Home Studio CornerMixing | Home Studio Corner

Sit, Mix, Sit! …Good Mix!

Joe Gilder — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:00:00 +0000

Remember that little clip that would play at the end of Family Ties?

“Sit, Ubu, sit! …Good dog!”

Ah, good times.

(I honestly thought it was “Boo Boo” my whole life. Wikipedia informed me otherwise.)

Anyhoo, today I want to take a look at a popular mixing expression. One of my subscribers asked:

The “sitting in the mix” expression…I hear that constantly and read it all the time, but at what point has that been reached?

GREAT question.

There are way too many catch-phrases in the recording world. I’m definitely guilty of saying “sit in the mix” a LOT. (In fact, I’ve said it in NINE separate articles…yeesh.)

So…why don’t we unpack that phrase, shall we?

I was on a webinar last week with my Production Club members talking all about mixing. One of the concepts I talked about was that mixing is both horizontal and vertical.

Horizontal

Horizontal is the easy one. Your mix has a left side and a right side.

Each instrument needs its own “location.” Just like everyone in the band has their own spot on stage at a concert, every instrument in the mix should have its own “spot” in the mix.

Okay, so that’s easy enough, right?

Vertical is where it gets tricky…

Vertical

When thinking about the verticalness (definitely not a word) of a mix, you’ve got to ignore the horizontal factor for a while.

How do you do that? Mono, baby.

When you mix in mono, you take away the ability to separate things horizontally. Now you’re faced with the task of making all the tracks “play nicely” together, without having the crutch of simply separating the ones that don’t get along.

(“You, acoustic guitar. Stop picking on the mandolin. You go left. Mandolin, you go right.”)

In mono you can’t separate things with panning. What do you have to use? Two things. Faders and EQ.

The fader is a powerful mixing tool. I can’t tell you how many times a simple fader move solved more problems than EQ ever would.

Once you’ve got the levels set, you’ll need to use EQ to create further separation between the competing instruments.

It’s hard work. It takes practice. But in time it will become second nature to you.

How do you know when you’ve got things “sitting in the mix”? When you can hear each instrument clearly and distinctly, and the mix sounds full without sounding messy.

That’s my definition anyway.

To train that EQ muscle of yours, head over to:

www.UnderstandingEQ.com

If you enjoyed this, you may also like...

Who Wins In A Fight: Linear-Phase EQ or Regular EQ?

Joe Gilder — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:00:00 +0000

If you hang around recording circles long, you’ll probably ask this question I got from Andrew:

Hey Joe, when should I use linear-phase EQ and why?

Linear-phase EQ is essentially a highly-accurate, “surgical” EQ.

Regular EQ’s have phase shift between the different bands. When you boost or cut 250 Hz, that frequency range is technically delayed by a tiny amount, which causes some…”smearing” is the word, I think.

Linear-phase EQ keeps all the frequencies 100% in phase. In other words, all the frequencies pass through the EQ at the same speed, resulting in zero phase issues between bands.

No, that’s not a super-technical definition, but I’m okay with that.

So…it’s easy to assume that since linear-phase EQ gets rid of any “smearing” that it must be better, right?

Maybe it is…but does that really matter?

Think about it for a second.

My wife and I have been in our current house for two years. Are there bigger, better, fancier houses out there? Of course.

Does that make our house inferior? Not at all.

Linear-phase EQ is a fantastic tool. It’s wonderful. But that DOESN’T MEAN that you can’t get fantastic results with a “regular” EQ.

I can see how linear-phase EQ would be useful for mastering, but I bet most home studio owners can’t hear the difference.

Or if you CAN hear a difference, neither would probably sound “better” to you…they would just sound different.

I wouldn’t be terribly concerned with it. “Linear-Phase EQ” is a really cool marketing term, but give a great engineer an entry-level EQ and he’ll make magic happen.

This applies to almost everything you do in the studio. There will always be a better option out there, but you’ll be much better off learning HOW to use the tools you already have, rather than constantly upgrading to fancy new ones.

