I have a feeling older generation mixing engineers who worked on consoles are probably smashing their head against a desk or wall after reading this like “no shit Sherlock” lol, but maybe they were doing premature EQ/Comp moves too 🤷♂️
I'm not an oldhead at all and that's my reaction. Do people really hit plugins/hardware right away? I don't think I've ever added an insert before being basically 90% done with faders. I don't touch the pan either, in fact, I balance in mono, it's not until towards the end that I disengage mono and start spacing.
Oh big time! I’ve learned from amazing engineers a lot older than me who won’t even have all the tracks pulled up yet and they are already EQing and adding other processes as they build the track out
I think that’s the approach to take if you’re not just mixing but also sculpting tones. I guess if you are mixing metal drums you might be inclined to hit the compression and EQ right away for extreme tweaks to get the kick drum sound. But I do kind of separate tone sculpting vs mixing. I’m my own person though. Perhaps this works best for others done in conjunction.
I will quickly rough mix with faders, but you can only go so far. So, I don't put too much importance in it, and just mix as I go. The mix is going to be way louder than I can get with just faders, so, as soon as I finish the beat, it's going to be way too loud for the rest. So, none of what I did with faders will remain. So, I don't waste much time on it.
I started recording and mixing in the '80s, when Tascam Portastudios first brought multitrack recording to the masses. The only effect I originally owned was a distortion pedal. EQ was left up to my amps, and what little I knew about compression was that I suspected it would kill my dynamics in exchange for sustain. (TBF, that was kind of what happened with guitar compression pedals.)
But I have happily learned a *lot* since then, even if through trial and error. I totally understand OP's point, and I am still proud of those early recordings I did. But I also embrace new technology as it comes available, like I did with that Portastudio and the Roland TR505 I bought with it because I couldn't play drums.
I *can* mix a song using only levels and panning. But I could also go back to destructive editing, bouncing down and ping-ponging to get more than four tracks' worth of recordings on a four-track, and worrying if the tape was going to audibly wear down from one or two more takes.
Now, finishing a track without Ozone and all its built in tools, plus using any of a dozen tracks I've captured with Audiolens as a reference track for Ozone's AI, seems like it would be going back to caveman times. Heh.
I'm pretty new to this (3 years) and I reacted that way lmao
It's just the first and most important thing in the mix, so naturally I do it before even opening up an EQ.
The only time I'll open a plugin before I finish "dry balance" is if the tracks I get are horrendous and have insane resonant frequencies, although I consider that the prep stage and not the miz stage
It's definitely so easy to forget good practices when enamored by all kinds of tools, I too am in the process of re-learning to establish my volume balance before getting lost in the sauce of post processing. It also very much establishes the outline of your mix, so that you can actually discern a direction for where you're taking it. If you jump past that establishing of balance, your mix easily changes styles five times during the process, and then it doesn't match your original vision at all.
Yeah exactly!
For a long time I thought my mixes would never be good enough without analog summing or some kind of expensive magic VST plugin, so it’s definitely old habits of just tossing shit on for the sake of tossing shit on to compensate for not being in a million dollar studio.
“Setting the scene” with just fader moves is so unbelievably critical *and* elementary.
Makes me think of a steak needing nothing more than salt and pepper- but make sure your steak is good quality, analogous to making sure your recorded audio is good quality
On a related note, when getting into processing, a lot of my EQ work has recently been replaced simply by the addition of subtle saturation. It just smooths out so many issues I've been hearing in the frequency balance and makes my tracks sound the way I want without any hassle. EQing vocals especially used to be just an endless struggle, but just by slapping a tube saturator at the end, the raw recording already sounds refined lol.
Oh man, we are similar hahah. one of my favorite features of cubase is the built in channel strip that has 3 easily selectable saturation choices for exactly that reason. Just a quick way to just kick up presence
Also, little radiator has been my go to for heavy handed saturation. But for something like vocals the Cubase built in tape is more than enough if I’m not using Voca
I've always used the big brother version of Radiator, didn't realize the Little Radiator had a setting the bigger one didn't, thanks for letting me know so I can try it out.
