How do you clarify your mix?

This forum is for discussing Reason. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
Post Reply
User avatar
CYSYS8993
Posts: 94
Joined: 27 Sep 2016
Location: Winnipeg
Contact:

07 Aug 2017

To clarify (no pun intended), I'm not asking for solid straight objective answers. I understand that this is totally subjective, so I'm encouraging you to share your own methods on clarifying your mixes to make them more listen-worthy. Like, how do you fatten your drum sounds and such.

Perhaps we can all collaborate and take advices and strategies from one another as we share them. :D

Me? I'd always use LPFs or HPFs on instruments to cut out unnecessary noise beyond their intended frequency ranges. I mean, who would want to hear a bass kick with an HPF? Also I've been using the Pulverizer plugin to bring out the bass kick more.

User avatar
artotaku
Posts: 652
Joined: 09 May 2015
Location: Munich, Germany
Contact:

07 Aug 2017

I´ll add: have no fear applying hard panning of certain percussion sounds like hihats but try to keep a balance, e. g. if hihat 1 is panned to the left, you may pan another hihat or similar sounding instrument panned to the right. This has two effects. Overall wider/stereo image and making room for e. g. the lead instrument/voice in the center.

User avatar
nooomy
Posts: 543
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

07 Aug 2017

CYSYS8993 wrote:
07 Aug 2017
To clarify (no pun intended), I'm not asking for solid straight objective answers. I understand that this is totally subjective, so I'm encouraging you to share your own methods on clarifying your mixes to make them more listen-worthy. Like, how do you fatten your drum sounds and such.

Perhaps we can all collaborate and take advices and strategies from one another as we share them. :D

Me? I'd always use LPFs or HPFs on instruments to cut out unnecessary noise beyond their intended frequency ranges. I mean, who would want to hear a bass kick with an HPF? Also I've been using the Pulverizer plugin to bring out the bass kick more.
90% of your mixing should be volume and gain. The rest is just icing.

So my suggestion is to remove all FX like reverbs, compressors EQ and just set the gain. And if the sample/bass/lead etc doesn't sound good without all the FX pick another sounds.
Don't get attached to your sounds, "Kill your darlings"

Then when you are happy with the volume of the sounds you can start adding FX like compressors, eq's etc etc...

michael.jaye
Posts: 302
Joined: 18 Jan 2015
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

07 Aug 2017

I've found that grouping my bass and kick, then feeding both into a Pulveriser can really squash and pump the two together in a nice way. I also Sidechain the bass fed by the kick. Usually this group is set to 0% Stereo width, sitting right in the middle of the mix.

A Pulverizer on the default setting when added to Hi Hats can also give an immediate boost to the higher frequencies. A similar effect (although more unnatural) can be achieved with Blamsoft's Resampler Bitcrusher.

A Softube Saturation Knob and Reverb set to almost unnoticable gives a bit of life to the Master Buss and helps gel things together.

User avatar
Jagwah
Posts: 2549
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

08 Aug 2017

nooomy wrote:
07 Aug 2017
90% of your mixing should be volume and gain. The rest is just icing.

So my suggestion is to remove all FX like reverbs, compressors EQ and just set the gain. And if the sample/bass/lead etc doesn't sound good without all the FX pick another sounds.
Don't get attached to your sounds, "Kill your darlings"

Then when you are happy with the volume of the sounds you can start adding FX like compressors, eq's etc etc...
Quite surprised at this advice. I am focusing a lot on mixing lately and finally I have started producing with frequencies in mind - adding an element that I know will fit reasonably well in the spectrum has been like a revelation for mixing. Where you say volume is the dominant practise, I would say equalizing is, but this is just from personal experience, maybe you could explain a bit more?

I also don't get why a sound should sound good without effects, but I'm very open to understanding why if you want to elaborate.

User avatar
aeox
Competition Winner
Posts: 3222
Joined: 23 Feb 2017
Location: Oregon

08 Aug 2017

Jagwah wrote:
08 Aug 2017
nooomy wrote:
07 Aug 2017
90% of your mixing should be volume and gain. The rest is just icing.

