Lookin' for guidance: mixdown and mastering

[Super 8]

I'm reading this thread with great interest. This is the FUN STUFF! [quote]Originally posted by Mr Darling: [b] but if you find you boost too much (and 6db is too much in my book) the problems is somewhere else..[/b][/quote]Really.... In my tune that I recorded, I recall boosting as much as 10db on some of the lows in certain cases. I tried not to boost much, but I did what I felt was necessary to get the sound where I thought it should be. I DID mostly cut frequencies, however. You can hear the final mix by clicking on the link below my signature. It was recorded live in front of an audience -one take and NOT perfect, obviously. You are all welcomed to critique my MIX. Perhaps it will give LanceMo some illustrated pointers on what you guys are talking about. Might even help me too! :freak: LanceMo, If you can, make sure and post your stuff up like I am -and some others here are- doing. It gives the "experts" a good laugh[i][b]---errrr[/b][/i]; I mean a chance to offer some helpful tips, ;) and it benefits the rest of us who are working on our own stuff too. :D

[KenElevenShadows]

Where, what do you find particularly useful with NS-10s? Do you find that mixes translate really well to other speakers when they sound balanced on NS-10s? Those things hurt my ears....Do you use them in conjunction with other monitors and then try to get the mix sounding really great on both monitors? Does using NS-10s minimize the need to check mixes on other sources (boomboxes, car stereos)? Just curious about how you use them in your mixing process. Thanks.

[Mr Darling]

[quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b]... In my tune that I recorded, I recall boosting as much as 10db on some of the lows in certain cases. I tried not to boost much, but I did what I felt was necessary to get the sound where I thought it should be. I DID mostly cut frequencies, however. ...[/b][/quote]unless intended as a special effect , an donly on rare occasions big boosts should be avoided. Look, when I just started mixing I use to boost every freq possible and it did sound better. don't forget that louder sound better - now I still boost alot , but not as much (ie I rarly get above +4db for normal sounds) and it sounds better. You simply create more space by cutting offending freq.

[KenElevenShadows]

Cutting - rather than boosting - frequencies is one of the most difficult lessons to implement. Almost everyone approaching a mixing board or DAW has probably heard this. But it's so hard to try and realize that, for example, cutting mids might have a similar effect to boosting the highs and lows. Of course, there are some times when a good, hearty boost of some frequencies is exactly what's needed. It's just that it's needed less than a beginner might initially think. Then, of course, there's the ideal - tracking stuff so well that a mix needs little or no EQ. This is done by room, tone, instrument, playing, choice of mic+mic preamp+other things in the signal chain, etc.

[Super 8]

I prefer to cut freqs. But I can't resist getting that X-tra 'thump' out of the drums and bass guitar. I'm pretty anal about having that. Also, I have found that you need to EQ things so that they 'fit' in the mix. Ken partially touch on this. I found that when I go through each insterument individualy and get them sounding just right, that when I play it all back together it doesn't sound too good. Too many sounds competing with each other to be heard. My solution was to cut frequencies to clear some space. For example, I cut some low-mids on the acoustic guitar, and this seemed to help alot. I've also found that panning the instruments clears space as well -which is a really simple fix. Thoughts?

[Griffinator]

Indeed, slicing frequencies is a tough lesson to learn in mixing - you get an instrument sounding just perfect, only to realize that it's battling with other, more important elements of the mix once you blend them together. The key to making everything work, IMO, is to step back and look at the three dimensions of the mix, and how to manipulate within those three dimensions. The most obvious dimension is the horizontal - panning. Smart panning will alleviate so many mix problems in such a hurry. Next comes the vertical dimension - equalization - seriously - if you sit and listen to a well-balanced mix, you can hear the lead instruments sitting on "higher" in the stereo field - because they were eq'd with more HF emphasis. Stone Temple Pilots' first album displays a lot of this type of mixing - the HUGE guitar/bass/drum mix with the vocals sitting on top - someone who was smart enough to roll the top off the rhythm instruments and the bottom off the singer to maintain the sheer size of the mix but still allow the vocal to cut through. Finally, there's the ever-so-forgotten forward/reverse plane - controlled by use of reverb, delay, and compression. Need a guitar to sit back a little in the mix? Add a touch of 'verb. Vocal getting washed out? Short delays plus comp brings them right back to the front. Suddenly, with this 3-D perspective, the whole process becomes a lot less daunting. Not saying it's easy, because there are still so many decisions to make, but at least you aren't sitting there wondering what the hell to do to fix something. Oh - and one more thing. My mastering studio is about 3 hours from you. Give me a call if you like - (434)528-3016.