Fuckin’ kudos on grasping the foundations of mixing. I mean this sincerely, btw. It’s one thing to know of something and another to do it or understand why it’s important. The “basics” are often not really basic at all; rather monumentally important and need to be grasped, as they all are the paths that lead to advanced understanding and skills.
Reminds me of my friend from middle school in the early 90’s, who did have martial arts training from his uncle from a young child, but anyway- he decided to buy some capoeira VHS set; one of those “from beginner to advanced” sets. So he watched the first one and then just decided to go to one of the advanced videos cuz that’s where the cool moves are, which are basically some absurdly acrobatic shit. Dude fell on his head trying to do some handstand spinning kick breakdance looking moves. Anyway- that’s what beginners are doing when they go for advanced skills before grasping the fundamentals— they fall on their head. …At least my friend was smart enough to realize he was an idiot.
Lolol that is an amazing story. With an amazing lesson!!
And truly, somehow I’ve never been instructed in all of my classes and lessons and irl learnings for something SO elementary. But even elementary I can see how someone could fuck it up.
Truly responding to signal with just the fader has genuinely blown my mind in how clean I can establish the mix
I mean if we're talking about a tambourine sure turn the fader down. But lets say its a piano and its muddy at some notes and then it plays some higher notes at the same time. This cant be fixed with a fader move. Or if its a high gain guitar with tons of 2-4khz and when you drop the level to get the high mids to where you want you find you lose the fundamental and the "meat".
Faders, comp, eq are not a "this OR the other" tool. They work in tandem. They have to work in tandem to get the polished pro mixes we're accustomed to. You're free to use minimal processing and the genre might actually allow it but "just lower whats bright" doesnt really work every time.
I agree on the BS plugins part. There are soooo many BS plugins out there for a money grab on unsuspecting novices.
I totally agree with you, but I also am now a believer that before responding to the signal with any processing, to do your best to solve it with just fader first, and I should have mentioned there’s an element of compromise for the sake of the initial mix balance. Then, once you have depleted all fader moves, introduce EQ and comp to solve more complex problems.
Like I mentioned in my post I had to use a multiband because volume fader just wasn’t cutting it, but at first I was juggling faders with a critical ear and I’m so happy I did it.
And yeah, a lot of the plugin market unfortunately is more interested in the uneducated buyer grabbing a fancy gui than a useful tool. Oh well
Why wouldn't you just fix it with the thing you know/think is gonna fix it first? I'm not trying to be rude, just genuinely asking. It kinda feels like you want to have some dogmatic principle that you follow regarding mixing but I think you'd be better served just doing the thing that makes the mix the best, without "earning" it with the faders first.
Not dogmatic, yall can do whatever tf you want, just clarifying what I learned.
but my normal response is that signal needed to be “fixed” immediately, and I discovered just using critical listening and a volume fader instead of any tool got me a better result faster than I’ve ever experienced before.
And I did it as just an exercise and a challenge, to try something new to me. Literally responding to “ah that has a sharp resonance” to “lower it until it’s pleasing to the ear”. And I discovered I never needed to process that resonance to begin with.
Later down the chain I did some real heavy handed submix processing but the dry balance has blown my mind
I'm stoked for you, I would just say a few things:
If you're using volume to mask EQ problems for your own stuff, that's fine, but let's say you're working for an artist who says "hey this is great but can you bring up XYZ things and lower ABC?"
If you were using volume to mask for EQ issues, then now you're going to have to re-EQ everything once it's not being mixed for EQ but for the taste of the artist, which is just going to add more time to your process.
If you were overprocessing before, then yeah, stripping it back a little could be good, but I would just caution you from letting this be your new "trick" that you use to fix all of your problems, because if you're turning something up and down on the fader until the sharp resonance doesn't bother you anymore, which is cool, you might be missing the forest for the trees with regard to overall volume of that source or track. If your goal is not harsh and turning it down makes it less harsh, that's great, but if your goal is for it to be the right volume and not harsh, and being at the right volume makes it harsh, then use the tools. Not saying that's not what you're doing, but it's moreso about the goal you're shooting for.
