Post by: j.hall on May 03, 2005, 09:07:45 AM
i got 95% done with a mix. one of the more detailed mixes i've ever done. i listened to it roll by about 5 times. made some very minor changes to smoothe out a few things i didn't like. listened to it again about 5 times without changing anything.
listened really quiet, moderate (80 dB), fairly loud (93dB maybe), and once more at my typical mix level (85dB)
i really like the mix, but for the first time EVER, i couldn't pull the trigger.....i sat and starred at PT for about 5 minutes going back and forth about printing it.
i ended up deciding to listen to it again today (which i haven't done yet)
so this moment of weakness and lack of decision making skills made me wonder......
how many of you do this as a typical working method?
Post by: wwittman on May 03, 2005, 05:46:41 PM
I find listening first thing the next day (especially in my car on the way in) answers all my questions.
Post by: Jules on May 03, 2005, 06:16:17 PM
Harooomph!
A mix is never 'done' in my book...
Post by: 6x2 on May 03, 2005, 06:23:38 PM
Usually the best thing to do is to leave it and come back later to fix it if there's something wrong. It'll be easier to hear.
Anyway, for some reason I seem to do this less when I'm mixing on a desk with no recall, I become super-pedantic about the technical side of things, level matching, hisses and buzzes etc. etc., but on the actual mix side I'm trying a hell of alot harder (cause I know I can't come back to it)... Whereas ITB it seems I subconciously ignore little details and mix in a more sloppy fashion cause somewhere in the back of my mind I know I can return to the mix...
That's why I hate total recall. It makes me mix sloppier.
On the other hand if after 15 hours of mixing on a desk with no recall I can't hear that the cowbell is 18dB too loud there's no way to return there... Unless you can leave your mix on the board and come back in the morning, which is my favourite way to do it.
So the conclusion is that when I mix on the desk, it's somehow less difficult to commit, cause I've just given a 100% to the mix and believe it's there - cause it HAS to be there...
Hmm. Sorry about the long-winding post... That was way off-topic, but my .02 anyway.
6x2
Post by: floodstage on May 03, 2005, 10:36:07 PM
Sometimes waiting till tomorrow does helps expose things that should have been obvious, like: the overall bass level is too low, or the .... was too ...
Of course I'm also likely to miss them even worse the next day!
Post by: thedoc on May 03, 2005, 10:51:27 PM
| j.hall wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 06:07 |
i couldn't pull the trigger.....i sat and starred at PT for about 5 minutes going back and forth about printing it..... i ended up deciding to listen to it again today (which i haven't done yet) so this moment of weakness and lack of decision making skills made me wonder...... how many of you do this as a typical working method? |
I am SO glad to know that it isn't only me...
Post by: Fibes on May 03, 2005, 11:13:05 PM
Post by: j.hall on May 04, 2005, 07:51:53 AM
while i understand that the mix can always be better, at the same time i realize that there is a point where i've done all *i* can do and it's time to move on.
typically, i like to listen to the song a few times at a few different levels with the automation going and with my eyes closed (i feel this stops me from looking at the console and outboard racks and then wanting to change things) i can just listen to the song and see if anything pops out as wrong or odd sounding. if nothing stands out, i listen a few more times and print.
Post by: TheViking on May 04, 2005, 10:57:15 AM
Post by: Invisible Member on May 04, 2005, 12:47:15 PM
One of things a started a few years ago when I started mixing my analog into a computer instead of a 2 track, was print every mix real time. After 4 or 5 swipes at it, I feel I might be over analyzing so I move on. I always go back and listen and take notes in the car and family room of my impressions. I've fatigued my ears and totally blown mixes because my ability to hear certain frequency bands were diminished. It's saved me few time because I was able to splice 2 different mixes that might have been near impossible to do with faders and knobs
Everone is different I suppose but I figure it like target shooting. Empty the clip then check the target for your score. Unless you have a musket or something similar.... Every time I squeeze one off I sure Im on target...