[Barandine Vondenger]

[quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [QB]Indeed, slicing frequencies is a tough lesson to learn in mixing - you get an instrument sounding just perfect, only to realize that it's battling with other, more important elements of the mix once you blend them together. The key to making everything work, IMO, is to step back and look at the three dimensions of the mix, and how to manipulate within those three dimensions. The most obvious dimension is the horizontal - panning. Smart panning will alleviate so many mix problems in such a hurry. Next comes the vertical dimension - equalization - seriously - if you sit and listen to a well-balanced mix, you can hear the lead instruments sitting on "higher" in the stereo field - because they were eq'd with more HF emphasis. Stone Temple Pilots' first album displays a lot of this type of mixing - the HUGE guitar/bass/drum mix with the vocals sitting on top - someone who was smart enough to roll the top off the rhythm instruments and the bottom off the singer to maintain the sheer size of the mix but still allow the vocal to cut through. Finally, there's the ever-so-forgotten forward/reverse plane - controlled by use of reverb, delay, and compression. Need a guitar to sit back a little in the mix? Add a touch of 'verb. Vocal getting washed out? Short delays plus comp brings them right back to the front. Suddenly, with this 3-D perspective, the whole process becomes a lot less daunting. Not saying it's easy, because there are still so many decisions to make, but at least you aren't sitting there wondering what the hell to do to fix something. QB][/quote]NOW this is GOLDEN information. ! this goes into me note book of wise and expert testimonium. thanks for sharing 'mi 'amigo!

[KenElevenShadows]

[quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b]The most obvious dimension is the horizontal - panning. Smart panning will alleviate so many mix problems in such a hurry.[/b][/quote]First of all, great post! I wanted to add that although it is true that smart panning will alleviate many mix problems, I personally like to sum my mixes to mono to make certain that my equalization and placement (the other dimensions, in other words) are working well.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows: [b]First of all, great post! I wanted to add that although it is true that smart panning will alleviate many mix problems, I personally like to sum my mixes to mono to make certain that my equalization and placement (the other dimensions, in other words) are working well.[/b][/quote]Thanks. It's been a long and difficult road, learning these lessons. I totally agree about the sum-to-mono. It's amazing how much the mono reveals about your relative volume levels and how "balanced" your mix really is. One of the things I love about Sonar is the one-click mono sum right there on the "A" window. One more thing: I often slap a parametric on the two-buss and dial in an "AM Radio" type setting (kill everything below 500 and above 3K) on that mono sum - if your mix is even the slightest bit out of balance (vocal too strong, whatever) you'll hear it INSTANTLY with this kind of setting.

[Barandine Vondenger]

SUM TO MONO: what exactly does this mean? are you saying to make all the tracks give out a mono signal? as opposed to a stereo pan? I have a feature on my main interface(Cubasis Vst) that may very well do this trick you are suggesting.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by arellspencer: [b]SUM TO MONO: what exactly does this mean? are you saying to make all the tracks give out a mono signal? as opposed to a stereo pan? I have a feature on my main interface(Cubasis Vst) that may very well do this trick you are suggesting.[/b][/quote]Exactly. Forced mono - so both speakers are outputting the same signal.

