|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 31, 2018 15:23:19 GMT -6
Cool, thanks jampa. I wasn't thinking it through all the way because I use Logic, and never use pro tools.
|
|
|
Post by jampa on Jan 31, 2018 17:12:17 GMT -6
I have Pro Tools, Logic, REAPER, Mixbus, blah blah. At the end of the day they're all the same really... as long as they work! That said, I prefer REAPER because I've set it up so that I don't have to think about the program. For me, less thinking, more instinct = more energy in mixes. When it comes to mix time I don't want to be wondering what this or that plugin does or whatever. That's what forum time etc. is for As a side note, having real faders for automation really helps.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,945
|
Post by ericn on Jan 31, 2018 17:15:27 GMT -6
^ That is entirely possible. For example, an SSL AWS with Pro Tools. Yep but unfortunately it's using HUI so all the limitations of that!
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jan 31, 2018 18:06:08 GMT -6
^ That is entirely possible. For example, an SSL AWS with Pro Tools. Yep but unfortunately it's using HUI so all the limitations of that! I think I remember hearing you could do that with the newest Audient console. Could be wrong but I remember something about an automation plugin that feeds the console faders.
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Jan 31, 2018 19:07:46 GMT -6
Wouldn't it be nice if you could automate in Logic or Pro Tools, and a board could then do those moves mechanically. Too much to ask I guess. That’s what Jeff automation system will do, well not mechanically, but in analog gain.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jan 31, 2018 19:48:44 GMT -6
Seems like something the Neve Genesys should be able to do. Any one used that console?
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 31, 2018 20:23:47 GMT -6
Thanks tbone, that would be cool if the Audient let you edit that way. I would love a Logic compatible version though. I've never used an Audient console, but I've been curious for a while to know how it compares to something like a new API or one of the lower priced SSL's.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jan 31, 2018 22:34:04 GMT -6
The Audient pres are pretty nice, never used the console either but I saw one a studio I just toured and the layout seemed nice, simple and straight forward, and the build quality seemed good. It seems to be pretty competitive at its price point.
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on Feb 1, 2018 5:59:28 GMT -6
Seems like something the Neve Genesys should be able to do. Any one used that console? I never used a Neve Genesys, but would love to get my hands on one...
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Feb 1, 2018 7:13:05 GMT -6
Wouldn't it be nice if you could automate in Logic or Pro Tools, and a board could then do those moves mechanically. Too much to ask I guess. Martin, this is what the SSL Sigma does but in a summing box instead of faders. You control the analog summing fader level with a plugin in your daw. You can also use pre-fader inserts for all of your analog outboard gear. It’s a really smart setup. Go one step further and get a Nucleus. Then you have actual faders under your fingertips. Ryan Freeland is using the sigma system now, and is consistently getting nominated for best engineered album. You can get very real and serious results.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Feb 1, 2018 8:23:21 GMT -6
Jeremy, thanks for that, it's something I'll look into.
As I think on it, I realized the only way my mixes can ever really feel right, is if the vocal doesn't have any odd spots that call attention to the sound, and distracts the listener from the feeling being conveyed. I'm referring to places where the vocal get's a little shrill, or a word gets swallowed, or plosives stick out, etc
Once that's handled, the bass is the most difficult thing for me to dial in. Some notes swell when they shouldn't, some have some distracting fret noise, or are too quiet, etc. If the bass sits well, the rest of the mix is usually fairly straightforward.
A mixer is in a sense, an arranger/conductor. So sometimes the variations a mixer creates, like, mini breakdowns, a sound or instrument added at a time when more feeling is needed, will create some energy, bit in truth, the feeling has to be there in the first place, or it's ultimately a fake.
For me, I do one track at a time, but if you're tracking a band I'll say this, despite what some people say, mic bleed is your friend. How do you think the Stones and The Who sound like they sound, it's the bleed all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Feb 2, 2018 9:04:21 GMT -6
johneppstein mentioned mics earlier. Above all, if you have a great vocal mic, and I mean GREAT, it will bring a natural energy and realism to your tracks automatically. Of course automation is necessary to imitate the interaction of musicians in a room playing together, but if the vocal sounds and feels right, much can be forgiven in the surrounding musical parts.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Feb 2, 2018 9:50:49 GMT -6
Yes I agree completely. Part of what I appreciate so much about Led Zeppelin, for example, is that it truly is a quartet and Robert Plant is just as often a fourth instrument as a lead singer. So sometimes I like to think about arranging like that, but to do that you obviously have to have talent all around and an arrangement framework that will support that approach.
