About that Mix-To-Pink-Noise method...

[RobC]

Clearly, there's not much to chew on the method itself. It's sort of a guide that can help people set their levels for the mix.

The process itself on the other hand, made me question, what if I'd try mixing to vocals? Further than that, what if I did two mixes for one song, mostly in case there are two different vocal sections (think rap then singing)?

Any experiences with that?

[selig]

Clearly, there's not much to chew on the method itself. It's sort of a guide that can help people set their levels for the mix.

The process itself on the other hand, made me question, what if I'd try mixing to vocals? Further than that, what if I did two mixes for one song, mostly in case there are two different vocal sections (think rap then singing)?

Any experiences with that?

No, but it makes me wonder "what would happen if you just mixed to sound good to YOU"?


Sorry, I learned to mix the "old school" way, by mixing, so I don't have any shortcut experience to share…

[NekujaK]

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll offer this... the idea behind setting levels to a pink noise signal is to easily create an optimal balance across the frequency spectrum in your mix. Once you have that, you will probably want to make additional tweaks to bring out certain parts (like vocals), attenuate less important parts, or perform surgical EQ on parts that are colliding in the same frequency range.

The pink noise method is great for establishing an initial baseline, but it's not a substitute for using your ears to get to the final mix you want.

[RobC]

Clearly, there's not much to chew on the method itself. It's sort of a guide that can help people set their levels for the mix.

The process itself on the other hand, made me question, what if I'd try mixing to vocals? Further than that, what if I did two mixes for one song, mostly in case there are two different vocal sections (think rap then singing)?

Any experiences with that?

No, but it makes me wonder "what would happen if you just mixed to sound good to YOU"?


Sorry, I learned to mix the "old school" way, by mixing, so I don't have any shortcut experience to share…

It's my dream, but since I have nowhere near a flat response system, the only thing that happens is that sometimes it translates well to other systems, other times not so much. xD I mean, unless I did some equalization and referencing/self-tuning.
It would be dreamy if I wouldn't need any EQing once the mix is done.

Desperation makes me look for shortcuts; but at least there still is that pink noise trick if nothing works.

[RobC]

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll offer this... the idea behind setting levels to a pink noise signal is to easily create an optimal balance across the frequency spectrum in your mix. Once you have that, you will probably want to make additional tweaks to bring out certain parts (like vocals), attenuate less important parts, or perform surgical EQ on parts that are colliding in the same frequency range.

The pink noise method is great for establishing an initial baseline, but it's not a substitute for using your ears to get to the final mix you want.

Well, you summed it up exactly how I imagined it to work. : )

On the other hand, like I said, I look for solutions like this until I don't get a proper system.

See, my hearing is developed enough, so I can mix even on a "potato" xD - but translation from system to system can still be a problem. Especially the lower sub region.

[NekujaK]

See, my hearing is developed enough, so I can mix even on a "potato" xD - but translation from system to system can still be a problem. Especially the lower sub region.

Getting mixes to translate on different systems is definitely an area of frustration for many aspiring, amateur, and even sometimes professional, engineers. Here are three little tips that may help with that:

1) As you mix, constantly compare your song against other professional reference tracks. Listen carefully to what's really going on in those tracks and try to achieve the same in your mix. This is the one of the best ways to fine tune your ear and develop good mixing habits.

2) A shortcut method to #1 is to get a plugin like Sonible SmartEQ or IK Multimedia Master Match, and have it analyze and automatically adjust the frequency balance of your mix. What's important is not the end result, which won't always be a perfect fit for your track, but to analyze the kind of EQ moves the plugin made. This will be especially helpful in learning how to handle the lower sub region.

3) Monitor your mix in mono as well as stereo, and try to get it to sound as good as possible in mono.

Hope that helps... good luck!

[RobC]

See, my hearing is developed enough, so I can mix even on a "potato" xD - but translation from system to system can still be a problem. Especially the lower sub region.

Getting mixes to translate on different systems is definitely an area of frustration for many aspiring, amateur, and even sometimes professional, engineers. Here are three little tips that may help with that:

1) As you mix, constantly compare your song against other professional reference tracks. Listen carefully to what's really going on in those tracks and try to achieve the same in your mix. This is the one of the best ways to fine tune your ear and develop good mixing habits.

