Engineers with Tracking, Mixing, and Mastering capabilities question

[SoZo]

Those of you who have tracking, mixing, and Mastering capabilities.

How do you approach mixing your material?

I always here a much brighter, ambient, bigger, polished, sound on super hit records over what I mixes are like.

I know gear has alot to do with it but I want this type of sound.

Should I go for a bigger mixed sound?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by SoZo

Should I go for a bigger mixed sound?

Uh...yeah i guess?


I would say just mix to what the song gives you.

If its to a bigger sounding mix than do it.

If its something smaller and spikier do that.

If its something open and sparse do that.

The rest will take care of itself.

The worst thing you can do is to try to make a song fit a certain "formula" or "sound" just to be fashionable, especially if it isn't that.

[lucey]

Maximizing each step is the key .... from songwriting to performance ... to tracking, mixing and mastering.

[SoZo]

I guess what Im hearing mostly is compression and EQ. I am afraid to over do it I guess.

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by SoZo

I guess what Im hearing mostly is compression and EQ. I am afraid to over do it I guess.

That's not necessarily bad. Don't overdo it. Mixing to match a current mastered CD levels is bad news. Don't limit purely for level at the mixing stage. Leave that for mastering. Other than that, use some bus comp to taste, adjust all the EQs to get it as bright and airy as you like, and just make it sound as good as you can. It's better to get the EQ right at the channels rather than strapping on a stereo bus EQ to try to make up for a mediocre mix. That doesn't mean you can't put a massive passive on there occasionally for the color, but that's not a band-aid, it's a reasoned creative decision.

Mix it to sound good to you and to get the artist's vision accross. Don't worry about the "modern mastered sound" when mixing. That will be taking your attention away from more important things.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by SoZo

I guess what Im hearing mostly is compression and EQ. I am afraid to over do it I guess.

Are you sure? It could be a combination of that, delays and reverbs.


Have you considered getting someone else to mix it? Nothing personal, just a thought.

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by djui5

Are you sure? It could be a combination of that, delays and reverbs.

And don't forget panning, high/low pass filters, and levels etc, not to mention the original recording and even the song's arrangement. It all adds up. There's no "silver bullet."

[djui5]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

And don't forget panning, high/low pass filters, and levels etc, not to mention the original recording and even the song's arrangement. It all adds up. There's no "silver bullet."

And don't get me started on automation....we'll be here all week.

[Darius van H]

Originally Posted by SoZo

Those of you who have tracking, mixing, and Mastering capabilities.

How do you approach mixing your material?

I always here a much brighter, ambient, bigger, polished, sound on super hit records over what I mixes are like.

I know gear has alot to do with it but I want this type of sound.

Should I go for a bigger mixed sound?

i'd say it's less about gear and more about experience......and once you've got that experience you can use all the lurvly gear to its full potential!

[dbbubba]

It's DEFINITELY experiecne and not the gear.

When I used to mix any band that would pay i would tell them to bring some current stuff that they liked and give me some idea of what they wanted to shoot for overall.
As the years went by and my chops inproved I found that I was saying (or at least thinking) "I was hoping to do a little better than that!" After ten years of doing band after band, I "figured it out!" All I was missing was talent at the mic in 95% of the cases!

I can recall once thinking that big time, "Hollywood" records were created because they had tremendous equipment that I didn't have acces to. At the time I was using an all discreet Sphere Eclipse C console, a JH24 and several 1176s, LA4As, Lexicon 224xl, great mics in a REALLY nice sounding room. I had everything I needed, but I didn't know it.

I have talked to people who have recorded stuff that I thought was "big time, hollywood" stuff and I was surprised to find out years later that they were using gear that was not as nice as mine in a crappy room!

