Yeah. Well I'd say this varies largely depending on the style and composition. If you're doing oldie music or 70s prog rock, you're probably going to compress conservatively compared to if you're handling modern instruments with lots of VSTs and going for that modern rock sound, with electronic instruments. Bass from what I can tell tends to be a lot more compressed and generally processed in post-2000s vs pre-2000s, same with drums, even distortion guitars.
What I'm speaking of occurred because of the invention of CDs and digital media, not style per se, before that this wasn't really possible for various technical reasons with the media available; and it took till around that time for it to reach the point of mildly ridiculous. The thing about ear fatigue; it's a real effect from the distortion. Most everyone knows this. I'm not dissing it, I like it OK at lower levels, but what I explained is what it is.
Quote:
And I think anyways right now if you want your music to be listened to you do have to make concessions and at least somewhat fit the current standard. I'm talking purely production wise, not writing. Your stuff has to be at least a little snappy and dynamic, you have to feel that bass and those kicks, you need that sonic oomph whereas even a style like extreme metal didn't need that back when it started 30 yrs ago, the sonic plane was basically flat back then for death metal. Even that Billie Eilish murmur music posted earlier is more dynamic than first wave death metal bands lol.
Just to clarify... over-compressed is not dynamic just so we are accurate with our terms, it's the exact opposite, less dynamic range aka the distance between the softest and loudest parts. As far as concessions, that's totally up to you.
Much of that was nothing other than trying to "out loud" the other CDs, and sounding like it's cranked when it's not cranked. You will "feel the kick" way more if less compressed and you just turn up the volume. As far as someone choosing to listen to your music, in general that is a myth - either they like your song or they do not - people figured this out and more and more are allowing more DR. Besides, most streaming services are going to turn it down automatically if you over squish it.
Some will argue it, I tend to disagree because I don't chase commercial fads, mostly because in this industry, by the time it's a fad, you are way too late. So if you want to truly be modern, don't do it the way they started doing it 20 years ago. Do do it that way if you love the sound.
SIDE NOTE:
I did a number of listening tests with people maybe 10 years ago, I created two playlists for my car (it's a nice system):
Playlist 1: Only songs with reasonable dynamic range and not over-limited.
Playlist 2: Only songs that match what you described and highly limited.
I'd play Playlist 1, pretty loud but not ridiculous, they would bob their heads and pat their feet the entire time - Then every single time when it switched to Playlist 2, the person with me would immediately make a weird face and ask me to turn it down. I never told them what was up and their reactions matched what we already know about it. I'm not trying to talk you out of it, but you should fully understand what and why it is. If you are mixing you need to be an engineer as well as a fan - and knowing when to wear which hat.
__________________ Music is what feelings sound like.
Last edited by karbomusic; 06-17-2020 at 05:41 PM.
What I'm speaking of occurred because of the invention of CDs and digital media, not style per se, before that this wasn't really possible for various technical reasons with the media available; and it took till around that time for it to reach the point of mildly ridiculous. The thing about ear fatigue; it's a real effect from the distortion. Most everyone knows this. I'm not dissing it, I like it OK at lower levels, but what I explained is what it is.
Just to clarify... over-compressed is not dynamic just so we are accurate with our terms, it's the exact opposite, less dynamic range aka the distance between the softest and loudest parts. As far as concessions, that's totally up to you.
Much of that was nothing other than trying to "out loud" the other CDs, and sounding like it's cranked when it's not cranked. You will "feel the kick" way more if less compressed and you just turn up the volume. As far as someone choosing to listen to your music, in general that is a myth - either they like your song or they do not - people figured this out and more and more are allowing more DR. Besides, most streaming services are going to turn it down automatically if you over squish it.
Some will argue it, I tend to disagree because I don't chase commercial fads, mostly because in this industry, by the time it's a fad, you are way too late. So if you want to truly be modern, don't do it the way they started doing it 20 years ago. Do do it that way if you love the sound.
SIDE NOTE:
I did a number of listening tests with people maybe 10 years ago, I created two playlists for my car (it's a nice system):
Playlist 1: Only songs with reasonable dynamic range and not over-limited.
Playlist 2: Only songs that match what you described and highly limited.
I'd play Playlist 1, pretty loud but not ridiculous, they would bob their heads and pat their feet the entire time - Then every single time when it switched to Playlist 2, the person with me would immediately make a weird face and ask me to turn it down. I never told them what was up and their reactions matched what we already know about it. I'm not trying to talk you out of it, but you should fully understand what and why it is. If you are mixing you need to be an engineer as well as a fan - and knowing when to wear which hat.
