TheHanes

So first let me say I've been following YOUR posts here for quite a while and have a lot of respect for your knowledge and wisdom.

Next, thanks for complimenting my messy, low-budget studio with our quarantine haircuts. We kind of resisted sending a photo, but in the end sucked it up. :lol:

If it said that we share a studio, we meant the building. We actually have several studios set up here. Serban has a dedicated room and I have a dedicated room. We've been in these rooms since 2003. And yes, the amount of work passing through here astounds even myself sometimes. We have to be super efficient, streamlined, and distraction free. Which is not so difficult when all clients are remote and no-one ever visits us! Basically we've been self-isolating for 20 years!

You might make out from the photo that we are working out of a house environment and not a commercial space. We designed and built out these rooms ourselves. Keep in mind the because we don't do recording, the need for good isolation is minimized.

We do have to maintain pretty much identical setups as far as hardware, operating system, protools version, plugins, and plugin versions; so we are very careful about making sure we don't do an upgrade or add a plugin without the other system matching.

I've added the Atmos hardware on top of the existing system, so I could streamline it a bit more if I didn't need to maintain perfect session interchange compatibility.

Happy to participate and share more now; you can imagine the reasons to stay quiet in the past. I'm sure as more forum members figure out exactly who you are talking to I'll get a lot more questions, so just let me say I'm not going the be the Serban Whisperer! I'm happy to talk about my experiences but won't be sharing his "secrets" (of which we all know there are none except excellent skills and a super work ethic).

I'll give my opinion about speakers because it is one of the things that all engineers should be thoughtful about.

Passive speakers vs. active. I don't want anything to change, limit, protect the speaker from the amplifier. If I make a sound that is going to blow a speaker, I better be able to hear it without protection kicking in otherwise how can I get rid of it? That being said, it is easy to replace the woofer on the Pro-Ac as necessary.

Producers would have more reasons to use active speakers; speaker protection is very important in that scenario.

I hated the NS-10's! Mainly because the thin paper cone and thin fabric surround on the woofers is so prone to failure. Also didn't like the sound.

Speaker Selection. I don't want anything TOO good! If I can make a mix sound really good on mid-level speakers (yes, i'm calling Pro-AC Studio 100 mid level), it will sound good on a larger variety of playback systems than if I only make it sound good on a top-shelf system. Hearing these mixes on an absolute top of the line mastering playback is amazing! But I don't necessarily think that mixing on that same mastering system would be as easy for me.

Speaker Familiarity. We've been using the same Pro-Ac with Bryston 4BSST setup for about 25 years I guess, and in these same rooms for 17 years. I know what these speakers sound like on everything, so I know how to mix on them. I know what this room sounds like on everything with these speakers. That is so important to consistent quality.

The active surround system is ideal for what it is intended for. The Genelecs are really accurate and have really good imaging. I need to get familiar with them more, but as I said in the article; I'm not using them for EQ'ing sounds, just for imaging in surround. The ability to tune them to each other using GLM, the ability to turn all on and off with the control software is really important when you've got 12 speakers.

To sum up I guess I would say that specialization is OK! Each scenario has different needs. There is not any one speaker that fits every requirement no matter how "good" it is.

If it's going to turn into that; let's move it out of this thread and maybe we can get an Ask Me Anything or Q & A kind of thing going? Not exactly sure how to go about that;

Can we ask a moderator like @Lindell or @psycho_monkey to look into it?

Hi Jake,

We don't really do any maintenance on the speakers if / until they blow something. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone regularly replacing "good" woofers or tweeters on a maintenance schedule.

When it does come time to replace a tweeter, I've never found myself thinking that it sounds different or better or more "alive"; so I think that there there is probably not any issue of slow degradation of the tweeter response. In fact after replacing one blown tweeter, the speakers don't really sound different enough to need to replace the other as far as I can remember (it has been a number of years since I've done a tweeter replacement).

Thanks!

Thinking further I think it would probably be wise to replace both tweeters at the same time. Same with woofers. As I said, it has been quite a while since I’ve done it; so I don’t remember what Out procedure was at the time.

We tried these out in Philadelphia when we were working on Music Soulchild or Jill Scott. The Adams were self-powered with, I believe, some circuit protection built in. I remember that they sounded good, but I think that some protection kicked in at some point.

One thing about the Pro-Ac speakers is the open port on the front points right at your face. So when you feel a big puff of air hit you in the face, you know that there is some excessive bass going on.

If you get a big blast of air in the face, it is time to start looking for which tracks need a 20Hz rolloff.

Yes. Also Looking at samples that are poorly processed and at synths ( where it it is possible to achieve low Frequencies that aren’t even possible to achieve on microphones).

That is a pretty amazing measurement! I'm a bit scared to see how out of whack our rooms probably are. We've done a lot of treatment, but it is all pretty much geared toward nearfield monitoring. We've not done any measurements.

I think that when recording studios are professionally tuned, they are not going for a flat frequency response such as you have achieved.

When I was working for tec:TON in partnership with studio BAU:ton, we had Bob Hodas tune the rooms that we set up. He was definitely not going for a flat response.

http://bobhodas.com/optimizing-the-studio-listening-environment.php

So I would agree that your flat curve probably sounds harsh in general. As to why our mixes sound good at that flat alignment, I can't really explain that other than we try to get well balanced mixes overall.

Gotcha! yes, if you can get it that flat, you've got a great place to start with creating a "house curve" or "analog rolloff".

Thanks for the appreciation. The goal, always, is to sound as good as possible on any system, be it a good one, a great one, or a boombox!

Forgot to answer this part.

The Genelecs are not really similar to the ProAcs. They are much smaller (4 inch woofer vs 6.5inch) I'm still getting used to them; for Atmos work, they are great because they have really good localization. The GLM tuning is great because it makes each of the 11 speakers, and 1 sub sound the same even with very different mountings.

I'm not doing any real EQ'ing on the Genelecs, just spatial positioning in Atmos mixes.

Similar, yes, but not in every dimension.

I thought the Adams back then in Philly were pretty close. If they had an unpowered version for us to try I think it would have been a really close match.

I haven't auditioned a lot of other speakers in general though, so not doing a lot of comparison.

I'll start with a 12dB filter at 20Hz and see how far up the frequency spectrum I can push it before it starts taking away the meat of that particular sound.

For, say, a hat sample with a bunch of low freq mud, I'll push it way up to 250, 450Hz, maybe even further.

For an 808, kick, it may just sit at 20Hz. I'll then play with steeper filtering if still needed.

I’ve just always been a horizontal speaker guy.

Mogami 3103

:thumbsup:

That doesn’t sound right at all. Maybe you can link to an audio file that does this to your speakers so we can rule out just having too much bass playing.

Ok, I just played our copy of "billy" here. (mixed here by Serban) Turned it up quite loud.

On my ProAc I don't feel any air blasts coming out of the ports even on the low 40Hz and 50Hz big notes. If I put my hand over the port, I can feel air moving, but it doesn't make a sound or "puff" in my face.

If no extra low frequency info is being created by your monitoring chain, You might want to look for torn woofer surrounds, or perhaps a problem in the amplifier?

Yes, get that checked out. Seeing that woofer bounce IS fun!

Have not tried the new versions. We’re using the Studio 100 versions And have one pair of the previous center tweeter Studio 1 hanging around.

We stocked up on Scanspeak woofers for replacements a while back so don’t have the ProAc branded ones inany longer. These were the direct replacements.

The desks are made by Argosy. I'm not sure of the model. We had some 3/4" granite cut to top the monitor bridge and the top of the outboard rack. I think it helps add some mass and anchor the sound of the speakers.

The nearfields are about 5' apart tweeter to tweeter I'd guess.

I think it is generally accepted to have the tweeters at hear height (seated) for near field speakers. Thats where mine are.

So for a vertical placement, you would need to have a lower mount height.

yes, an equilateral triangle, and angled in slightly. The actual point where the tweeters aim is slightly behind my head, but that leaves the aim pretty much at the ears.

Thanks!

Not really any more insight. I haven't measured (and might be scared to!) The ProAc sound good to me where they are, or I've become used to their response here.

I'd like to address these here and I think I'll add this to the Q&A question of "What brings clients like Max Martin back again and again."

There are a lot of producers out there who can make a mix good enough to "release". If you heard their demo mix, you would say "that is a great mix!" Why do they then go to someone like Serban?

It is true that sometimes Serban might do little things to to mix. Over 100 tracks, lots of little things add up. Adding that final 10%, 5%, or even 1% of polish is what they are after.

They could probably spend the time and effort and do that themselves as well. But is their time better spent writing and producing a new song, or just taking a well deserved break; or should they be sitting in the studio agonizing over the perfect reverb decay, the last bit of noise on the vocal tracks, or the last .5dB of balance between the kick and bass.

When these very busy and in demand people find someone that they trust who can do what they want as well as, or better than they can do, they have found a valuable ally. When they can trust someone to take the burden of finishing the mix; dealing with pages of notes from producers, artists, A&R, management, and sometimes the artist's boyfriend or girlfriend (for real!) that is a major resource.

Sometimes barely touching something, but still making it sound 2% better is the greatest of skills. I would say that much of the mixing that Serban does is among the hardest that there is to do; because it comes in so well done, you have to find a way to make improvements, not lose the thread, and satisfy lots of people with sometimes very different opinions.

Mixing isn't about just pushing around EQ's and dynamics, it is dealing with the opinions involved that is the hardest part.

I didn't download and compare directly, but that is probably about the state that it would arrive to us.

The thing I remember most about "Pillowtalk" is how hard it was to make clean versions. For UK we had to mute "*" Got two different versions of "loving in, fighting on" after the fact.

People! When recording a song with "****" in the lyrics, please immediately find and record any word that we can use to replace it. This seems to usually be left until after the mix is done, and then there is a scramble to figure out how to make it clean.

That looks about right for what I can remember.

@newguy1 and @UnderTow are right. Multiband compression and De-Essers would be useful there.

I would add that if you're having problems with 10k-20K in a vocal, there might be somewhere else in your chain to look at. This is rare air to have in a vocal, especially at problematic levels.

De-Essers can be great on cymbals, hats, even guitars sometimes to tame hits and plucks.

In that range you can see the woofer moving. I’ll mostly be watching that for super low (DC or 1Hz to 20hz) then headphones to dial in if critical on a low freq track. For tracks where there shouldn’t be any lows like hat samples, etc no need to hear what is cutting down there. Just rolloff until you hearing it affect the subject sound.

I’m just saying that you can see large movements in the woofer that you can’t hear, it should probably be looked into and probably rolled off. It is an indication to make a closer analysis; figure out which track is causing it and determine if it is appropriate bass or not.

Yes exactly what I meant. You explained better than I did.

Low end 20hz to maybe 50hz probably would tend to be mono. Above that I love the sound of wide bass on some things, would try to find some width if possible and if it fits the song and style.

Use them as nearfields only and don’t try to fill the room with sound. Don’t let anyone else near the volume knob. Save them for mixing and maybe use something else when tracking to avoid “oops” scenarios

I’d say no to this. Hopefully the producer has chosen the sounds wisely so that they sound good Together. A kick can always be layered in with a sample or sample replaced if needed to match the bass (which you are stuck with as a mixer) and the bass can be manipulated to some degree with MaxBass or LoAir or BassAmpRoom as examples.

I’ll try to tackle this generally because, as always, each situation has its own problems and solutions.

I’d say we do a lot more volume rides to fix levels than trying to apply a compressor to solve these kinds of issues. I tend to think of a compressor as a sound design tool rather than a level control tool.

So I’ll get the compressor doing it’s thing to make the sound the way I like, and then use volume throughout the song to keep that sound in its lane. If I want a different version of a sound somewhere I might automate compressor settings (or more likely duplicate the track and apply different settings). So a hook vocal might be squashed by compressor more than a verse vocal just for the feel that gives it, but I would not want the compressor to squash the hook vocal harder just because it is sung louder. I want to make sure it still sounds right.

As far as attack / release I think it is good to play with those as sound design elements as well. I’m not one to apply presets to things right away. I need to hear in each situation where those knobs sound best for a particular instrument or vocal and songs energy.

Thanks. I think it goes to a lot of the things that I touched on in the Q&A. Obviously many of the producers that we are working with have very good taste and direction. But that is not always the case, we also get many projects from less experienced producers that need to be brought to that level.

I would go back to mixing in a vocal-centric way. Most always we are mixing with the vocals (and full production really) in place after getting to the "good rough mix" stage. So most every decision about the mix is made while hearing the vocals and instruments as a whole. Of course we will solo things to zoom in on specific things, but is not building a mix sound by sound specifically.

To tame harshness, there are several things that I think we are doing. Not listening loud and long to avoid ear fatigue. Listen loud for short periods of time and quietly, and even very quietly for longer periods. When listening very quietly, the vocals will sound a bit too loud; you have to understand that and not make level adjustments at that volume. These are just the tools to be able to accurately identify harshness. When listening loud, harshness will really stand out and hurt.

Tools to tame harshness are various. Riding the level, apply some saturation or distortion (i.e. cymbals, high hats), multiband compression (shrill vocal), heavy handed de-essing when necessary, volume rides on other breaths and "Sss" sounds, cut (mute) surplus "sss" sounds on BGV's, especially ones that are not in time. Cleaning up the vocals will make room for some harsh instruments to not clash as much.

For shrill synths, sweep for specific frequency and notch deeply if necessary, automate EQ if it is only specific places, maybe try to spread the sound around the vocal so it is not centered with the vocal.

Thanks, that is one of our tenets of mixing I think.

Seanak,

Thanks! I really appreciate the feedback. That is exactly what I want to hear; appreciation of the mix, ability to listen over and over, and appreciation of the art and artist.

Pretty much by ear. A few meters like the DK in various modes (1/3 octave, fft, correlation) mostly to confirm visually that your hearing accurately.

I would not say that my room is an ideal mix environment and it has not been tuned and tested; I'm just very used to how it sounds. I will listen on my Pro-AC's, on headphones, and occasionally on little Bose computer speakers.

Only because I've been in this room with these speakers for almost 20 years do I trust enough to not listen in a car or other reference room. That just takes a lot of time to achieve totally familiarity.

One benefit for those of us lucky enough to stick it out for a long career.

Good points. Well, the room isn't exactly untreated, just not tested and perfected.

We do all of the work here, not working anywhere else. Even when we were traveling a bit a looong time ago, most of the work, and all of the final listens were done in our rooms.

Also, when traveling for work, we still worked on nearfield ProAC speakers that we were familiar with.

But I don't think we've worked out of another facility at all in maybe 16 years.

Interesting point, I had not thought of it that way really.

A lot of our particular advantage might be our location.

We are not in a major music city, so both bad and good. We work uninterrupted by "hangers on", "drop in to visit and shoot the ****", and "let me introduce you to this guy/ gal" situations. Also we are not doing "attended" mix sessions, so less wasting time waiting for people or session lock-outs where we can't pull up a song for artist A because artist B is in the room and it is "his" time.