So my suggestion is to remove all FX like reverbs, compressors EQ and just set the gain. And if the sample/bass/lead etc doesn't sound good without all the FX pick another sounds.
Don't get attached to your sounds, "Kill your darlings"

Then when you are happy with the volume of the sounds you can start adding FX like compressors, eq's etc etc...
Quite surprised at this advice. I am focusing a lot on mixing lately and finally I have started producing with frequencies in mind - adding an element that I know will fit reasonably well in the spectrum has been like a revelation for mixing. Where you say volume is the dominant practise, I would say equalizing is, but this is just from personal experience, maybe you could explain a bit more?

I also don't get why a sound should sound good without effects, but I'm very open to understanding why if you want to elaborate.
I don't quite understand either.

While I don't particularly like the sound of a straight up sawtooth waveform unprocessed, but it can sound orgasmic to my ears with the right processing applied.

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3932
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

08 Aug 2017

The mix will tell you what the mix needs IMO.

Volume and panning are the fundamental components, but your mix is going to be compared to other mixes where the mix has been enhanced with effects. I think a certain amount of sound sculpting plays a role as well in electronic and pop music nowadays.

If your sounds are perfectly balanced in the frequency spectrum then you only need to be concerned about volume and panning.

Clarity is about communicating with minimal ambiguity. Having detail from two instruments occupying the same bands of frequencies can make it unclear what the actual detail of each instrument is, and it can subtract from the composition if every sound is fighting for your attention.

Effects like phasers, chorus and sometimes tremolo can give sounds a certain amount of spectral translucency (if not overdone).

EQ can draw more attention to or away from bands in a sound. All things I'm sure you know, but making the right subtle adjustments can make all the difference IMO.

Really though, just diligently do what the track is asking for. It's easy to hear when something sounds flat or empty and just leave it that way. Or you might feel that the guitar doesn't always need the same setting throughout the track but for whatever reason simply automating the mix or duplicating the track seems to much effort.

You've been making music long enough. I imagine you have all the knowledge you need and now is the time of doing, experimenting and finding your own process.

Personally I can take any set of sounds and make them my own, be it some bottom range Yamaha or Casio electronic keyboard. Scream plays a major role in this ;) and now audiomatic!

Maybe useful reading: Tweakheadz: The Perfect Mix
Maybe useful purchasing: The Art of Producing; David Gibson.

slightlyprog
Posts: 122
Joined: 02 Jan 2016
Location: Kent coast UK
Contact:

08 Aug 2017

Lots of things collectively contribute to clarity. One of the first things you have to do is train your ear to spot frequencies that are prone to building up and causing muddiness. Like 200-300hz for example. Eventually you learn how to get get enough but not too much of these frequencies. Panning of instruments that compete in the same frequency ranges can help but they really should still work together in mono, certainly if one of them is the focal point, like a lead vocal. Another general practice would be finding situations where something like a pad or other background sound can be brought back in the mix with some fader moves and brought up in the empty spaces (rather than just leaving it at the same volume the whole time). Another potential tricky thing is cymbals, getting crashes and rides up enough to do the job but not so much that other things get drowned out.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

08 Aug 2017

Jagwah wrote:
nooomy wrote:
07 Aug 2017
90% of your mixing should be volume and gain. The rest is just icing.

So my suggestion is to remove all FX like reverbs, compressors EQ and just set the gain. And if the sample/bass/lead etc doesn't sound good without all the FX pick another sounds.
Don't get attached to your sounds, "Kill your darlings"

Then when you are happy with the volume of the sounds you can start adding FX like compressors, eq's etc etc...
Quite surprised at this advice. I am focusing a lot on mixing lately and finally I have started producing with frequencies in mind - adding an element that I know will fit reasonably well in the spectrum has been like a revelation for mixing. Where you say volume is the dominant practise, I would say equalizing is, but this is just from personal experience, maybe you could explain a bit more?

