Clarity in mixes

[citi]

Hello all,

I don't know what I am doing wrong, but I can't get that clarity that you find in the pro recording. I am not talking about loudness but the distinguishable clarity that the music has.

I have tried cutting frequencies, panning, dropping certain tracks, and although they come out sounding loud, which is one thing we are trying to achieve, they don't sound clear and smooth. I have heard some mixes done on PTLE and they sound pretty good. As far as my mixes are concerned they are very balanced. You can hear all the parts but that sonic clarity is just not there.

Can you guys give me some pointers I can try out for the backing parts like, keys, synths, etc.

All info is welcome. Thanks

[Bastiaan]

I know what you mean. Maybe its the digi001's ad/da converters? Not the right monitors, mic-placement, use of limiters and comporessors....i don't know....

you're not alone.... [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[tptman]

I find that when mixing, clarity is a result of evisioning your mix as three dimensional. If you imagine the mix as being in a cube, where do you want each voice to be placed? Its pretty easy to move things around as far as left-right is concerned using the pan controls, but front and back can be achieved using reverbs and delays. Try adding a different, more distant sounding reverb to something to make it sound further back. Once you can hear the difference, back the wet/dry ratio off a little to where its not quite so obvious.

A ton of clarity also comes from using stereo miking techniques on things that you don't want to be front and center (maybe a guitar part on the sides vs. the lead vocal in the middle). The best mixes I've made have always contained true stereo miking on at least some of the instruments. Remember that two seperate monaural tracks panned left and right are not stereo, they are what Bruce Swedien calls "multiple mono". If you want a realistic stereo field, record in stereo.

Another trick when using synths or samplers, is to add some true acoustic properties to the parts by playing them back into a room and recording the room. This is another great opportunity to use a stereo mike setup.

Alot of these techniques I learned from watching a video by Bruce Swedien, Swedien Video and it really opened my eyes to some weaknesses in my recordings. Its definitely worth watcing.

[stut5]

Originally posted by tptman:
I find that when mixing, clarity is a result of evisioning your mix as three dimensional. If you imagine the mix as being in a cube, where do you want each voice to be placed? Its pretty easy to move things around as far as left-right is concerned using the pan controls, but front and back can be achieved using reverbs and delays. Try adding a different, more distant sounding reverb to something to make it sound further back. Once you can hear the difference, back the wet/dry ratio off a little to where its not quite so obvious.

A ton of clarity also comes from using stereo miking techniques on things that you don't want to be front and center (maybe a guitar part on the sides vs. the lead vocal in the middle). The best mixes I've made have always contained true stereo miking on at least some of the instruments. Remember that two seperate monaural tracks panned left and right are not stereo, they are what Bruce Swedien calls "multiple mono". If you want a realistic stereo field, record in stereo.

Another trick when using synths or samplers, is to add some true acoustic properties to the parts by playing them back into a room and recording the room. This is another great opportunity to use a stereo mike setup.

Alot of these techniques I learned from watching a video by Bruce Swedien, Swedien Video and it really opened my eyes to some weaknesses in my recordings. Its definitely worth watcing.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I was taught to play the same part twice for a rhythm track and pan left and right for to give you a real stereo sound.I'll have to try the double mic technique.I also find what yousaid about front to back interesting.I have never figured out how you achieve depth when the placement was always just left to right. [img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img] Thanks for the info Stu

[APAULOS]

TPT, Wise counsel indeed!

Citi, I might add that you probably will not want to use more than four or five different reverbs as things could get a little cluttered. I like to see my mix like a stage. I put the rhythm section here and the Lead instruments here, and the ear candy over there but my singer is standing Right in front of you...Center stage, clean and clear. I'm speaking dimentionally of course but panning has it's own hand in seperation which usually has a lot to do with clarity.

Having said that I definitely hear a certain muffled effect that after a lot of A/B testing seems to come from the PTLE sound engine. But I'm really tired of that debate [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img] And it is on my top ten list of things you can say to start a really boring flame war on the DUC. So pretend I didn't say it.

P.S. you should hear my top ten list of things to say that will start a really exciting flame war on the DUC [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[tptman]

Also check out this article:
Another Bruce Swedien Article

[APAULOS]

Originally posted by Bloux;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No my freind, you have to start a top ten list at 10 in order to build anticipation... If you start it at 1. and the first couple aren't very good there will be no reason for DUC'ers to stick it out all the way till 10.

[APAULOS]

As an example I could say

NUMBER 10. TPT why don't you get off of Bruce swedien's hairy **** long enough to tell us what YOU think about Citi's Question.

Now if I were to read that I would be ROTFLMAO waiting for #9...wouldn't you?

P.S. Tpt, no offence, it was just an example. [img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

Also check out this article:
Another Bruce Swedien Article

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

Alot of these techniques I learned from watching a video by Bruce Swedien, Swedien Video and it really opened my eyes to some weaknesses in my recordings. Its definitely worth watcing.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

[tptman]

It ain't hairy, its smooth, and has beautiful stereo image! [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[tptman]

Well, I'll take a stab, Apaulos:

10.Anyone who can't get a great sounding mix within the 24 track limit is a poor engineer.
9. The best way to mike a kick drum is with the AKG D112 six inches from the drum.
8. Best talk show host based on desktop mic: a)Letterman (RCA 77? ribbon) b) Rosie (Gold U87) c)Conan (what it that thing?).
7. Bombfactory plugs ________________ (fill in the blank).
6. 96kHz sampling is bull. No one can hear much above 20 kHz.
5. Win XP is hands down a better OS than 98se or ME.
4. Bruce Swedien's *** is hairy, not smooth.
3. Real engineers track and mix on analogue consoles, and laugh at us beginners recording digitally.
2. DIGI001 is a hobbyists' toy and should be treated as such.
1. My PC is twice as fast and more stable than your MAC! Down with the itoilet! [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]