Chasing the 'perfect' mix

[acalaf]

Awesome thread! I have recently been having a similar experience myself by using nebula and simulating the analog gear.

I don't hear his name mentioned here much, but this philosophy reminds me of Rick Rubin. He has risen to the top by concentrating on the songwriting aspect for the records he produces. His goal is to get the best songs and performances out of the bands he works with and not worry too much about "mixing" or sonics. For all the "flaws" his records could have from an AE's perspective, they are records that a lot of people listen to repeatedly.

 

[Ermz]

Yes, Nebula was a bit of a 'game changer' for me (gotta shower after using that phrase). Even today I was wondering how to divide up all my printing between the CLC and MLC consoles. I'm trying to find the 'perfect' balance between them. How to get the best combination of saturation, softness yet retaining fidelity. I find it funny following the VCC threads - seeing all these people reveling in how awesome and great it is. Meanwhile in the Nebula world we've had the same practical effects for years - enough time to refine our workflow with these tools.

All things here said, it's been a good couple of months! I'm constantly snowed under by deadlines - being given less time to do full records than I ever have in my life, but in spite of all of that.... I'm doing the best mixes of my life! I'm always either learning or improving in some way, shape or form.

Just came off a really promising mix before. It's about 80% done, and even so is almost exactly where I want it to be. Mixing with this analogue approach is just so much more fun and exciting. Even if it ultimately doesn't matter for the end product, the journey for me is a lot more interesting. Constantly fighting with myself to not do something stupid like buying a loaded X-rack, or getting another 14RU shelf and filling it with more outboard.

It just feels great though, to have finally found my pace after about 7 years of wondering and insecurity. I finally know what I'm doing, and where I'm going. My work is starting to get an identity of its own, rather than being a pale imitation of someone else's, and that alone just feels good.

 

[~BURNY~]

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.

Your post was really clever and I agree with everything you said except this.
Those records sound amazing in my opininon.
My favourite mixes/productions are from the late 70's/early 80's. (Just before sound engineers lost their minds with the advent of the first digital reverb units)
It is just a cultural matter. I don't think a CLA mix is better than a Mutte Lange or a Dieter Dierks production from the early 80's. They are just different approaches at different periods of time using different tools but you can't fault them saying they were improperly mixed on a technical level.
That would just be ignorant. (not saying you are, I'm just trying to make my point)
I could even find dozens of examples of contemporary productions trying to emulate this sound.

 

[Pedro Teixeira]

Perfection is boring.

Exactly. You can't expect perfection coming from such an imperfect being such as us humans, it's something that we don't really understand.

 

[Pedro Teixeira]

Yes, Nebula was a bit of a 'game changer' for me (gotta shower after using that phrase).

Day by day I start to hesitate on using nebula, although I really can't live without it, because the work ethics of the company the owner disgust me a little bit, I'm sick of seeing Giancarlo constantly trying to give a stab at VCC. I'm pretty sure you know this, but it sickens me seeing such a bright mind as his going so low as to feel a need to mock other people's work, it's competition, it's healthy to have competition, that means there's choice.

 

[Ermz]

Well, they're Italians - what do you expect?

I come from that part of the world. Most people down there are somewhat shifty - they can't help it, it's cultural or something. No offense to people from down there... but just accept it, like I did.

All the same they've created a great product, as much as they seem to not care about facilitating workflow for their users. They still insist its a beta program, and we're privileged to be using it in this phase or something to that effect.

If you were to start drawing lines like that, it would mean I would no longer be able to use Christian Rock albums for reference purposes, because I hate what organized religion stands for. It would mean I'd outright stop buying albums because I hate what the current music industry stands for. You have to pick your battles on this one. Nebula is too good not to use simply because the owners/3rd party developers like taking cheap shots at Slate every so often.

 

[Pedro Teixeira]

Well, they're Italians - what do you expect?

I come from that part of the world. Most people down there are somewhat shifty - they can't help it, it's cultural or something. No offense to people from down there... but just accept it, like I did.