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not AGAINST linear-phase EQ. I’m simply trying to keep you from putting your hopes in a piece of gear or software to do things that only YOU (the human) can do.

Before you can “graduate” to linear-phase EQ, I recommend becoming a MASTER of “regular” EQ. That involves really understanding the concept of EQ and how to use it to get great results. And practice, practice, practice.

The practice part is up to you. I can help with the learning part here:

www.UnderstandingEQ.com

If you enjoyed this, you may also like...

Recording Engineers Who Don’t Make No Sense

Joe Gilder — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:00:00 +0000

Some things just don’t make no sense.

I interact regularly with lots home studio owners.

And the more I hear from them, the more “don’t make no sense” things I hear.

For example…

People who complain that they can never find any paying clients, but they don’t have a single song in their portfolio to show of their chops.
People who can’t get good mixes, and they blame it on their gear.
Automatically upgrading software, even though there’s nothing wrong with the way the system works now.
Re-recording tracks for a song after buying a new piece of gear.
People who put off a recording project until they get that new microphone (or preamp, or interface).
Being convinced that taking recordings “to the next level” involves another piece of gear.
Complaining about the latest paid software upgrade when there’s no need for an upgrade.
People who justify a new gear purchase as a “business expense,” but dragging their feet on actually pursuing paying clients.
People who would rather argue over samples rates than record some great music.
Asking “What’s the best mic for recording X?” rather than “What’s the best WAY to record X?”

I could probably list 100 more of these.

The point is simply this — what “don’t make no sense” things are you doing?

Are you making excuses? Are you letting silly things like gear get in the way of making huge improvements in the quality of your recordings?

Are you waiting around for a magic pill?

I hate to break it to you, but the FedEx guy will never deliver better recordings. Better recordings happen when you commit to being in the studio and doing the hard (but insanely fun) work to get better…using exactly the gear that you own RIGHT NOW.

Maybe you need a nudge in the right direction.

How can you find clients without experience? How do you get experience without clients? It’s a catch-22, right?

One way is to join MixWithUs.com. I’ll send you one song each week to mix, accompanied by a video showing you how I mixed the song.

Once you’re finished, you have my permission to use these songs in your portfolio to get new clients.

Find out if this is right for you here:

www.MixWithUs.com

If you enjoyed this, you may also like...

Why EQ is Unnatural

Joe Gilder — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:00:00 +0000

Jim asks,

I’m planning on ordering your Understanding EQ package. I was just wondering something about EQ in recording. Could you please explain why we have to EQ instruments in a recording? If we see a live performance without sound reinforcement there is no frequency manipulation. Why is it so different from recording and what we hear out of speakers? Is it an issue of sonic space?

This is a REALLY good question.

Why is it that I can listen to musicians playing in front of me and it sounds fine, then when I record them I have to do all this manipulation to get them to fit well together?

The problem is fairly simple, and yet it causes all sorts of trouble. So what’s the problem?

Recording isn’t natural.

When you’re sitting in front of a bunch of musicians playing in a room, you’re not thinking about how to deal with the muddyness you’re hearing. You simply listen.

The combination of good musicianship (knowing how to get a good tone from one’s instrument) and your ears makes for a pleasant experience.

You don’t need to EQ your ears.

Sadly, once you stick a mic in front of all the instruments, things start to change.

For one thing, when you record a single instrument, you’re usually placing the microphone fairly close (within a few feet) of the instrument. If you put it too far away, you pick up too much room sound. Multiply that by how many instruments/tracks you need to record, and that’s a lot of extra noise you don’t want.

Also, with the mics so close, they hear the instrument differently than you would hear them from across the room. It’s a cleaner sound, but it’s not as “natural.” We don’t listen to guitar amps from 1 inch away normally.

That adds to the unnatural nature of recording. Things like proximity effect come into play. That guitar amp may not sound very bass-heavy, but when you slap a mic 1 inch from the speaker it picks up a lot of extra low end.

That’s just one example of the “unnatural” things that happen when you multi-track record musicians.

There’s nothing wrong with it. But you need to be aware that all those somewhat “unnatural” recordings don’t tend to blend together well.

