How do pro studios know their mix is ready ?

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

The 70s had plenty of great sounding mixes and they hold up to this day. They don't sound like Linkin Park though...thankfully.

I was still playing cover gigs until the pandemic; and have played one or two since things reopened slightly. It's very surprising how many 20-35 year olds walk up to me and talk about how much they like the music their parents listened to and really like the tunes. Now we also play music as current as the last year or two, but it's striking how many are A) paying attention to the songs themselves and B) not stuck in their generation. And not one of them talk about sonics or sound quality or mixes LOL.

Reminds me of when I learned a similar lesson years back, some non-musician friends told me a band they saw that sucked terribly. As fate would have it, I had to mix this band for the first time a few weeks later and they were fantastic, every sonic and musical thing sounded top notch and on the money.

I went back to my friends and asked, I thought said that band you saw was terrible, they were killer. They said "They were terrible, they didn't play a single SONG we like".

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

Let me quote your post to which I was referring:


The 70s had plenty of great sounding mixes and they hold up to this day. They don't sound like Linkin Park though...thankfully.

Anyway even if that previous post I quoted wasn't quite what you'd intended to say, I think you prefer a sort of over-produced over-compressed sort of sound that these days is showing its age, at the end of the "loudness war". I'm basing this on the few examples you've given of what you consider to be a great production. Not that I find those mixes bad in general, but they are a bit "much" when it comes to how compressed they are in general.

Well I just meant anything current, not just Linkin Park type stuff. Anything since around 2000 sounds big, and anything from the 2010s tends to sound huge. Do I personally like the early LP very compressed/a bit overproduced sound, yes. But the bottom line is anything these days sounds big, and clean, and deep etc. You've got to be at the top of your game with your mixing these days whereas it wasn't the case in, say, the 90s, when a death metal band could put out a shitty horrifically produced album but it didn't matter because the narrative there is "that album was seminal, and sounded raw and had that old school grit". Won't work today in metal, and especially not in the field I'm attempting to get into.

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

They said "They were terrible, they didn't play a single SONG we like".

I have a friend who sometimes speaks in absolutes when referring to personal preference, in that way. I remind him that I don't generally mind when he does that, but maybe be more specific and say "I hate their music" instead of "they suck as a band" at least.

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

Well I just meant anything current, not just Linkin Park type stuff. Anything since around 2000 sounds big, and anything from the 2010s tends to sound huge. Do I personally like the early LP very compressed/a bit overproduced sound, yes. But the bottom line is anything these days sounds big, and clean, and deep etc. You've got to be at the top of your game with your mixing these days whereas it wasn't the case in, say, the 90s, when a death metal band could put out a shitty horrifically produced album but it didn't matter because the narrative there is "that album was seminal, and sounded raw and had that old school grit". Won't work today in metal, and especially not in the field I'm attempting to get into.

Well I can't speak for a field that I don't know about. I do hear a lot of overcompressed stuff (including the examples you provided, not just Linkin Park), and that tends to sound bad to me in a basic sense. It's louder on average, yes, but I know what that means and it doesn't impress me at all; I tend to turn songs like that off within seconds due to how fatiguing it sounds. To judge those mixes apart from the extreme compression, it's difficult for me to listen "through the compression". Thankfully the trend of overcompression is waning, after a couple decades. With any luck we can get back to using dynamic range more respectfully on the whole, and then maybe I'd want to listen to the radio again. I'd encourage you to find some videos on the loudness war and consider that you treat your mixes carefully to avoid squashing them too much. Try to get a perspective that has you appreciating less "overproduced" sound, so you can find a boundary that makes sense for what you need to mix.

This video might be interesting, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Fb3rWNWDA

[Tod]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

you're all talking about albums produced at a time when technology was still limited. Is it realistic to expect to produce an album today that sounds like an album from the 70s ? People TODAY want something that sounds good by today's standards, or they'll likely immediately switch off. I ain't bustin my ass like a slave so a couple of open minded music-educated individuals will like my stuff. You have to compromise.

I'm from the 60s and 70s Dork Lard, I've been recording and producing all my life and I've never compromised
on anything I did. And I'm willing to bet no engineer or producer from the 60s, 70s, or 80s compromised in
any way either. We/I've done the best we/I could with what we/I had to work with, but it goes beyond that.
We invented ways to circumvent our short comings and limitations. I think one thing we did have in those days
were some pretty good musicians. I attribute that to the fact that in those days nearly all real musicians were
playing and gigging for a living.

