A whole whack of high quality beginner's mixing tutorials on youtube...

Since I seem to have finally gotten a handle on Sonar (only took 3 years... lulz) I'm going to really shift my studies to mixing. I can't afford to throw cash at a lot of the usual books or vids so in the meantime I'm just gonna scour youtube and read a lot of articles. Even though I already know quite a bit about mixing it's pretty patchwork but as soon as I started plugging searches into youtube I came across exactly what I think I needed.
 
https://www.youtube.com/user/wickiemedia/videos
 
Just lots of simple, easy to understand yet seemingly thorough explanations of stuff. Just what I need before I start looking at the more heavy duty/specialized tuts on youtube like Pensado's Place.
 
Above is the guys video page but I started from his Introduction vid and followed the links he provides (and/or in the sidebar) to navigate through the start of the series.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEorsfZe4vU
 
The first vid is ULTRA basic stuff but it picks up very quickly from there going into the complexity of mixing consoles and the like. Don't have time to post other vids I'm scouring up but thought maybe other n00bs (and perhaps not so n00bs) might find this guy's stuff useful.
 
Cheers.

Thanks Beep 

Hey beeps,
 
I think what you're doing is really cool. Just be careful when sharing stuff as some of it is a bunch of crap for the sake of someone feeling powerful on the net. I can't tell you how many misleading vids I've found....and then people post them thinking they are helping when in reality, they *could* actually be hurting.
 
I know you know how to gauge this stuff, but I still wanted to put it out there to you. I try my best to respect and appreciate the stuff I see from others at all times....it's just so hard to share this stuff when you:
 
a) aren't using the same recorded material as they are
b) using the same gear
 
You can of course approximate, but let's face it, some of this stuff is way out there. This is why books on the subject depress me while I see all these supposed guru's getting praise....for what? Showing you how to mix on an SSL in a 5 million dollar facility using stuff you may never own in this life time?
 
Just remember....and I know you know this, but it's important....
 
Recording and sound is never a preset or a lesson when it doesn't use YOUR sounds or gear. I'll argue that point with anyone that wishes to jump me. You can't teach a person how to compress THEIR guitar sound correctly if THEIR guitar sound does not exist. You can't teach how to compress a bass or snare if the sound a person uses is not the subject. You can give an approximate, but is that really helpful?
 
"Well heck, how did you learn Danny?"
 
Sound identification. Instead of learning all these techniques and helpful videos, listen to the sounds that are on them. If something sounds great to you, log that sound in your tool box even if you have to record a snip of it. See man, the problem with learning this stuff isn't the lack of techniques or understanding. The problem is learning what is and what is NOT a good sound source.
 
For example, if you were to get the multi-tracks of guys you admire as engineers both super pro or guys on this forum, the one thing you would notice is....they sound great with little to no tweaking. THAT is success and what makes this field 1000 times easier.
 
I read about all these techniques and p-comp etc.....none of that is really needed IF you start with sounds that can stand on their own. We don't need compression tricks and all these work arounds really. You start with a good sound, you add several good sounds, you end up with a great track. It's really cut and dry. The hard thing for guys like yourself is it may not be in the cards to get better gear. Guess what....it's not as important as people make you believe. I have a gazillion tracks that I created while beta testing using a crap mackie console and a Realtek soundcard. I think the tracks sound as good as some of the stuff that has been commercially released by known people.
 
In one small comment....
 
The key to this field is good sound from the source and a good monitoring environment to make the right decisions.
 
Have the above and you're 90% there.....I swear. There isn't a technique or lesson that can help as much as the above. So when you're watching these videos, don't concentrate as much on the technique as the sound you are given. Now, if the technique shows you how to deal with a crappy sound, that's worth learning about. But the main thing you need to learn is how to judge good sounds.
 
That said, "good sounds" can be subjective so you have to really know when something is genre specific or just bad. To me, some of the late 60's and 70's drum, guitar and bass sounds were terrible. Too much tape or mufflers on drum heads, basses that sounded like dead strings, guitars that were harsh or abrasive. Now, as I grew older and actually learned about sound.....my appreciation for those sounds changed. Though I am still not a fan of some of those sounds and feel some were recorded poorly, I now know what is good and what really is crap.
 
In the 80's things were over processed and effected....I did like some of the guitar sounds from that time though. But even there.....so much processing and reverb on everything, it was a mess. BUT.....there were still amazing sounds on all instruments that came from there.
 
