Yes I’m watching (I’m the Wurlitzer client)! I can say WITHOUT hesitation that working with Wytse is FABULOUS! He goes above and beyond to make sure I’m happy. I can be very fussy and particular and sometimes I don’t even know what I want but Wytse always does alterations and edits for me and always delivers in the end. He is the best!! He also occasionally tells me that a request I make will NOT be good for the mix. Don’t hesitate to hire this man!!
According to a research I made some time ago, a good mix is: warm (has some saturation), wide (stereo imaging), deep (reverb and delay), dynamic (little compression), loud (some to a lot of compression), balanced (EQ and gain staging), clear (EQ, unmasking, panning, rule of three - Google it!), clean (lack of unintentional distortion, de-essing), interesting (a lot of contrast), evolving (parallel processing evolution), and moving (LFO, automation). That list is certainly incomplete, so feel free to add stuff and criticize the elements present on it! ;)
See, this is the stuff that I think confuses newer guys. That is SO MUCH to try and follow...especially if you’re new to the game. It mostly comes down to clarity and balance, from what I’ve experienced. When you hear a mix that’s REALLY good from one of your favorite engineers....of course you notice depth, of course things like automation sell certain elements. But more than anything...you hear a great clarity and balance. The high end is nice, the bass is right where it should be, the mid range is nicely massaged, you can hear every element, every element has its place but it’s still glued together. Once you have that, you’ve won the battle...a little atmosphere and a couple revisions with some automation moves and you’ve won the war.
There is occasionally a technical thing that throws off a mix, though. Like width or sub could fit really well emotionally at the time.... ... But translating onto other systems, all bass in sub, perhaps less headroom for master especially if dynamic,.. And width of course could be phase coherence
I'm not a pro by any means, but I disagree with some of the things on your list. For example, your point about making the mix "deep". In a lot of punk music they purposefully don't use much (if any) reverb and delay to give the mix that "up front and in your face" feeling. Basically the opposite of deep. On a similar point, wider isn't always better. Sometimes the song calls for a more narrow/mono approach depending on what mood it's trying to get across to the listener. My point is that I don't believe there are many absolutes when it comes to art. It all depends on what feelings and ideas the artist is trying to portray.
that is woo-woo, because everything done in mixing is source+situation-dependent for example, "saturation" offers no improvement to an already excellent recording of a symphony
This was good, but at my (beginner) level, I think I might benefit more from a video on "What makes a BAD mix," -- things that people hear and know right away that I'm not very good at this (yet).
30 years ago some mixes where better in most real studios, but its all comes down to make good music thats what its all about,if you have good music almost the sound gets better i think so
For me, everytime i hear a mix if it has depth to it, like i can feel every instrument in a cohesive way yet everything has its own space in it then i consider it a good mix
I disagree also. A Mix Engineer's job is to sell the Song. No more or less. You hire a Mix Engineer to help make your Song shine, not to flatter your ego. Besides whoever mixed "Hotel California" flattered both the egos & wallets of the Eagles. If they liked or didn't like the mix doesn't matter. It sold the song like hotcakes - with a very long use-by date. The bass player may not have liked the mix of "And Justice For All" but it is actually a great mix as that is one rippingly brutal record that totally transitioned the band from big in a small pond to almost everywhere (Black did the rest).
@@BenedictRoffMarsh no, And justice for all sounds like crap unless you hear it in vinyl. You, sir, have nostalgia ears. The bass is almost non existent but when you hear it in high quality, it's there in all its compositional glory and the bad mix keeps making you wish it was more pronounced. I'm all for raw and harsh sounding albums but you can't just side line one of the MAIN instruments like that i guess.
@@BenedictRoffMarsh The Mix Engineer's job is to mix the song. That is to say level out the various elements of the song to the approval of the client while being mindful of established norms and standards. If the client Ok's it...the mixer can wash their hands.
So nice that you made this video! I am currently preparing a workshop on this topic and am going into detail with a spectrum analyzer, but this is way better. It is all about taste, what the client wants, for which audience and what you want to achieve with your music.
Great info and thoughts, a refreshing change from the mentality of "you need to buy more stuff to get better" or "this one weird trick to fix your mix" etc.
THANK YOU THANK YOU. I love the ambiguity of your explanations - it's how it should be; not lead the listener to the answer, rather give them the facts of 'what is' and have them make a decision based on what their looking to accomplish. Bravo!
