Mixing for clubs as opposed to listeners at home.

[audiosymmetry]

Hypothetical: Daft Punk is playing a live show to a blindfolded audience. Instead of bringing any gear to actually perform and rearrange the music, they just put their CD on through the loudspeakers.

Question: Performance aside, would the blind folded audience be robbed of sound quality in any way? Would the mix translate?

In other words, what are the major differences between mixing for a club and mixing for listeners at home. Are there any? Should there be any? Do electronic acts have a totally different mix they only use live? Music sounds so different when it's loud (club loud). Doesn't that play a huge factor in how I should be monitoring if I plan on DJing my music in loud bars and clubs? My main concern is for the music to sound good live, but can I kill two birds with one stone by mixing the music the same way I would if it were for a CD?

[Reptil]

dynamics, tone, artefacts (convertors in CD players)
cd s are 16bit 44.1Khz.

a club environment (filled with ppl.) is a different place, sonically then an average listening room or car.

I think there is no hard rules (except for following the physics and music ones of course)
How things "should" sound is entirely up to the ppl. making it, IMO.

btw: hypothetical?

[firby]

Originally Posted by audiosymmetry

Hypothetical: Daft Punk is playing a live show to a blindfolded audience. Instead of bringing any gear to actually perform and rearrange the music, they just put their CD on through the loudspeakers.

Question: Performance aside, would the blind folded audience be robbed of sound quality in any way? Would the mix translate?

In other words, what are the major differences between mixing for a club and mixing for listeners at home. Are there any? Should there be any? Do electronic acts have a totally different mix they only use live? Music sounds so different when it's loud (club loud). Doesn't that play a huge factor in how I should be monitoring if I plan on DJing my music in loud bars and clubs? My main concern is for the music to sound good live, but can I kill two birds with one stone by mixing the music the same way I would if it were for a CD?

Yes it does. But it is not as big of a deal as you think it is. Just dont mix it on tiny monitors in a crap room. The low end is challenging to get it to translate but not that challenging. Get some big clubby speakers to play on in the studio and A and B from your nearfields. Heck if you want and you have the space put the mix through some JBL or EV PAs for your B reference mix. Just because the music gets mixed on analytical nearfields it does not mean that it gets composed on those.

Here the music that I am doing is nearly always composed on JBL 4311s. They sound great during the tracking and mix pretty good too. But the reason they are sitting there is to get the vibe baby !

YEAH!

your crazy uncle that listens to too much Zappa.

[gsilbers]

it is the same. you listen to a trance record in your house its the same one you will hear at clubs.

some DJs even promote record stores like Vonyc.com so they play the stuff they sell.
(paul van dyk and armin van bureen)

u only have to have a high pass filter at about 50hz to not overblow the speakers at a club.

kick drum is inmense and ever present at home or at clubs.

u can listen do DJ sets to become familiar with thier mixes at alldj.org.
i think they have some daft punk.

but u can download DJ sets that are recorded straight from club decks/mixer and other that are recorded from radio shows geared to a home audience.


what happens a lot is that DJs/artist create some tunes or fix mixes aboard airplanes during tours etc so it sounds wierd but you can get away with it live.
that also works for live rockmusic. have u ever hear the red hot chilli peppers live? boy they suck!

when people talk about remixes, its not related to the actually mix. it means other artists grab recognizable parts of a song (vocals) and make their own music/beat and extended to 8min if they can. (less work in a 4-8 hour set for DJs)

[Stocktown]

Often, the mix does not translate well at all. What may sound nice at home may sound like s**t in the club and vice versa. I have mixed/produced a lot of underground techno vinyls but also some listening stuff and I am acutely aware of the difference.

The golden rule is this: mix the track at the level of volume that it is later supposed to be played at.

I.e. if you are mixing a track that is for listening at home, make sure it sounds good at moderate levels of volume in the studio. If instead you are mixing a track that is for club use only, turn up the volume really loud in the studio when you are mixing it. Otherwise you might be in for a nasty surprise.

