Am I over layering my sounds??

[Fletchur]

Hey there, I'm pretty new to production, been doing it about 4 months now. When I first started people said I should layer my sounds to make it sound bigger. Now I'm at a point where I'm thinking its making my mix's muddy and quiter than a more minimal mix. Just wondering how many times you would layer a sound, for example a synth melody, would you have 2 more synths doing the same thing or more or less? I know these are nooby questions but just wanting some general feedback on this.

Heres my newest track, I'm partially happy with the sounds but I've been told the mix is muddy. I have quite a few layers going on, should I remove some and try and eq the reamaining better?

And another thing, I struggle to compress my mixes without brickwalling them. Its like there is hardly any dynamic range in the first place, without compression the mix is already pretty sausasgy. Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this?

Soundcloud

[mthrfnk]

Hey there, I'm pretty new to production, been doing it about 4 months now. When I first started people said I should layer my sounds to make it sound bigger. Now I'm at a point where I'm thinking its making my mix's muddy and quiter than a more minimal mix. Just wondering how many times you would layer a sound, for example a synth melody, would you have 2 more synths doing the same thing or more or less? I know these are nooby questions but just wanting some general feedback on this.

Heres my newest track, I'm partially happy with the sounds but I've been told the mix is muddy. I have quite a few layers going on, should I remove some and try and eq the reamaining better?

And another thing, I struggle to compress my mixes without brickwalling them. Its like there is hardly any dynamic range in the first place, without compression the mix is already pretty sausasgy. Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this?

Soundcloud

Layering is fine, I layer lots stuff all the time. Just make sure you're EQ'ing stuff to keep the mix clear - maybe even over-EQ stuff and if you find the end product is too thin then tone back the EQ. If your mixes have no dynamic range, then give them dynamic range, turn everything down and mix down lower. The you can play with compression/limiting. Just by layering stuff and compressing it won't immediately be "fatter" and better - you could layer 2 sine waves at C5 and C6 and compress them and they'll still sound shit and monotonal. First off try improve what you're doing in your synth, then try saturating things, EQing them together, palying with panning, mixing the volumes right and then if needed: glueing them with compression.

From your track in your sig, it sounds like you have a lot of sounds loud and you don't have much dynamic automation - sweep volumes and filter things in, and turn everything down. The result is that everything is overpowering everything else and when your hammering the drums the whole mix is horribly pumpy (perhaps overcompressed). A lot of your sounds are targeting very specific frequency ranges too, for example the midrange saw basses and then the high end synths - try filling in the areas around these for a "louder" effect. It also sounds like there's no common sub bass, or it's very quiet - work that into your mixes too.

[Fletchur]

Hey there, I'm pretty new to production, been doing it about 4 months now. When I first started people said I should layer my sounds to make it sound bigger. Now I'm at a point where I'm thinking its making my mix's muddy and quiter than a more minimal mix. Just wondering how many times you would layer a sound, for example a synth melody, would you have 2 more synths doing the same thing or more or less? I know these are nooby questions but just wanting some general feedback on this.

Heres my newest track, I'm partially happy with the sounds but I've been told the mix is muddy. I have quite a few layers going on, should I remove some and try and eq the reamaining better?

And another thing, I struggle to compress my mixes without brickwalling them. Its like there is hardly any dynamic range in the first place, without compression the mix is already pretty sausasgy. Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this?

Soundcloud

Layering is fine, I layer lots stuff all the time. Just make sure you're EQ'ing stuff to keep the mix clear - maybe even over-EQ stuff and if you find the end product is too thin then tone back the EQ. If your mixes have no dynamic range, then give them dynamic range, turn everything down and mix down lower. The you can play with compression/limiting. Just by layering stuff and compressing it won't immediately be "fatter" and better - you could layer 2 sine waves at C5 and C6 and compress them and they'll still sound shit and monotonal. First off try improve what you're doing in your synth, then try saturating things, EQing them together, palying with panning, mixing the volumes right and then if needed: glueing them with compression.

From your track in your sig, it sounds like you have a lot of sounds loud and you don't have much dynamic automation - sweep volumes and filter things in, and turn everything down. The result is that everything is overpowering everything else and when your hammering the drums the whole mix is horribly pumpy (perhaps overcompressed). A lot of your sounds are targeting very specific frequency ranges too, for example the midrange saw basses and then the high end synths - try filling in the areas around these for a "louder" effect. It also sounds like there's no common sub bass, or it's very quiet - work that into your mixes too.

Thank you for the reply man.

I think I probably am guilty of turning everything up, I'm not sure how to make one sound stand out without it being equal volume to the next though. You said I'm equing at specific frequencies, I think I did this to give everything a place. Like if I eq'd a synth quite widely then where would the second synth go? If that makes sense? I have some confusion also, I have not applied compression to this track so I'm not sure why its sounding over compressed. To me it does not match the volume level of any pro mix.

What will the advantages be of mixing down lower, when I compress it in the end wont that just in turn be turning the overall volume up which could have been up in the first place??

