Making a good mix - keeping it simple is difficult

[aquataur]

Back to times when multitracking was in its cradles. The Beatles recorded (even by today´s standards) an outstanding album - Sgt. Pepper.

The engineers must have been wizards, having only four tracks at their disposal. And what more did they have, a spring reverb? Tape compression? Yet they made an album that does not lack anything.

Today even a homestudio can run circles around that gear with all the endless tracks, reverbs, effects, spatial control, fancy compressors, equalizers, gates and the like.

When I did my first recordings, I quickly had a few lanes together, which sounded great on their own, but in unison sounded chaotic.

I followed all the cookbook recipies on EQ´ing and compression and all that, but stuffing one hole here would open another one there and in the end I was not sure if the result was any better.

I read a good book on mixing and recording and suspected that any more books would not make it any better. There was too many factors and too many knobs to turn.

The makers of VST effects of course suggest, that once you have bought their XY package of mastering tools for $$$ you will be home.

Remembering the Sgt. Pepper, I wondered, if less was more and if there was something to learn from these recordings.

Don´t know if any of the people who read this are experts or novices in recording and mixing, but is there anything we could benefit from by analyzing those recordings?

How did they go about EQ´ing, reverberation, panning, mike´ing, how did they create space to let the instruments breathe? They had a very limited choice of tools.

Starting out with something simple would probably leave us with far better results than with the overwhelming amount of specialized tools you have to tame.

Any insight appreciated.

-helmut

[Jaymzzb]

Hey,

I posted a thread a few weeks ago after I did some recordings with my band.
We used the "less is more" approach and didnt have any fancy or expensive equipment but the end result was still pretty decent.

You can check the thread here -
http://forums.acoustica.com/bbs/viewtop ... =4&t=14961

I detailed what approach I used and what equipment I used and theres a couple of links for the songs if you wanted to check them out too.

James.

[Ianpb]

I suspect that if there were not the abundant choice of free and cheap effects, we'd spend more time getting the most from what we already have, and then we'd be forced into making genius moves ourselves.

[Mark Bliss]

The question seems pretty broad, and perhaps largely philosophical. Not real sure what you want to discuss.

The details of what you ask, technology and technique wise is well documented and researchable. And there are so many details to be astonished by. And passionate opinions on the subject vary wildly.

My own opinion, in brief, is that a lot of the mastery was based on a strong understanding of the physics and science of sound, combined with experience and imaginitive and creative experimentation. (enter Captain obvious!)

I was never fond of the results of some early methods of mono recording/panning/creation of a stereo field that at times seems crude and so un-natural. But I think it was done for the ability of uniform playback on various systems and attempts at mono reproduction compatibility. And it worked as intended.

Interesting are discoveries and techniques like using tape saturation as a form of effect, or the days of inventions like long concrete block rooms with a speaker on one end and a mic on the other, the only real control being changing the distance from mic to speaker, etc. etc.

But one of the things I find most remarkable, (in part because I experienced attempts at it.) Is the way mix-downs had to be performed to deal with the inherent build up of noise. Tape hiss, hardware hum combined with the inherent noises of recording, all multiply with every dub and tape to tape re-recording. It is this area that I think George Martin and others performed absolute miracles on Sgt Pepper.

And we haven't even gotten into the creative vision and brilliance.

But perhaps, if I interpret the question correctly, the answer is really in the simplicity. What we have now is an abundance of options, too many temptations, and little apparent need to really learn the science of sound, acoustics, etc. And the technology is far to available with too little perception of the need to really learn and understand it. Just push some buttons and stuff happens........

The overwhelming perception, and indeed often the marketing hype on all this stuff is anyone can easily do it, right? Yep, its just that easy.

[gypsy101]

I suspect that if there were not the abundant choice of free and cheap effects, we'd spend more time getting the most from what we already have, and then we'd be forced into making genius moves ourselves.

that & back then they tended to use their ears more than their eyes to mix.

[Mark Bliss]

that & back then they tended to use their ears more than their eyes to mix.

So very true, and part of what I meant. In looking backwards through time the stark lack of graphical representation as compared to today would force someone to rely on the knowledge and understanding of sound I mentioned.
Sound engineers had to be a bit of scientist and mathematician while appearing to be some kind of magic wizards......

But it also helps to understand the simple importance of having quality audio material to record in the first place. There is abundant clear evidence of this simple premise being overlooked.

[gypsy101]

that & working w/ tape & limited tracks FORCED you to settle & move on.no endless overdubbing or pitch correcting a single word, tweaking every little thing, yadda yadda.