All the same they've created a great product, as much as they seem to not care about facilitating workflow for their users. They still insist its a beta program, and we're privileged to be using it in this phase or something to that effect.

If you were to start drawing lines like that, it would mean I would no longer be able to use Christian Rock albums for reference purposes, because I hate what organized religion stands for. It would mean I'd outright stop buying albums because I hate what the current music industry stands for. You have to pick your battles on this one. Nebula is too good not to use simply because the owners/3rd party developers like taking cheap shots at Slate every so often.

Obviously, I overstated, I don't really feel that way, but I guess you know what I mean to a certain extent.

I don't want to go off-topic in one of the best threads in a couple of months!

Carry on

 

[jimwilbourne]

There is no such thing as a perfect mix because perfection is rather subjective to every individual ear.

To say that a mix is perfect only lends to the belief that there are some magic formulas and presets to be made
Mixes are perfect realitive to the vision of the artist guided by the producer.


And I totally agree with the AE progression. In fact, unfortunately, I'm trying to move out of phase 3 haha

 

[462studio]

Aren't you guys a bit quick to say yes and amen to the "mix has to have flaws" theory? Maybe its not about flaws but about excitement.
A mix has to excite you. If the song doesn't do that on its own (which doesn't have to mean it doesn't have the potential to),
it's even more important the mix does. Does that really mean you have to put "flaws" into the mix?
Or does that only mean you shouldn't shoot for a static/sterile mix where nothing ever jumps out at you?



Could it be, that the problem isn't with too much perfection but with the imperfection of our actual mixes?
When you don't mix something to really jump out at the listener and make him cry bloody tears at the awesomesauce
he is witnessing, but choose to make every little instrument be audible,
regardless of the impact of you doing so - Aren't you making a fatal mistake?

Just my 50 cents.

There is a huge difference in my mind between a mix having flaws and having large deficiencies.

In my mind a mix in the end should be balanced and do the individual instruments and parts justice. I do however feel people are going way too far with the correction, the sample replacement, the editing, etc. When every single hit is "perfect" and every single instrument is audible and crystal clear at all times the song loses it's humanity. When I listen to music, I want to hear that one snare hit a minute and a half into the song that was a little bit "off" because it gives the recording it's vibe and it's time and place.

As a listener, I want to hear those moments captured. To call them imperfect may be a bit of a misnomer. That wonky snare hit that doesn't happen again any other time in the song isn't necessarily a mistake, it's just different than the rest of them. I for one can't stand listening to music that has been scrutinized over to an extensive degree. It's bland. It's boring. It does nothing to pique my minds interest.

I agree that "pop" music is generally perfect by definition and that's fine. I don't listen to pop music, because I think it sucks. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that heavy music has been lumped into this mindset of production however. I don't see how you can channel music that is in many ways intended to be as much about cathartic expression and aggression as it is a end result to be listened to and identified with.

This is me wearing my intellectual 10,000 foot view hat. I certainly love a mix that has been done by a very technical engineer and really knocked out of the park, don't get me wrong. I just think it's inappropriate for all projects and when you force it onto all of them, you're turning the music this industry produces into a suburb of houses that are identical to each other and the other thing different is the color of the shutters on the windows. I think in the end we all lose when that happens.

 

[Ermz]

^ That's it.

It ultimately boils down to 'character' for me. Something pressed and edited into submission also presses and edits all the character out of itself. This is the same thing that Mixerman touched on. When you 'overwork' a mix, you run the risk of just making it sterile. There is a fine line - a fine balance. It's a hard one to nail, for sure, but it's there. You can have something technically very impressive... heck I still live for that... but there is a point at which you have to stop and move on. Not every section of the song needs an effect. Not everyone listening to it will have ADHD, and need constant sparks to keep their interest alive. You don't necessarily need a perfectly flat bottom end. Maybe having the kick clashing with the bass at 70hz for certain parts may be cool, because it forces the whole mix down as they pump together... that's 'movement', that can translate into 'excitement' in the right context.

It's just an array of things like this that it comes down to, which ultimately come down to discretion and what best fits the source.

 

[462studio]

I agree Ermz.

