I am self-taught both in video/film editing and audio engineering, having been experimenting with audio and video since my teen years back in the 1980s.
My guiding principle in mixing I call the "principle of least treatment."
Having heard the crystal clean sound of CDs from the earliest days of consumer digital sound in the 80s, comparing it to the overprocessed, overcompressed mess many commercial mixes are today, I have come to believe that current mixing techniques rely too heavily on processing, particularly in the use/abuse of compression in mastering.
In general, I go as gently as possible on all processing, using only the minimum EQ, automation and compression necessary to get everything to blend smoothly, and under no circumstances do I EVER apply processing or compression of ANY kind at the mastering stage; my goal is to preserve 100% of the dynamics of the original recording.
I joined this forum in order to get all of YOUR thoughts on what I've done with these multitracks. Criticism is welcome so long as its polite and constructive.
This was my first time mixing this type of music. The biggest challenge was balancing all those vocal tracks. I think it turned out pretty well; what do you think?
Looks like you went with a similar approach to mine. I think you did a very good job balancing the vocals- I found that to be a hurdle myself. leaving the vocal sample dry was an interesting choice and I think you made it work quite well.
My only comments are that there's some sort of processing/modulation on the clav that pokes out a little too much (for my taste) and the backing vocals (stay, staaaaay with me) sound out of phase to me, but that's an easy fix.
good work, john!
I'm grateful for comments and suggestions. Thank you for listening!
(13-01-2014, 02:15 AM)Pedaling Prince Wrote: Having heard the crystal clean sound of CDs from the earliest days of consumer digital sound in the 80s, comparing it to the overprocessed, overcompressed mess many commercial mixes are today, I have come to believe that current mixing techniques rely too heavily on processing, particularly in the use/abuse of compression in mastering.
John, i am with you totally, completely and utterly on that one! however, there are genres out there now which were unheard of back in the 1980's, so you need to keep up somewhat. some of these genres actually depend and exploit over-processing to achieve their delivery (kids love it!!!!!). a horse and cart is fine in some situations, and the modern internal combustion engine (ignoring social and environmental issues!) has it's place whether we like it or not?
Quote:under no circumstances do I EVER apply processing or compression of ANY kind at the mastering stage; my goal is to preserve 100% of the dynamics of the original recording.
am i to assume you don't dither? i would add that sometimes there can be too many dynamics and they need controlling in order to achieve a more balanced mix. they did this in the 1980's too. mastering is a process employed to add shine to a mix and glue all the instruments together into a cohesive performance....... you don't want to do this????????????????????
granted, these days mastering has an alternative agenda all too often - intentional distortion in order to make something appear psycho acoustically even louder than 0dBFS! i do think the Industry has gone too far and as people become more informed, the Industry will follow. it all went very wobbly from 1995 onwards, but some of the latest stuff is shocking, with sometimes only 4 or 5dB of dynamic range plus distortion on top of the hyper compression? madness!! highly fatiguing. but "Loudness Sells"; it makes sales and money talks - so far. if you are running a business, people expect the norms to prevail. if you don't want to comply with that, it's fine, but commercially you wouldn't last 2 minutes if you ignored the values expected by your target audience of a particular genre.
Quote:This was my first time mixing this type of music. The biggest challenge was balancing all those vocal tracks. I think it turned out pretty well; what do you think? ;)
i think your biggest challenge was that you didn't have a vision for this mix which took into account the needs of the genre. even the basics, like the kick? where is it?
John, i personally feel you get too caught up in the technical details and self imposed idealism which causes you to lose sight of what should be every mixing engineers goal - the maximisation of emotion by building on to the raw materials, otherwise what's the point?? i don't think you have learned how to develop emotion in your mixes. to some extent, perhaps even a large extent, your objectives are actually preventing this goal from being attained. are your objectives self-defeating?
the lack of punch and authority in the percussion, and the missing kick are examples of where i think you are falling over. someone obsessed with emotion here, would have made that kick....KICK, and not leave it buried in the mix. instead i think your "obsession"(?) was a distraction from the job at hand.
it's only a view. the goal here is to try and help you.
post up an "emotionally charged" revision if you fancy.
cheers
bigdave
(13-01-2014, 04:48 AM)pauli Wrote: leaving the vocal sample dry was an interesting choice and I think you made it work quite well.
Actually I never leave a vocal entirely dry, unless it's a spoken word part. There IS a subtle reverb there for presence, though it's designed to stay in the background.
