Cutting through the mix. What's that about?

[Mike Gug]

Analog vs. digital makes a difference? Why? How does that work? Are the sound frequencies somehow different?

[Sean Eldon]

Analog gives a more "real" sound, and allows for tape compression, one of the most beautiful things in recorded music.

[fantasticsound]

Are we talking about recording media or digital amp emulation vs. the real thing?

 

They are two, totally different animals. You can flame war all you want on the former. On the latter, it's a bit more simple to explain.

 

Modelling amps is not a mature technology. Maybe when it matures, we'll find ways to better approximate the sound of a tube doing it's thing. Until then, you'll find that digital emulation and distortion effects tend to sound flat when not amplified through a tube amp. So they sound smooth, but don't cut through very well. If you kick up the treble they tend to sound harsh in comparison to a mic'd tube amp. It's a tricky thing to get a direct sound to cut through without becoming shrill.

 

That's my experience, anyway.

[Mike Gug]

Well, when I heard the term "cutting through the mix", I assumed it was a live application of the Line 6 Variax and a Vetta model amp. Emulations of any kinds are affected, I guess?

 

For instance, I read, on another thread, that the Variax sounded good alone, but had throuble cutting through the mix. Why would that happen? Does an emulated sound lack something?

[Funk Jazz]

to me, the digital emulation amps seem to have a scoop in the mids, and they tend to get lost in the other instruments. i.e.; highs get lost in cymbals, lows get lost in bass/kick/tom, etc.

 

the best way to cut through a live band mix is to have solid low mids and high mids.

 

IMHO tube amps do this best, with lower wattages and more harmonic complexity (not to mention yummy touchie feelie sponginess ).

 

on the other hand, the digital stuff is killer in the studio. instant tone... just add coke, bourbon, and strippers

[Werewolf by Night]

...or beer, b-b-q, and strippers...

 

Hell, root beer, b-b-q, and strippers...

 

Y'know, I've noticed that my Johnson J-Station is great through headphones and for direct recording (whether analog, digital, or any kind of combination thereof); my little sig-line snippet is that through analog inputs to my motherboard and n-Track Studio on my hard-drive.

 

-But "live" through speakers and the air in a room, whether through the front-end or effects-loop return of a real-live tube-amp, a mixer/PA, whatever, it thins out and gets weedy no matter how much you compress it (or not) or pump-up the lows and mids on it or the amp or anything. The more instruments it has to work with, the more it has to compete and gets more easily lost in there.

 

You can just make it louder, and that only makes it more fatiguing on the ears!

 

By itself, though, especially through headphones and/or direct recorded, many of the same programs that I've made sound very fat and even feel somewhat "tubey".

[daddyelmis]

was strolling by and had two pennies in my pocket so I thought I'd toss 'em in . . .

 

One aspect of "cutting through the mix" live that I see overlooked frequently in a band, is dividing the sonic spectrum up so everyone's not playing in the same 1000 hz spectrum. This can be as important as getting a good tone on the guitar to maximize your "space" in the mix.

 

If you've got drums, bass, keys and one or two guitars, and everyone is bangin' away, you'll likely end up with a wall of noise where nothing is distinguishable.

 

We work pretty hard on arranging tunes where the keys are in one spectrum, bass/drums take the low end, and guitar(s) operate in the upper registers -- this is NOT a hard and fast rule, but it sure helps to keep in mind. Playing triads or diads (double stops) on the guitar can help, especially if you're competing with bass and keys when playing barre chords.

 

The other key thing is knowing when to sit out a few bars -- listen to some of your favorite recordings and notice how often there are drums, bass, and maybe one guitar or one keyboard playing, then later another guitars joins, etc.

 

IMHO, learning to "share the space" when to sit out are tough -- but valuable to overall mix.

 

so, there's my $0.02

[Werewolf by Night]

EXCELLENT points, daddyelmis!

 

I often try to play "opposite" of other players, especially if they're also playing guitar. Higher, lower, chords vs. single-notes, sparser, busier, whatever and wherever they're playing, I look for an opposing place to go with it! Makes all the difference, both sonically and musically!

[I I mjrn]

I'm confused (& I may not be the only one).

 

"Cutting through the mix" has nothing to do with the digital v. analog debate does it? If you think so, how?

It's a matter of EQ emphsis on freqs that are not obscured by the general sound environment of a recording or room. That sound environment may not always be the same so there are general but not absolute answers as far as what freqs to emphasize.

 

BTW, I think most digital amp/mic/etc. emulations are in fact digital recordings of the instruments in question that are then manipulated by computer (no, not an outside computer, the internal one in the device) to respond to the input signal as the original gear might.

They are not always much like the original gear itself. The more recent (& therefore generally digital) the device intended to be imitated the more likely the emulation will resemble it.

