's coming over my monitors.

I remember thinking to myself: "See? I really DON'T suck after all ... that much." It really puts some things in to perspective; like all the time I spent fretting over what kind of snare mic to use, or why I can't seem to EQ it to sound right and all that. I mean ... this guy is hitting his snare and it sounds like a finished record, right now, over my monitors, and I haven't done jack shit but point a mic at it. As encouraging as it all was ... It was also kind of a let-down to realize just how insignificant my role truly is in the grand scheme of things. And how much time I had wasted on other things up to that point.
.

 

[andyhix]

NY Compression

http://benvesco.com/tonemonster/mixing/phat-drums-new-york-style-parallel-compression-part-1/

regarding the rental property: You can still do a lot of non-destructive (or non-constructive?) improvement pretty simply. Build several free standing broadband absorbers, and bass traps. You can just lean them against the wall in your current place, and pack em up and take em with you when you move on. With a little creativity, you can make them somewhat multipurpose too. These 2'x4' panels are on legs (which are removable). When I'm mixing, I place them at strategic locations to tame reflections. I can also use them as gobos for a makeshift vocal booth, just generally block noise from my computer, etc. If this is something you're interested in, visit the studio construction forum and search around. There are lots of good threads there about making such things.

 

[BeniRose]

If one needs to learn by example, they need to be able to take those examples and analyze them and figure out WHY they sound good. This is what is commonly referred to as "critical listening" or sometimes "an engineer's ear". Listen to some of your favorite-sounding CDs, and dig into the sound and ask yourself. "WHY does this mix or that mix sound so good?" Is it the groove? Is it the incredible tone of one or another instrument? Is it the way the arrangement works? Is it because of the clarity of this instrument or the lack of clarity of that one? And so forth.

Once you can ID the "whys" you can start asking yourself the "hows"; what spices or techniques or tips or tricks will deliver those qualities that work for that mix, and which ones would actually take you farther from those qualities instead of closer.

G.

I do this every time I listen to music. In fact, once I drove around leaning my head to the center of my car so I could hear the proper panning for an ENTIRE CD while I was listening to it, analyzing the production quality!! I think I've gotten pretty good at identifying the why's, it's just hard for me to figure out the hows, especially from my own mixes. I guess I just don't have enough confidence and I get discouraged when I keep listening to my mixes and thinking "with everything I know, this should sound a heck of a lot better!" So I thought maybe there's things I don't know that are holding me back, but maybe I just need to keep trying different spices and keep the stuff that I find working best on the rack and get rid of the rest.

 

[MCI2424]

So I've been doing home recording for a while now, but I still feel extremely amateur with the subject. For one I don't and have not taken any classes, everything is self taught. Most of what I do is pretty menial stuff: mic placement, proper signal chain, some EQing, compression, reverb, all the basics I feel I have covered. However, so does every other kid in their basement. I'm looking to start to get more into the reality of recording and mixing, beyond stuff I feel I may as well go to the presets for. I was wondering if anyone had good resources on the more advanced topics of mixing, especially ones that wouldn't be over someone's head in terms of audio engineering concepts. Also wondering if anyone wanted to share their favourite "advanced" mixing technique. Something they feel that once they learned it really started to show an improvement in their mixes.

I know this is a pretty broad topic and it comes with experience and practice, but I really feel like I'm at a brick wall where I'm doing the best I can with what I have, but won't be able to take it a step further until I start taking a more advanced approach to mixing my music beyond putting some inserts on a few channels. For a while I was focusing on getting my dry tracks to sound better so I was mixing from a better position, but I think I've gotten my dry tracks to sound as good as they can with the equipment I have (which isn't great mind you). So that's why I came to you guys for advice on steps I can take towards better techniques that will show some results and aren't quite as mundane as what I've taught myself. Books and websites are greatly appreciated, as are anecdotes! Thanks in advance!!

My best advanced mixing technique is when you are advanced enough in knowledge and experience, mixing is a piece of cake.

Pick 1 song and mix until you have what you are looking for. Try everything you can and burn copies. Listen to them weeks later and see if you learned anything.





Knowing the song is the first and last step to mixing. Too many people twiddle knobs, add effects and try every new trick they read and (at least the ones I have seen) practically never actually pay attention to the song!


When I mix a song, I only put up the tracks that equal the musicians I see in front of me. Keep all overdubs out of here for now. Mix and learn the main song by the band. Only when you get a great mix can you audition overdubs in your mix. 70-80% of the time I find overdubs that kill a mix out right and even more that contribute nothing mind blowing. Getting a good, full mix with the basic tracks is critical to any step beyond. If you can't get a great mix here, it should be back to the tracking stage and mic placement etc.

 

[tunetown]

When mixing, sum the stereo to mono and turn off 1 speaker. Mixing in mono will sort out any phase problems. You will also notice that some things in the stereo mix are too loud. Adjust levels and then re-check in stereo.

Works for me.

Cheers
Peter

 

[hdh]

Cool Vocal Sweetener

Duplicate your vocal track 2 times (so now you have three). Take one of the duplicates, detune it (downward) by12 cents, delay it by 25 ms, and pan it hard left. Take the other duplicate, detune it (upward) by 12 cents, also delay it 25 ms (you’re delaying both of these 25 ms behind the main vox—they’re in sync with each other) and pan this second dupe hard right.

Now bring the faders all the way down on these new “mangled” tracks. While your listening to the original vox (which is still in the center), bring these 2 new ones up gradually. Too low—there’s no difference. Too high—it just sounds wrong. Just right—the voice is nice and thick with a cool edge to it.

If you’re doing reverb on the vox, you can also just add it to the two new tracks—so you get some depth, but your main vocal in the middle stays big and present.

So much easier to use Waves Doubler 2 plug-in. Does the same thing plus you can add some movement with modulation to the "second/third" vocals.

