Which I guess you guys call mastering....
How do you make these songs so they sound the same everywhere? I have this thing where if I listen to the same song on 5 different devices they sound five different ways. I even see that here. One of my songs long ago sounded fine when I played it here. The next day I had an email saying there was too much bass. 2 hours later I had another email saying "I can't hear the bass". I have this feeling that no 2 of you hear the same thing when you listen on Soundcloud. How do I fix that?
No, that's not mastering -- it's still a mix issue. Mixing allows you to produce a recording that should pretty much sound the same everywhere. Like most of us (or at least me), you probably have not taken the time to acoustically measure your room to see if bass builds up and/or there are peaks and nulls. The way to overcome that is to acoustically treat your room, get a monitoring system you can trust and to find the best place in your room to record/mix.
I have not treated my room yet, so I am also stuck trying to play things in many different environments to get the best trade-offs in mix decisions. I have been reading about acoustic treatment for about a year now and I think I know what I have to do -- but I just haven't spent the money/time yet to get it done.
My room is irrelevant. Everything is recorded direct. There are no room acoustics involved when recording Real Band bass and drum tracks. Even when I record live instruments it is all line level. The only time a mic is involved is when I sing, and that is done in a foam lined enclosure that is completely anechoic. It's my inability to EQ correctly, and I go so far as to listen to the monitors and 3 different sets of cans, all of different quality, and I get 4 different sounds. When the near field sound good, the phones sound bass heavy. Then I take the same file downstairs and play it through the main 6 speaker sound system and it sounds okay. Over the the office computer with a 5.1 speaker system, bottom heavy. And while I CAN play with tone contriols on the various playboack devices, that's not the point. It needs to sound good everywhere with the playback set flat. Very frustrating to not be able to make the final mix consistent over any playback device.
Quote:
My room is irrelevant. ...
When you are mixing using monitors your room is very much relevant. ... and mixing using headphones has all the problems that have been discussed numerous times before (I mix using headphones -- ha, ha -- and monitors).
Quote:
...foam lined enclosure that is completely anechoic ...
Foam usually absorbs mid and high frequencies, so you probably have real bass issues in recording your vocals.
The reason you have too much bass and then not enough bass is most likely due to your room and your monitors in your room (and the headphones are not solving that issue for you).
Just my relatively "acoustic treatment" novice opinion here.
Eddie, unless you mix exclusively with headphones, your room absolutely matters, where the speakers are located in each room, etc. all matters ALOT. Remember when you posted pix of your room and I was warning you about how close your monitor speakers were to the angled roof? You'll get all kinds of comb filtering off of that roof at your mix location.
The mix really can't sound consistent over different playback systems in different 'rooms'. What it can do is sound acceptable, but it will never sound 'the same'.
Even with treated rooms for mixing, that can't account for when you take your mix into a room with a corner loaded sub that is set a little high, that it's not going to sound different than playing it in your car, or over cans, etc.
Also, the passing of time reveals mix issues you simply can't hear when you are in the throes of a project. I listened to one of my songs I did about 5 or 6 years ago the other day and I was appalled by the 'room' sound in the reverb, a sort of unnecessary booming in the 250-500 Hz range. I would totally mix that thing differently now.
Here's a different test, where you say a song is bottom heavy - how about a reference recording being played back on that same system - is it bottom heavy also? When you know you are done is when you can take those reference recordings, and duplicate the playback anomalies in your own songs that are due to the system/room that are revealed in the reference recording playback played over the same systems.
This is why reference recordings are important to have on hand. Pick some recordings that you think have the vibe that you are shooting for and buy the CD. Take notes of how that sounds played back on the kinds of systems on which you want your recording played.
Make notes (recording X is a little bass-heavy on the 5.1 system - it's o.k. if mine sounds similar, etc.)
-Scott
Quote:
My room is irrelevant.
Not if you use speakers at any point in the mixing process. The room can make a HUGE difference in how you hear things. For example, while mixing get up and move around the room, or simple lean forward or back & listen to how the sounds changes.
Quote:
And while I CAN play with tone contriols on the various playboack devices, that's not the point. It needs to sound good everywhere with the playback set flat.
That is the problem, hardly anyone listens to there stereos flat, it seems like everyone EQ's there system to the way they like it, mostly the old "smiley face" syndrome. .
