Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > Recording Technologies and Techniques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-23-2019, 02:35 PM   #1
Dork Lard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Pizza Hut
Posts: 284
Default What your mix lacks compared to commercial releases

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 ?
Dork Lard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2019, 01:25 AM   #2
fred garvin
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 791
Default

Clarity and "air" for me. #1 top tip (which I hope one day to actually realize and take my own advice lol): Make sure EVERYTHING is bright, maybe even verging on harsh in tracking. Because you can dial that out easy enough, but it's much more difficult/impossible in my limited experience to add it/get it back effectively/convincingly. Tough for me cause I hate bright/harsh when I'm playing.

Like your "sparkly" drums. Sooo easy to squash that back with compression and EQ and reverb, or maybe more subtly there are plugs designed to move things "back" in the mix. But a dull, flat track? Soo hard to make sound good. Also maybe look at the good compression threads here. A good "glue" compressor or two in the right place(s) is kinda what that's for, make things play nice together. Here's one right here:
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=228540

As to your guitars, if you're using amp sims, so easy to just reamp, I do so love that, play with tones that inspire you, instantly reamp that performance to something that works in the mix. If you've got audio tracks to work with, I like the Audio Assault stuff a LOT for these situations, their multiband compressors and exciters seem purpose built for this kind of thing, and practically free with the holiday sale right now.

Good luck, have fun!
fred garvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2019, 03:20 AM   #3
Pashkuli
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: United Kingdom, T. Wells
Posts: 2,454
Default

Most mixes, even professional ones lack definition/separation, "air" or whatever you want to call that clarity.

This is due to getting used to what you are hearing and sometimes it is highly subjective either by style, by genre, by historical time (decade), etc..

Then Mastering would come to help. But we are not talking about Mastering. The mixes you hear and call commercial are actually mastered mixes. You can find some pre-mixes of iconic albums and you will hear the difference!

Since this is about mixing, 50% of the mix is "great sound recordings" or the so infamous saying "shit in - shit out".
Another big chunk is "proper arrangement" or the usual accompanying quote "less is more".

My mixes lack (compared to commercial mixes):
· studio equipment/environment (properly recorded sounds/acoustics)
· time to spend on mixing (couple of hours during weekends)
Pashkuli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2019, 02:44 PM   #4
Dork Lard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Pizza Hut
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fred garvin View Post
Clarity and "air" for me. #1 top tip (which I hope one day to actually realize and take my own advice lol): Make sure EVERYTHING is bright, maybe even verging on harsh in tracking. Because you can dial that out easy enough, but it's much more difficult/impossible in my limited experience to add it/get it back effectively/convincingly. Tough for me cause I hate bright/harsh when I'm playing.

Like your "sparkly" drums. Sooo easy to squash that back with compression and EQ and reverb, or maybe more subtly there are plugs designed to move things "back" in the mix. But a dull, flat track? Soo hard to make sound good. Also maybe look at the good compression threads here. A good "glue" compressor or two in the right place(s) is kinda what that's for, make things play nice together. Here's one right here:
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=228540

As to your guitars, if you're using amp sims, so easy to just reamp, I do so love that, play with tones that inspire you, instantly reamp that performance to something that works in the mix. If you've got audio tracks to work with, I like the Audio Assault stuff a LOT for these situations, their multiband compressors and exciters seem purpose built for this kind of thing, and practically free with the holiday sale right now.

Good luck, have fun!
Gosh, haven't gone back to my Reaper session in days. You guys ever get that, you mix like a MADMAN for weeks in a row, just produce dozens of versions of the same song, and then your body and mind are just depleted and can't be screwed to even think of the word Reaper ?

Anyways I'll probably return tomorrow and yeah more compression on the drums sounds good. It's hard to get the right amount though because you still want to keep the transients and punch in the mix, but then again if you have even slightly too much of that your drums will sound plasticky as hell, even if they're based on real recorded samples.

For gtrs I've got a physical tube amp and cab sim. I have a reamp box, but no cab, and am currently trying to find a way to get it to work with no cab. My gtrs lack that sheer power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adXok View Post
Most mixes, even professional ones lack definition/separation, "air" or whatever you want to call that clarity.

This is due to getting used to what you are hearing and sometimes it is highly subjective either by style, by genre, by historical time (decade), etc..

Then Mastering would come to help. But we are not talking about Mastering. The mixes you hear and call commercial are actually mastered mixes. You can find some pre-mixes of iconic albums and you will hear the difference!

Since this is about mixing, 50% of the mix is "great sound recordings" or the so infamous saying "shit in - shit out".
Another big chunk is "proper arrangement" or the usual accompanying quote "less is more".

My mixes lack (compared to commercial mixes):
· studio equipment/environment (properly recorded sounds/acoustics)
· time to spend on mixing (couple of hours during weekends)
Yeah, that's true about the pre-mastered mixes. Even the pros can sometimes sound very flat, and good mastering should really be a game-changer.
Dork Lard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2019, 03:14 PM   #5
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

It should sound very close to or just like you think it should sound before mastering, if there is an idea that mastering is 'the difference', the mix isn't done yet. Most any pro will tell you that. When I first saw this post a few days back, I refreshed on a couple LP tunes, the drums were pretty compressed and buried in the mix if memory serves so that is part of what you are hearing.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2019, 06:11 AM   #6
Dork Lard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Pizza Hut
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
It should sound very close to or just like you think it should sound before mastering, if there is an idea that mastering is 'the difference', the mix isn't done yet. Most any pro will tell you that. When I first saw this post a few days back, I refreshed on a couple LP tunes, the drums were pretty compressed and buried in the mix if memory serves so that is part of what you are hearing.
Yeah. Used to think mastering would totally transform the mix but I gradually understood that wasn't the case.

I'll post my best effort on the Linkin Park track soon when I find the courage to review it one last time and upload it.
Dork Lard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2019, 12:28 PM   #7
kirk1701
Human being with feelings
 
kirk1701's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,676
Default

I agree with all the advice here. I just want to encourage you to stick it out. You'd be surprised how many well-known professional engineers/producers feel the same way. Bob Clearmountain, for example. How many Grammys have his mixes won? He's still just working away at his craft.

