|
Why the f**k are all my mixes low/weak sounding? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| 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. |
|
|
| theartfulducker |
| quote: | | but in the studio it also gets applied to a second here, a half-second there, etc. |
What do you mean? |
|
|
| Eric J |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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 ... |
|
|
| Eldritch |
| 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. |
|
|
| Eldritch |
| 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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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? |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| MaxC |
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 ]]
|
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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. |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
| 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. |
|
|
| theartfulducker |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
