Sound quality and performance

Jimmy you have made some good points here. In many mastering situations for example I dont have the ablility to go back to the mix and it is harder to make major changes to a mixed track. But as you say switching the mastering in and out and constantly checking that what you are doing is actaully improving can be difficult at times. That is why it is good to make sure that when you are listening to complete unmastered tracks that you do it at exactly the same volume as the mastered version. That makes it a little easier to hear.

If I am mastering my own stuff and as you say many of us are, then yes I have gone back to the mix and it is really the best way to do it. I think tracks are very important. This is one area I dont mind using a frequency analyser either. It is much easier to see what is going on in one track compared to a whole mix for example. The curves are interesting to look at over a mix but as I said in the other thread I dont let them dictate to me very much. It can be inconclusive at times.

I dont like using a reference (curves) to set up a recording or even a mix for that matter. Although listening to well produced CD's in the same genre is not a bad idea.

The playing is everything. The better the band the easier it is to record, mix and master. Steely Dan for example would be a breeze to record and mix and master or a Chick Corea performance etc. All the musicians are making the right choices in terms of what they are playing and none of the parts seem to get in the way of each other. But that is another whole story! Without a doubt if any of us are finding it hard to mix and master one of our own tracks the reason is probably in the playing and the parts we have created and how average they are compared to brilliant playing for example. Then we need to go back and redo stuff to make it better.

It is easy to think that the worlds most brilliant mixing and mastering engineers have all this magic that us mere mortals dont have but I dont agree with it at all. Remember they have been recording and mixing and mastering the best musicians and music and performances after all and it is really much much easier when you do it at that level. Only a few times I have the pleasure to record mix and master a world class band and it was easy. The recording came together so easily, the mix was painless and the mastering a total breeze and the end result is fantastic. Not that much to do with me really it was all about them. Have to say this though, if we are having problems with all or any of these stages it is the music and the performance that is the problem.

One comment made by a mastering engineer who was working on some recordings I worked on was that he could hear the limitations in the signal chain, and that is what sometimes makes a significant difference in the final product. It comes down to high headroom pres, great mics, good room, nice A/D chain. I also agree that in mixing I find myself too often trying to solve problems that should have been addressed when the band arranged the song to begin with. So often in digital recording, because we have the ability to record nearly unlimited numbers of tracks, we put off decisions in creating music that should be addressed early on. Trying to edit those decisions into a piece at the mixing stage always produces a less than optimum product. The limited equipment of the past (in terms of track counts) in some ways was probably a blessing, in that it forced a discipline on the musicians to arrange and play decisively. In the end, it's probably the deliberate nature of the execution of a piece of music that gives the impression of a cohesive artistic creation.

I've been doing a bit of guitar Reamping this weekend. It's been real rewarding to get a chance to dial in a *perfect* take tone wise.

I've been down on my hands and knees listening to the speaker and placing the mic in the sweet spot while doing micro adjustments on the knobs.

It's been so nice to mix after you get it right on the track.

Late yesterday I started an acoustic guitar track... it reminded me that you should just throw out anything that is not a great take... which I did. I'm back this morning to chase that goal.

best,
mike

 
   You guys have some great info and thoughts. I find myself
thinking about things when I read your remarks. What is
great is when an experiment or a new approach or a
different way of thinking can yield some positive results.
Sometimes "trying something" doesn't work. But when
something does work it  feels like a giant step forward
and it makes it all worth while.

  I find it interesting that I now like some plugins that I
didn't like before. Or I like a different setting or "go to"
approach that I didn't like before. Parametric EQ is one
example. I have built hardware parametric
EQ's and some other hardware stuff. But I seemed to
still prefer graphic EQ. (but now I see how great it can
work)

   At one time I didn't like the "vintage" slope in the
sonitus comp now I do. The 64 bit plugs in sonar 8
seemed to be so "harsh sounding" now they sound
awesome. One thing that I still don't favor though
is the concept of trying to "emulate" tube saturation
or getting a "tape saturation" type sound.

  I played guitar many years live and did many different
styles of music. The problem was that in doing so many
different types of "sounds" were required. I carried a
rack around the size of a refrigerator. But I was never
satisfied with the sound.

  I know now what it was. It was the "equipment".
Basically speaking if the quality of "tone" isn't
satisfying to start with then all this "stuff" is only
making things tolerable. This seems to be the same in
mixing. As for the subject of "vst" synths and
sound/samples  most of the time something just
don't "sound right".

   I have some samples of my own "such as bass/drum"
samples that were started so many years ago that I
can't remember. One would think with all this new
technology that "awesome samples" would be
everywhere. In a way this would be true if the genre
of music was of a given type.

  One of the hardest types of music/genres to
produce/mix/create well is the country/crossover
type sound. (modern that is). This sound I describe
is one that is true to the roots of a country sound
but has the quality of pop. (the good pop that is)

  It isn't all that hard to do/get a 70s 80s type
sound/mix/performance but try and do a Lush,
warm and beautiful modern type tune and its
a whole new story. This makes me think of the
"Nashville session players" subject.

  In most bands that I played in years ago most of
my fellow players didn't view these "session players"
as remarkable. I did.  And I was awe struck at they're
abilities. That was where this new modern country
sound was coming from. It was/is "the players"

  But it doesn't stop with just great players. Add
great producers/mixers (and yes mastering
engineers) and you have something. As I study all
the different aspects from the writing to the
performance on up to what it takes to create a
final product it becomes clear that "all" of the
parts and skills must be off high quality.

