Hello, folks...

A BIAB user named Floyd Jane directed me to this forum to seek input, feedback, advice, what-have-you, on the posted subject, "Mixing and panning", based on his response to my request for help concerning those two particular production elements as they are heard in my song, "How Do You Know (When Someone Loves You?)".

Here is the link to the webpage the song was posted onto:

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=1321235&content=music.

I was not entirely satisfied with the mix I created that involved a vocal track and the following instruments: acoustic bass, drums, piano, slow strings, tremolo strings, and a steel guitar, all of them virtual instruments.

Simply put, I experienced some frustration attempting to get the instruments' volumes high enough without "clipping", or losing volume because of subsequent volume corrections I made. Panning seemed to complicate things because it seemed that steering the instruments right or left caused them to lose something -- body, or fullness, is the only way I could describe it -- so that, to my ears, ultimately, everything seemed to be clashing. What I mean is, I felt that none of the instruments were truly "balanced" in relation to the other.

Mr. Jane suggested that I indicate the DAW I used, which is Cakewalk Sonar. I'm grateful to him for his well-considered feedback, and I would be equally grateful to anyone who feels like pitching in their "two cents."

Thank you for reading this!

Most sincerely and respectfully,

"bluage"

Comments like this are always personal so take with a grain of salt ..

FWIW, nice job.
To me the main piano doing all the fills is too forward. It's busy; that alone will make it heard.
Also I think you could cut some low end on the rhythm sound off to the side, which will allow you to boost them a tiny bit to accommodate and also free sonic space for the bass to let it be clearer and more defined.

Then Ozone it.

Greetings!

Nice job creating the song tracks. It is a very interesting song to listen to. I do not have much music production experience but enjoy active listening. So my thoughts may provide more ideas than techniques.

I do not have any idea how you approached mixing the song but I would have approached the song as a mono mix. I would have worked on separating the tracks by arrangement and frequency. Arrangement by having different backing instruments silent while others perform fills so two instruments don't try to exist in the same aural space at the same time. Frequency by letting each instrument reside mostly within a frequency range then subtract frequencies outside the instrument range. Both tasks complement the other and minimize the potential for things to clash. Visualize all the instruments (including the vocalist) stacked one on top of the other; bass drum and bass on the bottom, cymbals at the top and everything else in between. When one instrument is removed from the pile (even for a few beats)replace it with another instrument.

A really good way to approach this is to set all tracks at 0dbFS and your main output at a comfortable listening level then pull all track faders down. Raise one fader until you can just barely hear the track. Set an equalizer for narrow frequency (high Q), high gain and sweep across the frequency band to identify the frequency range of what you heard and thus what frequency range is most important for that track. That frequency range belongs to that track! Reset the EQ to normal then start subtractive EQ to remove all the frequencies that are not important to the track. When you've removed as much frequencies as you can set the track volume level to 0dbFS. Repeat with the next track.

Once you've finished with all tracks, you should have a static mono mix with all track faders set at 0dbFS, none of the tracks should clash with the others and the overall volume level of the mix should be pleasing. Also realize getting to this point is most likely 90 - 95 percent of the work in mixing.

Now you can pan the tracks however you want and they should not clash! Use delay and effects to add interest. If you have a track panned 50 percent right then you can place an effect or delay using the same frequency space 50 percent left for interest. As you add effects you will need to watch your output volume level since the additional material will add gain.

It sounds to me like there's some white noise in there too. Like the noise floor is kinda high, or perhaps a bit of smooth distortion. Then, towards the end, I realized that it could have been the tremolo strings being low in the mix.

The mix sounded good to me on my speakers with the exception of the strings being a bit too loud in the middle section. I would have liked to hear the voice a bit crisper too. It sounded a bit too far back in the mix.

Regarding panning, I didn't listen on speaker that are wide apart or cans so I can't point out issues other than to say with jazz, I like to keep most things centered or no further than 20% panned but always have something else on the other side the same distance to balance the mix and give it a feeling of sonic space.

Not a "bad" mix, but a few tweeks would make it better.

Great tip and you've explained it so concisely, definitely saving this one to pass on!

Dear "rharv"...

I apologize for the delay responding!

I have two jobs that end in the late evening.

I'll return around six or seven o'clock, O.K.?

Thank you for your patience and your kind assistance!

Sincerely,

"bluage"

Dear "Jim Fogle"...

I apologize for the delay responding!

I have two jobs that end in the late evening.

I'll return around six or seven o'clock, O.K.?

Thank you for your patience and your kind assistance!

Sincerely,

"bluage"

Hello, "guitarhacker"...

I apologize for the delay responding!

I have two jobs that end in the late evening.

I'll return around six or seven o'clock, O.K.?

Thank you for your patience and your kind assistance!

Sincerely,

"bluage"

Dear "WIll B"...

I apologize for the delay responding!

I have two jobs that end in the late evening.

I'll return around six or seven o'clock, O.K.?

Thank you for your patience and your kind assistance!

Sincerely,

"bluage"

Hello, again, "rharv"...

Honestly, I believe "personal" comments are most welcome, to me at least, because I believe they reflect a listener's true involvement in what they heard, so the "grain of salt" should add some good seasoning!

As I've mentioned in all of my responses to the advice I've received as a result of my post, I am practically ignorant of most of the terms used, so I've got my work cut out for me. I'm not a technically-minded person when it comes to music, but I do understand how helpful it would be to learn more about it. It's probably no more difficult that studying music theory, which I've been concentrating almost exclusively for a long while.

If I ever post any more songs to any of the forums on BIAB, I'm going indicate what I've learned about music production so folks like you will know that I've taken your advice seriously.

"rharv", thank you, man, for your generous attention and feedback!

