Link is incorrect. Its not a public url. Log out of soundcloud and you will see.

sorry, my bad!

I hear a lot of mud. ?Lot's of stuff competing for 400Hz. I am not a fan of the genre but in any genre, particularly this one, you would expect the singer to have some conviction. He sounds half hearted. Like he's not really convinced.

The only thing I find organic about your mix is what it does to my stomach. Your recording/tracking sounds like it was well recorded. You've got so much stuff you have already done so as to take virtually all of the life out of it. One of the reasons why the drums sound the way they do is because you are relying on the tight microphones too much. The overheads are not just for the cymbals. They are there to give the entire drum set a place to be in space. So while all of the tight microphones are recorded well, you are missing this oh so important ingredient. Some of this can be had simply from the overhead microphones. Sometimes it has to be achieved by heavily limiting the overhead microphones. Sometimes it requires that a high frequency preemphasis contour be added to the limiter's detector to control high frequency cymbal crashes. Sometimes it requires some DSP processing of an ambient space. But right now it sounds like a feed off of a PA mix. I.e. it's not entirely inspiring to listen to.

The guitars seem flat and lifeless in only two dimensions. No use of delay effects to create HAAS & Doppler shift anywhere to be heard on the guitars in the stereo sound field. It sounds mostly mono. Everything is there but just everything is there. That is to say, you have not sculpted your sonic image. Now I know how you have described what you are doing. But what you are doing is not pulling everything together, cohesively. It's sort of like a fine breakfast sort of stuck into a blender and turned into a protein shake. A description of everything competing for 400 Hz is only a relative statement here. It goes way beyond that. It goes into creating a separate acoustical space for each and every instrument at each and every placement within the stereo sound field. Right now it's a glom of stuff.

The vocal, UGH the vocal. A cardioid condenser thingy, no high pass filter, over-the-top compression with excessive fast attack and release times. No actual presence. No actual top end. This microphone doesn't even have the quality of a SHURE SM58. It's not bringing the word of the Lord to anyone. I think perhaps you have actually achieved just the opposite? This mix comes from a place, no one wants to go to. My God what have you done? You need to listen to something Satanic to get this right.

I'm not really being the devil's advocate here.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Thanks for the replys! I guess the positive thing is that I'm a good recording engineer and that I get the bass mixed correctly since I havn't got any critic on it this far...

So what I'll start with tomorrow is to try and pull more drum sound from the oh:s without cymbals getting to bright and way to high in volume. Should I open more EQ for lower Hz also? I EQ:ed the oh:s by cutting all low and lots of mids if I can remember correctly...Anything else with the drums?

I didn't know about the haas and doppler effect (new to this as I am) but I read about the haas effect that it was created by creating e.g a copy of a guitar track and adding delay to it and panning that channel to either side... So should I then take my 40% left panned guitar and pan it center, create a clone, add delay and pan that channel hard left and keep the original channel centered?

Didn't get the doppler part...how do I achieve this?

The vocals then... :D I know you Remy don't like the cheap condenser mikes but this was what I had at the point of recordning. It's a Behringer B2 pro and I noticed now that it has a switchable high pass filter that I havn't used before because I though it was low pass...stupid me...I went to my local musicstore today to check out the price of an sm58 and it was 100€ witch I couldn't afford today :( But what mike would be best to record vocals with of these mikes that I have: oktava ml52 ribbon mike, behringer b2 or shure pg27? And what would be a good starting point in not to expencive large diaphragm microphones? röde nt2-a? I think it looks kinda unprofessional to put a standard stage mike as the sm58 in front of the singer in the studio...

Back to the vocals I have to work with then...First of: funny statement! :) I translated it to swedish for my wife and we both had a little laugh :) I forgot to write that I have an de-esser working on the vocals to...Were should I start with this one? back of the compression and de-esser a bit, extend attack and release and EQ some highs to get some crisp to it?

What should I do about the 400Hz problem? Or will that just solve it self when I get the sonic image corrected?

Thanks again for your replys and advice, I'm novice at this and need all the guidence I can get.
Fredrik Stennabba
Finland

The issue with the guitar panned 40% right is likely a phase issue. If you are using two mics that would be the problem. I would try the Oktava and then the PG27. Either one might work or not. It's always good to experiment. I would guess that both will need quite a bit of gain unless the singer is really belting it(which would be an improvement IMHO). Added gain means added noise potentially. I would worry more about the performance than the mic choice. You can make the mic work but the performance has to be good to begin with.

The De-esser is really only needed when you have definite sibilant problems. For instance if you are adding a lot of extra upper midrange and high frequency boost EQ, you will most likely want to also utilize a De-esser? But you'll also want that compression which are generally broadband compressors. And because compressors add to the sibilant problem, I usually follow them with the De-esser and not before the compressor. Then there is the selection of peak, RMS or, Opto style compression and limiting, in software and of course hardware. Sometimes all of the above are used. Sometimes only one type. That's purely a judgment call. Having typically utilized old-school devices of the hardware type, I already know what to listen to and for, in the digital domain.

I'm never embarrassed utilizing a SM58 in the studio where I feel it necessary. With vocals, I'll typically put on an extra large foam pop filter. Hung from a microphone boom. The pop filter made from foam, actually enhances this microphone. It smooths a little off the top. It keeps everybody the proper distance from the capsule diaphragm. Hands don't get in the way of the polar pattern. A great studio recording microphone! If you're embarrassed? You're just being stupid. These are tools of our trade and nothing more. There is nothing to be embarrassed about using the proper tools of your trade. I value this $100 microphone as much as I value my 3000+ dollar microphones. Nothing to apologize for. In fact I found your comment insulting on a professional level. What do you think of that? I've been using this microphone longer than you have been alive on this planet. Perhaps you're not from this planet? I know I sure the hell am not. I come from the Audiodrama Galaxy. And my star is only nine light seconds from me. Where are you?

CQ CQ CQ (seek you, seek you, seek you and all the other fine Sikhs that visit this site)
Mx. Remy Ann David

Check out this sorta famous band recording. Take a look at the mic he's using. It ain't no Neumann. It's not a Telefunken. Not a ribbon. Standard SM58. Actually, I don't think it's a Shure. Regardless, I think the point is that it's not a condenser. It's just a dynamic vocal mic.

