I like it too, great visual representations of mixes.  I am going to watch the whole thing tonight.
 
Did not know Doug Henning was a mix engineer.  (Awesome Mullet)
 
JR

I think there are some serious problems with this approach. There are flaws. For example take the Thomas Dolby 'Blinded with Science' mix. Check out the snare sound. According to him it is a ball in the middle meaning it only occupies the mid range frequencies. Wrong. Listen to the snare sound. It has energy in it that goes all the way from 100 Hz to 10Khz or more so he has represented that incorrectly. Same with the vocal. He represents that as a blob in the middle implying the vocals only take up a mid range portion of the spectrum. Not when the vocals are saying the letters 'S' or 'T' though. Then for those small moments of time the frequency range suddenly extends right up to 15 Khz. It could be said this is an over simplified approach.
 
Also this approach does not really take into account the much more important aspect of a good mix when parts do not overlap so much but interweave in and out with each other not overlapping. That is the key to a good mix. Try to see the black backdrop behind.
 
What this guy is trying to get at in a different way is simply be aware of how much energy things take up in a mix. Or what the frequency ranges are of various instruments. And be prepared to use HPF on things like acoustic guitars for example while the bass fills out the bottom end etc..
 
One thing I do for my sound engineering students at the start of our course and anyone can do this too especially with multitrack sessions is to show them what parts of the freq spectrum are involved with various sounds. Put a decent spectrum analyser over individaul tracks. Solo them and have a look. Be amazed at what happens when a decent snare hit comes along. Watch every frequency jump up at once! What is that saying.  All frequencies are in a snare sound. Not just a blob in the middle.
 
I do this with a Kurzweil synth too and play the same note (middle C) over a wide range of instruments. eg Strings, trumpet, bass, guitar etc. Each instrument has a very different arrangemet of harmonics that pop up. This is a real eye opener. It shows you what you have to be careful with in terms of filtering if you do not want to distort the sound too much. And it also lets you see where you can use quite serious amounts of HPF and LPF and not change the sound of the instrument much at all as well. ie getting rid of unnecessary energy.
 
I have this book/DVD etc but have never used it. There is no magic bullet like this that is suddenly going to make you into a great mix engineer. That just takes years of practice and getting it right etc..making mistakes, changing things around until eventually things start to sound really good. As far as I know this approach has never caught on in sound engineering training circles and I am pretty close to all that.
 
There is another thread actually going on here talking about how the quality of musicianship really effcts engineering.
 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/When-you-and-the-performers-can39t-hear-the-same-thing-m2930917.aspx
 
This is what it is really about. When you are having problems with a mix the real reason behind that is the poor and sloppy musicianship that is actually going on. Trouble is most of you cannot and refuse to hear it. Really great bands and artists are just simply so easy to mix it is ridiculous.

Really great bands and artists are just simply so easy to mix it is ridiculous.

Who says there's no magic bullet? That's it right there! 

Well put Dave and yes it is true. That is the one and only magic bullet to an easy and very perfect mix.World class band or artist. Very simple. It is just that many are not in that position. Most are producing themselves and most are not in the same league musically as the finest around so as a result they will have problems mixing. Or we are struggling with ordinary bands and artists and having the same issues.
 
Getting back to the Dave Gibson thing though, not sure about it. It seems a bit strange to me. He is making certain assumptions which seem incorrect to me. The front to back concept is also a bit weird too. A sound will sound further away if reverb is being used or the high frequencies are rolled off and the level is lower. But sometimes things can be low level but still full range sounding and then they do not necessarily move back. Low level detailed extended HF sounds can still sound very forward and present to me anyway. eg high hats.
 
I think the real important thing about any great mix is there never seems to be too much going on at the same time and that is the real key to it. Being able to see the black backdrop behind everything. That is what a great producer does, clears the way, gets rid of parts stepping all over each other. Not being afraid to mute stuff or pull things out in busy areas etc. Just because you have got 5 acoutsic guitar tracks recorded it does not mean you have to use all of em! One or two might be all that is required. People are afraid of sparseness. Steely Dan has got this down so well it is amazing! They don't spend a year mixing a Steely Dan track, they spend a year making sure none of the parts step on each other. Or they just use the best session players in the world and that just happens live and naturally.

this is great. I too am not sure what to get out of it, but I know one thing: if want something up front - turn it up.alright!

