I like to start with the drums and get the overall balance and spatial imaging going on..making sure the kick is definately there but not overbearing and then I add the Bass and try and have the kick and bass flow together...
Once that is accomplished I then go for guitars or synths depending on what the track is.Keeping the imaging in mind to me is definately crucial..making everything breathe and have it's own life so to speak. I like to leave room in the center for the vocals to pop out at you..ya know..sort of punch you in the face!!
What effects or dynamics I use during the process is never the same...it should never be..every song has it's own personality and should be thought of it's own identity. Using compression for drums and bass and vocals but using it sparingly on the ryhthm section thus not too make it pump too much as most people will add compression on the final mix as well to make it "radio friendly"!!! using reverb to make a certain instruments stand out in a roomy feel or a tonal quality.
Some people even like to mix starting with vocals and build the music around them...to me that's hard and you tend to add too much reverb in the beginning to the vox and end up killing the true sound of the vox..well...my $.02 worth
Opus

< Several years ago, A friend of mine who I had previously mixed a record for decided for his next record to buy
some gear and do it at home. A familiar scenario huh? Anyway, he called to ask what kind or gear to get, ect. A
few months went by and then he called one day and said I'm done recording and I think it's pretty good, let me
ask you a question, how do you mix? I tried not to laugh cause he was asking seriously. I know what thought
processes I use when confronted with this fun but sometimes scary situation, but I'd like to know how you guys
go about it. I'll chime in after a few posts and give ya'll my take on it. >

It depends on the project, and budget. If I'm producing, and I have an adequate budget, I'll mix at the facility I want, or barring that, will do it in-house. Regardless, 90% of the time, all faders go up, and I get comfy with the elements of the piece, and then work on details. IMHO, focusing on fine details before the picture is present is a waste of my time - once all the elements are present, I carve at the rough sculpture: place instruments with panning (at least roughly), look for problem areas - acoustic instrument/bass muddiness (150-300 Hz), centre the bass (critical!), kick/snare, carve space for vocal, etc. - it all changes from song to song, but the concept remains similar. However, the clincher is monitoring at frequent intervals on the old Studer 1/4" with L-R & sum (for mono) thru the output spkr - that tells me where any problems are - esp. bass and vox.

Thats my .02 Canadian Cents

How 'bout yours, eh?

Jay
PlugHead Productions

Some cool concepts here, keep 'em comin'.

i'm a rhythm section 1st, vox last but not least kinda mixer usually...and i now always A/B my stuff with mixes i'd like to achieve the quality of. why not learn from the best? and, strangely enough, those mixes are rarely 'current' stuff... :D

I was asked recently by a mastering engineer how I went about mixing the tracks he was mastering for me. Apparently he had to "do less" to my mixes than he normally does when mastering other projects. When I told him my approach he looked at me like I was crazy!!! :) In any case, here it is...

I pull everything up and do a rough mix of the tune with no compression/eq/fx. Just balance the levels of the recorded tracks and decide how to pan what I'm going to pan. I listen for overall issues (eg. needs top, too much bottom, etc.) Then I push in that little button labelled "MONO" and it stays in until I'm almost finished the mix! Then I get the lead vocal happening compression and EQ-wise (reverbs and delays later). Drums next. I generally solo each part of the kit and "fix" whatever's wrong with it with compression and EQ (if necessary) and then bring it in under the vocal until it "rubs" against the vocal "just right" sometimes slightly adjusting my compression and EQ settings. Then bass and rhythm guitar and rhythm keyboard parts. Same approach as with the drums - solo, fix anything sticking out, and then blend under the vocal STILL IN MONO! Then BGVocals. For BGVocals I generally put all the faders at 0, assign the tracks to a subgroup and then compress/EQ the subgroup to taste. For whatever reason, I never have to "mix" backgrounds - just adjust the level of the subgroup so it sits in the context. Next is "ear candy". At this stage I flip in and out of mono to make sure my "ear candy" levels are right. Finally, I add fx to whatever I need to so that the "front/back" relationships sound right. A little tweak of whatever I have on the 2-mix (usually EQ for a little top end, 1-2 dB of VERY low ratio compression, and a couple of dB's of limiting) and I'm done!

