Dec 16, 2008 09:56 pm I'll try and give a listen tomorrow or Thursday.
having trouble with "flat" mixes
Posted on Dec 16, 2008 07:56 pm
christopherlee
Member Since: Dec 16, 2008
i have been recording for about 3 months and i can get good sounds from my mixes but one thing i constantly notice is that when i play them next to a commercial mix they sound flat and kind of far away. any help would be amazing. i know you guys hate myspace but you can listen to a few of my old mixes on www.myspace.com/theprocessrecording and im going to post my newest mix on here as soon as i can figure it out. thanks a bunch.
*edit- posted a new song on my profile on HRC.
[ Back to Top ]
Dec 16, 2008 09:56 pm I'll try and give a listen tomorrow or Thursday.
Dec 16, 2008 10:08 pm who is the black metal band, track one there?
Dec 16, 2008 11:11 pm They don't have a name yet. I just recorded them last week. But they are talented for a bunch of 17 year olds
Dec 17, 2008 12:59 am Quote:
i have been recording for about 3 months and i can get good sounds from my mixes but one thing i constantly notice is that when i play them next to a commercial mix they sound flat and kind of far away.
Touch of reality time...
Ask that question after three (or more likely, nine or ten) years --
After three months, most people barely know which end of the mic to sing into.
Assuming the photos on the page are your space (no pun intended), you're using extremely limited range, close-field, narrow dispersion, short-throw monitors that are up against a wall in a room with seemingly no acoustic treatment, doing this for three months and wondering why your recordings don't stack up to commercial recordings done with (for lack of a better term) "pro" rigs with teams of production staff with aggregate decades of experience...?
After three months, you should be doing back-flips having recordings that are even remotely listenable.
Give it some time.
Dec 17, 2008 04:49 am well thanks for the bashing, but, im not an idiot. first of all my "space" is not used for acoustic recording because im not dumb. i use automated drums and reamp the guitars. the only thing done with the mic is vocals.
i also have a better sound quality than half the other stuff i have come across from at home studios.
i wasnt asking for your elitist opinion on my workspace.
i was wondering how to better eq a mix to bring it up to commerical quality and reduce the lo fi quality i am getting.
but thanks for giving me my "reality check"
Dec 17, 2008 08:10 am now now guys, ha ha ha
only thing i can contribute at this point from my somewhat limited experience is, for me at least, was buying a decent mic pre amp. im still only breaking it in but the difference to is huge and im glad i bought it.
great for vocals and awesome for guitars and i guess anything you put thru it.
i have an interface too, but man i dont think any interface would be good enough pre wise.
if ya want some more colour and an overall bigger sound thats my suggestion.
Massive is right though, just takes time man, but ya gotta have the nuts and colour in the signal to track to get that feel in yer mix.
i was having the same prob till i got my pre.
i wouldnt get anything under a grand or there abouts.
thats Aussie dollars though.
Dec 17, 2008 11:48 am Why does everyone think I'm "bashing" them when I'm simply presenting the - or at least "a" truth?
Quote:
first of all my "space" is not used for acoustic recording because im not dumb. i use automated drums and reamp the guitars. the only thing done with the mic is vocals.
No space is more important, no gear is more important, than your monitoring chain and the room they're in. Of all the "there are no" rules in audio, there are TWO rules in audio...
1) No matter who you are, no matter how much experience you have, no matter who you have the privilege of recording, you will only ever be as good as your monitoring allows you to be, period.
2) No matter how wonderful your monitoring chain, no matter how accurate in frequency and consistent in level, no matter how quick the amplifier, no matter the quality of the drivers, your monitoring will only ever be as accurate as the room they're in, period.
What "not being dumb" has to do with it, I have no idea. But if your space isn't controlled, don't expect to control your monitors. If your monitors aren't controlled, don't expect to control your mixes. This isn't a "chicken or the egg" thing -- This is the basis for every recording. And even if your chain and space were unquestionably adequate, you've been at this for three months. This is akin to getting your license at 16 and wondering why you aren't driving in the Indy 500 at 17. Give it time.
Sidenote: I have and continue to receive projects recorded under much less than ideal conditions that sound quite good - The engineers are almost always relatively experienced (at the very least, several years of practical experience) and the core sounds are almost always quite good (again, a testament to the experience of the engineer). Or (and this is key), the engineer has little or no practical experience, but really good monitoring & a bunch of bass traps along with just enough experience to capture the sound he wants, but not enough experience to mess it up.
Quote:
i also have a better sound quality than half the other stuff i have come across from at home studios.
Yeah, I think I was eluding to that. Then you chewed me on my "elitist" (I call it "realistic") opinion on your space.
Quote:
i was wondering how to better eq a mix to bring it up to commerical quality and reduce the lo fi quality i am getting.
