I have no advice on this matter and I started learning engineering on an SSL at EMI's Sydney studio. I ran a number of 16 track tape studios in large spaces for the next decade. I've been using computer based systems since the 90's and although I should know what I'm doing, I clearly don't, since a listen to any of my old recordings have a depth and dimension and a true sense of the space in which they were recorded. Now I have the option of using Ocean Way, Altiverb or Tony Visconti's Hansa room mics, but it always sounds like a bandaid solution applied to dry sound and I struggle to get realistic placement. I guess I'm saying in some cases, check where your reference track was recorded. You might find your home recording isn't measuring up to Abbey Road.

 

Man i completely agree with you i get asked all the time>>> what DAW do i use and what kind of gear i use and just loads and loads of questions about what to do in a mix >>> Honestly i tell everyone i work with recording and mixing that the most important part of the whole chain of it is not what kind of DAW or plugins that one uses BUT its most important what you put into your DAW from the start \m/

 

Hey Digital, I think I know exactly what you mean, It has to be more then just basic mixing and eq-ing. Its like the records are in more of a tridimensional space and everything is more define. If I had to guess, its going to be some sort of hardware or analog summing. Its not just basic mixing that'll get you that sound. Its Driving me insane as well.

 

I have a CD of an album I engineered and produced in 1989. It was a live recording of a 9 piece band and something that just came to mind was the variety of microphones I used and I wondered if that factor may play a role in giving everything it's own spacial tonality. Listening to it now I can still see where the musicians were through the control room window. I'd stand in the room while they did a run through, so I could reference how they actually sounded live. Then I didn't have to try to add that "3rd" dimension, I just panned everything to where they were in the room (actually their stage positions), applied very little compression, then let the mix take care of itself. All these years later I can't get that 'realism' out of my DAW.

 

@digitaldragon some stuff im workin on right now of my own an my band... just demo stuff puttin the songs together ;) alot of will be re recorded... vocals are scratch an the other one the vocals gona be recorded this week \m/ 90% of the time i do most of the writing Digital till we get a song worked out then i record everything with mics in my studio \m/ this way i can kinda get everything in the ballpark of the way i want it to sound then throw up the mics turn on the board and gear an hammer it out>>> but i do use overlays on drum samples and use synths to fill in an all that kinda jazz haha \m/ hope you enjoy em holla somtime will chat on some mixing with Nebula stuff \m/ Edit one i posted not long ago thats gettin reworked too this week
\m/

 

Last edited: Apr 15, 2017

1st and 3rd mix are really good bro.

 

That's fucking hilarious J. Spot on...

 

HAHAHA >>> \m/...\m/ 100 + mixdowns still goin strong LMAO!

 

If i could add something to the many answers is always remember the fundamentals on which mixing evolved upon. EQ was invented to accentuate troublesome frequency areas. Overdoing the dynamics on a multi-track recording/production usually results in an artificial "plastic" sound. And while this may "suit" some genres it is an overkill for styles that include real instruments. For me, one of the best reference albums ever to listen to and also help calibrate your room/speakers etc, is Sade's Diamond Life. Only because this album, has no dynamics processing, for the most part it's just the band playing. The dynamics on this album are a marvel because what you hear is the musicians' volume discipline and "playing chemistry" among them and not just a compressor stuck to maintain a certain level.
Needless to say, i am a huge fan of as less "outboard" as possible in mixing and getting the best possible signal/sound before you press rec.
Cheers all

 

@digitaldragon
Notice how rhythm guitars arent even strong in the low bottom end so the drums and bass can really push trough.
Also, a low pass filter on the guitars makes it possible for the vocals and the snare to sit on top.

 

Only cans I have at the moment is a set of ATH-M35 and a set of KRK 8400. Just ordered the SR850's of Amazon for $34 shipped. (Yay, new gear!)

 

It takes 200-300 hours for them to fully open up, so have patience if you arent satisfied in the beginning.
Also, i prefer leather over velour, comfort and soundwise, so you can also experiment with that if you wish.
And lastly, its important to get to know your gear you are mixing with.