I also don't get why a sound should sound good without effects, but I'm very open to understanding why if you want to elaborate.
Here's my take on the concept, partly based on learning from more 'old school' engineers and partly based on my own experience over the past decades.

A mix that is good without effects should be even better with effects, just like a mix that sounds great before mastering will sound even greater after. Of course, if you're talking about effects that are a part of the sound, such as with ambient styles (where reverb can play a big role) or industrial (where distortion is king), those will be added before the mix can even begin since they are a part of the arrangement IMO rather than the mix.

As for the overall production, it has been my experience that the better the foundation the better the end result. To put it another way, the more time you spend getting the foundation solid, the less time you spend finishing the details. As an extreme example, a well written song that is well arranged and recorded is MUCH easier to mix/master than a poorly written/arranged/recorded song.

At every stage, if you're struggling, you can possibly solve the problem better by backing up one stage and re-addressing the issue from that perspective. For example, if you're struggling mastering, maybe the mix still needs work. If you're struggling mixing, maybe you need to address the arrangement (delete some tracks, replace some tracks or re-record takes), and so on.

You could also say it's the "garbage in/garbage out" concept at work in those cases!

To take this to the mix process specifically (assuming your previous stages are all at their best), the more time you spend getting the balances correct, the less EQ you'll need, the less dynamics you'll need, the less FX you're likely to need, etc. Basically, the easier the next stages will be, the quicker you can work, and the better the end results in my experience.

it's certainly less fun to go with the 'delayed gratification' approach, at least it was for me until I understood how much better the end results sounded! Now it's what motivates me to build more solid foundations at every step of the production process.
:)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
nooomy
Posts: 543
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

08 Aug 2017

selig wrote:
08 Aug 2017
Jagwah wrote: Quite surprised at this advice. I am focusing a lot on mixing lately and finally I have started producing with frequencies in mind - adding an element that I know will fit reasonably well in the spectrum has been like a revelation for mixing. Where you say volume is the dominant practise, I would say equalizing is, but this is just from personal experience, maybe you could explain a bit more?

I also don't get why a sound should sound good without effects, but I'm very open to understanding why if you want to elaborate.
Here's my take on the concept, partly based on learning from more 'old school' engineers and partly based on my own experience over the past decades.

A mix that is good without effects should be even better with effects, just like a mix that sounds great before mastering will sound even greater after. Of course, if you're talking about effects that are a part of the sound, such as with ambient styles (where reverb can play a big role) or industrial (where distortion is king), those will be added before the mix can even begin since they are a part of the arrangement IMO rather than the mix.

As for the overall production, it has been my experience that the better the foundation the better the end result. To put it another way, the more time you spend getting the foundation solid, the less time you spend finishing the details. As an extreme example, a well written song that is well arranged and recorded is MUCH easier to mix/master than a poorly written/arranged/recorded song.

At every stage, if you're struggling, you can possibly solve the problem better by backing up one stage and re-addressing the issue from that perspective. For example, if you're struggling mastering, maybe the mix still needs work. If you're struggling mixing, maybe you need to address the arrangement (delete some tracks, replace some tracks or re-record takes), and so on.

You could also say it's the "garbage in/garbage out" concept at work in those cases!

To take this to the mix process specifically (assuming your previous stages are all at their best), the more time you spend getting the balances correct, the less EQ you'll need, the less dynamics you'll need, the less FX you're likely to need, etc. Basically, the easier the next stages will be, the quicker you can work, and the better the end results in my experience.

it's certainly less fun to go with the 'delayed gratification' approach, at least it was for me until I understood how much better the end results sounded! Now it's what motivates me to build more solid foundations at every step of the production process.
:)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
A really nice meta explanation of the process of producing!! :) I totally agree with you!

Sometimes I imagen it as cooking. If you have good ingredients it's easier to cook good food, but you need to learn how to identify good ingredients, how to balance the ingredients, how to mix them, when to add them, how to present it etc etc you can follow a receipt but the best cooks can cook from "feel"

Like any art form it take a lot of practice...

But the most important part is to have fun!!!