An important factor in this is that when you are mixing at a high volume, you have access to a greater dynamic range in which to place the different sounds. Many techno vinyls (especially complex ones with many layers of sounds) sound quite boring when listened to at home because some parts of the mix simply aren't audible to the human ear when the track is played at moderate levels of volume. In a club on the other hand, also "subliminal" layers of sounds in the mix become audible, and even important.

Apart from that particular effect, the volume shift also creates shifts in perceived timbre. All factors like these need to be part of the mixing equation right from the start in the studio when you are doing stuff strictly for the dancefloor.

[Reptil]

Gsilbers, is that a transformer in your avatar? (robots in disguise, not magnetic coil part of machine LOL)

[FunkyDrummer]

Here's a tip I picked up from the excellent book "mixing with your mind": The further away the audience is from the speakers, the coarser your reverbs should be. This is because each of the the grainy lumps of reverb create their own acoustic tails as they bounce around the venue, so that the natural reverb of the venue supports the reverb in your song, blending it all together nicely. If on the other hand you have a creamy-smooth reverb tail to start with (like one that sounds smooth in headphones), then that too will be creating it's own tails when played in a large venue, with the result that you end up with too much reverb and the sound loses definition. So keep your reverbs on the lumpy side! We use very little reverb on the instruments on our live backing tracks (apart from special effects) Sounds weird in the control room, but nice and clear out of a 40k stack!

[soultrane]

imo, one thing that is important to do is not to try and make your mix sound like a club mix at your studio... in other words, the general trend is to try and recreate the full bass you get from the club in the studio...

but i believe if you put too much kick in the mix, you kill the groove.... and the tune.

the kick has to be balanced just right, which, for me, means a little softer than i think it should be...

then, when you play it thru massive woofers at a club, it will show up again but you'll have a more groovy track and all your other rhythmic stuff will be there.

ps i picked this tip up from michael brauer (coldplay's mixer) in the guest forum...

[thethrillfactor]

All i know is that the club/dance records made in the late 70's and early-mid 80's still sound good and bang in the clubs today.

The 4 things that have changed though are:

1) A lot of the songs played in the clubs are played from MP3's not vinyl. Even though MP3's made from the era i mentioned above still sound good and full.

2) For the few that still spin vinyl...the vinyl or wax records available today don't sound as full. Actually they sound like MP3's.

3) A lot of the stuff done during the golden age of dance music was recorded and mixed on analog to analog tape so the sound is much smoother and much more punchy in the lower mids.

4) The pool of engineering talent have moved on to do other styles(mainly modern rock) so the quality has gone down consistently to what you hear now. Its amazing to think that at one time you had Bob Clearmountain, Andy Wallace, Tom and Chris Lord Alge, Spike Stent, Alan Moulder, Brian Malouf all mixing dance hits.

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

All i know is that the club/dance records made in the late 70's and early-mid 80's still sound good and bang in the clubs today.

The 4 things that have changed though are:

1) A lot of the songs played in the clubs are played from MP3's not vinyl. Even though MP3's made from the era i mentioned above still sound good and full.

2) For the few that still spin vinyl...the vinyl or wax records available today don't sound as full. Actually they sound like MP3's.

3) A lot of the stuff done during the golden age of dance music was recorded and mixed on analog to analog tape so the sound is much smoother and much more punchy in the lower mids.

4) The pool of engineering talent have moved on to do other styles(mainly modern rock) so the quality has gone down consistently to what you hear now. Its amazing to think that at one time you had Bob Clearmountain, Andy Wallace, Tom and Chris Lord Alge, Spike Stent, Alan Moulder, Brian Malouf all mixing dance hits.

And Number 4 is the real explanation IMO.

But with regard to #3:
Can a smooth sound that is punchy in the lower mids not be obtained in digital?

Wouldn't the mixer just compensate to make it how he wants to hear it?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

And Number 4 is the real explanation IMO.

Agreed.

That plus the generation they came out of.

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

But with regard to #3:
Can a smooth sound that is punchy in the lower mids not be obtained in digital?

