No How
Max Output Level: -23.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5180
- Joined: 2006/05/02 11:56:01
- Location: the boogie-woogie Isles
- Status: offline
Illogical Earz
I've been trying to mix songs and every time I do I make the same mistakes. I make them because to mix correctly is illogical to my ears. For example: Got my drum track, got my bass track got my keys. I want drums to be solid and very present (adjective police sirens blazing) ..like we all do so i eq to taste. Bass has got to have BOTTOM or it's not bass IMO BUT that will not work with beefy kick drum as they seem to mush out. So i have to cut some real low thunder from the bass (which i hate to do) to make room for thud of kick. by now I've already ruined a mix as I can not part with too much of my low bass. Now the keys , especially piano, need a nice low end also IMO...BUT, again need to scoop. The list gets worse as I add guitar and vox and whatever. Same bargaining happens in the upper mids with snare, guitar and lead vox. I do not know how to make everyone happy (and present)...to me, THis is the heart of mixing. Getting basic EQ where everyone is clear and present. There doesn't seem to be enough room in the spectrum for all the instruments to shine. I think I need to study up on proper usage of high and low pass filters. Just an audio-rant
post edited by No How - 2009/09/18 16:45:06
s o n g s – Beauty lodged in a bad hotel has no value. Raymond Lull
|
j boy
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2729
- Joined: 2005/03/24 19:46:28
- Location: Sunny Southern California
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/18 16:50:58
(permalink)
No How
There doesn't seem to be enough room in the spectrum for all the instruments to shine.
There isn't. Ever been in a band where everybody thinks they're "ther star". Or what we used ot call the More Me Syndrome. The guitarist wants to be the loudest thing in the band, so he's blaring away and the singer has to shout to be heard over him, meanwhile the drummer feels lost so he starts banging harder... that's just not the way good music gets made. Each player needs to be aware of who or what is the focus or featured voice at any given time, and step back accordingly into a supportive role. Well mixing is that way, too. You say you want the drums to be big and bold... but listen to some classic recordings, rally listen. Likely, the drums are tucked back in a supportive role, not "police sirens blazing" as you describe. Of course the kick will mess with your bass guitar if it's mixed too loud. You'll never "fit" everything into the mix at full tilt. Something has to be the focus and something has to be the support. Generally it's a n00b mistake to mix the drums too forward in the mix.
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/18 16:56:37
(permalink)
no, there isn't even spectrum for everything to be loud and out front. Worst way to present your music, anyway.
For the kick and bass, find the fundamental of the kick and carve out a space for it w/ the bass. You'll also find boosting some of the higher freqs for the bass will let it punch through.
But in general, one has to arrange the parts so they don't step on one another and the instruments don't step on one another in the freq. dept. And if you listen to older music, classic rock from the 60, 70 and even into the 80s, the drums weren't so prodominate. Makes a mixers job harder if you want the drums out there since the full kit is full range and just eats up space and there is no place (or little) for the leads or vox to go. Put your drums on a bus and getting sounding good, then add in the rest of the rhythm section (guitars on a bus and anything that is similiar on the same bus). That way as you "add" more elements you can pull down the good mixes of instruments to fit in more elements.
There is no magic trick, just a bunch of little ones. But if the parts are written well, the mixing becomes a lot easier.
@
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome
http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|
foxwolfen
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8256
- Joined: 2008/03/29 23:41:47
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/18 17:59:55
(permalink)
No How
I've been trying to mix songs and every time I do I make the same mistakes. I make them because to mix correctly is illogical to my ears.
For example:
Got my drum track, got my bass track got my keys.
I want drums to be solid and very present (adjective police sirens blazing) ..like we all do so i eq to taste.
Bass has got to have BOTTOM or it's not bass IMO BUT that will not work with beefy kick drum as they seem to mush out. So i have to cut some real low thunder from the bass (which i hate to do) to make room for thud of kick. by now I've already ruined a mix as I can not part with too much of my low bass.
Now the keys , especially piano, need a nice low end also IMO...BUT, again need to scoop.
The list gets worse as I add guitar and vox and whatever.
Same bargaining happens in the upper mids with snare, guitar and lead vox.
I do not know how to make everyone happy (and present)...to me, THis is the heart of mixing.
Getting basic EQ where everyone is clear and present.
There doesn't seem to be enough room in the spectrum for all the instruments to shine.
I think I need to study up on proper usage of high and low pass filters.
