mixing in anything OTHER than mono, frightens me!!
 
LOL

Well... I'll certainly be giving it a whirl Rob... I'll let you know how that goes 

Sorry for not quoting anything, but I'm using the iPad and quoting using it is a pain.

The crest factor. It's dB because dB are logarithmic. Which means, if I remember rightly, that one figure subtracted from another expresses the ratio between them, which is also kind of the difference. In reality all that really matters is the crest factor gives you an idea of how the loudest bits measured as RMS compare to the peaks. Decibels are strange things because, for example, to double the volume/audio power you don't double the dB.

If hearing high frequencies is a problem (I sympathise, at 54 I find over 16KHz pretty inaudible unless massively boosted) it might be worth looking at Span Plus. It allows you to use e.g. a reference track of similar genre to what your working on, export an eq plot from that then import it as a reference guide in a copy of Span+ on another track, including the master.

Hi Andy...I've been hunting around to back up my claims about faders and not moving them too much when mixing...and it is better to use the trim knob to set gain...ah Sonar and the trim knob...bloody brilliant.  Here is an article backing up what I was saying...although it possibly has nothing to with resolution...I'm still hunting around for this though http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan02/articles/practicalmixing.asp read this...it basically backs up my idea about leaving the faders as close to unity as possible and this is where your pic and how I explained the levels might be all right...or they might not be...it's all about what sort of track your mixing...so soft levels are fine if it's a soft track...just make sure all the other tracks are soft too...yea make's sence...I've actually learnt something from that above article...this is if it's a loud track...leave it loud...if it's a soft track...leave it soft...always learning something!!
 
Ben 

Thanks Ben 
 
I had a quick scan over that article, written back in 2002.
 
So much to take on board 

Man, I sat here and read through all this just shaking my head. Talk about confusing to make this art more difficult than it already can be to someone trying to learn. LOL! Andy, just answer me honestly.....how confused are you now with some of this stuff and all this reading? I'd say not "so much to take on board"......but "too much to take on board" that won't really be as helpful as you think.
 
Though some of the stuff posted may be helpful and came from credible sources, other stuff (in my opinion) is really not necessity nor will it help you get to where you need to be.
 
Simple solution to the low volume issue. When you start a mix that is lacking volume, you can try leaving all faders at unity and then raising gain/trim on each channel until you see some stronger meter readings. Why people feel the need to record so low is beyond me. There is no reason why we need to be below -10dB and no hotter than -6dB peak.....send some frickin' signal!
 
This helps with your effects levels as well as how they react as someone (Tom maybe?) mentioned and it also gives you a healthy signal and from here, you can raise or lower faders. I record at -10 with a -6dB peak so I never touch my gain/trim controls on my stuff. Don't be afraid to raise or lower faders. I've heard myths about raising and lowering them as well as master bus raise/lower effecting resolution. If it does (I can't see this at 24 bit, but I read something about it being possible at 16 bit. I still don't hear it nor do I buy it totally, but that's me) you won't hear it and no one else can either.....trust me. And don't worry about clipping any effects or channel LED's unless you literally hear a problem.
 
I've used Sonar since dirt and have thousands of mixes and mastering projects under my belt. I've never worried about 3/4 of the stuff I've read in this thread nor have I ever worried about effects clipping in Sonar. We have huge amounts of headroom in Sonar. If something clips, it's telling you it's getting into the hot zone, it doesn't mean it's clipping or too hot. Even effects LED's. If you HEAR it clipping and making something sound bad, then you worry and make the right changes. Don't let these meter things and crest factors do you in.
 
Relying on graphs due to hearing loss or not using monitors is not going to help you. I've seen some of the coolest looking analyzer readings only to cringe when listening to the audio. Just because something may look hot or not doesn't mean it is. Peaks can make an analyzer look good or bad....we're talking about one little spike that might be making a decision or 10 for you. Stay away from this method and try your best to use your monitors when you can. With headphones, you're in the same place as beeps in the thread he created. Don't stress....you can only go so far with cans.
 