But really, a lot of the popular tracks that everyone loves today sound different to me on different systems also, mostly in the "mud" area of 200 to 600Hz, so even the "pro's" are not perfect, tho they get a LOT closer than I do! LOL
Grab an analyzer, like the free SPAN one from Voxengo, place that after your EQ in the Master section, and adjust until the line is a flat as you can make it, then you have a flat mix.
Or grab the 21 day trial of the AAMS Software and give that a try....the advantage of this system is that it will give you a print out of what the audio is doing, so you can go back & make adjustments in the mix.
What, I am using my EYE'S not using my EAR'S? So what, it works for me and a lot of my clients that don't have the $$ to send it out. I am NOT a mastering engineer, but I can over-EQ & slam the life out of a mix with the best of them! LOL
Quote:
..Grab an analyzer, like the free SPAN one from Voxengo, place that after your EQ in the Master section, and adjust until the line is a flat as you can make it, then you have a flat mix. ...
Or, better yet, see what the EQ curve looks like on Voxengo SPAN using a reference track like Scott mentioned above. You will see that the EQ curve is not "flat".
Quote:
That is the problem, hardly anyone listens to there stereos flat, it seems like everyone EQ's there system to the way they like it, mostly the old "smiley face" syndrome.
Did you ever understand the smiley face? Boosting the far ends where the bands they are boosting are sub and super sonic and doing nothing to the frequencies the ear can actually hear?
It just dawned on me that you guys meant the room acoustics when LISTENING. Duh.
Quote:
Quote:
That is the problem, hardly anyone listens to there stereos flat, it seems like everyone EQ's there system to the way they like it, mostly the old "smiley face" syndrome.
Did you ever understand the smiley face? Boosting the far ends where the bands they are boosting are sub and super sonic and doing nothing to the frequencies the ear can actually hear?
It has to do with the "Fletcher-Munson Curve".
http://forum.recordingreview.com/f8/fletcher-munson-curve-ideal-way-eq-24461/
Quote:
Did you ever understand the smiley face? Boosting the far ends where the bands they are boosting are sub and super sonic and doing nothing to the frequencies the ear can actually hear?
I don't know about you, but I hear just fine in nearly the entire audible band, and graphic audio EQs are manipulating the audio spectrum, not sub and supersonic (technically below 20 Hz and above 20,000 Hz).
The 'Loudness' button on many stereos is doing the low side of the smiley face for you. It's a matter of the equal loudness perception (look up fletcher munson curves) that is at play when listening at lower levels. It takes more juice in the low and high ends to sound similar to mids.
-Scott
The obvious thing to mention is that your mix is indeed going to sound different on different systems, and those people are going to judge that by reference of how 'other stuff sounds on that system'.
It comes down to the old saying; learn to know your monitors.
Listen to well done professional CD's on your system (at low volume) during breaks .. and let your ears adjust to that sound.
Then get your mix to sound like that 'on that system'.
Of course it will sound different on different systems. That's the reference part of monitors. That's where you start. You can't compare a boombox to a car to a home stereo. The idea is to learn how to make the mix representative on all systems, and that starts with knowing your own.
I'd like to get a little better treatment in my home mixing room, and I may remodel it this winter, but I've spent time learning the monitors and the room. Both matter. Not saying you need the absolute best of both, just that you need to learn the ones you have and get to where you can trust them.
Quote:
Listen to well done professional CD's on your system (at low volume) during breaks .. and let your ears adjust to that sound. Then get your mix to sound like that 'on that system'.
That's what the pros do and get huge amounts of money for it, right?
Quote:
I'd like to get a little better treatment in my home mixing room, and I may remodel it this winter, but I've spent time learning the monitors and the room. Both matter. Not saying you need the absolute best of both, just that you need to learn the ones you have and get to where you can trust them.
And there again, 10 different people will tell you 10 different "the best way" stories. "You want a lot of sound deadening material." And the next reply says "Don't overdo it with the sound deadening material." "Put your monitors right by your head and at ear level." And then "Keep your monitors away from you some." "Roll off the high end some." followed by "You want a good amount of high end for crispness."