[YourMotherShouldKnow]

Saturday sucked. Sunday was much better. I'm goin' through ups and downs with this sucker. Feelin' pretty up for the moment. I got jammed up with my parameters on Saturday and lost several hours to that. I clicked on something I shouldn't have clicked and so I went changing parameters in a "mode" I didn't want to be in. Which changed everything in the mode I wanted to be in. The first thing that happened on Saturday was an electrician was sposed to show up to change some of my light sockets (I'd stupidly been using 75 watt bulbs where they are designed for 60 watters maximum. Don't ever do this! The wires catch fire, most people probly know that but I'm a little slow on some things). Anyhow, I heard him pull in my driveway and then this SCREECH - YELL - BAM!. Some 20 year old guy ran into his truck as he was pulling into my driveway. So I had those guys out there and cops all exchanging information. Not great for my concentration level. The song I did today came out really nice. I'm seeing that everything is gonna need tweaking over the next week or two but I'm really happy anyway. I've done about 10 rough mixes of this song over the past 6 months that I've been workin' on it and it's the same song. But I was able to enhance it. Little reverb things, and way in the background delays. And I think I did a pretty decent job with the EQ on this one. The vocal could maybe be a little less dark/low endy. It's gonna be the first one on the CD and I want it to come across as powerful as possible. It'll be damn interesting to have some of your feedback on my songs/mixes. It helps alot just having people out there who have demanding standards. It makes me push harder.

[KenElevenShadows]

General advice at this point. I have been recording and mixing for quite a few years, and I am still learning all the time. This is definitely something that you can spend a lifetime learning. There are so many countless variables. And sure, there are guidelines and approaches, but still...you know what I mean!!! And yes, summing to mono means exactly that: both speakers outputting the same thing. It's very useful. You listen to a boombox or something from far away, and essentially, it's mono, right? Your mix really has to transcend stereo and work in mono as well, in my very humble opinion.

[Mr Darling]

[quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b].. I found that when I go through each insterument individualy and get them sounding just right, that when I play it all back together it doesn't sound too good. [/b][/quote]I almost never listen to any track solo'd, and when I do it simply sound small and thin. thats one of the secrets.. doesn't matter how it sounds by itself, matter how the big picture is like...;

[KenElevenShadows]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr Darling: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b].. I found that when I go through each insterument individualy and get them sounding just right, that when I play it all back together it doesn't sound too good. [/b][/quote]I almost never listen to any track solo'd, and when I do it simply sound small and thin. thats one of the secrets.. doesn't matter how it sounds by itself, matter how the big picture is like...;[/b][/quote]Yeah, it ain't worth it. Push up all the faders, virtual or not. Listen. Then start. I'm not saying don't isolate (solo) your individual tracks now and then, but don't EQ all of those first and then fit them in. A good mix can often sound great when you are listening to it, but if you were to solo individual instruments, you would often find that some of those instruments don't sound so good by themselves. The bottom might be rolled off on some, or it might sound dull by itself, but collectively, it might really fit well together and sound awesome.

[philbo_Tangent]

