taking my mix's to the next level

[Bjoillsing]

This is a pretty cool way to look at the mix

http://www.globerecording.com/

[David Polich]

Yes, David I know what you mean about eq and compression. The kick and bass have to work WITH each other (one has to be the ballz the other has to take the back seat). And yes..the guitars don't need the lower freq's. If you try to make everything sound ballz or great soloed, it usually makes a horrible mix. You have to carve out where certain instruments should sit, frequency wise, in the mix. I think my problem is that I hold myself to impossible standards. I only have a few thousand invested, and I want my stuff to sound like it was cut with several hundred thousand and rick rubin producing! I'm also coming from a Rock perspective. The production isn't all that natural or organic (at least the stuff I like). It's super produced and polished. (I'm really liking the sound of breaking benjamin's new record!) That's what I aspire to do sound wise.

Aspiring to better mixes is one of the most noble pursuits in recording, if not THE most noble.

Take heart - the "million-dollar" sound is not always due to million dollar gear. There's the notable case of the Eurythmics track "Sweet Dreams" recorded on a Tascam 8 track machine. You can sit someone with little experience in front of a Neve console at Ocean Way and they're not going to come up with a Bob Clearmountain masterpiece.

Arrangement has as much to do with it as anything. When I was really young, I would listen to Cars records and wonder how they got the keyboard sounds to sit so nicely in the mix. I wasn't even thinking that it was due as much to the arrangement and "holes" for the keyboard parts to go into. A problematic mix might be due to your arrangement. Here's some trouble-spots to look out for:

1.Bright buzzing sawtooth ("Jump") synths and distorted guitars - a real bitch to deal with, since they are both occupying the same frequencies and timbres.

2. Vocalists that sound like overdriven saxophones or cellos. They present a problem with guitars because the range where the "details" poke through is the same. Usually you end up losing the definition of the guitars in favor of the vocalist.

3. Synth bass with lots of emphasis in the 40hz-80hz range, and a 909 or 808 drum machine kick drum. One or the other has to contain the 40hz to 80hz oomph, they both can't have it, but you tend to want both of them to have it. A lot of dance tracks that are commercially released still have this problem, the mixers ADDED low end to the bass and kick.

4. Cymbals and hats with excessive amounts of 6khz to 9khz, and buzzy edgey trance synth pads. This just ends up being a high-end trash-a-thon. When in doubt, CUT the highs from the damn synth pad. Synth programmers go way over the top with the high end on trance sounds, I ought to know, being a sound designer myself. As a matter of fact, the more top end you lop off synth pads in general, the better off you'll be. Sample-based workstations (Motif,Triton, Roland etc.) have a tendency to exhibit extra hash in the area above 6.3khz, because the programmers have added top end EQ to the sounds in order to make them more exciting on the sales floor at Guitar Center.

5. To make a bigger kick drum, make a smaller bass. Try heavy compression on the bass first.

6. Roll off highs on acoustic snare drums. Snare drum highs fight with the high end of cymbals and hats.

7. Put background vocals farther back then you initally think they should be, and roll the lows off of them, starting around 315hz.

8. For rock band tracks, drop the high-hat level way down so you can just hear it, but it's not obtrusive. If you listen to any rock band live at a show like the MTV awards, you'll probably notice (or should) that what you hear most of is the snare followed by the kick. Loud hats belong in dance music (and its umpteen sub-genres).

9. In pop records, bass occupies a larger portion of the mix than is reasonable or realistic. But that's what makes those records pump.

10. To create excitement, anticipation, or build in a loud pop/dance/hip-hop/rock/electronica mix, experiment with breakdowns where you remove the bass and other elements at times. Even removing a bass in the last two beats before a chorus comes in will give the chorus the push you want. Dynamics these days belongs to jazz and orchestral music. Interest and excitement in pop music is accomplished by adding and taking away elements. Make the "mute" button your friend.

[chrispick]

Arrangement has as much to do with it as anything.

Arrangement has everything to do with it.

[Jim]

Here's some trouble-spots to look out for:

1.Bright buzzing sawtooth....

Excellent tips, David. Thanks.

[chrispick]

Here's some trouble-spots to look out for:

1.Bright buzzing sawtooth....

Excellent tips, David. Thanks.

Well, I take the message to be: Give each sound its own frequency space. Choose which sounds will stand separate in the mix and which will blend.

And that's smart, general advice.

That laundry list of tips is, at best, some possible mixing rules-of-thumb though. I'd never apply them in general.

Honestly though, composition is everything. By far, the most important mixing decisions happen before any sounds hit tape or hard drive. If you arrange your songs with attention to frequency overlap, you'll record tracks that'll mix well. You can more easily apply EQ or compression as aural augmentation rather than repair.

[monkey man]

Gold, gold and yet even more gold.
Dang, David and chrispick; I'm drowning in it.
Thank you.
Nicky

[zara_drummer]

Rolling off the highs on the Snare is something i've never tried...