 

@digitaldragon >>> hey brother i know you a big nebula Fan as well as myself >>> in the Henry Olonga all you can eat bundle there is a section labeled >>>filters >>> some great EMI HP LP in that section goes all the way up and down the scale... Try them out you will lovem they sound Awsome \m/ I use them alot some of the best ive ever used man in the box >>> they can cut away low end from a heavy guitar and you would never know it was ever there>>> alot of Algo stuff leaves the guitars sounding harsh after a cut>>> TRY THEM \m/ they easy on CPU too>>> Thank me later lol

 

Quite true but quite wrong too, it's right that referencing with masters against your mixes without doing anything more is a non-sense and will always destroy your mix in therms of depth, loudness, and every over details because as you know, louder is better for our ears, the more loud it is the more details we hear (until a certain point).

So, your statement "never compare a finished mastered track with your mix" is a bit misleading. You CAN reference masters (and you must), but, always reference with appropriate meters (RMS/LuFS/PLR) AND gain-stage your tracks. Match output level between your mix and your references. Now, this is completely relevant. The psychoacoustic effect loudness have on your ears is gone. You can now focus and compare all criterias of your choice, without getting rekt all the time by your ref. You can match EQs accurately.

Etc...

So, it's not "Never compare mix to master" it's "Never compare mix to master without output levels matching".

 

Im with you on this \m/ i get my outboard Vibe on Recording and just use Acustica an Algo to mix... only time these days i use any outboard after recording is mastering i use a GML 8200 eq an its very clean>>> into a L2 limiter and convert it back in with my Pure 2... \m/

 

I agree with this.

However, i didn't really mean "never" when i said "never compare a finished mastered track with your mix" (never say never? wow :D )

I meant to not do it wrong and what to look for in a reference track, more or less creatively other than technically.

See, I, would always rush to compare my fresh track or idea out of excitement mostly, as soon as i created a cool drop or big breakdown to a fully finished produced, mixed and mastered track (KSHMR - Secrets for example) and end up disappointed. End up not really liking the melody anymore even though it was a good one. I would hate it and consider it a piece of shit. Why? Because i simply didn't really try hard enough to match his level of production first, let alone his mixing/mastering. By understanding this, it's better to capture a great level of production and then go for loudness. If you download the stems to Secrets and see how squashed the lead is and then add all the other extra squashed layers to it, they all sound as one piece but it's a very complex puzzle. So, your one track lead won't do nothing even if you match RMS levels to it because you simply didn't take all the steps to achieving that depth and perceived space.

So that's what I aimed for mostly when i said "never compare a finished mastered track with your mix" because I know 99% of new producers will do it at some point after they start to gain a bit of understanding of how compression or eqing works and they want to learn more and more. To not lose focus and keep creating beautiful tracks/songs instead of trying to be the best mixing engineer the world has ever seen.

Creativity > Technicalities
A good song is a good song even if you play it back through a shitty chinese $60 phone.

 

100% agree with you. I quoted you to balance your statement for all newer/advanced producer so they dont think "Ok so I need to find references mixes instead of all those easily findable/rippable masters, crap", you did even better with that last post, hats off!

 

Really enjoying these 2! Thanks for the suggestion! That Lindell has a certain magic to it.

 

So here is where we are roughly 6 months later. I've learned ALOT in the meantime. Still have more to learn. The track has not been recorded again, just continued working with this to see how far I can take it. I think I've got some depth and dimension in there now.
What I've done:
1.) Gainstage, gainstage, gainstage.
2.) Lot's of EQ work. I'm getting to know my room better after doing reference checks in other listening environments. Bottom end is really tight and defined now to my ears, and there's much better separation between instruments.
3.) Backed off of compression some in both individual tracks as well as bus compressors. Got better at attack/release settings to embellish the groove that's already there.
4.) Analog summing (poor man's version) through a console and a few pieces of outboard gear.
5.) Acustica Gold. Not much else to say about this one. It has many uses!
6.) Reverbs. I used three primary ones, each with different predelay, early reflection level, and tail levels for close, middle, and far. Then sent the appropriate tracks to them. This one really separated things into their own space and added that feeling of dimension to the mix. Also had a slapback delay and big plate going for some added color and to help the vocals stand out a little bit more.

I want to thank everyone for all of the suggestions. I've really learned a lot through this thread that I don't feel I would have gotten elsewhere. THANK YOU AUDIOSEX'ers!!

 

I think the guys from GearSlutz and KVR could learn a thing or two dozen from this thread.

Lovely discussion.