Showing posts with label Multi-Tracking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Multi-Tracking. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
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!
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!
Friday, February 3, 2012
The Foundation of the Perfect Mix
The Foundation of the Perfect Mix
Mixed by Guest on May 3, 2011 in Church Audio 101, Mixing.
Tags: bass, drums, Mixing
The Foundation of the Perfect Mix
[Guest Post from Derek Sexsmith] The title on this post is a little misleading. The “perfect mix” could mean different things to different people. But, I think most would agree the foundation for the perfect mix, when mixing a typical “rock” band (drums, bass, guitars, keys, vocals) would be the kick drum and the bass guitar.
Robert Scovill, a very experienced and very talented engineer said, at the Gurus of Tech conference in Chicago in February, that “no one goes home humming the kick drum.” Very true. But, that kick drum, mixed properly with the bass guitar, is what gets people into the music. Next time you’re doing sound, try turning down the bass guitar for a chorus in a driving song, then bring it up for the next chorus and I would bet there is a noticeable change in the way the audience/congregation reacts.
When I mix the kick and the bass together there are a few important things to note.
First, is having a competent drummer and bass player. They need to work together and the bass player needs to follow the kick drum.
Secondly, EQ. I’ve seen a lot of sound people just take the kick drum and the bass and turn up the low EQ knob. Some more experienced ones will turn up the high EQ knob to get some clarity. I find just doing that ends up making them sound muddy because you are now boosting them in the same frequency range and you get no definition of which one is which.
Digital Mixers
When I am EQing them, if on a digital board with sweepable EQ’s, it’s real simple, I boost the Kick at about 50Hz with a fairly slim curve so that I can then cut that EQ by somewhere around 80 or 100Hz. Cutting that Kick drum in the 80-100 range allows us to then boost the Bass guitar in that range, and then you don’t get them overlapping each other in the low range.
I also add a Hi Pass Filter to the bass to cut anything below about 60Hz, so I don’t get any unwanted overlap there. I will also boost the bass guitar around the 1-1.5kHz range which helps add clarity to it, while boosting the Kick drum around 2-3kHz helps add a good slap to it. Those really depend on the exact sound you want from those instruments as to where and how much you boost. A good boost in the mid-hi or high frequency range really adds some clarity, making the kick and bass not just sound like a thud coming out of the subs.
Analog Mixers
One comment on the EQ. I am currently using an analog board, an Allen and Heath ML3000. I don’t have the ability to change the bandwidth or “Q” on the curve. I also have fewer options for which specific frequency I am boosting. What I tend to do is on the kick drum, I actually turn the low EQ knob down, to cut that frequency. It is commonly anywhere from 60-100Hz on an analog board. Then I boost the mid-low at 50Hz. So I am still boosting at 50, I’m just using the mid-low sweepable mids to do it.
Then I boost the bass guitar with the low EQ knob. From there I can use the Mid-Hi sweepable EQ to boost the highs. I just wanted to point this part out for sure though, so that people know that just because it’s the bass guitar or the kick drum doesn’t mean you HAVE to boost the low EQ, you can still find those low frequencies and dial it in more precisely using the Mid-Low sweepable EQ.
Gating and Compression
On the kick drum I will also add a gate as well; this again depends on the sound you want on the kick. For real punchy sounding upbeat songs, a fast attack with a 3-4:1 ratio and a slower release time. The more dynamic the sound, the slower you will want that attack. A compressor setting with a ratio again around 3-4:1 sometimes even more, with again a fast attack time and a slow release time will just add to that punchy sound on the kick. Be sure not to “over” compress it though, we don’t want to lose all the dynamic of the kick drum.
Bass players tend to hate hearing that you’ve compressed them at all, and it isn’t always necessary. If they’ve got their own compressor with a foot pedal, or they are just very controlled then you can get away without one, but I generally have one either way, I just may be very generous with it. I won’t say any settings on here for a bass compression because that all depends on the bass player and how they play. You have to listen and see if you need them to be compressed.
Driving the Music
Once you get a good EQ and comp/gate setting on the bass and kick drum, listen to them during one of the more upbeat songs and the two instruments should be able to drive the song. Notice the difference when you lower those two channels, and as I said before, I am certain that you will see a noticeable change in the audience/congregation’s response to the music.
Don’t be afraid of the low end. I was afraid of it when I first started, but if it’s EQ’d and compressed right, people will feel it and it’s often what captures them into a song. I don’t mean to lessen the effect of a great vocalist or a well tuned guitar with a great amp tone … or even just some great lyrics. All these things have the potential to be the driving force of a song, but I will say that the kick/bass combination will often be the foundation on which the best mixes are built.
Derek Sexsmith is the Director of Technical Services at Heritage Park Alliance Church in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Check out his blog all about his experience working on the technical aspects of a Church at http://www.dereksoundguy.com. You can also follow him on twitter @dereksoundguy
The Foundation of the Perfect Mix
Mixed by Guest on May 3, 2011 in Church Audio 101, Mixing.
Tags: bass, drums, Mixing
The Foundation of the Perfect Mix
[Guest Post from Derek Sexsmith] The title on this post is a little misleading. The “perfect mix” could mean different things to different people. But, I think most would agree the foundation for the perfect mix, when mixing a typical “rock” band (drums, bass, guitars, keys, vocals) would be the kick drum and the bass guitar.
Robert Scovill, a very experienced and very talented engineer said, at the Gurus of Tech conference in Chicago in February, that “no one goes home humming the kick drum.” Very true. But, that kick drum, mixed properly with the bass guitar, is what gets people into the music. Next time you’re doing sound, try turning down the bass guitar for a chorus in a driving song, then bring it up for the next chorus and I would bet there is a noticeable change in the way the audience/congregation reacts.
When I mix the kick and the bass together there are a few important things to note.
First, is having a competent drummer and bass player. They need to work together and the bass player needs to follow the kick drum.
