Sitting the vocals in the mix.

[music-tech]

Music-tech, what do you make of The Kim Method?

Which part is "The Kim Method"? Kim made lots of excellent posts in this thread. Some of them may work for you, and some of them may not.

I personally don't have any set "method" that I use when mixing. I take each song as its own entity and try to let the song tell me what is needed for that song. To automatically say you are going to run each track through a saturation plug-in is simply locking yourself into one method that may not be appropriate for every song you work on.

I personally don't run ALL my tracks through a saturation type plug-in, BUT, if there if I'm trying to create a certain sound for a certain instrument in a certain song where I feel it is appropriate, then I may use a saturation or distortion plug-in if that's going to help me get that sound. Certain types of music and songs call for a very clean "digital" sound without any saturation effects, while others may call for lots of distortion and saturation on most of the tracks and maybe even across the mix buss. In the Charles Dye "mix it like a record" DVD, he is totally over the top with plug-in use on pretty much every single track with either a tube or tape saturation plug-in on almost every channel, and MASSIVE amounts of EQ and other processing.... BUT, the song he was working on was a very dense and aggressive rock song that called for that type of treatment. I'm sure he wouldn't do the same thing for a jazz song or even a stripped down Urban/RnB type song.

Just remember, the SONG comes first! Everything you do needs to serve the song! If you are throwing lots of plug-ins and effects on every track just because you can, or for gimmicks, or whatever... it's only going to be good if it serves the message of the song and contributes to the vibe/feeling of the song. Of course, you've got to have a great song to begin with! The saying "you can't polish a turd" always applies -- a great mix of a bad song is still a bad song. People will choose a bad mix of a great song over a great mix of a bad song any day! People don't walk away humming the sound of the snare drum, it's the song lyrics and melody that hooks them.

So, just keep in mind that you must always serve the song, and within that idea, in each section of the song make sure you highlight whatever is the most important element (vocals, guitar solo, etc.) and do whatever is needed to enhance the message of that element while making sure nothing else is distracting from that. After that, just trust your ears and do whatever sounds best to you. There is no right or wrong way to do anything, and people have made hit records with extremely limited gear (as well as crap records with the best gear in the world). Don't take anything said here as religion... they are just the opinions and methods of several individuals who have found what works for them in their studio and with the type of material they usually work on.

Steve

[music-tech]

Thanks Steve.

I already tried some of your suggestions in the song I'm working on. And I immediately had a more defined sounding bass in the mix. Great. Only question I have just to get it right: in which frequency area would one normally boost the harmonics of the bass. I know it will probably depend on the situation and the initial sound of the bass. But maybe there's more or less a common demeanor in this.

Martin

Martin,

It really depends on what you have to start with. Synth bass and electric bass are quite different. And, within each of those, there are infinite variations as well, such as DI recorded bass versus mic'ing an amp (or a combination of both), or the type of bass the bassist is playing and his skill level (how well they pluck the strings really has a big impact on the sound).

In general, for electric bass, if you want more of the string definition/bite/attack, you'll find that in the 2Khz to 3Khz or so range. So, you can boost some of that if you want to bring out some more attack from the bass in a thick mix. If you want more of the bass "tone" to bring out the bass notes more, you can find that very roughly in the range around 700 Hz, but you really need to be careful with that range as it can start to get nasal sounding, especially as you inch up towards around 1Khz. If your DI bass track is nasally to begin with, you may need to cut some around the 1Khz range.

If you don't have something like Waves MaxxBass or RenBass to generate harmonics and blend them in with the original, another trick you can do is duplicate the bass track. Keep on track fairly clean with just some EQ as needed, and then on the other track go to town on it with some heavy compression and some sort of distortion/amp-sim plug-in (I like iZotope's Trash), and get rid of all the low end from that track and concentrate on really generating some serious harmonic action. Then, when mixing, blend the two together to taste. If the bass is exposed in a section of a song, you'll probably want to pretty much cut out most of the harmonic/distorted track... but, in sections that have a wall of guitars or other instruments, you'll probably mix a lot of the distorted sound in to get it to fit in there and cut through everything else.

Of course, the obvious thing to do if you are not getting enough bass level in the mix (not low-end, but the bass instrument), is to pull down the other instruments some more. Really, most modern music is heavy on the drums, bass, and vocals, and the other instruments are further down in level -- usually much more so than you think they should be when you are working on your mix (you tend to turn things up while you are working on them).

