What your mix lacks compared to commercial releases

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

Absolutely nothing.

You can make a mix sound like this with a laptop, Reaper and a few pieces of home studio equipment this week ?

[enroe]

Originally Posted by fred garvin

...this intensive recording session included a period of nine days without sleep, food, or
companionship, with Boucher blacking out her windows, since she generally could not
make music as readily during the day, and doing "tons of amphetamines" ...

Ohhh, yeah, now I know what I've been doing wrong all this time.

[jlgrimes11]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

I'm currently attempting a few covers. Early Linkin Park, nice and easy. I'm trying to get as close as possible with the whole mix to the actual song.

I'm interested in hearing your versions of this, but what my mixes usually lack is a realness in the sound, ironically it's often that for e.g. my drum components sound TOO distinct and sparkly in the mix where in the real release the drums sound a bit flatter but just more organic.
There's also often a lack of body to my mixes, scooped gtrs and leaving room on most tracks in the early mids to avoid the mud as well as cutting out lots of the sub bass to improve clarity, you end up with a thin mix and it's hard to subtly bring back some bassy oomph.

What are some of the challenges you regularly face if compared to commercial releases ?

Usually mine will have a "pokey" frequency somewhere that is hard to eliminate. Usually commercial mixes sounds so balanced and properly eq'd, none of the "pokey" frequencies.

[fred garvin]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

Not Linkin Park, but what would you guys say is particularly unachievable at home in THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYG_4vJ4qNA

That is an interesting mix. To me it does show a lot of skill and also discipline, so to speak. Listening to the intro, the nu-metal vibe is established, the guitars are allowed to compete with the vox a little as it comes in, but as the vox is established space is carved into the mix for it with a very firm hand. In the vocal sections, there are little guitar fills in the gaps between lines, because it needs something there, because the mix would be 6 db quieter there without the vox, but again, done with rigor. It's a wall of sound, but a moving, shifting wall.

But yah, these sounds are available to us all, aren't they? Like guitar sounds. I've agonized over them, and searched for the "perfect" tone, and then I spent an afternoon or two listening to every major player amp sim (Because I play amp sims, because I have to, because life. And I love them!) demo and comparison I could find, and came to the conclusion... that they're all fine. They're comparable. They've all got a Mesa sim for instance, they all sound more or less like they're supposed to. It's up to me to make mine work.

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

You can make a mix sound like this with a laptop, Reaper and a few pieces of home studio equipment this week ?

I'll go so far as to say not only that, but without whatever you consider to be home studio equipment unless you're specifically referring to the most essential things like an average microphone preamp and a decent microphone... and a bit of treatment on my walls, which I already have (a couple hundred dollars of foam squares spaced in such a way to keep the room from being ringy). Also you'd need some decent headphones and/or monitors, but that doesn't have to cost a lot either.

That doesn't mean I have musical inspiration to do such a thing.

I honestly don't know what you hear that sounds so special you think it needs to be done in a studio full of gear, or what part of the sound you'd think is made by a particular piece of gear in a special way. That's the thing: once you understand a little bit more how about some of the basics, you'll become disillusioned. It doesn't mean there isn't skill behind it. Without skill it just would be a mess.

I listened to that without even knowing who it was or for that matter that it was recorded at a home studio; I learned those things in posts on this thread afterward. And to be fair, unless there was something specific that required a certain room for the recording, I would have said the same about pretty much anything else. For instance acoustic instruments with a particular sound that comes from the room it is recorded in. I don't hear a lot of that in that song. And I don't think it's any worse for it either. Also some of those acoustic instruments which would require a certain room sound in a certain mix could be replaced by sampler replications.

In a way this is the Golden Age of recording. You can do so much in your own home nowadays for such a low price, especially with something like Reaper at its core.

As for "studio gear": beyond what makes it obviously practical for its specific use (number of mic preamps or converters on a device, for instance), if it has any different sonic quality to it, that's simply a matter of taste and not very important to a good mix. I can imagine various sounds in that mix being somewhat different without taking away the overall appeal it would have to you.

[valy]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

For instance acoustic instruments with a particular sound that comes from the room it is recorded in.

Your statement here reminds me of how they tracked the drums for one of the Alice in Chains albums by piping the signals from the drum mikes into a separate room with a bunch of massive speakers in it, then miking that sound. The result was really massive and powerful sounding drums.

THAT isn't something people are likely to do in a home studio, hehe.

[JamesPeters]

Exactly. Then again, even a modest home studio still allows for certain flexibility in the way a person records. I have a bedroom that I use for my computer room which has sound treatment so it hardly has any echo (just enough liveliness to not sound dead)... but unless I close the door, I hear reverb from the other rooms. I can easily set up a microphone at the doorway to capture that, and it would sound pretty nice. I might even do that if it happens to work for something I want to record.

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by fred garvin

That is an interesting mix. To me it does show a lot of skill and also discipline, so to speak. Listening to the intro, the nu-metal vibe is established, the guitars are allowed to compete with the vox a little as it comes in, but as the vox is established space is carved into the mix for it with a very firm hand. In the vocal sections, there are little guitar fills in the gaps between lines, because it needs something there, because the mix would be 6 db quieter there without the vox, but again, done with rigor. It's a wall of sound, but a moving, shifting wall.

But yah, these sounds are available to us all, aren't they? Like guitar sounds. I've agonized over them, and searched for the "perfect" tone, and then I spent an afternoon or two listening to every major player amp sim (Because I play amp sims, because I have to, because life. And I love them!) demo and comparison I could find, and came to the conclusion... that they're all fine. They're comparable. They've all got a Mesa sim for instance, they all sound more or less like they're supposed to. It's up to me to make mine work.

