Learning Mixing

[mrburnz]

I really need to get better at mixing my tracks, i can be satisfied for a while but then i test the track or listen to some music i like and realize i'm not satisfied at all. What is a good way to get better? I'am willing to put in the time the problem now is that I feel I put in time but don't get that much better at it any way. I have this <a>book</a>. It talks alot about listening to reference tracks and A Bing everything.

Problem is one of the big diferences between my tracks and the ones i compare to (I'm a big fan of radio slave and rhythm and sound so i have checked against these) is loudnes and after asking about this on the forum people tell me I shouldn't try to achieve loudnes like that.

Any way help me learn this, am I A Bing against the wrong tracks? Is A Bing the wrong way to learn this, if it is what should i be doing?

One other problem I have is I hardly ever use compression (is this essential?) how should i go about learning about this?
I use filters (HP LP) but hardly ever use "regular" EQing. How should i learn this?

I guess this post got a bit messy but i hope I'll get a few tips anyway.

I Know this is on the dubstep forum but honestly its very useful!!! Give this thread a read I be it will clear a few things up for ya!!!

http://www.dubstepforum.com/this-thread ... 74832.html

[mrburnz]

I really need to get better at mixing my tracks, i can be satisfied for a while but then i test the track or listen to some music i like and realize i'm not satisfied at all. What is a good way to get better? I'am willing to put in the time the problem now is that I feel I put in time but don't get that much better at it any way. I have this <a>book</a>. It talks alot about listening to reference tracks and A Bing everything.

Problem is one of the big diferences between my tracks and the ones i compare to (I'm a big fan of radio slave and rhythm and sound so i have checked against these) is loudnes and after asking about this on the forum people tell me I shouldn't try to achieve loudnes like that.

Any way help me learn this, am I A Bing against the wrong tracks? Is A Bing the wrong way to learn this, if it is what should i be doing?

One other problem I have is I hardly ever use compression (is this essential?) how should i go about learning about this?
I use filters (HP LP) but hardly ever use "regular" EQing. How should i learn this?

I guess this post got a bit messy but i hope I'll get a few tips anyway.

I Know this is on the dubstep forum but honestly its very useful!!! Give this thread a read I be it will clear a few things up for ya!!!

http://www.dubstepforum.com/this-thread ... 74832.html

[AK]

^^^
yeah we all have different ways of doing things and like and dislike certain effects, and that is healthy.

my feeling on compression is that there is a fine dividing line between glueing a mix and smudging a mix. if it doesnt require glueing, there is no point in smudging it.

i want my mixes glued at the mixing stage.

its interesting that before i really put alot of effort into getting my envelopes and waveforms right, and being particular over the frequencies i was using, i used to end up with recordings that had roughly an average RMS reading of around -15 dB and i would have to take up the slack with dynamic processing to get it into the -11 dB area for loudness.
now my recordings are almost always already at -11dB at the loudest part of the track as recorded live.

Cant argue with that, Ive done some of my own self mastering efforts and got similar rms levels but not without compromise. But like I say though, different genre. Youd have a sampled breakbeat from some old funk record and youd be compressing it hard to bring it all up, dirt and all. Then youd be fiddling about with a gate trying to get rid of the mic ambience the compression bought up trying to tighten everything up. Totally the opposite to what Id do now.

In fact, Im not even sure how a gate would fit in to my way of working now, Its just manipulating the envelopes to get tightness. But in regard to compression, I do hear people talk about applying it as though its an absolute necessity. They heard others do it and they assume its the pathway to a quality mix. It just isnt.

If you have a drum machine and a synth running, some would assume chucking a compressor over 1 or both would ensure a perceived volume increase. They might not consider setting the accent level on the drum machine and the velocity amount on the synth as a way of keeping the dynamic range in check.