Sincerely,

"bluage"

Hi, "Will B"...

I agree with you that Mr. Fogle's tip is quite concise and "to the point." I've never used an equalizer before, but I figure that my DAW, Calkwalk Sonar, has one, or I hope it has one.

Thanks for citing Mr. Fogle's contribution!

Sincerely,

"bluage"

Mr. Fogle...

I was inspired by the clarity of your advice/instructions in your response to my post. That was mostly because you mentioned faders, which are the only controls in my DAW that I've ever touched/used to mix tracks, and only to adjust their volume, so that's a good start.

I'll have to check and see if the "equalizer" you mentioned is included with my DAW, Cakewalk Sonar, but I am anxious to try this "sweeping" technique you explained so clearly.

You're good teacher, sir, and I should know, 'cause both of my parents were teachers, and of the kind that, when I came home from school and told them I didn't have any homework to do, they'd look down at me with one of those tight "gotcha!" grins, raise their eyebrows and respond, "Oh, re-e-eally? Well, partner, you're sure about to get some!"

I'm glad you enjoyed listening to the song. Thanks, teach'!

Sincerely,

"bluage"

Dear "guitarhacker"...

You know, I always thought a "noise floor" was what I got from my neighbors living in the apartment beneath mine... jes' kiddin!

Seriously, though, I understood your observation on panning percentages since my DAW indicates those numbers graphically.

Regarding your perception of the vocal track sounding "a bit too far back in the mix," I received that track as a separate *.wav file from the vocalist, Ms. Courtney Grace, so I'll play with that and see what happens...

You mentioned "cans." Would it be correct for me assume that you were referring to a type of speaker?

I understand (I think) what you were describing when you used the term "white noise" in reference to the tremolo strings. Is that the same thing as "artifacts?" Regardless, it could have been the result of me time-stretching that track near the end to extend the amount of time it would take to fade it out to my satisfaction.

For someone as busy making music as your voluminous posts seem to indicate, I am humbled by the fact that you took the time out of your day/life/schedule to listen to the song and respond to my request for help. I mean that, "guitarhacker"! Straight, no chaser. Cross muh heart an' hope t' die. Well, maybe not just right this moment...

Thank you, sir!

Sincerely, respectfully, and whatever else would apply,

"bluage"

Bluage,

You'll find many forum members here also use Sonar products and are members of Cakewalk's forum. If you've never checked out Cakewalk's forum you can by clicking on ++ THIS ++ link.

Every DAW has an equalizer. Most versions of Sonar includes a six band equalizer like the one below. An easy way to find it is to click on a track to select the track, look at the track inspector on the far left side of the screen and look for the EQ symbol near the top of the inspector. If you don't see anything that says EQ, click on the display at the bottom of the inspector and select EQ to turn on display of the EQ feature.

The photo below shows I am inspecting a kick track. I've changed the defaults to turn off bands 2 - 6. I've set band 1 for high gain (18 db) and a narrow Q (24). The more narrow the Q, the less frequencies get changed. I have the song playing, the kick track on solo and the track gain (volume) set low so I can barely hear it. When I move the band 1 circle from left to right I am sweeping the frequencies. When I reach the main frequency of the track, 154 Hz in this instance, the sound will get much louder.

The EQ has a help button which opens a file that explains each EQ function in great detail. Check out Sonar Help for tutorial articles, song projects and videos.

Lets hit the easy ones first: Cans are slang for headphones.

White noise is what you hear as static on the radio. In this case, it was very low in the mix. But like I said, it was probably caused by the tremolo string section and wasn't noise at all. I've had some weird things happen in my mixes through the years. When I hear something, I reset my timeline to just before that point and go through each track, one by one to see if I hear something in any of the tracks. Sometimes I find the glitch and sometimes I find nothing. When I come up empty handed, I start adding tracks one by one until the issue reappears. More than once, I have found the interaction of events in 2 tracks combined to cause what sounded like a glitch. The solution is simple.... simply use the volume envelope to pull one of those tracks down briefly to get past that glitch point. How this applies to your mix is to listen to that tremolo track closely and see if it is causing the issue..... assuming that you can hear the issue I spoke of and think it's a problem. Quite often when I point out things in songs the originator of said track/project replies that they either don't hear it or intended to make it that way, so I defer to your preferences on this call.

I have worked with a number of tracks sent by other folks. I had no control over how they were recorded. I applied the things I needed, to those tracks to get them sounding good and then put them in the mix.

The vocal to COME AND GO (on my music page) was sent from another studio and was recorded well.
There's another song on my music page called IN A WORLD WITHOUT YOU. The lead vocal track to that song came to me as an MP3 file which was recorded in a home studio demo session. I was never able to get the wave so what you hear is the original MP3. I worked on it a bit with some of my audio tools because it had issues with noise and other things and had to go with what I had.

All that to say, you should be able to get practically any track to set well in a mix. It's a matter of getting the vocal track volume up if it was low and weak when you got it. Using some mild compression, and then normalizing the file will help in that regard if it was weak with low internal levels. When doing that, yo have to be careful because this is where noise floor comes into play. When you compress and normalize, you are raising ALL the things in the track including the noise at the very bottom. So while you get a stronger track, you might now have noise issues.... mic hiss, and other things that you don't want at audible levels. You can gate it or edit it but it's best to avoid it where possible. That's why it's always good to have solid, strong input levels from your audio sources. Signal to noise ratios matter, but with digital, you should be good under most circumstances. (that topic could be it's own thread)

Next is to get the volume in the mix set appropriately for the genre. Country, for example, tends to put vocals closer to the front as opposed to rock, where the vox may actually be quite far back and covered up to some degree by the instruments. Making the vocal fit into the mix naturally involves matching the reverb kind to the band. I often record all my tracks totally dry (exception is guitar) and applying the reverb in the master buss. That puts the same kind and level of verb on the entire mix. Nothing stands out like a band that has a wet reverb and the singer's vox is a small room dry. Levels and reverb are the largest factors in getting tracks to set properly. That doesn't mean EQ doesn't play a part, because it does, but not as critically as the first 2 do.