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

I'll go so far as to say not only that, but without whatever you consider to be home studio equipment unless you're specifically referring to the most essential things like an average microphone preamp and a decent microphone... and a bit of treatment on my walls, which I already have (a couple hundred dollars of foam squares spaced in such a way to keep the room from being ringy). Also you'd need some decent headphones and/or monitors, but that doesn't have to cost a lot either.

That doesn't mean I have musical inspiration to do such a thing.

I honestly don't know what you hear that sounds so special you think it needs to be done in a studio full of gear, or what part of the sound you'd think is made by a particular piece of gear in a special way. That's the thing: once you understand a little bit more how about some of the basics, you'll become disillusioned. It doesn't mean there isn't skill behind it. Without skill it just would be a mess.

I listened to that without even knowing who it was or for that matter that it was recorded at a home studio; I learned those things in posts on this thread afterward. And to be fair, unless there was something specific that required a certain room for the recording, I would have said the same about pretty much anything else. For instance acoustic instruments with a particular sound that comes from the room it is recorded in. I don't hear a lot of that in that song. And I don't think it's any worse for it either. Also some of those acoustic instruments which would require a certain room sound in a certain mix could be replaced by sampler replications.

In a way this is the Golden Age of recording. You can do so much in your own home nowadays for such a low price, especially with something like Reaper at its core.

As for "studio gear": beyond what makes it obviously practical for its specific use (number of mic preamps or converters on a device, for instance), if it has any different sonic quality to it, that's simply a matter of taste and not very important to a good mix. I can imagine various sounds in that mix being somewhat different without taking away the overall appeal it would have to you.

I mean to achieve that We appreciate power Grimes song, you'd need powerful preamps and EQ's, and high quality microphones. The sort of space and clarity they're achieving is NOTHING like what can be achieved in a regular Reaper session with even Waves plugins.
I can't imagine achieving this level of clarity, perfect distinction between the instruments and all the air that's there in the middle of the mix. All instruments individually breathe life, it's gorgeous...while we're sitting here with our Repear sessions thinking well the vox aren't coming out well because that synth competes with it...

[valy]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

I mean to achieve that We appreciate power Grimes song, you'd need powerful preamps and EQ's, and high quality microphones. The sort of space and clarity they're achieving is NOTHING like what can be achieved in a regular Reaper session with even Waves plugins.
I can't imagine achieving this level of clarity, perfect distinction between the instruments and all the air that's there in the middle of the mix. All instruments individually breathe life, it's gorgeous...while we're sitting here with our Repear sessions thinking well the vox aren't coming out well because that synth competes with it...

I disagree with that. I honestly didn't analyze the Grimes song closely, but clarity and separation can most definitely be accomplished in a home studio. It's about picking high-quality sounds that are a good fit for the production and having a good strategy for mixing the song, then executing that strategy in the right way.

Waves plugins are still usable, but a lot of them kinda show their age (to me). Some of the Acustica stuff is fantastic, as are some algorithmic plugins from other manufacturers. I strongly push back against the idea that a good mix is only possible with some expensive outboard gear -- not that such gear couldn't help, but you have to know how to use it properly, just like good plugins.

[karbomusic]

Well Visions was done entirely in Garage Band, Art Angels in Ableton Live. We Appreciate Power has a higher production value but Kill Vs Maim (from Art Angels) is sitting just under 20 million views on YT so that isn't what's making the real difference here. As I hinted somewhere up ^there, what is being composed, how it is arranged and orchestrated, what is being recorded and how. is what makes the bigger difference. Many have subpar of those items, have no idea that is the case, then think mixing is what will make it pro. Nope.

[eq1]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Well Visions was done entirely in Garage Band, Art Angels in Ableton Live. We Appreciate Power has a higher production value but Kill Vs Maim (from Art Angels) is sitting just under 20 million views on YT so that isn't what's making the real difference here...

fyi, I read yesterday that "Art Angels" was mixed by Spike Stent (here, scroll down to 2015: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/mark...233507/credits)

Quick question: Does anyone know if youtube audio is dynamically compressed? Was reading in places online that that's so, kind of doubt it. But, if it were, that could really impact any analyses of mix quality, like when I said earlier that a Linkin Park song sounded "squashed."

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by eq1

fyi, I read yesterday that "Art Angels" was mixed by Spike Stent (here, scroll down to 2015: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/mark...233507/credits)

Good to know.

Quick question: Does anyone know if youtube audio is dynamically compressed? Was reading in places online that that's so, kind of doubt it. But, if it were, that could really impact any analyses of mix quality, like when I said earlier that a Linkin Park song sounded "squashed."

It only turns down AFAIK, it doesn't dynamically compress that I can tell. You can however, right-click and choose "stats for nerds" to see if and how much it did turn down (something overly loud). I think it wants -13 LUFS Integrated but could have forgotten.

For Linkin Park, a couple things I've noticed official videos are data compressed pretty small, usually that 20-40 MB for the entire video/audio stream. I don't think that helps, and if not official, who knows how many times it's been re-encoded which affects the audio too, that isn't dynamic but it's degrading enough to matter.

Somewhere around here I spliced in audio from YT and the original 48k/24bit WAV (without revealing where the splices were), no one could really tell the difference. There are a lot of comments on the web about "terrible YT audio" but over the last few years, if you upload correctly, it's mostly a non-issue.

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

I mean to achieve that We appreciate power Grimes song, you'd need powerful preamps and EQ's, and high quality microphones. The sort of space and clarity they're achieving is NOTHING like what can be achieved in a regular Reaper session with even Waves plugins.
I can't imagine achieving this level of clarity, perfect distinction between the instruments and all the air that's there in the middle of the mix. All instruments individually breathe life, it's gorgeous...while we're sitting here with our Repear sessions thinking well the vox aren't coming out well because that synth competes with it...

