Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
- Thread starter TwilightOdyssey
- Start date
TwilightOdyssey
Darkness on the edge of Tone
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
Outboard rack is now ready for cabling.
Outboard rack is now ready for cabling.
TwilightOdyssey
Darkness on the edge of Tone
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
Part IV.5
Quick update:
All hardware is in and tested. Waiting on drums and vocals at this point, but it will soon be time to start cleaning up the tracks and get the gain staging set up, start routing buses, etc.
More to come!
Part IV.5
Quick update:
All hardware is in and tested. Waiting on drums and vocals at this point, but it will soon be time to start cleaning up the tracks and get the gain staging set up, start routing buses, etc.
More to come!
Vasshu the humanoid typhoon
Unseen
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
Coolage!!!
Love how you make do with this stuff!
Hehe Alex Lexicons...Micheal Landau units!
A sweet setup.
Coolage!!!
Love how you make do with this stuff!
Hehe Alex Lexicons...Micheal Landau units!
A sweet setup.
TwilightOdyssey
Darkness on the edge of Tone
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
Hehe, yep. I have my favourite pieces of gear from yesteryear and they serve me well.
Hehe, yep. I have my favourite pieces of gear from yesteryear and they serve me well.
Vasshu the humanoid typhoon
Unseen
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
I am a firm beliver in using what you have well!
And I so love the sounds you make with those units!
I am a firm beliver in using what you have well!
And I so love the sounds you make with those units!
TwilightOdyssey
Darkness on the edge of Tone
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
Drums are now being officially recorded, so it's time to dust off the tracks and start prepping things. Updates will be continuing shortly!
Drums are now being officially recorded, so it's time to dust off the tracks and start prepping things. Updates will be continuing shortly!
TwilightOdyssey
Darkness on the edge of Tone
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
PART V. SETUP
Before anything can make its way into the analogue world, it has to be 100% ready. Depending on several factors (how clean the original recording is, how many tracks you have, now long the song is) this process can take anywhere from 10-25 hours. As this song is quite long (about 19 minutes in total) and has just over 100 tracks, there are a lot of details to get straight!
Here is how I set up a song for mixing. Remember to save often with rev numbers so you can recall later if need be:
1. ORGANIZE
Group all of your tracks in a way that makes sense to you.
Assign colours to groups of tracks so you can easily find them later. (example: all guitars are green, synths are orange, etc)
2. PAN, LEVEL, GAIN STAGING
The next step is to set all track faders to zero, disable or remove all plugins, and pan each track to center. If a plugin is essential to a certain track's sound, bounce the track in place with the effect, save your rev and delete the original track.
Gain staging can be a bit tricky and hard to understand as its definition changes depending on where in the mixing process you are using it.
When you are setting up your tracks, the first step is to play the entire song front to back with all of the tracks panned center and faders at zero. Since this will be a hybrid mix and I want to maximize my headroom, I want any individual track to peak at -20dB DFS (digital full scale); this will translate to -6dB in analogue.
After the track is played through, if any tracks are peaking above your reference level, apply a gain plugin (I like BlueCat for this) and then play the entire song again. When satsified, bounce the track w the gain plugin, save, and delete the original track.
When you are done, the mixer will look like this, with all of the tracks having the same peak level:
3. CREATE GROUPS
Send like-related instruments to their own Aux channels (also called groups or buses); electric guitar, acoustic guitar, synths, strings, etc. You can now apply basic correction to the entire group instead of each track (using a high pass filter is the classic example here; a single HPF will replace using 20+ separate EQs).
At this stage I like to keep it pretty basic, but once I get started working on the mix, sub-groups will become necessary. For example, I will often create a sub-group for each part of the drum kit, and then send each one of those to a group called DRUMS. This will enable me to keep the actual track fader at zero regardless of processing, and gives me a 'counter reset' for that instrument should I need it.
For example, I have the bass multed into 4 separate tracks. I will create 2 sub-groups (bass low and bass high) and then send both of those to a single BASS group. This enables me to process the sub and low bass separately from the high bass parts.