Wouldn't the mixer just compensate to make it how he wants to hear it?

I guess but that is the problem in itself.

Analog tape would do things that digital doesnt:

1) Roll off the bottomn octave if its 1/4" but give you slight mid bass bump further up

2) Roll off the top which to the ear made the mixes seem softer


Back in the day dance mixes were all about two things:

1) Making people get on the dance floor and making them want to move.

2) Getting people to want to buy dance records(yes regular people bought dance records back in the day) by making it sound fantastic on FM radio.

How is this accomplished in a club or on radio?

By playing the music clear, loud with lots of bass.

Same as today.

So the mastering guys that could maximize vinyl back in the day for the clubs & radio became legends. We are talking about Herb Powers and Tom Coyne. They could not only cut the hottest vinyl but they got instant feedback from the DJs(club & radio) if they needed it hotter or to bump better.

But and this is great point in the clubs the missing bottomn octave and smiley top were added at the club itself with a DBX subharmonic synthesizer and a graphic EQ. So you could literally play a great sounding record or tape and could still bump nicely in the club without distorting the speakers.

As we know nowadays most music in general is mixed & mastered to maximize every inch of the spectrum so the quality varies in the clubs and radio.

[Stocktown]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Back in the day dance mixes were all about two things:

1) Making people get on the dance floor and making them want to move.

2) Getting people to want to buy dance records(yes regular people bought dance records back in the day) by making it sound fantastic on FM radio.

How is this accomplished in a club or on radio?

By playing the music clear, loud with lots of bass.

Same as today.

Today, the people who write and produce dance vinyls are mainly club djs. The vinyl buyers are also often djs. The purpose of the dance vinyl today is to dominate the dancefloor and/or fit in well with the rest of the dj set as a tool. Radio play and home listening doesn't really enter into the equation unless you're producing softer deep house or commercially oriented dance music.

The producer/dj learns by experience what works and what doesn't on the dance floor. The feedback loop from the dance floor back into the studio and the vinyl cutting room has most likely never been faster and more efficient than it is today.

As far as the vinyl itself goes, there are different styles of vinyl cutting. If you are to cut a hard, banging dance floor record, the rule of thumb is to avoid traditional cutting engineers that are used to cutting pop and rock vinyls. Instead, you get the record cut by a cutting engineer who is known for being specialized on cutting vinyl for the dance floor. The result is a vinyl that works better on the dance floor but is less of an "audiophile" cut. When the record works well, other djs will play it, and then other djs will buy the vinyl.

Since the dance scene is a major part of the vinyl record industry today, the audiophile way of cutting vinyls will probably become less and less common.

[Reptil]

Ok, got a lot of DJ friends.
some of them produce too.
All of them ITB. Some really good.
Most of them are now "spinning" CDs or MP3s.
General consensus is, it doesn't matter.

I disagree with that.

I don't like a lot of "modern" records.
But I do like a lot of other "modern" records.
When I do some research invariably these ppl. are putting in more effort.

I agree that in "the golden age" of disco or house music or whatever you call it, the tone was fat, because of OTB and tape too, but mainly also because of the dedication of people to get the tone right. A VERY important fact is that everything they did was brand new back then. You can hear it. You can say, so are we, but most ppl. go back to an existing style, recognisable, and make a variation.

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by Stocktown

Today, the people who write and produce dance vinyls are mainly club djs. The vinyl buyers are also often djs. The purpose of the dance vinyl today is to dominate the dancefloor and/or fit in well with the rest of the dj set as a tool. Radio play and home listening doesn't really enter into the equation unless you're producing softer deep house or commercially oriented dance music.

The producer/dj learns by experience what works and what doesn't on the dance floor. The feedback loop from the dance floor back into the studio and the vinyl cutting room has most likely never been faster and more efficient than it is today.

As far as the vinyl itself goes, there are different styles of vinyl cutting. If you are to cut a hard, banging dance floor record, the rule of thumb is to avoid traditional cutting engineers that are used to cutting pop and rock vinyls. Instead, you get the record cut by a cutting engineer who is known for being specialized on cutting vinyl for the dance floor. The result is a vinyl that works better on the dance floor but is less of an "audiophile" cut. When the record works well, other djs will play it, and then other djs will buy the vinyl.

