MiX iT! 3d - Nor am I late or have a letter combination disease

[Knastratt]

Still I want my own thread. Call me vain.

First - I strongly disagree (from the Mixerman thread) that HUGE comes from mixing. In my book HUGE is in composing and HUGE is in arranging. While mixing is all about SOUND. I don't shive a git about anything else but sound when I mix. It's autopilot.

My mix is -16 Db RMS and mixed with mastering in mind. I even tried to have Bob master it. Not for my entry but for the "lesson" it would have been. I have given up the battle in the midrange long time ago. And while I think the mix excels otherwise - this gives the mastering engineer a great chance to excel in his profession as well. Midrange sloppiness isn't a huge problem though. It just needs a little tighter belt. No-one's commented it anyway. But I know that proper mastering would improve it. Feel free to prove it, Bob. *fniss*

I do agree that this song shouldn't present a troublem at any level. Took me 1+3 hours to mix. 1 hour set-up - 3 hours mix. All with a big grin. It's nice to have great songs ITB. Thanks for letting me.

My mix is the best BTW. Why? Because this is the exact way *I* want it to sound. Mixermans mix is also the best. But in a different school. He's after separation - while I'm after glue.

There are some other best versions as well - all in different schools: nicest compressed drums, tightest bass, trashiest guitars etc.

I hope you feel your mix is the best as well - because then you've achieved your goal.

Somebody said customer satisfaction?

That's another thread.

Feel free to rip me a new one as that small company's guy with a huge drinking problem would've put it: YMMV.

/Knastratt

[Knastratt]

Ok. Here is basically how it was done:

10 sharp the same morning the mix was downloaded I opened a new Cubase document and started to import the stuff. Not to take away the fun I hadn’t listened to the song. The joy of fading up the Kick and starting to tweak - I just love it. 4 hours later I feel I’ve nailed the mix. And now is the time to explain what I did. After this I’ll go out to check on Mixermans mix. Ok - here we go.

The kickdrum: I crave skin and bottom so I raised the low end with a shelving at 90 Hz and notched out some boxiness at 500 and some click at around 2 kHz. That’s it.

http://www.3genare.net/filer/Kick_EQ.png

Snare: Found two quite ugly resonant spots at 300 and 2k which I notched out. I loved the ringing quality of the snare so to suck it up I hit a 1176 pretty hard w long release. I applied some reverb (CSR Snare Hall).

http://www.3genare.net/filer/Snare_EQ.png

http://www.3genare.net/filer/Snare_Comp.png

[Knastratt]

Overheads: I created a buss for the OH’s since I wanted to compress them separated from the other drum channels. I found them a bit boxy so I applied a gentle notch from LM API 550b and squashed it with a LM Fairchild. The OH buss was passed to the drum buss.

http://www.3genare.net/filer/OH_LM.png

The room mics: Nothing really. Just bussed to the drum buss.

The toms: I bussed them to a separate bus in order to gate the hell out of them. I really didn’t like the sound of the bleed. Used the Cubase VST Dynamic gate. No further fiddling. Added some CSR Snare Hall and shipped them to the drum buss.

Tambourine: Routed to the drum buss.

Mono room: Didn’t use.

Bass amp: Did nothing. Passed to a bass buss.

Bass DI: Hit a UAD 1176 pretty hard. Passed to the bass buss.

http://www.3genare.net/filer/BassDI_1176.png

B3: Passed to a buss. Sent to a UAD RE-201 Tape Echo. Tilted to the right in the sound field. No processing.

Gtr feedback. Just some UAD RE-201. Passed to a guitar buss.

Guitar Rakes: Passed to the guitar buss. No nothing.

Guitar Ryan: Copied the part, delayed L w -6 ticks and R w +6 ticks. Panned full out. Sent to a Ryan buss and tilted to the left. Notched out some harshness at 3kHz. Added some UAD RE-201. Lots of it.

http://www.3genare.net/filer/RyanGuitar_EQ.png

[Knastratt]

Rhodes: Same approach as Ryans guitar. Duplicated and spread by delay. Fully panned. Sent to a buss, added some Guitar Rig 2 chorus preset 14 ”Complex chorus”. Just a tad.

Vocals: Initially I didn’t want to touch them but the subtleness of the falsettos made me bring them up with a gentle compression from a Sonalksis SV-315. Added a CSR Vocal Plate which is EQ’ed to taste.

http://www.3genare.net/filer/Vocal_comp.png

CSR vocal plate: Notched out the midrange at 500 and low passed at around 2k.



http://www.3genare.net/filer/CSR_Plate_EQ.png

[Knastratt]

The drum buss: Strapped on a UAD LA-2A and a PSP Vintage Warmer.

http://www.3genare.net/filer/DrumBusLA2A.png

http://www.3genare.net/filer/DrumBussPSP.png

[Knastratt]

Master buss: Just an LM SSL buss comp.

http://www.3genare.net/filer/LM_BussComp.png

That’s it.