Gibson is just trying to explain how he sees a mix in his own mind's eye. I'm pretty sure we all do that, whether it's creating a mix, getting a guitar tone or listening to music in the dark. The only time we don't do it is when we're watching a live band, but only because the visuals are provided to us. (When I go to the symphony, though, my eyes close of their own volition, and the mental images take over. I should just stay home and save the money, I guess.)
 
I've never met a creative type who didn't make mental pictures out of sound. It's called synesthesia, the crossing-over and blending of the senses. In extreme cases, it's a serious disability. For most, it's a pleasant confusion that can be useful for creative purposes as well as giving us a needed vocabulary for describing sound. (Everybody knows what a "round" bass tone is, or a "sharp" transient, even if we've corrupted "warm" beyond any usefulness.)
 
Not that all images are universal. If I attempted to do what Gibson has done, I'd have to work in the image of fur-covered bowling balls to describe my perfect kick drum. And the little white sparks that fly out of 12-string acoustic guitars.
 
Of course, analogies always break down at some point. Gibson's 3D box isn't adequate to address distortion, for example. But I still think it's a great jumping-off point for people initially trying to wrap their heads around mixing concepts.

Mixing is still an audio experience not visual. I must be one of the exceptions. I never try to visualise anything during a mix. All the great albums of the past were mixed without computers and with ears alone.
 
How many of you cover your computer monitor or turn it off during a mix? Get back to using your ears and your ears alone. It will serve you the best overall. This is where a control surface comes into its own I think.
 
And yes I agree about distortion Dave. That one is a bit ellusive I think. Back when he was doing that visual thing distortion was perhaps not so common but now it is much more so. I am not sure watching those videos of a mix that he has created is actually going to help you that much. And they are so fast at times you cannot even see what is going on. But then why should we be looking in the first place.
 
It probably all stems from my previous experiences with analog tape machines and mixers etc. I produced a ton of stuff before computers were even common place with audio production so it still flows on for me a bit I think that way. I am always closing my eyes during a mix and it is very interesting how things can appear to sound a bit different the moment you do.

'Love this video and all your thoughts.
 
I'll add: Gibson's psychedelia seemed to me a great labor of love, IMHO.  Gibson explored complex mysteries of classic studio equipment and mental gymnastics.  He makes me glad that I've chosen music to lose my mind!
 
Gibson is an excellent teaching spirit.
 
This teacher goes through great lengths expounding complex music theory and human personality(s).
 
Thanks for sharing such excellence!
 
(Off topic:  It amazes me how hundreds of artists work together to form motion pictures.  Methinks a one-man band must experience much 'life' to be 'fruitful' now-a-days.)

    I found this kind of bizarre.  I mean, I suppose if you really need to "visualize" the mix this 3D type layout is a good way of going about it..?   I guess I do think about sound in terms of the space you are creating and where you choose to put things in it, but I have never tried to visualize it in such a literal way, it's more of a feeling than an actual picture.  For me, your tools are: Tones(frequency), volume, panning, transients, and spacial effects (verbs/delays etc.)  I use them to move items around within that space.  Your basic confines are somewhere around 60db of dynamic range (volume), 20hz-20khz freq, 100% L & R, verbs and spacial effects can help put items further back and/or add depth to a mix but that's about it.  
    
