Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

Mastering.com Members Club

30.5k members • Free

61 contributions to Mastering.com Members Club
Clippers
what clipper do you all recommend? I been searching but cant really decide
0 likes • 2d
Here is another free one. https://kazrog.com/products/kclip-zero
Improving stereo image
Hey everyone, I've been deep diving into stereo imaging after being humbled on my first pop/rock mix, and I've been through countless threads and articles to understand some feedback I received about panning guitars specifically lol. If anyone else wants to learn and improve on this concept, Mastering the Mix wrote an article on it that seems simple enough here https://www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/learn/guide-to-panning-and-stereo-width?srsltid=AfmBOopDMELahxJnH4PPdhcNhCeL2bIjUqrhqpmf72GIL4X1IcMYGYlV They'll sell you on their plugins in the middle but if you have a basic understanding of width, depth, and height, you can sculpt accordingly with what you already have. I remember someone awhile back made a poll about if you should mix a genre you don't produce and I still stick by my answer, which essentially was hell yea, why not. However, mixing what you produce obviously provides a better understanding of the elements at play versus being an avid listener. The most humbling, slap to the forehead experience for me lately was when my rock buddy told me about panning the layers of guitars L/R along with production stuff beyond my control. And my first reaction was like dude, what the fuck...they're panned L/R.....hahaha. Turns out....nah lol, total misunderstanding and I didn't create separation between layers. Anyway, I learned long ago, about panning according to sound stage which was so revolutionary to me at the time, it really helped me visualize and supported how I panned drums, and this became my approach in general which is probably why I made the mistake with the guitar layers. I hope everyone is learning, growing and choosing to persevere on their journey to better mixes!
0 likes • 4d
Not sure what type guitar tracks you are trying to pan / layer etc.. But try not to simply copy a track. Play it each time. Also you can try different chord voices. Same rhythm say one guitar played down near 3rd fret and other played up near 9th.
0 likes • 3d
From your instructors .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZdlUiqiDoM I have not watched this but he is one of your instructors so it seems like a must do if you haven't already. I re-read your first post. Yes, if you have A and B tracks that are equal. Pan 1 left and 1 right they are simply going to end up in the phantom center. So they need to be a little different. This is one the best stereo pan guitars out there. Two Rock guitars but also different tonalities. What really makes it kill is the arrangement. The melodies are awesome and neither guitar is stepping on the other. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqpWTC-rvhQ&list=RDKqpWTC-rvhQ&start_radio=1 A short from Warren Huart... At the end he says Dave Jerdan. Huart has a whole video with Dave and they break down and recall Alice in Chains - Man in the Box. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UyjaBU4GZd4 Here is another that is not too long and easy to hear. Heavy guitars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szgD_bzdyqo&t=513s Also you can use automation. For instance when the vocals come in. You could automate volume, EQ, reverb ( just a touch hardly audible), or any combination of those. You don't want the guitars to sound like they are coming and going. Just moved back a couple dB. I would start your journey with the Huart method. Get the guitar guy to play two tracks with two complimentary but different amps ( amp sims ), and maybe as I suggested above different chord voicings. Then pan hard left right. Then try your other things. EQ etc..
0 likes • 6d
I'm not sure if all of these are your songs or not but I think they are. Spark Me Up, Goodby, She's Like Music and now this one. All of them are very bright suggesting your monitoring system may be off. All of the songs are good but the sound is not balanced. It leans heavily to the high end. There is a lack of punch and body in the lows. To a degree it sounds like someone has placed a Tilt EQ on it and shelved out the low end while shelving up the high end. A Tilt EQ works like a "see-saw" if you are not familiar. The only song I can think of that is sort of similar to yours would be this one. It's a female vocal but even so not as bright as yours and while some of the low end components are low in volume the mix still has punch. It's more balanced from high to low. "warmer" would be the typical term. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiQ7S38nKog&list=RDyiQ7S38nKog&start_radio=1 The songs are really good though.
0 likes • 3d
@Raul Sigala Can you download a copy of Voxengo - Span plugin. It's free. Load it on your track. https://www.voxengo.com/product/span/ Post a screen shot from that. Most anywhere in your song after the intro. I'm not able to download your song from here for some reason. ETA: I did try to capture the audio here on a Zoom recorder but I didn't have the cables I needed so I only ended up with a mono signal and possibly some other issues. So anyway what I see here is nothing much below 80Hz. A carve out at 275Hz to 400Hz then 1.5KHz on up is pretty much equal energy. There are two other strange things I see / hear. At 16KHz there is a steady state signal that definitely should not be there. Then just about 2:10 seconds in there is a 'boom' for about 1 beat. I think that 'boom' is all the missing frequencies kicking in. As Span shows it filling in the low end all the way down. The problem is I can't be for sure what I see is accurate from the file I ended up with. I can tell you though the 'boom' I hear is also on my main system as I stream your file in. That leads me to believe what I am seeing in SPAN is accurate to a great degree. But I can't know for sure. You have to check it on your end.
