Is it 'better' to mix all the instruments at the same level (90)?
I've tweaked the volumes on certain instruments/styles and use MP3Gain to supposedly make all the MP3 volumes fairly equal, but find that on a gig, I have to scramble to raise/lower the volume on a particular song, or turn down the bass, etc... Am I mixing this 'wrong', or do I have to actually load each song onto a CD or whatever and play it thru the PA and then adjust accordingly?
Thanks....

Sounds like you have to better deal with the actual mixing phase.

What do you use for monitors at your pc?

What do you use for Reference Recordings?




--Mac

"...do I have to actually load each song onto a CD or whatever and play it thru the PA and then adjust accordingly?"



Yes. You need not burn a CD, just play the MP3's through your PA and make notes of the songs you need to reduce/increase volume, reduce bass freqs on, etc. I start with all songs at -6 dB, then fine tune on the PA.


You can have the best monitors in the world, and your songs will not necessarily translate to a PA system. Two different animals. But then, you already found that out.


Regards,


Bob

The easy fix is to play the set list through your PA.....or actually any good speaker system. Even your studio speakers are good for this assuming they are good quality speakers and you can actually hear all the frequencies with them.

Bass heavy final mixes tend to come from folks using small sized cones and not having a sub. You turn up the bass to compensate and in a system capable of reproducing the low notes, it is overpowering.

If you are mixing for the PA, and only have small studio speakers (5' or less) then by all means mix using the PA speakers as reference.

In a similar way, folks who have nice 5" or 8" cone sized reference monitors and also use a sub in their studio can go in the other direction.... hearing lots of bottom and mixing the project "bass lite" as a result.

so, for now....

Listen and make notes in a note book as to what might be too low or too loud. After you play them all, go back to the ones that stick out and use gain reduction or increase to resolve the volume issue. EQ issues to remove too much bass will need to be fixed in the mix.


The differing volume levels come from inexperience and are caused by a number of factors. Having a good monitor system in your studio is critical and learning how to mix and what compression settings to use will play a major part in getting consistent levels.

There are some good meters out there that can help with this before you burn the CD. Just sayin'

May be all he needs is the knowledge of how to insert a decent meter or two on the main output of the mixing software. VST or otherwise.

Final decision is made while actually playing it through the intended system as mentioned previously (of course), but you should be able to get them reliably close..

I use BIAB 14 and do a lot of outside gigs. I do my recording and mixing all at home with the same PA that I use on the job. I do all my mixing and tweeking in BIAB then freeze all the tracks and save again on my laptop. I also save to the 2014 external HD and then to another HD for backup. I use a Presonus USB audio box both at home and on live gigs. I see a lot of posts stating the need to save to a CD for live performance, but I do not understand why. I have been doing this since version 10, and it just gets better and better with each up grade. I also like the live screen with lyrics and other gig notes when playing live. I guess whatever works for everyone is OK, but I keep it simple and and have a big following at the live gigs. So far, I have not had a BIAB or computer failure, only other equipment.

We've kinda touched on this in the past... how to get a proper mix. Should it be in a studio or through the PA used for live gigging?


I came down on the side of the issue that says, simply use the studio reference monitors. Learn their characteristics, especially if you are mixing with or without a sub.

The whole point is that you become CONSISTENT in the mixes you put out. Consistency in levels and overall EQ is the goal.

This goes back to the beginning of the process.... it starts when you are recording the tracks. It continues as you enter the mix down stage, and continues through the polishing and exporting and final audio editing stage. At the end, when you export the wave, it should already be at or very near it's final volume level and consistent with everything else you have exported. If it's off noticeably, you should reevaluate what's going wrong.

With that goal accomplished, you can adjust the mix.... bass, highs, level, to any club/venue situation easily with the tone controls on the PA mixer board, and with consistent levels throughout, you aren't grabbing and adjusting the volume control on every song.

Simple

There are several factors that cause differences between studio vs. PA mixes, not the least of which is the fact that studio monitors are designed for sound reproduction, and PAs are designed for sound reinforcement. Two different animals.