I used to mix in stereo for the most part and occasionally check in mono, but found that different parts of my mixes would jump out on different sets of speakers. Since I've been mixing in mono, I've found that my mixes sound more or less the same everywhere I listen. And I rarely have to adjust levels that I've set in mono once I open it up in stereo.

One final thing. Lately the spectrum analyzer has become my friend. For a while I was having trouble in mastering getting a lot of level out of my mixes and I couldn't figure out why. I was using a fair amount of compression, the mixes were balanced, not too much bass, etc. So I decided to check out my mixes with a spectrum analyzer. Overall they looked fine, but I noticed that in certain parts, certain instruments were causing buildups of certain frequencies. None of these buildups would last for more than a brief instant, but they were impeding my ability to get maximum level. It wasn't apparent where they were by looking at the waveform, and they generally occurred at frequencies that my ear likes (600 Hz, 800 Hz, 1 kHz, etc.), so I wasn't dealing with them while mixing. Now when I solo the tracks I take a quick look at the spectrum analyzer to see if anything's sticking out that my ear doesn't catch.

Hope someone finds this interesting!! :)

Brent

Originally posted by bgroup:

Brent

I do!!! I'm going to try the mono thing and remix some of my stuff and see what happens...god I love this fucking forum!!!
:D
Opus

You know, I did this once on accident. I beta tested a Sony Oxford that got stuck on mono mode even after I tried going back to stereo. I firgured it out as soon as I got off the auratones. Interesting way to work. I can see how it would work for a lot of engineers.

Attached files

How do you mix? That's the question? What are you some kind of a cruel sick-fuck-moderator? What kind of a question is that? How do I mix! Where's the in 3 words or less????

Fine. Here's how I mix. But be forewarned, I'm going to give this from the perspective of a mixer for hire.

First, I try to get a bead on the production and the song, and then I try to see if the recording matches those.

Things I look for. Does the bass sound go with the drum sound?(common mistake) Is there good space captured in the recording or do I need to help the recording by adding space? Is it well arranged, or do I need to get rid of a bunch of shit? Do the B-sec's have what they need naturally for good transitions to the chorus. Do the chorus' lift? Does the song have the elements it needs to supply lift, or am I going to need to compensate? Do the verse's break down enough for the other sections to have somewhere to go? Are there instruments stepping on the vocal? What instruments will take up the focus when the singer is tacet?

Once I've determined all of that, I look for the arrangement. If it's there on tape naturally, then great. If it's not, I try to figure out a good basic sketch of an arrangement.

Then I start to program the arrangement. This can be involved. It's the most crucial part of the mix. Once an effective arrangement is established, it's all downhill.

My main objective with the arrangement, is to carry the listener through the song, but in particular to the chorus'. There are certain things that a songwriter does to achieve this (that's a long post), it is further emphasized by the Production and a good mix.

The chorus' must supply lift. The song should supply that lift, but the production and the mix must supply the lift as well. It will make or break your mix. If you don't have the instruments or the arrangement tools to supply the lift, then you'd better add it, or ask the client to add it.

While I'm figuring out the arrangement, I'm trying to determine my space issues. Stereo field placement, the frequency range the instruments take up, the space that the instruments are in, the balances of the instruments, the contrast between the sparse and the dense parts of the arrangement.

Then I just twiddle the knobs until it sounds good.

That's really all there is to it.

Mixerman

Got Alsihad?
[url=(dead link removed)[/url]

Wow MONO, cool. I think I'll try it this week.

As for my Modus Apparandi (sp?). I rarely mix things I didn't track. So, I tend to have an idea of what I'm going to do on the mix. I usually put all the tracks up and listen. Then I let the song tell me where to start. Generally I want to make sure I have a good, solid foundation. That doesn't always mean drums first, but they are definitely a big part. I often sub the drums and compress them. I like to sub the guitars as well. I often bring the subs up or down to focus on something else (like vox) but not all the way out. Vox comes after foundation, lead then BV. Ear candy then gets the focus. Panning is dealt with during the focus of each 'group.' Effects are added at various times. Sometimes early, sometimes late.

