Next we will be mixing by braille :ROFLMAO:

I think what he is trying to say is he listens more and reacts less with digital technology imaging (eye candy)? At least I'm hoping that is what he is saying?

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. It just increases when the client needs a specific mix for his or her or their music.

Sean G, post: 436828, member: 49362 wrote: 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???

audiokid, post: 436831, member: 1 wrote: I think what he is trying to say is he listens more and reacts less with digital technology imaging (eye candy)? At least I'm hoping that is what he is saying?

Personally, I didn't get that from his statement. When we mix, we are painting a sonic "picture" of sorts. Audio can be a sort of imagery, too. When we hear a song, we can often visualize certain things - such as instrument placement and direction, or the charisma of a performer... not to mention the visual memories a piece of music can bring to our minds...

Not to wax too philosophically here, but I "see" things in my head when I'm arranging, recording, mixing, too ... for me, it's one way for me of determining what works - or what doesn't - in a particular mix.

We also rely on metering all the time, which is also visual. If we hear something odd level-wise that we don't like, one of the first things we do is to check the gain structure, to see what the audio is doing in regard to the levels of each gain stage.

We edit with our ears first, but we also have to see what we are editing, too... right?

Anyway, that's what I think. IMHO of course. :)

Just as an FYI... the "AIR" in my old screen name ( not pronounced "air" as most people do online, it just wouldn't let me abbreviate with periods between the letters online) actually stood for Audio Images Recording... which was the name of my studio and production company for over 20 years. It just became too much of a mouthful to say when answering the phone at 9 am, before I'd had my obligatory 6 cups of very strong, percolated coffee. LOL...

So eventually, instead of answering those morning calls with, "Audio Images Recording, can I help you?", I just started answering with, "A. I. R., Can I help you? ", and after about a year of that, the abbreviation just kinda stuck.
After a year or two, even my clients who had recorded at my studio when we were still using the previous original name, eventually began referring to my studio simply as "A.I.R."

;)

Sean G, I don't get how you can't understand what I'm trying to say. I'll just break it down to "simple and easy to understand for you" (not intended to offend you here).

What is Visualization for me:

*audiokid said it right less eye candy and more of own vision and feeling. Although looking at the faders and such helps to make sense of it all like Donny is saying right there.

*Indeed painting a visual picture: You must understand that listening to music is a psychological process. I won't go deep into the psychological part cuz I'm no expert on the human mind. An example: When listening to a piece and you hear the drummer playing from the right side what does tell you? It gives you a different perspective or visualization of how the band was setup. Normally you would hear the kick drum from around the center.

*Another fact is that human memory works in magnificent ways: Visualizing an object or picture and linking it to a sound makes you remember the perspective that you associate it with faster. Hearing, Seeing, Saying, Writing, Tasting, Feeling... are all things that help remind something, I bet there is more.

Sean G, maybe you misunderstood me or maybe i wasn't clear. But why not use these techniques to get you to the level where you need to be? That's why i'm doing it.

Thanks for reading, please tell me what you think.....

Sean G, post: 436828, member: 49362 wrote: 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.

audiokid, post: 436831, member: 1 wrote: I think what he is trying to say is he listens more and reacts less with digital technology imaging (eye candy)? At least I'm hoping that is what he is saying?

DonnyThompson, post: 436833, member: 46114 wrote: Not to wax too philosophically here, but I "see" things in my head when I'm arranging, recording, mixing, too ... for me, it's one way for me of determining what works - or what doesn't - in a particular mix.;)

Sean G, I don't get how you can't understand what I'm trying to say. I'll just break it down to "simple and easy to understand for you" (not intended to offend you here).

What is Visualization for me:

*audiokid said it right less eye candy and more of own vision and feeling. Although looking at the faders and such helps to make sense of it all like Donny is saying right there.

*Indeed painting a visual picture: You must understand that listening to music is a psychological process. I won't go deep into the psychological part cuz I'm no expert on the human mind. An example: When listening to a piece and you hear the drummer playing from the right side what does tell you? It gives you a different perspective or visualization of how the band was setup. Normally you would hear the kick drum from around the center.

