Showing posts with label Mixing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mixing. Show all posts

Saturday, January 26, 2013

get-better-mixes-by-going-for-the-big-wins


Posted in: Mixing, Tips
| by: Graham

Want some mixing advice? Don’t spend too much time focused on the little details. Sure all the fine tuning is important, but you don’t want to overspend your time and energy there. Instead, pour the majority of your mixing brain power into these three core areas and you’ll get big results. Trust me.
Build A Killer Static Mix



Full Post Here:

Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Zen and the Art of Strong Stereo Imaging | Audio Issues

This is a guest post from mastering engineer Barry Gardner who operates SafeandSound online mastering
From time to time I hear a mix that has dubious stereo imaging.  This can affect both acoustic or electronic mixes.
For acoustic mixes it is often the mic technique that creates problematic stereo images. For electronic mixes, there are a variety of reasons why bad stereo imaging occurs.
By dubious I mean the stereo image does not have the traits of a professional mix-down. It may be too narrow with many monophonic sources or it might be too wide sounding with possible phase problems, e.g. not mono compatible. This can be due to over use of stereo width enhancers or it may suffer from blanket application of effects across multiple mix tracks.

Make Sure It Works in Mono

When you mix your track it is important to mono the track and make sure that the track does not sound excessively different in mono.
It should maintain a similar tonal balance in mono with some sources even sounding slightly louder. If you have a serious phase issue for any sources they will tend to lose bass or drop significantly in level when summed in mono. At worst, they’ll vanish from the mix entirely. So make it a habit to check your mix in mono as it builds.
In some instances there may be a single stereo source that is out of phase between the channels and goes unnoticed. We all want to have wide, punchy sounding mixes and this can be a challenge for the beginning engineer.
After all, there are many technical aspects to learn when you’re first starting out. One common issue I have found is the application of a single effect across multiple mix tracks. Reverb is the most common stereo enhancing effect in people’s mixes. I would like to take the stereo image aspect of mixing back to the starting point and look at the sound selection. (drum hits, samples, synths, vocals, effect sweeps and other elements that make up your music)
In many instances people tend to start their track by picking sources that they like the sound of. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, it’s what we all do. However, it is worth introducing another layer of selectivity when you choose your sound sources.

Stereo for the Electronic Musician

For electronic musicians it is important to understand whether your source samples and sounds are monophonic or stereo. If they are mono they will have exactly the same information in the left and right channels and if they are stereo they will have a sense of space.
If you are unsure. try mono-ing some sources in your DAW and see if the stereo image changes. If there is no change then the source is mono but if the source loses some depth and space then it is highly likely to be stereo.
The reason I suggest this is so that from the outset you will be building an appropriate stereo perspective into your music. Sounds that are commonly stereo (the technically correct term being pseudo-stereo) would be synth patches (pads, leads and some basses), synthetic snare drums, sweeper effects. Sounds that may more commonly be mono may be kick drums and instrumental samples. There is no hard and fast rule so use the mono-ing technique above to find out if the sources are mono or stereo. Doing this results in less problems with phase as you will be avoiding these pseudo-stereo creating techniques.

Avoid the Unnatural

One of the most unpleasant techniques some people use to artificially enhance the stereo imaging is to put a short stereo reverb on all the drums, the synths and bass line which are all from mono source samples. This produces a slight sense of extra depth. However it also produces an unnatural and unpleasant global coloration to all the sources and has a somewhat “cheap” and subtly metallic sound to the mix. So from the outset, pay attention to your choice of sounds when you are building the track.
If you want to create a pseudo stereo image for a specific mono source, you can use a few different techniques. In fact adding a little reverb is perfectly OK, but limit it to one sound source and don’t apply the same reverb to every single source you have.
  • You may wish to double up the mono source on 2 channels, pan hard left and right and delay one side by a few milliseconds. (always double checking mono compatibility by mono summing or checking on a correlation meter)
  • You can add a subtle stereo based delay to a sound which can widen the sound (often a subtle ping pong with hard left panned delays can do the trick).
  • Another technique is to double 2 mono sources panned hard left and right and apply two separate digital graphic EQ plug-ins. Create opposing EQ boosts and cuts to each signal so they don’t have the same sounds. At any given frequency the left channel gets a boost and the right gets a cut through all the available bands.
Stereo imaging enhancers rely on already available stereo information in a source. By all means use them sparingly to assist width creation but be aware in over-use since mono compatibility may fail. All these enhancements can be used with care and in moderation with actual stereo sources to give a deeper and wider mix sound. Also, do not be afraid to leave a mono source strictly mono as it all adds to fill the stereo image in a natural way.

Know Your Sources

As well as sources that are very narrow it is worth being vigilant towards overly wide sources.
For example, many factory synth patches are created to sound big wide and lush. In some instances this is overdone and when summed to mono they can sound very different. In such instances, knowing how to program your favorite synthesizer comes in handy.
When these techniques are applied with care and respect to mono compatibility, they should produce a fuller, stable, mono compatible and more euphonic stereo image for your mixes.
None of these pseudo stereo image enhancing techniques replace good source selection but they can help with adding some subtle and extra width to a mix-down that is otherwise lacking stereo imaging.
It is highly recommended that all experiments are checked for mono compatibility either through mono summing your stereo bus or checking on a freeware phase scope like “Flux stereo tool” or “Voxengo Span”. Selecting from a wide palette of sound sources helps bring a natural depth and separation to your mix-down.
Image by: pittaya


Zen and the Art of Strong Stereo Imaging | Audio Issues
Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

How to Minimize Noise In Your Mixes

How to Minimize Noise In Your Mixes
Share/Bookmark

Saturday, March 17, 2012

How to Use a Reference Track to Improve your Mixing | Audio Issues

How to Use a Reference Track to Improve your Mixing | Audio Issues
Share/Bookmark

Friday, March 16, 2012

Gary Noble Show: Tech Tuesdays: Stereo Imaging Tips

Gary Noble Show: Tech Tuesdays: Stereo Imaging Tips: Tech Tuesdays: Stereo Imaging Tips
Share/Bookmark

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Best Plugin Order For Mixing? [Reader Question] » The Recording Revolution

Best Plugin Order For Mixing? [Reader Question] » The Recording Revolution

 If you’ve mixed for any length of time you might have thought to yourself if it matters in what order you insert plugins on your tracks. Or maybe the thought has never crossed your mind. You simply always reach for the same plugins in the same order on each mix. In either case today I want to answer a reader question regarding the subject and give you a few things to consider as you mix.

