|
Clarity
Aug 7, 2018 13:59:20 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by c0rtland on Aug 7, 2018 13:59:20 GMT -6
Hey guys.
I would love to get a mixing mentor and am looking into that.
However, I have been practicing mixing intensely for 3 yrs now and still have a long way to go.
When I listen in my room with amphion. One18's and ns10's the mixes seem good. Like ,I'm happy 80% with them.
When I listen almost everywhere else I hear glaring issues.
Low mids build up. Lack of clarity in terms of 4K and up. Definition and punch I the low end. Also a lack of cohesion.
Pretty hard on myself but I would say that 3/10 mixes really hit like I want them too.
I don't use references mixes as part of my process partially because it is just so discouraging.
I feel like it shouldn't be this difficult. I can't tell if I'm not eq'ing enough or what the deal is.
How the f do you master this??? I have the sense it's not about my gear/room/monitoring as much as the desicions I'm making.
Thanks guys. I'm not gonna give up, but I'm kind of running into the same issues over and over again.
How did you guys get to a place where you are happy with your mixes?
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 7, 2018 14:25:34 GMT -6
I can't tell you when I last used a reference mix of any kind. But it's worth paying attention to WHY a ref mix works on different systems that surely don't sound the same. That can be applied to your own mixes. I check the big fun Klipsch horns at home along with some 1980ish Advents, then the car later. After the three studio systems; 1" driver Wohler broadcast panel, LSR705P's, and crappy old Monitor Ones.
So much is in the quality of the tracking, if it isn't there you can't make it be. When you find yourself fighting an issue consistently, think if there's anything you'd try tracking differently as a future solution.
I used ARC room correction for awhile, and found it useful to establish a 2nd baseline reference, different from the natural room reality. It sounds weird as hell and you can't go back and forth, but if you sorta learn what works in both, you may get ahead of the curve. I eventually stopped using it, though it's still there if I really need a different perspective.
For most of what I do, I should be able to get a mix 95% there with no EQ other than the right HPF's. Then start with the EQ. Sure, some EQ decisions are up front fixes needed to force the hand in a certain direction, but shouldn't be always.
Get some super small crappy speakers and do entire mixes on them at very low volume. Don't compare on your bigger speakers until you think you've done all you can do. Then start comparing. It can be useful to check quiet small, and then dial in bass on headphones, don't hear bass on a bigger speaker until you think it's sorta ready.
What's that thing they say.....10,000 hours to START to master something? Then do it again, and again.
Then be happy enough when they pay you and you keep the bills paid, happier again when someone hears it and books you because of it, even if you think it kinda sucks and didn't get finished properly.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Aug 7, 2018 14:27:28 GMT -6
You're doing it right. Just need to look into your translation more.
Big part of it is learning your gear really well and knowing when too much is..well too much and when it needs more.
Also often, less is more.
But listening to mixes on different platforms is important to hear how they translate. Then go back and try to fix what you think is wrong. You'll learn how your speakers and room are responding to changes. This can take a long time in a not perfect space.
Im not what I'd consider a great mixer either. But most don't. Thats why the saying goes, "Mixes are never finished, only abandoned". Its true..
|
|
|
Post by c0rtland on Aug 7, 2018 14:41:41 GMT -6
Thanks for the replies. Some days it's super easy. Then sometimes you hear a mix that is just so off from where you thought it was it gets discouraging. Today was one of those days. I finished a mix then played it in my friends Honda and it was embarrassingly muddy and dark. Ugh. I'm never giving up...
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 7, 2018 15:01:10 GMT -6
Ah yes, the age old conundrum of translation.
Monitors and gear only allow you to get so far. The rest is experience.
Clarity comes from removing offending content and boosting to create uniqueness.
Also, don't be fooled into thinking that certain monitors are going to buy you instant clarity and translation. Some people just don't get along with certain monitors, even if those monitors are popular. I've personally been through maybe a dozen speakers and monitors before settling on my setup. I can get mixes that translate well after a short period now.
Low frequencies alone don't create punch. CERTAIN low frequencies along with copious amounts of attack via compression DO make punch.
