What is the most challenging aspect of mixing to you?

[UstadKhanAli]

We'll assume that most of you have home studios. What do you feel is the most challenging aspect of mixing? What do you struggle with? What are your stronger points? What sort of music is the most challenging for you to mix?

[blue2blue]

I've always found it difficult working on music I hate. And if it is poorly made and performed music on top of the fact that I hate the style, that just makes it that much tougher.

[nat whilk II]

Mixing bass is really difficult for me. One tick of the dial left, it's booming. One tick of the dial right, it's dead. Yargh.

 

nat whilk ii

[Phil O'Keefe]

Mixing poorly recorded stuff is difficult... as is mixing poorly arranged material, and poorly performed material.

 

If it's well recorded, well arranged and played with heart and soul, it's all pretty easy, relatively speaking.

[Folder]

nat whilk II beat me to it.

The bass and low mids are the most challenging for me.

I've always had problems getting instruments in that region to standout and not be masked by other elements.

But I think I'm getting better at it.

 

[WRGKMC]

I guess the part I dislike most isn't challenging. Its all the mundane stuff you do that doesn't require allot of

ears. Its the cleanup, editing, and getting stuff where it needs to be situated before you begin tweaking and fine tuning the mix.

From there its at least enjoyable doing the work even if you have some tough challenges to crack.

 

I suppose getting the drums mixed well is the most challenging though. I use it as a backbone for just about everything else.

I use 8 mics which can be allot more challenging then 4 or even 6 mics. Because there's allot more you "can" do tweaking the

drum tracks to work well in a mix I often save a couple of copies of the project using different drum mixes before I commit to the

version I like best or works best mixing the rest of the instrument

 

Something like bass is probably the easiest for me. Since I play bass I target the tones that work best in a mix so I don't have to

do allot of tweaking. This holds true recording others too because I usually track bass direct and can use similar settings

for optimal tones to begin and rarely have to tweak much. Same for guitars. Even If I don't play them, I know how to track them

for optimal tone. I do more creative work with the strings vs doing RX to make them fit

 

Keyboards can be tough at times. Its mainly gain staging and narrowing their frequency response so they don't mask other instruments.

 

Vocals are pretty easy because most of the vocalists I work with are really good singers. Besides, If I can mix my own voice

to where its tolerable to listen to, tweaking anyone else's voice is a piece of cake in comparison.

[MikeRivers]

I've always found it difficult working on music I hate.

 

Fortunately, I don't need to do this for the money, so I don't work on music I hate, or even music that I don't hate but just doesn't interest me. That's not to say that I only listen to one kind of music, or that I'd record and mix any kind of music that I like. Even if it's something I like, if I don't think I can do it justice, I'll suggest that someone else do it.

 

The most difficult part of mixing? Trying to get the lead singer/guitarist and the banjo player's girl friend (who isn't singing, but the banjo player is) to agree on the vocal balance on the chorus.

 

[Mark L]

I only mix my own stuff

 

So I suppose the most difficult thing for me is working with bloody amateurs!

[Lee Knight]

Picking a palette of sounds that is at once unique... and still works. I think that's what the great mixers do. Listen to a much hated (by musicians) R&B/Pop mix, and while it may not float your boat, a big part of its appeal is exactly that. The combination of unique or newer sounds that sill works in a traditional way.

 

The past couple of years has been dedicated to doing only my own music so the options are wide open. It's daunting. I don't favor R&B sounds anyway, but using the same mentality for my likes: power pop, pop/rock, rock/rock, country. The greats put that something special and unique in there with their chosen palette. Guitar sounds, delay styles, snare choice, ambiance level and type. All of it... is absolutely fun for me to create something new and cool... and very CHALLENGING.

[Rekel]

A challenge I'm not willing to meet any longer for quite some time is to repair sloppy playing/singing "in the mix". Regardless of what people are offering to pay me to correct their layziness/lack of talent/technique.

 

However, I will still try to correct poorly thought out arrangements during mix time, provided that the playing/singing was in the pocket to begin with.

 

 

 

 

[MrKnobs]

When I record for others, the most challenging thing for me is a combination of diplomacy and mixing. A band that records 48 tracks of stuff and each and every one, all the duplicate guitar tracks, leads, fills, vocals, etc. ABSOLUTELY MUST BE HEARD CLEARLY is quite a challenge. First objective is to reduce those tracks by pointing out to them that playing the same rhythm track four times in stereo doesn't add much and or some of the tracks just plain suck (in a polite way) and should be muted. This is especially bad when 4 or more band members are standing in the control room telling me their part is too far back in the mix.

 

With my own stuff......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Same.

 

Terry D.

[Beck]

The most challenging thing for me about mixing in recent years is mixing at all. That is, its a lot more common to get projects to mix and master. If I've tracked it I don't really struggle with much but ear fatigue, and maybe that is worse than it seems because I struggle with pulling away to give my ears the break they need. But I struggle with pulling away from anything until its done. That's a better personality trait to have when tracking... or being surrounded by Japanese forces on a remote Pacific island in WWII.