1st - the arrangement of the piece 2nd - the fidelity of the recording THEN we begin to matter and the best we can do - in the end - is to get out of the way between the composer and listener
A few weeks ago I transferred a +/-50-year-old Punk-rock song, recorded on 16-track 2-inch tape, to digital. I played back the digital version with all the faders on unity and I was amazed by the quality. I think we have a wrong idea about these old recordings because of the consumer medium of that time. The recording medium wasn't that bad at all.
I mix a completely different genre of music than what is usually presented on this channel but your videos are pure quality and are a great service to independent producers. Keep up the great work.
You are like a car mechanic, you are not required to make judgments on the design of the vehicle, but to make it work better according to the characteristics, its limits and its strengths. I think it's this point that people don't understand very well. You can make judgments on how to improve mechanics and performance, but the design remains the same
I'd also be interested in the subject of "how do i know if the sounds i selected are good", because, imo, a bad sound selection dooms the mixing from the start.
Terrific video! I hope you will make many more riffing on the same general subject. There is a sense in which almost all of us would agree about a good mix, or a beautiful face, or a beautiful car-but we can never seem to explain it for some reason. Robert Pirsig tried to deal with this issue in his two books “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” and “Lila.” Rock on!
Really enjoy your channel here. Thanks for your thoughts, make a lot of sense. Trying to judge a mix I tend to consider the following - to what extend is the song benefitting from effective use of: - Width (L-R), depth (front to back) and heigt (lows to highs, or just frequency range)? - Dynamics (macro and micro) Some elements in the mix you want to separate, others to gell. Sometimes you want contrast to highlight changes from one section to another. Where the textures of the sounds, the melody, the rythm and the harmony are all things that are taste related, the things above tend to be important to present any taste of music. Once I get the width, depth, frequency range and dynamics "balanced" or "mixed" properly, I am generally happy. Gr. Dirk Brouns Studio Maasland
Can you do a video on automation (i.e. automating send levels to a bus, volume levels on multiple busses to make other parts of the mix stand out, etc). I see a lot of sound designers, mix engineers, mastering engineers using this and find myself using this technique a lot more often to really control a mix.
I really enjoyed this type of "honest talk" format with little examples but big subject. With that being said, it would be so cool to analyze some actual examples of great mixing that stood the test of time (I'm talking like "legendary" status), and the engineers/producers behind them, or that have a particular sound artists are looking for.
great video man! id like one day to be able to buy avantone cubes.... anyway im waiting for the master one since i do both mixes and masters and i have a question: people say one engineer can't do master and mix. that another person is needed for the master... how much of that is true in your opinion?
A good mix touches me and the puplic who hears it. For sure it depends on the genre you‘re in, but regardless of this, any time you‘ll feel the harmony and the tension, the feeling and your wellbeing- if you don‘t get this, the mix is bad- believe me😉 I know, it‘s very subjective , but aren‘t feelings this all the time? Forget hoping to find a measurement for your decisions- use your heart and your ears! Happy x-mas 💋
Hamasushi, a restaurant you can find around most of Japan, actually serves sushi with crispy fries on the side topped with epic melted cheddar! It's delicious!
I have written and mixed music all night before and before bed thought I had some really awesome sounding vibe created and .... get up the very next day and listen and wonder if it was even discernible as music it was so weird or just bad. Only to come back to it in a year and think wow that was cool... Great topic to breach... almost too much to get into but I think you balanced it nicely that its many or some part subjective and many or some part scientific... either way if it pleases the ear then mission accomplished :)
I think that being a mix/mastering engineer might be challenging because there might be a lot of re-doing, even if the mix engineer did a terrific job, the client will often have a different opinion. Its an area that can be subjective.
How can we try to make our own most basic studio in the analog world? Could you do a video on what is most basic and essential to build our own mixing station? Please!
Could you talk about "how much compression is enough?". In mixing, EQ is very easy to understand because it changes the sound in an obvious way, and for example you know how a good guitar curve sound sound. However, for compression, there is not a good measure.
Finally, you've mentioned "emotions...", after 12 mins :). There will never be an exact answer, what is good and what is bad. But in general, if people feel connected, the mix is great, even if the technical part is off sometimes...;)
While mixing and mastering my debut record i have realized that making a song sound good on a stereo is not hard. The real difficulty is making it sound good on earbuds. i had to go back and mix almost half my album because the guitars were too loud or not of solid tonality on earbuds.
