Bright Mixes

[RainbowStorm]

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

Jeez, there is a ton in this thread to think about.

I'll add my noob 0.02 to say this - I have started throwing some comp on my 2 buss, gently, to smooth out the transients and peaks that may cause the mastering stuff to warp my mix. I would akin it to putting down primer before paint. Paint over imperfections and they can get larger.

The guy that does my mastering has remarked on this, and how much easier it is for him, so I figure that's a pretty good thing, huh?

I did send him a mix where I went too far with it, however, so he did comment on it being overly compressed as well.

I will point out that I rarely compress anything by itself, so having overall compression works for me. If you are using a lot of individually compressed elements, this might not work for you.

Interesting. I thought about this: What's my opinion on this? After thinking about it for a while I realised you don't neccessarily need to define the master bus and compressor as things that only a master engineer is allowed to work with. Why limit yourself that way... So as long as a mixing engineer can work with these things to improve the mix, let him do so. To dramatically destroy the dynamic range of the mix by over compressing it will certainly not improve the mix. You can argue that a mastering engineer has a better listening environment/limiter and can notice over compression more easily and precisely as well as applying it more transparently, which is why it would be recommended to let the mastering engineer do this job. While that is partly true, there is also a mix sound-balance cost that has to be paid once the mastering engineer starts doing things that would be more successful in the mixing process, such as controlling mix sound through mix compression.

A mix is just frequencies on two channels. No matter where in the recording process you are I think you should control these frequencies in a way that works efficiently.

[Eide]

Originally Posted by Rednose

BTW, I'm mixing via Cubase SX and monitoring on a matched pair of ns 10 m studio monitors. My "big" spearkers are Event 30/30's.
Thanks again!
Matt
__________________
www.mattmercado.com
http://www.myspace.com/supermercado

Dooode, I Just looked at your website and there is pictures of you and your (badass ) crew sitting by a pair of NS10's with the tweeters facing inwards. Their usually placed the other way around, with the woofers closest to eachother. Maybe thats one of the reasons why your mixes are dull, sitting with the tweeter right in your face all day long?

The dog is off the hooks though!!

Best luck,


-Wick

[MHB850]

Originally Posted by dreamsongs

I guess it might me because of the type of music I'm listening to and working with lately but I'm straying away from overly bright mixes.

In the last John Mayer CD that I've been using to ref my latest projects, the entire CD has more of a colored sound. Not too dark but definitely not bright.

I was surprised and intrigued by this because on most of my other Pop projects, I've gone for a very bright feel. Now this CD comes along that was released about 3 months ago that is very different sounding. And guess what, I like it better...my other ref CD's now sound a bit too bright.

At closer inspection, I noticed that mainly the lead voice and to a lesser extent, the high hat and snare are the only things that are bright. All other guitars, keys and arrangements are on the darker side but very well balanced. I haven't yet looked at the credits (strangely enough) but I love the way this whole record was mixed.

So re-think your whole idea of what a mix should really sound like and what components are responsible to achieve balance.

I guess in the end it all comes down to how you or your clients would like the mix to sound. But as for me, I'm rethinking my whole "bright mix" attitude.

That's the sound of warmth you hear. The great sound of classic R&B. If I had mixed it like a pop record or like the batch of other records I had done prior to that one, it would have been vibe less. The vibe on this record is dictated by the fat bass and drums driving the song along, with the guitars and vocal floating on top. I used my Motown Eq's on the kick and snare to get that warm inviting feel to the track. michael

[dokushoka]

Originally Posted by MHB850

That's the sound of warmth you hear. The great sound of classic R&B. If I had mixed it like a pop record or like the batch of other records I had done prior to that one, it would have been vibe less. The vibe on this record is dictated by the fat bass and drums driving the song along, with the guitars and vocal floating on top. I used my Motown Eq's on the kick and snare to get that warm inviting feel to the track. michael

Ah I didn't know you did that record, Michael. I heard the single on the radio and thought, "man, its nice that someone did some vibed out drums with character on a pop single." Nice work.