Many people complain about not getting this mixing stuff. The reasons for this are headphones (lack of a real monitoring environment) and reading too much horse crap on the net that is confusing and not helping anyone. Trust me when I tell you. We have so many tools today that attempt to make things easier....yet all they do is cloud the vision of those learning.
 
At any rate, and I mean this.....none of this has to be as confusing as it sounds. I'm not trying to discredit anyone, I just think some of this stuff is irrelevant. "Use your ears" is the best advice followed by "don't read too much that leads you astray". I could sit here and read for 12 hours and not be any better at this. The net is a wild goose chase of nothing at times even though people do sincerely mean well.
 
Listen, I'm not the be all end all of mix guys and hope I'm not coming off like that.....but man, I get pretty good results without doing anything that would confuse anyone and don't use any of the stuff people talk about on here that spans pages and pages worth of reading and learning. Everything is cut and dry to me...there are no dark arts or secrets other than how a person chooses to process their craft. Don't read too much and don't read too much into the hype. All it does is waste more of your time in my opinion.
 
-Danny

One other thing.....
 
You mentioned mixing in stereo as opposed to mono. Can you explain this to me and what you mean by it? You may be over-doing things here which may be making things more difficult for you. Allow me to possibly clear up a few myths for you...if you know this already, please forgive me....I'm just trying to help. :)
 
Stereo is good for synth stuff....which is really stereo imaging due to the effects on the synth or the wave form panning/oscillation. True Stereo is two mono sources independently playing the same thing, but differently due to human timing inconsistencies.
 
For example, if we recorded a guitar and took two lines out of a processor and recorded on to two tracks in Sonar, (or one stereo track using left/right inputs) we would NOT be recording in stereo. That's two mono tracks playing the exact same thing. Some guys think that's stereo. Distortion or a clean amp sound with two outputs going to disc is not a stereo effect.
 
If we recorded one track of guitar and then went back and played the exact same thing and recorded it to another track, then we have stereo. Cloning that track of the same material is not stereo. Now, if you had a processor and put a stereo chorus on or a ping pong stereo delay....you'd get stereo imaging, not stereo. Why? Because just the effect is in stereo....not the actual guitar sound or playing because it is one take. If we played a guitar on one track and cloned it, then moved the cloned track back 10-15 ticks in Sonar....still, stereo imaging. But it will sound more stereo-esq.
 
Most of us record everything in mono these days because, well, all of our instruments are truly in mono unless we can play two different, independent tracks at once....which none of us can. LOL! With the stereo interleave option in Sonar, it allows us to take a mono track and simulate stereo....BUT, you must have a stereo effect going on. But it's still not the same as recording two, independent tracks of the same performance.
 
When I record and mix drums, all the drums are mono other than overheads. I put mic's on every drum in mono. From there, I put effects on the drums and the effects make the drums sound more stereo...even though they are not in stereo. Because they pan around when I hit toms just means I panned mono toms.....this creates a pan field. When the snare gets cracked, I'm using two mics but they are not used in stereo. They are panned center...one top mic, one bottom and controlled as an entity, not a left and right signal. Mix the two signals centered, put a stereo reverb or an impulse on the snare, it sounds in stereo as the reverb moves the drum outwards. Understand?
 
We do not need two channels for instruments.....so if you are doing this for everything, it's not necessary and you may be increasing your track count without the need. If you are using synths like piano, strings, stuff like that, yes, you can go with two channels. That is the only time (other than drum over-heads/drum rooms and acoustic guitar stereo mic situations) where I use two tracks.
 
When I use a drum module, I set it up just like I would a real drum kit. When the synth loads up, I make every drum piece go to mono so I have full control. When the over-heads get created, they usually create two channels. I pan one left, one right. The same for "room" on drums. They are the only stereo situations in the drum kit for me. Everything else is mono and panned accordingly, sent to buses and effected. Any stereo effects used on individual drum tracks or on the drum buses will make the drums appear more stereo-esq.
 