I think it is worth pointing out that if things were solely recorded in mono, then balancing the mix to fit in a mono package was/is just a crucial, due to not having the luxury of placing things L+R to assist with the balancing, therefore in one aspect, balancing would be harder to accommodate everything.
I understand your frustration in trying to explain mixing. People want an easy answer but there isn't one. Every song, every track, and every little sound within a track all need artistic attention. For example, just because you use a reverb plugin on one song doesn't mean you'll use it on another and you'll never really know when or if you'll even use it to begin with. You just know when you hear it what you think would sound good. And what you think a track needs at that moment may not be the same feeling you might have at a different time. I have really old songs that I did that I thought sounded great but listening to them now, I might feel completely different about it. Not that it isn't good in its own sense. I just feel creatively different about it. That's pretty much it. I hear songs on the radio all the time and think, for example, "They shouldn't have compressed that drum bus so hard for this track." But just because I think that doesn't mean everyone is thinking that, so a lot of it is very personal. Now, if something sounds really bassy, muddy, harsh, or whatever to multiple people then, yeah, there's probably an issue. You cannot please everyone individually because everyone expects something different when they listen to music. But when you listen to the engineer's goal, you have to wonder if it was intentional or maybe something they just didn't catch.. It's kind of a never-ending loop to try and explain lol If a producer sat with an engineer and watched, or listened, to them do everything from start to finish then they would probably think it sounded amazing at the end. But sending them a track and then getting something back that is entirely different than what they are used to or what they expected to hear, then of course it may not sound good. Perhaps the track the producer is used to the kick and bass frequencies are really clashing. When they get the track back and those frequencies are no longer clashing, the overall vibe can be totally different, though, technically, it is better. Or perhaps a reverb that had a long decay is now gated because it was muddying up the mix and they are wondering where the reverb went that they couldn't wait to brag about. But if they were sitting with you when you made the decision and showed them an A/B comparison then they would probably agree lol See how long my comment is? I feel you.
What if you start to listen to the mix on the worst speakers u have, and after making the mix sounds acceptable on it, then change speakers to a better ones? For example start to mix with sounds coming from a smartphone, and when it sounds good from it's speaker, switch to headphones and then to monitors?
It is a subjective thing sure, but you have to stay as objective as possible too! "Focus, Stage, Contrast, Depth, Colour, Texture, Definition, Mood and Fire".. use those concepts as check boxes and find these elements in other great mixes before just referencing levels, or pressures. Also use some of your older mixes, or lucky mixes and identify these concepts or elements in those mixes. You'll be floating in the right direction. Maximise the EMOTION by making sure details are exalted one by one and "certain" parts are EXAGGERATED. Took me some time to realise this tons of AUTOMATION and alternating between "safe and subtle" to "a leetle OTT" and back toward safe again, gives surprising results that can't be imagined or planned. Automating prominent sustained sounds to make them ebb and flow. Automating reverb tails, automating the lead vocal, especially quiet parts upward before any compression, Automating levels to enhance transients manually, whatever it takes Its like little opportunities that show themselves one after the other until you have full "fire". Makes "translation" way more stable too. It also goes without saying, The better the inputs, the better and simpler the mix. That means inputs as far as artist, mics, rooms, producers, everything. Sometimes you can just trust the inputs and focus on glue, and tone alone. Also, "loud and "clear" is a great way to start and prevents over-processing things! Or make the mix impulsively, and emotionally, do your best emotional effort, disregard thoughts about "protecting the sound", finalise and burn your new stems, go and test it on your reference speakers (preferably with a mate), make your notes and redo the mix, but this time with minimal processing, just gently yet firmly moving things into and out of focus. Balancing and settling in a cleaner colour. This is another opportunity to further automate levels and various things to squeeze out more detail and contrast. You get to keep all the heart and still make it psycho acoustically relevant.
