how LOUD do you mix?

[cyork]

I mix at 79dB and spot check a couple of other SPLs before I print a mix. I tried 85dB for a while but found it too fatiguing for a whole day.

Originally Posted by sonicdefault

I was always a little curious at the idea that once you calibrate your monitors at a certain reference level, you should stick with it. That appraoch always seemed counter productive to me.
-SD

I think mixing at a reference level has long term benefits that you don't see right away. After mixing at a reference level for years you get to know pretty much immediately how it will translate outside of the control room. There is no fooling yourself whether something is audible or not.

Once you're used to that reference when you bring up a mix, you either have the balance in the mix that you're after or you don't. I used to do the old "move the playback volume around" and convince myself that things were ok. You can never settle on the low end balance, tough to judge whether the lead instruments are up front enough. But when you do get familiar with a specific reference level it becomes a lot less guessing and allows you to focus a lot more on being creative.

my two cents,
Chad

...oh yeah and most people calibrate -18dBFS as 0VU when you're mixing in the box. That still allows for peaks over 100dBSPL if you use 85dB as your reference level.

[xmostynx]

wow great replies! love it!!!!

[peeder]

Originally Posted by Sigma

correct except now the "relative" value you set up has changed since the fx return output is raisng or lowering when you raise or lower your 2 buss

so if i have a audio track and send a post fader signal at -3 and it tracks my audio fader moves...then i decide to raise my 2 buss +6 the relative tracking INTO the fx return remains the same BUT the fx ret output is raised 6dB too so my balance has now changed..

i'm punch drunk been in the studio all day..try it ...who knows i'll wake up and see i had a moment of retardation..i have had brain farrtz before

when i worked on consoles i returned my reverbs etc to console channels and "lifted" them from the master fader

The proportion remains constant. When you raise or lower the 2-bus you are raising or lowering dry signal and fx return simultaneously, provided your fx return is mixed into the 2bus, which it is for most of us I would think.

[ScumBum]

Originally Posted by xmostynx

-6
-12
-15
-18
-20?

Ok I get your question now ,

On the mix bus I get the Kick and Bass at -5 db, and build from there .

When I was first starting to mix , I'd reference the mix bus meter a lot , like everything had a certain level . I could build a mix in minutes , and it would work , sound decent ....... but not be anything special , just sound generic , and everything would be a tad bit out of balance .

Now I get the Kick and Bass pumping at -5 and use my EARS !! I highly recommend the use your EARS method .

[Igotsoul4u]

usually to loud. I cant help it. I want to hear it loud, don't want no compromise. Oh no. I've been brain washed. My mom was right.

[bdmctear]

This is about the most informative thing I've read on the subject:
Digital Domain - Level Practices (Part 2) (Includes the K-System)

[peeder]

Originally Posted by ScumBum

Ok I get your question now ,

On the mix bus I get the Kick and Bass at -5 db, and build from there .

When I was first starting to mix , I'd reference the mix bus meter a lot , like everything had a certain level . I could build a mix in minutes , and it would work , sound decent ....... but not be anything special , just sound generic , and everything would be a tad bit out of balance .

Now I get the Kick and Bass pumping at -5 and use my EARS !! I highly recommend the use your EARS method .

Starting with the kick and bass (or snare, etc.) is a very dated approach to mixing. Better to get everything happening at once with faders and pans, then move to compression on the bus, perhaps some bus EQ (esp. if tracked on a console or otherwise consistent balance) and reverb at that point too. Now you have levels and can work on the tracks individually. Usually the better mixers go worst-things-first fixing distracting stuff and then work on the vocal before optimizing other instruments.

It is essential to have context to evaluate all your decisions: context of the other tracks and context of the bus processing. Starting with a bitchin kick drum ends you up with one of those amateur mixes that has a bitchin kick drum and other things fighting it for your attention.

[xmostynx]

Originally Posted by peeder

Starting with a bitchin kick drum ends you up with one of those amateur mixes that has a bitchin kick drum and other things fighting it for your attention.

unless your mixing a live show, once you nail the kick and bass its easy to get everything else to fall on top..

in the studio however, its the worst way to go about things. for me that is.

[ScumBum]

Originally Posted by peeder

Starting with the kick and bass (or snare, etc.) is a very dated approach to mixing. Better to get everything happening at once with faders and pans, then move to compression on the bus, perhaps some bus EQ (esp. if tracked on a console or otherwise consistent balance) and reverb at that point too. Now you have levels and can work on the tracks individually. Usually the better mixers go worst-things-first fixing distracting stuff and then work on the vocal before optimizing other instruments.

It is essential to have context to evaluate all your decisions: context of the other tracks and context of the bus processing. Starting with a bitchin kick drum ends you up with one of those amateur mixes that has a bitchin kick drum and other things fighting it for your attention.

I know exactly what your saying . My mixes sounded like that for years . The Kick was always too dominant and sounded separate almost from the music .

[Ironklad Audio]

i usually mix pretty quiet...probably around 70-75db. i know that you should "technically" mix around 85, but my ears seem to fatigue quicker at those levels.

however, after i've got everything about how i like it when quiet, i usually like to crank it up and make a few adjustments...which, again, works well because my ears are still fresh. trying to go from loud to quiet to make adjustments doesn't ever work quite as well.