And lastly, if you're using lower volume to reduce harshness, for example, that might lead to your mixes sounding generally harsh when they're cranked up all the way. I've started getting a knack for when people are mixing too quietly all the time and never referencing with their speakers cranked, because the mix sounds great until you try to really jam it, and I could see that being a problem with this fader first stuff too.
Not saying not to do it, just make sure it's serving the big goal as much as it is the small ones and you'll be golden.
there is no "depletion" of anything. You'll keep moving stuff around until the very end. Do not set your expectations that there is a "perfect" setting for anything in a mix. Its always a push and pull between elements and you'll have to respond in kind.
As a contrast I try to keep all my faders at 0 and manage the levels from the inserts - sometimes adding a simple gain plugin to drop or raise the level so that the level where I want it sits where the fader is at 0 dbfs.
Why 0 dbfs? Because the resolution near 0 dbfs is much higher and automation can be done in smaller more granular moves.
When I say deplete fader moves, I mean that if I’m giving and taking on a fader and the solution can’t be found, that’s my sign it will need processing. But I move on and do more fader moves.
Yes, all the tools should be used in conjunction- but I’m sharing the discovery of purely using fader moves with excess headroom as much as you can before applying any processing tools
you dont need to worry about headroom in DAWs which run in 32 bit floating point.
Sorry but your logic is flawed and puts an unnecessary constraint on mixing. Use any and all tools needed. Faders and processing are all valid tools and preferring one over the other doesnt make any sense, especially in a DAW where you have like 1500 dbs of dynamic range.
This isnt the "holy grail of mixing methods".
> Faders and processing are all valid tools and preferring one over the other doesnt make any sense,
I don't think that's what OP is saying at all. But unless there problems with the tracks you received, there's reason for you to even touch plugins before you reached some "dry balance"
Nope
I start processing with the first track I happen to work on and move along. I have an "end sound" in mind, why try to get a half baked version first? What's the need or goal there? I listen to the rough, and I know how I want to hear the kick/bass/gtr etc the second I hear them. Just get on with it.
Static mix - dry balance these are ancient techniques that are unnecessarily putting constraints on the modern work flow.
If you can, say, hear a kick drum on its own and say "this doesn't have enough sub impact" why wouldn't you just EQ it to sound the way you want? If you know the vocal is inconsistent and some compression will help, why not put a compressor on it and then use the fader to find the overall volume that works for the song?
Exactly my point. You don't always need to hear everything in context to know if something will or will not work. A very harsh high gain guitar will not magically sound better in context. A boxy kick will not sound OK when the guitars come in.
If I had no idea where the mix was going to end up then I might be experimenting but as long as I have an "end of mix" sound in my head, its a simple "go from point A to B" exercise.
I can’t imagine using just the fader to get a rock bass guitar bright enough. That track is going to be just bass by the time I’m done ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
That said, fader + broad stroke EQ goes very far. But there’s no need to limit oneself and end up working slower. Big difference between a broad boost/cut and hyper focusing on a detail and throwing soothe on it before levels are even set.
Us "old heads" (at least 1970s born genxers) often learned to mix and bounce and manage tape on tascam casette tape 4 track recorders. Awesome little machines, even still. They have everything you need to learn the basics very deeply and well.
Today, Reaper (for example) and its stock plugins are an embarrassment of mixing riches and capability. You don't need anything else except, of course, for the best converters and monitors you can afford.
Yup, which I knew, but was never once guided to ever establish a dry mix considering that was an “old” method
It’s encouraged all over the place at minimum to add some kind of processing however minimal or heavy handed.
By the time you start adding fx do you change the volume balance at all or leave it as is and use input output within the chain to maintain balance? Thanks !
If fx like distortion/saturation, modulation or space/delay is introduced there may be some fader adjustments!
The exercise is solving all problems with just a volume fader, then later doing all of the usual
Nice.
This workflow is great for certain situations. Other times, it’s faster to start with a million plugins. Sometimes, you need to start with just eq on everything. Or clip gain. Or whatever.
I did a rough mix after a session yesterday. Vocals were performed very well with two compressors baked in and a verb plugin. A bit of eq on acoustic guitar and phase flip on two drum mics, levels, and that’s it. It won’t be the final mix but I’ll be damned if it doesn’t sound radio ready.