*Another fact is that human memory works in magnificent ways: Visualizing an object or picture and linking it to a sound makes you remember the perspective that you associate it with faster. Hearing, Seeing, Saying, Writing, Tasting, Feeling... are all things that help remind something, I bet there is more.

Sean G, maybe you misunderstood me or maybe i wasn't clear. But why not use these techniques to get you to the level where you need to be? That's why i'm doing it.

Thanks for reading, please tell me what you think.....

I'm still calling BS...

I suppose if I visualise a million dollars it will help me make it sooner?

Sounds like you have been reading too many of Oprahs' books of the month ;)

Sean G, post: 436840, member: 49362 wrote: I'm still calling BS...

I suppose if I visualise a million dollars it will help me make it sooner?

Sounds like you have been reading too many of Oprahs' books of the month ;)

Well, to each his own I guess. :)

It just helps me simplify things when it comes to workflow and getting a clear feel on the right end mix I want to have.

John Santos, post: 436841, member: 49762 wrote: It just helps me simplify things when it comes to workflow and getting a clear feel on the right end mix I want to have.

If it works for you, then so be it. I'm not trying to give you a hard time.

Personally, I use my ears, not my eyes, or my "minds eye" for that matter...after all, we use our ears to listen ;)

Fair enough. :LOL:

You've never pictured in your head a stage layout, or an orchestra, and have visualized the placement of certain instruments? Or have thought about ( seen in your mind)certain things you should do with an arrangement or a mix?

You've never visualized something like a particular EQ setting - particularly in using a plug that you've grown accustomed to - in your head? I visualize things like that all the time.

Not trying to give you a hard time, bro, or to be argumentative... my question is sincere.

After all, Beethoven was deaf, and he was able to compose some pretty incredible sounding music simply by seeing it in his head. ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 436844, member: 46114 wrote:
After all, Beethoven was deaf, and he was able to compose some pretty incredible sounding music simply by seeing it in his head. ;)

I think some would say he was hearing the music in his head, not seeing it. This is what some won't accept; Suggesting the possibility of seeing an image that represent music.
But that's ok, we all have our ways to understand things. The end result is what counts.

I do this exercice all the time when mixing ; I close my eyes and just listen. I imagine the instruments in a band formation not the image of it but the sound of it. I've done live sound for so many years, I know how a band sound like when you are in front or on stage with the musicians. Depending on the music style, I often try to reproduce the soundscape of a real band. This is my thing, what ever is yours is your own ;)

John Santos, post: 436839, member: 49762 wrote: *audiokid said it right less eye candy and more of own vision and feeling. Although looking at the faders and such helps to make sense of it all like Donny is saying right there.

Quite a few guys I know including myself will turn the lights down low so we are less distracted, more focused on what works for us. So I guess, eyes can be distracting.

Then there is Bruce Swedien as an example. He hears/ see's music through colour.
http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/mixing_in_colors_with_bruce_swedien/
http://www.voicecouncil.com/recording-the-human-voice-bruce-swedien/

Some people link audio to visuals..

http://www.globerecording.com/virtualmixer/vm.html

For me I think of a Mix like a canvas.. Frequencies are vertical Lows on the bottom..highs on the top. Panning is using the space from left to right.
Each colour you paint goes somewhere on the canvas,.. If you put too many things (or) colours in the same spot you get a muddy brown to black image.. The same thing happens with a mix..

Volume is opactiy vs transparency.. Space via room or reverb/delay is the creating a 3d image using shadowing..

Each moment in time is a new picture to a degree but the same principals can apply.
EQ and compression etc are used to make the image more or less lively..

i went to recording school at David Gibson's California Institute of Audio. He was my instructor. He was always talking about that visualization thing. It never caught on. Old stuff. 20 years ago.

It's not for everyone.. Works for me inside my head.. Not sure how a video screen with images would work in the real world. It depends on how your brain works.. Some people are primarily Audio based, some are Visual and some are Tactile. Some are a blend of each.