Sure sounded a lot like a 58. Didn't quite look like a 58? At first I thought Beta 57? But no. Plenty of SM57's on those guitar stacks.

It might be interesting to note here that, the 58 as one of the most popular vocal microphones of all time. Today, on the high-end, one can have a handheld Neumann. And why don't we see lots of those? They're much more affordable than many of their other models. Well, it's because they don't sound like 58's. They sound like Neumann's. And the sound most people want is the one from the 58. Only a studio guys keep grabbing at the 87's because they're there. And only because it's the one to use for the application you want to use it for. Which isn't on everything. But the 58 can be used on pretty much everything. You can even use a 58, underwater albeit not for long. Much longer than any condenser microphone.

I'm sorry LMAO maybe it's because I'm hungry?
Mx. Remy Ann David

Yeah, I thought it was a Beta 57 too. Likely some variation of a 58 or Beta 57.

It could be a new style metal pop filter for a Beta 58? Low profile in appearance? Something not quite as Big and round as a regular 58 metal grill. Hard to say? It could be one of those OTHER manufacturers? Heaven for bid. AUDIX? No. Heil? Maybe? Somebody's dynamic that's for sure or SHURE?

I'm not SHURE about this one?
Mx. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD, post: 394476 wrote: In fact I found your comment insulting on a professional level. What do you think of that? I've been using this microphone longer than you have been alive on this planet.

I did not mean to insult you at any point, and I appogize for that. The funny thing about your statement was not the choise of microphone, it was the thing about god and satan. That was funny.

Like I've mentioned before, my success depends on your guidence since I don't have the opportunity to get classes on mixing and I don't know any professional engineers to take advice from. I've read books for about two years and watched videos on youtube, that gave me some basic knowledge, but as mentioned earlier I learn from practice not theory. It might be hard for me sometime to express myself in a foreign language as I don't know proverbs, spelling of words, translation of words etc. It takes time for me to write and I have to think and search the web for translations etc. and when I do so I sometimes forget to check the whole sentence if it's correct and says what I'm trying to write down. I'm not trying to be the "feel-sorry-for-the-finnish-guy" here, I'm just saying it's harder to express myself correctly without stepping on someones feet...and if *I do so it's not my entension!

Back to subject...So I'll get a sm58 with extra foam filter, and after that the next step would be to save up 3000$ to get a Neumann? Looking at the rest of my equipment that would be doubble the amount of all my equipment. There's no microphone between those two that would be decent for a budget studio?

With the guitars I used a t.bone mb75 up front and a audiotechnica mb 2k rear of the speaker and the audiotechnica was phase reversed otherwise I could only hear one mike at a time. Can it still get phase problems if I have it like it is, panned one guitar 40% right 40% left? So that they take out some sound from eachother?

any other advice on how to get the rest of the mix corrected? I asked lots of questions in my last post but did nog get answers due to my microphone stupidity...

Thanks for all the guidence,
Fredrik Stennabba
Finland

So I worked with one of the songs today and this is what I came up with:

- EQ overheads with +15db@100hz, +10db@800hz, +7db@2khz and -1.5db@7khz
- EQ on guitars -3db@400hz
- EQ on vocals +3db@4300hz
- panned left guitar hard left, made a copy of it, panned that hard right and added 6ms delay to it
- panned right guitar hard right, made a copy of it, panned that hard left and added 6ms delay to it
- removed de-esser on vocals
- configured compressor on vocals with threshold -20 instead of -30 and limiter set at 2db output instead of 6db
- +2db on the bass in volume
- -2db on left guitar and +2db on right guitar in volume evened them up more I think

searched the web for a free vst limiter with high frequensy filter for the overheads but didn't find one, or I did find one (Limiter No.6) that seemed to be the shit, but it didn't work for me? Couldn't get cubase to find it somehow...

So this is the second version of "Out of the darkness" and I noticed right away the diffrence in guitar sound! Man what a stereo spread compered to the old version. Further guidlines and improvements on this one?

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://soundcloud.c…"]Out of the darkness 2 by Nutti_ on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free[/]="http://soundcloud.c…"]Out of the darkness 2 by Nutti_ on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free[/]

got the other two done as well...with a little bit difference in volumes otherwise same adjustments.

[MEDIA=soundcloud]fredrik-stennabba/a-narrow-path-2

[MEDIA=soundcloud]fredrik-stennabba/liar-2

Been listening to your new permutation mix, it's an improvement. But here's still what I hear going on.

Listening to this, it has become quite apparent to me, that you are perhaps actually monitoring too loud during your mixing? Why do I say this? Well, your mix improves as I shove the volume up. I know, I know, you want it to be high energy, high level. The opposite is actually occurring. Mixing at extremely low levels, take some getting used to. But the overall end result is usually, a much broader quality of the mix. This teaches you how and what to process for maximum intelligibility and coherency in the mix. Right now the drums still go nowhere. The guitars are all right. Better with the stereo trickery that you have utilized. The vocal is OK but certainly lacks sparkle, punch. Too much fast attack on your dynamic processing. Which leaves nothing to punch through. Remember an ounce of punch is worth a pound of sound. This is something I have always lived by in my recording and something that was brought to my attention as the house mantra at Media Sound NYC, back in the late 1970s. Were I worked for not quite one-year, until I got mugged in the New York City subway system, LOL. That scared me to death and I resigned the following day and headed to Fort Lauderdale to an international multimillion dollar advertising agency. An agency I had worked with for some years prior to being employed directly by them. And then I had to produce national sounding jingle musics and commercials, at a national level. So there could be no room for error, sloppy production or local sounding. Everything had to sound like a Chevrolet, Ford, Citibank, Bank of America style commercials. And along with that requirement, I had nothing more to work with than basic rudimentary fundamental equipment and a lousy Yamaha PM 1000 PA console, as a recording console, which it ain't. And that had to compete from production studios with Neve & API consoles. So it did because I did. Because it's not really the equipment, if the equipment works. It's only the technique, that makes the real difference. More in my case made the "reel", difference. Since it was all analog back in the late 1970s but except for some of our early digital effects processors like my Eventide H-910 Harmonizer. That and a couple of 1176's and Allison Research KEPEX 1's, AKG-BX 20 stereo spring reverb. Fully orchestrated jingles produced from a voice over studio with no acoustics other than the ones I created, electronically. I still marvel over these screwed up jingles I produced more than 33 years ago on an eight track analog machine with the PA console. Stellar! And those jingles were in use for over 20 years. They were done so well, they were good enough to get me a job offer from Sir George Martin on which I declined. Stupid me. I've been kicking myself in the ass for that one for over 25 years. C'est la vie.