Nothing can replace the experience of painting yourself into a corner, then trying to get out. Each time you come at a project, you'll have a little more knowledge than the last time.

For me, the most helpful thing to do is to mix till I think I like what I'm hearing, render a mixdown, then let it sit for a day or two. I won't listen to it right away. I'll either work on something else entirely, or nothing at all. When I come back, my hearing will have reset and I get a real honest listen. I usually hate it, lol. But it's very clear what I need to work on.

Anyway, don't give up. Hard work pays off.
__________________
"I've never trusted Klingons and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy."
kirk1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2019, 02:33 PM   #8
JohnnyMusic
Human being with feelings
 
JohnnyMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Twin Cities, Mn
Posts: 384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fred garvin View Post
Clarity and "air" for me. #1 top tip (which I hope one day to actually realize and take my own advice lol): Make sure EVERYTHING is bright, maybe even verging on harsh in tracking. Because you can dial that out easy enough, but it's much more difficult/impossible in my limited experience to add it/get it back effectively/convincingly. Tough for me cause I hate bright/harsh when I'm playing.

Like your "sparkly" drums. Sooo easy to squash that back with compression and EQ and reverb, or maybe more subtly there are plugs designed to move things "back" in the mix. But a dull, flat track? Soo hard to make sound good. Also maybe look at the good compression threads here. A good "glue" compressor or two in the right place(s) is kinda what that's for, make things play nice together. Here's one right here:
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=228540

As to your guitars, if you're using amp sims, so easy to just reamp, I do so love that, play with tones that inspire you, instantly reamp that performance to something that works in the mix. If you've got audio tracks to work with, I like the Audio Assault stuff a LOT for these situations, their multiband compressors and exciters seem purpose built for this kind of thing, and practically free with the holiday sale right now.

Good luck, have fun!
-Not to be contrarian,
But I have heard/read that some mastering engineers would want you to error slightly on the side too dark than too bright because cutting highs or upper mids on the master saps the life out of a lot of elements and its difficult to maintain the brightness and sparkle. If you are mastering your own songs though, just fix it in the mix of course.

-Also I find getting rid of a harsh sound once it is recorded is difficult, and again tends to kill the life and timbre..

-As started already, it all goes back to getting good recordings that are in the ball park to end up with what you want so you have to do limited processing. You don't want to be too far from the goal in either direction or the processing will do more damage than good.
-That said, when I started out, I definitely tended to scoop out mids on a lot of stuff to make it sound better in solo, and ended up with hollow/flat mixes with no mids/life, so I get where you are coming from on that. Much better though to just fix problems/do corrective EQ on the sounds in solo, then do your EQing in context of the whole mix playing, then you know if its too bright or too dark, etc.
- The more you go through the process, the more, you start to learn what will work in the mix, and you can record the sound closer to where it will end up.
JohnnyMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2019, 03:35 PM   #9
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyMusic View Post
-As started already, it all goes back to getting good recordings that are in the ball park to end up with what you want so you have to do limited processing.
One reason I tend to harp on that is once one experiences a great capture of the source and a great performance, then they hear the difference, a light bulb goes off and it sort of ruins/spoils you from that moment on. The ear can have a hard time distinguishing the root cause of something that sounds bad from a sonics standpoint, so it can entirely be the capture and/or performance yet sound like it just needs EQ or processing.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2019, 01:33 AM   #10
fred garvin
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyMusic View Post
-Not to be contrarian,
But I have heard/read that some mastering engineers would want you to error slightly on the side too dark than too bright...
Thanks! I'm not a mastering engineer nor do I claim to be any kind of authority. TBH I just kinda threw that post out there based on my personal taste and experience because I thought it was an interesting topic that wasn't getting any play.

It's easy to say, well just record better tracks, but although no one -tries- to record crappy dull-sounding tracks, still there's plenty of em out there, not just mine. So what does one do with tracks that are on the "too dark" side as you recommend? As I said, I've had enough trouble with that that I'm now willing to try going slightly the other way even though I don't like it from a playing or listening standpoint. There are loads of plugs/techniques/etc. that claim to add air to flat tracks, I haven't had much luck with them. I do actually find it more effective to use subtractive EQ or multiband compression to rein in a slightly bright track than the other way around - if you have the HF content to work with you can work with it, otherwise you have to get weird. But if you have any secret recipes I'm happy to try them.
fred garvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2019, 10:37 AM   #11
kirk1701
Human being with feelings
 
kirk1701's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fred garvin View Post
Thanks! I'm not a mastering engineer nor do I claim to be any kind of authority. TBH I just kinda threw that post out there based on my personal taste and experience because I thought it was an interesting topic that wasn't getting any play.

It's easy to say, well just record better tracks, but although no one -tries- to record crappy dull-sounding tracks, still there's plenty of em out there, not just mine. So what does one do with tracks that are on the "too dark" side as you recommend? As I said, I've had enough trouble with that that I'm now willing to try going slightly the other way even though I don't like it from a playing or listening standpoint. There are loads of plugs/techniques/etc. that claim to add air to flat tracks, I haven't had much luck with them. I do actually find it more effective to use subtractive EQ or multiband compression to rein in a slightly bright track than the other way around - if you have the HF content to work with you can work with it, otherwise you have to get weird. But if you have any secret recipes I'm happy to try them.
There's no such thing.

We aren't in your room, listening to your tracks.

Everything you put your hand on, you make unique. That's a good thing. There's so many variables only you can identify.

Analysis is the true key. If you're trying to recreate a record you really like, then you need to pick that record to pieces. Find out what every little sound is and describe it for yourself. Make notes. Fat, dry bass? Snare cracks or smacks? Guitars sizzle or roar?

Then you can compare that to what you've recorded. If your guitars aren't sizzling or roaring like you want, how can you fix that? You see what I mean?

I don't think I need to say you can't recreate your favourite records. You could go to Abbey Road, track through a REDD desk, to a J37, and never remake "A Day in the Life." It's not going to happen.