"Powerful" preamps and EQs? What does that mean? You want more sensitivity for certain mics that need more gain, or that you want some transformer saturation? The former: lots of preamps exist which won't break the bank to get you good clean gain with low noise. The latter: use appropriate saturation plugins (some Airwindows ones for instance, which are donationware/freeware). As for EQs, I don't know what "powerful" would describe specifically either, other than perhaps having more flexibility (as I'd mentioned) than some stock plugins. I'm using Linux and I have a very powerful flexible parametric EQ, and it's free. If you want the EQ to have saturation, again that's possible with plugins (whether it's part of an EQ plugin or separate).

"Level of clarity", "breathes life", "gorgeous"...these terms are very vague and not descriptive enough to know what you would intend to do in a mix. It's similar to when you said your drums are "too sparkly". I get the impression you can perceive some things that you want to achieve in a mix, but not the understanding of what to do to achieve it. Some of this is simply high-shelf EQing for instance, guaranteed. You'd hear that and think "wow, the air this track has..." and it's a simple high shelf lift of a few dB at the right frequency.

"Regular Reaper sessions"? You make it sound as though Reaper is incapable of being used to create good mixes. There's nothing wrong with Reaper. As for Waves plugins...well, it's just another tool; it doesn't do the work for you. Plus I wouldn't automatically say that Waves plugins are the best choice for the job, depending on what you're trying to achieve with the sources you have.

So don't start with gear. If you have absolutely bad gear, ok, get that taken care of. You probably prefer a decent condenser mic over most dynamics for a breathy vocal sound, for instance. So some gear may be required beyond what you currently have. But if you're hoping some of us will say "you need this or that expensive piece of gear to sound pro", that's confirmation bias at work. I'm sorry if it feels frustrating that none of us have said what you want to hear, but we're actually trying our best to help you understand, and avoid going down the wrong path. Someone who claims you need X or Y expensive gear to "sound pro" shouldn't make you jump at that as the right answer.

Going back to this:

There's also often a lack of body to my mixes, scooped gtrs and leaving room on most tracks in the early mids to avoid the mud as well as cutting out lots of the sub bass to improve clarity, you end up with a thin mix and it's hard to subtly bring back some bassy oomph.

That is a sign you don't know how to EQ properly for your intended mix, and are possibly going "by the numbers" that you've read somewhere.

As for the return to the thought of "garbage in, garbage out": are you sure your source sounds good, and your performances are good? I've heard performances that are mediocre, put through relatively good mixing, and at best it just sounds awkward (like "Why does this person have this quality of a mix? They are clearly not feeling it when they play the instrument...")

We haven't heard your attempts at mixing, so maybe that would be a start. Do you mind sharing those?

[fred garvin]

Wow, what a great thread this is, thanks again to all participating.

Originally Posted by karbomusic

As I hinted somewhere up ^there, what is being composed, how it is arranged and orchestrated, what is being recorded and how. is what makes the bigger difference. Many have subpar of those items, have no idea that is the case, then think mixing is what will make it pro. Nope.

Indeed. It occurs to me that the Grimes tracks I posted could be called amateurish, if one wanted to be a jerk about it. There is certainly a modern pop standard of crispy clear glossy high end, gut punching low end, and flawless musicianship that those don't quite rise to. If you wanted to be a dick about it. But they succeeded. They succeeded commercially, because she succeeded in expressing her "Visions". She does have a great freakin' ear.

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

"Powerful" preamps and EQs? What does that mean? You want more sensitivity for certain mics that need more gain, or that you want some transformer saturation? The former: lots of preamps exist which won't break the bank to get you good clean gain with low noise. The latter: use appropriate saturation plugins (some Airwindows ones for instance, which are donationware/freeware). As for EQs, I don't know what "powerful" would describe specifically either, other than perhaps having more flexibility (as I'd mentioned) than some stock plugins. I'm using Linux and I have a very powerful flexible parametric EQ, and it's free. If you want the EQ to have saturation, again that's possible with plugins (whether it's part of an EQ plugin or separate).

"Level of clarity", "breathes life", "gorgeous"...these terms are very vague and not descriptive enough to know what you would intend to do in a mix. It's similar to when you said your drums are "too sparkly". I get the impression you can perceive some things that you want to achieve in a mix, but not the understanding of what to do to achieve it. Some of this is simply high-shelf EQing for instance, guaranteed. You'd hear that and think "wow, the air this track has..." and it's a simple high shelf lift of a few dB at the right frequency.

"Regular Reaper sessions"? You make it sound as though Reaper is incapable of being used to create good mixes. There's nothing wrong with Reaper. As for Waves plugins...well, it's just another tool; it doesn't do the work for you. Plus I wouldn't automatically say that Waves plugins are the best choice for the job, depending on what you're trying to achieve with the sources you have.

So don't start with gear. If you have absolutely bad gear, ok, get that taken care of. You probably prefer a decent condenser mic over most dynamics for a breathy vocal sound, for instance. So some gear may be required beyond what you currently have. But if you're hoping some of us will say "you need this or that expensive piece of gear to sound pro", that's confirmation bias at work. I'm sorry if it feels frustrating that none of us have said what you want to hear, but we're actually trying our best to help you understand, and avoid going down the wrong path. Someone who claims you need X or Y expensive gear to "sound pro" shouldn't make you jump at that as the right answer.

Going back to this:



That is a sign you don't know how to EQ properly for your intended mix, and are possibly going "by the numbers" that you've read somewhere.

As for the return to the thought of "garbage in, garbage out": are you sure your source sounds good, and your performances are good? I've heard performances that are mediocre, put through relatively good mixing, and at best it just sounds awkward (like "Why does this person have this quality of a mix? They are clearly not feeling it when they play the instrument...")

We haven't heard your attempts at mixing, so maybe that would be a start. Do you mind sharing those?

Thx for the reply. Alright, I'll post something in the next couple of days and you can tell me what you feel should be improved.

