 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Mixing & FX
Subject: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please?
Viewing all 15 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2
Original Message 1/15 15-Jun-07 @ 06:34 PM - General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please?
......Ok, so Im happy with the track Ive put together & Im now looking to put the final touches too it.
Am I correct in assuming that I need to do things in the following order,
A) Set channel & master levels ensuring that there is zero clipping
then,
B) Add in device effects such as delays, panning, chorus flangers, compressors/limiters etc... then recheck levels again, adjust if necessary, ensuring that there is zero clipping.
then,
C) EQ each channel, or at least those I feel require it, then recheck levels again ensuring that there is zero clipping.
then,
D) Add in final effects such as reverb etc... which I assume completes the process.
I seem to be making real hard work of getting levels & EQ right!
Regarding track levels & EQ, Im tending to struggle with identifying which sounds are too high/low etc... which leads me to indeciveness & then confusion & then frustration
as to the structure of the track Im trying to put together. So I feel Im on a bit of a merry-go-round, not really getting anywhere in this perspective.
Is there a piece of software (a kind of diagnostic EQ/Track level tool, I guess?) I can purchase (or rather which software would you reccomend) that will map out graphically each track of the song & my efforts to level & EQ so that I can see a more detailed, accurate & reliable visual representation of both the volume levels and/or the frequency levels of each sub track within my song which I can use to either reassure myself that Im ballpark with what Im doing or alternatively way off base, a kind of sanity check of the work Ive completed?
At present I have no way of knowing & previous efforts which I had thought were ok, clearly were not. (Im using Reason 3 & just starting with Cubase SX which at the moment I find the mixer channel/eq interface unuser friendly).
I understand that this is not an exact science & that experience will come with use, however any pointers or tools that will help short track & serve as reassurance of the process Im undertaking will be a welcome choice for me at this current stage before Im able to trust my ears to do the job correctly.
Also, Ive watched lots of different tutorials from different sources which seem to contradict each other regarding what they term mixdown & mastering.
For clarification what does each term mean as there clearly different from each other?
Cheers
Am I correct in assuming that I need to do things in the following order,
A) Set channel & master levels ensuring that there is zero clipping
then,
B) Add in device effects such as delays, panning, chorus flangers, compressors/limiters etc... then recheck levels again, adjust if necessary, ensuring that there is zero clipping.
then,
C) EQ each channel, or at least those I feel require it, then recheck levels again ensuring that there is zero clipping.
then,
D) Add in final effects such as reverb etc... which I assume completes the process.
I seem to be making real hard work of getting levels & EQ right!
Regarding track levels & EQ, Im tending to struggle with identifying which sounds are too high/low etc... which leads me to indeciveness & then confusion & then frustration
as to the structure of the track Im trying to put together. So I feel Im on a bit of a merry-go-round, not really getting anywhere in this perspective.Is there a piece of software (a kind of diagnostic EQ/Track level tool, I guess?) I can purchase (or rather which software would you reccomend) that will map out graphically each track of the song & my efforts to level & EQ so that I can see a more detailed, accurate & reliable visual representation of both the volume levels and/or the frequency levels of each sub track within my song which I can use to either reassure myself that Im ballpark with what Im doing or alternatively way off base, a kind of sanity check of the work Ive completed?
At present I have no way of knowing & previous efforts which I had thought were ok, clearly were not. (Im using Reason 3 & just starting with Cubase SX which at the moment I find the mixer channel/eq interface unuser friendly).
I understand that this is not an exact science & that experience will come with use, however any pointers or tools that will help short track & serve as reassurance of the process Im undertaking will be a welcome choice for me at this current stage before Im able to trust my ears to do the job correctly.
Also, Ive watched lots of different tutorials from different sources which seem to contradict each other regarding what they term mixdown & mastering.
For clarification what does each term mean as there clearly different from each other?
Cheers
Message 2/15 16-Jun-07 @ 05:18 PM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please
thats quite a deep question, thats one way to mix yes
A) Set channel & master levels ensuring that there is zero clipping
this suggest you've got everything in the mix like starting a band recording mix, with dance/electronic stuff one tends to add these things as one works on building the track, this is quite in depth and has no simple answer cos of the variables, cant get into it right now due to deadlines, but soon eh
mixing tho is the act of mxing all the tracks together
mastering is adding final gloss, processing, compression eq etc to polish up the track and get it nice and loud - or it can be the act of preparing the finished stereo track for pressing or cd duplication - in some instances like a pure stereo classical recording, mastering will not include any eq or mastering compression and will simply be the act of preparing the master for a duplication format
A) Set channel & master levels ensuring that there is zero clipping
this suggest you've got everything in the mix like starting a band recording mix, with dance/electronic stuff one tends to add these things as one works on building the track, this is quite in depth and has no simple answer cos of the variables, cant get into it right now due to deadlines, but soon eh
mixing tho is the act of mxing all the tracks together
mastering is adding final gloss, processing, compression eq etc to polish up the track and get it nice and loud - or it can be the act of preparing the finished stereo track for pressing or cd duplication - in some instances like a pure stereo classical recording, mastering will not include any eq or mastering compression and will simply be the act of preparing the master for a duplication format
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 3/15 23-Jun-07 @ 01:47 AM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please?
Thanks K for clarifying matters, I look forward to hearing your further comments when you've got a little more time.
Also, how about that software request, Im sure there will be somthing available out there to help & guide me, are there any specific brands you would suggest? Cheers
Also, how about that software request, Im sure there will be somthing available out there to help & guide me, are there any specific brands you would suggest? Cheers
Message 4/15 23-Jun-07 @ 02:37 PM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please
well yeah there is some semi-diagnostic apps but i dont use 'em - there was an old one, i cant remember the name of it, but it could apply the eq curve from one track to another which people used to talk about
i know there is stuff that does that but as i say... not really interested in it
um, usualy you can get any track off the web from someone unsigned, put it in wavelab, apply some eq tweaks, add some multiband compression, and widen it out a bit and you have an instant tweak, but really thats a sort of quick lo-fi solution or tweakener, in that it's not ideal it just subjectively makes the track louder, wider and the eq tweak is just mebbe to fatten the bottom or smooth out some harshness etc
I have to say this subject is quite current with people i talk to in that it makes me think recently not just because of the fact there is a zillion forums with people yakking on it, but the content of such discussions. I'm actualy starting to think the www is going to kill originality in music which was something no-one anticipated
does that sound mad? I explain. The www does provide one aspect of the dream for people which was to get music out to others bypassing labels or the requirement to use a label. In that respect i always thought it would be like an extended neighbourhood.