Sorry if that does not sound clear. I'm new to all this and find it quite confusing haha

[mthrfnk]

I think I probably am guilty of turning everything up, I'm not sure how to make one sound stand out without it being equal volume to the next though. You said I'm equing at specific frequencies, I think I did this to give everything a place. Like if I eq'd a synth quite widely then where would the second synth go? If that makes sense? I have some confusion also, I have not applied compression to this track so I'm not sure why its sounding over compressed. To me it does not match the volume level of any pro mix.

What will the advantages be of mixing down lower, when I compress it in the end wont that just in turn be turning the overall volume up which could have been up in the first place??

Sorry if that does not sound clear. I'm new to all this and find it quite confusing haha

Everything sounds to have a place, but perhaps too much. If you listen to a commercial EDM track you can hear the elements e.g. chords, lead, bass but they also tend to bleed together and create a "wall of sound" that sounds loud and impactful. This is a tricky thing to nail imo, and I'm still trying. Like I mentioned in my post, I layer/eq/compress/saturate to keep adding "thickness" to the sounds whilst trying to get everything sitting nicely.

I was guessing that the track might have been compressed just because of how it was pumping at the build up - sometimes when you overcompress the sound will start to pump badly. I'm guessing it was actually sidechaining or something?

The advantages of mixing lower are numerous (there's a mixdown thread on the forum with golden tips). The short point is, mix everything lower and you can ensure everything has it's place and you can retain loads of headroom, then when it comes to mastering you can use this headroom in processes such as limiting. As an example check the track in my sig (Sobriquet) - I started with almost every element around -12dB or lower in my mixer, ended up with a final mix at around -4dB and then "mastered" it and ended up with a decently loud and clear (I hope), track at -0.3dB - meaning it's quite loud but you can hear everything. I'm not great at explaining this stuff as it can be quite technical and I'm sure someone will chip in a pull me up on something if I posted it wrong. But yeah check out the threads here.

[Turnipish_Thoughts]

When I first started people said I should layer my sounds to make it sound bigger.

Advice can be dangerous because it depends on the ears hearing it, I don't mean any offense by that. The problem is with words like 'bigger'. They're very subjective and on the other hand require a substantially developed critical ear to understand what 'bigger' could potentially translate in to in terms of sound design. This also requires an understanding of sound as a science and how that transfers musically / psychoacoustically in to a collection of those subjective terms like 'punchy', 'phat', 'full' e.t.c.

It's ok saying 'layer your sounds, it'll make things sound bigger', but it's like telling a student cook, "use Olive Oil, it'll make your food taste better." the statement is an extreme generalization of a complex, situational and delicate process.

Yes layering sounds can increase the reception of certain elements, but that isn't entirely down to layering. What does the process of layering achieve? It acts to increase the frequency content apparent in an element (it's an inherently additive process) and alter the timbre of that element, addressing it's character, and interaction with everything else. But music is never so cut and dry. In order to accurately assess whether layering a sound may increase it's potency you need to ask what the sounds function is in the mix, how it relates to other elements, how your overall mix balance works in terms of what your intention is and a number of other things. In other words, attempting to consistently engage with your producing decisions critically will in all cases improve your workflow and creative outcome.

Just wondering how many times you would layer a sound, for example a synth melody, would you have 2 more synths doing the same thing or more or less?

From this I can see that you could be looking at things in the wrong way, which is fine, it's simply down to a lack of theoretical backing and knowledge of the 'landscape' you're engaging. This question isn't answerable. More to the point, it's too situational to ever say with any certainty. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The key is to learn when and why to do things like layering. To get to that point you will need to become very comfortable with the finite limitations of your sound space: Frequency < > Panorama < > Amplitude.

Elements interact within this sound space. There is no finite definition between sounds, the only separation between two elements is arbitrary. In other words, two sounds playing together within the same pitch register will become one sound. That new sound will have a different character from it's constituents sounds; and this point taken to it's extreme underlies music as an experience. What sounds 'good' is the skilled application of interacting timbres expressed through time, in terms of amplitude, frequency and panorama. Any sounds interacting with each other along any of these axes will unavoidably merge. Whether this is pleasing or not is entirely down to the specific natures of the sounds involved, as well as the larger context of the over all textural landscape of the song. It is important for a song to establish and retain a theme, which largely defines whether a certain timbrel/rhythmic/harmonic or otherwise interaction is 'pleasing' or not. A hard hitting stab would sound very out of place in a deep ambient dubby track for example. this is an extreme example mind you as this guideline applies right down to the very subtle levels of timbre and psychoacoustics.

I'm partially happy with the sounds but I've been told the mix is muddy. I have quite a few layers going on, should I remove some and try and eq the remaining better?

The mix is muddy due to too many frequencies competing in the middle areas of your frequency spectrum, not enough definition between each constituent sound, i.e. they're all melding in to what you could equate to mildly nearing on white noise, the harmonics/timbre of each element are all combining and confusing each other, the only overly noticeable elements are the fundamentals, retaining the melody, apart from that things are too 'muddy'; which means clashing.

