Nice! but what about automation? most of the "sauce" comes from there IMHO
Chasing the 'perfect' mix
- Thread starter Ermz
- Start date
Nice! but what about automation? most of the "sauce" comes from there IMHO
C_F_H_13
Protools Guru
This is probably the most interesting post I've read on ANY audio forum in a long time. It's also one of the first that hasn't been derailed so nice work everyone.
Part of what I'm about to say has already been said numerous times, but I just want to give my thoughts on the subject.....
I might be jumping to conclusions here, but I think my daily studio life is quite a bit different then most of you. I work out of an SSL room, with a ton of outboard, a decent live room, and a ton of mics. I also have most of my clients brought to me by other people and I don't generally actively search out bands. I don't find bands as much as they find me. So because of this I could be working with a major label hard rock band one week, and then a Bhangra band from Surrey the day after, followed by a solo acoustic player the next. This constant change of style and budget and TIME, drastically effects the quality of work I'm capable of doing.
Where this ties in to the topic at hand is that it's almost impossible for me to have a "perfect mix" in mind. It simply changes too quickly for me to really obsess over it too much anymore. Yet for a time it was a depressing all encompassing obsession that hindered my work greatly for awhile. I simply hated everything I did.
Bhangra for example, by most peoples standards, has the lowest "production quality" of any style of music I've worked on. For the longest time, I thought it was laziness,lack of tools or some other variable that forced them to make what I considered less the basement demos for major releases. It wasn't until I had a serious talk to one of my clients about this and he made me realize something that changed the way I looked at mixing forever.
Quite simply he stated this.
" Do you think people in india who buy our records care about how good the vocal tone is? Most of these people are barely able to survive , yet they spend a little of their money on our record as escape from all of that. They don't care about anything except the story I'm telling, and whether they can dance to it. If thats all they care about then why should I agonize over how much low end is in the mix? most of them have a 4 inch mono speaker system. It boils down to does excite you, and does it make you want to dance."
This changed the way I worked in a way I can't even describe. Its a message I heard many times before from many different people, but this one had imagery that stuck with me.
I'm not saying don't strive for a high quality of work, but do understand that none of it matters if the music isn't good. Ross Robinson is a prime example of this. EVERY record he's done sounds wierd,odd,strange or "wrong", but generally speaking they have incredible energy. The machine head record he did is not my favorite, but I can feel the energy in some of the vocal stuff. I can feel Ross yelling at Robb to do better.
Now a days, that's my goal. Energy. I don't care if the mix is awful and wierd, as long as the song is exciting and people like it. I don't go out of my way to make it shitty, but I also don't spend hours automating every single bass hit to the same RMS as I once did.
Part of what I'm about to say has already been said numerous times, but I just want to give my thoughts on the subject.....
I might be jumping to conclusions here, but I think my daily studio life is quite a bit different then most of you. I work out of an SSL room, with a ton of outboard, a decent live room, and a ton of mics. I also have most of my clients brought to me by other people and I don't generally actively search out bands. I don't find bands as much as they find me. So because of this I could be working with a major label hard rock band one week, and then a Bhangra band from Surrey the day after, followed by a solo acoustic player the next. This constant change of style and budget and TIME, drastically effects the quality of work I'm capable of doing.
Where this ties in to the topic at hand is that it's almost impossible for me to have a "perfect mix" in mind. It simply changes too quickly for me to really obsess over it too much anymore. Yet for a time it was a depressing all encompassing obsession that hindered my work greatly for awhile. I simply hated everything I did.
Bhangra for example, by most peoples standards, has the lowest "production quality" of any style of music I've worked on. For the longest time, I thought it was laziness,lack of tools or some other variable that forced them to make what I considered less the basement demos for major releases. It wasn't until I had a serious talk to one of my clients about this and he made me realize something that changed the way I looked at mixing forever.
Quite simply he stated this.
" Do you think people in india who buy our records care about how good the vocal tone is? Most of these people are barely able to survive , yet they spend a little of their money on our record as escape from all of that. They don't care about anything except the story I'm telling, and whether they can dance to it. If thats all they care about then why should I agonize over how much low end is in the mix? most of them have a 4 inch mono speaker system. It boils down to does excite you, and does it make you want to dance."
This changed the way I worked in a way I can't even describe. Its a message I heard many times before from many different people, but this one had imagery that stuck with me.
I'm not saying don't strive for a high quality of work, but do understand that none of it matters if the music isn't good. Ross Robinson is a prime example of this. EVERY record he's done sounds wierd,odd,strange or "wrong", but generally speaking they have incredible energy. The machine head record he did is not my favorite, but I can feel the energy in some of the vocal stuff. I can feel Ross yelling at Robb to do better.