The downside seems to be imo that the www also provides all these forums and 'how to do this' stuff, and it's killing things in other ways
Now if you go on engineering forums for say rap & hiphop, all they bang on about is kikdrums etc
now for me I think wtf is that to do with hiphop? it's become all consuming so that the other aspects of hiphop seem almost not to matter. To me hiphop is just about the loop and a beat, not about making monster kikdrums and going up your own arsehole with production values
NO fat kikdrum is going to make me go "Oh yeah!" if the track is boring - in hihop what used to make people go "Oh Yeah!" was the fact the guy had got some wicked loop from god knows where, the cleverness of that, the originality was what it was about, how someone would fit a cool loop and how they'd work those loops, but now everyones obsessed with production values and talking about which compressor is best to fat my bass end etc or endlessly banging on about sidechaning... or, Oh neptunes use an SSL etc.. so fucking what... all they talk about now is 'that snare sound' or 'that kikdrum sound' etc like a snare and a kik is the be-all and end-all of it
whereas rock, well fuck man it's become a cliche almost and worst of all rock music and hiphop have now stood still for so many years pretty much with just subtle changes happening, almost like the market controls it rather than music makers. Alot of big 'rock bands' now are just pub bands, and harder rock has gone up it's own arse and is just a bunch of fucking barking alot of the time
I think people have become MORE lemming-like & more controllable, eg: The news says myspace... everyone rushes to myspace... Then the news says facebook, everyone rushes to facebook... The news says fat kickdrum everyone rushes to fat kickdrum
and i'm in the middle of all that saying: "can I hear something original please?" _ I mean call me an old tosser if you like but music used to have decade driven cycles
1956/7/8 - rock and roll - Chuck Berry buddy holly, little richard, elvis, jerry lee etc
1966/7/8 - hippie rock - who, janis, hendrix, doors, etc
1976/7/8 - punk rock/new wave/synthpop
1986/7/8 - acid, house, big/fast metal
1996/7/8 - dance/britpop/grunge
now look at us.. it's 2007, and whats happening? where's the totaly new music scene? - the truth is probably that marketting corps have taken over more and more and are selling us the same stuff cos it is tried and tested and is marketable commodity controlled by accountants, and anything new is held down and not allowed to become a new movement, instead all we have is a polishing of what came before, ok you've got 'donk' in UK dance which you could say is a new northern sound, but isnt it just an extention of hardhouse? hardhouse that's gone more mainstream? or rather that's got bigger thru production and new s/w tools?.. same with trance it's just got bigger production values, but it hasnt gone anywhere which it shouldnt perhaps anyway cos it's music thats about 15 years old at root and wouldn't you say that trance now is just a bigger produced version of clubtrance from the mid/late 90's?... likewise, the current crap of new british bands like the arctic spunkeys is just more twangy britpop
so for me, whereas when DT started, dance was still about grabbing a few bits and banging out some tunes, now it's people wanking off about needing vintage compressors and that stuff (not here but generaly around www forums), it's sad frankly, tools have replaced style imo alot of the time, but I am so sad there is not much new happening, there's no more global movement it seems almost, no big shift, nothing radicaly new from the street anymore cos you cant compete on the street now cos you dont have vintage compressors and cant achive massive production values of the acts that are big
i think what i mean is, now we have a situation where people would rather follow what they percieve as being sucessful or have been told is the thing to do rather than do their own thing
People talk about new synths and the quality of those sounds, but in truth dance music is purely about rhythm and ANY old cheap synth will do cos synths arent supposed to operate quite the same in dance as in trad' synth music. A synth in dance simply provides a different sounding 'drum' pattern most of the time, so any old thing will do if you tweak it to fit and make something new.. I suppose dance has become a bit constrained with genres now defined and the sounds for those genres defined.. so you can use a cheap old yammy FM synth to play a mallet style sound which is a small percussion part in a track, but the track is about the flow really in it's totality.. in ruffcut dance, small simple things should stand out by the fact that there isnt so much else to drown it out
So mebbe i feel the gear has taken over and people are up their own arses about 'the mix' all the time, and the old guys sitting on forums love it cos tey have the whiphand now & they are feeling important cos they control some arcane knowledge (noobs think) which is the key to making 'professional tracks'...
but what the fuck has underground music got to do with a 'professional track' I ask myself?
back in the day the kids would say "Fuck those old guys, who cares what they say THIS is what WE are doing, and if you dont like it then fuck off with your flashy mixing desks and your UA compressors and your 5 grand preamps etc cos we are too busy creating and putting on events and having fun"
or mebbe i'm cynical? but traditionaly music moved on and left the bloated overblown up-it's-own-arse stuff behind and ushered in a new breath of fresh air which came from nothing but ideas & energy
no-one it seems now takes a cheap synth sound and removes all the top end and says - thats a sound! it fits!.. no instead they are asking what vintage channel strip & compressor do I need to properly eq my sounds like a pro
PRO MIXING HAS GOT FUCK ALL TO DO WITH DANCE MUSIC (IMO) dance should be a raw tribal thing
what gets me is how many people aspire to something unachievable rather than going for something they can do, to draw a parallel again it'd be kinda like a young band trying to acheive demo recordings which sound like a huge top band.. it's not gonna happen, whereas befroe perhaps they'd say "we cant do that, but we dont wanna do that, lets do what we can do"
what has been lost in all this i think is the actual music, the ideas, the movement... no-one talks about making music on forums, all they talk about is "How much do I have to spend to sound like track X?", and it's fucking sad seeing noobs wanting to sound like big acts who have tons of top gear and a cohort of hideen technicians in the background making their huge sound for them.