Now I can get saucy and record an electric guitar with several mics. Two at closer range, two at the back of the room in the corners. Only the two at the back in the corners would be stereo panned left and right picking up the reflections. AND....due to me using one guitar signal in one performance, the only thing giving me stereo is the sound of the room along with the delay from being all the way at the back of the room. I'm still using one sound source so in a sense, this is the equal to me putting a stereo reverb on a mono guitar track and enabling stereo interleave in Sonar. The stereo thing for tracking is not really needed man, honest. Certain situations you can use it, but for most things, mono works fine with a stereo effect UNLESS you are layering something and playing it several times and processing differently.
 
Do me a favor. Get your synth, fire up a sound you like and record it into Sonar in stereo like you always do. When done, pan the synth to the left even though it's on a stereo track. Add another stereo track....record the exact same part again and play along to the part you already recorded. When done, pan the track you just recorded all the way to the right. Now play them both back and listen. That's true stereo based on two performances with subtle human timing inconsistencies.
 
Now, take the track you have panned to the left, and pan it center and mute the other track. That is your stereo imaging track you always record. Now repan to the left and unmute the other. Hear the differences? That's two mono tracks independently played to create true stereo. It sounds bigger and wider, notice?
 
Anyway, my purpose here is to try and point you in the right direction without having you over-do anything. This field is way more simplistic than people lead you to believe. I wish some of you guys lived near me so you could come and hang with me.....I'd show you how easy it really is...and you'd agree with me and tell ME how to mix. The key is....tracking good instrument sounds and having a good, tuned listening environment....*most* of the rest is all technical jargon in my opinion and reading for the sake of reading. Hope this helps.
 
-Danny

Danny Danzi
Man, I sat here and read through all this just shaking my head. Talk about confusing to make this art more difficult than it already can be to someone trying to learn. LOL! Andy, just answer me honestly.....how confused are you now with some of this stuff and all this reading? I'd say not "so much to take on board"......but "too much to take on board" that won't really be as helpful as you think.
 
Though some of the stuff posted may be helpful and came from credible sources, other stuff (in my opinion) is really not necessity nor will it help you get to where you need to be.
 
Simple solution to the low volume issue. When you start a mix that is lacking volume, you can try leaving all faders at unity and then raising gain/trim on each channel until you see some stronger meter readings. Why people feel the need to record so low is beyond me. There is no reason why we need to be below -10dB and no hotter than -6dB peak.....send some frickin' signal!
 
This helps with your effects levels as well as how they react as someone (Tom maybe?) mentioned and it also gives you a healthy signal and from here, you can raise or lower faders. I record at -10 with a -6dB peak so I never touch my gain/trim controls on my stuff. Don't be afraid to raise or lower faders. I've heard myths about raising and lowering them as well as master bus raise/lower effecting resolution. If it does (I can't see this at 24 bit, but I read something about it being possible at 16 bit. I still don't hear it nor do I buy it totally, but that's me) you won't hear it and no one else can either.....trust me. And don't worry about clipping any effects or channel LED's unless you literally hear a problem.
 
I've used Sonar since dirt and have thousands of mixes and mastering projects under my belt. I've never worried about 3/4 of the stuff I've read in this thread nor have I ever worried about effects clipping in Sonar. We have huge amounts of headroom in Sonar. If something clips, it's telling you it's getting into the hot zone, it doesn't mean it's clipping or too hot. Even effects LED's. If you HEAR it clipping and making something sound bad, then you worry and make the right changes. Don't let these meter things and crest factors do you in.
 
Relying on graphs due to hearing loss or not using monitors is not going to help you. I've seen some of the coolest looking analyzer readings only to cringe when listening to the audio. Just because something may look hot or not doesn't mean it is. Peaks can make an analyzer look good or bad....we're talking about one little spike that might be making a decision or 10 for you. Stay away from this method and try your best to use your monitors when you can. With headphones, you're in the same place as beeps in the thread he created. Don't stress....you can only go so far with cans.
 
