Most important recording techniques you've learnt

This forum is for discussing Reason. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
123repeater
Posts: 67
Joined: 20 May 2016

09 Nov 2017

I started out on a fostex 4track in 1996. I moved on to a Roland Hardisk recorder in early 2000s. In 2008 I got reason 5 (and continued to use it with Garageband or Pro tools), in 2016 upgraded and went all in on reason 9.

One of the things I loved the most about Reason is the videos propellerheads puts on their youtube channel. And traditionally a few tremendous users like matt from learnreason.com Through watching almost every video on these two channels alone (and 20 years of trial and error) I feel that the following 5 tips are the most useful to every mix I do.

1. Set up a template that includes a one button switch connected to the master section to get MONO. Mixing in mono (or at least checking your mix in mono routinely) is something I underestimated and didn't fully exlore til a pensados place episode with Mix by Ali talking about Kenrick Albums.




2. Use elements of gainstaging throughout the tracking/creation process so that the mix is basically finished without moving faders (this, though obvious to me know, I found out was done with the gain knob at the top of the mixer


3. If you are using the master bus compressor, use a simple eq to side chain out the lower frequencies (in the video I believe they use a paid rack extention but I just use the built in eq in the rack then send it to the sidechain key like in the video. Where exactly you stop at depends on the song but I've found best results filtering only my 700hz and higher frequencies with the master bus and leaving the bass elements (kick/synths/bass etc) uncompressed in this phase.


4. Theres only so much audio space in a finished stereo audio file, so you really have to decide the hierarchy of tracks. If you have 5 tracks 1 of them is the king and 4 of them ladder down somewhat in relation. I used to often try to force too many secondary sounds to be of equal volume. The statement "reduced by Rick Rubin" speaks volumes to me now. I try to record less parts to begin with and only keep the most important.

5. This should be number 1 but the most important mix technique Ive found to make a massive difference started with the propellerheads video about "hi pass/lo pass". I jumped on board huge but what I discovered is that the slope at which the hp/lp filter works on reason ssl mixer is set. Now I'll use the regular eq and do a similar hi pass low pass arc but without being lazy and instead custom drawing the slope to the sounds needs. Often times I'll add a touch of hi pass low pass on top of this eq if I want even more lattitude.


This is probably not a lot of new material for many folks in here but I know that I was fumbling around with these concepts for a while and they helped me a lot. Cheers,
Maxxfield.

User avatar
Carly(Poohbear)
Competition Winner
Posts: 2871
Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Location: UK

09 Nov 2017

The only problem with No 3's video is the snake eating the snake issue, you are taking a sound that has already passed through the master bus and sidechaining that back in which is then coming back out and then you are sidechaining it again and again...

If you want to use that technique then split the signal off as an insert, turning on "Inserts Pre Compressor"..

123repeater
Posts: 67
Joined: 20 May 2016

09 Nov 2017

I see what you are saying for sure. I always go with the gut instinct ears decide mentality and although this method has theoretical downsides, as you point out, it has created results which I liked quite a lot and certainly more so than not doing it at all. I'll definitely explore your method and see if it leads to even more desirable results. Thanks

User avatar
Carly(Poohbear)
Competition Winner
Posts: 2871
Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Location: UK

09 Nov 2017

Also a good stock device for splitting at the Freq. you want is the Stereo Imager as there are outputs for the Hi or Lo band.


BTW nice set of tips..

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

09 Nov 2017

123repeater wrote:
09 Nov 2017
I see what you are saying for sure. I always go with the gut instinct ears decide mentality and although this method has theoretical downsides, as you point out, it has created results which I liked quite a lot and certainly more so than not doing it at all. I'll definitely explore your method and see if it leads to even more desirable results. Thanks
The goal is to do it "correctly" and reap the benefits you noted while avoiding the "problems" created by this setup (including a batch delay of 64 samples).

Also, so may flaws with the techniques in #2 - watch how many times they have to adjust the master fader int the video to prevent clipping, as one example. This is because if you use the channel meters as suggested, a VU of -10 is almost ALWAYS going to clip the master fader with just ONE track in the mix - and how many of us have mixes with only one channel? Adding more channels just means more output level on the master, which means constantly "chasing the fader". Another flaw IMO: if you practice good gain practices you don't have to "correct" them with the Input Gain knob - nothing wrong with using the Input Gain, but there are better ways to keep levels under control. The "fix" is to use Peak levels throughout the process to prevent chasing the master fader and clipping the outputs, which specifically means using a consistent peak level for all your tracks from the source, thus saving time chasing the master fader and tweaking Input Gains, which means more time for MIXING!

