I'm having my doubts about fitting everything I'd like into one last article, but there's no restriction on me. So I'll just start out & see how it goes.
Before I move on to some of my favorite techniques I've picked up along the way, I realize there are a few things left that are useful to know.
First, you should think of your recorder's potential as a "pie pan"; there is only so much signal that will "fit" on one of your tracks. If you fill it all with Crust, there won't be any room left for Filling (the good stuff). So you must be judicious, removing excess or unnecessary frequencies to make room for the desirable ones. This is a matter for experience, both in learning what the different frequency ranges sound like, and in picturing how that track will fit in the "finished product".
In person, I could demonstrate it, but it can't be "taught". It largely consists in training your ear to recognize subtle changes in sound, and is as elusive a skill as meditation is to a beginner. It can only be mastered by time and persistence.
Secondly, I would like to further explain the case mentioned last time where reverb is used to send a signal "toward the back" while retaining it's audibility (apparent level). This is an odd case, because conversely, it can also be used to make a signal seem louder than it actually is.
Let's say you have a pretty decent mix going, and are trying to incorporate a lead guitar solo. In this scenario, it isn't a laid-back part that's called for, but something where you need a "rock your socks off" kind of sound to really grab your attention. The "pie pan" of the tracks you are mixing to is almost full already of the nice mix you've created...If you mix that guitar in loud it will "overfill" your tracks driving you into NASTY digital distortion.
The straightforward solution would be to lower the level of all your other tracks to make room for that solo, ruining the rest of that nice full mix....Well, here's an alternative: Assuming you've already judiciously eq'd your guitar solo for best fit of those Desired Frequencies, keep that solo within your headroom parameters so as not to overdrive your mix tracks, but add reverb. Reverb has the effect of giving the impression of a signal that's so loud that it's bouncing off the walls creating echoes, where the other instruments aren't, making it seem louder by fooling your ears.
So I guess that's my first "tip".
Which leads me neatly into my next one. This one I picked up early, back at school, and it seems natural to share it now since I already seem to be alluding to it. The tip is, for EQ: "First cut rather than boost".
The first best thing you can do for your signal is to lessen excessive or undesirable frequencies. Remember your "pie pan". Beginners tend to just keep adding what they want to hear, keeping all that Crust, but adding Filling until the signal is flowing over....just like in the kitchen you get the same thing: A nasty mess!
My next technique is related, and also an "old" one. This is special advice for bass instruments: "Cut the low end during recording, and re-boost, if needed during mixing".
Unfortunately, I can't give you hard numbers on this...it depends on so many things, including your taste and what you want the eventual result to be. Some folks like the "live band" sound where the bass is very full and actually overwhelms the low-mid's somewhat. That kind of mix also plays well on cheap systems (like computer speakers) where bass response is almost non-existent. But I ALWAYS use this technique to one extent or another.
Listen to a more recent "James Taylor" album for an example of a "full bass" sound.
If you prefer a more transparent, glass-like bass sound, cut more in recording and put it back in the mix (with compression). Reference: James Taylor's "Flag" album, or Robert Plant's "Shaken & Stirred" & "Now and Zen".
I guess that's enough to chew on for now, so I suppose I'll continue this in another article. Besides...it's time to go make some music.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
ALL "MIXED" UP (#4)....
Before I delve into some of the favorite techniques I use during mixing, I'd like to give some general mixing theory for those of you who may never have been exposed to it. Some of this assumes your monitors are in an upright orientation, but follow your manufacturer's recommendation or whatever works for you.
Also this is assuming a stereo mix (2 speakers) and NOT a 5.1 or other mode, as that isn't in my realm and is a whole different matter.
The entirety of stereo mixing theory is based on 2 speakers being used to create the illusion of a 2 dimensional field suspended in between. With certain techniques this illusion can be enhanced to create a limited 3rd dimension in your mix as well.
I believe stereo mixing theory began merely as a way to represent music as though the players were performing in a concert hall, with a left & right dimension, which seems much more natural to the human ear than the "monophonic" recordings that preceded it. However, pioneering engineers and artists have since developed this into new & innovative ways of mixing that capture your fancy with recordings that do not simulate any known space in nature.
