Getting a decent final sound in home recording

[Majoria]

First of all, I only have a very entry level make shift studio in my house. Pro Tools and Reason, mbox2, MIDI controller, half dozen mics. In other words, demo's only but it's fun.

 

My problem is that while the individual tracks sound fine, I can't get the final product to sound that great. Yes, I am mixing, mastering, and whatever else myself. Quality recordings can have lots of activity in a certain Hz range but all the instruments can be heard individually and sound great, mine don't, especially low end. I know that I am at the mercy of what I have to work with but I know that pros can use what I have and make it much better without much trouble and without using many of their secrets.

 

Do the mixing and mastering pros use devises to tell them what frequencies are being overloaded (something other than an eq) so they know how to adjust the eq? Being the novice, I can't just listen and know what exact frequency needs to be adjusted. Or am I just way off base here? What equipment that doesn't have at least a 4 figure price tag should I be looking for?

[tamoore]

 

Originally posted by Majoria First of all, I only have a very entry level make shift studio in my house. Pro Tools and Reason, mbox2, MIDI controller, half dozen mics. In other words, demo's only but it's fun. My problem is that while the individual tracks sound fine, I can't get the final product to sound that great. Yes, I am mixing, mastering, and whatever else myself. Quality recordings can have lots of activity in a certain Hz range but all the instruments can be heard individually and sound great, mine don't, especially low end. I know that I am at the mercy of what I have to work with but I know that pros can use what I have and make it much better without much trouble and without using many of their secrets. Do the mixing and mastering pros use devises to tell them what frequencies are being overloaded (something other than an eq) so they know how to adjust the eq? Being the novice, I can't just listen and know what exact frequency needs to be adjusted. Or am I just way off base here? What equipment that doesn't have at least a 4 figure price tag should I be looking for?

 

 

 

I'm no expert - in fact, I don't know a damn thing, other than the fact that I just finished my own 10 songs CD, and I'm halfway happy with the results.

 

One of the things I did to my tracks was to use an EQ to cut the low frequencies (up to as high as 250Hz) in every track, save the bass drum and bass guitar. Cut them too, but only up to 60Hz maybe. This helped a lot.

 

You can find spectrum analyzers that will help you see where frequencies are piling up, but you should mix with your ears.

 

Start low cutting your tracks, and see how that changes things. Also, don't solo your tracks while you EQ - you likely won't like the sounds of your tracks while they're soloed, but they'll fit better in your final mix.

 

To get some definition on the kick drum, I found the fundamental frequency of the 'click' of the drum beater, and boosted that a bit. I found a boost around 100Hz helped too.

 

I cut the bass guitar in about the same 100Hz region too.

 

Hope this helps.

[Billster]

I agree with what tamoore said, and I would add that your monitorig situation can have a huge impact on how you percieve the low frequencies on playback.

 

Are you listening on nearfield monitors or headphones or recycled home stereo speakers; is the room acoustically treated in any way? How loud are you monitoring?

[TimOBrien]

2 good books to get:

 

Mastering Audio: the art and the science

Bob Katz

 

The Art of Mixing

David Gibson

 

...then put in lots and lots and lots of practice....

[Majoria]

I use a variety of monitors to give me an idea of where I'm at. I use anything including my band's PA system, decent computer speakers, $20 headphones, and some Audio Technica ATH-M40 headphones. I then listen to it in my car as well after making a draft. It of course sounds different on each system. As far as volume, I try to vary it as well. I start a bit above normal listening volume and set it, then to also try it at and below normal volume.

 

I've played a bit with cutting the low end in the past in a trial and error method, mainly error. I learned quickly I'm clueless as to how to eq the bass guitar. As a drummer, I know what a kick should sound like but can't seem to get it there. My best results are when I trigger (try recording drums in a 12x12 room with no sound deadening, like I said, entry level studio).

 

I'll look into the books as well since I just need to learn more. Thanks for all the info.

[ozraves]

I think the most insightful critique I've ever heard about home recording was made by Lynn Fuston. He said something about how every final mix on a home project to him sounded like everything was tracked about six inches from the mic.

 

How are your mic placements? I sort of listen and hunt for the sound I am after. I don't give a crap what microphone placements look like.

[Billster]

 

Originally posted by Majoria I use a variety of monitors to give me an idea of where I'm at. I use anything including my band's PA system, decent computer speakers, $20 headphones, and some Audio Technica ATH-M40 headphones.

 

 

You really need to consider honest reference monitors. M-Audio has some affordable alternatives.