Check out Ryan's video on Gain/Levels for a more reasoned approach - though I don't agree with EVERYTHING in his video, the things we differ on are minor. Full disclosure: I was consulted for this video and gave feedback and suggestions, so of COURSE I'm going to recommend it! ;)


Also, check out this thread for many more tips/techniques!
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7277840
Selig Audio, LLC

jlgrimes
Posts: 661
Joined: 06 Jun 2017

10 Nov 2017

selig wrote:
09 Nov 2017
123repeater wrote:
09 Nov 2017
Also, so may flaws with the techniques in #2 - watch how many times they have to adjust the master fader int the video to prevent clipping, as one example. This is because if you use the channel meters as suggested, a VU of -10 is almost ALWAYS going to clip the master fader with just ONE track in the mix - and how many of us have mixes with only one channel? Adding more channels just means more output level on the master, which means constantly "chasing the fader". Another flaw IMO: if you practice good gain practices you don't have to "correct" them with the Input Gain knob - nothing wrong with using the Input Gain, but there are better ways to keep levels under control. The "fix" is to use Peak levels throughout the process to prevent chasing the master fader and clipping the outputs, which specifically means using a consistent peak level for all your tracks from the source, thus saving time chasing the master fader and tweaking Input Gains, which means more time for MIXING!

I'm trying to understand what you are saying about this. Are you saying use the track Peak levels as a warning that you might be clipping the master output? And to set peak levels from Instrument source (if you can)?

User avatar
Raveshaper
Posts: 1089
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

11 Nov 2017

The most important recording technique I have learned is the correlation between pitch and playback speed. As well as how to apply a logarithmic plot to the spectra of the master bus to get a more balanced output. But then, I'm a nerd like that.
:reason: :ignition: :re: :refillpacker: Enhanced by DataBridge v5

mark999
Posts: 67
Joined: 13 Jun 2017

11 Nov 2017

Most important techniques I learned:

- Use EQ to fix “muddy” sound problems
- a good mix is more important than a loud master
- don’t overdo sidechain compression
- create song starting templates and use those to save huge amounts of time
- making music at 2am or later is completely counter productive and the results are never good enough when listening back the following day, regardless of how good it sounded at the time, I’ve learned that for me it’s best to go to bed then continue the next day
- don’t get too involved in minuscule details, make sure the big parts are good
- don’t waste time and kill inspiration by wasting hours on a drum loop when starting a song, just have a basic kick drum and concentrate on melody first and foremost. The rest of the drums can be added later.
- don’t be fooled by pretty graphics of plugins, an EQ is an EQ, there is a lot of marketing bull**** out there trying to get you to buy $100 EQ plug-ins, compressors and alll of these nonsense tools that make insignificant differences. Concentrate on your music instead, the rest are just tools. Tools don’t make good songs, people do!
If you make any type of popular music, the tools and and effects that come with Reason can do everything you could possibly need and more.
- Concentrate on making music and improving your skills instead of buying new gear.

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

11 Nov 2017

mark999 wrote:
11 Nov 2017

- making music at 2am or later is completely counter productive and the results are never good enough when listening back the following day, regardless of how good it sounded at the time, I’ve learned that for me it’s best to go to bed then continue the next day
Unless you're Joel Zimmerman, who claims the ideas don't come to him until he been awake for over 15 hours and sleep deprivation starts.

"Deadmau5 said that most of his greatest work was conceived around 4 a.m.. Duda described the mental tunnel vision that occurs at such an hour and said that the brain performs less analyzation when sleep-deprived, making the creative possibilities far less limited."

I find myself experiencing similar results. Everyone is different though, of course.

EdGrip
Posts: 2343
Joined: 03 Jun 2016

11 Nov 2017

aeox wrote:
11 Nov 2017
Unless you're Joel Zimmerman, who claims the ideas don't come to him until he been awake for over 15 hours and sleep deprivation starts.

"Deadmau5 said that most of his greatest work was conceived around 4 a.m.. Duda described the mental tunnel vision that occurs at such an hour and said that the brain performs less analyzation when sleep-deprived, making the creative possibilities far less limited."

I find myself experiencing similar results. Everyone is different though, of course.
I'm the same. I know just what he means about mental tunnel vision. I find that on-a-roll "play" brain state comes most easily at night. It's trying to access those not-really-awake-not-really-asleep random-connection thoughts.