This isn't so much about un-layering and EQing. This won't address the problem. The problem is in choosing the right sounds to work together, that will work artistically and more importantly, functionally, in terms of the axes [axiis?] of your sound space, retaining a strong identity, yet adding consonantly to the textural whole.

I struggle to compress my mixes without brickwalling them. Its like there is hardly any dynamic range in the first place, without compression the mix is already pretty sausasgy. Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this?

Compression isn't needed all the time (i rarely use it). Dynamics come from a natural amplitude difference in the sounds interactions over time. Maybe you're using samples too compressed already? Or maybe you're not adding enough of the 'human' factor in to your elements (re: velocity changes e.t.c.) The only way to add dynamic range is to factor that intention in to your music. Pay attention to the dynamic range of things in your sessions, don't compress things so much (good relative levels is much more important than compressing everything). Try this, turn everything down, set your gain staging at -12dB and balance everything around that. Only use compression for 'artisitc' purposes, and subtly at that. If you ever begin clipping on the master buss, bring everything down, this way you'll retain any natural dynamic range your track has.


Edit: Musically, your tune is on par man, it's vibin', which is really good to hear considering you've only been doing it for a little while. You've certainly got some serious potential. It's also good to see you addressing the technical side of production as you're hitting problems. You seem like you've got a good head on your shoulders and you're heading in the right direction and asking the right questions. Keep it up!

[Fletchur]

When I first started people said I should layer my sounds to make it sound bigger.

Advice can be dangerous because it depends on the ears hearing it, I don't mean any offense by that. The problem is with words like 'bigger'. They're very subjective and on the other hand require a substantially developed critical ear to understand what 'bigger' could potentially translate in to in terms of sound design. This also requires an understanding of sound as a science and how that transfers musically / psychoacoustically in to a collection of those subjective terms like 'punchy', 'phat', 'full' e.t.c.

It's ok saying 'layer your sounds, it'll make things sound bigger', but it's like telling a student cook, "use Olive Oil, it'll make your food taste better." the statement is an extreme generalization of a complex, situational and delicate process.

Yes layering sounds can increase the reception of certain elements, but that isn't entirely down to layering. What does the process of layering achieve? It acts to increase the frequency content apparent in an element (it's an inherently additive process) and alter the timbre of that element, addressing it's character, and interaction with everything else. But music is never so cut and dry. In order to accurately assess whether layering a sound may increase it's potency you need to ask what the sounds function is in the mix, how it relates to other elements, how your overall mix balance works in terms of what your intention is and a number of other things. In other words, attempting to consistently engage with your producing decisions critically will in all cases improve your workflow and creative outcome.

Just wondering how many times you would layer a sound, for example a synth melody, would you have 2 more synths doing the same thing or more or less?

From this I can see that you could be looking at things in the wrong way, which is fine, it's simply down to a lack of theoretical backing and knowledge of the 'landscape' you're engaging. This question isn't answerable. More to the point, it's too situational to ever say with any certainty. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The key is to learn when and why to do things like layering. To get to that point you will need to become very comfortable with the finite limitations of your sound space: Frequency < > Panorama < > Amplitude.

Elements interact within this sound space. There is no finite definition between sounds, the only separation between two elements is arbitrary. In other words, two sounds playing together within the same pitch register will become one sound. That new sound will have a different character from it's constituents sounds; and this point taken to it's extreme underlies music as an experience. What sounds 'good' is the skilled application of interacting timbres expressed through time, in terms of amplitude, frequency and panorama. Any sounds interacting with each other along any of these axes will unavoidably merge. Whether this is pleasing or not is entirely down to the specific natures of the sounds involved, as well as the larger context of the over all textural landscape of the song. It is important for a song to establish and retain a theme, which largely defines whether a certain timbrel/rhythmic/harmonic or otherwise interaction is 'pleasing' or not. A hard hitting stab would sound very out of place in a deep ambient dubby track for example. this is an extreme example mind you as this guideline applies right down to the very subtle levels of timbre and psychoacoustics.

I'm partially happy with the sounds but I've been told the mix is muddy. I have quite a few layers going on, should I remove some and try and eq the remaining better?

The mix is muddy due to too many frequencies competing in the middle areas of your frequency spectrum, not enough definition between each constituent sound, i.e. they're all melding in to what you could equate to mildly nearing on white noise, the harmonics/timbre of each element are all combining and confusing each other, the only overly noticeable elements are the fundamentals, retaining the melody, apart from that things are too 'muddy'; which means clashing.

This isn't so much about un-layering and EQing. This won't address the problem. The problem is in choosing the right sounds to work together, that will work artistically and more importantly, functionally, in terms of the axes [axiis?] of your sound space, retaining a strong identity, yet adding consonantly to the textural whole.

I struggle to compress my mixes without brickwalling them. Its like there is hardly any dynamic range in the first place, without compression the mix is already pretty sausasgy. Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this?