"In what order should my plugins go in the insert? I usually start with a compressor/limiter and then move to EQ, possibly delay or reverb then desser if necessary…granted this is for vocals. I would really like to know what a good general guide is for tracks. – Michael R."

There Is A Difference

The first thing we should be clear about is that there is a real difference in how your track will sound depending on the order of your plugins. You can take 3 plugins on a vocal track, swap them around and the vocal will sound different. I know it sounds obvious, but plugin inserts (much like their hardware counterparts) operate on a simple input/output basis. What comes in gets processed and sent out.
Why is this relevant? Because you need to simply be aware that if you change the order of plugins you are changing the inputs and outputs of the signal. You are changing what a plugin receives, processes, and then eventually dumps back out. So, plugin order is important and does make a difference.


There Is No Right Way

Now all of THAT being said, there technically is no “correct” plugin order that you must follow. Some mixes call for certain plugin chains and some mixing engineers prefer certain methods as well. It doesn’t matter what anyone else does, it matters what makes the track sound amazing and fit in the mix.

How I Handle EQ And Compression

Personally I use two main plugins on almost every track, EQ and Compression. I’ll use more effects on certain instruments but I can guarantee there will likely be EQ and Compression on everything. I prefer to place my EQ first in the chain and the compressor immediately after.
The reasoning? I personally view EQ as a tool to carve away and “fix” the recorded sound while on the other hand I view compression as a tool to change or enhance the now “fixed” sound in order to sit in the mix better. If I’m going to do a lot of subtractive EQ, then I’d rather remove the unwanted frequencies before I go turning them up with a compressor.

The Rest Of The Effects

After I’ve EQ’d and compressed, then and only then will I add other effects dessers, modulating effects (chorus, flanger, phaser), etc. Again, I don’t want to effect or enhance a signal that still has unwanted frequencies in it, so I’ll make sure to insert these types of plugins AFTER my EQ and Compression. As asked by Michael in the original question, as it relates to delay and reverb effects, I don’t actually insert these effects right on the tracks. Rather I’ll use sends and busses to blend in the amount of wet effect that I want. And this usually comes after the insert plugins.
The only exception to this might be if I’m using some kind of distortion or tape saturation effect. These can work really well as the first insert in your chain as it’s acting as part of the initial sound, which then can be EQ’d and compressed to taste. Again, this is my personal preference and is very characteristic of how I mix. I have many friends who are mixers and they do things very differently. It truly is a matter of taste.
Share/Bookmark

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Recording: Tips For Effective Bus Compression (Includes Audio) - Pro Sound Web

Explanations of effective and ineffective ways to shape your sound

Bus compression is certainly not a new concept, however, it is an effective and reliable engineering tool and its basic principles are vital considering you are affecting multiple voices.

When approaching bus compression, there are two essential tools at your fingertips: Attack and Release – these two tools, when properly utilized, will have the ultimate say in the outcome of your efforts.

The attack and release functions of a compressor will tell its detector how to react to signal that passes through. An effective use of attack and release will essentially allow you to make conscious envelope changes to the signal rising above the threshold at the detector.

This brings about the main philosophical concept behind compression, which is to shape the signal, rather than merely restrict its dynamic range (dynamic restriction is part of shaping the signal, not the end purpose). The attack and release controls are what really provide the push and pull effects of compression.

With this in mind, I have provided examples of effective and ineffective bus compression, focusing on attack and release settings, for a few simple approaches.

FULL POST:
Recording: Tips For Effective Bus Compression (Includes Audio) - Pro Sound Web
Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Compression Mistakes

5 Compression Mistakes That Keep Even “Smart” People Stuck
Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Recording: In The Studio: Tips For Mixing Toward Loudness - Pro Sound Web

Recording: In The Studio: Tips For Mixing Toward Loudness - Pro Sound Web

In The Studio: Tips For Mixing Toward Loudness
In order to deliver the most musically effective loudness, that goal must have been addressed in the mixing process

February 28, 2012, by Rob Schlette

studio
[Click to enlarge]
This article is provided by the Pro Audio Files.


Some people want their music really loud, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

If loudness is part of their aesthetic and the audience likes it, then I say let’s go for it.

In order to deliver the most musically effective loudness, that goal must have been addressed in the mixing process, but not as directly as you might think.

It’s important to remember that there are mix masters, and then there are replication or download masters. Your project isn’t finished until it has been mastered, so the relative loudness of a mix does not represent the final level of the project. Comparing the loudness of a mix master with a finished commercial CD is not particularly useful.

However, there are a lot of aspects of mixes that directly contribute to the eventual loudness of a finished master. So what should you be listening for while you’re mixing? Here’s an example scenario:

My client has brought me a set of five multi-track recordings to mix. The client is very concerned that her project should fit in with the latest release from “Artist X” as much as possible, including being equally loud.

Here are some things I would be sure to pay attention to while mixing her project:

1. The Loudest Instrument

What is the loudest instrument in Artist X’s mixes?

The answer is probably pretty consistent across the whole CD; and I’ll be sure to use a similar approach with my client’s project.