On the other hand, there are sacrifices too. We might be out of the loop on the ground floor of new artists, producers, A&R. Also we really never to get to actually meet a lot of cool people, and there are no industry parties here! (probably a benefit actually)

I think that it is one of the things that let us develop that consistency; no one was saying I want you to mix this record at this studio. No one was saying that the artist has booked out X rooms at Y studio and you'll be mixing there. When they did do that in the early days it was always back to a familiar room to finish up (printed stems back into ProTools though the console if used, and then tweaked the stems).

No, it’s the other way around. Get a stereo mix done and then tackle the Atmos mix.

I think you are dead on accurate here. Each mix, stereo and Atmos must be done by hand. No automatic down or up mixing would be acceptable.

Yes also there is much more headroom available all around. Most often when moving sounds from stereo L&R to surround speakers I’ll be pulling them down 4 to 6 dB to match the perceived volume of that sound in the stereo mix to an equal perceived volume in surround.

I started to write a long answer but was leaving out too many songs and artists. It is too hard to answer properly.

The gist of my feeling is that the ones that we would be most proud of are the ones that led to long relationships and friendships with the artists, producers, and A&R's that we worked with and continue to work with and call friends.

No. All my answers and opinions.

@OwensDrumming has most of this right.

There are many great mastering engineers out there; the select few that we use or recommend are mostly out of complete trust in their work. They know what we are sending, we know what they will do to it. By the point it gets to mastering, our goal is to give the mastering engineer very little or nothing to do. We need a mastering engineer that is not afraid to do little to nothing, but when needed knows what to do to blend songs into albums, fix problems without creating others, and be another level of quality control.

We dont like to do the try multiple mastering engineers approach, but sometimes clients do ask us to do this.

What I'm looking for from mastering is "does it sound better after mastering". If it isn't better it better be the same. It is usually a very slight difference with our mixes and so subtle to figure out if it is better.

Truth is we are often so busy that we often don't have the time to review every master so we need someone that we can trust completely. We review as many masters as we can, but some go by without a review.

Yes, some songs get released without mastering. This is not our preference and it is usually done without our knowledge. We'll be asking ourselves "what happened to that project?" to find out it was released from the mix sent for artist/producer review.

We've never sent stems to mastering and would not if asked. We should be asked to fix any issues, not pass the problem down the line.

Yes, we will do revisions after mastering and this happens on occasion. Sometimes it is something the artist, producer, catches. Sometimes it is to fit better within an album sequence.

What answers I have are in there somewhere.

Nothing special to tell. As we are working on these songs we don’t have the time to kind of document their history. I wish I had started journaling this early on so I had a bunch of cool stories. A lot of the time we are just trying to make deadlines and make the donuts.

I remember there were a couple of versions. One early one went for a Mercedes commercial, and then a bunch more work was done by Abel and Max Martin.

That is an artifact of printing the stems separately into the master bus chain and not of mastering.

Why I don’t do this for stems.

Yes this is possible and I do this sort of keyed master compression when I’m doing multiple master channels in Atmos mixing.

For stems my thinking is that stems are for remixers to pick apart and use parts, not to recreate the original mix. So i assume that the remixer would want stems that are not processed this way because they will be doing their own master bus compression later and want their own music to affect the overall sound.

I’m just wrapping up the Atmos mixes on this album. Oh how I wish you could hear it in proper 7.1.4 Atmos playback!

Generally not doing this in our mixes unless it has been set up that way by the producer.

4 to 5 generally.

We don't take the limiter off of the master bus to send to mastering. They are just going to be adding it back so it is better for us to not lose whatever magic it has created. As I said before in the Q&A it is kind of a "pro" move and may not necessarily be the best way to deliver for every mixer and every mastering engineer.

You have to be pretty confident that mastering can't do a lot to improve the mix to not give them the chance to use that tool.

We usually deliver at about -6 or -7LUFS on a Loud song; that will pretty much be the final mastered level, not much room for mastering to do anything level-wise.

I think that your order of operations looks good.

Saturation, Tube, Tape, (additive effects) first

compression

imaging

EQ

Limiting

The pace is mostly non-stop like a Lucille Ball candy factory when you almost wish it will stop. Then there are the "slow" periods when you start to wonder if you've lost it and when the next project will come.

We have enough projects in various stages of completion that if I don't feel like cleaning vocals on a given day, I can go print some stems, or prep some new stuff, or catch up on my paperwork and accounting.

We definitely don't have that kind of leisure time; but I think ours is not a "creative" job in that aspect; we feel more like custodians often, cleaning up other people's ****. We are definitely in the long hours grind category.

I do think that the “secret sauce” is actually a lot of work as you have found. Now if you would watch me, or another “pro” do it, we might make it look easier, quicker, or something more “secret”. It might not look as difficult. That is just the efficiency and quick decision making born from lots of experience and practice.

For me personally I like to try different things out when looking to create an effect.

So I love the new ProTools has the search function; I'll start typing in tape, or saturation, and a list of plugins that I have pops up and I'll start playing around.

For a clean print master tape, I like the Isotope Ozone Tape. Recently I used Softube Tape to make a really wobbly taped piano on a recent mix for Kat Cunning "O Holy Knight". She wanted it to sound very messed up.

Mostly a tape plugin should be quite subtle; when we printed to tape we were trying to get it as clean as possible, balancing noise against print-through and over compression by tape.

For saturation I like the classic Lo-Fi. Also liking the Waves Abbey Road Saturator.

Mainly I would say that I am drawn to single-function plugins with GUI's that are quickly and easily understood. I have a hard time with something like a bx_digital plugin (too many unlabelled knobs) or a Soothe (push frequency up to eq it down), or an Eventide H3000Factory (the interface on the actual unit was hard to operate, bringing it to the computer didn't make it easier

Nothing generalized to do. I think @47radAR has some good ideas.

I would also try finding some things that don't need to be midrange, dull them down; maybe using EQ or filters to take mid and high out of some sounds to make room for other sounds. Also automated filtes; low-pass the sound when it is it a busy part of the song (i.e. Chorus), and then open up the filter for more open parts (i.e. Bridge).

Just doing a Haas spread, or doublers probably just adds to the mid-range madness.

Not really my style and genre to talk about. I'll probably embarrass myself in commenting about it at all, but I think Dre's production on Eminem was always top notch.

Yes! Yes! and Yes! to the complex routings. I'm not sure that ultimately it leads to a better or different tone, but it certainly makes it easier to work with.

I do understand how it gets to that point, but I think some of the sessions that we get are very overly complicated in their routing.

When I've got a very complexly routed session file, I will usually take out routings that don't really do anything. For example, all drums routed to a drum aux channel that has no plugins, just a -2dB Volume. I'll drop down everything feeding it -2dB, and re-route to the output that the drum aux went to. Then again, that drum aux maybe fed a Music Aux, again maybe just volume and no plugins. I can again copy the volume and get rid of the Aux.

I think a lot of this is people using templates that have all of these routings built in.

I don't do recording these days, so I can's say don't use templates for this. But if I am working with just audio files delivered to us, I do like to build up the session as I go rather than use a template that has standardized routings built in.

We've got pretty massive processing power, so generally I don't need to print and import files. I will do a commit track to clean things up at times, especially with some plugins that can be crash prone or might get settings messed up.

Everything. 2020 16 core Mac Pro tower, 2 HDX cards, UAD Octo and UAD Quad.

I don't want to make any endorsements, but I'll say generally the UAD plugins are good and I think their demo program is genius. As a way to get a lot of selection and power it is a great system.

I like to have a variety of the 'classic' reverbs, so classic presets or programs from various hardware emulations. RMX16 'ambience', EMT-250 reverb, Capitol Chambers, etc.

Altiverb for amazing natural spaces if they fit the song.

Sometimes I think that the GUI emulations of classic gear are not helpful. I find that the Softube RC-48 looks better than the UAD 480L.

When I am looking for something like that I like to go really old school. I like to play with the Abbey Road stuff mostly because I never was able to in real-life. It is really neat to see what they had back at the beginning.

I'm thinking of Waves, but probably not for any reason other than familiarity.

Serban is mixing the songs we work on together. Credits can be confusing, so let me be clear that when you hire Serban to mix, he is doing the mixing.

(I do some of my own mixing as well, projects that Serban isn't involved with.)

Serban will be the one interacting with the producer's and artists on the mix. (I do on occasion jump in to do a simple requested tweak on a mix and send out so he doesn't need to be bothered).

Now what I do contribute to Serban's mixes is a lot of the clean up and setup before it gets in his hands. I'll do most of the technical work so that it is all in good shape, set up in our standard layout, make sure it isn't crashy, missing files, missing plugins, etc. Serban's time is best spent doing the art of mixing and not the technical cleanup. I'll make sure it sounds pretty close to the rough mix so that we know we've got the right parts, versions, and files.

I usually also take care of many of the edits (radio edit, clean edits, special requests for TV Track, etc.)

When the mix is done, I'll do most all of the post mix work. Print mix passes for mastering, print stems, prepare and deliver files for label delivery.

Metric Halo channel strip is usually the first choice for any EQ; just because of familiarity of the interface.

If something more surgical is needed, Fabfilter Pro-Q3 might be used, if some more classic "colorful" EQ is needed, then there are a raft of choice emulations.

I do like the MetricHalo because it is kind of infinitely adjustable. Any band can be set to any frequency and EQ type.

Thanks!

Yes, 8 foot ceiling.

A couple of things I would think of doing when the mix gets big and starts getting crushed.

First, look at backing down everything a few dB. I would usually try to respect the vocals if I like the mix on them, and adjust other stuff around them. Respect the limiter and fix the tracks IF you are confident that the limiter is a well set.

Try starting the mix with some gain on the master fader (or a prior compressor), which feeds the Limiter, then you have something to back down later as the mix invariably gets louder.

Mix better! :lol:

We usually place the Compressor before the EQ as standard practice. I would add an eq before the compressor as a clean up to filter out things I definitely don't want (excess low frequency).

Might also add add a touch of compression after the EQ also for smoothing.

@thakid also

Yes, you've got it exactly right.

The limiting would be happening on the master fader I guess. I'd guess about 50/50 for automation and compression.

If I were to use a limiter, I'd want something and clean as possible; maybe Pro-L 2. The metering and display is really great to see exactly what it is doing.

We only work in ProTools; so if a produce has files in another format they need to commit them and send audio files.

No presets. They don’t really work because everything, nothing, or anything could have changed on the recording side. That could be song to song or album to album.

Now if she has been consistent in recording her vocals it would probably get a similar treatment but not by preset.

Ariana sets the tone for how she wants her vocals to sound. She recorded and edited much of the vocals herself in production before we got them. She has a very good ear and a clear direction on vocal sound.

Yes! and ladies and gentlemen, let me point out that Billy has much more to do with the sound of Ariana's vocals than we probably have here. They set the tone and Serban does a bit of polishing.

I should have pointed out earlier when I said that Ariana did a lot of the recording and editing and set the mood for her vocals, that she has some great engineering help who enable that to happen.

Thanks Billy!

See now you're going to get me in trouble.

How much of a Whisky collection could I put together based on opening up the vaults . . . ?

Maybe one day I'll go out in a blaze of glory and go online with videos. Get back to me back in 10 years or so!

Ok, I had to look back and see where I might have said that; it doesn't sound exactly right.

I said something similar here: Vocal vocals and more vocals

What I meant there was very broadly talking about how the EQ bands could be used as a variety of tools, one of which was intelligibly around 1kHz, which is different to me than presence.

If I said that somewhere else about 1kHz for presence, please point it out and I'll try to clarify what I probably meant.

Generally I would agree that 1kHz is too low for that presence band.

Master chain has small evolutions as some plugins are updated, but generally stable for several years now.

One of the things that is kind of neat from our perspective is that we get ProTools session from a huge variety of sources; so those producers and engineers kind of become our "experimentation collective".

As we get tracks in with new plugins, we get to evaluate them, see what they are doing, and if we like them, add to our toolbox.

Of course it also means that we are constantly buying new plugins so it can become hard to remember which plugin was it thad did that thing I liked . . .

I really love the track presets for this; I'll save cool plugins or chains for later

Deleted 27b07ea, outside this threadDo feel that working ITB is a compromise at all? Did efficiency, time, ease of recall, multiple instances of plugins etc affect the decision to move ITB? Or you legitimately could not get a better sound given an outboard setup and all the time in the world? You're generally considered the best, so I imagine ITB is no compromise at all but curious your take.

This is an interesting thought experiment.

I think that the biggest compromise is the fun of handling hardware. Without deadlines, power bills, maintenance, etc., I think that it is a lot of fun and satisfying to plug around a patch bay, mess with knobs, be more cerebral about which of your limited hardware units to use on which sounds.

I don't think there is a sound quality compromise except the fact that there are too many choices so that easy fixes often come at the expense of well-reasoned routing and plugin selection decisions (mainly talking about incoming sessions here).

The main reason to move in the box originally was because Serban was traveling from one studio to another and taking projects from his "home base" studio to visit producer's and artist in their local studios (Philadelphia, NYC, etc.) and then being asked for recalls when he got back home again. Started printing stems back into the system for these recalls, and then just started to not use the console at all to make the transitions easier. Final mixes were coming out of the box anyway at that point; so it really started as a practical reason, but the sound quality was never considered a compromise.

With all the time in the world, no deadline or pressure, and a selection of amazing outboard gear, I don't think it would be a better mix, just a different one.

What might work for me here or for Serban might not mean it works for everyone. Also I’m just talking about mixing. If I was tracking, I would want big chunky iron transformers bathed in the glow of tubes and ballistic meters bouncing all over the place.

I think I should make it a policy to not comment on unreleased songs; I don't know the provenance of the leaked audio so I can't really say who mixed it.

It has been a very long time! I was really impressed by DW Fearn pre and compressor we used on Kenna. I Love the CL-1b, Early Avalon stuff was amazing. I think I’m pretty out of date on anything designed within the past 20 years.

A couple of things going on.

First, there were quite a few FAKE Serban accounts on Instagram. We started getting weird emails, phone calls, from people that thought they had hired Serban to mix their songs and were disappointed, got ripped off, or were even asked to mix things for "serban" because he was too busy.

The FAKE Serban accounts were soliciting work, collecting money, and offering work fraudulently.

That is the only reason Serban got on Instagram. He would still prefer to remain more private but it was necessary to get some public frontage because of that.

That spurred me to create a new account here so that I could be reachable to debunk any potential scams.

I did a "Humans Of Music" interview with Rod yates over at Jaxsta, https://blog.jaxsta.com/post/190354466458/humans-of-music-john-hanes, and that spurred me to do some more writing in a blog style for Jaxsta. https://jaxsta.com/news-article/45282

I've always enjoyed writing and teaching, so it has been enjoyable for me to find my voice and share knowledge.

Yes, that one is crazy loud isn't it! I'd bet the loudest song every from here.

I'd guess 1) too many cooks in the kitchen. 2) Alesso liked it that way, 3) Watt liked it that way.

We can often only advise, I bet you the demo mix was super crushed and that's how they learned to hear the song.