Don't be afraid to go wild. Tons of people on forums and in videos propose all kinds of wacky and unfounded "rules" like "don't boost or cut too much".. Complete BS. Use every single tool at your disposal, and crank everything if it works. Only experience tells you what works though.
I've said it before, watch videos of the pros doing their thing, and read between the lines.. They'll say things like "I used a little compression" and you'll see them dial in 15-20dB of compression.. or they'll say "I used a little EQ" and the setting will be a 15dB boost or cut.. Or They'll have 4 compressors in series on something, and 4 EQs as well, with some distortion, delay, phaser, etc, all on something you didn't think would matter, yet it builds up to something that sets the tone for everything else.
The pros generally use a lot of little things to add up to a very layered mix that sounds simple and cohesive, yet is 4x the amount of pieces and parts you thought you heard and 10x what you're trying to use. But that's why they're pros!
They'll split the bass guitar into 3 tracks, do wild EQ and insane compression on each track, add tons of effects and distortion, and mix them back together with wild automation and it'll sound like a perfect bass guitar at all times, whereas you might have tried the absolute minimum EQ and no compression because you saw a video that said that's how the pros do it.
I think that's where a lot of fresh mixers go wrong these days, they don't know what they don't know, so they follow what sounds reasonably easy, and it only gets them so far, and the result is everything is even and controlled but ultimately boring and lacking pop.
Case in point.. I was watching a video on mixing drums for hardcore and metal. Real drums! They sounded so clean like triggers that I couldn't believe they were real.. Some of the tricks for toms were to separate the toms into low and high tracks. The low tracks took a lot of gating, EQ and compression to get somewhat passable. The high tracks were EQ'd and gated so much that they sounded little more than ticks and pops.. But when summed together, the amount of perceived clarity on the hits was insane, like towels were lifted off of the mics. In the mix you couldn't tell they were gated to hell and back but now they suddenly popped out of the mix when hit. These were fed through bus compression and parallel compression as well, to control the attack and sustain of the drums as a whole. It was enlightening to say the least and finding a way to incorporate some of those ideas in my mixes really helped me along.
Or even learning that some pro folks will put cascading compressors and EQs on something like snare drum and eventually put upwards of 10dB+ of compression and 15dB of boost at 8K to get it to stand out in the mix.
But for years I struggled with the whole "get the sound in the room" and "don't use EQ" and "use just a little compression" statements I would find everywhere.
Hogwash.
Use any and all things at your disposal. It's either going to work or it's not, so don't bother playing it safe and just do it.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 7, 2018 15:01:45 GMT -6
Thanks for the replies. Some days it's super easy. Then sometimes you hear a mix that is just so off from where you thought it was it gets discouraging. Today was one of those days. I finished a mix then played it in my friends Honda and it was embarrassingly muddy and dark. Ugh. I'm never giving up... Care to share it for critique? Don't be shy about it. We've all been there. Getting second opinions used to be a normal way of mixing. Today's mixers don't have the luxury of working with other engineers or learning from others in a work environment.
|
|
|
Clarity
Aug 7, 2018 15:09:30 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by c0rtland on Aug 7, 2018 15:09:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 7, 2018 15:13:48 GMT -6
HPF/LPF, balance the tracks, make sure the vocal, drums and bass are solid and feather in the band. Check your mix as you're going in M/S and mono and when it feels done, it's done. Over analyzing and spending massive amounts of time on mixes will only make them worse. Also always remember it's not a fair criticism of yourself to be discouraged by big time reference mixes. The best of the best tracking engineers and producers made those tracks and they sounded fantastic before the mixer ever loaded them into his rig. His job is just not to screw it up and give it a signature.