The biggest mistake I’ve made in regard to this workflow is using it too often. Sometimes you need to be “guilty” of adding a million plugins and making big moves.
I’ll say this is good advice and especially good once I have a done arranged and mostly done musically. However this doesn’t apply to some folks, especially electronic music / experimental music using computers- those that use plugins, compressors, destructive wild effects, extreme filters and EQ as creative compositional devices. Some of us will put a million plugins stacked just to try to get one crazy sound and then will resample a part or freeze the track to edit and sculpt later. But what you’re talking about is often acoustically recorded music with microphones and line in instruments played live, so that applies. I do get hung up on eq and reverb too early.
+1 for Panning -- and experimenting with what sound sources really need to be stereo and switching to mono when applicable. Yeah, a lot of mud in a mix can be from something like the Kick and the Bass not meshing, but sometimes its because multiple stereo sources are clashing for their own space in the mix. The stereo field ended up being my most important tool, and I was having so many issues with mixing and sound selection until I realized that.
Excellent point op. I work very similar. Another thing I do is only allow myself an eq and one insert per channel. Much like mixing on an analog board.
Technically yes, but the intention is not to “spend longer” but,
to challenge yourself with responding to what would normally do mix wise, like inserting EQ, compression or whatever else, and instead to do your best to solve those with just the fader *first* for as long as you can
The discovery is that you’ll likely end up using significantly less processing and have a much better mix
This is what I do normally.
I'm not gonna do a ton of in-depth volume automation before adding effects, because it probably won't make any sense afterward and have to be readjusted, especially if a lot of compression is used, but yeah.
I have a feeling older generation mixing engineers who worked on consoles are probably smashing their head against a desk or wall after reading this like “no shit Sherlock” lol, but maybe they were doing premature EQ/Comp moves too 🤷♂️
I'm not an oldhead at all and that's my reaction. Do people really hit plugins/hardware right away? I don't think I've ever added an insert before being basically 90% done with faders. I don't touch the pan either, in fact, I balance in mono, it's not until towards the end that I disengage mono and start spacing.
Oh big time! I’ve learned from amazing engineers a lot older than me who won’t even have all the tracks pulled up yet and they are already EQing and adding other processes as they build the track out
I think that’s the approach to take if you’re not just mixing but also sculpting tones. I guess if you are mixing metal drums you might be inclined to hit the compression and EQ right away for extreme tweaks to get the kick drum sound. But I do kind of separate tone sculpting vs mixing. I’m my own person though. Perhaps this works best for others done in conjunction.
I will quickly rough mix with faders, but you can only go so far. So, I don't put too much importance in it, and just mix as I go. The mix is going to be way louder than I can get with just faders, so, as soon as I finish the beat, it's going to be way too loud for the rest. So, none of what I did with faders will remain. So, I don't waste much time on it.
I started recording and mixing in the '80s, when Tascam Portastudios first brought multitrack recording to the masses. The only effect I originally owned was a distortion pedal. EQ was left up to my amps, and what little I knew about compression was that I suspected it would kill my dynamics in exchange for sustain. (TBF, that was kind of what happened with guitar compression pedals.) But I have happily learned a *lot* since then, even if through trial and error. I totally understand OP's point, and I am still proud of those early recordings I did. But I also embrace new technology as it comes available, like I did with that Portastudio and the Roland TR505 I bought with it because I couldn't play drums. I *can* mix a song using only levels and panning. But I could also go back to destructive editing, bouncing down and ping-ponging to get more than four tracks' worth of recordings on a four-track, and worrying if the tape was going to audibly wear down from one or two more takes. Now, finishing a track without Ozone and all its built in tools, plus using any of a dozen tracks I've captured with Audiolens as a reference track for Ozone's AI, seems like it would be going back to caveman times. Heh.