And actually what's been said so far is a little bit encouraging if anything. People here are saying what sounds like a blockbuster overproduced commercial release could be done with fairly basic equipment and a laptop. I do still think you'd need a lot of the instruments to go through expensive top preamp gear, COUPLED with very good sound engineering work, but anyways.

[serr]

The "powerful" element comes from the engineer IMHO.

You DO need at least reasonable gear! Equipment aimed at pro use is at a solid level of performance nowadays. There is always outlier crap to avoid but we really do live in a golden age of audio now, as mentioned.

The "commercial sound" is having everything on the surface with zero dynamics and bionic presence. So that iThings and other portable shit devices can chirp it out without crackling sounds. And then while still having some semblance of a mix and some dynamic content still in there. Overdoing the presence to the point of making your ears bleed from fatigue is preferred to a well done mix that might be a little murky around the edges and require a listener who has been trained in operating this thing called a "volume control".

That bit I said about "Equipment aimed at pro use is at a solid level of performance nowadays. There is always outlier crap to avoid"

Holy crap is there some outlier garbage being sold right now! This is going to end up confusing a lot of people and probably lead to giving up!
I was called to help a friend of a friend get started recording. He had some little USB interface he said he bought at Wallmart. Yeah... (Blanking on the name, sorry! Tried to search for "cheap bad interface Wallmart" but it's likely a grifter product no longer made.)

The headphone output was not capable of any working volume with any headphones. They had a control panel app to adjust the digital pot gains for the 2 mic inputs and their integrated cuemix mixer. The workflow with the thing as far as I could determine was to rail the head amps into blistering redline distortion to get the faintest signal in the phones. And... their control panel app would not indicate clipping on the meters!! You were supposed to just make transistor radio sounding recordings and be unaware. (We connected it to Reaper and I showed him what the incoming signals actually looked like when not using software that displayed it dishonestly.)

Once I explained that this was a design flaw and you really REALLY have to correctly set a mic input for signal without clipping and then really REALLY leave it there and instead adjust your monitoring volume up/down as needed, things started to finally make sense to him.

So they're selling grifter junk in Wallmark nowadays that can lead beginners into complete utter failure. Probably right next to their shitbar "speaker" section! (Seen those things? They don't work either.)

Think about this for a minute too. This thing went through concept, design, and manufacturing with a design flaw that truly rendered it useless. Someone was sitting there writing code for their control panel app with willful dishonesty to hide it. All that effort and collection of parts could have easily been made into a working useful thing. Just WTF?!


This stuff might give one the impression that there's a world of difference between average gear and "powerful" studio gear. It takes a minute to wrap your head around coming home with a product with a box with pictures and a manual and everything and realizing it has no capability to ever work and the dishonesty was intentional.

Just a fun Sunday morning story.

PS. In the spirit of being a scavenger, I had him plug the line out (of course it's unbalanced rca jacks only!) into his home stereo amp and use the headphone output on that. So ya see, you CAN still use even some ratty cheap stuff sometimes and coax some work out of it.

[eq1]

Originally Posted by eq1

Does anyone know if youtube audio is dynamically compressed? Was reading in places online that that's so, kind of doubt it. But if it were that could really impact any analyses of mix quality...

Originally Posted by karbomusic

It only turns down AFAIK, it doesn't dynamically compress that I can tell. You can however, right-click and choose "stats for nerds" to see if and how much it did turn down...

Thanks for the reply. I searched around a bit more, what you say tends to match most of what I read. Apparently there are differences between online platforms though, such as iTunes, Spotify, vs. youtube, etc. Some supposedly do turn up quieter material, though it wasn't clear if that also meant limiting peaks...

Here's a couple links to material that gets into this stuff a bit, for those interested:
https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewt...cb485&start=15
https://productionadvice.co.uk/stats-for-nerds/

[karbomusic]

Here's the YT vs SoundCloud thread FYI:

https://forums.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=222947

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

I do still think you'd need a lot of the instruments to go through expensive top preamp gear, COUPLED with very good sound engineering work, but anyways.

To know that, you would need experience with that particular gear, and to do proper comparisons (at the same volume levels, and blind testing where possible). Then for whatever differences you hear, try using EQ or saturation plugins to change the sound to match, and do more comparisons (including blind testing where possible).

Again I'm not saying you wouldn't prefer the inherent sound/distortion of a particular preamp (etc.) compared to another. But that's minor compared to your knowledge in mixing, and something you can probably easily compensate for with free software. (Assuming you have "decent" mics, preamps, etc. anyway.)

It's easy to imagine that some "top" gear is required for a mix that you like. That's like people who think a particular guitar sound is "so bassy and full" in a mix, meanwhile it's a blend of well-mixed guitar and bass guitar providing that sound. You're hearing something overall that you like, but not yet able to distinguish the separate elements and how they're shaped to fit together. Imagine letting a chef prepare a meal from the ingredients in your kitchen, and you'll start to get the idea.

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

To know that, you would need experience with that particular gear, and to do proper comparisons (at the same volume levels, and blind testing where possible). Then for whatever differences you hear, try using EQ or saturation plugins to change the sound to match, and do more comparisons (including blind testing where possible).

Again I'm not saying you wouldn't prefer the inherent sound/distortion of a particular preamp (etc.) compared to another. But that's minor compared to your knowledge in mixing, and something you can probably easily compensate for with free software. (Assuming you have "decent" mics, preamps, etc. anyway.)

It's easy to imagine that some "top" gear is required for a mix that you like. That's like people who think a particular guitar sound is "so bassy and full" in a mix, meanwhile it's a blend of well-mixed guitar and bass guitar providing that sound. You're hearing something overall that you like, but not yet able to distinguish the separate elements and how they're shaped to fit together. Imagine letting a chef prepare a meal from the ingredients in your kitchen, and you'll start to get the idea.