For synth bass, it's a totally different story, and I usually just try to choose a patch, or edit the patch, to bring out more of the upper frequencies as needed to cut through. The only EQ I usually need on synth bass is rolling off the low end if it's too thick and muddy. Synth bass patches usually have a big low end to make them sound great when you are auditioning them by themselves, but it's often too much when you get it in a busy mix (although lots of bass is sometimes just fine for sparse RnB and Hip-Hop stuff). Also, if you play a synth bass evenly, you usually don't need much, or any, compression unless you are using the compression for an effect or to try to bring out the sustain more (if you are too lazy to edit the patch, or it's a sample that you can't edit easily).

The other thing you can do to make the bass a little bigger and fuller in the mix is to add a subtle chorus or flange. Similar to doing that for the vocals (which I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread)... you don't want to notice it as a chorus or flange (unless you are going for that effect)... you just want it to "stereoize" the bass a bit and make it a bit fuller in the mix. So, I usually have to adjust the rate and depth on the chorus or flange so it's barely moving, and moving VERY slowly (almost static) so you don't hear it sweeping, and the depth is subtle so it doesn't sound too processed. You may also want to roll off all the low-end from the chorus/flange return so it doesn't muddy up the bass sound any more. I don't use this technique that often, just when I feel the bass is too small in a big & wide mix and I want the bass to feel bigger and wider as well.

Steve

[bduffy]

Thanks, music-tech. I was curious what you made of the saturation-thing, specifically. I've been doing this for awhile, but I'm always curious to try different methods; they can be very refreshing and inspirational. I do have my own methods, but I've been working on my album for far too long and I like to seek counsel from willing professionals like yourself. It's the next-best thing to taking it to another engineer, which I'd be tempted to do at this point if I had the cash. But then again, nobody knows what I'm going for other than myself, and every single time I went to a studio I was totally dissatisfied with the outcome; I simply don't listen to any of my records from the 90s, I was happier with the vibe from my Fostex 4-Track recordings, and the technology available to us at home now is just stunning, so I know it can be done!

Anyway, I digress. Thanks for the good advice.

[Martin E]

Thanks Steve

You really helped me on this one. And I'll look into the suggestions you've made. Thanks again for taking some time to answer my question. It may be useful to others as well.

[music-tech]

Thanks, music-tech. I was curious what you made of the saturation-thing, specifically. I've been doing this for awhile, but I'm always curious to try different methods; they can be very refreshing and inspirational. I do have my own methods, but I've been working on my album for far too long and I like to seek counsel from willing professionals like yourself. It's the next-best thing to taking it to another engineer, which I'd be tempted to do at this point if I had the cash. But then again, nobody knows what I'm going for other than myself, and every single time I went to a studio I was totally dissatisfied with the outcome; I simply don't listen to any of my records from the 90s, I was happier with the vibe from my Fostex 4-Track recordings, and the technology available to us at home now is just stunning, so I know it can be done!

Anyway, I digress. Thanks for the good advice.

You're welcome! I'm just wasting the morning away here on the internet and drinking too much coffee, before I head to the studio to get some work done.

All I can say is that you haven't had me mix your stuff!

Mixing is definitely my favorite thing to do, and after more than 13 years of doing this professionally (and many years as a serious hobby before that), I've become very good at it! But, I still learn new tips and techniques from other professionals that I'll sometimes try out on a project if I think it's appropriate.

I keep very busy, and make more money, working on my own projects most of the time now, but I still really enjoy working with and helping out other artists if their music is something I can get into and I think I can do a good job with it. My time is valuable to me (although I do waste a lot of it on the net), so I'm not cheap to work with, but I do guarantee my results!

But, before this sounds like an ad, let me say again that I'm VERY busy with my own stuff and I only take on a limited number of very select outside projects that I feel I will enjoy. Mixing is my favorite thing to do, though, so I will take on more of that work than I will a complete album recording and mixing project, and I've done mixes for artists from all over the world whom I've never met in person. Been too busy to update my web site with more recent examples of my work, though... most of that stuff is several years old before I made the major studio upgrades.