[Mike Gug]

Playing triads or diads (double stops) on the guitar can help, especially if you're competing with bass and keys when playing barre chords.

Are triads and diads 3- and 2-note chords? If so, they would mix well with another guitar playing the barre choooooooords... Hmmmmmm. Ok, that makes sense.

[Werewolf by Night]

Originally posted by Michael Jackson's real nose:

"..."Cutting through the mix" has nothing to do with the digital v. analog debate does it? If you think so, how?"

Well, Mike asked, and some of us gave our oppinions and observations related to personal experiences.

 

Now, perceived sound qualities may or may not seem to make sense upon initial consideration; but, I've been told that a tube rectifier and a solid-state rectifier will both make an amp sound IDENTICAL as long as they work, that it would make no difference whatsoever which type, let alone which tube, was used- not to mention that the schematics I had for a 5E8A 1956 "tweed" Fender Twin Amp were all wrong and that the design wouldn't work at all- by several professional electronic and electrical engineers!

 

Originally posted by Mike Gug:

"...For instance, I read, on another thread, that the Variax sounded good alone, but had throuble cutting through the mix. Why would that happen? Does an emulated sound lack something?"

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

"Modelling amps is not a mature technology. Maybe when it matures, we'll find ways to better approximate the sound of a tube doing it's thing. Until then, you'll find that digital emulation and distortion effects tend to sound flat when not amplified through a tube amp. So they sound smooth, but don't cut through very well. If you kick up the treble they tend to sound harsh in comparison to a mic'd tube amp. It's a tricky thing to get a direct sound to cut through without becoming shrill.

 

That's my experience, anyway."

Originally posted by FunkJazz:

"to me, the digital emulation amps seem to have a scoop in the mids, and they tend to get lost in the other instruments. i.e.; highs get lost in cymbals, lows get lost in bass/kick/tom, etc.

 

the best way to cut through a live band mix is to have solid low mids and high mids.

 

IMHO tube amps do this best, with lower wattages and more harmonic complexity (not to mention yummy touchie feelie sponginess."

Originally posted by Cans Film Festival O'Shite:

"Y'know, I've noticed that my Johnson J-Station is great through headphones and for direct recording...

 

-But "live" through speakers and the air in a room, ...it thins out and gets weedy no matter how much you compress it (or not) or pump-up the lows and mids on it or the amp or anything. The more instruments it has to work with, the more it has to compete and gets more easily lost in there.

 

You can just make it louder, and that only makes it more fatiguing on the ears!"

[Shoes]

I started at the top and read down through each carefully crafted comment and came to the realization that like the word "set" has some 52 meanings this term "cutting through the mix" relates to your application, live, studio, dead.

 

Your style and intent defines whether or not "cutting through the mix" is good or bad.

(Disco dance muzak.. they seem to like heavy bass lines slicing through the sound in all tangents)

 

The steel guitar cutting through the mix in "Teach Your Children Well".

 

Home grown attempts to lay down a lead track that slowly creeps up between the lines with an old Fostex 4 track = Something dangerously cutting through the mix (or lack thereof)

 

As a question (digital or analog) the only unique characteristic of analog is random inconsistencies of human individuality, everything else can be programmed.

Using digital tools to lay a track into an existing mix can be a far more creative process in a digital world because you can see the sound lay in or cut through a mix. It carries much more dimension.

 

It's all a matter of where you were standing when this question popped into you head.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

You shouldn't have to try to "cut through" the mix. The people that you play with should respect each oher enough to provide room for each element. If not, think about arrangements before trying to figure out how to make an already obnoxious mix even less appealing.

 

Some poeple like to play against the others. Sometimes that works. Sometimes that just wipes out the dynamics.

 

The biggest problem that I see in a lot of pop music is that everybody wants to fill up all of the acoustic space by themselves. Guitar players with too much buzz and distortion (like, they move their hands, but the sound doesn't change, it just remains a steady state chainsaw sound, unless they are chunkachunking with the rhythm.) and keyboard players who have the need to fill every millisecond of silence with some sort of noise, in case we might forget that they are there. Lead/bass players. Drummers who try to hide their timing issues by banging faster and harder on more things. And all of them big, rish tonal monstrosities. Each element might sound okay solo, but when combined together, it's just..... mud.

 

So think about it when you build that killerguitarfromhell signature sound.... is it appropriate for the music that you are playing? Is there room for anyone else to play along?

 

Dense mixes are great, but they are assembled with care.

 

Bill

[InstituteOfNoise]

I agree 100% with ya Bill. It's not the amp that doesn't allow you to cut through, it's the players.

[Billster]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

You shouldn't have to try to "cut through" the mix. The people that you play with should respect each oher enough to provide room for each element. If not, think about arrangements before trying to figure out how to make an already obnoxious mix even less appealing.