Well yeah post-processing is super important as well, but wait a second though. I constantly get first hand feedback from people telling me the gear makes an immediate difference. Like I have a friend whose problem in mixing was always mixing the bass, he was great at everything but the bass never came out nice and distinct, and he bought this Kemper thing and he didn't even need to post-process the bass after that because it just cut through the mix perfectly. This other guy told me he didn't trust USB soundcards because they messed up anything going through them and since he bought this little piece of Neve console (or some preamp clone) the difference is obvious for his bass gtr and vocal sounds, he puts the volume/gain of the soundcard to 0 and just uses the gain of the preamp.

[Bartolla Rockarolla]

Sales!

Honestly, I wish I knew what exactly my recordings were missing.

It's that thing that keeps us trying, I suppose.

[valy]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

Well yeah post-processing is super important as well, but wait a second though. I constantly get first hand feedback from people telling me the gear makes an immediate difference. Like I have a friend whose problem in mixing was always mixing the bass, he was great at everything but the bass never came out nice and distinct, and he bought this Kemper thing and he didn't even need to post-process the bass after that because it just cut through the mix perfectly. This other guy told me he didn't trust USB soundcards because they messed up anything going through them and since he bought this little piece of Neve console (or some preamp clone) the difference is obvious for his bass gtr and vocal sounds, he puts the volume/gain of the soundcard to 0 and just uses the gain of the preamp.

The people who sell gear will tell you it matters.

And the people who bought expensive gear will usually believe it matters, because everyone wants to justify their purchases.

Sometimes it makes a difference. Usually that difference isn't anywhere close to making or breaking your song. There are very often other, cheaper (or free) ways to achieve the same result -- if you know what you are doing.

The following video isn't about recording per se, more about instruments and related gear. But I thought it was interesting that many people at this gear show who actually sell the gear flat-out said that it doesn't really matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzJ_Irn0f9o

[JamesPeters]

+1 to what Valy said, and that video.

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

I constantly get first hand feedback from people telling me the gear makes an immediate difference.

And this feedback is better than what everyone here is saying? Think about it. That's your confirmation bias. You want to believe them, and don't want to believe us.

Anyway yes, gear can make an immediate difference. But knowing how to work a mix is so much more important. That immediate difference can be something a good mixing engineer could achieve in seconds without needing a specific piece of gear.

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

I have a friend whose problem in mixing was always mixing the bass, he was great at everything but the bass never came out nice and distinct, and he bought this Kemper thing and he didn't even need to post-process the bass after that because it just cut through the mix perfectly.

The Kemper is very good, but I simply don't believe that he wasn't capable of getting a good distinct sound with anything else. He probably didn't try other things that also would've worked for him, and some of those things would've cost a lot less or have been free. You can take his anecdote and run with it, thinking you "need a Kemper", or you can weigh that against countless albums recorded with relatively simple bass DI boxes with or without amp simulation or distortion (I'm confident at least some mixes you love were done that way).

And for that matter you can try something like the free MrElwood BAMP JS plugin for Reaper.

Plus think about what the Kemper is. It's a computer. To say his bass tracks didn't need post processing is a bit funny when you think about it. They're processed strongly in a computer with very specific presets made to sound that way. It's very similar to having an effects chain set up in Reaper that you can recall for a particular bass sound. Either way there's significant processing happening. Since he sees the Kemper as a "box that just does what I want" in a way, he doesn't think about it the same way as processing within the DAW.

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

This other guy told me he didn't trust USB soundcards because they messed up anything going through them

He probably had some unrelated issue, or wasn't effectively communicating to you what he wanted in a device. I use an inexpensive USB audio device with 2 mic preamps ($150) and it works great. I get very low latency and very stable operation, in Linux yet (it also performs well in Windows). Nothing going through it gets "messed up" in any way at all. I don't see xruns (dropouts) being counted, see any sign of distortion, or have the device misbehave in some way. The sound is always clear, a good representation of what I'm hearing with a microphone.

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

...since he bought this little piece of Neve console (or some preamp clone) the difference is obvious for his bass gtr and vocal sounds, he puts the volume/gain of the soundcard to 0 and just uses the gain of the preamp.

He probably wanted a bass DI and a vocal preamp which has some saturation. Perhaps 1) his previous audio device was clean sounding and he didn't know how to appropriately use plugins afterward (or perhaps he just always wants saturation all the time, so it feels more comfortable adding it in advance at the preamp), and/or 2) his previous audio device didn't have an instrument input which was capable of handling a strong bass signal (since that's the case with a fair number of inexpensive audio interfaces). So I'd say he's right in that his new piece of gear works better for him, but it didn't have to be a Neve. It just needed to do what he wanted, whether he understood exactly what that was or not.

[Dork Lard]

Alright JamesPeters. I'm willing to get behind what you're saying a bit more than previously. But then explain this: why does ALL the mainstream music you hear that sounds really good, like studio produced, why is it always made in pro studios with giant consoles and super expensive equipment ? There's obviously a difference between a 70 buck SM57 mic and a 500$ microphone, an actual difference in sound quality, not just better marketing. Obviously the same goes with cheap amps, cabs, guitars VS their expensive counterparts. Why wouldn't it be that way with preamps ?

Like I'm not sure what albums you know and what references you have as far as great sounding albums, but say the Black Album by Metallica, whether the music itself is good or not, just the sound quality, do you believe that can be achieved in a bedroom with the regular equipment found in bedrooms ? (say a 5150 amp, a couple of 200$ish mics, some guitar and a couple of pedals, a USB soundcard, and a bunch of VSTs and software plugins on Reaper)

[valy]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

Alright JamesPeters. I'm willing to get behind what you're saying a bit more than previously. But then explain this: why does ALL the mainstream music you hear that sounds really good, like studio produced, why is it always made in pro studios with giant consoles and super expensive equipment ? There's obviously a difference between a 70 buck SM57 mic and a 500$ microphone, an actual difference in sound quality, not just better marketing. Obviously the same goes with cheap amps, cabs, guitars VS their expensive counterparts. Why wouldn't it be that way with preamps ?

