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?

Hi Matt,

I'd say no on the reverb and here's why. Though it can help with space, depth and placement, you should be able to come up with a great mix without it. It's icing on the cake not really something that needs lots of work or something that will make or break you.

To others, they may hold verb in a higher regard. But to me, if I can get a mix sounding good with just eq and compression, I'm right where I need to be. The toughest in my opinion is carving things to where you get that good sound without mud and everything is audible. Eq alone can handle this without any compression at all.

Compression in MY mixes is used more for tightening so that nothing jumps out beyond its means. I rarely parallel compress other than on drums when the need arises and it makes a difference for the better, I don't squash things and I don't side-chain. If you can get your mixes sounding good and you are having no problems with eq'ing things, your mixes should be in good shape. Compression and verb are icing on the cake in my opinion.

-Danny

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?

I agree with Danny. I'd say eq and fader levels do most of the work, followed by compression where necessary. You'll almost never get a really great mix using no reverb, but most mix problems are more fundamentally do do with the former three elements. This is grossly over simplifying, of course, but if we're talking fundamentals, I think that's where to look. 

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

Ok into the lions den, whilst Danny is correct, what he is not taking into acount is what style of music you are making or recording.

If it's all recorded live in a room with a band, then Danny is correct.  The recording process is the most importent process to master, the best anology is you are taking a photo and you want it to be pin point acurate.

If you are doing things piecemeal ie: you are recording instruments separately and trying to fake a room sound or whatever, a staduim, then the three elements you have suggested are def what you need to master.  I would suggest reverb comes under another title called time based effects and these include: Reverb, Chorus, Flanging and Delay.

Finally Matt, don't forget history.  History is another importent factor when learning how to record, mix and master.  Read The Complete Beatles recordings by Mark Lewison, Here There and Everywhere by Geoff Emerick, there is also another cool book about the equipment The Beatles used in their recordings, this may give you some ideas about why? emulations and then you might be able to recognize some importent sounds, like the Fairchild limiter.  Also the classic recordings series is an excellent jumping off point, you see the masters, themselves mix and how they achive that sound.

Neb

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. 

some of these guys don't need to worry about post-eqing because they get the parts down just so during tracking.

Of course a good recording is a major part.  But it goes without saying a good capture is by it's very nature mean you've got more than you actually need in the context of a mix alongside other instruments.

Eq, prominence and placement have to be foremost when you are puting together a mix that contains several elements as you can't limit the full frequency range of a given mic at it's source however specialist the mic or expert the handler.

Even on a modern dance track with elements pumping to the groove and big swishy 'verbs all over the place will have, if it is a good mix, those 3 core elements of eq, prominence and placement worked out as the major core of the mix, i.e it will still work as a mix even when you take away the monster compression and spaced out fx.

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?  

Danny - Thanks for that reply. Really great answer. I appreciate the time you put into that. No further questions!

Ben (or Neb?) - Of course verb is still important for a typical studio multitracked type recording, but I guess it's an order of priorities here. A well eq'ed and balanced mix should sound great without reverb, even if it still will ultimately need it, but great reverb with a very poorly eq'ed mix probably won't hold up as well.

Backwoods - I would certainly put composition and correct recording above all these too. You can tweak a mic placement and settings on your guitar/amp to get it as close as possible to sitting perfectly in the mix, however you're often still going to have additional unnecessary frequencies as well. I see the most important part in recording is ensuring you capture the frequencies you NEED to get that instrument in the right place, and then try and cut out the ones you don't need so much and then hit record. But what if as you start recording everything else, things change and you need to put your guitar somewhere else. Then you'll wish you had just recorded all the sonic elements you needed so you could re-eq. You can't eq back something that wasn't there to begin with. Leaving more adds flexibility which is probably very important for most of us as we are not all pros. A seasoned professional knows the finished product so he can afford to cut those things out in the recording as he KNOWS he won't regret it and need it later.

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.