Leveling / Mixing

[RobC]

If I have a kick, and mix a snare to it for example; I do some offsetting, maybe phase inversion, until the two click perfectly together, then:

is it a good idea to maybe split the snare into some frequency bands (I prefer Linear Phase splitting instead of EQs), then tweaking band levels further so it will be perfectly balanced to the kick? (Mostly to avoid some drops and boosts that may happen.)

Heck, I even thought of offsetting/inverting bands individually, to match as perfectly as possible.

The other thing is, once everything works just right individually with the kick (or a pink noise, if you prefer that - or vocals were the other thing I imagined to be the perfect core of a song), I was thinking, that maybe I could re-level everything with each major change in the song. After all, when more sounds play at the same time, things get quite crowded. Therefore, I'd push less important sounds to the background, and bring others forward (which can change depending on the situation). When there's a change, either everything could be automated to change to the new volume slowly, a few bars earlier, or since I kind of like surprising craziness, the new leveling could hit in immediately.

When everything sounds perfect, but in comparison to commercial songs, there might be some need for EQ-ing, then that could be taken care of afterwards.

What are your experiences with these?

[aeox]

If it sounds good then it's a good idea

[RobC]

If it sounds good then it's a good idea

Okay, but I'm asking about experiences. : P

My main issue is how the core sound sounds. Maybe that is worth tweaking a bit to good sounding commercial music, first - so there's less tweaking needed (if any) during mastering. Then again, a flat, uncolored vocal recording might do the trick.

[normen]

In my experience the better the results of engineers are the less they did to the material. It's about avoiding mistakes and using the devices to their maximum potential. Thats why engineers care about added headroom from balanced signals and low noise devices, why they buy expensive microphones where 80% of the price is in quality control.

If you're talking about making "sound art" then we have ALL the options in the world and are pretty much just bound by our imagination. Why think about how to solve imaginary problems? Just use this idea next time you encounter an actual problem, thats what gets you somewhere. What you do seems like thinking about new applications for things you already know, like Feynman talked about in the video I posted at the end of your last thread. You seem so obsessed with the frequency domain because you understood how that works, now you're making a "solar system out of frequency peaks an valleys" to stay in the context of the video

[RobC]

In my experience the better the results of engineers are the less they did to the material. It's about avoiding mistakes and using the devices to their maximum potential. Thats why engineers care about added headroom from balanced signals and low noise devices, why they buy expensive microphones where 80% of the price is in quality control.

If you're talking about making "sound art" then we have ALL the options in the world and are pretty much just bound by our imagination. Why think about how to solve imaginary problems? Just use this idea next time you encounter an actual problem, thats what gets you somewhere. What you do seems like thinking about new applications for things you already know, like Feynman talked about in the video I posted at the end of your last thread. You seem so obsessed with the frequency domain because you understood how that works, now you're making a "solar system out of frequency peaks an valleys" to stay in the context of the video

That sounds like the multi-million dollar studio category, which is ready to record a whole orchestra, band, anything, really (especially "anything", and "really"). Where real-life authentic reproduction is desired.

What I look at, is kind of like Jean Michel Jarre's philosophy when he made Oxygen, where unique sounds mattered a lot.
But yeah, I try to be a bit pre-cautious to avoid catastrophes to happen in the mix.
Total freedom - but with reference check it is, then.

[normen]

That sounds like the multi-million dollar studio category, which is ready to record a whole orchestra, band, anything, really (especially "anything", and "really"). Where real-life authentic reproduction is desired.

What I look at, is kind of like Jean Michel Jarre's philosophy when he made Oxygen, where unique sounds mattered a lot.
But yeah, I try to be a bit pre-cautious to avoid catastrophes to happen in the mix.
Total freedom - but with reference check it is, then.

Yeah and thats where you lose me when you want to do things like this when mixing. When you already create the whole sound why would you have to "fix" anything at all?

