I'm Chris, a disabled composer of New Agey music, here to learn the basics of mixing!

[Christopher Burke]

Dear Anyone.

 

I've got Cerebral Palsy, Hydrocephalus, Dyspraxia and Asperger's.  Despite those being classed as 'learning difficulties', I CAN learn stuff if given Something that Works in More Than One Instance.  What's happening with me and mixing is I'm writing a piece - forget the fact the piece itself is probably hopeless, let's pretend it's Vangelis for the sake of this! - hearing problems like sounds overpowering sounds, One Note of One Sound sticking out....

 

So I research what to do about the problems.  And get TONS of different answers.  And they all work.  Sometimes! I've got an ever-increasing mountain of pieces that have problems that SOUND the same in those where the researched answers worked, except the same researched answers aren't working in That Particular Piece and I've flat no idea why! One of the probs. can be EQ but not for the usually-thought-of-reasons.  When you EQ a sound you're taking bits out of it.  I find there's times where I make a sound FIT by EQ'ing it - but it doesn't sound like the INSTRUMENT any more.  I've had to take out the bit of the sound that identifies it and you're left with a perfectly fitting sound but you've no idea what the instrument's supposed to be.  Posh Kontakt instruments are the worst for this.  You've got a multigigabyte piano on stage with multigigabyte strings and a multigigabyte oboe - say - and by the time I've EQ'd enough holes in them so you can HEAR them all - if you just turn down the strings they start sounding like they're in a different building - the sounds all FIT but they don't sound like piano, strings and oboe any more because I've had to chop holes in the frequencies that gave them their identities. 

 

Could list a stack of similar probs., but you're probably getting the idea by now! (Yes - Another Guy who Sucks at Mixing!)

 

The above prob. was just an example.  What I'm after - Aspergers' love repetition - is a List of Steps that Apply to All Mixes.  Before you go down the 'each mix is individual' route, which is true, I've not got that far yet.  Pretend Fred sends you his band's tracks.  And Albert sends you his band's tracks.  You've got 2 sets of - say - 4 tracks, all different instruments.  They've all been recorded at the same sort of loudness.   What's the first thing you do before you get into EQ'ing and the rest of it, so you don't have to mess up the sounds of the actual instruments by having to EQ their character-frequency out to make the sound fit?

Final question - for now - Compression.  I know it turns the sound down a bit when it exceeds the set Threshold. (If I'm wrong in that, tell me.) But why's it got Makeup Gain on it? You've just turned a sound down.  Why would you want to immediately turn it back up again? Nowhere explains that bit and I'm flat not seeing it.  Same question about limiters. I've got one with 2 knobs, Threshold and Makeup.  I can make things louder by turning EITHER knob.  How do I know when to use which and why?

 

The compression question's an optional extra.  I'd REALLY LOVE to know an initial series of steps to use when setting up any mix, so I've got SOMETHING to follow that WORKS in all (or almost all, granted there'll be exceptions!) cases.  Everything I've found online thus far works SOMETIMES.  (There'll prob. be a few other, hopefully simple to you guys, questions when I've gotten as far as understanding that bit.

Thanks to anyone who's read this far.  That's why I'm here, anywah.

Yours respectfully,

Chris.

[john]

On 10/8/2024 at 6:32 AM, Christopher Burke said:

I've got Cerebral Palsy, Hydrocephalus, Dyspraxia and Asperger's.  Despite those being classed as 'learning difficulties', I CAN learn stuff if given Something that Works in More Than One Instance.  What's happening with me and mixing is I'm writing a piece - forget the fact the piece itself is probably hopeless, let's pretend it's Vangelis for the sake of this! - hearing problems like sounds overpowering sounds, One Note of One Sound sticking out...

 

Challenging doesn't mean impossible and it should never dissuade any of us from pushing our own personal limits. That is true for us all.

 

On 10/8/2024 at 6:32 AM, Christopher Burke said:

So I research what to do about the problems.  And get TONS of different answers.  And they all work.  Sometimes! I've got an ever-increasing mountain of pieces that have problems that SOUND the same in those where the researched answers worked, except the same researched answers aren't working in That Particular Piece and I've flat no idea why!

 

That is what learned experience is all about. You may experience this to a more extreme extent, but it does affect us all. We all learn a multitude of problems and solutions. Experience teaches us to recognize problems and combinations of problems, and which solution(s) will work. Experience also then guides us when we have to invent new combinations. Experience is in essence learning all the potential whats and whys.