There are very few people who can do everything themselves and get anything other than mediocre results. I actually wrote an article a few years ago on my Music-And-Technology.com web site called "Can You Really Do It All Yourself?" about just this sort of thing. Even though it's an old article, I think it's even more true today than it was then as more and more people are buying into the inexpensive home studio recording setup and trying to do everything themselves (artist/musician, recording engineer, mixing engineer, and mastering engineer), and the results are usually less than spectacular. However, there certainly are advantages to doing at least some things yourself, as you have more time to experiment and be creative, and you can work when the inspiration hits you (in your PJ's if you want) without watching the clock, etc. But, I think most people who are serious about doing something with their music would be better off to at least send their tracks to a professional for mixing, and especially mastering. If you are just doing demos for yourself and the web, then go ahead and save the money and try it out yourself... but, if you want to be taken seriously and try to make some money with your music, then I feel it's best to get a professional involved. Spend your time and energy perfecting your craft of being an artist, and let someone else who has devoted their time and energy to become a great engineer help you make your music sound the best it can.

But, that's just my opinion again! Your mileage may vary.

OK... off to work!

Steve

[bduffy]

Hey, thanks for all the background & info. I've been working professionally in the multimedia industry for 7 years now, but the deadlines, and less-then-ideal delivery settings, have encouraged me to skip over some of the finer points of multitrack mixing; hence my increasing interest here at KVR to learn more about what guys with better gear/ears/more time to spend on mix theory than I. I know I've got pretty good ears, but, I'm a songwriter first, and I'm slow on technical intake, even though I find it endlessly fascinating.

So I know that wasn't an ad, believe me, I understand being too busy! But do you think hiring someone else to mix my music would be something worth exploring? How can I guarantee that I would get the sound and effects I want? It's been my experience at studios that mix engineers are conservative folk, who spend hours dialing in sexy reverbs, delays, boutique compressors...

...and then you can't hear it in the mix. Basically, I'd be afraid that I'd send out a record that I want to sound HUGE, and I'd get back Aja. And not to mention the cost.

[music-tech]

So I know that wasn't an ad, believe me, I understand being too busy! But do you think hiring someone else to mix my music would be something worth exploring? How can I guarantee that I would get the sound and effects I want? It's been my experience at studios that mix engineers are conservative folk, who spend hours dialing in sexy reverbs, delays, boutique compressors...

...and then you can't hear it in the mix. Basically, I'd be afraid that I'd send out a record that I want to sound HUGE, and I'd get back Aja. And not to mention the cost.

That all comes down to finding the right person to work with, and that isn't always the most expensive or most famous person either.

You need to find a mixing engineer whose work you like, first of all, and then with whom you can establish great communication with and a good working relationship. You need to feel secure that he knows what you are going for. Part of that is up to you to communicate the "big picture" of your songs and the type of sound you want... but, you need to find the right person who will listen to that, understand what you are talking about, and then actually go for that instead of letting his/her own ego get in the way and do it his/her way because they think it's better. But, you may also want someone who will listen to your ideas, give those a try, but then also not be afraid to give you some suggestions for things that he thinks might sound better but that you may not have thought of.

If you want a more raw and less conservative type mix, you've got to make sure the mix engineer understands, and that he is not afraid to do something that doesn't sound "perfect" and has some raw & rough edges to it.

Personally, I don't like things that are too perfect sounding. I very rarely ever use things like auto-tune, because I believe that takes away some of the emotion and feeling. Grossly out of tune parts should be fixed by re-recording the part. But, if it's close and just a little bit out of tune, but has great emotion, I'll leave it. Also, sometimes things like some amp buzz, or a weird string noise, or something unintended can really be the coolest part of a song that just adds some humanity and excitement.

Anyway, the key is to build a great working relationship based on trust and mutual understanding and communication. Once you find that in someone who has the technical skills as well, you'll be set. There are many producers who always work with the same recording & mixing engineers because they understand each other and the engineer immediately understands what the producer wants when he gives him some kind of direction in artistic, as opposed to technical, terms.

OK... back to the studio again. For real this time!

Steve

[bduffy]

Cool, That resonates with me. Problem is, I'm very isolated; apart from KVR, I don't really know any other engineers! Too funny. I've always been a bit of a loner with my music, which led to some catastrophic mixing! Opening up to other people and possibilities really helps. I guess you shouldn't do it completely alone, fresh ears are important.

So. Any cheap-ass, freakishly talented mix engineers in the house? Kidding. Maybe I should post my stuff in the Music Cafe for some advice. I think I suffer from overdub-itis too.