This may not seem like a pivotal factor, but the relative loudness relationships within a mix establish a lot about the eventual absolute volume of the mix (and the project). If one hip hop mix has a lot more vocal content than another, the relative loudness of the two mixes will be confused.

If I’m mixing in a drum-heavy genre, I’ll be careful to reference that primary balance benchmark. If my next project is a vocal-driven style, I’ll simply re-establish my benchmark. In either case, I’ve setup the balance relationships within my mixes so that they can directly compare with other albums in the presumed audience playlist.

2. Relative Loudness Relationships

What are the relative loudness relationships between kick, snare, bass, and lead vocal?

Before you start cranking around on piles of processing, set up these simple balance relationships. They go a long way toward establishing the fundamental structure of mixes in many musical genres.

Try starting by mimicking the balance between the lead vocal and the snare drum from your reference. Once that makes sense, add the kick at a level that is referenced from the snare drum. Finally, rough in the bass level relative to the kick drum.

Beyond just setting up the framework for balance within your mix, these balances establish a lot about how you will work with these instruments tonally. A loud vocal, for example, may get a totally different EQ treatment than one that is buried (however appropriately) in a sea of guitars.

Do some reference listening; you might be surprised.

3. Tonal Contrast

What is the brightest instrument in Artist X’s mixes?

Articulation is a big component of apparent loudness. Pay particular attention to tonal contrast between instruments to get the most impact out of any particular tone choice.

To put it simply, it doesn’t matter how bright the drums are; it matters how articulate they are compared with other instruments. A mix with built-in tonal contrasts can be more effectively managed in the mastering process.

4. Panning and Depth

Apparent dynamic range can have a lot to do with panning and depth.

Do Artist X’s mixes have a lot of subtle panning, or are they essentially 3-channel stereo? What is the contrast between the instruments that seem nearest to the listener and furthest away?

If your goal is blaring, ‘too loud,’ loudness, it’s important to note that these spatial contrasts survive aggressive mastering much better than subtle differences in level or tone do. It is not uncommon for even the most critical listeners to initially mistake spatial contrast for audio dynamics.

Mastering

These types of musically relevant aspects of mix structure will help you create consistent, engaging mixes that fit into a genre in a lot of fundamental ways. The mastering process can then more effectively finish preparing those mixes for their commercial audience, including addressing their market loudness.

Rob Schlette is chief mastering engineer and owner of Anthem Mastering (anthemmastering.com) in St. Louis, MO, which provides trusted specialized mastering services to music clients across North America.

Be sure to visit the Pro Audio Files for more great recording content.



Recording: In The Studio: Tips For Mixing Toward Loudness - Pro Sound Web
Share/Bookmark

Sonic Varnish | Allen Farmelo

Sonic Varnish | Allen Farmelo

Sonic Varnish_

When I was about ten years old my father drove an old-school Mercedes with a wooden dashboard that I thought was one of the most beautiful things in the world. Its glassy finish fascinated me because I could see every detail of the wood grain. I asked my father how it got like that and he explained varnishing to me, claiming that “Mercedes probably put at least twenty coats on.” Not long after that I bought an old skateboard that was horribly beat up, and I told my father that I wanted to varnish it to look like the Mercedes dashboard. Down in the basement we stripped the nasty paint off that wooden skateboard and started applying thin layer after thin layer of varnish with careful wet sanding and cleaning between each one. It was taking forever, and after twelve coats I proclaimed that the skateboard was done. It was glossy – not quite glassy – and I’d certainly learned about varnishing. It’s a lot of subtle work, and no one layer really seems to do all that much.
Harmonic Distortion is Sonic Varnish – Today when people ask me how I achieved certain sounds in the records I work on, I struggle to answer the question because it’s such a multi-faceted thing. Then it occurred to me that you could think of it like applying many small layers of varnish, except that instead of applying clear-coats of lacquer I apply layers of very subtle harmonic distortion. The word ‘distortion’ here is nothing like the overdrive and fuzz we talk about when discussing guitar pedals and amps. In fact, most people with untrained ears can’t hear a single layer of truly subtle harmonic distortion because it only gently changes the sound, and sometimes it’s so subtle that it’s basically inaudible.

All audio equipment (including most plug-ins) imparts a small percentage of harmonic distortion, and this percentage is called total harmonic distortion, or THD. THD can be understood as the amount of extra sound generated by the electronics in the piece of equipment itself. Some audio gear is sought solely for the character of its harmonic distortion and is said to be very “musical,’ meaning that we humans tend to like how thing sound when it goes through these circuits. Equipment famous for harmonic distortion includes Neve preamps, Fairchild compressors and Pultec EQs. These are units that people will run sounds through just to pick up harmonic distortion that the circuit generates even when it’s not particularly doing anything to the signal. We call it tone, vibe, mojo, fairy dust, goodness, sweetness, fatness, warmth, size, girth, a sonic halo and all kinds of other names, but what we’re basically describing is that subtle percentage of extra sound that the circuit adds to the signal. For this article I’m calling it sonic varnish.

