my experience
So yeah. At my church* the Technical Arts department is doing training on us paid volunteers (don’t ask) to teach us how to run the sound board so we can run the boards for all the millions of events they have throughout the week. So this week was mix training. It was training on how to get the “Gateway Sound®” (We kept laughing because that is the phrase the sound guy kept using, and it brought that image of the ® symbol at the end into our minds every time). So here is what he told me. Most of the stuff I knew. Some I didn’t. And some went right in the face of stuff I have been told/believe about mixing. We were mixing on their new PT console they just spent 100K on, so the applications to recording are self evident. First, what I learned:
1) mixing acoustic guitars in a mix of varied other instruments is just plain difficult.
2) the best way of accomplishing this is to turn the highs up so that they stick out in the mix. They will sound fuller w/the other instruments underneath them.
3) Try to keep the kick and bass at about the same volume and filling the same space, because they play together.
4) w/multiple backup vocal tracks in parts: seperate the parts where one alto is left, one is right, etc. so you get a full stereo image.
What I already knew:
1) carve holes in the mix so stuff will stand out.
2) basics on where to turn stuff up/down to get the best sound
3) a bunch of other stuff, but I don’t want to list all of it for you. Basically all of the other basic recording stuff we learn.
What he did I thought was odd:
1) turned the mix up loud when mixing. I guess it was so he could “feel the bass” or something, maybe. 
2) eqed while soloed. Part of it was to show us what he was doing better, but I have seen him mix before, and that is how he usually does it. Now, he had the whole mix in mind, but he set it soloed, and then tweeked everything in the full mix. odd.
3) hard panned. He said he always hard pans in the studio. Sometimes live he wouldn’t but always does in the studio. Odd.
so, comments?
fish
* http://www.gatewaypeople.com/
hey man nice post some of it i just learned now from you. KEEP ‘EM COMMIN’…
peace…
turned the mix up loud when mixing
mmm, i have usually heard (Mac) that is better to mix wìth quiet volumes (same level that a conversation). In my case it was true, since at louder levels some things become masked, and i lost the whole perspective.
mmm, i have usually heard (Mac) that is better to mix wìth quiet volumes (same level that a conversation). In my case it was true, since at louder levels some things become masked, and i lost the whole perspective.
differences in volume produce differences in perceived frequency response. things that work for one may not work for another, but it seems safer to learn to mix at moderate volume. EQing when soloed? I suppose the fellow already had a good idea of how the changed EQ would work in the mix? Hard panning sounds like a stylistic choice.
Um, what is the “Gateway sound” - something to do with gateway computers? Oh, I see, that has something to do with your church. Your church has a technical arts department? With a 100K protools outfit? I gotta look at that link.
yep. We have a Technical Arts Department. And a Graphic Arts Department, and a Production Services department. about $150K on projectors alone. Over a million bucks in IMAG/TV prodution equipment. 2 Yamaha boards, including a pm1d for the monitors (that way we get 24 stereo in-ear mixes for the band) and I believe it is a DM2000 for the FOH. Oh, and 124 channels being split 3 ways, going to the monitor board, FOH board, and the PT setup with all the lovely analog pres. About 10 octpres, about 5 red quads, and two Athalons. Not including the 2 athalons used in live, along with a few other toys I don’t remember.
Oh, and Gateway Sound® is just a joke refering to getting the sound to sound right for how it sounds at Gateway. Not Nessarily your prefered mix, but the right one for Gateway to not be distracting.
fish
1) turned the mix up loud when mixing. I guess it was so he could "feel the bass" or something, maybe.
It's far better to use an amp with a "loudness" switch (turned on), and do MIXING at low levels, and occasionally CHECK the mix at loud levels. Mixing loud is a recipe for disaster. If you do that, be sure to take frequent quiet breaks, or you'll be mixing with ear fatigue.
The frequency response of the ear varies with volume. Therefore, one should use a standard ideal volume for all mixing. OR, just use that darn "loudness" switch (duh!) For more info, see google up "Fletcher Munson".
However, frequency response of the ear also varies greatly with ear fatigue, and the results are far less predictable and compensatable than the Fletcher Munson effect. Ergo, it's far better to compensate for volume and avoid ear fatigue.
There are a number of other reasons to mix while listening at low levels. Ask if you'd like to hear.
2) eqed while soloed. Part of it was to show us what he was doing better, but I have seen him mix before, and that is how he usually does it. Now, he had the whole mix in mind, but he set it soloed, and then tweeked everything in the full mix. odd.
