What program to do mixdowns in...

deadly · Post by **deadly** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:15 am

I make most of my tunes using Ableton 5, a variety of VSTs, a little bit of Reason rewired occasionally and some hardware (synths / drum machine etc).

My composition is fine using Ableton but mixdows are what really let me down. I haven't really taken my tracks much past a whole-track final render. The best way is to render each channel separately right? If so I'm going to need a program to edit these WAV files well.

I have a Macbook Pro with 2.33 Intel Core 2 Duo and 2GB RAM so I'm not short on that front. At the moment though I'm running everything using that, albeit on a Windows partition because they're the versions I had before I bought it.

So what comes highly recommended (and more importantly why).. Logic, Cubase etc? I'm currently using Cool Edit Pro 2.1 from 2003 but it's not the best in terms of user-friendliness.

Also, is it OK to ask for production & mixdown advice that isn't specifically for dubstep or should I go find another forum? If so can someone recommend one for electrofunk/hip hop production...

auan · Post by **auan** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:23 am

Ableton's as good as any for doing mixdowns in. You don't need to splash out on anything else.

All you need to do is load the rendered, individual channel tracks back into Ableton as audio files, sync them up and get busy on the mixer.

deadly · Post by **deadly** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:28 am

Hmm I always assumed it wasn't great for mixdowns!

I'm not really sure what I should actually be doing in the mixdowns...

People say to do stuff like convert basslines to mono (this always seems to lose depth for me?) and to do stuff like making sure your kick drum doesn't interfere with your basslines and making sure certain sections only occupy specific frequency ranges to avoid cancellation and muddiness. Adding compression to bass and kicks etc.

Can I do all this (easily and well) in Ableton? Is this stuff even considering as part of "final mixdown" or is it something else before?

Sorry for noob questions

auan · Post by **auan** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:44 am

Deadly wrote:I'm not really sure what I should actually be doing in the mixdowns...

People say to do stuff like convert basslines to mono (this always seems to lose depth for me?)

Do this before you render the bassline track. You asked in another thread about how. It's the Ultility plugin.

and to do stuff like making sure your kick drum doesn't interfere with your basslines and making sure certain sections only occupy specific frequency ranges to avoid cancellation and muddiness. Adding compression to bass and kicks etc.
...
Is this stuff even considering as part of "final mixdown" or is it something else before?

Yeah this is exactly what a mixdown is. If you're doing all that already, you're already doing mixdowns bro.

Can I do all this (easily and well) in Ableton?

Easily - yup, as easily as doing anything else in Ableton

As for "well", Ableton's FX are pretty good out of the box but if you've got money to burn on another DAW, consider spending it on some better EQ and compressor plugins. URS and Kjaerhus compressors are pretty popular and I like the Sonalksis EQs but it's really a matter of downloading trial versions and finding a set you like the sound of. There's also a TON of free Eq and comp plugs out there, some better than others but the freebie versions of the pro plugins (hint: Kjaerhus 'Classic' plugs) are a good place to start.

Sorry for noob questions

Most noobs don't even bother rendering tracks and think they can just mix while they're still arranging or recording/sequencing new parts. Props for starting out doing it The Right Way.

deadly · Post by **deadly** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:51 am

Thanks for the help Auan (and in the other thread).

[QUOTE=me]and to do stuff like making sure your kick drum doesn't interfere with your basslines and making sure certain sections only occupy specific frequency ranges to avoid cancellation and muddiness. Adding compression to bass and kicks etc.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I should have been clearer....

This is the stuff that I currently don't really know how to do. I can see the compression options on the left and play with them but I'm never quite sure if I'm doing it right.

The main thing was about each element occupying different frequency and can I do that in Ableton? Is it about setting crossover points because I searched the Live manual for the word crossover and I couldn't find it anywhere.