Compression isn't needed all the time (i rarely use it). Dynamics come from a natural amplitude difference in the sounds interactions over time. Maybe you're using samples too compressed already? Or maybe you're not adding enough of the 'human' factor in to your elements (re: velocity changes e.t.c.) The only way to add dynamic range is to factor that intention in to your music. Pay attention to the dynamic range of things in your sessions, don't compress things so much (good relative levels is much more important than compressing everything). Try this, turn everything down, set your gain staging at -12dB and balance everything around that. Only use compression for 'artisitc' purposes, and subtly at that. If you ever begin clipping on the master buss, bring everything down, this way you'll retain any natural dynamic range your track has.


Edit: Musically, your tune is on par man, it's vibin', which is really good to hear considering you've only been doing it for a little while. You've certainly got some serious potential. It's also good to see you addressing the technical side of production as you're hitting problems. You seem like you've got a good head on your shoulders and you're heading in the right direction and asking the right questions. Keep it up!

Thanks for the reply man. I see you took time to help and I really appreciate that. I agree with what your saying, I think I need to kind of evaluate each sound before I just throw it in to the mix. I have this real problem though of being kind of.. apprehensive before I do anything, Like I kind of get nervous when creating ideas because I put pressure of my self to make it sound better than the last, kind of resulting in me trying to go overboard with layers and not actually hearing it.

I'm also going to make my mix at a lower level and just focus on getting the sound more dynamic from the start, not pushing it all too full volume and hoping it gels. If I can get my mix sounding dynamic and kind of more clear from the start than I suppose thats the main thing for my level. I'm studying music technology at A-Level which is great but a lot of the time its very brief. I think at one point we got a 5 minute explanation of compression ..

A friend told me to not worry about using maximus and compression straight away but to get the sound going using just parametric eq 2. I think I'm going to try and just use my ear, mix down a little lower for room in the end and concentrate more on eq than compression.

I hope that sounds like a better approach haha, and thanks again.

[Fletchur]

When I first started people said I should layer my sounds to make it sound bigger.

Advice can be dangerous because it depends on the ears hearing it, I don't mean any offense by that. The problem is with words like 'bigger'. They're very subjective and on the other hand require a substantially developed critical ear to understand what 'bigger' could potentially translate in to in terms of sound design. This also requires an understanding of sound as a science and how that transfers musically / psychoacoustically in to a collection of those subjective terms like 'punchy', 'phat', 'full' e.t.c.

It's ok saying 'layer your sounds, it'll make things sound bigger', but it's like telling a student cook, "use Olive Oil, it'll make your food taste better." the statement is an extreme generalization of a complex, situational and delicate process.

Yes layering sounds can increase the reception of certain elements, but that isn't entirely down to layering. What does the process of layering achieve? It acts to increase the frequency content apparent in an element (it's an inherently additive process) and alter the timbre of that element, addressing it's character, and interaction with everything else. But music is never so cut and dry. In order to accurately assess whether layering a sound may increase it's potency you need to ask what the sounds function is in the mix, how it relates to other elements, how your overall mix balance works in terms of what your intention is and a number of other things. In other words, attempting to consistently engage with your producing decisions critically will in all cases improve your workflow and creative outcome.

Just wondering how many times you would layer a sound, for example a synth melody, would you have 2 more synths doing the same thing or more or less?

From this I can see that you could be looking at things in the wrong way, which is fine, it's simply down to a lack of theoretical backing and knowledge of the 'landscape' you're engaging. This question isn't answerable. More to the point, it's too situational to ever say with any certainty. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The key is to learn when and why to do things like layering. To get to that point you will need to become very comfortable with the finite limitations of your sound space: Frequency < > Panorama < > Amplitude.

Elements interact within this sound space. There is no finite definition between sounds, the only separation between two elements is arbitrary. In other words, two sounds playing together within the same pitch register will become one sound. That new sound will have a different character from it's constituents sounds; and this point taken to it's extreme underlies music as an experience. What sounds 'good' is the skilled application of interacting timbres expressed through time, in terms of amplitude, frequency and panorama. Any sounds interacting with each other along any of these axes will unavoidably merge. Whether this is pleasing or not is entirely down to the specific natures of the sounds involved, as well as the larger context of the over all textural landscape of the song. It is important for a song to establish and retain a theme, which largely defines whether a certain timbrel/rhythmic/harmonic or otherwise interaction is 'pleasing' or not. A hard hitting stab would sound very out of place in a deep ambient dubby track for example. this is an extreme example mind you as this guideline applies right down to the very subtle levels of timbre and psychoacoustics.

I'm partially happy with the sounds but I've been told the mix is muddy. I have quite a few layers going on, should I remove some and try and eq the remaining better?

The mix is muddy due to too many frequencies competing in the middle areas of your frequency spectrum, not enough definition between each constituent sound, i.e. they're all melding in to what you could equate to mildly nearing on white noise, the harmonics/timbre of each element are all combining and confusing each other, the only overly noticeable elements are the fundamentals, retaining the melody, apart from that things are too 'muddy'; which means clashing.

This isn't so much about un-layering and EQing. This won't address the problem. The problem is in choosing the right sounds to work together, that will work artistically and more importantly, functionally, in terms of the axes [axiis?] of your sound space, retaining a strong identity, yet adding consonantly to the textural whole.