[dreamsongs]

Originally Posted by MHB850

That's the sound of warmth you hear. The great sound of classic R&B. If I had mixed it like a pop record or like the batch of other records I had done prior to that one, it would have been vibe less. The vibe on this record is dictated by the fat bass and drums driving the song along, with the guitars and vocal floating on top. I used my Motown Eq's on the kick and snare to get that warm inviting feel to the track. michael

Well, congratulations Michael. Because I really dig the sound of that entire CD.
I particularly dig the Bass in almost all the songs starting with Vultures and Belief, but all of them really. Incredible bass and drums, and let's not forget the guitars of course...

And as I said and since this thread is called "bright mixes", I'm not so sure we need it to be so bright to have it stand out. I think you achieved a beautiful balance and JM's vocals sound beautiful against the rest of the soundscape.

If you could share with us what gear/mics you used to record the main tracks I would be very grateful...

Thanks in advanced...

[studjo]

Michael mixed it - someone else recorded it


Jo

[dreamsongs]

You're right, let me re-rephrase that then...

What gear and techniques did you use ?

I know it's broadbased, what I'm curious as to the overall sound and vibe you were going and how you went about achieving it ?

[Jules]

IMHO if you put mastering engineers under interrogation, they will soon confess that a big part of what they do (but not all obviously) is crafting slick top end.

Of course the air and upper harmonics's are already IN the mix, but they are often pulling up the 'smile curve' and revealing it but in a controlled and flattering way.

Its a special skill set and the tools to do it are often diferent from the ones that recording engineers use..

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by Jules

IMHO if you put mastering engineers under interrogation, they will soon confess that a big part of what they do (but not all obviously) is crafting slick top end.

It's nice to give them sound with some good sounding top to work with in the first place, too.

[GearHunter]

Originally Posted by dreamsongs

Well, congratulations Michael. Because I really dig the sound of that entire CD.
I particularly dig the Bass in almost all the songs starting with Vultures and Belief, but all of them really. Incredible bass and drums, and let's not forget the guitars of course...

And as I said and since this thread is called "bright mixes", I'm not so sure we need it to be so bright to have it stand out. I think you achieved a beautiful balance and JM's vocals sound beautiful against the rest of the soundscape.

If you could share with us what gear/mics you used to record the main tracks I would be very grateful...

Thanks in advanced...

A CD like that starts with great players. Don't forget Mayer's great guitar-playing and tone. And great material and arrangements.

Basically, when you record a band like that, you set up mics, hit the big red button and get the hell out of the way!

The beauty of the mix is Michael knew how to not water that musicality down. You gotta bring it forth and don't overprocess or screw with the soulfulness of the tracks. A "less is more" approach, I'm guessing. I like the word "warm", but I especially like the word "inviting". The CD draws you in.

I was not a fan of the "Body is a Wonderland" Jon Mayer at all. I thought it was hearthrob balladeer type stuff designed to make teenage girls get moist in the panties. But over the last couple years, I've come around to JM. His guitar playing makes him one of the best Stratocaster masters in music today...I love the Texas Blues influence. I mean the kid is good; really really good. Did you see him on Austin City Limits playing with Double Trouble and Buddy Guy? Amazing. Then he appears on the Stevie Ray Montreaux DVD. Then they do the smoking LIVE TRIO CD, and now Continuum. I am sold. Full circle. My wife's giving me Continuum for Christmas, and I look forward to really digging in, not just in to the music, but of course the production. My only regret is that I can't get it on reel-to-reel analog tape!

The kid's got soul, he really does. And how rare is that in today's music?

Off topic, I know.

I hate bright mixes. Always have, always will. There. On-topic!

[dreamsongs]

Originally Posted by GearHunter

A CD like that starts with great players. Don't forget Mayer's great guitar-playing and tone. And great material and arrangements.

Basically, when you record a band like that, you set up mics, hit the big red button and get the hell out of the way!

