presenting...LimpyLoo's TIP DU JOUR!

[LimpyLoo]

I would love to know more about compression and final mix-down routines. Because your tips about EQing already gave my tracks so much more room, but somehow they are still a bit muddy.

 

First off, muddy mixes tend to have a build-up around 300-450hz. Mixes also sound muddy when they're overcompressed or when they are lacking in hi-end "presence" information (i.e. essentially 4khz and above).

 

 

 

yeh and maybe an opinion on limiting.

 

It's all a matter of trimming peaks before you get to the limiter. Use a little bit of compression to trim peaks on each individual channel. You're not trying to change the character of the sound or even noticeably alter the dynamics, but rather trim a couple db worth of peaks, which shouldn't be audibly noticeable (same goes for HPFing your individual tracks) but will make a huge difference when you go to make your track loud.

 

Then you want to do the same thing to your master channel/2-bus/mix-bus/channel-that-affects-everything. Just trim the peaks. In fact, you might run two compressors in series with light settings so that you get a natural, un-strained compression sound.

 

Then the limiter will be much friendlier to you, and you won't be squishing the guts out of your mix when you crank it.

 

 

[brian trageskin]

limpyloo:

 

 

 

[SCONES TO DIE FOR]

Good tips except I never do anything to the master bus if the track is going to be mastered by a pro.

 

I figure whatever I might do will be done better by them.

[LimpyLoo]

Good tips except I never do anything to the master bus if the track is going to be mastered by a pro.

 

I figure whatever I might do will be done better by them.

 

Yeah, if you're sending out for mastering then totally*. Most people aren't, though (I don't think).

 

*The only exception I would say is if something is crucial to the vibe of your track, like you're using over-the-top compression for character rather than pure utility. .

[ZoeB]

If you're sending your tracks out for a professional to master, then reading mastering tips is somewhat redundant. Delegate or educate, the choice is yours. :)

[granty]

P.S. if anyone has any requests I'm happy to (try to) entertain them...

 

How about how to pan various elements and using stuff like the stereo spreader? I try to move things out from the centre but end up putting it all back, which I'm pretty sure muddies my mixes too.

[Nil]

Good tips except I never do anything to the master bus if the track is going to be mastered by a pro.

 

I figure whatever I might do will be done better by them.

 

Not always true.

 

Mixing into a master buss compressor is still part of the mixing process, as long as you mix into it from the beginning.

 

Compressors aren't only utilitarian devices.

 

They can give attitude to any mix, as long as the chosen compressor (and settings) inspires you. Nobody mixes into a SSL buss compressor for its gain reduction, but for its caracter and its own particular way to generate movement into a mix.

 

Also, you'll certainly find yourself using much less compression on individual tracks.

 

But if you only see compression as a way to raise the perceived loudness of your tracks transparently then yes, mastering engineer might and will certainly do it better.

 

Most over-compressed mixes sounds like shit, but blame it on the person mixing the track, not the compressor itself.

 

Limiters are a whole different story, I avoid them like plague. I occasionally check how my mixes can react to limiting, but will never print the result.

 

 

If you're sending your tracks out for a professional to master, then reading mastering tips is somewhat redundant. Delegate or educate, the choice is yours. :)

 

I don't agree either. The more you know about mastering, the more you're likely to send the mastering engineer a mix that will benefit from his services.

[Nil]

Ps : a simple thing that improved my mixes dramatically : proper gain-structure (or gain-staging). Headroom makes everything better and easier. When it comes to digital meters, Green is good and red is bad.

 

Basically, get the most balanced ratio on every raw track between its perceived loudness (RMS, often mesured by VU meters) and its peaks. Use a VU-meter like Klanghelm VUMT, calibrate it so that its 0 equals -18dB FS (for 300ms).

 

Check on every raw track that the VU-meter's needle dances around 0 and that your peaks not exceed -9dB FS (max -6dB FS) on your DAW's meter. Repeat it for every individual raw element of your mix

 

Keep in mind though that the heavier in low frequencies the signal is (like kick drums, bass lines, drones, pads), the most important that RMS/peak ratio is.