The part about over-compressing is not dynamic, well yes sure, but you wouldn't be able to achieve the modern rock/mainstream music sound without good amounts of compression. You need it for that tightness. It goes back to what I was saying earlier: you have to know what you're looking to achieve, organic/old school sounding music or modern. You can't have modern instruments and modern drums without that compressed sound. In that case, you'd change your instruments and arrangements a bit and go more organic.
You can take any recording and slam it up through a limiter and make up gain. Louder sounds better. (Until you turn it down and play it next to the original and then notice the damage.) There are genuine mixes in the can for most of those '90s volume war CD releases. A great number of them have simply never been released.
Here's an exercise:
Look up one of your favorite albums. Go download the 7 different CD masters, the 24 bit download, the bluray version, and a vinyl rip or two from one of those friendly Russian dudes. Line them up in their own tracks in a Reaper session. Start flipping through them. You'll notice the mastered volume varies by up to 20db between some of them! Now start grabbing channel faders and normalize the volumes between them as close as possible by ear (and LUFS meter if you wish). Turn the louder ones down of course. We don't want to clip!
Now start comparing them for fidelity. Keep in mind these all started from the very same mix! A couple will show nicely framed program with good dynamics. A couple of those CD versions will sound strikingly crude and distorted with a thin treble-y sound. You'll be a bit shocked at how compromised some of them are in going for loud.
Stuff that's just pummeled still isn't nothing. Some of these modern mixes still have some 'pop' to them even with that treatment. And the squashed thing led to these ultra cheap devices all the kids have. Phones and cheap ear buds and those shitbar things for cheapness at home. Dynamic music just distorts on this stuff before you get to half the volume you wanted. The squashed stuff pops. But get yourself in front of a real home system or professional PA system and that squashed stuff comes across like a little transistor radio in the corner of the room next to the real thing.
You really do have to resign yourself to listening to some of those screamers at lower volume than you might want some days. There's only so much full level 2k - 5k squelch my ears can stand!
Trying to remember if I've seen that. I think my early club experiences were a level down from that. You had the graphic eq on the mains with the smiley face setting. Channel eqs on the board were typically treated as these superfluous knobs that could be set randomly. You often found the graphic eqs on the monitor channels set to "panic!" (all faders pulled down). There would be a B-word Composer compressor in the system. (It's hard to explain the fidelity reduction effect these units had that eclipsed any compression function if you haven't experienced them.)
Trying to remember if I've seen that. I think my early club experiences were a level down from that. You had the graphic eq on the mains with the smiley face setting. Channel eqs on the board were typically treated as these superfluous knobs that could be set randomly. You often found the graphic eqs on the monitor channels set to "panic!" (all faders pulled down). There would be a B-word Composer compressor in the system. (It's hard to explain the fidelity reduction effect these units had that eclipsed any compression function if you haven't experienced them.)
Not sure how widespread it was, a friend of mine came to town (that's when I met him) and took up mixing in clubs - he's the one I saw using it when I met him, if memory serves he ran FOH or monitors for Rush on some tour way back in their history and I remember he was a damn good live mixer. Then a few months later lots of engineers in town were using it. It was mostly for that boom/click sound in clubs and of course for heavier music, rock et al. There was usually a 31 band EQ just for kick.
It got old and outdated after awhile though.
Keep in mind in my town back then, there were a handful of sound companies that all the bands would hire if there was no house system (which there usually wasn't). So I was a for-hire mixer, aka all the bands would hire the PA company, then me to run the gear and mix - all those companies had that dedicated kick EQ. That was nice, since I didn't have to maintain or carry PA gear. I just walked in with my briefcase of tools, mic'd the stage and mixed. Did that for a number years 3-7 nights a week.
__________________ Music is what feelings sound like.
Last edited by karbomusic; 06-18-2020 at 08:13 AM.
@johnnym & JP: Great posts gents, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and insights. Bass WILL eat a mix. EQ and compression ARE key and hard to get right. And so I'm sure the rest of what you guys say is true too, but those are the ones I can confirm. People like y'all that really make the effort to try to share something of value, with positivity, are very helpful and much appreciated.
For anyone that doesn't make sense to, the original suggestion was to use your ears.
I mean, look, obviously there's good advice in that, but to me, the really good advice version of that is something more like:
Commit to critical listening, and commit to acting on your conclusions from that.
One problem I have, maybe my worst or certainly high up that list, is being reluctant to "kill my babies". Keeping a guitar sound that's just too big. -Letting- the bass eat my mix because a big, warm, low end sounds awesome to me. Trying to "save" a problem track I should just redo.