The reason I thought Ableton wasn't great for doing final mixdowns was because a producer told me it produced 'flat' sounding WAVs and that the compression and EQ's in Cubase were better? He's had a few hits so I believed him

Can I just get around these 'issues' with additional plug ins then? I've downloaded a free 7-band EQ a while ago which has helped. Logic is dirt cheap with student discount now and I have the money which is why I asked about it...

silentk · Post by **silentk** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:39 pm

Auan wrote:
Sorry for noob questions
Most noobs don't even bother rendering tracks and think they can just mix while they're still arranging or recording/sequencing new parts. Props for starting out doing it The Right Way.

ive actually been meaning to ask this for a while. so far I've been adding EQ, compression, FX, etc. while i am still sequencing and adding new parts to the track. are these things which should not be used until a final mixdown? as in, once you have rendered each track to WAV?

whineo · Post by **whineo** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:42 pm

Deadly wrote: The reason I thought Ableton wasn't great for doing final mixdowns was because a producer told me it produced 'flat' sounding WAVs and that the compression and EQ's in Cubase were better? He's had a few hits so I believed him Can I just get around these 'issues' with additional plug ins then?

The Eqs and Compressors in Ableton 5 will do the job but you would be better of using a plugin. both these effects have had had a lot of work done to them in later versions of Ableton as well as a new audio engine. but its making use of what you have and learning how to utilise the benefits and limitations.

John Locke · Post by **John Locke** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:49 pm

dont know ableton, but I'm sure its fine. You certainly dont NEED logic anyway, but u might well enjoy it all the same. tho not just for mixing down, for everything.

Auan's advice is all good, but the alternative 2 spending cash on plug ins would b 2 buy logic which comes with pretty much all u need anyway. but this would mean learning a whole new DAW, which might be a sttep learning curve at first.

there's loads about mixing on the production bible thread thats been useful to me. tho if u know sum1 who knows what they r doing then it would b worth sitting in on a session when they r mixing sumthing 2 get an idea. i basically learnt to mix by watching (and listening too) the people that used 2 mix my stuff when i dint know how.

my mixing aint fantastic, but its improved massively in the last year or 2, and now when i think back at how mysterious is all seemd 2me b4 I kind of laugh, cos the principle isnt that complicated to grasp really.

if u need a visual example, then think of a track as being comprised of lots of layers, all stacked on long, long shelves one above the other. theres a lot of material to cram in, and some layers of your track might have more stuff to store than others. those ones down the bottom near the floor, where u put the heavier items like bass and kick, they can get dirty and muddled if u dont keep em organized seperated out. but the shelves aint that big, and so if there's not enough room on that shelf u got to stack it on the next one above or bellow, but if there's no room there u got2 make room by cutting down yr material. at least in that section of the shelf, if not all of it.

not sure if thats all that clear, but its kind of how i visualise it

Littlefoot · Post by **Littlefoot** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:07 pm

SilentK wrote:
Auan wrote:
Sorry for noob questions
Most noobs don't even bother rendering tracks and think they can just mix while they're still arranging or recording/sequencing new parts. Props for starting out doing it The Right Way.

ive actually been meaning to ask this for a while. so far I've been adding EQ, compression, FX, etc. while i am still sequencing and adding new parts to the track. are these things which should not be used until a final mixdown? as in, once you have rendered each track to WAV?

how is rendering the tracks first the right way to mix?

surely youre completely cutting off your options for retrsospective real time editing that becomes (always) in the mix stage

misk · Post by **misk** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:16 pm

the mixdown stage is defined as the stage you check your levels of individual tracks, as well as their place in the mix (i.e. reverb). I dont consider myself a noob, but i mixdown inside my host (renoise) and take the final output to logic for a bit of polish.

i dont understand why you would need to mixdown your tracks in another program, unless you had a really slow computer.

deadly_habit · Post by **deadly_habit** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:36 pm

reaper gets my vote nowadays

deadly · Post by **deadly** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:23 pm

OK, here is a sample of one of the tracks I'm working on the mixdown for at the moment.

Can I get some tips on how to make it sound good / big?

Oh and it's not dubstep (or even close)

but I don't have anyone else to ask so you guys are lumbered I'm afraid!

http://files.filefront.com/TTM+DSFM+sam ... einfo.html

vadarfone · Post by **vadarfone** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:12 pm

OK, read "The Mixing Engineers Handbook" by Bob Owsinski

This will sort you out.

