Mix With The Masters

[dpaterson]

Hi.

This probably doesn't belong in this forum (but I fear if it's moved it's not going to be seen i.e. the general discussion / topic forums don't seem to get much traction):

(On YouTube) I just happened to come across a lecture being given at Oxford University by a chap called Andrew Scheps. Didn't know who he was at the time (but I do now). One thing led to another and, well, depending how "into" this business you are and where you want to go with it: I urge you to watch a series on YouTube which comprises Q&A sessions with recording and mixing engineers, producers, etc. (Mr. Scheps being one of them). I'm far from getting through all of the videos but man: there is some good info. including but not limited to recording methods and mixing and just general concepts. Turns out that Mix With The Masters has a website too which sure looks good (some free stuff): https://mixwiththemasters.com/.

(By the way there appears to be more than one series on YouTube and I'm going through October 2014 seminar).

To wet your appetite (for those interested) here are the first two that I watched (but am now starting from #1):

Andrew Scheps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrW_X04f0Hc

Steve Albini: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQonl6exhNU

I got so much already just out of just those two clips let me tell you (my biggest and main issue really is ensuring that what I sound like live is "duplicated").

Given who they are (an even if they're getting paid): I take my hat off to these people for sharing their knowledge and ideas and insights.

Anyway. Hope this post is alright with everyone. As I say: I guess it depend on just how far you want to go with this. Oh man oh man I tell ya that if I had my time over .........

Regards,

Dale.

[Torton5]

Thanks, good find, I thought I had milked youtube of all of it's mixing tutorials but it seems more pop up all the time! I'll give it all a good look tomorrow when I am at the library.

Mixing tutorials by experienced engineers are great providing they are relevant to the way you have your DAW set up. I am into "in the box" mixing, starting to get some nice warm, meaty and analog sounding music now, always room for improvement.

It can be a bit deflating if the teacher walks into a studio with a massive mixer and tons of hardware and starts plugging things in and out, that's really for other engineers I guess.

[dpaterson]

Hello.

My pleasure.

Hope you get something out of it.

I just thought it carries more weight / punch because these people are not punting a particular piece of gear or plugin i.e. they have no vested interest. Most of the stuff I've watched has been sponsored stuff (Waves and iZotope being particularly good at this!!! LOL!!!). I suppose one could argue that Sound On Sound and / or Mix With The Masters are sponsoring (but that's different I think).

I'm liking it so much I may just download the whole lot and put it on DVD (and make the DVD image available for us over here as a download) (with chapters of course).

Regards,

Dale.

[Mark Bliss]

Andrew is certainly one of my favorite mixing/producing heroes. I remember especially liking the Oxford presentation.
I have watched many of his tutorials, including some I purchased from ProMix. He's a freeking genius IMO and theres something soothing about his presentation and style. Really cool guy.

But.... He is a routing freak. And much of that is beyond the capability of many DAW's ITB. Just crazy stuff. But theres a lot to be learned by (trying to) understand his methods, and why he does some of the stuff he does.

And besides, I am a geek for the stuff and watching him is like watching a mad scientist with anything he wants at his disposal. Its nuts!
REALLY smart dude.

There are however other sources for practical purposes we mere mortals can actually use.

[dpaterson]

Hello.

Yip. He really does seem like a very nice guy. Very practical. No airs and graces. And I like the way he actually ANSWERS a question i.e. with specifics in a lot of cases. As an example: when asked how he mics. up guitar amps. his answer was simple and detailed the gear (mics.) he always uses. None of this "well try this but if that doesn't work then try that and then see what your ears say and move until you get the sweet spot"!!! LOL!!! You know what I mean. But I have to say that most of the ones I've watched already are also great. One or two may not have his style or personality but they know their oats.

One thing I'm hearing more and more though from these people: get the recording right from the get go (as opposed to assuming and / or hoping that it will / can be be fixed in the mix). Lil 'ol me does subscribe to this I have to say (just spent the better part of a week trying to record direct from amps. and get a decent sound but it ain't happening i.e. no substitute for micing. amps. if you are able to) (not that I didn't already know this i.e. was trying to prove a point I guess).