Note to self: See above.
Also:
Quote:
@everyone: Great posts gents, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and insights.
Fixed my post.
Last edited by fred garvin; 06-20-2020 at 12:32 AM.
Reason: I hate computers. Just do what I think, dammit!!!
It's hitting you in the chest like the amp is in the room with you. Perfect!
"I am NOT band passing this at 2k to make it sound like a beer commercial!!"
later:
Band passing at 2k...
The 2k area is another battle in itself sometimes. Finding the balance between ice pick to the eardrum and pillows in front of the speakers.
It's hitting you in the chest like the amp is in the room with you. Perfect!
"I am NOT band passing this at 2k to make it sound like a beer commercial!!"
later:
Band passing at 2k...
The 2k area is another battle in itself sometimes. Finding the balance between ice pick to the eardrum and pillows in front of the speakers.
Not contradicting you but just from my experience, I'd say the 2k area is not as problematic as those other ones. I read ppl complaining about the 1k and 2k regions occasionally, but even if you got those a bit wrong, but the rest of your mix is balanced, it won't be obvious - whereas try getting ppl to listen to your stuff with a loose 200-600hz area. It's the most disgusting region to get wrong and failing to clean it up convincingly will just be a big fat stain on your work.
In fact I've been asking myself the question - why do VST makers even load up presets with so much mids to it. Why not just clean up the sound at the start and cut the user a break of having to EQ the hell out of it. I realize an instrument will be processed differently from one mix to the next, but still. Most piano-ish VSTs are crazy loaded with that boxy chunk in that 500hz middle.
The reason that entire mids region is so troublesome is where the majority of instrument's natural frequency range lives.
So as soon as we start combining a bunch of tracks those low-mid frequencies will naturally pile up - not to mention any close-mic'd instruments with added proximity effect. Any musical instrument frequency chart will hint at this visually:
The reason that entire mids region is so troublesome is where the majority of instrument's natural frequency range lives.
So as soon as we start combining a bunch of tracks those low-mid frequencies will naturally pile up - not to mention any close-mic'd instruments with added proximity effect. Any musical instrument frequency chart will hint at this visually:
I know I've already said all ^this but maybe in some other thread.
Right yeah. Good way to look at it there.
It's amazing: yeaaaars ago I really thought you produced a song on a DAW by just putting a recorded guitar on top of a bass on top of vocals on top of toms, snare, kicks... and just panned a little for space and separation, and then simple EQing that would take about half an hour and job done.
But that mid range area alone could take entire months of work for one single song. Mixing really is an unnatural craft. I can't think of a field of work where the changes and progress are so minuscule after hours of diligent, utter focus, and where each new improved version (of your song) is so excruciatingly incremental compared to the last. I mean guys seriously, let's all become dentists, seriously, I can deal with forced small talk well not much but it beats this.
It's amazing: yeaaaars ago I really thought you produced a song on a DAW by just putting a recorded guitar on top of a bass on top of vocals on top of toms, snare, kicks... and just panned a little for space and separation, and then simple EQing that would take about half an hour and job done.
Don't give up on that dream!
It can be genre/style dependent but it is entirely possible to make that happen at least to some extent. To do it, you move all that work to the very front of the chain, aka when it is being recorded. You position mics until it's EQ'd just right via placement and/or some EQ or compression etc on the way in, try a different instrument brand whatever...
Pretty much that process with all the recorded tracks, with the knowledge and vision of what the mix is supposed to sound like and everything is supposed to mix together, then that drives all those micing/recording decisions etc. up front. If some track doesn't seem like it fits during that initial tracking, it should be questioned then and there so to speak. Rinse/Repeat. It can be very hard to be diligent at this stage because it is so tempting to jump into that shiny DAW and the option overload/time-wasting that is very real once in the DAW.
It's not that this result can't also have lots more done to it after the fact, it certainly can but doing so will be more creative joy and less problem fixing because the foundation is so "right" from the get go. Can't stress that enough on the general topic that is.
/ramble but important.
__________________ Music is what feelings sound like.
It can be genre/style dependent but it is entirely possible to make that happen at least to some extent. To do it, you move all that work to the very front of the chain, aka when it is being recorded. You position mics until it's EQ'd just right via placement and/or some EQ or compression etc on the way in, try a different instrument brand whatever...
Pretty much that process with all the recorded tracks, with the knowledge and vision of what the mix is supposed to sound like and everything is supposed to mix together, then that drives all those micing/recording decisions etc. up front. If some track doesn't seem like it fits during that initial tracking, it should be questioned then and there so to speak. Rinse/Repeat. It can be very hard to be diligent at this stage because it is so tempting to jump into that shiny DAW and the option overload/time-wasting that is very real once in the DAW.
