The biggest mixing secret you've always wondered

[ramseysounds]

Tehke tööd kõik



Mati ja peenis!

So I used google translate as Estonian isn't my native language. WTF do you mean?

[deep'n'dark]

Tehke tööd kõik



Mati ja peenis!

So I used google translate as Estonian isn't my native language. WTF do you mean?

It was a joke mate, carry on...

[ramseysounds]

Oh. Clearly a different sense of humour in Estonia.

[Benedict]

I guess what I'm trying to portray is...

Alright, thanks. I do understand what you are saying.

That said I don't really agree with you. Not that what you are saying isn't right technically, but it doesn't represent Music as it ebbs & flows. Moving everything to "perfect" takes all that away. You may get a db or so of extra level but at the cost of the passion of expressive phrasing (yes even with drum machines).

To do what you suggest would require a lot of editing and alignment, really essentially turning every sound into a "perfect" sample where you have all events of any value (and that always becomes everything...) triggered sample-accurate on the zero-crossing for perfect phase coherence blah, blah, blah. It will be a tight mix with every ounce of headroom micromanaged but I don't see my role as a Composer or Mix Engineer being in controlling speaker excursion but to put passion on tape. Mr Jamo, Mr Dynaudio, and even Mr Sony (if we're slumming it) handle speaker excursion quite nicely already.

I don't know of any great records ruined by loose phase alignment of parts (even those with dull mixes like Judas Priest "Sin After Sin" or Jethro Tull "Songs From The Wood") but I do know many that might have been nice records if they weren't so technical that any songwriting or delivery is destroyed in ill-directed attempts to sound more Pro.

[perfumer]

I don't know of any great records ruined by loose phase alignment of parts (even those with dull mixes like Judas Priest "Sin After Sin" or Jethro Tull "Songs From The Wood") but I do know many that might have been nice records if they weren't so technical that any songwriting or delivery is destroyed in ill-directed attempts to sound more Pro.

With due respect, this is a wrong way to think. 'Putting passion on tape' is a noble approach, but it is not everything and not the top of what music is. 'Perfecting the sound' may not be essential for hard rock, but is a must for many genres of music. Because this makes all the difference, when listening and immersing yourself in the mix. I can give as examples such different artists as Alva Noto, Current Value, Highko, Moritz von Oswald, Biosphere's latest, etc., etc. - where the sound makes the thing as much as the composition. The 'artistic effect' depends on it. Also, when writing for a certain genre, you have to be up to spec. The competition is fierce!

[deep'n'dark]

Oh. Clearly a different sense of humour in Estonia.

That kind of humor isn't my usual humor. I admit it being childish.

[ramseysounds]

Fair enough

[mitchiemasha]

To do what you suggest would require a lot of editing and alignment, really essentially turning every sound into a "perfect" sample where you have all events of any value (and that always becomes everything...) triggered sample-accurate on the zero-crossing

No that's not what i'm suggesting. I'm using extreme examples to paint the image. What i'm suggesting is be aware of just exactly what your mix decisions are doing. Like applying a low cut on the master buss to make more room for the big squish could actually be doing the opposite, due to the low end phase shift, now causing peaks (peaks that you'd previously controlled with compression else where in the chain) to now be excited, due to the low end now offsetting those peaks from where they sat.

and non of this has to do with music in a music sense. A good record is still a good record even if badly mixed. On the flip... A really punchy, clean and loud record will have achieved, been that way (aligned) by default, even if the creator didn't realise.

This thread is about mix secrets, not music secrets, about them being revealed to you or more to the point, what you're "wondering" about those secrets that currently have... which is exactly what I'm doing.

As I suggested, I wonder if different BPM's magically suit different keys, due to the oscillation of the low energy. Which in live music, human timing wouldn't mater as much. (Perhaps there's a new style of music in there somewhere) Or another one, for maximum punch, would having the waveform move the speaker to it's furthest most backwards (or forwards) position, slightly slower, before it hits, shift the most air. And what's the fastest the mid driver can actually move forward and faithfully represent the wave (Transient response). If the sound system is using a sub crossed at 80hz, that speaker will never move faster forward than that (ignoring crossover roll off).

My interest here isn't music, in the sense of musicality, it's about mixing. Creating extremes unparalleled. And we're all limited by the same thing, the movement of the speaker.

[Unaspected]

Phase alignment is an editing task though - not really something a mix engineer should have to worry much about. Though it is certainly worth identifying as an issue prior to mixing.

[mitchiemasha]

Phase alignment is an editing task though - not really something a mix engineer should have to worry much about. Though it is certainly worth identifying as an issue prior to mixing.