I have read many articles online and in Electronic Musician magazine. They constantly contradict each other. Much like my songs do when played on different devices. One has too much high, one had too much bottom....
Some place out there is a "the way to do it". I'll find it yet.
Eddie. I think what you've just identified here, is that it's not an exact science.
rharv has it right - use reference CDs and learn how your own system sounds. Then compensate for any problems.
ROG.
Quote:
...
And there again, 10 different people will tell you 10 different "the best way" stories. "You want a lot of sound deadening material." And the next reply says "Don't overdo it with the sound deadening material." ... They constantly contradict each other. ...
I think if you read enough "experts" as opposed to general forum posters (like me!), then the contradictions start to fade away alittle.
For proper mixing, everyone agrees on this point: You have to be able to trust what you are hearing. That means:
1.) good placement of listener and monitors in a given space
2.) Best quality monitors you can afford
3.) Adequate treatment to reduce mid and high frequency reflections and deal with bass nulls and spikes.
#3 has a lot of controversy, but the consensus seems to be:
a) Measure your room using an omni-directional mic and free analysis software. Actually measure using a few possible monitor listening locations (if possible).
b) Print out the graphs and send to pro acoustic suppliers along with room dimensions and layout to get suggestions on what to do. (or post to sites like gearslutz.com)
c) buy or build the least amount of acoustic absorption material that you think will help out (1st reflections and some kind of corner bass trapping).
d) re-measure and see if it has solved your major issues.
Eddie,
The acoustic treatment items I have described to you in the past are well documented physics/acoustics behavior that are tried and true. I could break out the Euler's formulas and teach the room acoustics portion of my master's program, but I think that would quickly bore folks to death.
The room does matter when you mix. Your monitor placement relatively to walls and other reflective surfaces does matter when you mix.
My mentioning of using some reference recordings earlier in the thread should help you to see how they translate to the various playback systems you employ. Put your mixing of songs aside and do that homework first.
Try to avoid some of the no-no's of monitor placement - one of them being too close to walls and or reflective surfaces. Some things that can happen - too close to walls - you might be over emphasizing the room acoustic modes (translation - your mix will be bass heavy), too close to a reflecting surface that is not a wall - you can comb filter your mix very easily and it messes with your ability to properly eq mids. Comb filtering results when there is basically a strong time delay of a signal arriving at your ears at the same time as the direct signal, causing constructive and destructive interference based on the time difference of the reflection/direct relationship. One source of this is mixing with monitors place directly on the meter bridge of a large mixing desk. Yes, you will see SOME pros put their Yamaha NS-10 monitors on the bridge. But they are getting strong reflections off the mix desk surface. In your posts from maybe a year ago, I seem to recall your monitors being quite close to your angled ceiling in your room. It was a recipe for comb filtering at your mix location.
You can't fix all of this. Period. But you can work with reference recordings to get an idea how they sound on all the different systems you have at your disposal.
You can fix some of it. It's worth the effort to do so to eliminate as much of the distracting anomalies as possible.
Scott, at some point tonight I am going to get some photos of my room and email you a link to them. I'd be grateful for your suggestions. They obviously don't have to be where they are now, but since I have never had them anywhere else I don't know the difference. Anybody else who would like to see the studio please let me know and I will PM you here with the link.
What I found interesting/astounding was that when my back is to the speakers, so my chair is spun around 180, it sounds different than when I am facing the speakers.
And I use powered Wharfedale monitors, 100w per side.
First, I have read a lot of books and articles on mixing. One thing I do is have a big pile of cd's and I burn one and go to my car and listen. Then I go to my main stereo and listen. Then I go to my second stereo and listen. I also will strem it via iTunes through my house and iPod. I take notes and tweak as best I can. It drives my wife crazy by the way.
Quote:
What I found interesting/astounding was that when my back is to the speakers, so my chair is spun around 180, it sounds different than when I am facing the speakers.
This is due to the fact that your pinnae (your outer ears - Mickey Mouse's were big circles) have an intentional acoustic shadowing effect that will change the amount of high frequency that you can hear relative to low frequencies. This is one of the mechanisms/responses by which we are able to localize sound. This is not due to room acoustics - it's due to the acoustics of your ear shape and relationship to direct sound. You should note a decrease in perceived mid-high frequency content in the 'reverse' position. This is part of what tells your brain the sound is coming from behind you - this and the very small inter-aural time delays that occur as you rotate your head away from the source.
