gain structure and mixing aka THE MONEYSHOT THREAD

[ali jamieson]

..."Think of a top notch jazz band - they play at the right level, it gets recorded, no mixing/eq/compression, no editing, no fuckin nothing. And it sounds the absolute bollocks"...

yup this man knows

there was a junk/funk/soul band from the 70s/80s [can't remeber who] who pioneered a technique of recording without doing a mixdown [sorry if this is convoluted, it was a long time ago i was told]

they though that if everything was in tune, in time, played at corrected dynamic [as in the ensemble all move togther rather than relying on automation] with decent cables into decent desk then you'd need no EQ, compression or balancing at all. maybe just some pan

obv this is nothing new, and back in the day people just used to be good at tracking.
on that note, before midi automated mixes and motorised faders blah people probably got a much better sound out of their akais and synths and what-not - having a lot of the 'movement' of the sound programmed into it [velocity sensitive parameters, clever LFOs and envelope business etc]

maybe

[paradigm_x]

please pardon the question if its been beaten to death here. i honestly did check the search option to solve this question and perhaps I'm not sure of what I should be looking for or not...

posting in this forum is at times very intimidating...

my question is this: I'm doing some experimentation with using samples as notes and building from there. I have a personal goal that I'd like to work at, that all of the notes are sampled from previous recordings--then recombined into a new track. Ok so.....if this is the case, should I need to eq the piece that heavily if i either don't use any reverb or anything like that, or, at the most, might be pitching a sample up or down a little bit?

I'm really sorry if this has been asked. I did a search for samples and I found a lot of really great links. Same with checking the production bible. Lots of good links....but maybe if it was answered before, thats why I missed it.

no simple answer to that im afraid - youll have to do as much or as little as you need to make it all sound coherent, assuming you want it coherent ! bit of a vague answer i know.

assuming you want it to sound like one tune not a bunch of samples, then eq is most likely to be required to get the samples to sound the same, as little or drastic as it needs. a bit of reverb will help it all gel together a bit.

no rules im afraid.

sounds like a good idea tho

[bellybelle]

no simple answer to that im afraid - youll have to do as much or as little as you need to make it all sound coherent, assuming you want it coherent ! bit of a vague answer i know.

assuming you want it to sound like one tune not a bunch of samples, then eq is most likely to be required to get the samples to sound the same, as little or drastic as it needs. a bit of reverb will help it all gel together a bit.

no rules im afraid.

sounds like a good idea tho

actually this helped a bit. I was wondering if there was a specific answer or something that perhaps I just didn't know yet. I mean, theoretically, since I'd be using samples that had already been mastered, I'd think I wouldn't have to do a whole bunch but I didn't know if there was a definitive yes or no on the subject.

Thanks so much!

[jedison]

I've always done this somewhat and then put a maximizer on the master channel to juice shit up, but I always get slack about my headroom and it slowly pushes up. I'm on mission to start going to town on a new tune tonight with keep all that in mind. My only problem is keeping the bass really massive with keeping it peaking so low. Usually I get it sounding good in the end but it does result in everything being a bit more squashed in the maximizer. Issues issues...

[sifres]

^^^ played a gig earlier this year and finished with Michael Jackon's P.Y.T. (from the Thriller album, which was what, 1984?). It's not pushed, it's not squashed at all really, but sounded so much better than the 2 hours of house/dubstep/breaks/jungle we had just been rinsing. so much more punchy, yet with depth. Really learned something that day

Thanks to that remark... I've had MJ's Billy Jean lodged in my head for the last half an hour...



But a genuine thanks for all the info in this thread... Usefull stuff!

[fatasfunk]

[/quote]
actually this helped a bit. I was wondering if there was a specific answer or something that perhaps I just didn't know yet. I mean, theoretically, since I'd be using samples that had already been mastered, I'd think I wouldn't have to do a whole bunch but I didn't know if there was a definitive yes or no on the subject.

Thanks so much! [/quote]

The thing is, is that although the samples have already been mastered, they've all been mastered differently - so you will still need to EQ to get them to sound right together. I'd probably avoid using too much dynamics processing though (unless 1 sounds really out of place dynamically with the others)

[bellybelle]

The thing is, is that although the samples have already been mastered, they've all been mastered differently - so you will still need to EQ to get them to sound right together. I'd probably avoid using too much dynamics processing though (unless 1 sounds really out of place dynamically with the others)

Ahhhhh I see what you mean. Yep, that's perfect. And you're right....I started noticing the slight differences between the samples as I was working with them. I was hoping to not have to do too much because I'm still a bit nervous about eqin (I'm thinking it takes practice so I'm not stressin too bad) but I'm going to have to do enough to make them all even, and thats okay by me.