This is a song I wrote, played, and recorded on my old Ampex 2 track recorder in 1965, it's me and my guitar
along with my organ, the bass is the organ pedals.
https://soundcloud.com/tod-904566455...-your-game-mp3

And this goes to 2020, I produced, played, and recorded this for a contest I was in.
https://youtu.be/mSyYFzmXYks

[fred garvin]

Originally Posted by Tod

This is a song I wrote, played, and recorded on my old Ampex 2 track recorder in 1965, it's me and my guitar
along with my organ, the bass is the organ pedals.

Dude! That is sooo smoove. Could totally see that in an Elvis movie, except that was maybe a lil risque for its day? Make love all night long, could you say that in the mainstream in '65?

And really good performances, arrangement, and mix then and good now, clean, clear, balanced, sells the song. Only tech thing I hear after a couple listens that really wouldn't fly now is you can hear the vocal track pump when you lay out. Or is that just tape? What were you using for vox? Hot tubes and plenty of 'em?

Anyway, nice one!

[Pink Wool]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

serr, Allybye, Pink Wool
you're all talking about albums produced at a time when technology was still limited. Is it realistic to expect to produce an album today that sounds like an album from the 70s ? People TODAY want something that sounds good by today's standards, or they'll likely immediately switch off. I ain't bustin my ass like a slave so a couple of open minded music-educated individuals will like my stuff. You have to compromise. I used to be the artsy composer who wrote and recorded twisted technical death metal, and play it to a few friends, but that's not what all this is about. Without having to sell out, you can make compromises. The FIRST thing people listen for is production right now. If it's rock, how over-produced and gorgeous every instrument sounds; if it's metal, how huge the guitars and other instruments sound; if it's electronic, how pure and deep it sounds; pop needs to be super shiny, so on. The first thing ppl listen for IS NOT how great the musical ideas are and how brilliantly composed the melodies and chord progs are. So to be heard, you've got to meet that criterion first, and -then- if you can still be original and authentic even better. I too love shitty-produced records from past decades, but that's not the question here.

I think the question then becomes, is YOUR song really that good? If you get it sounding "like current production", whatever that means, is your song good enough to pull the listener in? Most pop songs today get to the chorus in 30 secs. Because people seem to have a much shorter attention span today. And that's just because there's so much music available. And most of it sounds the same anyway so why not skip to the next?

[Naji]

It is a law. If a product is available in abundance, it's worth nothing. Music is worth nothing, that's the truth.
It is very interesting, Frederic Chopin knew this would happen 200 years ago, when he had to go to London, he hated London btw. The main orchestra wanted to play his concert with two rehearsals only. He refused to perform. Everythin was getting faster, cheaper with less committment, passion and preparation, that's how we do it today in perfection. Then he noticed that in cafes and restaurants a pianist was playing, something completely new in those days. And he noticed that no one paid attention to the pianist and music.the constant stream of music started in those days and cities like London and Paris were pioneers. How many new tracks are uploaded every day, week and year?! Music is just a mass product. But of course one can still have fun with performing music...
A great example are the superstar shows, you have that in almost every country, don't you. Young people have the chance to become a superstar! Who believes that?
People are watching the show, because most of the teens are not talented at all and that's funny, a good opportunity for slandering.
After the show you will not see anyone again in most cases, music business is getting more stupid every year...
One of the first superstars were Paganini and later Liszt with concert tours. They were lucky without having competitors. And they were one of the best in their genre!
Without social media and lots of followers you will not be noticed nowadays. Play the game of cheapness or just have fun making music. Of course there are always exceptions.

[enroe]

Originally Posted by Tod

And this goes to 2020, I produced, played, and recorded this for a contest I was in.
https://youtu.be/mSyYFzmXYks

Wow, really good!

That reminds me: more important than all the technical
knick-knacks is the experience of composition and learning
how to mix.

[Allybye]

Ok Dork, I understand what you wrote, I think!
If I may paraphrase, the production, the 'good' mix the sound is what people nowadays buy their recordings based upon. Not the artists or the immediate impression? It'll be those sounds that just zing or shake your belly at high SPL IMHO!

If that is a correct interpretation.?......can we point to all in the Billboard top 50 albums being those that meet the criteria of a great mix rather than performance or something that just explodes in your face?

