|
Post by reddirt on Mar 2, 2021 16:58:35 GMT -6
Dan has nailed a truly important point with less and right mics placed correctly; I'd also say if you are producing; a great arrangement where space is left for each other is a big winner. A perfect example of these points I'd encourage us all to listen to (from the 50's) is '16 tons' - the Tennessee Ernie Ford version. The marriage of drums and bass is superb and apart from a great arrangement, the mic placement was obviously spot on - blew me away how good this actually is for any era not just back then - it really stands up..
In particular answer to John's post; HPF can go further than you might expect e.g. strummed acoustic in a mix can often go up over 150hz - if it sounds right , it is.
Keep a great reference track on hand is a good one too; so easy to lose perspective.
Cheers, Ross
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Mar 2, 2021 17:07:32 GMT -6
In particular answer to John's post; HPF can go further than you might expect e.g. strummed acoustic in a mix can often go up over 150hz - if it sounds right , it is. On many stringed instruments I frequently hit the initial mark with a 12dB HPF, then switch it to 6 or 18 for comparison. Occasionally I end up with a 12 backed down a bit and another 6dB HPF set higher, so there's a changing slope that resolves to 18dB. I tend to use all my hardware HPF's while tracking too, conservatively, so looking at the notes will frequently suggest fine tuning with just a 6dB type in the DAW if more is needed.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 2, 2021 18:03:59 GMT -6
either nothing, or way too much, bold strokes seem to be most effective, stay out of micromanagement until some spot is presenting a real problem then just hit that. HPF's is 90% of the job. Yeah. And I find the best way to avoid the micromanage scenario is to limit my options. Typically I gravitate towards EQ's with fixed points as I find they work better for me. Faster results & less phase smear. Hardware aside ITB I'll pick something like the UAD 1081 and use it on all the channels, at least as a starting point. With 4 bands, good range of fixed frequencies, high & low pass filters... there's generally more then enough room to whip something into shape or completely hang myself. Gimmie something like a 4-7 band fully parametric digital and I'll screw things up real fast! I'll turn to things like that when I need a surgical scalpel but never first. I'm more of a booster then a cutter. I also almost never EQ the 2-mix unless there's a real need. One of the things I miss most about mixing with a full bore physical console is the ability to quickly, visually scan the equalizers and see if there are any weird trends... Like if I look over the desk and see that I'm cutting 400Hz & boosting 6kHz on every channel then I know somethings up. Could be the way I'm hearing things. Could be a result of something that happened, or didn't happen in tracking... any number of things. So I'll have to stop and ask myself what's really happening here. Why am I hitting the same spot on all channels? What am I compensating for? Am I digging a hole? Or maybe that EQ really IS needed but I should bypass the channels and slap something across the 2 mix? Part of the reason I stick with one kind of ITB eq is to try and get back to that place... Long time ago, yakking with a friend he had a brilliant observation. Said that when he's working in a great room like Electric Ladyland the only EQ he has is the one on the desk. Sure, there's a few other things... pair of EQP, handful of Neve 10xx... but basically, if he needs to EQ something he's got the console. But back at home, mixing ITB he could pick from 50 different equalizers. Is that really better? Maybe I should just pick one and use it on everything. I might try and do the whole “go for a console eq” thing in the next mix I do - instead of being tempted to do the surgical thing on everything. Although, most of the stuff I get really doesn’t need a ton of work. Ie it’s recorded really well.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 2, 2021 18:05:34 GMT -6
Might try more HPF than I usually do because of this thread. Thanks for the suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Mar 2, 2021 18:11:47 GMT -6
Try this as a learning experiment. Level and pan to set up the basic arrangement , no EQ... move faders and pan pots, swap sides of instruments (acoustic guitar to the right instead of left etc) work LCR.
Then put a HPF and LPF on the stereo buss, No Compression anywhere or verbs or delays at this point.
Set the HPF and LPF to taste, say. 30Hz and 16Khz....
Now, what needs fixing? ....... Try it with an EQ on the two buss. Then go to a channel specific EQ if you have to...