Since the dance scene is a major part of the vinyl record industry today, the audiophile way of cutting vinyls will probably become less and less common.

very true.
but, there's also a lot of the loudness wars that sneaked into the dance scene.
which is even more ridiculous than for other kinds (pop rock) of music.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Stocktown

Today, the people who write and produce dance vinyls are mainly club djs.

It was the same back in the day and through out history its always been the DJ the leads the way.

[Stocktown]

Originally Posted by Reptil

very true.
but, there's also a lot of the loudness wars that sneaked into the dance scene.
which is even more ridiculous than for other kinds (pop rock) of music.

The loudness issue is quite relevant in the harder genres on the dance scene. Loud vinyls stand out better in the dj set and make a stronger impression on the crowd. Quieter, duller vinyls often have less of an impact, thus gets less club play and less sales. That's why every professional worth his name pays appropriate attention to the loudness issue both at the production stage and at the vinyl cutting stage. The producers who don't care or know about the loudness issue are typically amateurs and/or inexperienced.

As far as loudness wars go, what I think really takes the cake are the obnoxious super loud and over-maximized tv commercials that have me instantly reaching for the remote...

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by Stocktown

The loudness issue is quite relevant in the harder genres on the dance scene. Loud vinyls stand out better in the dj set and make a stronger impression on the crowd. Quieter, duller vinyls often have less of an impact, thus gets less club play and less sales. That's why every professional worth his name pays appropriate attention to the loudness issue both at the production stage and at the vinyl cutting stage. The producers who don't care or know about the loudness issue are typically amateurs and/or inexperienced.

As far as loudness wars go, what I think really takes the cake are the obnoxious super loud and over-maximized tv commercials that have me instantly reaching for the remote...

When ppl. squash their dance tunes, to make them "louder", so they stand out, in the recordshop, or radio, or at home, they sacrifice lowend, and dynamics. I've noticed on more than one occasion that mixes were "judged" on computer speakers, in a crappy office situation. (label HQ) IMHO that, and the disregard for a good soundsystem often mean mixes sound thinny. To my ears at least.

You're absolutely right that dull mixes with too low gain are recieved unfavourably in certain genres trance hardhouse psytrance etc. but consider that there is many kinds of dance music, and that "dull=allways bad" would not explain the success of ppl. like Moodyman. (a lot of his stuff sounds less bright to me)
Or take "minimal" (bullshit name but what gives...)

For me, a healthy balance, and when I'm doing my own tunes, if it fits the song why not throw all the conventions overboard and create a different soundscape? That was the fun of early house and techno. to put ppl. on the wrong foot, and STILL make them dance their asses off.

[Stocktown]

Originally Posted by Reptil

When ppl. squash their dance tunes, to make them "louder", so they stand out, in the recordshop, or radio, or at home, they sacrifice lowend, and dynamics.

That can certainly happen. I've done it myself when I was younger and it is not beautiful. A squashed mix can still be very successful though. My most squashed song received quite a lot of radio play even though it was a "dance floor only" record. If I had undercompressed it, it would most likely have gone pretty much unnoticed both by club djs and radio djs which is the worst fate of all. I can't stand listening to it today but I'm not pissed about it like I am about some really great releases I did back in the day that received too little attention simply because they didn't match the normal level of loudness in the genre at the time, and thus did not fit in that well in the dj sets. Such mistakes cost me money but I learned my lesson.

Part of the skill in this game is of course to make it sound both good and loud. The best producers are able to make it loud and clear while at the same time utilizing the extended dynamic range that is available in the club environment (as opposed to at home or on the radio).

I've noticed on more than one occasion that mixes were "judged" on computer speakers, in a crappy office situation. (label HQ)

That's scary... Unless the track was mastered by some established trusted producer, it is quite insane to evaluate it in the label office on a crappy system before final release.

consider that there is many kinds of dance music, and that "dull=allways bad" would not explain the success of ppl. like Moodyman. (a lot of his stuff sounds less bright to me) Or take "minimal" (bullshit name but what gives...)