 

On 10/8/2024 at 6:32 AM, Christopher Burke said:

One of the probs. can be EQ but not for the usually-thought-of-reasons.  When you EQ a sound you're taking bits out of it.  I find there's times where I make a sound FIT by EQ'ing it - but it doesn't sound like the INSTRUMENT any more.  I've had to take out the bit of the sound that identifies it and you're left with a perfectly fitting sound but you've no idea what the instrument's supposed to be.  Posh Kontakt instruments are the worst for this.  You've got a multigigabyte piano on stage with multigigabyte strings and a multigigabyte oboe - say - and by the time I've EQ'd enough holes in them so you can HEAR them all - if you just turn down the strings they start sounding like they're in a different building - the sounds all FIT but they don't sound like piano, strings and oboe any more because I've had to chop holes in the frequencies that gave them their identities.

 

A couple of things:

 

Arranging

 

When arranging your instruments you should also think about frequency placement in relation to other instruments. So if I am putting together an orchestration, I need to think about where each instrument is placed, roughly balancing out the notes. We wouldn't want all the instruments playing a C4 at the same time, for example. At least, not normally, when arranging a song.

 

Instead, we distribute notes and instruments, both in terms of pitch and time.

 

If we think of a string section, we bring in harmony, and we bring in different articulations. We might have:

 

1st Violin: D6

2nd Violin: G5

Viola: D5

Cello: B4

Bass: G4

 

In reality, in an orchestra that would be pretty boring. Each instrument would be doing something that contributed overall.

 

The point is, that you do what you can to reduce problems with clarity during the arrangement stage.

 

EQ Holes

 

You don't just automatically cut holes in instruments. You do it for a reason, normally clarity when there is a clash between instruments.

 

The most common might be a pad clashing with a lead instrument, or a key component such as bass drum or snare drum.

 

In that case it is worth remembering that the pad will be heard alongside that lead instrument. If you hear the EQ-treated pad (at least when cutting EQ holes for clarity) without the lead instrument you are doing it wrong.

 

When heard together there is a fundamental frequency clash. That frequency is already present in what the listener hears. In fact, when added together it dominates the sound, killing the mix.

 

Instead, the EQ treatment should be sidechain triggered, so that it only happens when a note from the lead instrument/snare/kick is played. That way, otherwise the pad is unaffected.

 

The same would apply when you have say a choir and an orchestra and a band (about as complex as it gets)

 

I need to step away so I'll post this and come back and finish my post

[David in WV]

If I'm getting stems or tracks from elsewhere to mix, the first thing I would likely do is adjust the input levels and fader positions for each track so that in a mono mix of all tracks each one sounds approximately as loud as others while having each track's fader set at 0 without the track not peaking above -12db at it loudest to ensure I'll have enough headroom on each track for continued mixing.

 

Typically, a compressed track will not be as loud after compression as it was before compression.  A compressor's make up gain lets you match the output level after compression to the input level before compression so that the compressed track overall is still at the loudness level you desired at the fader's setting before compression.  I think you can do the same thing with fader automations.  Using the make up gain to do so might be more efficient, especially if the signal is going to other processing after compression in a chain of effects.

 

My advice: (1) Avoid a mindset that there are "standard" EQ and/or f/x setting applicable to all mixes in general, and only make EQ adjustments and add f/x like compression when you really have to for the sake of a particular mix or desired sound; and (2) Experiment on the fly, but only make final decisions regarding track EQ's and f/x after the full arrangement is finished and you've decided on where to pan sounds in the stereo field so that such decisions are made in the mix's full stereophonic context.

 

Edited October 9 by David in WV

[john]

Sorry for the delay in my follow on reply.  I am now thinking this would make  an interesting article or two. I’ll lay out the bare bones here.

 

Learning Time & Applied Learning Time

 

Beyond arrangement considerations, as discussed in my first reply, I would mention that it is a good idea to separate out learning time and projects from actual recording, mixing, production and mastering. Have dedicated time set aside to learn your DAW, effects, plugins etc. This way you can create micro projects with set tasks for learning. For example, to learn how other produce, you don’t need to recreate whole songs. You can just create the bits you are interested in. That can be specific transitions between song sections, how to create a specific sound, or ways to get a vocal sound, or have a vocal stand out.

 

This allows you to spend much more time during recording, music production, and during a mixing sessions, being focused on your creative flow, and much less time being taken outside of that creative flow while you dive down yet another rabbit hole as you investigate yet another technical issue. It takes a little discipline, but well worth separating learning time and applied learning time.

 

Gain Staging

 

Gain staging is essentially setting up and taking care of your tracks so that sound avoids clipping and preserves headroom, while being significantly above the noise floor so that the actual recording can be clearly heard without interference from back ground noise. This is set up at all points throughout the signal chain so that you avoid unintentional distortion or adding unintentional noise.

 

Gain staging is done slightly differently during the recording process, the mixing process and the mastering process. Proper gain staging is fundamental. The smooth ground that you build upon.

 

I’ll not go into gain staging here, it is a big topic on it’s own, but we can maybe discuss it in another topic?

 

Meters

 

There are different types of meters that are useful at different points in the mixing and mastering process.