Thanks Stephen!

[Kim Lajoie]

Great posts, thanks, music-tech and Kim!

So Retroband, eh? So we're talking about putting that on every instrument (offline, obviously!) and turning it up until it seems like a little too much? Don't get me wrong, I use saturation all the time, I just never heard of it done quite like this, on everything except the lead vocal - although I realise that this is happening all the time on tape and analog gear. And we are talking about rock/pop/modern music here, right?

Offline? The latest version uses much less CPU (and my PC is pretty beefy too), so I just run them all realtime. I can easily have up to thirty or forty of the things in a project.

RetroBand works well on pretty much any instrument, but it's a bit fiddly to tweak sometimes (I never use presets). The dynamic emphasis controls and the surgical design of the plug makes it especially good for drums and other dynamic/transient sounds. Because of it's flexibility, it also can do a lot of things that I can't get out of Voxformer.

Voxformer's saturation has a great sound, but it's not so good on drums and other dynamic material. I usually use Voxformer on things like pianos, synths, guitars. Low bias (one of the "advanced" options) works better for (roughly) maintaining the spectral balance of an instrument - it adds a really thick overdrive. High bias, on the other hand, adds a really cool "pinched" sound that just ROCKS on distorted guitars (and already-fuzzed synths). Really hits you between the eyes.

Like music-tech said though, it depends on your taste and the style of the music. My music is a very modern "produced" sound, and I personally prefer a thicker, more aggressive texture. I probably wouldn't be fuzzing every track in a sparse acoustic number. At least, not as much.

-Kim.

[No name]

Anyways, here is the link...

http://download.yousendit.com/829B49CA2CDDF8F2

please share your comments.

I downloaded and took a listen to this track. I'm just listening on my office computer now with the typical computer satellite/sub speakers setup (but I'm very used to them), but I get a pretty good idea.

Having done a lot of rap music myself, for this particular track, I would get rid of the reverb & delay you are putting on the vocals. Keep it dry and up front... most rap music is totally dry, or at least mostly. I could hear the "room" type ambience you added even on these little speakers. If you want to give the vocals some space, then it really needs to be an ambience type program that really does just create a bit of space and width but with no "room" type sound... pretty much no decay at all. Better yet, though, would be to use a really subtle flange or chorus type effect that is almost static so that you don't hear it moving. I really like the Roland Dimension D in the UAD-1 Powered Plug-ins for this type of thing, but I've also used really slow flange effects with very small depths and slow modulation rates. A flange or chours will make the vocal a bit bigger/wider sounding and give it some very subtle space without the room sound that you never really hear on any rap/hip-hop stuff.

Almost dry and up front and in your face is really what you want for hip-hop.

BUT, then you need to get the kick and the snare/clap sound up there as well. My OPINION is that you need to kill the big reverb thing on your snare clap and bring the volume up of up to the same level as the vocal. Then, tighten that kick up a bit as well and bring it up a bit as well. The kick, snare, and vocal should all be right up in your face.

Then, to spice things up in a few select spots in your song, trigger that snare reverb on just one snare hit and make the reverb decay even longer. You can use that to emphasize certain things. Don't overdo it, just 2 or 3 spots in one song is usually enough... only if it fits the song and the message though. I've done that with a few hip-hop things I've done, and they always love when you put little things like that in as long as you don't over use it or get to gimmicky with it.

Otherwise, I think the vocal isn't bad. Since there isn't much else happening in the music right now, you really won't have to thin up the vocals that much to make it fit, although I think you could pull a bit more low mids out of the (somewhere in the 300 to 500 range) and add in some air (around 12Khz or so, not too much lower or you'll bring out too much sibilance and then you'll need a de-esser).

Really, I think you just need to get that kick and snare slamming and more up front, without the verb, and put those two in the same spot with the vocal, and you'll be OK. If the artist likes that verb on the snare, then you may want to use a bit of pre-delay on the verb to separate it a bit from the dry snare sound, then bring up the dry sound a lot more while keeping the verb a bit more in the back.

Those are just my thoughts... remember that there is no right or wrong way, though, and in the end you need to do what sounds right to you and the artist for the song.