Out of curiosity, were his mixes any good?

He came from Atlanta. His claim to fame was he did some recording for James Browns band. Not James Brown, his band. He never mixed for us. What mixing that was done (not much) was all student mixing. The course was mostly lectures and tests.

David was ok. A nice guy. He helped me get a grip on compression techniques. He visited a studio I built for a guy, that i was currently working at, and was very complimentary. He even mentioned it in class one day. "These guys have one of the best home studios I have seen." thanks Dave.

The classes I attended were at Music Annex in Menlo Park CA. David later opened a school in SF but they went belly up pretty fast.

As far as the visual thing goes with Bruce, during the mixing of Billie Jean, I think somebody slipped in a Linn drum when he wasn't looking LOL.

Synesthesia:
http://www.ryot.org/photos-synesthesia-music-what-sound-looks-like/757165
It's legit, I've had it all of my life. Just sayin'
~Jeff

thatjeffguy, post: 436856, member: 38103 wrote: Synesthesia:
http://www.ryot.org/photos-synesthesia-music-what-sound-looks-like/757165
It's legit, I've had it all of my life. Just sayin'
~Jeff

Yep, and if you've never experienced it you don't understand. For me sounds have always spontaneously generated imagery, and not merely literal depictions but geometric analogs. It's an extremely useful trait. I grew up surrounded by modern art. That's given me a vocabulary and aesthetic sense that transfers directly to music. Another handy thing, I tend to grasp graphic displays almost immediately, though I need them less because I already have fairly passable ones in my head.

bouldersound, post: 436857, member: 38959 wrote: For me sounds have always spontaneously generated imagery,

me too. only i see studio spaces, high ceilings, heavy drapes ... this started when i was a kid and had never seen a studio. i would listen to Drifters records ad visualize the studio where Ben E King was singing. i loved the reverb even then.

when mixing i visualize instruments placement, front to back relationships but never floating circles of flashes of color. not saying it's bad just it seems a little out there to me. ( visualize the twilight zone theme here).

Kurt Foster, post: 436860, member: 7836 wrote: me too. only i see studio spaces, high ceilings, heavy drapes ... this started when i was a kid and had never seen a studio. i would listen to Drifters records ad visualize the studio where Ben E King was singing. i loved the reverb even then.

when mixing i visualize instruments placement, front to back relationships but never floating circles of flashes of color. not saying it's bad just it seems a little out there to me. ( visualize the twilight zone theme here).

I have some of that as well, a sound triggers an image of a space or a space triggers an imagined sound. Vision and hearing are closely associated because it really benefits navigating a 3D environment. The differences between people are probably in the part of the brain where the various sensory inputs are integrated. For most people it all just works without them knowing but others can see parts of the process in action. You're probably seeing the more organized part of the process and I'm probably seeing auditory information leaking into my visual perception before it's been properly organized.

hey! what works, works. right? it's all good!

Me, I envision the performance and try and put everyone on a stage as I'm in the audience or in a movie I have in my mind.

I think it's safe to say then, that we pretty much all "visualize" mixes to some degree or another. The methods we use, and images we picture, just varies from cooker to cooker, is all...

There is no right or wrong, there's just what works for each person. If you're turning out mixes that sound good, then what difference does it make what we each visualize? ;)

Music is interpretations made into an auditory art form. It can never be right or wrong, it just is.

There is a clear difference between music and recording. Recording is not music. Recording is a technology that uses electronic tools to capture audio which can be confusing to those who don't know the difference between art and gear lol.

Mixing is not much different than an editor. But that all changes when we have weird shit happen to the recording that isn't the way we interpreted it.

When it gets so fucked up that we can't do anything more with it, its always relieving to pass it off as art. And so it goes... Technology and art. Its a weird business but damn fun!

there's this guy, David Gibson. He was the instructor at the recording school at the Music Annex in Menlo Park CA when i attended. thank goodness he didn't teach this stuff. it was actually a pretty straight ahead course. anyhoooo ......... lol!