Thanks to others for jumping in a offering suggestions. I have a hard time answering these types of questions because I need to have the sound in front of me to mess with and try to find a solution.

I think there are some good answers here already. I would just add that I don't have any one tool to fix things; I experiment until I find a solution.

I would experiment with the following things; depending on the song and everything else, maybe something would work.

A) 1) create a false body with doubled track tuned an octave down. 2) create a false body with Vocalsynth or similar plugin. 3) heavy hand on Soothe, multi band compression and also spend a lot of time riding down breaths and "Sss" sounds. 4) lean into the BGV's to fill out the lead. Might require heavy editing to make sure consonants line up.

B) 1) make the breathy voice mostly dry and in your face; too much reverb and delay muddy it. 2) heavy handed multi band compression as needed to tame the highs. 3) Izotope RX to remove all possible noise, hiss, so that you can EQ the vocal without bringing it up. 4) try to make the breathy vocal loud and smooth, drive the band a bit into the background if it fits the song.

To be honest, mono compatibility isn't really a priority. I mean if we hear something (or see on the meter) something that is out of phase, we'll fix that, but we are not listening in mono typically for cancellations.

So maybe it is just habit by now that we are working on the sounds to make them sound good, and that means typically in phase. We do like to fill the field, so if we can get a some things really wide and not sound weird, it is a nice effect.

@47radAR

Yes, when I talk about being "cerebral" in mixing, this is what I'm talking about. Really listen and analyze and think about what is happening.

Every combination of sounds will present a different problem, and in the context of a particular song may need a different fix.

Thank you!

I'm personally shocked that The Chicks were not nominated and that The Weeknd was not nominated for "Blinding Lights"

We are definitely going to wait at least overnight for a listen with fresh ears in the morning before we send it off. Sometimes it will be a couple of days before we send it; only when it is ready for artist / producer notes will it get sent out.

I just start from the top of the song. Make it sound good in the intro, in the verse, leave room for the chorus to get bigger. I have to have the whole song tied together; how can I know how big to let the chorus get if I don't know the emotional impact in transition from intro to verse to hook.

I dont look at it as a bunch of sections to be mixed, it is a continuous performance of one song.

:facepalm::lol:

Don't really know what is meant by cramped. Use what you have and what works for you. It doesn't need to be technically perfect; were consoles ever? Just different tools that feel comfortable in your hand.

If I drive a nail with a framing hammer, a claw hammer, or a nail gun, i'm still just driving a nail.

Choice of which EQ has no bearing on the quality of a mix. It may only effect how quickly you are able to come to the sound you want to hear based on familiarity with each tool.

Thank you for that. If my legacy can be to have engineers listening to the music instead of the specs, I would be happy.

Some of the music I enjoy the most is because of its flaws. Trashy drums, distortions, mistakes make it real.

I think that the typo above “ how much useless stuff yo unmanaged to not know” is perfect. I’ve tried to unlearn if not learn in the first place the hype aspect. I don’t consider myself to be a high end connoisseur; I like functionality and familiarity.

In vintage gear we applaud the flaws, but now we need a bunch of phase perfect eqs and super linear digital compressors? Nah! The flaws make the music.

@psycho_monkey has this right.

Usually this is Just a bit of a send to a chorus with a bit of panning, a bit of delay, and a bit of detune.

Thanks for reading through the Q&A. I like that "crash cause in being a better pro".

Ok, so NO, we don't do anything like a bunch of notching or smoothing of transients.

Let me see if I can convey my thinking here. I think that in a well produced song, where the instruments are chosen for their blending and tonal ideals, that those resulting clashes, reinforcements, and cancellations are probably part of the sound of the song. You can have a string orchestra play all of the notes of a song, but when you add the brass section, the winds, you get those different additive and subtractive blends.

If there are transients or notes that stick out in an unflattering way, I'd just be likely to do a volume ride on those parts that are causing it, or maybe an automated EQ at that point.

I guess that most of what you are working on fixing, I would be doing as part of the overall blending and volume control and panning of the sounds; not at a micro level of notching.

You would not often find an eq curve on our mixes that looks like a lot of hills and valleys.

Hope that helps. Not that my way is the best or only way to achieve a fix, but it works for me.

Thanks for the feedback.

I guess in general I go back to the old school days where these kinds of tools didn't exist and the music sounded amazing.

The surgical tools available are great for fixing very specific problems, but for general use I go "old school (emulated)" because that sounds to me like music and not technology.

Power cables are whatever comes with the equipment. We do have UPS on most things because brownouts are not uncommon here.

Interconnects are either whatever come with equipment or varieties of Mogami cabling.

There is not a lot to interconnect because mostly in the box.

Nothing special about any cabling.

Files come in both well produced with a lot of work already done on the drums as well as completely raw. It depends on the project and the producer.

Keith Urban's "Superman" is an interesting example, because it has a live kit but a lot of the drums are also programmed. So in that song we're actually using the live drums only for the snare, overhead, and room; most of the live drum sound is from the overheads.

Of course Keith and Captain Cuts producing has a lot to do with that sound as well. I can say that that song was a hard mix because they were very persnickety in the sounds. It was difficult to bridge the country and pop vibes as they wanted to do.

In general for live drums I like to feed the whole kit to an aux track and do some EQ and Compression there. There will be some EQ and compression on the separate tracks as well, but I would be using the stereo aux for much of the sound of the kit. Then I would be doing a bunch of editing in the toms, muting everything except the tom hits, most of the sustain of the toms would be in the overheads. I'd also start by putting up the Overheads first, and then adding in the other elements to fill out the kit sound.

Interesting question. I'm not much of a historian, but I came up with some information.

https://www.pilotonline.com/entertainment/music/article_fc64e201-c14f-5efe-b643-38e678e6fa13.html

First, I would say, that this goes back much further than 1990's. But the 1990's were when Teddy Riley moved here from NYC just after completing the Michael Jackson Dangerous album.

Also, this area is very much a melting pot of people, culture, and music. I think the large Navy presence has a lot to do with it; it draws a large cross section of people from around the country here.

So Teddy was a huge draw for many artists to visit him and for many locals to get jobs, guest appearances, writing sessions, etc.

https://genius.com/a/jay-z-said-to-ask-teddy-riley-about-himso-we-did

Both Serban and I moved here originally to work with Teddy.

Unfortunately most of the artists who do get big here end up moving away. I understand the reasons, but I do wish that many of them had the vision to stay here and become a "music city" on our own standing.

Nothing on the mix buss. Actually as @sircuit said, it is mostly dry. The kick is dry, there are some snares with reverb, other dry. Reverb on percussion, claps. A bunch of things going on in the vocals; reverbs, delays, etc. That I think really fill out and define the space.

I think the key here is that the vocals are swimming, and the verby fills in claps and snare make the space seem big while the drums are mostly actually dry.

This would be my answer. Very well put.

Hi Teddy,

This is one of the hard questions to answer because I think 1) it has become second nature so I have to analyze what I am doing to answer, and 2) as you said so many different situations that require many different avenues of attack.

So, generally;

First, I don't like it when I get a session and the waveforms are so small that I can't see them on normal zoom levels. I might gain everything up 10dB (or whatever) to just be able to see waveforms. Since we are working in the box, this is not adding anything that is not already there.

Next, I'll be cleaning up the noise left on tracks. Strip silence in Protools, then clean up with edits, fades, whatever the remaining audio. This would also be the time that I use many hiss removers, hum removers, RX, other Noise Reduction strategies to get as close to I can as clean audio.

Any plugins that have a noise feature I'll always turn it off. What this has to do with gain staging? well, the original purpose of gain staging in the analog world is to work the audio between the noise floor and the limit of clean undistorted audio. So any artificial or introduced noise defeats the purpose for me.

Now you have to understand how your DAW works. In ProTools, plugins come before the channel fader except on Master tracks, where the Plugins come after the fader. So on an audio or Aux channel, you will want to make sure that the signal is not distorting or clipping the plugin; use the plugin's input and output if necessary for audio passing within and between plugins to keep the signal in the right zone; above noise and below distortion.

The channel fader is then used to get the volume of that signal in the correct place for the overall mix; it does not affect the quality or color of the sound.

At the MasterFader only, plugins come after the fader; so this is where the fader can affect the quality and color of the sound, because it is affecting what gets fed to those plugins. Generally I'll start with the master at 0 or even +2dB; knowing I'll probably be pulling it down around the middle of the mix as inevitably the process begins to get too hot.

VU meters; no so much using them because I always work on the ProTools Edit Window, not the mix window. So I am always looking at the audio waveforms to know what is playing, and not the VU. I'll be checking the master meters, and external meters. But remember, we're not doing any recording here, just mixing. So the VU meter isn't really useful on individual channels unless I'm looking for a problem (where the heck is that delay coming from when I hit stop!)

I Hope that answers some of what you asked!

To be honest, It would be nice to be able to take the limiter off and send to mastering.

We've got clients that we've tweaked these mixes with to perfection (in their ears) so that any move in mastering will be rejected; they revert to the final mix over the mastered mix. We have had clients who are hearing (or feeling, or pretending to hear or feel) .2dB adjustments at mastering.

So taking the limiter off and having mastering do even that much more would probably be a catastrophe to them.

I don't want to pretend that this is the best way to do it; I'm sure it is not. We just have gotten to the point where it has become so much of the sound of the mix, for better or worse, that it can't be removed without things falling apart.

The general answer is just "mix to make it sound the way you want". I'm not sure I can exactly quantify exactly how that works.

Correct that we we don't use parallel processing as a standard part of the mix.

So weighing back in on the whole subthread about this.

I want to say that I will not say that the effects of compression and loudness are not audible in Serban's (and my) mixes. There are audible artifacts, but we can hope to control them, flavor them in a way that is complementary to the mix. We don't want clipping and distortion sounds, so we work the mix to avoid that, but other audible effects out processing for loud mixing is audible, but minimized.

What we are doing is competing with some extremely loud rough mixes provided by producers and artists and comparisons to other loud songs and trying to overcome their demo-itis and come up with a mix that hits as hard but does not have (as much, or as audible) deleterious side effects.

So what we are trying to do is compete in the mix with a mastered competitor and become equal to it. The decisions to get that final loudness are done primarily within the control of the mix so that it is not left up to a mastering engineer to just put another compressor / limiter on the mix and bring it up to competitive loudness without being able to as easily control what effects that will have on elements within the mix.

Definitely a tightrope walking way of working; sometimes we get a mix revision request after mastering because we have pushed it too far. But I think that more often than not, the final product is well received.

Thanks, please don't give too much credit for "creating THE sound". I can't say that I'm happy that the loudness wars continue and it makes everyone's job a bit harder and more stressful.

It starts before we get to the mix with clients comparing to really loud stuff. What we are trying to do is say "ok, I'll get it loud, but let me try to get it loud and cleaner, please!"

There are a couple of clients in particular who's rough mixes are routinely 3dB louder than what we end up mixing. It is really hard to get them happy when they are still comparing the mix to their loud distorted rough mix ("it just doesn't have that same VIBE"!). Yeah, that vibe is called distortion and over-modulation and sounds like crap on radio and streaming.

Oh yes! We definitely get notes that show messed up listening environments.

One example we had a very established pop star making notes that were getting quite strange. Asked what monitoring was being done on? Active headphones. Told them maybe it is time to change the batteries. Yep, that worked.

Other times artists are on the road, listening in various dressing rooms to some portable system. Mix changes every time they changed cities.

So in these cases we have to rely on the producer who hopefully is in their standard listening environment, and on "trust me it sounds right". We have not had to fire a client yet, but certainly get frustrated with some.

I don't believe we have intentionally asked to not be named in credits; those commissions happen enough on their own.

Last thing in the chain. Again, though, there are a bunch of other things happening on that chain that I'm not exactly naming that are doing a lot to the sound before limiting. When I say "take off the limiter" I'm actually being a bit coy and using that as a catch-all for a few processes.

Generally start out the mix flat, then adjust a bit of master bus EQ if necessary. This typically would be a 20hz rolloff and maybe a tiny bit of highs, like + half db shelf at 7.5k.

Those are generally producer decisions that they either print to their tracks, send in the session as plugins, or suggest to us when and where.

We'll make a suggestion or try this if the track feels like it needs something, but at this level, the producer's are generally really on top of those feels.

One cool thing I get to do is go back and find exactly from the session what things are happening. That is a One Knob filter on the master fader. Producer's effect.

Generally the 20Hz rolloff is gentle, so not trying to get "nothing" below 20Hz.

I've got a couple of places where I'll put it if needed; sometimes before first compression, but other times later on.

It really depends on how pleasantly or not the Subs are affecting the compression and drive of the song.

I usually prefer it to be steeper and set it lower; but all dependent on the song.

Oh! I'm sorry that happens that way. I was not aware that songs not mixed might get dropped.

So I don't really feel like we are selecting things to mix based on our taste as a rule. So, from my perspective, here is how it works at our end.

First, artists, producers, A&R's that we know from previous projects we don't say no to. It might be "how long can you wait", but never no.

Second, new artists, are usually first filtered through Serban's management. This is kind of necessary; there is only so much time available and it is all always filled. One of their jobs is to prioritize and present opportunities.

After the budget, terms, and timeline is laid out, they will present a song, artist, whatever and say "this one might be really important", or "here's an up-and-coming artist". So and So is producing it, or so and so is A&R. Serban would then take a listen and generally says yes, but also "how long can they wait?"

We rarely say no from here; so if you are getting a no, then it is either deadline related, filtered through the channels, or budget related.

I'll also say that there are some things we work on that I love, and other things that I don't love. We are not selecting just what we like, we are mixing everything we can get to.

It can also be at the A&R level. I'm not in on the conversations, but I imagine that A&R presents their best song(s), single(s) to management and they are not selecting this one or that one; but selecting all yes or all no. Or "we can do one or two in your timeframe, which ones should we do?"

Now it would not at all surprise me if A&R is telling producers a different story; they can pass the blame along for not selecting your song / single to be mixed by Serban (or at all!)

I would say that it would be extremely rare for A&R to delegate their song / single selection outside the company like that.

we used our own prior mixes as reference tracks. These are songs that we should know intimately so they are the best standard for our own rooms.

We've not really done anything in the Techno genre, and I'm not up on exactly what qualifies, so forgive me if I embarrass myself. Closest we would get would be mixes for DJ artists such as Cheat Codes, David Guetta, Kygo, etc.

I (not Serban) did some mixes for The Presets several years ago which was fun. (Hi Viz Album, "Downtown Shutdown, Do What You Want, 14U+14Me" singles among others)

Aside from probably budget issues, I'd say that this type of music is really created in production so that there isn't necessarily a lot to do for an outside mixer. What we get sent in the Techno-ish mixes we have done is often very highly processed stems from the artist; much of the decision making is done and it feels more like stems mastering than mixing for some of them.

I don't mix for dance clubs and can't listen to music that loud, so generally I guess that you cannot put too much dynamic high frequencies in because it will just make everyone (more) deaf and be painful.