I'm pretty new to this (3 years) and I reacted that way lmao It's just the first and most important thing in the mix, so naturally I do it before even opening up an EQ. The only time I'll open a plugin before I finish "dry balance" is if the tracks I get are horrendous and have insane resonant frequencies, although I consider that the prep stage and not the miz stage
It's definitely so easy to forget good practices when enamored by all kinds of tools, I too am in the process of re-learning to establish my volume balance before getting lost in the sauce of post processing. It also very much establishes the outline of your mix, so that you can actually discern a direction for where you're taking it. If you jump past that establishing of balance, your mix easily changes styles five times during the process, and then it doesn't match your original vision at all.
Yeah exactly! For a long time I thought my mixes would never be good enough without analog summing or some kind of expensive magic VST plugin, so it’s definitely old habits of just tossing shit on for the sake of tossing shit on to compensate for not being in a million dollar studio. “Setting the scene” with just fader moves is so unbelievably critical *and* elementary. Makes me think of a steak needing nothing more than salt and pepper- but make sure your steak is good quality, analogous to making sure your recorded audio is good quality
On a related note, when getting into processing, a lot of my EQ work has recently been replaced simply by the addition of subtle saturation. It just smooths out so many issues I've been hearing in the frequency balance and makes my tracks sound the way I want without any hassle. EQing vocals especially used to be just an endless struggle, but just by slapping a tube saturator at the end, the raw recording already sounds refined lol.
Oh man, we are similar hahah. one of my favorite features of cubase is the built in channel strip that has 3 easily selectable saturation choices for exactly that reason. Just a quick way to just kick up presence Also, little radiator has been my go to for heavy handed saturation. But for something like vocals the Cubase built in tape is more than enough if I’m not using Voca
The channel strip is indeed wonderful, and I love the Soundtoys stuff! Radiator goes hard on drums and bass.
Yo I have punished so many basses with the bias on with little radiator lol, truly nothing better than a free plugin being amazing and functional
I've always used the big brother version of Radiator, didn't realize the Little Radiator had a setting the bigger one didn't, thanks for letting me know so I can try it out.
For me, spectre was a great purchase for this exact use case.
Fuckin’ kudos on grasping the foundations of mixing. I mean this sincerely, btw. It’s one thing to know of something and another to do it or understand why it’s important. The “basics” are often not really basic at all; rather monumentally important and need to be grasped, as they all are the paths that lead to advanced understanding and skills. Reminds me of my friend from middle school in the early 90’s, who did have martial arts training from his uncle from a young child, but anyway- he decided to buy some capoeira VHS set; one of those “from beginner to advanced” sets. So he watched the first one and then just decided to go to one of the advanced videos cuz that’s where the cool moves are, which are basically some absurdly acrobatic shit. Dude fell on his head trying to do some handstand spinning kick breakdance looking moves. Anyway- that’s what beginners are doing when they go for advanced skills before grasping the fundamentals— they fall on their head. …At least my friend was smart enough to realize he was an idiot.
Lolol that is an amazing story. With an amazing lesson!! And truly, somehow I’ve never been instructed in all of my classes and lessons and irl learnings for something SO elementary. But even elementary I can see how someone could fuck it up. Truly responding to signal with just the fader has genuinely blown my mind in how clean I can establish the mix
I mean if we're talking about a tambourine sure turn the fader down. But lets say its a piano and its muddy at some notes and then it plays some higher notes at the same time. This cant be fixed with a fader move. Or if its a high gain guitar with tons of 2-4khz and when you drop the level to get the high mids to where you want you find you lose the fundamental and the "meat". Faders, comp, eq are not a "this OR the other" tool. They work in tandem. They have to work in tandem to get the polished pro mixes we're accustomed to. You're free to use minimal processing and the genre might actually allow it but "just lower whats bright" doesnt really work every time. I agree on the BS plugins part. There are soooo many BS plugins out there for a money grab on unsuspecting novices.
I totally agree with you, but I also am now a believer that before responding to the signal with any processing, to do your best to solve it with just fader first, and I should have mentioned there’s an element of compromise for the sake of the initial mix balance. Then, once you have depleted all fader moves, introduce EQ and comp to solve more complex problems. Like I mentioned in my post I had to use a multiband because volume fader just wasn’t cutting it, but at first I was juggling faders with a critical ear and I’m so happy I did it. And yeah, a lot of the plugin market unfortunately is more interested in the uneducated buyer grabbing a fancy gui than a useful tool. Oh well
Why wouldn't you just fix it with the thing you know/think is gonna fix it first? I'm not trying to be rude, just genuinely asking. It kinda feels like you want to have some dogmatic principle that you follow regarding mixing but I think you'd be better served just doing the thing that makes the mix the best, without "earning" it with the faders first.
