TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Why the f**k are all my mixes low/weak sounding?
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Why the f**k are all my mixes low/weak sounding?

This is a persistent problem I've always had. I mix a track, get done with the mixing/equal/compression (sometimes I don't use compression). W/e the case it sounds great on my computer speakers, but than EVERYTIME when I put it in my car CD player I have to turn the volume about 150% of regular mixes from pros (corsten, w/e).

When I play the mixes in FL they can BOTH have the SAME decibel ouput. Doesn't matter how high, how much, how little or how much panning/equalizing I do. The volume is always low and weak sounding. No matter what sample kick I use from w/e pack, no matter what I do or how I mix or how much I read the bassy parts of my tracks never punch through. I can turn a regular track up to 23 (not decibels just the # on my cd player) than I have to turn my tracks up to about 47 and they still don't sound as loud, I've been producing for 4 years and this has always been a problem for me.

My tracks sound fine on loud amplified systems but on basic car cd players or mp3 players they're always low and thin. If I put too much bass than I get the muddy sound. Like theres no winning.

Re: Why the f**k are all my mixes low/weak sounding?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox sometimes I don't use compression

moar analog

Crank up that limiter and learn to mix And if you are mixing on computer speakers, get some decent monitors

quote:

Originally posted by Lucidity Crank up that limiter and learn to mix And if you are mixing on computer speakers, get some decent monitors

Yeh idk, everytime I put a limiter on and play with the knobs it "sounds" louder but than I render it and it still sounds low. Starting to think it might be my crappy factory installed soundcard..

It's likely something to do with your frequency balance. Low frequency sounds (and very high frequency sounds) don't sound as loud as the midrange. So your mix can be at 0dB, but not be anywhere near as loud, most likely because there is too much low end in your mix.

Normally, if your mix is nicely balanced, you'll be able to drive it up to "competitive levels" with a limiter, with no limiter-induced distortion/crunchiness happening.

pm me a download link to a track you're frustrated with. I'll provide suggestions for what you need to work on.

On a different note, I'll likely tone down the limiting on my mixes in future - I'm currently doing an advanced diploma of music and we've been listening to some fantastic sounding "full dynamic range" material (as well as some "remastered" versions which have had the levels smashed - the difference is incredible, and incredibly sad). I really need to pay attention to exactly how detrimental the limiter is being to my sound, even if there's no limiter distortion occuring. Dance tracks in the mid nineties weren't limited in the same way as most tracks currently, and they sounded absolutely fine in clubs, they got people dancing like crazy. If I hear some beautiful music/mixing that's a bit quiet, I don't think "it's not loud enough, I'll listen to something else". I turn it up and appreciate the beautiful music/mixing.

School break is coming up soon, time to reflect on this year's tracks so far and where I want to proceed from here!

Fabian

quote:

Originally posted by msz moar analog

Yeh thats another thing I was thinking, but even when I play samples/sf2s that are analog generated, I have no idea how crappy they will sound till after I render and play in my car or mp3 player.

I'm thinking my speakers could be a problem because I have 2 - 6" amplified woofers plus some nice highs/mids. I'm thinking the overcompensation in bass is screwing up the way I mix. But even when I turn the volume down so I can turn the bass up (w/out driving neighbors crazy) after I render it the bass is still not even close to professional sounding in my car.

Starting to really believe software has wayy more limits than a lot of people think. I hear all this "its the artist not the gear" crap but theres nothing different I logically feel I can do but get an 8 thousand dollar studio with some real gear.. than theres the money issue, so annoying comparing your music to pros.

quote:

Originally posted by derail pm me a download link to a track you're frustrated with. I'll provide suggestions for what you need to work on.

Seriously, I'd take him up on his offer here. He gave me some advice on one of my tracks a while back and it really helped out.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox Starting to really believe software has wayy more limits than a lot of people think. I hear all this "its the artist not the gear" crap but theres nothing different I logically feel I can do but get an 8 thousand dollar studio with some real gear.. than theres the money issue, so annoying comparing your music to pros.

I can understand how you might think that, especially if you are frustrated at this point. I can totally sympathize, because I thought like that about 2 years ago and went out and purchased a ton of hardware. The results certainly did not give me the sound I was looking for and I just ended up selling a bunch of my outboard hardware because I never used it. Now I have a paired-down studio with only a couple of outboard synths and a few software synthesizers. All of my effects are built-in Logic effects, and they sound just fine.