Just an audio-rant
Filters are your friend in everything to do with human perception. From sight to sound to smell to touch. One thing I try to do Rick, is think about "what is redundant" in the sound spectrum. A kick and a bass may share a lot of information. Removing the redundancy allows both to shine. Sometimes I remove it from the bass, because the kick can drive the tone I want, and other times the bass, to smooth out and soften the kick for example. Depending on the kick, sometimes the bass is only there as string pluck finger or slap sound; a suggestion of bass, because the kick is so all encompassing. Having anything but the plinks muddies it, yet all the information is still there, even if it is now only just suggested. Your brain fills it in and accepts it as all present and accounted for.
A scientist knows more & more about less & less till he knows everything about nothing, while a philosopher knows less & less about more & more till he knows nothing about everything. Composers Forum
|
mattplaysguitar
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1992
- Joined: 2006/01/02 00:27:42
- Location: Gold Coast, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/18 19:50:18
(permalink)
Each instrument does different parts of the spectrum better than another part. Acoustic guitar, for example, does the high end really nicely, but as for the low end, it often gets a bit muddy. It's still part of the character of the sound, but if you have a bass there which can do that part of the spectrum much more effectively, then let it do that part instead. It's his job to do that, not the acoustic. This also suggests that choosing the correct instrument is also important. Don't only choose an instrument cause it sounds good for the song, you should listen and try to choose them so they fit in in the gaps in the spectrum - as well as sounding right for the song. Same when you are writing guitar riffs, write them in an octave that fits in to the song. Now if that acoustic guitar really needs some of it's low end to still sound right, rather than a highpass, try a shelf instead. Just cut down the low end of the acoustic till the bass lets it in. The bass will tell you if it wants any low end acoustic in there. If it just refuses and says "NO!" then go back to the highpass - or the song will suffer.
Also don't get every instrument out the front, even if it all fits in the spectrum - as has already been said. Otherwise there is just too much going on. If you have too many instruments playing noticably at once it's just too much to concentrate on. Let each instrument have it's time to shine - if it deserves some spotlight time. Sometimes the instrument should never be heard in the song unless it is muted. That is sometimes perfect for the song. That's all it's life will amount to. And that's ok. That's what it was brought up for. Very similar to people in this world. Some people really just shouldn't be made famous, they should hang back in the shadows. Only difference is no-one would actually notice if they wern't there.
|
gamblerschoice
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3226
- Joined: 2005/02/25 15:55:05
- Location: Johnstown, Pa
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/19 00:19:37
(permalink)
This is possibly the number one reason for having some one mix your music for you. You have an emotional tie to your tunes, they are your "creation", almost a "child" of your's. You also have a preconcieved notion of exactly what you want to hear, with no consideration to the reality that can be accomplished. What you hear in your head, your mind's ear, may not be possible in the real world.
Someone who has no connection to your music, a person who is pulling your tracks up one at a time, and evaluating each instrument and vocal from an impersonal, even cold angle will find the natural strengths and weaknesses, and hear interplay between instruments and vocals you did not hear.
The best you can accomplish is a high quality demo if you are overly attached to the song. This is not a slight to your tech abilities, just a recognition of the limitations created because of your closeness to the music. A mixing/mastering engineer is listening with completely different (and indifferent) ears.
Later
Albert
|
No How
Max Output Level: -23.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5180
- Joined: 2006/05/02 11:56:01
- Location: the boogie-woogie Isles
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/19 20:14:57
(permalink)
jboy..........I do try to make everything fit in and I've not learned to back off on some of them. I also tend to let the volume climb as the song goes along which can also add to the chaos.
VEry good point about the drums on older recordings. you're right. As I listen I can hear, as Shad is saying, that my imagination fills in the blanks. Loud is not necessary. Clarity is. Thanks for the reply.
AT........It would be quite a relief to actually not have to obsess over drums. You're yet another who's pointed out that the golden songs from the 60-80s were not drum predominant.
I have never done the instruments to a buss thing. I'm not sure how to do it but I'll do a search on the forum.
I usually have my effects in the buss.
Great suggestions. Thank you.
Shad............My kick almost always has a lot of unwanted 'boom' with it. Of course you're correct...imagination DOES fill in the blanks. Interesting you say the kick can drive the tone you want. I will start exploring filters as I've not had too much experience with them.
Thank you for the suggestions.
Matt..............Lots of great stuff here. It makes so much sense. In reality it's the same way. Our ears tune in to only what is focused on even though there are sounds coming from everywhere. I haven't written with EQ in mind but i will be aware of it from now on as i arrange a piece.
Thanks so much for the help.
Albert............Yes. You hit the nail on the head. I'm NOT meant to mix what I"ve written for all the above reasons. I can NOT hear it as an engineer. I hear it as a writer. That is a big part of the problem.
I find when i've come back to a song i did months earlier it's easier to mix it as the buzz of the new song is gone and i'm not as invested in the parts as much as the song as a whole.