Another factor is Peak vs. RMS level. One can normalize either or both, but in doing so, will likely compress the dynamics right out of a mix. If one only normalizes Peak to minimize this, the RMS (and certain frequencies) will likely be all over the map, causing different tracks to jump out or drop out. That is precisely the phenomenon that the OP is experiencing.



“I've tweaked the volumes on certain instruments/styles and use MP3Gain to supposedly make all the MP3 volumes fairly equal, but find that on a gig, I have to scramble to raise/lower the volume on a particular song, or turn down the bass, etc...”



In the real world (not the theoretical one), one cannot “... adjust the mix.... bass, highs, level, to any club/venue situation easily with the tone controls on the PA mixer board...” without interrupting the performance; never a good thing.


As stated before, the only viable solution I have found is to do final mixes through the PA, in context with the other songs, by using your ears, not any “gain reduction” program.

I'm not sure your very first question "Is it 'better' to mix all the instruments at the same level (90)? " has been addressed. That question in and of itself needs a pretty deep answer.

Think of the mix like a recipe - the bass is the sugar, the rhythm guitar is the milk, drums the salt, horns the flour, etc.

Would you EVER make a concoction when you mix together 1 cup of everything?

No way.

Same is true for a mix for a single song. Forget about song to song levels for now, your question is more fundamentally related to mixing a single song. Your ears are the judge as to the amounts.

Take your favorite recorded song. Listen to it critically. Do all of the instruments sound like they are at the same level? It's very unlikely that they are. Break down the song and write out some notes on levels AND panning. Actually write them down. Now, make a simple song with just 4-6 tracks in a similar style and adjust the levels and panning to match your favorite. You will find that the levels are not the same for each track.

Mixing is not necessarily an art, but it's also not easy to nail down straight out of the gate by attempting something like mixing all instruments at an equivalent level. Go ahead and try starting there, but as Mac points out, you really need to formulate a list of reference recordings for yourself.

I learned live sound mixing back in the 80's for a 60 voice choir and sometimes a simple stereo backing track, sometimes a 10-15 piece band, in school gyms and churches and even the Pontiac Silverdome.

Every mix was different and we started by 'zeroing the board' each and every time. All channel gains and EQ set to zero to start off. Setting channel gains was pretty common for most of the venues (which were usually roughly 200 seat churches), but fader and EQ were different each gig for sure.

Do you have an opportunity to learn live mixing? I can vouch that it's a great place to start. If you regularly attend a house of worship of some type, there are always opportunities there. Take advantage of them - learn while helping get the service done each week.

you took my words totally out of context by leaving off 4 words which refer to the paragraph above it. The preceding paragraph sets the proper context for what comes next.

If you are going to quote me, attempt to get the context right next time so you are not misquoting me in this manner.

here's what I said:

This goes back to the beginning of the process.... it starts when you are recording the tracks. It continues as you enter the mix down stage, and continues through the polishing and exporting and final audio editing stage. At the end, when you export the wave, it should already be at or very near it's final volume level and consistent with everything else you have exported. If it's off noticeably, you should reevaluate what's going wrong.

With that goal accomplished, you can adjust the mix.... bass, highs, level, to any club/venue situation easily with the tone controls on the PA mixer board, and with consistent levels throughout, you aren't grabbing and adjusting the volume control on every song.


IN OTHER WORDS: If you get a consistent mix from one song to the next while mixing in your studio, you can SAFELY set the level, and the tone controls ONE TIME and since the songs are consistent from one to the next regarding EQ and volume, there will be no need to adjust it again during the show.

(edited for spelling)

“This goes back to the beginning of the process.... it starts when you are recording the tracks. It continues as you enter the mix down stage, and continues through the polishing and exporting and final audio editing stage. At the end, when you export the wave, it should already be at or very near it's final volume level and consistent with everything else you have exported. If it's off noticeably, you should reevaluate what's going wrong.

With that goal accomplished, you can adjust the mix.... bass, highs, level, to any club/venue situation easily with the tone controls on the PA mixer board, and with consistent levels throughout, you aren't grabbing and adjusting the volume control on every song.”