people used to say "Fuck that overblown rubbish, lets make something new and vital where it is about the music and the vibe and energy and not about not having an uber-reverb".. back in the day squat dance music makers didnt have anything but cheapo reverbs either standalone or inside the synth perhaps if it was a cheap rompler.... new blood would take over and usher in something raw and radical, something different
dont get me wrong there's good dance tracks out there all the time in all genres, not overblown stuff at all, but i think people have forgotten what dance music is, the endless tech forums and old engineering guys who dont even make dance are brainwashing noobs.. whatever well known tech forums you go to, they are full of old guys with a snobby attitude and sadly now noobs actualy beleive this crap, that say they must have a german mic costing 500 quid or whatever... as if the difference between a 60 quid chinese mic and a 1000 quid german mic is really going to make the difference, it's fucking laughable.... Sure, if you have 2 equaly hopeless tracks with a vocal, and one has a 20 quid plastic tandy mic and another has a 900 quid german mic yes, you'll hear a difference, but they both will still be hopeless rubbish. But if the track is alive and has energy it doesnt matter, it really doesnt.
same with monitors, all this endless shite about which speakers to use, fucks sake, do you REALLY think the original hiphop boyz or all those old guys like orbital or chem brothers or whoever started with huge descisions about which monitors to use?... You used whatever you had! and if that was hifi boxes or some pa boxes well you used that!.. reverb wasnt even required and still isnt tbh for a banging dance track, dance is tribal stuff man, or should be at root
if we had this same situation back in 77, you'd have punk bands being told they must get xyz top end guitar rigs cos thats what Whitesnake uses or whatever, lol
Ok decent monitors can help, but they will not make your music better, end of story, all they can do is make it easier to mix, but in no way will they change the CONTENT, just subtle things only.
Anyways, there's dance music, and there's electronic music, they aren't the same at all, one is to dance to and one is to listen too in a chair or in your whip... thats something to think about
Nme, your stuff is fine mate, it is what it is.. sure, you could re-eq it a hundred times and just have 100 different eq's versions.. but the bottom line then is.. "so what"
look, here's a released techno tune play link:
Derek Marin, Remix By Platonik
here's another funky tune
Sander Van Doorn Featuring MC Pryme
and it's the same as it ever was, simple, with things dropping in and out, simple. there's only about 4 parts in either track, a cyclical loop and a groove, plus some sounds, then you just drop shit in and out and work the flow
now you could re-eq those and tweak them and change compression values etc, but would it really be any different? it's about the groove and the flow at the end of the day which is tied up in the whole creation as an organic thing. changing eq etc is too late cos it was created as part of the track
and you could make those tracks like that with a single sampler and a couple of old synths which is what it's about at root no matter how far that idea can be developed with more toys.
The golden rule in producing is dont give them everything at once
so there's always that classic technique which never goes way... you start a groove, it plays for 8 bars or 16 bars, it drops down for the last bar or 1/2 bar and something makes a sound effect or a vocal lick on that small drop/gap, the it comes again but with one new added thing... then it drops again, and again it starts with something else changed or a new motif appears, whatever.
So hold stuff back, bring things in bit by bit... it's like sex, you dont just jump in and bang away at the same final tempo, lol
actualy this probably sounds like a contradition. On the one hand i'm saying "where's the new?", and on the other i'm saying dance has roots which never change
lol, i mean that music is about doing it rather than tweaking it endlessly or thinking toys and production values rule as opposed to raw roots and creativity.. does that make sense?
i know there is stuff that does that but as i say... not really interested in it
um, usualy you can get any track off the web from someone unsigned, put it in wavelab, apply some eq tweaks, add some multiband compression, and widen it out a bit and you have an instant tweak, but really thats a sort of quick lo-fi solution or tweakener, in that it's not ideal it just subjectively makes the track louder, wider and the eq tweak is just mebbe to fatten the bottom or smooth out some harshness etc
I have to say this subject is quite current with people i talk to in that it makes me think recently not just because of the fact there is a zillion forums with people yakking on it, but the content of such discussions. I'm actualy starting to think the www is going to kill originality in music which was something no-one anticipated
does that sound mad? I explain. The www does provide one aspect of the dream for people which was to get music out to others bypassing labels or the requirement to use a label. In that respect i always thought it would be like an extended neighbourhood.