It's not that this result can't also have lots more done to it after the fact, it certainly can but doing so will be more creative joy and less problem fixing because the foundation is so "right" from the get go. Can't stress that enough on the general topic that is.
/ramble but important.
eh was only messin around. I ain't the type to give up...
as you say in your sig: there are no problems only solutions.
The tiring part with producing is, again, the incremental, slow grind that is making a song.
I used micing for what I was describing but it isn't limited to that, pretty much only limited to stuff that has frequencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard
eh was only messin around. I ain't the type to give up...
as you say in your sig: there are no problems only solutions.
The tiring part with producing is, again, the incremental, slow grind that is making a song.
I didn't think you were, it was just you can do it remark because you can. After recording in some form for I guess 40 years now (more like 50 if I include the first recorder I ever owned), I can't stress enough how few really appreciate/understand how vastly the song, arrangement and source of those sounds affects everything downstream. If you search around in 2020, you almost always see everyone starting at the end of the signal chain instead of the beginning.
__________________ Music is what feelings sound like.
I used micing for what I was describing but it isn't limited to that, pretty much only limited to stuff that has frequencies.
My point is that proper miking technique could eliminate a large number of mixing challenges at the source (literally).
Instead people would rather do it half-assed then labor over the mix later.
It's a natural by-product of having such powerful software tools now, I guess. Without those, you either capture a good sound from the start or you resign yourself to a shitty final result.
My point is that proper miking technique could eliminate a large number of mixing challenges at the source (literally).
Instead people would rather do it half-assed then labor over the mix later.
It's a natural by-product of having such powerful software tools now, I guess. Without those, you either capture a good sound from the start or you resign yourself to a shitty final result.
I was agreeing since ^that was much of my previous post, but wanted others reading to know I wasn't limiting things to just mics. It could be VSTis for that matter and the same "get it right at the source" scrutiny and vision upfront still applies. That affects "mixability" more than pretty much anything else. What many may not be aware of is much of this fix it in the mix crap that is everywhere now is merely due to plugin and other software makers trying to make money and the more one knows about what you and I are speaking of, the less they need the latest turd polishing plugin.
__________________ Music is what feelings sound like.
I was agreeing since ^that was much of my previous post, but wanted others reading to know I wasn't limiting things to just mics. It could be VSTis for that matter and the same "get it right at the source" scrutiny and vision upfront still applies. That affects "mixability" more than pretty much anything else. What many may not be aware of is much of this fix it in the mix crap that is everywhere now is merely due to plugin and other software makers trying to make money and the more one knows about what you and I are speaking of, the less they need the latest turd polishing plugin.
Precisely, my friend. Sorry if I misread some of what you said.
Everyone wants a shortcut and a magic plugin to do all the work. Most things in life just don't work like that, and music is no exception.
I still think about this thread, its question/s, etc...
I think I came to a conclusion today, about 'the' answer, was gonna write something then decided to re-read stuff. And I see that two people pretty much write stuff that's along the lines of what I've been thinking.
And I think it was serr who said something similar.
Overall, what I've been missing, overlooking, is 'size' and more or less loudness/compression. 'Good' or 'commercial' mixes have everything (as-in each instrument/track) compressed within a very small dynamic range and then push everything to the surface of the mix (I think that's about what serr wrote, somewhere up there).
It's weird. The basic formula seems to be: tweak EQ to get the right frequency chunks per instrument, then compress to limit the dynamic range - and push it all up to the surface. That way the listener never strains to hear anything, it's all right there... Exaggerate the high-end while you're there, to give it that HD sound.
Good or not, I think people probably perceive it as good. Being able to hear each instrument, not straining, is probably one key 'aesthetic'.
The other side of this though is space, and I'm less sure about this one.
But, from a generic art perspective, you do need to create depth, where you have a background, midground and foreground. Watch some Bob Ross shows, it's a simple concept and his paintings illustrate it well, all of them. Bob's paintings are like a freeze-frame, a distillation, of the perfect commercial mix...
I guess "depth" isn't really space or size. But 'good'/'commercial' mixes are usually on the big side. They all fill the stereo field in the same way, or at least similarly. That's not something I've thought about much at all, until recently.
So, the basic formula:
1. Eq and compression, create appropriate frequency chunks, compress to small dynamic range (makes it easy to deal with), turn stuff up.
2. make stuff big, fill the stereo field. 'Big' also applies to frequency spectrum.