90's to present....we have a little over-processing with compression but things are more natural in certain areas. It's sort of like having the rawness of the 60's and 70's minus the dead sounding instruments along with the snap of the 80's minus the effects. I really like where production is going now especially in country music where you can actually be an engineer and use more than compression on a band. And man...the guitar players just get sicker all the time! Especially now that country is more rock oriented. Lyrics are cheese....but the music/players/production is sickness.....in a good way of course. :)
 
Anyway....do what you're doing man. But on the side, try really listening for instrument sounds as well as experimenting on how to get them to sound that way on your own. Sometimes you'll come close, other times you'll fail....and still other times you may even nail it exact. This is what really helps you learn. If you ever get a hold of some of those professional multi-tracks that get passed around here and there, hearing those in your environment can really teach you a lot. Especially when you hear how bad they sound all alone soloed up. LOL! That will teach you how important it is to have instruments work "in the mix with others" over having something sound like a million bucks all by itself.
 
Good luck with this stuff beeps....just be selective and teach yourself to really hone in on what a good sound is all about on various instruments while learning new things. A technique is just that, just a technique. A group of good sounds can speak volumes for themselves and usually become a good sounding song. :)
 
-Danny

Beautiful reply Danny. 
For me, I have watched many vids on mixing and have learned to spot fairly quickly a real amateur from someone who has done it a while. I don't think seeking online help is bad at all as long as you realize that there are millions of ways to skin a cat and just one or two videos is not going to make anyone a great producer. 
 
However, I needed to know technically how to work a new mid-side EQ and found good examples online. You just need to be careful but its not going to ruin you. Keep an open mind and don't be afraid to learn from Danny or in any way that works with your situation. The best part is the learning IMO.

Hi, guys. Sorry... I've been too busy/preoccupied to reply.
 
@Danny... Wise words as always. I completely agree about long, meandering tutorials that end up being completely irrelevant to ones specific needs. I watched a few of those on Groove3 back when Cake gave us that free month. They weren't totally without merit but definitely not exactly where I'm going with things.
 
However, and I'd be curious to get the opinion of some of the more learned folks on this, but I do think the ones I linked to don't fall into that category. The ones I've watched so far stick to facts and explanations about what things are and how they work as opposed to watching a guy run through a mix. Essentially "This is the concept behind mixing", "This is what hardware consoles are and what they do", "This is what a DAW is, does and how it works", "This is an EQ and how it works", This is a compressor and how it works", etc.
 
All facts, explanations and very broad examples as opposed to subjective, proprietary silliness. By high quality I was mostly referring to how well presented they are (the guy really did a good job with the graphics and diagrams and it's not dry/boring/overly simplistic/overly complex). However he seems to be really nailing down all the pertinent details as well so I guess they are quality in that regard too. I think he may have some that are more subjective but I haven't gotten to those yet.
 
As for me... well I think the hardest part of my self education was learning HOW to learn. For about the first year I was completley chasing my tail and often times got overwhelmed/off track. Thankfully this forum was here for me to ask questions about stuff. Just having those conversations started pointing me in the right direction. I didn't even know what the hell a compressor was back then nor what busses were used for (only three years ago... hard to believe really).
 
I have a loooong way to go to get to where I want but I've certainly become a lot more competent (to the extent I've been able to pick up a bit of work lately which is AWESOME). I can do pretty much everything right up to the mixing phase very well (planning a project, tracking, editing, solving problems as they arise, etc) and I think I could do demo quality mixes (even on my crummy gear) but now comes the real deal. Mixing like a pro. Obviously not having a proper room and gear is a huge barrier to this happening but as I keep saying (and you have alluded to in your post) if I can get really good in woefully inadequate conditions then as I build up my studio then things should get so much easier.
 
Gotta figure... most of the top pros likely started on crummy gear too so I try not to let it get me down. Just gotta keep wailing at it and snag what I can as finances allow and in the meantime learn how to get the most out what I do already have.
 
And really... the stuff I've got would likely crush a studio from the 60's or even 70's... aside from the environment of course.
 
Cheers.

Actually it would be really useful I think if the respected pros/forumites took a look at these if they get the time. I certainly agree that there are a lot of non relevant or misleading vids out there but I'm kind of concerned some folks may see those posts and miss out on something useful.
 
I of course don't want to send people to bad vids either so if that's the case then totally let us know but I do kind of wish I had found these when I started out (they seem to have been produced after I really started getting into all this though).
 
