Yeah, me too. So I think I agree that at least *some* of this "track well" stuff is tangential, and the "TRACK LIKE A GOD, AND MIX NOT" stuff is downright unhelpful.

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.

What is the assumption here, we're ALL self-recorders?

There are all sorts of talents here, it just seems like the ancient guitar slinging primates * * is a bigger demographic on this particular board.

Structured workflow during the mixing phase has less to do with heroics and more to do with practical ways of working with the material you have, good self-recorded material, bad self recorded material, material from another source or even if you are a sound-designer.  Tracking is a completely different subject to mixing.

Mixing requires a methodical way of working (whatever method you choose) otherwise you end up chasing round in circles.  I think the consensus here is even the best recordists still need to mix.

droddey

I would agree that what happens before the mix is the most important of all, but he was asking about what's important in a mix.

That's what I thought too.  I'm not talking about turd polishing, I'm talking about mixing with a purpose as Danny was talking about in his initial post.

For me I concur with both him and James1213, I plan my soundstage by balancing frequency, panorama, and level at the outset, from there the dynamics control I might like has been suggested and discovered, moving on to the icing on the cake i.e. the 'verb I can put the whole thing in a cave or a bar-room if required, so to my way of working the OP has it in the same order, whether that is the correct order is a matter for the person doing the mixing, I just happen to find that order to be the most productive and likely to yeild the best results and easiest to alter.  And it works on ALL genres and is the least dependant on the quality of original material, as if something ain't good enough it won't even make the cut.

It ain't about 'fixin' it's about mixing and the more elements you include the more you are likely to need to do it.

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: great posts there dude...totally agree on all points. The other way I look at it is like this...

Anyone that is new at this probably isn't going to be able to afford pricey front end gear, great mics and they probably will record their share of duds like we did when we first got into this. The only thing I can compare that to is when a baby horse is born. They don't help it walk, it has to learn to stand on it's own and build its muscles.

Dud sounds teach us that. If we didn't deal with and learn about bad prints, we'd not know how to create good prints. Though I am 100% in the camp of printing the best tracks possible, this just isn't going to happen for everyone. So when a person DOES have to deal with turd polishing, hopefully they learn something from it. I know I sure did. Especially when I learned what a good sound was supposed to sound like. Keeping all that in mind, this is where I feel anything "reverb" can pollute a mix which is why I'd never have it as high on the priority list. The last thing anyone needs to deal with is verb decaying all over the place when they are trying to get something audible. It's important, it adds space, ambiance and everything else...but to me, I just can't treat it like "Reverb is God". A crap mix without good eq, is still a crap mix....add verb, it's a crap mix cluttered with verb.

I'm with you on the whole samples vs acoustic sounds thing...but I also have to confess I think mixing has gotten a lot easier because of samples. Now granted, when I first got into this stuff, creating my own sounds was hard and mixing them was even harder. Samples...well, we know that even if we left them alone right out of the box, they would still end up sounding way better than if a person that wasn't good at recording their own sounds tried to do so. I'm also against the whole purist thing and am living proof the only mic I need to use is on my voice if I don't feel like mic'ing anything. I don't even need dedicated killer mic pre's or a $4000 mic. Give me Sonar, a stock pc with a Realtek running ASIO4ALL, any mixing console, and a CAD E-200 and I'll pump out good sounding stuff that sounds like a high quality demo every time. Heck, Countdown was recorded that way and it didn't turn out too bad. LOL!

I dunno man...at the end of the day, people are going to work in the areas they feel are best suited for them. As you continue to grow doing this stuff, you learn what works and what doesn't. That's what makes it art really. As long as someone can crank out a good mix and get their ideas out, it really doesn't matter if they're the only ones who like it....as long as THEY like it. :)

-Danny

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.

trimph1


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.

Ah trimph, don't confuse crappy sounds with authentic, classic Arp sounds brother. That was a cool synth for the time and still has it's strong points. I had the same one you have. It got stolen in a huge gear fiasco years ago. They wanted that Arp more than they wanted our drum kit. They stole our pa, both my Marshall cabs, my rack, the bass gear...it was horrible. But that Arp was an interesting piece. And that "whattocallit" stuff is usually good music for the head. Kinda atmospheric and spiritual. Mood music....let it fly brother and share some with us sometime. :)
 
-Danny

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 :)

Matt:  No!!   You do NOT want to hear the s6X's!!! I heard them recently at one of the music stores up here...now I be crying in my sleep at night!!!   


They are just gorgeous sounding speakers... 

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.