Here are some guidelines to judging a mix,(both live and studio mix) hope this helps :D MAIN PARAMETERS SUB-PARAMETERS EXAMPLES 1. Spatial impression Spatial sound homogeneity Spatial reverberation impression (too much/ dry) Reverberation Direct/indirect sound ratio Acoustic balance Too large/too small room Perspective Apparent room size Spatial reverberation 2. Stereo impression Balance Wide / narrow Precise / imprecise Sound image stability Jumping transfers Sound image width Location precision Center location 3. Transparency Sound source definition Clear / unclear Masking Time definition Intelligibility 4. Sound balance Sound source definition Sound source too loud/too weak Dynamic range Sound compressed/natural balance Loudness balance 5. Sound colour Sound colour Unclear/sharp, Dark/light, Warm/cold Changing sound 6. Noise and distortions Presence of phenomena Noise and distortions are present/ not present such as electrical noise, audience noise, bit error, distortions, etc. ACOUSTIC BALANCE Represents the subjective impression of the relation between direct and indirect sounds. ACOUSTIC NOISE Unwanted sounds in the room of origination, caused by air-conditioning equipment, movement of chairs, noise from outside, etc. APPARENT ROOM SIZE The subjective impression of the apparent size, real or artificial, of the origination room, resultingfrom additional equipment, compared with the expected model. BIT ERRORS Discrete noises or distortions originating in a digital system DEPTH PERSPECTIVE The subjective impression that the sound image has an appropriate front to back depth. (Listeners should be aware when assessing this sub-parameter that it may be an artefact of listening conditions, in particular with two-channel stereophonic recording). DIRECTIONAL BALANCE The subjective impression that the sound sources within the sound image are placed in a way that contributes to the sound image balance. DISTORTIONS Deterioration of the sound quality which may be due to non-linearity in the recording or reproducing systems. DYNAMIC RANGE The subjective impression of the range between the strongest and the weakest levels during reproduction, relative to the expectation of the listener for the presented programme material. DISTORTIONS Distortions resulting from electric and acoustic transmission channel or devices for signal processing, such as noise, clicks, non-linear distortions, etc. ELECTRICAL-ACOUSTIC NOISE AND DISTURBANCES Absence of all possible unwanted noise in the sound image such as acoustic noise, public murmur, bit (digital) errors, various distortions, etc. HOMOGENITY OF SPATIAL SOUND The subjective impression that the sound spaces is an integrated whole. Unpleasant impression of more than one sound source. INTELLIGIBILITY The possibility to distinguish the words in spoken and sung text. LOCATION ACCURACY The subjective impression that all sound sources can be accurately positioned in the sound image. LOUDNESS BALANCE The subjective impression of the relative balances of loudness between different sound sources. OVERALL IMPRESSION A subjectively weighed average of the other parameters which helped us obtain a total sound image as it is, resulting from the interaction of the different parameters which influence main impression of the quality of a sound image. AUDIENCE NOISE The subjective impression of how audience may be a disturbing factor in listening to the sound image. REVERBERATION The subjective impression of natural or artificial indirect sounds. SOUND ATTACK The subjective impression of the speed at which sounds begin. SOUND BALANCE The subjective impression of the balance of the individual sound sources in the general sound image SOUND COLOUR The subjective impression of each sound source within the sound image, including all its characteristic harmonic elements in a spectrum. SOUND COLOUR OF REVERBERATION The subjective impression of the changing of natural sound colour with regard to the spatial position of the very sound source, including any artificial reverberation. SOUND IMAGE WIDTH The subjective impression of the width of the sound stage in the stereo sound field. SOUND SOURCE DEFINITION The subjective impression of the position of different instruments or voices sounding simultaneously in stereophony, and the possibility of their identification. STABILITY The subjective impression that all sound sources stay in their intended positions. STEREO IMPRESSION The subjective impression that the sound image has the correct directional distribution of sound sources. TIMBRE The subjective impression of the accurate portrayal of the different sound characteristics of the sound source. TRANSPARENCY The subjective impression that all details of the performance can be clearly perceived. SPATIAL IMPRESSION The subjective impression that the performance takes place in an appropriate spatial environment.
There's the music and there's the listener, and between them is a pane of dirty glass. Our job as mix engineers is to clean the muck off the glass, using the right tools and processes until the glass is totally transparent and all the listener has in front of them is the music and it's qualities.
Love this personal view on mixing.... I thought myself that the vocal could be with way less reverb because the note of what she was saying was so real and maybe it automate in to more reverb as it progressed... although that is more of a producers thought... something I was thinking watch this: for producer and mixer to work together in more back and forth before the final mix. So, Producer sends it to be cleaned up, then the producer adds the colour they are sort of looking for and says what they used and the settings they used... then the mixer make suggestions of automation ect to the producer and it become a much more of a relationship combining ownership to what is created and be set that the gift of a song be owned by all that love it.