It’s important to remember that most undeveloped ears wont be able to tell the difference between a sound going through a Pultec EQ set at neutral and a sound that isn’t. Over and over again I’ve inserted pieces of gear in and out of signal chains to show people the difference. If their ear is untrained, or still developing, they squint intently at the speakers for a bit then open their eyes, lean back in their chair and say, “I can’t really tell the difference.” Could I tell the difference between a Mercedes dashboard that had twenty-one coats of varnish as opposed to twenty? I’d probably squint at them and give up as well, but a professional wood worker might be able to see the difference. And – far more importantly – a pro will know which varnish to use, how to apply each coat, and which of those coats should be the last in order to achieve the desired result. It’s the same with sonic varnish. One layer doesn’t do all that much, but many layers add up to a finished sound that anyone can hear and say, “Yeah, that sounds really cool.”
Applying the Layers - I believe that one of the reasons we love the sound of records from the 60s and 70s so much is that the sounds were achieved by the (often unintentional) application of many subtle layers of harmonic distortion. Take a Beatles record like Sgt. Peppers recorded on 4-track – a classic example. I’m not sure of the historical accuracy of this explanation, but lets assume that Ringo’s drums were tracked early on. Then those drums were bounced back and forth between the four tracks of tape as they made room for further overdubs. For the sake of argument, let’s guess that Ringo’s drums made two bounces after they were tracked. Each time they bounced, they picked up the sound of the console’s electronics, the tape machine’s electronics and the sonic character of the tape itself. If you count each stage as a layer of varnish, that’s roughly seven layers (preamp, compressor, tape, preamp, tape, preamp, tape). Then you mix the record, which adds another layer, then master it, then play it on your home system (which will have a THD rating, too), and we’re somewhere in the realm of twelve layers of sonic varnish before you hear Ringo’s drums.

RINGO’S DRUMS

Layer 1: mic
Layer 2: console preamp
Layer 3: compressor
Layer 4: tape machine
Layer 5 & 6: bounce 1 (console and tape)
Layer 7 & 8: bounce 2 (console and tape)
Layer 9 & 10: mix to mono tape (console and tape)
Layer 11: mastering
Layer 12: your home system

Now compare that to a modern home recording. Typically the signal is recorded into a consumer grade preamp, processed with a compressor plug-in and bounced to disc.

TYPICAL MODERN HOME RECORDING

Layer 1: mic
Layer 2: preamp
Layer 3: plug-in compressor
bounce
Layer 4: your iPod

The way I see it, this signal has had two chances to receive a coat of sonic varnish. During the recording it hit the preamp and then the compressor plug-in to achieve a second layer. Someone with only two layers of consumer grade varnish will still want to make the most of the recorded sound, so she or he is likely going to try to make each of those two layers as thick as possible. I see this all the time, and a slew of common amateur techniques have evolved. What I see most of is way too much compression, double and triple tracking of parts to add dimension, and the use of distortion plug-ins for a lo-fi sound that is more often a final ditch effort at sounding interesting than an aesthetic choice. People will try anything to make those two or three layers as thick as possible.

The temptation to overuse any one of these stages is strong because the sound just isn’t going to pop out of the speakers if you’re doing subtle work. This lack of sonic excitement is confounded by the lower quality components in consumer grade equipment, too. When you start to overuse any of these layers you acquire obvious sonic artifacts that will change the nature of the source sound to such a degree that the characteristics of the processing itself can overtake the characteristics of the original sound. A kind of haze emerges between the sound and the listener, and when you multiply that by however many tracks you have in the mix, things can get downright foggy. I hear it all the time and the result is simply unremarkable. As my father will still tell you, thick layers of low-quality varnish look horrible. They don’t dry evenly, bubbles get trapped in the varnish, and brush strokes are often visible. Rather than showing off and accentuating the amazing colors, details and depth of the original wood, you end up seeing the varnish and the artifacts of its application. The exact same thing happens with thick layers of consumer grade sonic varnish. There’s no short cut. You want your skateboard to look like a Mercedes? Start layering. You want your mix to sound like a great classic album? Start layering.
Modern Varnish Mixtures – I use a combination of digital and analog gear to achieve my layers of sonic varnish, and I chose each layer very carefully to emphasize a particular quality in the sound that I think serves the artistic vision of the project. And I always have my eye on the final mix. For example, if I know I’m going to mix to tape, I have that in mind as I compress the vocal because I know the vocal will “sit down” a bit more once the mix has hit tape. As I apply each coat of sonic varnish, I have the next layers in mind so that I don’t apply any one layer too thickly. I’m interested in the cumulative result of many subtle layers. Let’s take a look at a particular vocal sound to get a sense of what I mean. This is from a very sparse record of which I’m particularly proud of the vocal sound:

TRACKING
Layer 1: Vintage Telefunken U47 (tube microphone)
Layer 2: Chandler TG2 mic preamp
Layer 3: Tube Tech CL-1B Compressor
Layer 4: Cranesong HEDD converter (a touch of its Pentode processing)
INDIVIDUAL TRACK PROCESSING DURING MIXING
Layer 5: API 550a EQ
Layer 6: Tube Tech CL-1B hardware compressor
FULL MIX PROCESSING
Layer 7: API 2500 stereo bus compressor
Layer 8: Dangerous Audio BAX EQ
Layer 9: Studer A-80 1/2″ tape recorder
ANALOG TO DIGITAL PROCESSING
Layer 10: Studer output stage
Layer 11: Cranesong HEDD A-D conversion (with a touch of Pentode processing)

Each and every one of these eleven layers is doing something so subtle that very few people can really hear the difference. But, each and every one is just as important to the overall sound as the one before it or the one after it. Use a different mic and the sound will change. Use a different preamp and the sound will change. Use a different converter into the DAW and the sound will change. Use a different bus compressor or tape machine and the sound will change. Each and every layer is equally important, while no single layer is all that important on its own.

My personal theory about why this technique works is that you’re never letting a single piece of gear overtake the original sound. Instead, you’re letting each piece of gear impart just a little bit of harmonic distortion – a little mojo, a small halo, a bit of warmth, a little extra size – and then moving on to the next piece of gear that’s going to impart another kind of harmonic distortion. Maybe the preamp warms up the mic a bit, and maybe the compressor puts a little halo around things, and maybe the tape machine adds a certain depth, and maybe the converter adds a little something-something. Layer by layer the varnish becomes thicker while each layer remains relatively transparent. The original sound is still in tact, but it has acquired all of these wonderful, subtle qualities along the way.
Gain Staging – The Craft of Varnishing – With wood, layers of varnish go on rather simply, one at a time, but there is still a craft to it. My coats of varnish on that skateboard weren’t nearly as well applied as my fathers because he had years and years of experience with a brush in his hand. He had the craft that told him how far to dip the brush, how hard to push that brush against the edge of the can to remove excess varnish, where to begin and end his strokes and how hard to push as he made them, and he knew when enough was enough. He knew how to varnish.