Low end doesn't need to take away from the rest of the mix. Find and get rid of sub-audible lows that suck energy but don't help the mix.

I don't know how to help, sorry!

This is one of those cases where the producer sent us effected tracks, effectively a stem. The vocals that we mixed from were printed with effects, reverb, delay.

Not my wish to get files this way. I always ask if dry vocals are available; sometimes they don't have it.

Some additional work was done on that vocal sound in the mix; EQ, adding a couple more effects, trying to minimize the printed reverb.

So overall the sound is a production decision that we had to deal with.

One of those things that just mainly comes with familiarity. I'm not one that is going to test out each new compressor to learn each one's ins and outs. So my opinions are not going to mean that these are the best tools. I almost hesitate to answer because of this, however.

1) If I'm going to color, then it will be something like Soundtoys Decapitator

2) I'll start with MetricHalo Channelstrip MIO as my first choice. It is like reaching for a console channel instead of an insert.

3) Probably the same answer for #2 . I can do most things I want from compression with this.

4) Waves CLA-76. I think that for pop vocals the 1176 is the go to. Many different emulations available, no specific reason for going Waves for me; just been around a long time.

I thought I answered somewhere; but maybe not. I don't actually feel like I have a lot to give in this area; I kind of play around a lot with settings and see what happens to the sound.

I'll just start with the default which is kind of middle of the road (attack 3, release 4 on CLA-76) and adjust from there depending on the type of vocal performance and how it affects the sound.

A slow attack might help a staccato vocal cut through, a fast attack might be good for smoothing legato notes. Release adjustments are made according to the timing of the vocals, I don't want to pull up too much between the words, so I'd like the release to happen before the word or syllable ends.

@Pedro Rafael also.

yes, I got a bit fuzzy on those answers. So it also depends on the type of performance.

If the performance is already staccato vocals, then the fast settings will help to reinforce that.

If the performance is not staccato vocals, then the slower setting will help the enunciation.

Attached are a couple of video screen caps of 1176 action. One is BTS Butter; staccato performance. The other is TS - Nice Things, as that is what Pedro originally asked about.

There is some pretty heavy compression going on in both of these examples; it isn't always that heavy.

We will do high pass filtering to get rid of rumble on many tracks. You would be surprised how much low rumble will be found on samples, hats, vocals, etc.

One of the things I like about the ProAc speaker is that you can SEE the low rumble. I’ll often catch it from seeing and then zero in and find that track it is on.

HP filter for cleaning purpose, low shelf for shaping sound. Both might be used, for example acoustic guitar often needs a high pass to clear rumble and low shelf to control proximity effect.

4b SST vintage 2003 or so.

Thank you. Morgan Saint was great to work with, I really enjoyed it because she basically said go crazy and see what happens!

When mixing different genres, I really try to NOT consider the target audience. I am working on the theory that they are coming to me to get a "different" sound, or a "different" perspective. I hope that they want me to do what I do.

Now if they give me a specific instruction; "we like the way this song sounds as a reference", then I will work towards that goal.

Nothing set in stone as a standard approach that is happening consciously; just trying to make things sound good.

I'm going to keep my own "go-to" crazy stuff to myself, but what I will say is try some totally random stuff. Pull up a plugin that you've never used before and see what it does, use a "guitar" effect on a vocal, smash a de-esser on a keyboard.

At that point there are not rules and you have to have imagination.

If this is true, and I have not measured it, then it isn’t a conscious preplanned curve.

We are not looking at eq spectrums and deciding what to cut.

I guess it is just how we like it to sound so unconsciously we might be crafting this curve to hear what we want to hear.

Nothing like a preset eq curve on a master buss eq. Just the sum of mix decisions.

Hi Janee,

For #1 , we've got a bunch of stuff going on in the master chain that I will retain as our only "trade secrets".

For #2 , my opinions are all my own and I speak only for myself. Now, Serban and I have been working together for a very long time, so my approaches are going to be learned experiences through working closely with him and he really is the one who developed the sound and the approach that we both use.

That would not be a standard approach. Now, one particular situation that could have happened somewhere.

As standard it will be either Blacky or Bluey. Blacky as the regular go-to, Bluey maybe for a more aggressive sound.

yes, this is a rabbit hole we've all been down. There won't be any quick Aha! fix; I would be messing with volumes, EQ, maybe add a sample to bolster the kick, maybe duplicate the track and treat part of it differently, maybe some Oxford Inflator, etc.

Or maybe in a thick musical hook, automate the compression, or add some decapitator, to help overcome the instrumentation, then back off again in the lighter parts of the song.

Thanks, It has been a long journey. I will say that originally coming out of working with Teddy Riley, we were very pigeon-holed. It took a long time to break out of that R&B world and be accepted in pop, and then longer for Rock, and again longer for Country.

Now, while we have worked toward the pop, rock, and country world; those worlds have also worked toward us as R&B styles and sounds became integrated into them.

The Neptunes were on a kind of parallel journey to that; bridging their style into pop. I think we all were just taking the paths that opened up to us though, no inspiration other than to keep working.

Well first I'd say working on small speakers almost exclusively helps with the low-end overall.

There are times that we will write in decay automation. I hate the sound of audible gating, so I will personally work very hard to smoothe that out.

Now that particular song, I just checked the session file, is a carefully set compressor on the bass(es) keyed by the kick. ;)

Actually I don't personally have a go-to. I like to experiment and dry different things out. I've used Sweetsonics Laser, Avid Pro Compressor, and now I'll be checking out Waves f6 as well.

It isn't something that I would put on often on my own to have my own go-to. More often it comes from the producer set how they like it.

I'm mixing into the basic master-fader chain from the beginning of the mix. I may add or change things as I get further into the mix, but most of it is always there. That means that taking it off changes things dramatically; in fact I dont' take anything off, but might back it down a bit, to send to mastering.

I have no purism of nothing on the master; I'm quite the opposite; lots of things on the master, but each one doing mostly small subtle things. So that probably means that I'm not having the quick and dirty vibe going either; maybe in between.

So maybe we are in a bit of a unique or strange relationship with mastering. We would like mastering generally to do as little as possible. It is a bit of a parallel of the relationship we have to some rough mixes; don't change anything, just make it sound better.

So we have a number of mastering engineers that we work with often and one of the main things in breaking in a new mastering engineer is finding one that isn't afraid to do little to nothing to the mix if it doesn't need it but experienced enough to be able to fix things where needed.

We do get feedback from new mastering engineers that we've printed it too hot, that we've left the limiter on, is there a non-limited mix, did we send the reference mix instead of the pre-master?

We generally tell them this is what we do and have not had a problem before!

When I A/B my mix to the master, I'll try to blindly flip between them and ask myself which one sounds better. If I pick my mix, there is a problem.

Not so much special going on there; except having Taylor Swift layering maybe 18 tracks of BGV and harmonies perfectly.

Short reverbs, no delays to speak of.

It isn't a regular tool for general use. I'd again say that much of our regular toolbox are things that we are very comfortable with that have been around for a long time in plug-in form.

I'll dip into the newer "super tools" for specific applications or to fix specific issues, but not a first selection for me.

I'll use both audiosuite gain and volume automation; it kind of depends on where in the process I am.

First I'll get a general compression, EQ, and de-esser setting.

Then, In the fixing vocals phase I'll be using a few audiosuite things with a solo'd vocal and fixing clicks, noises, breaths, and sibilance that still sticks out.

After that, I probably won't touch audio-suite again, but would be using volume rides to notch down breaths and sibilance that still sticks out.

No reason other than the my own workflow quirks. I'm doing it by ear, and I'll also be listening and revisiting breaths and sibilance throughout the mix; it is a balancing act and one of those nitpicky things that sounds right and wrong and different times and different volumes.

Thanks!

I'll do a couple of things. If the rough mix is clearly below target volume, I'll turn it up; just volume, I won't do any processing to the rough mix except sometimes a low cut because they are trying to destroy my speakers with 5Hz!. Depending on the song type, I might also bring my level down; say for a piano and vocal ballad that doesn't need to be loud.

@AnHonestMix as well

Yes, I think that this the producer's world to set the tone for how they want it to sound. Songs by different producer's should should different, to their taste and talents, and it isn't our place to shoe-horn them into a certain sound.

That is something that I think can't be taught; it is all taste, talent, and experience. You can be taught what the tools are and what they do, but not necessarily when to apply them or how much to apply.

So I think that what goes on in my head is that I am listening and asking myself what don't I like about this vocal, and can I fix it? Are all of the lyrics understandable, is the emotion of the singer coming across, does it sound too close, too far, what is distracting me, what sounds empty, etc.

I think that you are gaining the necessary experience in the right way; analyzing mixes and trying to emulate them. While you are doing that, do the mental questioning and find where it fails to impress

Cost of doing business; we don't bill anyone for plugins. If I really don't want to buy it (like a thousand dollar reverb), then I'll just ask them to print the track.

Advice for people starting out;

first hope that there is a fully functional demo. If so, try it, if you like it buy it. If not, commit the track. If you find it coming in on lots of tracks, might be worth buying if you can afford it.

Next, if there isn't a fully functional demo, ask for a screenshot of the settings. Again, try and buy or commit (watch out for the random noise / dropout / etc.

Finally, ask for the sender to print the track with and without; if it is a reverb, delay, or other effect, you might be able to find or create a match yourself.

There is definitely a sweet spot in the master bus chain where you want the mix to sit. I think that I usually don't worry about it too much at the beginning of the mix. Kind of get everything sounding good, then look and see if I'm too loud (usually) or too low (rarely) hitting the master.

I don't check the master buss with only parts of the song playing; only how and when it is the whole mix hitting it.

So first I'll be just working on getting good sounds and blends, not really checking the master buss, but I'll definitely hear if it starts clipping.

I usually send each effect return straight to the master buss. I should have cleaned up the signal going into it for problems; eq after the effect is more for shaping and not cleaning.

Compress for the sound quality, volume ride for level control.

Don't let it distort the compressor unless you are going for that sound.

In mixing you can't be lazy and do any "set it and forget it" for gain reduction.

So that said; generally, I'll try for 3dB, bouncing to 6dB for bits. If I'm hitting more than 6dB of gain reduction, then I will really need to listen and see if it is the sound that I want to achieve.

Max Martin's rough mixes could probably be anyone else's final mix. They are fully realized and fully thought out. Now, you ask, why doesn't he just finish the mix?

I think there is an answer by Max out there already for you to find.

Talking here about just multitrack track-level stuff; rough and finished mixes are a whole different story.

I think that it is best practice to always be thinking about gain-staging. Now it is much less critical now with digital than it has been in the past in analog.

In the past we had to record to a tape machine a signal that was not too low to avoid the noise floor, not too hot to distort, and also had to think about frequency dependent track bleed, print through, and such.

Now we're not worrying about that; but I'll say that the main reason for todays sessions to have good gain staging is because the sweet spot for meters, faders, plugins, etc. is all going to be in that same 0VU range at the track level.

So I would suggest that you pay attention to it during the whole process.

Anywhere there is a chance to introduce noise, pay close attention.

i.e. turn up the synth output instead of the line input if gain is needed.

Anywhere there is a chance to approach distortion or digital clipping, pay close attention.

i.e. test the singer on the loudest part of the song and set your mic pre, compressor, and level there, then adjust as needed.

If your track level fader needs to be turned up about, let's say, +8 or down below -20, maybe the recording of that track could have been done more technically correctly.

Generally for me it just looks more professional and technically correct if the recorded tracks are in that sweet-spot zone.

Very timely question, please check my latest blog on Jaxsta for basics.

As far as the airy, smooth, and clean sound, a lot comes from a good recording before the mix starts. The best vocalists, producers, and engineers will give beautiful vocals to work with. Not everything can be turned into that sound, but when done right from the start it is beautiful.

Oh no, we'll definitely be getting out the crayons and coloring as well where needed, but following the direction of the production; within their lines so to speak.

So to draw the analogy out is that the producer sets the palate, we may choose colors within it.

Yes, usually do use the auto-gain button there. It just makes it so much easier to A/B to see what it is really doing to the sound, not just the volume.

If I'm building a session from scratch, I'll probably have 2 stages of compression on the lead vocal; which then goes to the master fader for more mix-overall compression and treatment.

If a session comes in to me already populated with plugins, it can be highly variable. Some producer will do compression, even multiple ones, on the lead vocals, then send to an aux track where they add more and then sometimes to an overall vocals sub where they add more.

In those cases, I'll have to work to find out what I like and what I don't.

Yes, different parts of the song might get different treatments; especially loud sung parts vs. softly sung pats. I'll move the loud parts to another track so that I can apply different settings, especially compressor settings.

For backing vocals, I will often treat them more harshly than lead vocals. If you listened only to the backing vocals, they might not sound so good. I'll get rid of breaths, rolloff a lot of lows, fade them in and out, sometimes clip off the beginning and end of words, etc. So I'll do this individually and then feed them to an aux group for group compression and effects sends.

I would only be using them on the recording side of a project, not in a mix.

For recording vocals I loved the Tube-Tech CL1B and the DW Fearn compressor, but I'm really out of touch with that whole side at this point.

I can't answer for Serban, but I personally still feel nervous each time I send a mix out.

A couple of things to help work the hard problems.

Step away and take your mind off of it. I'll sometimes come up with a solution to try the next day just by thinking on it overnight.

Make sure the client sleeps on it as well. Numerous times we'll get revision notes, highly detailed, pages; and then after the weekend or overnight the client might say never-mind, it's great!

Not always exactly the same mixbus chain especially more recently. Many productions come in with their own mixbus chain and even some putting effects on it; so we've more recently been picking and choosing what of the producer's chain to keep, what to deactivate, and what to replace.

So that would also go for vocal chains. Start with some basic building blocks if it is a raw file, but if it comes already stocked with plugins from the producer, then it is highly variable what to keep, toss, or modify, or replace.

I'm mixing into the basic master-fader chain from the beginning of the mix. I may add or change things as I get further into the mix, but most of it is always there. That means that taking it off changes things dramatically; in fact I dont' take anything off, but might back it down a bit, to send to mastering.

I have no purism of nothing on the master; I'm quite the opposite; lots of things on the master, but each one doing mostly small subtle things. So that probably means that I'm not having the quick and dirty vibe going either; maybe in between.

Yes I'll get projects that are poorly recorded, "cheap" sounds, etc. These are both challenging and fulfilling to work on. There are not speedy solutions; you really need to dig into your box of tools and ideas and find ways to get the most out of what you are given.

When you get the breakthrough that makes it work, it feels great. There are always solutions, but you do have to work within some constraints. If a vocal is poorly recorded, it isn't ever going to sound like a clean Charlie XCX, Sia, or Halsey vocal. So you dig in and work with it. Find a way to accept the dirt and grime, make it part of the vibe.

Analog inserts won't really do anything that can't be done by an emulation, but they might be more accessible to get what you want quickly. Sometimes there are too many choices and parameters in digital that overwhelm creativity.

Hey! Good to hear from you.

