SongCraft


Danny:  Ah might as well blame me...it's ok, I got big shoulders for a lil guy. :) 


LOL!! I was sitting here listening to an arrangement when all of a sudden BOOF that left hook hit me. 


+1 to what others said; go write that book and don't forget to autograph it ;)

LOL no no man...I'd never throw a left hook at ya! I'm sorry for not explaining better...lol...my dad has this problem with purposely blaming me for everything no matter what. Even when I'm not around. My mom's been gone since 2007 and he blames her for stuff...it's been a running joke around here for about 30 years. You know like "dad, you left the lights on again" and he'll say "now you know you did it" and I wasn't even home. Or "dad, there's crumbs on the table" and he'll say "mom must have done it". LOL! So each time he blames me for something, I flex at him and say " I got big shoulders....go on, blame me, I can handle it." I took that picture and put a caption on it for him that says "when in doubt, blame sonny boy...everyone else does." :) I luv you mayan, I don't wanna throw no left hooks at anyone. :)
 
-Danny

mattplaysguitar

That's exactly why I'm spending a LOT of time recording rough tracks and doing a very quick mix to see where they want to go. It's helping me so much and I KNOW I'll get a result that is ten times better this way. I'm learning so much about just this individual song doing it this way. I feel the need to do it for everything so at the moment, but I'm sure with practise, you'll need to do it less and less. But I can't stress enough the benefit of it. 

I completely agree with that. Not that I DO it as much as I should, but I agree that it SHOULD be done. One problem that this creates for a lot of DIYers is that they  don't have enough gear to set up three or four different instrument scenarios so that they can play with them until they are right and then come back and record them, leaving them all set up. Soem of it can be done with good documentation of the setup, particularly DI'd bass. But for mic'd instruments sometimes it's tough to recreate exactly what you have before because it's a bit of a happy accident, at least for us less experienced folks.
 
I guess another option is to just put down the bed tracks for the song, not worrying too much about small goobers. Do what you need to get it roughed out and each part basically right frequency-wise. Do it quickly and don't get precious about it (or you'll start wanting to hack it instead of going back and doing it right), then come back and replace each part, with the benefit of having the other parts there, so that you can mix yourself as you play and hear the parts in context.
 

mattplaysguitar

Jamesg1213


I realize I'm just talking about my own particular scenario, but I really don't *know* what kind of a mix I want until I have all the instruments tracked and laid out, therefore I don't know what any instrument *should* sound like in the end, until I start to mix. 

That's exactly why I'm spending a LOT of time recording rough tracks and doing a very quick mix to see where they want to go. It's helping me so much and I KNOW I'll get a result that is ten times better this way. I'm learning so much about just this individual song doing it this way. I feel the need to do it for everything so at the moment, but I'm sure with practise, you'll need to do it less and less. But I can't stress enough the benefit of it.
The alternative is to try and get it right the first time. But if you can't get it to fit in properly, you better be ready to go and re-record it cause you'll get a much better result than trying to 'make it fit'.

Yes, I'm warming to this idea, think I'm going to try it on the project I've just started.

Question.

I'm thinking of putting a couple of tracks together with some drumming and bass work and am considering putting it up here somewhere...which forum would be good.? Techniques or Songs?  


Both these tracks ...hopefully...will be actual instruments instead of MIDI. My playing on both seems to have improved a bit...

Danny, have not had a chance to have another good read over your post earlier, but I will do and post my observations soon!! Thanks for taking the time!

The three most important elements of mixing - Compression, EQ and Reverb. Yes? 

I would have to disagree with this assumption, though i DO agree that the proper use of compression, eq and reverb is very important...
way up there on the list.


but the top 3 should read as such:




1. Capture.
2. Capture.
3. Capture.




GIGO
(garbage in, garbage out)




i can't stress enough, how important it is, to have a quality source, captured by a quality mic or some other 'dialed in' process.


this is more important than any compression, eq, or reverb, and if you do it RIGHT....


you wont even need any of that other stuff.




that said, i just read a book on todd rundgren, which stressed that in his early days, there was absolutely NO signal that went to tape, that didn't run thru some kind of compression or limiter....


so, there is something to be said for using those devices to create a 'new' sound, and there are really no rules.






just stressing, that the most important thing, is to have an really good mic...


micing a really good signal.

I remember my very first "mix" back in 2006.  not really that long ago, actually, by all standards.  but I had no clue what I was doing (granted I'm no "expert" now, but I have learned a few things...)