 

For something like a snare drum, or hi-hats... anything that isn't dense/heavy in LF, or something with lots of transients, just watch the peaks and never exceed -9dB FS (-6db FS max, again).

 

Then slap VU-meters on your busses and master buss and target 0 on the VU-meters.

 

Voilà, you can start moving faders, EQing, compressing etc....

 

You'll most likely never have a single peak above -3dB FS on your master buss.

 

You'll have a healthy mix, with a great dynamic range and a great ratio between its perceived loudness and its higher peaks.

 

You'll never overload a plugin/effect anymore (yes, some softwares are calibrated for moderated levels), you'll never fight against too crowded mixes either.

 

If you're worrying that your mixes will sound quiet, record/mix in 24bit instead of 16bit.

 

Which means you'll switch from a 96dB dynamic range to 144dB of dynamic range.

 

Which means that you'll have a huge dynamic range for your mixes, even if it peaks at -10 dB FS. S/N ratio won't be an issue no more, so the volume can be raised at mastering without any damage to your mix.

 

I hope it helps.

 

edit : please ignore my previous post it's quite similar to this one but I think not as clear. It's sometilmes hard to get technical in a foreign language you know !

[ZoeB]

The more you know about mastering, the more you're likely to send the mastering engineer a mix that will benefit from his services.

 

Good point.

[Guest Lucy Faringold]

This thread is really helping me start to get a handle on this stuff (I think). I suspect putting it into action will be different story though. Thanks to everyone who's dropping knowledge.

 

If you're going to print a track at 16-bit is it still advantageous to mix at 24-bit or is that just pointless?

[Guest Adjective]

This thread is really helping me start to get a handle on this stuff (I think). I suspect putting it into action will be different story though. Thanks to everyone who's dropping knowledge.

 

If you're going to print a track at 16-bit is it still advantageous to mix at 24-bit or is that just pointless?

i think mixing and applying effects in a higher bit depth puts rounding errors well below the threshold of human hearing, or at least that's what i read on the interwebs once

[LimpyLoo]

presenting: LimpyLoo's

TIP DE JOUR #7: Random Bits of Advice

 

1) Dilla Swing = Take a normal, straight-8th's boom-bap beat (e.g. a loop of "kick kick snare kick") with constant 8th-notes on the hi-hat; take all the upbeats (1 + 2 + etc) and push them forward a 32nd-note. Take all the snares (they should be on 2 and 4) and pull them back a 32nd-note (so they hit slightly before the hat).

 

Editor's note: If you ever hear someone trying to attribute Dilla's feel to MPC swing templates or any such bullshit then immediately pick them up and throw them into outer space.

 

2) Mixing instruments in "Solo" = Unless you are fixing a technical flaw, there is little to no reason to mix an instrument in "solo." Adjust elements in the context of the song because that is the only context in which it needs to sound good.

 

3) Gain Staging = As insane as it sounds, if you mix on a computer then try having each of your instruments peaking at no higher than -20dbfs. And likewise with the master bus. This will give you an insane amount of headroom and for a couple reasons (which I can talk about if anyone would like) your mixes will likely sound markedly better.

 

4) Applications for Sidechain Compression (AKA "Ducking") = For many produces it is common practice to "duck" the bass with the kick in order to make room in the low-end for all of the various elements. But really this technique works with anything, especially in a crowded mix. For instance, I love hall reverb, but it's hard to put a huge cavernous reverb on your lead instrument or a pad in an uptempo busy mix. Unless, you have one or various elements "ducking" that reverb so that it only pokes out when there's room for it. Furthermore, "ducking" creates movement in your mix which is always a good thing.

 

5) Analog vs. Digital (part 1 of 20,000) = If you want your laptop music to sound slightly more "analog" and less "digital," then a big part of that equation lies with the high-end. If you don't want your music to sound like it was made on an iPad, then you should make it standard practice to roll off the high-end of your tracks. For starters, try a 'shelf' at 15-17Khz. If you want the sort of darkness a of Burial track, try a 'shelf' at like 12-13khz (not joking). Of course, if you're gonna roll-off that drastically then you might consider adding a resonant peak at 12khz--and perhaps a presence bump around 6-9khz to compensate.