Another case in point: I recorded about 120 demo songs for a band who were on MCA in the late '80s and early '90s. We worked as fast as we could at each session just wanting to get the songs on tape and into the hands of the gifted and oh-so-knowledgable A&R people. Their MCA release was recorded in LA by a name producer at Devonshire Studios and mixed at A&M. It was "OK" but it sure sounded different than the band. They had moderate success (one hit with a bullet on Billboard for about six weeks... wooooooo!!!!!)
A few years back we startied releasing the demo versions from the 120 song archive I had stored away and to a person everyone says, "This stuff rocks! Why didn't the MCA record sound like this?" I was just slamming stuff to tape and drinking beer with the guys while we were not on tour (I was their F.O.H. guy, too.) I'd love to remix those tapes because I used too much SPX90 gated reverb on the snare, but it was hip then!
It still beats the big budget LP version to death! It took fouteen years to realize this though.

It's all percieved, but experience is what counts the most.

Danny Brown

[SoZo]

I agree its experience! But there is something in the final recordings I cant get. Maybe its M/S, Sweet Multi band compression, sweet EQ's ... BUT its not just my mix.

[dbbubba]

"Finished" and "pro" CDs are most likely mastered and the mastering rooms that major labels use do have some VERY specific gear that can make a cut sound perhaps a lot better than the two track (or 5.1 or what-ever) mix master from the session. Mastering engineers who are experienced have mastered a lot of material over the years and they know what the "proper" sound is because they have either creted it or heard it and are very aware of the processes involved in getting it.

It is experience, access to and the ability to select and use the proper gear.

There are a lot of subtleties that go into a good recording.
It takes years to refine ones ear to what is "proper" and know how to obtain these sounds.

As an example: we could talk all day about recording strings in a technical sense, but until you actually do a string date you won't know what it's all about. You won't know about headphone bleed building up, music score pages being moved at the same point on every pass and many, many other seemingly insignificant things that occur that greatly impact the final result. Once you personally experience these types of things your knowledge base grows.

While multiband compression is nice it has not really been the secret to great sounding releases over the years. I'd take a Neve 33609 over any multiband compressor (especially plugins.) There is a HUGE fallacy regarding the ability of plug ins to produce the same results as high quality gear. If plug ins were the answer then select pieces of gear wouldn't cost as much as they do! If a plug in version of a Fairchild was anything close to the actual physical unit they wouldn't cost what they do!

But...
Using a GML 8200 for example can yield great results, but you have to know what the mix requires and know how a to use the GML.

There is no magic piece of gear that you strap across the mix and automatically get a wonderful result.

Danny Brown

[SoZo]

Why do people here talk about the Focusrite 3, Cranesong, and other compressors giving that finished sound???? I believe it is gear at my point.

[juniorhifikit]

Originally Posted by SoZo

...I believe it is gear at my point.

You are fooling yourself.













apologies to the name sake of this community.

[SoZo]

I really dont think so...


Unfortunately at this time I am not using any outboard gear except the PCM 91 wich is totally amazing to the overall mix.

I have worked the plugs as much as they can go and plugs will never give me the sound Im hearing.

Plug into a Trakker and tell me you can get that from a plugin...

I know its gear on the mix buss.

[s-boogie]

maybe your mixes miss some width and depth
because of an all digital set-up,this may be true.

so if you are SURE that you miss ANALOG feeling,then you have to
add some outboard ...maybe a manley 16/2 or something similar.

but i think you can give your digital mix a certain flavour as well.

i hear a lot of new releases that (i assume from hearing) are mixed all digital
and they also are on point and pleasing.

maybe it´s the material that has to be mixed.
do you mix your own songs?
is it organic material?
samples?
if all instruments come from software plugs and softsynths, i agree that it´s
not easy to make it sound real ITB.

[lucey]

at a certain point, the gear IS necessary.

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by SoZo

I have worked the plugs as much as they can go and plugs will never give me the sound Im hearing.

I know its gear on the mix buss.

Just putting some good gear on the mixbus doesn't make up for crappy plugs on all the individual tracks. If you really want that analog mix feel, you should have some analog gear on the individual tracks, not just a nice comp on the 2mix.