I generally try to get the instrumental arrangement as matching as possible in support or complement of the vocal. That way the vocal doesn't have to carry the whole thing. This doesn't mean busy, just complementary.
The mic part I totally get ya, that's part of what I was working on to improve my tracking.
Generally what I have done til now is get rough levels set. Then sculpt the drums (not as dramatic as svart described, but similar approach) and get the kit balanced to itself. Then bring the bass in, and then place the guitars. Vocals I do last.
Because I'm a child of the DAW age I usually end up with the main instrument tracks and tons of supporting tracks, a lot of them short - like color accents, additional guitar layers in a chorus, and such. This is really because I don't like writing automation with the mouse, so I set those tracks at the correct level without altering the balance of the rest of the general mix.
But then at the end, I kind of listen and everything sounds right, but the mix itself is sort of static with accent pieces coming in and out. I don't know how to elevate that base mix, if that makes sense?
Do you push up overheads? the kit as a whole? room mics? Or do you bring everything up? This is where I just get stuck.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Feb 2, 2018 11:19:53 GMT -6
But then at the end, I kind of listen and everything sounds right, but the mix itself is sort of static with accent pieces coming in and out. I don't know how to elevate that base mix, if that makes sense? Do you push up overheads? the kit as a whole? room mics? Or do you bring everything up? This is where I just get stuck. Now, I'm not great at this stuff. Most of the guys around here absolutely blow me away with what they do. But, this is a question I've been looking for answers to for a while. This is the best advice I've received: Get in touch with your own emotions. Feel how your mood, emotions, etc. change. Get familiar with that stuff as much as possible. Then, as you mix, pay attention to your emotional reactions to what you're doing. If pushing up the overheads introduces some more high frequencies and that seems exciting to you then it might be exciting to someone else. If bringing the guitars up swallows the vocals and makes you feel claustrophobic, then it's perfect if the vocalist is trying to convey a strained, claustrophobic feeling. Unfortunately I'm a robot so it's hard to perceive human emotion and translate it to my mechanical body. I'm working on a firmware update for it.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Feb 2, 2018 12:11:07 GMT -6
But then at the end, I kind of listen and everything sounds right, but the mix itself is sort of static with accent pieces coming in and out. I don't know how to elevate that base mix, if that makes sense? Do you push up overheads? the kit as a whole? room mics? Or do you bring everything up? This is where I just get stuck. I try asking myself: what is the lead or focal instrument in each part of the song? Is it the guitar? Drum full? Vocals? Then I try accenting that instrument, usually by bringing down other instruments that may get in the way but sometimes by boosting the focal instrument. For example when the vocals come in I may bring down the guitars slightly. Or I'll bring down the snare and room mics when the arrangement gets really busy but bring them up if it's a groove centered part where the drums can shine. Maybe bring the toms way up on a fill and way down on other parts. Then separate from these small scale moves I'll automate my groups so that certain sections of the song are louder or quieter. Lastly I'll automate fx returns to highlight certain instruments. Anyway, that's kind of my approach. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 2, 2018 12:44:02 GMT -6
That's true John. But most mixes these day's don't really try to approximate "natural" dynamics. They are designed to rob the dynamics, add punch, and they automate some life back in. LOL I know, weird, but true. Yes, I know. It's one of the reasons I don't listen to a whole lot of "modern" rock anymore. The thing is, I don't believe that people are doing it the way they do because they particularly like the sound. They do it because someone on the internet told them "That's the way it's done!" and, the internet being the internet a great many people bought into it. The situation is exacerbated by the numbert of "recordists" who can't do it any other way because they don't have the facilities to do otherwise. And they weren't trained in how to just record a sound off the floor that works. And they think that just because they have an almopst unlimited supply of (mostly virtual) processing gizmos that they need to try to use all of them (or at least as many as possible.) (Says the guy with at least 15 channels of hardware compression in his home studio...) By the way, don't you think that "designed to rob the dynamics, add punch, etc." is just a wee bit of an oxymoron?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 2, 2018 13:41:36 GMT -6
Yes I agree completely. Part of what I appreciate so much about Led Zeppelin, for example, is that it truly is a quartet and Robert Plant is just as often a fourth instrument as a lead singer. So sometimes I like to think about arranging like that, but to do that you obviously have to have talent all around and an arrangement framework that will support that approach. I generally try to get the instrumental arrangement as matching as possible in support or complement of the vocal. That way the vocal doesn't have to carry the whole thing. This doesn't mean busy, just complementary. The mic part I totally get ya, that's part of what I was working on to improve my tracking. Generally what I have done til now is get rough levels set. Then sculpt the drums (not as dramatic as svart described, but similar approach) and get the kit balanced to itself. Then bring the bass in, and then place the guitars. Vocals I do last. Because I'm a child of the DAW age I usually end up with the main instrument tracks and tons of supporting tracks, a lot of them short - like color accents, additional guitar layers in a chorus, and