Chasing the 'perfect' mix
- Thread starter Ermz
- Start date
DaveBlack
Member
- Apr 7, 2009
- 630
- 0
- 16
Great thread Ermz....I always enjoy reading what people think when it comes to the more philosophical/psychological aspect of the art.
I wonder if Andy every thinks about it like that anymore. I'm sure after years of it being a job, there isn't much room for applying that approach to it. Record companies would rather hear these records the way theyre expected to sound.
I wonder if Andy every thinks about it like that anymore. I'm sure after years of it being a job, there isn't much room for applying that approach to it. Record companies would rather hear these records the way theyre expected to sound.
A Midnight Requiem
You can call me Adam.
- Oct 16, 2008
- 117
- 0
- 16
Sanity is overrated anyways
Ermz I think this has already been stated a couple times in this thread, but your discontentment with the "perfect" balanced mixes is a great thing. It shows that you are progressing, and striving for the CREATIVE aspects of Audio Engineering, not just the technical and skillful aspects. It's similar to the analogy of shred guitar verses "emotional" guitar playing. Sure, some people can listen to perfectly executed 16th notes at 300 bpm, but where is the creativity?
I would really like to get to this point eventually. Sure, it would be frustrating because it makes a person a lot more picky with listening enjoyment, but it really illustrates what this field is all about: Putting out kickass, memorable mixes.
THIS, to ME, should be the main 'point' to this whole discussion. You couldn't be ANY MORE CORRECT, Ermz.
Especially when realizing the distinction between half-assing something or HAVING to get a project finished due to deadlines, sanity, divorce, whatever.
=D
Pedro Teixeira
Member
This may be one of the best posts that emerged lately here in this forum.
I agree whole-heartedly with the OP. This subject always drove me crazy and I know that I was better at doing something much more clinically "perfect" a couple of years ago than I am now, I simply can't because of my lack of will. I'm a strong defender that vibe beats sound quality any time of the day, to a "CERTAIN EXTENT", there's a border line there obviously but it's what exactly what you said Ermz, the most memorable records have a lot of imperfections in them and those are the ones that move you and engage the consumer into an overall better experience.
Our job is more important than many think, it's your DUTY to enhance the emotion and atmosphere of the music in question and provoke a reaction and that, to me, is 100x harder than getting a perfectly clean mix.
I agree whole-heartedly with the OP. This subject always drove me crazy and I know that I was better at doing something much more clinically "perfect" a couple of years ago than I am now, I simply can't because of my lack of will. I'm a strong defender that vibe beats sound quality any time of the day, to a "CERTAIN EXTENT", there's a border line there obviously but it's what exactly what you said Ermz, the most memorable records have a lot of imperfections in them and those are the ones that move you and engage the consumer into an overall better experience.
Our job is more important than many think, it's your DUTY to enhance the emotion and atmosphere of the music in question and provoke a reaction and that, to me, is 100x harder than getting a perfectly clean mix.
Theres a lot to think about in here, but something that occurs to me is Intention Vs Happy Accident
Its a really tricky one - if youre objective is to create an imperfection or exploit a flaw in the fidelity of a given piece of gear in an intentional way, then is it not contradictory? Are you not then striving for a simply different kind of perfection, moving the goalposts within which you aim for your mixes to fall?
The way I can see, and have heard it working, is when it isnt planned. The first thing that comes to mind is in the perenial performance perfection debate. Single takes vs punched and edited perfection. I need say no more to illustrate the relvence of this, I'm sure, given that most of you know way more about engineering and mixing than me.
The other thing that occurs to me is when you simply try something new to make a sound, with certain hopes for it, but always but always it will have some property that you didnt plan. Certain peices of kit and aspects of a mix can add and interact in ways you didnt expect and the effects can (sometimes) be very desirable, if not 'by the book' (I know, what fucking book? You know what I mean). I think the 'embrace the imperfection that works' attitude can work really well if you can be prepared to run with these (sometimes) happy accidents that are not in your control, and were not planned.
The key must therefore be continual and as unprejudiced as possible experimentation, since while you can reproduce these things after you've done them once, but cannot come up with them intentionally the first time (they are after all 'accidents') youre only, it seems to me, going to find them by, in short, fucking about with whatever tools you have at your disposal in whatever fashion occurs to you. The rest is just (hahahahahahaha!) having the balls to go 'thats weird, but fuck it, I like it, it stays'.
IMO.
Its a really tricky one - if youre objective is to create an imperfection or exploit a flaw in the fidelity of a given piece of gear in an intentional way, then is it not contradictory? Are you not then striving for a simply different kind of perfection, moving the goalposts within which you aim for your mixes to fall?