its a great exercise, especially the panning and fader positions to fix things
Cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Mar 2, 2021 20:59:24 GMT -6
Although, most of the stuff I get really doesn’t need a ton of work. Ie it’s recorded really well. I find this really interesting, John. If it's indeed true, then I think it might be human nature to just throw a bunch of plugins at stuff with the thought of, "surely there's something for me to do here!" In the age before plugins, you would've just been limited by whatever hardware you had, and hence would've spent less time looking for something "wrong" with the recordings.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 2, 2021 21:21:21 GMT -6
Although, most of the stuff I get really doesn’t need a ton of work. Ie it’s recorded really well. I find this really interesting, John. If it's indeed true, then I think it might be human nature to just throw a bunch of plugins at stuff with the thought of, "surely there's something for me to do here!" In the age before plugins, you would've just been limited by whatever hardware you had, and hence would've spent less time looking for something "wrong" with the recordings. I do a ton of work at one particular studio. I should throw up a “board” mix.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Mar 2, 2021 21:33:03 GMT -6
Although, most of the stuff I get really doesn’t need a ton of work. Ie it’s recorded really well. I find this really interesting, John. If it's indeed true, then I think it might be human nature to just throw a bunch of plugins at stuff with the thought of, "surely there's something for me to do here!" In the age before plugins, you would've just been limited by whatever hardware you had, and hence would've spent less time looking for something "wrong" with the recordings. The first time someone sent me a thing to do a mix shootout on, that had been done at a top flight LA place, I shoulda just printed a flat fader mix. That was probably the winning mix! Instead I tried to make it into something. Fail......
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 2, 2021 21:44:57 GMT -6
Now - we all know that regardless of whichever studio it is - no straight from the floor mix doesn’t need anything done to it…but I guess the initial idea of recording a moment in time has been co-opted. And we make it sound even better. That’s the thing. How do we nail it on the front end and not fuck up the back end?
|
|
|
Post by mamm7215 on Mar 3, 2021 14:30:41 GMT -6
I highly recommend the Letimix Gainmatch plugin. It's cheap and super useful for hearing whether or not any plugin is helping the sound or hurting it. It's helped me remove at least 1/2 of the plugins I have on tracks thinking they're helping when it's actually just a bit more gain from the plugs causing the illusion. When I do eq, it's almost always cutting with a bit of makeup gain to stage properly.
|
|
|
Post by ab101 on Mar 3, 2021 15:11:01 GMT -6
Now - we all know that regardless of whichever studio it is - no straight from the floor mix doesn’t need anything done to it…but I guess the initial idea of recording a moment in time has been co-opted. And we make it sound even better. That’s the thing. How do we nail it on the front end and not fuck up the back end? I sort of grew up with this guy -acquaintance (?? Hard to define now) - Mick Guzauski. He sat behind my in math class. Anyway, he then went on (perhaps right after high school or before) to record Chuck Mangione's Friends and Love album. If I recall correctly, this whole recording was done to tape, live, with orchestra, guitarist, etc. And I am not sure that he applied any effects, eq, etc. whatsoever (Other than maybe from the mixer to tape originally.) I did go to his basement as a kid and he would play some of his recordings and they were amazing - even a Jr. High band. No effects. And he showed me a microphone and said it cost $100 - and I could not believe it - it was so expensive. Anyway, Mick probably does not remember me now that he is famous! BTW - he was looking for help with his studio and I was not interested in inquiring further - because I really did not believe he would go anywhere. Was I wrong! Lesson: Don't even think that people really close to you are not super talented! Mick - if by any chance you see this post - remember Shamrock Tape - I believe from Radio Shack. Anyway, it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 3, 2021 15:17:08 GMT -6
I highly recommend the Letimix Gainmatch plugin. It's cheap and super useful for hearing whether or not any plugin is helping the sound or hurting it. It's helped me remove at least 1/2 of the plugins I have on tracks thinking they're helping when it's actually just a bit more gain from the plugs causing the illusion. When I do eq, it's almost always cutting with a bit of makeup gain to stage properly. Yeah - lots of times I’ll gain match a compressor or tape effect and then hover over the bypass button and close my eyes. Then I’ll rattle off an indecipherable number of clicks and go back and forth on the bypass button. Then open my eyes when I pick which sounded better. It’s crazy that I can sometimes be disappointed that the plug I was putting on made it sound worse lol.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 3, 2021 15:21:33 GMT -6
I highly recommend the Letimix Gainmatch plugin. It's cheap and super useful for hearing whether or not any plugin is helping the sound or hurting it. It's helped me remove at least 1/2 of the plugins I have on tracks thinking they're helping when it's actually just a bit more gain from the plugs causing the illusion. When I do eq, it's almost always cutting with a bit of makeup gain to stage properly. Dang. $12. Gonna buy that.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 3, 2021 15:39:30 GMT -6
Has the ability to micromanage all this stuff so precisely been a net negative? If I go back and listen to Derek & The Dominos or Neil Young or - 60s, 70s 80s 90s stuff - you hear character. I think I would have called it limitations before - but now I’m thinking maybe everything is just too far from the (hopefully) magic in the room. Don’t know if this is right - just thinking about it. Well, it probably somes as no surprise to you that I'm inclined to agree - it is definitiely a net negative. Among other issues, it's largely responsible for the general sameness of a lot of recent stuff.
|
|
|
Post by jpanderson80 on Mar 3, 2021 16:18:05 GMT -6
This thread has some great comments.