Enter EQ.

Everybody’s sitting on top of each other. EQ lets you separate them, give them each their own “spot” in the mix…making everything sound “natural” again.

When you think of EQ this way, it helps you make decisions in context of the entire mix, rather than trying to make each instrument sound awesome by itself.

What matters is how they all “play together” in the mix. Take something away from one track to make room for another.

To learn how to use EQ (and a fun technique for training your ears), check out:

www.UnderstandingEQ.com

P.S. Don’t assume that mic placement doesn’t matter. The best EQ I’ve ever used is called a microphone. Move the mic around. THAT’S how you get the sound you need in the mix. Sure, you’ll still need to use EQ, but you’ll have a lot easier time if you first EQ with the microphone.

If you enjoyed this, you may also like...

Mixing Myths – Top 10 Countdown

Joe Gilder — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:00:18 +0000

Let’s debunk some mixing myths today, David Letterman style.

Here are 10 common myths about mixing:

MYTH #10 – “I need big 8-inch monitors and a subwoofer to adequately mix the low end.”

Yes, bigger speakers produce more low frequencies, but that doesn’t mean you NEED them. I’ve never owned anything bigger than a 6-inch speaker, and I know lots of engineers who mix all day long on 5 and 6-inch monitors.

MYTH #9 – “I need to compress every track in the session by default.”

You can substitute the word “compress” with anything. Doing certain things “by default” is lazy. There are tracks I almost always compress, but I … get this … LISTEN to them before slapping on a compressor.

Make sure it actually NEEDS what you’re about to do to it.

MYTH #8 – “I don’t need anyone to critique my mixes.”

What about the client, silly? If your mix makes YOU happy but makes the client (or artist) SAD, then something needs to change.

Ask for critiques. They’re like brussel sprouts — kinda gross and sometimes make you want to hurl, but they’re good for you.

MYTH #7 – “It’s impossible to get good mixes in a home studio.”

Home studios certainly have their challenges, but you can absolutely get great mixes from a home studio.

MYTH #6 – “Good mixes require hours and hours of time.”

When you’re first starting out, this might be true. But the more experience you gain, the faster you should be.

It’s completely reasonable to expect to be able finish a mix in just a couple of hours.

MYTH #5 – “Mixing in mono is old-school and doesn’t apply anymore.”

Listening to your mix in mono is one of the BEST ways to reveal issues in your mix. What may sound like a nice, solid mix might sound muddy when you flip it to mono.

The solution? Leave it in mono and deal with the muddnyess.

I believe one of the main reasons people can’t get their mixes to translate to other systems is that they don’t spend enough time mixing in mono.

MYTH #4 – “If I just had ______________, my mixes would be better.”

What’s in that blank for you? A new interface? Plugin bundle? New studio monitors?

I hate to break it to you, but talent trumps gear every time.

Every. Time.

MYTH #3 – “Deadlines inhibit creativity.”

This one you’ll simply have to try. Have you ever used a timer while you worked on a mix? You may think it keeps you from being able to work effectively.

The truth is it makes you focus on what’s actually important for that mix.

Set a timer and just see how much you can get done in even one hour.

MYTH #2 – “I can learn everything on my own.”

I’ve got so many little techniques that I use when I mix a song…hundreds. Did I figure out some of them on my own? Sure.

But most of them came from simply talking to other engineers or watching them work.

You don’t have to break the mold with your mixes. There are a lot of really talented people out there who use tried and true techniques. Learn from them however you can.

MYTH #1 – “I can just ‘fix it in the mix.’”

I believe it’s programmers who always say “garbage in, garbage out.”

It’s true in mixing, too. If your tracks sound like garbage, your mix will sound like polished garbage.

If your tracks sound amazing, then the mix is already halfway done. Don’t settle for “fixing it in the mix.” That’s not what mixing is for.

Which myth are you guilty of believing? (Hint: I’ve believed ALL of them at some point.)

For some good old-fashioned mixing practice AND training (a killer combination), check out:

www.MixWithUs.com

If you enjoyed this, you may also like...