Look up Head-Related Transfer Function or HRTF for short, to see how your physical head and ear shape and whatnot 'EQ' sounds. It's a fascinating topic. There are binaural recording dummies (of which I have used Brüel & Kjær, Head Acoustics extensively, and to some extent GRAS and Neumann) which try to use generalized HRTFs to help record sound more in the way that we hear sound.
Regarding your room - from what I recall in previous photos, you had your monitors tucked right up against the angled ceiling of the room. This WILL cause comb filtering at your listening/monitoring location. To what extent remains a bit of a challenge - but one should avoid any hard reflecting surfaces within a few feet of your monitors - particularly the mid and high frequency driver locations for your monitors. Auralex recommends putting absorptive material (depth is dependent on wavelength) on surfaces where if you mounted a mirror, you can look from your listening location to the mirror and see the monitors in the mirror. This is simply ray-tracing acoustics at play. If the room is big enough, the comb filtering effect from walls dissipates as the reflected energy is much much lower than the direct energy from the speakers. However, the photo I recall from your room was that the monitors were nearly touching the angled ceiling. The reflected energy will be strong enough to constructively and destructively interfere (enhance and reduce) certain frequencies at your listening location.
-Scott
There are 2 ingredients that no one has mentioned & they are the most important. You can have the best gear, the best room etc.,etc.If you don't have these 2 items you'll never get there.
1. Musical talent
2. engineering talent.
It's not enough to say "put a CD on and make yours sound like that"
You could put a painting of the Mona Lisa in front of me and I could try and replicate it until I die and it would still look like a 3 year old did it.
BTW - for anyone interested in purchasing foam based acoustic treatment, there is a Michigan based company that sells for WAY less than Auralex or Primacoustic or the other companies that do foam based acoustic treatment that advertise in magazines and online.
http://www.foambymail.com/blog/refine-a-rooms-sound-with-custom-acoustical-sound-treatment/There is a direct relationship between the wavelengths absorbed by foam wedge type treatment and the depth of the foam wedges. Don't go too shallow. Deeper wedges will absorb down to lower frequencies. Yes, deeper wedges are always more expensive.
-Scott
Quote:
What I found interesting/astounding was that when my back is to the speakers, so my chair is spun around 180, it sounds different than when I am facing the speakers.
Same thing I said 16 posts back.... 
Quote:
Same thing I said 16 posts back....
That must be where I heard it then.....
I agree with the monitors. I used PC speakers before and my recordings sucked.
When i bought my Rhode NT2A mic I also,splurged on M-audio BX5 monitors. (No female supervision present of course)
When i started my new mixes i was shocked at the difference. Sounds as if i paid to have my songs mixed. At least that what the family also thought compared to my previous (now) junk.
Quote:
You will see that the EQ curve is not "flat".
True, but it is something to aim for across all the tracks, THEN you can start trying to tweak them into a coherent collection. You have to have a unified starting point when working this type of stuff...well, anyhoo, it works for me when I get old cassettes & reel-to-reels in.
Quote:
Quote:
Same thing I said 16 posts back....
That must be where I heard it then.....
My AAMS suggestion is just a quick fix for the old material, of course it is better to "do it right" from the start, but hey, we all can not have perfect rooms or speakers.
I like to eat & be bill free, so until my next "royalty check" I just hang some moving blankets L-C-R to tame the reflections some, triple check bass thru 2 sets of headphones & boom boxes, and call it a day.. 
Eddie,
One thing i have noticed over the years is that no matter how good your system is, it (the final sound) often comes down to a few factors:
1. How good is your own hearing over the entire spectrum.
2. As note, the mix sounds different on your powered monitors than on certain headphones. Some phones are prone to be very bass heavy to begin with, while others can be downright tinny.
3. Your listener may hear something totally different than you do on the same system. Very few people have perfect hearing in all freqs, and I would guess even fewer still have great pitch.
4. Some people don't "care" what it sounds like as long as there is a good beat.
5. Play your favorite track thru a boom box and you'll get one sound, thru a computer speaker system (also known to have bass tendancies), you'll get still another. Play it thru a high end audiophile system flat you'll get another, you get the idea.
