How do pro studios know their mix is ready ?

[ivansc]

One other thought on this: Hearing plays a big part in all this at the amateur/semi pro/hobby end. I regard myself as a hobbyist recorder after a lifetime of playing and recording professionally. My hearing is so bad these days that I have passed all mixing and mastering duties onto younger folk whose experitise I respect - and can afford!

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by ivansc

One other thought on this: Hearing plays a big part in all this at the amateur/semi pro/hobby end. I regard myself as a hobbyist recorder after a lifetime of playing and recording professionally. My hearing is so bad these days that I have passed all mixing and mastering duties onto younger folk whose experitise I respect - and can afford!

hahaha, well I'm... not quite at that point.
Yet.
Funny thing, well not that funny actually but, I met a man the other day, about in his 60s, and he randomly brought up that he could no longer hear higher frequencies in anything, had been in the military, all that. Can you imagine not being able to hear... well actually, you could I think

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by eq1

...

Look, eq1, quit trying to sell books to me. OK. Enough is enough !!!

More seriously I really should start applying my love of music to reading books about audio engineering. Sometimes you just come across one line in a text, whether a book per se or maybe just a forum post by someone, and just that one line makes you see a particular matter in a totally different light.

Totally get you on the part:
"Really hard to say. As a mixing engineer, I still think you'd need to be aware of, say, when the 'problem' is the arrangement or something else, so you don't end up trying to fix something with one tool or method when really the underlying problem is something else. Maybe you don't change an instrument or re-arrange, but you do realize that you can't fix 'that problem' with an EQ tweak or something... You know the limits, can pinpoint 'opportunities and constraints', and don't waste your time doing the wrong things..."

I've wasted, just flat out wasted, so much time in the past (still do a bit) trying to repair sth that's un-repairable. Like I'd be the idiot pulling out a single wrench working on this corpse of a car, and the pro engineer, in this case the mechanic, would look at me and shake his head. In my place, he would've known what to do.

Strangely enough, one of the most useful skills for the complete music-man (musician/song-writer/producer) is possessing the skill NOT to waste time. You'd think song-writing surely, then maybe knowing your instruments well... no, it's being surgically efficient with the mixing.

This is my sort of old chorus but if you're OK at song-writing, are an okay guitarist and vocalist, BUT ... you've got that cut-straight-to-the-point efficiency with mixing, the end result will be brilliant sounding, your workload will no longer be a nightmare, you'll move on from song to song quickly... it's the winning formula for sure as far as I'm concerned, and to broaden this paragraph's message to pro studios, that's exactly what they do. And they're the ones with the millions, and we're the ones struggling and with...a few bucks, the lucky ones.

[eq1]

^ Just buy some books, man...

I meant to mention that your 'other thread' wasn't the 'Why my mix sounds like ass' one, but that the thread with the 'ass' title has a really really good rundown of 'the process'. I never finished reading it, but got pretty far, and I thought all the suggestions sounded like they came from someone who's learned the hard way, and who knows what's up. Practically everything was ringing true to my ear...

Might want to check that out if you haven't already, I think it's pretty old, here's a link:

https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=29283

I was thinking it was like the answer to your other thread topic, the mix one...

Oh, OK, here's a link to that 'other thread' of yours ("What your mix lacks compared to commercial releases"): https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=229270

[Dork Lard]

^ yeah interesting thread, thx for pulling it out, that OP seems like quite a character. Some of the things mentioned are no longer true today in 2020 imo though, like "you need a tube amp to record guitar", "you need two mikes to record guitar", sims are really quite good today. This was 12 years ago though.

[superblonde.org]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

How do those studios who produce mainstream CDs know when the song is done ?

the more stories I hear from legit sources about how albums are made, the more arbitrary the decision making process appears to be, in many cases. I cant remember which album but one story comes to mind right now, a famous band and famous producer working on a new song and new mix, they thought they had it right, so they call the owner into the control room, he listens for 30 seconds and says "No. Try again." and so they trash it and start in a slightly different direction. Repeat, repeat... especially since the story was from the days of tape, wow, that is a lot of work, to get that far, and then have the external arbiter come in and say "I dont like it. I cant explain why I dont like it, but I don't have to, I just don't like it, so do something else." It's not really an arbitrary decision.. it's based on the taste-maker's judgement..but to the artist and engineer it sure seems 'arbitrary' ..