(13-01-2014, 02:15 AM)Pedaling Prince Wrote: Having heard the crystal clean sound of CDs from the earliest days of consumer digital sound in the 80s, comparing it to the overprocessed, overcompressed mess many commercial mixes are today, I have come to believe that current mixing techniques rely too heavily on processing, particularly in the use/abuse of compression in mastering.
John, i am with you totally, completely and utterly on that one! however, there are genres out there now which were unheard of back in the 1980's, so you need to keep up somewhat. some of these genres actually depend and exploit over-processing to achieve their delivery (kids love it!!!!!).
Sure they do. But how do we know they wouldn't like a more dynamic sound better? Seems to me like no commercial engineer is willing to take the chance of exposing those kids to dynamic mixes of their favorite music and see how they actually feel about it; they just assume they wouldn't like it.
Thanks to this "loudness war" insanity, some artists and engineers aren't just pushing the envelope; they're licking it and cutting themselves on it (with apologies to Red Green ). Witness Metallica's Death Magnetic. Even their own fans were complaining about the hyper-compressed mess that album became because the engineer was trying so hard to make it "loud" and "modern." This was further exacerbated by the fact that the uncompressed versions of much of the music with the natural dynamic range intact was available as downloads for use in Guitar Hero; the fans themselves, most of whom probably wouldn't know a compressor from a garbage disposal, universally hailed the uncompressed Guitar Hero tracks as far superior in sound quality to the "commercial" mix.
All I'm saying here is that these new musical styles might benefit from an experiment in more dynamic mixing techniques. You might be surprised how receptive "the kids" would be.
(14-01-2014, 12:58 PM)The_Metallurgist Wrote:
(13-01-2014, 02:15 AM)Pedaling Prince Wrote: under no circumstances do I EVER apply processing or compression of ANY kind at the mastering stage; my goal is to preserve 100% of the dynamics of the original recording.
am i to assume you don't dither?
Well yes I do; dither is essential to smoothing out quantization errors, particularly on low-level signals. Perhaps I should clarify to say that I apply no processing at the mastering stage that CHANGES THE SHAPE OF THE SIGNAL ITSELF like compression or EQ. Those tools I use ONLY in the mixing stage to create the effects I seek in particular tracks. The way I see it, if I've done my job right then processing in the master buss shouldn't be necessary.
(14-01-2014, 12:58 PM)The_Metallurgist Wrote: i would add that sometimes there can be too many dynamics and they need controlling in order to achieve a more balanced mix. they did this in the 1980's too. mastering is a process employed to add shine to a mix and glue all the instruments together into a cohesive performance....... you don't want to do this????????????????????
Of course I do, but once again I feel that this glue and shine should be achieved during the mix not with processing at mastering.
Mixing sound is just like mixing ingredients for a cake, where the cake is the mix and the icing is the mastering. You don't put the cake in the oven until you've mixed all the ingredients properly. Granted, how much icing you put on the cake is very much a matter of personal taste; if you happen to LIKE to lay your icing on thick that's fine but too much icing can make a cake too sweet for many people. Regardless, though, if your cake doesn't taste the best it can in the first place, no amount of icing is going to make it taste better; it'll just hide a lot of your cake's flaws, and ultimately a cake whose flavor is carried by the icing is usually pretty bland.
The secret is to make a cake that would taste awesome even without any icing at all, then you only have to add a thin layer of to make it look good and for that extra zing.
This is true of me both as regards the above metaphor and literal cake: I've had cake with thick icing and enjoyed it, but the best cakes, the ones I remember, are the ones that tasted good every bite, even the bites that had no icing at all.
(14-01-2014, 12:58 PM)The_Metallurgist Wrote: granted, these days mastering has an alternative agenda all too often - intentional distortion in order to make something appear psycho acoustically even louder than 0dBFS! i do think the Industry has gone too far and as people become more informed, the Industry will follow.
Absolutely; agree 100% here.
(14-01-2014, 12:58 PM)The_Metallurgist Wrote: some of the latest stuff is shocking, with sometimes only 4 or 5dB of dynamic range plus distortion on top of the hyper compression? madness!! highly fatiguing. but "Loudness Sells"; it makes sales and money talks - so far. if you are running a business, people expect the norms to prevail. if you don't want to comply with that, it's fine, but commercially you wouldn't last 2 minutes if you ignored the values expected by your target audience of a particular genre.
Really? I'm not so sure.