Im always too affraid that the snare will get lost or loose its punch in the mix if its not crisp enough, but I guess it takes up as much of the frequency space as anything else.

Sometimes its hard to be a drummer and really understand how to get a quality sonic mix without the drums over powering...Oddly enough Im so conscious of it that sometimes the drums are not loud enough in my mixes... I gotta get used to switching roles!!

[chrispick]

Rolling off the highs on the Snare is something i've never tried...

Im always too affraid that the snare will get lost or loose its punch in the mix if its not crisp enough, but I guess it takes up as much of the frequency space as anything else.

Sometimes its hard to be a drummer and really understand how to get a quality sonic mix without the drums over powering...Oddly enough Im so conscious of it that sometimes the drums are not loud enough in my mixes... I gotta get used to switching roles!!

Maybe rolling off snare highs will help. Maybe not.

I think it's more of an aesthetic decision than a technical rule blanketly applied. That is, you, the mixer, will want to decide: Do I want a snare that cracks or thuds or whatever? Do I want the snare to stand on top of the mix or blend into it?

That's why I bristle a little when I see rules like: For a better-sounding "X" you should equalize "Y" frequencies. For instance, often, suggested rolloff frequencies are the harmonics that give a sound its unique qualities.

By the way, mixing loud rock stuff (like, say, nu-metal) can be pretty difficult. Usually, everyone wants their instrument loud and up-front. The guitarists want to record with tons of top-end distortion, but expect all this low-end power (and yet how meaty can a chainsaw be?). Plus, they oftn drop-tune, adding more frequency to futz with. Drummers want deep power across sundry toms, but also want chimey cymbals and cracking snares and a kick that rattles your rib cage. And everyone plays fully at once. Sometimes, even the bass player wants to play chords.

It can be a tall order for a mix engineer, to be sure. It's like directing a play where all the actors want to scream the whole time.

Oddly enough, despite cries for more power, usually the bass end suffers the most. Listen to all the papery kicks and basses on a lot of these CDs.

Anyway...

Separation and dynamics and arrangement are all inextricably linked.

[scottchristy]

Yes, with the rock stuff..it's almost like phil spectrs old "wall of sound" with everything fighting to be heard. But what I'd like to know is, all things being equal, how will a mix of 20 to 30 rock tracks played through the outputs of 2408 sound compared to the same mix played through the 2408 into some quality DA to a nice summing mixer with a properly clocked sysytem. I've just started to learn about all those other pieces of gearthat could make a major difference in my overall sound. Aside from all the killer mixing tips, I'd also like some confirmation on the gear thing or at least a few of the "essential" pieces needed. I'm not talking about the room, acoustics, ears etc... I 'd like to know more about signal flow and different DAW configuations.

[chrispick]

But what I'd like to know is, all things being equal, how will a mix of 20 to 30 rock tracks played through the outputs of 2408 sound compared to the same mix played through the 2408 into some quality DA to a nice summing mixer with a properly clocked system.

I don't think the aural benefits of adding a summing back-end to your set-up justify the costs. Stick with what you have. My opinion. YMMV.

re: Phil Spectre -- A good thing to learn: He mixed most of that stuff in mono. Mono forces you to be careful about frequency pile-up and phase issues. If you can make it work in mono, it'll work even better when shifted to stereo.

[scottchristy]

Chris, wow I didn't know that about spectre. Thats a cool tip. About the summing box's...I've been checking them out at vintageking.com and they are pretty pricey. Man you'd think for that kinda dough they would really make a big difference. I may try to rent one and run some test mix's. also..I have'nt been running a master clock with my set up, and a bunch of people have advised me get one. Do you think that cost will justify the sound difference?

[chrispick]

Chris, wow I didn't know that about spectre. Thats a cool tip.

Yeah, and Brian Wilson too (although he had less of a choice since he's deaf in one ear). Both of these guys worked hard to make multiple instruments sound good in their recording space, then tried to get the best, uncomplicated recording of that room-player-sound as they could. Tom Dowd too, I believe.

To consider: I'm a new-schooler who increasingly looks back to the old-schoolers for technique. So, take what I post with that grain of salt. I'm still learning.

Anyway, the mono trick is an all-era-school technique though, I think. To wit: Dance clubs and such often do not pump out stereo house mixes.

I constantly check my mixes in mono. For me, it made for a great improvement in mix technique.

I should say, though: There are plenty of times when recording in stereo for stereo mix works really well. I like it on hand percussion a lot. And acoustic guitar (although I sometimes like mono treatments here too). I'm kind of on the fence right now regarding drum kit overheads and room mics though. Gotta really nail the phase there.

I'm kind of at a feeling these days though that you really learn the fundamentals by getting mono stuff down pat. I don't know though. Still on that learning path, ya dig?