The bad artifacts are for me, things like reverb tails, maybe a decaying sub on a kick or the release of a bass note. Or the envelope shape of a snare. Overcompress and those things you spent ages getting right get fecked. Reverbs being dragged up, the tail end of sounds suddenly finding their way into the forefront of the mix. Theres def a shitload that can go wrong if you dont know what you are doing.

If people are gonna use it, I always think you get best results by compressing in small stages and in small amounts throughout the mix rather than 1 compressor doing 1 big job somewhere. Its too damaging like that.

[steevio]

one thing i never here mentioned on this forum, but something which is a technique in techno production, is multiple pathways.

this is probably because its an analogue technique which doest translate too well to the digital environment.

this is routing your sounds many ways through your desk then bringing them back together at the busses. it's an additive process which really fattens up your sound. its effectively layering, but is way more effective than layering samples for instance. the slight differences in the channel circuitry, or different eq settings give you sonically rich and dense results.
of course you have to have a big desk to do it.

it can make mixing more precise, because you are effectively controlling the density of an element without radically altering the level.

[tone-def]

one thing i never here mentioned on this forum, but something which is a technique in techno production, is multiple pathways.

this is probably because its an analogue technique which doest translate too well to the digital environment.

this is routing your sounds many ways through your desk then bringing them back together at the busses. it's an additive process which really fattens up your sound. its effectively layering, but is way more effective than layering samples for instance. the slight differences in the channel circuitry, or different eq settings give you sonically rich and dense results.
of course you have to have a big desk to do it.

it can make mixing more precise, because you are effectively controlling the density of an element without radically altering the level.

it's called parallel processing. this is the only way i use compression these days. it really fattens up your sounds while keeping the transients. works good for itb mixing because you have unlimited channels. parallel distortion is also good.

[AK]

one thing i never here mentioned on this forum, but something which is a technique in techno production, is multiple pathways.

this is probably because its an analogue technique which doest translate too well to the digital environment.

this is routing your sounds many ways through your desk then bringing them back together at the busses. it's an additive process which really fattens up your sound. its effectively layering, but is way more effective than layering samples for instance. the slight differences in the channel circuitry, or different eq settings give you sonically rich and dense results.
of course you have to have a big desk to do it.

it can make mixing more precise, because you are effectively controlling the density of an element without radically altering the level.

it's called parallel processing. this is the only way i use compression these days. it really fattens up your sounds while keeping the transients. works good for itb mixing because you have unlimited channels. parallel distortion is also good.

Why wouldnt that translate well to the digital domain? I have been doing it for years!

[steevio]

one thing i never here mentioned on this forum, but something which is a technique in techno production, is multiple pathways.

this is probably because its an analogue technique which doest translate too well to the digital environment.

this is routing your sounds many ways through your desk then bringing them back together at the busses. it's an additive process which really fattens up your sound. its effectively layering, but is way more effective than layering samples for instance. the slight differences in the channel circuitry, or different eq settings give you sonically rich and dense results.
of course you have to have a big desk to do it.

it can make mixing more precise, because you are effectively controlling the density of an element without radically altering the level.

it's called parallel processing. this is the only way i use compression these days. it really fattens up your sounds while keeping the transients. works good for itb mixing because you have unlimited channels. parallel distortion is also good.

Why wouldnt that translate well to the digital domain? I have been doing it for years!

i'm not really talking about parallel processing, and i know its done in the digital domain, but the effects are not as striking.
just minor differences in analogue components in the channel circuits give you something you cannot really replicate in digital channels, when you stack these in an analogue desk you get luxurious dense textures, its just not the same.

there alot of things which dont seem to translate well digitally as far as my experience is concerned.
overdriving channels, sustain on an analogue synth envelope, etc. ( ive never been able replicate the sustain of my voyager, it kind of builds like a guitar starting to feedback through an amp )

[AK]

I cant comment on that as I didnt try it when I had a desk, had 2 in my time but it never occurred to me to try it then. Ive overdriven mixer inputs and obviously thats different but I wasnt that experimental with a mixer back then.