Not dogmatic, yall can do whatever tf you want, just clarifying what I learned. but my normal response is that signal needed to be “fixed” immediately, and I discovered just using critical listening and a volume fader instead of any tool got me a better result faster than I’ve ever experienced before. And I did it as just an exercise and a challenge, to try something new to me. Literally responding to “ah that has a sharp resonance” to “lower it until it’s pleasing to the ear”. And I discovered I never needed to process that resonance to begin with. Later down the chain I did some real heavy handed submix processing but the dry balance has blown my mind
I'm stoked for you, I would just say a few things: If you're using volume to mask EQ problems for your own stuff, that's fine, but let's say you're working for an artist who says "hey this is great but can you bring up XYZ things and lower ABC?" If you were using volume to mask for EQ issues, then now you're going to have to re-EQ everything once it's not being mixed for EQ but for the taste of the artist, which is just going to add more time to your process. If you were overprocessing before, then yeah, stripping it back a little could be good, but I would just caution you from letting this be your new "trick" that you use to fix all of your problems, because if you're turning something up and down on the fader until the sharp resonance doesn't bother you anymore, which is cool, you might be missing the forest for the trees with regard to overall volume of that source or track. If your goal is not harsh and turning it down makes it less harsh, that's great, but if your goal is for it to be the right volume and not harsh, and being at the right volume makes it harsh, then use the tools. Not saying that's not what you're doing, but it's moreso about the goal you're shooting for. And lastly, if you're using lower volume to reduce harshness, for example, that might lead to your mixes sounding generally harsh when they're cranked up all the way. I've started getting a knack for when people are mixing too quietly all the time and never referencing with their speakers cranked, because the mix sounds great until you try to really jam it, and I could see that being a problem with this fader first stuff too. Not saying not to do it, just make sure it's serving the big goal as much as it is the small ones and you'll be golden.
there is no "depletion" of anything. You'll keep moving stuff around until the very end. Do not set your expectations that there is a "perfect" setting for anything in a mix. Its always a push and pull between elements and you'll have to respond in kind. As a contrast I try to keep all my faders at 0 and manage the levels from the inserts - sometimes adding a simple gain plugin to drop or raise the level so that the level where I want it sits where the fader is at 0 dbfs. Why 0 dbfs? Because the resolution near 0 dbfs is much higher and automation can be done in smaller more granular moves.
When I say deplete fader moves, I mean that if I’m giving and taking on a fader and the solution can’t be found, that’s my sign it will need processing. But I move on and do more fader moves. Yes, all the tools should be used in conjunction- but I’m sharing the discovery of purely using fader moves with excess headroom as much as you can before applying any processing tools
you dont need to worry about headroom in DAWs which run in 32 bit floating point. Sorry but your logic is flawed and puts an unnecessary constraint on mixing. Use any and all tools needed. Faders and processing are all valid tools and preferring one over the other doesnt make any sense, especially in a DAW where you have like 1500 dbs of dynamic range. This isnt the "holy grail of mixing methods".
> Faders and processing are all valid tools and preferring one over the other doesnt make any sense, I don't think that's what OP is saying at all. But unless there problems with the tracks you received, there's reason for you to even touch plugins before you reached some "dry balance"
Nope I start processing with the first track I happen to work on and move along. I have an "end sound" in mind, why try to get a half baked version first? What's the need or goal there? I listen to the rough, and I know how I want to hear the kick/bass/gtr etc the second I hear them. Just get on with it. Static mix - dry balance these are ancient techniques that are unnecessarily putting constraints on the modern work flow.
I respectfully disagree.
If you can, say, hear a kick drum on its own and say "this doesn't have enough sub impact" why wouldn't you just EQ it to sound the way you want? If you know the vocal is inconsistent and some compression will help, why not put a compressor on it and then use the fader to find the overall volume that works for the song?