Hope that clarifies it a bit.

Jim, MEqualizer by Melda Production has an Analyzer silhouette that will show you right where that freq is without the sweep/listen technique. And the band width is adjustable with a drag bar. It's free and stable for me in Reaper. I also use Sonar's plugins in Reaper along with a bunch of others.

Thanks for sharing the information Tobias. Melda Production has an impressive lineup of both free and for sell effects. I am including a link to MEqualizer ++ HERE ++ for those that might want more information about the product.

Hello, again, "guitarhacker"...

I hope you (and the rest of the respondents) will forgive the delay in responding to you. I work two jobs that consume a great of time: managing rental properties (which is an on-call, 24/7 type of gig), and as a volunteer stage manager at a local ballet school.

Any old way, I'm going to follow-up with you on the things you mentioned that I have some kind of experience with and readily understand

First of all, thanks for explaining what "cans" are.

Next, your statement: "When you compress and normalize, you are raising ALL the things in the track including the noise at the very bottom. So while you get a stronger track, you might now have noise issues.... mic hiss, and other things that you don't want at audible levels."

That's very useful information! I suspect I've damaged many audio tracks in the past by using that function.

Next, "More than once, I have found the interaction of events in 2 tracks combined to cause what sounded like a glitch. The solution is simple.... simply use the volume envelope to pull one of those tracks down briefly to get past that glitch point."

Okay, that's pretty straightforward. Got it.

Up next: "Next is to get the volume in the mix set appropriately for the genre."

I suppose that within that suggestion you are including vocals as part of "the mix." I've never been present at a recording session, never been in a recording studio, even. In the song I posted the vocal was recorded by the singer. 99% percent of the time when I "mix" a song it has only virtual instrument tracks.

Nonetheless, your advice concerning genre considerations is sensible. If I think about what I've heard when listening to various kinds of music, I believe I could say that I've noticed in casual way the placement of vocals. Some seem closer, others less so; some are louder, others softer, dryer or wetter, and so on.

Finally, "Levels and reverb are the largest factors in getting tracks to set properly."

Hah! Those two functions are probably the only ones I've used with any frequency throughout my entire experience of composing and mixing songs.

Because of my stone-cold ignorance of some terms you use, such as "gate," "master buss," "normalize," "band," and more, I realized that I'd be wasting your time discussing them with you. So, over the weekend I went out to a used bookstore and picked up a copy of The Billboard Illustrated Home Recording Handbook. Paging through the index at the back of the book I saw entries for most of the above-mentioned terms. It's got a bunch of pictures in it relative to the concept(s) explored in each chapter, so it should be helpful.

"guitarhacker," I'm gonna rate you high as a teacher as well as a performing musician! Thank you, again, for your obvious committment to these forums.

Sincerely,

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

"guitarhacker"..

I forgot to mention that I will go to your site to sample the songs you directed me to.

I'll be happy to get to back to you after I've listened to them!

Thanks, again,

LOREN

Mr. Fogle...

As I offered to "guitarhacker," I hope you'll accept my sincerest apology for responding to you so late.

I wanted to show you that I located the equalizer in Cakewalk Sonar X1 Producer, but I don't know how to post images here.

Would you tell me how to do that?

Thank you for your continued help, and patience, Mr. Fogle.

Sincerely,

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage)

I'll help take a little work off of Mr Fogle, if I may.
Under my post is a button labeled Reply.
Don't just click in the text box below and type, make sure to click the Reply button.

On the next screen there is a large box to type a reply in .. below that are the words File Manager. These two words are clickable.
If you click these two words (File Manager) it lets you upload an image (images only) and the uploaded image will show at the bottom of your Post.

Hello Once Again Loren,

Thanks to rharv for answering your question about how to post an image. Thanks!

I had not heard of the book you found and looked it up. The Billboard book appears to be a good starter book. I like the beginning where there are multiple choices (so you want to be a producer, so you want to record a band, etc.) for want you want to learn. That's a good way to layout a book like that because there are so many different ways to approach home recording.

A similar book is ++ Home Recording for Musicians ++. Even if you don't run across the book, the book website has some great reference guides that are free to download.

Author Mike Senior has two books many people think are among the best available. The books are called Mixing Secrets and Recording Secrets for the small studio. Once again the website for the books contains a wealth of information and links. The website is ++ HERE ++. There is a real good book review ++ HERE ++

For me, it's a lot of fun finding, building and understanding a reference library.

Hello, "rharv"...

I followed your instructions. The baby black jaguar waves his paw in thanks to you for your kind assistance!

Thank you, sir!

Sincerely,

LOREN

After a while you'll call me Bob like most other members.

You'll learn to reserve rharv for when something's my fault.

It's all your fault, rharv.

yeah, I know that already

This whole enchilada is pdf'd and in my files! Great stuff!!!!

Considering your level of mixing knowledge, I think your track is brilliant. Has a real Jazz club ambiance.

Looking forward to the re-mix. Remember – with EQ subtractive is always better than additive.



Regards,


Bob

Thought it was a lovely song and especially beautiful moody vocal. Difficult to properly check the mix as I heard it on my iPad. I was not very keen on the sound of the strings when they came in. Too synthetic for the jazzy track. If anything the vocals are too far forward in the mix although I love the sound of the voice. Occasionally the backing dips to almost nothing and obviously at these points the song loses momentum. Maybe more variety in the arrangement with perhaps Instruments coming in and out at appropriate moments. You can sometimes achieve this by volume automation on the individual tracks. This means piano goes up in between vocal and down during and so on. Definitely worth getting the mix right though as I loved the song and the singing. Also very nice sax at the end.