"Between the click of the light
And the start of the dream"

123repeater
Posts: 67
Joined: 20 May 2016

13 Nov 2017

Great to see so many people adding on to this thread. I see some critisisms of the video's I've posted. Thats good to see what people like and don't like about them. I was mainly trying to post "something" rather than just ranting. These particular videos were more meant to be gateways to checking the specific topics. These topics being ones that I feel I always knew about but didn't pay enough attention to. Thanks everyone.

User avatar
dvdrtldg
Posts: 2386
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

14 Nov 2017

mark999 wrote:
11 Nov 2017

- don’t waste time and kill inspiration by wasting hours on a drum loop when starting a song, just have a basic kick drum and concentrate on melody first and foremost. The rest of the drums can be added later.
This is a big one for me. So many of my tracks end up exhausted & abandoned as ridiculously elaborate drum/percussion workouts

User avatar
demt
Posts: 1357
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Contact:

14 Nov 2017

im about to do sum breakcorps witch is all percussion with a bit of bass, tis gonna be a nasty mess in the mixer yet isle bear all those points in mind.erm sum say the mud is part of the appeall
Reason 12 ,gear4 music sdp3 stage piano .nektar gxp 88,behringer umc1800 .line6 spider4 30
hear scince reason 2.5

User avatar
MannequinRaces
Posts: 1543
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

15 Nov 2017

A good arrangement will practically mix itself. If there's not a lot of frequency clashing / masking going on it is much much easier to get a good mix in little time.

calebbrennan
Posts: 315
Joined: 16 Aug 2016

15 Nov 2017

Great thread!!!

Getting the mix to sit in pocket of the song
using eq and gain knob on tracks

Less is more

with fader automation as last resort

I often go to the wave form in the track and pull down the volume for a few bars

User avatar
NekujaK
Posts: 631
Joined: 09 Oct 2016
Location: USA

15 Nov 2017

Just a few that I find useful:
  • Mix at low volumes :shh: and periodically let your ears take a break
  • Use the "pink noise method" (look it up on YouTube) to get initial mix levels - this works so well, it feels like cheating :-o
  • Use a "top down" approach to mixing: balance the entire mix as best as possible first, then work on individual tracks as necessary. Same applies to drum kits.
  • Have a clearly defined reason for slapping a plugin or effect on a channel, otherwise don't do it
  • Frequently compare your mix to one or more reference tracks
  • Don't forget about panning - sometimes it's all that's needed to remedy an overcrowding problem.
  • Don't forget about the power of dynamics. Find places in the mix to temporarily remove instruments and bring the overall energy down before resuming full throttle again
  • To check if the vocals are at an appropriate level turn the master fader all the way down and slowly bring it up. The first element that should be audible is the vocal, closely followed by the next most prominent element in the mix, which is usually dependent on the style of music
  • If you've spent days on a mix and it''s simply not working, it's possible the problem lies in the source material. Record a better performance, get a new arrangement, drop tracks or change instruments, etc. The amount of work you have to do as a mixing engineer is inversely proportional the quality of the material. Good arrangements with well recorded tracks played by great musicians practically mix themselves.
  • A mix that sounds good today, may sound like garbage to you tomorrow. Wait a day or two and get some perspective before finalizing a mix.
wreaking havoc with :reason: since 2.5
:arrow: https://soundcloud.com/nekujak-donnay/sets

calebbrennan
Posts: 315
Joined: 16 Aug 2016

15 Nov 2017

Don't forget the legacy of Motown.
They had a car in the parking lot behind the studio
that had no wheels and was up on jacks
but it had the standard Mono speaker that all cars had that time

The car was used to get the mix right using the way most people listened in 1960
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
123speakers

initiated with talk of Mono mixing

in 2017-18 most people listen with a bluetooth speaker, or full on stereo in the car

I used to check mixes with aurtones

Maybe its a car and a bluetooth speaker today?