LEARN about EQ while solo. But, in general, adjustments to any parameters for a track should be done listening to the whole mix, for the simple reason that it needs to sound good in the mix. How it sounds by itself is totally unimportant.
As usual, there are exceptions. It's good to check a track listening to it solo. If there's rumble or hiss or any kind of nastiness that you know you don't want, feel free to solo while notching that out, because you can hear the problem better that way.
3) hard panned. He said he always hard pans in the studio. Sometimes live he wouldn't but always does in the studio. Odd.
I would hate this guy's mixes. He's an idiot. He probably knows some good stuff: learn the good stuff and learn what to ignore by using your own judgement (and experimenting with his suggestions, even the "bad" ones).
I listen a lot in headphones. Hard-panned sounds good when properly balanced, especially when it's a duplicate or almost duplicate part. There are other cases too: similar sounding instruments. But hard-panning in general, without any caveats ...
Hard panning for some instruments can sound very good when played on speakers in a stereo in a nice live room (like one with wood floors, playing acoustic music). An example of this is Norah Jones's first CD, which won a bunch of Grammies, so it can't be all bad. However, the folks voting don't know shinola about engineering, so the engineering awards are often laughable. This is one case. There is some stellar engineering in that CD, but overall it doesn't deserve "Best". For example, listen to the VERY FIRST WORD she sings on the album. Terrible clipping. Gee, that's stellar work, right? Try listening to that CD in headphones. Very annoying, due to oversimplistic imaging techniques (hard panning of mono tracks).
I think one reason that CD got the engineering award is that they didn't overprocess the material, and folks are so sick of overprocessed goop that it sounded fresh and original. But it's really not stellar work!
There's a lot to imaging. Panning is only the first step, and panning alone is WAY not enough unless there are a lot of instruments/voices in the mix. Panning with mild stereo reverb (with more early reflections, less tails) is a great imaging technique, often overlooked. Pitch shift doubling is a great technique, but doesn't work well in software (at least, at 44kHz rate -- might work well at 96k or 192k.) Comb filters are fun, when used properly and sparingly. Delays are the most popular technique, and as such tend to be over used. The most common version being duplicating the track, panning full apart, and sliding one track. This is no different than a stereo delay with no delay on one side and a slight delay on the other.
Well, there's my $0.02. You get straight A's on the test, though. Apparently you learned stuff you've been hearing hear very well. I completely agree with your categorization of the things he said that are questionable.
Er, yes -- acoustic guitars can be hard to mix. So can electric guitars. So can voice. So can ... I think many folks expect too much sizzle from them. They rarely sound in life like they do on so many recordings. That's fine, but I prefer a natural sound most of the time.
It's far better to use an amp with a "loudness" switch (turned on), and do MIXING at low levels, and occasionally CHECK the mix at loud levels. Mixing loud is a recipe for disaster. If you do that, be sure to take frequent quiet breaks, or you'll be mixing with ear fatigue.
The frequency response of the ear varies with volume. Therefore, one should use a standard ideal volume for all mixing. OR, just use that darn "loudness" switch (duh!) For more info, see google up "Fletcher Munson".
However, frequency response of the ear also varies greatly with ear fatigue, and the results are far less predictable and compensatable than the Fletcher Munson effect. Ergo, it's far better to compensate for volume and avoid ear fatigue.
There are a number of other reasons to mix while listening at low levels. Ask if you'd like to hear.
2) eqed while soloed. Part of it was to show us what he was doing better, but I have seen him mix before, and that is how he usually does it. Now, he had the whole mix in mind, but he set it soloed, and then tweeked everything in the full mix. odd.
LEARN about EQ while solo. But, in general, adjustments to any parameters for a track should be done listening to the whole mix, for the simple reason that it needs to sound good in the mix. How it sounds by itself is totally unimportant.
As usual, there are exceptions. It's good to check a track listening to it solo. If there's rumble or hiss or any kind of nastiness that you know you don't want, feel free to solo while notching that out, because you can hear the problem better that way.
3) hard panned. He said he always hard pans in the studio. Sometimes live he wouldn't but always does in the studio. Odd.
I would hate this guy's mixes. He's an idiot. He probably knows some good stuff: learn the good stuff and learn what to ignore by using your own judgement (and experimenting with his suggestions, even the "bad" ones).
I listen a lot in headphones. Hard-panned sounds good when properly balanced, especially when it's a duplicate or almost duplicate part. There are other cases too: similar sounding instruments. But hard-panning in general, without any caveats ...