But, you can give us your version of it. Some may like it, some may not, but you've expressed yourself. I think you'd rather do that anyway.
__________________
"I've never trusted Klingons and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy."
kirk1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2019, 01:04 PM   #12
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fred garvin View Post
It's easy to say, well just record better tracks, but although no one -tries- to record crappy dull-sounding tracks, still there's plenty of em out there, not just mine.
No one said just record better tracks, they said what is most important is to learn to record better tracks and get it right at the source instead of assuming it's all about plugins - or be assured that is the message.

Learning how to capture tracks well, and as importantly, where the problem is when they don't sound like they should, doesn't happen in an afternoon but it pays off for a lifetime - I've never understood why we will spend hours or days discussing this in forums, as much time dorking with plugins and only a fraction of time working on the source. Yea, it's not fun and pretty like FX GUIs and it's work but it pays off. No one is saying don't use an EQ, but rather to understand when it's the right thing or fixing something that could have not needed it earlier in the process. Asking "what frequency to I boost/cut for X" is typically a bad thing and a red flag.

Regarding the term commercial, hate that term as it means chasing others. Go for listenable or memorable - no one has a monopoly on this and today's not-so-commercial is tomorrow's next big thing.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 12-31-2019 at 01:13 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2020, 03:46 AM   #13
fred garvin
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 791
Default

Well, of course you guys are right. And I do love spending time in the "shed" and I do when I can.

OTOH, I think that knowledge and experience can be shared to some degree, that's one of the things we're all here for yah? And so if I say that I'm having trouble getting "air" (which I'll define as clear, present, natural sounding highs) in my tracks and so I've been trying recording a bit more trebly than is really to my own personal taste to make sure I have enough HF content to work with, and then someone says that actually having the tracks darker is better from a mastering perspective, I think it's reasonable and natural to ask how to get that "air" that I'm after with a darker sounding track. And if no one has any insight into that then that's OK too. But no harm in asking, right? One thing I've learned here is that you can definitely learn things here.

Aaaaaanyway... Haaaappy new year!!!
fred garvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2020, 09:56 AM   #14
JohnnyMusic
Human being with feelings
 
JohnnyMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Twin Cities, Mn
Posts: 384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fred garvin View Post
Well, of course you guys are right. And I do love spending time in the "shed" and I do when I can.

OTOH, I think that knowledge and experience can be shared to some degree, that's one of the things we're all here for yah? And so if I say that I'm having trouble getting "air" (which I'll define as clear, present, natural sounding highs) in my tracks and so I've been trying recording a bit more trebly than is really to my own personal taste to make sure I have enough HF content to work with, and then someone says that actually having the tracks darker is better from a mastering perspective, I think it's reasonable and natural to ask how to get that "air" that I'm after with a darker sounding track. And if no one has any insight into that then that's OK too. But no harm in asking, right? One thing I've learned here is that you can definitely learn things here.

Aaaaaanyway... Haaaappy new year!!!
It's all relative. Your sharing is appreciated- thanks! And my comments were intended to give balancing perspectives for the OP. I think recording "harsh" could cause some problems, depending on what you mean by harsh. Thus my cautionary comments for the OP. . Also I could have been clearer, but I was thinking more of mixing than tracking regarding the mastering comment. Your point was a good one though,and basically repeated by the other comments, if you are not getting what you intend from the recording, then find out why. One reason could be how it was tracked.

In your case, if you were having trouble getting air in your recordings, then recording brighter could make sense.(Which can mean many things: It all depends what is causing the lack of brightness or imparting whatever character the recording has: the room you're in, the guitar, amp, speakers, mic, pre, etc). So it could be that in your situation the signal chain is darker, and so what you describe makes sense. You would have to experiment with those elements to see if you can get closer to what you are trying to achieve without having to boost everything in an extreme way once you get to the mix.

-The OP mentioned "realness". A lot of times a good room sound could give that "realness" that it may be difficult to get from a reverb for example (I know many of us may not have a good room in which to record). You can compensate with plugs pretty well in my opinion,though. This realness is something that I can relate to, and part of it is having the proper ambience. It doesn't have to be an obvious reverb but just something to give it more space/depth. It can be very subtle, early reflections and short reverbs, and sometimes delays, that help out with this.

-Lastly, adding one more comment on the OP's question:
Some things about the thin sounding mix with no oomph:
-Be careful not to cut to many lows from your bass or kick. Exactly how this is done will be genre specific but:
Subs are like 0-30 or 40hz, and remember EQ's like high pass or shelving most likely cut above their reference frequency.
-And then other advice you see a lot is high passing your guitars and everything but the kick and bass: same idea, make sure you are not cutting too high up, or consider using a shelf instead. It is ok and normal to have some overlap of frequencies. In a lot of harder rock or metal your guitars are contributing a lot more of the lows compared to some other genres.

Thanks everyone for sharing your comments.
Happy New Year!
JohnnyMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 02:33 PM   #15
Dork Lard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Pizza Hut
Posts: 284
Default

BUMP.

Didn't want to start another thread for this, so could someone explain to me what it is EXACTLY, tangibly, that's the difference between a well recorded/well mixed home session - and a studio release ? It seems with my best effort, and using Comp and EQ and panning and double tracking and good VSTs and mixing judiciously etc... will only take you so far with home equipment and a laptop with Reaper. What is it: is it the giant consoles in those studios, is it processing the various instrument sounds through expensive preamps and such ??

Why does my song despite my utmost effort sound like decent home made rock/metal (mine or anybody else's with home equipment), and Linkin Park or any official release sound good ?
Dork Lard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 03:29 PM   #16
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 3,943
Default

The largest difference: the knowledge of the person using the tools. Using Reaper's own plugins can get you very far, possibly as far as you want to go. However you need to understand how to use EQ and compression. Also other plugins, but primarily those. Knowing EQ and compression really well is key.