It was mixed off a Mac G5 Dual running LiquidMix and UAD-1 in Cubase 3.1. Converters were Benchmark DAC-1 and the monitors a Genelec 1029 + 7050 Sub system. Additional monitoring through Beyerdynamic DT770. The room is small but pretty awesome. Tests extremely well with spectrum analyzer.

Best regards - Pär

[Knastratt]

Sorry Chris - missed your PM fer a while. My description is now up.

Not very much info because basically there wasn't much things needed to make this sound stellar.

Cheers - Pär

[annex2]

Wow. Nice post man. Like the title.

[Charles Dye]

Great posts. Excellent documentation. Thanks for all the work.

[chrisj]

I'm interested in something about your workflow- which may be a critique or may be just a way to approach how another person approaches things.

Did you really start with equalizing a kick drum to sound the way you love them to sound, without ever having heard the song or a faders-up of the mix?

It looks like you brought the vocals in practically last. That seems crazy to me so I'm asking. At what point did you bring them in? (me, I think I started off with first vocals alone, then vox and snare and kik. So I did bring drums in very soon- but not before hearing the lyrics)

[Knastratt]

Hi Chris.

Yeah I like to do drums first. Then bass. Then vocals. Then the rest. I'm pretty intuitive about what sound will fit the song. I do readjust a little sometimes but basically that's what I do.

Be well - Pär

[chrisj]

That's a bit like U2's writing strategy- where they'd get a song going without vocals, in order to hit a serious vibe of some sort, and THEN write the lyrics around what the song felt like.

[Knastratt]

I guess it boils down to when I hear the single kick track I just see it sounding one specific way. Whether I've heard the rest or not.

And this time it was a complete no-brainer since MM already did the thinking.

Later - Pär

[Mixerman]

Still I want my own thread. Call me vain.

First - I strongly disagree (from the Mixerman thread) that HUGE comes from mixing. In my book HUGE is in composing and HUGE is in arranging. While mixing is all about SOUND. I don't shive a git about anything else but sound when I mix. It's autopilot.

Sound and Arrangement go hand in hand. They're intertwined.

My mix is -16 Db RMS and mixed with mastering in mind.

I don't know what that means. Mixing with mastering in mind? You should be mixing with mixing in mind.

I even tried to have Bob master it. Not for my entry but for the "lesson" it would have been. I have given up the battle in the midrange long time ago. And while I think the mix excels otherwise - this gives the mastering engineer a great chance to excel in his profession as well.The goal is to get the mix as close to right as humanly possible. The hope is, all the mastering engineer needs to do is give the song a bit of level. That's it. If you're giving someone a "chance" to excel, then you didn't do a good job.

Midrange sloppiness isn't a huge problem though.What does this mean? Do you mean a lack of midrange? Because that's what I'm hearing on your mix. In my opinion, it's best if the ME isn't aggressively dealing with midrange.

My mix is the best BTW. Why? Because this is the exact way *I* want it to sound. Mixermans mix is also the best. But in a different school. He's after separation - while I'm after glue.

I'm not after separation. I'm after a mix that delivers an emotional impact. In this case, I want one that's somewhat sonically aggressive to match the subject matter. The ONLY thing you should be after, is emotional impact. I don't even care about the lacking midrange, so long as there's impact.

I can't turn your mix up right now (it's late), but I can tell you without a doubt, that the vocal is too loud. If this wasn't a rock band, I'd understand that placement. But it IS a rock band, and should be treated as one.

Also, the snare sounds horrible with that compression on it. It's not even good compression, and it seems like you had to darken it up. Probably because the compression probably brought the hats up too loud.

There are some other best versions as well - all in different schools: nicest compressed drums, tightest bass, trashiest guitars etc.

I hope you feel your mix is the best as well - because then you've achieved your goal.The goal was for people to learn something.

Mixerman

[Knastratt]

I did learn. Lots. What I learned most is that taste differs. I do however mean "emotional impact" while using the term "glue". And of course sound and arrangement go hand in hand. But to try to squeeze huge out of a weakly arranged song in terms of sound - please teach me.

Thanks for listening.

Cheers - Pär

[Mixerman]

I did learn. Lots. What I learned most is that taste differs. I do however mean "emotional impact" while using the term "glue".