Experience trumps anything out there. I've been doing this 15 years and the reason I believe my mixes sound good is because the material I'm handed is exponentially better than what I started out working with.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 7, 2018 16:11:16 GMT -6
Ok. I took it and did a little quick pushing and pulling to see what was in there and what was an issue. Mind you I'm doing this at work with a free version of Reaper with earbuds.. www.theopiumdenproductions.com/RGO/RGOtest.mp3The long and short: Your biggest problem is that you have too much going on in the low mids, as you expected. There is a ton of hiss, room noise and other things going on between 150 and 600ish that really don't need to be there. I did a bunch of narrow cuts in that region to kind of get rid of the worst of the resonances and noise. Your bass/kick/snare had a lot of extra low end, and a lot of energy in the 80-200 range that needed to be controlled. I put a frequency dependent compressor on that region so that it would squash the whole region equally without really cutting any frequencies. There's a few honking frequencies in the 1K-3K region I cut by a couple dB as well. Then I boosted 8K+ by 6dB and a little below 100 by maybe 2dB. The high boost made some of the hiss pop out, but this could really only be solved by doing this on a track-by-track basis. I added a tiny bit of reverb just to give it some extra background to drown out some of the hiss. Hope I didn't overstep any boundaries by doing this, but it's easier for me to find the trouble by working through it like this. All in all I think your basic tracks are good, they just need a bit more cleaning up on a track-by-track basis before they go into the mix.
|
|
|
Post by c0rtland on Aug 7, 2018 16:17:39 GMT -6
Yes. The low end is difficult to sort out. Typical. I go back and forth between how much low mids to cut and what to leave.
Really appreciate your time looking at this. I didn't quite expect that!
It does help.
Apparently I'm on the right path just ignored too many issues.
Helps to have the feedback. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 7, 2018 16:32:34 GMT -6
Hey guys. I would love to get a mixing mentor and am looking into that. However, I have been practicing mixing intensely for 3 yrs now and still have a long way to go. When I listen in my room with amphion. One18's and ns10's the mixes seem good. Like ,I'm happy 80% with them. When I listen almost everywhere else I hear glaring issues. Low mids build up. Lack of clarity in terms of 4K and up. Definition and punch I the low end. Also a lack of cohesion. Pretty hard on myself but I would say that 3/10 mixes really hit like I want them too. I don't use references mixes as part of my process partially because it is just so discouraging. I feel like it shouldn't be this difficult. I can't tell if I'm not eq'ing enough or what the deal is. How the f do you master this??? I have the sense it's not about my gear/room/monitoring as much as the desicions I'm making. Thanks guys. I'm not gonna give up, but I'm kind of running into the same issues over and over again. How did you guys get to a place where you are happy with your mixes? Man, I gotta say...I think it's the Amphions. I know, I know, I talked them up incessantly...and they sounded amazing. I would sit in my room and be like - holy shit, that sounds amazing. And I would get it out to the car and it would kinda be ok - big bottom end buildup. BUT what I REALLY wasn't hearing (because the car wasn't letting me hear it either) was the sub buildup. Holy shit. There's another thread where I talk about it (Amphion vs. ATC), but there was a major phase issue going on with my One 18s and the sub I'm using. I put the ATCs up and bam - now I hear the low end correctly. The One 18s SOUND amazing. They sound better than the ATCs. Wider, more exciting, other-adjectives-describing-betterness...but I had no idea how not-well things were translating. I kept poo pooing other monitors because they just flat out didn't sound as good as the One 18s in my room. Great mixes sound freaking incredible through them - problem is, lots of bad mixes do too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 16:45:39 GMT -6
Yes. The low end is difficult to sort out. Typical. I go back and forth between how much low mids to cut and what to leave. Really appreciate your time looking at this. I didn't quite expect that! It does help. Apparently I'm on the right path just ignored too many issues. Helps to have the feedback. Thank you.
I don't quite agree, you start sucking out too much of the mids and it brings attention to the sibiliance of the mic plus it also starts to loose impact. It's a very tricky area to get right, I'm not saying you have it balanced properly though. The reason it sounds dull is because it IS dull.. Think of it like a plank of wood tilted 30 degrees downwards you need to swing it back level.
I would recommend you chuck it through a spectrum analyser, now I don't often recommend these but you need to clear up a bit of mud and boost out the high end a little more.
Listen to this, the production is technically well done (even with an SM7B Whhhaaat??).. It's clear, it has plenty of "low-mids" and punchy in all the right places.. That's how a professional mix sounds, not lacking but not OTT in any area either.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Aug 7, 2018 16:48:21 GMT -6
My advice: get the Magic AB plugin and start using references. It reallly does help!