Here is some imput/advice from an graduate of music/audio school:

1. Ask yourself what are the most important parts of the song? What parts really need to stand out in the mix, and what parts do you feel that the listen could get by with out really hearing up front and in the spotlight. Listening to the song, I can already tell that the center focus of the song is the singer, with a second focus on the sax solo twoards the end. I do understand that you want every instrument and part to be heard loud and clear but with all the instruments coming loud, what am I really supoose to be listening for?

2. Lower the levels on the tracks- Some DAWs have the option to lower the gain levels on the audio tracks to avoid clipping.

3. Lower the master fader- If you are not able to lower the individual audio trakc gain levels, then lower the master fader volume before rendering the mix

4. Retry panning certin instruments- When your panning an instrument in a DAW, all your doing is your change the placement of where the sound source is coming from within the stereo image which is controled by a pan potentiometer. In the old day before the pan pot, you had the option of either having a track be hard left (9 o'clock), hard center (12 o'clock), or hard right (3 o'clock). Now a days, you can adjust the pan pots as wide or narrow as you want. A nice trick for this is to take a stereo piano track, and only pan one side. It willl give you this effect as if the piano is coming from one speaker when it is actually coming from both speakers. I know panning things can make tacks sound out of place at first, but after a while, you'll start to find that not ever track need to be dead center.

5. Try compression- I don't recommend this when first starting to learn to mix, but if use properly, a little bit of compression can go a long way.

Nice to meet you, "90 db"...

First of all, thank you for listening and offering the approving comment.

Know what's most interesting about all the responses I received? Everyone hears the mix differently, and the varieties of advice I've been given could be bewildering...but they're not! Why? 'Cause each piece of advice seems to be based on what each listener prioritizes in the "mix". That means I could choose -- and use -- any of the techniques mentioned specifically and please each of the people who advised me. So, I can't lose, right?

Looks like I've accidentally turned-around the old adage that "you can't please all of the people, all of the time"!

Thanks, "90 db".

Truly,

LOREN (a.k.a "bluage")

"funkycornwall"...

...the man with the name that sounds like the title of a (funky, of course) song! "Do the funkycornwall, chil-dren, the funky-funky corn-wall!"

"I was not very keen on the sound of the strings when they came in. Too synthetic for the jazzy track."

Partner, neither was I. The strings track was rendered from the oldest virtual instrument library in my possession: Edirol HQ Orchestral Synthesizer by Roland, vintage 2002. The CD ROM's so old, I have to wake it up by slapping rubbing alcohol all over it before I stick it in my PC's disk drive. However, I have other VI libraries that I could experiment with -- Miroslav Philharmonik, SampleTank, Kontakt 4, and Vir2 Instruments.

"Maybe more variety in the arrangement with perhaps instruments coming in and out at appropriate moments. You can sometimes achieve this by volume automation on the individual tracks. This means piano goes up in between vocal and down during and so on."

Agreed. I'm familiar with volume automation, but whenever I've done that, the automated tracks sound like they're on an elevator: "10th floor, ladies and gentlemen. Going up! 1st floor, going down! Watch your step, please..."

Would I compensate for that problem by simultaneously adjusting the other volume-automated track levels in the opposite "direction"?

Thanks for your feedback, "funkycornwall," especially since my post could be considered old by now...

Sincerely,

LOREN (a.k.a "bluage")

"guitarhacker"...

I went to your SoundClick webpage and listened (appreciatively, as always!) to "Come and Go," and "In A World Without You." You make me want to compose a "country" tune, but I'm a city bo'! Shall the 'twain ever meet?

I think -- I believe -- I'm pretty sure -- that I heard the proof of what you advised: "...you should be able to get practically any track to set well in a mix. It's a matter of getting the vocal track volume up if it was low and weak when you got it. Using some mild compression, and then normalizing the file will help in that regard if it was weak with low internal levels."

What I didn't notice upon studying your initial response to my post, was the term, "normalizing," the definition of which I read as "...the application of a constant amount of gain to an audio recording to bring the average or peak amplitude to a target level (the norm). Because the same amount of gain is applied across the given range, the signal-to-noise ratio and relative dynamics are generally unchanged."

I've seen that function listed in the main menu of my Sony Soundforge Audio Studio software, but never used it. Nonetheless, the definition of its function seemed pretty straightforward, and not too heavy to understand.

In the wake of this mighty revelation, the only question I would ask you, is at what point in the mixing stages would the effect be most usefully applied? To the separate tracks before they're rendered to a single audio file, or only to the finished file?

By the way, as I was listening to my posted song again, I discovered that all the individual instrument tracks that I thought I had panned to aurally distinct positions in the "sound field" to reasonably good effect were coming out of only the left monitor! When I opened it up in my sequencer, I realized that all the instrument tracks rendered by the same virtual instrument library only had a single audio output track. That probably accounts for at least some of the disappointment I experienced upon first listening to the song, wouldn't you say?

You lead. Me follow!

Thank you, "guitarhacker",

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

So that all may know:

If a track can not be made to fit into a mix properly, it's time to reevaluate that track's purpose in the song. It's not that the track "can't" be made to fit, but the more proper question is, should it be made to fit? Every project I work on has tracks that were planned for the mix but after all was said and done, they never made it into the final mix. Don't ever put something into a mix just because you can.