The downside seems to be imo that the www also provides all these forums and 'how to do this' stuff, and it's killing things in other ways
Now if you go on engineering forums for say rap & hiphop, all they bang on about is kikdrums etc
now for me I think wtf is that to do with hiphop? it's become all consuming so that the other aspects of hiphop seem almost not to matter. To me hiphop is just about the loop and a beat, not about making monster kikdrums and going up your own arsehole with production values
NO fat kikdrum is going to make me go "Oh yeah!" if the track is boring - in hihop what used to make people go "Oh Yeah!" was the fact the guy had got some wicked loop from god knows where, the cleverness of that, the originality was what it was about, how someone would fit a cool loop and how they'd work those loops, but now everyones obsessed with production values and talking about which compressor is best to fat my bass end etc or endlessly banging on about sidechaning... or, Oh neptunes use an SSL etc.. so fucking what... all they talk about now is 'that snare sound' or 'that kikdrum sound' etc like a snare and a kik is the be-all and end-all of it
whereas rock, well fuck man it's become a cliche almost and worst of all rock music and hiphop have now stood still for so many years pretty much with just subtle changes happening, almost like the market controls it rather than music makers. Alot of big 'rock bands' now are just pub bands, and harder rock has gone up it's own arse and is just a bunch of fucking barking alot of the time
I think people have become MORE lemming-like & more controllable, eg: The news says myspace... everyone rushes to myspace... Then the news says facebook, everyone rushes to facebook... The news says fat kickdrum everyone rushes to fat kickdrum
and i'm in the middle of all that saying: "can I hear something original please?" _ I mean call me an old tosser if you like but music used to have decade driven cycles
1956/7/8 - rock and roll - Chuck Berry buddy holly, little richard, elvis, jerry lee etc
1966/7/8 - hippie rock - who, janis, hendrix, doors, etc
1976/7/8 - punk rock/new wave/synthpop
1986/7/8 - acid, house, big/fast metal
1996/7/8 - dance/britpop/grunge
now look at us.. it's 2007, and whats happening? where's the totaly new music scene? - the truth is probably that marketting corps have taken over more and more and are selling us the same stuff cos it is tried and tested and is marketable commodity controlled by accountants, and anything new is held down and not allowed to become a new movement, instead all we have is a polishing of what came before, ok you've got 'donk' in UK dance which you could say is a new northern sound, but isnt it just an extention of hardhouse? hardhouse that's gone more mainstream? or rather that's got bigger thru production and new s/w tools?.. same with trance it's just got bigger production values, but it hasnt gone anywhere which it shouldnt perhaps anyway cos it's music thats about 15 years old at root and wouldn't you say that trance now is just a bigger produced version of clubtrance from the mid/late 90's?... likewise, the current crap of new british bands like the arctic spunkeys is just more twangy britpop
so for me, whereas when DT started, dance was still about grabbing a few bits and banging out some tunes, now it's people wanking off about needing vintage compressors and that stuff (not here but generaly around www forums), it's sad frankly, tools have replaced style imo alot of the time, but I am so sad there is not much new happening, there's no more global movement it seems almost, no big shift, nothing radicaly new from the street anymore cos you cant compete on the street now cos you dont have vintage compressors and cant achive massive production values of the acts that are big
i think what i mean is, now we have a situation where people would rather follow what they percieve as being sucessful or have been told is the thing to do rather than do their own thing
People talk about new synths and the quality of those sounds, but in truth dance music is purely about rhythm and ANY old cheap synth will do cos synths arent supposed to operate quite the same in dance as in trad' synth music. A synth in dance simply provides a different sounding 'drum' pattern most of the time, so any old thing will do if you tweak it to fit and make something new.. I suppose dance has become a bit constrained with genres now defined and the sounds for those genres defined.. so you can use a cheap old yammy FM synth to play a mallet style sound which is a small percussion part in a track, but the track is about the flow really in it's totality.. in ruffcut dance, small simple things should stand out by the fact that there isnt so much else to drown it out
So mebbe i feel the gear has taken over and people are up their own arses about 'the mix' all the time, and the old guys sitting on forums love it cos tey have the whiphand now & they are feeling important cos they control some arcane knowledge (noobs think) which is the key to making 'professional tracks'...
but what the fuck has underground music got to do with a 'professional track' I ask myself?
back in the day the kids would say "Fuck those old guys, who cares what they say THIS is what WE are doing, and if you dont like it then fuck off with your flashy mixing desks and your UA compressors and your 5 grand preamps etc cos we are too busy creating and putting on events and having fun"
or mebbe i'm cynical? but traditionaly music moved on and left the bloated overblown up-it's-own-arse stuff behind and ushered in a new breath of fresh air which came from nothing but ideas & energy
no-one it seems now takes a cheap synth sound and removes all the top end and says - thats a sound! it fits!.. no instead they are asking what vintage channel strip & compressor do I need to properly eq my sounds like a pro
PRO MIXING HAS GOT FUCK ALL TO DO WITH DANCE MUSIC (IMO) dance should be a raw tribal thing
what gets me is how many people aspire to something unachievable rather than going for something they can do, to draw a parallel again it'd be kinda like a young band trying to acheive demo recordings which sound like a huge top band.. it's not gonna happen, whereas befroe perhaps they'd say "we cant do that, but we dont wanna do that, lets do what we can do"
what has been lost in all this i think is the actual music, the ideas, the movement... no-one talks about making music on forums, all they talk about is "How much do I have to spend to sound like track X?", and it's fucking sad seeing noobs wanting to sound like big acts who have tons of top gear and a cohort of hideen technicians in the background making their huge sound for them.
people used to say "Fuck that overblown rubbish, lets make something new and vital where it is about the music and the vibe and energy and not about not having an uber-reverb".. back in the day squat dance music makers didnt have anything but cheapo reverbs either standalone or inside the synth perhaps if it was a cheap rompler.... new blood would take over and usher in something raw and radical, something different
dont get me wrong there's good dance tracks out there all the time in all genres, not overblown stuff at all, but i think people have forgotten what dance music is, the endless tech forums and old engineering guys who dont even make dance are brainwashing noobs.. whatever well known tech forums you go to, they are full of old guys with a snobby attitude and sadly now noobs actualy beleive this crap, that say they must have a german mic costing 500 quid or whatever... as if the difference between a 60 quid chinese mic and a 1000 quid german mic is really going to make the difference, it's fucking laughable.... Sure, if you have 2 equaly hopeless tracks with a vocal, and one has a 20 quid plastic tandy mic and another has a 900 quid german mic yes, you'll hear a difference, but they both will still be hopeless rubbish. But if the track is alive and has energy it doesnt matter, it really doesnt.
same with monitors, all this endless shite about which speakers to use, fucks sake, do you REALLY think the original hiphop boyz or all those old guys like orbital or chem brothers or whoever started with huge descisions about which monitors to use?... You used whatever you had! and if that was hifi boxes or some pa boxes well you used that!.. reverb wasnt even required and still isnt tbh for a banging dance track, dance is tribal stuff man, or should be at root
if we had this same situation back in 77, you'd have punk bands being told they must get xyz top end guitar rigs cos thats what Whitesnake uses or whatever, lol
Ok decent monitors can help, but they will not make your music better, end of story, all they can do is make it easier to mix, but in no way will they change the CONTENT, just subtle things only.