Peace,
Dennis
Post by: wwittman on May 04, 2005, 01:14:37 PM
it can always be DIFFERENT, but that does't equal 'better'.
What happens when you're recording a guitar solo, or a vocal or anything really...?
Don't you say "I LOVE that" and then stop?
I think that's a big part of producing sometimes: telling the guitar player thats it's terrific and that everyone loves it and that it doesn't HAVE to be beaten to death to the point where no one in the room ever wants to hear this song again in order for it to be really "done".
I'm not at all against trying to make it as strong as it can be at ANY stage.
But that's within the confines of reality.
Perfection, if there is such a thing in art, is overrated anyway.
So it's about going for PERFORMANCES that move, and connect with, people.
That express what the artiste is trying to express.
And I really think when mixing was all "manual" ( by which I mean not automated, as we still, well at least *I* still, use our hands), it was inherently more of a performance.
Not TOTALLY one live performance.. but at least small sections were 'performed" on the desk by one or more sets of hands.
And I still think it's important to keep SOME aspect of that in mixes.
I love that when Roy Thomas Baker finished a mix he'd say "well that's ONE way to mix it" with a big laugh!
That's utterly perfect.
THAT'S the attitude to have.
It's not god's mix. (or Mutt's! {g})
It's A mix.
If it's really not it, do it again next week.
Just as you would with the guitar solo.
But the more it becomes agony and 'work' and a technical operation, the less inpsired and artful it inevitably ends up.
I'm not saying it's easy or that I don't suffer as well from this particular illness at times.
But I DO think it's not helpful.
Much better to look at the forest during mixing, having sorted the trees as much as possible BEFORE the final balancing and riding begins.
Post by: j.hall on May 04, 2005, 02:02:22 PM
| TheViking wrote on Wed, 04 May 2005 09:57 |
so, J... how does it sound today??? |
it's done......
William.....i totally agree with you. and i've had that same attitude for a long time. i think this particular go around just sorta flipped me upside down for a few days.
i listened to the mix today as i made an mp3 of it and came back to my senses.
i had a moment there when i just second guessed everything i had done to the song despite that fact that it felt good to me and i couldn't find anything i didn't like about my treatments.
Post by: brandondrury on May 05, 2005, 02:31:45 AM
| Quote: |
If it's really not it, do it again next week. Just as you would with the guitar solo. |
This is the way I approach it. Being a younger guy, I've never even mixed on an analog console. I've only done it in the box and don't know of any other way to pull off my method.
I look at mixes as a 12 step program sort of deal. I'll do a first draft. I know it's not the final mix. I couldn't care less. My monitoring situation is piss poor, but that doesn't appear to bother me so much with my system. I've learned to work around having a bad room.
When I get to maybe the 8th or 9th mix I may take 5 minutes to fix something and burn a cd before I run off to do some errands. Doing mix fixes is about like taking 3 minutes to change the trash or something tiny. Of course, I have to be in the box to do it this way. I'll make my fixes and go. I have about 4 stereos that I know well that I always hear the mix.
Sometimes I'm almost depressed and disgusted with my lack of talent. This happened last week. I put on a dynamic eq to take this 700Hz problem out of the singers peaks (I couldn't find the right mic for his unique voice). Anyway, the dynamic eq set gently on just the lead vocal to the mixes from 3 to 9. Weird.
While mixing is extremely important, I've never gotten a bad song to sound good. On that same token, I find it really freaking easy to mix a great song from a great performance. A little level adjustment and a little space and I'm done. I have no interest in making it any more than it's not. I used to try to force mixes into something awesome. Why? I've learned to take my sweet ass time when tracking. That's the time to mix.
If I didn't screw up tracking the band, many times I can get a highly effective mix within 10 minutes. It's when I spend 5 hours on one song that I destroy it. I get off on a tangent and use my brain more than my ears... which is very BAD!
