Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dcollins]

jfrigo wrote on Sat, 25 June 2005 20:39

This is definitely worth heeding, and removes the need for me to say anything else.

Other than.......?

DC

[Jerry Tubb]

dcollins wrote on Sat, 25 June 2005 22:46

JayTea wrote on Sat, 25 June 2005 20:40 oh yeah ...my McIntosh 2500 fried the right channel, so had to work with alternate monitors ! Or a better amp.... I will add the ellipses here!...DC

substituted a Bryston 4B on Friday... what?  the Mac 2500 not up to your standards DC ? I know it's vintage, but, I've been quite happy with it, until the malfunction.

Another Classic Scenario: Leakage between the Vocal and Acoustic Guitar mics... same performer, cut live, creates a phase problem with that classic midrange honk... any fix for that one ?  

[ribbonmicguy]

Great post guys!

We will try to mix better and make your life much easier to live    

Keep the tips coming in!

[maxim]

yeah, this is good stuff

which of the mistakes are impossible to FITM, and which are a cinch?

[lucey]

maxim wrote on Sun, 26 June 2005 05:54

which of the mistakes are impossible to FITM, and which are a cinch?

easy fixes: a mix that's balanced from range to range, but is out of balance in the big picture

impossible fixes:  nothing!

just kidding ... things that can't be undone would include:

buried vocal, digital distortion, comp/limiter artifacts, frequency congestion (too much in one place)

honorable mention: sibilance

[masterhse]

maxim wrote on Sun, 26 June 2005 06:54

yeah, this is good stuff which of the mistakes are impossible to FITM, and which are a cinch?

Some of the most difficult IMHO, if not impossible, are:

1. What DC mentioned in regards to inconsistent "color" between tracks.
2. Distortion in various forms (phase, gain, etc.)
3. Poorly recorded tracks that just sound like a pack of hungry flies on a pile of sh*t.

Easiest fix:

A L or R side that isn't balanced properly.

[bblackwood]

All good info listed so far...

Balances out of whack has ot be the most difficult/impossible to fix. Easiest (imo) is something that is well balanced but has 'drooping' freq response in the top or bottom...

[maxim]

tom wrote:

' Poorly recorded tracks that just sound like a pack of hungry flies on a pile of sh*t'

great visual

brad wrote:

''drooping' freq response in the top or bottom..'

is more better than less?

is bass different to treble?

i have left my mixes intentionally dark, because i think the eq at the mastering suite is better than my laptop stuff

and the low end is up rather than down, because i thought that it's easier to cut than to add the bass (i have no monitors to check the bass at my place)

am i on the right track, or off the planet?


ps. like a good boy, i have discussed this with the ME, don bartley @ 301 mastering in sydney

[bobkatz]

maxim wrote on Sun, 26 June 2005 09:06

tom wrote: ''drooping' freq response in the top or bottom..' is more better than less? is bass different to treble? i have left my mixes intentionally dark, because i think the eq at the mastering suite is better than my laptop stuff

I had a client who was used to getting terribly brightened masters from another mastering engineer, come to me with mixes that were much too dull in the top. He figured I'd do the same. There was only so much I could do to help his mixes. Raising the top to help the cymbals and the air, past a certain point made the vocals sound strident and the electric guitars sound thin. It was a difficult situation and the end result was a compromise. He vows never to do that again!

My advice is that you go for a mix that is as well balanced as you can make it, make the high end sound as right as you can, because the less correction the mastering engineer has to make the less the overall mix will change and the less chance that instruments and vocals will change their timbre. Adding highs to an overall mix is definitely not the same as tweaking the tonality of individual elements within the mix, because you then, consciously or unconsciously, change the level/balance of the instrument to compensate for the effect of your tonal changes. We cannot do that in the mastering, generally.

I understand your reasoning about the EQ at the mastering suite being better, but overall EQ is not the same as mixing and the more EQ that is applied in mastering, the more the intent and feel and relationships of your mix will go out of whack.

[bblackwood]

maxim wrote on Sun, 26 June 2005 08:06

Quote: 'drooping' freq response in the top or bottom..' is more better than less? is bass different to treble?

If I had to choose, I'd say a little too much bass and a little dark on top is preferred here (again, assuming balances are otherwise good) - those seem to be the easiest things to fix...

Quote:

i have left my mixes intentionally dark, because i think the eq at the mastering suite is better than my laptop stuff and the low end is up rather than down, because i thought that it's easier to cut than to add the bass (i have no monitors to check the bass at my place) am i on the right track, or off the planet?

As I just stated, in my world, you're spot on...

Quote:

ps. like a good boy, i have discussed this with the ME, don bartley @ 301 mastering in sydney

Excellent - let us know how it turns out!

[nicklitwin]

rodolisin wrote on Sat, 25 June 2005 05:51

I gotta say I kinda agree with e-cue... Oldfart - great post, thanks OTR-jkl:  What elements are you talking about in those frequency ranges.  Does anyone else hear most of the mix EQ issues being in that range?  (130-250hz, 2-4k).  I'm curious if that's mostly just guitar and bass mushing it up, or other elements (i guess keys too, potentially).  With the 2-4k range is it just usually overall? or, again, is it different, clashing mix elements?

I'd say that here the 130-260 range is really fucked up.
Not only the bass sounds muddy and undefined, but also seems to be excessive energy in male vocals, electric guitars and keys...

I'd also note overly compressed instruments on their own and almost MONO images.

Cheers,

[Ben F]

1. Low end congestion. People shelving 80Hz to make the kick 'punchy' and swamping the entire mix. Low end from vocals and guitars that should have been filtered out. Low end on the reverb returns that shouldn't be there in the first place!

2. Vocal level, and bad choice of vocal reverb...especially a bright plug-in on an overly bright mix exaggerating sibelence. Aghhh my ears.

3. Digital distortion, especially now everyone pumps compressor plug-ins really hard...nasty artifacts.

4. Poor use of volume automation. The vocals getting drowned out by guitars in the chorus, and being overly loud in the verses etc. Not just rock but all types of music, a general sense of the mix having no life or movement.

5. Lack of creative effects processing. Boring song with a more boring mix. No stereo width, or movement of sounds by using delay/reverb tricks.

But the upside of this is I've heard some stellar mixes the last week, funnily enough they came in on 1/2".

[lucey]

I'm with Nick ... 130-260 is often messy, subs are often messy

also 1-2k can be lacking while 6-8k is screaming (digital artifacts/fear of eq)



as far as the dark top/full bottom ... that works.   dark top and any bottom that's in balance with itself would be fine too.

tubby lows, even if balanced are no plus to analog comp/lim, and they can be easily added if the K and Bass are right to e.o.



Bob I'm not sure how dark that mix was but adding mids and top is not a problem with a lot of analog eq options.   the record i did that got the UK fella signed to Bjorks label was like 5 blankets over a box ... and it sounds fine now.

Well, it sounds like it was recorded ITB, and mastered radically ... but the highs are fine.

[Ben Hibbs]

As a general comment...

The mix is only as good as the engineer...
The engineer (to a much lesser extent - a good engineer can pull off a good mix on just about anything... ) is only as good as the gear...
The gear is only as good as what goes into it...
What goes into it is only as good as the band or whatever.

Crap band = crap mix, no matter what!


Some really interesting stuff here... I need a checklist when mixing...

[jfrigo]

dcollins wrote on Sat, 25 June 2005 20:51

jfrigo wrote on Sat, 25 June 2005 20:39 This is definitely worth heeding, and removes the need for me to say anything else. Other than.......? DC

um... other than...  a mixer's biggest mistake was not going into dentistry instead? I dunno, what did I miss?