Try listening to it when switched to mono. See if there is anything you would want to change...

Hi thanks for the answer (y)
Did that test, did it again after your comment.

Once in Mono, there's a bit too much vocals, and guitars a bit low (I guess it should be like that, as there's a 3dB difference from 100% side, to 0% center, I can't remember clearly what the law says...)
So if I put my guitars a bit higher, it would be too much in the stereo version ?
Same thing but reversed for vocals, if I put it down, it wouldn't be enough in stereo ?
(I'll do the test tomorrow, everything is closed for tonight !)

Does it show an error in the stereo version ?

Thanks again :ROFLMAO:

Checking in mono is a very good thing to do.. but you can't conclude volumes only by doing so.
Going to mono will also show if there is phase cancellation.
For exemple if your Overheads are not in phase with the bass drum, once in mono the bass drum may have a lot less low frequencies.
If you judge it too fast you may add low frequencies instead of trying to minimise the cancellation.

The song is ok..
The recording seems to lake definition and dimension but I think the level of the vocal is ok..
I'm not sure about the seperation of the drum from the other instruments that have a very different reverb. (Question of taste of course)

Ok ! To my ears there's no significant problem in mono...

The recording seems to lake definition and dimension

I know about dimension, I guess it's about reverb settings (Isn't it ?) but I don't know what to do ! At school, a friend of mine was gifted in doing 3D mixing with his reverb buses, but I'm not ! lol So it's on my list to watch for a good tuts about setting up reverbs.
The problem was also that the room acoustic isn't top notch, so I prefer avoiding ambiance takes.
And I tend to think that it's better to learn to do a good job with close up takes, before to go into ambiance territory...

Do you know what I did wrong ? What to do differently next time ? I'm particularly curious about this definition issue ! Or maybe it's because there's 2 rhythm parts, one clean electric guitar and one crunch both playing open chords, one on top of the others. Plus I added a crunchier power chords guitar to make the rhythm thicker. So all of these guitars together are maybe a bit of a mess ! And 2 mics for each. Maybe I should try to mute some more.

Thanks again for your precious advices :giggle:

JulianMartin, post: 451592, member: 50730 wrote: I know about dimension, I guess it's about reverb settings (Isn't it ?) but I don't know what to do !

Dimention as I talked about is more about how defined and big the recording was done (room acoustic quality of instrument choice of mic and placement and preamp / converter)
Adding reverb just put the instrument in an artificial space which many times make the recording smaller thinner (sounds like a contradiction isn't it?).
How can I put it ; if you put the instrument far in a room/hall it will apear smaller. Does that make sens ?

We're often trying to describe sound and it's not easy. Describing it as colors or object shape and position etc.. It's a weird thing really.
But it's hard to communicate those things otherwise, specially if the person doesn't have a lot of experiences and trainned ears.

I searched for an exemple and the first I found was this recording. Listen how huge the vocal and even his tinny guitar :

Ok ! Yeah sure ! Not easy for sure ! lol
So that's what I said, I should have put my mics farer to get better results ? I didn't do it because the room I had is not acoustically treated ! (And has a bad acoustic, everyone working there told me that)

Things sound bigger with ambiant mics in the real world, but isn't true with reverb plugins, that's what you say, right ? But it is the opposite with close up takes and reverb plugins. I knew for real world of course, but not for added reverb !

In the video, the guitar (And vocals) sounds so big and real mainly because of the room mics ? (Plus the piezo (I guess) to add definition) Plus placements, gear, etc... of course. We got a vocal booth, it's on the to-do list to build a guitar booth. Everytime I tell them to make something for the drum room but they don't hear me...

Thanks ! :LOL:

JulianMartin, post: 451597, member: 50730 wrote: So that's what I said, I should have put my mics farer to get better results ? I didn't do it because the room I had is not acoustically treated !