An Often-Overlooked Key to a Good Mix

Joe Gilder — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:00:27 +0000

I got a very nice email a couple days ago. The guy was simply writing to say that he really liked my song “I Won’t Fly Away” (from my latest album Out of Indiana).

He gushed about how he loved the songwriting, the arrangement, the mix, the vocal tone…”everything from start to finish” (or something like that).

I was flattered, of course.

But it made me wonder what it was exactly that made THAT song stand out so much to him?

It’s kind of an interesting story how that song evolved.

I wrote it on acoustic guitar (like most of my songs). When I started recording the songs for the album, I just assumed it would be a fairly typical, groovin’, acoustic guitar-driven tune. Nothing too out-of-the-ordinary.

After recording the acoustic guitar and scratch vocals (all to a click), I got this weird urge to see what the song would sound like with a sort of hip-hop drum loop over the top.

(If you know me, I’m as non-hip-hop as they come.)

I was honestly just goofing around, never intending to use anything like that, but then it just clicked. The drum loop took the song in a completely different direction and made it really, really cool.

The rest of the parts I recorded fit around that drum loop and the new groove I had created. It was still a guitar-driven song, but that silly drum loop took it to a completely new place.

How does this apply to you?

When you’re working on a song, do you think about the mix while you’re still recording? Or do you simply record stuff and worry about mixing later?

I’ll tell you this — the better the song’s arrangement, the better the mix will be.

If you’re wrestling with a mix that you just can’t seem to make sound nice and full, maybe it’s not your mixing skills. Perhaps the arrangement isn’t complete. Maybe you need to add a new instrument you hadn’t considered before.

Or on the flip-side, maybe you have a mix that’s bursting at the seems with lots of tracks, but it just sounds wrong. Perhaps you need to strip it down. The arrangement might not fit the song.

I’ve done that before.

I’ve worked up this huge, awesome arrangement for a song, only to decide that a simple guitar/vocal was the best thing for the song.

Don’t assume that all the hard work happens during mixing. The harder you work to get a good arrangement, the easier the mix will be.

You’ll have one of those awesome moments where you haven’t even put a plugin on a track yet, and the mix already sounds killer.

A good arrangement plus good recording technique can get you there.

If you’ve got a tune you could use some advice on, either from an arrangement or mix standpoint, I’m doing mix critiques for my VIP members tomorrow (Thursday). You can get in on all the fun here:

www.homestudiocorner.com/vip

If you enjoyed this, you may also like...

Compression: Attack vs Release

Joe Gilder — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:00:20 +0000

Got this question from a reader:

My question is regarding the compression technique you seem quite fond of. This is where you set the threshold to such a low value that it is basically compressing EVERYTHING, but you keep the ratio really low just to even things out.

I was wondering, seeing as the compressor pretty much never goes above the threshold value does this mean that the release function is useless now?

If the release only acts when the volume reaches over the threshold – but it never does – surely this makes this function redundant, no?

That’s a GREAT question, Arman.

To be completely honest, I’m not entirely sure how useful the release function is in that particular instance.

I would imagine you’re probably right. The release doesn’t probably do to much to the sound in that scenario, since the signal really isn’t ever dropping below the threshold. (It MIGHT have something to do with how quickly the compressor “let’s go” of the signal as it goes from a loud section to a quieter section, but I’m not 100% sure about that.)

However, while release times can be helpful, I find myself spending MUCH more time getting the attack times right when using a compressor. Changing attack times can drastically affect the tone of the source, much more so than release times in my opinion.

Changing the attack time alone can make a kick drum go from sounding dull to sounding punchy and in-your-face.

Granted, this doesn’t apply as well if you’re doing a super low threshold and low ratio, but the principle still remains. Keep an eye on release times, but spend more of your time getting the attack time right, and you’ll be in good shape.

If compression leaves you a little bit stumped, and you’d like to learn more, check out:

www.understandingcompression.com

Happy attacking!

If you enjoyed this, you may also like...