[quote]Originally posted by LanceMo: [b]Ken and Kylen, Thanks! I've given myself 2 weeks to mix this sucka starting on Wednesday. 11 songs. I have one straight acoustic instrumental and 3 or 4 others are 3-4 minutes long. I'm confident I can get it done to my satisfaction. (Wonder if I'll be sayin' that in 2 weeks?) Question: About reverb. What's the most effective way to apply to the tracks? My thought is that I can put, say, 5 different reverbs in the Aux busses (Lexicon Pantheon, FX verb..whatever else) and draw the effect from there. If that's the way I go is it best to leave the aux reverb send at 0 and adjust at each track? I know the answer is "BOTH, IDIOT!" but generally is there a most effective way to get those reverbs to sound optimal? A friend of mine had Billy Joel's "Innocent Man" playing the other night. Great song. But the reverb sounded horrible! Waaaaay too much. It made it hard to listen to. That's what I want to avoid. Question: Ken (or whoever wants to jump in), when engineers talk about sweeping through the EQ unit is there a way to do this more efficiently than moving each individual slider up and down? I'm pretty new to EQing so when I see things like "shelf" I pretend it's not there. :thu: I do understand the Q and that it's usually best to take sound away rather that pump the EQs up. Here too, should I set up EQ at the aux buss? Parametric or graphic? Delays I'm better with. I have an easier time getting the sound I want out of delays. I do want to try some really REALLY short delays. The word in these books I have is that short delays make things sound bigger. Again, thanks you guys.[/b][/quote]Reverbs: It's often a good idea to aux bus several different things through 1 or 2 reverbs; this result in a sense that these instruments were recorded together in the same space. A good way to set them is to get it just wet enough to hear, then back it down a couple dB (unless you're going for that inside-a-cave effect). Following up with a mild compression insert on the same aux bus can bring the tails up a bit; but less is more.... EQ: I usually EQ each track using inserts. I almost never EQ on an aux bus (there are some exceptions, but they're rare). Needing EQ on the master bus means you have a bad mix; this should normally only need to be done during mastering. Same with compression. BTW, on a track insert, EQ before compression is much different than compression before EQ. Try it both ways. Always think about what it ought to do before doing it, though... Sweeping an EQ is generally done with a parametric EQ. You give the track about 3 - 5 dB of boost with the EQ boost/cut control, then slowly set the freq knob to different freqs ('sweeping' the freq from low to high) looking for stuff that sounds bad. Once you find the place where it sounds the worst, that's the frequency you should cut. All the time keeping in mind where this instrument fits in the spectrum, relative to all the others... Hope this helps....

[YourMotherShouldKnow]

[quote]Originally posted by philbo_Tangent: [b] [quote]Originally posted by LanceMo: [b] Again, thanks you guys.[/b][/quote]Reverbs: It's often a good idea to aux bus several different things through 1 or 2 reverbs; this result in a sense that these instruments were recorded together in the same space. A good way to set them is to get it just wet enough to hear, then back it down a couple dB (unless you're going for that inside-a-cave effect). Following up with a mild compression insert on the same aux bus can bring the tails up a bit; but less is more.... EQ: I usually EQ each track using inserts. I almost never EQ on an aux bus (there are some exceptions, but they're rare). Needing EQ on the master bus means you have a bad mix; this should normally only need to be done during mastering. Same with compression. BTW, on a track insert, EQ before compression is much different than compression before EQ. Try it both ways. Always think about what it ought to do before doing it, though... Sweeping an EQ is generally done with a parametric EQ. You give the track about 3 - 5 dB of boost with the EQ boost/cut control, then slowly set the freq knob to different freqs ('sweeping' the freq from low to high) looking for stuff that sounds bad. Once you find the place where it sounds the worst, that's the frequency you should cut. All the time keeping in mind where this instrument fits in the spectrum, relative to all the others... Hope this helps....[/b][/quote]Philbo! Thanks...it definitely helps to consider these kinds of things. My computer gets a little wobbly when I add to many effect units in the insert but I'll do the best I can on it. I'm taking a break from it tomorrow. Ken, very thoughtful post a couple posts ago. I'm unable to respond to all that's here but I'm definitely reading it.

[Master Zap]