Another thing I like to do is "bounce around." If something is not coming along, or making sense I move on. I'll come back to the other part later. Sometimes what I move on to fixes what was a previous problem.

I also like to monitor at various volumes and various speakers.

My last step is to print the mix and listen back and a high volume while I listen while walking around the building. That's what I call the party test. If the song was on at a party, would it A) translate and B) draw me in.

I think this will be a very cool thread. Thanks McSnare. :p

I fucking HATE mixing, I find it a grind. I find after a lot of work it 'suddenly emerges' my criteria - a radio friendly sound.

I'm lovin these responses. You guys really have some very cool approaches to mixing. I was gonna write a long detailed post on this, but Mixerman beat me to it. Yeah, what he said. LOL.
My own system is pretty similar to what you guys are doing. One thing I do is play with many different panning schemes early on. I also might try several different 2 mix compressors and make a call on that before I get real tweaky. I also force myself to stop and fix little things that are bugging me about the performance at a fairly early stage in the process, so I can leave a clean runway for my "takeoff". I know that probably sounds stupid, but I really like to get a little feverish when I smell the mix coming together, and having to stop and tune that one vocal phrase I've known about for the past 3 hours(or 3 weeks) really harshes my vibe. I'll post part 2 after I wipe the drool off my face and take some asperin.

If I'm mixing something I've tracked I'll usually start with the drums and bass. After I get those together I'll add guitars, keys and whatever else is on tape. While I'm adding one thing I'll always pop other things up for a minute or two just to make sure I'm leaving enough space for the vocals or horns. If it's something I haven't tracked I'll bring all the faders up and listen to the song a few times before I start muting things and building a mix.

I usually start the mix with the mono button in and pop over to stereo once things start coming together. I'll add effects either as I go or towards the end depending on my mood. I used to put the compressor on the 2-bus after I got my mix together but recently I've started putting it in right after I get the drums and bass together and that seems to be working better. Of course I give up the option of seeing if the mix would benefit from not having the mix bus compressed. Seeing as how 98% of the time it always did I haven't regretted that option.

I set my vocal and any solo/melody levels by using small speakers in mono at a very low level. I'll also check the mix by walking into another room and listening from there. After I print one mix I'll usually go back and print another version or three. The things I'll change depend on my mood and what I think might come back to bite me. For example, if I think the kick is too loud and the overheads are buried I'll do an alternate with the kick down and the OH's up.

Originally posted by Jay Kahrs:

Of course I give up the option of seeing if the mix would benefit from not having the mix bus compressed. Seeing as how 98% of the time it always did I haven't regretted that option.

It's not like you have much of a choice anymore. I have to compress way more than I would actually prefer because that's what the clients want to hear. They don't know that's what they want to hear, but they're used to that sound now.

Mixerman

1st thing I do is turn on all my gear and wait an hour*. Then I open the session and start routing tracks in the DAW to the physical outputs that lead to my console. Then I take painter's tape and a Sharpie and mark channels/tracks so I know what's what. Start bringing up the faders and see what you got...you don't have to start with drums and bass but most people seem to go about it that way. Before worrying about panning, eq and fx, just get basic levels. Don't assume anything! If the recording was done well(something I'm never guilty of) you may not need any eq - If the recording was done by me, you will need all the eq you can get your hands on! Mono is really important...the worst thing is to have your epically wide stereo mix masterpiece turn to crap as soon as it's summed to mono so check often(or always). One thing I've noticed as I've become more aware of such things, is that music mixed say pre-90's tends to sound really good in mono...and I don't have an answer as to why that is, but I'd guess it's because AM radio was more important back then.