3. Think in terms of depth/layers - foreground, midground, background.
I think that's it. 'Amateur' mixes miss the mark in one of these three main areas. There's caveats, corollaries, nuances - some "yes, buts..." But in general I think this is pretty close.
I almost want to reduce this to just the compression and size aspects - compress each track, turn them up, and make sure the mix seems big, both in terms of frequency spectrum and stereo field.
Whichever mixes you're referring to, @ eq1: the symptoms you describe are not those of a "good" mix, maybe a "commercial" mix - the intersection is not that big.
A good mix is balanced. When the artistic vision needs exaggeration, then there might be an exaggerated element in the mix (not the top end though, as this would make it as unpleasant as it gets). A good mix *usually* uses subtle processing here and there, the kind which you don't realize until you bypass it.
EDIT: "Depth" of course is indeed the main goal of any "good" mix. [Do you hear this in current "commercial" mixes? I don't.]
__________________ Windows 10x64 | AMD Ryzen 3700X | ATI FirePro 2100 | Marian Seraph AD2, 4.3.8 | Yamaha Steinberg MR816x "If I can hear well, then everything I do is right" (Allen Sides)
Let's see what the "professionals" are up to here. Some glaringly flawed releases recently just off the top of my head.
John Lennon - Gimme Some Truth
Absolutely butchered mastering. Shrill high end just over the top. Grossly altered channel levels with the front L/R channels boosted.
What was interesting on this one is the standard Dolby audio stream (the lowly standard 24/48 Dolby with some lossy compression) was the unmastered raw mix! Fully busted themselves for all the world to hear! Without hearing the actual mix that snuck out there, you would have assumed the mix work was just poor and it was a novelty release. Nope. Full, well done 5.1 mixes.
This was supposed to be a deluxe package with not only 5.1 surround mixes but Atmos as well (7.1.4). All just crudely blasted out.
Alright, so this one was killed in mastering. Apparently they invited someone at random off the street in to do it?
Black Sabbath just released a deluxe version of their Vol 4 album. This one has the most shrill distorted mutilated copy of the album you could ever hear. Someone could have simply done a needle drop on an original album if all tapes had been lost or something and it would have been light years in better shape! Or just copy the ones and zeros from the late 1980's CD release? It's not a great copy but it's in much better shape than what they just released.
Mr. Bungle recently put out a surprise release (after all these years). I wonder if this is intentionally a "fuck off" to fans? -8 LUFS throughout and all full on thrash metal without their usual style of arrangement. A "mic drop" kind of thing to tell fans to stop asking them to reform? Or was there supposed to be something here and it got destroyed?
Al Stewart Year of the Cat album with the Alan Parsons quad mix was released on bluray and the mix (Alan god damn Parsons here!) was stepped on all to high hell and back with limiting boosts and mad shrill high end eq. And stupid shit like extracting some mono from the front L/R pair and putting that in the C channel. Just grossly stepped on a AP mix!
So, OK, these are all mastering disasters. Not mix critique. (And the evidence and telltales in these examples leave no doubt that it was after the mix, mastering stage damage.) These examples aren't current mainstream. Legacy reissues and such. Big presentations and supposedly deluxe editions though. Every single one fully mutilated and return worthy. The Mr. Bungle was a newer release though. (And that was from the 24 bit download! Not just some 64k mp3 share.)
A lot of commercial releases are a dumpster fire right now. Feels like more hiding behind low expectations from years of trashy sounding flawed releases. (And people listening with ear buds and shitbars.)
All of the above examples (after the mastering mutilation as released) could be released in an 8 bit format with no further loss.
There continues to be mind blowing amazing work done, mind you. It's not everything! Probably more happiness and light than not nowadays. But some of the mistakes are pretty bad and the level of the destruction is really eyebrow raising. (If only someone had done a quality control listen to the final files, right? Just one more hour of paying attention one day to avoid that embarrassment.)
My mixes ALWAYS sound a bit bright/thin/lack of lows compared to the references I use. It can start out promising; I’m getting there, yeah … I’m getting there, oh yeah baby … And the BAM! Some blackout occurs, and after snapping out of it I found my mix too bright – again. Then I try to back a few steps hoping to find the point where I might have screwed up. But the damage is done, hidden somewhere in the mess. So, I reset the mixer and start over again … Until I give in and have to release the noise because I just don’t have any time left.
I simply cannot get it right. Ever. And I never will.
ive listened to 10000 bluesrock songs that all sound like they were mixed by the same guy
on the other hand i dont like music for 14yr olds
how would you even compare?