Anyway:

Be nice if we could discuss some of the things here that these professionals have touched on???

I'm curious about your statement Mark:

But.... He is a routing freak. And much of that is beyond the capability of many DAW's ITB.

What do you mean by this??? Since reading it I did some reading on routing. So far as I can tell: doesn't Mixcraft have this capability??? Is it nothing more than simply creating different buses and routing to those buses for effects etc. common to the bus and then it goes to the main out??? Curious I am. Probably oversimplifying matters I am maybe??? But is this not what is being done in the one Mixcraft sample project "I Can't Go On This Way"??? (I'm so sick of that song i.e. it's my go to for whenever I need to test something hardware / latency related!!! LOL!!!). But there's a whole bunch of things going on in that project. Is that not routing??? As I understand it (from Andrew): there's routing out of the box (to external analogue equipment) and routing in the box (which I where we're at not???).

Regards,

Dale.

[dpaterson]

This is a "bump" for Mark (sorry: not something I ever do).

Regards,

Dale.

[Mark Bliss]

Sorry. Sometimes I skim swiftly through replies and it seems perhaps I missed that before.

Any point I would make about this would seem a criticism of Mixcraft, so before I do- I want to point out that it isn't meant that way. Just the facts. Mixcraft's strength is that it is relatively simple and straight forward, and it makes it easy to get working and actually make music instead of fiddling with a lot of details. And dare I say it is capable of doing much more than many users ever need or know. But then many of us may spend more time on the internet researching more plug ins we don't need than actually accomplishing anything I reckon....
Similarly, one could use a DAW that allows virtually unlimited tweaking and arranging and routing anywhere.... Combined with plugs like Melda that allow tweaking of unlimited parameters, which leads me to thoughts about customer support and users buried in problems….
Yes, simple is a strength. But I digress.

Nonetheless, there are some limitations when you delve into "advanced" mixing.
If you really dig into Andrew's methods and layers of routing solutions, parallel processing, his "legendary rear bus" and you (or shall I say "I") find that many are difficult to visualize and some are pretty darned impossible to duplicate in a simple DAW.

One possible "next level" mixing example for Mixcraft would be this imaginary scenario using multi track recorded live drums:
Build a drum submix bus containing all the parts of your drum set.
Use a send bus to add varying amounts of one reverb incidence to the tracks.
Commonly one might use relatively large amounts on a snare, and little or none on the kick and varying amounts elsewhere. (Yes I am simplifying and ignoring the fact that in some cases much would come from room mics, bear with me)
Now if you send all those tracks through a submix, the reverb send return goes by default to the master bus. So if you automate the drum submix the reverb send return isn't included in that automation.
So as a result, say in our example we have a passage where we want to automate the level of the drums down. The reverb level stays the same. Its now too loud.
Similarly, if desired- workarounds for utilizing a parallel "drum crush" bus must be figured out.

Another example. For multiple reasons, one might wish to create a "mix bus" before the master.
Similar issues as returns cannot be re-routed to create this kind of functionality.

These are just some examples. And honestly, not something many users need. And as I pointed out, a potential diagnostic headache as well.
So its really not a complaint on my part, just the answer to your question..... And yeah, I have options if needed.

[dpaterson]

Hello.

I'm speechless!!! Going to have to read that a few many times to make sense of it and then play around in Mixcraft.

I should also clarify something though:

I also was not asking if Mixcraft was capable of this for the sake of comparison to other DAW's or for the purposes of criticism or new feature requests (or whatever) or anything like that. I was actually trying to understand this routing stuff and using Mixcraft and that sample project just as an example because it's all I know (and in that sample project it looked like routing was being implemented) (at least in my minimal understanding of routing at this point). Is it something I'm ever going to be concerned with??? At this point I doubt it. But who knows where this never ending quest for knowledge will end up.

Later. And thanks again.