I suspect that if I simply raised the monitoring level in the studio by say 6-10 dB clients would not only be satisfied with the loudness but would probably also be impressed with the clarity and expressiveness to boot. I wouldn't be surprised if, taking that approach, there would be artists that would say, "Hey! Love the way you get it so loud and still so clear and smooth!"
Now, on the other hand, I know I'll also probably get artists that actually WANT that distortion for artistic purposes. OK. If THEY want it that way, and they're depending on me to bring their vision to the world, I'll respect that and do it their way. But if they ask for MY OPINION, I'll always recommend against it.
(14-01-2014, 12:58 PM)The_Metallurgist Wrote: i think your biggest challenge was that you didn't have a vision for this mix which took into account the needs of the genre. even the basics, like the kick? where is it?
It's there, but I felt that a strong kick AND that strong bass were too much when taken together. I felt the synth bass was much more emotionally evocative than the kick so I decided to let that carry the bass line.
(14-01-2014, 12:58 PM)The_Metallurgist Wrote: John, i personally feel you get too caught up in the technical details and self imposed idealism which causes you to lose sight of what should be every mixing engineers goal - the maximisation of emotion by building on to the raw materials, otherwise what's the point?? i don't think you have learned how to develop emotion in your mixes. to some extent, perhaps even a large extent, your objectives are actually preventing this goal from being attained. are your objectives self-defeating?
On the contrary, I feel the over-reliance on processing is ROBBING music of its potential expressiveness and emotion.
Lady Gaga is an excellent example. On a TV special a few years ago I heard her voice without the processing its usually put through on her albums. For all her theatrical histrionics, the lady has a truly gorgeous voice, but you'd never know that listening to her mainstream music. Mixes of her music are compressed so hard that they average only 6 dB of dynamic range; this completely squeezes the life and expressiveness out of her voice until she ends up sounding like every other flash-in-the-pan pop artist out there.
I KNOW that Gaga could create music of heartrending emotion if only her engineers would let her voice be the star instead of squeezing it through a barrage of compressors to try to make it sound "louder" than Justin Bieber or Christina Aguilera or whoever.
DYNAMICS are the KEY to emotional expression! Witness "Stairway to Heaven," probably one of the most expressive songs of all time, which it achieves by being whisper quiet at the beginning, building to a mind-blowing crescendo, then falling back to that whisper quiet for the shiver-up-the-spine denoument the song is famous for. Would it have the same emotional resonance if it'd been put through the kind of "mastering" done to music today? No way in H-E-double-hockey-sticks.
(14-01-2014, 12:58 PM)The_Metallurgist Wrote: the lack of punch and authority in the percussion, and the missing kick are examples of where i think you are falling over. someone obsessed with emotion here, would have made that kick....KICK, and not leave it buried in the mix. instead i think your "obsession"(?) was a distraction from the job at hand.
No. Actually, truth be told, drums started out as one of my Achilles Heels when I first started learning to mix music (I already had a firm grounding in film/video audio mixing when I came into this); since this was a new genre for me I'm not surprised that old problem came back to bite me again...
I DID try the kick and percussion higher in the mix; they just felt a little too much to my ears. However, I may revisit this mix sometime (unfortunately I no longer have the original mix project, which worries me because I was sure I DID have THAT one; I may have misplaced it somewhere in the bowels of my hard drive here ). When I do, I'll pay much closer attention to the drums, particularly that kick.
Thanks for your input, and for giving me the opportunity to explain a little about how I approach this art and why.
Thanks for posting this version -- nice to hear a different approach to it, letting the raw tracks speak for themselves more. You certainly seem to have an ear for balancing, although I do agree that the drums feel like they could be fatter to me as well. However, while I have no problem with a kid gloves approach to the EQ/compression mix processing (the proof is in the listening at the end of the day), I do wonder whether you've undercooked the send effects. I'm not suggesting slathering things in reverb, but at the moment the texture simply sounds a little bit too sparse for my taste, and you've sacrificed some of the opportunities for long-term pop dynamics that send effects afford, despite the unimpeachable microdynamics. You get excellent clarity that way, sure, but I feel like I want a soup rather than a glass of water here. A few more delays, a bit more creative use of the depth perspective. At the moment it sounds a bit like you're mixing jazz, whereas this production was conceived as a kind of crossover between Ms Dynamite and Dr Dre!
Incidentally, I'm sure you'd do a great job with Jesper Buhl, or some of the Java Jive stuff -- I reckon you'd have a blast with those! Again, thanks for posting. Although emotionally your version isn't quite my cup of tea, I really enjoyed hearing right inside this multitrack with your X-ray glasses!