Not my scene in general, I will readily admit, my first listen to a selection,of tracks, from them.
I do not think they are all great let alone perfect mixes! Maybe others do so that is why they feature in the top 50! These comments do not detract from the skills, expertise and results of those producing them. They obviously meet the need.

But no doubt 'meet the need to get them out of the door' so that those who like the type music will be impressed and buy them!

Consider:
Danny Brown, uknowhatimsayin¿ Overall sound and mix not for me, really heavy base and some Karbo syndrome - but it comes in at no. 47

Madonna Madam X great mix if it was not for excessive reverb!
No. 46

Oso Oso, Basking in the Glow some good mixes here too - till songs get too cluttered but One Sick Plan is poor. No. 40


So, high up in the chart

Ariana Grande, Thank U, Next, reportedly made in just two weeks! Not your tweak tweak treak till they know it's right. Number 1.

Now it could be just me or my taste or my opinion but all I listened too have excessively loud base and tweaked up top end. Maybe intentionally produced that way but overall not natural sounding albeit with some very good bits in the mix! Made to impress being in your face lots of bass lots of top end, tiring to listen too.

Compare with the following (not a major seller), good mix, balanced frequencies plenty of middle, not in your face, but it's the performance that gets the credit!
https://open.spotify.com/track/2T2SB...RoaM__EqHG3EGQ

[chip mcdonald]

Originally Posted by Monotremata

Have you asked yourself how records were made in the 70s/80s/90s before everyone had that "magic button Ozone"?
I

Well, there was a Magic Button in the 90's and it was called "The Finalizer".

It's curious how it's completely fallen off the map "historically", since IMO it started was the equivalent of the Manhattan Project for the Loudness Wars. The Last Big Hardware Piece before DAWs took over.

[vdubreeze]

The answer is really the same as the one to "How do pro studios know when the vocal is compressed right?" compared to non-pro studios, or "How do pro studios know when the amount of reverb and delay is right?" It's the same thing. They know because knowing those things is what makes their work sound good, and gets them to the level they're at. There's nothing technical about it.

[Naji]

Professional studios know when it is ready, when it sounds well on smartphones and small speakers. At least they should know. Music is for listeners and we, who mix in our studio speakers, simetimes think, when it sounds good on my speakers, then it's good. Smartphone speakers are the reference today. I remember some mixes, they sounded great on big speakers, but awfully on smartphones, eg way too much mids... Music is for listebers, ir make music just for and your speakers.
Even though I am not if the younger generation any more, about 70% of music I listen to in small speakers, as well.
To have all important smarthones is a must today imo, at least Samsung, Huawei and iPhone.
So I do not really care if a mix is mono or stereo, because my speakers give me mono sound (Huawei) , only on headphones stereo can be very nice. Times are changing, always!

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by Tod

I'm from the 60s and 70s Dork Lard, I've been recording and producing all my life and I've never compromised
on anything I did. And I'm willing to bet no engineer or producer from the 60s, 70s, or 80s compromised in
any way either. We/I've done the best we/I could with what we/I had to work with, but it goes beyond that.
We invented ways to circumvent our short comings and limitations. I think one thing we did have in those days
were some pretty good musicians. I attribute that to the fact that in those days nearly all real musicians were
playing and gigging for a living.

This is a song I wrote, played, and recorded on my old Ampex 2 track recorder in 1965, it's me and my guitar
along with my organ, the bass is the organ pedals.
https://soundcloud.com/tod-904566455...-your-game-mp3

And this goes to 2020, I produced, played, and recorded this for a contest I was in.
https://youtu.be/mSyYFzmXYks

Wow, those both sound very nice, albeit in two different ways. It's always nice to see individuals like yourself who are capable of adapting. You could mix in the 60s, and you can mix by today's rules too.

About 'compromise'. My answer would be simply that the said 60s/70s/80s, and you could throw the 90s in there, were the "great decades". We'll never have such quality times ever again I think, although I don't mean to pull out an apocalyptic edge to this conversation. Times when what genuinely mattered was originality and creativity, and great music would be found regularly, even in mainstream sources. You could turn on ...THAA RADIO for God's sake, and listen to music that actually had thought and some form of artistic integrity poured into it. Songs could afford to start off slow, to be 5 or 6 min long, to not be overproduced, to be (rather) dynamically flat. And so on.