Thanks you all for being so helpful. I'm so grateful for this thread!

[thewrongpie]

Turn down each channel, not the master fader. That way, you know that the master output is 0dB. If you were to turn down the master volume, you would be mixing to a lower volume level than neccessary. You could do this, but you would have to normalise your audio at the end to bring the volume back up to 0dB, thus, to use all your available headroom.

What is the difference between a: turning down individual channels so they peak at a certain level and b: turning down the master output fader so that the channels peak at said certain level? Surely it is the relative volume between instruments that is important? Early on in the mix I layered lots of snare hits, found them peaking too high, so I just turned down the output so that they were peaking around -8db and then built my mix around this. I am mixing to a lower output level but when I'm done I just turn up the master output 'til it's peaking just below 0db. No need to normalise. Am I missing something really obvious? Why is this wrong? Am I completely misunderstanding the concept of headroom?

[macc]

What is the difference between a: turning down individual channels so they peak at a certain level and b: turning down the master output fader so that the channels peak at said certain level? Surely it is the relative volume between instruments that is important? Early on in the mix I layered lots of snare hits, found them peaking too high, so I just turned down the output so that they were peaking around -8db and then built my mix around this. I am mixing to a lower output level but when I'm done I just turn up the master output 'til it's peaking just below 0db. No need to normalise. Am I missing something really obvious? Why is this wrong? Am I completely misunderstanding the concept of headroom?

The quote you quoted was confused. I think it has been covered in this thread already. There's no mathematical/numerical/direct sonic difference between the two.

The simplest and best reason for keeping the master fader at zero is repeatability. Don't keep moving the goalposts. Create reliable reference points for building your mix (say, snares peaking at -8 if that works for you) and you'll start to find they sound better, much quicker You know where things should be, you know roughly where something will be even before you put it in the mix. This allows for finer tuning, better referencing and for repeatability. Repeatabiity gives reliable experience, gives better mixes.

As soon as you move the master fader, you destroy all those reference points and you're shooting in the dark a bit.

[thewrongpie]

Damm Bob your a god man no lie
am the person who that send you the PM lol
i spend a good time reading through all 8 pages post by post!
and have some questions to ask

1. i am using reason and reason only i do not no where what channel peak because it does not show DB’s
2. What do you accuracy mean by the word “head room”? Does it mean to give your mix space?
3. When you talk about what element need to be at what DB do you mean the master fader or the channel it self?
4. What’s dynamical range and can you explain clashing frequencies?

Thank you once again!

I'll have a pop at answering your questions.

1> In Reason, just leave the master mixer 'master volume' at 0. If the whole mix crosses it, you can assume that you've clipped the audio somewhat (gone past zero and distorted the audio!!!!)

I think the M Class compressor gives real output data, not just 0-127 like the rest of hte controls in Reason. Thus, you could run everything through that to check your output dB. (Apply 0 threshold and 1:1 compression for no compression)

The ultimate guage in Reason is the clip meter, a little red light that comes on if you exceed 0db in the bottom left of the transport bar.

---------------------

2> Headroom refers to the amount of dB you have left before you 'redline', that is, before you hit 0dB on a mixer and your audio starts distorting.

If you turned every element of your tune down by 15dB, you'd have lot's of 'headroom'. If you ran everything 'hot' (loud), you would quickly hit 0dB and thus have no 'headroom'. One way around this is to compress all the elements of your mix individually, but that negates the point of decent mixing in the first place! (Because you limit the dynamic range of your audio to gain headroom. Turning everything down allows you to maintain the full dynamic range of each element of your audio as well as headroom!)

---------------------

3> Turn down each channel, not the master fader. That way, you know that the master output is 0dB. If you were to turn down the master volume, you would be mixing to a lower volume level than neccessary. You could do this, but you would have to normalise your audio at the end to bring the volume back up to 0dB, thus, to use all your available headroom.

---------------------

4> This is two questions, thus two answers are needed.

A> Dynamic range is the range between the quietest and loudest points in your audio. Thus, a singer who skreams () one moment and whispers the next, has a huge dynamic range. Using compressors and limiters reduces dynamic range by forcing gain (volume) reduction at the threshold you set.

One reason to mix without using compressors is to maintain maximum dynamic range within your audio.

---------------------

B> Clashing frequencies are simple. If you have two elements in your track, both that contain the same frequencies, they will cause phase problems (phase reinforcement and phase cancelation).