Normalizing and compression. In a nut shell...... Normalizing raises everything in the mix in a linear manner, by the same exact amount up to a predetermined point which is determined by the highest peak in the song. Compression raise or lowers everything in a mix to a certain average determined by threshold settings and compression levels. Compression can actually change your "finished mix" by brings up soft parts and compressing down the loud ones. Both of these tools are useful when applied properly. I use normalization as one of the last steps in my wave editor. Compression on my projects is generally pretty mildly applied and always in the DAW before I export my final finished wave.

"guitarhacker"...

Got it!

Thanks,

LOREN

Hey, there, "Islansoul"...

Your "handle" leaves a serene, almost mystical impression. Cool! I hope you will forgive my four-day late response to your comprehensive post.

"Ask yourself what are the most important parts of the song? What parts really need to stand out in the mix, and what parts do you feel that the listen could get by with out really hearing up front and in the spotlight."

Wow. You do go straight for jugular, don't you? You were right on the money by taking note of the fact that all the instruments were "coming on loud." The only thing I'd ever read about mixing was to adjust track volumes just short of clipping...

Immediately upon reading your post, I went back to the song and did as you instructed: lowered the levels of the tracks, and then did the same thing with the master fader. Voila! It worked!

"I know panning things can make tacks sound out of place at first, but after a while, you'll start to find that not ever track need to be dead center."

Actually, I wasn't trying to push everything dead center. As I manipulated the panning controls, my intent was to "hear" my way through to determining where each instrument's track sounded best in the "stereo image" you mentioned. But as I indicated in my post, to my ears something I can only describe as a diminishment of the "fullness" of the sound, a thinning, seemed to occur in the wake my adjustments. My intuition tells me that maybe I was looking too closely at the graphic representation of the panning controls -- the way the green level light splits into two columns to display the relative increase or decrease of the signal while panning right or left -- instead of listening. What I mean is, perhaps my misdirected attention to the visual display affected the way I was hearing the sound of the instrument(s).

"Islansoul", your advice/instructions were easy to understand, and following them produced immediately pleasing results. Thank you very, very much for taking the time to listen to the song so closely and offer me the benefit of your music/audio experience.

Respectfully,

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

If that's what you've read, you've been reading the wrong books.

Might I suggest an investment in Mike Senior's book called Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio. A number of folks here have this book as do I. Mike starts where your mixing starts and that is with your speakers. I think you will find this to be an excellent book to own.

Regarding "lights" and levels.... yes, volume cures a multitude of woes but it also covers up twice as many problems. You should be mixing at a low volume on halfway decent speakers. Mixing loud makes it sound better, but you're missing the important things. The folks who listen to your mix at a lower level will be disappointed in many cases, by the substandard mix that you missed due to volume.

As mixing engineer.... and that is your job title when you mix your own mixes, it is your job to find the problems in the mix and fix them, not bury them in volume and gagged track faders.

When I mix, I will occasionally look at the meters just to see where I am relatively speaking. I do want to have the meters in the green 99% of the time. I don't live or die by the meters.

If you have nice full tracks, and if you're using Real Tracks, that is rarely an issue, you should be able to have a full sounding mix if all you have is a piano and a vocal. It's actually easier in many respects, to work with a project having just 2 to 4 tracks in it and have it sound good as opposed to having a project with 12 or more tracks and making it sound good. We all fall victim to the "if I have it I need to use it" syndrome and mixing 12+ tracks with that mindset results in a mess of noise and mud.

My latest song has 6 rhythm guitars. A mixture of acoustic and electric. Only 2 of them are at any decent level where they can be heard. The others are 10dB or so down from 0dB in the mix. Barely audible.If I had run all 6 just short of clipping, can you imagine the cacophony of guitar noise that would have been? Same thing is true of the vocals. There were 5 tracks but you can only hear predominately one lead. If you listen carefully, you can hear the others in the background is a few places. There are other tracks that ride with faders pulled all the way down until that track is needed for a few seconds, and then back to the bottom. The B3 organ is one of those.

Mixing is an art. Levels, panning, use of EQ, applying FX, all of it matters and all of it takes time. You're off to a good start. Refine it a bit, learn some new things and you only get better with time and doing.

"guitarhacker"...

Out of everything you explained in your latest post, the clincher, the show-stopper, the undisputed truth, the answer-to-just-about-everything-concerning-mixing, is expertly contained, in all its glorious simplicity and blue-sky clarity, within the following quote, which I reproduce here in its all-revealing entirety:

"My latest song has 6 rhythm guitars. A mixture of acoustic and electric. Only 2 of them are at any decent level where they can be heard. The others are 10dB or so down from 0dB in the mix. Barely audible.If I had run all 6 just short of clipping, can you imagine the cacophony of guitar noise that would have been? (Yes, I can, and your song would have been titled, "Guitar-zilla"!) Same thing is true of the vocals. There were 5 tracks but you can only hear predominately one lead. If you listen carefully, you can hear the others in the background is a few places. There are other tracks that ride with faders pulled all the way down until that track is needed for a few seconds, and then back to the bottom. The B3 organ is one of those."

That's it!!! With those words you've enabled me to cut off and cast away a troublesome misconception about mixing that was obviously the biggest obstacle to achieving the "balance" that was at the heart of my frustration with the song's tracks. You don't need hear every dang thing in the mix, all of the time.

To be fair, another forum member, “Islansoul,” said as much when he advised, “Ask yourself what are the most important parts of the song? What parts really need to stand out in the mix, and what parts do you feel that the listen could get by with out really hearing up front and in the spotlight.” So, on that point, obviously there is solid agreement…

However, there is one nagging question I have: if, in the sound design of your song, you decided to minimize the volume of certain tracks that you deemed subordinate to the total mix, such as the six acoustic/electric rhythm guitars and the five vocals, why, then, did you include them in the first place?