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 7, 2018 17:18:04 GMT -6
Yes. The low end is difficult to sort out. Typical. I go back and forth between how much low mids to cut and what to leave. Really appreciate your time looking at this. I didn't quite expect that! It does help. Apparently I'm on the right path just ignored too many issues. Helps to have the feedback. Thank you. Try HPF'ng all your tracks, yes, even the bass and kick. Don't be afraid to HPF those acoustics until the boom gets out, or the electrics until they start cutting..... The less you do with a parametric EQ the better, the phase cancelations from too much EQ causes more problems in translation I promise you that. That is why I suggested constantly monitoring in M/S and Mono because those two options will tell you right quick if you've got phase problems. Leaving noise, hiss, hum, dead air etc eats up bandwith even though it may not seem like it. I do editing for one person and along with getting things tightened up a little I will chop out anything that isn't lending itself to the tune. Also, a very very wise investment is Izotopes RX6. It's vital when you get into the bigger leagues. There is so much you can do with that software it's truly an invaluable tool. I'm endorsed by them, but I'm proud as hell of it, their software is changing the game. Another Izotope product I'd suggest trying, Ozone 8. Use the Reference feature and import a mix that you really love. Ozone will sort out the difference's between your mix and the reference and apply both static and dynamic eq to make yours fall in line with the reference. I use it on every mix I send out, it's the last piece in my chain and I wouldn't work without it. If anything you'll start seeing where it's doing all the work to your mix and you'll know the problem area's you need to work on. A funny story, kind of like how Jim Williams was talking about these mastering engineers having these insanely expensive DAC relics on full display and a Pro-ject S2 hidden when clients sat in...… The way I found out about Ozone was when I sat in on a mastering session with a big time guy here in town..... He accidently flashed it up and I called it out and he explained the Reference feature and how he used it..... Long story short, he had probably $100k worth of EQ's and Comps that the mixes were running through, but Ozone was doing most of the heavy lifting. It was brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Aug 7, 2018 17:35:23 GMT -6
I think maybe the missing part of this discussion is what you use as a comparison that's so discouraging. Since you've posted a track....what would you have been comparing for that?
If you think it's the mix, post the tracks....900 people will remix it for you, I'd bet.
on the flip side....have you been "practicing mixing" using professional recorded tracks? Or your own recordings?
|
|
|
Clarity
Aug 7, 2018 18:34:43 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by c0rtland on Aug 7, 2018 18:34:43 GMT -6
That's part of the problem with reference tracks. What song to pick.
I have been recording and mixing all the tracks I have worked with.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Aug 7, 2018 18:44:59 GMT -6
That's part of the problem with reference tracks. What song to pick. I have been recording and mixing all the tracks I have worked with. That can be a big big part of it too. Can't fix everything in the mix.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Aug 7, 2018 19:35:01 GMT -6
Lots of people here with way more cred than me but over the last year or so I have been:
- viscious with hpf and lpf, cutting stuff out track by track but not soloing, just to see how much I can get rid of?
- being really more aware of the levels and positioning ( pan)
- almost always adopting a less is more approach to all fix and plugs
- trying to get the signal as right as possible while tracking
- minimizing what I put on the 2 bus while mixing(try to get the sound I want in the channel and aux mix
|
|
|
Clarity
Aug 7, 2018 21:30:45 GMT -6
Post by c0rtland on Aug 7, 2018 21:30:45 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 21:58:21 GMT -6
It's better but the issues I said earlier are popping up, firstly you've lost some of the LMF bloom you had before.. 200HZ is generally (but not always) a bad range to boost, but a little under and over can fatten up a track no end.. Seriously though, not much.!
Question, have you boosted the entire track by maybe 3dB in the 10 - 12K region? You'll find it adds "air" and can open things up.
Secondly I think a lot of the issues you're suffering is due to panning, your instruments are fighting for space. Here's the thing, there's always one trade off for another, like in that track I posted the instruments sound like rolling thunder which is great until they add electric guitars and then the vocals gets swallowed in the mix..
