You guys are way too kind!! All of you have stepped up to the plate to help other members including myself, and this is something that I will never take for granted-- so while we are taking on an "attitude of gratitude", I'll just say thanks right back!!
Tom Calan wrote:I just wanted to say thank you for the very detailed reply, Frodo. It gives me a lot of food for thought along with a huge list of books now on order.
Oh, the reading never ends. The more you learn, the more you realize that there is more to learn.
One VERY general rule or trick is that if you want something like your organ sitting "behind" the guitar, scoop out some of the mids with EQ to create a "nest", so to speak, for the guitar to sit in. It sounds as if your organ mids are competing with your guitar mids. Of course, the guitar will naturally have more sparkle, so listen to frequencies around 3-4k and play with boosts or cuts in increments of 2dB to see what improves or what does more harm than good.
If you happen to have an organ patch or plugin like B4 with drawbars, that's the best way to reshape the sound of the organ. Each drawbar represents on step in the harmonic series-- from left to right-- the fundamental, the octave above, the fifth above that, the fourth above that (which is two octaves above the fundamental) and so on.... Sometimes reducing the second harmonic and adding a touch more of the third harmonic can give the organ enough presence without it taking up so much space in a mix.
EQ's are fun to play with, but the object is not to really "notice" that they are being used. It should just sound right. They serve a mix best when they are used to duck certain frequencies rather than used to add frequencies, but a good digital EQ can work well when the additive method is used without adding too much unwanted noise to the mix. For example, say your vocal sounds dull. Instead of adding 3-4k (which *can* help bring out the consonants in a vocal lyric) try cutting a little in the 400-500 hz range for a female vocal and 200-250hz in a male vocal. Listen to how the highs jump out without boosting them. It's a different way of listening. But always make your decision based upon what else is competing for space in your mix in the same register. Best thing to do is to get your main chordal sound (rhythm guitar or piano) sounding good, then leave it alone for a good while (to keep a sonic point of reference or orientation) as you graft additional instruments into the mix.
Tom Calan wrote:
The instruments I have used w/o effects from MIDI modules, that I've added a touch of reverb to (e.g. RenVerb Studio A at around 10 % wet/dry), always sound centered and OK but not "ambient", while the tracks using the MIDI module effects sound fat, deep, and spacious but usually oddly too far back or front or otherwise not in the same room with or in sync with sounds I processed myself in Waves. Suddenly I'm thinking this might all boil down to the early reflections. I think I need to really drill down on learning about reverb a LOT, rather than just messing with the wet/dry mix, and probably need to go back and strip out all of the MIDI module effects as a starting point.
EQ-ing your early reflections is another thing that many people overlook. I like UAD-1's Dreamverb because its interface allows you to graphically change the shape of a room-- trapezoid, semi-circle, etc., while also changing the reflective surfaces-- stone, wood, tile. This all can be done without having to understand the "numbers" right off. Some people are just gifted at calling out parameters off the top of their heads. I can do that after the fact, but I still have to experiment quite a bit to get the sound I want. I also use Altiverb, which not only has its own intuitive interface but it's one of the very best sounding reverbs out there, imho. I don't have to work nearly as hard to find that "third dimension". Some plugins just won't let you do what you want so easily. I think it's important to have one really good reverb as a turnkey 'verb, although some experts will argue that you can get great sounds with enough work with just about any reverb. That may be true, but I'd rather have my plugins working for me rather than me working for them.
Take a look at the WaveArts stuff for high-quality, CPU friendly effects of all sorts. Waves is cool, too-- if expensive.
Tom Calan wrote:
Frodo if you have a moment, can I ask an additional question of you?
Why, certainly!
Tom Calan wrote:
When doubling tracks as you described (hard left and right pan, then offsetting the timing a little) approximately how many milliseconds should separate the two tracks to get a subtle stereo double without being too much? On a piece that's 102 bpm I've been trying out 4/480 to 24/480 of a beat. I think this translates to 8-30 milliseconds of offset. In the middle sounds about right to my ear - 12/480 of a beat at 102 bpm, or 15-ish ms. Is that about right or am I being too conservative with the doubling? Is there an "official solution" for routine instrument doubling?
Rule #1 is "there are no rules". For as many ways there are to do it "wrong", there are thousands more ways to do it right. What's right is a matter of taste. Just study the Beatles recordings to see how many "rules" they broke. And so much of what they did "wrong" sounds so fantastic.
Offsets rely entirely on the wave activity in your particular track. For one session the guitar may vibrate a certain way but differently on another session. What offset works best is the one that gives you a feeling in your gizzard that just says YES, THAT'S IT!! You've done the right thing so far-- and it's most encouraging to read that you have found some value in defining the extremes first then going for something in between. Like Three Bears-- some settings will be too hot, some will be too cold, but there will always be that one setting that will strike your ears as being "just right".
The question to ask yourself at this point are:
1. If the offset sounds okay, how does it play in the mix?
2. If it gets lost in the mix, what other elements are there that compete with the offset guitars? If there's an electric piano in the track, for example, try narrowing the rate and/or width of its chorus effect (if any) so that it doesn't clash with the natural chorusing of the offset guitar part.
3. Does the offset bring out the best quality of the guitar?
4. Does the offset technique in general contribute to ear fatigue and predictability over the duration of the track? Is the sound of the guitar always musically interesting? If so, try a mono-to-stereo chorus instead of the offset.
Tom Calan wrote:
Also, is there any advantage, when doubling, to eq'ing or adjusting the volume of one side (e.g. left) to create some differentiation in the sound, or is the whole idea to have exactly the same sound on both sides?
Thanks...
The idea again is to get the effect YOU want. The Beatles are again a good example of how rules can be broken and still work effectively. Exactly the same sound has its merits where an equal weight on both sides of center is desired, but lets say that you have two clean strats playing short rhythmic figures against one another. You *could* pan them, say, 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock in the mix with their delays or reverb effects perfectly centered-- or shooting back and forth across center, if you like that sort of thing. That would be one way to have some separation with enough "glue" to connect them musically-- ie: having the volume of one side louder or softer than the other.
I would never discourage any mixing technique that will render some happy accident, but perhaps for starters one should always consider at least a balance of musical and sonic activity coming out of both speakers. I've done mixes where the strat was playing some pretty rhythmic fast notes. This was panned slightly left of center, but the right side seemed a tad inactive. I panned the percussion a little to the right of center-- not far, but just enough so that the brain perceived a balance of musical activity on both sides-- same sort of fast notes playing on either side, even though they were different instruments. In that respect, it's not necessary that each instrument span an equal amount on either side of center-- but there are many ways to balance and distribute the musical activity in a mix without having each instrument taking up an even amount of space left/right of center.
Gosh-- mixing! I think we've opened a Pandora's Box here!