EQ alone is extremely powerful when you really understand it. You don't necessarily need plugins other than ReaEQ, but you may want to try some others. It's not about ReaEQ "not being modeled after a certain EQ" etc. so much as how you are able to use ReaEQ effectively. I find it works well for a lot of tasks, but for some others it's trickier to use. The low end for instance is a bit too narrow in the view, and the highpass filters don't get very steep (so you need to stack a few on top of each other to get a steep highpass). This means getting a well-sculpted kick drum sound (combining steep highpass and low shelf, plus a bell cut) is difficult for me with that EQ. It's a lot easier to accomplish with another EQ (which is also not modeled after some EQ, but just has a wider range display in the low frequencies and bands that I can control more easily). This example might seem obvious in a way, but the results are a make-or-break thing. I'm working with an acoustic kick drum and shaping it for aggressive heavy metal. Getting the right EQ curve can transform the sound so much, it can actually be surprising how different the sound can be once it's EQed.

Compression is secondary in importance, in my opinion, but still very important and still something that takes people longer to learn than most of them realize. I struggled for years to "get it", and thought "why is it taking me so long to learn this?" Then I realized, when other people posted examples of their attempts to get certain compressed sounds, that they also were struggling but didn't realize it. Similar to what I said about ReaEQ, ReaComp can go a long way. There are other compressors however which you might find easier to accomplish a certain task, for a similar reason (more specific control over certain functionality, not so much whether it's meant to be a "modeled on a certain compressor").

Then there's the kind of saturation you might want to apply. There are many shades/variations, and to know what you might prefer takes a lot of experimentation.

I'd mention specific plugins, but it's not really important to mention my preferences. It's more about what you get from the plugins, how they work for you. Nowadays we have an embarrassment of riches in terms of good free plugins, so it's not about a certain brand name or certain model.

Of course it depends on the source material, since some doesn't need as much work done to it and it might just work more naturally for your goals (recording the right sound, using the right drum samples, etc.) This may involve getting your recording area treated so it isn't a mess in terms of resonances. Likewise your ability to listen to your recordings is important, and may require treatment of your monitoring room at least to some degree.

And there's the broader idea of how to make all the tracks work together in a mix. There are all kinds of things to listen for, and things you can do. It's actually difficult to describe where to start, since there are so many things people do (and it's all a matter of taste, what the mix is intended to be and so on). As Karbo said there's no simple answers such as "cut this frequency" and so on. It really depends on the specific material and goals. That's why you need to learn EQ and compression, and it takes time and practice.

Specific hardware, preamps etc.--that's near the bottom of the list for importance. I assume you have some relatively good preamps, and these days that can mean an audio interface as inexpensive as $150. It's true you may want to use different microphones but again, these days it's easy to get a relatively good mic for low prices (even if it's not "the best", it should be more than adequate for good results). Even if you had "the best" equipment, you'd still have to decide what to use for what sound, and you'd still be dealing with everything else mentioned in this post.

So the short answer: it's you. No offense. It's also me.
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 04:13 PM   #17
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
BUMP.

Didn't want to start another thread for this, so could someone explain to me what it is EXACTLY, tangibly, that's the difference between a well recorded/well mixed home session - and a studio release ? It seems with my best effort, and using Comp and EQ and panning and double tracking and good VSTs and mixing judiciously etc... will only take you so far with home equipment and a laptop with Reaper. What is it: is it the giant consoles in those studios, is it processing the various instrument sounds through expensive preamps and such ??

Why does my song despite my utmost effort sound like decent home made rock/metal (mine or anybody else's with home equipment), and Linkin Park or any official release sound good ?
James is 100% correct.

It's you, and it's also me.

I heard Andrew Schepps recently being annoyed about all the people on the internet saying "yeah, but Andrew Schepps can do great mixes on his laptop with $100 headphones because he is mixing tracks done on premium studio gear by great tracking engineers". He said that often he gets shitty recordings from project studios and bedrooms (to paraphrase).

Skill is what brings you great sounding end products. Time practicing brings you skill. I've been mixing songs for over a decade and would consider myself just about crossing the cusp of novice to journeyman. The biggest advantage that the "pros" have is doing it 16 hours a day or more for years. That's a lot of years for us part-timers to catch up on.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 12:05 PM   #18
fred garvin
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 791
Default

It can be done! Some examples of basement to big time, projects that were homebrew or demos that became successful releases:

Lana Del Rey
Collective Soul
Owl City

Got any others?
fred garvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 01:39 PM   #19
dougdi
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 42
Default

It takes using your ears. And lots of time recording/mixing. There are no magic plugins.

My 2 cents from a retired studio rat.
dougdi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 09:51 PM   #20
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
Default

Worth adding that familiarity with your particular set of tools is also a big factor.

Including knowing your room & your audio system & how it skews sound, if at all.

Ashamed to say I spend far too much time recording & too little actually working on the end product. So I mostly sound like a bedroom producer...
__________________
Ici on parles Franglais
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2020, 10:59 PM   #21
Not_Here
Human being with feelings
 
Not_Here's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: West Coast - Sun, Sun, and more Sun
Posts: 719
Default

ummm... Hi I'm Dave and "It's me also"

However there are moments when I realize I didn't know [this] last year but I do now.
__________________
Rockin the Not_Room... Kali LP6 |iLoud |Mackie Big Knob |AXE I/O |Bugera |Ibanez |Fender |Nektar |Amplitube |PRS Supermodels |iRig Stomp I/O |ARC 3.0 |
Not_Here is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2020, 12:07 AM   #22
JohnnyMusic
Human being with feelings
 
JohnnyMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Twin Cities, Mn
Posts: 384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
BUMP.

Didn't want to start another thread for this, so could someone explain to me what it is EXACTLY, tangibly, that's the difference between a well recorded/well mixed home session - and a studio release ? It seems with my best effort, and using Comp and EQ and panning and double tracking and good VSTs and mixing judiciously etc... will only take you so far with home equipment and a laptop with Reaper. What is it: is it the giant consoles in those studios, is it processing the various instrument sounds through expensive preamps and such ??