Like I'm not sure what albums you know and what references you have as far as great sounding albums, but say the Black Album by Metallica, whether the music itself is good or not, just the sound quality, do you believe that can be achieved in a bedroom with the regular equipment found in bedrooms ? (say a 5150 amp, a couple of 200$ish mics, some guitar and a couple of pedals, a USB soundcard, and a bunch of VSTs and software plugins on Reaper)

"The album was recorded in O'Connell's small bedroom studio in Highland Park, California using production material including Logic Pro X, a Universal Audio Apollo 8 interface and a pair of Yamaha HS5 studio monitors with an H8S subwoofer. The pair explained that they chose this recording location rather than a professional studio due to the bedroom's intimate and homely nature as well as the manner in which the bedroom affects vocals, while criticizing an external studio's lack of natural light and high cost of use."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_W...re_Do_We_Go%3F

Won five Grammys.

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

why does ALL the mainstream music you hear that sounds really good, like studio produced, why is it always made in pro studios with giant consoles and super expensive equipment ?

That's false.

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

There's obviously a difference between a 70 buck SM57 mic and a 500$ microphone, an actual difference in sound quality, not just better marketing.

SM57 mics are used on great recordings often. There's nothing wrong with them for specific situations. I wouldn't want to use it on piano or vocals, but for electric guitar it can sound quite nice. They're also used on drums too as proximity mics sometimes. And if anything the SM57 has a reputation that won't die. I can think of other mics I'd rather use for these situations, but everyone always assumes the SM57 is best. So it seems you're even out of the loop about the SM57.

Sometimes the price tag on a mic isn't justified, sometimes it is. Sometimes it's about marketing. But imagine having a mic that cost you $600 that sounds eerily similar to a Neumann U87 ($3600). It exists. Warm Audio WA-87. Or how about a charged diaphragm mic which is still very close to those, for $300-ish. They exist. You have choices if you want something along those lines without spending top dollar, if you want. And I doubt if you're recording your own vocals in a small room, you'd notice the difference that a U87 can potentially make when used for something more subtle.

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

Obviously the same goes with cheap amps, cabs, guitars VS their expensive counterparts. Why wouldn't it be that way with preamps ?

Plenty of cheap guitars, amps, and cabs can sound every bit as good as expensive ones especially in a mix context where it's easier to be choosy about what aspects of a sound you want (whereas live with no PA for instance, a more expensive setup might be more capable of sounding great at high volumes without problems, or you might have problems with keeping tuning stability on a "bad" guitar over a longer period of time etc.) Let alone the fact that a $300 guitar can sound and play amazing, as well as be reliable.

And even if you want something like a Neve preamp for its specific sound, you can get something like a Golden Age Pre73 instead. If you could tell a difference (between it, and the model it's based on), I'd be stunned.

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

Like I'm not sure what albums you know and what references you have as far as great sounding albums, but say the Black Album by Metallica, whether the music itself is good or not, just the sound quality, do you believe that can be achieved in a bedroom with the regular equipment found in bedrooms ? (say a 5150 amp, a couple of 200$ish mics, some guitar and a couple of pedals, a USB soundcard, and a bunch of VSTs and software plugins on Reaper)

For the guitar sound itself? Sure. Never mind the mics, either.

Drums? Well, good luck recording a drum kit in a room that's not appropriately sized or treated. But you can start with drum samples that are closer...such as this.

Now, if you want to start with mics and do everything from scratch: you'll need to know how to be a good mix engineer. There will be no shortcuts. You'll have to treat your room, choose your mics accordingly, and really know how to EQ/compress properly. Taking real acoustic drums and mixing them to sound like the Black Album drums is a tall order for someone who's new to mixing and/or isn't yet comfortable with how to achieve good EQ/compression results.

Just don't assume that a Neve preamp is "the missing piece" of your mix. It isn't, guaranteed. Even if you'd prefer to use a Neve preamp, it's not the missing piece.

[serr]

Some mics are more about what they don't pick up than what what they do pick up sounds like. A '58 sounds a bit cloudy on a voice and usually has a midrange honk. But I can make the voice sound natural on a live stage (or live studio session) easier than with my Neumann 105 when there's a loud drum kit 3' away with screaming cymbals!

In that isolated example, someone not aware of the nuts and bolts here might conclude that the SM-58 is a "better mic" than the KMS-105. Heh...

Just FYI, "card" in soundcard refers to a pci card connecting interface. A USB interface connects with USB instead. Calling a USB interface a card is a little like calling the computer screen the "computer" and the tower the "hard drive". You'll get clearer answers with the right terms is all.

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by valy

"The album was recorded in O'Connell's small bedroom studio in Highland Park, California using production material including Logic Pro X, a Universal Audio Apollo 8 interface and a pair of Yamaha HS5 studio monitors with an H8S subwoofer. The pair explained that they chose this recording location rather than a professional studio due to the bedroom's intimate and homely nature as well as the manner in which the bedroom affects vocals, while criticizing an external studio's lack of natural light and high cost of use."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_W...re_Do_We_Go%3F

Won five Grammys.

lol this is the kind of thing that wins grammys hahaha. Sorry. Yeah so point sort of proven. I'm listening now. It's got a certain big production feel to it, depth and space in the mix. However, there are mostly few instruments at any one time.

