Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Subjectivity of basic mixing

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 2:06:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Philosophical exercise awaits your comment:

I've been pondering the subjective nature/taste of mixing, and wondering how
truly subjective it is. There must be *some* reason that the best engineers
in the world are regarded as such...some reason why we can safely say "this
mix is better than that one."

Suppose you gave a set of all the raw recorded tracks for one song to the
three best mix engineers in the world, and asked them all to do their own
basic mixes of the song, separately. By 'basic' I mean just do channel EQ,
panning, and mixing for balance between the parts but no reverb, special
edits, and so forth. All the instruments or voices have to be used, but
perhaps not every track of them (e.g. not all drum mics have to be used).

How similar do you think the resulting songs would sound? Where would the
differences be? What are the hard and fast rules of mixing and recording
that should only be broken when the situation calls for it ("Lead vocals
should be somewhat louder than background vocals."), and what are the
elements of art ("There's too much reverb on the lead vocal.")?


George Reiswig
Song of the River Music
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 2:06:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

A. & G. Reiswig <NOSPAMreiswig@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>I've been pondering the subjective nature/taste of mixing, and wondering how
>truly subjective it is. There must be *some* reason that the best engineers
>in the world are regarded as such...some reason why we can safely say "this
>mix is better than that one."

It's for the same reason that we can say "this arrangement is better than
that one" because we have now come to the point where the mix and the
arrangement are part of the same basic thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 3:24:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"A. & G. Reiswig" <NOSPAMreiswig@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:nVyPc.15298$UN2.13013@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Philosophical exercise awaits your comment:
>
> I've been pondering the subjective nature/taste of mixing, and wondering
how
> truly subjective it is. There must be *some* reason that the best
engineers
> in the world are regarded as such...some reason why we can safely say
"this
> mix is better than that one."
>

No, I think it's subjective. But that doesn't mean that people involved in
music, artists, producers, engineers and audience, don't find subjective
points of agreement.

Some people inhabit the space of those trends, and they make 'good mixes'.

jb




> Suppose you gave a set of all the raw recorded tracks for one song to the
> three best mix engineers in the world, and asked them all to do their own
> basic mixes of the song, separately. By 'basic' I mean just do channel
EQ,
> panning, and mixing for balance between the parts but no reverb, special
> edits, and so forth. All the instruments or voices have to be used, but
> perhaps not every track of them (e.g. not all drum mics have to be used).
>
> How similar do you think the resulting songs would sound? Where would the
> differences be? What are the hard and fast rules of mixing and recording
> that should only be broken when the situation calls for it ("Lead vocals
> should be somewhat louder than background vocals."), and what are the
> elements of art ("There's too much reverb on the lead vocal.")?
>
>
> George Reiswig
> Song of the River Music
>
>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 3:31:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>How similar do you think the resulting songs would sound? Where would the
>differences be? What are the hard and fast rules of mixing and recording
>that should only be broken when the situation calls for it ("Lead vocals
>should be somewhat louder than background vocals."), and what are the
>elements of art ("There's too much reverb on the lead vocal.")?
>

We should try this ourselves. Post some raw tracks and listen to some of the
mixes. We may find more understanding of common likes/dislikes.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 3:56:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>There must be *some* reason that the best engineers
>in the world are regarded as such...some reason why we can safely say "this
>mix is better than that one."

In my opinion it has more to do with the arrangement working than any
particular engineering trick.
"I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between
what you say and what you think you have said."
-george (paraphrased)
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 4:27:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Knud,
How are you using the term 'arrangement' here? When I think of
arrangement in a recording context, I think of what instruments are used,
what the tempo or rhythm is, things like that. Is that what you mean? If
so, then that's not what I meant: when I said...

> >There must be *some* reason that the best engineers
> >in the world are regarded as such...some reason why we can safely say
"this
> >mix is better than that one."

....what I meant was that of two different mixes of the same session, one
might be judged as better.