Now comes the harder choices such as panning which is a big conundrum: do you use LCR or just pan willy-nilly(and if so, how does your stereo image hold up under real world conditions?)? Personally, I mostly use three pan positions but reserve the right to :15 and : 45 if needed. EQ is another hornet's nest as there are many, many differing opinions floating around the internutz. Just turn the knobs until it sounds good is the advice I like best! But keep in mind the overall tonal picture, and use as many references as you can! Your room may , or may not, be your friend and it might be lying to you just as easily as it might be telling the truth about the things you hear within it's walls. Don't go crazy boosting bass or highs(or cutting mids) as that probably won't translate very well. Remember too that those Rockit monitors with hyped low end might not be very reliable as a reference(assuming your goal is near universal translation). This is probably why you see NS10's on so many meterbridges - they sound like shit but they don't lie.

This is all just the nuts and bolts stuff. As Mixerman stated previously the most important aspect of a mix is the material being mixed. That old sayin' about making a sows purse out of a cows ear still rings true. If the source material sucks, it's gonna be near impossible to make a great mix out of it, and arrangement truly is key.

*in pro studios the gear may be left on all the time.

Fun to see this topic get more attention.

Right on! I pretty much follow your thoughts and method except I mixdown to a second DAW. I stopped summing back to the tracking DAW a few years ago. No need for external clocking or unnecessary SRC. I mix into the master.

For me, my main problem with DAW mixing has always been imaging/panning. No DAW that I've worked on, Samplitude included, seems to work like the pan pots on a real console. I'm not quite sure why, perhaps that it's because the pans on a real console are really attenuators... volume controls that turn one side down while turning the other side up.

Regardless of the why and the how, I have a tendency to over-pan in digital, and I find that if I use pan settings that I used to commonly use on a console, that those same settings on a DAW always seem to result as sounding "wider" than that of a real console.

It could also be the pan law that the DAW defaults to. I've always selected the -3db taper method, because most real consoles I ever worked with were designed that way - with the exception of SSL, which for whatever reason, a -4.5 @ center detente is implemented and CAD - which I was told ( so I can't absolutely confirm) was designed to be like older consoles - like Wheatstones and such, so a -6db center was used.

Which pan laws are you guys using?

Donny it sounds wider because that's what PCM is doing to your sound. I've heard it before. It doesn't even matter if it's 24-bit, 192 kHz. So, yeah.

I also use -3 db, in software panning. But I'm not flying things back and fourth. Just positional placement. So it is kind of moot.

I'm a deaf moot
Mx. Remy Ann David

I don't mix into my tracking DAW anymore either. Instead, I'm now using an old Tascam DAT as a two-track mixdown deck, then spdif out to a second pc which captures that digital stream @ 48khz. This avoids going back into digital via my crappy converters(assuming the Tascam converters are halfway decent, and based on what my ears tell me - it's at least a step up).

ps I'm also a deaf moot so who knows, I'm probably just imagining all of this...

Lord_Algae, post: 418282, member: 47812 wrote: I don't mix into my tracking DAW anymore either. Instead, I'm now using an old Tascam DAT as a two-track mixdown deck, then spdif out to a second pc which captures that digital stream @ 48khz. This avoids going back into digital via my crappy converters(assuming the Tascam converters are halfway decent, and based on what my ears tell me - it's at least a step up).

ps I'm also a deaf moot so who knows, I'm probably just imagining all of this...

You don't say which Tascam DAT model you are using, but most of them (such as the DA-20) have only 16-bit converters. You would be better going for a small but good 2-channel computer interface like the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 that has a modern specification and 24-bit conversion.

Boswell, post: 418285, member: 29034 wrote: You don't say which Tascam DAT model you are using, but most of them (such as the DA-20) have only 16-bit converters. You would be better going for a small but good 2-channel computer interface like the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 that has a modern specification and 24-bit conversion.

Bos,

if the end target is 16/ 44.1 what difference would 24 bit converters make?wouldn't that defeat the objective? isn't the whole idea is to avoid SRC in the first place. seems to me mixing into a converter that is of the target rate is the whole idea with the benefit of a separate clock?