The beauty of the mix is Michael knew how to not water that musicality down. You gotta bring it forth and don't overprocess or screw with the soulfulness of the tracks. A "less is more" approach, I'm guessing. I like the word "warm", but I especially like the word "inviting". The CD draws you in.

I was not a fan of the "Body is a Wonderland" Jon Mayer at all. I thought it was hearthrob balladeer type stuff designed to make teenage girls get moist in the panties. But over the last couple years, I've come around to JM. His guitar playing makes him one of the best Stratocaster masters in music today...I love the Texas Blues influence. I mean the kid is good; really really good. Did you see him on Austin City Limits playing with Double Trouble and Buddy Guy? Amazing. Then he appears on the Stevie Ray Montreaux DVD. Then they do the smoking LIVE TRIO CD, and now Continuum. I am sold. Full circle. My wife's giving me Continuum for Christmas, and I look forward to really digging in, not just in to the music, but of course the production. My only regret is that I can't get it on reel-to-reel analog tape!

The kid's got soul, he really does. And how rare is that in today's music?

Off topic, I know.

I hate bright mixes. Always have, always will. There. On-topic!

I agree...I wasn't a big fan or anything prior to Continuum. I liked a few songs on "Room for Squares" and then a few on "Heavier Things'. I started to listen a bit more carefully after "Daughters" won the Grammy for Song of the year. That is a beautiful simple song with great lyrics and he beat out some heavyweights that year to win that.

When Continuum came out I knew I wouldn't be disappointed because I could see the direction his music was heading in. More bluesy/pop with more soul. Less commercial Pop. His music and writing have grown tremendously. I always listen to lyrics and then music because I'm in the business of selling songs so I know how important that is.

I would buy his next album without even listening to it, I'm sold on this journey he's taking musicwise. I don't even care if they play it on the radio or not. In fact, the hit single "Waiting on the world to change" is not the best song on that album. There are least 4 or 5 better songs than that but maybe not as commercial.

Anyway, I'm a fan now. He won me over and everybody here should listen to that CD for how it sounds even if you don't dig the music.

Oh, bright mixes...never again after listening to this CD. Why do that...? I can listen to this CD every day and not get tired of it, and there's something to be said for that too...I think I might be on to something here...

[MHB850]

Originally Posted by dreamsongs

You're right, let me re-rephrase that then...

What gear and techniques did you use ?

I know it's broadbased, what I'm curious as to the overall sound and vibe you were going and how you went about achieving it ?

I grew up mixing R&B at Mediasound. That is the vibe that luther, aretha, james brown and every other soul and R&B artist that I recorded and mixed in the 70's and 80's responded to. It's what John's song reminded me of when I mixed his music. this song was fat and lazy and that's how I went about it. someone wrote the snare sucked on vultures, for me it was perfect. it was fat and classic mediasound. technically...if I must, it also stayed out of range of john's vocal and guitars.It was respecting the fatback feel that bernard perdie invented. there are times when the snare isn't suppose to draw attention to itself, it's function is to anchor down the back beat respecting the funk and play off the bass. I spent hundreds of hours mixing funk and that's the pitch and tone that helped define it. Go back and listen to the gap band, george clinton and the parliaments. A snare's pitch and tone played a different role. Steve jordan usually pitches his snare real high, on this song he knew the groove could only happen with it being down low and funky. And to be honest, I have too many ghosts in the closet that would kick my ass if I had made it bright and punchy. I can hear them now all lining up to tell me "boy, this ain't white music, you gotta feel it down hear, not up here!" michael

[MarkRB]

Something no-one has mentioned is over EQ'ing stuff.

It's all too easy to listen to elements in seperation and EQ it to attain your theoretical "great" sound, but put them together and you have a mushy muddy sounding mix.

I have found (although less & less these days as I get older (wiser?) that if you put the faders up no-EQ, get a good balance then put this down as a monitor mix it will often sound brighter and more open than the mix you've spent 4 hours working on. I put this down to brightening the wrong elements but haven't really come up with a definitive explanation for this.

Oh and don't over compress all your nice high end out either.