In audio, how you varnish is called gain staging. Gain staging refers to the rather complex craft of knowing where the optimal (or intentionally not optimal) operating levels are for any piece of gear in the signal path. How much signal you feed into a piece of equipment will elicit a certain amount and kind of harmonic distortion out of that circuit. Whether it’s tubes, tape, solid state or even a digital plug-in, the way you set the gain will determine the sound. To make matters more complicated, the way one gain stage is behaving will effect how the next one behaves in real time. Add to this that many pieces of gear can be calibrated to different levels, and that every sound you record is going to change how the gear is going to react, and you start to see the endless complexity. Gain staging is not trying to hit a moving target; it’s trying to hit a moving target from a rotating platform on the back of a speeding pickup truck on a hilly, winding road.
Developing Your Brush Stroke – So how do you learn how to gain stage properly? Practice, practice, practice and get great teachers who can guide you. It took me years to know how to get a good, solid signal happening with just a pre amp, more years to learn how to send that signal to a compressor properly, and more to learn how to get a tape machine to react the way I wanted it to. And I’m still learning all the time. My aim in writing this essay isn’t to pretend to be able to teach you how to do gain staging – how do I know which target you’re shooting from which pickup truck on which road? My aim is to stress that as you apply sonic varnish you need to really be aware of how you’re applying the layers.

My best suggestion is that you begin by simply considering the concept of sonic varnish when you’re making a recording and start to train your ear to hear subtler and subtler layers of harmonic distortion. And if you’re using a DAW to do recording, you can try to emulate more and more stages of sonic varnish using plug-ins. Believe me, it’s not a great idea to stack up a bunch of the same plug-in and expect them to do what a vast combination of great hardware and software can do together. Nor can you expect too much out of consumer grade gear. (Yes, the signal path I describe above costs thousands of dollars, and I don’t expect everyone to have access to that kind of gear). But, you can learn a lot by trying different things in the box. Here are some ideas:

Use a plug-in that emulates analog gear (a compressor, an eq or other will be fine) to try to put a tiny halo on a guitar sound, or a little girth into a bass sound, or a bit of sweetness into a vocal. Don’t try to engage much of the processing – only enough to apply the smallest amount of harmonic distortion you can hear. Work in very very small increments and see what you can hear.
Try using a few different plug-ins to achieve subtle harmonic changes in the sound without changing the essential nature of the original sound. See if you can get the sound to come to life while sounding just the same.
Try to get 3db of compression out of two compressors doing 1.5db each. Then try three doing 1db each.
Try remixing something you know you’ve put a few big layers of varnish on and see if you can achieve a less hazy result with more sonic impact by using more subtle layers.

In other words, take the concept of sonic varnish and experiment with it. There are really no hard and fast rules to follow, but hopefully the concept of sonic varnish will help you have a general guiding principle to follow. I’m sure you’ll come up with all kinds of ways to play with the concept.
What About Sonic Paint? – I need to recognize that there are many times when one is going to want to slam the hell out of something with a compressor, or distort something to the point where you can’t tell what it is, or eq something so drastically that its very nature is transformed. That’s not varnish – that’s paint. However, remember that most paints also need to be applied with great skill and are typically finished with a few very thin layers of clear varnish in order to add depth and brilliance to the color beneath. So, even if you’re going to slam a sound against a wall until it bleeds, those gaping, bloody wounds will be all the more gory if you can get a few coats of varnish on there to show it all off.

What About Lo-Fi? – Everything I’m saying would apply to achieving lo-fi sounds. If you’re interested in making a lo-fi recording, one of the most important things you can take away from this essay is that multiple layers of distortion will get you better results than one single lo-fi distortion layer. Some of my favorite lo-fi recordings are by Guided by Voices on four track recorders that imparted a lot of THD, but they also bounced their tracks back and forth quite a bit, layering the sounds and slowly degenerating the original sound. Compare that approach to sticking a distortion plug-in on a single digital track and most people will agree that the vibe is with the layered approach. Also, no matter how distorted a lo-fi record is, the layered approach will allow the original signal to acquire its new vibe and sound in lighter layers that will allow the original sound to maintain its character.

What about Genre Specific Sounds? – Absolutely work toward the aesthetics of the genre you’re working in, but keep in mind that in any genre the concept of sonic varnish will help to achieve great sounds. Techno may be a genre where digital sources never leave the computer, but even the sampled sounds will go through multiple manipulations to come to their finished luster, and many subtle layers will often serve that goal well. Black Metal may want to achieve an endlessly muddy distortion, but any guitar player will tell you that the pickup, the amp, the speaker, the mic, the preamp and the rest of the recording chain all go into making those sounds. Again, trying to achieve that sound in one or two small stages isn’t going to get the pro results. Extend the logic to any genre and I think the concept of sonic varnish will still prove a useful guiding principle.

What about Honest Recordings? – Classical and jazz recordists often talk of transparency and of “honest recording,” but the very fact that THD is present in every piece of gear makes “honest recording” a myth. Perhaps using fewer layers of sonic varnish will help keep the original recorded signal less tainted, but I think its important to keep in mind that the original recorded signal just passed through a rather tiny diaphragm or ribbon and became wiggling electron waves in a long thin piece of metal called a cable. To think of a recorded sound the way we think of a live sound isn’t going to help one grapple with what it takes to make a recording appear natural when it comes out of two speakers. More often than not, subtle harmonic distortion has helped me render sounds more honestly because the recorded sound can take on an added complexity, richness and 3D quality that got lost in the act of capturing it. The tendency in making these “honest recordings” is often to try to apply as little varnish as possible, but the counter-intuitive move of adding more harmonic complexity might bring the sounds of the instruments to life in ways that the thinner layers might not be capable of. As always, experiment and see what works for you.