PS: I have no affiliation with the guy who made these. Just found them and they kind of surprised me as I was indeed expecting the same old, same old.
 
Cheers.

bitflipper

...most of the top pros likely started on crummy gear

An important point. But mainly, it wasn't just that the gear was technically lacking but rather that it was simple. Just faders, pan knobs and rudimentary equalizers, plus dynamics processors re-purposed from broadcasting. The relative dearth of tools meant that they could understand each of them in depth.
 
And this is where most modern practitioners lose their way. They have so many tools that they never have a chance to learn everything about them. If a compressor isn't giving them good results, they go out and buy another one. One with more presets. One that some famous engineer swears by. One that carefully mimics a piece of gear from 1965. All the time never really understanding what the compressor does.
 
We can all benefit from periodically revisiting the basics, filling in the holes in our knowledge. If I was to create a recording curriculum, it would start with basic electronics and build from there.
 
 
[EDIT] Duh. And if I was teaching someone how to post to a forum, I'd start with how to properly type in a quote with balanced brackets.

Dealing with hardware is something I unfortunately (but in other ways fortunately) missed our on. I kept taking low paid grunt jobs in and around audio/film studios when I was young hoping to get a chance at the gear but I guess I was so over eager that I became far too invaluable as the big strong guy who was willing to scrape the crud out of the bottom of waste baskets... so they kept me stoopid. lol
 
I did get to SEE and MOVE a lot of gear and occasionally some of the nicer pros in such places would throw me an intellectual bone (that sounded less dirty in my head) which has been useful now because I recognize some of this stuff but really I worked myself crippled for not much return (did pay my rent though and saw some cool stuff so can't b*tch too much).
 
If I can ever get my life in order the way I need to I have been planning on taking a proper electronics course so I can try my hand at building my own little mic pres, mixers and amps... but mostly just to understand.
 
When I was young I was very interested in studio stuff but I was also a musician first and mostly focused on stomping stages (and thank cripes I did as much as I could of that when I did because it is an impossiblity now... those memories are pricelss). I think being hunkered in an analog studio in my twenties may not have been as beneficial as touring and being a band whore (I was almost perpetually in three or more bands at a time and constantly in rehearsals or doing gigs which definitely shaped the type of producer I want to be). I was at the right age that computers were just taking over the studio thing (and everything else) but it was all so ridiculously complex, expensive and... well not very good that it did nt seem worth the bother at the time. I still feel it wasn't. I think the tipping point of ease, affordability and sound quality came right about the time I was ready to dive in... and apparently it had actually been there for a few years before I did. I was amazed at some of the things that could be done once I started studying.
 
It's funny how life works out really. I can only hope these last few torturous years will lead me to the things I was only able to fantasize about as young creepoid stage greaser.
 
Okay... I think I'm in a weird mood today. I should do some work and quit waxing nostalgic, philosophic and any other waxing I am apparently engaging in.

Agree with bit about the entertainment factor. I once watched a video just because of how the guy that spoke perfect English yet kept on saying "midi" to where it sounded like "meedee". I so love accents!
 
Anyway, yeah beeps, as always you know I never want you to discount anything. Just be careful like we're all telling you. I think another important issue for you and others to address is....what are your real problems?
 
This is where you can probably weed out the vids that may not apply to you. Granted, there's always something to learn....but fixing your problem areas are, in my opinion, of the utmost importance. Remember, crummy gear isn't a bad thing unless you are really messing with crap. You have Sonar with a nice front end. Don't buy into the hype of mic pre's and all that garbage. I'm serious when I tell you. I've talked to numerous big dudes in the industry about this.
 
The pre thing is all about a certain coloration that they believe in. I've worked with crap pre's and expensive pre's. Some make a 2% difference, others make no difference. That 2% is even subjective. I remember having a discussion with bitflipper about a sound I was getting from my Realtek that wasn't happening when I used my Layla or RME card. How on earth could I like the sound of a distorted guitar better on the Realtek than those pro cards? Bit explained it was probably due to what the coverters may NOT have been doing. How crappy can ya get man? A 1/8 jack into line-in into a Realtek? LOL! That said, like I told you before....a lot of my beta work was done on that system.
 
From programs to plugins. I was asked to use a stripped down system so we knew what limitations we had. Anyone can make their stuff work on a great system (most of the time) but it's nice to see how low you can go. LOL!!!!! I came up with some really well mixed material and didn't use any of my good gear. Stock Dell with an i3, 4 gig ram, Logitech speakers with a sub.....I was quite pleased with the stuff I did.
 