[dcisive]

Let's not get lost and forget that music and the recording of it is and should remain an art. If an engineer is "going" for a particular sound or vibe it is their chance to express a sonic landscape just as a painter might. You don't have to like it, but it is his creation in some regard. Needless to say good players are imperative in providing an overall great result. I prefer to do appropriate EQ on a given track individually where it applies. I don't solo a track but rather judge based on the way it sits in the entire mix when doing EQ. Then a nice touch of 2.5:1 compression is more typical for a 2 buss mix at the end. It tends to bring up the background a bit and punches up a vocal to stay at the forefront of a mix. There are a thousand ways to do it....none are necessarily wrong......just one more interpretation.

[Dog_Chao_Chao]

I find myself in a very similar situation:

Im almost finishing mixing an entire album for a band, and i know it will be sent to one of the best mastering houses available. I know for sure it will be the best ever mastering house I will send my work ( I tracked and mixed).

Now when I listen to the mixes through my adams ( nothing in the stereo bus) everything sounds great. When i turn the mix to my hifi reference ( a pair of Acoustic energy with a creek amp) the mix seems a bit dull when compared with other cds. When listening in the car the result were the same, not bad but I notice when I turn the treble button that the mix sounds more open and closer to the references.

If I plug my 1968Me and a bit of L2 in the master ( as I usually do when I don´t send the work to a mastering house) i will get that extra brightness and a more puchy mix, but, since its a great mastering house I think I should let them compress and limit, they should have better acoustics, trained ears, compressors/limiters and references.

So my dilema is:

Should I give the mix that extra brightness? overall or only on some instruments? If I do it, wont it sound too bright after limiting and compression? Or wont instruments get different levels. I notice when I limit that vocals usually get a bit louder.

Its an indie band Im mixing. yo la tengo meets notwist. I love the warmth and the lower frequencies in most of their songs. I just think its a bit dull on hi-fi. Not sure how much I should mess with it. When I open the top end I also loose some sensation of power and wamth.

I think that many times the problem of a mix sounding dull or not as opened as our goal has much to do with the spaces used or not used within the mix. Reverb, delays and other fx. I get the idea that most of my problems in this area are consequences of not mastering the reverb techniques. i admit, its my worst nightmare. Sometimes I´m not too sure about it so I end up not using much. Reverb make all the difference. Use too much in the wrong way your mix will sound dull, use too little with some material and your mix can sound dull too.

[dreamsongs]

Originally Posted by MHB850

I grew up mixing R&B at Mediasound. That is the vibe that luther, aretha, james brown and every other soul and R&B artist that I recorded and mixed in the 70's and 80's responded to. It's what John's song reminded me of when I mixed his music. this song was fat and lazy and that's how I went about it. someone wrote the snare sucked on vultures, for me it was perfect. it was fat and classic mediasound. technically...if I must, it also stayed out of range of john's vocal and guitars.It was respecting the fatback feel that bernard perdie invented. there are times when the snare isn't suppose to draw attention to itself, it's function is to anchor down the back beat respecting the funk and play off the bass. I spent hundreds of hours mixing funk and that's the pitch and tone that helped define it. Go back and listen to the gap band, george clinton and the parliaments. A snare's pitch and tone played a different role. Steve jordan usually pitches his snare real high, on this song he knew the groove could only happen with it being down low and funky. And to be honest, I have too many ghosts in the closet that would kick my ass if I had made it bright and punchy. I can hear them now all lining up to tell me "boy, this ain't white music, you gotta feel it down hear, not up here!" michael

Thank you for your response Michael, I appreciate it...

What occured to me as I'm reading your thread is that the young kids these days like those bright mixes. I'll explain what I mean...

This past Thanksgiving I had a bunch of family and guests at my house, lots of teenagers. Since I have my studio detached from the house but a short distance away, they came in to hear my latest projects.

I played them a few mixes I was working on, some bright and some more cloured and more '70's sound if you will. 90% of the time they preferred the bright mixes. And by bright I mean "in your face" kinda bright. Less reverb/delay more compression, higher freq. etc.