Now a days, that's my goal. Energy. I don't care if the mix is awful and wierd, as long as the song is exciting and people like it. I don't go out of my way to make it shitty, but I also don't spend hours automating every single bass hit to the same RMS as I once did.
What you tell is great! thanks for sharing!
Some of the things posted in this thread reminds me a lot of a documentary: "Until the light takes us"
I dont really hear black metal nor support some of the ideas, but their philosophy towards the sound they where looking is awesome. There is an anecdote that one of the musicians goes to the studio and tells the AE "give me the worst mic you have" and they ended up recording vocals trough a headphone!!!!!
You can check it here:
http://www.blackmetalmovie.com/
Pedro Teixeira
Member
C_F_H_13: Very interesting post. What you said about the india situation is very enlightening indeed.
May I ask, just out of curiosity, if you could name a few bands you've done? If you can disclose that, purely curiosity!
May I ask, just out of curiosity, if you could name a few bands you've done? If you can disclose that, purely curiosity!
i think it really depends on the style of music,
but what you say holds truth :
a great song will sound great and work, even with a poor mix.
but mixing still is part of the storytelling process and a mix can truly enhance a story or a message.
i personally love listening to music because it SOUNDS great.
listening to the latest peter gabriel album (orchestral stuff), the high fidelity of the mix and the production helped me understand his message a lot.
its touching, when he sings and you have the feeling he stands right in front of you. so thats where a mix can be crucial the artistic message.
HCL
Holy Crap! Lions!
B36arin
Member
- Dec 1, 2008
- 896
- 2
- 16
I totally agree with most of you guys, it's more about the music and excitement than it's about a technically perfect mix. The challenge is to get a mix that suits the music and that has the right vibe. Hell, I've been tracking drums today with better equipment than I've EVER had access to(Neve, SSL, Universal Audio, Thermionic Culture etc...), and I'm considering not even quantizing the drums tightly to the grid to preserve the vibe in the drummer's playing... And I'm not triggering anything. A year ago I wouldn't even consider not editing everything TIGHTLY to the grid, but this time I'm really excited to take a different approach that will hopefully add to the vibe of the production and make it stand out.
Morgan C
MAX LOUD PRESETS¯\(°_o)/¯
I spoke with Erkan briefly about this when he was debating whether or not to use samples in his album. Yes, they get you a much punchier, thicker sound.. but have listen below:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/324723/Drum Samples.mp3
Same drummer, different album/mix. One is natural (or at least mostly natural), other is completely sample replaced. The second mix is far better balanced, but is also kinda boring.
paladin shredder
Member
I recently had a project that I finished where I was in a very similar mind-set to what everyone is talking about here.
http://humanerrortx.bandcamp.com/album/tape-2011
With this project, the band basically wanted a good sounding demo of 4 songs. I took this as an opportunity to challenge myself as an engineer, and see what I could get without using any samples or quantized editing. Nobody recorded to a click, there is some off time playing, some drum hits are not as audible as others, and blah blah blah. Even with all the flaws I still hear (and flaws I'm sure many of you guys hear) in these mixes, I've gotten nothing but positive feedback from the people the band has showed these too! In fact these recordings have gotten the band a lot of positive attention from the local scene, and I think it's because there is something more real about what they hear. The gritty, dirty, imperfections give the band part of their sound. Also keep in mind, that the main venue these guys and many other local hardcore bands play at has a PA system only to mic the vocalist, and there are no monitors for anyone. It's a large concrete room, with graffiti everywhere. So whether or not this is the "perfect mix" is irrelevant to me; the music has had a very positive impact and that's all that matters.
http://humanerrortx.bandcamp.com/album/tape-2011
With this project, the band basically wanted a good sounding demo of 4 songs. I took this as an opportunity to challenge myself as an engineer, and see what I could get without using any samples or quantized editing. Nobody recorded to a click, there is some off time playing, some drum hits are not as audible as others, and blah blah blah. Even with all the flaws I still hear (and flaws I'm sure many of you guys hear) in these mixes, I've gotten nothing but positive feedback from the people the band has showed these too! In fact these recordings have gotten the band a lot of positive attention from the local scene, and I think it's because there is something more real about what they hear. The gritty, dirty, imperfections give the band part of their sound. Also keep in mind, that the main venue these guys and many other local hardcore bands play at has a PA system only to mic the vocalist, and there are no monitors for anyone. It's a large concrete room, with graffiti everywhere. So whether or not this is the "perfect mix" is irrelevant to me; the music has had a very positive impact and that's all that matters.
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
I don't really have much to say here except that I agree, but I do have an example:
Lamb of God: Sacrament
The kick is too loud, the guitars are kinda undergained and the snare is annoyingly high pitched and poingy for want of a better word
But then I think back to when I first heard it, before I seriously got into mixing, the overpowered kick, strange guitars and highly aggressive/annoying snare is EXACTLY why it was exciting to me! It's important to keep sight of these things.