123repeater
Posts: 67
Joined: 20 May 2016

16 Nov 2017

NekujaK wrote:
15 Nov 2017
Just a few that I find useful:
  • Mix at low volumes :shh: and periodically let your ears take a break
  • Use the "pink noise method" (look it up on YouTube) to get initial mix levels - this works so well, it feels like cheating :-o
  • Use a "top down" approach to mixing: balance the entire mix as best as possible first, then work on individual tracks as necessary. Same applies to drum kits.
  • Have a clearly defined reason for slapping a plugin or effect on a channel, otherwise don't do it
  • Frequently compare your mix to one or more reference tracks
  • Don't forget about panning - sometimes it's all that's needed to remedy an overcrowding problem.
  • Don't forget about the power of dynamics. Find places in the mix to temporarily remove instruments and bring the overall energy down before resuming full throttle again
  • To check if the vocals are at an appropriate level turn the master fader all the way down and slowly bring it up. The first element that should be audible is the vocal, closely followed by the next most prominent element in the mix, which is usually dependent on the style of music
  • If you've spent days on a mix and it''s simply not working, it's possible the problem lies in the source material. Record a better performance, get a new arrangement, drop tracks or change instruments, etc. The amount of work you have to do as a mixing engineer is inversely proportional the quality of the material. Good arrangements with well recorded tracks played by great musicians practically mix themselves.
  • A mix that sounds good today, may sound like garbage to you tomorrow. Wait a day or two and get some perspective before finalizing a mix.
Lots of good stuff in there. Never heard of this pink noise method but I'm interested!

househoppin09
Posts: 536
Joined: 03 Aug 2016

16 Nov 2017

selig wrote:
09 Nov 2017
...if you practice good gain practices you don't have to "correct" them with the Input Gain knob - nothing wrong with using the Input Gain, but there are better ways to keep levels under control. The "fix" is to use Peak levels throughout the process to prevent chasing the master fader and clipping the outputs, which specifically means using a consistent peak level for all your tracks from the source, thus saving time chasing the master fader and tweaking Input Gains, which means more time for MIXING!
I've always wondered about this. As it so happens, I do make heavy use of the Input Gain knob to keep my levels under control on non-audio tracks, and am sort of vaguely aware that it might be less than ideal, but all of the possible alternatives seem to have their own shortcomings as well. Selig, it sounds like what you're recommending is to manage levels during the audio recording process itself, such that you hit your mark of -12 (or whatever) without any after-the-fact gain adjustment being required anywhere. Fair enough, but then what about all of your MIDI instrument tracks? In that case, where would be a better place to do the gain correction than the Input Gain knob on the main Reason mixer, and why?

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

17 Nov 2017

househoppin09 wrote:
16 Nov 2017
selig wrote:
09 Nov 2017
...if you practice good gain practices you don't have to "correct" them with the Input Gain knob - nothing wrong with using the Input Gain, but there are better ways to keep levels under control. The "fix" is to use Peak levels throughout the process to prevent chasing the master fader and clipping the outputs, which specifically means using a consistent peak level for all your tracks from the source, thus saving time chasing the master fader and tweaking Input Gains, which means more time for MIXING!
I've always wondered about this. As it so happens, I do make heavy use of the Input Gain knob to keep my levels under control on non-audio tracks, and am sort of vaguely aware that it might be less than ideal, but all of the possible alternatives seem to have their own shortcomings as well. Selig, it sounds like what you're recommending is to manage levels during the audio recording process itself, such that you hit your mark of -12 (or whatever) without any after-the-fact gain adjustment being required anywhere. Fair enough, but then what about all of your MIDI instrument tracks? In that case, where would be a better place to do the gain correction than the Input Gain knob on the main Reason mixer, and why?
Indeed the Reason Sequencer itself encourages you to hit peaks of around -12 dBFS when recording audio by it's color coding (and by what is mentioned in the User Guide).

But for instruments I use the Master Volume to hit the same peak reference level, as it's the simplest and more logical place to handle this task IMO. This is a part of a long taught "fix it at the source" mentality vs "fix it in the mix" mentality. The reasons are the same as for audio tracks: if you start with the desired level from the start, it's one less thing to have to do later (when you should arguably be working on higher-level tasks). Another advantage is in case you add ANY other devices after the instrument itself (in the Rack) and before the input to the Mix Channel, because you will then be able to leverage the advantages of using a consistent peak level throughout the application.

If the ONLY place you pay attention to levels is the input to the Big Mixer, you're ignoring levels at every place before that point. This is all about paying attention to "Gain" at every "Stage", thus the (often overused) term "Gain Staging". I prefer to say I'm using a "Consistent Peak Reference Level", and the level that works for me is peaks around -12 dBFS (give or take a few dBs, can be lower but I try not to go much higher).

