Mixing opinions--I need your suggestions

KeithReynolds · Post by **KeithReynolds** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:19 pm

Hey Josh- Ive compiled quite an extensive collection of drum samples over the years, Id be more than happy to hook you up with some!

Post by **Ron** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:30 pm

KeithReynolds wrote:
Killjingle wrote: I still like to notch 50 for power.
Dont you mean Boost?? Or do you actually CUT @ 50 Hz on the kick??

Boosting a bit @ 50 Hz with a Q (bandwidth) of no more than 1 (certainly sometimes less) seems to work pretty good for metal kicks. I dont find myself doing that for other styles of music. Then again, it all depends on the kick sound to begin with I guess.
Youre certainly right though Chad, it does give it power.

A lot of times cutting @50 and below will add a lot of "power" because of speaker design. Any kind of speaker with a port will have a frequency at which it is tuned. Below that frequency the speaker driver will just flop around just like it wasn't in an enclosure. Just about any ported speaker with a driver smaller than 10" is going to be tuned in the 50-100Hz range, so having a high pass below that frequency will tighten up the response and make it hit harder, in addition to helping power handling.

KeithReynolds · Post by **KeithReynolds** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:16 pm

I assumed he was talking about the Boosting @ 50 Hz on the kick.
I learned of the "50 Hz Kick" thing on a metal production site that I think Chad is a part of too. I thought maybe he meant Boost @ 50 Hz. Maybe not.

Btw- Ron are you talking about live sound or recording?

RFBuck · Post by **RFBuck** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:29 pm

Myself, I think the guitar sounds harsh. Unless that's the sound you're going for (and it may well be), have you tried different amp & cabinet combos? Just like when we did those 2 songs, I would have never believed that cab of yours would make my amp sound like it did. Effects? Anything on the guitar, or is it dry? Maybe a touch of reverb or subtle delay...I'm a delay freak...

Killjingle · Post by **Killjingle** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:17 am

I did mean boost btw. I guess I need to learn the correct term. Thats the area I struggle in. The terminology.

Killjingle · Post by **Killjingle** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:50 am

few other things to try if u havent;

compression on the bass guitar to help fill out the uneveness of the bass track; high pass anything below 35 or 40 hz works well most of the time

high pass the overheads maybe around 600 or to taste; get rid of some of the whoosh slight boosts and cuts in the higher freq, careful with this

maybe a little verb on the drum buss; if u can sidechain so that u can high pass 250 or below so you are not getting muddy verb; dont want that...

like I said these are just tools and tips...

hicksjd9 · Post by **hicksjd9** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:02 am

Killjingle,

I'm lovin' this. Keep em comin

Keith,

Sample libraries are great. Share away!

KeithReynolds · Post by **KeithReynolds** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:58 pm

Everything Chad said are good starting points! Remember though, what works for his audio tracks might not work for yours. Different styles of music and different source material.
If you think about it, mixing is like putting together a puzzle. If you have 2 things that take up similar frequencies, you cut out of each and make them fit like a puzzle. In the end, the goal is to make an audio puzzle. Be careful not to remove any vital freqs though.
Thats where using ears comes into play. When you play around with stuff and listen to what its doing, youll have a better understanding of what works for the material youre working on.

Ill get together some samples for you. In fact, I just sliced up some samples yesterday that sound really good. Some guys just do a bunch of hits in one track and leave it like that for the people who want samples to cut them by themselves.

MeYatch · Post by **MeYatch** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:10 pm

Keith, I just read your sig, and I think you desperately need to record a jingle with it.

KeithReynolds · Post by **KeithReynolds** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:22 pm

MeYatch wrote:Keith, I just read your sig, and I think you desperately need to record a jingle with it.

good idea

Post by **Ron** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:49 pm

KeithReynolds wrote: Btw- Ron are you talking about live sound or recording?

The principles apply to both, since at some point the recording is going to be played through some type of monitor. Choosing the final reference systems to evaluate mixes is really important and often overlooked. The relationship between a recording and final playback system has always interested me.

Nice analogy about the "puzzle". Giving each instrument it's own relative space in the mix while balancing the overall mix is an art form in itself.