A Case for Mixing at a Lower Volume

Joe Gilder — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:41:46 +0000

In the latest podcast I did with Graham, one of our 5 mixing “hacks” was to mix at lower volumes.

Lower volumes. What’s the fun in that?

I’ll be honest. I’m not great at doing this, but there are a lot of good reasons to mix at lower volumes. Here are a few:

Less ear fatigue – Mix for longer periods of time without wearing out your cute little ears
Forces you to listen more carefully – When the speakers are blaring, it can actually become more difficult to hear everything. Turning ‘em down makes you listen more carefully.
Makes your room less of an issue – Yes, you should acoustically treat your room, but mixing at lower volumes gives your room less of a chance to mess with the sound before it hits your ears. Blasting sound into your room will cause those room issues (and we all have them) to become more pronounced and exaggerated.
Nowhere to “hide” – Sometimes a mix sounds better simply when you play it louder. Forcing yourself to mix at lower volumes forces you to get a good-sounding mix BEFORE you crank the volume.
Flatter response – It’s a fact, louder music actually sounds more “hyped” to our ears. A loud mix seems to have more bass and more highs…even if that’s not really the case. A lower volume gives you a “flatter” response to work with…which is ideal.

“How loud should I mix?” you ask. Some folks like to get SPL meters and measure it out. I don’t. Graham made a great point in yesterday’s podcast. Mix at a level where you can still comfortable hold a conversation with someone next to you.

Hey, it’s worth a shot.

If you want to come behind-the-scenes into my studio and see how I like to mix and record, among tons of other things, you should become a VIP member. I’m adding more features that will blow you away. All for just $5/month.

Go here to get in on the action:

http://www.homestudiocorner.com/vip

If you enjoyed this, you may also like...

You’d Be Stupid Not to Check This Out

Joe Gilder — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:24:03 +0000

As you may know, I’m a humongous fan of Graham Cochrane and The Recording Revolution website. Graham and I have even teamed up for the Simply Recording Podcast (which you need to check out if you haven’t yet).

However, if there’s NOTHING else you read/watch for the month of January, you must check out Graham’s latest iteration of his wildly popular 5 Minutes to a Better Mix. For the entire month of January, Graham will be posting one video a day to help you get better mixes. Each of these videos will be no more than 5 minutes.

The idea is to give you a bunch of new ideas to try on your mixes. Mixing is all about trying things, experimenting, building up an arsenal of tools and tricks. But sometimes it’s hard to figure those things out by yourself, mixing like crazy in your studio.

Getting outside opinions and ideas can really jumpstart your growth as an engineer. Seeing how someone else approaches a similar task can open your eyes to all sorts of new creative options.

That’s why you’d be stupid not to subscribe to Graham’s site and soak up every one of these tips.

It’s all over at his website.

Here, let him explain it to you:

If you enjoyed this, you may also like...

6 Tips for Reigning in the Bass in Your Mix

Joe Gilder — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:10:28 +0000

It’s been said that the low end of your mix is “what separates the men from the boys.” But it can be really hard to get right, right?

Every mix poses its own unique challenges, and I never mix two songs the same way. However, here are 6 tips for getting a handle on the low end in your mix. Some of these may seem odd or strange. Give ‘em a shot. They seem to work for me.

Here we go…

1. Mix Before You Record

Wait a second…mix before you record? That’s just silly. Well, hear me out.

Whenever somebody sends me a question about the low end in their mixes, their focus is almost 100% on mixing. There’s this subtle underlying assumption — that the source shouldn’t matter, that the real tone in a mix comes from mixing.

Bzzzzz!! Wrong!

For example, I’m working on a song right now that is sounding amazing. Drums, bass, acoustic guitar, electric guitars, percussion. All of it has been recorded and doesn’t have a single plugin on it…and yet it sounds incredible. What happened?

I mixed before I recorded.

It’s not simply “getting it right at the source.” It’s a bit more than that. It’s making the recorded signal sound like you want it to sound in the mix. Who cares if you can get a huge acoustic guitar sound if it really needs to be fairly thin and bright in the mix? Exactly.