When mixing, I'm definitely in the camp of Choose One EQ and do everything with it. I stick with the API and that restrains my movement a bit. I find that it works well most of the time. AND... I think it was Bob Ohlson who shared this: by operating with a single EQ, it creates a type of cohesion in a mix. If nothing else, it makes the work faster... and THAT can create cohesiveness on its own.
And yes, gain matching is ideal. For ITB tools, autogain should be a standard option.
|
|
|
Post by phdamage on Mar 3, 2021 20:07:54 GMT -6
This is precisely why I love that the pro-q3 lets you scale down your boosts/cuts
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Mar 3, 2021 23:23:04 GMT -6
I read once that Andy Wallace spends the first few hours of a mix just working on relative levels. I'm not sure if that's true, but it is something I have tried to adopt. That does help a mix come together. Working the faders and pan pots as the basis of the mix really helps to figure out what tonal and dynamic things need to happen.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Mar 3, 2021 23:48:55 GMT -6
This thread has some great comments. When mixing, I'm definitely in the camp of Choose One EQ and do everything with it. I stick with the API and that restrains my movement a bit. I find that it works well most of the time. AND... I think it was Bob Ohlson who shared this: by operating with a single EQ, it creates a type of cohesion in a mix. If nothing else, it makes the work faster... and THAT can create cohesiveness on its own. And yes, gain matching is ideal. For ITB tools, autogain should be a standard option. Yes. Gain matching with compression is a convenience, but with EQ it would be a revelation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2021 1:28:37 GMT -6
This thread has some great comments. When mixing, I'm definitely in the camp of Choose One EQ and do everything with it. I stick with the API and that restrains my movement a bit. I find that it works well most of the time. AND... I think it was Bob Ohlson who shared this: by operating with a single EQ, it creates a type of cohesion in a mix. If nothing else, it makes the work faster... and THAT can create cohesiveness on its own. And yes, gain matching is ideal. For ITB tools, autogain should be a standard option. Yes. Gain matching with compression is a convenience, but with EQ it would be a revelation. The autogain is one of the reasons why I love Slick EQ GE and M.
|
|
|
Post by askomiko on Mar 4, 2021 4:47:10 GMT -6
Fabfilter EQ autogain works pretty good too.
|
|
|
Post by superwack on Mar 4, 2021 9:07:06 GMT -6
I read once that Andy Wallace spends the first few hours of a mix just working on relative levels. I'm not sure if that's true, but it is something I have tried to adopt. That does help a mix come together. Working the faders and pan pots as the basis of the mix really helps to figure out what tonal and dynamic things need to happen. I had a Mix with the Masters membership (actually I won it on GS) and Andy Wallace is a revelation. I know everyone loves CLA and Brauer and Serban and try to emulate them, but I feel Andy’s method is something we should be inspired by - even if you are looking for a totally different sound. Like you said, he’ll spend a long time getting levels and pans and he uses as little of everything he can. Like he’ll listen to the drums, bringing up things by themselves, then in combination with other things, then wind up compressing the second rack tom by a single dB just so it’s decay matches the the others and that’s it!. He uses almost nothing but the SSL’s onboard EQ/Compression, a mix Buss compressor, 3 verbs/3 delays and a chorus.. No subgroups, no Buss processing, no parallel chains, etc. and from Jeff Buckley to Slayer to Nirvana (and yes I like his Nirvana mixes better) his stuff is amazing
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 4, 2021 10:35:45 GMT -6
I read once that Andy Wallace spends the first few hours of a mix just working on relative levels. I'm not sure if that's true, but it is something I have tried to adopt. That does help a mix come together. Working the faders and pan pots as the basis of the mix really helps to figure out what tonal and dynamic things need to happen. I had a Mix with the Masters membership (actually I won it on GS) and Andy Wallace is a revelation. I know everyone loves CLA and Brauer and Serban and try to emulate them, but I feel Andy’s method is something we should be inspired by - even if you are looking for a totally different sound. Like you said, he’ll spend a long time getting levels and pans and he uses as little of everything he can. Like he’ll listen to the drums, bringing up things by themselves, then in combination with other things, then wind up compressing the second rack tom by a single dB just so it’s decay matches the the others and that’s it!. He uses almost nothing but the SSL’s onboard EQ/Compression, a mix Buss compressor, 3 verbs/3 delays and a chorus.. No subgroups, no Buss processing, no parallel chains, etc. and from Jeff Buckley to Slayer to Nirvana (and yes I like his Nirvana mixes better) his stuff is amazing I just took a peek at his discography (am I the worst engineer ever for not knowing any of these famous cats discography?) and really love a bunch of his records. Popped on Spotify and checked out probably 20 different tracks from different records. His mixes sound like what you mention. Less is more for sure with his stuff. Much more natural than CLA type stuff. A lot of it sounds almost "unmixed", if that makes sense. I was literally listening to Rubberneck (one of my all time favorites) yesterday and thinking about how it sounds like a board mix when I'm tracking. That said, I listen to these records today and don't think they're any sonic masterpieces, they just let the music speak for itself. Somthing like this Five Finger Death Punch record (sonically) sounds much more masterful in my opinion (even though I'm never going to dial this record up in my car). I guess Keven Churko produced/mixed this.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 4, 2021 11:15:47 GMT -6
Interesting thread John. When I first used a DAW myself (2012) Jay Messina came by to help me out. First thing he did was get rid of dozens of plug-ins. I thought my plug-in choices made it better and his quick mix seemed flatter. Only as I progressed did I see he was right and all that was really needed was 2 bus attention, not more plug-ins and EQ.