Secondly, EQ. I’ve seen a lot of sound people just take the kick drum and the bass and turn up the low EQ knob. Some more experienced ones will turn up the high EQ knob to get some clarity. I find just doing that ends up making them sound muddy because you are now boosting them in the same frequency range and you get no definition of which one is which.
Digital Mixers
When I am EQing them, if on a digital board with sweepable EQ’s, it’s real simple, I boost the Kick at about 50Hz with a fairly slim curve so that I can then cut that EQ by somewhere around 80 or 100Hz. Cutting that Kick drum in the 80-100 range allows us to then boost the Bass guitar in that range, and then you don’t get them overlapping each other in the low range.
I also add a Hi Pass Filter to the bass to cut anything below about 60Hz, so I don’t get any unwanted overlap there. I will also boost the bass guitar around the 1-1.5kHz range which helps add clarity to it, while boosting the Kick drum around 2-3kHz helps add a good slap to it. Those really depend on the exact sound you want from those instruments as to where and how much you boost. A good boost in the mid-hi or high frequency range really adds some clarity, making the kick and bass not just sound like a thud coming out of the subs.
Analog Mixers
One comment on the EQ. I am currently using an analog board, an Allen and Heath ML3000. I don’t have the ability to change the bandwidth or “Q” on the curve. I also have fewer options for which specific frequency I am boosting. What I tend to do is on the kick drum, I actually turn the low EQ knob down, to cut that frequency. It is commonly anywhere from 60-100Hz on an analog board. Then I boost the mid-low at 50Hz. So I am still boosting at 50, I’m just using the mid-low sweepable mids to do it.
Then I boost the bass guitar with the low EQ knob. From there I can use the Mid-Hi sweepable EQ to boost the highs. I just wanted to point this part out for sure though, so that people know that just because it’s the bass guitar or the kick drum doesn’t mean you HAVE to boost the low EQ, you can still find those low frequencies and dial it in more precisely using the Mid-Low sweepable EQ.
Gating and Compression
On the kick drum I will also add a gate as well; this again depends on the sound you want on the kick. For real punchy sounding upbeat songs, a fast attack with a 3-4:1 ratio and a slower release time. The more dynamic the sound, the slower you will want that attack. A compressor setting with a ratio again around 3-4:1 sometimes even more, with again a fast attack time and a slow release time will just add to that punchy sound on the kick. Be sure not to “over” compress it though, we don’t want to lose all the dynamic of the kick drum.
Bass players tend to hate hearing that you’ve compressed them at all, and it isn’t always necessary. If they’ve got their own compressor with a foot pedal, or they are just very controlled then you can get away without one, but I generally have one either way, I just may be very generous with it. I won’t say any settings on here for a bass compression because that all depends on the bass player and how they play. You have to listen and see if you need them to be compressed.
Driving the Music
Once you get a good EQ and comp/gate setting on the bass and kick drum, listen to them during one of the more upbeat songs and the two instruments should be able to drive the song. Notice the difference when you lower those two channels, and as I said before, I am certain that you will see a noticeable change in the audience/congregation’s response to the music.
Don’t be afraid of the low end. I was afraid of it when I first started, but if it’s EQ’d and compressed right, people will feel it and it’s often what captures them into a song. I don’t mean to lessen the effect of a great vocalist or a well tuned guitar with a great amp tone … or even just some great lyrics. All these things have the potential to be the driving force of a song, but I will say that the kick/bass combination will often be the foundation on which the best mixes are built.
Derek Sexsmith is the Director of Technical Services at Heritage Park Alliance Church in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Check out his blog all about his experience working on the technical aspects of a Church at http://www.dereksoundguy.com. You can also follow him on twitter @dereksoundguy
The Foundation of the Perfect Mix
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Recording: Ensuring You’re Recording At The Proper Levels - Pro Sound Web
Recording: Ensuring You’re Recording At The Proper Levels - Pro Sound Web
Ensuring You’re Recording At The Proper Levels
You're probably tracking too hot. Here's why...
December 26, 2011, by John Scrip
This article is provided by
MASSIVE Mastering
I’m going to try to keep this very “fool proof”.
This was born out of the rantings of hundreds and hundreds of posts on a dozen or more audio forums exploding like a volcano recorded with lots of headroom.
I hope to instill a basic understanding of why certain trends and common beliefs are just plain bad.
And by the time you’re done reading, and perhaps doing a little experimentation based on this, you won’t need me to prove it. You’ll know it yourself.
Is this a “miracle cure” for bad recordings?
Normally, I’d say no.
But with the dozens and dozens - easily now into hundreds of e-mails, phone calls, letters, forum posts and other forms of communication I’ve received about how this advice has completely changed a persons view of recording recording, I figured this information is worth sharing with a wider audience.
The sad part is this should be common sense. To anyone that grew up “on tape” it probably is. To those brought up in 1’s and 0’s, it might not be so obvious.
So, if you’ve been struggling with recordings that sound “weak” or “small” or too dense or “just not ‘pro’ enough” then please, read on. If this is about you, you might think differently soon.
As a mastering engineer, I work on recordings from pretty much every level of experience. A few years ago, I noticed something unusual.
“Ultra rookie” recordings, that is those made by people with little or no experience, sounded fine. They didn’t know any better, so they didn’t have enough rope to hang themselves with.
Then, at the other end of the spectrum, “Pro” recordings sounded fine. They know what they’re doing and/or are using gear with obscene amounts of usable headroom (explained later).
The “middle of the road” engineers with a year or two - or much, much more experience—Those are the recordings that sounded “small” and spectrally challenged. So after quizzing these people over months and months, I came up with the following conclusion…
You’re probably recording too hot.
And it’s absolutely ruining recording after recording after recording. And it’s the simplest thing in the universe to correct.
I know, I know - “It says in the manual to record as hot as you can without clipping.” Well, I’m going to flat-out call that B.S. and I’m going to back it up with a simple (if not somewhat time-consuming) experiment.
Also as a mastering engineer, let’s get something straight - I don’t like the “loudness war” going on.