Software can do wonders for your music if you know how to use it. There are plenty of big time artists out there that have switched to all software studios. Listen to anything from Andy Moor or StoneBridge, those two guys have nearly all software studios and they certainly have what you might consider a "professional sound". Andy Moor in particular has been kicking ass and taking names for quite some time now, and its not because of WHAT he has, but HOW he uses it. The same goes for any pro.

Just keep at it, dude. I promise that if you work hard enough, the knowledge will come. With every track I learn more and more about how to make this music. I 'm just now getting to a point where my stuff is sounding good and I've been at this for 10 years, so dont feel like you've been wasting your time for 4 years.

Don't just listen to this music, but STUDY each track, ask lots of questions, be open to criticsm, and if you get super-frustrated there is nothing wrong with taking a little break. Sometimes a few weeks or a month off from producing can do wonders for your perspective.

Thanks Eric, I'm def taking him up on the offer, uploading a track for him right now.
I can say in 4 years my production techniques and sounds have improved heaps since I started, but when I still compare one of my tracks to a "pro", I shake my head like I just don't get it.

I watch videos, read, watch tutorials, analyze my work and try different things constantly. I'm always trying to expand my horizons.

I've seen a couple of pro's on computer musics videos on google video. But I don't see them doing anything that I'm really not doing. Its literally like they open a sample or a synth and it already sounds better just when they open it. I was asking about the Jupiter 8 a few months back because one of the patches this guy opened was sick.
Sounded thick, analog, and didn't thin out when the filter opened. Was mean and aggressive.
I've never gotten a sound like that from z3ta, albino, v-station etc.
I don't know, I'll start by submitting a track to derail, maybe he can point out somethings I'm missing.

maybe ur just bad. lul.

lmao!
Could be, but evenso I just listened to 2 of derails tracks and they're mixed great but thats not what I'm concerned about.

The overall volume of both his tracks is MUCH louder. His kick hits a lot harder and all his lower frequency sounds come through better as well.

I know proper mixing provides extra space for sounds, but I know this isn't my issue. This is a really simple track, the kick/bass have no reason to be competing for space. Yet both sound low & aren't coming through right.

If anyone else wants to listen its the same track I sent to derail.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/5...R%20-%20RoX.mp3

That track that you posted is only peaking at -1.3 for start. Theres heaps of headroom to pump the volume up there. Its not mixed badly, a bit heavy on the lowend tho.
I have put it through a mild multi band comp to bring out the midhighs and tighten the lowend up, then limited it a little. See if you think that sounds a bit better ...

Turned Up...

Your overall mixdown levals will have a bit to do with things when trying to get that max volume out... you need the freqeuncy range to be there.
Derail is right that limiters can be terrible!!! Watch em~!

quote:

Originally posted by derail Dance tracks in the mid nineties weren't limited in the same way as most tracks currently, and they sounded absolutely fine in clubs, they got people dancing like crazy. If I hear some beautiful music/mixing that's a bit quiet, I don't think "it's not loud enough, I'll listen to something else". I turn it up and appreciate the beautiful music/mixing.

And as a matter of fact, a lot of newer music sounds quite horrible in clubs for exactly this reason. Club PAs aren't exactly the greatest at highlighting dynamics, so feeding them something that's already had its dynamics squashed just comes out like mush, especially when the system is already cranked and saturating.

Really though, what's usually going on with the "pro" tracks is extremely meticulous treatment of every individual peak. Crank it, and to avoid over-limiting (or limiting at all), use some clever EQ automation or level adjustments or temporary compression to kill those peaks. Of course you have to do this at a track level as well, but in the studio it also gets applied to a second here, a half-second there, etc.

Most of us don't have this kind of patience or even necessarily know how to eliminate every peak, so we slap a limiter on.

quote:

but in the studio it also gets applied to a second here, a half-second there, etc.

What do you mean?

quote:

Originally posted by theartfulducker What do you mean?

I think what he is referring to is that you can go in and actually find every little peak, no matter how small, and manually squash it using with volume faders, creative EQing or other means. As you might imagine, this is very tedious and requires a ton of patience.

Since a limiter basically does this for you, most of us just resort to using that. However, by performing this "manual" limiting, then you have much finer grain of control over the dynamic reduction of the audio and you are no subject to the characteristics any one particular limiter my impart on your final track.

So saying that some mastering engineers sit there all day drawing volume atuomation envelopes over the tiny peaks in a wave file?... To max out some more volume than a compressor might do?.. lol ... I have never actually heard of that before... Maybe ...