To me, the other mix sounded much better. I was going for that Continuum kind of vibe. But the kids preferred the other one. It's not just my own experiment because I always notice that on the radio as well. Most Pop songs I hear are fairly bright.

So the question is: Would you mix any Pop record the way you mixed Continuum or change according to what factors ?

And another one if you can answer it: Jordan's kit sounds different on almost every track. What's the story there ?

[u b k]

Originally Posted by dreamsongs

I played them a few mixes I was working on, some bright and some more cloured and more '70's sound if you will. 90% of the time they preferred the bright mixes.

if you level match the brightness, so that the 70's mixes end up playing back with similar treble but fuller lows and mids, i bet your results would change...


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[dokushoka]

I'm not sure about that... people LIKE bright mixes more often than not, in my experience. We might not like this because it doesn't sound like "stuff we grew up with" but we have to accept that not everyone does want to sound like that...

[edvdr76]

I smooth out the highs on my mixes by buss compressing with a SUMMIT DCL 200 tube compressor. It also helps me glue my tracks together a bit before mastering.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Dog_Chao_Chao

So my dilema is:

Should I give the mix that extra brightness?

no.

dark mixes are gorgeous imo, and they're also the norm. as long as your mix is internally balanced, freq and levelwise, your job is done. the ME is the guy to lift the top, if at all, based not only on that particular song but on how it sits in the context of the entire record. i've seen many a sleepy mix wake up in the ME's hands thru careful carving of the 300hz area. sometimes it's not dull, it's just a little thick.

you're giving this to an amazing mastering lab, let them do what they best.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[GearHunter]

Those kids preferred the brighter more compressed mix because they associated it with the finished product they hear, on MP3, very loudly, through little ear-buds.

[Jules]

A&R folks that are half deaf from gigging everynight like bright mixes..

[dreamsongs]

I suppose there's a little bit of truth in all of what's been said. Even before listening to the Continuum CD, I was starting to stray more in the direction of a darker mix. Let just say, a little more colored than usual, not super dark because I don't like that either.

But lately, I found myself choosing different mics than usual, combining those with more colored pre's, driving the input stage or adding a bit of dist. 2 setting with the Distressors, rolling more hi freq above 5k etc. It took me a while to adjust but I begun to enjoy the sound a lot more.

I've been doing this especially with drums and percussion instruments, guitars and horns. I would leave the lead vocals with a little more highs than the rest of the sounscape and all of a sudden I started to reach a point of no return. Now it's really hard to mix like I used to. My old mixes from even one year ago sound too bright.

This is why when I heard the JM Cd I was excited. It gave me the motivation to continue to mix in the direction I was already going anyway. Now, when somebody gives me grief about the mix not being bright enough, I whip out the Continuum CD and put it on. Then they're sold and end up wanting their songs to sound like that.

I will probably continue to mix in this manner until a Big Shot insists on something different. But I have a feeling they won't...

[MHB850]

Originally Posted by dreamsongs

So the question is: Would you mix any Pop record the way you mixed Continuum or change according to what factors ?

And another one if you can answer it: Jordan's kit sounds different on almost every track. What's the story there ?

I've mixed alot of records this year and none sounded like this one because they didn't lend themselves to this sound. This sound is a good representation of the songs being written. the drums and bass were recorded in a way that lends itself to fat sound without it sounding dull. But in general, brighter is more popular. I usually balance it out with a big ass bottom to most of my records so that everyone,including me, is happy. I'm not a big fan of mixes that don't have pants on. But crunchy and exciting top is what today's ear gravitates toward and it can't be ignored. Music is written and recorded to bring out those very elements. Am I happy to mix a natural sounding record like Mayers? Hell yah. do I wish there were more opportunities, maybe there will be if this catches on and becomes the "in sound".

Steve's drums sound different on every song because each song is different and the feel requires a different drum sound, as well as guitar,bass and vocal sound.