The way I can see, and have heard it working, is when it isnt planned. The first thing that comes to mind is in the perenial performance perfection debate. Single takes vs punched and edited perfection. I need say no more to illustrate the relvence of this, I'm sure, given that most of you know way more about engineering and mixing than me.
The other thing that occurs to me is when you simply try something new to make a sound, with certain hopes for it, but always but always it will have some property that you didnt plan. Certain peices of kit and aspects of a mix can add and interact in ways you didnt expect and the effects can (sometimes) be very desirable, if not 'by the book' (I know, what fucking book? You know what I mean). I think the 'embrace the imperfection that works' attitude can work really well if you can be prepared to run with these (sometimes) happy accidents that are not in your control, and were not planned.
The key must therefore be continual and as unprejudiced as possible experimentation, since while you can reproduce these things after you've done them once, but cannot come up with them intentionally the first time (they are after all 'accidents') youre only, it seems to me, going to find them by, in short, fucking about with whatever tools you have at your disposal in whatever fashion occurs to you. The rest is just (hahahahahahaha!) having the balls to go 'thats weird, but fuck it, I like it, it stays'.
IMO.
Sacha
Throbbing Member
The other side of it is I think not to over think it, the band and the music should guide you somewhat in what you do, as opposed to imposing what you think it should be all the time.
What do they sound like live? What do they want to sound like? Obviously some bands don't have a clue, but for example a technical death metal band probably wants a crisp and clear sound with mechanical drums etc. A more raw grind type band would want a more noisy and live sound.
Not that another angle may not sound good but the music and the creative vision of the band should ultimately guide the route the production takes IMO.
What do they sound like live? What do they want to sound like? Obviously some bands don't have a clue, but for example a technical death metal band probably wants a crisp and clear sound with mechanical drums etc. A more raw grind type band would want a more noisy and live sound.
Not that another angle may not sound good but the music and the creative vision of the band should ultimately guide the route the production takes IMO.
Audiosprite
ok
this is probably the most important thing i've learned from this forum, it was just in an off-handed post you made a few months ago, ermz. thanks.
Morgan C
MAX LOUD PRESETS¯\(°_o)/¯
smy1
Member
I said it so often before and I'll say it again: the mix/mixer doesn't matter. All that matters are the performances and the song.
A good mix is "nice to have" but nobody really gives a shit. Today some AC/DC recordings made in the 80s wouldn't even pass as demos from a bedroom studio and still people crank them up and have an awesome time.
There's a typical learning curve for most producers/engineers:
1) trying to get anything done
2) getting a little bit done and thinking you are awesome
3) noticing how un-awesome you really are but blaming it on gear
4) obsessing about gear
5) learning techniques and making better stuff with decent gear
and then it either goes to
6) staying at that level and obsessing about gear
or
6) improving by working a lot, regardless of gear, aka: "developing your ear"
At one point (hopefully) one will arrive at
7) being able to technically convey the vision that the band has for their recording. And that means being able to make things sound "green" or sound "like a fuckin' awesome meteroid dropping onto the city, dude!".
In the end, a song like Beck's "Loser" was recorded on an 8-track machine. And most Beatles songs, recorded on even less tracks, still excite 10000x more people than the newest ultra-tech megacore production ever could. Simply because they are better songs which create a better vibe and resonate with people, enabling them to feel things.
A few years ago, I made it a ritual to invite teenage girls to my studio when I am done writing a new track (in demo stage, way before mixtime!). I just have drinks and snacks lying around and I let the new song casually play in the background while we just hang out in the kitchen. If they start headbopping or singing along or even dancing, then I know I am doing well. But not ONCE has anyone ever said "the mix is shit" or "the kick is not fat enough". And one of the worst sounding tracks has even led to a blowjob, cause it made the girl think about sex.
The perfect mix is useless. I am glad that you came to that conclusion because you are a good mixer and can now use your high level of skills to become a great mixer by not obsessing about the mix anymore and instead help create vibe!
A good mix is "nice to have" but nobody really gives a shit. Today some AC/DC recordings made in the 80s wouldn't even pass as demos from a bedroom studio and still people crank them up and have an awesome time.
There's a typical learning curve for most producers/engineers:
1) trying to get anything done
2) getting a little bit done and thinking you are awesome
3) noticing how un-awesome you really are but blaming it on gear
4) obsessing about gear
5) learning techniques and making better stuff with decent gear
and then it either goes to
6) staying at that level and obsessing about gear
or
6) improving by working a lot, regardless of gear, aka: "developing your ear"
At one point (hopefully) one will arrive at
7) being able to technically convey the vision that the band has for their recording. And that means being able to make things sound "green" or sound "like a fuckin' awesome meteroid dropping onto the city, dude!".
