GML

[psykostx]

Good Monitor Laziness

I'm no mastering engineer, but...
I see a lot of this "set and forget" "mixing"...

Symptoms Include:

-boring sounding instruments...translation onto other systems lack life

-mono sounding mixes (I swear I didn't hard pan!)

-Uncompressed bass sound - Uber-Punchy but playing dynamics all over

-TOO MUCH detail ... what exactly am I supposed to be listening to here?


Seems that people hear how good their monitors sound and don't think they need to spice it up any more... anyone experiencing this or experiencing the wrath of their ME?

I keep saying, its called "Mixing" not "Setting"!
Mixers, don't let good monitors make you lazy. Do your job and make it better!

[psykostx]

PS: I had a slightly better post before but my power went out. I just moved here and I have to say for a rich quiet neighborhood the power goes out an awful lot. Also, all I hear is lawnmowers until 4pm...do I have to move to Idaho to work on music, has the world gone insane? We can just rape eachothers senses so our lawn is pretty ? Srry 4 the rant.

[dave-G]

Originally Posted by psykostx

...do I have to move to Idaho to work on music, has the world gone insane?

The grass is always greener -- if you move to Idaho, you have to work over the din of the potatoes screaming.

I otherwise have no idea what you're talking about -- if someone's monitors do the things you describe, I'd say they're not good monitors.

Beyond that, if we assume the monitors in question actually are good, then IMO, it's more a reflection on what the mixer or masterer does or doesn't listen for, does or doesn't hear, does or doesn't care about, etc.

In other words, if your monitors and the room they're working in actually are good .. then you probably can't blame the messenger.


-dave

[cooker]

Maybe you ment good monitors in a small bedroom

[psykostx]

No I meant the mixes I've been encountering (been handed to work, been linked to at myspace, etc etc.)

The individual sounds are nice and clear but the mixes are just laying there like a pile of flop. Everything just stays one way for the whole mix. I'm assuming its because people buy monitors that sound pleasing to them? Maybe you are right, maybe theres a wave of crap monitors on the market. Who knows, I only go to guitar center for strings heads and sticks...and I even have a couple inside guys there too! You can't even get decent headphones retail anymore, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Still, is this a super common phenomenon these days? how do I help out a totally stoic mix without creating noticeable changes? Literally, how the hell am I supposed to make transparent changes if nothing changes (then my changes will make the song change!)! Is it out of place to ask the customer to send me the indiv tracks? Should I ask for stems from now on? Thanks!

[cooker]

Now I understand, I can think of 2 reasons:

1- The engineer thinks if everything sounds good individually, this will automaticly make the mix great when all play along. I find that to be a mistake thats coused of more thinking-less listening.

2- There's a desiase spreading around the younger generation of engineers. If you always listen to loud mastered music, you start to copy that effect to your mixing and mix will result dull sounding-non dynamic. I think I also carry that and trying to get rid of it (which reminded me to dig my archive and find all the good classical music I had).

So I still don't think its monitor related. To be honest I never tryed to fix such problem but I think stem mastering is a good idea though it would take alot of time. Couse you won't be actually fixing anything only trying to correct the mix engineers understanding of music-sound.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by cooker

So I still don't think its monitor related. To be honest I never tryed to fix such problem but I think stem mastering is a good idea though it would take alot of time.

Then don't call it "stem mastering" or even "mastering" but --- remixing! Stems are not meant to "save the job". Were you hired to master or to fix a bad mix?

Stems (if provided) for a mastering job should already represent the best (and approved) mix that the mix engineer produced. They are there for only minor tweaks or as a safety in case the mastering processing slightly alters the mix (e.g., the rhythm versus the lead, or if the mastering processing affected the vocal level).

Mastering is mastering and mixing is mixing and don't get the two mixed up :-).

BK

[Waltz Mastering]

Stems = Mixtering ; )

[engmix]

Originally Posted by psykostx

Good Monitor Laziness

I'm no mastering engineer, but...
I see a lot of this "set and forget" "mixing"...

Symptoms Include:

-boring sounding instruments...translation onto other systems lack life

-mono sounding mixes (I swear I didn't hard pan!)