I struggle to compress my mixes without brickwalling them. Its like there is hardly any dynamic range in the first place, without compression the mix is already pretty sausasgy. Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this?

Compression isn't needed all the time (i rarely use it). Dynamics come from a natural amplitude difference in the sounds interactions over time. Maybe you're using samples too compressed already? Or maybe you're not adding enough of the 'human' factor in to your elements (re: velocity changes e.t.c.) The only way to add dynamic range is to factor that intention in to your music. Pay attention to the dynamic range of things in your sessions, don't compress things so much (good relative levels is much more important than compressing everything). Try this, turn everything down, set your gain staging at -12dB and balance everything around that. Only use compression for 'artisitc' purposes, and subtly at that. If you ever begin clipping on the master buss, bring everything down, this way you'll retain any natural dynamic range your track has.


Edit: Musically, your tune is on par man, it's vibin', which is really good to hear considering you've only been doing it for a little while. You've certainly got some serious potential. It's also good to see you addressing the technical side of production as you're hitting problems. You seem like you've got a good head on your shoulders and you're heading in the right direction and asking the right questions. Keep it up!

Thanks for the reply man. I see you took time to help and I really appreciate that. I agree with what your saying, I think I need to kind of evaluate each sound before I just throw it in to the mix. I have this real problem though of being kind of.. apprehensive before I do anything, Like I kind of get nervous when creating ideas because I put pressure of my self to make it sound better than the last, kind of resulting in me trying to go overboard with layers and not actually hearing it.

I'm also going to make my mix at a lower level and just focus on getting the sound more dynamic from the start, not pushing it all too full volume and hoping it gels. If I can get my mix sounding dynamic and kind of more clear from the start than I suppose thats the main thing for my level. I'm studying music technology at A-Level which is great but a lot of the time its very brief. I think at one point we got a 5 minute explanation of compression ..

A friend told me to not worry about using maximus and compression straight away but to get the sound going using just parametric eq 2. I think I'm going to try and just use my ear, mix down a little lower for room in the end and concentrate more on eq than compression.

I hope that sounds like a better approach haha, and thanks again.

[Fletchur]

When I first started people said I should layer my sounds to make it sound bigger.

Advice can be dangerous because it depends on the ears hearing it, I don't mean any offense by that. The problem is with words like 'bigger'. They're very subjective and on the other hand require a substantially developed critical ear to understand what 'bigger' could potentially translate in to in terms of sound design. This also requires an understanding of sound as a science and how that transfers musically / psychoacoustically in to a collection of those subjective terms like 'punchy', 'phat', 'full' e.t.c.

It's ok saying 'layer your sounds, it'll make things sound bigger', but it's like telling a student cook, "use Olive Oil, it'll make your food taste better." the statement is an extreme generalization of a complex, situational and delicate process.

Yes layering sounds can increase the reception of certain elements, but that isn't entirely down to layering. What does the process of layering achieve? It acts to increase the frequency content apparent in an element (it's an inherently additive process) and alter the timbre of that element, addressing it's character, and interaction with everything else. But music is never so cut and dry. In order to accurately assess whether layering a sound may increase it's potency you need to ask what the sounds function is in the mix, how it relates to other elements, how your overall mix balance works in terms of what your intention is and a number of other things. In other words, attempting to consistently engage with your producing decisions critically will in all cases improve your workflow and creative outcome.

Just wondering how many times you would layer a sound, for example a synth melody, would you have 2 more synths doing the same thing or more or less?

From this I can see that you could be looking at things in the wrong way, which is fine, it's simply down to a lack of theoretical backing and knowledge of the 'landscape' you're engaging. This question isn't answerable. More to the point, it's too situational to ever say with any certainty. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The key is to learn when and why to do things like layering. To get to that point you will need to become very comfortable with the finite limitations of your sound space: Frequency < > Panorama < > Amplitude.

Elements interact within this sound space. There is no finite definition between sounds, the only separation between two elements is arbitrary. In other words, two sounds playing together within the same pitch register will become one sound. That new sound will have a different character from it's constituents sounds; and this point taken to it's extreme underlies music as an experience. What sounds 'good' is the skilled application of interacting timbres expressed through time, in terms of amplitude, frequency and panorama. Any sounds interacting with each other along any of these axes will unavoidably merge. Whether this is pleasing or not is entirely down to the specific natures of the sounds involved, as well as the larger context of the over all textural landscape of the song. It is important for a song to establish and retain a theme, which largely defines whether a certain timbrel/rhythmic/harmonic or otherwise interaction is 'pleasing' or not. A hard hitting stab would sound very out of place in a deep ambient dubby track for example. this is an extreme example mind you as this guideline applies right down to the very subtle levels of timbre and psychoacoustics.

I'm partially happy with the sounds but I've been told the mix is muddy. I have quite a few layers going on, should I remove some and try and eq the remaining better?

The mix is muddy due to too many frequencies competing in the middle areas of your frequency spectrum, not enough definition between each constituent sound, i.e. they're all melding in to what you could equate to mildly nearing on white noise, the harmonics/timbre of each element are all combining and confusing each other, the only overly noticeable elements are the fundamentals, retaining the melody, apart from that things are too 'muddy'; which means clashing.