  About  15 years back I was a moderate rhythm guitarist, almost NO lead experience, good bass player, Ok singer, half assed drummer.  I was playing bass in a cover doing 90's covers (current rock at the time).  We lost one of the 2 guitarists and somebody knew another good bass player, so I agreed to slide back over to the guitar so we could bring in this bass player to solve the problem & keep going.  We did.  Then the other guitarist hands me a list of a bunch of the songs we played and I asked what is this?  He said "that's the songs you play lead on", to which I replied "dude, I don't play lead"  he said " well ya do now cause we play fifty some odd songs, 40 or so have leads, and those are the ones Joe (the old guitarist) played and I am not learning them!  You wanted the guitar spot.... you got it."   I was seriously intimidated, these guys were all older and more experienced than I was.  This was talent wise the best band I had been in at the time  I could hang as a bassist but I was outclassed as a guitarist in this group and I thought....  I just got myself kicked out..  Awesome move.
   I decided to try to learn the leads,  they were intricate leads!  Metallica, Candlebox, Alice in chains, etc...  and I started to figure out that while yeah... I took me some time to find the spots & learn them by ear... once I did, and practiced to get them up to speed & fast enough, I could do it!   These guys might be "guitar gods"  but they, like me, only have 6 strings & ten fingers.  That's their limitations and I can do ANYTHING they can do just the same!!  I was stoked.. Totally blown away.   I had been petrified of leads up until that point but realizing that even the great ones have limits that allow me to catch up made it attainable.
                                                   (now that I rambled on for 2 paragraphs to make this point)...
   It may take me time but: every mix, every sound we (humans) can perceive is within those limits.  So that monster kick that you figured you can't get with your gear...  or the bass tone off of that record you really love...  is not SOOO far out of reach.  You just have to create a close sounding source tone and then find the combination of these parameters that gets it there in your mix.   Taking the lesson I learned about lead guitar and applying it to audio helped remove my intimidation and opened the door for me.  I just have to find the tone and place in the mix.  But, it IS there.

ChuckC
    I found this kind of bizarre.  I mean, I suppose if you really need to "visualize" the mix this 3D type layout is a good way of going about it..?   I guess I do think about sound in terms of the space you are creating and where you choose to put things in it, but I have never tried to visualize it in such a literal way, it's more of a feeling than an actual picture.  For me, your tools are: Tones(frequency), volume, panning, transients, and spacial effects (verbs/delays etc.)  I use them to move items around within that space.  Your basic confines are somewhere around 60db of dynamic range (volume), 20hz-20khz freq, 100% L & R, verbs and spacial effects can help put items further back and/or add depth to a mix but that's about it.        About  15 years back I was a moderate rhythm guitarist, almost NO lead experience, good bass player, Ok singer, half assed drummer.  I was playing bass in a cover doing 90's covers (current rock at the time).  We lost one of the 2 guitarists and somebody knew another good bass player, so I agreed to slide back over to the guitar so we could bring in this bass player to solve the problem & keep going.  We did.  Then the other guitarist hands me a list of a bunch of the songs we played and I asked what is this?  He said "that's the songs you play lead on", to which I replied "dude, I don't play lead"  he said " well ya do now cause we play fifty some odd songs, 40 or so have leads, and those are the ones Joe (the old guitarist) played and I am not learning them!  You wanted the guitar spot.... you got it."   I was seriously intimidated, these guys were all older and more experienced than I was.  This was talent wise the best band I had been in at the time  I could hang as a bassist but I was outclassed as a guitarist in this group and I thought....  I just got myself kicked out..  Awesome move.   I decided to try to learn the leads,  they were intricate leads!  Metallica, Candlebox, Alice in chains, etc...  and I started to figure out that while yeah... I took me some time to find the spots & learn them by ear... once I did, and practiced to get them up to speed & fast enough, I could do it!   These guys might be "guitar gods"  but they, like me, only have 6 strings & ten fingers.  That's their limitations and I can do ANYTHING they can do just the same!!  I was stoked.. Totally blown away.   I had been petrified of leads up until that point but realizing that even the great ones have limits that allow me to catch up made it attainable.                                                   (now that I rambled on for 2 paragraphs to make this point)...   It may take me time but: every mix, every sound we (humans) can perceive is within those limits.  So that monster kick that you figured you can't get with your gear...  or the bass tone off of that record you really love...  is not SOOO far out of reach.  You just have to create a close sounding source tone and then find the combination of these parameters that gets it there in your mix.   Taking the lesson I learned about lead guitar and applying it to audio helped remove my intimidation and opened the door for me.  I just have to find the tone and place in the mix.  But, it IS there.

Visualizing that something is possible is a great technique in any field. I remember years ago learning to program by trial and error (pre Internet days) and I committed myself to writing a pretty large and complicated program. Without any formal training and without any books to tell me how coding problems were commonly solved, I ran into situations in which I was truly baffled as to how certain parts of the program should be written. What got me through it was meditating on the fact that what I wanted to do was well within the capability of a computer, that the solution existed somewhere out there, and that my lowly fingers were capable of typing the correct combination of characters to make it work. Oftentimes I'd wake up in the middle of the night with the solution bouncing around my brain in glorious technicolor.

I just wish it worked for choosing lottery numbers.