I haven't noticed anything as prominent as that "Masterpiece" mix vocals. It does really sound harsh and buzzy in the vocals; I would not want that vocal sound for myself and it really doesn't seem to match vocals to music within the mix. Definitely not "bright but smooth".

So I have not tried RX for that, but it sounds like an excellent idea; what tool are you using within it? Spectral Repair, attenuate I'd guess?

I do love that about RX; you learn to see the sound! Like photoshop for audio.

@sircuit is right I think; but it is the song's producer who is setting the trends.

I'd say again that the producer sets the tone for what they want and the mixer fleshes it out, and that each producer should have their own sound, that the mixer should not make everything sound the same.

@the_mixer also

Can't really take credit for that sound. Again, was set by producers. In fact the Thug vocal was sent to us as an acapella; preprinted as you hear it. That seems to happen a lot with feature appearances by rap artists on pop songs. I think that they like the sound that they get on their songs by their engineers and don't trust "pop" engineers to give them "their" sound, and also maybe those engineers are not wanting to send sessions with plugins because they are protecting their turf mixing the rap artist.

A lot of that sound was pre-printed into the files sent to us. Again, the producer is setting the tone and we're there to polish the presentation.

I'll use the 1176 to boost volume only if the vocal is printed low; so for example if a vocal is printed low, I'll be turning it up on the fader anyway, but I want to leave myself room on the fader later, so I'll use the 1176 to bring it up so my fader can stay near to unity. I'm doing this on the Input knob, not the output.

I'm riding volume in both solo and in the mix. In solo if I am listening for noises and processing artifacts; rough levels. In the mix for context and final tweaks.

@seanak as well.

Separate plugin for saturation. Lo-Fi or Air-LoFi usually.

This is the hardest thing because what they really want you to do is "do nothing, we love the rough mix" just "make it better".

So I start by matching the rough mix as closely as I can. If they've sent their whole ProTools session, great, it is probably there.

If not, I'll work really hard to match it as exactly as I can.

Then start to listen for things you don't like and fix them. Listen for where a nice instrument part is buried and find a way to bring it out. Listen for all of the vocals and effects; are they pleasing?

I find that it often helps to NOT pay attention to the mix and things will start to pop out at you that can be made better.

Also a lot of improvement can usually be done at the master fader "master chain". A lot of rough mixes are killed here because they are only going for loud and not beautiful.

For me it is always the vocals. Is that word intelligible, is that adlib too loud, is the reverb tailing off properly, are the vocals overall too loud, too soft, etc.

Usually the music itself is pretty set towards the end of the mix after doing tweaks with artist and producer. But when I'm printing passes, I'll sometimes stop and double check some vocal thing.

Accuracy in credits remains a huge problem, I'm trying to get my credits and some of Serban's corrected all over the place and it not an easy process. I'm a huge believer and supporter in what Jaxsta is doing, but they can only post what is delivered to them by Labels, and there is a massive data mismanagement there.

So, that said, Serban has not intentionally asked for credits to be left off of projects. If there is an artist taking advantage of innacuracies and saying that they mixed something that Serban actually mixed, that's a shame.

There is not any Ghost Mixing involving us that we are intentionally participating in.

yes, there are still "mix-off" contests that some high-power producers or artists will try to do. Serban works very hard to not fall into that. Here is the problem.

A producer who works with his own mixer takes on a band that has worked with Serban (or any other big name) in the past.

The producer wants his guy to have a try, so proposes a "mix-off". What (maybe) happens is they get the Serban mix, give it to their guy, and then work with their guy doing tweaks on his (or her) mix while not giving feedback to the Serban mix.

And then, wow, they pick their own mix as the "best one"!

There is a strategy to not give them the incentive to work that way, but it isn't mine to share. I'll just say that Serban and his management avoid "mix-offs"

I'm not on the songwriting side of things, so my opinions here might not be too relevant; I think you have good points, but I think that those issues need to be considered early in the process and can be handled within the current business frameworks.

I believe that songwriter splits are negotiable, so that discussion needs to be happening early in the writing process and worked out among the writers. Now it is true that some big artists might demand writer split even if they have not actually written anything. The actual songwriters need to balance that giveaway against the potential for much higher sales and income selling to the big artist.

Artists covering a song know going in that they are covering a song because they like it and/or because they know they will get paid on the performance and sales and not on the songwriting. It is really no different to then recording / performing a song written by any other outside writer. Covering a song is an homage to the great songwriters, not to the original artist.

Mix engineers should be demanding and getting a point or points on a record. These points generally come from the producer and not the artist; never from the songwriter.

The people in the know, know that the engineers contribute a great deal toward the art and success of the music. Not everyone wants to be famous though, so those who want the fame can go ahead and be out there as a public figure. I want to get the proper credit, but don't need the headaches that famous artists and others deal with.

It usually starts with a verbal agreement and a deal-memo. Often the mixing process is done before the legal process, so that deal-memo is key.

Contracts for every project unless it is a simple fee (no points, no bonus structure).

Best practice is to have a standard contract so that the legal side is simple and quicker, but some lawyers love to negotiate so some artist-side lawyers will spend a lot of time picking apart the contract because they can negotiate terms.

Lawyer generally gets 5% of your fees, so at least you don't need to pay hourly.

It doesn't usually matter how well you know the other party; their lawyer is the one to watch out for.

The worst thing that you can do is clip the recorded signal. I'd much rather have it too low than clipped or distorted. There is very little or nothing to do to fix a clipped vocal except make it part of the sound and pretend it is intentional.

With the modern DAWs, 24bit files, floating point internal math we have Tons of potential dynamic range and headroom available. I can do many things to a vocal recorded too low, even RX out noisefloor problems if they become perceptible.

That said, here is a perfectly recorded pop vocal at normal zoom level on ProTools. Raw file played doesn't quite hit the yellow of the channel meter at the loudest part. It is not too compressed in the recording and has a wide dynamic range, but remains above the noise floor. No chance of it approaching clipping.

So with a vocal recorded in the right range, you should not need to do much with the plugins; generally I'll want a plugin to have in and out near unity, so each one is not raising or lowering the volume significantly; adjust input and output, makeup gain, etc. on each plugin as needed to mostly have no significant gain. As I did say before, If I do need a lot of gain due to low recording volume, I'll do that gain in the first compressor (or sometimes clip gain), so that after that it stays in a nice range.

I'm from the era of SSL Consoles with VCA faders, so keeping the faders near 0 is kind of a habit for vocals. It also allows much finer control as the scale is wider near 0. So I will be using the plugins on the channel to keep it near that range.

Actually no! I think that on an actual console, the layout of the channel is great for reaching for which knobs are needed. I don't think it translates well to a graphical emulation of the SSL channel strip.

I do many more EQ moves manipulating the graphical display on MH Channelstrip, Pro-Q, etc. by clicking and pulling on graphical handles than turning virtual knobs.

Now remember that my input devices are a mouse and keyboard; I don't have any knobs and things that are mapped to plugin controls.

So for me it is purely a workflow hand/eye/ear coordination that I've become familiar with; it has nothing to do with the way any of them sound.

Thanks for taking my mixing course. I'll let you where to send the check! :lol:

Seriously, I appreciate the feedback and am happy that so many people have found what I've said useful. :peace:

for @tkaitkai also.

If it feels quantized and stiff, I'll assume that the producer wants it that way; that might be their style.

For sliding track timing;

It depends highly on the producer. Most of the ones we work with are very diligent in making sure their groove is tight and correct, so we would not mess with anything.

On occasion I will move other instruments to match the drums (i.e. piano or bass hit out of time) but the groove is very personal to most producers so is rarely messed with, other than as you said fixing the odd transient.

Uh, kind of just in my head. I guess I tackle things as I hear them, but I'll make mental notes of things to come back to later if I'm concentrating on one particular thing.

If I forget something that I noticed earlier, then I'll either notice it again or it wasn't important enough to make a difference I guess.

It is a bit of everything you've said. Some broad strokes. Lots of spot fixes; some words may need to come up 6dB because the singer kind of ghosted them.

We do tend to do more "square" automation rides because we can do that with mouse and be very precise. Most of these would be in the 2-4db range I'm thinking.

I'm very eclectic in my out-of-work listening. It is usually not anything with vocals just for relaxing. So I might put on an Indian classical Sitar internet radio station, Zen music kind of relaxing stuff.

I also love stuff like Perez Prado Orchestra (Trumpet player here), Blues Brothers's genre blues, Johnny Cash, catching up on classics of various genres.

I pretty much never listen to our own work for pleasure after the mix.

I would love to talk about this because it is a really fun and interesting project for so many reasons. Let me say that Taylor and her band and the recording team did an incredible job of re-recording the songs. They've been performing them for years, now they get a chance to record them.

However, for a number of reasons, I'm not going to discuss it! First, it is an ongoing project that will hopefully be going on for quite a while. There is a lot of material to re-record and re-mix.

But the biggest thing is that there are a LOT of rea$on$ that this project may be controversial and I don't want to be called in for depositions.

Yes, I like the description as well!

I'll do square rides for most of my mouse-based automation. It is just easy to highlight a word, an esss, or a whole chorus and pull it up or down.

I'd probably do between 3dB to 6dB on an ess that has slipped past the plugin de-esser. I'll do 6dB to 12dB on some breaths if they really stick out. (ones that I forgot to or didn't care do lower with audiosuite gain).

No, not that. I mean that I'll do rides on the volume automation lane after the plugin de-esser has done its thing.

In ProTools, the channel fader is after the plugins, so the Plug-in De-Esser hits it first, then the fader automation comes after.

So If I want to alter the signal before the plugin, I can use AudioSuite Gain or anything that changes the actual audio file, if I want to alter the signal after the plugin, I can use fader volume automation.

I'll probably gain down (audiosuite changing the actual audio file) breaths, noise, do region mutes to change things before the plugins that I don't want them to bring back out. I'll do volume changes after the plugins to more fine tune, smooth, or adjust volume without changing the sound.

Those are choices originally made by the producers who sent us both pre-printed effects and ProTools sessions with their effects laid out.

Both productions by Oscar Gorres; you've got an ear for his work.

He features distorted delays feeding reverbs on both songs; the Troye one has layers and layers of these effects.

Tucking in effects tastefully and riding them for effect is one of the keys to making a mix alive.

https://www.grammy.com/grammys/news...-swift-all-have-common-oscar-gorres-interview

Thanks! I was actually thinking of writing a blog about this, but I think it comes across a bit braggadocios. The biggest challenge is too much work!

Too many projects coming in, projects taking longer to mix because artists, producers, labels can't make decisions or are sending productions that are not quite complete and trying to fix it in the mix.

We do a mix, then they start to send new files, replace this, replace that.

The label will set a deadline and then the producers take the whole timeframe to do their thing and send us files days before their deadline, expecting that we'll drop everything or not thinking that we have other clients in progress.

Out of the blue "I've got 12 songs coming to you, our deadline is in two weeks". Uh ok. When are these files coming? "They'll trickle in over the next week". They do trickle in; one or two here and there and then two days before the deadline "8 more songs on the way!"

ITB 1000% enables us to scale, switch between projects instantly, and have a bit of a Ford Production Line structure. The only way that analog will not slow down the process is if the knobs are set and never changed. We would need 2 units of everything that sound identical to each other and never go bad.

We get a lot of sessions coming in from a variety of producers that are trying out new plugins and tech so we kind of get to find what they like first and then we get introduced to it.

I tend to shy away from the Machine Learning, easy-button kinds of things. I think that it is great to help younger engineers learn what it is doing, but I would then try to replace what it is doing with more traditional means; learn from the Machine instead of the machine learning from you. If we go the way of the machine learned mixes, then we'll eventually get into a feedback loop where it is learning from what we are doing, and then we're doing what it is learning, and then it is learning from what we are doing . . . . .

For me, the joy and pride in doing the hard work is more important than cranking out cookie cutter mixes quickly.

We do our own IT work. We've been on Mac computers for 30 years, so we know their ins and outs really well. I've crashed and reconstructed systems several times, so I've learned what NOT to do!

Current machine is a 2019 Mac Pro Tower, 16-core, Running Catalina.

It has happened that suddenly things stop working; time to panic! It usually takes half a day or a day to rebuild or restore from a back up. I keep multiple bootable backups ready to go if things really go bad.

We don't use management software because we have personal settings, files, etc on our individual systems; so we just take care when a new plugin or update is done that we are doing the same install on all systems.

I've also got multiple hard drive backups of working files and past files, as well as an LTO-6 Tape drive to archive.

For security reasons I'll not talk about how we are are delivering files.

One of the ways that we have maintained stable systems is to not jump onto new platforms until they are well into widespread use. We got these Intel Mac Pro towers specifically because we wanted to have them before the change to Apple's chips. That transition could turn out to be a nightmare for compatibility issues and plugins.

This computer is so powerful it is ridiculous. I'm running full big sessions in ProTools with tons of routing and plugins and then doing Atmos mixes of them where I am essentially creating 15 or 20 master fader's (actually Aux's) where there was one before with all of the plugins recreated on each one, doing 7.1.2 routing all over the place while I'm also running and recording into the Atmos Renderer on the same machine. A 7.1.2 channel or aux has 10 mono instances of each plugin where a stereo channel has 2. Have not yet reached a limit.

I'll do all of the above for different types of effect.

Riding the send will have a different sound than riding the return; for example feed back on a delay will be different. If you ride the send on a delay, you can pick out specific words to effect more; if you ride the return, previous words in delay feedback may come out as well.

Muting the send to a reverb is very different than Muting the return. One allows the last part sent to tail off, the other chops everything out.

I'll generally start with the Aux returns on FX tracks at 0 and make most all adjustments to the sends, except in cases where I specifically want the effect return to change.

Yes, we'll draw in send volume and mute and return volume and mute as needed.

I'm going to reword your question a bit and replace "groups" with Aux Input tracks for subgrouping audio files to an Aux track.

I guess I mostly treat Aux tracks for subgroups as a convenience and not a process.

Aux tracks are useful to apply a general settings across multiple tracks, or, for let's say real drum kit, applying EQ and compression across all of the tracks so that bleed between mics is controlled along with the main spot mics.

I would generally not use aux tracks as a process to significantly effect, or pre-master, parts of a multitrack. Now, that is generally; if I want to specifically do that exact thing, for example squash a whole drum kit with Decapitator, then the group is the place to do it.

Where many people use Aux input subgroups for every part of a song (drums aux, percussion aux, bass aux, guitar aux, etc.) I don't set up a session that way from the get-go. I'll do it on an as-needed basis as I find tracks that make sense to process in that way.

We never mix anything from MIDI. We won't start a mix unless everything is bounced down to audio.

Thanks! Some clients are super detail oriented and also want to make sure they have tried every possible thing to achieve perfection.

Bruno is one of those clients, as is Beck. (both winning us Best Engineered Album Grammy awards, so this is not a complaint, this is an observation and an appreciation).