Anyways, there's dance music, and there's electronic music, they aren't the same at all, one is to dance to and one is to listen too in a chair or in your whip... thats something to think about
Nme, your stuff is fine mate, it is what it is.. sure, you could re-eq it a hundred times and just have 100 different eq's versions.. but the bottom line then is.. "so what"
look, here's a released techno tune play link:
Derek Marin, Remix By Platonik
here's another funky tune
Sander Van Doorn Featuring MC Pryme
and it's the same as it ever was, simple, with things dropping in and out, simple. there's only about 4 parts in either track, a cyclical loop and a groove, plus some sounds, then you just drop shit in and out and work the flow
now you could re-eq those and tweak them and change compression values etc, but would it really be any different? it's about the groove and the flow at the end of the day which is tied up in the whole creation as an organic thing. changing eq etc is too late cos it was created as part of the track
and you could make those tracks like that with a single sampler and a couple of old synths which is what it's about at root no matter how far that idea can be developed with more toys.
The golden rule in producing is dont give them everything at once
so there's always that classic technique which never goes way... you start a groove, it plays for 8 bars or 16 bars, it drops down for the last bar or 1/2 bar and something makes a sound effect or a vocal lick on that small drop/gap, the it comes again but with one new added thing... then it drops again, and again it starts with something else changed or a new motif appears, whatever.
So hold stuff back, bring things in bit by bit... it's like sex, you dont just jump in and bang away at the same final tempo, lol
actualy this probably sounds like a contradition. On the one hand i'm saying "where's the new?", and on the other i'm saying dance has roots which never change
lol, i mean that music is about doing it rather than tweaking it endlessly or thinking toys and production values rule as opposed to raw roots and creativity.. does that make sense?
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 5/15 24-Jun-07 @ 02:32 AM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please
admin
Posts: 11382
Link?: No link
File?: No file
sorry about the rant, lol, i ant knockin your track at all mate, just overloaded with reading overly techy threads i guess, theres little talk anywhere of music ideas and techniques
ok, um, the reason i say about gear taking over is cos, if you start with a few basic bits, and play with it, it could correct me if i'm wrong bec mixed any way you like right?
you could for example drop out certain drums to make that drum section sparse, then remove all the top end so the drums are soft but girtty then you could eq the synth part edicaly etc etc
the variables with eq alone are humungoous, you could sit and mix it forever and never have two the same
so which is the right mix?
when sounds blend you get two effects, the creation of harmonics and overtones caused by even 2 sounds combining and pulsations caused also by mixing different wavelengths from the two sounds in a room (or a club remember)
how these 2 sounds are balanced next to each other creates points at which the interaction is empathic or not, like playing 2 strings on a guitar which can resonate either empathicaly or not... if two sounds are doing that thing to each other you can sometimes even get 'ghost parts' or rhythms playing... completely new melodies/rhythms in the groove which appear in a hypnotic way if you loop someting over and over & over.
with drums, there's a level at which things are relative to each other where the groove starts to pump, if you raise or lower just one component a little it starts to go off the boil a bit, all the rhythmic parts dont have to be heard equaly clearly or be eq'd full range so that all frequencies are heard... you can educe a synth part to a soft narrow band low mid lift where it throbs along insoide the groove more than it is heard clearly as a 'aprt' in the track
it's about how things interact together, a track is the sum of the parts not the parts all equaly vying for attention
my frumpyness with tech oneupmanship & continual aspirational advertising is that a simple cheap compressor can be very creative but the enphasis seems to always be on quality of signal path as an ideal when it's also an effect in which case the quality of the signal path isnt so important as the creativity. i mean you dont have to have a 500 quid compressor to do something cool with it, theres' nothing wrong with distorting a compressed sound
this means the compressor will be controlling the rhythm of the part played thru it at the point of composition... think about it, if you bust somethings balls with a compressor, there are artefacts such a pumping and sucking and if you drive a comp hard enuff you can get an 'echo' effect almost off a clap or whatever, so if the comoressor is causing some sort of effect on the gate times of notes, then this totaly controls what pattern will work with the compressor and beat,
if thats so, the your compression setting at the point of 'mixing' should already be established
working that way yeilds different results to finalising things all at once at the end
anyways, you can pump a sound thru a boss compressor guitar pedal, and thats fine!.. what does it sound like is the important thing surely?, how does it move the air? how would it be pulsing on a big PA
thats my take on it anyways if it helps, you can hotten stuff up a tad and add any bass or air or whatever afterwards
for more space you could try using mono reverbs a bit and panning them around, give different reverbs different mono L/R width in the mix rather than a fixed stereo reverb plus applying processing or fx to the reverb returns
i wouldnt go too mad with reverb, but again, when you are creating the piece, it is then that adding delay width fx, panned reverbs, eq and whatever else so nthat you create your 'sound' and like with the rest thats a descision that effects what pattern or part sounds good played thru that processing chain, so ithe effects etc influence the creation of the part
any 'mix' for that item in the composition is therefore already set at the point of creating the parts, and again the piece should already be 'mixed' apart from perhaps a subtle change in volume
as you add more stuff it is an organic process which means very lttle should be done at the end if at all apart from creating a master file render and archiving etc before mastering or doing a different arrangement or whatever
sure you can listen to it for a few days and go back and subtley raise or lower something, but alot of that will have been done already during the creation of the peice
or you can go back of course & totaly remix it for a crack! or so can anyone else! thats the beatuty of remixing i spose.. But, the mix descisions that you made as you created the track will mould what you played so whether someone remixes it or not the notes played will have been created in empathy with the mix descisions taken at the point of creation
if you are from a 'playing' background sometimes its a disadvantage for making dance music cos as musicians we're tuned into the notes and scales and what have you, or if your a noob to recoding it's easy to absorb alot of trad opinion from very experienced traditional engineers online who value different qualities in equpment and techniques and perhaps record other types of music. I spose we all start like that when we first get into recording, cos thats what it stems from, 'recording' a performance, but dance music can dispose of those rules if it likes and eq and compression etc can become more part of the sound almost as instruments in their own right
yeah thats more constructive k
ok, um, the reason i say about gear taking over is cos, if you start with a few basic bits, and play with it, it could correct me if i'm wrong bec mixed any way you like right?
you could for example drop out certain drums to make that drum section sparse, then remove all the top end so the drums are soft but girtty then you could eq the synth part edicaly etc etc
the variables with eq alone are humungoous, you could sit and mix it forever and never have two the same
so which is the right mix?