2) A shortcut method to #1 is to get a plugin like Sonible SmartEQ or IK Multimedia Master Match, and have it analyze and automatically adjust the frequency balance of your mix. What's important is not the end result, which won't always be a perfect fit for your track, but to analyze the kind of EQ moves the plugin made. This will be especially helpful in learning how to handle the lower sub region.

3) Monitor your mix in mono as well as stereo, and try to get it to sound as good as possible in mono.

Hope that helps... good luck!

We can't fit all with one size. But we can make sure that the sound doesn't get additionally affected when there are drastic differences in the system's response ~ with a more flat system. I know that our hearing can adapt, but this can get tricky when creating sounds from scratch. There are many ways to create any sound, and it can likewise have mixing and mastering tasks - only, for one sound.

Your tips are good, thank you. Mostly, I see now that there's not much I can do for now on my system, but to reference.
What I didn't try that much yet (especially during sound creation), is the frequency balance comparison.

[selig]

No, but it makes me wonder "what would happen if you just mixed to sound good to YOU"?


Sorry, I learned to mix the "old school" way, by mixing, so I don't have any shortcut experience to share…

It's my dream, but since I have nowhere near a flat response system, the only thing that happens is that sometimes it translates well to other systems, other times not so much. xD I mean, unless I did some equalization and referencing/self-tuning.
It would be dreamy if I wouldn't need any EQing once the mix is done.

Desperation makes me look for shortcuts; but at least there still is that pink noise trick if nothing works.

I didn't hear (let alone work in) a decent mix room until 20 years into my mixing experience. So somehow I learned to mix in crappy rooms, including my bedroom on NS-10s.
I experienced the same problems as you're experiencing now - please don't assume it was any easier for me or more difficult for you. One advantage I had was I had helpful engineers with experience to guide me, which is really no different than what you have here.

You definitely can mix and not need any major EQ after you're done - question: how do you know you need EQ now, if you don't have a flat room to mix?

Besides access to more experts and great advice than I ever had (via the internet), you also have two HUGE advantages I never had.
One, you get to mix in the same room every day (would have killed for that). You can learn your room, warts and all, and get good at mixing in it simply by MIXING in it over and over and making an effort to fine tune the process over time.
Two, you have instant "total recall". Even when we added the SSL in 1984, recall still took 45 min to an hour of painstaking work (especially to recall the patch bay and external racks), and many times there were mistakes to find and fix. Today, you can open up a mix in a few seconds and make changes - this allows you to take mixes to other environments and come back days or even weeks later to make corrections, something else I would have KILLED for when I was learning to mix. There really are no excuses to not having a least a decent (if not stellar) mix on every project, but it takes an investment of time and energy. In other words, be patient and come up with a process to learn which starts by "doing" - the more time you spend mixing the better you get.

Things like the "pink noise" trick are at best "training wheels" you can quickly discard as you get confident in the process. How to build confidence? By doing.

Besides the above advantages, you also have the ability to share mixes and get near instant feedback from a variety of listeners (I don't see you doing that here, but I hope you're doing it somewhere!). Again, you improve first by doing, second by refining/iterating to get closer and closer to your goals. The more you "do", the quicker the progress IMO.

[selig]

Getting mixes to translate on different systems is definitely an area of frustration for many aspiring, amateur, and even sometimes professional, engineers. Here are three little tips that may help with that:

1) As you mix, constantly compare your song against other professional reference tracks. Listen carefully to what's really going on in those tracks and try to achieve the same in your mix. This is the one of the best ways to fine tune your ear and develop good mixing habits.

2) A shortcut method to #1 is to get a plugin like Sonible SmartEQ or IK Multimedia Master Match, and have it analyze and automatically adjust the frequency balance of your mix. What's important is not the end result, which won't always be a perfect fit for your track, but to analyze the kind of EQ moves the plugin made. This will be especially helpful in learning how to handle the lower sub region.

3) Monitor your mix in mono as well as stereo, and try to get it to sound as good as possible in mono.

Hope that helps... good luck!