This isn't so much about un-layering and EQing. This won't address the problem. The problem is in choosing the right sounds to work together, that will work artistically and more importantly, functionally, in terms of the axes [axiis?] of your sound space, retaining a strong identity, yet adding consonantly to the textural whole.

I struggle to compress my mixes without brickwalling them. Its like there is hardly any dynamic range in the first place, without compression the mix is already pretty sausasgy. Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this?

Compression isn't needed all the time (i rarely use it). Dynamics come from a natural amplitude difference in the sounds interactions over time. Maybe you're using samples too compressed already? Or maybe you're not adding enough of the 'human' factor in to your elements (re: velocity changes e.t.c.) The only way to add dynamic range is to factor that intention in to your music. Pay attention to the dynamic range of things in your sessions, don't compress things so much (good relative levels is much more important than compressing everything). Try this, turn everything down, set your gain staging at -12dB and balance everything around that. Only use compression for 'artisitc' purposes, and subtly at that. If you ever begin clipping on the master buss, bring everything down, this way you'll retain any natural dynamic range your track has.


Edit: Musically, your tune is on par man, it's vibin', which is really good to hear considering you've only been doing it for a little while. You've certainly got some serious potential. It's also good to see you addressing the technical side of production as you're hitting problems. You seem like you've got a good head on your shoulders and you're heading in the right direction and asking the right questions. Keep it up!

Thanks for the reply man. I see you took time to help and I really appreciate that. I agree with what your saying, I think I need to kind of evaluate each sound before I just throw it in to the mix. I have this real problem though of being kind of.. apprehensive before I do anything, Like I kind of get nervous when creating ideas because I put pressure of my self to make it sound better than the last, kind of resulting in me trying to go overboard with layers and not actually hearing it.

I'm also going to make my mix at a lower level and just focus on getting the sound more dynamic from the start, not pushing it all too full volume and hoping it gels. If I can get my mix sounding dynamic and kind of more clear from the start than I suppose thats the main thing for my level. I'm studying music technology at A-Level which is great but a lot of the time its very brief. I think at one point we got a 5 minute explanation of compression ..

A friend told me to not worry about using maximus and compression straight away but to get the sound going using just parametric eq 2. I think I'm going to try and just use my ear, mix down a little lower for room in the end and concentrate more on eq than compression.

I hope that sounds like a better approach haha, and thanks again.

[Fletchur]

When I first started people said I should layer my sounds to make it sound bigger.

Advice can be dangerous because it depends on the ears hearing it, I don't mean any offense by that. The problem is with words like 'bigger'. They're very subjective and on the other hand require a substantially developed critical ear to understand what 'bigger' could potentially translate in to in terms of sound design. This also requires an understanding of sound as a science and how that transfers musically / psychoacoustically in to a collection of those subjective terms like 'punchy', 'phat', 'full' e.t.c.

It's ok saying 'layer your sounds, it'll make things sound bigger', but it's like telling a student cook, "use Olive Oil, it'll make your food taste better." the statement is an extreme generalization of a complex, situational and delicate process.

Yes layering sounds can increase the reception of certain elements, but that isn't entirely down to layering. What does the process of layering achieve? It acts to increase the frequency content apparent in an element (it's an inherently additive process) and alter the timbre of that element, addressing it's character, and interaction with everything else. But music is never so cut and dry. In order to accurately assess whether layering a sound may increase it's potency you need to ask what the sounds function is in the mix, how it relates to other elements, how your overall mix balance works in terms of what your intention is and a number of other things. In other words, attempting to consistently engage with your producing decisions critically will in all cases improve your workflow and creative outcome.

Just wondering how many times you would layer a sound, for example a synth melody, would you have 2 more synths doing the same thing or more or less?

From this I can see that you could be looking at things in the wrong way, which is fine, it's simply down to a lack of theoretical backing and knowledge of the 'landscape' you're engaging. This question isn't answerable. More to the point, it's too situational to ever say with any certainty. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The key is to learn when and why to do things like layering. To get to that point you will need to become very comfortable with the finite limitations of your sound space: Frequency < > Panorama < > Amplitude.

Elements interact within this sound space. There is no finite definition between sounds, the only separation between two elements is arbitrary. In other words, two sounds playing together within the same pitch register will become one sound. That new sound will have a different character from it's constituents sounds; and this point taken to it's extreme underlies music as an experience. What sounds 'good' is the skilled application of interacting timbres expressed through time, in terms of amplitude, frequency and panorama. Any sounds interacting with each other along any of these axes will unavoidably merge. Whether this is pleasing or not is entirely down to the specific natures of the sounds involved, as well as the larger context of the over all textural landscape of the song. It is important for a song to establish and retain a theme, which largely defines whether a certain timbrel/rhythmic/harmonic or otherwise interaction is 'pleasing' or not. A hard hitting stab would sound very out of place in a deep ambient dubby track for example. this is an extreme example mind you as this guideline applies right down to the very subtle levels of timbre and psychoacoustics.