I think I've probably come too close to conflating "good" and "commercial" in posts I've written in this thread. As I recall I thought I had a good feel for what Dork Lard was looking for when he initially created this thread, like I knew exactly what he was talking about - the 'commercial' sound vs. the 'amateur'. I still think the last post I posted captures the main differences. But, erase "good," because sounding commercial and sounding good aren't the same thing. It's actually something I struggle with, on a philosophical/psychological level...
In a nut shell, if people are used to the commercial sound, then they'll be prone to think that is equal to good sound. If the song/mix hits the right sign posts - loud enough, fills the stereo spectrum, no untoward/unique frequency tweaks, etc. - they'll think it's good. If not they'll think it's not good. This stuff is like a package, it's the cool kids' clothes. If your song isn't wearing the cool outfit, it will be overlooked. The mix itself might be considered 'bad' - even though it might not be...
The difference between commercial/pro and amateur is that pros have a lot larger sense of the playing field, how the mix compares to other mixes. A mix can sound decent, be pretty good unto itself, but compare it to others and you quickly see faults. Amateurs have little sense of how a mix compares, how it stacks up.
Mix vs. song: One of my running ideas has been that, personally, I'm not so interested in songs - and that I'd prefer to listen to a stellar mix of a bad song than a bad mix of a good song. But it's really hard and almost misses the whole point to separate mix from song and vice versa. If you're a professional - do mixing for a living - you probably have little say in the quality of the song, and you're probably limited to the extent that you'll be free to change song elements - like structure, maybe tweaking performance aspects, etc. IE you have to separate mix from song... I don't know, I still think you can make almost any musical source material sound good, that you really don't need a good song. But, that requires the freedom to mix things up, to take the best of the musical source material and go with it, and to discard the bad... That freedom isn't typical.
Trinity Sessions: I used to love that album. In the context of this thread, I think Trinity Sessions as an example might miss the point, because it's not like the Cowboy Junkies were going for a stellar commercial sound. What makes it so good - is there anything there that can actually illustrate to a fledgling mixer what to do to make a good commercial mix? I don't know, maybe... Maybe a good 'mix', maybe not necessarily a good commercial one. Well-written songs, cohesive/tight performance, captured. Can you replicate the effect mixing a bunch of stuff tracked and overdubbed over 40 tracks and two weeks? If so you could probably do a good mix, but not necessarily a good commercial one.
Trinity Sessions isn't wearing the cool clothes, that's for sure. Then again, I think part of the objective is to make 'your sound' the cool sound...
Anyway, a lot of weeds in this business, this art form. To keep it manageable, it's probably best - and generally worthwhile - to try to avoid opening up the topic to a host of entirely subjective stuff. If you could do a statistical analysis of commercial releases vs. amateur releases, each set rated on say 4-8 objective criteria - you could probably come up with a pretty solid answer. There are real differences, some of them equate to good and bad.
Good: commercial mixes usually have the full frequency spectrum well-represented, in a balanced way. Bad: commercial mixes are often so compressed that performance dynamics are totally missing. Good: Amateur mixes often have unusual frequency treatments that make them stand-out, wake up the ear; performance dynamics often shine through. Bad: unusual frequency treatments often step-on other instruments, overshadow the mix as a whole, dynamics are often too untamed and sound disproportionate... I don't know, is it all subjective, no matter what?
You can easily create an 'epistemic community' - a bubble - define the criteria, the values, and then anything that fits those criteria and values is either good or bad. But is the bubble real in the first place, are the values good ones? In a hyper-capitalist market society, for instance, loud, compressed, short might be highly valued traits for a song/mix. Would those be valued in a tribal village? Are there criteria, values that transcend whatever social-economic form, whatever time or place?
So, do you think these mixes sound 'professional' or 'good'? I don't know how to say this without sounding like an asshole, or like I'm criticizing just to be critical... I flipped through some of these. They don't sound bad. But the 5 or so I listened too - the reverb overwhelms the mixes to one degree or another. To my ear it's like - Boom - reverb stands out too much, I'm hearing the reverb rather than hearing the music in some coherent space... Too much reverb is a tell-tale sign of 'amateur'. It's easy to mis-perceive reverb for space, i.e. if you hear reverb you think you're hearing space, but it doesn't work like that.
Mixing on 60$ headphones might be part of the problem. I find that I tend to want to add more reverb when I listen on headphones, but it usually ends up being too much when I listen on monitors.
Hitting that right amount of reverb, or getting the reverb right in general, is a pretty tricky thing. It requires very careful listening, at the right volumes, in a good and familiar listening environment. Not saying I get it right all the time or that I always have these ducks in a row. But I've done enough now to at least be able to tell what's needed to get it right...