First the basics: Assuming your monitors (speakers) are oriented upright, since the tweeters are usually above your woofers, it's natural for your ear to interpret your high-frequency instruments to appear "above" your lower frequencies. This is not so unnatural; in live performance cymbals are above the drums, someone standing up playing a shaker e.g. is above a guitar amp sitting on the floor...for whatever reason it seems to work....That's your "up & down" in the mix.
Of course, panning controls your "left & right". That's the sole purpose of them being on your console, so that's no surprise.
What you might not realize is that you have considerable control over whether your instruments sound as though they are toward the "front" (toward you) or the "back". So thought may be given to which instruments are "up front" or further back. The vocal is a natural choice for being out in front, but not always. Sometimes you might want some supporting instruments more present and your vocal sounding as though your singer were up on the stage, the voice floating over the music from a distance.
The primary control for this is your faders. Those parts lower in level will always sound as though they aren't as close to you. But that's not the end of the story. So I would like to break this concept into "actual level" and "apparent level".
Assume you have a supporting part that must, by necessity, be lower in level, but wants some attention and not to get lost in the mix...eq is an option. A better one is compression. Adding a little delay will bring up it's "apparent level" without interfering with the balance between them much.
Reverb will tend to send a track of the same level "toward the back" compared to another track of the same level, while retaining its audibility.
You can see the possible combinations become very numerous. These are only some examples, as my purpose today is to get you thinking about this way of looking at your mix to see if one can gain another perspective on it. Your own experience is what you need to rely on, but new ideas can only help as far I have seen.
Also this is assuming a stereo mix (2 speakers) and NOT a 5.1 or other mode, as that isn't in my realm and is a whole different matter.
The entirety of stereo mixing theory is based on 2 speakers being used to create the illusion of a 2 dimensional field suspended in between. With certain techniques this illusion can be enhanced to create a limited 3rd dimension in your mix as well.
I believe stereo mixing theory began merely as a way to represent music as though the players were performing in a concert hall, with a left & right dimension, which seems much more natural to the human ear than the "monophonic" recordings that preceded it. However, pioneering engineers and artists have since developed this into new & innovative ways of mixing that capture your fancy with recordings that do not simulate any known space in nature.
First the basics: Assuming your monitors (speakers) are oriented upright, since the tweeters are usually above your woofers, it's natural for your ear to interpret your high-frequency instruments to appear "above" your lower frequencies. This is not so unnatural; in live performance cymbals are above the drums, someone standing up playing a shaker e.g. is above a guitar amp sitting on the floor...for whatever reason it seems to work....That's your "up & down" in the mix.
Of course, panning controls your "left & right". That's the sole purpose of them being on your console, so that's no surprise.
What you might not realize is that you have considerable control over whether your instruments sound as though they are toward the "front" (toward you) or the "back". So thought may be given to which instruments are "up front" or further back. The vocal is a natural choice for being out in front, but not always. Sometimes you might want some supporting instruments more present and your vocal sounding as though your singer were up on the stage, the voice floating over the music from a distance.
The primary control for this is your faders. Those parts lower in level will always sound as though they aren't as close to you. But that's not the end of the story. So I would like to break this concept into "actual level" and "apparent level".
Assume you have a supporting part that must, by necessity, be lower in level, but wants some attention and not to get lost in the mix...eq is an option. A better one is compression. Adding a little delay will bring up it's "apparent level" without interfering with the balance between them much.
Reverb will tend to send a track of the same level "toward the back" compared to another track of the same level, while retaining its audibility.
You can see the possible combinations become very numerous. These are only some examples, as my purpose today is to get you thinking about this way of looking at your mix to see if one can gain another perspective on it. Your own experience is what you need to rely on, but new ideas can only help as far I have seen.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
ALL "MIXED" UP (#3)....
As I mentioned last time I would give an example of certain styles of mixing that are common or have been common at some time. But as with people, the term "style" (or "group" if you're talking about human beings) is largely an illusion. No two are alike in all respects, and the finer you split your discriminations the more the "style" (or "group") seems to disappear.
However, the illusion of a "style" emerges when various producers abandon the idea of trying to produce something original in order to appeal to known tastes. Usually production decisions are then based on what has been popular before.
This by itself should not be seen as an "evil". All music (both the artistic & technical aspects) are based on what has gone before. I myself will do whatever it takes to put a composition in the best possible light. It some cases, if it needs a "traditional" type of style to capture the mood, I will limit myself to certain instrumentation/voicings etc. to enhance that. The same goes for recording techniques.