-Uncompressed bass sound - Uber-Punchy but playing dynamics all over

-TOO MUCH detail ... what exactly am I supposed to be listening to here?

really what you're talking about is "bad mix engeering" no mater what monitor you use.

but to be fair to you, yes, certain monitors can restrict one's sense of what needs to be done. for instance, i find genelec's so hyped in certain freqs, that i'm not sure where to go with it. so, i don't use them.

the only way to deal with what you call "gml" is for engineers to be used to their end result on different sets of monitors. for me, i have ns-10 and psb hifi monitors. between the two, they tell pretty much what i need to know.

there is a valid form of "more casual type" of mixing, that i used to wittness when i was an assistant. that was, amazingly well tracked, and then the mix was just for slight eq and balance at mix time. the mastering process would pull it all together.

honestly though, it sounds like to me you're not getting a-level mixes. you're probably getting amateur hour mixes from non engineers with no time behind them as assistant engineers, or real mentoring.

[psykostx]

Cooker I think you are definitely right. Especially about the mastering during mixing disease.

Bob I think thats what you meant exactly what cooker said, its bad to master instrument tracks individually during mixing.

Also I think many people, instead of mixing music, are actually seperating it too much. Instead of nestling some big fat instruments all together in an arrangement, they isolate everything and then push it up agains a comp or limiter or both... the end result sounds somewhat like bad watercolor paintings look.

I think they try to squash the space away maybe?

[cooker]

Mr. Katz: Point taken

psykostx: Though close, actually that wasn't what I actually ment.

Without any comp. type (limiter,clipper...) on the out-put or squeezing the tracks, an engineer can copy a limiters (or clipping) reacktions unwillingly. And we can still name it mixing couse its done at that stage.

Its not easy to explain actually but think as instead of dynamics- you're using eq'ing and other tools to imitate depth while the dynamic range is kept narrow. Or if you want, try limiting a good jazz tune with a transparent limiter and think how you can fake that limiter in the mix process.

But this is actually very pointless couse even if a loud master is wanted, its still the most healthy approach to keep things open and dynamic.

[psykostx]

Yes I see what you mean Cooker. So whether they are EQing the space away or crushing it, they are taking up all the headroom slack at the wrong point in the process? What can I do to stop them?!

Engmix: Very true. I def agree about the Genelecs also (actually those were the monitors I am assuming most are using that send me mixes because they have a big name around here locally)...they just sound too lovely and pleasing for me to mix on. But amateur hour (which used to have heart and soul) is starting to become amateur 5 minutes is my point! I am a product of early 90's amateur hour and then I went to school got straight A's and failed out after my math and science curriculum was over (sorry mom and dad). Point being, back in my teenage days of DAT tapes and ADAT, we spent every minute working on our projects, every penny buying gear, and every trip to the john was spent reading and thinking of ways to solve problems. But don't get me stated on a fascist cookie cutter society rant...


Bob how often do you find you have to have your clients send their stuff to your mixing engineer? Thanks for your replies!

[psykostx]

Also, by the way, I will fill out my profile soon. I won't be such a mystery know-it-all asshole anymore then lol. I've been doing this a long time with a lot of guidance from a lot of gifted hardworking people... and I also just happen to do a whole lot of work with textbooks, and education material instead of surrounding myself with industry propaganda (which is ok to do as long as you know what all those words REALLY mean). I just started getting into the gear game again and I've been reading gearslutz a long time, so I caved in and joined up! Also I don't have a job but I have some cash, might as well spend it on gear before inflation makes it worthless, right? And no, don't try to sell me anything, I'm not interested in used stuff unless I specifically seek out said vintage relics.

[psykostx]

Originally Posted by engmix

there is a valid form of "more casual type" of mixing, that i used to wittness when i was an assistant. that was, amazingly well tracked, and then the mix was just for slight eq and balance at mix time. the mastering process would pull it all together.

Isn't that simply the live recording process? (as opposed to overdubbing)
A lot of people try do to overdub mixes this way and they come out horrible unless you audition over and over again to get the sound perfect perfect.

Usually to do overdubs, the sound has to be inspirational all the way through. Maybe that is the root of the original problem?

I will post a sample as soon as I am up and running again.

[psykostx]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

Stems = Mixtering ; )

Like it!

[psykostx]

But getting back to my original point... these mixes don't sound automated at all... could people really not be using automation whatsoever on overdubbed recordings? It seems absurd to me, but thats what I hear time and time again from "pros" and amateurs alike. Its like if they can't apply it to the whole track they don't bother?! I've heard $100k of gear sound like total total ass...

Can people really be that lazy/unknowledgable/horrible? Or is it just that they buy monitors that tickle them? Or what? Really in this day and age there should never be a bad mix, just a bad recording or a bad song. IMO.

