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

Following this long and ongoing quest to try and move my level of mixing up to the next level, I feel these are the first and foremost big components I need to focus on. I'm doing lots of listening to my music, then professional music, and I can't quite workout why mine sounds so different. It just sounds empty and not as full, even though there seems to be just as much going on. I'd say it's a combination of the above three parts. I think of these like the flour, water and sugar to a cake. Anything else is the icing and decoration.

I feel I have achieved a pretty good grasp on eq. I think it seems to be the easiest to get right, or close to right. Next in line would be the use of reverb. Carefully used, it creates such an amazing space in which you hear the music. It fills everything out so nicely. Finally, compression just brings it all together and gives you ultimately that full sound. That's how I see it, at least. Correct me if you think otherwise.

They all work hand in hand. Eq well and you can bring up the level of other instruments without masking the vocal so the mix sounds loud and big, but the vocal is still very clear. Proper compression can fatten it up and fill up the space and reverb fills in all the little gaps.

I personally like the compressed sound. I like that feeling of flatness and fatness on certain instruments. Then the ones that are there to provide transients add that component back in. I'm not a big fan of heavy compression on mastering, but I like to think that's different - correct me if I'm wrong.


Trying to keep things pretty general here cause obviously this can get very detailed. Just thinking about things as a WHOLE rather than individual techniques.

Thoughts?

Thanks for that Danny. I see where you're coming from. Makes sense.

Aside from stepping things from getting muddy, would you say that a well eq'ed part allows you to turn things up more in a mix without jumping on things and that is a major component in getting a really great, big sound? To the point where the vocal is always perceived as being out front and on top of everything and very clear, however the guitars may actually be very loud comparatively which makes the song sound much more powerful than if they had to be turned right back so you could still hear the vox? Saying it in another way, perfectly eq'ed components can all be as loud as they need to be without stepping on anything else, so the desired effect and purpose of the instrument can be fully achieved without limitation?

mattplaysguitar


Thanks for that Danny. I see where you're coming from. Makes sense.

Aside from stepping things from getting muddy, would you say that a well eq'ed part allows you to turn things up more in a mix without jumping on things and that is a major component in getting a really great, big sound? To the point where the vocal is always perceived as being out front and on top of everything and very clear, however the guitars may actually be very loud comparatively which makes the song sound much more powerful than if they had to be turned right back so you could still hear the vox? Saying it in another way, perfectly eq'ed components can all be as loud as they need to be without stepping on anything else, so the desired effect and purpose of the instrument can be fully achieved without limitation?

Hi Matt, that's actually a great question and one I don't see much on forums. However, I get it from my students quite a bit. I'll try to explain it to you.
 
When you have all your eq's where they need to be and nothing is masking or creating mud, this is where your compressors make the difference. When you have all of the above in good standing, you can make something so loud it's too loud yet nothing in your mix will be in-audible or buried so to speak.
 
When I mix a metal or rock tune here, I can make the guitars blow everything out of the water. You can hear everything at all times yet would say "ok, those guitars are definitely too loud." The key is to be able to raise things to the extreme without totally losing something. You see, there is a difference between masked instruments that disappear and instruments that take a back seat.
 
A masked instrument disappears from the mix to where if you were a musician auditioning for that part and couldn't hear it, you'd not be able to learn it the right way. When something takes a back seat, it is completely audible but just may not be loud enough. When you listen to modern mixes today with extreme guitar all over the place, this is what you usually hear. The guitars are so loud they form this wall of layers. It's the most dominating thing in the mix most times and the vocal may even be lower than the guitars. However, you never lose that vocal...you never lose that kick drum, you never lose that bass guitar. The reason being? Good eq...nothing is masked, the prints from the start were done right and of course, the right compression usage.
 
Now with verb, we can mess a mix up really fast. I sort of said in my first post that "verb won't make or break you". I meant for myself because I never over-use it to the point of ruining a mix. But others do this all the time. Most of it stems from lack of eq'ing a verb, (which is super important) lack of proper panning of a verb (use the Sonitus phase plug at all times after a stereo effect to control how wide it spreads...it is your friend) and of course, the room and decay that is used on a verb.
 