Sometimes I make the best decisions. Sometimes not so good.
Mx. Remy Ann David

thanks again for advise!

But this time I think your wrong on the volume with me mixing...In my early days of drumming I did not protect my ears enough and with this came tinnitus in my ears. I was stupid enough back then to not listen to the warningsignals of ringing in my ears after drumpractice. So by the age of 17 I had tinnitus...that made me protect my ears at all time when there was high volume, of course it was to late, but atleast I started protecting my ears. So today when I'm in the studio, I'm very strict to having everything at low volumes. Shure, sometimes when I think I find a noise I tweak the volume up of listen in my headphones to find the problem. But that's like 10 sec.

So I don't mix at high volumes at all, it must be something else I'm doing wrong OR the terror scenario: my ears are damaged enough to not be able to hear some details. At my last hearing test (about two years ago) the doctor could tell me that I might have problems hearing around the frequencies of female voice due to a small amount of reduced hearing ability aroung those freq. So according to wikipedia that would be from 165Hz to 255Hz, but could that mess up my drum sound? I don't think it could affect my mixing that bad? Who knows?

So extend attack and release on vocal comp, or maybe remove the vst comp completely? It's been compressed while recording. So that should give it more punch, the sparkle then? Should I try to give it more high frequency eq?

What should I do to the drums? Try to create a haas effect to the overheads? 3ms delay?

On the song "Liar" there is a part where one guitar is faded in on every chord around 5:15 to 5:40. I played with a delay and created the haas effect but with 200ms delay witch gave a little doppler effect that would be nice in that part. Check it out on my next version of the song and let me know what you think. I'll wait for some answers to my questions and then I'll make the third mixdown probably tomorrow.

Thanks again!

That's very interesting about your hearing. Here's a similar scenario. For one of my high school science fair projects, I was going around and giving people hearing tests. These tests were performed with a pair of KOSS Pro 4 AA's, Sennheiser HD 414's and a low distortion Heathkit sine wave oscillator. Most everyone's hearing and hearing loss was fairly consistent from what I had read, based upon age. Many people over 40 were exhibiting high frequency loss. Most predominantly. The exception to this was this guy. He was a former USMC drill sergeant. He already knew and told me he had a profound hearing loss due to the constant barrage of gunfire. This was not tinnitus. Because of the frequency content of most of the gun blasts, his hearing loss was all in the midrange. All in the mid-band. In fact, at 43 years of age, this guy had a better high-frequency hearing response, than anyone else I tested. I had to repeat this test a couple of times on him to make absolutely sure. But he could consistently here 20 kHz. I was only 16 and even I couldn't barely hear 20 kHz. But because of his huge mid-band hole and it was a big mid-band hole, he had, he had a lot of trouble understanding speech from both men and women. And for that he needed hearing aids. Above 3 kHz though, he was good up to 20 kHz.

Human speech fundamental frequencies mostly fall between 300 Hz & 3000-4000 Hz. Everything else above and below that is just icing on the cake. And we make that cool telephone like filter for rock 'n roll vocals by using brick wall limiting set to 300 Hz and 3000 Hz. And that's what American telephones were designed to reproduce. That's all that's necessary to coherently understand speech. Even though certain phonetic sounds can be confused due to the incomplete upper frequency spectrum. Words like " stone " may only be heard as " tone ". But we understand it was stone based upon their context, of their previous rhetoric. And that's heavy duty bandwidth limiting. Add some distortion and you can make a sound like the old carbon button microphones from telephones from yesteryear. And that's what a $3000 German microphone and an incredible equalizer, is used for. Or, a carbon button microphone.

In looking at your mix information from earlier in this post, I'm really rather alarmed by the extreme equalization you have indicated, that you have used. I really think this is where most of the problems coming from? On your drums, you've got indicated that you utilized +15 DB of boost at 100 Hz and 10 DB of boost at 800 Hz. +7 DB at 2 kHz, that's a killer. Rolling off the cymbals? Isn't that why you put the condenser microphones overtop the drum set to begin with?. So...No no no no. And no. You've already got the tight microphones on the tom-toms, snare, bass drum. That's where ya get the beef. The overheads you probably want to hide pass filter a bit? You don't need or want that kind of low-end coming up your overheads. That's where big phase issues and cancellation is occurring. It's fighting with the tight mics low-frequency response and giving you a blur. A cloud. A pillow on your drums. That's where you're losing the life on your drums. Roll the low-end off the overheads. Crank up the high-end on the overheads. Stick some compression on the bass drum. Carve a little out around 250-350 Hz. Adjust presence for a good crack. Gate that. Do the same for the snare drum. You won't need to scoop 250 on that. EQ, compressed and gate. You may also want to try to invert phase on the bass drum? This causes a different kind of frequency dependent cancellation and also because the microphone is kind of positioned inside the batter skin, kind of like the bottom of a snare drum. If you put a microphone on the bottom of the snare drum along with the one on the top of the snare drum, you need to invert the phase of the bottom snare drum microphone. And with just a single microphone inside the bass drum, I feel that should also be phase inverted in many cases. It provides for a much harder thud. It should feel like CPR. The tom-toms should also have some high pass filtering and perhaps a little boost around 150 Hz. If you like, you can also gate those. This is when the overheads and the bass drum microphones really carry most of the drum mix. It's getting all this extra punch from the gated drums. The cool thing is you see, when utilizing a noise gate on the drums, you also want no " look ahead ", in the detector. The gate will then not open up until after the first transient is detected. This has a tendency to cut off a bit of the transient from the tight miked drums. The overheads then get that initial transient. So in a sense, we are playing with the timing of the time. This can do a great deal to make the drum set come alive. Make sure you position your tom-toms identically to your overheads. Too many people get these tracks backwards that way. And that messes with the entire stereo imaging. I love it when folks put an XY pair over top of a drum set for overheads. They take the first microphone and pan it left. They take the second microphone and pan it right. And that's backwards with XY. The left microphone is pointing to the right and the right microphone is pointing to the left. These unintended mistakes also do a lot to blur the image of a drum set recording. It screws up all of the timing. The microsecond timing. I'm quite into cohesive timing of all of the sources. If everything isn't timed just right, you get a blurry out of focus recording. And that's what I'm hearing. So try this again.