I'm partially happy with the sounds but I've been told the mix is muddy. I have quite a few layers going on, should I remove some and try and eq the remaining better?

The mix is muddy due to too many frequencies competing in the middle areas of your frequency spectrum, not enough definition between each constituent sound, i.e. they're all melding in to what you could equate to mildly nearing on white noise, the harmonics/timbre of each element are all combining and confusing each other, the only overly noticeable elements are the fundamentals, retaining the melody, apart from that things are too 'muddy'; which means clashing.

This isn't so much about un-layering and EQing. This won't address the problem. The problem is in choosing the right sounds to work together, that will work artistically and more importantly, functionally, in terms of the axes [axiis?] of your sound space, retaining a strong identity, yet adding consonantly to the textural whole.

I struggle to compress my mixes without brickwalling them. Its like there is hardly any dynamic range in the first place, without compression the mix is already pretty sausasgy. Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this?

Compression isn't needed all the time (i rarely use it). Dynamics come from a natural amplitude difference in the sounds interactions over time. Maybe you're using samples too compressed already? Or maybe you're not adding enough of the 'human' factor in to your elements (re: velocity changes e.t.c.) The only way to add dynamic range is to factor that intention in to your music. Pay attention to the dynamic range of things in your sessions, don't compress things so much (good relative levels is much more important than compressing everything). Try this, turn everything down, set your gain staging at -12dB and balance everything around that. Only use compression for 'artisitc' purposes, and subtly at that. If you ever begin clipping on the master buss, bring everything down, this way you'll retain any natural dynamic range your track has.


Edit: Musically, your tune is on par man, it's vibin', which is really good to hear considering you've only been doing it for a little while. You've certainly got some serious potential. It's also good to see you addressing the technical side of production as you're hitting problems. You seem like you've got a good head on your shoulders and you're heading in the right direction and asking the right questions. Keep it up!

Thanks for the reply man. I see you took time to help and I really appreciate that. I agree with what your saying, I think I need to kind of evaluate each sound before I just throw it in to the mix. I have this real problem though of being kind of.. apprehensive before I do anything, Like I kind of get nervous when creating ideas because I put pressure of my self to make it sound better than the last, kind of resulting in me trying to go overboard with layers and not actually hearing it.

I'm also going to make my mix at a lower level and just focus on getting the sound more dynamic from the start, not pushing it all too full volume and hoping it gels. If I can get my mix sounding dynamic and kind of more clear from the start than I suppose thats the main thing for my level. I'm studying music technology at A-Level which is great but a lot of the time its very brief. I think at one point we got a 5 minute explanation of compression ..

A friend told me to not worry about using maximus and compression straight away but to get the sound going using just parametric eq 2. I think I'm going to try and just use my ear, mix down a little lower for room in the end and concentrate more on eq than compression.

I hope that sounds like a better approach haha, and thanks again.

[Fletchur]

Sorry guys I really don't know why it posts my replys like 10 times...

[mthrfnk]

Lol... I'd agree about the Parametric EQ thing, try get everything sounding clean and in it's own space before you start slapping a compressor on everything and potentially muddy-ing elements.

[Turnipish_Thoughts]

One thing about compression is that it can actually muddy things quite a bit depending on the sound you're compressing. This happens because you're increasing areas of the timbre that weren't so prominent before. Say if you EQ out around 5-800Hz with an EQ on a basic reese it'll sound 'cleaner' because the low and top end become more prominent. If you then compress that, you'll actually hear it becoming a little bit more boxy/muddy because it's bringing the cut frequencies back up. Keep this in mind with compression. It acts in ways that don't immediately seem obvious. In fact the whole timbrel aspect of compression, how it effects the sort of 'make-up/inner ingredients' of a sound is one of the subtlest but most important aspects in understanding exactly what compression does. I.E. It's doesn't just effect the dynamic range of the sound or the volume, it almost always alters the actual timbre too, be aware of that and listen out for it, get a feel for what I mean by this.

Also keep in mind that we're very culturally obsessed about the technicalities and 'programming' with music at the moment. Everything seems to be about how to use compressors, or EQs or reverb or whatever, which is weird because it isn't really anything to do with the music. Music is about pleasing melodies, harmonies and structure. The importance of processing sounds is incredibly over emphasized in my opinion. It's possible to choose a couple of patches, apply no processing and still make a really enjoyable song. I know it sounds really cliche but if it sounds good, it sounds good. I think the biggest mistake made by people getting in to music production is using way to much processing and doing stuff when you don't need to. The amount of processing I do to my sounds (bar actual patch building of course) is becoming less and less, while more and more purposeful. I'll do something because I want the certain effect, not just because 'its what you do', ya know. Because the point is 99% of the time the proper thing to do is 'not' do that processing, just develop a working sound pallet and focus on making an interesting, musically pleasing track.

