Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
About This Multitrack
#1
You can find the multitrack files for this project in the 'Mixing Secrets' Free Multitrack Download Library.

Before posting a mix, please read The Three Commandments!
Please post your mix as a new thread, rather than as a reply to this sticky.

Here's some more project info you might find useful:
  • About The Raw Multitracks: This is a vocal-led jazz-style production based around a live full-band take I recorded on location in the function room of a former guesthouse. For full details of the recording techniques used, check out this extensive resources page:
    To summarise that in a few bullet-points, however:
    • All the tracks in the project were recorded at once, with no overdubs. Drums, upright bass, grand piano, and tenor saxophone were set up in the main room, with the lead vocalist separated in a makeshift isolation area.
    • The tracks comprise: close mics for kick and snare; stereo drum overheads; stereo submix of three close tom mics; bass close mic and DI; saxophone close mic; vocal close mic.
    • Note that the toms weren't actually played in this particular song, so the toms submix contains only spill from other instruments.
    • After the recording session I did a little timing/tuning editing to the lead vocal. I've uploaded the edited version.
  • Challenges You're Likely To Face:
    • There's a lot of spill on all the live-take mics, which means you don't get as much independent control over the sounds as you might expect from a primarily overdubbed production. Phase-relationships are also critical in this context.
    • As usual with these kinds of recordings, low-frequency spill accumulates more than high-frequency spill (which travels less readily and is more easily obstructed by physical objects), so you'll probably need to do a little processing to keep the low end clear.
    • Close-miking by its nature tends to emphasise mechanical noises, especially when you're using condenser mics, which usually have a built-in on-axis HF boost.
    • The saxophone spill on the bass and snare mics may require a little reduction if you want to bring that instrument more upfront for its solos.
    • Both kick drum and bass tracks are a bit heavy in the sub-100Hz region -- a misjudgement likely caused by the vagaries of the inevitably untreated control-room acoustics on location. In addition, the upright bass instrument has a bit of an uncontrolled resonance around 78Hz, which makes the musical line a little uneven at times.
    • The lead vocal was compressed a touch too much while recording, which has overemphasised the singer's sibilance.
    • Because the lead vocal doesn't generate any spill on any of the other mics, it won't naturally blend with them without artificial assistance at mixdown.
  • Some Mixing Tips:
    • In general, this multitrack was recorded the way the band wanted it to sound, so one of the biggest dangers at mixdown is overprocessing. If you concentrate on the balancing, panning, and phase relationships in the first instance, you'll find that 80% of a final mix sound will emerge of its own accord.
    • High-pass filtering will be useful for removing unwanted LF spill, and things like low-pass filtering and transient reduction can help de-emphasise any overobtrusive mechanical noises.
    • Don't mute the tom mics out of hand without listening to how their spill affects the sound of the ensemble as a whole.
    • The saxophone is very dynamic, so will probably benefit from some moderate compression. In general, though, fader automation is a much more appropriate means of moment-to-moment balance management in this style of music, so expect to do plenty of that.
    • Rebalancing the bass mic and DI signals during the sax solo will help bring the lead instrument forward in the depth perspective. You could also expand/gate the snare track.
    • A single band of dynamic EQ works quite well for evening out the bass resonance.
    • To blend the lead vocal, I'd suggest some short ambience reverb, if possible quite closely matched to the sound of the recording room. You may also want to add further reverb(s) to make the venue sound more expensive or to enhance sustain/warmth in general.

If you have any other general questions about this multitrack, just reply to this post and I'll see what I can do.
Reply
#2
[Pauli posted a general question about this multitrack in a separate thread, but I've decided to answer it here so all this kind of information stays in one place -- Mike S.]

pauli Wrote:Anyone have any tips on handling phasing in a fully multi-miked mix like this? I'm wondering what your priorities are in settling on phase relationships and where you're willing to make sonic sacrifices for benefits elsewhere.

Well, you can get very heavily in-depth with tweaking phase-relationships these days, what with sample delays and phase-rotators both being pretty common currency in most DAWs. However, I don't personally think you need do anything more than experiment with your polarity buttons in this instance. It's also worth mentioning that I always check polarities while recording, so the default polarity relationship of the tracks is the one we used for the rough mixes during tracking -- and which survived to my final mix as well, I seem to remember.

A few additional bits of advice, though:
  • Start your mix with the tracks which have the most spill, because that'll make the effect of the polarity switches more readily audible.
  • Don't just listen to the instrument whose mic you're polarity-switching. Because of all the spill, changing the polarity/phase-relationship between the mics has the potential to change any/all sounds in the mix.
  • Choose you polarity setting with the mix balance roughly where you want it, because the relative levels of mics affect the strength of any comb-filtering between the mics.
  • Remember that some mix processing (EQ in particular) will affect a sound's phase response, so it's sometimes worth double-checking your polarity settings after adding any other processing.

pauli Wrote:Big snag I keep hitting is loudness bias... lots of the time I'll invert polarity or fiddle with a phase rotator, and the phase summation makes it louder, but not always more appealing in retrospect. Seems like a lot of the time the louder phase correlations also sound really "loose" or uncontrolled with fresh ears... full tone, but also a little unmanageable. Anyone have any tips on that score?

This is a really interesting question, and once I've not had before. You're right that fighting loudness bias is a constant challenge while mixing, but this is one case where increased loudness is often an indicator of a better polarity-match, so I wouldn't worry too much about it here, beyond keeping the question in your mind. If you suspect that loudness bias is affecting your decision making, then duplicate the track in question, invert the duplicate, level-match the duplicate, and then switch between the inverted and uninverted tracks.

One word of caution, though. One of the reasons you have close mics in an ensemble recording is so that you get some independent level control over different instruments. If you choose a close-mic polarity setting that achieves a timbre for its instrument which relies on cancelling (rather than reinforcing) the sound of that instrument's spill on other mics, then its usefulness for balancing will likely be reduced -- you might even find that fading the mic up will actually push the instrument backwards in mix! I'm not about to cast scorn on that approach, because the end justifies the means, but it's as well to be aware that it's possible to make a rod for your own back in this way if you're not careful.

Hope that makes sense! Talking about phase and spill in multimiked ensemble recordings can be quite complicated... Smile

Reply