Is there a major difference when I use my good stuff? Yeah, but most of it is due to mixing on my Adams, and NS 10's being more accurate. My mixes on the crappy gear with the logitechs were always bass light....which is ok. The sub pumps a bit too much on them so I drop 30 and 60 Hz by -2dB and it helped me fix that.
 
As for pre's...don't even waste your breath. Get something fair that gets you up to -6dB peak and forget it. With mics, that to me is a bit more important. They literally help to mold your sound a bit more. Sometimes a cheap mic can do wonders. Other times, the pricey mic sucks. I tell this story a lot...but my U-87 only works for me when I sing in G. I have no idea why....but I hate it for myself. My personal choice for my voice and what you hear just about all the time is a $500 Equitek CAD E-200. I have a pretty nice mic locker.....for some reason, cheaper mics sound better on my voice. If you like the stuff you've heard me do, I'm not using millions in gear to get it.
 
I've recently added a Midas to my arsenal....but even there, the pre's are great but aren't giving me any mojo unless I run them hot. When I do, they saturate like a pre should and remain musical. Thats said, I don't do that often so I'm using the pre like any other pre I'd use. -6dB peak going in with a light compressor to condition the signal a little and I forget all about it. So you don't need much brother.
 
So if I were you (though I think you should still stay on this video crusade as it can help you and many others) try to focus on what you feel is wrong with your mixes and see if there is information out there that can help remedy those problems before learning a bunch of techniques.
 
Like maybe, post up one of your mixes here sometime and we can make a clinic out of it or something. That would probably be more helpful than any video you'd learn from, ya know? I know we have the songs forum where there are some great people giving out advice....but sometimes (and I sincerely and heart-fully mean no one any disrespect) there are times when people just aren't helpful over there. Lots of sugar coating at times to the point where it isn't helping anyone. There's one guy that posts things that make me cringe and people fall all over him practically giving him oral text. (lol cracked myself up with that) I just can't sit and read that stuff. I'm all about people being nice.....I'm all about honesty....but it needs to be delivered correctly and not in a pistol pete manner. Then again, over there....a finished song is just that. Finished. The people may not want to be critiqued. When I post over there, I'm not looking for opinions....I just post to share my material. If I want an opinion, you better believe I'd post up and beg. LOL!
 
Anyway, keep doing what you're doing beeps...but like guitar, practice stuff and really research stuff that will correct problems and make you better faster. At the end of the day, you always have me to bounce stuff off of. I never forgot all that theory you shared. I owe ya a few. ;)
 
-Danny

Beeps won't the Focusrite you have do a lot of that stuff? Between the Layla and that, you should have all bases covered, no?
 
If I were you....the simplest and cheapest way to go in my opinion, would be to get some sort of mixing console. You can send your outs to channels and re-amp if need be, you can have dedicated channels for bass, guitar and vox that you never mess with once you get them dialed in, and here's the good thing....you just about never worry about latency again because you'll be playing in real time and won't have to use direct input monitoring unless you are recording in real time with a VSTi.
 
Second choice would be the ART because it seems to do everything you need all in one box. I like the mixer option because in some instances, believe it or not I'm lazy. From the time I started doing this stuff, I have always had dedicated channels for each instrument. This way, once I dialed something in, I left it alone and it was there for me instantly. I also liked it due to it removing latency from my world just about completely. Not that we have to worry much about that any way with the way our pc's can process, it's nice to leave my audio buffers at 2048 and never touch them unless I have to record a synth/drum program in real time.
 
Great to see you also.....hope some of this stuff helps. :)
 
-Danny

There is some awesome info in this thread. I find there is an overload of info nowadays and it can be really distracting. I've decided to narrow down my resources to a handful, less than 10, covering composition, orchestration, mixing, mastering, sound design and PD/Max programming and I stick to them for better or worse. These are resources I really trust and I try my best to shut out the extraneous noise, even if there is awesome info elsewhere, at least for the time being. Nothing can get done without some focus and the barrage of info that is the internet can be really be the death of that.

"Just don't over-think this beeps....a little compressor and a device that gets you to -6dB are the necessities in my opinion"
 
This right here is exactly why I think the ART MP/C dealie might be exactly what I'm needing to push my signal. As you noted the sims and crud in the box does soooooo much and I'm doing rather well with it so far but I'm having to do TOO much I think to get the initial signal evened out and crispied up before I can actually start going into "sparkle" mode. SO it's like two in the box stages... dealing with the raw signal THEN screwing with it to make it sound how I like.
 