 

The room you are mixing in makes a difference as well. If I didn't emphasize that enough in my first reply, you can really get a lot of low frequency standing waves in small rooms, and that will ruin your perception of the bass.

 

 

Originally posted by Majoria As a drummer, I know what a kick should sound like but can't seem to get it there.

 

 

The resonance of the kick drum is low (50-250 Hz) but the attack of the beater is surprisingly high (3-5 kHz). Sweep a parametric EQ to find the beater attack, but don't overdo it.

[where02190]

Without accurate reference monitors in a properly acoustically tuned room, you're just fighting physics.

[Majoria]

I do not disagree with any of the above comments and feedback but need a little explanation. I understand about a properly tuned room and it's necesity during recording but I don't see how that matters during playback. Neither my living room stereo nor my car are all that accousticly tuned. Maybe I should clarify a few things. The trouble I have with individual clarity is the same on an all MIDI song as it is on an all live recording song and any combination thereof, thus why I feel the issue lies mostly with the mixing/mastering. I'm working on an arrangmeent of a Chirstmas song that's done entirely in MIDI (just for my use and learning experience) and it doesn't sound the greatest. After implementing the above suggestions it's better but is still at the mercy of my abilities. If I get a chance I'll post a copy later.

 

I would like some decent reference monitors and have seen some M-audio ones for sale at the local music store, I believe they sold for $299 (for a pair I think). Any specific models recommended?

 

I'm aware of the low frequencies of the kick drum but I was struggling to find the batter click, thanks for the frequency tip. I think I was looking around 1-2 kHz instead of 3-5. I tried the 'tunnel' technique of micing the kick from a few feet away and creating a sound tunnel between the drum and the mic, didn't turn out too bad. I've also played around with temporary sound deadoning, mainly taking some boom stands and setting them as high as they'd go and having the boom level and centered to for a 'T' then draping blankets over them and placing them around the room. Better, still more to go.

 

Bass guitar recordings thus far have all been line recordings and not mic'd cabinets. The accoustics of the room just scare me.

 

Thanks again for the all the feedback.

[where02190]

If you are not monitoring when mixing(playback) you are adjusting blindly, as what you're hearing and mixing is inaccurate.

[halljams]

How about this theory:

Just do it alot and listen on various systems.

Make required adjustments to your technique.

You'll get better at it and then your recodings will sound better relative to your experience.

 

I'm not trying to be cheeky, just saying, this is really the only way. But you can also spend a fortune on gear and stuff and hope that makes it better too.

 

There is a guy in my town who makes fantastic recordings, mastered, with a roland work station and just a couple mikes.

[alcohol]

If you play a well recorded song in your room and it sounds great, and then you play your mix and it doesn't sound so great, it aint' the fault of the monitors or your room. Your mix has the potential to sound as good as that good mix. It's something else.

[Billster]

 

Originally posted by Majoria I do not disagree with any of the above comments and feedback but need a little explanation. I understand about a properly tuned room and it's necesity during recording but I don't see how that matters during playback. Neither my living room stereo nor my car are all that accousticly tuned.

 

 

When you are mixing, you need to have an accurate idea of what sound is coming through the wire. Yes, it's unlikely that the end user will be listening in a controlled environment, but that's not the point.

 

Suppose you are mixing in a makeshift space in the corner of your living room. You can make the music sound good in your room, but it sounds wierd in your car, in headphones, or in your neighbor's living room. The reason for that is that the mixing decisions you made were compensating for an idiosyncratic listening space where you were mixing.

 

Imagine you were mixing in a three-season porch with glass walls, hardwood floor, and a tin ceiling. With all those reflective surfaces, it's easy to believe listening to music there would involve a lot of piercing, high frequency chatter. If you mix to sound good in there, chances are the mix will sound dull in most other listening spaces.

 

By getting your mixing environment to as neutral a point as possible, you have a better chance of getting a mix that will translate well in all other (non-neutral) listening spaces.

[PKO]

Originally posted by where02190 Without accurate reference monitors in a properly acoustically tuned room, you're just fighting physics.

 

Not true in the least bit.A good/great ear goes a long way.My control room is'nt treated much at all and I have mixed and mastered numerous international releases.

 

Monitor at lower levels to mix and the room play's a less factor in the final product.Tracking is a different story though.

 

Use your ear and don't worry about the gear!