However, I’m as guilty as the next in contributing to it. I can’t fight it, as much as I try. Hopefully it’ll be over some day. Unfortunately, with the quest for loud, there are a lot of engineers out there shooting themselves in the foot before they even know how to aim.
They think that tracking loud and mixing loud contributes to a louder recording after the mastering phase. This is absolutely untrue and it’s generally the best way to make sure that your recording will not have the “loudness potential” of the average commercial release.
Clean recordings, or those made with low distortion and good spectral balance, are the ones that handle the “abuse” of the mastering phase with flying colors.
This article isn’t intended to give you some secret way of making louder recordings. But it will almost undoubtedly give you the ammo needed to make better recordings. And those better and cleaner recordings are the ones that can be louder recordings in the end.
First, let’s get through a little nomenclature,
dBFS
Deci-Bel (one tenth of a Bel) Full Scale, on the digital recording scale, -0dBFS is the hottest signal you can have.
“All ones.” Top of the scale, can’t get hotter, etc. Always “minus” as you can never go higher - So the reading will always be a specified amount below 0.
Line Level / 0dBVU
Just what it says. Line level. 0dBVU on an analog VU (volume unit) meter. Pro (+4dBu) or consumer (-10dBv) level, it’s line level.
We can also refer to this as RMS (Root Mean, Squared), or a level over a specific amount of time. You can go above or below 0dBVU.
It’s simply a nominal level to which basically everything audio is related to.
Headroom
The space between a nominal signal (in this case, line level) and the point where the circuit fails.
In digital, basically anything under full scale (-0dBFS) would be considered headroom.
In analog, it’s the space between 0dBVU and the point where the circuit clips (failing completely). In analog, there can be a big difference between “headroom” and “usable headroom.” We’ll get into that in a bit.
Steak
From the old Norse “steik” meaning “roast”. A slice of meat, typically beef, usually cut thick and across the muscle grain and served broiled or fried (thank you, Wikipedia).
So…
You have a microphone and a preamp going into a converter or sound card. Those converters are calibrated at line level.
In most cases, over the last several years, most I’ve seen are calibrated to -18dBFS = line level (or 0dBVU).
In other words, if you run a steady signal (a sustained note on a keyboard for instance) through a preamp and turn up the preamp gain until the VU meter reads 0dBVU, at the converter, it will read -18dBFS (or -18dBFS(RMS) - full scale, but measured over time).
This is where your gear is designed to run. This is where it’s spec’d at. You will have a decent amount of headroom, the lowest distortion, the best signal to noise ratio, etc., etc., etc. around this level or lower.
Some gear - usually very high-quality stuff, has a good amount of usable headroom above this level.
A lot of “budget friendly” gear does not. So all of this advice is more important if you’re using “okay” gear at the input. Even your digital converters are analog components up to the converter itself. They don’t want to be “beat up” all the time either.
Let’s look into headroom. Above that 0dBVU/-18dBFS range, digital headroom is simple - perfect, perfect, perfect, perfect, CLIP.
The signal is “what it’s supposed to be” until the point of failure. Analog gear (your preamp, compressors, outboard signal processors, etc.) isn’t like that…
It’s more like “Perfect, a little noisy, “tight” sounding, spectrally distorted, CLIP.
The converter’s job is simple - reproduce the signal it’s fed digitally, whether that signal is clean and dynamic or distorted and squishy.
The analog chain’s job is anything but - typically, you’re adding 20, 30, maybe 50dB of gain to the incoming signal.
The preamp is working - not just “passing” the signal.
And that signal can start to suffer from noise, distortion and dynamically dependent (varying along with volume) spectral imbalance (a skewing of the overall spectrum from an EQ standpoint).
In other words, a nice, thick, chunky guitar tone (for example) might have different characteristics depending on how hot the signal is.
The highs might be open and airy and then the signal gets loud for whatever reason and the highs either get swallowed up, or perhaps get very harsh and strident.
In any case, it’s an inconsistency that isn’t’ there when the levels are more “normal.”
Even though the analog gear probably has spec’d headroom well above digital’s full-scale, it doesn’t mean that signal actually has the integrity it should up to that level.
So what happens is simple, a signal is recorded that’s too hot (usually to “use all the bits” which again, is a bunch of BS).
It overdrives the input chain not unlike a guitar preamp overdriving a Marshall stack (well, not that much, but the premise is the same).
Now, after all the other tracks are recorded, all of them need to be attenuated by 12, maybe 15dB or more so the mix doesn’t clip. Those distorted, spectrally questionable, squishy, noisy tracks all get turned down.
Are you seeing my point yet?
When you take a steak and cook it until it’s burnt, it’s burnt.
If you pour ice cubes all over it, it doesn’t make it more rare - it makes it a cold, wet, burnt steak. No matter what you do, it’s still burnt. Just like if you record too hot.
But if you cook a steak a little too rare, you can always heat it up a bit later.
You can microwave it without it turning into leather. You can pan-fry it for a few minutes and it’s still a tasty, savory piece of steak.
When you use up all your headroom right away, you don’t get it back by turning it down.
It’s gone forever. Sure, you can increase mix headroom or the headroom at the buss - but it’s not going to make the track less distorted or fix the skewed S/N ratio.
Here’s Your Experiment
You’ll need a few Y-cables (let’s not get into the technical aspects of splitting a mic signal - It’s an experiment) and at least one stereo (2-channel) preamp.
Record a song using as many tracks as you feel fit. The more, the more apparent. You’re going to split the mic signal and record each twice simultaneously.
On one channel of the preamp, set the gain so it peaks between -18 and -12dBFS at the converters and record them to odd numbered channels.
On the other, set it as high as possible without clipping and record them to even numbered channels. Record some guitars, drums, maybe piano, of course some vocals, keyboards, go nuts.
Set all the odd numbered (“normal” level) channels to unity and toss up a rough mix to a stereo buss - which should be a piece o’ cake.