It’s a Concept - Sonic varnish is a concept, a guiding principle, an idea. It’s something to have in mind when you’re recording and mixing that can help keep the bigger picture in focus. There are so many stages to recording, and no single one of them is any more or less important than another. As technology changes faster and faster our tools are going to change as well, yet our methods for recording seem to stay more or less the same. We still have to put a mic somewhere near a source, amplify it, get it onto a medium of some kind, then take that recorded sound and process it in some way in preparation for it’s final format. No matter how careful you are, you’ll be introducing some level of harmonic distortion at every stage, so it’s good to be aware of it. Even better to really know how to apply that harmonic distortion in a way that’ll get you the sounds your after.


Sonic Varnish | Allen Farmelo
Share/Bookmark

A Guide to Producing an Epic Orchestral Track

A Guide to Producing an Epic Orchestral Track
Share/Bookmark

My mastering chain – signal flow

My mastering chain – signal flow-Ian Shepherd
Share/Bookmark

Friday, February 24, 2012

Bus Processing For Acoustic Drums

Bus Processing For Acoustic Drums
Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Recording: In The Studio: Top 10 Countdown Of Mixing Myths - Pro Sound Web

Let’s debunk some mixing myths today, David Letterman style. smile

Here are 10 common myths about mixing:

#10 – “I need big 8-inch monitors and a subwoofer to adequately mix the low end.”

Yes, bigger loudspeakers produce more low frequencies, but that doesn’t mean you NEED them. I’ve never owned anything bigger than a 6-inch speaker, and I know lots of engineers who mix all day long on 5 and 6-inch monitors.

#9 – “I need to compress every track in the session by default.”

You can substitute the word “compress” with anything. Doing certain things “by default” is lazy. There are tracks I almost always compress, but I … get this … LISTEN to them before slapping on a compressor.

Make sure it actually NEEDS what you’re about to do to it.

#8 – “I don’t need anyone to critique my mixes.”

What about the client, silly? If your mix makes YOU happy but makes the client (or artist) SAD, then something needs to change.

Ask for critiques. They’re like brussel sprouts — kinda gross and sometimes make you want to hurl, but they’re good for you.

#7 – “It’s impossible to get good mixes in a home studio.”

Home studios certainly have their challenges, but you can absolutely get great mixes from a home studio.

#6 – “Good mixes require hours and hours of time.”

When you’re first starting out, this might be true. But the more experience you gain, the faster you should be.

It’s completely reasonable to expect to be able finish a mix in just a couple of hours.

#5 – “Mixing in mono is old-school and doesn’t apply anymore.”

Listening to your mix in mono is one of the BEST ways to reveal issues in your mix. What may sound like a nice, solid mix might sound muddy when you flip it to mono.

The solution? Leave it in mono and deal with the muddnyess.

I believe one of the main reasons people can’t get their mixes to translate to other systems is that they don’t spend enough time mixing in mono.

#4 – “If I just had ______________, my mixes would be better.”

What’s in that blank for you? A new interface? Plugin bundle? New studio monitors?

I hate to break it to you, but talent trumps gear every time.

Every. Time.

#3 – “Deadlines inhibit creativity.”

This one you’ll simply have to try. Have you ever used a timer while you worked on a mix? You may think it keeps you from being able to work effectively.

The truth is it makes you focus on what’s actually important for that mix.

Set a timer and just see how much you can get done in even one hour.

#2 – “I can learn everything on my own.”

I’ve got so many little techniques that I use when I mix a song…hundreds. Did I figure out some of them on my own? Sure.

But most of them came from simply talking to other engineers or watching them work.

You don’t have to break the mold with your mixes. There are a lot of really talented people out there who use tried and true techniques. Learn from them however you can.

And, the #1 myth – “I can just ‘fix it in the mix.’”

I believe it’s programmers who always say “garbage in, garbage out.”

It’s true in mixing, too. If your tracks sound like garbage, your mix will sound like polished garbage.

If your tracks sound amazing, then the mix is already halfway done. Don’t settle for “fixing it in the mix.” That’s not what mixing is for.

Which myth are you guilty of believing? (Hint: I’ve believed ALL of them at some point.)

For some good old-fashioned mixing practice AND training (a killer combination), check out Mix With Us.

Joe Gilder is a Nashville-based engineer, musician, and producer who also provides training and advice at the Home Studio Corner.Note that Joe also offers highly effective training courses, including Understanding Compression and Understanding EQ.




Recording: In The Studio: Top 10 Countdown Of Mixing Myths - Pro Sound Web
Share/Bookmark

Monday, February 20, 2012

4 Ways to Create Depth WITHOUT Reverb | Home Studio Corner

This is a guest post by Björgvin Benediktsson of Audio Issues.

Reverb is the #1 way to make your mixes sound amateurish. I’ve done it, you’ve done it. Hell, even those master mixers went through a whole decade doing it.

Although reverb is really useful to create depth and space in a mix, it’s easy to go overboard. So how can you add depth and space to your instruments without piling on the reverb?
1. Use Delay

Look at delays like Reverb Lite. It’s like reverb in the way that it creates a sense of space, but it lacks the reverb trail that often clutters up a mix. You see, 2-second reverbs sound great on vocals, but the decay and tail is so long that it clutters up everything else that’s going on. So next time, use delays to create a sense of depth around your instrument instead of cluttering up your mix with long reverb trails.
2. Re-amp

Re-amping is a great way of creating depth without adding unnecessary space. Re-amp a guitar part with a different microphone, through a different amp, or from a greater distance away. Miking up a guitar part using distant miking creates a sense of depth without making it sound too “reverb-y.” Use it for other instruments as well, keyboards, bass and synths can all benefit from re-amping.