"knud" <symphonle@aol.comblahblah> wrote in message
news:20040802195637.04837.00000803@mb-m12.aol.com...>
> In my opinion it has more to do with the arrangement working than any
> particular engineering trick.
> "I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between
> what you say and what you think you have said."
> -george (paraphrased)

George Reiswig (not paraphrased)
Song of the River Music
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 4:54:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

A. & G. Reiswig wrote:

> I've been pondering the subjective nature/taste of mixing, and wondering how
> truly subjective it is. There must be *some* reason that the best engineers
> in the world are regarded as such...some reason why we can safely say "this
> mix is better than that one."

I don't think it's so simple that it can ever be summed up with one
reason. What makes a good movie director? Well, you have to know
what to cut and what to leave in, but you also have to know how to
talk to the actors, and how to pick the right actors, and you have
to truly "get" the script and what it's about, and you have to know
where you want to go with it. What makes a good storyteller? A
great-sounding voice is nice, but a sense of rhythm too, and facial
expressions, and a million other things that could make or break
it even if you don't change one word of the (written) story.

I think it's the same with mixing; there are so many things that
play into it that it can't be nailed down to a single thing. One
thing is choosing the right equipment, another is knowing how to
use the equipment and knowing its limitations, another is
understanding the music and what instrument is important for what
reason at what time, and another is making good decisions about
what to fix and what to leave raw and spontaneous. Of course, it
helps to have a good ear and be an observant person, too.

- Logan
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 5:21:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Blind Joni" <blindjoni@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040802193141.06719.00002490@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >How similar do you think the resulting songs would sound? Where would
the
> >differences be? What are the hard and fast rules of mixing and recording
> >that should only be broken when the situation calls for it ("Lead vocals
> >should be somewhat louder than background vocals."), and what are the
> >elements of art ("There's too much reverb on the lead vocal.")?
> >
>
> We should try this ourselves. Post some raw tracks and listen to some of
the
> mixes. We may find more understanding of common likes/dislikes.

I've proposed this many times. Each engineer should post their mix and WHY
they made the production decisions they did.
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 10:52:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <nVyPc.15298$UN2.13013@nwrddc02.gnilink.net> NOSPAMreiswig@bigfoot.com writes:

> I've been pondering the subjective nature/taste of mixing, and wondering how
> truly subjective it is. There must be *some* reason that the best engineers
> in the world are regarded as such...some reason why we can safely say "this
> mix is better than that one."

There really isn't. Mixing is like playing an instrument - you can get
all the right notes and still not give a great performance, you can be
a little out of tune but really express emotion and give a better
performance, or you can get it all right and it will be really great.
You really only hear the final mix that "the best" engineers do, you
don't hear all the things they've rejected.

> Suppose you gave a set of all the raw recorded tracks for one song to the
> three best mix engineers in the world, and asked them all to do their own
> basic mixes of the song, separately. By 'basic' I mean just do channel EQ,
> panning, and mixing for balance between the parts but no reverb, special
> edits, and so forth.

What's the point of that? To reduce a mix to numbers?

> How similar do you think the resulting songs would sound?

With a restriction like that, they'd probably be fairly similar, maybe
a little different in overall spectral balance but if you have to hear
all the tracks all the time, there really isn't much room for
creativity.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
August 3, 2004 11:51:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ricky W. Hunt wrote:

> I've proposed this many times. Each engineer should post their mix and WHY
> they made the production decisions they did.

I have set up a web site dedicated to this very idea. I have a set of
tracks available for download, or I will mail you a full resolution
CD-ROM. Yes, there is a small fee. It helps to cover the cost of
producing the tracks and maintaining the web site. I also have a
bulletin board set up for discussion.

I think this could be a very useful experiment.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Multi-Track Masters on CD-ROM
www.Raw-Tracks.com
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 11:57:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Philosophical exercise awaits your comment:
>
> I've been pondering the subjective nature/taste of mixing, and wondering how
> truly subjective it is. There must be *some* reason that the best engineers
> in the world are regarded as such...some reason why we can safely say "this
> mix is better than that one."

