need mixing tips

besides transfering all tracks to wav, balancing it with EQ and adding compressor or limiter where needed. are there more ways to improve my general mastering sound?

any good mastering software? i have to say i'm pretty much noob in sound mixing but i have good ear, and i know what i'm doing doesnt sound good, just playing around sometimes doesnt cut it..

Note, mixing and mastering are not the same thing. Though the difference is confusing, mixing is taking multiple recorded signals and panning them into a well balanced sound, adjusting the levels in relation to each other, adding EQ, reverb, limiters, exciters, etc., to have a good version where all the elements are "mixed" together in an appropriate way. Mastering is when you take a mixed piece and blend it with other pieces to have a natural, flowing, consistency when listened to. For example, I worked with an engineer on a CD and we took all the mixed music and mastered it for CD so the levels where made appropriate as a listening experience from start to finish. This required boosting some of the signals that were lost when at the original levels. The job of the mastering engineer is to make sure all the music sounds natural and consistent, that the volume levels are approximately the same, that equalization is optimal for the final listening experience - such as on a CD, and that the sequencing between the music sounds good. Another example of mastering is we sometimes take music recorded in different venues and when you listen to it back to back, you can tell one is recorded in someone's bedroom but the next one is in a concert hall. Ideally, this is transparant to a listener so in the mastering process, the music that might have sounded fine in isolation now needs to blend in better so we'll change some EQ and effects to balance the two out better. It is a confusing difference but it sounds like what you are referring to is creating a good mix.

Some general tips:

1.) Don't add too much EQ to fix a problem - for example, if you want more high end, rather than adding more EQ in the high end, take away some of the low end. Professional mixers do a lot more removing of wrong signals than adding of right signals.

2.) When working with EQ, start with a frequency, make the "Q" (angle of the frequency adjustment) the maximum, boost the frequency to the max, and slowly pan it from top to bottom of the frequency range. You'll hear some horrible frequencies jump out at you. When you find one of those frequencies, start reducing the level of the frequency and softening the Q. This will remove one of the bad frequencies. So keep doing this for the other improperly boosted frequencies.

3.) The order you apply the effects is important. I usually do EQ -> reverb -> compresser. (but this depends on what the problem areas are).

4.) I usually find that the midlevels over build - such as 400khz so you remove some of that about 2 db.

5.) Usually you work with gentle slopes in your EQ rather than extreme slopes.

6.) I usually avoid limiters and use compressors instead. Limiters are like compressers except limiters stop everything that reaches a certain level (which can be noticeable) but

compressors, can boost low signals while softly reducing high levels (which can sound more natural).

7.) In general, don't overdo anything - it is tempting, but just add a lit touch here and there.

When you are first learning how to mix, find a recording of music similar to yours and compare and contrast often. See where they differ and gradually apply small changes to yours then return to the referenced recording.

About 95% of my mixes are only done with EQ, reverb, and compressors. As for software, most sequencers have pretty decent EQ, reverb, compressors, etc. The remaining effects might be exciters, sub-bass boosts, auto-tune, etc. But if you have extra cash, I like Altiverb for reverb., Izotope Ozone is pretty good too. Waves bundle is very nice but pricey and includes a kitchen sink of stuff. Not all mixing software is the same. A high priced EQ will sound better than a low priced one.

Feel free to post your mix up for feedback.

ok i hope its ok to ask a few more question after you answered, this cleared some things..i think-

so if i put out a single on a cd, i dont need a mastering technician, since there is no need to balance to other tracks?

i know the 1,2,3 tip but i use it mainly for audio recording, do synths or high quality sample library sounds needs EQ as well? i heard that they are already "EQ'd"?

i've done those comparisons, it just seems they have much more clearer sound on each of the instruments, besides giving it a general "room/hall/etc" sound, but EQing can do that as well, so its the same loop i'm stuck with.

i've exported orchestration tracks but they sound less thick than on the midi tracks, even on 24 bit..(i cant post it yet since its for a competition ;) )

Even if you are mastering just one track, it would still help to master it because you are basically taking the mixed audio and adjusting it (EQing, compressing, exciting, etc.) for its target output (car stereo? ipod? internet mp3? headphones?) because of this you might adjust certain things for its specific output. You are in essence taking a finished mixed down audio file and producing the best sound for your targetted device. I guess if you are mixing and mastering one audio file for one purpose, the mixing and mastering happen at the same time. Usually, audio recordings have multiple audio sources - you'll have violins, violas, clarinets, etc. So, those multiple sources all have different levels and need to be combined into a stereo audio file. The combining, panning, Eqing, adjusting levels, etc., then mixing down is all part of the mixing process.