4. MUTE AND MONO
Make sure that all of the buses and individual tracks are in mono. They are going to STAY in mono for a good 85-90% of the mix at this point, so get used to it. It is tempting to try to start working in stereo, but at this stage, it is critical to get the corrective EQ sorted first.
Solo each track, one at a time, and play it front to back. Mute out any finger noise, squonks, weird amp noises, background noise, that is in a section where there is no music. I prefer to mute the bits I am cutting out at the event level as opposed to deleting the bits; sometimes you can go too far and end up cutting the humanity out of the song, and bringing some string noise or other human elements can help a lot.
Playing every track front to back in solo is also very time consuming, but these housekeeping activities are essential to maximize headroom and minimize noise and mud.
PART V. SETUP
Before anything can make its way into the analogue world, it has to be 100% ready. Depending on several factors (how clean the original recording is, how many tracks you have, now long the song is) this process can take anywhere from 10-25 hours. As this song is quite long (about 19 minutes in total) and has just over 100 tracks, there are a lot of details to get straight!
Here is how I set up a song for mixing. Remember to save often with rev numbers so you can recall later if need be:
1. ORGANIZE
Group all of your tracks in a way that makes sense to you.
Assign colours to groups of tracks so you can easily find them later. (example: all guitars are green, synths are orange, etc)
2. PAN, LEVEL, GAIN STAGING
The next step is to set all track faders to zero, disable or remove all plugins, and pan each track to center. If a plugin is essential to a certain track's sound, bounce the track in place with the effect, save your rev and delete the original track.
Gain staging can be a bit tricky and hard to understand as its definition changes depending on where in the mixing process you are using it.
When you are setting up your tracks, the first step is to play the entire song front to back with all of the tracks panned center and faders at zero. Since this will be a hybrid mix and I want to maximize my headroom, I want any individual track to peak at -20dB DFS (digital full scale); this will translate to -6dB in analogue.
After the track is played through, if any tracks are peaking above your reference level, apply a gain plugin (I like BlueCat for this) and then play the entire song again. When satsified, bounce the track w the gain plugin, save, and delete the original track.
When you are done, the mixer will look like this, with all of the tracks having the same peak level:
3. CREATE GROUPS
Send like-related instruments to their own Aux channels (also called groups or buses); electric guitar, acoustic guitar, synths, strings, etc. You can now apply basic correction to the entire group instead of each track (using a high pass filter is the classic example here; a single HPF will replace using 20+ separate EQs).
At this stage I like to keep it pretty basic, but once I get started working on the mix, sub-groups will become necessary. For example, I will often create a sub-group for each part of the drum kit, and then send each one of those to a group called DRUMS. This will enable me to keep the actual track fader at zero regardless of processing, and gives me a 'counter reset' for that instrument should I need it.
For example, I have the bass multed into 4 separate tracks. I will create 2 sub-groups (bass low and bass high) and then send both of those to a single BASS group. This enables me to process the sub and low bass separately from the high bass parts.
4. MUTE AND MONO
Make sure that all of the buses and individual tracks are in mono. They are going to STAY in mono for a good 85-90% of the mix at this point, so get used to it. It is tempting to try to start working in stereo, but at this stage, it is critical to get the corrective EQ sorted first.
Solo each track, one at a time, and play it front to back. Mute out any finger noise, squonks, weird amp noises, background noise, that is in a section where there is no music. I prefer to mute the bits I am cutting out at the event level as opposed to deleting the bits; sometimes you can go too far and end up cutting the humanity out of the song, and bringing some string noise or other human elements can help a lot.
Playing every track front to back in solo is also very time consuming, but these housekeeping activities are essential to maximize headroom and minimize noise and mud.
Last edited:
TwilightOdyssey
Darkness on the edge of Tone
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
Here's a quick comparison sample of where the mix is so far. I am still waiting on the final drum tracks, so I am sure bits will shift a bit later, but this is basic clean-up stuff: just cutting out the bits that either stand out as being a problem or are obscuring other instruments from being heard.