Some ZapTroNic Mixing tricks; 1. Especially for you "mixing yourself", be ruthless. If it doesnt work, [i]ditch it[/i]. I don't care if you spent a week on that guitar solo, if the guitar solo ain't flyin' it's muted out, period. Don't let the work you put into the reording cloud your judgement of the validity of some element. I.e. "Kill your darlings" 2. Dont boost EQ, cut EQ. And here is the REAL reason why. A lot of books and stuff give all sorts of "reasons" for doing this, all overlooking the obvious. Our dear forum moderator and owner, Craig, has written about this in books several times, but he also has overlooked the obvious. It's not about noisefloors, headroom, or anything else. It's about [i]psychoacoustics[/i]. It's about the simple fact that [b]louder "seems" better[/b]. SO: When you [i]boost[/i] you hear "yeah, now THATS better". When you cut you hear "hey, where did the sound go"... but generally, the instrument has only a few problem frequencies. Cut those [i]and turn the overall volume of the instrument up![/i] Simple as that!!! I.e. "guitars sound muddy, lets boost high" is WRONG. "Guitars sound muddy, leds cut mids and increase the volume slightly to compensate" is RIGHT. 3. And as said before, beware of low mid. 250 hz is the mud frequency. Make sure one thing and one thing alone (at a time) lives there. 4. DONT OVERDO IT. The easiest thing in the world is to overcompensate. Or, as I tried to do in my mixing when I started, to make the "biggest baddest" mix in the galaxy. More bass! More treble! More mids! More everything! More compression! More...etc. It's funny coz I listened to some old recordings of mine, one where I *know* i spent three days dialing in the (drum machine based) kick for the "ultimate kick drum sound with monster lows, super smack" etc... and the OTHER song where I patched the kick straight from my drummachine with NOTHING done to it. The "nothing done" kick was actually better. My "overdone" kick was just unbalanced, a ton of ruble with a klick, no substance, no "punch". (But it did rattle floor tiles ;) ) 5. LISTEN THROUGH THE WINDOW. I call this "out the window" mixing. Open a window, walk outside, listen to the song. Does it work? The risk is you work so much on "boom" and "sheen" qualities, the upper midrange area is "unmixed". Since "sheen" and highs tend to "cover up" and "beautify" the midrange, walking outside and listening through a window, where you get a pretty narrow-band experience of the song, clearly demonstrates any crappiness you created in the mid that you didnt hear due to all the "glitz". 6. Beware of adding high, adding high, adding high... coz if you do, your ears will adjust, and five minutes later you'll add more high. The next morning (after your ears have rested) you have a brittle mess. [i]Leave "boost of the edginess of the high end" to the MASTERING PROCESS. Mix "mellow" sounding[/i]. /Z

[YourMotherShouldKnow]

ZapTronic and Philbo: Real helpful guidance. Nothing beats experience. I'm forcing myself to learn all this stuff. There's no other way than by making mistakes and figuring out what to change to make it work. All you guys are making it easy and fun. Taking an hour break from it right now. I'll be practically finished 7 songs tonight when I finish up. There are a few minor tweaks here and there (like a guitar down 1-2 db, stuff like that) but that's about it for these 7. Yesterday morning I was pretty unhappy with how things were going. The bass was entirely too loud in about 4 of the songs and the drums were too far back. I ended up bring the drums up 3 db and pushing the bass down 3 db and it brought both instruments into a nice perspective. Everything changed when I did that. I could here the vocals and the guitars clearly. I WAS A HAPPY MAN. I was worried that the bass sound I had recorded wasn't gonna cut through the track. It wasn't cutting through very well on my monitors. But no worries, the sound is totally there in my car and on my boombox. Even turned down 3 db you can't possibly miss the bass. Today I've worked on a song called Pixie Dust most of the day. I expect I'll need to tweak some things after I listen to it on other units but it feels like this song is the closest I've come to getting the mix right the first time. I don't care about that though. I mean, if it takes a few days of tweaking what's the big deal? Tomorrow I'm gonna work on this 13 minute insane song. With spoken voices, and swirling background stuff. I'm not quite gonna have her finished by the 2 weeks like I'd hoped. I'll need next weekend. Still, that's not too bad. Some of us need to deadlines or we never actually get anything finished.

[KenElevenShadows]

Yeah, the window thing works. What I do is walk out into the hallway and listen. I also get up and move around a little bit. A good mix should sound good out in the hallway, in different areas of the room, and of course, on different speakers. If you can achieve that, you've probably got a good mix.

[YourMotherShouldKnow]

Took a break from "Project X" today. Gonna take off from it tomorrow as well. I've gone back and read all the guidance in this thread and I want you people to know how much I appreciate it. If I can return the favor somehow (who wants to know about Aristotle?) I will. One observation about EQing. I often see where a person will sweep across the EQ field with 3-5 dbs of gain. I can't hear ANY f*$(ing difference with only 3-5 db added. I go way higher than that. Since so many people go 3-5 i'm thinking there's a reason for it. What's the reason? I've kinda, sorta completed 10 out of 11 songs. I decided to do a few more overdubs this past weekend. I think I can live with the 10 as they are. I plan to tweak them over the next week or two and then it's mastering time. Which leads me to the next stage. What should I be looking for in a quality mastering job? I'm not on a U2 budget of course. I'd like to know what I should be looking for in mastering. And what to expect. Finally, by the end of this week I'd like to, if possible, get a few your opinions on my mixes. Better to have you guys tell me what needs work now (or this TOTALLY SUCKS BRO!) rather than 2 months from now.