Without a doubt mixing is an art in itself. It depends what you
want to hear more of and what genre of music is being mixed. My
specialty in this case is rock and when I am mixing drums, I like to
hear and feel them.... big bass drum, a crack to the snare, ect.
However, if you listen to a producer like Brian Eno on U2's 'all that
you can't leave behind', I can't believe how smashed the drums are. He
puts a big emphasis on everything else.

BUT, with all the trends there are today, I think you would find a lot
of similarities in mixes... vocals so big in the mix that when you
turn the song down to a low volume that is all you hear. Radio is a
big key too that these guys have to factor in. Record companies want
the mixes to come blaring out of the speakers. That is why everything
is so compressed.

If you ask me, I was born in the wrong generation. I wish I grew up in
the 60's... I recently bought the beatles "let it be... naked" and was
blown away at how timeless that music was. You strip away all the
great arrangements on the original and listen to McCartney's vision...
very nice indeed. Producers needs to get back to that purety and put
down our gear for a second.

What makes me want to tear my face off when I listen to some great
producers these days is that, yeah, it sounds great but the music has
been compromised...


regards,

dan powers
real brave audio
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 12:34:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"A. & G. Reiswig" <NOSPAMreiswig@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:nVyPc.15298$UN2.13013@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
> Philosophical exercise awaits your comment:

> How similar do you think the resulting songs would sound? Where
> would the differences be? What are the hard and fast rules of mixing
> and recording that should only be broken when the situation calls for
> it ("Lead vocals should be somewhat louder than background vocals."),
> and what are the elements of art ("There's too much reverb on the
> lead vocal.")?

You could further simplify the question by asking whether or not a given
engineer would end up with the identical same mix, given the same starting
point. I suspect, no.
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 1:29:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ricky W. Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<7MBPc.80489$eM2.58107@attbi_s51>...
> "Blind Joni" <blindjoni@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040802193141.06719.00002490@mb-m13.aol.com...
> > >How similar do you think the resulting songs would sound? Where would
> the
> > >differences be? What are the hard and fast rules of mixing and recording
> > >that should only be broken when the situation calls for it ("Lead vocals
> > >should be somewhat louder than background vocals."), and what are the
> > >elements of art ("There's too much reverb on the lead vocal.")?
> > >
> >
> > We should try this ourselves. Post some raw tracks and listen to some of
> the
> > mixes. We may find more understanding of common likes/dislikes.
>
> I've proposed this many times. Each engineer should post their mix and WHY
> they made the production decisions they did.

As a person new to this, I would definitely benefit from it. The
subjective commentary on justifying the choices, etc. would be very
valuable to my learning process. And of course the rebuttals, debates,
etc. would round out the experience.
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 1:43:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I've been pondering the subjective nature/taste of mixing, and wondering
how
> truly subjective it is. There must be *some* reason that the best
engineers
> in the world are regarded as such...some reason why we can safely say
"this
> mix is better than that one."

My opinion is that the best engineers are those who have the experience to
know what translates well from the raw material to the final pressing. In
other words, the best engineers will know whether that bassline they hear on
your demo tape will fade into obscurity or swamp the mix when played back on
your average music box or on the PA system at Wembley Stadium.

Not an exact science of course, and I doubt whether anyone uses *only* their
ears. Engineers will have the right equipment and monitoring systems to be
able to ascertain where exactly problems lie and how to correct them.


> Suppose you gave a set of all the raw recorded tracks for one song to the
> three best mix engineers in the world, and asked them all to do their own
> basic mixes of the song, separately. By 'basic' I mean just do channel
EQ,
> panning, and mixing for balance between the parts but no reverb, special
> edits, and so forth. All the instruments or voices have to be used, but
> perhaps not every track of them (e.g. not all drum mics have to be used).

Are we talking mixing, remixing or mastering? I think some people use the
first and last terms somewhat interchangeably, whereas "remixing" refers
more to the creative process.