If you don’t have an amplifier at your disposal, turn off one of your monitors and record the other one. Adding a miked up bass part underneath a DI’d signal will give you a rounder tone. The microphone picks up the movement of the air from your monitor, creating realistic depth without muddying up your signal.
3. Modulation

If delay is Reverb Lite, then modulation effects are Reverb Extra Small. Modulation effects such as chorus and flanger are great for creating a little depth without adding any space. Send your instrument to a auxiliary send and insert a chorus effect underneath the untreated signal. Just a tiny bit can give you the depth you need.
4. Create Stereo with EQ

Automatic double tracking is a simple trick to create depth, but you can enhance it with EQ. If you EQ both signal differently, there will an even more apparent stereo effect, more like two different guitar parts are playing rather than the same one being played twice. Try it for doubled acoustic guitar or hard rock riffs. Adding a touch of different EQ boosts and cuts to each signal separates them more than just simply delaying one.
No Need for Reverb

You don’t always have to resort to reverb for depth. Next time you need to separate your instruments and create some depth, try avoiding the reverb altogether. Delays, double tracking and modulation effects can work just as well.

Björgvin Benediktsson is an audio engineer, musician and online entrepreneur from Iceland. He’s been involved in the music and audio industry for almost a decade, playing in bands, working as a sound engineer and recording music

4 Ways to Create Depth WITHOUT Reverb | Home Studio Corner
Share/Bookmark

When Delay is Better - 5 Reasons to Skip the Reverb | Audio Issues

Don’t you dare touch that reverb!

Let go of the reverb for one day, and use a delay instead. Delays are easier to handle, and some are much less confusing than the average reverb.

Sometimes you just need a little depth, without adding reverb, and delay can easily do the job.

So when would you substitute your reverb for a little bit of delay?
For Guitar Solos

Sure, guitar solos can sound awesome with a hefty amount of reverb. But they can sound equally cool with a nice delay.

Use a short to medium stereo delay with one repeat. It’ll add width and depth to your signal immediately. The stereo delay will make the solo sound wider, and the delay will add the depth. And if you have the original signal in the middle, summing to mono won’t ruin the sound.
For Rhythm Guitar

Both reverb and delay can quickly ruin a tight rhythm guitar take. If you use too much of either one, you’ll end up with a cluttered guitar track. However, using a short slap echo or 8th note delay can also add interest. Send your guitar track to a delay via a send, and mix the delayed track underneath just to add a little space. It doesn’t have to clutter the track if you use it sparsely.
For Lead Vocals

For an in-your-face lead vocal, scrap the reverb entirely and use delay to add depth. Delay adds space without pushing the vocal back, something that happens all too often when you use too much reverb. Depending on the BPM of the song, style and genre, use either short, medium or long delays.

If it’s a ballad with long, drawn out words then a long delay creates a big sound without overpowering the actual vocal. A fast rock song benefits from a short, subtle delay and groovy pop songs use medium delays to a great effect.
For Percussion?

Similar problems arise from using too much delay on percussion as it does on rhythm guitar. A short delay timed to the BPM of the song gives percussion punchiness without giving it too much room in the mix.
For Organs

Medium to long delays with a fair amount of feedback can beef up an organ or pad sound. If you have an organ playing long, sustained chords then a long delay can give that foundation a thicker sound.
Conclusion

Basically, use delay to create depth, for whatever instrument, without taking up space. Use it for sweet sounding guitar solos, funky rhythm guitar, punchy vocals or foundational elements like organs or percussion.

How do you use delays in your productions?

When Delay is Better - 5 Reasons to Skip the Reverb | Audio Issues
Share/Bookmark

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Transients vs Loud Mixes


Full Post:
Transients vs Loud Mixes

There's a good reason the big boy mixes are loud as hell but still pound like crazy and don't sound distorted. They aren't chewing up their peak level.

One of the trickiest parts of being a home recorder these days is getting mixes that are loud AND still sound good. Old timers may not agree, but I'm in the camp that only a few big boy recordings have been screwed up by taking the loudness gig too far, but I have to say that I'm impressed by how loud AND GOOD so many major label recordings are these days. (That's my view, take it or leave it. I like a lot of modern music.)
Share/Bookmark

The Two Stage Mixing System

The Two Stage Mixing System~ recordingreview.com



Busting your audio mixing up into two unique stages can make a dramatic impact on the intensity of your mixes.


If there's any common muscle that never seems to need more exercise in audio recording land, it has to be the left brain / right brain switcher. Being able to switch from a guy who can troubleshoot a video card or wire a patchbay to a guy who create a melody that makes you imagine you have three arms is not an easy task. In recording land you MUST learn to use this left brain / right brain switcher muscle.




In my experience, no one is great at this. I've never really seen anyone who was equally good at equalizing a vocal and determining how much emotional intensity was in that take all at the same time. You can kinda teeter totter back and forth between the two brains, but if you're under the gun of any time limitations, very few of us consistently nail both.


Any time I get a chance to bust up the two types of task, I do. When tracking electric guitars, for example, I always reamp. It does take more time. I don't care. I'd rather plug the Les Paul into a DI, run it through some emulator, and not have to think about anything tonal. I can then focus on making sure the guitar player plays tightly, in-tune, and grooves properly. I don't have to concern myself with 6L6 vs EL34 vs EL84 or Vintage 30 vs Greenback or dynamic mic vs ribbon. I just need to get the guitars down. I like being luxury of focusing.


Most of all, I've really gotten into mixing in two main stages.