[Henchman]

Gear doesn't make a good mix.
A talentred experienced engineer does.

[SoZo]

Originally Posted by lucey

at a certain point, the gear IS necessary.

Agreed

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by SoZo

I agree its experience! But there is something in the final recordings I cant get. Maybe its M/S, Sweet Multi band compression, sweet EQ's ... BUT its not just my mix.

Maybe it's not your mixing or mastering. Maybe it's at the tracking stage.

In otherwords, the finished tracks you're comparing your mixes to; if you had tham and mixed them, maybe they'd sound very similar.

Maybe it's a cumulative effect at all of the stages.

[sssoundsss]

It's not about gear.....it's about making hundreds of good, conscious decisions during the whole process, from songwriting/tracking to mastering. These decisions will be informed by experience. The gear is just the icing on the cake.

[mixerguy]

recording and mixing (especialy mixing) is like sculpture -

You could give the same tools to ten people, and a block of marble to each person, and say CARVE! How many will make art, and how many will make a big mess of shite?

and.... I recon you could give crappy carving tools to a great artist, and they'll carve something lovely (perhaps with a bit more sweat) and you could give the best tools to a lousy carver, and guess what? They'd carve something butt ugly!

[Jose Mrochek]

this reminds of the guest mod thread when an album was entirely recorded and mixed on a 02r. with the 02r´s pre´s. And apparently the album has great reviews on sonics, don´t remember which one was it.

and the o2r is not exactly loved by the gs community.

[Gravity8058]

I can throw a couple things into the mix with regard to "rock" music:

1. You wont get those nice properties you're looking for if you mix in the box. I dont know if you are, but either way -- the PT bottleneck will kill your spacousness and add to harshness.

2. Dont worry about your 2mix comp and EQ. If you hire a mastering engineer with experience in the style of music your recording they'll be best suited to squeeze the mixes just right. ALso, if you dont process your 2 mix it will make you work harder on your individual tracks!

3. Obviously avoid any Finalizer or L2 on the mix your send to mastering.

4. Finally, (unless you already are) make both your multitrack sessions and your mixdown at 24bit, 96k (or 88). You'll preserve more of the openness and detail.

Good luck ,

Doug McBride
www.gravitystudios.com

[SoZo]

Great suggestions!

I do think I could bennifit from better tracking. My microphone options are not that wonderfull and notice certain charistics that I cant get rid of like the KM184's hardness...

Again comes down to gear eh? lol

[DP40oz]

I'm basically solely a hard rock guy. 90% of my business is hard rock and it's 90% of what i listen too. I've heard many mixes done "In the box" of hard rock bands that sound amazing. For example check some of Bang's "In the box" mix postings. Gear means nothing unless you're good enough to use it. 2 years ago i thought if only i had this compresser and that mic pre my mixes would sound amazing, now i look back and realize i just didnt know what i was doing. You should be able to mix In the box and fool everyone you know thats not an audio engineer into thinking its just as good sounding as every CD out there. At that point i think some great gear will sweeten things up. I do believe gear makes a difference but don't fool yourself and think that plugins suck and can't sound good and blah blah blah, its just not true.

[SoZo]

Mix all you want and I do not like plug compressors at all.

I tried the Crane Song Trakker and was like thats what I want!

I can get ok eq out of plugs, ok verb but no compression please! It doesnt do what the hardware does.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by SoZo

I can get ok eq out of plugs, ok verb but no compression please! It doesnt do what the hardware does.

Then you ahven't tried the UAD plug-ins. They rock.

I mixed some songs recently for an album on which the other songs were mixed in big studio's, using consoles, transferred to 2".

The songs I mixed became the singles.

[MBishopSFX]

Originally Posted by Jose Mrochek

this reminds of the guest mod thread when an album was entirely recorded and mixed on a 02r. with the 02r´s pre´s. And apparently the album has great reviews on sonics, don´t remember which one was it.

and the o2r is not exactly loved by the gs community.

Frank Filipeti on recording JT's "Hourglass."