So if the remit given to the three engineers is to polish and clean, perhaps
"mix" in the sense of here are the parts, balance the levels, panning etc,
then probably the three mixes will be pretty much the same. I don't imagine
that any of the engineers will be so wildly out with their analysis so that
they do something completely different to the others.

> How similar do you think the resulting songs would sound? Where would the
> differences be? What are the hard and fast rules of mixing and recording
> that should only be broken when the situation calls for it ("Lead vocals
> should be somewhat louder than background vocals."), and what are the
> elements of art ("There's too much reverb on the lead vocal.")?

I think that mixing/mastering is one of those things that if done well, you
don't notice. Thus all the commercially released material out there is
judged on the content of the music, not on the quality of the mix. You
don't generally pick up a Kylie CD and listen to it thinking "Hmm, check out
the reverb" or "nice compression" (although you might if you are that way
inclined!). Fact is, the quality of the mastering means that the listener
doesn't have to worry about the technical side, and can just enjoy the
music.

The "rules" as you put it are of course made to be broken, but how much you
want to break them depends on whether you are messing about in your bedroom
or looking to release a platinum single.

Tanel.
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 8:24:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1091494155k@trad...
>
> In article <nVyPc.15298$UN2.13013@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
NOSPAMreiswig@bigfoot.com writes:
>
> > I've been pondering the subjective nature/taste of mixing, and wondering
how
> > truly subjective it is. There must be *some* reason that the best
engineers
> > in the world are regarded as such...some reason why we can safely say
"this
> > mix is better than that one."
>
> There really isn't. Mixing is like playing an instrument - you can get
> all the right notes and still not give a great performance, you can be
> a little out of tune but really express emotion and give a better
> performance, or you can get it all right and it will be really great.
> You really only hear the final mix that "the best" engineers do, you
> don't hear all the things they've rejected.

Good point!
>
> > Suppose you gave a set of all the raw recorded tracks for one song to
the
> > three best mix engineers in the world, and asked them all to do their
own
> > basic mixes of the song, separately. By 'basic' I mean just do channel
EQ,
> > panning, and mixing for balance between the parts but no reverb, special
> > edits, and so forth.
>
> What's the point of that? To reduce a mix to numbers?

No, not really...more to try to glean what the commonalities are, what are
relatively universal 'rules' and what are matters of taste. I was sort of
drawing a line presumptively, assuming that culling tracks, adding reverb
and other effects and things like that are more the artistic end of things,
and the balance and EQ are less so.

>
> > How similar do you think the resulting songs would sound?
>
> With a restriction like that, they'd probably be fairly similar, maybe
> a little different in overall spectral balance but if you have to hear
> all the tracks all the time, there really isn't much room for
> creativity.

And that was my suspicion. I also suspect that someone like me (with
relatively little mix experience) would come up with a different mix from
someone with a lot of experience and a known good ear. *How* different it
would end up might give me a good assessment of my own abilities to do the
work.

I have a helluva lot to learn...I just hope I can learn it. Whether I have
the ear to do the job properly is still a question for me.

George Reiswig
Song of the River Music
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 8:58:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Eric,
I actually have tried this, but the 10 drum tracks alone are a bit
daunting when you're only used to using 5-6 mics. ;-) The room mics in
particular are an interesting flavor to mix in.
But I haven't seen any sort of "results" pages that compare mixdowns
between different people all following the same basic criteria. Is there
such a thing?

George Reiswig
Song of the River Music

"EricK" <eric@Raw-Tracks.com> wrote in message
news:2n9fufFufhv3U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Ricky W. Hunt wrote:
>
> > I've proposed this many times. Each engineer should post their mix and
WHY
> > they made the production decisions they did.
>
> I have set up a web site dedicated to this very idea. I have a set of
> tracks available for download, or I will mail you a full resolution
> CD-ROM. Yes, there is a small fee. It helps to cover the cost of
> producing the tracks and maintaining the web site. I also have a
> bulletin board set up for discussion.
>
> I think this could be a very useful experiment.
>
> --
> Eric
>
> Practice Your Mixing Skills
> Multi-Track Masters on CD-ROM
> www.Raw-Tracks.com
>
August 4, 2004 3:18:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

A. & G. Reiswig wrote:
> Eric,
> I actually have tried this, but the 10 drum tracks alone are a bit
> daunting when you're only used to using 5-6 mics. ;-) The room mics in
> particular are an interesting flavor to mix in.