 

(Does spell checking not work consistently, or is just me?)

[Iamthesky]

The hardest part for me is resisting the temptation to explain, even in the most general terms, what I did to get the mix. Tell someone you applied a little compression to the vocals, or EQ'd the kick drum and the bass guitar out of the way of each other, and it's a certainty that someone will object to it. Just let them listen to a good mix, or give them an A/B without telling what went into each one, and everyone's happy.

 

Except the drummer, of course. Drummers always want more kick and snare.

[davie]

Like a few other people here, I record and mix my own music. I use to have some issues with getting a vocal track to sit well in the mix, but what I realized is that the source wasn't recorded well enough. The mic that I was using didn't work well for my voice. After I recently switched to using a new mic, the vocal track can sit in a mix decently even without processing. This proves that the recorded sources are definitely critical to a good mix.

 

Now my main challenge is figuring out how to get my mixes to sound "big enough". I know that the mastering step is partly responsible for this, but the issue is knowing if the mix is sounding big enough prior to mastering.

[MrKnobs]

Now my main challenge is figuring out how to get my mixes to sound "big enough". I know that the mastering step is partly responsible for this, but the issue is knowing if the mix is sounding big enough prior to mastering.

 

Speaking of mastering, one of the most educational things you can do is take a track to your local mastering lab and watch the process. You're paying by the hour, so you can ask lots of questions of the mastering engineer. This really opened up a lot of new thought for me, hearing my mixes over his system and getting his candid comments.

 

Terry D.

 

[WRGKMC]

 

Now my main challenge is figuring out how to get my mixes to sound "big enough". I know that the mastering step is partly responsible for this' date=' but the issue is knowing if the mix is sounding big enough prior to mastering.[/quote']

 

Allot of that is done mastering. I mastered digitally before I started recording digital multitracks. I was doing all analog and started dumping the analog multitracks straight to the

computer so I could burn CD's. My first CD burner cost about $300 back then and I was still dealing with 2 meg drives which filled up quickly.

 

I used Cool Edit and Wave lab which are still good stand alone editor programs which have a good set of

editing tools and allow VST plugins just like your DAW programs do.

I apply one effect at a time to the stereo mix down usually consisting of an EQ, multiband, and then limiting.

I cant use those all in one mastering programs because you cant hear the results after each stage which is very important.

It took me years to get a good working process that produced good results. Over time I collected better tools

and learned the correct techniques.

 

Many times I'd have to go back to wearing the mixing hat and fix things in the mix that weren't

working out in the mastering process. I now target my mixing so it can be mastered well and

I can pretty much do it blindfolded. I'm sure a mastering studio would have much better tools than I have for

doing the job but what I do is fine for anything I do. Even when I do record other bands I get comments

on how good the finished tracks are in comparison to other high end studios the bands used.

 

I got to hear allot of the stuff they paid good money for and I couldn't believe how bad it was.

I don't put time limits on my work and I don't seek out studio work. I did it for a living for awhile and the whole

push to get it done burns me out. I have a good full time job and I can take as long as I need to do it right and often do

have to take that time because I'm not working with the best gear out there. I can get optimal results from the gear but

it requires eking out every last drop of quality I can get which leaves marginal room for error.

 

The biggest thing is, once you have that mix well balanced its best to have it mix down at around -12~14 db. RMS.

This gives you plenty of headroom to jack that sucker up to commercial levels without choking your audio tools.

Too low and your be scraping your knees on the noise floor and wind up boosting noise which requires removal.

Too hot and you'll be banging your head on the 0db ceiling trying to get the comps and limiters that bring the

music up to commercial levels to work right. Be sure you test the RMS level of the mix down before you have it mastered.

It will save you allot of grief and give you the best results possible.

[Anderton]

Getting vocals at the right level is my biggest challenge. I like vocals up somewhat, but not tooooo much where they become annoying...but if they're buried, then you lose the point of the song in the first place.

 

I tend to mix at low levels, so the mids are prominent initially. What I'm finding is that if the vocals sound just a little too hot at low levels, they sit in the mix nicely at higher levels.

[sventvkg]

The room. If the room is off ya got nothin.

[nat whilk II]

Thinking more about this - grading myself, which is a pretty speculative thing to do, is that I'm pretty ok at:

 

1 - balancing levels, getting a track to sound cohesive, bringing the illusion of it being played, not programmed or a patchwork of discrete bits

2 - keeping focused on the main music thing going on.

 

But I'm not so good at:

1 - recognizing when the basic material is mediocre and all the studio tricks in the world won't elevate it beyond that.

2 - getting that big, clear, overall authoritative sound that grabs attention

 

Probably the thing is that, as a home studio guy recording my own stuff, time and money for the music is hard to come by, and recording and mixing is so very time consuming. With each project, I think I make strides, but overall there's no question, I've got to commit tons of more time to really get closer to the kind of quality we all strive for.