 

X-Files then bed. Cheers.

 

-LL

[Lucas]

 

 

 

2) Mixing instruments in "Solo" = Unless you are fixing a technical flaw, there is little to no reason to mix an instrument in "solo." Adjust elements in the context of the song because that is the only context in which it needs to sound good.

 

 

 

Hmmm I agree with that but I'd insist more about the "fixing a technical flaw" part, in case I'm understanding well what you mean with that. My point is, except if the quality of the recording or the audio material within your raw track is originally very good, there are often a couple of things you can do to "balance" the sound of the source before to think consequently about the context of the main mix.

 

Also, some mixing tweaks can be extremely fine and there are chances that you won't hear much of what you're doing if the track you're working with is mixed with all the other tracks at the level you want that track to be ; or at least you need to hear the tweak alone before being able to hear it into the context of the song.

 

But I completely agree with the fact a good mix is one where some magic happens between all the tracks, making them sound as a cohesive whole ; and chances are that you won't be able to reach that point if you've been working excessively with your tracks soloed.

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

 

2) Mixing instruments in "Solo" = Unless you are fixing a technical flaw, there is little to no reason to mix an instrument in "solo." Adjust elements in the context of the song because that is the only context in which it needs to sound good.

 

 

 

Also, some mixing tweaks can be extremely fine and there are chances that you won't hear much of what you're doing if the track you're working with is mixed with all the other tracks at the level you want that track to be ; or at least you need to hear the tweak alone before being able to hear it into the context of the song.

 

.

 

If you can't hear it while it's in the mix, what good is it?

 

Seriously.

 

 

I'm not asking rhetorically.

[brian trageskin]

presenting: LimpyLoo's

 

TIP DE JOUR #7: Random Bits of Advice

 

1) Dilla Swing = Take a normal, straight-8th's boom-bap beat (e.g. a loop of "kick kick snare kick") with constant 8th-notes on the hi-hat; take all the upbeats (1 + 2 + etc) and push them forward a 32nd-note. Take all the snares (they should be on 2 and 4) and pull them back a 32nd-note (so they hit slightly before the hat).

 

Editor's note: If you ever hear someone trying to attribute Dilla's feel to MPC swing templates or any such bullshit then immediately pick them up and throw them into outer space.

 

2) Mixing instruments in "Solo" = Unless you are fixing a technical flaw, there is little to no reason to mix an instrument in "solo." Adjust elements in the context of the song because that is the only context in which it needs to sound good.

 

3) Gain Staging = As insane as it sounds, if you mix on a computer then try having each of your instruments peaking at no higher than -20dbfs. And likewise with the master bus. This will give you an insane amount of headroom and for a couple reasons (which I can talk about if anyone would like) your mixes will likely sound markedly better.

 

4) Applications for Sidechain Compression (AKA "Ducking") = For many produces it is common practice to "duck" the bass with the kick in order to make room in the low-end for all of the various elements. But really this technique works with anything, especially in a crowded mix. For instance, I love hall reverb, but it's hard to put a huge cavernous reverb on your lead instrument or a pad in an uptempo busy mix. Unless, you have one or various elements "ducking" that reverb so that it only pokes out when there's room for it. Furthermore, "ducking" creates movement in your mix which is always a good thing.

 

5) Analog vs. Digital (part 1 of 20,000) = If you want your laptop music to sound slightly more "analog" and less "digital," then a big part of that equation lies with the high-end. If you don't want your music to sound like it was made on an iPad, then you should make it standard practice to roll off the high-end of your tracks. For starters, try a 'shelf' at 15-17Khz. If you want the sort of darkness a of Burial track, try a 'shelf' at like 12-13khz (not joking). Of course, if you're gonna roll-off that drastically then you might consider adding a resonant peak at 12khz--and perhaps a presence bump around 6-9khz to compensate.