Just because there are 10 drum tracks doesn't mean you have to use all
of them. In your case, I would suggest using kick, snare, toms,
overheads. That would be six tracks.

> But I haven't seen any sort of "results" pages that compare mixdowns
> between different people all following the same basic criteria. Is there
> such a thing?

I have a "Downloads" section on the site. I also have a forum. It my
hope that folks will upload their mixes to the site, then discuss them
on the forum. You can find instructions on the forum on how to upload
your mix.

Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that the forum was not
allowing new users to register for the past few weeks. I have since
sorted that out.
--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Multi-Track Masters on CD-ROM
www.Raw-Tracks.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 5:25:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"A. & G. Reiswig" wrote:

< snip >

> Suppose you gave a set of all the raw recorded tracks for one song to the
> three best mix engineers in the world, and asked them all to do their own
> basic mixes of the song, separately. By 'basic' I mean just do channel EQ,
> panning, and mixing for balance between the parts but no reverb, special
> edits, and so forth. All the instruments or voices have to be used, but
> perhaps not every track of them (e.g. not all drum mics have to be used).
>
> How similar do you think the resulting songs would sound? Where would the
> differences be?

If you were talking live sound, I bet you would see differences in the level of
the vocals as compared to the rest of the mix.

That assumes of course that engineers who mix vocals well down in the mix are
still considered to be amongst 'the best'. Some bands apparently think so.


Graham
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 10:47:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41102D10.42C3EAF4@hotmail.com

> If you were talking live sound, I bet you would see differences in
> the level of the vocals as compared to the rest of the mix.

IME you have to get the levels within a dB or two if you are mixing harmony.
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 4:36:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <2nb683Fui98gU1@uni-berlin.de> eric@Raw-Tracks.com writes:

> Just because there are 10 drum tracks doesn't mean you have to use all
> of them. In your case, I would suggest using kick, snare, toms,
> overheads. That would be six tracks.

Of course it all depends on the recording, and in most cases (assuming
the recording engineer knew what he was doing) you WOULD need to use
all the tracks. You'd place the "basic" mics differently if you were
planning to use other spot mics than if you were only going to use a
few. Sure, you can always not use mics, but then you'll be getting a
different picture than what the original engineer had in mind. That
might be OK, it might be better, or it might be worse. Or all three.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
August 5, 2004 4:14:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> Of course it all depends on the recording, and in most cases (assuming
> the recording engineer knew what he was doing) you WOULD need to use
> all the tracks. You'd place the "basic" mics differently if you were
> planning to use other spot mics than if you were only going to use a
> few. Sure, you can always not use mics, but then you'll be getting a
> different picture than what the original engineer had in mind. That
> might be OK, it might be better, or it might be worse. Or all three.

Mike,

The tracks that I was suggesting that George could leave out were the
room mics, the hi-hat, and a track that was a Bus of the Kick and Snare
channels sent through an 1176. I hardly see those as beneficial to a
basic drum sound. I consider all of those tracks as "special effects"
type tracks.

Drum room tracks hardly have an influence on the placement of the close
mics in a rock 'n roll context, at least on my opinion. I use them as an
effect. If they work, they work, if they don't, they don't. I don't
always know until I see how the rest of the production is going to come
together. In the case of the song in question, I think they work, and I
am glad I put them up.