There are about a thousand factors at work. First and foremost are the core sounds. Drum machines and direct guitars tend to sound flat. Vocals recorded in improperly treated spaces tend to sound flat. Almost anything tracked too hot will tend to sound flat. The wrong mic can easily lead to "flat" sounding capture. Cheesy mic preamps can make almost anything sound flat and unfocused (especially if pushed too hard). Anything done in any room with an inadequate monitoring chain or inadequate broadband treatment has the potential to sound flat.
Those along with the other 900-odd factors, usually work themselves out over an extended period of time - *IF* the engineer has the inherent talent to improve. Many don't - I know plenty of recordists that have been at it for over a decade who make recordings bordering on the unlistenable. And a lot of them are fine with that - Not everyone has the capability to be an audio engineer, no matter how much they might have the want -- Just as I will never be a good visual (drawing/painting, etc.) artist. Even after a decent amount of training and the drive to be proficient, I can't even draw a decent cartoon.
Dec 17, 2008 12:21 pm Yeah, compared to some other MM posts I think that was pretty tame ;) It's just the brutal truth.
I actually thought the last line in his "bash" post was pretty positive, almost a "props" if you will.
Simply by reducing my input levels (suggested\demanded on the MM site) I have been getting much more headroom and my mixes finally sound better at louder volumes. Less harsh\muddy.
Dec 17, 2008 12:26 pm master, i wasnt trying to be a prick, you just come off very arrogant telling me i dont know which end of a mic to sing into and i should be happy my tracks are even listenable. ive been a full time musician for many years and spent my time in studios. i had a full acoustic studio at my last house i spent every day in watching the engineer. my last band was recorded by a friend who has almost the exact same setup as me and has gotten over 4 bands signed to major labels with his recordings and i speak with him regularly about recording and tips. I know its possible to achieve a better sound and grow, but i know its not in my monitors. i listen to all my mixes on the speakers, in the car, on ipod headphones. every possible place. i just dont know how to get the cloud of fog off of it. i think that preamp idea may be right.
i was reading about cutting out frequencies that clash, and i understand the concept, but im not sure how to monitor where the frequencies cross. any ideas?
i appreciate your time, i know i have so much room to grow, but in the future i think a more subtle approach to helping might make people think youre not "bashing" them.
i guess i wouldnt be so frustrated if i didnt know that i could get a MUCH better sound from the exact setup i have, because i have seen it with my own eyes at my friends place.
Dec 17, 2008 12:31 pm My first thought is not the EQing of the mix, but of each track. Now, sorry if this is beneath you but for the sake of complete concept I'll start at the beginning.
Each instrument has it's sweet spot in the mix. When EQing it can have a great impact lowering those frequencies on the other instruments in that range to let the "star" of that range shine through. Perhaps you are simply not allowing a proper mix in that capacity.
A long time ago a member wrote a GREAT article on the subject www.homerecordingconnecti...tory&id=154
It can add a lot to the overall mix.
Dec 17, 2008 12:35 pm :edit:
OK, a few of you beat me to it. I'll avoid beating a dead horse. So I'll post this instead:
I think that using a higher-quality preamp(s) will have a pretty dramatic effect on your final mix. Layer after layer, track upon track, having a nice and clean preamp will allow your mix to retain a lot of the sheen that you probably associate with commercial recordings.
Since you don't have anything listed in your gear profile, I have no idea what kinds of preamps, microphones, audio interfaces, monitors, software, or anything that you're currently using.
But in order to be able to hear the difference made by a cleaner, higher quality preamp, your monitoring setup will have to be setup for very precise control and your ears will have to be trained to identify the elements that make a recording sound like commercial releases.
Dec 17, 2008 12:47 pm Chris, I don't think he was pointing a finger at you in that regard, just stating that's the case more than not. I think that's where the "back flips" comment came in, having a listenable track when just starting is definitely not the norm. I have played music for over 20 years and none of that mattered when I started tracking.
Also, I am dumb, because I record acoustics in an untreated room, it's the only one I have :)
Now after mixing in that room for 4 years I can say I have learned some of it's nuances (along with my monitors) and now tend to burn less CD's for listening elsewhere before I end up with a "decent" mix.
We use what we have.
Dec 17, 2008 12:49 pm dB masters, in my reply i actually referenced reading that article. i understand the concept but am not aware of how to view the frequencies of each instrument like that. theres a plug in in waves that looks similar but im not sure.
and tadpui, i have my gear listed on my myspace recording site.
Dec 17, 2008 12:52 pm OK, sorry, I missed that in your reply.
