What is "Mixing"?

I’m often asked by clients what I mean when I say a song is ready for “mixing”. They usually assume after they’re done recording that it’s finished. And it can be! But usually there is a lot that can be done to turn it from good to great. There are 3 main phases in recording a song/CD. Tracking, mixing, and mastering.

Tracking is the first phase, where you’re literally recording each track of the song. Even though there might be some processing involved, such as compression and EQ (more on this later), it’s generally not considering “mixing”.
Here is an example of a song after the tracking phase:

Notice how the sound field is completely unbalanced. The drums and vocals are off in a distance, the bass almost non-existent, and the guitars very loud. Everything seems mushed together, nothing is very clear.

Mixing occurs when we edit and process each track after it is done being recorded. This phase usually takes the longest, but is the most beneficial for the song’s quality. The goal of mixing is to get each track to sound its best and fit in with the rest of the tracks. This is done through the use of EQ, compression, reverbs/delays, panning, automation, etc.
Here is an example of a song after it has been mixed:

Now notice how everything seems more balanced. You can hear every instrument, and nothing seems to be fighting for space as much. Some effects have been added for a more produced sound, and with the use of compression and automation, the music flows, rather than staying the same volume.

Mastering is the final stage. True mastering shouldn’t be done by the mix engineer for a variety of reasons I won’t go into now. Where before the song consisted of many individual tracks, it is now “mixed down” into one stereo track. Similar processing takes effect in this stage as in mixing, but affects the overall song, not just one track. Mastering generally consists of EQ, Compression, and Limiting, although other processing is often used.
Here is an example of a song that has been Mastered. Note- I did this in 5 minutes and on headphones. It is far from the ideal way to master anything, but I'm using it for demonstration:

Notice how the song is more glued together. It's also a bit louder than the mixed version so it can compete with songs at similar volumes. The bass is a little more prominent, the stereo width has been widened slightly, and some high end has been added to give it some air. Though I didn't do it for this master, it also requires some DeEssing, as you might be able to tell from the harsh sound whenever an S is sung.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule. Some songs don’t need mixing, and some don’t need mastering. But hopefully this has answered general questions about the stages of your project.

Preparing for the studio

There's mainly 2 reasons you're recording- either you're just trying to get an idea down so you don't forget it, or you're documenting as best as possible a completed idea. If it's the latter, you should really be rehearsed. Know the part you're recording, know the lyrics, know the phrasing, know the pitches, know the dynamics, everything. You should be really well-rehearsed, if for no other reason than it will save you a ton of money! Then again, if you're just coming in to get a couple of ideas down to tape, then don't stress too much about mistakes.

But there is some serious validity to diminishing returns in the studio. The more takes you do, the less likely it is that you'll get it just right. That's not to say that 20 takes later you don't finally land an accurate take, but you most likely won't like it. Or you'll be so relieved that you didn't get it wrong that you'll write it off as being acceptable. But either way, you've compromised your original idea, and the whole reason you're recording! So if you take care of your instrument, make sure you sound your best, and know your part like the back of your hand, recording will be a breeze- and cheap!

Good In = Good Out

One of the key ingredients to a good recording session is the source. It's true a good engineer can make a bad source sound better. But it's much easier to make a good source sound great! There's a few things you can do before your session to ensure it sounds its best:

If you don't have a great guitar, try to get one. Borrow one, buy one, or rent one if you can. Put new strings on it, and have it setup by a professional guitar tech. We have some great guitars here for your use if you'd like.

Bassists, do the same. We'll probably take a line-out from your amp head, so make sure it doesn't have any ground problems. (Although we can get rid of some buzzes!)

Make sure tubes in tube amps aren't going out and the speakers aren't torn. Unfortunately, these are things that need to be fixed at least a month before coming in, as they need a break in period.

Drummers, new heads, new sticks, and tuned drums. And try to have spares of each in case something HORRIBLE happens!

Vocalists, there's a load of things you can do to preserve your voice. Avoid dairy, caffeine, and alcohol. Late night partying the night before tends to not be the best thing in the world for your voice. Honey OR lemon, but not both. Honey in some tea will leave a nice coating on your throat. The citric acid in the lemon will remove a lot of "gunk" in your throat. Put the two together and they'll cancel out. If you have any other questions on what you can do to be more prepared, feel free to give us a call or an email!

The Mics

Figure out which one you liked the best? Here are the mics:

Mic 1- Shure SM58 (Vocal Mic)

Mic 2- Rode NT5 (SDC Instrument Mic)

Mic 3- Sennheiser e609 (Guitar Cab/Instrument Mic)

Mic 4- Shure SM57 (Instrument Mic)

Mic 5- Behringer EC8000 (Measurement Mic)

Mic 6- Rode K2 (LDC Vocal Mic)

Mic 7- Shure Beta57 (Instrument Mic)

My favorite was, and still is the SM57. I listened to an even bigger shootout with even more expensive mics, and I still preferred the 57. My next choice would be the K2. It has a nice snap when the snare gets hit a little harder. Has a nice Motown feel to it. 3rdly, I'd pick the SM58. It didn't sound bad.