We can't fit all with one size. But we can make sure that the sound doesn't get additionally affected when there are drastic differences in the system's response ~ with a more flat system. I know that our hearing can adapt, but this can get tricky when creating sounds from scratch. There are many ways to create any sound, and it can likewise have mixing and mastering tasks - only, for one sound.

Your tips are good, thank you. Mostly, I see now that there's not much I can do for now on my system, but to reference.
What I didn't try that much yet (especially during sound creation), is the frequency balance comparison.

One other thing you can do is know where your problems are in your room - makes it easier to work around them. For example, in my current room I know kick drums will sound strong but there is a dip above and below them (slight dip at 40 Hz and 130 Hz). So I know that when I play a low "E" (lowest note on a bass guitar), it will not sound as strong as others because of the 40 Hz dip. I also know that one tom may not sound as big as others because of the dip at 130 hz. Armed with that valuable information, I work around the problems rather than being constantly surprised by them (know your enemy).

As for "one size fits all", I'm not sure what you're referring to but there are plenty of mixes that sound great on every system. So while not all systems will ever sound alike, you CAN mix so that your mix sounds good on all systems.

One more advantage modern producers have is that most sounds and sources are near perfect. No synth plugin I've ever tested has an un-even low end. All drum samples start with great processing to make them sound good even if you don't do anything to them. What does this mean? It means if you start doing lots of EQ to "fix" problems with synths and samples, the "problem" you're fixing is probably your room (not the sounds/samples). The solution? Don't do it! Listen to how things sound in your room (commercial mixes) to re-tune your ears if you're getting lost.

Remember that ear training isn't permanent, whether to learn pitch intervals or to learn frequency responses. You keep training, just like with your body/muscles, and you keep getting better. So yea, you need to keep checking your reference mixes over time, even over a mix session (many times if need be).

And like mix refs, why not also have sample refs? Got a kick you LOVE the always sounds good? Check it against the one you're working on. Works for mixes, works for sound design too. And like mix refs, you need more than one.

Build up your library of references and it will become your best "shortcut" you could ever wish for.

[RobC]

It's my dream, but since I have nowhere near a flat response system, the only thing that happens is that sometimes it translates well to other systems, other times not so much. xD I mean, unless I did some equalization and referencing/self-tuning.
It would be dreamy if I wouldn't need any EQing once the mix is done.

Desperation makes me look for shortcuts; but at least there still is that pink noise trick if nothing works.

I didn't hear (let alone work in) a decent mix room until 20 years into my mixing experience. So somehow I learned to mix in crappy rooms, including my bedroom on NS-10s.
I experienced the same problems as you're experiencing now - please don't assume it was any easier for me or more difficult for you. One advantage I had was I had helpful engineers with experience to guide me, which is really no different than what you have here.

You definitely can mix and not need any major EQ after you're done - question: how do you know you need EQ now, if you don't have a flat room to mix?

Besides access to more experts and great advice than I ever had (via the internet), you also have two HUGE advantages I never had.
One, you get to mix in the same room every day (would have killed for that). You can learn your room, warts and all, and get good at mixing in it simply by MIXING in it over and over and making an effort to fine tune the process over time.
Two, you have instant "total recall". Even when we added the SSL in 1984, recall still took 45 min to an hour of painstaking work (especially to recall the patch bay and external racks), and many times there were mistakes to find and fix. Today, you can open up a mix in a few seconds and make changes - this allows you to take mixes to other environments and come back days or even weeks later to make corrections, something else I would have KILLED for when I was learning to mix. There really are no excuses to not having a least a decent (if not stellar) mix on every project, but it takes an investment of time and energy. In other words, be patient and come up with a process to learn which starts by "doing" - the more time you spend mixing the better you get.

Things like the "pink noise" trick are at best "training wheels" you can quickly discard as you get confident in the process. How to build confidence? By doing.

Besides the above advantages, you also have the ability to share mixes and get near instant feedback from a variety of listeners (I don't see you doing that here, but I hope you're doing it somewhere!). Again, you improve first by doing, second by refining/iterating to get closer and closer to your goals. The more you "do", the quicker the progress IMO.