No, getting the mic far from the source won't make it big...
There is no such thing as 'let's do this it will sound perfect' ! it's a combinaison of every aspect of the recording that makes it what it is.
Using better preamps and converters could be where you need to work, I can't say. Having a better sounding room surely would help. Throwing moving blankets around is often enough to ge more forcus recordings. BUT !! Don't take my words, everything you do should come from a proper analysis of what you got and doing the right choices to get where you want..

JulianMartin, post: 451597, member: 50730 wrote: Things sound bigger with ambiant mics in the real world, but isn't true with reverb plugins, that's what you say, right ?

Again, to me huge sounding has nothing to do with reverbs.
BUT cheap reverbs will thin tracks. Quality reverb plugins are hard to come by.
I like Altiverb (which is a room simulator) and I like the new fabfilter Pro-R.
Valhalla room also can do well on some stuff.
Our fellow member audiokid would tell you nothing beats the Briscati hardware reverb. (kind a agree with him on that and I wish I could afford one.) ;)

This is another thing.. we do what we can with the gear we can afford and try to make it the best.
To me 80% of a good sound is done at tracking time. I invest time and gear accordingly.

Don't get me wrong, your recording is not bad. It just need to level up a bit to be album material.
You are at the best place to learn. Ask specific questions about what your issues are.
ex : Do you get EQ, Compresion and gain staging well ?

In the intro the kick is clear and prominent, in the rest of the song it gets stepped on by the rest of the mix, especially the bass. The bass seems to be indistinct and prone to covering up the kick. I think the bass could use a cut in the lows to let it be more defined and not step on the kick so much. The kick might need to come up a bit after the intro.

Just because you have multiple mics on a source doesn't mean you have to use all of them all the time.

I find that the loss of separation in your recording is due to a couple of things.

One....All the instruments as well as the vocal and I'll even go as far as to include the drum tuning is in the same register of pitch. When you start layering things that are being played in the same range of pitch as well as tone, they tend to 'sum' each other and create a mess or a 'smear'. Then if you add reverb to this already messy blend you get.....more smear. A lack of definition and therefore a lack of power to the arrangement. You don't create size or fullness by simply layering more things without consideration of their effect on the other parts you're layering to.

Two....The vocal HAS to be the focal point of any production. Elsewise...why sing at all? A great production has these elements as the most forward in their mix....Vocal...Drums...Bass...A good test is to turn the mix down a bit and leave the room. What can you still hear? Compare this to tracks or songs you're familiar with that are big-time releases. Do the same test. What do you hear?

Layering guitars is a subjective thing but if you were to be able to break down the guitar sounds of some of the best recordings you will be surprised to find that some of these layers don't sound very good on their own. But in the context of the whole sound they work perfect. Every layer for guitar shouldn't be full-range especially if they are being played into the layer. If you are using the same original track and simply multing this then a different set of rules apply. To truly 'double' a part takes a skill level that very few people in the world possess. Therefore it figures that each time you play over a track in order to "fill it out" you are also dealing with the slight or even exaggerated differences in the playing of the part. AND if you try and make these all be BIG in tonal nature you open up the case for 'smear'.

A couple of other notes......This track is recorded WAY too loud for the room and it sounds like also for the equipment. I hear a lot of room reflections and flutter echos and I also sense the input gear is working really hard to keep up with the amount of db's you're trying to capture. Even the most budget conscious gear can make good quality captures as long as you aren't trying to use it beyond its inherent abilities. This includes, mics/preamps/mixer/outboard/ recording medium etc....It all has to be capable of dealing with the input you're trying to capture. If a mic simply will not stay clean and clear at 110db's then its either not the right tool or the input is too loud. One of either will have to change.

What this does in the long run is give you quality tracks to deal with at mixdown. The less you have to repair with added EQ or adding something to make it 'better' the more you will get out of your production. The more 'pro' it will sound.

The last thing is reverb. I hope you understand the nature of a reverb. It is all about 'time'. When you add reverb to something you have to be aware of that somethings role in the timing of the arrangement. ie: where does it lie within the established beat. If your source is pulsing at 110 bpm and your reverb is set to 96 bpm then you are going to get 'smear'. Using different reverb can be a good thing but unless they are timed correctly its going to mess up everything you're trying to accomplish.