 

nat whilk ii

[rasputin1963]

As some have said here: I'm never quite sure how prominent to make a voice. My initial conviction is that EVERYTHING should be clear and audible. Yet, I know from listening to great recordings of yore, there are a LOT of things that need not be clear, well-defined or prominent to make a good recording. How many leadvoxes, from great records, are nearly unintelligible? (and they sound great; we wouldn't want 'em any other way).

 

I never quite know how much lower-mids should be shaved off from the bottom frequencies of a leadvox. There are many great pop records, by great pop vocalists, in which only the transients and upper frequencies are present (no matter how rich and virtuosic the voice might be in real life); it's as though the "identifying" qualities of the voice exist as sort of a "postage stamp" set up on top, a kind of audio "shorthand" of the real voice. Then I start thinking: But hey, don't I want to have some juicy, molasses-like lower frequencies present to really show off this voice? I suspect the answer, in a pop mix, is very often "no": Listeners are satisfied to hear only transients and upper freqs of many famous voices. That's enough for the listener to identify the singer. But it's not my first inclination.

 

My other worry is that: I don't even know what "good" is anymore. If everything in the world is possible in the box--- and it pretty much IS---- then where does that leave you. Even "alternative" styles---- ambient, trance, techno, electronica---- have very specific rules about what is permissible, acceptable to its devotees. La plus ça change... I'll put together a sound montage... then second-guess myself, thinking: "THAT'S not the way to make an ambient record". Sheesh. Sometimes I feel I can't win.

 

They say "creativity is challenging the gods"... ie., you're changing the status quo by presenting something new. Its newness and differentness might well be the very thing that's interesting about your recording. But I have a voice within that tells me to "play it safe", and emulate what's been done already. Especially today, when "winning formulas" seem locked-in-stone. Kids today would never dream of listening to a record whose sonic qualities deviated from what they were expecting (the way this record did in 1973).

 

[video=youtube;liWIbE1gQTk]

 

My other weakness is my terrible nostalgia: The recordings that move me the most are now 40, 50, 60 years old. A 1965 wall-of-sound recording still is my inner definition of what a "good pop record" sounds like. I wouldn't know how to make, say, a contemporary rap/R&B record if I tried.

[MikeRivers]

Must it always be "BIG"? Doesn't it get tiring if every song you hear grabs your attention? It seems that creating this impression with a song is what's difficult for most people. Can't we have more elevator music?

[Folder]

My other weakness is my terrible nostalgia: The recordings that move me the most are now 40, 50, 60 years old. A 1965 wall-of-sound recording still is my inner definition of what a "good pop record" sounds like. I wouldn't know how to make, say, a contemporary rap/R&B record if I tried.

 

Make the recordings that YOU want to make.

I believe a big part of why those records have stood the test of time is because of the way they sound.

 

I hear new music all the time that I don't like precisely because of the way it was produced.

I think a lot of potentially great music is being ruined today because everything is locked to the grid and over compressed and has too much bass and too many effects and big explosive drum sounds and overly quantized rhythmic parts and too many big reverbs etc...etc...

 

Listen carefully and try to identify the qualities that you like in your favorite recordings and try to emulate them.

Also it's equally important to identify what it is you don't like about certain records so you know what not to do.

[RockViolin]

I only mix my own music now. Apart for some tracks I did for Angelo, that's how it has always been. I know well enough what it's like to play music I don't like, or I think is poorly put together. Guessing it's just as bad or worse to have to mix music you can't stand. I'd waaay rather have to play it than mix it.

 

I've got more than a few short suits as a mixer, I'm sure, and I'm even surer that I've no idea what some of them are. But I've kept at it, and my mixes are always improving, for the most part.

For one thing, so often I record with a violin sound that has a lot of heat to it, and I sometimes am motivated to do lots of screams, dive bombs, fingered harmonics, shakes, wiggles-and invariably there will be transients I found tolerable or didn't even notice when tracking, that later on when compression is added make my teeth tingle and my nose bleed. I've learned how to rein them in, but there's always a compromise there.

 

And it's very hard to call a mix finished. There's always something that could be better, something else to try. Eventually, the next song in line forces the issue, thankfully.

It's taken years, but I'm finally at a point where the warts aren't so numerous and I have fewer frustrations to attend to in the mix, with the gear, or with my skills. I still tend to really linger with the mix.

 

My gear might improve, but I'll never be Bruce Swedien.

 

"Do your best with what I what you've got" I suppose.

[philboking]

The hardest part for me is avoiding options enough so the original vision and intent of the song do not get corrupted in the process. The mundane stuff (getting clear well recorded tracks, assigning each thing its place in the sound stage, noise cleanup, blending and balancing) is simple for me, and pretty trivial compared to losing your musical vision in a jungle of options...

[Lee Knight]

The hardest part for me is avoiding options enough so the original vision and intent of the song do not get corrupted in the process. The mundane stuff (getting clear well recorded tracks' date=' assigning each thing its place in the sound stage, noise cleanup, blending and balancing) is simple for me, and pretty trivial compared to losing your musical vision in a jungle of options...[/quote']

 

Yeah... there's that. Good observation.