In George's case, he was feeling a little overwhelmed by the 10 drum
tracks. I suggested he leave the room tracks out. The hi-hat track was
just there to bring definition if required. When I went to mix, I didn't
think the hat track was even necessary, the other mics captured the hat
just fine. Therefore, I suggested he leave the hi-hat track out as well.
The compression bus track is also just an effect. I feel you get a
different effect sending the live mics through a compressor before they
get recorded when I am going to tape, rather than compressing after the
track hits tape. Again, this is just a special effect type track, so I
suggested George leave it out, as he was feeling overwhelmed by the 10
drum tracks.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Multi-Track Masters on CD-ROM
www.Raw-Tracks.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 1:58:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <2ndttiFvdhn0U1@uni-berlin.de> eric@Raw-Tracks.com writes:

> The tracks that I was suggesting that George could leave out were the
> room mics, the hi-hat, and a track that was a Bus of the Kick and Snare
> channels sent through an 1176. I hardly see those as beneficial to a
> basic drum sound. I consider all of those tracks as "special effects"
> type tracks.

Since I haven't heard the multitrack recording or, more important, the
original live setup, I can't agree or disagree, but only be a bit
suspicious.

> Drum room tracks hardly have an influence on the placement of the close
> mics in a rock 'n roll context, at least on my opinion. I use them as an
> effect. If they work, they work, if they don't, they don't.

But the time to find that out is when you're recording, not when
you're mixing (and say "I wish there were room mics so I didn't have
to fake it with a reverb unit). No point in recording them if you know
you aren't going to use them, but unless you really want a very dry
drum sound, without room mics, you'll probably pull other mics further
away from the drums. But (like everything else in this business)
that's a generalization.

> I don't
> always know until I see how the rest of the production is going to come
> together. In the case of the song in question, I think they work, and I
> am glad I put them up.

This is a problem. You really should have an idea of how things are
going to fit together. But people develop their own techniques to deal
with the unknowns, and it looks like yours is to plan on close-miking
and room mics. Those on a limited budget, those who perhaps only own
three mics and therefore have to develop a technique that works for
them, will do something different.

> In George's case, he was feeling a little overwhelmed by the 10 drum
> tracks. I suggested he leave the room tracks out. The hi-hat track was
> just there to bring definition if required. When I went to mix, I didn't
> think the hat track was even necessary, the other mics captured the hat
> just fine.

Honestly, I find that this is always the case so if I put up a hi-hat
mic at all, it's just for "psychoacoustic" purposes and I don't think
I've ever dedicated a track to hi-hat.

> The compression bus track is also just an effect. I feel you get a
> different effect sending the live mics through a compressor before they
> get recorded when I am going to tape, rather than compressing after the
> track hits tape.

I'll go along with this as one in your personal bag of tricks, and in
a tutorial, it gives the listener a view into what you like. But then
why write it off before listening to it to see if it adds anything to
the mix?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
August 6, 2004 12:48:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <2ndttiFvdhn0U1@uni-berlin.de> eric@Raw-Tracks.com writes:
>>The compression bus track is also just an effect. I feel you get a
>>different effect sending the live mics through a compressor before they
>>get recorded when I am going to tape, rather than compressing after the
>>track hits tape.
>
>
> I'll go along with this as one in your personal bag of tricks, and in
> a tutorial, it gives the listener a view into what you like. But then
> why write it off before listening to it to see if it adds anything to
> the mix?

Mike,

Who said anything about writing the track off without listening to it.
Again, I was just suggesting that if 10 tracks of drums was too much for
George to get a grip on, he could leave a few tracks out. He could still
get a useable balance.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Multi-Track Masters on CD-ROM
www.Raw-Tracks.com
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 7:00:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike,
I didn't read Eric quite as literally as you did...I thought he had
provided more than enough tracks to do the mixdown, and included some
interesting ones to experiment with. In my brief perusal (a friend of mine
had purchased the CD and was interested in my take), I was just impressed by
the sheer number of drum mics. That may be typical for a recording session,
but it's more than I've been using. In any case, I thought he was saying
that one could use as many or as few of the mics as necessary.
The room mics in particular were interesting to me, offering the sense
of a specific space, rather than just "space" that would be offered by an
outboard reverb unit. It got me started experimenting with applying impulse
reverbs to my overhead tracks to make a virtual room mic pair...not as good,
but it does offer some of the same promise.
Eric, thanks for doing this...it's an interesting exercise.