Sure. The main rule of thumb is to not deviate in a negative way from the genre standard. The track needs to fit in reasonably well within the context of a typical dj set in the genre otherwise it won't get played, so it is mostly in the harder genres that quiet/dull often means shooting yourself in the foot. And there are exceptions to every rule.


But I think there's still room for quirky experimental productions on the dance scene. A weirdly produced track with a good hook of some kind can certainly get more attention than a better produced but less imaginative track.

[docformat]

Originally Posted by Stocktown

Sure. The main rule of thumb is to not deviate in a negative way from the genre standard. The track needs to fit in reasonably well within the context of a typical dj set in the genre otherwise it won't get played, so it is mostly in the harder genres that quiet/dull often means shooting yourself in the foot. And there are exceptions to every rule.

This is one of the reasons I moved away from the club scene - the 'typical DJ set' became too restrictive. If you produced a track with a bossa rhythm (for example) DJ's would steer clear because they wouldn't know how to mix it.

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by docformat

This is one of the reasons I moved away from the club scene - the 'typical DJ set' became too restrictive. If you produced a track with a bossa rhythm (for example) DJ's would steer clear because they wouldn't know how to mix it.

you just have to do a whole bunch of bossa nova thumbsup

[krisstoff]

what's the thoughts on mix buss compression for clubs - A help or a hindrance ?

It seems that clubs systems have a shitload of limiting on the systems anyway.

Cheers
Chris

[Fredrik]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

So the mastering guys that could maximize vinyl back in the day for the clubs & radio became legends. We are talking about Herb Powers and Tom Coyne. They could not only cut the hottest vinyl but they got instant feedback from the DJs(club & radio) if they needed it hotter or to bump better.

Isnt Herb Powers still get requests to master dance records, I think he has mastered some pretty recent masters at work stuff atleast.

[Caban]

Originally Posted by docformat

This is one of the reasons I moved away from the club scene - the 'typical DJ set' became too restrictive. If you produced a track with a bossa rhythm (for example) DJ's would steer clear because they wouldn't know how to mix it.

This is very true and quite a sad limitation in todays dance music.
When I got in to the scene in the end of the 80's there where great DJ's picking from different genres to find their own style.
Now it's all predefined genres it seems like, and if you want to get heard you have to go for one style so you fit in a DJ set and in a label rooster.
If you do your own thing it's just really hard to get your music out there, no matter how good it is if it doesn't fit a mould.

About the loudness wars.
You have to keep your masters as loud as another otherwise what will happen is not that you get more dynamics when you play it out unless the PA have a lot of headroom. The usual situation though in my experience is that the DJ is pretty much maxing out the system.
If your track have some transients or softer louder parts the end result will not be that you get more dynamics but rather that the DJ pushes up the volume so the limiter in the PA will kick in on your loud parts or transients.
Ideally all systems should have a lot of peak power to spare for best possible sound, but reality is a bitch and mastering engineers as well as producers need to live with that and try their best to make the tracks sound as loud as possible.

[807Recordings]

Originally Posted by Caban

This is very true and quite a sad limitation in todays dance music.
When I got in to the scene in the end of the 80's there where great DJ's picking from different genres to find their own style.
Now it's all predefined genres it seems like, and if you want to get heard you have to go for one style so you fit in a DJ set and in a label rooster.
If you do your own thing it's just really hard to get your music out there, no matter how good it is if it doesn't fit a mould.

About the loudness wars.
You have to keep your masters as loud as another otherwise what will happen is not that you get more dynamics when you play it out unless the PA have a lot of headroom. The usual situation though in my experience is that the DJ is pretty much maxing out the system.
If your track have some transients or softer louder parts the end result will not be that you get more dynamics but rather that the DJ pushes up the volume so the limiter in the PA will kick in on your loud parts or transients.
Ideally all systems should have a lot of peak power to spare for best possible sound, but reality is a bitch and mastering engineers as well as producers need to live with that and try their best to make the tracks sound as loud as possible.