Everyone on RO should own a Lavry AD11 Black. If I had a Billion$ I'd buy ya all one ;)
But, good question.
I mixdown via Prism 44.1 24. Dither on my DAW and upload that. I had this discussion with Bos a while ago, where I have also done 44.1 16 / no dither. At the end of the day, I don't hear a difference. But, I can't hear past 16k so who knows. Its all so beautiful sounding either way.

I like the way it sounds as compared to my other converters(which are 24/96khz capable). I find it to be less brittle, less harsh sounding. And maybe it's all in my head but there's something about actual tape rolling* that focuses you on the task at hand.

*as opposed to the near infinite storage in a computer.

Perhaps degrading the audio is what makes it feel more organic again. I tend to think these days that the crystal clear world of digital is too tame. Sitting here right now with a sore ear degrades all the sounds I hear, but wearing headphones are too blame, not converters.

14 years has passed since this thread was first posted. A lot has improved since then. Sound and room emulation has come a long way. The Bricasti wasn't invented and the ability to use spectra audio tools to remove the unwanted wasn't even a consideration.

Aside from majors which is talent, production and the song, I've come full circle about analog hardware and hybrid mixing. Once ITB, stay ITB.
The concept that hybrid mixing, adding extra analog gear through additional consoles or summing boxes after its been tracked is no longer part of my workflow. In fact, I'm certain ITB is far superior to hybrid mixing but I still believe mixing into a master and capturing the sum on a second device is much faster to the finish line.

Degrading audio is another term for masking flaws imho. Analog character sounds great during the capturing but degrades a mix through hybrid process in a negative way. Once I discovered how to emulate my analog matrix, software is not only affordable but sonically less distractive and fatter.
If its not what you wanted, we should go back to the tracking and fix it or replace it with sampling and sound replacement technology.

Some major areas that come to my mind in every mix, if the bass sucks, the mix always sounds cheep or wrong.
If the drums and vocals don't match the spacial effects throughout, your mix pretty much aways sound out of place, not "glued" or performed unnaturally.
If the drums and percussion sounds are out of place, the mix always sounds goofy. If the vocals and drums share a common reverb of some kind, both those two groups seem to help the rest of the mix flow better.
Sound replacement , reverb removal and a Bricasti or similar way to improving most studio walls goes a long way.

If I get those area's right, the rest is pretty straight forward to me.

audiokid Boswell Kurt Foster pcrecord kmetal @Makzimia Smashh Davedog dvdhawk pan60 paulears Paul999

For as long as I've been doing this, I still continue to learn new things...and I like that I can.

The progression of technology kinda dictates that; it seems as if there's always new rocks to turn over, with cool things to discover, and I like that, too.

I think that one of the things that we all share, as recordists, mixers and musicians, is that it's difficult for us to be 100% completely satisfied.

No matter how well I perform, record or mix, it seems like I'm always thinking "maybe I could have done that better..."

It's the nature of the beast for us to obsess over the little things, because that's what we've trained our ears to do over the years.
We've conditioned ourselves to hear things that the average listener either can't hear, or if they can, they don't care about; whereas we can listen to a hi hat track and think "that sounds too metallic to me", or focus in on a bass and think "man, there's too much mud on that..."

The good news is that we have some fantastic tools at our disposal these days - far more than what was available to me when many of us were first starting out - to fix those things.
This can be double edged-sword though, I think, because with all those tools available, it can now take us much longer to put mixes to bed - longer than it used to take when our platforms and tools were limited.

Kurt has mentioned this several times in the past - and there are times when I really do understand what he is saying - that with the limitless tracks, processing tools, sounds/sample replacement, etc., we tend to be less decisive, and we can get bogged down by all the choices that we now have, and I often wonder if sometimes we aren't getting too distracted by the minutia in the mixes.