 

Some poeple like to play against the others. Sometimes that works. Sometimes that just wipes out the dynamics.

 

The biggest problem that I see in a lot of pop music is that everybody wants to fill up all of the acoustic space by themselves. Guitar players with too much buzz and distortion (like, they move their hands, but the sound doesn't change, it just remains a steady state chainsaw sound, unless they are chunkachunking with the rhythm.) and keyboard players who have the need to fill every millisecond of silence with some sort of noise, in case we might forget that they are there. Lead/bass players. Drummers who try to hide their timing issues by banging faster and harder on more things. And all of them big, rish tonal monstrosities. Each element might sound okay solo, but when combined together, it's just..... mud.

 

So think about it when you build that killerguitarfromhell signature sound.... is it appropriate for the music that you are playing? Is there room for anyone else to play along?

 

Dense mixes are great, but they are assembled with care.

 

Bill

That subject came up in another topic thread a few weeks ago. Totally agree. The big sound that sounds great when it's alone can eat up too much space for the band. Sometimes something "thin" can fit right in and make the part.

[Shoes]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

.... think about arrangements

There's a thought. Perhaps everyone should talk about arrangements as well.

 

I've walked away from people who couldn't communicate their intentions. I'd play crap just to see if they were listening!

 

Collaborative arrangements require listening and discussion to steer the sound in a direction that it's intended to go in.

 

I enjoy the process of working out who does what, where and how just about as much as playing through it... but not quite as much.

 

I like the comment about too much of todays music sounding the same, or at least using many of the tonal characteristics. I don't listen to programmed commercial music radio for more than an hour a week if I can help it. Blended goop.

 

(that commercial with Summer Breeze; seals & crofts was just on... loved that sound, beautiful time of life)

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Guitars are like shoes. But louder.:

[QB]

 

I've walked away from people who couldn't communicate their intentions. I'd play crap just to see if they were listening!

 

QB]

The problem there is that if I have brought you in, it might be because I have seen you play, I liked what I heard, and I thought that you could play without supervision. If you are playing crap, I'm not going to talk to you about it, I'm just going to hope that you walk away. Soon. Before I get frustrated and throw you out. By bringing you in, I've given you a chance to hear my piece and add to it in a musical way. If I have to babysit you, I'll just play the parts myself.

 

Just another viewpoint on the same situation, which I have experienced from both sides.

 

Bill

[I I mjrn]

Originally posted by Cans Film Festival O'Shite:

Originally posted by Michael Jackson's real nose:

"..."Cutting through the mix" has nothing to do with the digital v. analog debate does it? If you think so, how?"

Well, Mike asked, and some of us gave our oppinions and observations related to personal experiences.

To clarify my earlier point, there are two questions asked:

What's "cutting through the mix"?(The thread title)

&

Does "analog vs. digital make a difference"?

 

In answer to #1, I suggested that there's no one EQ emphsis that will fit all situations, since it depends on the sonic environment.

As to #2, I said, basically, that though they may have different qualities, the question of digital or analog is really irrelevant.

 

I'm not certain how what you posted counters what I said.

 

Some remarks may've addressed specific methods & that's good but things like the statement "emulations have scooped mids" (to paraphrase a single instance---& not to attack anyone's opinion, let's not get into flaming, OK?) are not comprehensive &, in that case, a bit misleading since not all digital or virtual amp/mic simulators provide the same sonic effect.

 

"Cutting through the mix" in a small club or on a recording or on a large stage would require different approaches & that's compounded by the particular music involved. That's all I'm trying to point out.

[Shoes]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Originally posted by Guitars are like shoes. But louder.:

[QB]

 

I've walked away from people who couldn't communicate their intentions. I'd play crap just to see if they were listening!

 

QB]

The problem there is that if I have brought you in, it might be because I have seen you play, I liked what I heard, and I thought that you could play without supervision. If you are playing crap, I'm not going to talk to you about it, I'm just going to hope that you walk away. Soon. Before I get frustrated and throw you out. By bringing you in, I've given you a chance to hear my piece and add to it in a musical way. If I have to babysit you, I'll just play the parts myself. Bill

Oh I certainly didn't get pissy or stupid about it or anything but tried to emphasize to those who put down the original arrangements that they had failed to recognize the need to "rearrange" their work to properly accommodate the additional pieces I was adding.

It wasn't that my contributions weren't appreciated but I felt they hadn't listened to how it was going to change the overall composition.

After having heard and then accept the additions there was work to be done that would keep things from becoming muddy and cluttered.

 

I'm more than willing to accept recommendations and appreciate that sometimes the best thing to do is leave things alone.

 

As a fifth wheel you have to carry that mentality into any project knowing that you're not trying to take over the piece but simply provide a color that's not in the band's toolkit.