BTW..Using the clean guitar against the rocked-up guitar is the right thing to do. Embrace this and learn more about how the instruments support each other while remaining separated and individualistic .

Ok, ok... I have to read everything many times to get it right... But I understood, and most importantly HEARD that I wasn't going in the right direction with my EQing... Thanks to you, so I managed to get more definition on guitars (And mute the clean rhythm guitar mics)

The drums should be tuned lower you say ?

The fact is I try to hit the three quarter of my input meter, peaks hitting the orange section. So as you say it's probably too much. I was so afraid to didn't record things right, I pushed the gain knobs too high...

I know in theory a lot of things you say (But it's always good to get a reminder), but when it comes to real situation... I get lost ! lol

Regarding the bass/kick problem, I can't find a way to fix it so far... Will do some more tests.

Thanks again and again ! :giggle:

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Have you considered using some pitch correction on the vocal (and background vocal?)? I also might have considered double tracking the main vocal as well. Listen to some Alice in Chains -- there's some phrasing here in the vocal that is similar that might work well with that kind of vocal treatment.

I suggest that Nirvana's "In Utero" would be a good set of reference mixes for this time. Particularly the songs "Very Ape", and "Francis Farmer Will Have Her Revenge On Seattle".

The band Helmet, has a song called "Unsung" which would be a valid reference, with a different snare sound than nirvana's album.

Queens of the Stone Age's album, "Songs For The Deaf" would also be a very good reference.

All of these mixes portray raw power and ruggedness, while sounding easy on the ear, or in the case of In Utero, just fitting, with a dark tortured vibe. In Utero was recorded in 12 days, including vocals and overdubs. I forget if that included the mixes as well.

JulianMartin, post: 451577, member: 50730 wrote: Hi there !

I recently recorded a whole band, and for the first time I did everything alone, tracking, mixing and mastering. (Except songwriting, this is not my band, I was just sound engineer wannabe on that project x)

Of course I did the very best I could but there's obviously some mistakes at every stages, so I'd like to know which ones are they !

I had to trig the snare, because it didn't sound "full" enough (There was 2 mics on the snare, above and below, classic ! But I'll do some research about that.) And we can't hear enough the attack of the kick.
That's part of the recording mistakes.

One of the rhythm guitar is an electric clean and I don't really dig it...

Anyway, every advice is welcome !

Thank you :)

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

For your first time mixing, I think you have done well!

The kick sounds full and commanding, the snare is perhaps a bit too thin.
I think you could make the guitars a little more menacing recording exact takes on either side of the stereo field.
The guitar solo is you have to think of as a vocal solo - adding different interesting effects to emphasize particular phrases.

The vocals perhaps need a little touch up of pitch correction and perhaps the singer could have sounded a bit more enthusiastic in his performance.

First time - nice work!! :)

pcrecord, post: 451600, member: 46460 wrote: To me 80% of a good sound is done at tracking time.

Absolutely. To add to Marco's great post, I would suggest that you don't just "throw up" mics in random positions. Get the sound you want at the recording phase. You'd be surprised how much a mic can tonally change by moving it even a mere inch in a given direction.
The better your tones sound going in, the easier it will be to mix. You don't have to have $2000 mics to get really nice recordings. But you do need to pay more attention to the instruments at their source, and miking is kind of an art form based on knowledge of particular mic models, and experience. It's not a hard thing to learn, but it is really important...and you'd be surprised at just how good tracks can sound by using basic, affordable dynamic mics like Shure 57's/58's.
Also, instrument tuning is REALLY important. If you don't like the sound of a snare or rack tom, then get the drummer to tune them to where you do like them. Details like these can make huge differences in how your tracks sound... and it's really so simple. It just takes a little extra time, patience, attention to detail and learning what works and what doesn't.
It determines the difference between a "mix" session, and a "repair" session. Trust me when I tell you that the former is much easier and more pleasant to do than the latter scenario is. ;)
FWIW
-d.