[Fletchur]

One thing about compression is that it can actually muddy things quite a bit depending on the sound you're compressing. This happens because you're increasing areas of the timbre that weren't so prominent before. Say if you EQ out around 5-800Hz with an EQ on a basic reese it'll sound 'cleaner' because the low and top end become more prominent. If you then compress that, you'll actually hear it becoming a little bit more boxy/muddy because it's bringing the cut frequencies back up. Keep this in mind with compression. It acts in ways that don't immediately seem obvious. In fact the whole timbrel aspect of compression, how it effects the sort of 'make-up/inner ingredients' of a sound is one of the subtlest but most important aspects in understanding exactly what compression does. I.E. It's doesn't just effect the dynamic range of the sound or the volume, it almost always alters the actual timbre too, be aware of that and listen out for it, get a feel for what I mean by this.

Also keep in mind that we're very culturally obsessed about the technicalities and 'programming' with music at the moment. Everything seems to be about how to use compressors, or EQs or reverb or whatever, which is weird because it isn't really anything to do with the music. Music is about pleasing melodies, harmonies and structure. The importance of processing sounds is incredibly over emphasized in my opinion. It's possible to choose a couple of patches, apply no processing and still make a really enjoyable song. I know it sounds really cliche but if it sounds good, it sounds good. I think the biggest mistake made by people getting in to music production is using way to much processing and doing stuff when you don't need to. The amount of processing I do to my sounds (bar actual patch building of course) is becoming less and less, while more and more purposeful. I'll do something because I want the certain effect, not just because 'its what you do', ya know. Because the point is 99% of the time the proper thing to do is 'not' do that processing, just develop a working sound pallet and focus on making an interesting, musically pleasing track.

Yeah I get what you mean about the processing but I can't help comparing whatever I make too a pro producer and hearing the difference in volume and overall 'fullness' and getting down about it. Its hard because some people swear by using eq, compression on everything but a lot of people use it when they have too. When your learning like me it can be hard to get the balance right. You want to sound like the pros but you don't want to do things if you don't know what you are really doing if that makes sense.

[mthrfnk]

One thing about compression is that it can actually muddy things quite a bit depending on the sound you're compressing. This happens because you're increasing areas of the timbre that weren't so prominent before. Say if you EQ out around 5-800Hz with an EQ on a basic reese it'll sound 'cleaner' because the low and top end become more prominent. If you then compress that, you'll actually hear it becoming a little bit more boxy/muddy because it's bringing the cut frequencies back up. Keep this in mind with compression. It acts in ways that don't immediately seem obvious. In fact the whole timbrel aspect of compression, how it effects the sort of 'make-up/inner ingredients' of a sound is one of the subtlest but most important aspects in understanding exactly what compression does. I.E. It's doesn't just effect the dynamic range of the sound or the volume, it almost always alters the actual timbre too, be aware of that and listen out for it, get a feel for what I mean by this.

Also keep in mind that we're very culturally obsessed about the technicalities and 'programming' with music at the moment. Everything seems to be about how to use compressors, or EQs or reverb or whatever, which is weird because it isn't really anything to do with the music. Music is about pleasing melodies, harmonies and structure. The importance of processing sounds is incredibly over emphasized in my opinion. It's possible to choose a couple of patches, apply no processing and still make a really enjoyable song. I know it sounds really cliche but if it sounds good, it sounds good. I think the biggest mistake made by people getting in to music production is using way to much processing and doing stuff when you don't need to. The amount of processing I do to my sounds (bar actual patch building of course) is becoming less and less, while more and more purposeful. I'll do something because I want the certain effect, not just because 'its what you do', ya know. Because the point is 99% of the time the proper thing to do is 'not' do that processing, just develop a working sound pallet and focus on making an interesting, musically pleasing track.

Yeah I get what you mean about the processing but I can't help comparing whatever I make too a pro producer and hearing the difference in volume and overall 'fullness' and getting down about it. Its hard because some people swear by using eq, compression on everything but a lot of people use it when they have too. When your learning like me it can be hard to get the balance right. You want to sound like the pros but you don't want to do things if you don't know what you are really doing if that makes sense.

It takes time to learn and also properly establish the way in which you personally make tracks. "Pros" didn't learn overnight, so give it time

Also one thing to note, especially with big EDM artists is that sometimes they might not be the only one's behind the production of their tracks (mix engineers, master engineers, additional musicians etc.)

[hhans]

Thank you for the reply man.

I think I probably am guilty of turning everything up, I'm not sure how to make one sound stand out without it being equal volume to the next though.

Probably the most valuable thing I learned about mixing when I first started producing was to turn everything down and turn your speakers up. You can make it all louder when you master it, but with everything turned down, it's easy to make something a little louder than everything else without it clipping.

[Fletchur]

Thank you for the reply man.

I think I probably am guilty of turning everything up, I'm not sure how to make one sound stand out without it being equal volume to the next though.

Probably the most valuable thing I learned about mixing when I first started producing was to turn everything down and turn your speakers up. You can make it all louder when you master it, but with everything turned down, it's easy to make something a little louder than everything else without it clipping.

#

Yeah thats some good advice. I've been reading up on the mixing parts of this production sub forum and I'm learning alot