when sounds blend you get two effects, the creation of harmonics and overtones caused by even 2 sounds combining and pulsations caused also by mixing different wavelengths from the two sounds in a room (or a club remember)
how these 2 sounds are balanced next to each other creates points at which the interaction is empathic or not, like playing 2 strings on a guitar which can resonate either empathicaly or not... if two sounds are doing that thing to each other you can sometimes even get 'ghost parts' or rhythms playing... completely new melodies/rhythms in the groove which appear in a hypnotic way if you loop someting over and over & over.
with drums, there's a level at which things are relative to each other where the groove starts to pump, if you raise or lower just one component a little it starts to go off the boil a bit, all the rhythmic parts dont have to be heard equaly clearly or be eq'd full range so that all frequencies are heard... you can educe a synth part to a soft narrow band low mid lift where it throbs along insoide the groove more than it is heard clearly as a 'aprt' in the track
it's about how things interact together, a track is the sum of the parts not the parts all equaly vying for attention
my frumpyness with tech oneupmanship & continual aspirational advertising is that a simple cheap compressor can be very creative but the enphasis seems to always be on quality of signal path as an ideal when it's also an effect in which case the quality of the signal path isnt so important as the creativity. i mean you dont have to have a 500 quid compressor to do something cool with it, theres' nothing wrong with distorting a compressed sound
this means the compressor will be controlling the rhythm of the part played thru it at the point of composition... think about it, if you bust somethings balls with a compressor, there are artefacts such a pumping and sucking and if you drive a comp hard enuff you can get an 'echo' effect almost off a clap or whatever, so if the comoressor is causing some sort of effect on the gate times of notes, then this totaly controls what pattern will work with the compressor and beat,
if thats so, the your compression setting at the point of 'mixing' should already be established
working that way yeilds different results to finalising things all at once at the end
anyways, you can pump a sound thru a boss compressor guitar pedal, and thats fine!.. what does it sound like is the important thing surely?, how does it move the air? how would it be pulsing on a big PA
thats my take on it anyways if it helps, you can hotten stuff up a tad and add any bass or air or whatever afterwards
for more space you could try using mono reverbs a bit and panning them around, give different reverbs different mono L/R width in the mix rather than a fixed stereo reverb plus applying processing or fx to the reverb returns
i wouldnt go too mad with reverb, but again, when you are creating the piece, it is then that adding delay width fx, panned reverbs, eq and whatever else so nthat you create your 'sound' and like with the rest thats a descision that effects what pattern or part sounds good played thru that processing chain, so ithe effects etc influence the creation of the part
any 'mix' for that item in the composition is therefore already set at the point of creating the parts, and again the piece should already be 'mixed' apart from perhaps a subtle change in volume
as you add more stuff it is an organic process which means very lttle should be done at the end if at all apart from creating a master file render and archiving etc before mastering or doing a different arrangement or whatever
sure you can listen to it for a few days and go back and subtley raise or lower something, but alot of that will have been done already during the creation of the peice
or you can go back of course & totaly remix it for a crack! or so can anyone else! thats the beatuty of remixing i spose.. But, the mix descisions that you made as you created the track will mould what you played so whether someone remixes it or not the notes played will have been created in empathy with the mix descisions taken at the point of creation
if you are from a 'playing' background sometimes its a disadvantage for making dance music cos as musicians we're tuned into the notes and scales and what have you, or if your a noob to recoding it's easy to absorb alot of trad opinion from very experienced traditional engineers online who value different qualities in equpment and techniques and perhaps record other types of music. I spose we all start like that when we first get into recording, cos thats what it stems from, 'recording' a performance, but dance music can dispose of those rules if it likes and eq and compression etc can become more part of the sound almost as instruments in their own right
yeah thats more constructive k
___________________________________
"In other countries, art and literature are left to a lot of shabby bums living in attics and feeding on booze and spaghetti, but in America the successful writer or picture-painter is indistinguishable from any other decent business man!" - Babbit
Message 6/15 24-Jun-07 @ 02:58 AM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please
ok like vivid.. at 1.18 the reggea synth thing dies way and there's a beat (and also further one when the voiice speaks)..there's good loops in there which i think you should isolate and work on without any stuff over the top, and just work that groove and forget about all the other production bits for a while imo the problem is some of the production fx dont compliment the rhythm, are the sweeps and echos in time with the track as some rhythmic division of the songs tempo?
i think its got a core which is good, but it's got too many changes for me, it doesnt need all of that melody imo, the raw backing groove when it's full on is great and could be even more powerful if you went back and made some mix decisions with the core groove components! there's bits where it's really groovin mate and then it changes!! you want it to just go on so you can get into it!
i think its got a core which is good, but it's got too many changes for me, it doesnt need all of that melody imo, the raw backing groove when it's full on is great and could be even more powerful if you went back and made some mix decisions with the core groove components! there's bits where it's really groovin mate and then it changes!! you want it to just go on so you can get into it!
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 7/15 26-Jun-07 @ 08:23 PM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please?
Hey, quality rant! 
This gear fetisism pisses me off big time, there is a local board for hungarian musicians and all they do is bragging endlessly about analog summing and how SX's mixer sounds inferior compared to other hosts mix engine.
This gear fetisism pisses me off big time, there is a local board for hungarian musicians and all they do is bragging endlessly about analog summing and how SX's mixer sounds inferior compared to other hosts mix engine.
Message 8/15 26-Jun-07 @ 08:58 PM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please
and they'd be right!.... nooooooooooooooooo wait! 