I'm guessing that the dividing line is when one does it intentionally to grab onto a trend that proves popular (read: "MONEY!"). Then it becomes a sort of con-game run on unsuspecting listeners.
This is meant to be sampling of some recognizable production styles, and not meant to be even a chip off an exhaustive listing:
The "Pop Mix":
Firmly aimed at a younger audience with low-fidelity equipment and those who mainly get their music from radio. It is usually characterized by many layers of tracks/instruments all competing for attention, tons of compression on everything both to "bring everything out" and to give the track a "competitive level" when next to other tracks on the radio, making it sound "more exciting" than the tunes around it...Everything is hyped-up, and the resulting blend makes it hard to pick out any individual instruments, unless there's a lead guitar solo, etc..........(this is the aforementioned track that will sound as though it were "mixed by monkeys" when played on a high-end system...reference an "NSYNC" CD for a good example).
The "Wall of Sound":
Shares some similarities to the "pop mix" and may actually be it's forerunner. It's origin is generally credited to Phil Specter. What you have is no empty frequency ranges (and therefore no "space" in the recording. Multiple layers of track blending and contrasting, also making it difficult to pick out individuals.
The "Movie Mix":
Not as prevalent as it was during the 70's and mid-80's. All the parts are audible, but each one is "thinned-out" sonically, kept low in level and lots of reverb. The effect is that of sitting in the back of a HUGE concert hall. Nothing is "up front" in the mix. Reference any "James Bond" movie from that period, among others.
The "Dance Mix":
Drums and Bass are the stars of the show. Everything else is thinned or hyped to fill in the spaces. Vocals are audible in a nice way, but the ability to hear the lyrics may or may not be so important.
I think I'll quit here. If you do a lot of music listening, see if you can tune your "producer's ears" and start to pick out styles for yourself....By the way, I don't use any of the styles listed above, but am aware of the techniques, which I may use individually in certain circumstances to enhance a recording/arrangement. But my own techniques are for another article....
However, the illusion of a "style" emerges when various producers abandon the idea of trying to produce something original in order to appeal to known tastes. Usually production decisions are then based on what has been popular before.
This by itself should not be seen as an "evil". All music (both the artistic & technical aspects) are based on what has gone before. I myself will do whatever it takes to put a composition in the best possible light. It some cases, if it needs a "traditional" type of style to capture the mood, I will limit myself to certain instrumentation/voicings etc. to enhance that. The same goes for recording techniques.
I'm guessing that the dividing line is when one does it intentionally to grab onto a trend that proves popular (read: "MONEY!"). Then it becomes a sort of con-game run on unsuspecting listeners.
This is meant to be sampling of some recognizable production styles, and not meant to be even a chip off an exhaustive listing:
The "Pop Mix":
Firmly aimed at a younger audience with low-fidelity equipment and those who mainly get their music from radio. It is usually characterized by many layers of tracks/instruments all competing for attention, tons of compression on everything both to "bring everything out" and to give the track a "competitive level" when next to other tracks on the radio, making it sound "more exciting" than the tunes around it...Everything is hyped-up, and the resulting blend makes it hard to pick out any individual instruments, unless there's a lead guitar solo, etc..........(this is the aforementioned track that will sound as though it were "mixed by monkeys" when played on a high-end system...reference an "NSYNC" CD for a good example).
The "Wall of Sound":
Shares some similarities to the "pop mix" and may actually be it's forerunner. It's origin is generally credited to Phil Specter. What you have is no empty frequency ranges (and therefore no "space" in the recording. Multiple layers of track blending and contrasting, also making it difficult to pick out individuals.
The "Movie Mix":
Not as prevalent as it was during the 70's and mid-80's. All the parts are audible, but each one is "thinned-out" sonically, kept low in level and lots of reverb. The effect is that of sitting in the back of a HUGE concert hall. Nothing is "up front" in the mix. Reference any "James Bond" movie from that period, among others.
The "Dance Mix":
Drums and Bass are the stars of the show. Everything else is thinned or hyped to fill in the spaces. Vocals are audible in a nice way, but the ability to hear the lyrics may or may not be so important.
I think I'll quit here. If you do a lot of music listening, see if you can tune your "producer's ears" and start to pick out styles for yourself....By the way, I don't use any of the styles listed above, but am aware of the techniques, which I may use individually in certain circumstances to enhance a recording/arrangement. But my own techniques are for another article....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)