Yup, like what you're doing with the guitar. You can even take this a notch further. For instance, you've got all of this crazy time delay crap, in your software effects magic bag. There are all sorts of stereophonic image processing available to you. Much of this goes well with those electric guitar tracks. These effects are frequently from a single input source while it is providing an ambient stereo outputs source. And there are numerous ways of dealing with that in multi-track software packages. Not all are the same. This wouldn't be something used as an insert. It's something that is used with an effects send bus, in addition to the original source feeding the master left & right bus. You send that single vocal track to the auxiliary or effects send. The send is routed to the stereo ambient metal room effect, let's say. That single send is then processed with multiple stereo time delays and is returned to the master left & right mixing bus just like the vocal. This is how you start to create a spatial stereo image. This adds depth, width and height to an otherwise mono center source track. This is how you start to sculpt your stereo landscape. These effects are then not necessarily perceived as effects. They only get perceived as either a good groove or, a bad groove. I mean if you want everything to sound huge, you also have to have huge stereo. And that's what we're trying to do here.

There's lots of ways to handle this vocal. Firstly, it sounds like you used no high pass filtering? That's the first big mistake. Proximity effect while it sounds great in the headphones, never translates well to speakers. It just gets big fat muddy. You also got your compression and you're limiting going on your singer. This guy is not dynamic enough to warrant all of what you are doing. So we need to work this track a little more. Questions frequently come up on whether one should track with or without compression and equalization. Many folks recommend against it since it becomes virtually impossible to undo something you have done. I live a Little more dangerously on the edge myself but I can. So not sure if you pre-crunched and EQ'ed recording? Or whether you recorded the microphone clean? Nevertheless, one can compress first and equalize after or one can equalize first and compress after. Both provide two completely different perspectives. And it can also be done both ways. Nevertheless, this vocalist would do well with some slightly aggressive compression with a slow attack time and a release time around 150-200 ms. And you shouldn't be pushing much more than 10-15 DB gain reduction. Aggressive ratio would be around 8:1, 12:1. Now he'll be crunched enough to place him where you want him, in the mix. He'll overshoot the compressors attack time which will give him more emphasis on his delivery. So he'll punch through a little better. And he'll have some dynamic emphasis. Right now he just sits there like a blob. (I hope the blob's name ain't Bob? Because then he'd be Bob the blob. And we don't want to do that to him now do we?)

You're getting there.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Ya know? I didn't say they about the bass guitar. I didn't say a thing about it because, well, it's not really there. If you sit and listen for it, you can kind of hear it. There is certainly a lot of low frequency energy rumbling around. And therein lies that problem. It's all this flabby low-frequency stuff, coagulating in the bottom of my speaker boxes. So, how to get more bass, without peaking out the meters? Well what you do is, you roll off the bass of the bass guitar. Then you stick it through a limiter. Not real fast attack times. Modestly quick release time. Ratio 20:1. Only a couple of DB of limiting is required. You may want to boost some upper midrange to give it a good bite. You want to be able to hear the bass guitar at low volume levels on a single 4 inch speaker. You want to be able to hear the articulations in each note. And when it can pass that four-inch test that way, it'll be awesome on a decent full range monitor system. And it won't go boom boom boom blah blah blah. It'll be there.

Was this a DI bass guitar recording or did you strictly use a microphone on the bass guitar cabinet? Some folks do both. Other folks do one or the other. I find most bass guitar cabinets too boomy, except for perhaps a Hartkey. So I'm not much on putting microphones on bass guitar cabinets. I do when I hear a good cabinet otherwise I'm pretty much DI. When ya take both, you end up with some serious timing issues. Which is not corrected for, causes all sorts of awful sounding comb filtering and severe cancellation. Not the way you want to go.

You can hear some of the examples of what I'm talking about at Crowmobile.com . You'll need Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 or newer, Google Chrome or someone else's third-party player (such as the VLC media player, etc.) to hear each one of the full songs on each one of the five pages of my website. These recordings were made in completely out of control conditions. LOL. They were sure a hell of a lot of blood, guts & fun. All are live captures. From 65,000 screaming fans at RFK Stadium to 50 folks on the front lawn of NBC-TV for a barbecue party. The track was the only one that wasn't aired. No heavy radical equalization has been used on these recordings and mixes. Nothing has been mastered either. A fair amount of compression, limiting and noise gating was utilized on most everything. Not drum overheads. Everything was live for FM & MTV except for a single cut. Then it was only that one cut that was mixed after multi-track capture. Where everything was recorded from the mic preamp directly to the track. Everything else was live and without any microphone checks. Many of these were for some groups I had never heard before. These recordings represent the mix you get to create in 30 seconds or less. Seriously, it's true. The mixes you hear were generated within the first 30 seconds of their first song. Once I got the mix right on the first song, they would go live at the station/MTV. And only a single track, that one single track, was the only track, I actually got to pick the microphones to use. All the rest were whenever they were going to be. And all cheap dynamics except for a decent over the drum condenser pair, and generally, SM-81's. And it'll all rock your butt off. All EQ was at a minimum. Rarely do I find the need to tweak in huge boosts and cuts.

Part of what I'm trying to say is, I think you're playing with too much? I've made some drop dead fabulous recordings with an eight input mic mixer, no EQ, no compression/limiting, a single reverb send and a single Lexicon PCM-60/LXP-1. And I manually rode the vocalists level, continuously and throughout the set. And always shoot microphones except for the three on the drum set overheads and kick. And the worst and cheapest DI boxes for the bass guitar and the keyboard.

