Mixing with the DAW's plugins

[Uncle E]

I encourage you to do it, I might download some stems from time to time, I probably will read the threads and listen to some of the mixes, but it's unlikely that I would bother to submit myself.

Would you be interested in contributing the first stems for the first challenge?

[ghettosynth]

I encourage you to do it, I might download some stems from time to time, I probably will read the threads and listen to some of the mixes, but it's unlikely that I would bother to submit myself.

Would you be interested in contributing the first stems for the first challenge?

No, not at all.

On Edit:

Kim.dotcom has graciously provided his stems, he wants his record to go to number 1!

http://baboom.com/kimdotcom/downloads/a ... od%20Times

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztZpzav78sY

[zethus909]

is it possible to make a correct and professional mix with the DAW's built in plugins?

yes

[kbaccki]

My definition of "professional mix" here is just a bit more than "mixed by a professional", as I said, many flops have been mixed by a professional. I mean that the record in question was mixed by someone who earns their living from mixing records, and that the record succeeded commercially in the market in which it intended to succeed. That means, by definition, that those people who earn their living playing said records, i.e. DJs think that the "mix" works on the dance floor. It doesn't have to work in your studio to be successful under that definition.

A good mix by definition translates well to different environments... boombox, car stereo, dance floor, earbuds, etc. etc. Saying that DJs use XYZ's tunes/mixes/remixes/whatever to get people out on the dance floor says nothing about whether the mix itself is good. It says that a.) the source material (tune or remix) is probably good, and b.) the source material sounds great when pumped through 1000's of watts of sound system and with all that body mass filtering highs and lows. That says nothing about the mix itself, only that it works well in a large crowded club.

Yes, you can craft a finely polished turd with a $0.20 plastic knife or a $2000 samurai sword. So what... it's still a turd. You could put the turd in an old shoebox or you could mount it prominently in a majestic gilded frame. If you look at the turd with a critical eye, you will notice that it is a turd. No more, no less.

This, in a sense, controls for some of the subjectivity inherent in deciding what's a "good mix." I'm sure that the label thought that "Jagged Little Pill" mix was great, I find it grating.

JLP may be one of those mixes I'm talking about -- dunno, have to go back to have a listen (begrudgingly... burned out on that tune a long time ago). I'll trust your judgement for the moment... a "professional mix" that sounds like crap -- exactly my point. A professional mix engineer was paid a bunch of money to mix that tune, and what came out is not all that good (again, presumably). The term "professional mix" should not be used interchangeably with "quality mix", no matter how you or I personally define "quality mix".

In the end we're just arguing terminology and semantics. I do think the term "professional" should generally be reserved for persons who get paid for what they do, which says nothing about quality of product, subjectivity aside. So just saying a bunch of paid professionals use ableton's stock effects and they sell lots of discs and airtime says absolutely nothing about the quality of the end product. Some of those mixes may very well be good... some may very well be crap.

[ghettosynth]

My definition of "professional mix" here is just a bit more than "mixed by a professional", as I said, many flops have been mixed by a professional. I mean that the record in question was mixed by someone who earns their living from mixing records, and that the record succeeded commercially in the market in which it intended to succeed. That means, by definition, that those people who earn their living playing said records, i.e. DJs think that the "mix" works on the dance floor. It doesn't have to work in your studio to be successful under that definition.

A good mix by definition translates well to different environments... boombox, car stereo, dance floor, earbuds, etc. etc. Saying that DJs use XYZ's tunes/mixes/remixes/whatever to get people out on the dance floor says nothing about whether the mix itself is good.

A lot of great EDM records have been made on primitive gear. I don't buy that this necessarily implies that the mixes are bad, I'm just saying that they are successful and that is a useful definition for the OP. Moreover, since nobody is naming these bad mixes, it's hard to assess the validity of the claims or whether we're talking about the same contexts. What we know is that a lot of EDM records have been produced and mixed on far more primitive gear than what we're talking about.

Nonetheless, the degree to which a mix translates is not something that can't always be uniformly achieved. There are plenty of great mixes that don't sound good on club systems. I'll take Bob Katz' word for it; in his book "Mastering Audio" he talks about working in the middle of the "bell curve" of the distribution of the "deviation from accuracy" of playback systems. For most work, one should strive to work in the center of the Bell Curve so that their mix plays back on the "maximum number of playback systems." Note, he doesn't say all, or any, he recognizes that this is a distribution and that emphasis in one area (of the distribution) may mean compromise in another. On page 87 he introduces "narrowcasting" in the context of car and club systems and states:

It is almost impossible to make a single master that plays well on the club system but doesn't sound thin and lifeless on all others. The best solution is to make a separate (dedicated) master for club playback.