I have to accept the fact that after I mix a record and then have it mastered, the band will load it into their ipod at 128 or 156 and makes their comments based on how it sounds compared to other cd's they loaded in there at the same bit rate. You can bitch all you want but it doesn't change the fact that many of todays bands only listen to ipod processed music. Kids know what they want to hear.. they listen to music as much as we do as engineers. Uncompressed and flat sounding mixes when converted to 128 or higher don't make the transition very well to Ipod. They don't hold up to the competition and you shouldn't be surprised if the band comes back to you an hour after you mixed it and complain that your mix isn't exciting to them. you're welcome to try and educate them if you want. I'm not advising you turn your mix into something crappy, i'm saying you don't need to leave something until later that you can do now.

Someone brought up the question of leaving the overall eq of a mix to mastering. My answer, as you guess, is NO. Make it feel great now. I don't leave anything to mastering. I expect the mastering engineer to master it flat and only deal with matching levels of the songs, which is generally the case. Why? because the point of mixing a song until it feels great is that very fact, Make it feel great now! If you need to put compression and EQ over the stereo buss to get the desired effect that makes everyone in the room jump up and down..do it. there are no rules here that say hold back, your mix is suppose to sound almost great, almost right, only perfect when you crank up the treble and bass in the car, only when mastering gets hold of it. that's crazy. you should be able to leave the mix room and play the mix in your car or home stereo and it should sound awesome. Don't leave it to a mastering house to be expected to have the "pro compression and EQ" that you could never get. they may get it wrong and you'll be bummed you didn't do it yourself at the mix. And trust me on this one, mastering engineers don't always get it right, so the more it sounds finished, the better chance you have of recognizing your mix when you get the CD ref back.

michael

[Eide]

Originally Posted by MHB850

Someone brought up the question of leaving the overall eq of a mix to mastering. My answer, as you guess, is NO. Make it feel great now. I don't leave anything to mastering. I expect the mastering engineer to master it flat and only deal with matching levels of the songs, which is generally the case. Why? because the point of mixing a song until it feels great is that very fact, Make it feel great now! If you need to put compression and EQ over the stereo buss to get the desired effect that makes everyone in the room jump up and down..do it. there are no rules here that say hold back, your mix is suppose to sound almost great, almost right, only perfect when you crank up the treble and bass in the car, only when mastering gets hold of it. that's crazy. you should be able to leave the mix room and play the mix in your car or home stereo and it should sound awesome. Don't leave it to a mastering house to be expected to have the "pro compression and EQ" that you could never get. they may get it wrong and you'll be bummed you didn't do it yourself at the mix. And trust me on this one, mastering engineers don't always get it right, so the more it sounds finished, the better chance you have of recognizing your mix when you get the CD ref back.
michael

LOVE this statement!

MB you are truth my friend.


...

[dreamsongs]

Originally Posted by MHB850

I've mixed alot of records this year and none sounded like this one because they didn't lend themselves to this sound. This sound is a good representation of the songs being written. the drums and bass were recorded in a way that lends itself to fat sound without it sounding dull. But in general, brighter is more popular. I usually balance it out with a big ass bottom to most of my records so that everyone,including me, is happy. I'm not a big fan of mixes that don't have pants on. But crunchy and exciting top is what today's ear gravitates toward and it can't be ignored. Music is written and recorded to bring out those very elements. Am I happy to mix a natural sounding record like Mayers? Hell yah. do I wish there were more opportunities, maybe there will be if this catches on and becomes the "in sound".

Steve's drums sound different on every song because each song is different and the feel requires a different drum sound, as well as guitar,bass and vocal sound.

I have to accept the fact that after I mix a record and then have it mastered, the band will load it into their ipod at 128 or 156 and makes their comments based on how it sounds compared to other cd's they loaded in there at the same bit rate. You can bitch all you want but it doesn't change the fact that many of todays bands only listen to ipod processed music. Kids know what they want to hear.. they listen to music as much as we do as engineers. Uncompressed and flat sounding mixes when converted to 128 or higher don't make the transition very well to Ipod. They don't hold up to the competition and you shouldn't be surprised if the band comes back to you an hour after you mixed it and complain that your mix isn't exciting to them. you're welcome to try and educate them if you want. I'm not advising you turn your mix into something crappy, i'm saying you don't need to leave something until later that you can do now.