[O1B]

- "until the two click perfectly together"
Golly...
- " maybe split the snare into some.."
the Precision...
- "to match as perfectly"
three words... "double-u." "oh." "double-u."
- "once everything works just right"
wait.... there's more Perfection... Mind. Blown.
- "When there's a change, either everything could be automated to change to the new volume slowly,"
Is that Possible? We truly live in a new age.
- "When everything sounds perfect,"
No. way. Dude. MORE Perfection?? THAT'S why none of us have any... - you got all the Perfection!

I have never had such an immersion in Perfection as you have had. Mere mortal here...

BUT, Id love to hear that 'Kick' and 'Snare'...

.... you ever consider "Tomato Drumming?" Here's a Banger for ya!

Happy Saturday!!

[RobC]

That sounds like the multi-million dollar studio category, which is ready to record a whole orchestra, band, anything, really (especially "anything", and "really"). Where real-life authentic reproduction is desired.

What I look at, is kind of like Jean Michel Jarre's philosophy when he made Oxygen, where unique sounds mattered a lot.
But yeah, I try to be a bit pre-cautious to avoid catastrophes to happen in the mix.
Total freedom - but with reference check it is, then.

Yeah and thats where you lose me when you want to do things like this when mixing. When you already create the whole sound why would you have to "fix" anything at all?

It's cases like when I have a synth bass, start mixing, and feel like I'd need to push the fader further, but hear that the bass frequencies will be too much then. What am I supposed to do? Should I accept that it will sound weak in the mix? I could just load up a sine wave for the bass and call it a day, then. The only solution I see is, mixing by listening to the whole sound, and when it sits the way I want, I may need to make adjustments in frequencies that are too loud or too quiet.

I'm interested in other solutions, too though!

[normen]

I'd say arrangement would be a better solution. You have issues with things pushing each other away too much because they occupy the same "space-time" (i.e. masking).

Usually these things are solved by actually playing - i.e. "making music". Say you have a synth and you want to keep up with the snare. You might have the cutoff of the synth mapped to key velocity and simply hit the key harder when the snare plays.

But again, maybe think more about whats wrong with your composition and arrangement (which is also sound choice) if you encounter issues like that all the time. I mean when I have a sound in my head and then add another one I seldom get masking issues in my head o_O

[RobC]

I'd say arrangement would be a better solution. You have issues with things pushing each other away too much because they occupy the same "space-time" (i.e. masking).

Usually these things are solved by actually playing - i.e. "making music". Say you have a synth and you want to keep up with the snare. You might have the cutoff of the synth mapped to key velocity and simply hit the key harder when the snare plays.

But again, maybe think more about whats wrong with your composition and arrangement (which is also sound choice) if you encounter issues like that all the time. I mean when I have a sound in my head and then add another one I seldom get masking issues in my head o_O

That's something I keep in mind. I watch the note range, dynamics and characteristics of sounds, so there's a good balance (what I hope for at least).

But let me show a short loop where I feel like I would instantly do at least a bass-mid-high splitting and start tweaking things a bit.

Now obviously, infra frequencies need a cut, and the bass synth's lower notes get wrecked, it being FM-based (should have used a sine wave for sub - but had the mentality of "that's cheating" back then xD). And the kick side-chaining the bass does a bit of pumping.

Other than those - unless I'm hearing things - all three sounds could use some further shaping for a better mix.

[normen]

Idk, most of those sounds seemed resonanc-y to me, as if there was too much audible EQing on them. I wouldn't say masking is an issue there.

[RobC]

Idk, most of those sounds seemed resonanc-y to me, as if there was too much audible EQing on them. I wouldn't say masking is an issue there.

They are ~ it was an experimental phase, where I grabbed random drums, and equalized them, until they sounded the way I wanted. While I did like the interesting characteristics, the EQ could add; it's easy to create overshoots. So yeah, that's what I mean that in the mix, the need for some adjustments gets apparent. That's how the freedom can go off.
And it could be the side chaining fooling me in case of the bass synth, but for me, the highs and mids just seem too weak. Can't adjust that with just leveling, otherwise the bass-frequencies will be raised too high as well.

Originally, I kind of made these issues less problematic with multi-band processing/compression on the final mix, but that's something I never-ever want to use again if I don't have to. Especially if I have access to individual sounds.