Seeing as I'm not in a position to hire out to mix I'll need to learn to put on another hat to mix...and that may mean coming back to the song months later for a new perspective.
THank you!
s o n g s – Beauty lodged in a bad hotel has no value. Raymond Lull
|
Philip
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4062
- Joined: 2007/03/21 13:09:13
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/19 21:48:38
(permalink)
 ... bargaining happens in the upper mids with snare, guitar and lead vox. TBH Rick, FWIW, one of our mixes ( Dance on High) pierced through the backround road and rain noise most excellently ... while I was driving through heavy rain during a long exhaustive drive Thursday from Dothan to Albertville, AL. It got me through about 60 miles of the hard driving (repeated listening). I pondered: "What environment did Rick mix this in. Why does it sound so good in this frik&n rain!" "It repeatedly sounds so excellent and clear ... through all the roaring road noise ?" "Did he mix this at grand-central station (etc.)?" "When did my ears become suddenly desensitized to his sibs?" "Is the rain producing lows and sibs that somehow cause his strong lows and sibs to to sound exceedingly sweet and excellent". None of my solo-mixes could weather the storm that day; they all sounded like utter cr&p with the rain smashing against the car; only Dance on High. was able to lift me up that hour.
post edited by Philip - 2009/09/19 21:56:37
|
gamblerschoice
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3226
- Joined: 2005/02/25 15:55:05
- Location: Johnstown, Pa
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/20 01:31:05
(permalink)
I am glad you read my comments with the intended attitude. I wasn't saying that you were not capable of doing your own mix, just that you might be too close to it. And, It seems you have the right idea for the fix, just wait a couple weeks in between recording and mixing, get away from the song long enough to become less personally connected.
Best of luck
Later
Albert
|
jimmyman
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2193
- Joined: 2008/12/16 06:57:38
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/20 07:35:22
(permalink)
all of us have different feelings about what works. we all give
remarks that we hope become solutions for the other people.
it isn't uncommon for me to (when i can) spend 10 to 12 hours
in front of the monitors mixing/ listening/ thinking with no break
at all. going to get coffee/check the mail or something is the only
time away from the desk.
the greatest asset you have right now is saying your mixes
are uh well? insert adjective.............................
if i can bring myself to say a mix of mine sounds like dog doo doo
then i can start to roll up my sleeves and get down to work
in some shape form or fashion..
i think a good balance of being extreeeeemly humble
but yet have a very strong determination to (however
you manage to do it) create a "first class mix" will get
you there.
You have to want it that bad. there is no way around it.
some people create ( in they're minds) a virtual quality
about they're mixes. the answers can and will come but
you have to want it real bad.
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/20 19:02:50
(permalink)
I would like to offer my thoughts on mixing processes. Here are few tips:
Checking Tracks Individually
I believe after a recording and before mixing, tracks should be listened to in isolation. Not for too long of course as we all know it is best to mix with everything on, but at first I check tracks one by one for 'fidelity' Its an old Hi Fi term I suppose and before you can blend tracks together they need to reach a certain standard individually. I might solo an acoustic guitar, and what I am listening for is a nice uniform sound. Average bottom end up to nice mids and clean and crystal like highs. If I hear those things I move on but if not, the built in channel EQ is a good place to rectify a few issues. eg using filters can clean up the low end on a track. A snare track might be a bit thick or boomy so a little filtering down low and maybe a little top end boost is going to put it on the right track.
Now this takes experience because you have to know what great sounds are individually. One thing that has helped me here is listening to a lot of well mixed music (all genres) in the past. Something a lot of people don't do enough of. I spent years locked away with a fantastic Hi Fi and played almost every record that had been made at the time. This will teach you so much!
Mix Order
This is something that has not been mentioned in this thread so much and it is very important. The Mix Order is the order that you bring things up in your mix. eg what do you start with? What do you bring in towards the end etc. Many engineers disagree on this, but one thing is for sure. Do not doubt the importance of it. The mix order really determines what sort of mix you are going to end up with. So the mix order has tremendous impact on how your mix will turn out.
There is no use talking about carving out an EQ area in one instrument to allow for another if the mix order is not taken into account. We know that one track has the ability to mask another less important track for example. We also know that a good way to combat masking is to set the volume of the important track higher and the volume of a less important track lower. Rather than just going in there and changing EQ all over the place. It makes good sense to start your mix with the most important track and then bring in less important tracks. Then you can deal with masking a lot more easily and methodically. eg if a new (less important) added track is starting to interfere with the a main (important) track then you know you have to EQ the less important track to work around with the main track.