Regards,

Dale.

[dpaterson]

Yo Mark (and all).

I remember you posted the below a little earlier on the thread and I couldn't resist this morning while adding some reverb to something!!! LOL!!!

Combined with plugs like Melda that allow tweaking of unlimited parameters ...

How do you all like THIS (below) for a (NOT so simple) REVERB plugin??? I almost has to hide the taskbar to get it all in!!! LOL!!! And this before you open any of the options!!! (It is good though).

(I'm still mucking about with routing for the sake of interest and using your post as a sort of template or guide).

Melda MTurboReverbMB.jpg (479.4 KiB) Viewed 5234 times

Regards,

Dale.

[Ian Craig]

Dale.
MTurboReverbMB is totally mad, I gave up with it after a while, as it is quite difficult to make out when you have bad eyesight like I do. It's a great idea though, but it needs a redesigned GUI, though it has some beautiful preset structures like the Planets one with it's Jupiter sub-preset

[Mark Bliss]

Well, I'm not knocking those who need or use this stuff, it may be great for sound designers or those who do "electronic style" music I suppose.
I just don't feel the need personally. Too many options lead to too much time in rabbit holes. I have the Melda SpectralDelay, and don't care for it at all. I simply don't "get it" I guess. The presets are all goofy sounding stuff, not even a single useful starting point and the various controls are just weird. Many of the other Melda plugs I have demoed gave me the same result.
I will confess the functional description of MautoDynamicEQ keeps tempting me, but I have two dynamic EQ's now that I have barely touched the surface of...… So no! Even though it is on sale right now. No!

I like simple. Insert it, tweak a couple virtual knobs and done. That Melda stuff could have me fiddling for hours!

For verbs and my basic mixing needs, a couple of good sounding room/hall presets with basic controls, A good sounding plate and occasionally a spring, (mostly for guitar effects) is more than plenty. There may be some occasional need for an "unnatural" long tail like a few current plugs offer, but not commonly. Give me a lush but realistic sound and the basic controls, some depth and a useful pre-delay, and I'm good to go. The option of built-in H/P and L/P filter is nice, but if not- its easy enough to apply before or after the verb.
I mean, especially when in most cases one should barely notice its there anyway.... right?

I have a couple good emulations, and a half dozen of the common options. Acoustica Pro-Verb is actually pretty good, quite usable IMO. I have my eye on one more title, likely to grab it next time its deeply discounted.

I have Waves Abbey Road plates. Good plate emulation and complete overkill on options. Just picked up Abbey Road chambers and have been experimenting, so far I would just say "cool!"
Some of the high priced verb plugs (Valhalla, OceanWay, the Slate verb suite perhaps, etc.) really do sound nice, but sheesh. Just a hobby man!

[outteh]

So in the reverb plugin world, which one provides enough control to be able to move instruments front and back and help with the overall sound stage?

[dpaterson]

Hello again.

Alright but the Melda plugins LOOK good don't they??? LOL!!! Make you feel REAL "pro." when you're sitting looking at them (and wondering what to do next)!!! LOL!!!

Oddly enough I started another thread somewhere re: reverb. The best sounding reverb to me, really, are these acoustic impulse reverbs (or convolution reverbs). It don't get more real than that. And, to my surprise just yesterday, I noticed that one of the Melda plugins actually is geared for this (I forget which one now). Downside is a) you have to find the correct IR and b) they're a bit heavy on CPU if you insist on there being no latency.

Dunno about the "electronic style". I do admit that sometimes I wonder what they're "smoking" over at Melda when I see some of the names of presets. But the one thing that I do notice with Melda is that WHEN you actually mange to dial in something it can be EXTREMELY imperceptible but it's there nevertheless (doesn't matter what it is) (note I said WHEN i.e. it takes a while!!! LOL!!!).

But, as usual, you're quite right with the "rabbit hole" comment (I'm on another tangent again at the moment of course) (although I have to admit that between iZotope and Melda, Melda being "the gift that keeps on giving, I reckon I'm pretty satisfied at least insofar as plugins are concerned) (for now!!! LOL!!!).

