06-05-2014, 04:14 PM
yeah, the analyzers are tricky, but they really are useful, especially if you're in an untreated room like I am... if you check against your mix references and they sound similar in balance terms but look radically different on a spectrogram (especially from 150 Hz on down) then it's possible there's an issue that your speakers/room isn't reproducing. And as far as compression goes, it's far to easy to keep upping the ratio or dipping the threshold as you get used to the way it sounds after processing... there have been times where I was doing exactly that and I was fistpumping thinking YEEEEEAAAHHH.... only to listen to it the following morning and find a creamy congested mess 
so having a visual reference is helpful when you get about 4 hours in and your objectivity is suspect.
being old school is cool and it's also cool to limit yourself in the beginning to force yourself to rely mainly on EQ and compression, as well you should, but simpler technology is NOT why the old mixes sound better... the quality of the music to begin with was oftentimes better, and for much of the analog era, you couldn't even "rip" a record to tape... the only way to steal music was to take a chance shoplifting at the local record store. Producers knew that in order for their music to sell, they had to produce quality music by talented artists to be mixed by talented engineers. Our technology today is capable of MORE dynamic range, higher fidelity, and in short, better mixes. unfortunately, it's now very easy and very common to steal music on the internet, so studio budgets have gone from virtually limitless to hog slop, and today's mixes just aren't give the same TLC as before... so don't be afraid of the technology- even a 100 dollar digital converter is capable of a higher fidelity than even the best tape system of yore... it's the production values that have gotten worse. Do things the old school way... take your time and get it RIGHT at the mix so you don't have to compress/limit it all to hell at mastering, but don't be afraid to use modern tools to make it even better!
</soap box>
And if you have any questions, SOMEONE here at the forum will be able to help Good bunch of folks here
so having a visual reference is helpful when you get about 4 hours in and your objectivity is suspect.being old school is cool and it's also cool to limit yourself in the beginning to force yourself to rely mainly on EQ and compression, as well you should, but simpler technology is NOT why the old mixes sound better... the quality of the music to begin with was oftentimes better, and for much of the analog era, you couldn't even "rip" a record to tape... the only way to steal music was to take a chance shoplifting at the local record store. Producers knew that in order for their music to sell, they had to produce quality music by talented artists to be mixed by talented engineers. Our technology today is capable of MORE dynamic range, higher fidelity, and in short, better mixes. unfortunately, it's now very easy and very common to steal music on the internet, so studio budgets have gone from virtually limitless to hog slop, and today's mixes just aren't give the same TLC as before... so don't be afraid of the technology- even a 100 dollar digital converter is capable of a higher fidelity than even the best tape system of yore... it's the production values that have gotten worse. Do things the old school way... take your time and get it RIGHT at the mix so you don't have to compress/limit it all to hell at mastering, but don't be afraid to use modern tools to make it even better!
</soap box>
And if you have any questions, SOMEONE here at the forum will be able to help
Good bunch of folks here
I'm grateful for comments and suggestions. Thank you for listening!