Switch over to the even numbered channels and figure out how much you’re going to have to attenuate them all so the main buss isn’t clipping constantly.
It might be a lot. Could be a 10-15dB cut on all channels before you can even think of starting to do anything else. Send those to a stereo buss. Solo the busses, one at a time, and try to match the levels between the mixes.
You’ll probably immediately notice that the “normal” mix is much more open, dynamic, airy, clear, clean, with much more “sonic space” between the instruments than the “hot” mix.
Now, add a limiter on the main buss. Run the “hot” mix into it and bring the level up until it starts to obviously distort and fall apart sonically.
Then switch over to the “normal” mix - which should now be “rammed” by the same amount. If your experience is pretty much like everyone else’s, the “normal” mix is still much more open, airy and dynamic with less distortion and more “crankability” than the other.
The “Dumbed Down” Version
Stop recording so hot. Instead of trying to get your tracks to peak at -2dBFS, have them peak between -20 and -12dBFS and your recordings will almost undoubtedly sound better.
Mixing will be easier. EQ will be more effective. Compression will be smoother, more manageable and predictable. You’re in the age of 24-bit digital recording - relax and enjoy the headroom.
Even if your only concern is the volume of the finished product (which would be a shame, but it happens), recordings made with a good amount of headroom are almost undoubtedly better suited to handle the “abuse” of excessive dynamics control.
Quieter recordings have more potential to be loud later. It’s because they’re usually better sounding recordings in the first place.
John Scrip is the Owner and Engineer at MASSIVE Mastering.
Ensuring You’re Recording At The Proper Levels
You're probably tracking too hot. Here's why...
December 26, 2011, by John Scrip
This article is provided by
MASSIVE Mastering
I’m going to try to keep this very “fool proof”.
This was born out of the rantings of hundreds and hundreds of posts on a dozen or more audio forums exploding like a volcano recorded with lots of headroom.
I hope to instill a basic understanding of why certain trends and common beliefs are just plain bad.
And by the time you’re done reading, and perhaps doing a little experimentation based on this, you won’t need me to prove it. You’ll know it yourself.
Is this a “miracle cure” for bad recordings?
Normally, I’d say no.
But with the dozens and dozens - easily now into hundreds of e-mails, phone calls, letters, forum posts and other forms of communication I’ve received about how this advice has completely changed a persons view of recording recording, I figured this information is worth sharing with a wider audience.
The sad part is this should be common sense. To anyone that grew up “on tape” it probably is. To those brought up in 1’s and 0’s, it might not be so obvious.
So, if you’ve been struggling with recordings that sound “weak” or “small” or too dense or “just not ‘pro’ enough” then please, read on. If this is about you, you might think differently soon.
As a mastering engineer, I work on recordings from pretty much every level of experience. A few years ago, I noticed something unusual.
“Ultra rookie” recordings, that is those made by people with little or no experience, sounded fine. They didn’t know any better, so they didn’t have enough rope to hang themselves with.
Then, at the other end of the spectrum, “Pro” recordings sounded fine. They know what they’re doing and/or are using gear with obscene amounts of usable headroom (explained later).
The “middle of the road” engineers with a year or two - or much, much more experience—Those are the recordings that sounded “small” and spectrally challenged. So after quizzing these people over months and months, I came up with the following conclusion…
You’re probably recording too hot.
And it’s absolutely ruining recording after recording after recording. And it’s the simplest thing in the universe to correct.
I know, I know - “It says in the manual to record as hot as you can without clipping.” Well, I’m going to flat-out call that B.S. and I’m going to back it up with a simple (if not somewhat time-consuming) experiment.
Also as a mastering engineer, let’s get something straight - I don’t like the “loudness war” going on.
However, I’m as guilty as the next in contributing to it. I can’t fight it, as much as I try. Hopefully it’ll be over some day. Unfortunately, with the quest for loud, there are a lot of engineers out there shooting themselves in the foot before they even know how to aim.
They think that tracking loud and mixing loud contributes to a louder recording after the mastering phase. This is absolutely untrue and it’s generally the best way to make sure that your recording will not have the “loudness potential” of the average commercial release.
Clean recordings, or those made with low distortion and good spectral balance, are the ones that handle the “abuse” of the mastering phase with flying colors.
This article isn’t intended to give you some secret way of making louder recordings. But it will almost undoubtedly give you the ammo needed to make better recordings. And those better and cleaner recordings are the ones that can be louder recordings in the end.
First, let’s get through a little nomenclature,
dBFS
Deci-Bel (one tenth of a Bel) Full Scale, on the digital recording scale, -0dBFS is the hottest signal you can have.
“All ones.” Top of the scale, can’t get hotter, etc. Always “minus” as you can never go higher - So the reading will always be a specified amount below 0.
Line Level / 0dBVU
Just what it says. Line level. 0dBVU on an analog VU (volume unit) meter. Pro (+4dBu) or consumer (-10dBv) level, it’s line level.
We can also refer to this as RMS (Root Mean, Squared), or a level over a specific amount of time. You can go above or below 0dBVU.
It’s simply a nominal level to which basically everything audio is related to.
Headroom
The space between a nominal signal (in this case, line level) and the point where the circuit fails.
In digital, basically anything under full scale (-0dBFS) would be considered headroom.
In analog, it’s the space between 0dBVU and the point where the circuit clips (failing completely). In analog, there can be a big difference between “headroom” and “usable headroom.” We’ll get into that in a bit.
Steak
From the old Norse “steik” meaning “roast”. A slice of meat, typically beef, usually cut thick and across the muscle grain and served broiled or fried (thank you, Wikipedia).
So…
You have a microphone and a preamp going into a converter or sound card. Those converters are calibrated at line level.
In most cases, over the last several years, most I’ve seen are calibrated to -18dBFS = line level (or 0dBVU).
In other words, if you run a steady signal (a sustained note on a keyboard for instance) through a preamp and turn up the preamp gain until the VU meter reads 0dBVU, at the converter, it will read -18dBFS (or -18dBFS(RMS) - full scale, but measured over time).