Long tails will kill a mix because the tail will resonate too long and into the next beat. Though good for special effects or exploding snares in a part or a vocal texture, long tails definitely need to be used with caution. Anything with a long decay needs to be watched.
 
But getting back to the eq thing, when you have everything where it should be and the right amount of compression is on each instrument, you'll notice you never lose anything no matter how loud you make other things...withing reason of course.
 
Another cool trick to use for stuff like that vocal you mentioned or on any solo instrument, is side chain compression. Though I do no condone this method or have much of a use for it myself, it can help you in problem situations. That said, and I mean no offense to anyone that loves this and uses it, but to me, in a sense it's cheating and you don't learn the right way.
 
Some of the best mixes of all time were created without this technique simply because the engineers knew how to dial in their instruments so they would all work as a team. With side chain compression, though it's easy and it works, it doesn't help you remedy a problem. The focal point instrument simply takes the center stage while the other instruments involved in that side chain take a back seat.
 
Let's take your vocal situation and alter it a bit. I just did this for one of my students in a video to show him how this could be useful. Say we have a killing modern rock or metal tune with scorching rhythm guitars that need to be super loud through the mix at all times. However, there is a part in the song where there is a guitar solo that is pretty intense that needs to be heard like a lead vocal due to the complexity of the line.
 
Using myself in this example, I presented my student with a mix of my band I was working on. Before my guitar solo comes in, the drummer does a snare roll super fast. My guitar lead intro riffs at the same speed as his snare roll...so it's something that needs to be there. With how I have the rhythm guitars in the mix being super loud, aggressive and with much impact, they sort of make the lead guitar take a back seat. I could simply automate them or I could use the side chain compression technique and it would do the same thing.
 
So I created a guitar instrument bus, sent the rhythm guitars to that bus, added a Sonitus compressor, inserted a send to that guitar bus on the lead guitar track and raised the level on the send so that it took out about -2dB of gain. When that lead guitar hits on that snare drum fill, the rhythm guitars back down at the exact same time and allow that lead guitar to shine. Yet, the rhythms are still forceful and don't lose any impact. As soon as that lead guitar plays its last note, the rhythm guitars automatically return to the volume there were before the solo so you don't notice this drop in volume after a solo section. It's seemless and works perfectly in a situation like this.
 
This is also helpful in times where you may have a huge project you are working on with various instrumentation. The bigger the project, the harder it is to make everything fit and work right. So something like this can be helpful. But my point in the negativity I may have shared on this technique is, you always want to learn how to do things without something like this first because it will only better you as an engineer. I'm all for new techniques as well as short cuts that get us to the same place. But we need to deal with why we can't hear something the right way first...then you can move on to techniques like this.
 
Not for anything, but I compare it to when my mom was teaching me about all the clean ways to say certain words. She made sure I knew the clean stuff before I learned the dirty stuff and slang words in school. I think it's super important that we as engineers learn the correct way to handle things before we move on to advanced techniques that may do the same or similar things. Understand what I mean? If you can fix a problem area, all well and good. But it's nice when you can fix it and know what the deal is, take care of your frequencies and compression the right way....then you can mess around with these other things and come to your own conclusions as to whether or not they are actually better. That's just how I do things though...it's not for everyone. :) Hope this helps a bit.
 
-Danny

I'm only a beginner when it comes to mixing and mastering. However I have been in lots of studios.

I'm pretty sure the two most important things are; 1) Song arrangement, 2) Mic selection and placement. 

The first few times I was recorded in a band context the engineer had to put a pretty severe HPF on my piano parts which I was not too happy about. I had not at that stage learnt to keep the left hand in the pocket properly but it was quite humiliating. 
    Even on lots of professional pop recordings I can hear lots of gaudy mistakes being made and one instrument being stepped on by another etc. It's like that thing where everyone wants to turn their amp up a little more so they can hear their part. Most of the time they just want to be the centre of attention.

I'm not an expert on microphones but have seen some masters at work with them. We all know about the proximity effect I suppose but it seems to me that some of these guys don't need to worry about post-eqing because they get the parts down just so during tracking. 

So if a piece is well arranged and well miked I think the faders are the most important thing- then eq and compression after that. 

yeah, but different mics capture differently, and the same mic captures differently from different placements, and so a skilled engineer can capture almost what they want with correct placement. 

Post eqing is not eschewed but is not such a big deal.