[aquataur]

What we have now is an abundance of options, too many temptations, and little apparent need to really learn the science of sound, acoustics, etc. And the technology is far to available with too little perception of the need to really learn and understand it. Just push some buttons and stuff happens........

Mark, agree with you.
An example. At some point no way leads around a compressor. The web is full of compressor plugins, which one shall I take, which one does the best job for what I need done? What is the best job to start with?

I end up downloading all the fancy looking plugins that, by their looks, promise to emulate some multi-$$$ analog equipment, particularly if endorsed by Mr.X who has been working with XY.

Most of them come with an impressive list of presets which you have to believe in, because, although you may know what stuff like "knee" means, would you hear it if you tweaked it the wrong way? You may not notice that you did something wrong to the track before you listen to the whole thing, and then you would not know where to start to fix.

It is unlikely that one hears the grass grow like those experts who have been doing that stuff for years so you tweak here and there and it becomes worse.

You may feel intimidated facing all those things at once, and the makers of professional plugins make you believe that their plugin has the answer for you.

I recently downloaded the Reaper ReaComp plugin that has IMHO all factors tweakable that you can imagine. Somebody there claimed, that he could emulate a whole list of famous analog units, and I believe it.

So my question: where is this all written, where do you read about all those settings, where do you learn all this? Or is this just a haphazard search for bits and pieces and tedious trial and error? I doubt if I have the nerve for this.

If one does not exist, somebody should write a book about this subject (compressors). I take out the magic wand and conjure up a course that shows you how things change when you do this or that, what famous units´s implicit settings are and the like, so that you are empowered to just know what to dial in or to tweak for a certain situation.

If something like that does not exist, we should work on that.

-helmut

[bbdrmz]

IMHO there is something to learn from every recording. It's up to you what direction that leads.

[Vibrant Audio]

So my question: where is this all written, where do you read about all those settings, where do you learn all this? Or is this just a haphazard search for bits and pieces and tedious trial and error?

-helmut

Obviously, there's plenty of good advice on how to use compressors and other effects floating around the web. You're on the right track when thinking that it takes a good amount of time listening, tweaking, and experimenting to be able to use those tools well. It's just like any other skill.

It's a good idea, when learning how to use an effect, to mess around with extreme settings so you get a good feel for what the effect is doing - then back those settings off to a point that they're just barely affecting the sound. This holds true for effects like compression especially, where subtle changes are sometimes difficult to discern.

There is a resource I've found that can help with technical ear training. It's a university-level course for audio engineering:
Audio Production and Critical Listening - Technical Ear Training by Jason Corey

The excellent software modules are available to download for free here:
Technical Ear Training Software Modules

[aquataur]

This course sounds promising. I will look into that.
Thanks to everybody who chimed in.

-helmut

Edit: just ordered a copy. Let you know how I get on with it once I have it. Cheers.

[gypsy101]

there's an old saying about compressors-
"if you hear it working,it's doing too much".

this holds true except for something like a snare drum where you may use it as an actual "effect" on occassion.

[bbdrmz]

Or side chaining bass and kick drum..

[Tapper Mike]

Re Overdubs, George Martin, the Beatles

Let it Be told a different story.
http://www.jazzwax.com/2012/09/intervie ... -pt-4.html

Scroll down past the Let it Be album cover and see where things get interesting.

It's funny, we see older TV appearances by artists like on the Ed Sullivan show and it's all lip sync'd. In the 80's mtv tried a new trick. For the Unplugged series they would record everything live not lip sync'd but then they'd go out and add overdubs and replace tracks after the fact. "keeping it real ...sort of" Many live show dvd's are done in the same manner.

The only consistantly "as honest as you can get" approach I've seen in recent years is "Daryl's House" Smokey Robinson was the guest and he had a moment where he just couldn't complete the moment so he waves it off to Daryl Hall.

At Daryl's house everything is done that day. When all is said and done they pack up the gear and get the mix down with what they have.

[aquataur]

I promised to make some feedback on the Jason Corey course.

Very good stuff. The training is fun if you do not overdo it - 10 minutes a session is enough. You´ll notice your failure rate goes straight up then. You better stop or you will get frustrated. It is like video games - you get hooked on making it better next time.

After tree days of usage my ability to discern frequencies has already vastly improved.
I noticed that in my fading adolescence I have a hard time telling 8 and 16 kHz apart.

have fun,

-helmut