Your track is loud enough. Your problem is sound design and mixing. Your sounds are very thin. And it's not about digital vs. analog. That isn't an issue for a skilled producer.

quote:

Originally posted by theartfulducker So saying that some mastering engineers sit there all day drawing volume atuomation envelopes over the tiny peaks in a wave file?... To max out some more volume than a compressor might do?.. lol ... I have never actually heard of that before... Maybe ...

No. A master rarely takes over an hour. Some are even done in less than 20 minutes.
I think he's referring to the actual mixing stage.

quote:

Originally posted by Eldritch I think he's referring to the actual mixing stage.

I am. I don't see how you'd even be able to do this at the mastering stage - it's usually one or two instruments that are responsible for any one specific peak.

And I don't think people "sit there all day" doing it. For an 8-minute track, someone who's really experienced and has a good ear could probably pull this off in 3 or 4 passes. That comes out to what, maybe an hour or two if you include the actual time spent tweaking and not just listening?

Yeah maybe your right. Allthough a properly mixed down track shouldn't really have any bad peaks. The idea would be to contain that sort of stuff track by track etc... I guess with accoustic stuff this could be more of an issue ..?..
Eldritch is completely right about sound design. Your elements need to be strong, generally through layering. I layer my synths allways, even simple sounding ones, work on each sound to make it as strong and rich as i can. Weedy sounding synths dnt sound pro. lol.

In addition to what others have offered, I noticed that your low end has a high degree of stereo content (especially in the beginning), some of which you may be losing due to phase cancellation. Also, you appear to have an immense amount of sub-bass, and bass frequencies are never going to achieve the level of perceived loudness compared to if you had dedicated that headroom to mid to high frequencies. For example, two of the highest peaking frequencies in your song are at 37 Hz and 29 Hz, which is, in my opinion, totally unnecessary. It's not uncommon to roll off the low end even before that point, and some sound systems just aren't going to be able to properly reproduce those frequencies. The bottom line is you have a healthy portion of your track dedicated to frequencies that the end user may never hear, depending on their sound system. I can't tell you what is definitely right or wrong, because only you know the type of sound you are trying to achieve, but if it were me, I would mono everything below 150-300 Hz and roll off some of that low end (around 40-50 Hz ought to do it). At the very least that will focus the low end and give you some extra headroom with which to boost your levels.

Edit: Ok, I went ahead and made the changes described above (and used that extra 1 dB of headroom you had laying around). Give it a listen and see if it's a step in the right direction. Others feel free to chime in as well (the broader array of monitoring conditions, the better).

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

quote:

Originally posted by theartfulducker Allthough a properly mixed down track shouldn't really have any bad peaks. The idea would be to contain that sort of stuff track by track

Isn't that exactly what I just said?

You can accomplish this with a band-aid (compressor/limiter) or you can treat each peak individually. The latter produces indisputably better results but is far more difficult and time consuming.

quote:

Originally posted by theartfulducker Yeah maybe your right. Allthough a properly mixed down track shouldn't really have any bad peaks. The idea would be to contain that sort of stuff track by track etc... I guess with accoustic stuff this could be more of an issue ..?.. Eldritch is completely right about sound design. Your elements need to be strong, generally through layering. I layer my synths allways, even simple sounding ones, work on each sound to make it as strong and rich as i can. Weedy sounding synths dnt sound pro. lol.

Ok when I first heard the concept of "layering" I thought it meant to layer more keys of the same sound on different octaves for a broader frequency distribution.

Than I saw someone who layered the same notes/keys from different synths. I figured that to be the real definition of layering.
I tried it in one of my tracks and I got a nice thick synth sound but at the same time it seems like the synth loses character.

For some reason I'm in denial about the use of layering for professional synth sounds. When I hear a synth like 4 Strings - Take Me Away, that doesn't sound layered, its sounds analog, simple, and has a lot of character.

The concept of layering for me is like taking 2 people with different personalities, mixing them together than trying to make it so you can't tell they have different personalities.
Like taking someone with bipolar disorder and using music to make the lithium that will balance them out - for lack of better understanding.

This does not seem like something any amount of music theory can even scratch the surface with.. but if people say this is what most do I may need to focus more on this.

Yes well layering stuff is not the only way but its what i do mostly. Often just layering oscilators to enrichen the sound of stuff.

sounds like an experience problem

just spend some time with it...

you may want to learn to use multiband compression... but don't overdo it! so many people overdo it!

just keep at it yo! making your stuff sound "fat" is hard

david

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.