Advantages to adopting a "Consistent Peak Reference Level:
If you add additional processing anywhere in the signal path it becomes a simple task to ensure you don't add (or subtract) significant gain (just check the level: is it at your reference level or not?), thus accomplishing two things. First, you retain your peak reference level and assure all signals coming into the Big Mixer are consistent, which helps to hit your target output levels for the mixer and prevent clipping the outputs. Second, since levels are consistent now throughout the entire signal path, you can not only insert any FX at any point and know what to expect, but you can also move any FX to any point and get expected results (which include keeping the same levels throughout, since each FX should neither add nor subtract gain). This approach allows you to more fairly A/B any added FX. If you add a compressor, you don't want to be fooled into thinking it sounds better simply because it's adding gain (a common issue if you don't pay attention to input AND output levels). If you bypass or remove an effect you also don't want levels to jump or drop.

Another advantage to adopting a consistent reference level from top to bottom is the way all non-linear devices (dynamics, saturation, distortion, etc) will respond. If your levels are consistent, then adding these types of devices will be quick and easy - you can even save basic presets for your most used devices and since your levels are now consistent your presets will be very close to working. In other words, using a compressor as an example, the threshold will be similar for every source since the level coming into the compressor will be similar for any channel.

This is a time saving endeavor as much as anything, as it allows you to move more quickly and do less 'fader chasing' with runaway levels. After even a short time this approach becomes second nature and allows you to focus on more important things (the music; performances, the arrangements, patch design/selection, FX choices, etc.) which many will argue are the most important aspects of music production, or at the least the most fundamental. Without these aspects being their strongest, the best mixes and levels will be all but wasted IMO! ;)
Selig Audio, LLC

DonnieAlan
Posts: 271
Joined: 25 Jan 2017

17 Nov 2017

In today's computerized digital world of creating, producing and mixing music there are four cardinal rules.

1. If it sounds good, it IS good!
2. There are no rules in creating music
3. The good news is, there is always 5-10 ways to do something in digital music; the bad news is, there is always 5-10 ways to do something in digital music.
And rule #4 is: See rule #2.

househoppin09
Posts: 536
Joined: 03 Aug 2016

18 Nov 2017

Selig- wow! That's exactly the kind of explanation I was hoping for, thank you. Makes perfect sense. So what do you think about this as a general approach: use the instrument output volume for approximate targeting of the reference level, use the mixer input gain knob for finalizing the static level balance of the mix, and reserve the mixer faders for the dynamic shifts in level balance (i.e. fading in/out and any automation). That would seem to take the principles you described into account in a logical way while introducing a minimum of complications. What do you think, am I on the right track? Overlooking anything? :)

DonnieAlan
Posts: 271
Joined: 25 Jan 2017

18 Nov 2017

househoppin09 wrote:
18 Nov 2017
Selig- wow! That's exactly the kind of explanation I was hoping for, thank you. Makes perfect sense. So what do you think about this as a general approach: use the instrument output volume for approximate targeting of the reference level, use the mixer input gain knob for finalizing the static level balance of the mix, and reserve the mixer faders for the dynamic shifts in level balance (i.e. fading in/out and any automation). That would seem to take the principles you described into account in a logical way while introducing a minimum of complications. What do you think, am I on the right track? Overlooking anything? :)
I won't answer for Selig, but to add just a bit to what he's saying. I think of it this way. If instead of using VI's you had live players in the studio playing hardware synths (or instruments of any sort for that matter), what would you do? Obviously you'd fuss over mic placements or line inputs to your mixer board going into your DAW to record, right? And at each step, you'd fuss over gain controls. "Hey, guitar guy, turn your guitar volume down a bit on the guitar volume knob!" You'd use your mixer faders to control the record input levels to get a good recording signal to lay down the track, right? Well, think of it the same way in the virtual studio. Use the VI's controls (or mixer faders as some have ie East West) and get your record level where you want it, just like you would on a hardware mixer board. Then, when you have all your tracks down, use the virtual mixer faders to do your mix, just like you would do if it were all hardware. I've found that thinking of it this way helps me think through the signal chain better. And Reason helps with the visualization by the nice design of the rack with virtual cables and all that. Anyway, just a thought

User avatar
demt
Posts: 1357
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Contact:

18 Nov 2017

majicks majick sum days theres no need to master is diff to fit in with the ethos flogging me izotope 8 neutron etc
Reason 12 ,gear4 music sdp3 stage piano .nektar gxp 88,behringer umc1800 .line6 spider4 30
hear scince reason 2.5

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2504
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Contact:

18 Nov 2017

The biggest thing I learned is not to be afraid. Just create something that feels good. There are no mistakes, just many ways to push emotion trough air.

And more specific: use contrasting elements in the mix.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Kilsane and 16 guests