As an aside- how do gates come into your mixing calculations?  

You're quite welcome Matt. :) Concerning the below...
 

As I'm building up my album, I'm recording rough tracks for EVERY single instrument on the whole album. With no mixing (aside from volume), I'm getting everything where it needs to be. I'm basically composing all the parts with a mixing mind. I'm positioning every instrument where it needs to be to reduce the need for eq. Only when my rough tracks are exactly where they need to be and I have filled my sonic spectrum as I want it will I then start recording the formal parts and really take the time to correctly record them into position. It's such a long way to do it, but I feel it should provide the best results in the end.

 
This is exactly what I do as well. I call it lab work. I try to get my instrument sounds as good as they can be with little to no eq. The toughest part while coming up through the trenches in this field is knowing WHEN a sound is a good sound for your head and WHEN a good sound is good for a mix. See that's actually a huge problem for people. For example...
 
Lots of guys solo things up when mixing to try and make things sound good. This isn't hard to do, but as soon as you bring in the other instruments, man, it's like..."what the heck was I doing for 2 hours...how can this stuff sound so bad?!" LOL!! I can't tell you how many times I've made that mistake.
 
But rest assured, over time, you learn what will work and what won't in seconds. You can create sounds for your head that sound good by themselves, but they need to be archived as "all alone sounds" because chances are, they may not work in a mix of other instruments. Or, you may need to let the instrument shine all alone and automate it when the rest of the instruments come in so "it works", ya know what I mean? Just try not to get too married to the rough tracks. You're just about always going to need to high pass something or low pass something. You'll always need maybe -2dB of gain taken out of a guitar depending on the tuning, the amount of bass in the tone as well as the amount of gain. You'll always need to use more compression on a bass guitar if you are not a bassist than a real bassist would. Stuff like that is always going to be pretty common so you keep your peaks in check.
 
That's another thing that is of importance. Peaks can kill your mix even if they come by way of sub low transients or "whoomfing" in basses, guitars, tom rumbles, kick resonance and excessive lows on vocals. But it's great that you are keeping things so focused on your raw print tracks. This is going to teach you a lot, Matt. The more lab work and experimenting you can do, the more you learn what works and what doesn't.
 
I must have 600 little test tunes that I've archived throughout the years. Honest when I tell you. Everything from pieces of cover tunes, different originals, different styles, it's really cool. Try to do at least one day of lab work per week if you can. Even if the piece you do is 30 seconds long. I can't even begin to tell you how much those little lab sessions have helped me with other things. You wait man...there is gonna come a time where this light-bulb goes off on challenging things to where you laugh and say "sheesh, this was right in front of me the whole time...I just couldn't see it!" And then things don't appear as challenging anymore. It's really a great feeling that I hope everyone can experience. :) Good luck with your album brother....keep us posted! :)
 
-Danny

Reverb defines our world.

So which 'world' do you want, the recorded world, a fantasy/simulation of your own making or the one you are listening in?

Frequency range (eq), prominence (primarily level although also a function of eq) and position (pan) are the 3 key foundations of a mix, (unless your singular function is capturing a live performance and even then you are still likely to edit different input sources (mics) so as not to end up with tons of undesirable stuff) as is it is your job as a mixer to define those things for the listener.

Compression (also expansion) and reverb then should be secondary to those primary concerns.  That's not to say those things aren't important but I've found out if I don't spend 90% of my time on those first elements then I'll spend days on farting around with compression and 'verbs and not get anywhere.

I bothered to read (without too much effort), and I am with Danny on this.

Spatial sense plays an important part but if you don't get the foundation laid first nothing will sound 'real' after that.

trimph1


OK....now a question.

EQ ITB or outboard?

Or should that even be considered as important?

I hope it's not important I don't even own any outboard EQ....

Many of the best recordings that we have all agreed on in multiple threads in the CH have been recorded on some sort of non-sterile environment... maybe a large sound stage, maybe a church basement, maybe a pub... reverb defines how we perceive the space we are in within the music. Reverb can be recorded with the source, or can be added later, but one way or the other, it is an essential, irreplaceable part of the mix. The others are not.

Yup, and you won't get any of that right until the mix is working.  Period.