All of this fabulous equalization we get to use in our software comes with a mixed blessing. Whenever you equalize anything be it boosting or cutting, you are actually screwing with the timing of that instrument. Some frequencies end up flying through faster and/or slower than other frequencies. We have come to think of equalization as enhancement or for corrective purposes. And it is. But you don't get something for nothing. For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. Which, when it comes to audio, means that when you equalize you are speeding up and slowing down these little electron thingies. So, to enhance and/or correct, it's actually affecting the phase of that source. Phase is not always dependent upon left and right channels. There is a phasing of timing from input source to output source also. I bet that got your heart pumping? Deep breaths... Good. So when you use too much of a good thing it's like putting too much salt on your food, like a blind man trying to focus the camera, like balancing the budget. It ain't going to work like that. I mean it works when ya do it right. You're not there yet. And doing it right usually means trying to get away with the least amount of EQ as possible. The less you use, the better the focus of the mix becomes. Of course not all equalization nor equalizers are the same in how they work, what they do or how they sound. Proportional Q, anybody? Reciprocal, parametric, graphic, I I R, F I R, Inductor, gyrater, RC, LC, what? They're all there just to make your life difficult in an oh so necessary way. You don't need to limit this guy because there's really nothing there to limit. He's about as dynamic as a fish. And sound like he was taking in about the same amount of air as a fish. Tell him to breathe next time. Also tell him to grab his crotch like Michael Jackson used to. I never knew that you once went to the Neverland Ranch? Did Michael really do that to you?

I didn't mean to get personal.
Mx. Remy Ann David

well, if your looking for a 'modern metal drum sound' you use sampling. either mixed in or replaced. Bassist in most metal bands usually just play the guitar riffs on the bass, this creates the 're-enforcement' role for a metal bassist. funk jazz rock hip hop type songs use the bass guitar differently.

modern metal is weird right now cuz it's like a very "clear" picture of a rough thing. thats why i think it's too edited/sampled sometimes. It is not pop, and the vocs on your recordings are more on par w/ pop, than metal. Metal vocs are usually just 'another instrument, or a bit out front. usually in bands the weak point is the bassists/vocs, more so for metal/hardcore music. If i were working on your project, i'd turn a (selected freq/q) vocal lows down, while turning the fader down to a blend. As you cut the lows (freq/bandwidth),

you'll hear the mids/highs 'open up'. Then, either a pleasant boost high, or not. cuts will define sounds. it seems to me that vocal oerfromance (producer hat) comes into play to you more than the mix issuses.

If somebody is not doing a good job singing they need to be told so. when the 'talent' pluggin works, i'll get it. but behind the board tracking, there's not much to do after you labor the initial sounds. 'get a best performance'. It should/will sound like the record more or less. Mixing is awsome, so is edititing, but i feel like tracking is 80%.

samples are the name of the metal game for the past ten yrs, so triggering could help. It doesnt matter much to me, its only a question of if ya want me to make ya sound like it is there, or something else. FWIW compression was way harder to translate than EQ 4 me. But certainly an apprachable low end freq to deal w/ on the vocs.

Thanks guys for all replys!

Been working all weekend so I havn't had the time for any studiotime until today...

I found a sm57 and a sm58 for 130€ and bought them yesterday, so it will be nice to try them out when they arrive by mail.

Sadly it's like having to start all over again...the reason for the absourd eq setting on the overheads was becouse I didn't understand what remy ment about the overheads. I thought you ment that I should open eq for overheads and since I already eq:ed them with low end roll off I thougt that I needed to blow the eq to get the sound from the other drums into the overheads. Well now I went back to the point befor that...

To the mix:
I had one mike inside the kickdrum + a subkick when recording. I tested to invert the phase on the mike inside the drum but that sounded like the mike was cut of and only the subkick worked. Like it was phase cancelled. The snare had a top and bottom mike with bottom mike phase reversed. Kick+snare+toms are already gated as much as I think they can be to not interfere the original sound. I don't have a compressor that reach 20:1 ratio, my vst compressors max at 8:1 so I had to go with 8:1 ratio. Bass was recorded with both microphone and DI and with that I got alot of low end trough the mike.

Kick eq: -2db@300hz, +4.5db@2khz, +3db@4500khz
Kick compressor: -30 threshold, 8:1 ratio, 1ms attack, 250ms release
Snare eq: +3,9db@4700hz, +3db@1200hz, +2db@800hz
Snare compression: -20 threshold, 5:1 ratio, 1ms attack, 500ms release
Toms eq: hi-end roll off at 10khz, +3db@150hz, +3db volume

Vocals eq: -2,5db@100hz, -3db@400hz. +1db volume
Vocals compression: -30 threshold, 8:1 ratio, 16ms attack, 180ms release

Bass eq: -10db@100hz, +4,5db@800hz, +4,5db@1200hz, +5db@3000hz
Bass compression: -30 threshold, 8:1 ratio, 16ms attack, 100ms release.

The 3 mixes had some changes from these settings but these where the starting points. Now the bass sounds totally different, lots of string sound and bright, vocals are blended more into the mix and I think it sounds better overall. The toms did get the life back to them, but I'm not shure about the rest of the set?

I must say that when I first started with the mixing on these songs I did a terrible mistake. I did not save the original recordings as a different project, I just saved over and over as the same project. This was totally stupid and I have a hard time knowing exactly what I've done to the mix, shure I've made notes about every change I've done, but I can't listen to the original recording. This sucks...

So where am I in this mix? I think I've lost myself somewhere along the road, but I still have the (now) three different mixdowns to compare on each song. Every mixdown is dramaticly different from the other and I understand that this is a learning process but why did'nt I mix it right from the start?! Aaaargh! Need guidence!

Thanks guys for teaching me with your ears and giving me advice!

I hade to hide the songs and rename them becouse of publicity on facebook, so now they are just called song 1, 2 and 3. Let me know if you like to hear the previous versions and I'll upload them again. Here are the 3rd version of them all, notice the doppler effect in "3rd mixing of song 2" at 5:15 :)

[MEDIA=soundcloud]user314830501/3rd-mixing-of-song-1

[MEDIA=soundcloud]user314830501/3rd-mixing-of-song-2

[MEDIA=soundcloud]user314830501/3rd-mixing-of-song-3

I hate to tell you this but they all sound muddy to me still. Maybe it's my ears.

It would be awesome if you could convince the band to let some of the folks here have at your mix. I know that you would get some great mixes out of some of us........and then I might have a shot and they'd wish they never let it out but anyway. :rolleyes: Seriously though, it would be fun. No, I don't actually expect that to happen. I just like to throw crumbs out once in a while to see if anyone bites.

agree with Hueseph.