So, here's a good example of points I was making in the above post: Is this totally subjective? I say 'too much reverb' - that judgment to me seems, maybe not perfectly objective, but pretty darn objective. Is it?
Let's pretend our listening environments can be taken out of the equation, that we all have perfect listening environments, so we can say what we're hearing is not the result of the listening media (system, monitors, etc.).
Unless reverb is used as a particular effect for a particular purpose in a song/mix, you generally shouldn't 'hear' reverb, rather, the reverb you use contributes to a perception of space. In 'amateur' mixes, I find that reverb often takes on a weight and proportion equal to, say, the lead vox - it can become an instrument in itself, an active piece within the mix, when rather in most cases it should be part of the setting, the context, of the real instruments...
If room tones and drones or other ambient artifacts that don't seem to really move or follow with the parts, notes, and rhythms and just kind of sit there. And especially if those elements are as loud or louder than the musical components. That makes people think it was mixed somewhere where those anomalies were not heard and missed and that pokes out as amateur.
You need your monitoring together enough that you don't miss big things in the wires that you couldn't hear with your setup.
There isn't any one "sound" that's commercial. It sure as hell isn't the volume war hype shriek! That shit is about as amateur sounding as it gets! It's mostly not having surprise mud that got past you on some suspect system. Or the other extreme. Tinny with no bass. (Like the volume war CDs.)
yea i love reverb
i was being ironic about myself
i dont do commercial mixes
i do what i like...
Yeah, doing what you like is important. But I think the conundrum here - when reaper folk make threads asking, 'why do my mixes sound so crappy at the end of it all?' - is that somewhere along the way we end up making mixes that we don't actually like, especially when we start comparing them to other stuff. OP was making comparisons between his mixes and 'commercial' mixes, finding that his mixes were coming up short in one way or another...
I don't know, it seems pretty obvious to me - a lot of amateur mixes do fall short of the overall cohesiveness, the packaged quality, of most commercial mixes. Some of the qualities found in that "package" are actually good, some aren't.
When I mix I tend to want to...blur the line, have some of that packaged quality, but also some of the rawness and untidiness, etc., of the 'amateur' mix. Commercial releases sound way too phony to me, it's like 'product'. I hate that. It's like huge, dark, draw-in eyebrows these days. Popular aesthetics are ruled by something like a techno-hyper-market society business class ethos these days, where the more you can look and sound like product, the more highly rated you'll be. It's awful.
Basically, whatever art I do, and hopefully whatever art anyone does, in this day and age, needs to bring back the natural aesthetic. Mixes need to challenge plastic. But I don't think you can do that by abandoning 'the package' all together, there has to be a nexus, a vector through which 'normal folk' can actually enter the natural, perceive the natural, find the beauty of naturalness...
I think the OP, Dork Lard, might've had a similar 'vision', but it was a dichotomy between tech and natural, or tech and organic; he said something like he liked the clinicalness of this or that mix juxtaposed with the organic. Although I think he leaned toward the tech...
i think our OP is a little misguided in thinking you can make a recording that sounds like lincon park without recording like a live band thats been toghether 10 +years
thats my secret angle about the thing
if you dont record a BAND its not going to sound like a BAND
it would be easy to say your "lack of cohesiveness" is a product of the
"I can do Everything" syndrome
what gets me is its just a circuar logic of
"how to mix" by internet memes
but as an experiment do you think this mix has too much reverb
who ever mixed this is doing a better job of my style of mixing
( RE SM57 )But I can make the voice sound natural on a live stage (or live studio session) easier than with my Neumann 105 when there's a loud drum kit 3' away with screaming cymbals!
In that isolated example, someone not aware of the nuts and bolts here might conclude that the SM-58 is a "better mic" than the KMS-105. Heh...
please no! dont bring up sure mics
lets all just stop convoluting stage mics with gear
SURE 57s and 58s are NOT recording mics
but if you have loose nails in the stage...grab a sure
you use them because
a)they always work
b)when the singer of the punk band starts smashing the mic into the stage...
see a
ok ill grant they give the most bang for your buck
they had there hey day
you can get a real studio mic for 300-400 now
i think our OP is a little misguided in thinking you can make a recording that sounds like lincon park without recording like a live band thats been toghether 10 +years...
Nah, I don't think the things he was after are those things that come from a great band performance. For instance, one of the positive references was a Grime's song ('Power' I think it was named), no band there, right?