NOTE If you don't introduce important tracks till later you will always have difficulty in getting them to sound clear in a mix. (Because there are heaps of less important tracks already muddying the water.)
Another reason for introducing important elements first is resources! Often mixing resources are limited. When you start your mix with important tracks then you tend to not over process them so much. Also if you do process them you use your best processors first so you get your important tracks sounding even better!
In Rock and Dance music styles you may start with the rhythm section or drums etc..In pop styles often the vocals are started with first. Wonder why? Our own famous engineer Stav says here in Oz start with what is the most inspiring first. It might be the sax player. But I still agree that if its big vocal tune and the vocals are really important then start with the vocals. Then the other things like drums etc will end up sitting in the right place. Drums dont have to assult you over the head just because they are there! Are they really that important compared to the vocals? But with some other music eg Hip Hop for example the rhythm section and the beat is really important to get sitting big in the mix and the rapping tends to sit on top of all of that.
If you get your important tracks in for example and you may even bring in some less important tracks you might find you still have even more less important tracks that are not in the mix at all. This is a good time to say buy to unnecessary tracks or useless parts!
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
gamblerschoice
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3226
- Joined: 2005/02/25 15:55:05
- Location: Johnstown, Pa
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/21 00:26:07
(permalink)
Very good post, Jeff. Although there is a lot more to be added, I don't think this is the thread for a full discussion.
I would like to add my two cents on the idea of checking each track individually. There has been discussion and opinions about working with eq in individual tracks as opposed to waiting until you have most or even all of the tracks up in the mix. I personally prefer to adjust each individual track first, setting the proper eq as necessary, maybe a touch of light compression to even out the dynamics when necessary, and then move on to the next track, long before I have even considered the final mix. Reverb and other spacial effects are always last.
Also, try to go into the mix process with a blank screen. When I put my engineer's "hat" on, I avoid listening to the song as it was mixed by the customer, I don't even listen to a "quick mix". First comes the individual tracks, then the mixing order which is personal taste developed, I have a "process" if you will, and then start finding which instruments are more important, which pieces stand out, which are truly background "fill" material, etc.
By going in "blind", nothing preconcieved, you often find nuances that were not heard by the author. Of course, there have been times when a customer has asked for a mix to be adjusted to accent an instrument or piece that I thought was secondary, and the customer is always right, but my blind approach usually works out in the end.
Later
Albert
|
No How
Max Output Level: -23.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5180
- Joined: 2006/05/02 11:56:01
- Location: the boogie-woogie Isles
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/21 10:32:22
(permalink)
jimmyman
all of us have different feelings about what works. we all give
remarks that we hope become solutions for the other people.
it isn't uncommon for me to (when i can) spend 10 to 12 hours
in front of the monitors mixing/ listening/ thinking with no break
at all. going to get coffee/check the mail or something is the only
time away from the desk.
the greatest asset you have right now is saying your mixes
are uh well? insert adjective.............................
if i can bring myself to say a mix of mine sounds like dog doo doo
then i can start to roll up my sleeves and get down to work
in some shape form or fashion..
i think a good balance of being extreeeeemly humble
but yet have a very strong determination to (however
you manage to do it) create a "first class mix" will get
you there.
You have to want it that bad. there is no way around it.
some people create ( in they're minds) a virtual quality
about they're mixes. the answers can and will come but
you have to want it real bad.
Yeah. You DO have to want it real bad or it will be mediocre at best. This is not a hobby that is very forgiving. People hear how much you "want it" by where you're content to stop. I've often stopped waaaayyyyy short of GOOD. It's because i get burned out and i'm incredibly lazy (and get into the hopeless blues about it). The best cure for any lack of humility is an A/B with a real pro mix. Poof! dream is over. 
s o n g s – Beauty lodged in a bad hotel has no value. Raymond Lull
|
No How
Max Output Level: -23.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5180
- Joined: 2006/05/02 11:56:01
- Location: the boogie-woogie Isles
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/21 10:38:33
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
I would like to offer my thoughts on mixing processes. Here are few tips:
Checking Tracks Individually
I believe after a recording and before mixing, tracks should be listened to in isolation. Not for too long of course as we all know it is best to mix with everything on, but at first I check tracks one by one for 'fidelity' Its an old Hi Fi term I suppose and before you can blend tracks together they need to reach a certain standard individually. I might solo an acoustic guitar, and what I am listening for is a nice uniform sound. Average bottom end up to nice mids and clean and crystal like highs. If I hear those things I move on but if not, the built in channel EQ is a good place to rectify a few issues. eg using filters can clean up the low end on a track. A snare track might be a bit thick or boomy so a little filtering down low and maybe a little top end boost is going to put it on the right track.