When it comes to technology, I'm not denying that it's way easier today.
Hmm, we need some recap. So, I mostly mixed on headphones (sounded good), then when I checked on speakers, it sounded boosted in the subs, highs reduced (kind of the opposite what my headphone's average response curve is like).
When it came to mixing itself, I tested how I'd mix even with terrible room acoustics on entertainment PA system. That's when I realized, I leveled the test sounds to the exact same levels, as on headphones. It's somehow the complete energy of sounds that made me set the faders to the same place. I think this might be the same thing, or similar at least, what you say about mixing in a whole different setting.
However, once I make some comparison to those million-dollar studio songs, I realize that what I did earlier without referencing, either sounds like has some weird EQing on it, or the said commercial release has boosted highs and reduced sub. The difference is huge.

I shared bits now and then, but I want to do some full song. Still, I wanted to see where I'm going wrong.
Though lately I've been busy with building a 3D processor of some sort. I got no feed back there to begin with, yet that's as simple as saying either "yeah I hear the effect so far" or "doesn't work, so drop it".

[RobC]

We can't fit all with one size. But we can make sure that the sound doesn't get additionally affected when there are drastic differences in the system's response ~ with a more flat system. I know that our hearing can adapt, but this can get tricky when creating sounds from scratch. There are many ways to create any sound, and it can likewise have mixing and mastering tasks - only, for one sound.

Your tips are good, thank you. Mostly, I see now that there's not much I can do for now on my system, but to reference.
What I didn't try that much yet (especially during sound creation), is the frequency balance comparison.

One other thing you can do is know where your problems are in your room - makes it easier to work around them. For example, in my current room I know kick drums will sound strong but there is a dip above and below them (slight dip at 40 Hz and 130 Hz). So I know that when I play a low "E" (lowest note on a bass guitar), it will not sound as strong as others because of the 40 Hz dip. I also know that one tom may not sound as big as others because of the dip at 130 hz. Armed with that valuable information, I work around the problems rather than being constantly surprised by them (know your enemy).

As for "one size fits all", I'm not sure what you're referring to but there are plenty of mixes that sound great on every system. So while not all systems will ever sound alike, you CAN mix so that your mix sounds good on all systems.

One more advantage modern producers have is that most sounds and sources are near perfect. No synth plugin I've ever tested has an un-even low end. All drum samples start with great processing to make them sound good even if you don't do anything to them. What does this mean? It means if you start doing lots of EQ to "fix" problems with synths and samples, the "problem" you're fixing is probably your room (not the sounds/samples). The solution? Don't do it! Listen to how things sound in your room (commercial mixes) to re-tune your ears if you're getting lost.

Remember that ear training isn't permanent, whether to learn pitch intervals or to learn frequency responses. You keep training, just like with your body/muscles, and you keep getting better. So yea, you need to keep checking your reference mixes over time, even over a mix session (many times if need be).

And like mix refs, why not also have sample refs? Got a kick you LOVE the always sounds good? Check it against the one you're working on. Works for mixes, works for sound design too. And like mix refs, you need more than one.

Build up your library of references and it will become your best "shortcut" you could ever wish for.

I think I understand knowing these acoustic enemies, so that must be why when it comes to setting the mix faders I got the same values on headphones as when I tried speakers. It was kind of funny how I landed on the exact same numbers, when starting from zero.

The core of problems is probably that as my hearing adapted to my headphones, during sound creation, I most likely compensated its own frequency response.

Example, this bass:

Look at that! I know there are tons of factors, like the raw sound, then differences from product to product even the same headphone types, and that it's not 100% equalized at the same spots, but the inversion is surprisingly at similar places.

Untitled.png (109.27 KiB) Viewed 596 times

You see, if I make everything from scratch, and use a lot of possibilities, especially FM, the spectrum of the sound can literally get wrecked. And that way, there goes the evenness.
But yes, it seems, I fell into the trap you said, only I EQd my headphones' unevenness by mistake, when eqing that bass as I listened to it on its own.

And again, things like these, when not checking references, were probably the cause why a seemingly good mix sounded like it had a very off EQing on it, compared to commercial releases.

Heh, this is what was mostly missing from my knowledge.

Let's not forget, that my system adds it's weird response flavor to the sound, so I'm afraid that I would add priority to a very boomy kick, so references aren't making things super easy either.

Well, there's some homework for my brain to process. Thank you as usual for the help!