Why does my song despite my utmost effort sound like decent home made rock/metal (mine or anybody else's with home equipment), and Linkin Park or any official release sound good ?
I'm not an expert, but just someone on a similar journey as you.
I've been learning how to mix on reaper for the last 5 years or so, so just sharing my experience in case it helps give you perspective. (Maybe a pro will come along and give you the real answer)

I'm in the process of writing, tracking and mixing an album. I'm using drum samples, micing amps for guitars, DI bass, micing vocals of course and a few VST pads (e. pianos, organs)

What I am slowly learning as my mixes slowly get better, is that it isn't EXACTLY any one thing. It is a thousand little steps and considerations that add up to the end result and that is why it isn't so easy. If you skip steps or screw them up the end result won't be as good. And it takes practice to get real good at some of those steps like how to use EQ and compression skillfully to get the result you want.

I have occasionally produced mixes that sounded ok (using commercially produced songs as a reference), so I have come to the conclusion that it is about 90% knowledge skill and practice and 10% equipment (obviously bullshit numbers but you get the idea). I have a modest set up with motu interfaces, lower and mid priced shure and AKG mics, 8 inch powered monitors, and a somewhat treated room.

How are you learning mixing? I am doing it by reading books, watching videos and practicing...(not lecturing you, just wondering how you are approaching learning)...

A few books I have read that I recommend that cover the basics of mixing and how to use the tools of mixing, if you haven't read them (Izhaki gets pretty advanced and detailed explaining compression, a little more than basic I'd say):
Mixing secrets for the home studio by Mike Senior. Not too long and he has a sense of humor...
Mixing Audio (Rory Izhaki). Very thorough but dry and academic (the most thorough explanation and discussion of compression that I've read)
Mixing and Mastering in the Box by Steve Savage. An easy read.
The Art of Mixing: A visual guide to mixing ( I don't if I would spend the money on this, but it is somewhat helpful to think of the mix visually as this method describes)(Some of the videos used to be on youtube, cheesy as hell!).

What I have done a lot is read the books and make notes about things that I want to remember and try in my mixes, and it has really helped me incorporate the concepts.

I personally think referencing professional mixes is very helpful but also would keep in mind that unless you are using the same room, player, guitarist, samples mic, preamp, it is not gonna sound the same. It may sound good, but not the same... if you are trying to emulate a certain band for example. That said, I think emulating a sound is probably a good exercise, because it makes you figure out how to use the tools at your disposal to arrive at a sound that is your goal.

One way I think of it is I feel I need to train my ear and artistic vision to know what I want, then learn the tools at my disposal well enough to achieve what I want. Combining artistic vision with the technical know-how /use of the tools, and attention to detail at each step to achieve what you want.

One lesson I learned after making the mistake more than a few times, is way to much low end relative to the mids and highs. I was mixing massive sounding bass guitars and kicks(sounded massive on my studio monitors that is), which I apparently was thinking would make the mix sound big and loud, had the opposite effect. The low end was overpowering the mids, making them sound weak and thin in comparison. Also when all those lows hit the mastering limiter, It distorted before I could even achieve a decent loudness. Then I referenced my mix to some similar genres and sure enough, the bass and kick weren't as near as beefy as my mix.

Regarding amp sims, I don't use those, so I am not sure how good they are at simulating real guitars. That could be one of the key pieces in getting your sound, if high gain guitars are a big part of the sound.

Things to keep refining and studying:
The Room, mic placement, sound source
Arrangement, Instrument choices, Masking, phase cancellation
EQ, compression, parallel compression, serial compression
Use of delays and reverbs
EQing effects
Panning
Panning Effects
Automation
Balancing the frequency spectrum


I personally think that a professional mixer could use the equipment that I have and easily make a professional sounding recording.
I think it is really mostly ear training, technical knowledge and skill and an artistic vision that will make you good at mixing.
Master the skills I mentioned above and I bet you'll make some killer mixes on your current equipment. Then consider some better mics and pres to give it that last 10%!

Keep at it!
JohnnyMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2020, 01:35 AM   #23
fred garvin
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 791
Default

Quote:
It takes using your ears.
Whoa! Dude! You just blew my mind maaaan...

@johnnym & JP: Great posts gents, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and insights. Bass WILL eat a mix. EQ and compression ARE key and hard to get right. And so I'm sure the rest of what you guys say is true too, but those are the ones I can confirm. People like y'all that really make the effort to try to share something of value, with positivity, are very helpful and much appreciated.
fred garvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2020, 08:49 PM   #24
enroe
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post

What is it: is it the giant consoles in those studios,
is it processing the various instrument sounds through
expensive preamps and such?
And the answer is: No!

With all the plugins that come with Reaper (or any other DAW)
you are already there. Guess of the mixing engineers in the
90th or even earlier: They didn't have those sophisticated
effect devices that are standard today alone. And yet they
were able to make really good mixes. Why?

Because they went through years of practice and training -
and challenged themselves every day. A good mix requires
a lot of practice and sweat!

It would be so nice and easy if you could just take a plugin
or would like to use an expensive hardware device - and
then make the ideal, fantastic sounding mix.

But unfortunately it's not like that.
__________________
free mp3s + info: andy-enroe.de songs and weird stuff: enroe.de
enroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2020, 06:29 PM   #25
eq1
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: PNW, USA
Posts: 658
Default

I like this question (pasted below in pieces) and like what others have said... Figured I'd try to take a stab at it, trying to be as succinct and direct as possible...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
...could someone explain to me what it is EXACTLY, tangibly, that's the difference between a well recorded/well mixed home session - and a studio release?
It's hard to generalize one 'exact' difference between studio and home recordings, since it can all devolve into a million particulars for each recording. But having said that, I think the one main difference I always hear, the difference that stands out, is that 'home stuff' - call it 'amateur mixes' - lack sonic-musical integrity. Basically, stuff is out of place, out of scale, out of balance, etc., it doesn't sound like one mix but simply a collection of stuff happening over time...