George Reiswig
Song of the River Music
"EricK" <eric@Raw-Tracks.com> wrote in message
news:2ng671Fik71U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> > In article <2ndttiFvdhn0U1@uni-berlin.de> eric@Raw-Tracks.com writes:
> >>The compression bus track is also just an effect. I feel you get a
> >>different effect sending the live mics through a compressor before they
> >>get recorded when I am going to tape, rather than compressing after the
> >>track hits tape.
> >
> >
> > I'll go along with this as one in your personal bag of tricks, and in
> > a tutorial, it gives the listener a view into what you like. But then
> > why write it off before listening to it to see if it adds anything to
> > the mix?
>
> Mike,
>
> Who said anything about writing the track off without listening to it.
> Again, I was just suggesting that if 10 tracks of drums was too much for
> George to get a grip on, he could leave a few tracks out. He could still
> get a useable balance.
>
> --
> Eric
>
> Practice Your Mixing Skills
> Multi-Track Masters on CD-ROM
> www.Raw-Tracks.com
>
August 6, 2004 11:56:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

A. & G. Reiswig wrote:

snip
> The room mics in particular were interesting to me, offering the sense
> of a specific space, rather than just "space" that would be offered by an
> outboard reverb unit. It got me started experimenting with applying impulse
> reverbs to my overhead tracks to make a virtual room mic pair...not as good,
> but it does offer some of the same promise.
> Eric, thanks for doing this...it's an interesting exercise.

I've never had too much luck applying reverb to overheads. It's hard to
artificially create the sound of a kit in a good room.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Multi-Track Masters on CD-ROM
www.Raw-Tracks.com
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 1:18:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <p2NQc.47$ya.45@nwrddc03.gnilink.net> NOSPAMreiswig@bigfoot.com writes:

> I didn't read Eric quite as literally as you did...I thought he had
> provided more than enough tracks to do the mixdown, and included some
> interesting ones to experiment with. In my brief perusal (a friend of mine
> had purchased the CD and was interested in my take), I was just impressed by
> the sheer number of drum mics. That may be typical for a recording session,
> but it's more than I've been using.

It's typical of certain recording sessions, but it's not typical of
what I use either. It's not for the lack of mics or inputs, I just
don't work with music that requires that sort of drum sound, and to be
honest, I wouldn't know if I had it when I got it. I just figured that
if this was a "training" recording the drums would have been miked in
the contemporary style.

> In any case, I thought he was saying
> that one could use as many or as few of the mics as necessary.

Of course you can. But someone who uses all the mics will get a
different sound than someone who uses only some of them. And if your
choice is to use only some of them, it's possible that you might not
be able to get the sound that you think the song requires. But this is
all academic since I haven't heard what you have. In this case, you
get to be both the mixing engineer and the producer. Have fun.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 6:53:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"EricK" <eric@Raw-Tracks.com> wrote in message news:2ninguF1avrjU1@uni-berlin.de...
> A. & G. Reiswig wrote:
>
> snip
> > The room mics in particular were interesting to me, offering the sense
> > of a specific space, rather than just "space" that would be offered by an
> > outboard reverb unit. It got me started experimenting with applying impulse
> > reverbs to my overhead tracks to make a virtual room mic pair...not as good,
> > but it does offer some of the same promise.
> > Eric, thanks for doing this...it's an interesting exercise.
>
> I've never had too much luck applying reverb to overheads. It's hard to
> artificially create the sound of a kit in a good room.


I never use verb on overheads either... but in close miking a kit's various
parts, I'll wager that I can re-create the room size of your choice and be
quite accurate sounding... at least highly convincing.

DM
August 7, 2004 6:53:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

> I never use verb on overheads either... but in close miking a kit's various
> parts, I'll wager that I can re-create the room size of your choice and be
> quite accurate sounding... at least highly convincing.

I'll keep my money in my pockets. I didn't say it was impossible, just
not easy. As with anything, experience is the key.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Multi-Track Masters on CD-ROM
www.Raw-Tracks.com
!