Incidentally, if you want to practice your mixing chops: [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.cambridg…"]The 'Mixing Secrets' Free Multitrack Download Library (Cambridge Music Technology)[/]="http://www.cambridg…"]The 'Mixing Secrets' Free Multitrack Download Library (Cambridge Music Technology)[/]

I can make that happen...The problem would be than that I don't know witch takes are the original ones since all tracks I now use have already been processed. It would be great for me to have one "right way" mix of the material I've been working with to listen to what I'm doing wrong.

The other problem is that thease guys are broke teenagers and I'm doing this for them for free and the mixing you guys come up with would then be needed to be for free. I think it would be more as a guidence for a correct sound for me and not their final mix since I still want to do it...I'm a stubborn man in the learning progress of mixing, and I want to learn how to get it right.

the link you sent was great, I will start with that as soon as possible. But is there a "correct" sample of the song finnished mixed? I guess I'll need to start with copying other peoples mixes so that I know what they are doing. When I learn that I know how I can set my own tutch to the mix without f##king it up.

Nobody's asking to get paid here. I wasn't suggesting that. Some of us actually just enjoy doing it. Just one song as an example. Not an entire LP and only for learning purposes.

In this world we're living in I've learned that nothing comes for free, so I thought it was like that here also. But it's nice to hear that that not all people are like that :) I'm hardcore interested in the whole recording progress and enjoy every minute I get to spend in my studio. I can spend hours testing new things and solving problems, but the whole mixing thing seems to be faaaaaar away from good. This is bothering me and I find it hard to learn. I know a good mixing engineer is not made over a night, and it sucks to be somewhat alone with this here. Shure there are many engineers here to, but I don't see myself walking into a studio and ask for learning lessons.

The best I can get are you guys, but youre all on the other side of the world and noone of you can step into my studio and show me where I'm going wrong. I find it way to hard to get the original tracks to you from thease songs since I messed up from the beginning. But I have another project going on where I write everything and the song belongs to me. With that project I can get you the original tracks since they belong to me :) I'm still in the writing process with the song but the music is finnished and musicians have been contacted so we'll probably start tracking next week.

I guess I'll have to make thease 3 songs on my own but with help from you guys, if it's possible to get it right this way? So to the mixing, define "alot of mud". I don't understand, witch instrument is the problem or is it the whole mix? How do I correct this?

A large part of the problem might be your monitors and your room. you just might not be hearing things properly. Sometimes i like to employ an rta like Voxengo's Span. I don't like to rely on them but an rta can help shed light on what your mix is doing.

ugh. typing on a smartphone. not so smart.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]hueseph[/]="http://recording.or…"]hueseph[/] Brings up a helpful suggestion of looking at a RTA (real-time analyzer). In all honesty though, while I find those extremely educational and helpful, they really are not an indicator of what is or isn't good. For that comparison to be made, you need to have some other type of recorded reference to listen to. Now not too many folks here can create a mix that already sounds like it has been mastered. Nevertheless, a great sounding CD by a well known artist, something that you already know well your self, it is a great place to start from. It gives you that tonality and spectral response to be evaluated through your current monitor system. From there, you should be able to generate a similar level of quality. You'll know when your equalization and dynamic range processing is either too much or too little.

It's all in the ears.
Mx. Remy Ann David

I just listened to your mixes for the first time and to me, they totally sound like your mixing room (acoustics) and monitors are greatly effecting your mix. Your mixes sound consistent and like you are being overloaded with reflections. I feel like my ears are plugged.
I haven't read through all the posts here so I'm shooting blind. What kind of room are you mixing in? It sounds small and reflective. Do you understand that a live room will cause you to mix mud, thus, all your mixes will sound like your ears are blocked. Ya, they sound good to you, in that room but like crap in another room or car.

my two cents.

Really I think his situation is simple? He's just playing with too much software. You've got to invoke the KISS principle here. Less really is more. It makes it more natural, more musical, more organic, more interactive, more real. As the big guy just said, you are drowning in bad and over accentuated bad acoustics. I mean this doesn't happen when you use SM57/58's mostly even with too much processing. Because even that less is more. The more you get from software and condenser microphones the less you want to listen to it.

In different slang, you need to know how to make a good recording with virtually nothing. In other words, a couple of cheap microphones and a mixer with no equalizers and no compressors and limiters. Because all that does is make for trouble. It doesn't make for a professional recording. The simple recordings are professional sounding. Because they are, simple. And even in those bad acoustics, both in the environment of recording and in the environment of mixing, it only takes a reference source to be able to tweak in. When you have to. When you can't improve the acoustics. It's called on location. As in remote recording. And having both headphones and speakers, even in a lousy acoustical environment, you can do better than this. But you see, everything at this stage has become nothing more than a struggle. How to recoup is obviously the question.

So perhaps this needs to be approached with two different thoughts? OK, so you wanted it to be a studio recording. So now it's an on location recording. And what to do about those acoustics? How can you add what you need to add without those acoustics beating you back? Just like in physics, where every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so the same one must do with their dynamics processing around bad acoustics. In other words, if you're going to compress and limit, you definitely need to downward expand and gate. By virtually an equal and opposite amount. And the only trick is in the threshold setting. Sometimes that downward action needs to be damn fast other times it can just be fast. Instead of boosting frequencies you think you need to enhance, perhaps you might want to reduce opposing frequencies instead? Cut equalization sounds different from boost equalization and presents a different image due to the difference in phase timing of the actual frequencies going through the equalizer. Of course that's not true with constant phase equalizers. And those do sound quite different. You use that type when the other type doesn't work. And we didn't have that option back in the days of analog only.

Now remember not all equalizers need to be in use. When they were on audio consoles, back in the day, they were referred to as program equalizers not corrective equalizers. And if the source called for some cutting or boosting, we could do it if we had to. But that's if we had to. Then there is the element of effect. You can also utilize an equalizer as an effect device. And this is where people mess up their recordings. That's like saying you don't need your glasses while you're driving because you have cruise control. Not exactly correct but I'm sure it's done regularly? That doesn't make it right or good. Like texting while driving. We know how that enriches our lives. But of course done the wrong way you've seen the results. And equalization along with dynamic range manipulation can be thought of as the same thing. And the same techniques should also apply.