Brandon
Post by: rdwilkins on May 05, 2005, 08:33:10 AM
Post by: wwittman on May 05, 2005, 11:03:46 PM
If i put up a mix again weeks later, i ALWAYS find that i want to change things... it never seems "right" just as it comes back.
Which only reinforces my belief in the "one way to mix it" concept.
You just hear it differently each time, and there's everything RIGHT with that.
Post by: j.hall on May 06, 2005, 07:41:41 AM
i've tried using a procontrol and i just end up using the track ball and keyboard while this expenssive drink coaster sits in front of me.
aside from things just sounding better summed in the analog domain (even on a mackie) it's just much more natural and organic to mix that way.
Post by: Bob Olhsson on May 07, 2005, 10:10:53 AM
| j.hall wrote on Wed, 04 May 2005 06:51 |
there is no question that mixes can always be better... |
Post by: idiophone on May 08, 2005, 07:38:50 PM
The slipperman method is working for me (always has): solo every sound, set EQs for sources of power, then just push the faders up until it's happening. Automate the vocal if necessary. Since my EQs are set for all the channels, if I need more guts in the bass, I just twist the knob and I've got it.
~id
Post by: volthause on May 13, 2005, 11:39:54 AM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 10:10 |
There's also no question in my mind that one of the most common mistakes of beginners is going right past a great mix into the land of the over mixed. |
Guilty. Been there, done that. I've got the t-shirt to prove it. I can't leave stuff alone though. It's like a sickness.
Post by: j.hall on May 13, 2005, 03:13:53 PM
| volthause wrote on Fri, 13 May 2005 10:39 |
It's like a sickness. |
no, it's an itch that you just can't reach, but you keep trying.
Post by: jackthebear on May 16, 2005, 07:01:13 AM
| idiophone wrote on Mon, 09 May 2005 09:38 |
The slipperman method is working for me (always has): |
No doubt about it....the big guy has got it going on!!!
I can't speak in a mix context as I couldn't mix a drink let alone a choon ( some might say I couldn't cut a deck of cards) but I digress....
In a mastering situation you can have a similar conundrum although the permutations and combinations aren't as many because you're working with a L & R pair or maybe even stems.
Part of the skill set I feel is the ability to have the vision and to be able to say "enough". If you can look back and say later down the track "hey I coulda done that better", then that's great as it shows you're still on the learning curve.
I would imagine at the mix stage an overnight break and other playback environment can be very helpful if there are serious doubts.
Cheers,
Post by: j.hall on May 16, 2005, 07:45:25 AM
typically in recalls it's a matter of preference and i'm not really "fixing" things but more or less just changing some things around to meet the preference of the artist.
these two recalls were different. i had printed the mixes and was so focused on some details within the mix i didn't even realize that the bass wasn't nearly loud enough.
a few other things they wanted down were so obvious once the bass came up a few details needed re-shuffling and the mix came out much better.
but to the point here.....
listening on different systems and so on, was a way of life when my new room came on-line. but now, i prefer to not hear the track outside the studio until it's "done"
i've found it much better to keep myself in that listening environment from start to finish then taint myself with another listening situation.
i've almost got my room learned, and it's much more helpful to stay in there and figure out the problems rather then go searching for them in my car.
this is the first time i've ever worked like this, it's also the first time i feel i have a room that can allow me to do so.
Post by: brandondrury on May 16, 2005, 09:46:46 PM
| Quote: |
I'll tell you one thing about mixing ITB... If i put up a mix again weeks later, i ALWAYS find that i want to change things... it never seems "right" just as it comes back. |
I consider this a good thing. I've got a band coming for a late night mix in just a few minutes. I've been booked solid for 3 weeks by other projects and have gladly not even touched it. I'm excited about seeing what sort of garbage I let threw my studio 3 weeks ago.
I find that if it's pretty decent, I'm on top of the world. If it's crap, then I lose my sense of self worth for a few days. Is that normal?
Brandon
Post by: Andy Simpson on May 17, 2005, 04:36:35 PM
Andy