The NT5 was too bright and picked up too much room for me. The e609 was phasey, somehow, and sounded just bad. The EC8000 distorted even though the signal wasn't clipping. Not really meant for high SPL's anyways. And the Beta57 was just a disappointment.

Snare Mics!

I don't have the widest selection of mics (although for my purposes, I really wouldn't need a wide selection!) Mainly a bunch of $100-$400 ones and a $1000ish one. But I took out everything I had and recorded each one on a snare drum. All about 3 inches off the edge, slightly angled in, going through my X-12 preamp. No compression or EQ was used. The snare in question is a nice Orange County with new Remo heads. Unfortunately, I don't know much about tuning drums, so I had to deal with it being in less than perfect tune. Give each one a listen and see which one you like best. I'll post the results on the next page.


Mic 1

Mic 2

Mic 3

Mic 4

Mic 5

Mic 6

Mic 7

Engineer/Producer

It comes up a little more often than I'd like. There's certain times when I absolutely want nothing to do with the role as a Producer, and others where I'll insist on it.

When a client asks me to be their producer, they usually want me to tell them when to redo a take, or try it another way, or take a break and come back to it etc. The role of the producer is to have an idea of where the song needs to go, and to get the best performance possible out of the artist. The problem with having me, as your engineer do it, is an awkward conflict of interest. First, you're paying me hourly. If I ask you to try a take again, I make more money the longer you work at it. That doesn't sit well with me. It feels sketchy. Secondly, you might be doing a style of music I'm either unfamiliar with, or just don't like listening to. So I'm maybe not the best person to be asking. Lastly I don't usually like it because I don't know you! What if that was your best take? What if I'm expecting more from you and you can't do it? The studio can be stressful enough, and I worked diligently at making sure it's comfortable. I don't want to undo all that by barking at you to be "better".

Now for when I insist on being the producer! It's almost always when I'm either giving someone a deal or it's a group coming in. Bickering happens real fast and takes up a lot of time. The bass player wants to spend 5 hours on his part, the drummer gets mad, maybe wants me to replace some of the drums with samples, the singer is twiddling his thumbs the whole time. This is the time when I insist on being a producer because they need someone to keep things in order. I will usually say, "Okay, we're not spending anymore time on this." Or, "To be honest, no one is going to notice that mistake". Again, it's not necessarily making musical decisions, but time based decisions. I may or may not be an expert in your style of music, but I probably do know better than you what you can get away with. We could spend 5 hours piecing together 5 different vocal takes, auditioning each line to see which one was best. But more often than not, your average listener won't notice.

And that is the other problem I run into. Obviously you being satisfied is my first priority. I want you to leave with a product you are happy with. I don't want you leaving thinking "Oh I wish I did that vocal line this way instead". But the truth is, EVERYONE does that. Big artists and groups have those regrets. There's always things you'll want to go back and change, but it doesn't mean it's unacceptable. Trust me, the only person who is going to know is you. If you're good, no one else is going to know you could have done that one take better. That being said, I will stop recording if you mess up. If there is a blatant mistake- your guitar is out of tune, you screwed up a lyric, you came in at the wrong time, you're more flat than autotune can handle, I'll tell you.

Why Mp3's?

I was reading a couple of questions people had about why we still use Mp3's in an age where audio quality can be so high. A couple of reasons:

Mp3 players, iPods, Smartphones, etc. How are you listening to music from these devices? Big bulky headphones? Nope, you're most likely using ear buds. Unfortunately, ear buds suck at being accurate. Especially in the bass range. Even the high end ear buds aren't that great, sonically. I mean, by definition, they are so small they can fit in your ear. The speakers they use physically can't reproduce some of the frequencies true to the recordings.

Big quality also means big file size. The point of having mp3's is so you can have a lot of songs at your disposal on a relatively small device. A 3 minute pop song sitting on the hard drive at the studio it was recorded at, is probably 3 Gigs if it was recorded at 96/24. For you to have it on your iPod, it needs to be 3 Mbs. Gonna lose quality to do that!

The final reason, is people. People like things loud. So the producers or record companies ride the mastering engineer's ass to put on loads of compression and limiting on the song so when you hear it, it's "loud" and for a short time, you like it. This comes at a huge sacrifice of dynamic quality. If redbook specifications now allowed CD's the be released at 96/24 (instead of 44.1/16), you have a ton more headroom to make things louder, and thus, suckier.

Now, not all mp3 encoders are equal. There are some very good ones. I use WaveLab 6's, and export my mixes that need to be mp3s at the highest settings I can. That actually yields a surprisingly good result. But even those mp3's are about 3x the size of your standard mp3. If you're looking to make your own mp3 collection from CD's, I'd suggest finding a high quality encoder and use the best settings rather than buying them off iTunes.