The clip alternates between flat and EQ'd:
Here's a quick comparison sample of where the mix is so far. I am still waiting on the final drum tracks, so I am sure bits will shift a bit later, but this is basic clean-up stuff: just cutting out the bits that either stand out as being a problem or are obscuring other instruments from being heard.
The clip alternates between flat and EQ'd:
TwilightOdyssey
Darkness on the edge of Tone
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
Update: not entirely happy with the bass tone on this one.
Going to reamp it again this weekend, hopefully get better results.
I picked up a new bass DI specifically to get a thicker tone with more gain than my SansAmp. Will see how it goes!
Update: not entirely happy with the bass tone on this one.
Going to reamp it again this weekend, hopefully get better results.
I picked up a new bass DI specifically to get a thicker tone with more gain than my SansAmp. Will see how it goes!
DankStar
Her Little Mojo Minion
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
I'm not sure what do you mean by this:
"if any tracks are peaking above your reference level, apply a gain plugin (I like BlueCat for this) and then play the entire song again."
How is that different than turning the track fader down? if it's only peaking a little here and there, why not just limit or lightly compress to address those few peaks?
I'm not sure what do you mean by this:
"if any tracks are peaking above your reference level, apply a gain plugin (I like BlueCat for this) and then play the entire song again."
How is that different than turning the track fader down? if it's only peaking a little here and there, why not just limit or lightly compress to address those few peaks?
TwilightOdyssey
Darkness on the edge of Tone
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
Great questions!!
It's quite different, in fact. You don't want to move the faders until mix time. If your tracks are all peaking at different levels, and you have them all at different fader positions, you are already at a disadvantage. The most sensitive area on the fader is from about -4db to 0. In other words, you have greater control moving a fader within those 4dB than you would from -17 to -13dB.
Another reason is because this keeps everything on an even keel with the same degree of headroom. Doing mix setup is INCREDIBLY tedious; that is why A List engineers have an assistant do all this junk! Then, when they sit down to mix, they are actually MIXING, with fresh ears, with tracks that are clean, have the same headroom, and are well labeled and organized. With all of the faders on 0, the song should already sound something like a mix.
If you have to keep your faders at -20 just to keep the output from clipping, or worse yet, have to turn down the master fader, you are doing something very wrong.
If you MUST have a certain comp on a track because of the colourations it is adding, get the gain structure correct and print the track with the effect on it.
Limiting or compressing changes the tone of the instrument, as well as its transients; doing this before mixing is very risky, indeed. It is also the WRONG way to use a compressor or limiter; when you compress a track, you should be A/B'ing it so that the level of the track is the SAME with or without the effect. If you are using the compressor to change the actual level of the track, you are doing something wrong.
The final reason I can think of why you need to keep the gain staging and headroom the same is because with all of the tracks at zero fader, with the same degree of headroom, you can very quickly identify problem frequencies and where things are clashing, as there are no additional variables added to the mix yet. It is (relatively) simple.
Great questions!!
It's quite different, in fact. You don't want to move the faders until mix time. If your tracks are all peaking at different levels, and you have them all at different fader positions, you are already at a disadvantage. The most sensitive area on the fader is from about -4db to 0. In other words, you have greater control moving a fader within those 4dB than you would from -17 to -13dB.
Another reason is because this keeps everything on an even keel with the same degree of headroom. Doing mix setup is INCREDIBLY tedious; that is why A List engineers have an assistant do all this junk!
Then, when they sit down to mix, they are actually MIXING, with fresh ears, with tracks that are clean, have the same headroom, and are well labeled and organized. With all of the faders on 0, the song should already sound something like a mix.If you have to keep your faders at -20 just to keep the output from clipping, or worse yet, have to turn down the master fader, you are doing something very wrong.
Because that is a mix-level decision and this is not even close to mixing yet; this is basic clean up and setup. If you are already jacking down faders and applying compression just to get a 'zero fader' rough, something is very wrong with your gain structure.
If you MUST have a certain comp on a track because of the colourations it is adding, get the gain structure correct and print the track with the effect on it.