In the end, a song like Beck's "Loser" was recorded on an 8-track machine. And most Beatles songs, recorded on even less tracks, still excite 10000x more people than the newest ultra-tech megacore production ever could. Simply because they are better songs which create a better vibe and resonate with people, enabling them to feel things.
A few years ago, I made it a ritual to invite teenage girls to my studio when I am done writing a new track (in demo stage, way before mixtime!). I just have drinks and snacks lying around and I let the new song casually play in the background while we just hang out in the kitchen. If they start headbopping or singing along or even dancing, then I know I am doing well. But not ONCE has anyone ever said "the mix is shit" or "the kick is not fat enough". And one of the worst sounding tracks has even led to a blowjob, cause it made the girl think about sex.
The perfect mix is useless. I am glad that you came to that conclusion because you are a good mixer and can now use your high level of skills to become a great mixer by not obsessing about the mix anymore and instead help create vibe!
i said it once and ill say it again :
production and arrangement are key to a "great" sound.
a great song, perfectly arranged will sound like a record when you load the tracks into your daw and set the faders to zero.
production and arrangement are key to a "great" sound.
a great song, perfectly arranged will sound like a record when you load the tracks into your daw and set the faders to zero.
Outstanding - I can't believe someone didn't try to get you in jail for that. Much respect - best post of the thread!
(thanks for reiterating that other important stuff too)
smy1
Member
Outstanding - I can't believe someone didn't try to get you in jail for that. Much respect - best post of the thread!
(thanks for reiterating that other important stuff too)
Haha, 16 is legal in Germany and by "teenage" I meant anywhere from 15-22. Hell, my new girl is only 21 ... and I am looking forward to having many, many interesting discussions with her cause she just started going to SAE this week
smy1
Member
Ermz: and in case you were wondering about the track - it was the demo to this one ...
http://faderhead.bandcamp.com/track/aim-to-misbehave
http://faderhead.bandcamp.com/track/aim-to-misbehave
This thread is on fire!
In the end i think we could agree on this:
MUSIC IS SO MUCH MORE THAN SOUND!
In the end i think we could agree on this:
MUSIC IS SO MUCH MORE THAN SOUND!
Mago
Austrian Blech Machine
haha yeah that's another point...most listeners don't care that much about how the mix sounds as long as they can hear the vocals well it seems
That has also to do with the kind of music they make I think, but you're right that a good song and arrangement that enables people to feel is far more important than a mix were they can hear what is going on in every instrument perfectly, and it's super clear yet punchy blablabla (see a lot people are allready happy if they hear the vocals).
The perfect mix for that one would be a mix which translate that feelings you get from the song 100%...and since not everyone gets the same feeling from a song there it's also a reason why there's not something like a perfect mix.
getting a bit philosophical,sry
That has also to do with the kind of music they make I think, but you're right that a good song and arrangement that enables people to feel is far more important than a mix were they can hear what is going on in every instrument perfectly, and it's super clear yet punchy blablabla (see a lot people are allready happy if they hear the vocals).
The perfect mix for that one would be a mix which translate that feelings you get from the song 100%...and since not everyone gets the same feeling from a song there it's also a reason why there's not something like a perfect mix.
getting a bit philosophical,sry
metalfanat1c
Member
- Jun 17, 2010
- 491
- 0
- 16
So if I'm reading you guys right... it's better to not make a "perfect" mix in general. Rather, it's better to make the "perfect" mix for the band.
If so, I agree wholeheartedly. Making a "perfect" mix every time would put you in a pattern of blandness, whereas the perfect mix for the band or song would keep things fresh and make the job more rewarding for you and your customers. Hell, you might even be able to tolerate listening to your own mixes after you're done mixing them and everything is "on record", so to speak.
If so, I agree wholeheartedly. Making a "perfect" mix every time would put you in a pattern of blandness, whereas the perfect mix for the band or song would keep things fresh and make the job more rewarding for you and your customers. Hell, you might even be able to tolerate listening to your own mixes after you're done mixing them and everything is "on record", so to speak.
462studio
462 Studio
Perfection is boring. Flaws are interesting if not beautiful. The mix should be about suiting the band, the song, the take and the vibe. If your mix translates that vibe, you win. (GLARING mistakes aside, I might add.)
My humble opinion.
My humble opinion.
P-E
Munchkin
Seems like ever since I joined in 2008, I never heard somebody not say the forum was going downhill. Must be my fault.
aramism
Member
i agree pretty much with everything. i would like to add however, as a counterpoint, that if you want to make this a career, you don't have much control if you are going to work with the beatles or beck, but it is your job to make every mix the "perfect" mix.