such. This is really because I don't like writing automation with the mouse, so I set those tracks at the correct level without altering the balance of the rest of the general mix. But then at the end, I kind of listen and everything sounds right, but the mix itself is sort of static with accent pieces coming in and out. I don't know how to elevate that base mix, if that makes sense? Do you push up overheads? the kit as a whole? room mics? Or do you bring everything up? This is where I just get stuck. Well, your mix sounds static because you have an essentially static technique. In most great mixes there are level differences bretween verse, chorus, and bridge that are designed to build interest and emontional involvement. IDEALLY this should be taken care of in the arrangement and performance, but these days a lot of stuff isn't recorded as an ernsemble and often you're dealing with musicians who don't have much of a proper idea of incorporating such things in their performance. And most sessions don't have a proper arranger or producer to guide things. So, unless you're dealing with music that has these changes baked in naturally you need to make your mix less static. That means altering those nice set levels in (more or less - we'll get to that) repeatable ways. These days that generally means automation. Which I think is kinda boring, if not in the final result (if you're good enough) then in the process. Drawing automation curves with a mouse is not exactly my idea of fun. So, being an anachronistic kinda guy with an anachronistic kinda studio I don't do it. I have a console and I use faders. Back in the day there used to be a phrase "performing the mix" You don't hear it that much anymore, I think. That's because in those days before automation a mix actually was a real performance - all those moves were done in real time. With proper planning of channel layuout the average human hand can comfortably manipulate 3, maybe 4 faders at a time if channels are moving in blocks, so one person could cover maybe half a dozen channels at once in two groups. with an assistant that's a dozen. On really big mixes the producer and some of the musicians might get involved at some points (think Queen with RTB's two 40 track Stephens recorders running in sync - that's up to 78 tracks on analog tape!) But the thing is that it was a real performance and it was FUN! And you got a real feeling of accomplishing something by doing it. (Also, since you're adjusting the faders by eye and feel you're not rerturning everything to exactly the same place all the time - not enough difference that anyone would notice it, but with several channels moving it can add a bit to the feel. Digital precision is not always a good thing.) And, of course, no two performances of a mix are absolutely, 100% identical....
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 2, 2018 14:12:46 GMT -6
That's true John. But most mixes these day's don't really try to approximate "natural" dynamics. They are designed to rob the dynamics, add punch, and they automate some life back in. LOL I know, weird, but true. Yes, I know. It's one of the reasons I don't listen to a whole lot of "modern" rock anymore. The thing is, I don't believe that people are doing it the way they do because they particularly like the sound. They do it because someone on the internet told them "That's the way it's done!" and, the internet being the internet a great many people bought into it. The situation is exacerbated by the numbert of "recordists" who can't do it any other way because they don't have the facilities to do otherwise. And they weren't trained in how to just record a sound off the floor that works. And they think that just because they have an almopst unlimited supply of (mostly virtual) processing gizmos that they need to try to use all of them (or at least as many as possible.) (Says the guy with at least 15 channels of hardware compression in his home studio...) By the way, don't you think that "designed to rob the dynamics, add punch, etc." is just a wee bit of an oxymoron? I couldn't agree more. I got a project in to master by a young, and talented recordist / producer who's a HUGE TLA fan. (I'm not a fan BTW...) It was dull sounding, lifeless and compressed to ****. so I went to add some air back in. Nothing. Dropped the freq down to 15k. Almost nothing. 10+dB boost. Nothing. WTH?!?!?! I called him and he said he had Hi Cut the top end because TLA said it made digital sound more like tape. And he took it as gospel. ****!!! Now.... I'm all for LowPass / Hi Cuts in the digital realm. Works fantastic, but this was just plain stupidity because of blindly following what some icon said on the internet. There was nothing above 12k. Zero. I asked for unaffected files, and he didn't have them. He printed that way. Huge fail and very nearly ruined 6 months of hard work. Thanks TLA. Actually, the responsibility is not his, but people revere him just under God, so there is SOME responsibility of the "internet ONLY knowledge" craziness there. Younger / In-experienced folks don't use their ears and their own instincts because they have no real world experience - having never been in a real studio!!! They rely on random comments of internet rock star engineers who have no idea what the real situation in question is as they plug their latest wares from the Waves name holding plugin collections. And yeah - "designed to rob the dynamics, add punch, etc." - it's a HUGE oxymoron.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Feb 2, 2018 14:54:20 GMT -6
I think a big part of the problem is that there's this pervasive idea, sometimes overt, sometime subliminal, that mixing is what makes a song sound good. You have hundreds of people on youtube sharing mixing techniques, plugins, hardware etc, but the emphasis is on mixing, not tracking. Admittedly, its a lot harder to teach good tracking. Beyond mic placement, gain staging, and a general knowledge of acoustics it really comes down to experimenting and training your ears to know what sounds good and what doesn't. This is true whether its a full band playing together or a completely overdubbed session or all virtual instruments.