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 9/15 28-Jun-07 @ 01:43 AM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please
shit, did i scare nme off with me rant?
but Rags, they could get a subjectivley 'better' sound summing in analog in as much as a real mixer will impart something of it's own character and noise, and although they might be argueing it from bits & summing point of view, there's is the fact that those channel signals after conversion to electrical analog waves, combine with each other in a physical level and that can sound more present or gritty or whatever the mixer gives
analog summing doesnt have to mean uber expense. Like say you could pickup an old british 80's project studio analog mixer cheap, and even if some channels turn out to be duds, your pc audio device might anyways limit you to 8 channels of hardware output, lets say 16 is easy with sopmething like adat audio i/o ok.... ok, so clean up 8-16 channels and mix in hardware, you can add fx in the s/w and use the pc/mixer cmobi to creatively route the main mix back into pc and combine s/w returns there
anyways such a mixer would give your tracks or anyones, a different signature for sure to an itb mix. Wether thats worth it is subjective anyway so all u can say is you'll get a different sound
such a mixer doesnt have to cost any more than a typcal mid priced s/w product such as guitar rig - space prohibits a mixer like that some say, well put it vertical on the wall is an answer. you cant always sit down of course but if it's just for summing there's little to do.
initial eq's and levels will be set on the hardware mixer bit by bit as the track is created, any subtle tweaks that follow when it's time to mix can be done in s/w so you can do that sitting in your sweet spot.
anyways the point is these ways to work are open to us all at whatever budget we have it doesnt mean you need tons of bread and if people give you that impression it's bogus
the integration of external gear is dying out in budget and home setups with each generation as pc's can do more i spose. You will see many threads with peopel asking about advice for yet more pc power to run more and hungrier plugins, but rarely will you see peopel discussing adding in sonic & creative use of external hardware as a different option for exploring new musical &sonic avenues
i dunno if anyones into this stuff but anyways.
i think the thing is nme, people think of mixing as like "Ok, lets reset everyhting so i can get a fresh perspective, Now i'll start with the kick and bass...", etc but in reality mix-time is about subtle changes, you relax and listen to what you built as you went along, and after a whille say to yourself, "i'll drop the hats juuuuuust a tad"... etc
if you work that way, building the mix as you go, and then radicaly sonicaly alter it at this final stage, things which were interacting beattifuly will suddenly be lost.
Build the mix as you go & then you shouldn't have too many issues to finish it off with a frosting if you already know your speakers and room sound.
but Rags, they could get a subjectivley 'better' sound summing in analog in as much as a real mixer will impart something of it's own character and noise, and although they might be argueing it from bits & summing point of view, there's is the fact that those channel signals after conversion to electrical analog waves, combine with each other in a physical level and that can sound more present or gritty or whatever the mixer gives
analog summing doesnt have to mean uber expense. Like say you could pickup an old british 80's project studio analog mixer cheap, and even if some channels turn out to be duds, your pc audio device might anyways limit you to 8 channels of hardware output, lets say 16 is easy with sopmething like adat audio i/o ok.... ok, so clean up 8-16 channels and mix in hardware, you can add fx in the s/w and use the pc/mixer cmobi to creatively route the main mix back into pc and combine s/w returns there
anyways such a mixer would give your tracks or anyones, a different signature for sure to an itb mix. Wether thats worth it is subjective anyway so all u can say is you'll get a different sound
such a mixer doesnt have to cost any more than a typcal mid priced s/w product such as guitar rig - space prohibits a mixer like that some say, well put it vertical on the wall is an answer. you cant always sit down of course but if it's just for summing there's little to do.
initial eq's and levels will be set on the hardware mixer bit by bit as the track is created, any subtle tweaks that follow when it's time to mix can be done in s/w so you can do that sitting in your sweet spot.
anyways the point is these ways to work are open to us all at whatever budget we have it doesnt mean you need tons of bread and if people give you that impression it's bogus
the integration of external gear is dying out in budget and home setups with each generation as pc's can do more i spose. You will see many threads with peopel asking about advice for yet more pc power to run more and hungrier plugins, but rarely will you see peopel discussing adding in sonic & creative use of external hardware as a different option for exploring new musical &sonic avenues
i dunno if anyones into this stuff but anyways.
i think the thing is nme, people think of mixing as like "Ok, lets reset everyhting so i can get a fresh perspective, Now i'll start with the kick and bass...", etc but in reality mix-time is about subtle changes, you relax and listen to what you built as you went along, and after a whille say to yourself, "i'll drop the hats juuuuuust a tad"... etc
if you work that way, building the mix as you go, and then radicaly sonicaly alter it at this final stage, things which were interacting beattifuly will suddenly be lost.
Build the mix as you go & then you shouldn't have too many issues to finish it off with a frosting if you already know your speakers and room sound.
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 10/15 28-Jun-07 @ 05:34 AM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please?
quote
k wrote:
So hold stuff back, bring things in bit by bit... it's like sex, you dont just jump in and bang away at the same final tempo
k wrote:
So hold stuff back, bring things in bit by bit... it's like sex, you dont just jump in and bang away at the same final tempo
...........My Mrs reckons thats the best advice Ive had from this site!!!!! lol
No, youve not scared me off, just been stupidly busy with work, ill get back to you soon, once Ive managed to digest it all or most of it at least!
Message 11/15 22-Jul-07 @ 10:44 PM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please?
Probably the most inspirational thread Ive read, fantastic!
Message 12/15 24-Jul-07 @ 05:59 PM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please
hah! if you like mind-bending threads you should try this on for size 
DT used to have so many wicked threads years ago, i guess we're all spent a bit now (except kilo that is!). but there's so much great stuff to find if you use the search function or just browse threads from way back.
enjoy
DT used to have so many wicked threads years ago, i guess we're all spent a bit now (except kilo that is!). but there's so much great stuff to find if you use the search function or just browse threads from way back.
enjoy
Message 13/15 31-Jul-07 @ 02:18 AM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please?
Hey K, your posts make interesting reading & I see what you mean regarding having the latest sw this n that & the effect it can have in terms of limiting how music styles might develop.
Not sure if we got crossed wires though regarding what I was asking about in my original post, but no matter because I think Ive addressed that by changing the way Im mixing/building the track from the beginning, what Im really trying to say is that I was making some pretty basic errors on some new stuff I was doing which was leading to the overall frustration.
Since getting into this last year Ive realised how involved the whole topic is & Ive heard some pretty inspirng stuff from some of the artists on here production wise.
The whole eq thing is a pretty imotive topic as there are so many different ways to do it & so many variables as you point out, I guess what Im hearing from you is that sometimes less is more, structure the tracks more thoughtfully, use effects subtley to enhance the sound etc... all good stuff, the track links were good examples.