Because fun= More music :)

User avatar
Wickline
Posts: 533
Joined: 03 Jan 2017
Location: Japan
Contact:

08 Aug 2017

aeox wrote:
Jagwah wrote:
08 Aug 2017
Quite surprised at this advice. I am focusing a lot on mixing lately and finally I have started producing with frequencies in mind - adding an element that I know will fit reasonably well in the spectrum has been like a revelation for mixing. Where you say volume is the dominant practise, I would say equalizing is, but this is just from personal experience, maybe you could explain a bit more?

I also don't get why a sound should sound good without effects, but I'm very open to understanding why if you want to elaborate.
I don't quite understand either.

While I don't particularly like the sound of a straight up sawtooth waveform unprocessed, but it can sound orgasmic to my ears with the right processing applied.
I think it depends on what exactly he's talking about. If it's quality than usually yes. Shit samples/synths will more than likely sound like shit after processing. As far as sound design goes, that's another story... And of course, there's always exceptions to the rule. Depends on what you're going for.
I've had patches I made that I hated dry, but drenched in reverb they made some awesome pad beds. Like you said, the basic sawtooth is pretty boring, buuuuut it makes a great starting point for a rats nest of wires behind the rack and something cool coming out at the end.
:reason: :record: :refill: :re: :PUF_take: :rebirth: :PUF_figure:

[Signature size reduced by a moderator] :puf_bigsmile:

User avatar
Wickline
Posts: 533
Joined: 03 Jan 2017
Location: Japan
Contact:

08 Aug 2017

Or you can skip my post and just read Selig's 50 pages of much more comprehensive and helpful information.
:reason: :record: :refill: :re: :PUF_take: :rebirth: :PUF_figure:

[Signature size reduced by a moderator] :puf_bigsmile:

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 2593
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: Bajo del mar...

10 Aug 2017

Re: How do you clarify your mix?


Scotch...
Perpetual Reason 12 Beta Tester :reason:

You can check out my music here.
https://m.soundcloud.com/ericholmofficial
Or here.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC73uZZ ... 8jqUubzsQg

User avatar
Jagwah
Posts: 2549
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

22 Aug 2017

avasopht wrote:
08 Aug 2017
If your sounds are perfectly balanced in the frequency spectrum then you only need to be concerned about volume and panning.
Well that's what I thought, as at this point in my mixing journey everything is boosting and cutting, but here are some knowledgeable guys saying it's all levelling. Never ceases to amaze me the amount of things I do not yet understand here. Thanks for your answer.

User avatar
Jagwah
Posts: 2549
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

22 Aug 2017

selig wrote:
08 Aug 2017
To take this to the mix process specifically (assuming your previous stages are all at their best), the more time you spend getting the balances correct, the less EQ you'll need, the less dynamics you'll need, the less FX you're likely to need, etc. Basically, the easier the next stages will be, the quicker you can work, and the better the end results in my experience.

it's certainly less fun to go with the 'delayed gratification' approach, at least it was for me until I understood how much better the end results sounded! Now it's what motivates me to build more solid foundations at every step of the production process.
:)
This is really interesting. Been having fun making basses with Subtractor lately, adding a little overdrive then a ton of reverb from Uhbik A and they sound huge which I do very early on on the production process. I'll try adding those later and see what happens. Thanks for your input here. :)

User avatar
raymondh
Posts: 1776
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

22 Aug 2017

In the words of Steven Wright: "You can't have everything. Where would you put it?"

This is true of mixing. For all the advice in previous posters, the key is you need to be willing to remove elements from your mix - whether it be whole tracks that aren't really contributing to the result, dropping the level of parts so they don't dominate or interfere, or removing specific frequencies.

This can be really challenging psychologically. You may have found an amazing fat bass sound that inspired a track, and the idea of removing the bottom end from it may constrain you from pulling out those frequencies as much as you really should, to make the track shine. Or that harmony melody that took ages to play well, using that synth sound you really wanted to include in the track -- it might be better to drop it altogether from the final arrangement.
Or the really nice organic synth pad in the track, actually has the best impact when it is barely audible (so you don't know it's there, until you take it away).