Now this takes experience because you have to know what great sounds are individually. One thing that has helped me here is listening to a lot of well mixed music (all genres) in the past. Something a lot of people don't do enough of. I spent years locked away with a fantastic Hi Fi and played almost every record that had been made at the time. This will teach you so much!
Mix Order
This is something that has not been mentioned in this thread so much and it is very important. The Mix Order is the order that you bring things up in your mix. eg what do you start with? What do you bring in towards the end etc. Many engineers disagree on this, but one thing is for sure. Do not doubt the importance of it. The mix order really determines what sort of mix you are going to end up with. So the mix order has tremendous impact on how your mix will turn out.
There is no use talking about carving out an EQ area in one instrument to allow for another if the mix order is not taken into account. We know that one track has the ability to mask another less important track for example. We also know that a good way to combat masking is to set the volume of the important track higher and the volume of a less important track lower. Rather than just going in there and changing EQ all over the place. It makes good sense to start your mix with the most important track and then bring in less important tracks. Then you can deal with masking a lot more easily and methodically. eg if a new (less important) added track is starting to interfere with the a main (important) track then you know you have to EQ the less important track to work around with the main track.
NOTE If you don't introduce important tracks till later you will always have difficulty in getting them to sound clear in a mix. (Because there are heaps of less important tracks already muddying the water.)
Another reason for introducing important elements first is resources! Often mixing resources are limited. When you start your mix with important tracks then you tend to not over process them so much. Also if you do process them you use your best processors first so you get your important tracks sounding even better!
In Rock and Dance music styles you may start with the rhythm section or drums etc..In pop styles often the vocals are started with first. Wonder why? Our own famous engineer Stav says here in Oz start with what is the most inspiring first. It might be the sax player. But I still agree that if its big vocal tune and the vocals are really important then start with the vocals. Then the other things like drums etc will end up sitting in the right place. Drums dont have to assult you over the head just because they are there! Are they really that important compared to the vocals? But with some other music eg Hip Hop for example the rhythm section and the beat is really important to get sitting big in the mix and the rapping tends to sit on top of all of that.
If you get your important tracks in for example and you may even bring in some less important tracks you might find you still have even more less important tracks that are not in the mix at all. This is a good time to say buy to unnecessary tracks or useless parts!
Yes, lots of very good points. If you don't have any data in your head (ears) for quality then no matter how hard you work you won't be 'there' because there's no standard in your mind. Excellent. I need to listen to a lot more. I also need to start my mixes with the vocals instead of the bass and drums. A lot to chew on here. Thank you, Jeff!
post edited by No How - 2009/09/21 10:59:47
s o n g s – Beauty lodged in a bad hotel has no value. Raymond Lull
|
DW_Mike
Max Output Level: -6 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6907
- Joined: 2006/11/29 18:06:40
- Location: The arm-pit of the good 'ol US...New Jersey
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/21 10:55:27
(permalink)
Great thread. I love discussions like this.
Mike
Sonar X3 ~ Scarlett 18i6 ~ Home Build DAW
GA-Z77X-UD5H
Intel i7 3770k 4.2GHz
32GB RAM Crucial Ballistix Elite (4x8)
2x Samsung 250GB SSD
1TB WD Black HDD @ 7200RPM 6Gb/s 64MB
Corsair H80i Liquid cooler
Noctua Silent Fans ~ 3x120mm ~ 1x140mm
Seasonic Platinum 760w PSU
Windows 7 Pro 64Bit.
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/21 11:01:46
(permalink)
AT........It would be quite a relief to actually not have to obsess over drums. You're yet another who's pointed out that the golden songs from the 60-80s were not drum predominant.
I have never done the instruments to a buss thing. I'm not sure how to do it but I'll do a search on the forum.
I usually have my effects in the buss.
Great suggestions. Thank you.
Basically you "insert" new buses - just like for effects. Then route the instruments to the new bus instead of master in the drop down output section. that bus, naturally, will go to the master. In the old analog days this was a way to control groups of instruments w/ a fader volume/ride, fx when they were limited to hardware on hand, and comps etc. In Sonar you can do the same vol tricks w/ grouping.
As far as obsessing over drums - it is hard not to. Bass/kick is a must fix, as you noted. But you can't really have the drums up front and lead guitar and vocal. If you want the drums to lead into the song but pull them down after the intro, that can sound obvious. One of the things you can do is depend upon mastering to punch them up, so you don't have to pull them down so far. Strap a rough comp/limiter on the master buss to figure out the realitive volumes. Same thing w/ an internal drum solos/breaks.
And to carry on w/ the above "imaginary" instruments once a backing instrument is "introduced," you really can pull it back into the song but the sonic mental imprint will remain. It will be there for the listener, but can be barely audible.