JamesPeters:
yeah I'm not that new but it's definitely a long learning curve. What I have definitely noticed is it's possible to achieve a certain guitar tone from a famous album, but when all the instruments are mixed together, the final result never sounds like the album. As I've heard countless examples on YT channels or soundcloud for e.g., and you could blame the mixers for not being good enough but bear in mind those are channels dedicated specifically to recreating famous tones. Like I've never, ever heard an amateur metal mix that sounded anything like a studio record. I don't know what it is, but that depth and space in those official releases from big studios.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

What I have definitely noticed is it's possible to achieve a certain guitar tone from a famous album, but when all the instruments are mixed together, the final result never sounds like the album.

That guitar tone was tailored for that mix/record - just plopping it in to some other mix shouldn't work though one might get lucky. This is exactly why we don't mix in solo mode for individual instruments, the adjustments are made based on how they sit in the mix, not based on how awesome they sound soloed.

There are definitely times gear matters but the room, ears, engineer and experience matter far more and it's magnitudes more likely the mix isn't hot stuff due to the user or how they captured, than it is the gear in 2020 at least. That's really the point, start by fixing the 99% not the 1%, then complain about the 1%.

And FWIW I own some Neve's and APIs and A-Designs, Presonus (ADL-600) and UA Preamps. I love them but they have never been "the" difference. I have yet to hear a non-pro-commercial mix here that sounded like a gear problem assuming the gear wasn't broken.

Edit: I do tend to leave instruments out of this, for one reason. It's 100% true some POS instrument can work in some mix, somewhere, but if you own that instrument and that isn't the sound you want, you need a instrument that's up to the basic task. They tend to be more important because the are they original source of the signal chain. A guitar that has high action and a natural sound, not like what you need and can't be intonated... you can't really mix your way out of that corner.

[JamesPeters]

That "depth and space" is about mixing, and it can be done with free plugins. Gear sellers would love you to think their item is "the" thing that'll "glue a mix together" etc. but you still need to know how to use it anyway or you'll mess things up in another direction. I've heard many examples of that, with the owners of such gear bragging about it and arguing tooth and nail how one should "always buy the best gear possible" (as though there is such a thing lol). They'll use an LA-2A with a setting that someone said some other producer used etc., and it just sounds awkward and out of place or over compressed. Or they'll slam a Neve preamp so it's muddying up the midrange too much, missing the original point of the preamp entirely. Don't get me started about Dave Grohl's recent Neve console fetish.

So there is no real shortcut to learning to mix well. I'm sorry. I know what you mean by not being new to this, and it may still take a fair bit of time to get a handle on it. It took me a lot longer than I am comfortable admitting. Like any other art, some people "get it" faster than others.

I agree with Karbo. I wouldn't bother trying to "nail" anyone else's sound even if I'm doing a cover. I've heard many examples of isolated tracks from mixes that I really liked and thought "that doesn't sound as good as I thought", which proves that the mix was engineered with that in mind. I like to get a sound which is cohesive in a similar way to mixes that I like, but even then it's just in a general sense and not trying to imitate specific aspects of a mix.

[Dork Lard]

Well again thanks for that information karbomusic and JamesPeters. I'm starting to lean a bit towards where you stand on this.

I've got another question: it's one of these false dilemma questions but just to get a reaction out of this, what would you guys say really matters the most to make a mix shine, especially as mastering: EQ or comp ? I'm finding every now and then I neglect comp, and my mixes just depressingly sound like home mixes, and then I add comp here and there, even the master bus, and now my mix has that 'neat' quality to it. Isn't comp what's most important in modern music and in giving official releases that sexy shiny edge ?

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

Isn't comp what's most important in modern music and in giving official releases that sexy shiny edge ?

From around 2000ish on, possibly so. If you came up around that time as far as stuff you like, it's natural to enjoy that sound. Often it was a brick wall limiter if memory serves. Everyone was using Waves L2 or similar to push the limits of loudness on CDs.

An academic note is music limited in that fashion does have "a sound" to it but it is usually better suited for listening at medium to lower volumes. Conversely, music that is older than that and/or not so limited is the other way around, the more you turn it up, the more impact the dynamics have and the better it sounds as it gets louder, with much less ear fatigue, but not so much of "that sound".

The main reason is music compressed/limited to the post 2000 loudness war standards is literally creating distortion which causes ear fatigue and lessens the amount of time you can listen to it at louder levels. Conversely, again music not so compressed can be enjoyed longer and louder without ear fatigue.

I fall somewhere in between, regardless of which decade of "commercial", I don't like losing the ability to crank it up and keep that "chesty impact" but on the other hand I don't want it so dynamic that I have to crank it to hear soft passages. This is all just an academic aside but a good thing to know because everything has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

[serr]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

I've got another question: it's one of these false dilemma questions but just to get a reaction out of this, what would you guys say really matters the most to make a mix shine, especially as mastering: EQ or comp ? I'm finding every now and then I neglect comp, and my mixes just depressingly sound like home mixes, and then I add comp here and there, even the master bus, and now my mix has that 'neat' quality to it. Isn't comp what's most important in modern music and in giving official releases that sexy shiny edge ?

Eq and compression are the main two tools used on the mixing board. Eq to alter frequency balance. Compression to alter dynamics. You're doing one of two things with either: Intentionally altering a sound. Or restoring a sound you believe to be altered by the recording process to what you believe is natural.

Massively simplifying things there of course! The point is those two choices aren't some mystery technique with one vs the other. Eq and compressors are the fundamental tools you use on the mixing board.


A lot of the analog gear had saturation/distortion qualities along with the primary function. By artifact more than design. Sometimes the artifacts turned out interesting and are now sought after. I don't mean to dismiss any of this! Just trying to take some of the mystery away that causes confusion.

Comment from the peanut gallery:
Identifying some eq cut or some dynamic peak issue on the whole mix is well and good. (ie. playing with eq or comp on the master mix bus) Now go back into the multitrack and identify where this is needed at the source instead of hitting the whole mix on the mix bus. You'll get closer to that "depth and space" thing.

[JamesPeters]

Agreed with the last 2 posts!