Some of that is crap what you are saying. If you have a squashed track and a stupid dj he will still push it louder. Squashed plus more Squash equals mush. On the other hand if you have a well mastered track and go for dynamics over the loudest track your track will sound 100 times fuller and louder with less pumping. A decent club PA or and excellent non of these factors will matter because you will get nowhere near the maximum levels and the sound guy most likely won't let you run the mixer red either.

As for the whole dj's only play one style of music with no interest I couldn't agree with you more (for the most part). On the other hand there are great brand name DJ's like Laurent Gaurnier who play things all over the map and fit the music together more in a journey that what specific type of genre the music is. I can still remember doing this one track for a label and the guy kept coming back saying make it 4/4 time the kick. I was baffled WTF he meant as the drum kick was all off the 909 in 4/4 time. Later I realised it was every 32 or so I would have on the half beat a second kick for a fill. He said it was just to complicated for todays DJ. SO I said **** it and did my own label. IF you can't figure out something and you only mix the kick drum then you are not a DJ.

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by 807Recordings

Some of that is crap what you are saying. If you have a squashed track and a stupid dj he will still push it louder. Squashed plus more Squash equals mush. On the other hand if you have a well mastered track and go for dynamics over the loudest track your track will sound 100 times fuller and louder with less pumping. A decent club PA or and excellent non of these factors will matter because you will get nowhere near the maximum levels and the sound guy most likely won't let you run the mixer red either.

As for the whole dj's only play one style of music with no interest I couldn't agree with you more (for the most part). On the other hand there are great brand name DJ's like Laurent Gaurnier who play things all over the map and fit the music together more in a journey that what specific type of genre the music is. I can still remember doing this one track for a label and the guy kept coming back saying make it 4/4 time the kick. I was baffled WTF he meant as the drum kick was all off the 909 in 4/4 time. Later I realised it was every 32 or so I would have on the half beat a second kick for a fill. He said it was just to complicated for todays DJ. SO I said **** it and did my own label. IF you can't figure out something and you only mix the kick drum then you are not a DJ.

I agree with you here.
(completely)

[TMI]

There are a couple of obersavations I'd like to add:

Clubs seldom have real low bass, it's all in the 80hz region, where it's cheap to do.

Clubs seldom have adiquate midrange dynamic range.

Clubs HF tends to peak in the 10khz range.

To stand out, set the kick BELOW the bass guitar (boost 32hz) and cut the 80hz to 200hz out of it. Cut 200hz to 400hz from the snare. Bring up compressed and naked versions on separate faders.

Spend lots of time on the Bass Guitar.

Get the kick, snare, bass groove thing happenning.

Leave S P A C E in the midrange. Resist pads, excess vocals etc.

Cut the 3khz to 12khz region but boost over 15khz.

Stop mixing while the tune still sounds wild.

Think Love Hangover by Diana Ross. Still WOWs 'em, even today. Glamour Profession by Steely Dan (anything mixed by Eliot Schiener for that matter) Richard Page etc. These tunes sound MASSIVE by comparison.

Tom Maguire
TMI Engineering

[mac black]

The bottom end on club tracks is totally different, to get a good 'feel' in a club the bass needs to be ridiculously huge, Its an exciting task though, to get huge bottom end and at the same time stay loud.
My best club tracks always had crazy bass, I remember back in 98-99, I was mixing this track and every Sunday we would drop it in space (Ibiza) and I'd go back to the studio and fix it accordingly ... It took a little while but at the end, the track had this huge loud funky house live bass running and it sounded amazing ...(didn't do to well though lol but sounded fuking amazing in a club... some of my most successful records I've done in 6 hours rather then a whole summer...e).
Radio records need lots more attention in the mid range, also, if you're not cutting to vinyl, then you can get away with harsher tops especially on vocals. (There's nothing nastier then a sibilant vocal distorted on vinyl ...)