Try mixing before you record. While you’re setting up mics and getting levels, focus on capturing the sound you want for that song. Every time I make an effort to make the recorded tracks sound really close to how I want them to sound in the mix, I have so much more fun mixing. Not only that, my mixes turn out better.

Yes, there are plenty of things to to in the mixing phase, but don’t assume that good mixes happen during mixes. They started long before that.

2. Use a HPF for More Bass

Okay, that one sounds a little stupid, too. I’m not talking about using a high-pass filter on all your non-bass tracks (although I highly recommend doing that). I’m talking about using a HPF on your bass and kick drum tracks.

Don’t you just love the sound of 40 Hz? Yeah, me neither. And chances are your mixes doesn’t need information THAT low. Some genres call for it, but most of us don’t need that much sub bass.

I’ve recently started putting a HPF on my bass and kick drum tracks, rolling off everything below 40 Hz or so. And? Suddenly the bass feels bigger and has more punch and thump. Hmm…Getting rid of the unnecessary bass seems to make the bass sound better. Very interesting.

3. Compression Attack Times are HUGE

Chances are you’re going to compress your kick drum and bass guitar. I do, almost every time. But how much compression you use is only a part of the equation. The attack time of that compressor makes an immense difference in the sound of the bass.

If you’re in the habit of always adjusting the threshold, ratio, and output gain knobs, but you never touch the attack knob, you’re hurting yourself. Raising the attack can allow that bass to really thump. Turning down the attack can really help emphasize the “click” on the kick drum.

Finding that sweet spot with attack will improve your low end by leaps and bounds.

4. Play With Faders Before EQ Knobs

Of course you need to use EQ on your bass and kick drum tracks. Carve out some low mids, let those bass frequencies shine through. But before you get all slap-happy with EQ, make sure you’ve spent some time with the faders.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve spent 10 minutes wrestling with a bass track, trying a bunch of different EQ and compression tricks, only to realize that turning it down in the mix by 3 dB fixed all the problems I was having.

Having the right balance between your kick and bass can get you much closer to the sound you want, long before your reach for that EQ.

5. Figure out Who’s the Man

There really can only be one boss down below 150 Hz. Who’s the man in the mix? Who’s holding down the low end? Is it kick? Is it the bass? Is it some other instrument?

Figure that out, then make the other one “work around” the man.

In other words, if the kick drum really has the bass sound that you want, then EQ the bass guitar to “sit” nicely alongside the kick. This may mean that you remove some more bass frequencies from the bass to make sure the kick sounds great. That’s okay.

It can work the other way, too. Sometimes the kick drum doesn’t sound super deep. It may be rocking around 120 Hz, but there’s not much information down below that. In that instance, maybe the bass guitar should be the man, holding down the low end, and you shape the kick drum around that.

It’s all about compromise.

6. Don’t Forget Good Ol’ Fletcher-Munson

Your monitoring level can make or break the low end in your mix. If you went to school for recording, you probably learned about the Fletcher-Munson Curves. It’s a pretty dorky topic, and it doesn’t really matter if you understand it. But what you need to know is this:

Bass frequencies behave differently at different volumes. The louder you listen to music, the more bass it seems to have. Think about it. When you crank up your studio monitors, you can hear a nice, big bass sound, right? What happens when you turn ‘em down really low? You only hear the high-frequency stuff. The bass frequencies mostly disappear.

I was listening to a CD the other day. It was really good music, but the bass was simply too loud, consistently loud throughout the entire CD. When I turned it down to a nice, low volume, the bass was STILL loud. The bass balance at low volumes was pretty good, but at normal listening volumes it was overwhelming.

The take-away point? If you’re mixing at lower volumes, don’t try to crank the bass up so you can hear it. When you listen at louder volumes it will be too loud. I’m not saying mix with really loud levels; just be careful. Bass does different things at different volumes. Make sure your mix works at different volumes.

You can do it.

You can get great-sounding recordings and mixing from a home studio. It just takes a lot of work, a lot of practice. Got any bass tips for the rest of us? Questions? Leave a comment below.