I live for the moment in the song where 70hz clashes, where I hear string noise, the accidental double kick flam, the point where the double bass is of a BPM where the kick drum tone changes because the head hasn't had a chance to recover. Those are the mixes I will go back and listen to a thousand times and never get bored with.

I love history and I love hearing a moment in time well captured.

 

[EOC]

It appears that now we are all in the flaws/mistakes wave ahahahah!
I think it is not about a fret noise that we didn´t edit or a vocal pitch that is way out of tune. We said that most people can´t hear if guitars are fizzy or have an extra db in the mid range, MOST PEOPLE CANT EVEN HEAR THE BASS FOR GOD SAKE! so i think that they wont capture this kind of details of imperfection either . It is all about the vibe, the emotion, the idea. In the end i think we are trying to define the undefinable. I really don´t know if a mix is gonna be more exiting if it is perfect or not, if it has mistakes or whatever, it either grabs you or not and that has a lot to no only with the song/band/production but with the listener and his background.

IMHO (sorry if i´m wrong) what ermz was talking about (and some of the first posts of the thread) is the mental attitude while we mix. The real issue i think is how we feel about what we are doing and setting the right goals: Should we look for perfection? vibe? capturing the moment? should we create a new world(sound wise)? or should we keep it as natural as possible? This are all question that we have to ask ourself and in the end this answers will define our own personal style. And heck! this is the beauty of it! every AE, every song and band has its own vision and when they interact "correctly" magic happens.
This happens to me also when i´m on stage with my band or playing with the orchestra. There are moments in which you resonate with the crowd, the players, the music, the mix, whatever.... those are the moments we remember in the end.
As much as all of the post here are wonderful and that this has become a great thread, i think that our work is beyond words and beyond explanation, it´s about the experience.

 

[smy1]

Your post was really clever and I agree with everything you said except this.
Those records sound amazing in my opininon.
.

I agree and I have to admit that I wrote that with the intent to possibly make people dispute the statement.

I still think that if you play an AC/DC song from "back then" for an 18yo average rock fan and then play a similar style band that has a CLA mix from 2010, the current average rock fan will say the following about the AC/DC song:

1) "it sounds so wimpy ..."
2) "it's kinda washed out"
3) "why is it so soft?"

Which is exactly what I meant by "demo". Compare an old AC/DC song to a new Joey Sturgis mix and the difference becomes even larger.

However, I'll still go on to say that in any other situation but a direct comparison, nobody would notice it and everyone would prefer the song that makes their head nod or that makes them sing along.

Hell, most songs on the radio have neither kick nor snare nor cymbals these days

 

[26]

It is just a cultural matter. I don't think a CLA mix is better than a Mutte Lange or a Dieter Dierks production from the early 80's. They are just different approaches at different periods of time using different tools but you can't fault them saying they were improperly mixed on a technical level.
That would just be ignorant. (not saying you are, I'm just trying to make my point)
I could even find dozens of examples of contemporary productions trying to emulate this sound.

couldn't agree more. just listen to the "old" Rush mixes (the classics) for example.....
or the magic of George Martin.....

unfortunately many people just think it sounds "dated" and overlook how good the actual mix really was.

edit: ^ @ smy, ahh, 2 doofe 1 gedanke

 

[smy1]

Don't get me wrong either: I am the first to edit out stuff and move things on the grid. I mean, I produce 90% electronic music where everything is on the grid by default!

Making things as good (or as fitting) as possible during tracking/production is important. But very often songs get mixed and remixed and remixed again just to end up with the first or second mix, when there wasn't a magnifying glas over every detail (like in Bruce Swedien's mix of Jackson's "Billy Jean", which was mixed 91 (!!!) times and in the end they chose mix #2!) and the song created emotion as opposed to "perfect clarity" or whatever is viewed as "perfection".

By no means am I advocating shitty mixing, I'm just saying that if a mix isn't done after a day or two, you are doing something wrong. And that wrong is most likely in your head

 

[smy1]

26: most definitely! Once people get past the difference in loudness and density, I don't know many people who don't prefer the older mixes!