The expectation from the public today is different. It's all about packaging, presentation of the product, fooling the consumer into thinking your product is worth their time, displaying that "badge of quality" somehow. The vast majority of the listening public out there IS NOT the individual who grabs a nice cup of coffee and patiently sits through an averagely produced album, then replays it the next day to get a deeper perspective etc. They want something catchy - gorgeous sounding - immediately attention grabbing - new (even in an obvious way). I'm not saying I'm whoring out with my stuff, but I know I must compromise at some level (give the music more space, maybe not include that technical part there, tone down that too-heavy part...).

CHEESE (pls read reason for editing below)

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by Naji

Professional studios know when it is ready, when it sounds well on smartphones and small speakers. At least they should know. Music is for listeners and we, who mix in our studio speakers, simetimes think, when it sounds good on my speakers, then it's good. Smartphone speakers are the reference today. I remember some mixes, they sounded great on big speakers, but awfully on smartphones, eg way too much mids... Music is for listebers, ir make music just for and your speakers.
Even though I am not if the younger generation any more, about 70% of music I listen to in small speakers, as well.
To have all important smarthones is a must today imo, at least Samsung, Huawei and iPhone.
So I do not really care if a mix is mono or stereo, because my speakers give me mono sound (Huawei) , only on headphones stereo can be very nice. Times are changing, always!

Ha ! Absolutely 100% agree. I appreciate your realistic approach. It's what I do always: when I'm done mixing, export the wav then throw it on the phone and go listen to the song there. Ppl will likely hear my song on their phone, not tucked into their big speaker setup, and producers know that and act on it. Any pro song out there sounds great on the phone. The basses tend to not come out much, and the highs are over-emphasized, and you have to find the right compromise on your session. The highs can sound under control on your monitors, but then too present on the phone, and that's an issue.

****JamesPeters**** will watch the video and get back to you, thx for the link.

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by Allybye

Ok Dork, I understand what you wrote, I think!
If I may paraphrase, the production, the 'good' mix the sound is what people nowadays buy their recordings based upon. Not the artists or the immediate impression? It'll be those sounds that just zing or shake your belly at high SPL IMHO!

[...]

Still sounds obviously good and radio ready. Sounds nothing like a home made, limited budget mix done by amateurs. Every instrument is distinct, there's that sense of depth and clarity etc.

[Naji]

@ Dork Lard
I mean, it is a fact that today way more people listen on small speakers than back in the day. I also do.
It is also a fact, that professional recordings will also sound great on smartphones.
Sometimes a mix sounds great on studtio speakers, then you listen on smartphones and you wonder if it's the same mix. So back to your mix and attenuate high mids or whatever. As for low end if I do not hear the bass on smartphone, I have done something wrong. I have two smartphones a Samsung S9 or S8? and a new Huawei. Their sound is pretty different and it's quite a challenge to make a mix sound well on both smartphones

[Pintspiller]

An experienced producer would know when it's finished.

There will be things in their own brief or the record label brief. If they meet them all and on budget it is done.

[Coachz]

Originally Posted by Naji

@ Dork Lard
I mean, it is a fact that today way more people listen on small speakers than back in the day. I also do.
It is also a fact, that professional recordings will also sound great on smartphones.
Sometimes a mix sounds great on studtio speakers, then you listen on smartphones and you wonder if it's the same mix. So back to your mix and attenuate high mids or whatever. As for low end if I do not hear the bass on smartphone, I have done something wrong. I have two smartphones a Samsung S9 or S8? and a new Huawei. Their sound is pretty different and it's quite a challenge to make a mix sound well on both smartphones

I'd rather not make music than have to mix for a smartphone or a tablet. I mix for audiophile stereo systems and if it sounds good in the car with my 10 speaker Bose system I'm good to go

[Kenny Gioia]

How do pro studios know their mix is ready?

Just wanted to add that pro "studios" don't make decisions.

Producers do. And those decisions are then approved by the artist and then the label.

Saying pro "studios" makes about as much sense as saying:

How do rehearsal studios know the band is ready to go on tour?

I'm a record producer. If I'm hired by the band or label, I make those decisions. Period. Doesn't matter what speakers I use or check the mix on. There is NO roadmap except for the one I create.

[serr]

Originally Posted by Coachz

I'd rather not make music than have to mix for a smartphone or a tablet. I mix for audiophile stereo systems and if it sounds good in the car with my 10 speaker Bose system I'm good to go

The funny part there is no one mixes for weirdo left field lo-fi devices. We mix to put the sounds into the wire in proper balance. We might listen to different speakers for perspective. Even bluntly lo-fi speakers at times.