Also, I think many electronic artists have got this one nailed........they mix for the excitement of the song and to make you dance, balance can go fuck itself!
Lamb of God: Sacrament
The kick is too loud, the guitars are kinda undergained and the snare is annoyingly high pitched and poingy for want of a better word
But then I think back to when I first heard it, before I seriously got into mixing, the overpowered kick, strange guitars and highly aggressive/annoying snare is EXACTLY why it was exciting to me! It's important to keep sight of these things.
Also, I think many electronic artists have got this one nailed........they mix for the excitement of the song and to make you dance, balance can go fuck itself!
Nebulous
Daniel
This thread reminds me of the time Ermz and I were studying together and I had the Black album on in our class room.
The "lecturer" commented on how loud the drums were. To him that was an imperfection. To anybody who was use to it, and to me, having grown up with it; I never actually noticed it. In fact, it took me a couple of weeks before I realised what he was on about.
The word was mentioned before, and is 100% correct IMO: Character.
The "lecturer" commented on how loud the drums were. To him that was an imperfection. To anybody who was use to it, and to me, having grown up with it; I never actually noticed it. In fact, it took me a couple of weeks before I realised what he was on about.
The word was mentioned before, and is 100% correct IMO: Character.
smy1
Member
I actually disagree. The regular listener does not notice if the mix is off unless something is *totally* fucked up. Best example is (as I said before) current radio: most songs end up so smashed that you can barely hear the kick, snare and cymbals. All you often hear is guitar, bass, vocals and some "plock plock percussion". And sometimes the reception is bad, so there's crackling. But people will still sing along, clap on their steering wheels in the car or bop their head.
Of course we should strive for the best mix possible, but knowing deep down that the listeners don't give a shit is very liberating and leads to interesting mix decisions - like making the kick WAAAAYY too loud in one part (which in turn gives a part much more energy).
Also: if the song/beat grooves like a motherfucker, people will dance/headbop to it, even if it comes out of their 300hz-10khz iPhone speaker
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
Finally gotten a chance to sit down and read through this thread, pretty much agreed with everything. Ermz, your original point is exactly why I've always argued with you on the STD mix, glad we're on the same page now.
He actually told me on Facebook chat a while back that he didn't understand why metal guys were so interested in mixes like Paramore and Underoath. He explained it by saying that there's a huge lean on the editing aspect when it comes to metal, and more rocky records are focused on feel and vibe. Not that metal records don't have feel and vibe, but you can't apply the same mindset/workflow as on a Paramore record to a band like Arch Enemy or something.
Perhaps Bendeth has been visiting our thread. From twitter:
He actually told me on Facebook chat a while back that he didn't understand why metal guys were so interested in mixes like Paramore and Underoath. He explained it by saying that there's a huge lean on the editing aspect when it comes to metal, and more rocky records are focused on feel and vibe. Not that metal records don't have feel and vibe, but you can't apply the same mindset/workflow as on a Paramore record to a band like Arch Enemy or something.
Soundlurker
Member
- Nov 19, 2005
- 3,730
- 0
- 36
That's exactly the argument I was going to use against smy1's last post. While what he's saying is probably quite true, its relevance to metal/hardcore/etc. is questionable. Yes, in some cases it's the same thing but in many other cases the emotions created by the sonic qualities of the mix are equally if not more important than those stemming from the actual music, and in almost all, the combination of the two creates the strongest impressions. It's often down to the listener's priorities but I recall listening to good-sounding albums more often and outright dismissing ones that I felt sound bad, a long time before I was even into recording and mixing. And I could always tell if an album sounds awesome or terrible to me and so did my childhood friend even though in retrospect my hi-fi sounded crappy and his was pathetic.
TheDriller
Member
Agreed on all fronts,
I haven't much to add, as it's all pretty much been said,
only that I really consider "chasing perfection" to be a form of self-sabotage.
A+ thread.
I haven't much to add, as it's all pretty much been said,
only that I really consider "chasing perfection" to be a form of self-sabotage.
A+ thread.
smy1
Member
Shadow Walker: yes, but YOU are a musician/engineer My friends used to call me a "sound nazi" because I used to only love records that sounded great back in the 90s and I didn't like "raw" mixes as much. Eventually I came to realize that it isn't important for the majority (99%) of the fans. Most people listen to stuff on their laptops, in their cars, on TV etc. and most people simply can't distinguish a good mix from a mediocre mix.
Again, should a mix be as good as possible? Most definitely, cause it will make the record better. Does anyone care except engineers and musicians? No. Once you really understand and embrace that, funnily enough your mixes will often become better.