And then compare these stories to the many times bands (sometimes unknown bands who immediately break out because of the song) record some kind of "last minute just riffing around" song, and not even pro quality, and not even balanced mix, and then since it was just a fun recording for giggles, they slot it for the trash, until again the external arbiter comes in and says "Whoa, that's the single. It's going to be the first track on the album. Master it just like that. "

And then compare those stories, to one I just read into last month, of a famous and celebrated 80s rock performer & songwriter, who scored a big hit (and on mtv and all that), using a recorded & premixed "backing track" that the studio owned from a completely separate performer's album (an R&B artist, not even rock), to which he wrote lyrics and sang melody over. And built his career on. at the time of the hit, these details were not known or glossed over...now though as history, the various perspectives tell the true story of how the song was really made.. A top hit and they didn't even record "the song" !

in conclusion,

IT'S MAGIC

[Rhonin]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

This is my sort of old chorus but if you're OK at song-writing, are an okay guitarist and vocalist, BUT ... you've got that cut-straight-to-the-point efficiency with mixing, the end result will be brilliant sounding, your workload will no longer be a nightmare, you'll move on from song to song quickly... it's the winning formula for sure as far as I'm concerned, and to broaden this paragraph's message to pro studios, that's exactly what they do. And they're the ones with the millions, and we're the ones struggling and with...a few bucks, the lucky ones.

Ive been playing guitar for 15 yrs.
Im going to be practising for the next 3mnths before I try recording again

When am I having time to learn to be a better mixer than someone who does it all day

Also can you explain how to set up this "ruthlessly efficient workflow"
in reaper

seems like a lot of work for one guy

(is that like a joke? like... how many engineers does it take to mic a guitar?)

[panicaftermath]

Finally made it through this thread. Good reading! Thanks Dork Lard for your dedicated obstinacy.

Originally Posted by eq1

Here's a link to an old SoundOnSound article, common mix mistakes. A lot of the suggestions dovetail with the 'center' concept:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mix-mistakes

That link that eq1 posted was especially good so I'm copying it here again. A good checklist of considerations.

While at SOS, I also found this interesting. An interview with Finneas O'Connell, who is Billie Eilish's partner in crime (the crime of being Grammy award winning bedroom producers.)

https://www.soundonsound.com/people/billie-eilish

[Bazzbass]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

They MUST have some sort of device or software plugin that can help analyze how scientifically sound the song is, and make automatic changes. I can't remember the last time I heard half an error in commercial music (not that I listen that closely...).

you don't hear errors because they use autotune for out of key singers, they minutely time fix drums, need I go on?

we use our ears to judge when a recording is 'ready'.

[eq1]

^ My response here is more germane to 'that other thread' Dork posted, that I mentioned some posts up, but the two threads kind of flip-flop with each other, so here I'll respond...

This idea that pro studios autotune, fix percussion timing, etc., plus Dork's idea that you can be/have a mediocre songwriter and performer but end up with a great recording IF you have the mondo mixing stud, really rings true with what I've been learning over the past several months, as I've dived back into some writing/performing/mixing work - to a large degree to test some of the very things brought up in this and that other thread...

The main thing that I'm finding is that music fundamentals are SO SO important to a 'good mix', a good recording. Things like good pitch and timing, super-tight and sensical dynamics, a composition that 'breathes', a composition that at least doesn't make egregious harmonic/progression-type of errors, etc., can simply make or break 'the mix'.

Now, you can either start with excellent performances/artists and solid tracking to capture all that, or you can start with mediocrity and 'fix it in the mix' - and in both cases generally end up with comparable, high quality 'product'. Of course you can't polish a turd, but there's a lot of wiggle room.

The key though, that I'm seeing - again - is that you must have the ability to identify what's lacking in the first place, where the piece falls short (and/or the flip side - where the piece is strong and 'leverage' that)...

My guess, based on my own (way) past endeavors, is that amateurs (I guess amateur mixers) focus on the wrong stuff. They get too pre-occupied with the technology, with the stuff that 'adds' other stuff (like reverb, EQ, compression, other FX), and not enough on drilling-down into the piece, fixing the fundamentals where they can/should be fixed.

[Rhonin]

Originally Posted by eq1

^
My guess, based on my own (way) past endeavors, is that amateurs (I guess amateur mixers) focus on the wrong stuff. They get too pre-occupied with the technology, with the stuff that 'adds' other stuff (like reverb, EQ, compression, other FX), and not enough on drilling-down into the piece, fixing the fundamentals where they can/should be fixed.

actually its incredibly simple structures with interesting arranging and mixing that seem to be sounding the best

[Tod]

Originally Posted by ivansc

One other thought on this: Hearing plays a big part in all this at the amateur/semi pro/hobby end. I regard myself as a hobbyist recorder after a lifetime of playing and recording professionally. My hearing is so bad these days that I have passed all mixing and mastering duties onto younger folk whose experitise I respect - and can afford!

I might have something for you my old friend. I'm close to getting my "Mixing and Mastering with Profiles" done, and you might be able to go back to recording like a pro.

These profiles will be good for everybody, but especially for the hard of hearing.