Return FAQ: Share what you've learned

[Paulie]

Got a few returns this evening including one I thought for sure was a forward. Fortunately me feedback is all about my mixes, which is fixavle, so I can remix and reuse these in the future. (my new mantra: write, submit, remix, repeat). I recognize that Taxi's reputation is on the line with every submittal, and I welcome all of the feedback I get from the screeners and my peers. I appreciate the high bar, it either makes you better or makes you quit. I choose to get better.

There is surely a treasure trove of communal knowledge here, mistakes that can be avoided that might not be mentioned in a listing. For example, what I learned today: In a jazz or latin instrumental cue make sure the lead instrument is panned center for tv/film listings, even if the a la has it otherwise. Focus on modern mixing while remaining true to the musical style. Don't use older recordings for mixing guidelines unless specified in the listing.

I've read other return threads where something simple or easy to correct was the reason. Share with the community, what have you learned from your returns? I'll go through my others and post more here.

[Paulie]

General feedback from some other returns:

• Hip hop track closer to R&B than hip hop
• Audio levels too low for a muzak cue (I forgot to Normalize. The other two were and got forwarded)
• Don't use gentle chimes in a singer/songwriter track
• Trip hop return because track lacked a central theme
• Wedding track mix lacked warmth and ambiance
• Hip hop track needed more authentic hi-hat/snare pattern
• Sports track: great music, but brass patch wasn't authentic enough.
• Lead instrument mixed to high, would interfere with dialog.
• Music too rhythmically complex for a cue.

[Paulie]

or not...

[jonnybutter]

Hey Paul,

I will share a couple problems I had a lot when I started out here which sometimes-did and sometimes-didn't get commented on by screeners.


One was getting the instruments locked together, timing wise, without sounding quantized/stiff. I had always shied away from fixing every single timing error in the past - I didn't mind a little rhythmic breathing. But that doesn't cut it today, since it is relatively easy to dig in there and fix that. So I generally do so now

The other thing I had to work on a lot was fixing the low end. My mixing environment wasn't the best before, and I also sort of got inured to all those bass waves.

OK, one more: putting instruments, especially piano, in a ROOM instead of sounding like it's 'coming down a wire'. We've talked about this on other threads, but it bears repeating.

I am by no means suggesting that I don't have plenty of other things to work on now! I'll be learning how to mix until the day I croak! But these were biggies when I was starting submitting to Taxi listings.

[Russell Landwehr]

(my new mantra: write, submit, REMIX, repeat).

(emphasis mine) LOVE it!

[jonnybutter]

Yes, 'remix' is definitely in my mantra too!

Another one I struggled with was aggressive limiting. I am in my 50s and came up when music could have more dynamic range than is typical now, so I tended not to limit as hard as I have learned to do now. Gotta be loud! I would choose that over normalizing, although I understand that 'normalize' can mean more than one thing...

[Paulie]

Ok, that's an interesting discussion. I think I'll start a different threading limiting vs normalizing.

[jonnybutter]

No reason you couldn't do both because, as I understand it, they are completely different. I almost never normalize anything just because I usually have enough gain on a track to begin with, but there may be other benefits to it that I don't understand.

I'm pretty sure I remember a thread about these two concepts sometime in the last couple years, but I can't find it via search....

[andygabrys]

No reason you couldn't do both because, as I understand it, they are completely different. I almost never normalize anything just because I usually have enough gain on a track to begin with, but there may be other benefits to it that I don't understand.

I'm pretty sure I remember a thread about these two concepts sometime in the last couple years, but I can't find it via search....

yes there were a couple and I was one of the more long winded posters.

they are different things accomplishing different results.

gain-staging and whether or not you do gain change operations like normalization in mixing is a big issue and probably has a lot to do with why less experienced mixers have a certain "sound" which is distinguishable (and not always in a good way).

What I learned from screeners:

1) a muddy mix means a lot of things, but it has a lot to do with subtle eq cuts in the low midrange more than anything - the same area that tends to be less flat in most peoples rooms / listening environments. That takes experience to hear.
2) an off target pitch is usually a really off target pitch. Sometimes pride gets in the way or hearing things as they really are and being truly objective.

[Russell Landwehr]

1) a muddy mix means a lot of things, but it has a lot to do with subtle eq cuts in the low midrange more than anything - the same area that tends to be less flat in most peoples rooms / listening environments. That takes experience to hear.

I'm finding that about 80% or more of my EQ settings are cuts. And a LOT of them are 250 or below on things that just don't need to be down there. Is that what you call "Low Mid" Andy?

(I'm still holding on to my notion that "normalization" isn't musically accurate the quieter the signal of the original file, Andy .. but I use it anyway when I'm a couple db off )

Russell