• Classic Peak Meters: Instant signal response and useful to spot clipping
• RMS Meters: Average signal level, useful for balancing your mix.
• VU Meters: Simulates analog, great for more dynamic mixes
• LUFS Meters: Use for mastering, not mixing
• K-System Meters: Useful for perceived loudness

Reference Track

 

Use a reference track. That means using a song that you like the recording of, that you would like your new song to reflect similar instrument and tonal balance, even a similar feel. Using a reference track will massively improve the quality and consistency of your tracks. (I feel another article coming on!)

 

Mixing

 

There are 5 building blocks when mixing:

1. Balance the mix
2. Stereo Image
3. Balance the tone
4. Dynamics
5. Space

As you progress through the mixing workflow you consistently make sure gain staging is addressed at each stage. This allows you to maintain the balance of your mix as you progress through each step.

 

Example: Post Compression Gain Staging A Vocal

This is where “make-up gain” (the type of post compression gain you refer to Christopher) is used. This is because applying compression attenuates (reduces) the louder peaks of a signal while maintaining the quieter parts of the signal. This effectively squeezes the dynamics of the vocal, with the result being less difference between the quietest and the loudest points in the audio signal. Make-up gain is then applied to the vocal to compensate for the reduced average level of the compressed signal vs the original uncompressed signal. This keeps the place for the now processed vocal within the mix.

 

Mix Balance

 

Set appropriate levels for your tracks so that nothing is overpowering but you take into account the instruments that you want to be at the front of your mix and those you want to be towards the back.

 

Stereo Image

 

Panning instruments to left and right to place them spatially.

 

Tonal Balance

 

Focused on the balance of frequency within your mix. This means the frequency placement of the instruments in your arrangement. As far as I am concerned this starts during the arrangement of your song.

 

Dynamics

 

This is all about the variation in intensity and volume of your tracks and your mix overall. This is normally controlled through fader automation and compression.

 

Space

 

Space is about the illusion of dimension or depth in a mix. Occasionally some live recorded parts will bring in some aspect of the recording environment, where a particular sound is sought, like a studio with a stone wall that creates a vibrant sound. Mostly this is controlled via early reflections, reverb and delay.

 

Mix Balancing

 

Ok, let’s establish a good workflow. As a workflow, it’s not changed much for decades.

 

Stage 1: Initial Mix

• Set Levels
  • Static Mix
    • No Panning (mono)
    • No Effects
    • No Processing
• Set Panning
• Organize mix for:
  • Clarity
  • Balance

Stage 2: Refined Mix

• Fine tune for depth, dimension and impact
  • EQ
  • Compression
  • Spatial

 

As you can tell this is a massive topic. I need to head off again, but I’ll come back again later and try and flesh out mixing a bit more from setting levels through zeroing out your mix right through to preparing your mix for a mastering process. So far, what has been covered, I have just touched on. I really should get my shit together and write a book lmao. (Edit: Just in time for no one to buy it!)

[Pantonal]

I've taken a few producing and mixing courses. They all start with the same thing, get your tracks solid at the start. There's no fixing it in the mix. Get the performance as good as you can, get the sound(s) as good as you can from the start. This may seem obvious, but when I listen to songs by amateurs I often hear slight timing discrepancies or guitars out of tune. The timing discrepancies can be fixed by editing the audio, but that's tedious, hard and subject to audible artifacts. Then the question is do you edit everything to the grid or do you go for a groove that's more human, but still keep all the instruments time aligned? The latter is harder in many ways, but the results are better.

 

Another question is whether you use top down or bottom up mixing. Top down is where you start at the overall mix and work your way down to individual instruments. Bottom up starts with individual instruments and works up to the master bus. Which way you go is a matter of personal preference. Top down keeps the overall perspective front and center, but I never use it.

 

You wrote:

On 10/8/2024 at 12:32 AM, Christopher Burke said:

I'd REALLY LOVE to know an initial series of steps to use when setting up any mix, so I've got SOMETHING to follow that WORKS in all (or almost all, granted there'll be exceptions!) cases.  Everything I've found online thus far works SOMETIMES. 

Maybe it's time to pay for a music production instruction program? Everything you've asked is covered in them and much more you haven't thought of. Almost every video on Youtube that offers mixing content is by someone offering an instructional program. Their philosophy is offer good content and hopefully people will think, "If this is what he/she is giving away the full program must be awesome!" In other words they're not telling you everything you need to know. You don't need to spend thousands, but for $400 - $500 it seems to me you would be getting good value. Given what we pay for virtual instruments, getting serious instruction seems to me to be a worthwhile investment. As John said above it's a massive topic and asking us to type out a course for you when many are readily available strikes me as not the best use of our time. No matter how much we type here someone else has already done a better job. If you want suggestions on which course to take let us know.