Hard panning for some instruments can sound very good when played on speakers in a stereo in a nice live room (like one with wood floors, playing acoustic music). An example of this is Norah Jones's first CD, which won a bunch of Grammies, so it can't be all bad. However, the folks voting don't know shinola about engineering, so the engineering awards are often laughable. This is one case. There is some stellar engineering in that CD, but overall it doesn't deserve "Best". For example, listen to the VERY FIRST WORD she sings on the album. Terrible clipping. Gee, that's stellar work, right? Try listening to that CD in headphones. Very annoying, due to oversimplistic imaging techniques (hard panning of mono tracks).
I think one reason that CD got the engineering award is that they didn't overprocess the material, and folks are so sick of overprocessed goop that it sounded fresh and original. But it's really not stellar work!
There's a lot to imaging. Panning is only the first step, and panning alone is WAY not enough unless there are a lot of instruments/voices in the mix. Panning with mild stereo reverb (with more early reflections, less tails) is a great imaging technique, often overlooked. Pitch shift doubling is a great technique, but doesn't work well in software (at least, at 44kHz rate -- might work well at 96k or 192k.) Comb filters are fun, when used properly and sparingly. Delays are the most popular technique, and as such tend to be over used. The most common version being duplicating the track, panning full apart, and sliding one track. This is no different than a stereo delay with no delay on one side and a slight delay on the other.
Well, there's my $0.02. You get straight A's on the test, though. Apparently you learned stuff you've been hearing hear very well. I completely agree with your categorization of the things he said that are questionable.
Er, yes -- acoustic guitars can be hard to mix. So can electric guitars. So can voice. So can ... I think many folks expect too much sizzle from them. They rarely sound in life like they do on so many recordings. That's fine, but I prefer a natural sound most of the time.
Actually, it’s stupid to say “mix loud” unless he gave you a specific loud volume to use.
If he said “mix with the volume at about 87 dB SPL©”, then he has an excellent point, though still you have to contend with ear fatigue.
When doing a “real” mix, I usually keep it pretty low, sometimes almost inaudible… I’ve heard that the last thing you should hear as you turn the volume down is the vocals and the snare drum.
-John
…
…
| Quote (nergle @ Jan. 31 2005,12:54) |
| When doing a "real" mix, I usually keep it pretty low, sometimes almost inaudible... |
When I mix my own stuff, I find totally inaudible seems to be about best.
Ali
Or not, maybe you can start a project called "The sound of your imagination": if you dont like it, it´s your problem!
Ali, don’t censor yourself. BTW, I’m not nessesarily proud of how much money my church spends on audio gear. seems to me like it could be spent better other ways, like mission work and stuff. But it is nice to have around and fun to play with! 
and marce, that sounds like a good idea. a whole CD of silence. Actually, I think someone has done a track like that before. I’m sure someone has.
fish
John Cale.
John Cage?
I am convinced that when it comes to mixing less is best, less is more. Naturally it can be the other way because you can make mixing a very creative component of the proccess of getting music recorded and mastered if you want to, however…It’s as subjective an aspect of the art of music as any other when it boils down to it.
I am scared by mixing because there is the potential to enhance, but also to (and mainly this happens) destroy the music recorded already. For several reasons.
1/ If musicians who made the music are doing the mix, it’s very hard for them to be objective, and yet they may have the best feeling for what is required for their own material.
2/ If someone else does the mix, it’s like they have a need to “contribute” to the already recorded performances, can be great, can be a disaster.
3/ Whatever rules people say there are to making a mix must be taken with a grain of salt because like all other creative adventures, rules are there only to be broken, for the better sometimes.
Last time I entered the debate about mixing I got my head kicked, but, it’s one topic which has such a huge impact on lots of the music we all hear that it is hard to stay out of such conversations.
regards
…
| Quote (nergle @ Jan. 31 2005,19:32) |
But, as all I've got is a badly used voice box, arthritic fingers, and n-track, perhaps not!  Ali |
Sounds like "Blues" recipe to me!
TG
3/ Whatever rules people say there are to making a mix must be taken with a grain of salt because like all other creative adventures, rules are there only to be broken, for the better sometimes.
The first rule about art is the rule about rules: "Understand the rule, so you know when you're breaking it and why."
And then, of course, there's the last rule about art, another rule about rules: "Disregard all the above!" However, this rule only tends to work well for geniuses.
The first rule about art is the rule about rules: "Understand the rule, so you know when you're breaking it and why."
And then, of course, there's the last rule about art, another rule about rules: "Disregard all the above!" However, this rule only tends to work well for geniuses.
learjeff, is that last one akin to “Get your own #### rules!” ?