KeithReynolds · Post by **KeithReynolds** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:55 pm

With live sound, I find myself trying ideas that work in the studio...but I dont nearly have enough options or the ability to really do what I want.
Live, the mixer only has a few knobs per channel, and the EQ are comparable to the treble and bass knobs youd find in a car stereo. Sweepable EQ? is that the term? The Q setting is fixed, and theres no way to hit a specific frequency, just turn the knobs to the right for more highs , mids or lows. Turn the knobs left for less of the frequencies. I wish we could run everything through a computer and mix from there! More freedom and able to run more effects instead of just 2 for the entire thing. Also, it would be cool to save the mix session templates for bands, so when they play there again, they will have the same sound they want. Aldo's would have TRULY unique sound and really stand apart id think.

Ron- The "puzzle analogy" is the best way I can describe the mixing process.

Some sessions are REALLY difficult and its much harder to make it sound like a unified masterpiece. Its almost like being on the frontlines during war. Everytime you do something or advance, something else comes along and flanks you from the side...then you gotta deal with that. Its a constant checks and balances thing. It can get very frustrating and I think audio engineers are extremely resilient people. Not much about the field is "easy". Not to mention, having to keep learning new things while trying to master previous things. Im sure the guys can agree, it can be a pain in the ass.

MeYatch · Post by **MeYatch** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:38 pm

KeithReynolds wrote:Live, the mixer only has a few knobs per channel, and the EQ are comparable to the treble and bass knobs youd find in a car stereo. Sweepable EQ? is that the term? The Q setting is fixed, and theres no way to hit a specific frequency, just turn the knobs to the right for more highs , mids or lows. Turn the knobs left for less of the frequencies.

The Yamaha board you have at aldo's has a semi-parametric mid control. You can control the frequency center of the mid knob, but not the wide-ness of its EQ range, which is what "Q" is.

I wish we could run everything through a computer and mix from there! More freedom and able to run more effects instead of just 2 for the entire thing. Also, it would be cool to save the mix session templates for bands, so when they play there again, they will have the same sound they want. Aldo's would have TRULY unique sound and really stand apart id think.

I'm sure you could do those things, if aldo's bought the equipment. I don't know of any computer based live sound interfaces, but I would imagine you could do it with the same stuff you use to record, with sufficient processing power.

I have seen digital boards with memory functions though.

Killjingle · Post by **Killjingle** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:39 pm

agreed. these are reference points but I would say any hard rock or metal project I was about to mix would contain most elements.

Killjingle · Post by **Killjingle** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:42 pm

when I run live sound on someone elses board I make sure there are inserts; because I want the ability to insert a compressor or eq. 3 knobs does not give u a whole lot of control over needy instruments like kicks or vocalists who have no control over their poor mic technique.

KeithReynolds · Post by **KeithReynolds** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:51 pm

MeYatch wrote:but not the wide-ness of its EQ range, which is what "Q" is.

yeah thats what im saying id like to have... the ability to change the wideness of the eq band im changing. i normally dont use a big Q. the most ever is 1. usually its .5 - .75 or even smaller for surgical things. Not live, but with studio mixing.

A computer-based Live sound mixing station would be killer and certainly 100% possible to do. Even just a laptop and a couple 8 channel interfaces.

Post by **Ron** » Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:25 pm

KeithReynolds wrote:A computer-based Live sound mixing station would be killer and certainly 100% possible to do. Even just a laptop and a couple 8 channel interfaces.

I think that I would absolutely hate trying to mix live from a laptop. In a live situation things can happen fast and being able to physically grab a slider or turn a knob becomes "automatic".
Having to use a mouse to move a slider on a GUI or hit keyboard keys to adjust levels up and down would drive me insane (more than I already am), and you would not be able to adjust more than one control at the same time, which I do a lot when I'm mixing. I also wouldn't be happy with the entire mix relying on an 1/8" laptop headphone jack.

The old Soundtrak mixer that used to be at Aldo's didn't have a Q control, but did have dual sweepable mids.

KeithReynolds · Post by **KeithReynolds** » Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:03 pm

For a serious computer-based live sound rig, it would be better with a couple control surfaces for the faders. youre certainly right about needing those for live! it would totally suck without faders.
With interfaces, the outs of the laptop would be void. You'd have however many outs are on the interface. the headphone jack wouldnt ever be used.