Here's an article I just found that relates.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/23/how...ginal-gains-rule-says-performance-expert.html

Bruno and Beck are fully into "micro-excellence". So for those clients who are this way, it is a lot of work but also often very rewarding if their art matches their ambition. You might get a client re-cutting parts of the song halfway though a mix because it can be better. Beck changed lyrics, therefor all new vocals and BGV's during a mix.

Never good enough creates great records, but is very hard work.

This happens fairly regularly, so it kind of becomes part of the process.

We try to to take the time to print all of the alt passes and stems until we are sure that it is "finished finished". Like after the main mix has been mastered and mastering approved, and then wait a week or so if possible.

We add it to the mix session and work it in; reprinting the whole mix.

We don't charge hourly, so it is usually no extra charges and considered another "tweak". Now if the changes are major enough, like major redone production, all new vocals, etc. We will just charge for a whole new mix; or half mix fee if we are feeling generous.

Multi-band tools are great and one of the few "modern" tools that I really appreciate; so all of the above (except maybe monitoring)!

XFer's OTT is very popular these days, I also like the McDSP ML-4000 and 8000 as well as Izotope Ozone's tools

@sircuit kind of has me nailed.

In my personal opinion, I have never paid attention to the oversampling debate and tbh here, had to look up the issues in gearslutz threads before I wrote this.

So If I pull up a plugin and I'm hearing something in it that I don't like, I'm probably not going to be thinking about and experimenting with oversampling or not; I'll probably go with another plugin that sounds better in that application.

This is not at all to say that there is not a valid debate to be had about oversampling within plugins; but I've got bigger fish to fry.

I would actually have to go and check which settings are selected in Ozone, it is probably whatever comes up as default.

There is probably a much better answer to be had from much more technical minds than my own; I'm too busy making music to read the white papers! :rockout:

Unfortunately I think once it is in the file there isn’t much to be done.

Request they redo it, request raw files, ask for the session without processing recorded back and see if you can do better with their settings.

Demand better quality control at the front end. We all need to demand better engineering and quality control wherever we can because it is seriously all around.

I've been using the very similar McDSP ML-4000 and am just used to it. It also has more functions available (gate, compressor, expander, limiter).

I find once I get used to the layout of one product, I don't often try other similar competitors. No other reason than those.

A lot of that is just by feel; I have a few things set up as starting places, but I don't want to become too formulaic and say "this is a ballad at 60bpm, sung by a woman, so I'll use my Hall reverb with 5second tail".

When the choice is mine to pick a reverb, delay, or other effects, I enjoy experimenting and crafting something unique. One some might get a multi-tap delay feeding into a reverb and then an EQ rolling off all the high end. Another might get a reverb feeding a delay, or a flanger, etc.

Maybe a dirty reverb feeds a clean one, etc.

This is one area that I personally like to play with and really avoid a formula.

Ah, I need a vacation desperately!

We have so much work right now it is crazy, but we are work-a-holics I guess.

Vacations are scary when you are self-employed and busy.

Will the artist take their work elsewhere when you are on vacation. If they do, will they fall in love with that other mixer and take all of their work there in the future?

Leading up to a vacation you scramble to finish everything, getting overworked. After returning from vacation you scramble to clear the backlog, getting overworked.

The vacation relaxation is kind of nullified by the stress at each end.

It is kind of the cost of success I think, not really a way around it. Who do you turn away? "Uh sorry, Bruno, I'm unavailable to do your mix", "Sorry Katy, can't do it", "Unfortunately Sia, I'm just too busy for you".

Yeah, not going to happen. You take all the work and grind on it.

It helps that we enjoy the work but I guess this is why many successful engineers might semi-retire at some point. It probably isn't for lack of work.

As for vacations, we try not to take them at the same time, so If Serban is on vacation, I can be knocking out some mix tweaks, sending files as requested, and such. When I am out of town, he can work through the existing backlog and accept files for new mixes for me to prep when I get back.

You prioritize all of them, and every other project regardless of star status, and never let any of them know you are in the weeds.

So one of the benefits of working totally in the box is that any song can be pulled up at any time.

So we can knock out a little tweak on a song in 5 or 10 minus and send that out. They'll probably not get back to us for hours, or maybe a day, so we just continue to do this all day long; After the initial first pass of the mix is sent, each song might get touched 5 or 10 times, but might only need 30 minutes or less each time.

The ones where major things change in the middle of the mix are the ones that back everything else up.

One benefit of working totally remotely is also that we make our own schedule, so we like to keep it pretty much 9am to 6pm, 5 days a week. Extra work can happen on weekends or evening as a buffer, but we're not sitting with the artist 15 hours a day like used to happen.

It is an online bounce (not offline, because I want to hear it as it goes down), not imported back into the session. Printed to another folder on another drive, I'll print the Main, TV Track, Instrumental, Acapella, Clean passes if needed, and sometimes a vocal up. That folder gets sent to mastering.

Later I'll add a subfolder to that and print all of the Stems. These are printed offline to save time.

That folder of deliverables is archived here as well as sent to the label; stems are sent out to whoever the label asks me to send to for remixes, Musical Directors, etc.

I print stems as instrument groups; I try to give enough separation to be useful, but not to the level of recreating a multitrack.

My main purpose for stems are to allow for remixes, where they will only use a few part of the song, or for performances where they might mix live and recorded sounds.

So I'll separate things like Kick, Snare because they might replace those, but not every drum separate.

If there are 10 hats, I'll make one Hat stems. One drumkit Stem for a live kit.

I try to separate guitars so that each melody or countermelody is separate, same for keys, synths. I'll group all Pads if they play together, but separate contra-temp parts.

All stems get printed with effects from the mix; but I will do Dry Lead Vocal and Dry Adlibs stem because those are useful for remixes.

I don't print effects busses separately.

I print all stems offline these days; It takes between 30 minutes and 1 hour per song. A MacPro Beast of a computer helps a lot.

If a session is particularly slow bouncing, I'll deactivate tracks as I go through it, I'll also commit tracks in the mix if they have particularly buggy plugins throwing off errors or crashing.

We are not dithering on our mix bounce. Leaving they to mastering.

Also not dithering on stems.

The biggest changes I think are the size and span of the productions.

20 years ago, we would have 20 to 30 tracks to mix from. These days it is hundreds.

I don't feel like we are exerting influence over the sound of the music; we are trying to let the producers with new sounds and artists with new ideas do that. I feel more like we are a safety net for those creative changes; we work with the artists and producers to reach their artistic vision, but help to make sure it stays within some technical and artistic boundaries that "sound good".

People do send us stems to mix from that are stems created from their own mix. I don't like to work that way, but it happens and sometimes they are not capable of providing any other sources (for either technical reasons, or they don't know how to).

So we sometimes do mix from other people's "Stems" in the legit sense of the word, and other times people don't know the proper terminology and send us what they are calling "stems" which are actually a committed multitrack (not grouped and not run through mix buss).

Tape sounds nice!

Mostly plugins are running native, especially on the current MacPro Beast; two cards for high track count and for lots of I/O required for Atmos mixing.

Depends on the artist, producer, and the relationship.

For those who you have not worked with much in the past, or who have not been so receptive to the mixer's "stylistic choices" then theme is ready to send for comments when it sounds like but better than the rough mix, technical problems are fixed, you are ready for some more specific direction. These are not the clients to be experimental with on the first pass.

For those you have experience with and know what you can do with a song and trust your instincts, a mix is ready to send out when the above is true, but also when you have brought some of your own magic to it, have followed their preliminary guidance (make it huge!, make it dream, deeper, darker) , and you are ready to hear if they like the direction you are going.

There will be between many variations of the mix as you work through the notes; each one zeroing in on what is liked and not liked. But that first mix pass is pretty critical to know if you are getting what they want done.

Nothing like that happening at our end. It's all in your head! Hah!

So, let me think what you might be perceiving; Radio might definitely speed up a mix; Serban has done mixes that are Radio mixes where the original mix by someone else is on the album, and the Radio mix is done by Serban.

Could be effects of MP3 and other lossy compression schemes; maybe his mixes hit the compression bands differently because of their "fullness"?

We are working completely in digital, so would not be any conversions at our end that clocking would affect.

So then maybe it was just the newness of the "clarity" or "bandwidth" of a full digital mix going to radio when they were used to dealing with a more "analog" product.

We don't do any analog summing, so my opinion is totally based on what I "think" without any experience in reality.

So, my totally uneducated opinion is that it is not necessary for adding anything to the sound of the mix. Now, it it helps in your creative flow, in your mixing process, in your work strategy, there is probably nothing wrong with it (other than potential to add more noise, add more A/D and D/A conversion, potential to overdrive analog components).

For the tips for the bedroom producers and mixers, first take a read through my blog here; https://jaxsta.com/news-article/45181

So I don't see any problem with laptops, stock plugins, or any of that. Top 3 tips are better monitors, get off the headphones, and better monitors!

Headphones are great for checking things out in detail, but I have never been able to actually mix from beginning to end on them; any many others I've talked to feel the same. Even with very expensive headphones it just isn't the same.

Now for those who say it can be done, that's great! I don't deny that some people can mix on headphones successfully; but you did ask for my opinion.

Edwardss44, outside this threadHey again John, I know I was a bit nosy when I asked about the starting point on the ml4000 and I understand that you don’t want to share it. I think a better question is what are you looking for to solve or maybe add when you’re using it (or any other multiband comp+limiter). I feel like that’s one of my weakness and everytime I do a mix, I spend a lot of time on it. Therefore that’s why I’m a little bit intrusive with this question. Thank you one more time for everything, your tips helps me a ton and made my mixes significantly better. At least for me and where I’m from, it feels amazing to have you here and teach us so many things. Thank you and I’m sorry if my question is stupid.

Your question is not stupid; it is actually a bit too good! I've started and stopped replies to you a couple of times because there are some things that I don't want to share but I do want to be helpful.

So let me say that generally you don't want the MB to be doing a whole lot of sound shaping; so don't really treat the different bands with very different settings. I don't use it to shape within the mix, but it does shape the overall mix.

We basically have one setting for it that doesn't change either within one mix or from song to song. So maybe we're not using it as a "tool" but more of a "process".

For us it is set it and forget it; so when you have a setting that works well, leave it. Refine it until it just works for every song. After that the setting never needs to change. Mix into that setting, don't mix with that setting.

I hope that makes a bit of sense.

You've now got your 'secret sauce'.

I've not done that, but if you like the results than that is all that matters!

Anything is a good idea if it gives pleasing results.

Silk Sonic is amazing right?

Serban, Charles Moniz, Bruno, Anderson, and the producers get all of the credit for the Silk Sonic sound. I was purely playing a support role as far as that goes.

They did reference a bunch of older stuff to get the feel, but then worked from there to make it updated but still have that vintage sound. It is a real balancing act and took a while to really work it out.

As far as overall career goes, I've been blessed to work with some amazing talent and learned what "I think sounds good" through that process. Starting with working with Teddy Riley, through the Touch Of Jazz producers of Musiq Soulchild and Jill Scott fame, and working closely with Serban for decades, and through him Max Martin and his teams(s) of producers.

I won't say that I studied other mixers in depth, but we are always trying to be competitive, so listening and analyzing as everything evolves.

Hi Santiago. So glad someone else in the world in interested in Atmos. I sometimes think that what I'm doing in that space is irrelevant, but it is really interesting to me because there is so much more technical process and puzzle solving to do.

So what I'm doing is re-creating the Stereo Mix Buss on a 7.1.2 Aux. That works for the beds which are a 7.1.2 channel bed. Anything in these beds is running through the Aux with all the Mix Buss plugins on it. Note that this means where on a stereo Mix Buss channel you will have 2 instances of each plugin (in multi mono), on the 7.1.2 bed channel there are 10 instances of each plugin (and only multi-mono compatible plugins can be used on it). The

I also have to create at stereo Mix Buss on 2-channel Aux tracks for each Object pair that I'm using. I'm using between 10 to 20 object pairs, so each one gets its own Mix Buss plugins duplicates of the beds channel.

I'm then using the main 7.1.2 bed channels to send to keyed compressors on each of the other Object Mix Busses; this is how they all glue together.

LFE channel in included in the 7.1.2 bed.

Now, you'll see that I'm saying 7.1.2 channels and beds, but I have 7.1.4 speaker system.

This is, I believe, a quirk of how Dolby had set up system integration into ProTools, or how Avid applied it. ProTools operates on 7.1.2 channels. So anything sent to the overhead speakers in the beds gets set to both front and rear equally, effectively making it collapse to a centered stereo pair.

Objects, though, can access the individual overhead speakers; so this is how to get front top, rear top, etc.

Almost right. I'm using a send from the 7.1.2 bed Aux channel to key the compressors on the Object master aux channels.

the objects and beds are just ways of routing audio to the Dolby Atmos Renderer application which records and encodes the audio and object metadata.

So an object is not a separate mix, it is just routing a specific sound.

The objects can be panned around to any speakers; they can access all speakers.

No, objects are not used to deliver anything on their own; they are just a part of the feed going to the Renderer.

Dolby has tools in the renderer and in the playback decoders to down mix to other formats including 7.1 to 5.1, 2.1, 2.0, and binaural (headphones). So it is a bit of wild west on figuring out how things will translate anywhere because each of these down mixes are created on the fly in the playback decoder. As well as these specific formats there are also Atmos soundbars, smart speakers, etc. that also will decode and affect the final playback in any specific situation. No way possible to figure out how the playback will be translated everywhere.

There are tools in the renderer to make settings for down mixes to follow and binaural playback settings for beds and objects. Aside from the binaural settings, these are kind of left to the default.

That is (mostly) correct, anything going to the Objects is not contributing to the compression.

I say mostly, because what I'm doing is at some point in the mix, I'm bouncing the 7.1.2 master (offline bounce) and putting it on a new track that only feeds the keyed bus compressors on the Objects; output set to no output, send to the key.

So depending on when during the process I do this, some things could be in the key track that are later moved to objects.

But I'm not intentionally manipulating this, just pointing out that you can if you need to. The reason that I'm not concerned generally is that nothing really loud in the song goes to Objects. Generally all of the main elements in my Atmos mix that are loud enough to matter in the compression (drums, bass, lead vocals, most BGVs) are in the Beds. Quiet parts of the song won't be getting the compression, loud parts have enough elements in the beds to do the work.

In my mixes, objects are usually going to be sound effects, non-main guitar, non main keys, selected synths, rarely some percussion element, some BGV, sometimes adlibs, lots of ear-candy, effected sounds, etc.

I'm actually working on a blog post about this. In short, my way of working on it is to build the stereo mix first, do all of the work on that to make it sound great, then I'll begin breaking it out to surround and moving elements.

I'd much rather have a purpose-made stereo mix that I know sounds good than a downmix of a multi-channel mix as my stereo mix.

Then, if needed, I can work to make my down-mix (or binaural) mix sound closer to the purpose made stereo mix.

Towards the end of my Atmos mix, I'm committing my 7.1.2 master fader (do nothing)

So it is not a 'live' mix going to the Sidechain, but a committed rendition of the mix.

I'll then set that output to no output, and use a send to MF Sidechain. That MF Sidechain is then picked up by compressors on the individual object 'aux masters'.