Yes, you absolutely need to EQ modern sample libraries. Here is why - the frequencies build up in an unnatural way. Usually in the mid levels and make tutti passages sound muddy so you need to start reducing the mids as they build up to keep a clean focused sound. So, even if a violin sample sounds great in isolation, when you add violas, and cellos, you now have an unrealistically high mid build up that now needs reduction. Its kind of difficult to say without hearing what you have but this is a general rule of thumb. So the type of music you compose will dictate how much and where to EQ it, but pretty much all the time you need adjustments. I have Symphobia which is pretty well EQed. But if I use two or more samples together, time to EQ it.

Are you in school? If so, do check out the recording engineering department and make some friends. They can do wonders for your sound.

hey karelm

thanks alot for the advice, i've done my share of school studies, but not in the sound engineering department, so i'm learning these things as i work.

what you said about EQing sample libraries really worked, i've done that just to try out, and it did marvels. i just dont understand why, since live orchestras dont use amplifications but use the halls reverb and placement of the instruments to give the correct "mix" or balance...i guess they're probably much more sensitive as a group than a single person trying to do it by himself.

most of the stuff i export are for either CD hearing or internet, and that is dependent on the speakers the listeners have,which is really wide range of targets-so the obvious solution will be to mix it as gently as possible, plus compression really hits the sound terribly, which can be compensated through really good recording equipment or expansive libraries, which i dont have.

"what you said about EQing sample libraries really worked, i've done that just to try out, and it did marvels. i just dont understand why, since live orchestras dont use amplifications but use the halls reverb and placement of the instruments to give the correct "mix" or balance...i guess they're probably much more sensitive as a group than a single person trying to do it by himself."

Well, it's that and more--notice that the individual instrument groups and even the entire orchestra doesn't sound the same from every seat in the house. Think of mixing as a sub-function of arranging: when you arrange, you decide which instrument plays what note and how loudly, but when you mix you are dealing with even more detail--where is the instrument in relation to the other instruments in the stereo field? What does it actually sound like--are you close to it, far away, in funky room or a big hall? is it bright or mellow? You have control of all that.

Once you get into this, you'll understand why sample libraries can't accommodate every single variation of dynamics, panning, and EQ. It requires human input.

Allow me to contribute a tip about EQ--always start by subtracting. If an instrument is muddy and your instinct is to bring up the high frequencies, hold off and reduce some of the lower frequencies first, see if that solves the problem. There are may reasons for this technique, one of which is how bad cheap EQs can sound. Sure they can make things brighter, but over time that brightness they add can become irritating and fatiguing.

And here is a tip about panning--VERY important. as you probably know, it's your left to right control. Never pan two instruments in the exact same spot. Even if you are mixing a viola section, all the violas aren't sitting in the same chair--all of them are slightly to the side of another, so mic 'em that way even if you have to put each instrument in a section on separate tracks to do it. In rock or jazz, you'd typically want the bass drum and bass guitar to be very close, as the power of the combination often makes tracks work. But again, put one slightly to the left or right of the other. it's amazing how this clears up low-end muddiness.

I love this stuff, by the way. I'm a self-taught mixer who has gone from pre-beginner to actually pretty damn good. I've been in a lot of pro mixing sessions and sucked up some tips, so any time you want to talk about it, it's fine with me! :)

yo jazoo comrade to the swing, this is great stuff!

i gotta experiment on this soon, i wonder if i can make an example of bad instruments placement against a good one...

regarding orchestration, dont you use samples for a string section instead of lots of single strings? i cant do what you said unless i write part for each string.

"regarding orchestration, dont you use samples for a string section instead of lots of single strings? i cant do what you said unless i write part for each string."

If you want realism, you have to spend a little more time. If I've got a unison line and it's important to me, I'll find a small group sample--two violins, say--and record it three times. Now, I'm a keyboard player so it's not really an inconvenience--I like to play anyway. Then I can slightly spread out the panning each take. Isn't that closer to reality than one sample of several string players playing perfectly in unison because you only performed the line one time?

But even if you don't go to those lengths, the panning location tip works if you apply it to all of your tracks, even if you only play them once--ie, don't put the bari where the tenor is, and so on. Even a single tick right or left is often enough to separate your tracks, though I usually do a bit more than that. Too much and it is dis-integrated and distracting.

"i wonder if i can make an example of bad instruments placement against a good one..."

We all can! ;) Post a snippet of a dense section, mixed a couple of different ways. What recording software are you using?

probably will do something like that, it would be interesting to mix down synths and orchestras just for kicks and make a bad example and a good one..using cubase btw