If you can't find this book, give me a shout...

misk · Post by **misk** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:31 pm

Deadly Habit wrote:reaper gets my vote nowadays

okay, okay, does reaper really sound that good? im looking for a good, un-bloated form of miltitrack recording software that i can "master" in, and generally multitrack into as well.

deadly · Post by **deadly** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:24 pm

vadarfone wrote:OK, read "The Mixing Engineers Handbook" by Bob Owsinski

This will sort you out.

If you can't find this book, give me a shout...

Ordered it from Amazon just now, cheers!

Anyone with any mixing-related comments about the sample I uploaded?

auan · Post by **auan** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:24 pm

SilentK wrote:
Auan wrote:
Sorry for noob questions
Most noobs don't even bother rendering tracks and think they can just mix while they're still arranging or recording/sequencing new parts. Props for starting out doing it The Right Way.
ive actually been meaning to ask this for a while. so far I've been adding EQ, compression, FX, etc. while i am still sequencing and adding new parts to the track. are these things which should not be used until a final mixdown? as in, once you have rendered each track to WAV?

Sorry, was being a bit of a tnuc last night

There is no Right Way of doing things, but this is still imo The Best Way.

I always thought of EQ as a not creative FX. I read somewhere that if you're using EQ to shape your sound, you're doing it wrong, and that kinda stuck with me. So apart from things like filters and three-band graphic EQs like on a guitar amp, I never, ever use an EQ plug until the mixdown. If I have a synth line that needs EQing, I'll change the synth settings themselves, rather than add an EQ. Big exception to that is layered drum samples, but I'd still use the sampler's built-in EQs, rather than load a plugin. Same with compression.

Not true with other FX though, inserts still get played with as I'm writing the tune.

My reason for rendering the wavs is that it commits you. I used to have problems with overwriting tunes, spending ages on details and different arrangements and structures and ting until I just got bored of the tune and never finished it. Don't get me wrong, my output is still really, really slow. Like a glacier or something. But commiting myself to an arrangement that I'm happy with fairly early on is important.

Plus rendering the wavs takes your CPU usage back down to 0 and you can load it up again. Pretty important on my shitty computer. And there's something psychologically different between listening to recorded waves and listening to a synth playing MIDI notes.

Misk wrote:the mixdown stage is defined as the stage you check your levels of individual tracks, as well as their place in the mix (i.e. reverb). I dont consider myself a noob, but i mixdown inside my host (renoise) and take the final output to logic for a bit of polish.

i dont understand why you would need to mixdown your tracks in another program, unless you had a really slow computer.

Renoise is a bit of a different beast. In fact I was using Renoise when I had the overwriting problems. Not to diss Renoise at all, it's a quality piece of software, I just don't want or need to have every note and sample trigger in a tune all easily accessible all at once, I just drown in the details. But I can totally see why a tracker would get to something very close to a final mix without ever leaving the software.

John Locke · Post by **John Locke** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:32 am

Auan wrote: I always thought of EQ as a not creative FX. I read somewhere that if you're using EQ to shape your sound, you're doing it wrong, and that kinda stuck with me. ...

My reason for rendering the wavs is that it commits you. I used to have problems with overwriting tunes, spending ages on details and different arrangements and structures and ting until I just got bored of the tune and never finished it. Don't get me wrong, my output is still really, really slow. Like a glacier or something. But commiting myself to an arrangement that I'm happy with fairly early on is important.