Someone brought up the question of leaving the overall eq of a mix to mastering. My answer, as you guess, is NO. Make it feel great now. I don't leave anything to mastering. I expect the mastering engineer to master it flat and only deal with matching levels of the songs, which is generally the case. Why? because the point of mixing a song until it feels great is that very fact, Make it feel great now! If you need to put compression and EQ over the stereo buss to get the desired effect that makes everyone in the room jump up and down..do it. there are no rules here that say hold back, your mix is suppose to sound almost great, almost right, only perfect when you crank up the treble and bass in the car, only when mastering gets hold of it. that's crazy. you should be able to leave the mix room and play the mix in your car or home stereo and it should sound awesome. Don't leave it to a mastering house to be expected to have the "pro compression and EQ" that you could never get. they may get it wrong and you'll be bummed you didn't do it yourself at the mix. And trust me on this one, mastering engineers don't always get it right, so the more it sounds finished, the better chance you have of recognizing your mix when you get the CD ref back.

michael

Thank you for your response and for sharing your thoughts with us...

I know what you mean about the mastering. I've had masters come back that sounded very different from what I envisioned. Like you said, leave as little to the ME as possible. I couldn't agree more but I just had to hear it again to be sure...

I always find overly bright mixes very ear fatiguing. His latest is so much more pleasing so I hope JM's CD becomes the "in sound" and kicks ass at the Grammys. ...

[RainbowStorm]

In response to MHB850, Eide and dreamsong's latest comments I want to highlight some issues involved in making your statements important.

I think that the recording process is very much based around decision making. Why, because:

A) It is a process
B) It involves knowledge
C) It is goal-oriented

Based on this fact, decision making should make the final mix sound awesome through high efficiency by all means. This makes it important to think about how efficiency works in the context of recording and where great inefficiency can happen. I think that efficiency in a recording context is generally the highest at the beginning of the recording process. This means that as the number of steps in the recording process increases the efficiency decreases. Let me give you a few examples:

1 It's better to change the musician than the sound source
2 It's better to change the sound source than the mic
3 It's better to change the mic than the pre-amp

And so on. Inefficiency happens when you target a problem late time in the process that should be dealt with much sooner. The ultimate inefficiency is to correct the recording room with mix EQing/reverb in bad monitoring acoustics (possible when the mastering engineer is working in an inefficient monitoring environment given too much power/control on the mix). With that in mind, in my opinion you are correct by pointing on the fact that a mastering engineer should not be the guy to solve "what's left", instead, there should not be "anything left" when the mix is given to the mastering engineer, a guy that deals with very late time steps in the recording process. The mastering engineer should just be another set of ears within an average consumer's listening environment, confirming that the mix is ready for finalization. When not, in the context of having a stereo track to work with during mastering, it should be given back to the mixing engineer to avoid inefficiency.

The conclusion, fix things as early in the process as possible!

[marcan]

I noticed that I prefer bright album at the first sight but on a longer period of time I prefer darker album.
Actually, most of my favourite's albums are in the dark camp. It might be my age but not entirely.

I think for a short shelf life song, bright is good because you get it very easily but also you will get tired of it soon… For a long shelf life song, darker is better because it's more interesting on the long term. It's less fatiguing and it takes longer to discover all the element of the mix.
So part of my decision of the colour of the mix comes from the targeted shelf life of the song (single, album, artist, …).

I personally think that the bright period is declining. One of the hero of this bright period is probably Mark Spike Stent, even if he makes also warm album (some Massive Attack album aren't bright).

[tuflek]

Check out the Faith No More album King For A Day,Fool For A Life Time,only thing bright in the mixes is hi-hat,and its enough for mix to sound bright. Andy Wallace mixed it