[The Beatsmith]

The question is about peak mix value not about how loud you monitor when you mix

I thank you

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by ScumBum

Now I get the Kick and Bass pumping at -5 and use my EARS !! I highly recommend the use your EARS method .

It is interesting. EARS, what are those? Could you please elaborate. ;)

Petter

[James Meeker]

Originally Posted by peeder

Starting with the kick and bass (or snare, etc.) is a very dated approach to mixing.

Granted, this isn't the approach I generally take, but I'm still not comfortable with that statement.

[peeder]

Originally Posted by James Meeker

Granted, this isn't the approach I generally take, but I'm still not comfortable with that statement.

If you want to make an omelet, you have to slaughter a few sacred cows.

[sonicdefault]

Originally Posted by cyork

...

I think mixing at a reference level has long term benefits that you don't see right away. After mixing at a reference level for years you get to know pretty much immediately how it will translate outside of the control room. There is no fooling yourself whether something is audible or not.

...

I've mixed at reference level for long periods of time. I just never liked it. It always made me feel under control, instead of in control. I think that years of mixing expereince is the key to knowing the state of your mix, not simply because of your reference levels. I can hear mixes soft or loud and be able to tell pretty accurately when things aren't right. This I think comes in part from not becoming too accustomed to any specific reference. IMO, it's all about individual preference.


-SD

[James Meeker]

Originally Posted by peeder

If you want to make an omelet, you have to slaughter a few sacred cows.

Maybe.

But sometimes the cow is sacred for a reason. (Although probably not in this case).

[ScumBum]

Originally Posted by peeder

If you want to make an omelet, you have to slaughter a few sacred cows.

I'm sorry I don't understand that saying ...MOOOO...Bang!!

Dead cows...interesting....

On a different note ......Yeah everybodys got a different approach to mixing , but the main thing is the Final Product .

Who cares how you get there...... your Final Mix just has to Kick Ass !!

[Kadden Heart]

Originally Posted by ScumBum

I'm sorry I don't understand that saying ...MOOOO...Bang!!

Dead cows...interesting....

On a different note ......Yeah everybodys got a different approach to mixing , but the main thing is the Final Product .

Who cares how you get there...... your Final Mix just has to Kick Ass !!

final mix-understood, screw the approach, but still.

i'd like to see peoples opinions on starting with kick and bass and then letting stuff fall on top of that.

guess i've never tried starting with bass and kick,...maybe i'll try.

[peeder]

What will happen is mix-by-cookie-cutter. It's a similar problem with so-called "mixing in solo." You will make that kick sound like your ideal of a kick. And you will make that bass sound like your ideal of a bass. You won't be hearing the song as you do. You won't have any context, because the musical context has not been prepared for you to audition. You will only have the context of your experience with "what a good kick sounds like."

A good kick, a really good kick, sounds like something that fulfills the arrangement of the song as a whole. How are we to know that without preparing enough of the rest of the song to tell?

Oh you say you'll just go back and change the kick. Then you've wasted time.

[picksail]

I turn the volume all the way up and all the way down.

What else is there?

The rest of this jabber is just a dorky game of numbers.

Who cares? Just make it GREAT!!!!

[sonicdefault]

Originally Posted by Kadden Heart

...
i'd like to see peoples opinions on starting with kick and bass and then letting stuff fall on top of that.
...

This approach has been considered a general rule of thumb by engineers both live and in studios, because of the basic understanding that songs usually center around a foundation of drums and bass. It would stand to reason that when you working with styles of music which are oriented towards this, that this tactic makes sense. However, I agree with Peeder that starting the mixing process in a more comprehensive manner may help you create a mix which is more honest to the song.

We could also get into the discussion about musical trends. For example, it has been noted that the 80s was a time where music reflected an approach of making each instrument sound huge and independent. In retrospect, and in my opinion, much of this production style sounds awful. I've always liked music with a more organic sound. Even if it is rock, I like mixes which are more unified. So from my own experience, I like getting a song together as a whole first. Most of the fundamentals should always fall into place nicely if their tracked well.

It doesn't mean mixing kick 1st, etc. should never be done. The truth about engineering has always been that there are no ultimate rules. So if that's the way a certain engineer works... be my guest. But if I tried to mix elements without the context of the mix, I would feel like I was shooting in the dark.


-SD

[Kadden Heart]

Originally Posted by sonicdefault

This approach has been considered a general rule of thumb by engineers both live and in studios, because of the basic understanding that songs usually center around a foundation of drums and bass. It would stand to reason that when you working with styles of music which are oriented towards this, that this tactic makes sense. However, I agree with Peeder that starting the mixing process in a more comprehensive manner may help you create a mix which is more honest to the song.

We could also get into the discussion about musical trends. For example, it has been noted that the 80s was a time where music reflected an approach of making each instrument sound huge and independent. In retrospect, and in my opinion, much of this production style sounds awful. I've always liked music with a more organic sound. Even if it is rock, I like mixes which are more unified. So from my own experience, I like getting a song together as a whole first. Most of the fundamentals should always fall into place nicely if their tracked well.