This is where your gear is designed to run. This is where it’s spec’d at. You will have a decent amount of headroom, the lowest distortion, the best signal to noise ratio, etc., etc., etc. around this level or lower.
Some gear - usually very high-quality stuff, has a good amount of usable headroom above this level.
A lot of “budget friendly” gear does not. So all of this advice is more important if you’re using “okay” gear at the input. Even your digital converters are analog components up to the converter itself. They don’t want to be “beat up” all the time either.
Let’s look into headroom. Above that 0dBVU/-18dBFS range, digital headroom is simple - perfect, perfect, perfect, perfect, CLIP.
The signal is “what it’s supposed to be” until the point of failure. Analog gear (your preamp, compressors, outboard signal processors, etc.) isn’t like that…
It’s more like “Perfect, a little noisy, “tight” sounding, spectrally distorted, CLIP.
The converter’s job is simple - reproduce the signal it’s fed digitally, whether that signal is clean and dynamic or distorted and squishy.
The analog chain’s job is anything but - typically, you’re adding 20, 30, maybe 50dB of gain to the incoming signal.
The preamp is working - not just “passing” the signal.
And that signal can start to suffer from noise, distortion and dynamically dependent (varying along with volume) spectral imbalance (a skewing of the overall spectrum from an EQ standpoint).
In other words, a nice, thick, chunky guitar tone (for example) might have different characteristics depending on how hot the signal is.
The highs might be open and airy and then the signal gets loud for whatever reason and the highs either get swallowed up, or perhaps get very harsh and strident.
In any case, it’s an inconsistency that isn’t’ there when the levels are more “normal.”
Even though the analog gear probably has spec’d headroom well above digital’s full-scale, it doesn’t mean that signal actually has the integrity it should up to that level.
So what happens is simple, a signal is recorded that’s too hot (usually to “use all the bits” which again, is a bunch of BS).
It overdrives the input chain not unlike a guitar preamp overdriving a Marshall stack (well, not that much, but the premise is the same).
Now, after all the other tracks are recorded, all of them need to be attenuated by 12, maybe 15dB or more so the mix doesn’t clip. Those distorted, spectrally questionable, squishy, noisy tracks all get turned down.
Are you seeing my point yet?
When you take a steak and cook it until it’s burnt, it’s burnt.
If you pour ice cubes all over it, it doesn’t make it more rare - it makes it a cold, wet, burnt steak. No matter what you do, it’s still burnt. Just like if you record too hot.
But if you cook a steak a little too rare, you can always heat it up a bit later.
You can microwave it without it turning into leather. You can pan-fry it for a few minutes and it’s still a tasty, savory piece of steak.
When you use up all your headroom right away, you don’t get it back by turning it down.
It’s gone forever. Sure, you can increase mix headroom or the headroom at the buss - but it’s not going to make the track less distorted or fix the skewed S/N ratio.
Here’s Your Experiment
You’ll need a few Y-cables (let’s not get into the technical aspects of splitting a mic signal - It’s an experiment) and at least one stereo (2-channel) preamp.
Record a song using as many tracks as you feel fit. The more, the more apparent. You’re going to split the mic signal and record each twice simultaneously.
On one channel of the preamp, set the gain so it peaks between -18 and -12dBFS at the converters and record them to odd numbered channels.
On the other, set it as high as possible without clipping and record them to even numbered channels. Record some guitars, drums, maybe piano, of course some vocals, keyboards, go nuts.
Set all the odd numbered (“normal” level) channels to unity and toss up a rough mix to a stereo buss - which should be a piece o’ cake.
Switch over to the even numbered channels and figure out how much you’re going to have to attenuate them all so the main buss isn’t clipping constantly.
It might be a lot. Could be a 10-15dB cut on all channels before you can even think of starting to do anything else. Send those to a stereo buss. Solo the busses, one at a time, and try to match the levels between the mixes.
You’ll probably immediately notice that the “normal” mix is much more open, dynamic, airy, clear, clean, with much more “sonic space” between the instruments than the “hot” mix.
Now, add a limiter on the main buss. Run the “hot” mix into it and bring the level up until it starts to obviously distort and fall apart sonically.
Then switch over to the “normal” mix - which should now be “rammed” by the same amount. If your experience is pretty much like everyone else’s, the “normal” mix is still much more open, airy and dynamic with less distortion and more “crankability” than the other.
The “Dumbed Down” Version
Stop recording so hot. Instead of trying to get your tracks to peak at -2dBFS, have them peak between -20 and -12dBFS and your recordings will almost undoubtedly sound better.
Mixing will be easier. EQ will be more effective. Compression will be smoother, more manageable and predictable. You’re in the age of 24-bit digital recording - relax and enjoy the headroom.
Even if your only concern is the volume of the finished product (which would be a shame, but it happens), recordings made with a good amount of headroom are almost undoubtedly better suited to handle the “abuse” of excessive dynamics control.
Quieter recordings have more potential to be loud later. It’s because they’re usually better sounding recordings in the first place.
John Scrip is the Owner and Engineer at MASSIVE Mastering.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
6 Tips for Reigning in the Bass in Your Mix | Home Studio Corner
6 Tips for Reigning in the Bass in Your Mix
by Joe Gilder - Mixing, Recording
Source:Home Studio Corner
see link at end:
It’s been said that the low end of your mix is “what separates the men from the boys.” But it can be really hard to get right, right?
Every mix poses its own unique challenges, and I never mix two songs the same way. However, here are 6 tips for getting a handle on the low end in your mix. Some of these may seem odd or strange. Give ‘em a shot. They seem to work for me.
Here we go…
1. Mix Before You Record
Wait a second…mix before you record? That’s just silly. Well, hear me out.
Whenever somebody sends me a question about the low end in their mixes, their focus is almost 100% on mixing. There’s this subtle underlying assumption — that the source shouldn’t matter, that the real tone in a mix comes from mixing.