Many tracks these days are made without sounds ever reaching the outside world, synths and all that don't even use a mic, so any spatial sense is 'created' out of nowhere.  Disparate sound sources are where it's at these days.

You'll waste vast tracts of time by putting the cart before the horse is what I'm saying.  I've done it countless times and usually end up binning the results because I didn't pay enough attention to the important stuff at the outset.

It's really easy to give it all whatever vibe you choose after you've put the work in, that's kinda what I figured the thread was pertaining to, not whether reverb was important or not per se.

Danny's posted some good stuff there for those pondering the same question as the OP, it's worth taking the trouble to read it after he went to the trouble to post it.

Jonbouy

trimph1


OK....now a question.

EQ ITB or outboard?

Or should that even be considered as important?

I hope it's not important I don't even own any outboard EQ....

I'm hoping not..I'm not sure the old thing I have here is still working!!


Then, if so, the next question would be...how many bands would be enough..

foxwolfen


Danny, one of the virtues taught to us in university was a concept called succinctness. I think you give some great advice, but bro, I just cant wade through all you write.  

So, perhaps you addressed this already, and if you did, I apologize, but... Reverb is perhaps THE  most critical part of a mix, whether you use a little or a lot. Reverb defines our world. Reverb is how we judge space and depth. Reverb should be the single most important thought in an engineer's mind. Reverb also defines many other aspects of music other than space... it defines style, it defines generation.

With a well recorded source, you can do with out EQ, without compression.... but no reverb (which includes the sound of the recording environment) and the mix will be flat and lifeless... always.

Just my 2C
Shad

+1 Excellent! 


Only exception is my voice :(  it isn't really that great and often requires specialist care to detail in regards to performances, EQ and reverb.    As for compression?  (again, my voice) low ratio (1.2 to 2.2) and longer release times (softknee approach), I spend more time with automation, whereas years ago it was.... all hands on deck (mixer), all hands on deck, fire at will, fire at will. 


My Workflow; 


All my recordings start with the 'song' (piano + vocal, or guitar + vocal) along with pen + paper. The song is written long before I boot up the DAW....


From thereon the very first thing I do is find the right tempo that 'feels' good and get a vocal guide (and sometimes harmonies vocal tracks also) recorded along with a simple beat as a glorified metronome = midi drums (all on separate tracks of course)! 


Then I grab my chainsaw and cut up the vocal guide tracks (and drums) into parts such as; intro, verse, bridge, chorus, outro, whatever :)  


From hereon this makes it easier to work on the song and arrangements. 


So anyway.... the most important thing is to enjoy :) 

If you are talking about mixing, I would say that the three most important things are :

1. Balance
2. Balance
3. Balance

And everything else is a good ways after that. Balance if the fundamental operation of mixing really, and mixers used to be called 'Balance Engineers'. Half the things I used to struggle with to try to make something sound right were due I tink to those things not being at the right level in the mix. Making judgement on things when they aren't at the appropriate level in the mix is kind of like EQ'ing in isolation in a way.

That thing of "record it right in the first place and it won't need EQ" is, I think, something of a fringe case, at best. It applies *occasionally* to *certain* kinds of material. But actually almost never applies to the majority of material. Try making even the simplest four piece rock band record that way, and you'll be pretty hosed. Anything with any electronic aspects, you're equally sunk. There are no silver bullets here. Yes, you have to record well. And then yes, you also have to mix well.

droddey


If you are talking about mixing, I would say that the three most important things are :

1. Balance
2. Balance
3. Balance

And everything else is a good ways after that. Balance if the fundamental operation of mixing really, and mixers used to be called 'Balance Engineers'. Half the things I used to struggle with to try to make something sound right were due I tink to those things not being at the right level in the mix. Making judgement on things when they aren't at the appropriate level in the mix is kind of like EQ'ing in isolation in a way.

+1 


Yes of course balance is critical and it's been a crucial part of my performing and recording experience for a very, very long time here's why... 


IMO it's critical to hear things in perspective as it helps me get the right feel (expression), to get the best performance during recording. Sure I might change pan position temporarily when working on harmonies but usually I do this for recording/monitoring purposes, my preference)! 

Hey wait up, did someone mention Fringe? aww man I love that TV series 

((Sorry for being OT; I saw that word pop up and just had to jump on it immediately))