Really, it's not a matter of "seeing" the actually frequency spectrum, it's more knowing the strong point of any instrument and working accordingly to hear the difference. Here is an article that gives a basic flyover of a frequency range and links to some others:
www.homerecordingconnecti...tory&id=390
Maybe that'll help
Dec 17, 2008 01:01 pm I like this one as well.
www.independentrecording....ain_display.htm
As always, don't rely on it to be exact. Just gain a basic understanding of fundamentals and the ranges that affect the instruments you will be recording.
Dec 17, 2008 01:03 pm oh, man, that's a great image reference, suitable for framing :-)
Dec 17, 2008 01:09 pm I have that underneath my giant graph of U.S. frequency allocations, right behind my monitor. I try not to stare at it.
Oh my God! My desk is in a corner! SHIIT!
I'm working on the acoustics.
Dec 17, 2008 01:15 pm Well Herb, at least your cable management is top notch :)
On the chart, I like the interactive aspect of it. Lot's of information actually.
Dec 17, 2008 01:25 pm And the Lord Herb sayeth:
Thy cables of Power shall run perpendicular to thy cables of Signal.
Too bad that doesn't apply to politics.
Dec 17, 2008 07:06 pm I'll take a picture of my cables at the moment. Actually I won't, I'd be too embarrassed.
Dec 17, 2008 09:20 pm Quote:
master, i wasnt trying to be a prick, you just come off very arrogant telling me i dont know which end of a mic to sing into and i should be happy my tracks are even listenable. (snip), etc.
Not the case - Really.
Quote:
Chris, I don't think he was pointing a finger at you in that regard, just stating that's the case more than not. I think that's where the "back flips" comment came in, having a listenable track when just starting is definitely not the norm. I have played music for over 20 years and none of that mattered when I started tracking.
The case. :-)
I wasn't saying that *you* don't know which end of a mic to sing into - I was saying that after three months, I wouldn't expect too many people to successfully complete a recording at all - Much less make one that's half decent.
I was inferring that you're ahead of the game - Not behind it. Still - Time, experience, more time, experimentation, etc., etc., etc. And tweaking your rig some certainly wouldn't hurt...
Dec 18, 2008 12:48 am thanks for the words of encouragement. i take pride in my progress and i hope to be as good as all of you one day. my budget doesnt allow for me to upgrade much of my setup but the technical mixing side can def stand to improve. i can produce til the cows come home but i need to fully understand the wave frequency side of things before my mixes will progress.
i suppose i am perplexed, exspecially regarding the preamp idea, because the friend i mentioned, mixed one of our songs where all of the tracks were recorded here, and got the sound i strive for out of the same tracks i have access too. i know he has dfh superior where i have superior drummer 2.0 which may make a difference with the drums, but i know he doesnt have a preamp and it must all me in the eq-ing and chain path in cubase.
oh well..
give me a little bit and ill figure it out.
Dec 18, 2008 10:12 am Without trying to beat a dead horse, the first thing you need to do is get your room in order. Every single sonic decision you make, from core sounds to mic placement to panning to EQ to dynamics to effects sends & returns, ringing frequencies, relative levels (and so and and so on and so on...) will be based on how well your monitoring is translating to your brain.
Gear matters to some extent - But the best engineer in the world (with the best gear in the world) is still going to be limited to how well he can hear what he's working on.
Quote:
i guess i wouldnt be so frustrated if i didnt know that i could get a MUCH better sound from the exact setup i have, because i have seen it with my own eyes at my friends place.
If your friend's place doesn't have the *exact* same floor plan, the *exact* same monitoring, the *exact* same monitoring controller, the *exact* same arrangement, then 95% of what might otherwise be "the same" is anything but similar. A $10k monitoring chain in a reasonably accurate and consistent space will perform like a $10k monitoring chain. The same chain in a typical, rectangular room with a lack of broadband absorptive materials will be a mess.
Even in your own room - Especially as it's set up right now - I can almost guarantee you that you have peaks and nulls that could exceed 35dB in certain spaces that could switch in as little as a foot or two depending on the dimensions of the room. A room I was working on once would vary 20dB on certain frequencies from one ear to the other -- A 20dB difference over eight inches. How could anyone mix in a situation like that? They can't. Granted - that was an extremely bad space (10x11x8 if I recall). A dozen broadband traps made it suck a little less, but it was still a horrible, horrible sounding room. And the most accurate spot in the room (4.2' from the short wall) left a mixing position that was so tight, so small a "sweet spot" that by the time you looked up to ponder the adjustment you had just made, the whole mix sounded different.
I know that sounds "alarmist" - But it's not at all unusual. Actually, I'd be surprised if it's not the case. It's common and "normal" (for lack of a better term) in a typical untreated space. If you wind up getting usable mixes in such a space, it's either (A) dumb luck or (B) careful measurement to find the "least offensive" spot.
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.