Exactly my point. You don't always need to hear everything in context to know if something will or will not work. A very harsh high gain guitar will not magically sound better in context. A boxy kick will not sound OK when the guitars come in. If I had no idea where the mix was going to end up then I might be experimenting but as long as I have an "end of mix" sound in my head, its a simple "go from point A to B" exercise.
I can’t imagine using just the fader to get a rock bass guitar bright enough. That track is going to be just bass by the time I’m done ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ That said, fader + broad stroke EQ goes very far. But there’s no need to limit oneself and end up working slower. Big difference between a broad boost/cut and hyper focusing on a detail and throwing soothe on it before levels are even set.
This is the way. At least it’s the way I mix. Haha
The majority of my mixing sessions go like this. I start with only clip gain, panning and maybe a filter here and there. Also, timing.
Us "old heads" (at least 1970s born genxers) often learned to mix and bounce and manage tape on tascam casette tape 4 track recorders. Awesome little machines, even still. They have everything you need to learn the basics very deeply and well. Today, Reaper (for example) and its stock plugins are an embarrassment of mixing riches and capability. You don't need anything else except, of course, for the best converters and monitors you can afford.
You might be amazed to find out how much CRAP frequencies can be eliminated by simple gain staging...even before you hit a fader button.
Yes!!! This was my discovery!
[удалено]
Yup, which I knew, but was never once guided to ever establish a dry mix considering that was an “old” method It’s encouraged all over the place at minimum to add some kind of processing however minimal or heavy handed.
Good musicians and great songs.
yeah that def makes it a lot easier lol
What about reverbs etc..?
After!
Interesting!
By the time you start adding fx do you change the volume balance at all or leave it as is and use input output within the chain to maintain balance? Thanks !
If fx like distortion/saturation, modulation or space/delay is introduced there may be some fader adjustments! The exercise is solving all problems with just a volume fader, then later doing all of the usual
Nice. This workflow is great for certain situations. Other times, it’s faster to start with a million plugins. Sometimes, you need to start with just eq on everything. Or clip gain. Or whatever. I did a rough mix after a session yesterday. Vocals were performed very well with two compressors baked in and a verb plugin. A bit of eq on acoustic guitar and phase flip on two drum mics, levels, and that’s it. It won’t be the final mix but I’ll be damned if it doesn’t sound radio ready. The biggest mistake I’ve made in regard to this workflow is using it too often. Sometimes you need to be “guilty” of adding a million plugins and making big moves.
I’ll say this is good advice and especially good once I have a done arranged and mostly done musically. However this doesn’t apply to some folks, especially electronic music / experimental music using computers- those that use plugins, compressors, destructive wild effects, extreme filters and EQ as creative compositional devices. Some of us will put a million plugins stacked just to try to get one crazy sound and then will resample a part or freeze the track to edit and sculpt later. But what you’re talking about is often acoustically recorded music with microphones and line in instruments played live, so that applies. I do get hung up on eq and reverb too early.
+1 for Panning -- and experimenting with what sound sources really need to be stereo and switching to mono when applicable. Yeah, a lot of mud in a mix can be from something like the Kick and the Bass not meshing, but sometimes its because multiple stereo sources are clashing for their own space in the mix. The stereo field ended up being my most important tool, and I was having so many issues with mixing and sound selection until I realized that.
Excellent point op. I work very similar. Another thing I do is only allow myself an eq and one insert per channel. Much like mixing on an analog board.
Am I misunderstanding... are you simply suggesting to spend longer on the initial static mix?
Technically yes, but the intention is not to “spend longer” but, to challenge yourself with responding to what would normally do mix wise, like inserting EQ, compression or whatever else, and instead to do your best to solve those with just the fader *first* for as long as you can The discovery is that you’ll likely end up using significantly less processing and have a much better mix
So, continuing this approach, shouldn't the next step be, after doing your best static mix, to do some volume automation?
This is what I do normally. I'm not gonna do a ton of in-depth volume automation before adding effects, because it probably won't make any sense afterward and have to be readjusted, especially if a lot of compression is used, but yeah.