For whatever reason, I've almost never EQ anything, or just a little. I get very close to the sound I want, or I don't record. I usually use an HPF quite low, sometimes 30 Hz or 40 Hz, but if I look at the channel EQ, if there's nothing below say... 200 Hz, I just HPF very close to that to keep things clean.
It's only vocals I have difficulty with. That said, the Chandler Redd mic needed almost nothing, maybe a slight rolloff of the highs. My Soyuz 0-19 FET and my Stam SA67 sound fantastic, but that Chandler had it's own mojo. Somewhere down the road I hope to have one. I do love the Stam and Soyuz though.
How does that Gain Match work?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 4, 2021 11:38:07 GMT -6
I had a Mix with the Masters membership (actually I won it on GS) and Andy Wallace is a revelation. I know everyone loves CLA and Brauer and Serban and try to emulate them, but I feel Andy’s method is something we should be inspired by - even if you are looking for a totally different sound. Like you said, he’ll spend a long time getting levels and pans and he uses as little of everything he can. Like he’ll listen to the drums, bringing up things by themselves, then in combination with other things, then wind up compressing the second rack tom by a single dB just so it’s decay matches the the others and that’s it!. He uses almost nothing but the SSL’s onboard EQ/Compression, a mix Buss compressor, 3 verbs/3 delays and a chorus.. No subgroups, no Buss processing, no parallel chains, etc. and from Jeff Buckley to Slayer to Nirvana (and yes I like his Nirvana mixes better) his stuff is amazing I just took a peek at his discography (am I the worst engineer ever for not knowing any of these famous cats discography?) and really love a bunch of his records. Popped on Spotify and checked out probably 20 different tracks from different records. His mixes sound like what you mention. Less is more for sure with his stuff. Much more natural than CLA type stuff. A lot of it sounds almost "unmixed", if that makes sense. I was literally listening to Rubberneck (one of my all time favorites) yesterday and thinking about how it sounds like a board mix when I'm tracking. That said, I listen to these records today and don't think they're any sonic masterpieces, they just let the music speak for itself.I had to highlight this, because yeah that's why AW mixes were incredible. You'd hear it all compressed on the radio, get the CD and the details were insane! Every little articulate transient of everything, and it still sounded huge, you just needed a good clean power amp and you'd get concert level and be in heaven. I use his references on NS10's sometimes and it just gets me all bent out of shape that the high-res quality is now gone. Lost to the loudness wars, synth bass and kicks, no more of that smooth Studer a800 / 3M 996 tone anymore. But yeah in today's world, that style mixing wont win a loudness battle. I've accepted it, for now that full resolution tone might be a while before new kids want it.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 4, 2021 12:02:48 GMT -6
Lately I kind of realized I'm addicted to good sound. Its like a drug where I get high when I get it right. And totally come crashing down later when I think its wrong. So I force myself to listen to references more, and that's where I've realized something big. See, sometimes the references and monitoring give me that high, and I'm on cloud 9. Other times the references just annoy the hell out of me and I don't want to hear them, I want to hear something totally different. Well imagine if its not the references, but the mix I've been working on. If I turn it on and it annoys the hell out of me, I'm gonna start messing with it. Attended mixing I never do this, because the clients need to be there and if they rented some hours to get drums right they won't want to spend more hours fixing it. Unattended its like a never ending story, I'll try everythiung. So I've been forcing myself to not let my first gut-impressions get railroaded by my later thirst for a new high.
|
|