I had no idea what compression was or how to use it.  I only knew I wanted to record a song of me singing to some accompaniment so that I could send a CD to my grandmother who was always my biggest fan (and she was starting to get old and has since passed on.)

using Sonar Home Studio 4, I set up accompaniment using only a mouse and Staff view of "Be Thou My Vision." I added piano, strings, bass and bagpipes using the Edirol SC and SFZ with soundfonts I found for free on the internet.   I recorded my (ahem...) vocals and I began to "mix."

without EQ, or compression (I did add some reverb, however), I mixed the song using a lot of ENVELOPES.  oh my!  I set up tracks and would alter the envelopes on each track to create the dynamics I was trying to get out of the mix.  I'd alter one tracks' envelope and then that would affect the summed audio so that other tracks needed their envelopes adjusted now.  so I'd go adjust those, then that would affect others....and the merry go round continued...

I finally got a 'mix" out of it using nothing but envelopes and some canned reverb.  I will not say that it was stellar.  especially listening now! lol!

so all that to say that I DO believe that compression is an extremely useful tool for audio engineers, as is EQ.  reverb is something that's helpful and usually necessary, but it's not in the same league as EQ and compression, IMO.

however, I also believe that the better the tracks are going in, the less you have to "mess" with them to get them to sound right summed.  I don't think that there would ever be a time I could record say 4 tracks which were so excellent I'd never have to use compression or EQ on them, but the better the tracks are going in, the less work you have to do to make the summed output sound good.

Agree with Bat: I think if you get great capture you will have a much easier and less involved time mixing.

However, most of the folks on the boards don't have the time, equipment, expertise or talent to track it down great (Lord knows I most certainly do not). Or the dodgy samples you are using aren't all that great. Or the tracks someone sent you to mix aren't super clean and punchy. Then the OP's question is 100% valid.

In today's modern pop music, it feels that compression is king more than anything else.  Eq to taste then space it out with reverb (though on a lot of tunes reverb is done with a more minimalistic approach).

Tracking is a tiny part of what I do, in those circumstances getting an accurate track is only important for acoustic singer/songrwriter of rock-band based music.

Stuff I use that needs tracking, is normally done is tracked by someone else in a different location, the rest of it is conjured out of the ether.

I saw this as a mixing question, in much modern music you'll find many completely different mixes of the same song that can be dramatically different yet all are using the same source material at the heart.  I don't even care who Al Schmitt, George Martin or Geoff Emerick are, no more than I care to listen to music by the Tremeloes, The Beatles or the Beach Boys these days.  So how did a question on mixing become a diatribe on 'purist' acoustic tracking?

Yes on fewer and fewer occassions theses day the originally recorded source is still as important, but more and more the 'mixer' has become even the origin of the sound source.  Again nothing to do with no or dimiinished talent, dodgy samples or a lack of anything.

So yeah we can all get delightfully anal about the purity of the input signal but it seems to me there's more and more to be done and learned at the mixing stage unless you are just planning to be the next Leonard Cohen or Dire Straits.

So good tracking may certainly be part of good mixing, but who here would have worked out that a green bullet mic through a guitar combo would be the best bet for recording a blues harp?   If it hadn't been done before I venture most here would be recommending a $4000 mic and boutique pre to match with the mic carefully measured to be 32" away in an overly treated room.

I'm currently 18 lanes into a percussion track for a Dance re-mix, I've probably got another 8 to go down before I'm finished, there's plenty of frequencies been removed to far and everything is sitting where I want it as far as width and depth of field goes no compressors yet and certainly no 'verb, but it's groovin' and I haven't needed to track anything yet either. 

I can see where a couple of the lanes will need some compression already because the attack phase is too quick but I don't really find that out until I've Eq'd it all first.  Likewise I thought I'd have to gate a couple of lanes but having isolated the required frequency component I found didn't need to spend the 20 minutes to get both those gates working sweetly, hooray no gating required even.  That's a couple of reasons why I always Eq first that have shown up already.

but i can tell you that working with well recorded tracks is always easier and faster work.

Always the best idea, I don't think anyone will argue that point, but this was a mixing question, no?

So say all the tracks are in, they can't be done again.

Where do we go from there?  That's how I saw the question.

Since most folks on these types of forums are self-recorders, the track it right argument is absolutely spot on. It makes no sense for self-recorders to record crap and hand it to themselves to try to mangle into something that sounds reasonable. It makes vastly more sense to concentrate on learning how to record well within the constraints of your situation.

That's why there's always this wierd thing going on, particularly on places like Gearslutz where more pro mixers are hanging out, because newbies get this idea that it's all about heroic mixing. But the only reason mixers have to do heroic mixing is because they are given crap to mix, and if they want to get paid they have to make it sound like something. But that's not a goal anyone should aspire to for themselves as the person doing the recording.

mmmm....self recordists? what be this creature? 