@
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome
http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|
No How
Max Output Level: -23.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5180
- Joined: 2006/05/02 11:56:01
- Location: the boogie-woogie Isles
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/21 11:02:18
(permalink)
Philip
... bargaining happens in the upper mids with snare, guitar and lead vox.
TBH Rick, FWIW, one of our mixes (Dance on High) pierced through the backround road and rain noise most excellently ... while I was driving through heavy rain during a long exhaustive drive Thursday from Dothan to Albertville, AL.
It got me through about 60 miles of the hard driving (repeated listening). I pondered:
"What environment did Rick mix this in. Why does it sound so good in this frik&n rain!"
"It repeatedly sounds so excellent and clear ... through all the roaring road noise ?"
"Did he mix this at grand-central station (etc.)?"
"When did my ears become suddenly desensitized to his sibs?"
"Is the rain producing lows and sibs that somehow cause his strong lows and sibs to to sound exceedingly sweet and excellent".
None of my solo-mixes could weather the storm that day; they all sounded like utter cr&p with the rain smashing against the car; only Dance on High. was able to lift me up that hour.
LOL....Philip, If I remember correctly you helped an aweful LOT in that mix. You were Yoda. I was Luke. I listened to that wonderful song this weekend also. It's a high point in my cakeWalk.
s o n g s – Beauty lodged in a bad hotel has no value. Raymond Lull
|
No How
Max Output Level: -23.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5180
- Joined: 2006/05/02 11:56:01
- Location: the boogie-woogie Isles
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/21 11:11:59
(permalink)
AT
AT........It would be quite a relief to actually not have to obsess over drums. You're yet another who's pointed out that the golden songs from the 60-80s were not drum predominant.
I have never done the instruments to a buss thing. I'm not sure how to do it but I'll do a search on the forum.
I usually have my effects in the buss.
Great suggestions. Thank you.
Basically you "insert" new buses - just like for effects. Then route the instruments to the new bus instead of master in the drop down output section. that bus, naturally, will go to the master. In the old analog days this was a way to control groups of instruments w/ a fader volume/ride, fx when they were limited to hardware on hand, and comps etc. In Sonar you can do the same vol tricks w/ grouping.
As far as obsessing over drums - it is hard not to. Bass/kick is a must fix, as you noted. But you can't really have the drums up front and lead guitar and vocal. If you want the drums to lead into the song but pull them down after the intro, that can sound obvious. One of the things you can do is depend upon mastering to punch them up, so you don't have to pull them down so far. Strap a rough comp/limiter on the master buss to figure out the realitive volumes. Same thing w/ an internal drum solos/breaks.
And to carry on w/ the above "imaginary" instruments once a backing instrument is "introduced," you really can pull it back into the song but the sonic mental imprint will remain. It will be there for the listener, but can be barely audible.
@
@, Amazing stuff. I am working on a mix now. I'm going home to do the 'buss' thing with the instruments. I'm excited to try it out. As far as limiters go, I'm a total idiot. Everytime i try one it does the squash and I'm not experienced enough to know how to control it. I will keep experimenting. What I have done is, (and am wondering how orthodox or wise it is),: After song is mixed I open up "stereo mastering" project with my newly 'mixed' piece. I now add some tape sat, occasional comp, addition (enveloped) verb ALL through busses so that they are controled. My question is: Doesn't that fact that these are going through a buss mean that the signal is ALSO going direct to master without effect? It's my hope so that I can have my cake and eat it too, if you know what I mean. thank you!
post edited by No How - 2009/09/21 11:13:23
s o n g s – Beauty lodged in a bad hotel has no value. Raymond Lull
|
foxwolfen
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8256
- Joined: 2008/03/29 23:41:47
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/21 12:43:53
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
Now this takes experience because you have to know what great sounds are individually. One thing that has helped me here is listening to a lot of well mixed music (all genres) in the past. Something a lot of people don't do enough of. I spent years locked away with a fantastic Hi Fi and played almost every record that had been made at the time. This will teach you so much!