Its a combination of all the posts above, I'm not sure if there is a perfect mix, if there was someone would be selling software for it a making millions.
Just my opinion.
Rob
And just to show a couple of quick examples of AAMS, here are 2 clips from a track that is used in a course I have. I did not track this.
All tracks are 24/44.1 .wav, rendered down to 16/44.1 .wav. These examples were mixed down in about an hour using Reaper 4.26 & only it's native effects. Mastering was done in the AAMS system using the RockRMS Reference file.
The files were then edited together in Reaper.
Then uploaded at 16/44.1 to Soundcloud.
1. The Raw Tracks, 1st half just balanced, 2nd half Mastered2. The 1st half tweaked with EQ, Comp, and Gating, 2nd half Mastered**WARNING!!!!!**
THE 2ND HALF OF EACH TRACK IS MUCH LOUDER THAN THE 1ST HALF!!
PLEASE WATCH THE VOLUME JUMP & PROTECT YOUR EARS!!!!
**WARNING!!!!!**
You might like the sound, you might not. All I can say is that I have never had a compliant yet from a client.
Eddie all I can tell you is to think about what courses you took and what certs you have in order to be considered an IT pro. When you respond to posts here from people having computer problems, you say things like I've been doing this for 20 years and I'm telling you it's
this or you have to do
that. You know that in order to explain it in detail would take you over an hour and require you to write a couple pages of very technical stuff that you know the person wouldn't understand anyway.
Same thing here. There's a whole tech language to this you know nothing about.
You're asking and making comments about something that requires full college courses and years of experience to learn. Check this out:
http://www.studio82a.com/Ohio.htmYou really want to learn this stuff and have an intelligent conversation with someone like Harvey, ROG, Scott or Mac? Sign up with one of these schools and come back in a few years.
Don't have time for that? Then just do what these guys tell you to do. Just like if I happened to develop serious PC problems and asked you for help. I trust your knowledge in that area so I would have to listen and do. That's it.
Bob
You know Bob, that's a really good plan. I didn't even know CCC had that program! And when I looked at the link, I know 3 of the people on faculty. That downtown campus is a bit of a drive, but I would like to do something like that. I actually went to CCC for the computer degree. WAY back when....
Yeah and if you do it you'll probably find the classes are packed by young kids thinking "what's Grandpa doing here?"
And, even though it's a good idea to do this if you really want to learn this stuff, all the course assignments and hands on time in their studio will be based on "music" you can't stand, learning how to mix for dubstep synth screeches, euro techno dance or that nice soothing subwoofer hip hop thumping. They're going to take some mixes out to the parking lot so everybody can hear how great it sounds in that tricked out 2003 Integra that's nothing but a 5000W rolling speaker enclosure. I can see it now, all the kids are raving about how this new song is so awesomly great while you're throwing up in the corner because it sounds so bad you can't stand to listen to it any more...
Actually you can probably find some courses that focus on different styles of music that may be acceptable to you. And you never know, you may become the guy who starts the hip hop/death metal fusion style that takes over the world.
Bob
If you can DL this and IF you like it let me know and I'll explain.A new project I mixed and mastered.
Teach Me To Love
Quote:
Or, just buy Ozone 5.
What good would that do me if I don't know how to use it? I HAVE software. I just don't know how to EQ, when to use compression, how much reverb is enough reverb....
I don't need tools. I need lessons on how to use them.
Quote:
If you can DL this and IF you like it let me know and I'll explain.A new project I mixed and mastered. Teach Me To Love
Oh.... Teach Me TONIGHT! Sammy Cahn would be proud!
Quote:
Quote:
If you can DL this and IF you like it let me know and I'll explain.A new project I mixed and mastered. Teach Me To Love
Oh.... Teach Me TONIGHT! Sammy Cahn would be proud!
Right. "Tonight" not "to love". I hadn't listened to the file in a week or so. I'm not really familiar with it. Did you like it? The mix? The Master?
Quote:
I'm not really familiar with it. Did you like it? The mix? The Master?
I like the end result. I'd like to be able to hear it in stages so I know take A to take B to take C to take D.....