My friends used to call me a "sound nazi" because I used to only love records that sounded great back in the 90s and I didn't like "raw" mixes as much. Eventually I came to realize that it isn't important for the majority (99%) of the fans. Most people listen to stuff on their laptops, in their cars, on TV etc. and most people simply can't distinguish a good mix from a mediocre mix.Again, should a mix be as good as possible? Most definitely, cause it will make the record better. Does anyone care except engineers and musicians? No. Once you really understand and embrace that, funnily enough your mixes will often become better.
-Noodles-
3 Initals Mixer
- Dec 20, 2007
- 1,166
- 0
- 36
I've been telling other engineers this stuff for years..
I think it's great that some other people are finally saying it.
Don't get me wrong - I will always strive to make my mixes 'better'. But I never try to produce over the music. It's gotta be about the song structure and the band first.
I'm just there so that other people can listen at home. I don't want to be making a massive impact on the bands sound, because then it's not really the band.
It's the same reason that I'm not a huge fan of editing drums. If I do edit drums, I always ask for a drum / percussion credit. I want people to hear the drummer (for better or worse).
Luckily I don't survive on my recordings. Living from it is a bit of a game changer.
I think it's great that some other people are finally saying it.
Don't get me wrong - I will always strive to make my mixes 'better'. But I never try to produce over the music. It's gotta be about the song structure and the band first.
I'm just there so that other people can listen at home. I don't want to be making a massive impact on the bands sound, because then it's not really the band.
It's the same reason that I'm not a huge fan of editing drums. If I do edit drums, I always ask for a drum / percussion credit. I want people to hear the drummer (for better or worse).
Luckily I don't survive on my recordings. Living from it is a bit of a game changer.
Jarkko Mattheiszen
The FU guy.
Nice post Ermz!
One thing I've noticed in my personal workflow is that recently I'm A/B'ing my mixes to reference albums a lot less. The last project I did, I didn't do it at all. It's impossible to copy an album's sound, so the end result always felt like a cheap rip-off of the reference album and the character of the music got completely lost. Listening to albums that are sonically strange in a way, such as Sacrament and A Sense Of Purpose (both of which I initially hated, mix-wise, but slowly started liking a lot), they have some very distinct, even bothering characteristics that make them unique to my ears and make the songs stand out. For example, the guitars in the beginning of The Mirror's Truth sound utterly fucked up. When I first popped the CD in the player, all I could think was "What the fuck were they thinking? This riff sounds like a duck on speed."
A couple of years ago I posted almost everything I did in the RMM subforum, and when someone said "the snare's too dry" or "the guitars are too scooped", I instantly "fixed" them and posted it again to see if everyone was satisfied. Now I rarely post anything, because when the mix is at the point where I'm happy, that's it, that's how the album/demo/EP sounds, I'm not gonna change it unless it's either something the band really wants to change or a serious flaw that bothers me as well. It's my vision of how it should sound like, that's what you hired me for. If I have to try and force the vision into a completely different direction, I'll just fuck it up.
The infamous "Learn to love it" quote is actually one of the most valuable advice one can receive in the business, IMHO. I'm not saying it's an excuse to put out crap work, obviously, but the character, soul and vibe of the music is easily lost when trying to make it sit in a cast that it wasn't made for.
One thing I've noticed in my personal workflow is that recently I'm A/B'ing my mixes to reference albums a lot less. The last project I did, I didn't do it at all. It's impossible to copy an album's sound, so the end result always felt like a cheap rip-off of the reference album and the character of the music got completely lost. Listening to albums that are sonically strange in a way, such as Sacrament and A Sense Of Purpose (both of which I initially hated, mix-wise, but slowly started liking a lot), they have some very distinct, even bothering characteristics that make them unique to my ears and make the songs stand out. For example, the guitars in the beginning of The Mirror's Truth sound utterly fucked up. When I first popped the CD in the player, all I could think was "What the fuck were they thinking? This riff sounds like a duck on speed."
A couple of years ago I posted almost everything I did in the RMM subforum, and when someone said "the snare's too dry" or "the guitars are too scooped", I instantly "fixed" them and posted it again to see if everyone was satisfied. Now I rarely post anything, because when the mix is at the point where I'm happy, that's it, that's how the album/demo/EP sounds, I'm not gonna change it unless it's either something the band really wants to change or a serious flaw that bothers me as well. It's my vision of how it should sound like, that's what you hired me for. If I have to try and force the vision into a completely different direction, I'll just fuck it up.
The infamous "Learn to love it" quote is actually one of the most valuable advice one can receive in the business, IMHO. I'm not saying it's an excuse to put out crap work, obviously, but the character, soul and vibe of the music is easily lost when trying to make it sit in a cast that it wasn't made for.