Quoted verbatim. It sounds great, but in the real world, it's just not true.



I will quote the OP verbatim as well:


“I've tweaked the volumes on certain instruments/styles and use MP3Gain to supposedly make all the MP3 volumes fairly equal, but find that on a gig, I have to scramble to raise/lower the volume on a particular song, or turn down the bass, etc...”



Let me try again. The OP is a working musician, who obviously has both a studio and a PA. His problem relates to the disparities between the very different characteristics of those two systems. You fail to grasp that concept.



“IN OTHER WORDS: If you get a consistent mix from one song to the next while mixing in your studio, you can SAFELY set the level, and the tone controls ONE TIME and since the songs are consistent from one to the next regarding EQ and volume, there will be no need to adjust it again during the show.”



IN OTHER WORDS : That is simply not true. I don't know how else to put it. I do this every single day. You need to have consistency from track to track, and this can only be accomplished by mixing the tracks through the PA you intend to use and using your ears to set levels and EQ. We have three separate PA's, and they each require different mixes. Why? Different amps, speakers, cabinets, dispersion, efficiency, etc. Lots of reasons.


Another quote:


"I use BIAB 14 and do a lot of outside gigs. I do my recording and mixing all at home with the same PA that I use on the job.”

Roger Mattingly


That was the only point I was trying to make.

Reference Recordings

Play back those critical Reference Recordings on your PA, via a line input with NO EQ twiddling done to it, in other words, the input should be FLAT.

If your Reference Recordings do not sound like they do when played back on your well-set-up Studio Monitors, something's not right about one or both of the two systems.


--Mac

I disagree. But then, I'm no expert.

The problem is more fundamental than mixing in a studio vs. live PA. It's in the very first question of the OP's post:

"Is it 'better' to mix all the instruments at the same level (90)? "

Until this is answered, it's really a it pointless to discuss mixing studio vs. live sound.

Mixing for studio is significantly different than mixing live sound where depending on the venue and PA and individual instrument and/or amp levels, some of the mixing to the house occurs by proxy, mostly out of the hands of the mix engineer unless he/she is particularly persuasive and/or has control of the drummer's 'energy'.

But the fundamental first question needs answers before a big debate about live vs. studio mixing.

"Is it 'better' to mix all the instruments at the same level (90)? "


I mix all our backing tracks to a nominal -6 dB. Does '90' refer to 90dB? (thanks for the plug ) Is that at 1 meter, 10 meters, 30 meters? Or does '90' refer to the level in BIAB?


That is -6dB peak, and different tracks will vary greatly in RMS. Hence the mixing through the PA.

Just my $.01

We're picking at nits here people.

The question: Is it better to mix all instruments to the same level?

What exactly does that mean to the OP? Is the OP planning to mix the drums and the acoustic guitar and the lead electric guitar and the piano to the same level? I would hope not. Or does the OP mean the acoustic guitar on song 1 is recorded at the same level as the acoustic guitar on song 2 and song 5 and song 21 of the set list? Well, even to that question I would have to say, probably not. No 2 songs are the same. The EQ or reverb I use on one song is rarely ever exactly the same as the one I use in the next song I work on. No cookie cutter solutions seem to work for me. So I'm left with this simple fact: Every song is totally different in it's settings. However, that does not relieve me of the task to get my songs all to that same level of quality where I should be able to take any of them, place them into a CD format, pop it in to a player of one kind or the other and play that CD without having to tweek the tone or grab the volume. They should all sound like they were recorded in the same studio, at about the same time, and should sound like a comprehensive project, and not a mashed up bunch of songs with different temperaments that just happened to end up on the same CD. The word is "consistency".

As a (previously) working musician myself, having made my living with music for a very long time, and playing in bands and also gigging solo for a time using my own backing tracks printed to CD and played through a PA system at the gigs and the events, over the course of many years, I have learned a thing or two about how things tend to work in the real world. Not exclusively theory.... I have plenty of real world experience.