Yes that is correct. I could probably do it sooner than later and avoid some level change issues.

This is not the only compressor on the 'object aux master' so it is really only doing maybe a couple of dB of compression at the most when keyed to the main mix.

It all goes back to how the gain structure is set up. If it is set up the way I like it, then there are not drastic differences with compressor keyed or not keyed.

When I'm mixing from stems, I'll use the SAMP plugin on the bed master (Aux) and on the object master (aux) channels. I find myself often only using the SAMP plugin in these circumstances. I'm not doing the keyed compressor because they are all linked already.

When I'm mixing from an existing ProTools session, I use my original workflow and have not integrated SAMP into that.

Can't oversell how useful it is.

You'll be hearing it on atmos for BTS, Lady Gaga, Carrie Underwood, Conan Gray, and more.

Doing great and working on some exciting things! Thanks.

I have one Aux 7.1.2 for the beds, and one stereo aux for each object pair (I rarely use mono objects). These replace the master buss channels that would be in stereo.

For instances where there are plugins that don't work in Mono (and therefor not available on channel widths other than 2), I'll find solutions such as;

Replace the plugin with something similar that is available in mono.

create multiple stereo aux busses for different positions; i.e. If 10 tracks of BGVs going to a stereo aux buss that has non-mono plugins, I'll duplicate that buss a few times and send different parts of the BGV's to different instances of the buss, each one panned differently or sending to a 2-channel object.

I love my 8361's! They just happen to fit my needs really well; Freestanding, relatively small size, highly accurate, GLM tuning and control, self powered. I do have them sitting on top of the W371A "Woofer System", which takes them to another level (of price and presentation).

When I do switch off the W371A sub extension, the 8361's themselves are quite full range, I could probably fool you into thinking they were still on.

Now many people have opinions on the sound of Genelecs, so that is something you'll have to form your own opinion on; I also have been mixing more and more on them as I get used to them.

I should add that I've not heard the other speakers you mentioned.

Nope, no idea!

juniorhifikit, outside this threadMore and more people appear to be interested in music mixing in Atmos, seemingly on a daily basis! Your experience and what you share here is far from irrelevant! How you're approaching things is very much in line with how most mixers I've spoken to are working - myself included. I also put master faders on all outputs and group them (128 of them!) so I can do easy trims at the end of the mix, in order to hit the target spec right on the nose.

Thanks! I know it isn't irrelevant, but it sometimes feels like I'm playing with Lego Technic and the rest of the world is still on Blox! :lol:

You're doing a lot more use of objects than I am.

Yes, I'm also grouping my masters and trimming them to hit the spec. I'm putting the Waves WLM on my 5.1 re-render input and then I can dial it in for no overs and as close to -18 LUFS as possible.

Ah gotcha!

I find it hard to recommend any monitors because it comes down to very personal preferences.

Now I do have Genelecs for my Atmos speakers, the little 8320A model. I find them to be highly spatially accurate, very good localization. I love that I can tune them and turn them all on and off with the GLM.

In the sweet spot playing a stereo mix I’ll sometimes have to check if I’m hearing stereo or surround, they really have a remarkable presentation of depth and space.

I would imagine the larger models fall along the same lines but have not had a chance to hear them.

Thanks. I’ve said in the other thread on the song that I don’t want to comment on an ongoing project. Let’s let them get the album out before I talk any specifics about the production. Much more Silk Sonic to come and I’m also really excited for it !

No apologies necessary. I didn’t mean to come off harshly!

yes, actually I think that this happens regularly; my comfort zone might be kind of small.:facepalm:

For myself, I never feel like "I've Nailed It" until I get that first round of feedback.

So I approach each project with the same care. I try to find what in the song speaks to me, what makes it special for the artist and producer, what and why they love it enough to send for mixing.

When I've found those elements I want to make sure that I preserve them, or feature them, but can't lose the overall vibe and magic.

I think that we don't try to mold the production to fit a style, but do try make the production excel as envisioned by producer and artist.

So I would say we are not trying to define a trend, but are open to make all trends sound the best that they can.

I think a lot of that developed because we are and have been active in so many different styles of music, so that we need to be completely open to value the new trends that are created by other and sent to us to polish.

I meant to answer the Ava Max questions previously, but didn't get to it.

So of course Cirkut, her main producer, is a huge part of the sound and sound design for Ava, as well as Ava herself who is giving us those tightly sung vocal overdubs.

Lots of vocals recorded and sent. In the chorus of Kings and Queesns, 3 part harmony, 4 tracks of each note. Plus a bit of gang vocals. Some small tight effects help to fill it out, and then some overall reverb Hall and delays.

This is another one where the producer has set to tone and sound design, and then Serban massages it.

Ava and Cirkut are very involved and specific in the mix as to what they want; so it is a collaborative process.

We have not changed from the Pro-AC and Bryston pair for 25 years!

So I don't have much recent experience looking for monitors.

Only the same on the near fields where 90% of the work is done. I'm starting to think about new Mids/Mains for myself; but just thinking at this point.

I'd like to hear some big Genelecs, and ATC, in this room as well as either the Barefoot MiniMain12 and/or the Barefoot MicroStack45.

But we are too out of the way to get big speakers like this for auditioning, so it is not so easy.

like @psycho_monkey I also am using RX De-Reverb for this.

Thank you!

@Gwella also

Yes, I'll sometimes use the MH Channelstrip compressor, in MIO mode, after the 1176. Just for a few dB of smoothing.

Thanks!

We don’t really keep up with that stuff. Just no time. I mean we listen to other music and see who did it, but not analyzing and digging in too far.

I think that our workflow I consider in the more traditional thinking but the music can be anything.

I think you're doing it all the way I would do it!

I think you're doing it all the way I would do it! Glad I could help.

I've tried Soothe, and Soothe 2, and in some circumstances it works for me. I do find that it is hard to figure exactly what it is doing; I'll solo the effect and try to see if it is what I want.

Sometimes it works for me, other times not.

Can't really do that; but TBH, for mixes coming out of here, you would be very hard pressed to tell them apart. I will pull up mixes and masters and A/B them and can't usually tell much of a difference.

Ideally that would be for every mix coming out, but of course some require more adjustments.

Also, regularly but not often (or should that be the other way around?), an artist or producer will ask for the mix to be run through mastering without adjustment; they prefer the Mix to the Master.

We recommend where we can. When their choice of mastering engineer says to the files are loud and can we send a not-limited mix, we recommend our choice again.

Generally track counts across the board from all producers are growing.

Everyone is taking advantage of the ability to leave decisions (bouncing down) to later in the process, as well as the ability to pack more in.

Not specific to the Bruno's and Max's:

Some things bug me (you really need 13 snare drums?), (you really can't put bridge BGV's on the Hook BGV's track?). So not always smarter layout.

(Virtually) no restriction on track count I guess makes the production process quicker and more efficient from their perspective in that they don't need to think about limits and choices immediately. But I would not say there is an effort at track count efficiency and keeping them down.

For me it makes sense that I want to do all of my other EQ, compression, etc. first; anything that is going to boost up the highs, make the "less" stand out more. Then after all that I'll hit it with the De-esser.

So I guess do everything that is going to make it worse first, then fix it. That way you know that if you brighten the vocal more with EQ, the de-esser will be working on that brighter vocal.

it is usually between -.1 and -.5

To be more precise. Mix is done at .1 for the hype factor and then we drop it to -.5 when printing final mixes for mastering. :messed:

Really a small change, but it gives a tiny bit more room for mastering to work with.

Probably so; mostly a leftover habit that signifies to us a "final" print mix.

Mix passes are generally printed at 24bit 44.1kHz for Serban's mixes. He likes to control the conversion to 44.1.

For my separate work where I'm mixing, I'll print mix passes at 24bit 48kHz if that is the resolution of the session.

Stems are always printed at the resolution of the session.

Only recently have we started doing 96kHz mixing; the Taylor Swift "Fearless" Taylor's version was recorded, mixed, and mastered at 96kHz for most of the songs.

So for that, all mix passes and stems are at the session resolution of 24bit 96kHz.

That was done before Teddy changed to the Euphonix.

SSL 4000, 2 x Studer 24track tape machines with Dolby SR.

Teddy programmed everything in Logic, AKAI samplers, lots of hardware synths, large MIDI routing network hooked into Logic.

We tracked it to tape through the console. Back through the console for mixing. Teddy definitely in charge of the direction and sound of the songs; in those days we were more in charge of recording and cleaning up the mixing.

We would track everything to tape, then bounce down to 2 tracks on another reel and begin tracking vocals onto tape.

When vocal blends were finished for BGV's, we would sample them back into AKAI and fly them through the song.

When all BGV's were in place, start tracking lead vocals. Teddy, Leon Sylvers, Sprague Williams, and other producers working on these with us engineers on vocal tracking. Teddy would record his lead vocals through Vocoder, other boxes (can't remember names now) sitting at his production position in the control room while the engineer wore headphones and ran the tape machines from the console controls.

When all that is done, re-assemble the tapes. Back to the main reel for instruments, flown in BGV's and lead vocals on the second reel.

Let's see. I left around 1997 or 1998. He had the SSL 4000 then. After that he had an SSL9000 briefly, which he apparently didn't like, then changed to the Euphonix.

So both No Diggity and Fix would have been on the 4000. Finally album was probably the 9000, and Level II album probably on the Euphonix.

TBH he should never have gotten rid of the SSL4000. He, and we, knew how to push that board to get the sound he liked. The 9000 was probably too clean for him, and the Euphonix a different beast altogether.

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Yes, we did use VSO Elastic Audio.

I think that you got it with mixing a lot. You can't really just listen to finished mixes and say that kick, that snare, that guitar sounds good from a learning perspective. You have to have the raw files to hear where it came from and where it went. The learning isn't necessarily in the hearing the complete mix, it is in picking apart the individual pieces and figuring out how and why they work together.

So I think mix engineer just need to really experiment and learn the tools and their ears. Practice doing things that clients might not like, might not want, but help you to find the boundaries.

I guess is is like when I was practicing trumpet. Much of the practice time was not spent on playing music, but was spend on practicing fundaments.

The "wall of sound" is really a development of the production stage. It is just masses of instruments playing complimentary and additive parts. I don't think it can really be done purely in a mix environment without the recorded parts to work with.

It is set to what I think is ProTools standard -3.

I think that @psycho_monkey is right though. Width in mix is really created by phase elements of sounds and not panning. So width is always a stereo element because you need a phase discrepancy to create it.

yes, but I'd like to replace them! Rarely used; actually my 15"sub blows internal fuses and I can't find anyone to repair it.

I've got a confession to make; I've just put some Genelec 8361A + W371A speakers in my room.

How good are they? :cool:

I can't stop smiling.

Also Amazing and I've long loved the PMC's. Happy Listening!

Not trying to push them over others. This system just happens to fit my needs perfectly.

Love other high end speakers. ATC in the best mastering room I've heard are simply amazing. PMC mind blowing when I've heard them.

Didn't ask for or get a deal from Genelec. These just fit my particular requirements.

It doesn't take much time to love the sound. Set up, tune with GLM, and it sounds heavenly. (just checked my GLM setting; it is basically flat from 22Hz to 22kHz)

Serban and I agree; they are too good to mix on. They are so detailed and accurate and gorgeous that it will make a mixer lazy to start working on them. So I would still start mixing on the ProAc; then when it gets to the really detailed stage, right before sending to mastering, have a listen on the Big Genelecs.

It is like listening through a microscope; you can hear every subtle thing easily that you strain to hear on the ProAc.

My main purpose for getting them; aside from just want!ing them, is that I'm finding I need to start matching Stems for Atmos Mixes to the mastered song; I need to get the stems to sound as good as the Mastered Stereo Mix, and then I can start breaking it out in surround.

So I'm using them as stereo microscopes to prepare for surround mixing.

Now Serban would argue, and I think I agree, that you put in the work to make it sound good on small speakers, ProAc, etc., that are not necessarily chosen for pristine sound and accuracy.

If it sounds good on ProAc, it will sound amazing on the 8361A. But that translation won't necessarily work the other direction.

I didn't take it that way; but I wanted to be clear; this was my choice after my own research.

No worries! :rockout:

I've not measured the ProAcs. There is no comparison; the 8361's are insanely better. But they are there to serve a different purpose; better speakers don't necessarily mean better mixing.

They are both pretty flat for their respective sizes; so the difference is in Imaging, in detail, and in depth. The 8361's being effectively point-source, have insanely detailed imaging and depth. Reverbs make you feel like you are there in the room. It doesn't sound like there are just two speakers.

Phantom center is so well defined that most people think my center channel for Atmos is turned on.

Sweet spot is huge; like most of the room. When you move your head around in front of the ProAc, you can hear the imaging shift between the drivers. With the Genelec, you can walk the room and not hear that driver image shift.

I think that my mixing would suffer some. My plan is to get through most of the mix on the ProAc, and then do final detail work on the Genelec.

When you throw up a mix on the Genelec it just sounds awesome! Which, yes, tricks your brain into thinking that not much needs to be done.

Yes I would hear more of the faults in vocals, but might think that guitar, kick, or synth sounds great as is and not do some things I would otherwise do to tame it.

Also the low end control would be totally different. The Genelecs will play any frequency without strain; so things that need to be rolled off, might or might not be problematic.

It will take getting used to, but I'll not be mixing exclusively on the Genelec.

Oh no! The 8361A are stereo main monitors. The Genelec 8320A are still my 7.1.4 system.

I've got a decent sized room, so they are about 7'6" from my listening position, about 3' 4" feet further away than the ProAc. They are also in line with the ProAc, but being further away, they are spread wider.

On the W371A Subs, they stand about 5'7" tall, so not being blocked.

Different tools for different purposes.

You can look at the moon through binoculars or through a telescope. You see the same stuff, but the resolution and detail is different.

The brain is quite elastic and can hold different perceptions, so long as you use the right tools for the right job.

Besides, there is just beauty in hearing music played back so well. Sometimes its nice to get out of work mode and just enjoy perfection.

yes

My current mix position view.

Swap both. I try hard not to abuse them, they actually can last a very long time. We've got a good stash of replacements though.

Gone from my room. We set them up in another room, but the subwoofer was donated to someone that can get it repaired and use it in Philadelphia. Couldn't find anyone to repair it here in VB.

I agree with all of his subjective analysis and it is cool to see the measurements. Of course no sub is needed, but More awesome is always better than plain awesome!

We all struggle with these elements and there isn't any one solution. You just need to fight with those elements until they sit right with each other.

Tools to use are EQ, compression, limiting, but also phase, timing, Transient "design", expansion, sample replacement, etc.

It also really helps to have the producer who crafted the song have the skills to pick good sounds that work together. It can't always be fixed in the mix. The best examples of perfect sounding bass is good production.

Problem is the thing weighs about 100 lbs and there's no cost effective way to ship it anywhere for repair. Can't find anyone local who has the knowhow to do it, even if I have the schematics.

I'm not in a location where there is any kind of "pro" audio repair people and the repair people I did take it to charged me and sent it back in the same condition for their "repair".