 

X-Files then bed. Cheers.

 

-LL

 

 

 

fucking A. i'll try those.

[Nil]

presenting: LimpyLoo's

 

TIP DE JOUR #7: Random Bits of Advice

 

3) Gain Staging = As insane as it sounds, if you mix on a computer then try having each of your instruments peaking at no higher than -20dbfs. And likewise with the master bus. This will give you an insane amount of headroom and for a couple reasons (which I can talk about if anyone would like) your mixes will likely sound markedly better.

 

When mixing, peaking at -20dB FS might be a bit too radical. RMS at -20dB FS with peaks at -10dB FS would make more sense. Check my previous post (#89).

On the other hand, tracking in 24bit with peaks between -20dB FS and -16dB FS might be a great idea, depending on your AD converters.

[LimpyLoo]

 

presenting: LimpyLoo's

 

TIP DE JOUR #7: Random Bits of Advice

 

3) Gain Staging = As insane as it sounds, if you mix on a computer then try having each of your instruments peaking at no higher than -20dbfs. And likewise with the master bus. This will give you an insane amount of headroom and for a couple reasons (which I can talk about if anyone would like) your mixes will likely sound markedly better.

 

When mixing, peaking at -20dB FS might be a bit too radical. RMS at -20dB FS with peaks at -10dB FS would make more sense. Check my previous post (#89).

On the other hand, tracking in 24bit with peaks between -20dB FS and -16dB FS might be a great idea, depending on your AD converters.

 

Oops, shit. I didn't mean peaking. Thanks for the correction.

[LimpyLoo]

edit: and regarding tracking I would say record at whatever suits the hardware vis-a-vis noise floors and 'pushing' tubes and transformers and playing nice with converters, as the level can obviously be changed once recorded.

[Nil]

[Lucas]

 

 

 

 

 

2) Mixing instruments in "Solo" = Unless you are fixing a technical flaw, there is little to no reason to mix an instrument in "solo." Adjust elements in the context of the song because that is the only context in which it needs to sound good.

 

 

 

Also, some mixing tweaks can be extremely fine and there are chances that you won't hear much of what you're doing if the track you're working with is mixed with all the other tracks at the level you want that track to be ; or at least you need to hear the tweak alone before being able to hear it into the context of the song.

 

.

 

If you can't hear it while it's in the mix, what good is it?

 

Seriously.

 

 

I'm not asking rhetorically.

 

Well, I think it's important to consider a mix also like a big sum of little enhancements. Of course the sound character of your song will benefit from some drastic treatments (we're talking about electronic music after all), but I think that fine tuning is more responsible for the depth of a mix. And as your thread is obviously more dedicated to beginners, I was pointing out the fact it's probably a good idea for one to double check each tweak he's making (one time alone, one time into the whole mix). I mean, it's the better way to avoid making something bad to the mix, and some effects are pretty complex and need time to be fully understood anyway (let's take compression as an example...).

 

In the other hand, the better way to learn fast is probably to make some important mistakes and to notice them afterwards ; in that regard, a direct approach like the one you're proposing is in my opinion very good, and it's probably the better way to work for the main and obvious mix tweaks.

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Mixing instruments in "Solo" = Unless you are fixing a technical flaw, there is little to no reason to mix an instrument in "solo." Adjust elements in the context of the song because that is the only context in which it needs to sound good.

 

 

 

Also, some mixing tweaks can be extremely fine and there are chances that you won't hear much of what you're doing if the track you're working with is mixed with all the other tracks at the level you want that track to be ; or at least you need to hear the tweak alone before being able to hear it into the context of the song.

 

.

 

If you can't hear it while it's in the mix, what good is it?

 

Seriously.

 

 

I'm not asking rhetorically.