Don't get me wrong, I love technology, but I do miss one thing in particular about the old days, and that is that you were forced to make decisions based on the limitations that you had, and I think that this often resulted in better performances (because there was no correction, you had to get it right while recording) along with more cohesive arrangements (because we didn't have 50 VSTi's and 256 tracks to work with).

As long as we can continue to focus on talent, new technology is a great partner to have... just as long as we aren't depending on it to replace talent - or worse, to create it, particularly if there's no talent there to begin with.

IMHO of course. ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 426350, member: 46114 wrote: I think that one of the things that we all share, as recordists, mixers and musicians, is that it's difficult for us to be 100% completely satisfied.

A mix is rarely done, its usually abandoned because we simply cannot keep working on it.

DonnyThompson, post: 426350, member: 46114 wrote: The progression of technology kinda dictates that; it seems as if there's always new rocks to turn over, with cool things to discover, and I like that, too.

I always say, this is how I hear it today. And yet again I am turning another chapter in my process because I am discovering how to emulate things I did not know yesterday.

DonnyThompson, post: 426350, member: 46114 wrote: I often wonder if sometimes we aren't getting too distracted by the minutia in the mixes

I get mixes all the time with doubles, triples of vox. guitars, drums, harmonies. Most of the time they are a complete sonic mess. Last year I did a mix for someone that had 24 tracks of dups to create that stereo sound. I removed everyone of them and kept the best. The mix went from thin to huge and ended up being around 16 tracks.

Being said, I will often break up sections of a track and put them it into 6 or more tracks that end up having a few bars in the each. There is a big reason for that which has to do with removing a bad room, headphone bleed etc. I may also use those to trigger something but this is only because I am fixing other peoples problems.
If I am using a DAW with midi, its not uncommon to have 24 channels for audio and 24 for midi and 24 bus outs. The midi channels are broken up because I want total control on the dynamics of vsti and there reverb settings. Its part of the emulations process.

But, the best acoustic music to my ears is always simple and performed well. Depending on the style of music, its all subjective to whether we are a recordist working on our tracks or fixing someone that you have to clinically do that as a job. Which requires more ways to get to the finish line, more ways to keep track of the process of elimination .

I try to be conscious of the risk of paralysis by analysis. Am I making the song better by putting it under the microscope? Or, is trying to making it more 'perfect' actually robbing it of something else for genuinely musical? Half the battle is knowing where the line is between done, and overdone.

I'm with Kurt on the track count thing, and as a rule I am dead set against using more than 25-30 tracks for a typical band thing. 8-12 of which are probably going to be drums. If I were doing something that relied heavily on a bunch of MIDI parts I could see that going up some. Get the sound you want going to the recorder and you're so much farther ahead.

My roughs are usually 90% there. I then spend 99% of the rest of the time detsroying, and exploring, beating it to death, and then get to where it's actually better than the rough, and not overmixed. Usually a lot of un mixing happens in these types.

That said if I know it's on a budget or timeframe, then usually I miss the first time, and go back for another hour or two the fix the glaring things to me, limit it quickly, and done. I've used first mixes before, but I've never brought it home and said its done, on the first shot.

The thing I've found helps is taking a week off or a prolonged break from living w the cd, if it's a drawn out mix.

+3 on track counts. I've never done a mix that had more than 50 audio tracks, not counting midi, or buses. Usually 30-40 is what ends up.

Arrangement is so huge, and truly a facinating part of the art Imo.

I'll be honest, my most pro sounding mixes were done pretty fast, and tracked live, by some ace cover bands. Although artistically it's not super rewarding, I enjoy it, because it's the way o get to try out the ' good musicians and good songs make good recordings' adage. It's been true for me. It's not that I haven't made good recordings that I'm proud of other ways, but the easiest for me have been when the band plays live, reasonably well. From basements to studios this seems to be my prefered way to track, in general. Although, I'm not shy about indulging ideas with the nearly limitless track counts, which technology is great for. I wonder how many truly good ideas didn't materialize because of the limits on technology. It's like eventually if you throw enough different paints at the wall it'll turn a murky, nondescript color, so I try to be judicious.