So what to do? Here's what ya do. You turn off all equalizers. You turn off all effects. Everything flat? Good. Now just add some low frequency roll offs and cuts on just about everything. Now push a mix up. Ballasted best you can. Don't touch that equalizer! I'll have to slap you on the hand if you try that again.

OK the vocal isn't right sounding it needs some compression. Add some compression. OK you're done. Now how does it sound? Better I bet? Yup. That's all it needs. Screw the acoustics, they are there like dust mites. No not getting get rid of them. You're not going to make them look nicer (nasty looking little suckers). They're always going to be that way. And so are acoustics were you don't have any control over them. You just have to work around them and ya can. This is precisely why God created downward expanders and Gates, Bill Gates. And his dynamic range downward thingies. (Play circus music here) eh voilà! Acoustics have been downwardly shoved out and the door has been slammed in his face. Problem solved. And then ya recording sounds kick ass. And that's rock 'n roll.

It's really easy to do, honestly, really.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Thanks Remy! That gave some light over things...I must first say that this was my first band recording, so I must sortof defend myself with lack of knowledge. I've learnt more in this thread then the past year of reading books!

If I break up the different stages in this recording it would be like this: Today I have the knowledge to know that I messed up the drums in the recording stage. I EQed them alot and I EQed them wrong, that left me with a bad raw recording to begin with.

Guitars was tracked with cheap microphones and atleast one of them had the mikes positioned wrong (or cheap guitar amp) cuz it had a lot of box effect to it. Still sounds like it's in a big box though I've cut around 250-350hz. So they almost made it through the tracking stage as good as they could get with my gear.

Bass I belive was tracked correctly, with a DI and a mike (cheap one though).

Vocals is a mess to begin with.

After the tracking I just started to process the drums with more EQ, compression, gating and so on...The less is more consept got lost here. The drums lost their live sound.

Guitars have been made to a point where I think they sound ok exept for the one that still has the huge box effect .

Bass got lots of string sound and got it's definition after beeing processed like you Remy adviced.

Vocals still sound like crap to me, but I don't know if the mix does effect the badness in it as much as the vocalist. He sounds like crap, and I think it's possible for me to get him to sound good if he's crap from the beginning. I spoke to the drummer in the band and explained this and I said that after the mix is done (as good as I can get it) they should listen to it and talk about the vocals if they want to do something about it or not.

So I think that I sould stop working with the vocals and try to get the rest as good as it can get. Then get the band to listen to it so they can decide the future about the vocals. If they decide to redo vocals, then that will be a future issue to deal with. I now have the sm58 so the recording part should be improved. But the vocalist needs to get some serious lessons first.

I have a BIG problem with redoing everything but making it flat. The EQed tracks has been rerecorded to get the EQ to stick due to my gear and me wanting to do analog mixing. The stupidest mistake I did with this project was to NOT save each recorded mix raw. I just saved the new ones over the old ones - the raw recordings have been lost in the process. I don't know witch are the final takes of each track. So that sort of leaves me with this crap that I got :(

About the acustics my studio is not built by the rules of correct studio building. The main idea of my studio was to be able to have all my music hobby in one place. And I'm interested in recording, so I got myself some gear. When I got it finnished I thought it got so good that I could open my doors for other bands to come and record whatever they like. I did some acustic treatment in the recording room to get rid of all the bad echo. No acustic measurement where ever done. I did this by adding some cheap foam on the walls by thinking where the sound bounces. One corner trap was added to each corner. Then I clapped my hans in different places to hear if there was any "bad" sound. I detected it in one place, and as soon as I get enough cash for a big order I'll order more foam. So this is not a high-tech studio build by any kind...no room inside a room, no anti-vibrating floor or walls. It's just a hobby studio with no serious money put into it. The control room is also our family storage for lots of clothes and boxes. I think that room is almost better acusticly do to all the stuff that catches frequencies, but it's like you guys said: it's small. It's about 2,5meters x 4meters with 2,80meter roof hight. It has a curtain that hides all the shelves...

Here are some pictures, first it's the recording room set up for drumrecording. In the next picture it's a compact vocal booth and the third is the control room. Forth picture is the opposite wall to the vocal booth and the fifth pic is with curtains pulld away, and I don't know about the reflections you guys suggest here :D Lots of crap, not many solid reflections other than behind my speakers but they have the "glory-hole" in the front so I don't think that makes to much difference if it's solid wall behind them.
     

Attached files

i wasn't able to open the link to the songs so i can't comment on them, dunno if i did something wrong or..

that first drum setup looks like a great mixing area too. ceiling treatment is often underlooked, and hardly overrated. mixing can be done anywhere on anything yes, but it doesn't hurt to try to optimize your area either. That shelving could make some could used to scatter some reflections during recording.

Your method of clapping and listening is fine for taming a recording room. if your looking into more mix position type treatment, set your stuff up, and sit where you'll be listening, have a buddy hold a mirror on the walls to your sides, and move it around when your can see your tweeters/speakers in the mirror, you'll want to put absorption, these are known as primary, or early reflections. these mess badly with the 'direct sound' coming from your speakers, which is what you want to hear accurately. Musicians fiend has some 2" aurelex cheap, $59 for 32s.q.f. half the price of anywhere else. or they did a few months anyway.

I had pretty good luck w/ them glued (w/ supplied glue) to pegboard so i could move them around as my needs changed from mix to record. i've mounted them on mic stands to make a psuedo booth, walls, and used the pegboard side for a semi-reflective surface.

you had mentioned that you recorded the bass both mic'ed and DI, just wondering if your checked the phase. ditto for the drums, i didn't learn about proper phase for a long time, it was always just move the mic till it sounds good, w/out knowing why. I encourage you to use the polarity revoerse in your daw, because after all, eq'ing is just adjusting the phase of a signal.