I can say, that it is totally possible to use a studio mix that has EQ and overall volume levels of the songs on the backing CD set to the same consistent standards and levels and NOT have to adjust the volume or the EQ settings as one progresses through the sets and from song to song. Every PA I have ever owned, or played through, had the ability to make every single CD (commercial or homegrown) sound good.

The key is to simply have consistency in the recording process and in the mixing stages. In the same way that you would and could take any given commercial CD release from a major artist and play that CD in the same PA system. Once you set the PA channel volume and adjust the EQ as needed for personal taste and to the room characteristics..... nothing should need to be changed from that point on.

My mixes were sufficiently consistent, that once set, the rest of the night was good. It's called a sound check and every musician & band needs to do one. The goal, whether live or backing CD, is to have the mix on the CD to the point that the tone controls should be fairly close to center 0. If the EQ...hi, mid, or low needs to be increased or decreased from that center 0db flat point..... the mix from the studio isn't right to start with. But again.... if all the songs are consistently in the same EQ ballpark.... hey, it's consistent, and if the tone controls can make the adjustment and the result sounds good....it's all good and the musician should NOT have to tweek knobs during the show.

This is really not a discussion about mixing in the studio vs mixing through a PA....(we have had that discussion just a few weeks back)...it's about being able to achieve consistency in the work you are outputting from your studio. That, for many people, is very hard, if not impossible to achieve, especially when starting out. It's for that reason, not being consistent in the mixing, that this problem arises, not from where the mix is done. (studio vs PA) If the recording was not done (tracking) with consistency, you will still have problems.

Studio monitors should give the superior or more properly said.....accurate mix. Studio monitors are designed to give a flatter response, and thereby a more accurate rendering of what is really happening in the mix across the spectrum. In addition, the room, in many studios has some level of acoustic treatment.

PA speakers are not designed in many cases, to studio standards. The speakers in many PA systems have a "brand name" sound to them or a bias of some sort. So, the sound you hear is not accurate and mixing based on that will give you a skewed result.

The solution to the problem is simple: Consistency at all stages of the process from one song to the next. There is a learning curve which may be years long before true consistency is achieved. I'm still not where I want to be in this respect.

Just shoot me.

It should be noted that this individual has not commented further.

The OP says they have tweeked the instrument volumes and used gain to try to smooth it out unsuccessfully.
They do say quite clearly that they have issues with consistency between songs regarding volume and EQ...scramble to raise/lower the volume on a particular song, or turn down the bass,..

The root of the problem is not a studio vs PA mixing issue. It indicates the OP has yet to learn how to mix consistently from one song to the next.... it's as simple as that.

"...this individual..." actually has a paying gig playing music.


You?


Not so much.

there you go again ..... sniping at me, taking cheap shots, and making this personal.

I made my living in music for many years. It doesn't matter that I have retired from the gigging aspect of music. I have been there, done that.

Argue the issues and defend your POV.

Do you disagree with my observation where I said the problem is consistency in the mix?

I made my living in music for many years with the Magic Tones.

Before that, I was in The Nairobi Trio!

(I added the bold, underline, italics for emphasis)

Bob,

You are talking about finished TRACKS correct? The OP is talking about INSTRUMENTS - at least that's what they typed. This is where I think the main problem lies with the OP's frustration.

I agree with you that for mixing for live sound, where both backing tracks and loud or amplified instruments are going to be used, then you have to do some on-the-spot mixing with the PA in the venue (there can also be a huge difference between sound-check in an empty venue, and then when 300 people show up and all of a sudden they are absorbing much more of the highs than with the bare room).

But it seems to me the OP has a primary issue of learning how to mix a song in general if the first question is really instruments and not finished tracks - with a bit of a mystery as to what the 90 stands for.

Yeah, it's kinda confusing, because in the next sentence, he states:


"...I've tweaked the volumes on certain instruments/styles and use MP3Gain to supposedly make all the MP3 volumes fairly equal..."


I think he's talking about a VOLUME LEVEL OF "90" in BIAB, and the effect it's having on the finished MP3's.

Who knows? I think he got skeered and ran away!