Loud mixes or Dynamic mixes - that's the question

[shack]

Hey ya'll, your thoughts on mixing everything really compressed or more open. Don't tell me you'd like to find the sweet spot somewhere in between - that'd be easy and then there'd be nothing to talk about. I'm asking even if we all could mix like the Lord-Alge brothers would we do it? My favorite album of all time is Sting's "Ten Sumner's Tales" and it's more open and dynamic but still kicks. However, I'm totally impressed by the loud and beautifully mixed Switchfoot, Avril Lavigne, etc. Any thoughts?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by shack
Don't tell me you'd like to find the sweet spot somewhere in between -

Why Not?

Andy Wallace,Alan Moulder and Dexter Simmons does.

Mixing ia alot dependent on the genre and audience.

You can't mix every style the same, even though it may sound the same because you are putting your spin on the tunes.

[shack]

I know that ultimately we'll all have to do that. I guess I want to know what your preference is to your ear.

I prefer a more dynamic mix. I don't know if I'm crazy for that or if there are others who are rather unamused by the ability to mix stuff "loud."

[jbuntz]

People have volume knobs and use them. There is such a thing as too dynamic. When you have to turn the stereo down when things get louder is annoying but that's not a common problem.

[Sounds Great]

My favorite album of all time is Sting's "Ten Sumner's Tales" and it's more open and dynamic but still kicks.

Still? The key is dynamic players. And some of the best players on the planet at that. I agree, my favorite Sting album. "Something the boy said" is really something! But the dynamics is in the arrangement.

However, I'm totally impressed by the loud and beautifully mixed Switchfoot, Avril Lavigne, etc. Any thoughts?

Seek professional help!

[lb9000j]

let the mix breath.............i vote for when its low its low and when strong its strong.......i.e, huge dynamic range

[mwagener]

My feeling is that dynamic mixes sound louder. Also, when you switch from a modern rock station to a classic rock station, your foot immediately starts tapping, I never have that by listening to the "loud" stuff, even though both stations use some heavy compression.

[stevetgn]

Originally Posted by mwagener

My feeling is that dynamic mixes sound louder. Also, when you switch from a modern rock station to a classic rock station, your foot immediately starts tapping.

Agreed!

It all depends on what you're working on though. If I'm mixing a "Steely Dan" type track I'll keep it more dynamic. However a lot of "younger clients" want the mix as loud as it can be. I try and explain the virtues of a dynamic mix to them and the reply more often than not is "yeah dynamic, that sound like a good idea.... now make it louder!"

It's like trying to explain that "10" can be the loudest number to Nigel Tufnel!

[borstensen]

Originally Posted by mwagener

when you switch from a modern rock station to a classic rock station, your foot immediately starts tapping

theres a magical quality to so many classic rock mixes; you can almost climb into the mix and frolick around the massive fields that they exist in. it seems so much better to the tight bunker that the ultra compressed modern rock songs are. at least for me. i vote for dynamic range.

its so much more dramatic...

[Brent]

See below

[Jay Kahrs]

Dynamics rule.

You can always make it louder...

Just grab that big bakelight knob that says "VOLUME" and twist it clockwise...

[peeder]

Originally Posted by mwagener

My feeling is that dynamic mixes sound louder. Also, when you switch from a modern rock station to a classic rock station, your foot immediately starts tapping, I never have that by listening to the "loud" stuff, even though both stations use some heavy compression.

Real drummers from the days of real talent?

[thermos]

Originally Posted by peeder

Real drummers from the days of real talent?

There are a lot of great players now a days. At least as many, if not more than there were in the time of good music. Unfortunately, they are usually produced/engineered to sound indistinguishable.

[807Recordings]

I produce Techno and most guys like to over comp this music (at least now of days). I can go back to my older Detroit records and every time they sound bigger and fuller especially on a PA as they where less compressed. Back in the day I used to cut a ton of dub-plates and work for a club that had Alpha Dynacord in a tuned room..... Needless to say every single time the less compressed version came out louder, fuller and less muddy. One advantage though to vinyl and most analog things is if you respect the limits of the technology you can maximise it. For example cut a record under 6 mins at 45RPM and it can be very loud but dynamic. Try and cut 14 mins then your levels change and you have to compress more. Digital has some advantages in not changing in sound the longer or shorter you record.

ok so I side tracked a bit.... Even on the digital side with low noise floors its great to let things breath. Of course the limits depends and I mosdef use compressors for sounds or parts of a mix. Some tracks work well hit harder and a little compression is sometimes needed for consumer systems. MP3 stuff I have always sounded better with less compression than more.