By the way, "guitarhacker," I'm working on another composition to which I applied your instructions about "normalizing," and it worked like gangbusters, partner! I mean, I was blown a-way by how smoothly it rounded out "peaks" and prevented "valleys" from sinking too far down in the mix. I think of it as "sound-shaping."

This forum – “Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production” – has turned out to be one of the most truly educational classrooms I’ve ever attended, minus the squeaky chalkboard, the wads of old chewing gum stuck to the bottoms of the desks, and the sour-puss teacher!

As "Ralph Kramden" (Jackie Gleason) used to say to his wife, "Alice" (Audrey Meadows), in the old television series, "The Honeymooners", "guitarhacker," you're the GREATEST!!!

From da' boddum of my heart,

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

He mentioned this in his same post;
"If you listen carefully, you can hear the others in the background is a few places."
(I think he meant 'in a few places')

They may be 'subordinate' but may also be worth including, many times for effect/enhancement.
Mixing is indeed an art.
They weren't 'cut' but rather handled/added.

As evidence I reference his signature;
Add nothing that adds nothing to the music

Hi, "rharv" -- oops! I meant, "Bob"!

Hearin' ya' loud n' clear, I fear!

So, they're there to be heard, but, as the basic wisdom he/you imparted dictates, use 'em, but don't lose 'em, right?

Thanks, "Bob"!

Truly-ooly,

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

I can't speak for GH, but that's how I read it.
Many times I end up with 20-30 tracks in a project, many used very sparsely, but they made it to the final cut..

No problem,

I remember taking an audio mixing class called audio mixing 1 and the first week I had to mix a song using only pan knobs and volume faders. No EQ, no compression, no reverb, nothing else.

Some other tricks you can do to add depth to a mix is to add chrous to vocals particularly with backgroung vocals to give the feel of more vocals than there are, a lot of mixing guys use with pluging, but that's debatable. I say if you start with a great recording then you'll have less work to do in the mix.

Also, my handle is suppose to be islandsoul after my solo artist name Island Soul. I didn't realize I had spelled it wrong untill recently. The full name of it is actually Island Soul Productions because I want to incorporate production as a part of it as well.

There is a reason for including all the tracks. Let me discuss the vocals in particular.

There's 5 tracks.... one up front as the lead and the other 4 hanging back. If I used just the one lead it would sound OK. However, if I have 2 more tracks exactly like the lead.... phrase for phrase or mighty close, and if I pan them opposite to the extreme, and if I keep them so low you really can't hear them clearly, here's what happens. The stereo spread is there, and they add a fullness with out any obvious doubling or comb filtering being obvious. In the chorus, I add 2 more tracks which are harmony and that also adds to the fullness and fatness of the vocal without having it sound like it's the Statler brothers singing harmony or the local barbershop quartet providing harmony. I don't want to hear the individual harmony voices. I simply want the fullness of the vocals to increase without it sounding like 2 more people just started singing. I was kind of sloppy with the vocals in Whiskey for Breakfast. Normally when I do that, I spend quite a bit of time making sure the vocals are dead, spot on in sync with each other. As it was I only did a few quick punches to get close, and moved on.

The result is that it's a very subtle but slightly fuller sound. Quite popular and it's used a lot in the music you hear in the pop and country world.

Think of it a viewing a pyramid from the side.... The lead is at the top, and the low leads are spread wide at the bottom, down further, with the harmonies up the sides a bit and maybe not spread quite as wide.

The guitars are similar.... they are layered. Same basic principle and idea and result. There's a fatness without the obvious presence that one would have to deal with having and trying to mix 6 guitars and have them all audible and distinct. In this way, 2 guitars are primary and distinct, while the others are simply layering a bed that is underlying the music.

Regarding levels..... in my mixing, if it's not needed, I have it pulled completely down. In fact, in a project only the bass and drums and acoustic guitars will tend to be in the mix all the time. Everything else can come and go. The secret is getting the various things in and out without having it be noticeable to the point that it's obvious and calls attention to itself when it happens.

"guitarhacker"...

Sorry I'm late for class, again! Whew! Time's a-flyin' and my wings are being dry-cleaned at the laundromat. When's my tuition payment due, teach'?!

I ain't done, yet. How on God's green earth, may I ask, do you find time to produce songs when you apparently spend so much time helping out know-nothings like me, huh??? Know what I think? I think there's two of you -- "guitarslacker" and "guitarhacker" -- most likely a twin brother, and while one of you produces songs, the other one mans the forums, and then both of you do a neat switch-a-roonie. Ah-HAH! Got'cha.

"There's 5 tracks.... one up front as the lead and the other 4 hanging back. If I used just the one lead it would sound OK. However, if I have 2 more tracks exactly like the lead.... phrase for phrase or mighty close, and if I pan them opposite to the extreme, and if I keep them so low you really can't hear them clearly, here's what happens. The stereo spread is there, and they add a fullness with out any obvious doubling or comb filtering being obvious."

The concept is so simple, I'm sorry I asked the question. "Comb-filtering"? That's when I clean all the hair strands out of it, right ?? Jes' kiddin', smidgen!

"In the chorus, I add 2 more tracks which are harmony and that also adds to the fullness and fatness of the vocal..."

Again, simplicity itself, of a degree that makes it seem like common sense. But then, my daddy told me that if "common sense" was so "common", everybody would have it...which they don't!

"The result is that it's a very subtle but slightly fuller sound...Think of it a(s) viewing a pyramid from the side.... The lead is at the top, and the low leads are spread wide at the bottom, down further, with the harmonies up the sides a bit and maybe not spread quite as wide."

The visual analogy concerning the pyramid works for me.