As far as file management goes, i always had a compulsion to save as, especially when my cpu shutdown in the middle of a great take, twice. when i started working at the studio, i was told the convention used, which i now use personally 'projectname01/01/01a' so name 6 digit date a,b,c ect. we also make extensive use of the 'takes feture' in the DAW labeling all the keeper's "kpr".

as a quick aside, a particually boastful guy i work w/ sometimes, prides himself that he brought his session to the powerstaion in the early 90's for bob clearmountain to mix, and got out of there w/out mr. clearmountain using to eq.

i'm not that good yet, but i've found not all eqs are equal. the eqs in adobe audition have been more pleasing to my ears than any other stock eq i've gotten to use.

p.s speaker position makes a huge difference too, even a few inches forward/back could get you out of a mode or null.

p.p.s instrument tuning is arguably more vital than mics, don't sleep on drum tuning, and tuning in general. this will kill a sound easier than a cheapo mic, or a bad room.

Interesting story about Bob. I could believe no EQ, when you've recorded in the right rooms. With the right microphones into quality preamps. And people who know how to use the high pass filter switch on the microphone. That have some experience in the selection and placement of microphones. But I happen to know that Bob is very fond of his SSL 4000 E. He's done plenty of work are in 4000 G's and does not like those equalizers as much as his E, series equalizers. And he likes that fuzzy quality from the VCA's in the SSL analog desks which he uses to his mix advantage. Because in a way, analog VCA's, DBX and Valley People's screw with the sound a little bit like analog tape. They have a certain mush factor to them which actually is very important in today's digital realm. So really good engineers like him and myself understand that technical excellence can be achieved when one understands that what might seem like a limitation to others, is what you make your money on. So we don't avoid the limitations but rather embrace them. And that's audio engineering as compared to audio engineers. Engineers seek technical perfection. Engineering requires innovative understanding. And those two definitions are regularly confused. While they have a tendency to come together, they are pushed forward by technique and understanding. Which doesn't always mean you use the latest greatest advertised stuff. And he told me he could never get the kind of sound that he wanted out of any API console. Not his cup of tea. Though he didn't mind using Neve's. And at Media Sound in NYC, in the late 1970s when I was a maintenance Tech nation there, he was a staff engineer there. The studio had 2 Neve's, a Harrison 32 series and an API. I think he also told me that like many others, he could never get his head around the Harrison automation? Neither could I. Apparently the Hollywood guys could? I guess Bruce SwedeIn did? And that's Thrilling to think about. LOL, sorry I had to work that one in. I remember when Dave Harrison worked for Jeep at MCI in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I lived four blocks from the factory back in 1979. Right after he split off from MCI. Poor Dave but he did die a fat cat. I'm just glad that I'm broke and still alive at 57.

I'm going to take my Neve with me...
Mx. Remy Ann David

hueseph, post: 394477 wrote: Check out this sorta famous band recording. Take a look at the mic he's using. It ain't no Neumann. It's not a Telefunken. Not a ribbon. Standard SM58. Actually, I don't think it's a Shure. Regardless, I think the point is that it's not a condenser. It's just a dynamic vocal mic.

Looks like a condensed SM87...sorry if im wrong but if not the 87 im almost pretty sure is condensed...

kmetal, post: 395174 wrote: i wasn't able to open the link to the songs so i can't comment on them, dunno if i did something wrong or..

That's strange, here's a link to my user
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://soundcloud.c…"]user314830501's sounds on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free[/]="http://soundcloud.c…"]user314830501's sounds on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free[/]

The first pic was from the recordingroom set up for drumrecording, but I don't mix there...did you check the other photos? My control "closet" is quite small compaired to that room...it's like I fit in with my equipment but not much more...

I don't think the bass has phase problems, atleast it sounds worse if I reverse the phase on either of the two bass channels.

I know that the speakers are not in a prefect triangle due to the lack of space. They are 120cm:s apart from eachother and my head is between 90-100cm:s from each speaker.

As far as tuning goes I encurrage guitarists/bassists to tune between every 2-3 take. I've been a drummer for 15 years so drumtuning is something I first start to check when drums are carried in, snarebuzz is also something I'll check for befor the rec button is hitted. Damping rings has also been used on toms to get a more controlled sound.

When I started to record this band I was very novice to this and had just read books and made some demos for my own bands with "no" recording equipment. A tascam recorder and a crap mixing table. I now know that this project went straight to hell already at the tracking phase. The drums are a issue I just can't get right anymore...it was over EQ:ed from the start and I think I did not have a good sound to start with. Guitars should have been better tracked also. One of them sounded very boxy and crap, I should have experimented more with the room and mic placement. I've had a week away from the studio now and maybe one more to let my ears listen to other music, and when I eventually return I'll hopfully have some new ears and ideas for the sound. I've been listening alot to different music and tried to listen for individual sounds in the mixes. This is a totally new way for me to listen to songs...Like first when you start playing a instrument you just start to focus on that instrument in all the music you listen to. This happened when I started to play the drums, for years I just heard drums in songs and forgot to listen to the actual songs. After about 5 years I realised I've just been listening to drums and nothing else on records I listened to. It took me many years to learn myself to hear the band playing.

Feels like it's the same thing happening now, I'm starting to hear all sorts of "extra" material I havn't heard in songs before. Am I getting the enginering sickness now? :D Maybe I havn't heard music like you guys do? I mean I can't understand how it's possible for people like you guys to recognize choises of mics, techniques, room sounds ect. just by simply listening to the songs I've recorded. It's just amazing!

Well...to be continnued next week...

elcubo, post: 395321 wrote: Looks like a condensed SM87...sorry if im wrong but if not the 87 im almost pretty sure is condensed...

Give the man a....well...I don't smoke and I don't promote it. How bout a beer instead?

drums can be fixed w/ samplimg like drumsgogg. guitars, well DI is what is for w/ distorted sounds. the bass cuts thru alot, which means maybe some over-scooped guitars.? it's all mids/clack/ no low movment. the chord changes should move the low lows, or the walls, or something. it seems like the the whole thing was band passed.
mix in the largest area you have and you'll smoke your own mixes. the guitars need some life, carve out a sound for them to be 'there' the whole time.

Actually, I don't think that's a Beta 87? I believe we are looking at and listening to a KSM 9.

I've used plenty of Beta 87's and this does not sound like a Beta 87 to me. Although its color scheme was that SHURE blue, even though the windscreen to me looks like it's a 9.

I'm a 10
Mx. Remy Ann David

It is actually a Beta 87. You can tell by the striations near the bottom of the windscreen.