[PKO]

 

Originally posted by halljams How about this theory: Just do it alot and listen on various systems. Make required adjustments to your technique. You'll get better at it and then your recodings will sound better relative to your experience. I'm not trying to be cheeky, just saying, this is really the only way. But you can also spend a fortune on gear and stuff and hope that makes it better too. There is a guy in my town who makes fantastic recordings, mastered, with a roland work station and just a couple mikes.

 

 

So,so very true.

[where02190]

Originally posted by PKO Not true in the least bit.A good/great ear goes a long way.My control room is'nt treated much at all and I have mixed and mastered numerous international releases. Monitor at lower levels to mix and the room play's a less factor in the final product.Tracking is a different story though. Use your ear and don't worry about the gear!

 

Your ears are only as accurate as what they hear.

 

It matters not whether you are tracking or mixing, what you are listening to is what you make your decisions on. If it's not at least reasonbly accurate, the end result will suffer.

 

Monitoring at low levels is basic common sense. Louder does not equal better, and mixing at loud levels will not sound remotely the same at low levels, however mixes at low levels will translate well at higher ones.

[Majoria]

Ok, so here a draft example of my struggles. Still many issues (drums starting at 3:00 the most obvious) but here's where it is as of now.

 

O Come O Come Emmanuel

 

 

[leftystratman]

I went through the same issues. it's hard to believe that a new pair of decent monitor speakers would help. I wasn't happy with my mix for a long time until I got a pair of very flat sounding monitors!!! you need speakers that let you hear what you recorded uncolored / unhyped.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally posted by alcohol If you play a well recorded song in your room and it sounds great, and then you play your mix and it doesn't sound so great, it aint' the fault of the monitors or your room. Your mix has the potential to sound as good as that good mix. It's something else.

 

Give this man a cigar!

 

The only thing I'll add is that it's a lot easier to get to a good mix when the monitors are excellent and the room is well treated with bass traps etc. Once you can really hear what you're doing, it's much more obvious what is wrong with the mix and what needs to be changed.

 

--Ethan

[alcohol]

Listening to my own mixes in a great room and fabulous speakers is a revelation, like M-Works mastering in Cambridge MA. I heard things I didn't hear in my own studio which is not a bad sounding room, just not equal to M-Works. However, I would say that I got at least 98% of my mix where I wanted it. If I could have a better room and better monitors, my potential for better mixes increases. The budget just ain't there yet.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally posted by alcohol Listening to my own mixes in a great room and fabulous speakers is a revelation

 

I can go you one better. I hear "mistakes" in pro mixes all the time in my well-treated room. Too much or too little bass is common, but inappropriate and excessive effects are also surprisingly common. A few weeks ago I watched the live Madonna concert on MTV's HD channel in 5.1, and the vocal sound was terrible. Way too much effects, and the "imaging" was horrible. The sound wandered all over, and I don't mean in the good sense tracking her movements on stage. I kept thinking, if only the mix engineer could hear what I'm hearing, he'd be able to do a much better job.

 

I really hope that engineer is not an HC member and reading this.

 

--Ethan

[El_Bromista]

Ethan,

 

your first mistake is listening to madonna

your second mistake is listening to it on mtv hd :)

your third mistake is thinking the folks that mix hd audio are any good :)

 

i find that broadcast hd 5.1 audio quality generally falls into two categories

 

1) sucks

or

2) mostly sucks

 

there is a lot that needs to be done in that world

 

but, then again, i'm no expert!

 

btw, was it a prerecorded concert, or "live"? if prerecorded, then you could be listening to vocal overdubs, prolly done in a "tin can" vocal booth, or something of the sort

[Billster]

HaHa. Imagine listening to Madonna without processing

 

I don't see the idea of a concert in surround sound. Not my cup of tea. Maybe for an ambient music album, but for live sound it seems like a pratfall waiting to happen.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally posted by El_Bromista your first mistake is listening to madonna your second mistake is listening to it on mtv hd :) your third mistake is thinking the folks that mix hd audio are any good :)

 

ROFL, all true.

 

 

It was "live delayed" from a live concert a few hours earlier in Europe. So I doubt they had time to overdub anything.

 

I also agree with you about much of the surround stuff on TV. But it's not all bad. Some of it is excellent.

 

--Ethan

[El_Bromista]

i recall watching mtv (not hd - back a while ago) once with the tv audio running through my prologic receiver

i recall wondering how anyone could possibly think dialogue coming out of the right rear channel (only) could be a good thing

then i recall wondering how anyone could possibly screw up that well

 

bizarro

 

seems they didn't know what they were doing before hd and 5.1

can't imagine they've gotten smart all of a sudden