"The guitars are similar.... they are layered. Same basic principle and idea and result. There's a fatness without the obvious presence that one would have to deal with having and trying to mix 6 guitars and have them all audible and distinct. In this way, 2 guitars are primary and distinct, while the others are simply layering a bed that is underlying the music."

To sum everything up, I think the term/word you use -- "layering" -- answers my question fully as to why you include multiple, identical audio tracks in your mix.

Question: How much of what you know about audio engineering is the result of consulting technical information, and/or "hands-on", trial-and-error experience, percentage-wise?

Last thing before the bell rings, teach': I believe that a lot of what disappoints me in my mixes has to do with the fact I use virtual instruments to render MIDI tracks that I perform on my piano. So, when I listen to music performed and produced by true musicians who play actual musical instruments, my virtually-produced music pales hugely by comparison. If it wasn't for BIAB's Real Tracks, I wouldn't have the nerve to post anything, anywhere on this site.

All hail the great and wunnerful Mr. Peter Gannon, rescuer of armchair "musicians" whose cheesy MIDI wasn't soundin' so pretty!

So long, "guitarhacker" (and, "guitarslacker", you sly rascal, you!). I got some audio engineerin' to do...

You know how I feel, partner!

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

Howdy-owdy, "rharv"/Bob...

Twenty, to thirty tracks??? Holy guacamole, Batman!!! Them's a lotta tracks. You must be the husband of the "old woman who lived in a shoe, and had so many tracks, she didn't know what to do"...

Could you direct me to a song, or songs, you've produced, so I can I listen to them?

Thanks!

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

"Islandsoul"...

Right on. I just like the sound of it. It conjures up in my mind's eye a serene, pacific image of hot-blue skies, caravans of clouds, white sands, crashing waves, scantily-clad...ummm, palm trees ( ), and music, or course! May have to use it as a song title, someday!

Why don't you direct me to one, or more, of your songs?

Thanks, "Islandsoul"...

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

"Islandsoul"...

Yeah, I've seen that "chorus" utility on menus of my music software programs, but never used it. As I explained to another forum member who participated in this thread, I've been so involved with learning music theory that I've pretty completely neglected the audio production aspect of making music. But since you mentioned it, I'll try it out.

"guitarhacker" hooked me up to "normalization", and it works just like he said it would. So, my ears are open to advice from you, and anyone else who is kind enough to share with me what they know...

Thanks, again, "Islandsoul".

Sincerely,

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

"Islandsoul"...

Yes, pan knobs and volume faders were the only "sound-shaping" tools I ever used before Floyd Jane advised me to start this thread. And, sometimes, when I really committed to working them, working them, and working them some more in a composition, I think I heard some (personally) pleasing results.

Actually, deep down, there's a "purist" in me who (used to be) suspicious of all the audio processing tools that DAW's are loaded with. But now, as a result of what I'm learning, I realize that they aren't there to be used indiscriminately, but selectively...and, so, I will!

Can you handle another "thank you"? Ho-kay, here it is, sir!

Truly,

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

Comb filtering: Here's the Wiki definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_filter In a nutshell, it's not something that you want to happen in your mix. It happens when 2 different and varying signals are imposed upon each other. They interact algebraically depending on what each signal is adding to the mix. At one point the signals will add to each other and a split second later they will null each other out and it varies with the frequencies involved. Since the frequencies are mostly not the same, the level of apparent increase or decrease will also vary. The more you work with signals that are exactly the same or similar enough, the more this becomes an issue. It is the primary reason you should NEVER clone a track to do layering or doubling. It can be negated by panning and volume control of the source.


Most of what I learned about audio engineering is the result of hands on experience and being active in the Cakewalk songs forum for many years. There are folks over there who work with music at the professional level, operating studios as their main business activity and in other capacities in the music world. Craig Anderton drops in from time to time. He used to write a monthly column for Guitar Player magazine on electronic gizmo's. I've had several people pick out things in my music that I totally missed. I mean totally. When I went back to where they indicated and listened.... they were 100% right. Having other people with "good engineer's ears" listen and comment on your songs gets you up to speed pretty quickly. When they see you taking their advice and improving your skills, they are willing to keep giving that advice.

By posting my music over there and asking for crits... "tell me the truth, don't sugar coat it".... I received lots of good feedback on what these folks heard in my mix and then they told me what I needed to do to remedy the situation. You tend to achieve the levels of the advice you're given, so make the advice you get, the best possible.

Some of the crits I got early on were pretty harsh. Not mean, but harsh. There is a difference. "Harsh" makes you face the reality that maybe what you're doing that you think is good, isn't good at all and you are doing things in a way that gives poor results. Then by listening to the advice, you discover a better way that does give good results...and you live and learn and keep climbing.

I realize that not all folks know the difference between mean and harsh and not all folks want to be told they could be doing things in a better way..... so quite often, I simply keep quite and say.. "Good Job.... sounds like it was a fun song you did."


I could say more but for now....