Bzzzzz!! Wrong!
For example, I’m working on a song right now that is sounding amazing. Drums, bass, acoustic guitar, electric guitars, percussion. All of it has been recorded and doesn’t have a single plugin on it…and yet it sounds incredible. What happened?
I mixed before I recorded.
It’s not simply “getting it right at the source.” It’s a bit more than that. It’s making the recorded signal sound like you want it to sound in the mix. Who cares if you can get a huge acoustic guitar sound if it really needs to be fairly thin and bright in the mix? Exactly.
Try mixing before you record. While you’re setting up mics and getting levels, focus on capturing the sound you want for that song. Every time I make an effort to make the recorded tracks sound really close to how I want them to sound in the mix, I have so much more fun mixing. Not only that, my mixes turn out better.
Yes, there are plenty of things to to in the mixing phase, but don’t assume that good mixes happen during mixes. They started long before that.
2. Use a HPF for More Bass
Okay, that one sounds a little stupid, too. I’m not talking about using a high-pass filter on all your non-bass tracks (although I highly recommend doing that). I’m talking about using a HPF on your bass and kick drum tracks.
Don’t you just love the sound of 40 Hz? Yeah, me neither. And chances are your mixes doesn’t need information THAT low. Some genres call for it, but most of us don’t need that much sub bass.
I’ve recently started putting a HPF on my bass and kick drum tracks, rolling off everything below 40 Hz or so. And? Suddenly the bass feels bigger and has more punch and thump. Hmm…Getting rid of the unnecessary bass seems to make the bass sound better. Very interesting.
3. Compression Attack Times are HUGE
Chances are you’re going to compress your kick drum and bass guitar. I do, almost every time. But how much compression you use is only a part of the equation. The attack time of that compressor makes an immense difference in the sound of the bass.
If you’re in the habit of always adjusting the threshold, ratio, and output gain knobs, but you never touch the attack knob, you’re hurting yourself. Raising the attack can allow that bass to really thump. Turning down the attack can really help emphasize the “click” on the kick drum.
Finding that sweet spot with attack will improve your low end by leaps and bounds.
4. Play With Faders Before EQ Knobs
Of course you need to use EQ on your bass and kick drum tracks. Carve out some low mids, let those bass frequencies shine through. But before you get all slap-happy with EQ, make sure you’ve spent some time with the faders.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve spent 10 minutes wrestling with a bass track, trying a bunch of different EQ and compression tricks, only to realize that turning it down in the mix by 3 dB fixed all the problems I was having.
Having the right balance between your kick and bass can get you much closer to the sound you want, long before your reach for that EQ.
5. Figure out Who’s the Man
There really can only be one boss down below 150 Hz. Who’s the man in the mix? Who’s holding down the low end? Is it kick? Is it the bass? Is it some other instrument?
Figure that out, then make the other one “work around” the man.
In other words, if the kick drum really has the bass sound that you want, then EQ the bass guitar to “sit” nicely alongside the kick. This may mean that you remove some more bass frequencies from the bass to make sure the kick sounds great. That’s okay.
It can work the other way, too. Sometimes the kick drum doesn’t sound super deep. It may be rocking around 120 Hz, but there’s not much information down below that. In that instance, maybe the bass guitar should be the man, holding down the low end, and you shape the kick drum around that.
It’s all about compromise.
6. Don’t Forget Good Ol’ Fletcher-Munson
Your monitoring level can make or break the low end in your mix. If you went to school for recording, you probably learned about the Fletcher-Munson Curves. It’s a pretty dorky topic, and it doesn’t really matter if you understand it. But what you need to know is this:
Bass frequencies behave differently at different volumes. The louder you listen to music, the more bass it seems to have. Think about it. When you crank up your studio monitors, you can hear a nice, big bass sound, right? What happens when you turn ‘em down really low? You only hear the high-frequency stuff. The bass frequencies mostly disappear.
I was listening to a CD the other day. It was really good music, but the bass was simply too loud, consistently loud throughout the entire CD. When I turned it down to a nice, low volume, the bass was STILL loud. The bass balance at low volumes was pretty good, but at normal listening volumes it was overwhelming.
The take-away point? If you’re mixing at lower volumes, don’t try to crank the bass up so you can hear it. When you listen at louder volumes it will be too loud. I’m not saying mix with really loud levels; just be careful. Bass does different things at different volumes. Make sure your mix works at different volumes.
You can do it.
You can get great-sounding recordings and mixing from a home studio. It just takes a lot of work, a lot of practice. Got any bass tips for the rest of us? Questions? Leave a comment below.
6 Tips for Reigning in the Bass in Your Mix | Home Studio Corner
by Joe Gilder - Mixing, Recording
Source:Home Studio Corner
see link at end:
It’s been said that the low end of your mix is “what separates the men from the boys.” But it can be really hard to get right, right?
Every mix poses its own unique challenges, and I never mix two songs the same way. However, here are 6 tips for getting a handle on the low end in your mix. Some of these may seem odd or strange. Give ‘em a shot. They seem to work for me.
Here we go…
1. Mix Before You Record
Wait a second…mix before you record? That’s just silly. Well, hear me out.
Whenever somebody sends me a question about the low end in their mixes, their focus is almost 100% on mixing. There’s this subtle underlying assumption — that the source shouldn’t matter, that the real tone in a mix comes from mixing.
Bzzzzz!! Wrong!
For example, I’m working on a song right now that is sounding amazing. Drums, bass, acoustic guitar, electric guitars, percussion. All of it has been recorded and doesn’t have a single plugin on it…and yet it sounds incredible. What happened?
I mixed before I recorded.
It’s not simply “getting it right at the source.” It’s a bit more than that. It’s making the recorded signal sound like you want it to sound in the mix. Who cares if you can get a huge acoustic guitar sound if it really needs to be fairly thin and bright in the mix? Exactly.