It is a bit odd. I'll be working out at the gym and some days the music seems like all our work; It does feel like I've not left work.

I don't really listen to music outside of work. When I workout, i'm listening to a podcast (Penn's Sunday School my fave). In the car it is sports talk or news.

Thank you! I think that your reviews are amazing and very well done. You have the knowledge of musical theory, musical history, and an ability to analyze musical talent that I wish I had.

Now that is a serious piece of hardware! The fact that I can be 40 miles away is extra bonus! :lol:

https://www.hotgears.com/images/hgiicontroller.jpg

I was thinking more like this, but motorized to follow the track panning.

https://external-content.duckduckgo...ctv.com/images/SD-CON3D%20back.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

The Leap motion wouldn't work for me; I only want it for the precision.

I've just developed ways to work around the limitations; mouse editing multiple pan lanes or doing touch and latch automation moves in the pan window.

What I'm doing is for home listening and portable devices (binaural downmix built into the Atmos stream).

It is becoming a new delivery method on many streaming services and the labels seem to be all jumping on board. I think it is the new "Exclusive" release format.

TBH, the binaural downmix is often not terribly exciting, even though most people will be listening via that method. I'm not trying to make it wild and circus-like experience. It sounds good and there are some things that have an "enhanced" sense of space, but it is not a real surround sound experience.

The real pleasure is listening in a full surround room / home theater equipped for such. A close second are some of the smart speaker / soundbar products available that use beam-forming speakers and room acoustics to create surround.

I'm mostly doing this without artist feedback. No complaints yet!

I guess I don't have a specific general answer. What space do they have in the production? If a true "bell" chime, probably add some reverb to flesh out the sound. Might also add a bit of saturation. A true bell hit in the world would never sound dry, in your face, and pure in my mind.

for sine-type synths, these are best used by producer's as a fill beneath other sounds, or as a lead-line synth where it can be high in the mix and prominent.

Thanks, the Musiq Soulchild, Jill Scott era stuff remains with me as some of my favorite working experiences.

First off, kudos to the amazing producers, writers, and artists. Jeff Townes' (DJ Jazzy Jeff) Touch Of Jazz production crew were amazing to work with.

Without pulling up the actual sessions, I think that a lot of that warmth was available because the productions were kind of open. These were not crammed full of every synth and sound available; but carefully chosen, often real recorded instrumentation, analog recording processes. That leaves a lot of the sonic space available to allow a vocal to be warm and present without having to hype it to overcome synthesizer mid and high end hype.

It is really the style of writing, production, and artist that brings that out. Each night as we were leaving the studio in Philly after one of the trips up there for a project, we put on Norah Jones "Come Away With Me" and marvel at its sonic quality. Maybe that influenced the mixing a bit. That era had some wonderful music.

No not necessarily; synthesizers and samplers were certainly well established by then.

I think that the artists and producers creating that New Philly Soul sound chose live instruments and live musicians because they wanted that special performance and sound.

The talent around that area at that time was amazing. The Roots had a studio in the building where we mixed, Larry Gold owned the studio and did string arrangements, and the team at Touch Of Jazz was outstanding.

Also, I believe that live performances, with their human quirks and "mistakes" are a beautiful part of music. Too much cleanliness and perfect performances sterilizes the music.

Check out their story;

https://youknowigotsoul.com/the-sto...-told-by-the-artists-producers-who-were-there

I think that is would be fun to try things like that, but I'm afraid I'd probably just embarrass myself. I did do a spec mix of a Saint Ansonia song "The Hunted" that didn't win the project (and my mix is not released), but did get some nice reviews from the label. What I found out from that was that some genres have some very specific needs and unspoken requirements that you really need to be versed in to compete in those fields.

I'm sure that I could work in those genres with the producer sitting next to me and working with me on the mix, but working remotely as I do, I don't have the depth in those areas to compete on my own.

As far as modulation effects; I like to use them where I can. I've got a few sends in my preset set up to a couple of auto-pans, a flanger, and a chorus. I like to try sending things to them and see how they fit. Having them on send like that allows me to quickly try them out with any sounds in the mix.

I think that they can add a lot of subtle movement and interest to otherwise static and boring sounds.

It is a big problem and doesn't seem to be getting better. There also is not a good solution that fits all instances.

So luckily I don't have a track count issue where I need to submix just to hear everything.

Also, I would not put this much work into it if the project doesn't reward you in some meaningful way; money, fame, etc. This is above and beyond your normal duty as a mixer. If it isn't worth the effort, ask them to bounce down stems and mix from there.

That being said.

First you need to get the mix to match the rough mix from producer / artist. They need to send you a rough instrumental and rough acapella as well. Start with their rough instrumental and go bar by bar through the song; looping 1 bar at a time, get that bar to match their rough mix. As you progress down the track, new elements come in, match each one; level, eq, panning, effects, etc.

As you go through it this way, you'll find those problems to fix like noises, excess low end, etc.

Then do the same with the vocals. Bar by bar looping each bar until you get it the same as the rough mix.

After that is done; you've re-created their rough mix; now the work of actual mixing starts.

As I said, don't do it unless it is worth it. You deserve a bit more respect as a mixer than to deal with this much work just to re-create a rough mix that someone already has somewhere.

Oh My! TBH I didn't even think of this situation with a bad rough mix, self-produced and recorded project.

I'm seeing this in medium to big budget projects, experienced producers, signed artists, record company budgets, and good rough mixes and good productions.

It is a "cram everything in and fix it in the mix" because "I can't make a decision if like this or not" situation.

I don't envy you doing this at "your end of the spectrum".

It is a production issue. There are difference circumstances that can lead to the giant pile of files being delivered to sort through.

1) the producer / engineer might be on a different system, not protools, so they are trying to be thorough in the file delivery. Wet options, dry options, bussed options, raw options. Here it is through my BGV Chain, here it is without my BGV chain, etc.

In my case, with a good rough mix that everyone likes, I usually go with the most processed files for everything except lead vocals.

2) they truly can't decide what they like and want. "I kind of like this EQ, but if you don't, here is the raw file". "Here is the piano with my effects, but I'm not sure if it works, so here it is without effects, but here is another without any processing in case you want to start from scratch". Also sometimes, "here is an alternate take in case you don't like the one I picked".

The indecisiveness doesn't usually end and the mix drags on and on trying all their different options; and new files send to replace parts during the mix that they discover aren't working for them.

So in some cases we will ask them to go back, make decisions, consolidate files for us, etc. But more often than not, that will lead to further indecision during the mix.

Some people just can't exit the production phase.

My philosophy is to keep the grumbling and shouting swearwords at them within my 4 walls, put on a smile, and say "ok, no problem".

You never know in this business who is the next Kanye, the next Billie Eilish, the next Lorde, the next Max Martin.

Never make enemies and save their bacon enough times, the universe should pay you back.

There are really no targets ever set. Some rough mix is hot, some producer likes it, the mix gets done hot, everyone says "that's perfect!"

When it comes time to print for mastering, often if we make a change they'll say "the mastering doesn't sound as good!"

So, some mixes just stay hot!

I like Waves Center, but lately I've found myself using Kilohearts Haas a bunch. these I'll put on individual tracks.

Also Izotope Imager which goes more on subgroups, mix buss, for more controllable and subtle choices.

Thank you!

There can't be a system to predict or to manage time because the ones who are in control of that are the ones who will send you projects later than they said they would, who set impossible deadlines that they know are BS, and who will come back a week after you make their drop dead, must deliver date with a new vocal because the artist finally woke up and realized they didn't like the performance.

So what you are doing, and what we are doing, is coping with other people's inability to properly budget time, schedule, and meet deadlines. We don't schedule mixes, artist, projects to a date. They get it when we get to it. We so often get projects dropped on us out of the blue, with no warning, that it isn't possible to follow a schedule.

If something feels more important, more critical, more time sensitive, it will get moved up. When someone starts to ask "when can I hear a first pass" then I'll jump on it. Squeaky wheel and all that.

We're kind of working on a "just in time production" environment here.

If you are busy enough to have this kind of problem, then whoever needs to wait should understand.

** Edit ** I should add that because we work remotely, don't have clients in the studio, do not have "attended" mixes, that scheduling is much simpler. If someone calls to check on their mix it is always "I was just working on that', "It is next up on my schedule", or "I'll have it for you this afternoon".

We had been working with a couple of "portable" ProTools rigs for a couple of years going into 2003 when we formed our own studio. These were 20space road cases "portable". We had a stand with a monitor, keyboard, mouse, on a long leash to the rig that we operated it with.

We worked out of a commercial studio in Virginia Beach, VA called "Windmark" for many years. We brought in our own equipment, used their speakers, staff, and electricity. We would also do trips out of town; to NYC, to Philadelphia to finalize projects in various studios.

Eventually we were finding that the commercial space was a bit too restrictive on time, billing, etc. We looked for our own space and decided to build out a house rather than a proper commercial building for studio space.

Even before that we were both self-employed "sole-proprietor". Serban since he left Teddy Riley's employment. My last job as employee was when I worked with studio bau:TON's engineering sister company TEC:ton Engineering helping to install studios.

This is pretty much my feeling. If I just tell you setting, you dont' learn as much. It a 'give a man a fish, teach a man to fish' situation.

Plus it's nice to hold something back, have something that is our process and not have everyone copying exactly.

Well said!

Yes, thank you! Well said.

This is fascinating! Yes, I believe that I'd be in stage 4 for working on audio.

We (well Serban) has been approached by a few. His feeling, and I concur, is that there isn't a gap in the market that we can see and would fill.

Now for me, I would like a utility plugin that can read the settings for any plugin, past or present, and give a readout for it; even if it is not present in the plugins folder, an older version of a plugin etc. It would also be able to extract any automation settings for a missing plugin.

I have to think of a name; maybe the 'Digital Penetrator'! :lol:

It happens. I try to find something I like about the song, about the beat, about the voice. Something to start the spark. Other people like to song or it would not have made it to the mix. Try to figure out the appeal.

The unreasonable people are worse. Bette songs can come along from the nice people. Relationships, mutual respect, and enjoyment of the working environment make even a bad song a better prospect.

You think you can escape? There is not way out.

It is kind of a once or twice a mix thing, when turned up loud, I expect to see "proper" movement of the woofers. If they are moving too much when it isn't loud, then I need to find and filter problem frequencies. If I turn it loud and don't see the usual woofer dance, then I'll take a closer look at the LF area.

Can also see this on meters, but it is another visual check. It is mostly the dancing woofer, the puff of air to the face usually means too much low.

Mostly each producer of a song chooses who they want to do the mix. The label might have some direction to give, but ultimately it is up to the producer to deliver their mixed song. Now a label can reject a mix that they don't like and push it to another mixer, but the producer can also pull a song that they don't feel is their vision; so there has to be give and take between the parties in those decisions.

Some decisions might be that potential singles get mixed by one party and album tracks by another. That can be for budgetary reasons, or for scheduling reasons.

As far as matching across tracks mixed by different people, that is a job for mastering. If far out, it may require one mixer to adjust their mix to other mixes. Rarely it has happened that a "better" mix has been "adjusted down" to match "inferior" mixes. Mostly it isn't an issue as most mixers are giving "pretty good" to "great" mixes. More often, mastering is able to handle it but might ask for a mixer to give a version with more or less vocals.

The label pays for the mix, but I'm not really up on their internal discussions about budgets and how it is divided. If one producer wants to use a more expensive mixer, how that is resolved, I don't really know.

Thanks!

We do mix into a master buss chain, and that is kept intact when sending to mastering. The final mix approved by the client is not altered to send to mastering just to have them try to re-create it.

There have been some songs released unmastered, but I didn't keep a list of them.

Mostly it would look like the final mix was put through mastering. As others have said; we work with a lot of mastering engineers that are not afraid to do little to nothing if that is appropriate.

Interesting. I've not done that kind of analysis and don't know that we're doing anything specific. It might be that is what sounds good to us, so that is what we mix to.

It this only happening on Serban mixes, or have you done a broader analysis of competitive pop mixes?

I think I've said all that I'll say about the mix buss processing. Everything that you've mentioned matters. Different types of processes, more than EQ, compressor, limiter, order of operations, order of plugins, etc.

Without they specific plugins that we use and the specific settings that we use, a general approach would require experimentation at your end to figure out the best order of operations, types of processing, and settings for your specific plugins, system, and settings.

As for binaural / homophonic tools in stereo mixes; it isn't something that we are doing with specific tools, but it is always nice to find things that wide n or expand the sound field especially in reverbs, delays, etc. It is more hit and miss than having a specific tool that just works.

Thanks,

I need to write this out in a blog. There are so many options and ways to do it. @sircuit isn't quite correct. we don't require ProTools sessions, but it is preferred.

We get a lot of sessions that are bounced out multitracks from other DAW's.

If your Buss processing that that big a piece of the sound, then even bouncing each track individually through it will not add up at the other end to the same sound.

In this case (I can't believe I'm going to recommend this because it is a nightmare for the mixer on my end) You need to send out individual tracks not through the master buss, then you need to take screenshots of all of the master buss plugins and the mixer has to re-create those plugins at their end.

It will also be helpful to them to bounce out stems through the master buss, as well as an instrumental and acapella so that they can compare what they are doing on their re-created master buss to your processed parts.

Good luck!

Well I might have some ideas, but it wouldn't be anything that we are doing very specially. Probably mostly just process stuff.

But I'll keep those ideas to myself. If we have an unrealized super-power for mixing vocals, best to not share it!

I've been waiting for the official announcement! Been doing LOTS of Atmos mixing getting ready for this.

I'm pretty excited to hear how the HRTF will work in the AirPods Pro. I've been told it should be pretty close to having actual multi-speaker setup and that it will be decoding the full Atmos mix and not the binaural render.

Not one that I’ve been asked to do but it would probably work really well in Atmos.

For standard headphones with out HRTF (Head Tracking Transfer Function), there is a binaural render created by the Dolby Atmos decoder at the playback end.

There are a few settings that we can set during the Atmos mix that will effect this binaural render; basically setting objects (and beds) to sound near, mid, and far (as well as off); and this is effectively a tiny bit of reverb to give space to the objects.

Mostly for me I try to get it to sound close to the regular stereo mix, but it might sound a bit more to the front instead of between the ears.

Yes! A lot ! But, to be honest, that is my job security. Serban does not have the time to deal with that kind of stuff, and I've become really good at sorting through the muck over the years. I can beat a session into shape for mixing much more quickly than he could; so I make him more efficient.

Yes to some degree. More for similar elements or ones that share frequency. So I would not check kick or 808 vs vocals, but would check kick vs 808 or vocals vs pads.

An interesting mix to be sure. I didn't love the mix a first, but it does grow on you. I love the way it goes from nearly mono to big wide spread.

Vocals need to be clear because the pronunciation barrier is already there, so fast attack / release on the compressor to get those consonants top pop out and hard compression as well. Vocals are heavily compressed, brightened up, then hit hard again with a de-esser to fix problems created by the compression.