I need to get better.

[twilsbach]

I have come to the conclusion, that I'm a pretty terrible engineer.I know basics. I can get a clean signal, I understand basics on mic placement, how to set gain and level, fundamentals on compression. I can set up tracks for recording, even do punch-ins to make fixes.I know how to get Reason to play nice with Pro Tools, and can write & create a great sounding drum track with loops and Acid and import it into Pro Tools.My problem comes after I've got everything recorded. It sounds all muddy and gross, even after I've attempted PT's 4 band EQ on individual channels. Then when it comes to mastering, forget about it. I don't even know where to start.My ultra-flexable day gig gives me the time and I have the equipment (I think) to get the job done. I also feel like I write well and could be getting more forwards than I do, specifically on the Dispatch front. Also, I would be submitting more of the songs that I write that I don't even bother uploading because sonically, they're not there.I've thought about hiring a local engineer, but its not very economical for me to farm it out to a local studio because I'm not making enough yet to justify that cost.So, I could use some advice from some of the more seasoned producers/engineers here on the boards:-How did you learn? -What would you recommend someone in my position do to get better? -Are there classes you've taken, or books you've read that were helpful?I'd like to take an online class through Berklee that starts Jan 7, but I don't think I'm going to be able to afford it this time around.signed,Hopes He's Not Whining, Kinda Frustrated

[mazz]

One of the great things I miss about mixing on actual mixing boards was the ability to pull the faders down to zero and start over. If it just wasn't happening, there was something visceral about seeing all the faders at the bottom and getting the opportunity to take a breath and try a new approach.Of course, there's other things I don't miss about mixing on a board (like having to leave a mix up overnight and putting a big piece of tape across it saying "do not touch, mix in progress") Don't miss that! DAW recall is a pretty great thing!Ahh the good old days!Mazz

[ragani]

Hi twilsbach,You've got some some great advice here for developing your mix expertise-- and I personally recommend working side-by-side with the best mixing engineer you can afford to hire [concur with matto], as well as having an experienced mixer/producer work on your tracks, and not just on other tracks in general. That way you will learn what was done for the style of tracks that you have recorded. I'd be willing to bet that if your tracks are clean and good on their own, your problem is likely an EQ issue for the mix. As mazz points out, a mix is totally a series of compromises, because that guitar that sounded so rich on its own, now sounds lost and muddy in the mix. Everything should sit nicely within a certain range of sound, meaning that if you have too many instruments with a deep rich sound, they will start to get muddy and can even do some pretty weird things sonically to each other. (Once in a while those weird things can turn out to be pretty cool too... but only once in a while )Most EQ issues can be resolved (if the track is solid to start with) in the mixing studio, though I remember at least one case where it was not. I had recorded a great sounding (a very rich & renonant) solo guitar track using a Manley Gold Reference Stereo Microphone (sure to give that full, rich sound!), but we ended up having to re-record the track on my KM184's because we wanted to capture more high end in the recording. The solo track was gorgeous on its own (I did keep it for future use), but it sounded just awful in the mix! One other way to give space in the mix and take out the mud factor is to work a little with the panning, and it's sometimes a matter of experimenting with each track, gradually sliding it in and out from the center to hear the difference it makes. There are several dimensions to sound-- range in frequency (EQ), where we hear the sound (panning), and depth (how far back or forward in the recording) are all part of the mix and can contribute to the mud factor.For example, we always have a big problem with the low end of the tabla (Indian drum with a range of low end sounds) and the bass, as they are almost always really muddy when played together in the raw tracks. Another common trouble spot is the mid-range frequency sounds, as there are many of them in our tracks. We usually start with the drum/bass tracks, and then work our way up the scale with the EQ of similar frequencies (i.e. tweaking the EQ of the tabla until we can hear it separate a little from the bass sound), and go on up from there. Adding one instrument at a time allows you to separate its frequency from the others, to carve out the sonic place for each sound in your recording.There was a great article in Recording magazine a month or two ago about techniques of EQ and mix for the bass-- the article shared techniques of "tightening" the bass, and the engineer being interviewed said that he commonly removed all of the very very low end and a little of the mid-range of the bass to give it a crisper feel and allow it to punch in cleanly with the kick. We usually work a lot with the mid and low frequencies, as these are typical "muddy" areas, and that often means cutting out frequencies and narrowing others, so that sounds don't interfere with each other.No doubt the final mix is a compromise! But it's also part of the fun of bringing a mix to life! Good luck to you! Raags