2 things:

can u explain WHY using eq creatively is wrong?

cos if thats really the case then I'm fucked cos i really use it a lot. particularly in conjunction with overdrives or distortion or whatever to get strange stuff going on with harmonics. my average channel strip settings will often have not one but 2 channel EQs in. one right at the start 2 determine how the distortion or other plug in will react to the source sound, and then one later on to 'equalise' it

so i kind of use EQ in 2 ways depending on the stage i'm at: 1st creatively during writing, and 2nd 'technically' (for want of a better word) during mix down

usually i try to make things fit and not conflict too much right from the beginning as well tho, and i think some of the tracks i done which have been the tightest technically have been ones where I was really processing the sound and keeping it in its own frequency or whatever from the start, kind of mixing as i go along.

the reason i do this now is that stuf i did before, when i had no idea how to mix, would often lose the energy it had going 4it (and that i wanted 2 keep) when the person mixing got their hands on it. like to make it work technically they killed it aesthetically, lost the rawness i was feeling, so now i try to get it technically more organised right from the first drum hit onwards, so i dont risk losing whatever ive built up when it comes to the mixdown. but i always do a seperate mixdown session at the end once it all arranged, even if i have been sort of mixing as i went along. its better 2 come back with a fresh head on a project and shit always gets fucked as u pushe the levels u and up as u writing

secondly, i agree about the mental effect of bouncing out to WAVs. I dont always do it (usually depends on how much the computer is struggling with CPU) but i think its probably better. psychologically theres somethign good about saying, okay, the track is done from a creative POV, now I'm gonna make a clean start with the arrangement set in stone and just concentrate on presenting it in the best possible way. if u REALLy not happy with a track u can always go back to the original project, adjust, and bounce that part out again anyway

sometimes I just cant b fucked bouncing out 36 tracks or whatever tho. boring.

anyway, if i making a serious mistake using EQ in this way it would b really good 2know. and 2 know WHY too.

but i cant imagine how i'd get the sound i want without it. i'd even go as far as to say that EQ is my FAVOURITE creative effect. in conjunction with other stuff

auan · Post by **auan** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:13 am

It's not a mistake really. Golden Rule: If it sounds good, it is good. But it's a waste of resources for a start. And if you've got your main synth line going and you're EQing it already, ask yourself why. Why are you already changing this supposedly perfect synth patch you've created, before you even process it? Shouldn't it be perfect from the start? What are you actually doing with the EQ, and could you do a rough approximation of it with the synth's filters, for example, or with a hi-pass after the distortion, or whatever. Imagine you were doing it with hardware and didn't have the infinite number of EQs you can have in software. Would you still be doing it, or would you be hitting those synth knobs? Imagine you were just a keyboard player, would you get creative on a complicated-looking EQ thing, or would you just fuck it through some distortion or buffer override or something that could REALLY mangle the sound?

Like I say the one big exception is drum samples, where I'd use EQ creatively and I definitely see where you're coming from. Paradox did a track (Curse of Coincidence) where he deliberately EQed the Amen break in ways you would never expect an Amen break to be EQed and it's sick as fuck. Breaks are so full of frequencies and layered samples need to play around with those frequencies and you really need to EQ it at every stage to get it sounding tight.

For everything else, it's just a bit too techy, too soon in the process. You're supposed to be a musician at that point, not a producer. You hit the nail on the head when you say that rendering the wavs means the track is done from a creative POV and the producer has to come out and make this artistic mess you've created into a proper finished track.

silentk · Post by **silentk** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:43 am

i do the same, i spend a lot of time trying to make everything sit nicely and sound right while im still composing. and to be honest, it wastes a lot of time. although it helps me see more what everything will sound like when it is finished. its probably a habit to get out of, id far rather spend loads of time getting this synth line perfect, or this drum break bang on, than pissin about with an EQ on every track tryin to mix it before its finished.

John Locke · Post by **John Locke** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:47 pm

Auan,

interesting this. cos i jut assumed its how everyone works. been producing like a hermit for years. dont really know anyone else. but from yr posts id say u obviously know what u r talking about more than most, so i respect yr advice

ok, so 2 answer yr question about why use EQ when yr synth patch should already b perfect. the simple answer is that if i get the sound i want just using a synth then i wont reach for the EQ. but that very rarely happens. for the simple reason that i'm looking for somethign dirtier than most synths can produce.