That is one step too many. That little box has the compressor and the tube and the routing (I'm talking the MP/C... not the cheaper versions that lack the compressor). The tube can be completely bypassed and SUPPOSEDLY it can be transparent if you do that and still access the compressor.
 
I think really, even though perhaps inadvertantly, you've given me moer encouragment into snagging that box. Really if it ends up being only useful as a mic pre for voice overs so I can use dynamic mics (which I kind of prefer) instead of my crummy condensers then I don't think it will be a waste of money. If it gets my guit and bass input a little better so I can solely focus on the mix sound (instead of treating the signal with digital gain automation/limiting/compression/etc) THEN doing the tone chasing... well that's what I want.
 
As always I appreciate all the info you provide. I may have cherry picked what I wanted to hear there but that one little tidbit does seem to jibe with my needs. I cannot think of anything else I own, outboard gear wise, that can accomplish that input condition aside from screwing around with nutty (and noisy) chains of pedals and frankly (now that I've tested them) inferior line outputs on my amps.
 
I'd rather just go the more direct route and fiddle with crap on the computer. Just need a beefier and more even signal really.
 
Cheers and thanks.

So as I had been checking out some of the vids in the OP for some reason a vid in the sidebar caught my eye so I opened it in my browser and left it there until I could check it out. Glad I did.
 
If you can get over the ridiculous cheesiness of the video production and presentation the info is freaking brilliant...
 
Art of Mixing - David Gibson
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEjOdqZFvhY
 
The first ten minutes and even the first chapter are almost unwatchable because of all the silly characters and silly graphic effects (someone must have bought a Video Toaster card and went apedoodles with it... lol) but he chills out on that stuff and gets to the meat of it.
 
It's about all that crazy 3D "spatial" type stuff I keep seeing referred to and KIND of understood but this really brought it home. Since it's a little older (I honestly thought it was from the early to mid 80's because of how bad the production is but as it progressed it's clear it's likely from the early 90's) it covers the REAL fundamentals well without getting nutsoid on all the newfangled crap we have now which to me honestly confuses most discussions on audio production.
 
So if you can get through the first ten minutes without losing an eyeball from rolling them too hard this is probably worth watching. He veers of into some kind of flaky philosophy stuff too but he's enthusiastic which is cool I guess. Reminds me of the art teachers in school who were ultra cheesy but were REALLY good at showing you how to do stuff (if you actually listened).
 
I'm guessing some of the older dudes might be familiar with this guy and maybe even the vid itself but one thing I would be really interested in is some kind of online resource or book that has diagrams for the mix styles he talks about.
 
He shows various standard styles of mixes in that 3D diagram thing and I think having that type of reference would be very helpful to me. I know "paint by numbers" style mixing is lame and I don't intend to really do that but I'm a firm believer of knowing the "rules" so you can break them more effectively. So any recommendations on that would be great.
 
Anyhoo... I actually did not intend to watch a 2.5+ hour vid today but got sucked in so I should probably get to other projects I've got going on.
 
Cheers.

As a guitar player I've always "visualized" stuff as patterns on the fretboard/strings which is kind of 2d. Like I would have my "fallback" parts as the strongest visualization. That would be the written parts and I could play those and know it just works... so first tier stuff. Then, and this expanded as I learned theory more or just got comfortable noodling around the compositions, there would be second tier things I could see on the fretboard. Essentially possble variations that I KNEW would work. As an arsehole who liked to twist things up then I would visualize the "nasty" notes that I knew I could potentially deviate to to... well make things nasty for a second or two before scrambling back to the straight/sweet stuff. This was particularly useful in the high speed punk/hardcore stuff. It was the art of playing the WRONG notes or the RIGHT notes in the wrong way (one of my favorite albums is DRI Live at CBGBs and if you listen to how NASTY but tight those guit parts are... well to me that's golden). From there it was all a matter of right hand force and loudness or slides, scrapes, bends, plam mutes and other less definable things. I guess those would mostly get visualized as little swells, explosions and movement on the fretboard and over my picking hand.
 
In that whole scenario the only things aside from my own parts that I really payed attention to were the crack of the snare and the vocals so I could keep time and make sure I was complimenting the vox instead of being some oblivious lamo guitar cocker. So I would be visualizing more little explosions and trying time them/tonally sync them up from what my amp was throwing in comparison to the snare and vox and then letting the bass or other components swell in to the picture when those elements were carrying the riffs/became the focal point of the music.
 