  As I looked at commercial tunes I found that the
"wav form view" of the great tunes shared a common
ground. It wasn't a "brick" but it was something
similar. There were small "edges". In contrast those
tunes that were "flatlined" sound awefull.

  I found also that if I listen hard I can hear the
comping in the mix but that's just it. I have to listen
for it and it doesn't just sound comped. Maybe this
is how they get such a great sound. The bass guitar
and the kick (in the songs that have them) are (to me)
a huge part of the quality of the sound of the mix.

  As I tried to get that quality of sound I tried to make
the bass and kick both be very equal in level. I found
that cutting the lows from other instruments in the
mix didn't work. In other words it didn't "open up"
an area for the bass/kick.

  What I did find is that the low mids and mids in the
other instruments were clashing with the bass/kick.
It would seem logical to think that the "lows" of the
other instruments would be what clashes but in
fact (in my case) this wasn't so.

  I also found that those mixes with the best sound
didn't have that 100 hz bump that seems to be common.
Actually at about 100 hz down the level was actually
about a few db "higher" than 100 hz. Then it dropped
a "little bit" from 100 to 200 hz. then from 200 hz on
up there began to be gradual fall.  "seemingly that is"

  So how can they get such a strong low end without
sounding like it's all "bass"? I think much of it is in how
well one can equal the "sustain" of the bass guitar.
Its much like thinking of the bass guitar as a "brick"
and letting the "kick" do the punching.

 Can both the bass and kick be strong down around
about 100 hz down? I think so (if) the bass and kick
aren't strong between about 100 to 200 hz. This
might raise the question of whether this is (in
standard) with common knowledge so I can't say
whether this is right or wrong or good or bad.

  It's just what it looks like to me as I try things.
All of my songs available for listening "do not"
meet this quality of sound that I pursue. They
are O.K. but just not "there" yet. I am hopeful
though that I can achieve that quality and things
are getting better.

   






 

   Jeff.
          You put into words things that I don't think of to talk
about. I sometimes just talk about something in order to
maybe spark someone as yourself to bring up those very
good points that you mention. Bitflipper has really sparked
an interest into looking into things. His info is so remarkable.

  I've yet to get into some of the methods used such as
side chaining and parallel busses and many other very
useful techniques. There is so much I can't as of yet
comprehend when it comes to "numbers". You mentioned
this day of DAW and how it gives us so much more of an
ability to create wonderful sounds.

  That's what I see. I think sometimes that maybe
some people see or feel there are limits to what a
person can achieve at home with they're "system"
When someone comes along and produces a great
sound with mid level gear then I think it will pave
the way for showing it "can be done"

  In my case my gear is average or maybe even
"low end" to some people. I don't have any U87
mics or "Manley" hardware or "great river" pres
and such. At least here on the tech forum I can
bump elbows with those of you who have seen
and used great gear and know of those many
aspects of engineering.

  It seems to really boil down to the fact that it's
what one can do with what they've got. And just
because we may sometimes feel that our
productions may not compare to the "pros" it
it doesn't keep me from trying to.

  I live near Nashville and have seen some of the best
session players do live jazz gigs. By day they may be
doing "country" sessions and by night just "burning
it up" on jazz stuff. The skill level is just amazing.
I've done (some) session work but nothing big.

  The interesting thing to me is in the last year or
so of being here on the forum and speaking with
people and trying things that I've learned more
about producing/mixing than almost all my past
years combined.  
 

   Phillip
      You have some very good points about the " big time"
mastering engineers. I don't know if things are left out
or vague or unclear because of not "giving away" all they're
secrets or that it's just to hard to put into words.

  You mention "in your case" that a sustained bass
covers up the kick. Is it comping the "kick " too much?
that may be why. In the old days the "kick" was mostly
just "boom". In today's times it has some "snap" as
you mention up to as far as even 10k.

  A kick "hit" is a short term thing. So it must "do its thing"
in a small amount of time. The kick has only a fraction of
a second to sound great. Creative use of verb on kick
can also make it come alive in the mix. (minimal that is)

 My taste for verb on kick is not a "room" sound but
more of a dry kick with a "plate" type verb.   

The low mids, bass and kick are often thought of as the most difficult part of mixing.  After years of research and experimenting I feel I have a workable system for this problem.  (I don't use side chaining....maybe I should?)

I am using Toto's approach a little bit on this..  Simon Phillips Kick sounds wonderful and Mike Porcaro's bass is very well defined.  Their mixes are fantastic.  Simon's Kick is tuned down more than a normal kick - peaking at about 43hz.  This gives more room for the Bass.

1) I put a high pass filter on everything except Kick. 
2) Bass has a high pass filter too (at a lower freq) so it doesn't interfere with my lower tuned kick.
3) To get the bass more defined (instead of muddy) I run the bass through an Ampeg SVT plugin.  My EQ on the bass drops the volume about 3db below about 100hz.  Dropping the volume of the lower bass and adding the upper harmonics of it through the Ampeg SVT seems to work well.  Without these upper harmonics it was difficult for me to get a good sounding bass.

Guitartrek

--I am using Toto's approach a little bit on this..  Simon Phillips Kick sounds wonderful and Mike Porcaro's bass is very well defined.  Their mixes are fantastic.  Simon's Kick is tuned down more than a normal kick - peaking at about 43hz.  This gives more room for the Bass.

I've read that most kicks are boosted at 100-125 +/-.  Simon's kick then is really low!

Most/all of my mixes, I run the bass-harmonics up btw 30-60Hz ... making the bass the lowest and fullest sustain ... this was after reading Ishaki, and others ... OTOH Ishaki, IIRC, suggests giving the kick the lowest peaks for many mixes (like you).