(15-01-2014, 07:41 AM)Mike Senior Wrote: Thanks for posting this version -- nice to hear a different approach to it, letting the raw tracks speak for themselves more.
And thanks for your comments, Mr. Senior! I've read some of the comments you've made on other tracks and I've been hoping you might comment on some of mine; I always find your comments to be immensely informative, polite and pleasant and was wondering what you might say about my work.
(15-01-2014, 07:41 AM)Mike Senior Wrote: You certainly seem to have an ear for balancing, although I do agree that the drums feel like they could be fatter to me as well.
Fair enough. I guess I was a little resistant because the last commenter to mention that, I find, is NOT so polite and fair with his comments; he tends to rub me the wrong way because the way he words things he comes off to me like he's saying my ideas aren't worth listening to. "Your advice on EQ should be discarded as far as I'm concerned," he said of one of my comments.
If/when I revisit this mix I'll keep that in mind.
(15-01-2014, 07:41 AM)Mike Senior Wrote: However, while I have no problem with a kid gloves approach to the EQ/compression mix processing (the proof is in the listening at the end of the day), I do wonder whether you've undercooked the send effects. I'm not suggesting slathering things in reverb, but at the moment the texture simply sounds a little bit too sparse for my taste, and you've sacrificed some of the opportunities for long-term pop dynamics that send effects afford, despite the unimpeachable microdynamics. You get excellent clarity that way, sure, but I feel like I want a soup rather than a glass of water here. A few more delays, a bit more creative use of the depth perspective. At the moment it sounds a bit like you're mixing jazz, whereas this production was conceived as a kind of crossover between Ms Dynamite and Dr Dre!
Well, as a general rule i tend to use reverb extremely subtly; I usually go by the rule that it should be all but inaudible in the mix. Generally, if I get it to the point where I can't hear it consciously but it feels like something is missing when i take it out I've got it right. If you know what I mean.
I'm surprised you'd recommend stronger reverb here. I've always thought hip-hop and rap sounded better with a drier sound. Mind you, I have chosen heavier, more up-front reverb effects when I felt the song called for it; I'm certainly not averse to experimenting and seeing what more pronounced reverbs would sound like on this song.
(15-01-2014, 07:41 AM)Mike Senior Wrote: Incidentally, I'm sure you'd do a great job with Jesper Buhl, or some of the Java Jive stuff -- I reckon you'd have a blast with those!
I didn't do the Jesper Buhl but I DID do ALL THREE of the Java Jives. Since you're interested in my take on those I'll go upload them to the appropriate threads right now; please feel free to have a listen and tell me what you think!
Also, since you brought it up, if I have time this weekend maybe I'll take a stab at that Jesper Buhl.
(15-01-2014, 07:41 AM)Mike Senior Wrote: Although emotionally your version isn't quite my cup of tea, I really enjoyed hearing right inside this multitrack with your X-ray glasses!
"Right inside this multitrack with your X-ray glasses." I like that. Not only because it sounds cool but also because it suggests I'm achieving the level of clarity I've been setting out to achieve.
I have quite a few other mixes on this site already, plus the Java Jives I'll be uploading shortly; I hope to get more comments from you in the future.
Original releases of both suffered from pretty severe limiting but these "audiophile" versions are mastered much more quietly (although they still have some limiting in them). Most of the "Pop" HDTracks releases aren't like this but simply 24bit versions of the limited master (and some of the HDTracks releases might be more limited than the original retail; at least Linkin Park's sophomore album Meteora is one of those). But luckily there are few "real deals" (like these two and also the rest of Green Day's albums sold there).
From time to time I visit the store for new releases and check the preview clips with a meter software to see if the release has any (extra) dynamics or not.
Also some of the (but not all) vinyl releases incorporate a different, more dynamic mastering; most famous examples (that I can think of) being RHCP's Stadium Arcadium and Daft Punk's Random Access Memories.
). Witness Metallica's Death Magnetic. Even their own fans were complaining about the hyper-compressed mess that album became because the engineer was trying so hard to make it "loud" and "modern." This was further exacerbated by the fact that the uncompressed versions of much of the music with the natural dynamic range intact was available as downloads for use in Guitar Hero; the fans themselves, most of whom probably wouldn't know a compressor from a garbage disposal, universally hailed the uncompressed Guitar Hero tracks as far superior in sound quality to the "commercial" mix.
). When I do, I'll pay much closer attention to the drums, particularly that kick.