What? An audiophile? According to some people, we audiophiles are hated. Geeks he calls us. One thing that stood out for me was the mention of doing each track at a time. This seems to me to be the only logical conclusion. I do not know how you can mix properly unless you start with pristine tracks first. Each track will have an EQ at least, and possibly a limiter and compression. There is no way to do this properly on a mix down. No way at all. So I have to agree with you, wholeheartedly. Then like tracks are sent to a subgroup. There I might add effects, and tweak group eq or volumes to keep the levels under control. Then on the master bus, there might be another EQ and compressor. I may add envelopes to tracks, groups and the master (though usually just a fade in and out if needed. The key here is to have some idea of how it should sound when it is done. When I work on a track, I already know (or have some idea) about what I will do on later tracks and what the sound is I am going for. So each track is preplanned. The hard part is listening to this track. Because it is supposed to fit in the final mix, and is dependent on the other elements, the track will often sound nasty when alone. It is stopping myself from making it sound good (as opposed to right) that is hard to do. This is why talking breaks to clear your head is necessary too. Its not to rest your ears, its to get the bad ideas out of our head so we can become objective about the mix again. Cheers Shad
A scientist knows more & more about less & less till he knows everything about nothing, while a philosopher knows less & less about more & more till he knows nothing about everything. Composers Forum
|
No How
Max Output Level: -23.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5180
- Joined: 2006/05/02 11:56:01
- Location: the boogie-woogie Isles
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/21 15:13:42
(permalink)
Taking breaks is such a smart thing to do and yet I'm usually an hour or three overdue when i do.
I do the individual track eq and then make it of lesser importance in the whole.
I'll undo or change some EQ for the whole if it's what I'm hearing....usually taking lots of bottom off guitars and keys and high end off cymbols.
s o n g s – Beauty lodged in a bad hotel has no value. Raymond Lull
|
jimmyman
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2193
- Joined: 2008/12/16 06:57:38
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/21 15:23:06
(permalink)
As we talk about the "tone" of the tracks we then speak
of "effects". You know? All the things that make a track sound
good so the "whole" mix sounds good. There is usually very
little mention of the "personality" of the tracks.
What makes "Nohow"s tunes so unique are the "players"
What he plays and where he places things. Sometimes it's
even what he "doesn't" do. No matter what method we use
to mix/ eq/tweek things etc. if that "cool player" hasn't
laid down a "cool track" then we have "A lot of work" on our
hands.
If the "melodic" content is "plain jane" there will be limits
on what "tweeking" can do. Let's use two songs as an
example.
The old song "red river valley" And
"somewhere over the rainbow"
If I were to take the best "session players" and say
O.K. guys I want you to lay down the tracks for these
two songs (nothing fancy just plain and simple) then
"somewhere over the rainbow" will always outshine
"red river valley".
My point is great engineering/mixing isn't the "only"
ingredient to a great sound. I wonder if maybe
sometimes a person puts little to no "value" on certain
aspects while placing "high value" on aspects that
give very little "results" to quality.
I had read someone say they don't consider good
monitors high on the list of priorities. they mix on cheap
headphones and computer speakers yet spend hundreds
of dollars on software.
I don't mean to rant here but sometimes a person sets
up a computer in the corner of an untreaded room and
and start delving into all this fancy eq talk.
All of you have some excellent points. This is a very good
thread but if one piece of the puzzle is missing the picture
will never be complete.
Nohow. You had mentioned that it (what I'd call) "rains
on your parade" when you compare your stuff to "pro"
mixes. I suggest that is actually how many people
achieve a good level of skill in mixing.
I have read about the countless number of times a
person succeeded because they didn't know "It couldn't
be done". Your last tune on the songs forum to me
is the best I've heard from you in both the mix
and the performance.
If we can look at our works and see improvement through
time and talk of eq/mixing/etc then we are moving forward.
I have changed a lot since joining the songs forum. And I
have learned so much from so many people here in the
forums that I couldn't "begin" to mention all that I've learned.
I use the "if it needs it" and/or "does it need it" approach
to mixing (not forgetting that a reasonable performance is
necessary). I solo a track "if" I need to. I never solo a track
"just to see what it sounds like".
At the very start of building the song I'm already doing
(for example) adding a verb or eq or something trying to
make the beginning already sound more like a "completion"
I try to not add any type of comp to anything until there is
no way around it.
I send everything to the master. No sub buss for instruments.
and no master effects in the master "bin". Or if i do use
sub busses at the start there are still no effects in they're "bins.
so basically it's. Setting the levels. eq'ing and verb/ambience.
Comping is almost always the last thing I work on. however
if a certain track at the start has an overbearing/dynamic
track then yes I'll start comping that track right from the start.
I also find that if I find myself doing all this stuff on the
master buss to make it sound right then I'm "pissing in the wind".
One of the most important things about a track or a mix is
the "ambient" quality of the track or mix. And it is sometimes
the hardest to achieve. I know I said earlier that i add
verb at the start but the amount is very small.