Stage #1 Mixing
The goal with a Stage #1 mix is to come out with a full-blown mix, but do it with half the good brain. In other words, I force myself to get all the tracks organized, color-coded, and routed in ways that I like to work. I need to cut out all the noise. I need to try to solve any and all obvious problems I may have in individual tracks. Then I need to go ahead and force a real mix. I say “force”, because this generally means I need to make the left-brain/right-brain switch.


I think this may be the crucial cerebral mistake that many new guys to mixing make. They believe mixing is a technical process. In the preliminary stages of any mix it probably most tecnica, but the purpose of mixing is to excite the hell out of the listener. In order to do that, you can ONLY do it within an emotional context yourself. The rigid adherence to technical ability runs out of rope several yards from the main goal. Technical-only mixers simply don't have what it takes to pull this off and that's why I'm not worried about robots taking our jobs in the next 20 years. The irrational, emotional side of you is required.


Note: In all seriousness, the most crazed women should have an extreme natural aptitude for mixing. It's rather surprising to me that we don't have nearly as many women at the upper echelons of the mixing world. Maybe some of this Stage #1 business is more geared for guys. Not sure.


Anyhow, I am going for a real-deal mix with Stage #1. The only thing that separates it from a Stage #2 mix is how seriously I take it the next morning. I realize that this mix was contaminated with right-brain usage so I don't take it too seriously. I can't. It's tainted.


It's absolutely essential that this mix holds up at full-blown RMS level. This is technical junk. Using the TT Dymamic Range Meter, I'm now mixing to hit -4dB RMS in the loudest sections. That is as LOUD as what Britney Spears or Avenged Sevenfold will be. Wedging 30 tracks into -4dB RMS isn't easy. It takes twice as much work as hitting -6dB RMS. Yuck! However, I look at this like a basketball coach holding his players up to higher standards in practice. If the mix can't squash to -4dB without pumping, distorting, or sounding like something went way wrong it's definitely not ready for stage #2. I CAN NOT be dealing with these kind of issues in stage #2 as it's a sacred, emotional place. If I'm pulling out frequency analyzers or questioning if I have the right kick and bass sounds, I have a major problem. At Stage #2, I can always hit the multi-band a little less or hit the brickwall limiter a little less and come out at -6dB RMS. The last thing I want to hear from the client is that -6dB RMS is not loud enough. I have heard this and it's a HUGE pain after Stage #2 as it generally breaks most of my creative stuff.


I may as well get my mixes in shape early and let them take it easy if just happen to stumble upon my first client to ever NOT want it loud.


Stage #2: The Next Morning
Like a strong hangover, you always view the world quite a bit differently the next morning. I don't like to listen to my Stage #1 mixes that night. I always like to wait until the next morning. The “new me” is a lot tougher on a mix than the guy who's all proud of whatever decisions he made.


The overwhelming majority of the time, the mixes are often good. I usually have one or two tiny little problems that I knew I was pushing the limit and I need to back off a bit. However, there's one gigantic flaw that I see almost every time. The first mix is almost always BOOOOOOORINNNNNG.


What makes a mix “boring”? The overwhelming thing I hear in my Stage #1 mix is a lack of change. Everything feels really constant. The first verse always seems to sound like the second verse. The last chorus, aside from whatever additional tracks are used to pump it up, isn't that far from the first chorus. This lack of contrast within the song is kinda like eating only a piece of steak for supper. It may even be one hell of a steak, but nothing beats eating a piece of t-bone and then grabbing a bite of corn, taters, or green beans. The next bite of steak seems new again.


A major part of the Stage #2 mix is ensuring that I give the listener those side pieces to chew on. Some of this is a per-genre thing. In pop music mixing, my creative freedom/responsibility is quite a bit higher. I have to sort through numerous possible tracks and find ideal ways to “escalate” the song here and there. In rock music, the performances should naturally do this quite a bit, but nowadays we are often given more tracks than we'd ever need and these can often be great tools to add contrast within the mix. Even with a sparse arrangement, automation can be used to brutally manipulate what the listener feels.


Note: It's important to note that a “boring” mix of a great song will still sound pretty badass. A person just listening for fun who likes the song will like it in Boring Mode. They won't even understand the mix sucks. Maybe this is “squint mode” stuff. However, a great song with a great mix should FEEL 30 zillion times better. It's the difference between the song making you want to move or the song sounding good.


A person who listens to your mix and says, “Sounds good”, just gave you the middle finger. That's a HUGE sign that you've royally screwed up. A metalhead should be bangin' his head. Dance music should inspire dancing from everyone in the room. Any radio genre should require you to ask the band to sing along softer so you can hear the monitors. Exceptions to this are when the band is too insecure to enjoy their music or the song wasn't that good in the first place.


Conclusion
When you do your first mix of a song, get all the technical hurdles out of the way and do you damnedest to crank out a mix that kills. Listen on another set of speakers with completely fresh ears and see if the mix makes you move. If not, go back and attack it with that goal specifically in mind. Rely on your emotions and toss logic out the window.


I've found the 2-stage mixing system to be absolutely crucial to my way of working. I avoid the problems associated with switching the left-brain/right-brain muscle. Hopefully in the end everyone is dancing.


Good luck!
Share/Bookmark

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Church Sound: Using Gain Structure Tailoring To Optimize Overall System Performance - Pro Sound Web

Church Sound: Using Gain Structure Tailoring To Optimize Overall System Performance - Pro Sound Web
Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

How to Make Your Tracks Sound Great WITHOUT Using Compression?!? | Audio Issues

How to Make Your Tracks Sound Great WITHOUT Using Compression?!? | Audio Issues
Share/Bookmark

Independent Musicians on the Internet


Flickr Feed

Roy Tanck's Flickr Widget requires Flash Player 9 or better.

Get this widget at roytanck.com