Limiting or compressing changes the tone of the instrument, as well as its transients; doing this before mixing is very risky, indeed. It is also the WRONG way to use a compressor or limiter; when you compress a track, you should be A/B'ing it so that the level of the track is the SAME with or without the effect. If you are using the compressor to change the actual level of the track, you are doing something wrong.
The final reason I can think of why you need to keep the gain staging and headroom the same is because with all of the tracks at zero fader, with the same degree of headroom, you can very quickly identify problem frequencies and where things are clashing, as there are no additional variables added to the mix yet. It is (relatively) simple.
Last edited:
ginormous
Understatmentologist
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
How have your choices for audio format (bit rate, word length, data (non-) compression, etc) factored in? Does it matter with regard to storage space?
I'm getting cramped for space on the hard drive, and I've got a couple of cloud-based backups that I've got to housekeep regularly.
IMO, it was a lot simpler with tape, in some ways. Push the level as hard as you could before distortion, and stay away from magnets.
How have your choices for audio format (bit rate, word length, data (non-) compression, etc) factored in? Does it matter with regard to storage space?
I'm getting cramped for space on the hard drive, and I've got a couple of cloud-based backups that I've got to housekeep regularly.
IMO, it was a lot simpler with tape, in some ways. Push the level as hard as you could before distortion, and stay away from magnets.
TwilightOdyssey
Darkness on the edge of Tone
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
Tape is terribly difficult to deal with, a nightmare to edit, and utterly unreliable as a storage medium. Nope, glad tape has been replaced as the recording medium du jour.
Not really. I have plenty of hdd space and when a project is done, I move it to an external drive.
That is the preferred method.
That, I cannot agree with.
Tape is terribly difficult to deal with, a nightmare to edit, and utterly unreliable as a storage medium. Nope, glad tape has been replaced as the recording medium du jour.
Last edited:
TwilightOdyssey
Darkness on the edge of Tone
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
On the subject of mix prep, the book Mixing Secrets has this to say:
" ... one of the key factors in putting together a professional- sounding mix is preparing the ground properly ... most amateur engineers underestimate its significance. But don't be fooled: proper mix preparation is fundamental to achieving commercial results in any kind of repeatable way... [few] studio users have now had the benefit of the traditional “tea- boy to tape- op” studio apprenticeship and simply don't realize the amount of time and effort expended on professional productions before mixdown.
"The more of this kind of technical work you can get out of the way in advance, the more you'll be able to stay in touch with your vital creative instincts during the mixing process itself."
On the subject of mix prep, the book Mixing Secrets has this to say:
" ... one of the key factors in putting together a professional- sounding mix is preparing the ground properly ... most amateur engineers underestimate its significance. But don't be fooled: proper mix preparation is fundamental to achieving commercial results in any kind of repeatable way... [few] studio users have now had the benefit of the traditional “tea- boy to tape- op” studio apprenticeship and simply don't realize the amount of time and effort expended on professional productions before mixdown.
"The more of this kind of technical work you can get out of the way in advance, the more you'll be able to stay in touch with your vital creative instincts during the mixing process itself."
TwilightOdyssey
Darkness on the edge of Tone
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
Reamped the bass last night using my Radial RMP Pro, mxr bass di+, and Pigtronix Philosopher's Tone. Whilst being a big improvement, there is some masking going on that will require further EQ (I am thinking the strings are clashing with the bass guitar now). I multed the bass track and high-passed/low-passed them for greater control. That also gave the bass track a lot more cut.
The mxr is a great bass pedal. I was able to dial in a tone with just the right amount of grit using the gain control, and then blended it in to taste. The Philospher's Tone is simply fantastic for bass guitar and also features a blend control. The basic DI tone was already very good (strymon DECO w Golden Age Pre-73).
Reamped the bass last night using my Radial RMP Pro, mxr bass di+, and Pigtronix Philosopher's Tone. Whilst being a big improvement, there is some masking going on that will require further EQ (I am thinking the strings are clashing with the bass guitar now). I multed the bass track and high-passed/low-passed them for greater control. That also gave the bass track a lot more cut.