When I was singing and playing priority 1 went to visualizing my throat, tongue and the words... then (and almost as importantly) my picking hand as it strummed the chords and then the snare and kick (and sometimes the bass if they were solid) so I could keep the right hand going. Since when I sang I made sure my left hand was ultra conditioned to the chords so it was mindless I knew I could find my vocal tonality by tuning my ear to what I was doing (but I would always prefer to lean on the bass but damn... those guys tend to go off sometimes and it is very distracting).
 
This was all very two dimensional I think and very limited. I was not listening to the whole band. I was plucking out what I NEEDED to do my parts then blocking out everything else. I had to trust the band to do what they were supposed to and if they fracked up rely on them to get caught up (but as soon as they did I would definitely hear it and not leave them hanging... I'd give a cue or a look or even alter my performance).
 
That's all live stuff though which is what I did... for years. Tours, weekly house gigs, at least 6 rehearsals a week with up to 4 bands per week... whatever. It was like crack to me.
 
So trying to view things from an engineers perspective is very different because you are focusing on EVERYTHING and trying to balance it. Like the old jokes of "Don't send a guitar player in to mix an album because all you'll hear is the guit". Totally true. Same could be said the opposite for other performers who will turn themselves DOWN more than they should be (like freakwad bass players or nervous/shy vocalists).
 
When I REALLY started listening to the WHOLE band was when I started playing drums. Being behind the kit and usually having the band surrounding you and having to take cues from all the various elements of the band at differeing point but still having them all looking YOU to keep the meter you start becoming WAY more aware of what's going on in the band room (on stage half the time you can't hear squat behind the drums because house sound is garbage in 90% of time so you gotta hope you learned your parts well and that the other members can hear YOU).
 
Behind the drums really was more like a 3d environment now that I think about it because I was always "reaching out with my ears" to pull out the elements I needed to keep me on track. I never played my drums straight. I'm huge Moon fan so I liked that rolling chaos feel and if someone fracked up I always tried to cover it and just keep pushing everything forward. I was not the greatest player by any means but it was damned fun and gave me such a great new perspective on band dynamics.
 
Anyway... I think after watching Mr Gibson's video and seeing your comments on this, bitflipper, perhaps that is at least one perspective I should be considering while I mix. The thing I liked about the Gibson visualization method was the three dimensional space where you can almost reach out, touch and move certain elements. It does make a lot of sense to me. I certainly don't think I few it all as colors or spheres or specific shapes but maybe more ragged objects of varying sizes popping in and out of view. So the depth, width and height thing is cool but only for the virtual room he creates. The sounds themselves would be so much more textured in my mind and not necessarily be 2d in that 3d space. Like they flow from front to back and maybe are round at the front but jagged at the back or vice versa or streak and pulse in bizarre way.
 
Whatever... I thought it was a cool concept but I do appreciate that it is only one way to look at it. That's kind of why I want to just dig and dig and dig and watch and learn and listen to as much as possible based on how various producers hear and do things.
 
Relly I just needed to get the basics of operating a DAW and all the fundementals of tracking in the digital age totally sorted out before putting my mind toward mixing... and now that's what I'm gonna do. So I expect to spend 20 years before I get REALLY good at it but WTF else am I gonna do? lol
 
One guy I kind of want to learn how to mix/think like... well at least for the ONE epic release he worked on, is Butch Vig. I don't care what anyone thinks about Nirvana... that is a brilliantly engineered album and I would LOVE to be able to take sloppy arsed insaneoids like Cobain and turn their raw energy into... well THAT. You listen to the early stuff and it's great but it's raw. You listen to In Utero... it's alright but Cobain got a bug up his dill about overproduction and churned out something that was overproduced while at the same time being UNDER produced.
 
Mr Vig seemed to really get something magic going on. Of course it could hav ebeen a complete and utter fluke... which is of course known to happen.
 
Anyhooo...
 
blah dee freaking blah... eh?
 
;-)

Hi, Jim. Glad you bumped this beacause I've been casually working through some more of those vids myself and they really are answering a lot of lingering questions.
 
I did try to snag those pdf's but they require a login which... well it's not a big deal (just need an email) but I didn't bother and hunted down that other interactive frequency chart. These vids are good enough though that I might sign up for buddy's site just to get his fancy take.
 
Cheers.

charlyg
Is a whack more or less than a bushel? Or is it like an acre?

Hextare if you ask me.