Good professionals know what to listen for, know where they need to go, and know how to get there -- without losing the mojo. Amateurs get lost in the details, in the process losing that 'mojo'...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
It seems with my best effort, and using Comp and EQ and panning and double tracking and good VSTs and mixing judiciously etc... will only take you so far with home equipment and a laptop with Reaper. What is it: is it the giant consoles in those studios, is it processing the various instrument sounds through expensive preamps and such??
I don't think it's the equipment. It's the people using it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
Why does my song despite my utmost effort sound like decent home made rock/metal (mine or anybody else's with home equipment), and Linkin Park or any official release sound good?
My guess would be that you labor too much over your mix and that you desensitize your 'heart' and ears to what's really good. Or some similar kind of foible. By the time you think your mix is done and right, you're thoroughly contaminated - your ear for the 'music' is biased, distorted, etc. You come back to it later and it just sounds ho-hum, if not out-right bad.

If all this sounds like the case, then you need to work with your process, your work flow, at the least. You need to dial-in your 'mixing vision' and stay true to it throughout, as hard as that can be...

Mixing is like capturing something that's alive, catching a spark, or maybe riding a wave, as if you were surfing. It's very hard to do that, it's very hard to listen to something as if you were listening to it for the first time every time, keep your ears fresh, preserve that 'mojo'. The mojo comes out in a mix that's sonically-musically integrated - everything's in its right place, right proportions, balance, etc., the piece ends up with the 'sonic imprimatur of life'...

I'm just making this stuff up as I go along. But hope it helps... I think it's in the ballpark...
eq1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2020, 03:54 AM   #26
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

I was listening to a Tony Maserati interview last night. He said that all the engineers he apprenticed under told him it takes 7 years to become a good engineer.

That's around 20,000 hours of work for someone doing it full time and also practicing in the evenings and weekends.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2020, 05:15 AM   #27
valy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1,927
Default

For what it's worth, I read an interview of a guy who mixes songs for Pharrell among others and he said that he never listens to his own mixes after he's finished lol. Kinda like how Adam Driver refuses to watch any of his own stuff.

For myself, I'm always searching for the elusive:

1. Imaging

2. Depth

3. Separation

4. Clarity

5. Focus
valy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2020, 10:32 AM   #28
Naji
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,646
Default

I am convinced that with correct use of hardware the quality could be better, so try to make the best with plugins or combine the two worlds, analog and digital, use as much hardware as you can, plugins are always weak imitations of something real. A good song is more important than a good mix or mastering quality imo. Purple Rain album is a good example, one of the most successful albums, but the mixing quality could be a lot better, the focus was more to write great songs and then they had to finish a movie, too.
I can play almost every song of this album, that's what makes this album a gem.
I also know quite a lot of Beatles songs, but never cared about their sound quality. Their songs are great, that is what counts.
Some old Prince's song peaks are at - 2.5 dB, today we have loudness war and everyone tries to maximize at - 0.1 dB and some songs are so loud and overcompressed, well, that is a different topic.
Chris Lord is a good example, too.
Successful with lots of expensive hardware. He also promotes his signature Waves plugins and CLA Waves comps.
I am pretty sure, he never used even one plugin for any production, he has all the original gear. If the plugins were as good as the hardware, all studios could close and they could mix or master in their bedrooms.
It is pretty simple, if the instruments are recorded with good gear (amps, pre amps, comps., mics etc) in an appropriate environment, it is much easier to make a mix sound great.
Schoeps says, he mixes in the box.
First I do not believe him a word (he just wants to sell his Waves plugins!) and of course he gets stems with highest quality.
In this case you just have to make some gain staging and add Waves L2 or something similar to the master chain - finished!

And someone wrote that in 1990ies they made good mixes with software. Well, in the 1990 ies the music, the songs started getting worse and worse...

Last edited by Naji; 06-07-2020 at 11:11 AM.
Naji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2020, 12:05 PM   #29
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naji View Post
Schoeps says, he mixes in the box.
First I do not believe him a word (he just wants to sell his Waves plugins!) and of course he gets stems with highest quality.
I do believe him. He doesn't just say that in Waves promo pieces, he says it in seminars, unsponsored interviews, Gearslutz posts etc. etc... He also takes exception to people who say that he can do that because of the quality of the recordings he gets, because he says he gets a lot of stuff recorded in project studios with prosumer equipment. In any case, the kind of forensic adjustments needed to salvage bad recordings is better suited to the precision and transparency of digital processing.

Tchad Blake is another high profile mixer that is entirely in the box.

There are a good many more.

Not having access to expensive hardware is not an excuse to produce sub-par mixes.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2020, 05:01 PM   #30
eq1
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: PNW, USA
Posts: 658
Default

One thing that occurs to me regarding roughly the "garbage in, garbage out idea," or the flip side - that 'anything can be fixed in the mix,' is this:

In the old days, before I had a very good idea of what I was doing, I noticed that some 'songs' sounded great. OK. Then I noticed that the same mastering engineer mastered all these albums with songs that I thought sounded so great. And then I noticed that one of these artist's follow-up albums didn't sound so good, it actually sounded pretty bad. And it wasn't mastered by the same guy (Stephen Marcussen, BTW)...

It could just depend on what one tends to focus on, listen for, when listening to music. But in general, this sequence of observations made me think that practically anything can be made to sound good, even 'bad' songs can be made to sound good. Maybe they don't exactly rise to being 'good songs', but they can be high quality representations of whatever music is there... And that amounts to a lot more than I think the average person realizes...

I think there's a much, much higher probability for bad mixing and mastering to make mediocre-to-good stuff sound bad, than to make bad-to-mediocre stuff good. Call it 100-to-1, or maybe 1,000-to-1 odds: For every one bad-to-mediocre piece that gets improved to 'good' by mixing and mastering, there's probably like 100 or 1000 mediocre-to-good pieces that end up worse or plain bad...

I think that, somewhere in these odds, is where the skills and talent come into play...
eq1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2020, 10:08 PM   #31
Naji
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,646
Default

Sorry, but I do not believe Schoeps wherever he says it.
I also heard him say that he very often does not make a job, because
he gets offered too little money and anyway engineers do not earn too much, he adds.
He seems to be be a pretty greedy person and probably makes a lot more money
with Waves plugins than with a few mixing jobs.

