TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Mixdown or mix while you go..
Mixdown or mix while you go..
Curious to see the differences that each of you have with mixing.
Just tonight I went giddy with a song that I decided I would mix as I go as opposed to a post arrangement mix down.
For me, I would have to say I am sold on the idea of mixing as I go as a result of this.
What do you guys do?
I do a bit a both, curious to know what others do tho.
I prefer to mix while I go. I find that having a substandard mix while I'm writing something can be a bit distracting and I struggle to envision the final track.
imo for dance music you have to mix as you go
i used to mix as i went along but find it easy to mix when the track is done.
Why commit and print to wav if you don't have to?
A bit of both for me as well, but it depends on the song, how much of it is ITB vs OTB, etc. If I'm using my outboard synths, bass, guitar, and vocals a lot, then I tend to do all my tracking/comping, etc. first, make any final changes to the arrangement/structure, then mix down at the end.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by evo8 imo for dance music you have to mix as you go |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by evo8 imo for dance music you have to mix as you go |
If I'm using any hardware or mics the I treat is as a proper studio session and do it all in stages. Track, engineer, edit/arrange, mix.
If it's ITB, I tend to mix as I go and if it's something I really want to spend the time on, I'll print the rough mix, save it as a copy of the project, then zero out all automation, all the faders, all the pans/sends etc, and do a new mixdown.
The only thing I have to be careful about doing this is to be really strict about getting it to the final rough mix before treating it as a separate mixdown session, otherwise it devolves in to a backwards way of composing and I start messing with the arrangement and sounds etc.
In some ways, I try to treat it like someone gave me their project to just mix (where you're not allowed to do any editing or arranging etc).
The issue that got me started thinking about all this was a few songs ago. A friend of mine who produces came in and did a rough mix on a track of mine that had great potential on the arrangement side but was horrid on the production side. Mind you, I am just getting to a point where I am starting to understand the production side (which to me,now..seems almost 95% of the workload in electronic music producing)
After he realized how terrible the mix sounded he went in and did a rough -06db mix. I watched and observed everything he did but after a certain point, it just went over my head.
After he was finished, to me...it sounded like crap. Everything that he did was completely different to how I wanted patterns to sit in the mix. I never let him touch my settings again..lol
However, enlightenment. What I realized 4 songs later when I was "attempting" to mix as I go for the first time is that he didn't do anything wrong at all. It was when I began making small adjustments to each track by using comp*Eq*limit*etc. that it completely dawned on me. I then realized that HE didnt know how I wanted things to sit, it was up to ME to arrange as I see fit and because I had not been using any of the above fx, it was impossible for me to understand..or hear for that matter.
Needless to say, I also found ozone....and omg! FTW!
Now...I do not think I will ever be able to mix electronic music at the end of a arrangement again. Nor do I think I'd even want to...ouch, way to tough for my skill level.
I do both.
One issue is that I'm realising more and more that mixing ITB as you go tends to promote the idea that more is better.
Rather than carefully choosing sounds based on intuition and experience, you just keep piling stuff on simply because you can.
One day soon I plan to make an entire track from start to finish, limiting myself to 24 channels (including FX) using hardware only. Sadly, it'll still need to be mixed in teh boxez.
?
Do any of you think that artists who have developed a consistent sound (I'm thinking here of artists such as PVD or Sean Tyas) undergo a full "mixdown" process for each song? The vast majority of the mix will already be mixed before they start a song - they're going to have a number of mix templates they've developed, which already has their kick in place, their basses in place, their drum sounds, their pads, their leads. These elements are already mixed to sound fantastic.
Then they run their latest composition through the template, and work out what they're going to change - they'll probably try a few different lead sounds, probably some different pads, and then fit just the changed elements into the mix.
Just listen to a PVD album, or the albums of a number of artists. A lot of artists don't change their main kick and bass sound over the course of an album. Some artists do, and that's fine too - every artist makes their own choice.
For myself, I've spent a heap of time developing a large number of templates, covering a wide range of trance styles. When I create a new song or remix, the first thing I do is work out which direction I want to take the song, then I run the composition through the template I've chosen as a starting point, and take it from there.
When it's time to get a song done, I want to know that I can work quickly, that I can get a quality track done in a short amount of time. I don't want to be worrying that my bass is clashing with my kick or whatever other mix concerns may arise.
My recommendation is, spend a good 6 months, 12 months getting some mix templates set up. I do this every now and then, last time I set up 60 separate mixes. You'll be amazed at the perspective you'll have of your mixes when you're working on 60 at once. If a mix isn't working, scrap it. Much easier to scrap a whole mix in this situation than when you're trying to get a song done.
In the end I had 12 very decent mix templates out of the original 60, which I can use for future songs.
I completely separate all my processes. Composition is completely detached from sound design, is completely detached from mixing is completely detached from working out a given song's overall structure.
Apologies for any spelling mistakes, I'm typing this on my phone and it seems to be playing up big time.
I'm not sure this is still the case but I know PVD used to use a Euphonix MC5 which I'm very familiar with as this (alng with certain Harrison desks) is the score industry standard.
If he uses like it's meant to be used, he would be treating the mixdown as a separate stage and as the System 5 has a built in template system (ch, bus, groups, subs etc) he would use that.
You can of course do all you tracking and just do a balance of the levels you need, but when you go in to automation mode, it's like a seperate stage - you have to go in to automation, the select all the faders you want to automate (by touching each one) then set the automation record mode.
Of course you can use it as a DAW controller for logic, PTHD and do the automation as you go, but it kind of makes you treat it as a separate mixdown stage.
A lot of artists don't change their sounds because A) that's their signature/brand, B) Because they often create a soundset that they know will work together, C) They bus and FX templates give a certain contributing sound as well so if they are using a template, that gives a distinctive sound and D) they often use equipment/synths that they know inside out which tend to have their own signature (You can hear ES2 allover certain PVD tracks).
Mixing on the go can really distract my creativity. It starts off with a little bit of EQ and ends up with an unbalance in the whole track. 
When you add new elements it changes the balance and you just EQ'd parts sounding good without these elements. Now with that new lead or synth sound added it can cause issues with everything. Then you will start to Re-EQ, compress, etc..
I prefer to compose the track, concentrating on the melodies and direction the sound is going, and then do the mix-down.
Its good to find a nice balance without any mixing effects, it will make the final mix-down much easier. No individuality,, all sounds form one sound, called music.
I prefer to mixdown at the end cause while I'm composing a track I'm real picky with my sound selection... I might like it one day and find a better sound for that chord the next so I"ll switch. If I mix as I go I'll have wasted my life taking time out to mix a sound I no longer am using.
if a retain section sounds good enough, 80% , boune it move on , and then go back. I get the anxiety but you cal always get it back and you would be surprised how committing will help you grow back hair.
I guess i do both.
I mix roughly as I go, but do at least one final mix down where I try to refine everything as best I can. Dont compress much until the final stages - only things that obviously need it. Having said that I often revisit production after I've mixed down
This seems to be the way that I work - but my own habits and practises are only just starting to form really 
I believe it's good to keep things flexible
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.