Quote:
Yeah and if you do it you'll probably find the classes are packed by young kids thinking "what's Grandpa doing here?"
Can't find a thing wrong with a being in a room of young women....
Quote:
I can see it now, all the kids are raving about how this new song is so awesomly great while you're throwing up in the corner because it sounds so bad you can't stand to listen to it any more...
I'll just have to explain why Tower Of Power rulez.....
Hi Eddie,
It's sounds as though you are where I was a couple of years ago. I had some gear,VSTs (EQs,Compressors etc) but no real idea how to use them properly. I'd just turn knobs until it sounded ok. ( in other words, I was clueless)
Bob is right,I too needed to start studying and learn how and when to use these things so I started reading and bookmarking tons of articles on mixing etc.
I dug out the Multi Tracks that came with my PowerTracks program and started putting my new found knowledge to work, experimenting, burning CDs and playing them on everything in the house. I went and bought a cheap CD player and listened to several versions of the same mix trying to improve my listening skills.
I have a long, long way to go to, I'm still learning and making mistakes, it's going to take years to build experience.
I found this site that has a lot of really useful info to read. You might find it a helpful start. I did a screen save of their instrument frequency chart that I keep beside the computer.
http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/index.phpMy most recent study led me to join an online recording school not as a student attending classes but to build up a collection of instructional videos of actual mixing techniques being done by professionals. To me they are worth every cent. I have a better understanding now at least.
Keep asking questions and study. Good luck!
Quote:
I don't need tools. I need lessons on how to use them.
Audio Mixing Bootcamp with Bobby Owsinski
Seriously, spend the money, work thru the almost 9 hours of video using the 2 provided sessions, and you WILL have a grasp on the basics.
It is Pro Tools centered, and some folks would rather have a tutorial that uses the DAW that they use, but all the workflow's & ideas will transfer to any DAW, as long as you take the time to really work thru the course.
Yes it is expensive, but it is cheaper that going to school, and much more structured & engrossing than a book...
Quote:
What good would that do me if I don't know how to use it? I HAVE software. I just don't know how to EQ, when to use compression, how much reverb is enough reverb....
I don't need tools. I need lessons on how to use them.
This guy has a great collection of free videos: https://www.youtube.com/recordingrevolution -- on the right hand side there are two collections of videos called 5 minutes to a better mix. There are 31 in each collection, one from May 2011 and one from January 2012 (I think those are the months). Go through those and there are tons of excellent info. I ended up buying his JumpStart To Mastering, Mixing and EQ series.
But going through the free ones is a great start.
Yup, the "31 Days To A better Mix" series is one that I recommend a lot, and I own all of his stuff except for the REthink Drum & Room ones. He does teach from a "cookie jar on the bottom shelf" perspective which is real easy to follow.
He even has a 6 hour series called "Rethink Mixing" , but I feel that Audio Mixing Boot Camp is far more organized & informative...sorry Graham!
It all depends on how you learn, videos or books, classes or self instruction, or others advice...just pick one & go for it!
PS-Just use the plugins that comes with your DAW & the equipment that you have now, no $$$ needs to be spent up-front really.
Is there an optimal workflow that should be followed regarding the application of effects, compression etc for specific instruments/vocals when mixing to get the best possible sound?
Would this be different for each or is there a general rule to follow?
If so is there a flow chart or something similar that could be downloaded and posted in the studio to avoid getting "lost" in the mix?
Carkins
Quote:
Is there an optimal workflow that should be followed regarding the application of effects, compression etc for specific instruments/vocals when mixing to get the best possible sound?
I guess the correct answer is no, but I would use shaping tools (EQ and compression) before effects (reverb, delay, ...).
Should compression go before EQ or after EQ? I usually do compression first, but I think sometimes EQ first might work out also.
EDIT: I just checked, I normally do any high or low pass filters first, then compression, then EQ, then reverb, delay ... Here's the same question answered elsewhere: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/low-end-theory/533621-order-plugins-drums-guitar-bass.html
Think of it this way- eq and compression are "corrections" of sorts-do this first, including hi pass filtering just about everything in your mix FIRST. Delay and reverb are acoustic environment simulations and synthesis- things that should happen last in a non amplified signal chain so they should go last in your recorded signal chain. Some will violate this but results will be avant garde!