 

Well, I think it's important to consider a mix also like a big sum of little enhancements. Of course the sound character of your song will benefit from some drastic treatments (we're talking about electronic music after all), but I think that fine tuning is more responsible for the depth of a mix. And as your thread is obviously more dedicated to beginners, I was pointing out the fact it's probably a good idea for one to double check each tweak he's making (one time alone, one time into the whole mix). I mean, it's the better way to avoid making something bad to the mix, and some effects are pretty complex and need time to be fully understood anyway (let's take compression as an example...).

 

In the other hand, the better way to learn fast is probably to make some important mistakes and to notice them afterwards ; in that regard, a direct approach like the one you're proposing is in my opinion very good, and it's probably the better way to work for the main and obvious mix tweaks.

Perhaps I would concede a bit and amend my original statement to read something like "large adjustments should be done in the context of the mix, wheras tiny adjustments will benefit from being solo'd."

 

I think generally speaking, though, the point stands that there is no sense in getting the fattest kick sound or the thickest lead sound in 'solo' because no-one will be listening to them in solo. In 'solo' one might be compelled to give something a nice full sound, but then you throw it into a mix and see that it takes up way to much space and it clutters the low-end and there was no point in getting it to sound good in 'solo.'

[Audioblysk]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Mixing instruments in "Solo" = Unless you are fixing a technical flaw, there is little to no reason to mix an instrument in "solo." Adjust elements in the context of the song because that is the only context in which it needs to sound good.

 

 

 

Also, some mixing tweaks can be extremely fine and there are chances that you won't hear much of what you're doing if the track you're working with is mixed with all the other tracks at the level you want that track to be ; or at least you need to hear the tweak alone before being able to hear it into the context of the song.

 

.

 

If you can't hear it while it's in the mix, what good is it?

 

Seriously.

 

 

I'm not asking rhetorically.

 

Well, I think it's important to consider a mix also like a big sum of little enhancements. Of course the sound character of your song will benefit from some drastic treatments (we're talking about electronic music after all), but I think that fine tuning is more responsible for the depth of a mix. And as your thread is obviously more dedicated to beginners, I was pointing out the fact it's probably a good idea for one to double check each tweak he's making (one time alone, one time into the whole mix). I mean, it's the better way to avoid making something bad to the mix, and some effects are pretty complex and need time to be fully understood anyway (let's take compression as an example...).

 

In the other hand, the better way to learn fast is probably to make some important mistakes and to notice them afterwards ; in that regard, a direct approach like the one you're proposing is in my opinion very good, and it's probably the better way to work for the main and obvious mix tweaks.

Perhaps I would concede a bit and amend my original statement to read something like "large adjustments should be done in the context of the mix, wheras tiny adjustments will benefit from being solo'd."

 

I think generally speaking, though, the point stands that there is no sense in getting the fattest kick sound or the thickest lead sound in 'solo' because no-one will be listening to them in solo. In 'solo' one might be compelled to give something a nice full sound, but then you throw it into a mix and see that it takes up way to much space and it clutters the low-end and there was no point in getting it to sound good in 'solo.'

^^ I agree with limpy. I have noticed if I do my EQing in the context of the song as apposed to perfecting each loop/recorded line in solo I end up with a much more balanced result. Soloing is where I will develop my effects for each track or if there is a part where it pops I will likely make those adjustments in solo, then like a delicious spongecake batter meets meringue, I fold it into the mix and adjust to the whole. Most the times I make instruments too beefy in solo to max their potential, then they muddy the mix like a happy pig.

 

Great tips, as usual man. I was wondering, do you know of any good books in reference to mixing/mastering tips?

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

Great tips, as usual man. I was wondering, do you know of any good books in reference to mixing/mastering tips?

 

I really dug Zen and the Art of Mixing.

 

It's sorta designed for rock and pop, but if you overlook that then it's a great resource.

 

 

Also David Gibson's Art of Mixing: a Visual Guide to Recording, Engineering and Production (which was also made into a post-psychadelic

).

[ZoeB]

Ha, I had that book! I didn't realise he made a video of it too...

[LimpyLoo]

Ha, I had that book! I didn't realise he made a video of it too...

 

It's life-changing. But really, beneath the 80'sness lies a great wealth of information.