So, now you're saying that you went for emotional impact and I didn't? Good one!

And of course sound and arrangement go hand in hand. But to try to squeeze huge out of a weakly arranged song in terms of sound - please teach me.Weakly arranged! Oooh, another smack!

It appears someone got their panties in a bunch over my critique.

From your original post:

First - I strongly disagree (from the Mixerman thread) that HUGE comes from mixing. In my book HUGE is in composing and HUGE is in arranging.

Show me where in my post I use the word "huge" in regards to mixing. I just did a search of the thread, and here are my uses of the word "huge."


The plate makes a huge difference for the guitar. I tried doing a mix without the plate (long story), and I couldn't make the fucking thing work.

It's called underdubbing, and it's a critical part of mixing. There is a HUGE difference between adding something as a mixer, and taking something away. Adding elements is a bit brazen as a mixer, taking them away is part of your job.

So, when you say you "disagree," what are you disagreeing with? Nowhere in my post did I even discuss making this mix "huge." I don't even understand how that adjective works in the context of this song.

So, do tell. What the fuck are you talking about? And precisely who are you disagreeing with?

Mixerman

[Knastratt]

Oh, I didn't disagree with what you said. Would have clarified that. Someone else (remark - always quote or you'll have to read through endless pages to find it) made the remark I disagreed with about "huge in sound".

And now I don't find it.

Cheers - Pär

[decobred]

First - I strongly disagree (from the Mixerman thread) that HUGE comes from mixing. In my book HUGE is in composing and HUGE is in arranging. While mixing is all about SOUND. I don't shive a git about anything else but sound when I mix. It's autopilot.

However you want to define HUGE is fine, but I don't think that HUGE should be the goal for any song. I agree with Mixerman that it's all about the emotional impact of the song, which comes from all of those elements; composition, arrangement, production, mixing, etc. Listen to any of the classics, "Won't Get Fooled Again" is a good example. That song does not sound huge or may not have the wide scope of a modern recording, but emotionally it crushes you.

My mix is -16 Db RMS and mixed with mastering in mind. I even tried to have Bob master it. Not for my entry but for the "lesson" it would have been. I have given up the battle in the midrange long time ago. And while I think the mix excels otherwise - this gives the mastering engineer a great chance to excel in his profession as well. Midrange sloppiness isn't a huge problem though. It just needs a little tighter belt. No-one's commented it anyway. But I know that proper mastering would improve it. Feel free to prove it, Bob. *fniss*

Again, that's a very dangerous road to walk down. Why not just give the mastering engineer stems and tell him to have fun with it. Wouldn't you want your mix to sound exactly as it should before some half wit mastering engineer tries to suck the life out of it? The more room you leave for him, the less it's going to sound like "your mix" when you get it back. So what does the client end up paying you for?

My mix is the best BTW. Why? Because this is the exact way *I* want it to sound. Mixermans mix is also the best. But in a different school. He's after separation - while I'm after glue.

Shouldn't the mix be the best because it's exactly the way the artist/client wants it to sound? I listened to your mix and read the comments of Ryan and Mixerman, and it seems as if his mix was exactly what Ryan/Strange Faces were going for. I felt that your mix sounded very impersonal and distracting. The vocal was a little loud throughout the whole thing, and the reverb on it really isolated the vocal from the rest of the song to me. The reverb sounded good for a digital reverb, but I can still hear it, and it bugs me. The tambourine could have been turned waaayyyy down. I think it's actually louder than the vocal at one point.

I'm not trying to go out of my way to be an asshole, I'm just pointing out some fatal flaws in your game.

[Mixerman]

And now I don't find it. Perhaps that's because you imagined it.

Mixerman

[Knastratt]

However you want to define HUGE is fine, but I don't think that HUGE should be the goal for any song. I agree with Mixerman that it's all about the emotional impact of the song, which comes from all of those elements; composition, arrangement, production, mixing, etc. Listen to any of the classics, "Won't Get Fooled Again" is a good example. That song does not sound huge or may not have the wide scope of a modern recording, but emotionally it crushes you.



Again, that's a very dangerous road to walk down. Why not just give the mastering engineer stems and tell him to have fun with it. Wouldn't you want your mix to sound exactly as it should before some half wit mastering engineer tries to suck the life out of it? The more room you leave for him, the less it's going to sound like "your mix" when you get it back. So what does the client end up paying you for?