I'm not saying a great band/performance/song doesn't lend to great mixes, just that the aspects OP was thinking about don't necessarily come from that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beat Machine
but as an experiment do you think this mix has too much reverb who ever mixed this is doing a better job of my style of mixing
No, not in a technical sense. But for my taste, it seems a little reverb-heavy at times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beat Machine
...psychologically your should be like
"thats how its supposed to sound" familiarity
Good point... I probably underestimate how much what people like depends not on some internally developed aesthetic, but rather, on familiarity, what cool people like, etc. As far as I know I've mostly transcended my own influences - it's not about what's familiar - but rather, it's about...'criteria' that go beyond the personal. Like above I say that piece you posted a link to sounds fine in terms of reverb - in a technical sense - but my own personal taste says it's a little reverb-heavy at times. I simply like drier stuff. But I'd never say it's bad or 'that reverb is too much, or wrong' simply because it's not as dry as I'd like it to be; it'd be bad if the reverb overshadowed a ton of other musical stuff that's happening, for example, not simply because I like less reverb...
please no! dont bring up sure mics
lets all just stop convoluting stage mics with gear
SURE 57s and 58s are NOT recording mics
but if you have loose nails in the stage...grab a sure
you use them because
a)they always work
b)when the singer of the punk band starts smashing the mic into the stage...
see a
ok ill grant they give the most bang for your buck
they had there hey day
you can get a real studio mic for 300-400 now
The cost of a mic, or whether it's a condenser or dynamic, doesn't mean that is the right mic to use. That all depends on what you want, and engineers with access to $100,000's mic lockers still use cheap mic's, because they get them the sound they are after (which might be more about the performance than just the audio output of the mic itself).
I'm not a big fan of Red Hot Chilli Peppers or The Killers, but I've never heard the vocals on those records and thought "if only they'd used a proper studio mic".
What your mix lacks compared to commercial releases
Experienced ears. A good listening environment. Experience with the tools at hand. That's it.
__________________ Windows 10x64 | AMD Ryzen 3700X | ATI FirePro 2100 | Marian Seraph AD2, 4.3.8 | Yamaha Steinberg MR816x "If I can hear well, then everything I do is right" (Allen Sides)
But for my taste, it seems a little reverb-heavy at times
I simply like drier stuff. But I'd never say it's bad or 'that reverb is too much, or wrong' simply because it's not as dry as I'd like it to be; it'd be bad if the reverb overshadowed a ton of other musical stuff that's happening, for example, not simply because I like less reverb...
so thats probably a good definition of "too much reverb"
so just to judge your perspective on the amount of reverb you like
so thats probably a good definition of "too much reverb"
In general terms, sure. It can be a bit tricky though... Basically, I think there's a lot of balancing of various elements that's going on, where space is one element. Depending on the material, it might be better to have more or less space overall, and in achieving that sense of space it might be better to have reverb more noticeable on one element or another.
The example that's coming to mind is lead vox: I worked with a piece last month where timbre of lead vox wasn't that great. Normally you'd want the lead to be clear and up front, but the quality of the voice was so sub-par, it really needed to be pushed back a bit, demoted in a sense, and more reverb on that vox was a better choice. The reverb added space and made the vox more intelligible, yet at the same time it also masked, sort of hid, the lame vocal quality... To me, that sort of decision-making is a super fine line though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beat Machine
so just to judge your perspective on the amount of reverb you like
a dryer track i mixed
hmm, hard to say. My first hit is that I don't want to say it's 'too much', but rather, maybe some mismatch between, say, reverb/space on vox and reverb/space on rest, maybe just percussion. Reverb on vox sounds a little harsh and bright.
Second hit is, yeah, a bit heavy on reverb overall. Here I'd call it my preference - I'd prefer a little less reverb overall.
All the instrument timbres sound great, I'd just prefer that the space they're in wasn't so prominent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beat Machine
a professional job with a "big buut subtle" reverb #Blues
Meena Cryle - It Makes Me Scream
Don't think I have any issues with this one... I think in general I probably prefer the...'intimacy' (faux intimacy?) of a studio recording and a mix, there's things you can achieve with that that you can't with a live recording of a performance. With a live recording the set/setting and space is sort of fixed, the relationship between the listener and the performance is, like, always one-to-one - you're in one spot, the performance is in another.
With a studio recording and mix, the relationship between listener and 'performance' can be, I don't know, somewhat other-worldly, more in 'psychological space', can basically, potentially take you away from the physical world, I guess. I think I tend to like that more. I don't think that'd be a matter of good and bad, it'd be a matter of my personal preference/taste. And, of course, it all depends, one live recording could easily be better, achieve other-worldliness, better than a studio mix.
Whoa! Dude! You just blew my mind maaaan... 
Linear Mode