Quick question about mixing.
Do you start mixing while recording?

I always do volumes and pans while tracking and sometimes I add EQ comp and verb here and there. So by the time we are recording the final vocals there is a good part of the mixing done. It's a good thing for the artists because they have a better mix to perform on. But I just wondered if I shouldn't do volume and pan only. That way I would start the mixing with all the elements in place and not having to deal with adjustments I might have done with fatigued ears.

Oh and also, that would assure all the computer ressources are available for the recording work

there's a lot to be said for tracking into a mix but with DAWs latency can be problem. start adding plugs and processing and your new tracks can be behind the others. with multiple overdubs it can get worse.

Kurt Foster, post: 447153, member: 7836 wrote: there's this guy, David Gibson. He was the instructor at the recording school at the Music Annex in Menlo Park CA when i attended. thank goodness he didn't teach this stuff. it was actually a pretty straight ahead course. aeffectnyhoooo ......... lol!

Thanks for the video, Kurt, but I was asleep before half way through. Something about the voice.... How did you guys ever manage at Music Annex?

Regarding starting the mix when tracking, I'm solidly from a live recording background, and the object there was to capture as clean a set of tracks as possible. So no EQ except for HP on input, and no directly printed effects.

It took me quite a while to find a way of dealing with vocal compression (limiting) being captured via the ambient mics and giving subsequent problems of pumping at mixdown, but once I had learnt to assign tracks for both the raw and compressed live vocals, things suddenly became easier. It's odd that this particular problem is very rarely mentioned in the literature on live recording.

Thanks as well, Kurt. I didn't even get 1/8 through. Maybe I need more flashing lights lol!

Kurt Foster, post: 447159, member: 7836 wrote: there's a lot to be said for tracking into a mix but with DAWs latency can be problem. start adding plugs and processing and your new tracks can be behind the others. with multiple overdubs it can get worse.

I agree and disagree. Precisely why I continue to relentlessly express why I invest in good converters and an interface that runs like a dragster, not an old truck. I never experience the lags and troubles anymore. The lower end converters and your average interfacing (under demand) sucks. Plain and simple.
So, when you guys say things like this, it tells me one thing (no disrespect intended) ... If you are experiencing this much latency and dismay... you are using poor, outdated etc etc interfacing with poor computing.

Kurt Foster, post: 447159, member: 7836 wrote: there's a lot to be said for tracking into a mix but with DAWs latency can be problem. start adding plugs and processing and your new tracks can be behind the others. with multiple overdubs it can get worse.

I never experienced unaligned tracks in that fashion. I guess sonar's latency compensation is compensating for playback AND recording .

pcrecord, post: 447163, member: 46460 wrote: I never experienced unaligned tracks in that fashion. I guess sonar's latency compensation is compensating for playback AND recording .

Same here, in Sony Vegas etc.

Mixerman, post: 40579, member: 49123 wrote: 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 $*^t? 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?

So what do you do, if you find those are not in order?

Do you replace the bass or drum sounds with samples? Do you replay the baseline on a fretless bass?

In other words, let's assume it's a mess....what do you do about that? Do you replay it yourself? Do you attempt to fix it with EQ? What?

pcrecord, post: 447158, member: 46460 wrote: Quick question about mixing.
Do you start mixing while recording?

Yes.

Unless I'm mixing tracks that were recorded by a client, and are then sent to me to mix, very rarely do I just record all the parts and then start mixing from scratch after all the planned tracks have been recorded.
I don't think it's as much about it being a time saver ( although I suppose that's an advantage too) but more about how I envision the final output; and getting started on a mix while tracks are still being recorded helps me to fulfill that vision.
Although, I don't believe that this was something that I was "taught", but more that I just kinda started doing it on my own.
Without a doubt, I can say that this mixing method started back when I was working with consoles, ( more split than inline design)...but I still do this today in DAW-land as well.