Shouldn't the mix be the best because it's exactly the way the artist/client wants it to sound? I listened to your mix and read the comments of Ryan and Mixerman, and it seems as if his mix was exactly what Ryan/Strange Faces were going for. I felt that your mix sounded very impersonal and distracting. The vocal was a little loud throughout the whole thing, and the reverb on it really isolated the vocal from the rest of the song to me. The reverb sounded good for a digital reverb, but I can still hear it, and it bugs me. The tambourine could have been turned waaayyyy down. I think it's actually louder than the vocal at one point.

I'm not trying to go out of my way to be an asshole, I'm just pointing out some fatal flaws in your game.


Thanks for the input! I definitely agree about the tambourine. I do however like a bit wetter vocals. At least in a song like this. Dry would annoy me.

Cheers - Pär

[Knastratt]

Perhaps that's because you imagined it.

Mixerman

Sure, why not. Still wasn't directed at you. Don't get me wrong - I do appreciate the input.

Be well - Pär

[Charles Dye]

First - I strongly disagree (from the Mixerman thread) that HUGE comes from mixing.

This simply is not true.

I could play ya 2 mixes of the exact same song + production...

One would be an incredibly unhuge tiny little mix.

The other would be a massive monster, the biggest thing you ever heard.


That's mixing.

[Knastratt]

I see it more this way - there are a million ways to screw up a mix that it gets tiny. I was more aiming the statement towards MMs tracks. Well tracked with an agenda. Either you mix them to specs or lose them. Still I think huge comes MORE from arrangement and songwriting.

So - I screwed up on the snare compression, the volume of the tambs and vocals. Any more ideas?

Cheers in the beautiful summer weather - Pär

[Charles Dye]

I see it more this way - there are a million ways to screw up a mix that it gets tiny.

...

Still I think huge comes MORE from arrangement and songwriting.

Your implication is that if the song sounds huge or not, it's not the mixer's problem, it's the songwriters + arrangers. I couldn't disagree more.

In my view, the responsibility for huge is fully on the mixer's shoulders. Whether anybody else did their job or not.

I would say the possibility for huge comes from arrangement + songwriting. But it takes a great mix to bring it out.


Huge is not preordained in the tracks.

[Knastratt]

But in the end it takes a great mix to bring it out.

Amen to that!

Cheers - Pär

[chrisj]

...or a default assumption, for that matter.

We're all talking huge and all, but I also think that if everything's huge, nothing is- and rather than make anything unusually or distractingly huge, I ended up intentionally making some things SMALL. Not because that's what I wanted the focal point to be, but because I had a fixed idea in mind for what the size of the key stuff wanted to be- and other stuff HAD to be not as big as that.

Surely the emphasis on huge is largely because a lot of tracking these days defaults to tiny and lame? Always huger is not what you want. There's a target there somewhere, for any given song, as to how big it OUGHT to become for each instrument.

Look at all the times Led Zeppelin set tiny wiry guitars against huge drums or bass. You THINK they're huge, because the song is. If you soloed them, you'd shit bricks.

[Knastratt]

... I ended up intentionally making some things SMALL.

Yeah - the soundfield's like a tube where everything have to fit. In the battle for space some stuff have to be tiny in some parts of the aural spectra. I sometimes envision "shrinkwrapping" stuff with EQ/comp in order to fit that 3d jigsaw puzzle mixing is about.

/Pär

[Mixerman]

Yeah - the soundfield's like a tube where everything have to fit. In the battle for space some stuff have to be tiny in some parts of the aural spectra. I sometimes envision "shrinkwrapping" stuff with EQ/comp in order to fit that 3d jigsaw puzzle mixing is about.

/Pär

Were you born full of shit or is it a recent development?

Mixerman

[Knastratt]

I think I evolved into it.

/Pär

[Charles Dye]

We're all talking huge and all, but I also think that if everything's huge, nothing is-

Absolutely.

That's the 1st rule of getting a huge sound.

Things feel big in comparison to elements that feel close. The space between them defines the mix's depth.

And therein it's hugeness.

[Charles Dye]

I think I evolved into it.

/Pär

:icon_eek: :lol: :Twisted:

[Knastratt]

Did anyone else get a review by MM as well?

[strangedays]

Ive found that if you make something practically smaller it actually becomes bigger, ie on distorted guitars ig you clean up the lows and get rid of the harsher hi's the focus becomes more of that of where the power lies, I have started to use this as well for playing live, carefully done you keep to focus on the real guts of the instrument.


It does not mean elimiating the upper harmonics of a sound, but trading places so that not everything is tryiing to be big in the same way. A snare can be as big as a guitar, its much shorter a sound and can be focused slightly differently.

Then theres the head messing tricks like automating a sound to be slighly louder for a bar to bring your attention to it.

Then theres subtle reverb...