 

[Ermz]

Love that 'Billy Jean' mix story.

When I go too far down the rabbit hole while mixing something I like to stop, bounce, wait a few minutes and then listen. If it becomes clear I'm inherently making it worse than it started then I just strip it all away - all the processing gone, and start from the bottom up again, with the goal of using less processing this time, and staying truer to the character of the source.

There is a lot to this that is subjective. To the average listener, while they can't necessarily hear specifics, like that your dance-kick is missing too much 50hz, they can hear it as a negative impact to the song's energy. You start to get into really dangerous territory here, because a lot of people can't differentiate production from music. So instead of saying 'man, that drum sound was so weak overall', they will say 'that song didn't move me at, it was boring and had no energy'. Now that is fucked, because at this stage you can screw yourself and your client collectively. There is a sweet spot for any song, and the trick is staying within it. Deviating too far either which way could have bad consequences, and it's what makes mixing such a hair-wracking experience sometimes.

 

[EOC]

There is a lot to this that is subjective. To the average listener, while they can't necessarily hear specifics, like that your dance-kick is missing too much 50hz, they can hear it as a negative impact to the song's energy. You start to get into really dangerous territory here, because a lot of people can't differentiate production from music. So instead of saying 'man, that drum sound was so weak overall', they will say 'that song didn't move me at, it was boring and had no energy'. Now that is fucked, because at this stage you can screw yourself and your client collectively. There is a sweet spot for any song, and the trick is staying within it. Deviating too far either which way could have bad consequences, and it's what makes mixing such a hair-wracking experience sometimes.

True. Although they can´t hear specific issues, they can sense that something is wrong. I didn´t mention that because i was trying to focus on other point. Non the less, i think that if the music is strong enough it can cut through a not so great mix. (and of course it works the other way round to. Actually i´m kind of tired of bands that make poor music but their records sound outstanding)

 

[26]

staying truer to the character of the source.

There is a lot to this that is subjective. To the average listener, while they can't necessarily hear specifics, like that your dance-kick is missing too much 50hz, they can hear it as a negative impact to the song's energy. You start to get into really dangerous territory here, because a lot of people can't differentiate production from music. So instead of saying 'man, that drum sound was so weak overall', they will say 'that song didn't move me at, it was boring and had no energy'. Now that is fucked, because at this stage you can screw yourself and your client collectively. There is a sweet spot for any song, and the trick is staying within it. Deviating too far either which way could have bad consequences, and it's what makes mixing such a hair-wracking experience sometimes.

same goes for takes btw., i recently had some di's that were recorded too hot (drums and everything were added to those tracks). no way i could reproduce the original feeling the piece had

 

[Straight Shooter]

Quote-
26: most definitely! Once people get past the difference in loudness and density, I don't know many people who don't prefer the older mixes!

Back then to get loudness and density you cranked to volume to 12 o'clock or better instead of having some mastering engineer do it for you and create perceived loudness thanks to the digital era.
When mixing I feel I am not trying to impart my character on the music but rather enhance the individual song and put my spin on it sonically based on my musical taste and experience. My mix decisions are based on what I feel the song needs to enhance the excitement, energy and mood. I am not worried so much about balance as I am about how everything works/blends together. Contrast is a good thing and adds to this. Creating energy means getting things right in the 1k-8k range, creating space/clarity, and balancing in the low end. When I feel I have achieved this I add the "sauce" (effects etc.) and I 'm done with the mix. Most times it comes together in a day or so depending on the type of song. If it goes beyond a few days I have usually had too much fixing (performance edits) and spent too much time on a mix before reaching a point of relative satisfaction. I find that excessive fixing with mixing is a combo that can cause a song "to get away from you" and it can be hard to reel it back in to end up with a good mix. Usually I have to leave the song for a few days and come back to it if time permits.
Deadlines aside I think Bruce Swedien said it best about time spent on a mix....
"How long does it take to do a mix. - UNTIL IT'S DONE!!!
One thing I'd like you to understand. It's much easier to be done than to be satisfied!! "