The mxr is a great bass pedal. I was able to dial in a tone with just the right amount of grit using the gain control, and then blended it in to taste. The Philospher's Tone is simply fantastic for bass guitar and also features a blend control. The basic DI tone was already very good (strymon DECO w Golden Age Pre-73).
ginormous
Understatmentologist
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
The consistency of digital is inarguable, of course. Editing down to the sample level is a whole lot better than the grease-pencil and razor blade method I learned originally.
I'm still amazed how I can get a sound comparable to what would have cost me thousands years ago, on a Wal-Mart desktop!
I was referring to tape's simplicity; not easy, but simple. Get the test tape, adjust level and EQ, spool up the blank reel, record some test tones, adjust bias, and off you go. It was basically the same for decades. Like the process of starting a Model T. Today's button-pushers don't know how lucky they are.
Yes, the failures were utter disaster, but in some ways, that's why the sound of earlier albums was so majestic. There were Promethean struggles to get the sounds we heard and still love today.
Your point about the apprenticeship/craft process is spot on. I had a chance to peek over my dad's shoulder, while he was recording some organic, "one chance to get it right" stuff.
Live, straight-ahead jazz, where you never know when one take will be the one until the playback, helped me understand why he put in such long hours. The efforts made in preparing for the sessions made the difference.
Note my caveat, "in some ways".
The consistency of digital is inarguable, of course. Editing down to the sample level is a whole lot better than the grease-pencil and razor blade method I learned originally.
I'm still amazed how I can get a sound comparable to what would have cost me thousands years ago, on a Wal-Mart desktop!
I was referring to tape's simplicity; not easy, but simple. Get the test tape, adjust level and EQ, spool up the blank reel, record some test tones, adjust bias, and off you go. It was basically the same for decades. Like the process of starting a Model T. Today's button-pushers don't know how lucky they are.
Yes, the failures were utter disaster, but in some ways, that's why the sound of earlier albums was so majestic. There were Promethean struggles to get the sounds we heard and still love today.
Your point about the apprenticeship/craft process is spot on. I had a chance to peek over my dad's shoulder, while he was recording some organic, "one chance to get it right" stuff.
Live, straight-ahead jazz, where you never know when one take will be the one until the playback, helped me understand why he put in such long hours. The efforts made in preparing for the sessions made the difference.
TwilightOdyssey
Darkness on the edge of Tone
Re: Mixing in analogue -- here we go again!
Yes, I am also referring to things in the main re digital v analogue. I really don't think analogue is inherently better or easier than digital, but there are a couple of things from the analogue era that I think contributed more to its superiority over digital:
1. LIMITED TRACK COUNT means more commitment at tracking and more reliance on nailing the performance live, as you pointed out. When you have 8 tracks, total, every take has to contribute to the whole, which requires knowing how to stack tracks together and commit to EQ decisions without all the hemming and hawing, waiting until later that we see today.
2. REAL STUDIO SPACES. For as liberating as the DAW/home recording revolution is, there are serious limitations imposed in not having acoustic spaces tailored for drums, vocals, and electric guitar. Say whatever you like, but a direct guitar with impulse responses will always sound fake to me. On the other hand, convolution reverbs are brilliant.
Yes, I am also referring to things in the main re digital v analogue. I really don't think analogue is inherently better or easier than digital, but there are a couple of things from the analogue era that I think contributed more to its superiority over digital:
1. LIMITED TRACK COUNT means more commitment at tracking and more reliance on nailing the performance live, as you pointed out. When you have 8 tracks, total, every take has to contribute to the whole, which requires knowing how to stack tracks together and commit to EQ decisions without all the hemming and hawing, waiting until later that we see today.
2. REAL STUDIO SPACES. For as liberating as the DAW/home recording revolution is, there are serious limitations imposed in not having acoustic spaces tailored for drums, vocals, and electric guitar. Say whatever you like, but a direct guitar with impulse responses will always sound fake to me. On the other hand, convolution reverbs are brilliant.
Similar threads