Try mixing before you record. While you’re setting up mics and getting levels, focus on capturing the sound you want for that song. Every time I make an effort to make the recorded tracks sound really close to how I want them to sound in the mix, I have so much more fun mixing. Not only that, my mixes turn out better.
Yes, there are plenty of things to to in the mixing phase, but don’t assume that good mixes happen during mixes. They started long before that.
2. Use a HPF for More Bass
Okay, that one sounds a little stupid, too. I’m not talking about using a high-pass filter on all your non-bass tracks (although I highly recommend doing that). I’m talking about using a HPF on your bass and kick drum tracks.
Don’t you just love the sound of 40 Hz? Yeah, me neither. And chances are your mixes doesn’t need information THAT low. Some genres call for it, but most of us don’t need that much sub bass.
I’ve recently started putting a HPF on my bass and kick drum tracks, rolling off everything below 40 Hz or so. And? Suddenly the bass feels bigger and has more punch and thump. Hmm…Getting rid of the unnecessary bass seems to make the bass sound better. Very interesting.
3. Compression Attack Times are HUGE
Chances are you’re going to compress your kick drum and bass guitar. I do, almost every time. But how much compression you use is only a part of the equation. The attack time of that compressor makes an immense difference in the sound of the bass.
If you’re in the habit of always adjusting the threshold, ratio, and output gain knobs, but you never touch the attack knob, you’re hurting yourself. Raising the attack can allow that bass to really thump. Turning down the attack can really help emphasize the “click” on the kick drum.
Finding that sweet spot with attack will improve your low end by leaps and bounds.
4. Play With Faders Before EQ Knobs
Of course you need to use EQ on your bass and kick drum tracks. Carve out some low mids, let those bass frequencies shine through. But before you get all slap-happy with EQ, make sure you’ve spent some time with the faders.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve spent 10 minutes wrestling with a bass track, trying a bunch of different EQ and compression tricks, only to realize that turning it down in the mix by 3 dB fixed all the problems I was having.
Having the right balance between your kick and bass can get you much closer to the sound you want, long before your reach for that EQ.
5. Figure out Who’s the Man
There really can only be one boss down below 150 Hz. Who’s the man in the mix? Who’s holding down the low end? Is it kick? Is it the bass? Is it some other instrument?
Figure that out, then make the other one “work around” the man.
In other words, if the kick drum really has the bass sound that you want, then EQ the bass guitar to “sit” nicely alongside the kick. This may mean that you remove some more bass frequencies from the bass to make sure the kick sounds great. That’s okay.
It can work the other way, too. Sometimes the kick drum doesn’t sound super deep. It may be rocking around 120 Hz, but there’s not much information down below that. In that instance, maybe the bass guitar should be the man, holding down the low end, and you shape the kick drum around that.
It’s all about compromise.
6. Don’t Forget Good Ol’ Fletcher-Munson
Your monitoring level can make or break the low end in your mix. If you went to school for recording, you probably learned about the Fletcher-Munson Curves. It’s a pretty dorky topic, and it doesn’t really matter if you understand it. But what you need to know is this:
Bass frequencies behave differently at different volumes. The louder you listen to music, the more bass it seems to have. Think about it. When you crank up your studio monitors, you can hear a nice, big bass sound, right? What happens when you turn ‘em down really low? You only hear the high-frequency stuff. The bass frequencies mostly disappear.
I was listening to a CD the other day. It was really good music, but the bass was simply too loud, consistently loud throughout the entire CD. When I turned it down to a nice, low volume, the bass was STILL loud. The bass balance at low volumes was pretty good, but at normal listening volumes it was overwhelming.
The take-away point? If you’re mixing at lower volumes, don’t try to crank the bass up so you can hear it. When you listen at louder volumes it will be too loud. I’m not saying mix with really loud levels; just be careful. Bass does different things at different volumes. Make sure your mix works at different volumes.
You can do it.
You can get great-sounding recordings and mixing from a home studio. It just takes a lot of work, a lot of practice. Got any bass tips for the rest of us? Questions? Leave a comment below.
6 Tips for Reigning in the Bass in Your Mix | Home Studio Corner
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Signal Flow in a Basic recording studio
The studio tweak lives in a world of electrons, and is able to follow them through thick and thin. From the big, fat juicy voltages that make up analog signals to the tiny, rapid-fire ones and zeros of digital audio and MIDI, you need to learn to follow the path of the flow. In the good ol' analog days this was easy as there was always a cable connecting things on the outside and a signal trace inside the gear. Now it gets a little more complicated as the sequencer has virtual pathways through software mixers, effects, synths and processors. But in the end, it once again goes analog and goes to the speakers. The charts below are the basic building blocks. Inside each block there may be hundreds, even thousands of switches, but you need to get the core basic flow down first.
Full Article:
The Signal Flow in a Basic recording studio
Full Article:
The Signal Flow in a Basic recording studio
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Develop “The Twitch” (How the Save Button Can Save Your Butt) | Home Studio Corner
Develop “The Twitch” (How the Save Button Can Save Your Butt) | Home Studio Corner
I’ve got a twitch, an involuntary “tick.”
But it wasn’t always involuntary. In fact, I used to be twitch-free. But I trained myself over the years to have this twitch.
Now you may be wondering why someone would willingly develop a twitch. What kind of idiot is this guy? …you may be saying to yourself.
A. Yes, I’m an idiot, but that’s not the point.
B. My twitch has saved my butt more times than I could count.
Do you have a twitch?
I’ve got a twitch, an involuntary “tick.”
But it wasn’t always involuntary. In fact, I used to be twitch-free. But I trained myself over the years to have this twitch.
Now you may be wondering why someone would willingly develop a twitch. What kind of idiot is this guy? …you may be saying to yourself.
A. Yes, I’m an idiot, but that’s not the point.
B. My twitch has saved my butt more times than I could count.
Do you have a twitch?
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Six Essential Mixing Tips
Six Essential Mixing Tips
Wednesday, June 1st, 2011
Below I’ve compiled some of my favorite tips that have helped me over the years on the path of learn to mix. I swear by them and guarantee they will help your home studio productions.