[ragani]

Hi jameslimborg, I did try to listen to the productions on your site, but I couldn't figure out how to get the Christmas music (that comes on automatically when you visit) off so that I could listen to some of your other pieces... Is there an "off" button? That production idea sounds interesting, though I'd be hesitant to use the cookie-cutter idea across the board, as it sounds a little dry to me, and I feel I might miss something in the long run. Perhaps I'm just an old-fashioned kind of gal. And I'll bet those guys doing the hits don't run their mixes through that kind of process, and I'd rather learn what they do for each mix to get it to where it sits nice. I am curious though, to see what happens when you run "hits" through the EQ graphs... I think it could be a great idea for learning! And it looks like you've had some really great successes with it-- congrats on those! Now... how to get the sound off? I want to go hear your stuff! Raags

[tedsingingfox]

Quote:Hi twilsbach,You've got some some great advice here for developing your mix expertise-- and I personally recommend working side-by-side with the best mixing engineer you can afford to hire [concur with matto], as well as having an experienced mixer/producer work on your tracks, and not just on other tracks in general. That way you will learn what was done for the style of tracks that you have recorded. I'd be willing to bet that if your tracks are clean and good on their own, your problem is likely an EQ issue for the mix. As mazz points out, a mix is totally a series of compromises, because that guitar that sounded so rich on its own, now sounds lost and muddy in the mix. Everything should sit nicely within a certain range of sound, meaning that if you have too many instruments with a deep rich sound, they will start to get muddy and can even do some pretty weird things sonically to each other. (Once in a while those weird things can turn out to be pretty cool too... but only once in a while )Most EQ issues can be resolved (if the track is solid to start with) in the mixing studio, though I remember at least one case where it was not. I had recorded a great sounding (a very rich & renonant) solo guitar track using a Manley Gold Reference Stereo Microphone (sure to give that full, rich sound!), but we ended up having to re-record the track on my KM184's because we wanted to capture more high end in the recording. The solo track was gorgeous on its own (I did keep it for future use), but it sounded just awful in the mix! One other way to give space in the mix and take out the mud factor is to work a little with the panning, and it's sometimes a matter of experimenting with each track, gradually sliding it in and out from the center to hear the difference it makes. There are several dimensions to sound-- range in frequency (EQ), where we hear the sound (panning), and depth (how far back or forward in the recording) are all part of the mix and can contribute to the mud factor.For example, we always have a big problem with the low end of the tabla (Indian drum with a range of low end sounds) and the bass, as they are almost always really muddy when played together in the raw tracks. Another common trouble spot is the mid-range frequency sounds, as there are many of them in our tracks. We usually start with the drum/bass tracks, and then work our way up the scale with the EQ of similar frequencies (i.e. tweaking the EQ of the tabla until we can hear it separate a little from the bass sound), and go on up from there. Adding one instrument at a time allows you to separate its frequency from the others, to carve out the sonic place for each sound in your recording.There was a great article in Recording magazine a month or two ago about techniques of EQ and mix for the bass-- the article shared techniques of "tightening" the bass, and the engineer being interviewed said that he commonly removed all of the very very low end and a little of the mid-range of the bass to give it a crisper feel and allow it to punch in cleanly with the kick. We usually work a lot with the mid and low frequencies, as these are typical "muddy" areas, and that often means cutting out frequencies and narrowing others, so that sounds don't interfere with each other.No doubt the final mix is a compromise! But it's also part of the fun of bringing a mix to life! Good luck to you! RaagsNot to hijack this thread, but I first need to say THANKS, Raags. As someone with absolute ZERO knowledge of home recording (BUT who is eagerly awaiting the arrival of his first 4-track and is ITCHING to start the learning process), this post of yours actually made SENSE to me. Maybe it's the way you explained it, maybe it's just the saturation process of MAKING myself read these tech threads that is slowly beginning to bleed through, WHO KNOWS? But WOW. For the first time I felt the difference between simply COLLECTING data and the first glimmers of COMPREHENDING said data. It was a light bulb, TA-DA moment.wooHOO!!!!!Gives me confidence that there will more of those in the future.Thanks, again.Ted

[tedsingingfox]