Steve

Hey, just wanted to mention that I did try the chorus on the vocals, a very subtle amount, and it sounds pretty good. I admit I was suspicious at first because I had never done it, and in my mind I thought that it might sound too much like rock vocals if I tried, but I had never tried it before so I could never have known, but i'm glad I did. I don't know, it just makes the vocal "shine" or "sizzle" a little, and it is a very desirable effect!

[No name]

I'm having another issue, not so much the vocals. The problem is that the bass drum is sooo damn sub-bass heavy that it is leaving my no room under 100hz for my regular bass. I'm tryna EQ the bass line toget it to fit, but i'm thinking a drum hit like the one i'm using and REFX claw are not gonna do well with each other because they are both so have on the lower end (80-100hz). I could...1.replace the bass or kick (i'm really trying to get a feel for what is more important in this beat, the big bass drum or a bass line, which would be more important there, and i'm still not sure because the bass line hasn't come together yet)2.If there is some way to just cut the bass below 100hz and let the drum have this, but boost somewhere in the spectrum to give the bass definition. The second approach I like better, because the drum is 808 like, and that is big with a lot of rappers now a days (though I could surely go a lifetime without ever hearing it again!) and has a nice low end, but I want to use bass to fill out the beat and make it meaty. Where would be a good starting point in the spectrum to increase definition of the bass line? Obviously it is somewhere in the lower mids, but where? Perhaps it would be a good chance to fill out that 500hz spot I cut from the vocals, as it will be pretty empty.
All that, so far, this beat plans to consist of...

Drum line:So far the bass drum is occupying the range of 80-100hz, the snare is somewhere around 4hz.

Bass line:???

String section: (surprisingly enough, and I should have checked the range before) anywhere from 200hz-2khz. Though it seems to be most predominant in the 200-500 range. I think the reason for this is that i'm playing triads, and so I have a triad chord switching on each whole note, so yea.

Synth sweep: (Little synth patch I put together in it that you can hear in the example, i'll probably pitch it up an octave and make it sit further back, but I love it too much to ever let it go. I programmed that patch on Synth1 by the way with mg trigger gate for the gating effect, and they said you couldn't get good sounds for free ) Anyways, the synth isn't really dominant anywhere, it's sort of spread out very lightly across the spectrum.

The bass/drum are my main focus at this time though. The vocals are sounding pretty good now. I rolled off to about 200hz, and while it sounds a little thin alone, it sounds great with the mix. It sounds like it has a bit of room there.

[Sascha Franck]

Just wanted to say that there's excellent advice to be found in this thread.
I tried the "vocals first" mixing method myself a number of times already and to me it really seems to be the way to go for anything with vocals being the main thing of interest (rather than the oldfashioned drums, then bass, then accompanying stuff, then vocals sort of "live mixing" kinda approach). Mind you, I'm a really bad mixer myself and I don't exactly plan to improve on it much anymore either (old ears, slight tinnitus, etc...), but I will certainly try the "vocals and snare first" thing as well, seems really plausible to me (even if most of us germans seem to rather ignore the backbeat and just happily clap along on either all beats or on 1 and 3... urgh).
Anyways, thanks for all those tips!

[JumpingJackFlash]

Only question I have just to get it right: in which frequency area would one normally boost the harmonics of the bass. I know it will probably depend on the situation and the initial sound of the bass. But maybe there's more or less a common demeanor in this.

Well, the Bass fundamentals generally lie between around 41 Hz and 100 Hz. (Assuming the bass is not especially high). Therefore, the initial harmonic above this will be twice this frequency; ie, in the region of 82 Hz to 200 Hz. - It depends on the part though; experiment and see what sounds good.

[JumpingJackFlash]

If there is some way to just cut the bass below 100hz and let the drum have this, but boost somewhere in the spectrum to give the bass definition.

A plugin such as Waves MaxxBass might serve you well. What this does is generate (extra) harmonics that give the impression of low notes. - Thus, after processing, you can roll-off everything below, say 100 Hz, safe in the knowledge that the harmonics will give the impression that there is still something down there. - This kind of thing is mainly used when mastering for small speakers which cannot handle bass very well, but it might be what you're looking for! - If not, you can resort to EQ, boosting the existing harmonics etc.

[No name]

Damn, I had hoped there was some way I could roll off below 100hz, and beef the bassline up elsewhere along the spectrum. I tried it out actually, and am realizing that it just isn't possible. Once I hipass aroun 50hz it immediately becomes lifeless and thin. If there is one part of mixing I hate, it is the bass and drums.