It's pretty simple actually. A better balanced mix with fidelity sounds its best on the weirdo lo-fi devices some people use. And it sounds consistent with other professional mixes on said device. (ie. the same level of mutilation) That includes phone, laptop speakers and those "soundbars" sold at Worst Purchase. Remember that these devices were made to play back standard formats. With cheapness, yes! But it's not a complete left field thing.

If you tried mixing on a smart phone, for example, your mixes would sound worse on phones than if you mixed where you could properly hear what you were doing. When a graphic artist creates an icon image, they work on it at full size. They might shrink the view down to final size here and there along the way to check just like we might switch to a band limited pair of small speakers to check the mix. But they're not trying to draw their art in that tiny final size.

Bose?
Better Off with Something Else
No highs, no lows? Must be Bose!

[Allybye]

Those two ^^ exactly.

Mixing for a poor reproduction device is like pre-equalising for a known lossy system.....except one does not know what the loss is!

If you mix on a poor system then you will almost certainly get it wrong, miss things that you should have sorted, 'sort'things you should have ignored and everyone else with decent (not necessarily 'audiophile' supposed standard) kit will be disappointed....if they have any taste and judgement!

Never heard that little rhyme - but very good! Made to just sound impressive and far from reference standard.

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by Naji

@ Dork Lard
I mean, it is a fact that today way more people listen on small speakers than back in the day. I also do.
It is also a fact, that professional recordings will also sound great on smartphones.
Sometimes a mix sounds great on studtio speakers, then you listen on smartphones and you wonder if it's the same mix. So back to your mix and attenuate high mids or whatever. As for low end if I do not hear the bass on smartphone, I have done something wrong. I have two smartphones a Samsung S9 or S8? and a new Huawei. Their sound is pretty different and it's quite a challenge to make a mix sound well on both smartphones

yeah you know it's funny you mention this because as I've said on the forum recently my reference tracks these days is Linkin Park's first album. And I was bummed by how I had worked so hard on my distortion guitars to sound present and big on my chorus but as I played the song on the iPhone the gtrs went all the way into the background. It's like the voice got a 3db boost, and any detail around the midrange a big dip. And I listened to the song 'Crawling' by LPark on the phone, and same thing on that chorus: it's basically all voice and bass. You hear the guitars on the attack as they come in, but then you somehow no longer perceive them as you're hearing that chorus. They blend into the musical environment. Because phones emphasize extremes so much so their speakers are made so you'll just hear the main melody of a song (usually wtvr around, say, 2-4K) and the bass. Some phones tend to suck in the bass too though.
Modern producers must ofc be utterly conscious of that.

[Tod]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

Wow, those both sound very nice, albeit in two different ways. It's always nice to see individuals like yourself who are capable of adapting. You could mix in the 60s, and you can mix by today's rules too.

Thanks Dork Lard, I've been working on a system I call "Mixing & Mastering with Profiles". It's still a work
in process so I haven't got it ready yet.

I do have a couple of videos that are kind of a predecessor for what comes next. I've made a lot of advancements
since I made these videos but they should give you and idea of what I'm trying to do. For one thing I'm using
"3 second sine sweeps" instead of the pink noise which is what I used in these videos.

https://youtu.be/amP5fQMZdYE

https://youtu.be/j8pG4CZ5PXg

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by Tod

Thanks Dork Lard, I've been working on a system I call "Mixing & Mastering with Profiles". It's still a work
in process so I haven't got it ready yet.

I do have a couple of videos that are kind of a predecessor for what comes next. I've made a lot of advancements
since I made these videos but they should give you and idea of what I'm trying to do. For one thing I'm using
"3 second sine sweeps" instead of the pink noise which is what I used in these videos.

https://youtu.be/amP5fQMZdYE

https://youtu.be/j8pG4CZ5PXg

good video. Watched the first. The mix sounds super clean. And it's nice to see very basic plugins being used for such good results. I'm using aaaaaall kinds of crazy plugins and I'm still not sounding quite pro yet haha. I know I know, experience. I'll get there.

[jpanderson80]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

I'm using aaaaaall kinds of crazy plugins and I'm still not sounding quite pro yet haha. I know I know, experience. I'll get there.