How do you guys deal with editing? I feel like I get way too over obsessed. It's almost like if I don't fix just the real couple clams, I end up editing the rythym sections note by note just about. Help please

Edit-
Also, something I do that a lot probably don't, is I'll have tony (boss/mentor) mix the first song, one of the better, or best ones, and then do the others, and maybe some tweaks to his mix. This gives me a direction to shoot for with the others (if it's supposed to be similar) and also it's interesting to hear how someone tweaks what you've put on tape. To hear your stuff thru someone else's ears, give me back a little of that 'listener' perspective I may have lost, plus there's always new stuff when you watch some else. Even little tiny time savers help. This isn't a requirement or anything, and I certainly mix alone, but I like it. When someone else mixes or masters, it kinda relieves the the feeling that it's never done, IMHO

kmetal, post: 426397, member: 37533 wrote: How do you guys deal with editing?

Poorly... LOL

What I mean is that I have to be very careful with editing. It can be like a kind of floodgate opening for me. I start by doing a little clean up, some de-essing, and if I'm not careful, before I know it, I'm nit picking at every nit there is to pick at.

Just because we have the technical ability to pick out and fix every last little thing, doesn't mean that we should. ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 426398, member: 46114 wrote: Just because we have the technical ability to pick out and fix every last little thing, doesn't mean that we should.

That's exactly right DonnyThompson. A couple years ago I was working on a project, and the young lady doing the lead vocal had just delivered the "Wow!" take. After several VERY good takes, this was no doubt the One to use top to bottom. It was flawless in every way, but there were just a couple noticeably big gasps for air that jumped out at me in the playback. So when it's time to edit, I start cleaning up the big breaths with her vocal track solo'ed and next thing you know I've scrubbed out every breath throughout the entire song. I pushed Play and listened to it in context, and sure enough every breath was gone - but it sounded so unnatural. I'd way overdone it, and it lost some of it's organic charms. I got tunnel-vision once I started trimming things, and in 3 minutes I'd stolen part of the song's essence. Undo, undo, undo, undo ……… I ended up just lowering the volume of the two somewhat distracting gasps, instead of cutting them out completely, and left the rest in their natural state. Aaah, MUCH better.

Editing should never detract.

Another thing that occurred to me after reading another current thread here, was this. If you're working with an artist (or on your own project), and the goal is to demo it for the purposes of shopping it around, you're not doing anyone any favors by editing the daylights out of it to try to create some perfect performance.

At some point, they (you) are going to have to sing in front of the people who can advance their career, and they are NOT going to be impressed by how good you are at editing.

Some touch-ups here and there are fine. But if you turn up and can't hold a candle to your own recording, you will not only be dismissed - you will be dismissed with 'extreme prejudice'.

If you're just shopping the song to a publisher, not the performance / artist aspect of it, clean it up to make the song presentable. If someone else is going to perform/record the song, they want some room to put their mark on it.

That'll be 2¢ please.

Good call. i know a guy who did that on a fairly big budget label demo. The record company loved the 'demo', say the band at the showcase, fin. not much of what the band played even made it on that 'demo', it was mostly retracted and replayed by the studio guys after they went home.

I think there are two types of "recording, mixing and mastering" product "Real and Virtual". Ironically, real crosses the line into virtual more than the other like a sore thumb. Neither is a bad thing when done well, the problem is, both can be done good or bad but its only when we notice something isn't right, do we form the opinion. Like everything, when something is done well, no one thinks about the process, they either like it or they don't.

We all notice drastic change so the key is not to make drastic change that stands out , thus, making everything else in a mix look/ sound like its old or out of place. You don't paint a ceiling white and not do the walls too. Music is no different. If you are going to edit or replace something, your have to be doing it to improve the room (performance), not just the object so it sounds like it was dropped in like a alien from outer space. Its got to fit in the picture. The problem there is, not all of us are artists in this business. Mixing is an Art.

audiokid, post: 426833, member: 1 wrote: You don't paint a ceiling white and not do the walls too.