As a song/mix/production grows, I find it helpful to start "sitting" the recorded tracks into a mix ( of sorts). It may be a rough mix, but I'm still starting to put things in their place(s), and in their space(s), in relationship to the other parts.
I think that this workflow is helpful - because as a song morphs, you may find other additional tracks that you want to record ( or don't want to record!) that maybe hadn't been planned in relation to what has already been tracked.
And, just as often as wanting to add parts to compliment what has already been recorded, I'll also take parts away, too.

And, I've also found that vocalists/soloists seem to have more charisma, more feeling when they are performing to a good-sounding 2 mix through their cans.

We all have our own ways, our own preferred methods and workflows, and I don't believe that there is a "right" or "wrong" way of doing things, there's only the way that you feel works best for you, that which benefits the song, and my own workflow generally leans towards getting started on a mix at the same time that tracks are still being laid down.

I dunno, maybe this method is more of a "production" thing, as opposed to being an engineering style?

Then again, over the years, I've learned that very often, the line between "engineering" and "producing" can be a very thin one. It's not uncommon for those two things to frequently overlap. ;)

IMHO of course.
-d.

I mix as I track to have something decent to play to, but when I'm done tracking I start over from scratch. It's too easy to get used to things that aren't quite right so a fresh start is preferable.

bouldersound, post: 447178, member: 38959 wrote: I mix as I track to have something decent to play to, but when I'm done trackimg I start over from scratch. It's too easy to get used to things that aren't.quite right so a fresh start is preferable.

I think I'm with Boulder on this.

I find it much easier (get more unified gain structures that translates) to mix a session when its completed all the tracking rather than tracking and overdubbing to a mix in progress. The gain staging / gain structure inconsistencies gets really weird when tracking and overdubbing to a mix that has been altered. I suck at having to change my analog sweet spots. Drives me crazy trying to match once established gain structures to moving ITB levels. But I do, set gains so the faders don't really need to be moved much until it comes "time" to mix. Maybe this is what you mean Donny?

To expand on this, I find both talent monitoring and capturing the unprocessed "source" to an unprocessed mix translates throughout a mix as being preformed together, better.

From a performers POV, tracking to a mix in progress is like trying to sing to Karaoke. I find this also adds a weird morphed like sonic structure.
There are no rules to art but I definitely have better results from both a musicians POV and from a mixing POV, when I mix a session that is tracked and completed before its gone through the factory. I think my problem is, it seems to me take longer to finish it and I always feel like there is something wrong.

I'm sure others related to this. How many times have you got that scratch track so nice but know you should do it all over, but don't because its like trying to reinvent art. Those mixes are endless hours of matching sonics.

I kind of follow these things:

• If there is any acoustic tracking, (other than basic reverb or delay) I try to restrain myself from doing much to a mix (ITB) before its ready
• When tracking, I track, when mixing, I mix. When in analog, I try to keep all those analog sweet spots consistant rather than forcing them to compensate to fit processing ITB.
• When VSTi is used, I am less of a concern about matching acoustic gain structure.
• When blending VSTi and acoustic music together, I generally stay away from over processed samples that sound like they came from another studio. My goal would then be to match the sample quality to my analog source, not the other way around.
• If there is little vocal content, and/ or I am basically creating , then I just go with the flow and do whatever it takes to get my idea down which is what I think Boulder just said in a sentence below.

• bouldersound, post: 447178, member: 38959 wrote: I mix as I track to have something decent to play to, but when I'm done trackimg I start over from scratch. It's too easy to get used to things that aren't.quite right so a fresh start is preferable.

My problem is, I don't get used to it. I end up mixing and mixing and mixing lol :coffee:

Most of the "mixing" I do during tracking is geared toward performer requests and specific needs. The bass player wants to hear kick and snare out front. The singer doesn't need to hear fretless stringed instruments, just the fretted ones for pitch. I do like to address the more obvious dynamics issues up front so overdub performances are naturally more dynamically controlled before they hit the mic. But all the while I'm also building in elements of a finished mix so each added track is naturally played in a way that's more representative of the finished product. The closer the performance is to its final state the less time I have to spend making it fit. At the same time I avoid going too far with that. It's good to allow room to adjust things later.