i tend to start writing a melody with almost any old synth sound that makes a good starting off point for what i'm after, then once i got a riff or whatever that i'm feeling then i'll start to build the sound i want, but this 4me is not just a matter of tweaking the synths paramaters, its usually a case of flitting back and forth between synth, EQ and distortion. theres no way i could get the sound im after out of just the synth's filters alone, though they also play a big part in it. its a case of moving backwards and forwards, tweaking one, then the other, negotiating until all 3 r playing off each other nicely

its hard talking about the stuff without being able to hear or see what it is im on about. but when i say EQing i DONT mean like just a little more at 250hz here, a little less at 100 there. i mean some quite extreme and ugly shit that makes the channel EQ look like a rollercoaster ride. shit that if it wasnt then going through a distrotion afterwards would be unlistenable, would blow yr monitors. but the distortion makes it react in odd ways, bringing out harmonics here and there, so maybe u get it biting just on the attack, or growling as it peaks or whatever.

i dunno, try it: get a basic sine wave bass or something, whack like +20 or 30 (but quite narrow) somewhere down the bottom end, and maybe the same again somewhere in the mids, stick this through a tube distortion (try a couple out, cos sum really dont give u anything useable, just ugly white noise distortion, not harmonics) and then go back to the EQ and move your peaks around a bit a bit like they were band pass filters until u find the resonant harmonics. also worth pulling out a great chunk at a certain frquency too, can change things in a really nice way, makes room for harmonics. distortion seems to react better when its not having to deal with too many frquencies (which just makes a mess of the sound) but when its just exaggerating a couple of dominant frequencies

the frequencies u peak pre-distortion are not even neccesarily the ones u gonna use post-distortion either. meaning that u might whack ALL the bottom end up to almost maximum on the channel EQ pre-distortion cos thats what gives u some nice harmonics or bite, but then when re-EQing post-distortion u might take all the bass back out of it and just use it as a mid range synth line. but if u hadnt put that bottom end in before u would never have got it sounding like that. so its not a waste of resources

its just a matter of personal taste i guess. as much as i like i like grime, i hear a lot of stuff and the cheap out-the-box simplicity of the sounds makes me squirm. or even some of the sounds on the cyrus LP. just too crude. plastic presets. i'm really into something more analog and organic sounding, and this is the only way i know to get this shit.

your point about what i would do if i had to work with hardware is a good one. and as I DID once use only hardware i know the answer: i just stuck it through a distortion or whatever as u say, no EQ. but the fact is, that since i moved to software and discovered this way of working, ìts very unlikely i'd go back to hardware, exactly for that reason. or if i did, i'd want some kind of serious EQ box to b able to continue working in this way cos i like it

i hear u on not being too techy too early on tho. and believe me i got 2 b one of the least technical people on here, i really dont know shit. but for me this mixing as you go thing IS creative. I only recently realised just how much the mix can change a track. even something simple like making drums more dominant and putting all that floaty atmospheric shit way in the background can transfer a track from like some kind of ugly loungestep crap 2 something deep and rolling. and if u already got a clear idea in yr head of how u want the finished atmosphere 2b (as i think u shud) then it makes a lot of sense to make it work from the start, with your levels and EQing about right, so as not to lose sight of what u aiming for.

I swear u could 're-mix' almost any track, and it have almost the same drastic effect of transforming the track as a 'remix'. if that makes sense? I mean that just by changing the mix of a track with EQing, panning, and altering levels u could change a piece of music almost as completely as if u wrote new synth lines, cut up the vocals and changed the BPM to turn a DnB mix into a garage mix or whatever. so for me the fact that the kick is dominant and the EQ has been tweaked to bring up more of the dirt from the vinyl it was sampled off of is something i want clear from the start, this will determine what other sounds i gonna add afterwards, as compared to if the kick was lower in the mix, with the crackle lo-passed out.

but u said u do that with drums anyway, so u know that.

maybe i dont really mean 'mixing as i go along', but 'making it sound the way i want it as i go along'. and for this i like EQs.

it still always needs mixing at the end of it all anyway...so if i'm not doing anything to fuck up the quality of the sound in some way then i guess i'll keep doing it this way 4now

What program to do mixdowns in...

What program to do mixdowns in...

Who is online