To minimise this effect, we would use an eq to 'cut out' a dip in the clashing frequency range on one of the elements. That way, one element would contain the full frequency range at its original volume. The other would have a reduced volume in the problem frequency range.

Hope that explains things haha!

Yeah sorry this was what I was trying to quote (the answer to question 3.) I don't move my master all the time, it was just the once at the start but in future I won't be so lazy. Cheers macc.

[macc]

in future I won't be so lazy.

It feels lazy, but in the long run, you end up doing even more work

Cheers!

[rinseone]

my question is now where would a grimey ass reece fit into the frequency. If the drums are at -10 and the sub is at -11 or -12 than where would my reece fit in?

[dubsaw]

my question is now where would a grimey ass reece fit into the frequency. If the drums are at -10 and the sub is at -11 or -12 than where would my reece fit in?

Is one of those how long is a piece of string questions to a certain degree.

Although i can say that you will need to have it peaking lower than the drums and sub as i imagine your reece is more mid - hi in the frequency range.

Due to the volume curve of the human ear mid to hi frequencies don't need to be as loud as low end stuff. Therefore i would sugget somewhere between -16 & -18 db maybe.

Best to ear it in and AB really but some where under the drums and sub for sure.

[rinseone]

word up! I did this to the tune I am re mastering and it worked awesome. my days of trying to PUSH THE LIMIT are over (well im still gonna push it just not the same way). Thank god for this forum!

[gorbek]

I've read almost every post in this thread so far, its definitely worth a read, a lot of information for producers getting the hang of it.

While I appreciate the idea of getting a track mastered, by my standards my dubstep isn't up to par, and I am not willing to pay money to get it done. Although I have been keeping my levels down on the various instruments/samples I use in my tracks to leave headroom and prevent clipping.

Without getting my shit mastered, how do I bring a mixdown up to a level reasonable enough to play in a mix session... ?

Is a better idea just to play a quiet version in a mix and up the gain on a mixer?

Thanks guys.. I'm a newb no doubt.

[macc]

my question is now where would a grimey ass reece fit into the frequency. If the drums are at -10 and the sub is at -11 or -12 than where would my reece fit in?

Where does it sound best?


Things like reeses are longer sounds without much transient content. Really, they make precious little difference to your main output peak level.


As for the other question about getting the level up for playing in a mix, that has been answered several times. Just use a good limiter to bring the level up.

You can do whatever you want to the master really, but you should always ask yourself why you're trying to fix something on the master when you should and could have got it right in the mix If you have the option, then doing it in the mix is always the best way.

[gorbek]

Thanks Macc...

I was making a huge noob mistake for sure, instead of limiting I was normalizing and I had a few kicks that were getting distorted big time... This fixed it right away...

Small improvements each day!

[karmacazee]

Talking of sub volume....

I was once at a recording studio in Cheshire, and the engineer/producer there used a plugin, which I think might have been a waves plugin, to make the bass sound a lot fatter and gave it a lot more presence by using psycho-acoustic techniques. It's got something to do with fundamental frequencies, and subtracting certain frequencies to make others stand out and stuff like that.

Sorry for being a bit vague.

So I have 3 questions:

1)Does anyone know the plugin I'm talking about?

2)What's the deal with all this psycho-acoustic stuff

and

3) Or am I just talking crap?

[futures_untold]

Talking of sub volume....

I was once at a recording studio in Cheshire, and the engineer/producer there used a plugin, which I think might have been a waves plugin, to make the bass sound a lot fatter and gave it a lot more presence by using psycho-acoustic techniques. It's got something to do with fundamental frequencies, and subtracting certain frequencies to make others stand out and stuff like that.

Sorry for being a bit vague.

So I have 3 questions:

1)Does anyone know the plugin I'm talking about?

2)What's the deal with all this psycho-acoustic stuff

and

3) Or am I just talking crap?

1> It wass probably Maxxbass.

I think it works by raising the gain of all the harmonic frequencies of the fundemental frequency. You can do the same with precision parametric eqs and save yourself a fat wad in the process..... (I bouycott Waves btw, cuz they over charge for ugly bits of kit... (imo))

2> I don't know. Books are your friend...???

3> No, you are sane.

[macc]

Maxx bass = crap distortion = mud = (often) loss of true sub bass as the energy is spread throughout the spectrum = great for shitty laptop speakers = great for making your mix sound like it is wrapped in wool on anything else.



It's just distortion with some simple filtering. Nothing more to it than that.