Perhaps that's part of it... Have you tried forcing yourself to work with less tools, to try and dig into technique and learning those tools very well? One versatile tool from each category: eq, comp, delay, and reverb may be a good idea. Honestly, even the stock ReaPlugs will be good.

For me, mixing is often about broad strokes, moving increasingly becoming smaller and smaller moves, even to the point of single syllable automation if needed.

I do that think that too many plugins used poorly can ruin sound.

[rncwalker]

The problem that I hear in music today, is that it's over produced.
I guess that like many here on this Forum, many use (to me) too many plugins/Effects for each track.
Music from the 50's, 60's, 70's and into the early 80's, to me sound much better.

A recording engineer had said that some producers at that time (70's) had many takes for each song and selected the best for release to the consumer.
one such song was Mockingbird by James Taylor & Carly Simon.
When the band ready to do a run through of the song, the engineer was smart enough to record it (Even though he was not told to record it). The producer had the band do this song 9 more times.

The song that was finally released was the trial run one, why?
back then everyone played at the same time and that allow's everyone to interact with each other which is the best "Glue" for a song to have.

This is not something that any engineer or producer can create from a DAW and plugins.

Other than Instruments plugin's their are only about a hand full (more or less) effect plugin's need.

Some plugin's are abused such as "Auto tune"

Face it, some people that have made it today, can not sing or play, but the engineer/producer has made them look and sound good.

So.....
When is a song ready, if it sounds good to you and your friends, it's done. but remember that you cannot make Good wine from sewage.

Robert

[Tod]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

I'm using aaaaaall kinds of crazy plugins and I'm still not sounding quite pro yet haha. I know I know, experience. I'll get there.

Originally Posted by jpanderson80

Perhaps that's part of it...

jpanderson80 is right, I don't use any plugins unless I have too. Kenny mentioned about recording good tracks in the first place and that is so true.

I seldom use anything other then EQ, Compression, Reverb, and Limiter, and I try to do as little as possible with them.

[rncwalker]

Originally Posted by Tod

I seldom use anything other then EQ, Compression, Reverb, and Limiter, and I try to do as little as possible with them.

Same with me

Robert

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Tod

Kenny mentioned about recording good tracks in the first place and that is so true.

Yea, and I think many of us have said that in this thread (or this other thread(s)), that also even includes what parts you choose to play and how well they work with the other parts but as I said, I think we've all said as much a number of times.

Hope you are doing well Tod!

[Tod]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Hope you are doing well Tod!

Thank you Karbo, yes I'm okay, but I'm totally on lockdown. No kids, grandkids, or great grandkids, that makes it hard.

At my age I need to take extra precautions.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by Tod

j
I seldom use anything other then EQ, Compression, Reverb, and Limiter, and I try to do as little as possible with them.

I think it's normal to assume pro mixers use a ton of fancy plugins.

I really doubt it. And I know from experience, it doesn't matter.

I (and most pro mixers) can do 90% of it with faders and pans.

[valy]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

I think we've all said as much a number of times.

Ain't that the truth

[Tod]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

I (and most pro mixers) can do 90% of it with faders and pans.

Yeah, I understand and that's true Kenny, but I tend to use "take/item volume" a lot which makes tracks work much better without, or before compression. Whether it's vocals, guitars, bass, kick/snare, what ever, adjusting them through out makes a big difference.

Still when you want impact, like on vocals, a compressor can help a lot.

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by jpanderson80

Perhaps that's part of it... Have you tried forcing yourself to work with less tools, to try and dig into technique and learning those tools very well? One versatile tool from each category: eq, comp, delay, and reverb may be a good idea. Honestly, even the stock ReaPlugs will be good.

For me, mixing is often about broad strokes, moving increasingly becoming smaller and smaller moves, even to the point of single syllable automation if needed.

I do that think that too many plugins used poorly can ruin sound.

Yeah using too many plugins poorly ruining the sound, that's me about a year ago, even worse earlier than that. I have a good idea what I'm doing now, not 100% but I understand the moves I'm making. But when you bust your butt on a comp for drums or bass, try every combination of ratio/tresh/att/rel (I get the gist of comps, but I'm often surprised still by certain combinations on a particular instrument), and then you think you'll just try one of those fancy plugins and scroll through the presets and try about 5 or 6 with the right description and it's easily better than your previous manual work with the comp, you just tend to go with that.