 

[Ripthorn]

Okay, as a preface, I'm a physicist, so let ye be warned. Probably my best tip is make sure when you are mixing that you're speakers subtend an angle of as close to 60 degrees as possible. When Blumlein invented stereo, it was meant for only speakers subtending 60 degrees at the listening position. This will make sure that your stereo image is a true stereo image. Oh, and make sure you've got some decent monitors.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Okay, as a preface, I'm a physicist, so let ye be warned. Probably my best tip is make sure when you are mixing that you're speakers subtend an angle of as close to 60 degrees as possible. When Blumlein invented stereo, it was meant for only speakers subtending 60 degrees at the listening position. This will make sure that your stereo image is a true stereo image. Oh, and make sure you've got some decent monitors.

Good point. The way that is commonly expressed in the audiophile world is to say that the listening position should be the same distance from each monitor as the monitors are from each other. In other words, they should form the corners of an equilateral triangle.

And since the angle of each corner of an equilateral triangle equals exactly 60°, it's just another way of saying the same thing you just described. But it's arguably a bit easier of a way of visualizing it on a lay level.

That said, there are those mix engineers who do personally prefer to move the listening position inwards towards the monitor plane a bit - at least temporarily - in order to artificially explode the pan image when working with a crowded soundstage; but that is a purely subjective choice on the part of the engineer.

Feynman or Gell-Mann?

G.

 

[xfinsterx]

1.Using a tight Q on a parametric to find frequencies i dont like, and dip them out.

2.Have a developed enough ear to know what isnt needed in just about any sound.

3. Having a sense of what i want the mix to sound like b4 i ever start mixing it.

 

[Ripthorn]

Good point Glen, there are definitely benefits to an exploded image, but I wouldn't suggest it as a common practice. It can also be useful to narrow the field if you don't want to worry about summing to mono and switching off one of your monitors.

P.S. Feynmann rules, especially with his diagrams. Makes quantum mechanics literally look like child's play.

Rip

 

[JustAboutReal]

damn...

this is a great thread... it really is! I'll be back for more tips and tweaks.

Don't be afraid to experiment! And if you're using a multi-track, don't be afraid to use a few extra mics here and there. You can always remove the tracks later on.

And on that note, here's my next one: If a track doesn't add something to the mix, you should probably get rid of it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Good point Glen, there are definitely benefits to an exploded image, but I wouldn't suggest it as a common practice.

Which is why I said "temporarily". All it takes is to set the listening apex of the triangle so one is sitting back comfortably in their chair with plenty of belly room between the chair and the desk. Then one just needs to scoot their chair up a bit and lean forward just a bit over the desk and they have the wider image to work with.

Personally I find that this is especially handy if I drop the monitor volume levels to a quiet conversation level when I do so; it really - for me, anyway - lets one x-ray the mix in fine listening detail. Not for stuff like noise level, obviously, but rather more for overall mix timbre and balance.

Of course this all applies only to near field monitoring and mixing.

G.

 

[blueroommusic]

long time, no post...sorry if this was covered already, but the parallel compression that you asked about earlier; it's one of my favorite tricks especially in a hard rock mix where drums can tend to get drowned out.

1) create a bus with a compressor on it; could be anywhere from 4:1 to 8:1 ratio depending on how forward you want it.

2) use a send on all your drum tracks and send them to that bus.

3) bring the the compressed drum bus up in the mix until it adds a little more punch to the drums

4) tweak attack/decay times to suit

sorry if this was covered; i'm a little tipsy on the champagne of beers.

 

[masteringhouse]

No matter how many tips and techniques you pick up always go back to the basics, re-evaluate your chain, and learn it all over again. I mean really learn it, down to the circuit if you can.

As mentioned early on basic techniques are not menial. Picking something as "simple" as the proper microphones assumes that you've listened to a lot of microphones.

Also know what sound you want to achieve and investigate how it was done in the past. Sure some gear like an SSL may be out of reach, but with the advent of modeling and lower hardware options not as much as it used to be. A poor workman blames his tools anyway. 80% (or more) of the sound comes from the source. The less that you have to do later to compensate, the more "pro" your recordings will be.

 

[Nightfire]

1) Mute all channels except the bass drum, and bass guitar. Get them to play together nicely and a big part of your mix is done. Then open up all other channels again and keep mixing.
2) Always mix in mono, until you think the mix is ready and done and sounding good. THEN start panning.
3) If the song has quite the bit of distortion on the guitars, track an acoustic strumming the chord and keep it pretty low in the mix, almost unhearable. If a song is primaly acoustic guitar, track and overdriven guitar and keep it at very low volume almost unhearable.


Mike

 

[Dogbreath]

One "trick" I read about and then tried was for getting rid of acoustic guitar squeaks.

After tracked, copy and paste each squeak to a new track (still in sync with the original) and flip the phase on the new track. Bring up the fader on the new track until you cancel out as much squeak as you want.

You can also roll off some lo's and mids in the squeak.

This sounds (to me) more natural than just erasing the squeak. I generally leave just a skosh of squeak in the track to keep it that way.

 

[guitar zero]

Great thread!!!

Strat, I just used your vocal delay with 12 cent detuning trick on a few vocal tracks that were just too thin, and it really helped fill them out. Thanks &
keep em comin' folks.

 

[Daisy]

One "trick" I read about and then tried was for getting rid of acoustic guitar squeaks.

After tracked, copy and paste each squeak to a new track (still in sync with the original) and flip the phase on the new track. Bring up the fader on the new track until you cancel out as much squeak as you want.

You could also just do volume envelpes (on the squeaks) and accomplish the exact same thing ... bypassing the whole "copying the squeaks to another track and flipping the phase" thing.

Unless you just like extra work.