If there's nothing on the cutting room floor after a mix, it may be worth asking yourself if you were as ruthless with the mix as you need to be to get the best final result.

User avatar
MarkTarlton
Posts: 795
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

23 Aug 2017

a couple extra nuggets to add to the already helpful thread :)

-the more tracks in your arrangement that are playing at the same time, the smaller the individual sounds will need to be in terms of frequencies/eq, so you will need to cut more.
-I mute the bass and bass drums, and listen to make sure the rest of the mix is still holding together, this usually helps me a lot!
-I listen to other mixes imported into the session as reference when I need to re-calibrate my brain/ears so to speak, keeping in mind that there is mastering and levels will be hotter so I adjust gain down
-separate your bass/bass drums from the entire mix, so you have a music minus bass mix, and a bass...I also will do vocals too depending on the scope of the project...vca faders in logic/pro tools are also helpful :)
-I make subtle adjustments while naming the session and bounce mixes with the same title, for breadcrumb trail, so I can go back to what I like or don't like...doing revisions and having all of them imported into something like i-tunes with a playlist. mix everyday and take breaks so you have fresh perspectives, until you start to get a flow going...have fun!

User avatar
raymondh
Posts: 1776
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

23 Aug 2017

MarkTarlton wrote:
23 Aug 2017
a couple extra nuggets to add to the already helpful thread :)

-the more tracks in your arrangement that are playing at the same time, the smaller the individual sounds will need to be in terms of frequencies/eq, so you will need to cut more.
-I mute the bass and bass drums, and listen to make sure the rest of the mix is still holding together, this usually helps me a lot!
-I listen to other mixes imported into the session as reference when I need to re-calibrate my brain/ears so to speak, keeping in mind that there is mastering and levels will be hotter so I adjust gain down
-separate your bass/bass drums from the entire mix, so you have a music minus bass mix, and a bass...I also will do vocals too depending on the scope of the project...vca faders in logic/pro tools are also helpful :)
-I make subtle adjustments while naming the session and bounce mixes with the same title, for breadcrumb trail, so I can go back to what I like or don't like...doing revisions and having all of them imported into something like i-tunes with a playlist. mix everyday and take breaks so you have fresh perspectives, until you start to get a flow going...have fun!
Great advice.

On that first point - when there are more tracks playing at once, it also has the effect of making each track sound smaller. So if you have a vocal song and you want the instrumentation to sound really big/epic - maybe the best thing you can do is pull back the vocals and make them sound small.
There are many many audio tricks that can change the way a mix or arrangement is perceived, translated by our brains.
Another good example is you may have a triad chord in a mix that consumes too much space. If you have a bassline playing, maybe you can drop the root note off the triad, and the two remaining notes are supported by the bassline. The brain can put back the imaginary note and you end up with the sound you want but you've created more space. Actually playing around with chord voicings in an arrangement is a great way to create space.

Back on the fooling the brain with mixing tricks - some of the experts here (@Selig?) probably have some great advice on production techniques that can help.

User avatar
Data_Shrine
Posts: 517
Joined: 23 Jan 2015

24 Aug 2017

I clean my ears... :P

But seriously, I find it so difficult to mix properly. I also have no idea why I've been approved by Apple for the MFiT program.
I find mixing/mastering my own stuff to be the most difficult. I mixed one of my friend's band new EP, which was also released on cassette this summer, in a 9 hour (or so) rush. It turns out I really like what I did, and heard one of the song playing on radio. Everyone in the band is happy so is a real engineer who heard the album. I did use EQ very strongly, and panning in a more subtle way (maybe).

I'm so bummed these days by the mixing/mastering process, and all the complicated/infinite options in using 2 DAWs, hell even one seems like too much. So I'm taking a short break making music only on my Electribe 2 (all-in-one groovebox) to clear my mind, be minimalist, and hope to find a more enjoyable working process in my full software/hardware setup afterwards.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 25 guests