The truth is the source has to sound great. And it has to be tracked great. More and more I've come to believe that tracking (not mixing) is the higher art form. Its where the real talent is at. I've heard stems and raw multi-tracks from major label artists, and damn, they sound pretty perfect. Some would say too perfect, or over processed, but that's another topic. . . My point is that it's hard to mess up a mix when your raw tracks sound absolutely fantastic. Yet its the mixing engineers that get most of the credit, they're the ones everyone idolizes.
When I was getting started in this I had many people tell me that you should record instruments in a neutral manner, with little to no eq or compression. You should create a blank slate so that you have the "freedom" to make things sound how you want come mix time. I tried that it never worked for me. It always seemed like a shit ton more work. The people I came to admire were the ones who told me to track it so it sounds they way I want it to sound. So that it sounds finished out the gate so to speak. Now that may mean using tons of compression while tracking, or no compression at all etc etc. In the end, if it sounds right, it is right. Because there really is no "fixing it in the mix".
Anyway, there's a lot more I could add to this thought, but at the moment I family matters to attend. But this is an interesting thread. To the OP, sorry for getting off topic. This is just a general rant and not really related to your mix questions specifically.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Feb 3, 2018 10:19:09 GMT -6
A friend is working on a mix with me. He's worked with many A list producers. He's all analogue except for the DAW. I work in Logic, he works in Pro Tools. What was different about his technique is he mixes section by section, intro/first verse, 1st Chorus, 2nd verse, 2nd Chorus, etc. He then crossfades the parts like he cut tape. It brought interesting changes to each part and sounded better this way, because each part had some minor adjustments that kept it all fluid and natural.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Feb 3, 2018 17:03:51 GMT -6
A friend is working on a mix with me. He's worked with many A list producers. He's all analogue except for the DAW. I work in Logic, he works in Pro Tools. What was different about his technique is he mixes section by section, intro/first verse, 1st Chorus, 2nd verse, 2nd Chorus, etc. He then crossfades the parts like he cut tape. It brought interesting changes to each part and sounded better this way, because each part had some minor adjustments that kept it all fluid and natural. I do this, I loop the intro and go over it with automation until it's right , save it, then go to first verse,repeat. I remember bob talking about this and started doing it cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 4, 2018 10:46:45 GMT -6
I would echo the sentiment that most of the vibe and energy happens before the mix even starts. Your job is to "enhance" and bring out what's already there...not to create it. I would agree with others that when you do your circles on EQ, compression, and levels, there should be a point where everything sort of comes into focus, and creates a dynamic picture. There's no real magic to it, just a lot of experience. You can use tools like Mix Cubes and iZotope Tonal Balance to help you focus on frequency and level balancing. That is really the lions share of getting it right. Not so much automation, in my experience. And certainly not forum gear hype, or "what that other guy said to do." There are places where mixing tricks can be used creatively, however, to add excitement. Like the dub reverb stuff, weird stereo effects, hard panning drums, filter sweeps, ping pong delays, telephone vocal, sound fx, etc. I think those types of tricks are good to learn more of. I think a lot of professionals know way more of those tricks than I do. Think the Pensado, Tchad Blake, Syliva Massey, Eno type of creative mixing stuff. Some of that is producing, but some of it can happen in the mix.
There are so many ways of mixing there is really no "wrong" way to mix, just what you like to hear. I personally avoid big hyped up sounds and prefer a more natural, complex midrange type of sound even on loud rock material. It's just what I like. More Abbey Road than CLA. If I'm "hearing the gear" I don't necessarily like that.