Obviously I get those plugin marketing emails now (like ten per day). Man it's a business and a half. And just yesterday I was thinking (not for the first time): how much different can ALL of these things be??? And how many do people (and I'm talking pros. here) actually use??? I'd love to know. Forget about Melda for a minute: with TRackS-S and TRacksS-5 (my first foray last year into this plugin business) I reckon I must have about twenty different equalisers (and none of which, sadly, I've ever used). And limiters and compressors and, and, and ... I mean: can one be THAT different from the other??? Scary part is that these things are all modelled on analogue equipment so that means that there must be HOARDS of different analogue gear out there too all claiming to be the best at something. I don't know really. I mean: given what your average person is going to actually listen to music on then do you think they could tell the difference??? Then again I'm only basing this all on my taste in music. I suppose for purists and classical music where the bar is somewhat higher: maybe these things do all have their place.

Oh well. It's interesting and all very exciting nevertheless!!!

Regards,

Dale.

[dpaterson]

Hey Tom.

I was busy posting the above while you posted so I only saw your post now.

Yeh. That's actually a good question!!! There seems to be some type of overlap (and I've not quite figured it out) between reverb and delay both of which can be used to create space (this aside from these stereo widening things that I've yet to have success with). I find that reverb can very easily rob a specific instrument of prescence in a mix i.e. it moves the instrument back and leaves a hole and I've not figured it out "scientifically" i.e. I get by by playing for hours on end until I hit some type of "satisfying spot". More luck at the moment than anything. One thing I have noticed though (and read about too): sometimes reverb or delays are not even necessary for a particular instrument if there are other instruments in the mix that have "correct" reverb or delay. Somehow it all gets mixed together and the mix as a whole sounds full and reverberated. It's interesting (to me anyway).

But yeh: good question. I personally don't have the answer.

Regards,

Dale.

[Ian Craig]

Hey, I have recently been experimenting using the built in modulation parameters in the free 'MSpectralPan' and using Mixcraft automation drawing on HOFA's free '4U Meter, Fader & MS-Pan' to try to find ways of moving things around against each other (I'd forgotten about this - I work on trying different approaches every day). Anyway I think that combining these with (the also Free) 'Abstract Chamber' reverb, could be a good way of achieving interesting spatial control. Melda's options for L/R, Mid/Side, etc etc are great for stuff, as is Voxengo's Free 'MSED' and anyone should look at it in combination with Reverb effects ... and of course using Send tracks with effects can give very useful control when mixed into a track with other effects on it, especially interesting when you can process L/R as normal in one and selectively Mid Only or Side Only on the other. There are only easy answers when you are looking for quick fixes. I'm only interested in blowing my own socks off with anything I do, but I can't do that with a continually simplistic approach, my tastes are too broad. As Dale said, how much difference does all this stuff make, but if I think back to all the things that made me want to make music, I'd say it makes all the difference in the world because when these things had been around for over a decade and excessive use of any new effect had been reigned-in enough (echo over use in the 1950s, compared to the late 60s, Stereo recordings first appearing the mid 60s being overused up until the mid 70s - check the stereo panning on Iron Butterfly's 'In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida' in 1966 or the Album version, not the single version, of Alice Cooper's 'Elected' in 1973, a later example) the subtlety of reverb & stereo brought things forward in the same way that painting with depth by Da Vinci and co. blew away the flat paintings that preceded them, even though they might appear little used according the levels on the dials
(Oh I forgot to mention the 'far from free' Ozone Spectral Imager and Stereo Imager things by iZotope, I think that's what they are called - my thought usually begins with them as they can be occasionally amazing --- Also Alice Cooper's track 'Mary-Ann' on the same album as 'Elected' - Billion Dollar Babies is worth checking out as the piano and vocal are panned entirely to one side and the reverb is panned entirely to the other, it's eerily beautiful, so sometimes overuse works)