As far as gain structure, I have a standardized method which I follow somewhat loosely. It's simply tracking average levels at -18dBFS (or -12dBFS-ish peaks for percussive sounds) and keeping my average mix level at -18dBFS. Other than staying well away from clipping I don't obsess about it, and if something is off the target but sounds good I'll just grab clip gain and make it right. Of course specific preamps have their analog sweet spots which I'll try to utilize, but most of my work is through a console so that's not as relevant.

Given the multi-use nature of the studio (rehearsal/recording/performance) I've streamlined the headphone mixing. It's the same as the control room mix, though not subject to soloing. That keeps me focused on the performer's needs.

audiokid, post: 447179, member: 1 wrote: My problem is, I don't get used to it. I end up mixing and mixing and mixing lol :coffee:

I'm quite capable of getting used to things that should be fixed while also spending hours on things that were fine to begin with.

bouldersound, post: 447196, member: 38959 wrote: I'm quite capable of getting used to things that should be fixed while also spending hours on things that were fine to begin with.

That you are.

bouldersound, post: 447196, member: 38959 wrote: As far as gain structure, I have a standardized method which I follow somewhat loosely. It's simply tracking average levels at -18dBFS (or -12dBFS-ish peaks for percussive sounds) and keeping my average mix level at -18dBFS.

bouldersound, post: 447196, member: 38959 wrote: I'm quite capable of getting used to things that should be fixed while also spending hours on things that were fine to begin with.

Do you not notice the subtle changes that can occur regardless of the "keeping my average ITB mix level at -18dBFS"? I mean, I notice a pretty significant change in ( tonalities) when particular analog products are moved outside their sweet spots and I have to go back and re adjust them to a mix that is now louder or softer due to changed from where the main Vox started out at prior to mixing as you build a song. Sure you can simply grab the dial and move the thing... but thats not really where I am going here.

As an example to what I hear. If I am tracking using a combination of example, LA2A with a particular preamp and EQ, have the group in their sweet spots, capture that, then later down a mix when it is lets say, processed to a point the input level needs to be re-adjusted to do a vocal "retake", hmmm... capable or not... this isn't always a favorable move when looking back and thinking... hmm, maybe I shouldn't have started mixing this so soon. That is what I am talking about here...
I have a inner voice saying to me... which has nothing to do with being capable.... I shouldn't have fucked with vocal tracks, prematurely srated mixing this when I have match overdubs.

How do you deal with that? Or would you say, this is unique to me being incapable and its as simple as adjusting your gain to keep you average mix level at -18dBFS?

And in my sarcasm and shop humor... I am also being respectful and just curious if this is anything you or the other members ever concern yourself with, hear it or?

Its why I usually don't mix until it time to put the tracking gear to rest. :)

Simple solution, poverty. I have no access to real LA2As and all the preamps and eqs (in that studio) are M-2600 MkII channels. If the preamps in that board aren't especially interesting at least they're forgiving. Anything in the vicinity of 0dBVU sounds about the same and it doesn't clip until +24dBVU. Honestly, in the rush of tracking (hobby band, limited time to devote) it's the best compromise. If I had to sort through preamps and find a small sweet spot we'd never get anything done, and/or I'd screw it up.

Well, there's a Solo 610 that I break out when appropriate, and then what you say hits pretty hard. You can't just fix that after the fact because it is so responsive to levels.

Same thing at the "other" studio that uses a variety of preamps (Daking, Grace 101, V72 etc.) into an Apollo 16. In fact a recent vocal session spanned two days, and the solution was to leave the mic, goboes and Daking preamp/eq untouched. With that kind of gear I do gravitate toward your method. I guess that means, yes, I hear what you're describing.

So, really, I'm flexible. Depending on the gear and the musical style I may go either way, mix while tracking (and start over when tracking is done) or leave it untouched (other than level and pan).