For a less cluttered mix, use hipass and lowpass filters to better define the range of each instrument. The free BX_Cleansweep plugin will be your new best friend.
Automate everything. With the powerful automation functions available in your DAW there’s no reason to set levels to be just “good enough” for the whole song. Fine tune balances for every section, phrase or syllable if you have to. Same goes for sends and effects.
Left, Right, or Center. Nearly every element of your song can be assigned to one of those 3 panning positions. Don’t fret about finding the perfect pan position for every instrument, or try to make it completely lifelike. Anything other than hard left or right and center will translate differently on every system. You can save those in-between positions for a few select elements.
Take breaks to rest your ears and reset your perspective. Mixing is hard work, every couple hours you need to stop, relax and refresh your body. Interruptions and distractions don’t count as breaks.
All edits completed first. Drum editing, vocal comping and tuning, pocketing bass to kick drum. Those things should be taken care of before the mix stage otherwise you will not be able to develop and maintain a creative flow for the mix.
Experiment. Skip the presets and what seemed to work last time. Take things to the extreme, make things distort, use guitar effects for vocals. Try out all your tools and see what makes them break. Just have fun with it. On your way you will find some unique sounds that can only be found by avoiding the presets.
Wednesday, June 1st, 2011
Below I’ve compiled some of my favorite tips that have helped me over the years on the path of learn to mix. I swear by them and guarantee they will help your home studio productions.
For a less cluttered mix, use hipass and lowpass filters to better define the range of each instrument. The free BX_Cleansweep plugin will be your new best friend.
Automate everything. With the powerful automation functions available in your DAW there’s no reason to set levels to be just “good enough” for the whole song. Fine tune balances for every section, phrase or syllable if you have to. Same goes for sends and effects.
Left, Right, or Center. Nearly every element of your song can be assigned to one of those 3 panning positions. Don’t fret about finding the perfect pan position for every instrument, or try to make it completely lifelike. Anything other than hard left or right and center will translate differently on every system. You can save those in-between positions for a few select elements.
Take breaks to rest your ears and reset your perspective. Mixing is hard work, every couple hours you need to stop, relax and refresh your body. Interruptions and distractions don’t count as breaks.
All edits completed first. Drum editing, vocal comping and tuning, pocketing bass to kick drum. Those things should be taken care of before the mix stage otherwise you will not be able to develop and maintain a creative flow for the mix.
Experiment. Skip the presets and what seemed to work last time. Take things to the extreme, make things distort, use guitar effects for vocals. Try out all your tools and see what makes them break. Just have fun with it. On your way you will find some unique sounds that can only be found by avoiding the presets.
Learn How To Mix In 3D « Audio Geek Zine
This guest post comes from Steve Hillier, a songwriter, DJ and record producer, who has worked with everyone from Keane to Gary Numan. Steve is also a journalist and music technology expert, writing for Future Music & BBC Worldwide. Steve teaches Music Business and Logic Music Production Online at Point Blank Music School
Master the use of reverb and your lifeless, two-dimensional mix will become a three dimensional panorama, says Steve Hillier.
Things that people do wrong with their music:
1. Write a composition starting with the drums. This is madness. Can you imagine Lennon and McCartney waiting for Ringo to set up his drum kit before writing their next Beatles smash? Obviously not.
2. Compress everything. At least twice. Anyone doing this in their mixes should stop now. Modern DAWs have an internal dynamic range that’s comparable to a pin dropping versus the sound of the big bang. Try using it, rather than squashing your music to the flatness of a pancake being sucked into a black hole . Compressors are like guns…only the sane should ever pick one up.
3. Use reverb badly, or not at all…
Learn How To Mix In 3D « Audio Geek Zine
Master the use of reverb and your lifeless, two-dimensional mix will become a three dimensional panorama, says Steve Hillier.
Things that people do wrong with their music:
1. Write a composition starting with the drums. This is madness. Can you imagine Lennon and McCartney waiting for Ringo to set up his drum kit before writing their next Beatles smash? Obviously not.
2. Compress everything. At least twice. Anyone doing this in their mixes should stop now. Modern DAWs have an internal dynamic range that’s comparable to a pin dropping versus the sound of the big bang. Try using it, rather than squashing your music to the flatness of a pancake being sucked into a black hole . Compressors are like guns…only the sane should ever pick one up.
3. Use reverb badly, or not at all…
Learn How To Mix In 3D « Audio Geek Zine
Recording: In The Studio: Mastering As Another Mix Layer - Pro Sound Web
I often hear the question (especially from non-engineers), “why do I need mastering?”
This question is puzzling on many layers, but let’s break it down philosophically:
-- Does your mix sound radio-ready after you’re done mixing?
-- Does your mix fit harmonically and dynamically with the other mixes (on an album)?
-- Have you thought about how your audience is going to respond to the mix (especially as compared to the other mixes on an album)?
Recording: In The Studio: Mastering As Another Mix Layer - Pro Sound Web
This question is puzzling on many layers, but let’s break it down philosophically:
-- Does your mix sound radio-ready after you’re done mixing?
-- Does your mix fit harmonically and dynamically with the other mixes (on an album)?
-- Have you thought about how your audience is going to respond to the mix (especially as compared to the other mixes on an album)?
Recording: In The Studio: Mastering As Another Mix Layer - Pro Sound Web
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Building a basic home studio
Building a basic home studio can be easy and relatively inexpensive for beginning users. I am also a home studio owner and it is important to understand home studios can be build part by part from the ground up. Many new home studio builders become frustrated because they try to do everything at once and run out of funds before the home studio is completed. In todays market you no longer have to buy expensive multi-track recorders, outboard gear, and cables. Today your most important piece of equipment is your digital multi-tracker also known as a PC or a Mac. With the right computer and software, your sound can rival any professional recording
Building a basic home studio
Building a basic home studio
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)