If I find myself spending a really long time on a mix, or doing multiple remixes, it's usually one of three things. 1) I passed the point of improvements a long time ago now I'm splitting hairs. Time to put a bow on it and pass it off. 2) The material sucks. Time to re-track or start over, or at least make huge fixes to the performances. This can happen a lot especially for self-recording one man bands. This happens to pros too, we are all human. Sometimes you just have to put it on the back burner. B-sides. Maybe your rough mix was bad, in that case a re-mix is called for. 3) There was a horrendous error in the tracking phase that is making the mix way more difficult than it should be. Like a wrong vocal mic, or unmanageable bleed, for example. At this point you're just looking for the right cheats or hacks to make it sound passable. If the material is good enough, especially if it's someone else's, it's worth it to fix the boo-boo and get a presentable mix.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 4, 2018 12:03:17 GMT -6
Wouldn't it be nice if you could automate in Logic or Pro Tools, and a board could then do those moves mechanically. Too much to ask I guess. That's ass-backwards. What you want is to make your moves on the board's faders and have it write automation into the DAW. Why would you want to have the board track the mouse-written automation? You can't perform a mix with a mouse. It would be like having a band capable of tracking a song live in the studio and making them do it one track at a time.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 4, 2018 12:08:11 GMT -6
I would echo the sentiment that most of the vibe and energy happens before the mix even starts. Your job is to "enhance" and bring out what's already there...not to create it. I would agree with others that when you do your circles on EQ, compression, and levels, there should be a point where everything sort of comes into focus, and creates a dynamic picture. There's no real magic to it, just a lot of experience. You can use tools like Mix Cubes and iZotope Tonal Balance to help you focus on frequency and level balancing. That is really the lions share of getting it right. Not so much automation, in my experience. And certainly not forum gear hype, or "what that other guy said to do." There are places where mixing tricks can be used creatively, however, to add excitement. Like the dub reverb stuff, weird stereo effects, hard panning drums, filter sweeps, ping pong delays, telephone vocal, sound fx, etc. I think those types of tricks are good to learn more of. I think a lot of professionals know way more of those tricks than I do. Think the Pensado, Tchad Blake, Syliva Massey, Eno type of creative mixing stuff. Some of that is producing, but some of it can happen in the mix. There are so many ways of mixing there is really no "wrong" way to mix, just what you like to hear. I personally avoid big hyped up sounds and prefer a more natural, complex midrange type of sound even on loud rock material. It's just what I like. More Abbey Road than CLA. If I'm "hearing the gear" I don't necessarily like that. If I find myself spending a really long time on a mix, or doing multiple remixes, it's usually one of three things. 1) I passed the point of improvements a long time ago now I'm splitting hairs. Time to put a bow on it and pass it off. 2) The material sucks. Time to re-track or start over, or at least make huge fixes to the performances. This can happen a lot especially for self-recording one man bands. This happens to pros too, we are all human. Sometimes you just have to put it on the back burner. B-sides. Maybe your rough mix was bad, in that case a re-mix is called for. 3) There was a horrendous error in the tracking phase that is making the mix way more difficult than it should be. Like a wrong vocal mic, or unmanageable bleed, for example. At this point you're just looking for the right cheats or hacks to make it sound passable. If the material is good enough, especially if it's someone else's, it's worth it to fix the boo-boo and get a presentable mix. Or #4) an error in basic perspective. Like treating that bleed as an enemy instead of a friend. Or doing something "because that's the way it's done" instead of "doing it the way the music calls for."
|
|
|
Post by sean on Feb 4, 2018 14:43:44 GMT -6
To me a lot of excitement and energy comes from the mids and top end. I’ve been using the Maag EQ4 plug in a lot lately. I get the mix where I’m fairly happy with it, then sometimes .5dB with the 2.5K shelf makes it come alive. Or I’ll use the air band @ 10K and things don’t necessarily get louder but they get wider.
Also, I think transients of drums kill the overall “loudness” of a mix. Sometimes tape saturation plugs in are good for this. Using your DAW peak meter is a good visual indication. You “see” hit that are show louder on the meter but don’t usuallt sound that way. Using some saturation to trim the transient will even out the peaks and hopefully not change the sound too much. If I have peaky snares or overheads I’ll use the Studer A800 plugin to smooth it out instead of relying solely on compression. I’m sure any of the other tape machine plugs would work similarly.
|
|