And THEN, I need to say...Tim, I have heard some of your stuff. And your song "Alibi" moved me to tears.You are NOT even close to being a 'terrible' engineer. Let me make a first attempt on this 4-track that's on its way, and I'll gladly post an example of how a terrible engineer sounds, OK. Your wanting to improve your skills does NOTHING to diminish how much you've already accomplished. In my opinion, it proves what a pro you already are and opens a whole new window on how much HUGER (is that a word? ) your skills will become.I can hardly WAIT until I'm as terrible as you. Just my $0.02..."Starting-from-scratch" Ted

[ragani]

Quote: Not to hijack this thread, but I first need to say THANKS, Raags. As someone with absolute ZERO knowledge of home recording (BUT who is eagerly awaiting the arrival of his first 4-track and is ITCHING to start the learning process), this post of yours actually made SENSE to me. Maybe it's the way you explained it, maybe it's just the saturation process of MAKING myself read these tech threads that is slowly beginning to bleed through, WHO KNOWS? But WOW. For the first time I felt the difference between simply COLLECTING data and the first glimmers of COMPREHENDING said data. It was a light bulb, TA-DA moment.wooHOO!!!!!Gives me confidence that there will more of those in the future.Thanks, again.TedThat's so sweet of you, Ted. Isn't it nifty how things can start to click sometimes? I absolutely love those TA-DA moments! I know I've felt some threads on this board have left me totally lost me in dust, but those are not the ones I'm looking for. I live for the gems that really take my understanding to a new level. And these boards are by far the best that I've found! It's unbelievable the talent that's behind the people who offer posts here, who reply to all kinds of music-related topics. Even in this single thread, there is so much rich advice and detailed information from a number of different members. These are surely the best kind of colleagues to have! Rock on with your new 4-track! Raags

[matthewhaw]

well said Stick. Taking peoples' personal opinions (not dissing you milfus ) seems to be a problem of a lot of people that are new to music production. It really irritates me when i hear a serious professional speaking of their methods as if they are law, and then their listeners are biased to experimenting with new ways. I went to school for music production and that was the biggest problem of my peers. LISTEN AND DETERMINE THE VALIDITY FOR YOURSELF. There is no saying milfus' methods or anyone Else's' may work extremely well for you but it is more likely that you need to find your own way to do it. For example... i read on somebodies notes from the rally the other day that they were told that you should ALWAYS do stereo drums as it sounds far superior. This of course is almost never the case. People new to mic techniques and engineering may not understand the precision it takes to set up a stereo pair of mics for optimum performance with no phasing... where in that circumstance a mono overhead is always better and you can get far smoother cymbal sounds and EVEN a stereo image if you mic your toms!...I digressEXPERIMENT!and take everything you hear with not one... but TWO and a HALF grains of salt....anyway... im done babbling.M.R.H

[ragani]

Well said, guys. I remember when I first went to a sound engineer for some beginning training on what to do to make an album, and his solid gold advice to me was "listen to it, just listen to it. And if you don't like what you hear, record it again. Don't try to fix it in the mix." That was great advice for me then (and now), and as a result every track I recorded was good enough to stand on it's own. That would have been pretty awesome to go to school for this kind of stuff. Sometimes I feel like I'm getting a crash-course in the learn-as-you-go method of schooling. Better than nothing, I suppose. Raags

[stick]

Dude, you are really hard to read. All commas, few periods and no capitals. Kinda like boosting everything at 2K 12db. Drives me a little nuts! HA HA!If the sound I wanted could be gotten with "1 and an eq" I would. I grasp the basics of dynamics control. The point was that there is no rule that says I can't do it that way. And there's no rule that says "1 and an eq" sounds better or is even easier for that matter. And you talk of knowing the fundamentals. Sure, the fundamentals are great, for someone that's been taught those. For those here on this board that are either not very far along or didn't go to school for this stuff (which I think make up the majority), no fundamental knowledge exists. But rather than tell them their stuff is going to suck unless you implement the fundamentals they don't know, thus paralizing their growth, I was trying to free them up to experiment and go ahead "hurt themselves". This isn't life and death. If it sounds like crap, they'll know or if they want us to have a listen, we'll tell them why it didn't sound good and what MIGHT work next time they give it a go. Milfus, I'm curious about you... you say you're an engineer mainly? Are you a TAXI member? What kind of music do you submit? I know you just popped up on the board... did you go to the Rally? What brought you here?