In the end we're just arguing terminology and semantics. I do think the term "professional" should generally be reserved for persons who get paid for what they do, which says nothing about quality of product, subjectivity aside.

Yes, but, without some objective standard, quality becomes something a bit more challenging to discuss. This starts to become close to audiophile territory at some point with people using very simple and non-technical language to describe why A is better than B that, which viewed externally, sounds very much like opinion.

So just saying a bunch of paid professionals use ableton's stock effects and they sell lots of discs and airtime says absolutely nothing about the quality of the end product. Some of those mixes may very well be good... some may very well be crap.

I disagree, it does say something about the end product. You can't simply dismiss an entire industry because it doesn't agree with your premise. I think that the elephant in the room is that there's a whole lot of subjectivity in "good mix" and that the largest contributor to what makes a good mix a great mix has more to do with skill rather than mixing tools.

The essence of my argument is simple. The cheap tools of today are far better than what was commonly available a decade or two ago. A LOT of decent records have been produced and sold with far less gear than what comes with almost any DAW. You can mix your record with those tools, or even less, as many other artists have.

[kuzami]

[it sure does make it easier and faster to get quality results when you've got one great EQ, one great compressor, and one great reverb.

your mission, should you choose to accept it :

name your "one great" for eq, comp and verb.....for 3 price brackets - cheap-seats, mid-priced, need-a-2nd-mortgage

thanks

Will try
Cheap-seats=below 50$
Mid-priced: 51-199$
Need a 2nd mortgage: 200$+

EQ:
Variety of Sound BaxterEQ (free)
Softube Passive-Active Pack (159$)
DMGAudio EQuilibrium (250$)
(not sure if Fabfilter Pro-Q fits in mid-priced or expensive, like it better than the Passive-Active Pack=

Compressor:
Klanghelm DC8C (28$)
Cytomic The Glue (99$)
DMGAudio Compassion (250$)
(not sure if Fabfilter Pro-C fits in mid-priced or expensive, like it better than The Glue)

Reverb:
ValhallaDSP VintageVerb (50$)
Acon Digital Verberate (100$)
2CAudio Aether (250$)

[Tp3]

So my question is : is it possible to make a correct and professional mix with the DAW's built in plugins?

[do_androids_dream]

On the spin-off thread, we've been discussing the idea of a mix challenge. Would you or anyone else in this thread be interested in participating in that?

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 4&start=45

no thank you,
1. Mixing is my weakest link imo, I would rather a less judgmental exercise. I have nothing to prove, just more to learn.
2. I really am not a fan of contests, winning isn't important to me (see above)
3. With the vast amount of different people from different places enjoying different genres I get a headache trying to figure out how the winners and losers would be judged. How do you define a good mix? My definition is a mix that is interesting, I believe it's the mixing engineers job to not only create a balance of all the tones but also make it interesting...so now you have to define interesting and that will change. People will disagree on what is interesting and what is not, example...I wont find a dance mix very interesting cause I dont dance (well I do but we call it gag em style)
4. What's to stop us from getting help, you dont know my list of friends on FB but besides my cousin I have a few very good mixing engineers as friends. Of course I could just throw Rob's new plugin in there
6. My entry would be late

not trying to be a negative Nancy, have fun...I just dont like competing when it comes to music (which of course is atypical and should not be meant to suggest contests are bad in the arts, just not my thing)

I'm with Hink... (edited as I was rambling late last night) Lets just say I'm not too fond of competitions within artistic endeavours either.

[do_androids_dream]

sorry... keep pressing the quote button instead of edit...

[ghettosynth]

I think that this guy knows what professional is, everything high grade..know what I'm saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2XPmhN3tbo

[hibidy]

I'm surprised dub turbo isn't the most popular thing ever.

[highkoo]

It would be, but the thing is that you only need to make waaaaaann beat with it to be a superstar.

[ghettosynth]

It would be, but the thing is that you only need to make waaaaaann beat with it to be a superstar.

See, that shit just never gets old, never.

[ghettosynth]

For a less competitive approach to discussing mixing in context, there are a variety of multitracks available at this site for educational purposes.

http://www.cambridge-mt.com/ms-mtk.htm

[twoifbysea]

Yes I can easily get everything that I need for mixing out of Sonar.