It doesn't mean mixing kick 1st, etc. should never be done. The truth about engineering has always been that there are no ultimate rules. So if that's the way a certain engineer works... be my guest. But if I tried to mix elements without the context of the mix, I would feel like I was shooting in the dark.


-SD

agreed, i'd never really heard of people following something like that so i just wondered if that was a widely accepted thing or not.
throwing faders up starting from drums seems to work for me.

[u b k]

i start with kick, snare, bass, and voice, and i get them all clear and driving in whatever way fits the tune. this is, 90% of the time, my foundation.

everything else gets fitted in and around those elements. all midrange instruments are panned and carved to mold to the foundation. i'll solo the busses, check instrument buss and vocal buss interplay. mute drum buss, get bass and instruments and vocals to play.

then i mix the busses for general balances, and automate the individual stuff for drama and clarity. i do a lot of fader pumping in opposition to the vocal; iow, pulling a rhodes fader down in time with the syllables to let the voice cut as needed. i'm better than any ducker, because i can anticipate musically.

i've tried a million times to do all faders up, sort it all out. can't do it. other guys, they can't do it any other way.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by sonicdefault

This approach has been considered a general rule of thumb by engineers both live and in studios, because of the basic understanding that songs usually center around a foundation of drums and bass.

the practice actually evolved as a way to establish levels in order to maximize s/n while guaranteeing there'd be enough headroom left on the 2buss by the time the mix was built.

there are as many ways to construct a mix as there are guys constructing them; none are more likely to honor the music than any other.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[delcosmos]

Originally Posted by u b k

i start with kick, snare, bass, and voice, and i get them all clear and driving in whatever way fits the tune. this is, 90% of the time, my foundation.

everything else gets fitted in and around those elements. all midrange instruments are panned and carved to mold to the foundation. i'll solo the busses, check instrument buss and vocal buss interplay. mute drum buss, get bass and instruments and vocals to play.

then i mix the busses for general balances, and automate the individual stuff for drama and clarity. i do a lot of fader pumping in opposition to the vocal; iow, pulling a rhodes fader down in time with the syllables to let the voice cut as needed. i'm better than any ducker, because i can anticipate musically.

i've tried a million times to do all faders up, sort it all out. can't do it. other guys, they can't do it any other way. there is no one path that honors the music more, there are only guys who can build great mixes and guys who can't.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

Great advice UBK, as always.

I think this is why rough mixes normally sound so good, because they are made on the way after tracking each instrument, I mean, when I make an arrangement, I start with a nice foundation and usually I have a rough vocal playing all the time, so my parts are constructed after the lead vocal. And those rough mixes that born after playing the arrangement always sound great, even my final mixes always start from those rough levels.

Best regards.

delcosmos.

p.s. this thread is becoming really interesting.

[wakah]

I mix on -20 dB SPL at 80 dB and use k-20. most of the time my music peaks max at -4,5,6 dB SPL so there's enough headroom left for equalization/compression in the mastering stage. never forget to work in 24-bit and dither when converting to lower bitrates

[ScumBum]

Originally Posted by u b k

i start with kick, snare, bass, and voice, and i get them all clear and driving in whatever way fits the tune. this is, 90% of the time, my foundation.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

Yep . Then I drop in the OverHeads , next guitars then toms last...I hate mixing toms .

Kick , Snare , Bass & Vocals get first pick of what Frequencies they want .

When I start dropping in the other stuff , if it interferes with the foundation I start carving that stuff out .

Effects are last once all levels are set .

But there are no rules , so every song is different . Best thing to do is just listen to everything before you start mixing to get a game plan and hear in your head an idea of what you want the mix to sound like .

[peeder]

I mix drums strictly overheads and rooms first. I use the close mics only as a supplement (though the kick mic is more than a supplement usually, and comes next). This gets me a very natural, open, wide and deep sounding drum sound.

I do the vocals, including reverb, before that, and the bass after. Yes I ensure that vocals, drums and bass work well together before layering on the rest, but I have the rest just a solo flip away, and I make sure that they also work with the rest too.

Everything in a song is slave to the vocal, or whatever the focal point instrument is. So making sure it works first is a fine idea, as you must make sure everything else works with it.

Level is the most important thing in mixing, followed by pan. Compression is a means of affecting level. So it's always about reaching the proper level first, along with pan positions. I will HPF (or other spectral repair) if necessary before that, but I won't EQ until I have level set. That prevents me from using EQ for level rather than tone (a common bugbear).

Mixing is iterative, you have to go back and revise everything as you see everything develop, but I think my approach is about the most efficient I can get it. All the way at the end level becomes important again as I do section-by-section automation and rides. I will do some automation as necessary earlier if the track levels are irregular. In those cases, and in the cases of a quiet verse/loud chorus, I'm often automating prior to hitting the inserts (via trim plugins or master faders), and in other cases I'm automating faders post-processing.

[MarkRB]

My approach to mixing changes drast