[matucha]

I don't think I've ever encountered mix that I didn't like because of "lack of automation" and I guess the stuff I like the most (sonicaly) wasn't automated at all (jazz - '60).

Though I've heard many very bland mixes of nicely tracked material, which lacked any character (talking about pop now), just like better rehersal recording... but even without the atmosphere of the rehersal

[psykostx]

Originally Posted by matucha

I don't think I've ever encountered mix that I didn't like because of "lack of automation" and I guess the stuff I like the most (sonicaly) wasn't automated at all (jazz - '60).

Though I've heard many very bland mixes of nicely tracked material, which lacked any character (talking about pop now), just like better rehersal recording... but even without the atmosphere of the rehersal

Yes for jazz and classical recorded in the snootiest of environments, I agree. But your average rock band should really really try harder on their mixes...and so should the engineers they hire! I mean creative mixing is really what separates modern from vintage... not tubes.

As for bland mixes, heres a good one: my cousin went to this guy who was some "famous bassist" from blue oyster cult or some nonsense, and he did have a real nice setup gearwise. About $100k worth, full mic locker with multiple duplicates, mid-level board (prob a trident, can't remember), and a stack of fostex harddisk multitracks (back when they were the hotness, before mixing computers really took off), full set of ouboard gear. I understand why my cousin went to him instead of me. But my god when I heard the mix and then later the master I was horrified. It was like he just bussed all his gear into a Mickey Mouse tape recorder. And they spent HOURS doing every knob twiddle you could imagine. The problem was NO AUTOMATION. 10 different mixes all different settings, but all the same in one way... they didn't have ANYTHING going on. I thought this was a fluke, because my friends and I were making better recording on our 4 track tascams at the time..

But it appears this phenomenon still occurs a lot, now that I have been taking jobs again!

PS: I always wanted to do some good jazz fusion. I listened to a lot of Weather Report and King Crimson in college. I know, not exactly what ur into prob, but still...

Also: Having to bounce tracks really opens your eyes in regards to when and where to do what when mixing. I still say everyone should learn on a portastudio! Maybe I should have named this post "Spoiled Brats!"

[engmix]

Originally Posted by psykostx

Isn't that simply the live recording process? (as opposed to overdubbing)

no, not really. i've been around a handful of these types of sessions. basically it's a factor of killer players, great producer, great engineering, best of the best recording chain...etc. every overdub is perfectly crafted (think steely dan) and the mix is basically a leveling of those elements at mix. a little tweak of eq here and there, some verb on the vox. honestly it's very basic. the cool thing that can happen is, is there's so much room in mastering to really pull it together. the bad thing is, and this is a personal opinion, i always found those mixes to be anemic. but it's definatley an interesting old school process.

[psykostx]

Originally Posted by engmix

the bad thing is, and this is a personal opinion, i always found those mixes to be anemic. but it's definatley an interesting old school process.

That definitely a musician (not music) oriented session. You need some top notch players!

That said, good players sound great no matter what.

I have a friend who can record a pristine drum track through his line-in on his comp lol. Funny thing is, when he got some decent gear, he still sounded exactly the same... and he doesn't even know what a frequency is... literally...he literally can't explain what a frequency is or recognize a frequency range by number. He is a freak to be able to do what he can do without knowing what he is doing.

[engmix]

Originally Posted by psykostx

That definitely a musician (not music) oriented session. You need some top notch players!

That said, good players sound great no matter what.

I have a friend who can record a pristine drum track through his line-in on his comp lol. Funny thing is, when he got some decent gear, he still sounded exactly the same... and he doesn't even know what a frequency is... literally...he literally can't explain what a frequency is or recognize a frequency range by number. He is a freak to be able to do what he can do without knowing what he is doing.

to be honest, i have tracked some amazing players who didn't work out. i think it's the right player that works out...but i'm sure you know this. really what i was saying was, was that the process was to bring out the best in the song....and the song was so well crafted, that the mix was a simple process. the mastering just brought out the sonic nuance that wasn't needled over in the mix.

i worked like your friend for a few years....around when i was assisting. because there was little talk and a lot of action. so i watched and i emulated, and then i naturally became curious about what i was doing. and then learned what it was that i was emulating and doing. to be honest, the knowing aspect really hasen't helped all that much, it really just satisfied the engineering geek in me, and allowed me to communicate with other geeks about the process. one can make great records without "knowing what it means" you just have to be confident in knowing what you like.