Sometimes it just takes us a lot of tries to get it right <grin>
For examples; here you ghost;

http://masteringmatters.com/stuff/Count_Me_Out.mp3
thread: http://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=371104&Searchpage=1&Main=25633&Words=rharv&Search=true#Post371104

http://masteringmatters.com/stuff/haunted.mp3

http://www.masteringmatters.com/stuff/putitoutjmd2b.wma
http://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=88729&page=1
(JazzManDan is now MusicStudent here on the forums I believe)

http://masteringmatters.com/stuff/HittindaNumberzA.mp3

http://masteringmatters.com/stuff/finallyGel.WMA
(90% RTs)

http://masteringmatters.com/stuff/wild.WMA
http://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=154094&page=1

http://masteringmatters.com/stuff/Sweetness2.WMA

All RTs:
http://masteringmatters.com/stuff/UrbnM1bc.mp3


publicly given away (thanks youtube!)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCR2Ymb8qREzhROuk2ZsAhxg

First of all, I don't have any finished song yet. under the Island Soul name yet. I'm most likley the only member on here that doesn't use BIAB to write origianal music. I manily use it to write backing tracks for my steel pan gigs, as I'm mainly a proformer, not a songwriter, I would like that to change one day. Again thanks for the complements, but those go to out to all the hard work in college for my production degree, and my God given music talent. As someone who as both the experience as a musician and an engineer I understand both sides equally. Both sides play there role in achieving the final song that everyone ends up hearing. Now I need to get back to making music annd stop replying to this form.

"Islandsoul:...

Hearin' ya' LOUD and clear about spending so much time on the forums!

Whenever you put anything out in the world to listen to, give me a "holler", won't you?

Again, thank you truly for sharing your audio production experience. Your feedback was solidly useful and I'm applying it right away.

I'll let you know the next time I post something so you can give it a critical listen.

Most sincerely,

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

"guitarhacker"...

Thank you for explaining the "comb filter" concept.

As far as critiques go, I'm willing to accept "harsh" assessments of the music I produce -- whenever I get it "out there". I have labored over songs for literally years until they sounded "right" to me, which is why I've only posted two songs to the "User's Forum" since I joined in 2009.

However, with all the practical and immediately useful advice, information and instruction I received from the folks who answered my call in the "Mixing and Panning" thread, I'll be a bit more interested (and brave!) about posting songs to get feedback from members such as yourself concerning the work of mixing.

Usually, I think a body can tell if the "harsh" tone of a critique is constructive, or destructive. You just take what you can use and leave the rest behind...

As always, thank you for your generosity. "guitarhacker".

Sincerely,

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

"rharv"/Bob...

Whew! I stand in the shadows of giants...

I listened to three (for now) of your songs: "Haunted", "Things Will Finally Gel", and "Sweetness". The musicianship was (obviously) top-notch. The mixing on all of them was, to my untrained ears, overwhelmingly clear, spacious, and ear-filling.

Talk about "growling" gee-tars! In "Haunted" they sounded like they were straining against a leash to get free. Better feed 'em before they bite you! Also, I liked the chord changes and the driving rhythm.

However, the mix for "Sweetness" was particularly impressive. The music sounded as though it was coming from everywhere in the room I listened to it in. I really appreciated how the "throw-away" lines in the background (including that wild donkey braying!) sounded so well-placed and distinct within the total mix. And last, but not least, you and your band definitely "put your feet in the funk" on that one! Oh, yeah, baby!

Now, may I ask only a couple of questions? Concerning the vocals, are you the lead singer? Second, where the voices sing in harmony, are they the voices of different members of the band, or were they only your voice, but duplicated and blended into the mix?

Thanks for sharing your exciting, rhythmic, and excellently produced music!

Sincerely,

LOREN (a.k.a. "bluage")

No, I am not the lead singer.
Barry gets credit for that role. We grew up together and to be honest; he says I mentored him, but I feel like I ride his coat-tails historically.


Harmonies/doubling on vocals; in any example it may be he or I on harmonies, I'd have to go song by song or part by part to detail. Sometimes we doubled his voice and sometimes we added others. Usually when we played 'live' though, those harmonies fell on me.

'Sweetness' is the oldest mix of the bunch I listed above. It was a lot of fun.
The sampled donkey made me laugh at the time, and Barry's sax line led right into it so well .. that's really what allowed it to work.


Thanks for taking the time to listen.

Private message me and I can tell you about a project I did about three years ago I might post on the forum.

You need to cut the procrastination time down.... as our new president likes to say... "Bigly".

On the next song you write... try taking it from finished song to "finished" recording in just a few days max. Put yourself under a self-imposed deadline. Give yourself two or three days to record it and present it. Let the chips fall where they will. See what people say about the mix and the production.

If you're literally taking years to get something out, it will be hard to improve on that schedule.

As an example.... Whiskey went from idea to finished song in around a week, give or take. IIRC. Most of that time was working on the song lyrics and structure. I had recorded a rough draft to send to David, but after review and discussion, it was deleted and I started recording again from scratch on the new structure. Recording, I believe, on the second and final version (structurally) was 2 days if I recall. That included recording the RT's and the live tracks and vocals and mixing it all. I look for a standard of "reasonably good" as opposed to "perfect" in order to get things done and move on.

Early on as you try this you will likely miss some things that may be obvious to you later, but as you adapt to the faster progress, things will fall in place pretty quickly.

"gee-tee" (short for "guitarhacker"!)

OWWW! That ruler across my knuckles hurt, 'teach! Seriously, though, I laughed out loud (at myself) behind your remark, "You need to cut the procrastination time down.... ", 'cause I'll be danged if it isn't true.

You're right, and when you're right, you're right...right? Right!

This desire to compose songs came to me out of nowhere, like something that fell out of the sky one day and landed on my noggin -- CRACK!!! I mean that almost literally. It developed s-l-o-w-l-y over the course of, say, the last ten years. The pace picked up considerably when I stumbled on Band-in-a-Box in 2005. But then, to use the software in any kind of productive way, I had to commit to learning music theory, which slowed me down considerably, 'cause I..am...L...A...Z...Y!!!

To this day, sometimes I wonder to myself, "Why did this thing happen?" I had always been an active listener concerning music, took piano lessons as a kid, even, but I never had the slightest impulse to compose.

Nonetheless, these days I just thank the Creator for giving me something interesting to do in my spare time!

Talk to ya' later, "guitarhacker"!

LOREN