Having listened to examples of good & bad eq on a track & hearing the clear difference it makes, to me its a worthy avenue to explore more as a personal thing rather than anything else. Maybe Ive not entirely understood the point you were making, not sure. I guess its become a personal challenge (a tough one at that) the whole technical thing interests me on a personal level.
Of the tracks Ive done, Vivid is by far the one I am pleased with the most, but how much better could it sound with a real decent eq? I thought your comments regarding Vivd were both constructive & informative so Im going to have another crack at that when I get a minute, thanks.
Not sure if we got crossed wires though regarding what I was asking about in my original post, but no matter because I think Ive addressed that by changing the way Im mixing/building the track from the beginning, what Im really trying to say is that I was making some pretty basic errors on some new stuff I was doing which was leading to the overall frustration.
Since getting into this last year Ive realised how involved the whole topic is & Ive heard some pretty inspirng stuff from some of the artists on here production wise.
The whole eq thing is a pretty imotive topic as there are so many different ways to do it & so many variables as you point out, I guess what Im hearing from you is that sometimes less is more, structure the tracks more thoughtfully, use effects subtley to enhance the sound etc... all good stuff, the track links were good examples.
Having listened to examples of good & bad eq on a track & hearing the clear difference it makes, to me its a worthy avenue to explore more as a personal thing rather than anything else. Maybe Ive not entirely understood the point you were making, not sure. I guess its become a personal challenge (a tough one at that) the whole technical thing interests me on a personal level.
Of the tracks Ive done, Vivid is by far the one I am pleased with the most, but how much better could it sound with a real decent eq? I thought your comments regarding Vivd were both constructive & informative so Im going to have another crack at that when I get a minute, thanks.
Message 14/15 31-Jul-07 @ 02:59 PM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please
admin
Posts: 11382
Link?: No link
File?: No file
well eq.. hmm...it's kinda double edged sword... on the one hand it's corrective and the other creative, and each role doesnt necccessarily work the same.
all i'm saying is that noobs think of 'doing a mix' as a sort of re-set and mix' thing, where the composition is done and NOW we start to analyse the tracks components and start doing the mix
but in reality mix time isnt like that unless you have a remit to remix something in a completely new way from scratch as a 'remix' - in reality eq and dynamic processing is added as you build the track and mix time is really just a relaxed listen where one makes subtle adjustments and tweaks to further gel the overall sound... mebbe slightly lowering the bass or fractionaly raising or adjusting the eq on a hihat or whatever... but it shouldnt be this mystery of a huge blank canvas which needs to be totaly done from scratch, the track should be taking on an overall sound and character as it is built... i spose multitracking has given us that ability over the years in bigger and bigger chunks and we've strayed along way from capturing stereo mixes of live performances and then finaly adjusting the overall eq curve slightly to finish.
Now with pc's and the massive variables open to use as beginners it's perhaps even harder to deal with because of the infinate variables, but that should drive you more to find the sonic character of things as you build because the other option of deciding later offers so much possible ways to do it how can you ever really reach a point where you say "Thats the right mix|"
did someone actualy say "A track is never really finished just abandoned"... or was that someone talking about painting?... it's something like that anyways in reality because a track mix with all those variables can perhaps never really have a final 'correct' mix.. it will always be what it is and nothing more or less
all i'm saying is that noobs think of 'doing a mix' as a sort of re-set and mix' thing, where the composition is done and NOW we start to analyse the tracks components and start doing the mix
but in reality mix time isnt like that unless you have a remit to remix something in a completely new way from scratch as a 'remix' - in reality eq and dynamic processing is added as you build the track and mix time is really just a relaxed listen where one makes subtle adjustments and tweaks to further gel the overall sound... mebbe slightly lowering the bass or fractionaly raising or adjusting the eq on a hihat or whatever... but it shouldnt be this mystery of a huge blank canvas which needs to be totaly done from scratch, the track should be taking on an overall sound and character as it is built... i spose multitracking has given us that ability over the years in bigger and bigger chunks and we've strayed along way from capturing stereo mixes of live performances and then finaly adjusting the overall eq curve slightly to finish.
Now with pc's and the massive variables open to use as beginners it's perhaps even harder to deal with because of the infinate variables, but that should drive you more to find the sonic character of things as you build because the other option of deciding later offers so much possible ways to do it how can you ever really reach a point where you say "Thats the right mix|"
did someone actualy say "A track is never really finished just abandoned"... or was that someone talking about painting?... it's something like that anyways in reality because a track mix with all those variables can perhaps never really have a final 'correct' mix.. it will always be what it is and nothing more or less
___________________________________
"In other countries, art and literature are left to a lot of shabby bums living in attics and feeding on booze and spaghetti, but in America the successful writer or picture-painter is indistinguishable from any other decent business man!" - Babbit
Message 15/15 31-Jul-07 @ 07:32 PM - RE: General Levelling & Mixing Process Info Please?
You summed that up well, you struck a chord with me there (excuse the punn) as it happens to be where I believe I was going wrong. I was throwing it all down with some very basic channel volume/levelling adjustment then when I was finished writing the track, I started to address the eq & mix thing & it was like unravelling a plate of spaghetti, I'd adjust/change one sound which of course effects another part of the track through the knock on effect, so then I try & fix the previous sound & end up going round in circles or I found that the eq was driving the final end sound of the track through constant tweaking taking it in a direction that I didnt necessarily want, rather than it being a selective process with me remaining in charge!!
I think this endless process was what you referred to in one of your earlier posts, whats the right mix, where does it end etc...? thats what I was caught up in.
It seems so obvious now, thinking about it logically, so I'll put it down to experience, no doubt there are going to be plenty more learns along the way??
I think this endless process was what you referred to in one of your earlier posts, whats the right mix, where does it end etc...? thats what I was caught up in.
It seems so obvious now, thinking about it logically, so I'll put it down to experience, no doubt there are going to be plenty more learns along the way??
Viewing all 15 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2
There are 15 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