There needs to be some amount of "openness" in all tracks
that's what i call ambiance. But our ears don't hear that as
verb. It's more of a "space" thing. (Not to be confused with
"room sound")
It would be nice if we all had access the tracks of
the "greatest mixes" just to see what they did. Examples
that is. then a "picture surely is worth a thousand words"
|
No How
Max Output Level: -23.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5180
- Joined: 2006/05/02 11:56:01
- Location: the boogie-woogie Isles
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/21 15:40:06
(permalink)
Jimmy, what a great post that was. We actually mix VERY similarly (according to your post). I know what you mean about building a song from the very start. Yes. There is already a vibe the song is carrying (not the writing but the performance) that is leading me on a path (sometimes a dead end but always educational). Just letting the tracks speak and not being afraid to say "this is one useless guitar track" or "I don't really need this Mongolian euphaba drum here" ... It has lately been a lot about audio hygeine. What is pleasant as opposed to what is 'cool' or 'clever'. I"ve tried 'cool' and 'clever' and my success rate is 0%. What is very striking about your post is that you bring home the fact of the intangibles. the personality and the uniqueness of each of our works. THIS is the quality that leaves me loving so many songs on the songs forum. They do NOT sound like pro mixes but they sound amazing in a new and fresh and HUMAN way. You can still hear the person behind it. Thanks for the great post. It's a clip board post.
post edited by No How - 2009/09/21 15:42:01
s o n g s – Beauty lodged in a bad hotel has no value. Raymond Lull
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/21 18:19:18
(permalink)
You use buses to "sub mix" things. Once you have a master stereo track you can just stick in whatever processing in the FX bin, so you don't need an actual bus. You can control the volume of effect and dry signal w/ the effect mix knob. Of course, this doesn't work for comps etc.
It is too easy to squash stuff with a limiter. Usually, you dont' want to do too much, just a touch to help bring up the background stuff. Voxengo's elephant is a great limiter. It seems to "lift and separate" elements w/in the mix so it has better depth. Of course, if you squash your song with it, it will be all flat and surface.
@
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome
http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|
No How
Max Output Level: -23.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5180
- Joined: 2006/05/02 11:56:01
- Location: the boogie-woogie Isles
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/21 18:24:45
(permalink)
chefmike8888
Great thread. I love discussions like this.
Mike
Great Avatar! Yeah, these issues are so in our face that it can never be exhausted. So many new perspectives and ideas. It's good to know I'm not alone.
s o n g s – Beauty lodged in a bad hotel has no value. Raymond Lull
|
jimmyman
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2193
- Joined: 2008/12/16 06:57:38
- Status: offline
Re:Illogical Earz
2009/09/22 16:58:44
(permalink)
Jimmy, what a great post that was. We actually mix VERY similarly (according to your post). I know what you mean about building a song from the very start. Yes. There is already a vibe the song is carrying (not the writing but the performance) that is leading me on a path (sometimes a dead end but always educational). Just letting the tracks speak and not being afraid to say "this is one useless guitar track" or "I don't really need this Mongolian euphaba drum here" ... It has lately been a lot about audio hygeine. What is pleasant as opposed to what is 'cool' or 'clever'. I"ve tried 'cool' and 'clever' and my success rate is 0%. What is very striking about your post is that you bring home the fact of the intangibles. the personality and the uniqueness of each of our works. THIS is the quality that leaves me loving so many songs on the songs forum. They do NOT sound like pro mixes but they sound amazing in a new and fresh and HUMAN way. You can still hear the person behind it. Thanks for the great post. It's a clip board post. It amazes me that we sometimes learn something by "saying" something. As Ive remarked with you and you respond I find myself going WOW? "i never thought about it that way" You mention "pleasurable" as opposed to "clever". That changes my whole "mindset" to look at it that way. I'm looking at myself now and realizing that maybe so much of my "parts" or maybe even complete songs have been done trying to be more "clever" than "pleasurable". Its like this. As I look at all the stuff i've done in the past I find that I was going for "something" as my writing producing/mixing evolved. All my "newer" stuff is better than my earlier stuff. (At least my mixing is) I credited it to the fact that the more i do it the better it "should hopefully get". I think what is happening to "jimmy" is that my mixing skills are improving to a level where it is also revealing something in my performance. Your writing /producing style is very different from mine however there is something about your style that "makes me think" about what id like to work on in my stuff. I haven't written in a while but there are reasons. It's as if I'm saying to myself "the next time" I do it it's going to have to be "something" I just didn't know what that "something" was? Its amazing what your two words "pleasure" and "personality" has done in my "looking for what to achieve" in a production. Those two words (to me) could apply to everything from the writing to the mixing to the production and on and on. You know what? you could maybe save the cutting down of a lot of trees. Instead of all those millions of books on the subject of music that address the questions of how to achieve writing good songs or doing great mixes and productions you could just say learn how to get "pleasure and personality" and "THERE YOU HAVE IT"!
|