"I mix in the box only!" haha I do not believe one single word.
What this sentence means is

"Buy Waves plugins! And please buy my Waves plugins!"

C´mon this guy had to mix for Mr. "I-have-the-money-to-buy-the-whole-world"-MJ
and he did it with most expensive hardware gear.

You have recorded an album and want to give it to an engineer for mixing,
would you give it to someone, who says "I mix in the box only" or someone
that has and uses tons of best hardware gear?!
"Chris Lord, you get the job!" haha


It is âll about recording and writing good songs.
If the songs are good,
you can sound like you have recorded in a living room.
This sound is called "ABBEY-road" - sound!
For me some Beatles songs sound like having beeen recorded in a living or bathroom and I love them,
and I would not like anyone to re-master and trying to polish it.

I am pretty sure some people mix in the box only, but that is exactly what it sounds like - not my music mostly.

People like Lenny Kravitz or Prince, they could have mixed in the box, but they did not.
They could afford to have hardware gear and they know/knew their gear very well.
Why driving a KIA, when you are used to drive a Mercedes!?

Prince experimented a lot and he should better have worked throughout his career the way
he started with about -2dB highest peak in master.
"Shhhh" is an awesome song (awesome drums and e-guitar), but whowever mixed and mastered it
almost destroyed it because of loudness war - way too loud (highest peak -+0dB !) and over-over-over-compressed.

PLugins are good and I have a lot of plugins.
Most of us do not have the space and money for hardware gear.
I am not a full-time musician and I love some of my hardware gear, but I could not really
say that I love a special plugin, though there are some nice ones.
If I had to make my living with music and I could afford it,
I would not use one single plugin!

Last edited by Naji; 06-07-2020 at 10:57 PM.
Naji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2020, 12:16 AM   #32
valy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1,927
Default

A lot of stuff is much easier with plugins than with hardware.

Most hardware doesn't handle being pushed far beyond its limits very well. For example, you aren't going to see many people slam a $50,000 Fairchild compressor with massive amounts of gain. Same thing with most forms of extreme distortion -- to get to the real heavy stuff, you have to hit the hardware hard, and hardware tends to blow up when you do that. But it's simple to do with something like the Decapitator.

You are free to believe what you want, of course. That's certainly your perogative. But if I were you, I would keep an open mind. The software tools available now are light-years ahead of what they were ten years ago, and they aren't even comparable to the crap that was around when digital audio first hit the scene.

Digital went through years of deservedly bad press because the technology just wasn't there to make it sound good yet. It created this impression that analog is always better, and that idea perpetuates to this day. But it's simply not the case now considering the advanced plugins available today and the powerful machines we have to run them on.

If you had more experience mixing, you would probably have already realized that about 95% of the mix hangs on the small decisions you make during the process. Where to position things in the stereo field, compression settings, which frequencies to boost or attenuate on which sounds, etc.

It doesn't matter whether you do these on analog hardware or with digital emulations, really. The sound is close enough now (with the good emulations) that it can sometimes be hard to pick out the differences in a blind A/B test, much less in the context of a full mix. No one is going to listen to your finished mix and say, "Man, you can just tell he used that Waves API 550A on the guitar instead of the hardware unit...sounds like shit." But they might notice some harshness in the guitar sound because you boosted the wrong frequency.

My advice, you can take it or leave it:

Spend a lot less time worrying about what some of these accomplished mixers do or don't do in their workflows, and use that time to really learn the ins and outs of equalization, compression, and effects. Analyze productions that you like; do so not by reading articles but by critically listening to the song itself. Take note of panning decisions, where things are placed front to back, the relative levels of the different instruments. This is knowledge that will help you start making great mixes -- going out and buying a bunch of analog gear will not.
valy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2020, 02:12 AM   #33
Naji
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,646
Default

Thanks, great reply.
Of course, I experiment a lot with plugins and improving mixes and like all of us I watched some videos about this topic.

You of course have to know how to handle, how to work with hardware, with plugins it is easier.

If I had enough time for making music only and Chris Lord would give me all his gear, believe me, I would take it and plugins would become something that was in the past!

If you ever have the opportunity to play e-guitar with a real old Marshall amp with Orange box or whatever and use a real distressor and Pultec eq, you will start crying when you go back to your home studio and your plugins. That is just my experience.
Things have changed. 40 years ago a musician was a musician (eg Prince was an exception), and a sound engineer a sound engineer, and a mastering engineer a mastering engineer.
The last 25 years with daws everyone can produce music. Musician, sound or mixing engineer and mastering engineer in one person.
You can not expect to get top notch quality, and it is not even so important, as I already wrote, a good song is way more important than a good mixing quality. In the last 25 years there were not a lot of real good songs, most of the real good songs were before imo.

Last edited by Naji; 06-08-2020 at 02:24 AM.
Naji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2020, 02:44 AM   #34
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naji View Post
Sorry, but I do not believe Schoeps wherever he says it.
I also heard him say that he very often does not make a job, because
he gets offered too little money and anyway engineers do not earn too much, he adds.
He seems to be be a pretty greedy person and probably makes a lot more money
with Waves plugins than with a few mixing jobs.

"I mix in the box only!" haha I do not believe one single word.
What this sentence means is

"Buy Waves plugins! And please buy my Waves plugins!"

C´mon this guy had to mix for Mr. "I-have-the-money-to-buy-the-whole-world"-MJ
and he did it with most expensive hardware gear.

You have recorded an album and want to give it to an engineer for mixing,
would you give it to someone, who says "I mix in the box only" or someone
that has and uses tons of best hardware gear?!
"Chris Lord, you get the job!" haha
Scheps was still mixing on a board when he did the MJ stuff.

If you choose not to believe him, you are only doing yourself a disservice by giving yourself an excuse to produce bad mixes. It's up to you.

I would take an ITB Tchad Blake mix over an analogue CLA mix all day long.