[jpanderson80]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

Yeah using too many plugins poorly ruining the sound, that's me about a year ago, even worse earlier than that. I have a good idea what I'm doing now, not 100% but I understand the moves I'm making. But when you bust your butt on a comp for drums or bass, try every combination of ratio/tresh/att/rel (I get the gist of comps, but I'm often surprised still by certain combinations on a particular instrument), and then you think you'll just try one of those fancy plugins and scroll through the presets and try about 5 or 6 with the right description and it's easily better than your previous manual work with the comp, you just tend to go with that.

Well thought out presets are a good starting point for sure. I'd guess that most people use presets in some way along the mix journey.

I encourage you to look into WHY the presets work. What about the compressor works well? Generally speaking, it's a combination of things. It could be the punchy VCA nature of the comp, combined with the attack allowing the transients through, with the HPF, and the saturation that makes that tool shine for you. That just takes experience, and I'd say that no one, if they are honest, can say that they've got it all nailed down for every tool out there. Sure, I have my go-to tools that I use often. I'd like to say that I use them well. LOL

Learning WHY will help inform the more technical knowledge too. Keep working at it. maybe next year you can reread this thread and answer it better yourself!

Balance, exercise of Taste, Attention to the Details of the Song that make the Arrangement come alive and take the listener on a journey... those are the things that we all work on.

Here's another tidbit: investigate Parkinson's Law as it pertains to mixing. It offers an interesting and debatable topic of conversation.

[Sari]

Sorry guys, but I think this is the most useless question ever.

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by jpanderson80

Well thought out presets are a good starting point for sure. I'd guess that most people use presets in some way along the mix journey.

I encourage you to look into WHY the presets work. What about the compressor works well? Generally speaking, it's a combination of things. It could be the punchy VCA nature of the comp, combined with the attack allowing the transients through, with the HPF, and the saturation that makes that tool shine for you. That just takes experience, and I'd say that no one, if they are honest, can say that they've got it all nailed down for every tool out there. Sure, I have my go-to tools that I use often. I'd like to say that I use them well. LOL

Learning WHY will help inform the more technical knowledge too. Keep working at it. maybe next year you can reread this thread and answer it better yourself!

Balance, exercise of Taste, Attention to the Details of the Song that make the Arrangement come alive and take the listener on a journey... those are the things that we all work on.

Here's another tidbit: investigate Parkinson's Law as it pertains to mixing. It offers an interesting and debatable topic of conversation.

This is a good comment to sort of loop back in the conversation to the main theme of this topic. You're right, we continually improve, and studying presets from the technical standpoint is key to getting closer to mixing omniscience. And that's the reason I wrote the OP in the first place: as an amateur, there's no way to know you're done really. You can watch hours and hours of mixing tips on YouTube, be active on forums asking for advice, and just experiment hours in a row every single day, for months, years... but you somehow just can't quite put a stamp on your mix and call it done. Because of the perpetually evolving nature of the field.

And yes I suppose Parkinson's law (which I knew instinctively but not by name, so thanks for that) applies a bit here. It's a bitch isn't it. It's just a bitch. It's close to being a drug I reckon. The need to work on that mix, every day, again and again,.. and again.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

It's close to being a drug I reckon. The need to work on that mix, every day, again and again,.. and again.

You fix that by officially releasing it. The only mixes, I'm not still mixing years later are the ones I released which means they are now out in the wild for me to live with.

You'll always find something you wish you had done differently, the way to address and actually progress and move forward, is to use what you are kicking yourself over on the next mix/release, rinse/repeat. That is the numero uno way to truly progress for many reasons.

Also doing this over and over like that, you have different songs, different everything in some form, so that in itself helps you identify which things were the mix, which things were the instrument or the note choices and so on. It's that constant contrast from mix to mix, song to song... vs fretting over a single mix or two that really gets one towards creating mixes where they feel like they are making real progress.

[Allybye]

That drug analogy is probably true of many an amateur no pressure to reach an acceptable standard within a ' project's ' limits, rather, seek unattainable perfection.

Some professionals do that too to an extent and move standards forward but it's often difficult to get funding for that ground breaking work.

Those who are more disciplined call time and move on gain more experience.

I am beginning to see a parallel between perfect mixes and audiophile reproduction: time or cost versus any real improvement :-)

EDIT: Doh! Beaten to it in a more eloquent way by Karbo

[Indiscipline]

Originally Posted by Coachz

You know when your track is ready when it sounds like the reference track that you are using to compare it to.

If it sounds exactly like the reference, then you're using a wrong reference.