Many people complain about not getting this mixing stuff. The reasons for this are headphones (lack of a real monitoring environment) and reading too much horse crap on the net that is confusing and not helping anyone. Trust me when I tell you. We have so many tools today that attempt to make things easier....yet all they do is cloud the vision of those learning.
 
At any rate, and I mean this.....none of this has to be as confusing as it sounds. I'm not trying to discredit anyone, I just think some of this stuff is irrelevant. "Use your ears" is the best advice followed by "don't read too much that leads you astray". I could sit here and read for 12 hours and not be any better at this. The net is a wild goose chase of nothing at times even though people do sincerely mean well.
 
Listen, I'm not the be all end all of mix guys and hope I'm not coming off like that.....but man, I get pretty good results without doing anything that would confuse anyone and don't use any of the stuff people talk about on here that spans pages and pages worth of reading and learning. Everything is cut and dry to me...there are no dark arts or secrets other than how a person chooses to process their craft. Don't read too much and don't read too much into the hype. All it does is waste more of your time in my opinion.
 
-Danny

Thanks Danny...you said want I said...but more clearly!
Ben.

I am someone who has spent a lifetime with syntheisers. (some people on the Sonar forum are just too rock and guitar orientated to fully understand them and they just have not come into contact with some very complex synths, the synth guys will know what I mean though)
 
The example that Danny has sighted above is OK eg two stereo synths (in mono) double tracking.  That is one sound but recording a true stereo synthesiser is another thing all together.
 
I have got some amazing harware (and software) instruments where the stereo imaging is breathtaking.  Instruments that actually start with stereo samples or models (in many layers too eg my Kurzwweil can do up to 32 layers per note so you have 32 stereo layers going on, all can be panned, modulated, swept etc..) and run all the way through in stereo and then finally get some impressive stereo effect imaging at the end of the chain.  This can sound better and also quite different to two synth recordings double tracked and panned.  In fact that is nothing like it in some circumstances. (a good example is a great organ sound with a fantastic Leslie simulator on board)
 
When you hear some of these images there is just no way that you would:
 
a) bang the two outputs together and record in mono
 
b) record two double tracking synth tracks in stereo and pan one left and the other right. (you are only hearing half of each image as well when you do that unless you use Channel tools to bring both halves together and then pan and then why would you do that)
 
You cannot apply a standard set of rules to synthesisers. You need to really listen to what sound they are making first and evaluate from there.  This is the best and correct advice.  Like I said some are so amazing imaging wise you only need to record them once in stereo and just hear that in stereo.  But if a synth output is in stereo but not very interesting though then Danny's approach would craete a far more interesting result for sure.

I agree with your example Jeff. I just find the different opinions from all the great guys here interesting to say the least.
Danny has great points and so do you. Ben and Beeps and bit and bat and many more chime in and give wonderful advice based on real life.
 
It's the absolute comments that get me. "Some people are" this and that. "Some people's ideas are irrelevant...".  
 
We all come from different backgrounds and experience. Everyone can chose to do something any old way they want and should not be criticized for it or made to believe they are inferior in some way.
 
 
Who knows, the guy just learning his way around engineering and production today might end up being a fabulous producer some day. Who's gonna tell them the right and wrong way of doing stuff? They need to practice, learn what works and what doesn't, study, read, listen, test, experiment, and IMO above all, not get talked into one person's POV. 
 
We all can offer opinions and I am not saying to hold back. I just wish some of the comments would allow for other points of view without as much critique at times. For the less experienced out there, some of us came from analog backgrounds that have learned the digital realm. Others have been born into the digital world. There are so many options these days that sometimes we can bog down into what path to use. You will not be confident in that choice unless you learn it for yourself.