Your original mix was quite LMF / Bass dense, which isn't by itself a bad thing if it's properly EQ automated, panned and level set.. But it's not so it seems like you've pushed your vocal to sit on top of the song because it would get lost any other way..
Think of the band as a live stage, pan the cymbals out a bit and for the most part follow the LCR methodology. Mono compatability is cool but there's a reason many go by LCR principles especially in denser mixes, if done properly whether in stereo or not it should collapse to mono just fine.
Because you've stripped some of the mud away issues with vocals have popped out further, it sounds like he has a closed throat and the mic is picking up the resonance. Compression and EQ can help with that to an extent IF you get everything else tucked away.
You are getting there though, not too far to go ..!
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 7, 2018 22:09:42 GMT -6
I don't normally critique mixers but since I threw some advice I'll drop a couple of nuggets here.
I'd open the mix up, L/R harder panning of the band, that will let the drums breathe more. The drums, I'd maybe smash the rooms a bit or make a medium room for them just to get the cymbals to sit back some. I'd for sure throw some compression on the band parts to make them sit back a little and give some depth without them jumping into the listeners face. I'd probably put a couple of compressors in series on the vocal and hit them with like -3db each and then ride the vocal into the chorus. The bass could probably use some more compression to get some more sustain unless you're going for the sound it's at now. That's sort of the whole issue of doing this, I have no idea what your idea for the song is, but if I were handed it and told to mix it I'd for sure do those things. Compressing those electrics and panning them harder will open it up though and your drums will be more solid. I like the tone of the acoustic, so I'd maybe do like a de-esser just to tame the pick down.
Good going man, keep grinding.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Aug 8, 2018 2:24:56 GMT -6
That's part of the problem with reference tracks. What song to pick. I have been recording and mixing all the tracks I have worked with. One for drums, one for acoustic guitars, one for bass, one for piano, etc. I have a library of my favorite well recorded songs and will choose several references for any given track, load them in Magic AB and go get them!
|
|
|
Post by jampa on Aug 8, 2018 3:37:57 GMT -6
If you have time on your side, here's something I find helpful.
Save a copy of what you've got. Pull the faders down and do it all differently. What svart said in his first post in this thread says it better than I would have. What I think is a "wild" thing to do one day is an indispensable tool a week later. A lot of my "breakthroughs" have come from challenging my own ideas about what "should" and "should not" happen. Go nuts. But don't hurt anyone!
And hang in there, you're doing great!
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 8, 2018 6:30:33 GMT -6
Seems like it's going in the right direction. Try more aggressive HPF and LPF on things, then more boosting in certain areas on what's left! I can still hear too much woofy bottom on the acoustic. HPF higher! Also maybe a little LPF in the 12K range and then add some boost around 8K. The vocals still have a chesty spot in the bottom end somewhere. More HPF! There's a nasal area too, maybe a narrow cut somewhere in the 1K-3K region, sweep around until you find it. Now find a little spot in the 7-10K to boost a tiny bit for some poke. The bass still has too much 150-500 somewhere. There not much interesting for bass in this region, ever, and it just gets muddy with everything else. Aggressive cuts are almost always needed here. You'll need some frequency dependent compression on the low end unless you separate out the low and high ends on different tracks. Don't be afraid to boost some in the 600-800 or 1K-3K for some detail, or even add a little distortion to get it to be noticeable. All of the background stuff can be HPF a lot more aggressively than usual too, especially since it's not getting solo'd in the mix. Even if it did, the pros would have a separate track will another version of whatever it is that is EQ'd and effected just for the soloing.. Piano can be HPF a lot higher, and some LPF, then boost something in the top end to get it to poke out too. I think it was popmann who suggested posting the tracks themselves.. Maybe move this to the "Working on" section of the forum and posting the raw tracks for people to mix and tell you what they did. If you like one or more of the mixes, you can read what they did and reproduce it on your end to hear the difference as you go.. Could be very informative, and analogous to working along side someone at a studio and learning the tricks.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Aug 8, 2018 7:56:06 GMT -6
|
|