Contrast. It's all a matter of how things sound together. Would it be a mistake to use a ribbon mic for the vocal track of a high energy, contemporary sounding musical piece, made up of 100% VSTi's?

I don't know. It depends on the amount of contrast that you are after. Perhaps that much contrast would result in a very interesting sounding production because the contrast is so drastic.

I suppose that there were questions about these drastic contrasts the first time that rock bands started thinking about using orchestral instruments along side electric guitars and drums. Songs like Zep's Kashmir, or The Beatle's Sgt. Pepper... and on into the 70's with bands like ELO. Those vast instrumental contrasts made for some pretty cool and interesting music.

Thanks for the likes, guys :)
To add... I think contrast is good but I suppose one has to know whether dog food belongs in with organic produce section lol. I'm all for shocking or having something stand out but I do think Humans share similarities that somehow fit the "right or wrong section".
Part of the Art of persuasion is understanding human behavior and building blocks that support structure that stimulates, not alienates interest.

When I am painting a house, I could purposely choose a white that makes everything else look dirty but because I understand color and how color groups flow well together, I refrain from shocking at such great extremes and rather put the energy into creating a full and dynamic appearance that the entire paint job looks great for the home and decor inside it. Mixing and making music is no different to me. My detail is focused on highlighting one thing to make everything look better as we walk around the building. My brush work, smooth walls and find lines adds a rich sense that it was built well by someone experienced and meaningful. My work actually makes the builder of the home look good. The paint is actually making everyone else's work look good.

Music is no different. Is it a story about aliens landing into a driveway or love and kinship from a childhood memory.

kmetal, post: 426397, member: 37533 wrote: How do you guys deal with editing? I feel like I get way too over obsessed. It's almost like if I don't fix just the real couple clams, I end up editing the rythym sections note by note just about. Help please

I CAN edit. I'm just not very fast and it gets frustrating to remember or have to look up commands to get what I want. Some things I'm better at than others. I KNOW what I want edited....I KNOW when things start to coalesce....I KNOW when the song is starting to burn bright.....

So I hire it. It's cool to sit with PT Pro's and Produce. The guys I use, I trust their ears as they trust mine and its really a joy.

I work from Left to Right. I start by cleaning up sounds then adding subtle character. I build the mix depending on the arrangement and the focus of the song. I use a process of Gain Staging that is pretty systematic to start. After a general balance and gain staging of my master bus then it's time to fine tune and make the magic happen :)

Nowadays, I would take a day off after all the recording is finished. And I mean the entire song or album if it's an album.

The very next day, with fresh ears, I listen to the raw material.

I know many will find this strange but I allow the raw material to try and give itself an 'identity' of some sort without tampering with the sonic foundations of each track. I know it's a bit weird but it gives me direction when I mix. It also helps me avoid the unnecessary stress of having to have a criteria for the mix I'm about to create.

Once I'm good with that, I try to remember the direction it needs to take. Which tracks need a bit of emphasis, which ones need balancing, which needs more punch or depth.

Visualizing, or rather audio-visualizing, and giving raw material listening time actually helped me reduce the number of plug-ins I use in my mixes lately. It just increases when the client needs a specific mix for his or her or their music.

John Santos, post: 436811, member: 49762 wrote: Visualizing, or rather audio-visualizing, and giving raw material listening time actually helped me reduce the number of plug-ins I use in my mixes lately

Really ???....I'd like you to explain this...

- It sounds like pure puffery disguised as some sort of tech-speak.

I've seen this before by new members to forums who post similar types of statements to try to impress people and garner some sort of attention.

How can "Visualising" "help me reduce the number of plug-ins I use in my mixes lately".......what, are you visualising how many plug-ins you DO NOT have on the track???

How does "Visualising" have anything to do with a task that is an auditory process???...are you listening with your eyes, or are you seeing with your ears now???

- I'm sorry, but I'm calling BS on this one.

ummm. it's audio. not video. use your ears. those things on the side of your head.

throw the monitor screen in the dumpster along with the RNP.