Is this normal? Kick volume vs Bass in Span
Hey im working on a track, and it has sounded great from the get-go (demo). But when looking at Span, the deep techno kick is way louder than all the rest of the song. When I balance the bass bus at the same peak volume of where the kick peaks, it does not sound good. Is it normal for tracks with a lot of low bass and deep kick to look this way? I can share my Ableton project or WAV. if anyone likes to take a look and listen.
Is this normal? Kick volume vs Bass in Span
1 like • 4d
Pull a reference song off YT or wherever. What does it look like? You could have 10-15dB SPL difference in levels down in that range based on Fletcher-Munson curves. If it all sounds good and translates to other systems I would not be concerned.
0 likes • 4d
@Chris van der Linden He has a low level bass sound near 35 that comes and goes. Almost always he has near 70 which is the octave of that. When all the low end drops out he still keeps a steady what looks like it's near 140 going. Again Octaves. That main beat looks like it's it 46-48 area. Musically all that relates to C# 34.65 - 69.3 - 138.59 --- F# 46.25 is a 4th up from C# Not sure if that opens any doors but it 'looks' like the sounds you hear are not by accident. Regardless of levels. Pretty cool song. I've never heard of him/her/them. Kinda reminds me of Trentemøller.
New Year, New Workflow?
WARNING: Long-ish philosophical post ahead. I've been watching interviews with famous mixers over the holidays and got to thinking about how much recording has changed since I started in the 80s on analog gear. The hardware (or lack thereof) forced you to work in a more organic way than we do today. Musicians AND engineers had to have more of a "performance" mindset. You, on both sides of the glass, had to deliver the goods when the red light went on. I'm not sure that the current, almost limitless, power of modern DAWs is a always a good thing for the music. Are we (musicians and engineers) using the power of our DAWs as a crutch? Is the chase for perfection sucking the soul out of the music? Let's consider life in the (good?) old days of mid-level analog studios: Analog tape decks provided either 16 or 24 mono tracks. I started with an 8 track. You needed to plan how to fit the arrangement on the the available tracks and the order they needed to be recorded. There wasn't room for every mic to have its own track so you had to commit to a live sub-mix (drums, backing vocals, multiple mics on a guitar cab, etc). Punch-ins required a small gap on either end of the bit you were fixing. Screw up the punch and you have to fix the track you stepped on (cue unhappy client) as there is no "undo". Printing effects and processing to an open track of tape freed up the hardware resource for other tracks. No dragging parts onto the grid to fix timing. No vocal tuning. No comping. Your analog console had no automation, so doing a mix required memorizing a carefully orchestrated sequence of moves (fader, pan, EQ, FX, mute, etc.). It was not unusual for a track to have multiple instruments on it in different sections of the song (leave no tape unused!). To do a mix you played the console live like an instrument. I can think of several mix sessions with half the band learning mix moves, and who had to physically move where during the mix as we danced around each other at the board. You had limited amounts of rack gear (compressors, effect units, etc.) to patch into console. Plus, you had to commit to the mix before the next session because the board and your outboard gear didn't have any way to save/recall the settings. You could try to document every setting as a backup, but that was a huge amount of work (no taking photos with your phone). At best, I would finish a mix at night, leave everything running overnight, then check it with fresh ears the next morning.
2 likes • 4d
"So what workflow changes or limitations might we impose on ourselves to encourage fresh solutions?" How about this one.... 4 Tracks only as though they are tape You can record on 3 and bounce to the 4th. After the bounce you have to delete tracks 1, 2, 3 Now you have 3 tracks left. You can use 2 and bounce to track 3 then delete 1, 2. Or record all 3 and call it done. Mix to Stereo. Whatever combination you can come up with but after a bounce all the leftovers have to be deleted. If you plan well your first bounce or latter ones may have blank space in them that you could punch into for an overdub of some sort. If you screw up your punch in, too bad, do not use "undo". If you are not careful the high frequency info is going to get buried in the bounces so plan well. ETA: Also no track automation. When time to mix you have 4 tracks and 10 fingers so all the volume automation has to be done manually. Do not write automation. You can make several attempts though as though you were recording to a 2Trk. No more than 5 attempts total. If you want more delete 1 or as many as desired and try again. You can have on 5 Stereo mixes to choose your final effort from. All else has to be deleted. ETA2: You can use MIDI and edit parts while listening to whatever tracks you have committed. I would liken this to musicians learning their parts. Once your MIDI part is 'learned' you have to bounce it to audio and delete MIDI. It then has to become one of the 4 tracks. IOW it's ok to simulate band members recording to tape by any reasonable means. Once it's on tape though you have to delete the MIDI and the 'tape track' if you want a do over.
1-10 of 61
Tom Baldwin
4
33points to level up
@tom-baldwin-8948
.

Active 2d ago
Joined Dec 10, 2023
Powered by