About the summing box's...I've been checking them out at vintageking.com and they are pretty pricey. Man you'd think for that kinda dough they would really make a big difference. I may try to rent one and run some test mix's. also..I have'nt been running a master clock with my set up, and a bunch of people have advised me get one. Do you think that cost will justify the sound difference?

re: summing boxes -- I say definitely test-drive one if you can to decide for yourself. I've never taken one home (another grain of salt here), but I've listened to others and found they sound subtley different, but not necessarily better.

re: clocks and converters -- Clocks are important to reduce jitter, an artifact of analog-to-digital conversion. So, if you use analog preamps or compressors in your input or mix process, then yeah, it'll behoove you to clock them.

Converter quality, as you'd assume, factor into this too. Translation benefits from a good translator.

Some mix engineers are sticklers about A/D/D/A converters, insisting on the top-of-the-line, but I don't think I have the ear to hear the distinctions between a good clock/converter set-up and a great one. I use an Apogee Rosetta 200 to clock and convert and it works great for me. More controlled lows, less smeary sound, consistent separation, etc. -- stuff you've probably read before.

I also work with pop idiom genres. If I were recording and mixing classical or jazz stuff when pristine representation is part-and-parcel, I might have a different, more precision-oriented view.

Now, did adding the Apogee drastically change my sound? No. It was a slight difference. For me, though, it was enough of a difference to justify the purchase. I don't feel the same way about summing boxes though. Others, of course, will have different opinions.

[scottchristy]

Chris, great advice! I'm getting ready to change things around a little in my studio and that's why all the questions. I've been working a certain way for a long time and I think I need to make some changes. My ITB mixes sound good, and a lot of ppeople say they sound great, but they're starting to sound a little 2 dimensional to me. I feel I'm not getting the depth or clarity that I hear in my head. I've been upgrading over the years, and I guess it's just that time again. Some of my rock stuff is on www.myspace.com/ballzdeluxe I know it's hard to tell with mp3's, but any feedback or constructive criticism would be appreciated.

[Jim]

I'm kind of on the fence right now regarding drum kit overheads and room mics though. Gotta really nail the phase there.

I haven't tried that much, although a few weeks ago, I used Trim to make my drumkit submix mono, and it was remarkable how much closer the kit sounded.

I intentionally play some drum patterns to take advantage of stereo, however (like hit the ride on 2&4, and the hat on 1&3), and I can't see making the kit mono for everything.

Great tips though, Chris. Thanks.

The snare is a problem when trying to allocate spectrum. When I look at my snare solo in FFT mode, it has frequencies from about 200Hz all the way up to 5K. I've been experimenting with comb filtering, both additive and subtractive. So far, no magic bullet. I can't see putting the Fine Young Cannibals/Drives Me Crazy sound on everything. That'd get old PDQ.

As for analog v. digital summing: Call me nuts, but it seems to me that it shouldn't matter theoretically how the signals are summed... One should be able to achieve more or less the same result (given pristine signal paths) by compensating one or the other by whatever differences said one or the other exhibits in gain structure. Seems to me that the biggest reason to sum analog is for the color (the non-pristine byproducts: eg. distortion) the specific hardware imparts, no?

There was a widely discussed test on analog summing on the REP forum I guess about a year ago. Blind test. Samples posted. Opinions and pontifications rendered. Result: Inconclusive; no clear winner.

[3rdeye]

www.myspace.com/ballzdeluxe

"Secret" is a great song.

About mixing and buying new stuff, I'd say don't get into that game, you••™ll "know it" when your gear is the weakest link, you won't have to ask around.

The biggest difference I see between pro and amateur sounding mixes is compression, low-mids eq and ambience.
You can start by emulating how other people mix, i.e: say you like a particular mix by Chris Lord-Alge and you have a song where you would like a similar sounding snare. You can do a mix starting on the snare and after you get that sound you can start all over and focus on another element. The idea is that when you do it all over again you will have taken that acoustic preconception out of the way, and new preconceived ideas will flourish for you to challenge. Then you'll get a firmer grasp on how to actually enhance and make decisions on your mix.

Or for another example, say you have a friend who told you that to get that polished 80's sound you needed to be sparse around the 500 hz area, so you start fiddling with eq's and lower 9 db of 500hz on every single track, and then only add some after you get the balance, on the tracks that you feel sound to "wimpy".

Somewhere along that line you start getting a feel for other stuff that makes a difference between your mixes and other people's mixes (Air, punch, dynamics, whatever), and you can decide if you want to feature or tighten those differences, based on what you already know and what you think you know, it makes no difference until you do it in one of your mixes.

Or, you can look at it the other way and get a Fairchild and an LA3 for you acoustic and electric guitars, 2 1176's for vocals, a handful of Pultecs, an LA2A for bass, and a 33609 and an Smart C2 for bus and parallel compression. You'll still have to weed through all that golden frequency curves and sweet harmonic distortion but you'll definitely feel like there's no difference other than experience between you and the "pro's"

But hey what do I know, for all intends and purposes you may be a hell of a better mixer than I.