As a counter to the Waves endorsement conspiracy theory, here is a bio of Andrew Scheps by a company that sells the experience of working in a well-appointed studio on analogue equipment, so do not have any motivation to push plugins by lying to people:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mix With The Masters
Andrew Scheps has an incredible career of achievements, which incorporates a credit list featuring Red Hot Chili Peppers, Adele, Metallica, Black Sabbath, Michael Jackson, Robbie Robertson, Justin Timberlake, Iggy Pop, U2, Jay-Z, and many more, as well as several Grammy Awards.

Scheps’ work on the Red Hot Chili Pepper’s album Stadium Arcadium in 2005 was a turning point for his approach to engineering. He found the band’s decision to record and mix entirely in analogue so refreshing that he fitted his Punkerpad West studio with two Neve 8068 desks to go with his wall of analogue outboard. Scheps continued to work like this until the fall of 2013, when he was offered a different kind of project to mix. A choice faced him: either pass on the work and continue with his methods where he was in France at the time, or accept the mission and take a more in the box approach to his work. He opted for the latter, and found what he initially regarded as a one-off was much more attractive than anticipated. “Going back into the box wasn’t a sonic decision, but I actually re-discovered that I really like it. It’s great to be able to work on three or four songs at the same time. I have not gone back to working on the desk since then. While I miss some of the visceral hands-on aspects of the console, there is a lot of creative freedom working this way. It might seem like a drastic change, but it is only the tools that have changed: remarkably my philosophy and sound have stayed the same.”
It's a bit sad if you choose to limit yourself to mediocrity by assuming that everyone is lying to you. Maybe finding reasons why you have no obstacles to creating professional sounding music might be more productive.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2020, 03:18 AM   #35
enroe
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naji View Post
I am pretty sure some people mix in the box only, but that is exactly what it sounds like - not my music mostly.
It's refreshing to see that you are still worshipping hardware - indeed,
you are almost addicted to it. That has the nimbus of preserving old
cultural techniques - as museums usually do. In this respect I would
like to agree with you and encourage you! Stay with it! Hardware rules!

__________________
free mp3s + info: andy-enroe.de songs and weird stuff: enroe.de
enroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2020, 04:31 AM   #36
Naji
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,646
Default

How much was/ is a real SSL console G, you can get a plugin emulation for about 30 USD on sales.

Is there really anyone who thinks he has something close to a real SSL console with his cheap plugin? Really?
Oh my God, if a plugin is about 10% close to the real thing, it is not bad.
You all see professional mixers with their hardware gear and you really think, plugins will do it? Of course mixing in the box is possible, but if mixing qualuty is the most important thing for you, hardware is superior.
My mixing quality is (1 very bad, 10 awesome) maybe 3.5, still to be improved,
but music has become just a hobby, so who cares?
Is poverty really the cause not to accept the reality.
I know it is hard not to have the money to buy quality products, I do not have, too.

Schoeps is the kind of person, I would not even give my car key to.
Today it is pretty hard to make a living as sound engineer, so you have to sell Waves plugins. And actually Quincy Jones and Bruce Swedien must be named first and foremost as for MJ, what did Schoeps actually do for MJ? . It is of course good to name MJ as a project in the past

But again, who cares about mix quality, when the song is great?!

Last edited by Naji; 06-08-2020 at 04:59 AM.
Naji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2020, 04:45 AM   #37
Coachz
Human being with feelings
 
Coachz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 12,770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
Scheps was still mixing on a board when he did the MJ stuff.

If you choose not to believe him, you are only doing yourself a disservice by giving yourself an excuse to produce bad mixes. It's up to you.

I would take an ITB Tchad Blake mix over an analogue CLA mix all day long.

As a counter to the Waves endorsement conspiracy theory, here is a bio of Andrew Scheps by a company that sells the experience of working in a well-appointed studio on analogue equipment, so do not have any motivation to push plugins by lying to people:



It's a bit sad if you choose to limit yourself to mediocrity by assuming that everyone is lying to you. Maybe finding reasons why you have no obstacles to creating professional sounding music might be more productive.
Didn't Scheps just mix live for MJ and not studio albums. The best MJ studio albums were Bruce Swedien.
Coachz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2020, 04:54 AM   #38
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coachz View Post
Didn't Scheps just mix live for MJ and not studio albums. The best MJ studio albums were Bruce Swedien.
Yes, I saw MJ credits for Ghosts and HIStory on his wikipedia page, but looking at it he was only credited with "additional engineering" on Ghosts and Synclavier programming, drum machine programming and other synth work on HIStory.

He began his career as a Synclavier engineer.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2020, 04:59 AM   #39
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naji View Post
How much was/ is a real SSL console G, you can get a plugin emulation for about 30 USD on sales.

Is there really anyone who thinks he has something close to a real SSL console with his cheap plugin? Really?
Oh my God, if a plugin is about 10% close to the real thing, it is not bad.
You all see professional mixers with their hardware gear and you really think, plugins will do it? Of course mixing in the box is possible, but if mixing qualuty is the most important thing for you, hardware is superior.
My mixing quality is (1 very bad, 10 awesome) maybe 3.5, still to be improved,
but music has become just a hobby, so who cares?
Is poverty really the cause not to accept the reality.
I know it is hard not to have the money to buy quality products, I do not have, too.

Schoeps is the kind of person, I would not even give my car key to.

But again, who cares about mix quality, when the song is great?!
The top-flight professionals who mix in the box don't do it because they believe marketing hype about hardware emulation. They do it because they feel the advantages of ITB outweigh the benefits of analogue mixing. They could work on consoles if they wanted to, but choose not to.

Great mixes are made both in, and out of, the box. Gear is not the limiting factor. Skill is the limiting factor.

I'll stop trying to talk you out of your self-limiting, and frankly depressing, worldview now.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2020, 05:09 AM   #40
Naji
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,646
Default

The music and the compositions before 1990 was way better, even the sound quality.
So we compare real cars to toy cars.

Best example was demo of a Strat VSTi.
Well, the toy sounded like an e-guitar,
But far away from what you can do with the real thing.
Toys are nice, I also use them...
but knowing very well that with my setup I could never ever achieve the quality of a Thriller album, even if I learned and studied many years
Naji is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.