I can't make a natural/plain-sounding acoustic kick sound like a heavy metal kick without some liberal EQ shaping, I can't tame sizzly cone-centered mic placement electric guitar sounds without a low pass, and I'm not capable of removing low-end rumble without a highpass or at least a solid bell dip somewhere in the lows.

Also I can't shape dynamics with EQ alone.

Learn to do both well. It's important.

[valy]

Equalization is generally about moving things vertically within the 3-D sound field, while compression is about moving them front to back.

They are both essential to a good mix -- it isn't an "either/or" situation.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

I can't make a natural/plain-sounding acoustic kick sound like a heavy metal kick without some liberal EQ shaping

Out of curiosity from not mixing metal. Do people do that smiley face thing cutting all the mids like we used to do in bars/clubs back in the 80s/early 90s in live setups? I remember when that was all the rage, bigs lows and lots of 5k click on the kick aimed straight at the beater, no mids.

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

From around 2000ish on, possibly so. If you came up around that time as far as stuff you like, it's natural to enjoy that sound. Often it was a brick wall limiter if memory serves. Everyone was using Waves L2 or similar to push the limits of loudness on CDs.

An academic note is music limited in that fashion does have "a sound" to it but it is usually better suited for listening at medium to lower volumes. Conversely, music that is older than that and/or not so limited is the other way around, the more you turn it up, the more impact the dynamics have and the better it sounds as it gets louder, with much less ear fatigue, but not so much of "that sound".

The main reason is music compressed/limited to the post 2000 loudness war standards is literally creating distortion which causes ear fatigue and lessens the amount of time you can listen to it at louder levels. Conversely, again music not so compressed can be enjoyed longer and louder without ear fatigue.

I fall somewhere in between, regardless of which decade of "commercial", I don't like losing the ability to crank it up and keep that "chesty impact" but on the other hand I don't want it so dynamic that I have to crank it to hear soft passages. This is all just an academic aside but a good thing to know because everything has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

Yeah. Well I'd say this varies largely depending on the style and composition. If you're doing oldie music or 70s prog rock, you're probably going to compress conservatively compared to if you're handling modern instruments with lots of VSTs and going for that modern rock sound, with electronic instruments. Bass from what I can tell tends to be a lot more compressed and generally processed in post-2000s vs pre-2000s, same with drums, even distortion guitars.

I'm just spontaneously attracted to clean, neat sounding music, not electro or any of that stuff but, I'm not so much attracted to that natural/organic sound. And I think anyways right now if you want your music to be listened to you do have to make concessions and at least somewhat fit the current standard. I'm talking purely production wise, not writing. Your stuff has to be at least a little snappy and dynamic, you have to feel that bass and those kicks, you need that sonic oomph whereas even a style like extreme metal didn't need that back when it started 30 yrs ago, the sonic plane was basically flat back then for death metal. Even that Billie Eilish murmur music posted earlier is more dynamic than first wave death metal bands lol.

[beingmf]

Originally Posted by valy

Equalization is generally about moving things vertically within the 3-D sound field, while compression is about moving them front to back.

They are both essential to a good mix -- it isn't an "either/or" situation.

Ha! Finally someone who thinks like me. Though I oppose that EQ can't move sources front-to-back. Emphasizing the midrange (a very small area depending on the instrument, and moreso the recording) and of course the very top end (the "air" band) will psychoacoustically move the sound closer to the ear.

What I want to contribute to this thread ‒ I do believe one aspect of the technical side is especially crucial to achieve a pro sounding mix (whatever this "pro" may be), and this is the listening environment: monitors (don't have to be expensive, just "good") and the room. Bigger studios have incredible control room acoustics and very good to incredibly good monitors, I bet you could create a great sounding mix recorded on a Fostex 4-track cassette machine. Because you actually hear what you're mixing.

The difference between an amateurish mix and a pro sounding one is the way the nuances add up. Amateurs often are pretty heavy handed when it comes to EQ, because they work against the room acoustics. If you're able to hear (and learned how to listen to them and bring all this together in the bigger context of a mix) the subtle timbres of the gear and the influence of the room the recording was made in, it's the tiny differences that make the impact. Half a dB here, EQ A instead of EQ B for 2 dB at 20kHz and so on.

I've had a difficult relationship with headphones for almost my entire recording career, until I've found "my" pair, along with some correction on top. Now I'm convinced that everyone's able to get at least 80% there using cans. The missing 15% must be caught up monitoring on speakers. The missing 5% will never be reached, by no one.

[valy]

Originally Posted by beingmf

Ha! Finally someone who thinks like me. Though I oppose that EQ can't move sources front-to-back. Emphasizing the midrange (a very small area depending on the instrument, and moreso the recording) and of course the very top end (the "air" band) will psychoacoustically move the sound closer to the ear.

I said "generally"! There's some overlap. Increasing transient energy will tend to pull things forward, and filtering highs and lows will tend to move it back. But the degree of motion isn't nearly as much as compression, and it's static as well (unlike a lot of compression).

[valy]

Originally Posted by beingmf

The difference between an amateurish mix and a pro sounding one is the way the nuances add up.

Yes, this is very true -- a mix is the culmination of a very large number of small decisions. There is rarely one mistake that destroys a mix, but rather several smaller blunders that conspire to bring it down.

In my experience, what separates amateurs from pros is strategy. An amateur might know how to get all the basic stuff right regarding EQ and compression, but it takes a lot of experience to take the mix in the right direction for the song. There is no single right way to mix a given song, but there are a lot of wrong ways.

You have to know what the song needs stylistically and have a plan for working toward that with every move you make -- what attack/release for each instrument, where to pan them, which frequencies to boost or attenuate, etc. All of your decisions have to be complementary to each other and your strategy. Otherwise it ends up being like two people in a canoe rowing in opposite directions.