Whilst this is about phase alignment. It's not quite the same phase alignment that most are on about when using that term. The issue is, the mix engineers choices seriously shift phase. Sounds previously controlled can now be uncontrolled, smashing into compressors, eating up your max volume.

[Unaspected]

Phase alignment is an editing task though - not really something a mix engineer should have to worry much about. Though it is certainly worth identifying as an issue prior to mixing.

Whilst this is about phase alignment. It's not quite the same phase alignment that most are on about when using that term.

We're talking about phase aligning kick and bass, right?

[mitchiemasha]

We're talking about phase aligning kick and bass, right?

yes and no.

Yes, they too suffer from this.
No, not in the sense where they would be aligned in time and you choose one or the other. Sidechianing, EQ, etc. due to them trying to occupy the same space, that people usually refer to.

Yes...
Imagine you have a kick then a bass note that plays totally independent of the kick. The kick tail stops before the bass note hits (is at crossing). If you apply a LC to the kick, the kick tail will move, this can now interfere with your bass note transient. Where previously it didn't. If the LC is later in the chain, on a buss etc, this will shift out of your carefully tuned sidechian. Seeing this for the first time in VS whilst hearing it is a HUGE WTF moment. Very hard to explain, easier to observe. It took me a while to figure out what was going on. A lot of back tracking.

If you have a bass note independent of the kick and the last bit of the bass tail is perfectly side chained to not interfere with the kick transient, apply a LC to the master buss, observe what happens to the transient of your kick, VS is the best way to do this.

What my other post mentioned had more to do with mid, higher frequency sounds that ride the low oscillations with in your mix. How randomly applying a LC on the master can result in previously controlled dynamics now being erratic, loosing you up to 3db of headroom. That's 3db more work on the master limiter. It took me months to figure out what was going on here, eliminating the variables, retesting etc.

[mitchiemasha]

It's not just LC either. Tape emulators, distortion etc... they can all result in the carefully tuned sidechain going out the window. In certain electronic genres it's very important the kick, snare stays true to itself in every repetition. Almost like the things are gated into the track, the timing is MS accurate to create the illusion. Getting that perfect could take days, only to be ruined by mastering having the low energy shift a few MS back in time due to what ever plug in. Now that shift in low energy will excite (change) the transient of the hit, different notes of the low end each having it's own unique impact. You might want that but in most cases it will subtract from punch.

Again... using Volume Shaper on the master buss, set to 1/4, purely as a visual tool will reveal this to you.

You'll start to ask questions like, why has my kick started to change. You'll be aware of what makes loud loud. The relationship between peaks, how far you can push things... and how a crash with no low end at all was what made you waste a day trying to fix the lowend of your track. The actual issue was it's too loud combined, lack of headroom, resulting in a fast release master compression causing the low end artefacts you didn't like and could hear.

See it form the perspective of the speakers potential movement.

[Unaspected]

We're talking about phase aligning kick and bass, right?

yes and no.

Yes, they too suffer from this.
No, not in the sense where they would be aligned in time and you choose one or the other. Sidechianing, EQ, etc. due to them trying to occupy the same space, that people usually refer to.

Yes...
Imagine you have a kick then a bass note that plays totally independent of the kick. The kick tail stops before the bass note hits (is at crossing). If you apply a LC to the kick, the kick tail will move, this can now interfere with your bass note transient. Where previously it didn't. If the LC is later in the chain, on a buss etc, this will shift out of your carefully tuned sidechian. Seeing this for the first time in VS whilst hearing it is a HUGE WTF moment. Very hard to explain, easier to observe. It took me a while to figure out what was going on. A lot of back tracking.

If you have a bass note independent of the kick and the last bit of the bass tail is perfectly side chained to not interfere with the kick transient, apply a LC to the master buss, observe what happens to the transient of your kick, VS is the best way to do this.

What my other post mentioned had more to do with mid, higher frequency sounds that ride the low oscillations with in your mix. How randomly applying a LC on the master can result in previously controlled dynamics now being erratic, loosing you up to 3db of headroom. That's 3db more work on the master limiter. It took me months to figure out what was going on here, eliminating the variables, retesting etc.

Well, yeah. If you engage an HPF, the phase relationship across the frequency spectrum will change, which can cause some frequencies to boost and others to cut [when summed with other signals], where they didn't before. So high passing your channels where needed before mixing is probably wise. I tend to process all tracks individually as separate project files before approaching the mix. No need to apply HPFs on your group busses and mastering is for the mastering engineer to worry about.

EDIT: [when summed with other signals]

[Unaspected]

I would also suggest, however, that mixing is about blending sounds and the techniques used to achieve this, rather than isolating them. Interrelation of sound through summing, sub-mixing and cross modulation can add interest, glue, sense of space and clarity.