I  am really not that good as a muso so I tend towards a kind of ambient/drone/pastoral/whattocallit kind of material.  So I tell myself anyways. Now, here is the thing..when I am tracking I am doing this, sometimes, with those crappy sounds as well...think about stuff like hearing a far off station that is fading in and out and another station that seems to be fighting for control of that frequency, or just oscillator drift on my Arp2600...so, to me, crappy sounds end up working into the mix simply because they become the background for the matrixing...at least I suppose.. Once I get doing my tracking I tend to let things happen...ohno ohno...a John Cagism just happened.

jon, i gotcha.
....not disagreeing....


just wanna cover all grounds.

Jonbouy

but i can tell you that working with well recorded tracks is always easier and faster work.

Always the best idea, I don't think anyone will argue that point, but this was a mixing question, no?

So say all the tracks are in, they can't be done again.

Where do we go from there?  That's how I saw the question.

Danny, had a chance now to read through that post properly! I think it's actually very similar to the concept I have, though you have a little bit more panning detail added, and I have included frequency detail also.

Basically the way my image works is as follows. Link to that image again:

http://www.mattlyonsmusic.com/images/Layout.jpg

The vertical is all about where that instrument 'sits' in the frequency spectrum. I have not put any specific numbers in as I'd rather work off my ears but numbers could be useful, don't know. For now, I have not included them. The left and right is obviously the panning. I didn't really show it in that image because it was so quick, but essentially the bass and kick would normally be a narrow circle, indicating a very tight stereo image. The verse vocal would also be very tight. In the chorus, I'd be adding more of a stereo verb/delay/chorus/doubling or whatever to make it a bit wider. This would normally be visible in the image (it's not really clear in my images posted). We all know an instrument can be high or low (frequency), left or right (panning) and out front and at the back (reverb amount). I basically included everything here but the depth of the part. I don't see that as so important and if I can get everything sitting right at the face value, I can than push certain things back into the mix if I want to.

So basically the position and size of every circle in my drawing is a direct representation of where I percieve to hear it. I can visually see if there will be any clashes. I draw the image from a combination of listening to how it is at the moment, and where I ultimatelly want everything to sit. Then I can use it as basically a recording/mixing chart to work off. Allows me to quickly look at where a part needs to sit. I didn't include all the drums in here but I can add them too. I can see where gaps are and work out how to best fill them. I can easily see if things are getting too cluttered. I can see instrument dynamics between verse and chorus to ensure my chorus kicks in well.

The triangle/tapered shape I had in my drawing was based on the fact that you don't pan bass instruments, typically. Bass is non directional, so you get more bang for your buck going equally from both speakers (I know you are aware of this, Danny, just giving a full explanation to everyone!). It's probably a little weird looking, so I might actually leave that out next time and just make a big box.

If I draw each on up on a big bit of paper I'd have plenty of room to start adding detailed notes such as type of sound, reverb amount and panning/frequency positions if it helps.


So that's my one and I guess I have taken a few components from yours and would combine with mine for a little extra detail!



An interesting technique
I made that bold to get people to read who may not be reading the whole post ;) Also. I remember you mentioned a well eq'ed instrument you should be able to crank in volume without really losing any other instruments due to masking (within reason of course). I took this concept and expanded on it. What if you crank an instrument you are working on 6dB (or even more) and then eq it so you can hear the other instruments clearly. Little bit of back and forth and then bring everything back and re-adjust your levels with a perfectly eq'ed track where everything MUST have its own space! Dim Solo at -6dB could make this a real easy technique when having trouble eqing a part into position. I tried this out the other night and it really helped get things sitting a lot better in the mix. I highly suggest people check it out.




Lastly. Off topic. Went into an audio store yesterday. They had a pair of $20,000 Adam S4X-H monitors. It was a VERY temporary demo in the shop. I went in today to listen to them with some of my own music and they were already gone! So shattered. But wholly f'ing wowza!!! These sounded AMAZING!!! They are midfield monitors so plenty of punch as you'd expect but I was just absolutely blown away. That midrange was unbelievable. The POWER these things put out was immense. I never expected to hear something like these unless I went to a pro studio. But damn I REALLY want some :| To anyone who hasn't heard monitors like these, make sure you hear them if you get ANY opportunity. They will just blow you away and make your day... Now I want to hear the S6X's :)

You all have valid and excellent views, IMHO ... not much to add. 

TLC (tender loving care) or just LC (loving care) ... since not all mixes are 'tender'.

A bad element in a mix can be redeemed, oft by another artist's loving samples or performances.

1) Identify the problem track(s)
2) Fix them any way you can!
3) Repeat ... (1) and (2)

For me: If #3 gets 'out-of-hand' ... "ITS JUST A SONG !!!!!"  There are plenty other neurotic things to do, like: smell roses, spend precious hours setting up equipment for a jam session, scream at the cat, jog, eat, sin, play ping-pong, work overtime for a living, raise kids, teach biology, stare at paintings, practice marshall arts, tune the guitar, make creative garden paths, increase post counts, etc.