Using the "Bare Basics" as a fresh approach to mixing.

[guscave]

Yesterday for the first time I mixed a song on my IPad using a simple audio app called Auria. This mix came out way better than the original one I did on my Studio One DAW. Not because Auria is better (it definitely isn’t), but because I was limited on what tools I had available.

There aren’t too many bells and whistle on this app, so I had to get my mix to sound perfect with what I had to work with. Mainly fader levels, panning and simple EQ and Compression. Also since my current iPad has very little processing power, I couldn’t just put FX and plugins on every track. I had to be very choosy on what I used and where. The rest of the tracks had to stay as they were originally recorded. (which emphasizes on the importance of getting it right at the recording stage).

The result was that I got a much better mix in half the time.

I don’t plan to replace my DAW, but it’s good to go back to these basics every now and then. Many of us (especially me) tend to get lost in all the tech stuff and lose sight of how simple the process can really be.

[hummingbird]

To be honest, I work primarily with the stereo field, panning and volume, using mono mixes to check for spacing. I use reverb if the sound of an instrument is dry, I use high/low filter to weed out a bit of high on a synth etc, I will use EQ occasionally if warranted and seldom use compression. However, for the most part all my instruments are well recorded high quality VSTs. Live instruments like bass and drums and voice do often require more processing. I like the 'bare basic' mode xD

[MattCurious]

Absolutely agree - I don't think mixing is meant to be about demonstrating technical wizardry, it's about showing the sounds in their best light. I use faders, high- and low-pass filters, panning and reverb. I'll use compression on individual channels to control headroom if the peaks are inconsistent and can't be balanced with just the level, and I'll EQ any uncomfortable honks or squeaks out, but I try to retain as much of the original sounds as possible.

That said - like Vikki - I do rely on the quality of well-engineered samples; about the only thing I engineer myself is guitar and bass if I want a "human" sound, and those get DI'd and run through an amp sim that takes of all the acoustic challenges.

[Telefunkin]

Hi Gus,
That's a valuable lesson. I've been guilty of using plugins and fooling myself that they are making things sound better when it isnt always true. It might help me get to grips with how the plugins work, but if the end result is no better (or even worse) then its all counter-productive and time-wasting. As I've learned more and more about better ways to EQ and balance mixes I'm sure I've used less plugins to achieve better results. Its great to have options for creative effects when the track warrants it, but for simple tracks I now find simpler processing can give better results.

Years ago, I had a string machine, one guitar, one bass, and a simple drum machine. I recorded more tracks with that setup on a 4-track cassette machine that I did for many years with Cubase and loads of synth sounds. I seemed to spend hours finding the best string patch instead of finishing the piece. Some lessons are slow to sink in with me!! I'm glad you're a bit quicker Gus.

[megeath]

Thant's a very interesting observation - thanks for sharing Gus!

[guscave]

It's like the saying goes "Less is More" and in some cases "Better"

[edmondredd]

I couldn't agree more..
we always look for plug-ins that will make our mixes sound better, because, well they advertise it this way.. but the simple truth is the more you limit yourself, the better.. there was a challenge some time ago to try to do a complete song, from pre production, production and post, in less than 300$ (computer, drums and guitars aside), with a microphone (pop filter and cables included), a pair of headphones, and mixing on a built-in DAW (Garage band, in that specific instance) and the results were astonishing..
Good recording, great takes and a well crafted instrumentation are the key to a good mix, at least to start your mix on the right foot..

[mojobone]

Maybe I was just born at the right time, but I've always been a fan of getting the sound at the source, probably because when I started recording sounds, there were no other options available. (George Martin and some other people had them; I didn't) The things that are now considered "effects" were nearly all invented as a response to a perceived problem, and usually, that problem was a mic in the wrong place or the wrong mic. I adore the story of the guitarist who complained the sound coming back was 'too muddy' and Glyn Johns said, "Pick the strings closer to the bridge, please"

Decades of working with live sound have only reinforced the lesson, but in the studio, there's often time to second-guess yourself, particularly when the song's not finished and the arrangement's not nailed down. (and the clock is ticking) We now have the ability to go in and move notes and beats around after the fact, but that's seldom the best option and really, it should be the last resort, as compared to getting a great performance and the right sounds coming off the studio floor. (or maybe more rehearsal is what's required)

Sure, there are some great records frankensteined together from multiple takes or 'saved' by some drastic EQ or compression, and knowing how to use all the available technology to rescue a track from poor performance or (hopefully someone else's) sloppy recording technique is a valuable skill set, but if you're tearing your hair out over a mix, it's probably time to revisit the song and the arrangement. When those aren't right, no plugin can save you.

People think you need a lot of tools to make great recordings, but really the best things to have are great songs, arrangements and performances.

Tom Petty's recent "Hypnotic Eye" is a terrific example of this approach.

"Given Ryan Ulyate’s long-standing involvement with a handful of old rockers, it’s perhaps surprising to find that he works entirely ‘in the box’. However, the fact that he “froze” his system in 2006 means that until very recently he worked with Quad G5 Power PC Macs from that year, running Mac OS 10.4 and Pro Tools HD version 7.4cs11, and 95 percent of his processing was applied with just two plug-ins."

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov14/a ... k-1114.htm

[Danny]

Hey Gus,

You got that right. "Which emphasizes on the importance of getting it right at the recording stage"

I know of many seasoned and talented recording pros that always say that the most important part of the mix is having someone play the take with passion and getting it right. The instrument, cables, console, effects, etc, comes second.

IMO, too many effects cause tracks to clash due to delay, decay and reflection times, etc. It's best to print everything dry and just add only if the track is "Asking" for it. Like Hummingbird, I like to use High and Low Pass filters to take away annoyings highs or low freq mud in the 200hz - 500hz range. I rarely use EQ unless a track is begging for it. If I have to EQ, it's better to subtract the frequencies from another track first then add EQ to the offending frequency. IMO I would rather take something conflicting out of the mix rather then adding more to it. That topic could be a whole thread

[guscave]

I like to watch video interviews with top named mixers, and I noticed a lot of them lately complaining about getting sessions with over 100 tracks. They’ll have 4 or 5 kicks, 3 snares, an ungodly amount of guitar tracks etc…
I can understand that at the time of recording you’re trying to get a groove or a feel happening and you might end up with all these ridiculous amounts of tracks, but that doesn't mean they all need to show up on the final mix. The fact is that some of the best recordings ever made were done on 24 tracks or less.

Personally I think that adding more tracks just means adding more noise. Maybe not static noise like we use to get in analog, but just a lot of clutter.