[Super 8]

Yeah! Post 'em! Let's hear them!

[YourMotherShouldKnow]

[quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b]Yeah! Post 'em! Let's hear them![/b][/quote]How do I do that? :D

[rog951]

Hey Lance-O. To post the tunes, you need to have a web host (IOW you need to pay someone to put the files up on their server). Maybe somebody on here with the space would offer to host them for you for a little while? My ISP (Comcast) offers me a free web page and a pretty good chunk of file space...I just haven't taken the time to figure out how to do it yet. If I ever do figure it out, I'd post the tunes on my page for a while. But we both know that'll never happen! :)

[KenElevenShadows]

One way is to create MP3s and stick 'em up on your (or someone else's) web site. Click on my sig for an example. I have examples of finished music and of course, as you can tell, just bass and drums with no EQ from a recording session several months ago (along with pictures of the recording session!).

[Jedi]

Yeah, I would definitely like to hear your tunes LanceMo. You can mail me a copy if you can't find a server to post them on. Take care, Lincoln Ross Dead Black Jedis

[DirtyRubberDuck]

About the 3-6 dB of EQ: I notice whenever I concentrate on a specific aspect of a song, I tend to overdo whatever that thing is. For example, I'll concentrate on the bass track for a couple hours, get it the way I like it, and when I return to the project the next day the bass will seem way too pronounced. So how I like to handle EQ is to play around with drastic changes (+/- 20dB) till I find something that sounds good, and then back it off until it is barely perceptable. That being said, 3-6 dB is probably too small, it just triggered a thought. :freak: DRD [url=http://www.geocities.com/dirtyrubberduck/]Dirty Rubber Duck page[/url]

[YourMotherShouldKnow]

3:49 AM and Woooweee am I tired! You people who do this for a living are working waaaay too hard. Thanks Rog-O, Ken, Jedi, and Duck. Sorry if I'm slow to respond. I've been coming to these boards to take a BREAK from the project so I haven't had much enthusiasm for posting on this one. I'll email a few of you guys an MP3 of something on Saturday. Promise! I've been looking at Yahoo for putting together a website so as time permits I'll get some tunes up there. Anybody know anything about websites? I think that'll make for a nice separate thread. I've just about finished my 13 minute song. It's pretty nutzo. Now it's just a matter of the slightest tweaks. This one is called "Nightmare Universe." It has a little bit of everything crammed in there. Backwards voices, an acoustic break, a bass solo (!). It's sure to make Casey Kasem's top 10. Not much to add about this song other than I have come to realize with absolute certainty that I am a strange, strange individual. Pixie Dust didn't turn out as well as I'd hoped last week. Yesterday I decided it was all wrong and mixed it again from scratch. I'm liking it a lot better. I'm starting to get the hang of EQing. 20 years playing the guitar and I'm just now learning to put a mix together. I thought it was a very simple process of getting the balances right (and THAT'S hard enough!). Sleep...

[KenElevenShadows]

There was just a thread on web hosting. Do a search on that. And if you're talking about software, we've discussed that at length elsewhere. See? Everything you ever needed to know you can learn at SSS!!

[YourMotherShouldKnow]

[quote]Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows: [b]There was just a thread on web hosting. Do a search on that. And if you're talking about software, we've discussed that at length elsewhere. See? Everything you ever needed to know you can learn at SSS!![/b][/quote]Will do, Ken. I emailed an MP3 of a song called "Light" to all youz guys who posted on this thread. Lemme know what you think. Good or bad. But especially the GOOD!