The reverb for me makes the sound more dream like and makes it a Ballard impact and the dry is a sort of "real" slightly cutting and rawness, this is my creative understanding... then myself would let the reverb slowly make it's way through... so the cutting thruth followed by the depth of the feeling that comes from it to build in with the reverb
Oh there is definitely a wrong - but the only "wrong" that I know of...frame of reference, I've been mixing for 22 years, and I still learn something every day...is bad spectral balance. But even that isn't absolute, because it can and should be stretched to suit the song/genre, and there are an infinite number of ways to achieve spectral balance. But aside from that, it's wide open. Great videos, man - I love this channel.
Wytse.....I don't know if you'll ever see this but what is that song you played a piece of at 10:45 on the video timeline...with the girl singing the lyric (2nd line) " .... If you won't open your door... " I've got to hear and know those lyrics! Thank you!
But doesn’t it also affect the person creating the music? Like you can addd more ingredients and go overboard with tracks, layers, effects etc but does it add something extra or can something be left out? Once heard Alan Parsons say in a video that it’s also about knowing when enough is enough in a production. For a hobbyist musical it’s very tempting to add things to a composition but it tends to end up like mixing colours of paint on a palette and going too far with it that you end up with a dark brown colour. A lot music these days is very dense and rich is layers whereas in the 80’s and early 90’s it tended to be a bit less dense.
Do you consider my JBL305 MK II monitors appropriate to use as a "lesser" type speaker, closer to iPhones listeners? Or do I also need a couple of real cheap ass monitors?
Among other things yes. Mastering goes in depth, even bit depth, dithering, 'coding' (adding codes) as well and all the other obvious things you expect and probably already know.
Yes, historically, especially related to even sounding albums. But a lot of this had to do with the manufacturing of, and playback of, vinyl records. Control standards needed to be in place so your record player needle wouldn't struggle to not jump out of place physically. Low end needed to be controlled. Volume controlled. And that's where the use of broad stroke EQs and compression first fell into use. Today, mastering has become more broad , but it is still the final stage of preparation for final distribution, vinyl, digital, CD, TV broadcast, etc., which all have different requirements.
A good mix should have all instruments perfectly distinguishable, at least the ones that should be on top (obviously ambient pads, some FX and other layering can be in the background). It should convey the power needed out of it (a metal mix should have say good punch and transmit aggression). It should have good tonal balance (good lows/highs but not overwhelming), it should have competent loudness level without destroying dynamics. It should sound acceptable on all sound systems, from your monitors, to headphones, to a car with a nice subwoofer, and even to a cellphone speaker, since a balanced mix will be balanced everywhere. But overall, a good mix is one that is accepted by the client, and one considered "good" by most people you or your client ask for opinion, since they're ones consuming it, not you.
This does not answer the fundamental question - ''what makes a good mix?'' - but it is very very useful, because it is a springboard to dive into more questions about what we want or expect from genres and different kinds of sonic communication. Mathematics is about finding correct answers. The purpose of art is to deepen the mystery. Viva! M X
OT: Can you make a video about "audiophile"? What is it exactly? Is audiophile only applicable to acoustic instruments/music? With a violin, for example, I know roughly how it sounds like, but every violin sounds different to another violin! Does audiophile make sense because consumers never have the same equipment as the sound engineer in his studio?
Хобби
Yes I’m watching (I’m the Wurlitzer client)! I can say WITHOUT hesitation that working with Wytse is FABULOUS! He goes above and beyond to make sure I’m happy. I can be very fussy and particular and sometimes I don’t even know what I want but Wytse always does alterations and edits for me and always delivers in the end. He is the best!! He also occasionally tells me that a request I make will NOT be good for the mix. Don’t hesitate to hire this man!!
According to a research I made some time ago, a good mix is: warm (has some saturation), wide (stereo imaging), deep (reverb and delay), dynamic (little compression), loud (some to a lot of compression), balanced (EQ and gain staging), clear (EQ, unmasking, panning, rule of three - Google it!), clean (lack of unintentional distortion, de-essing), interesting (a lot of contrast), evolving (parallel processing evolution), and moving (LFO, automation). That list is certainly incomplete, so feel free to add stuff and criticize the elements present on it! ;)
What's the rule of three about? Can't find it on googel
See, this is the stuff that I think confuses newer guys. That is SO MUCH to try and follow...especially if you’re new to the game.
It mostly comes down to clarity and balance, from what I’ve experienced. When you hear a mix that’s REALLY good from one of your favorite engineers....of course you notice depth, of course things like automation sell certain elements. But more than anything...you hear a great clarity and balance. The high end is nice, the bass is right where it should be, the mid range is nicely massaged, you can hear every element, every element has its place but it’s still glued together. Once you have that, you’ve won the battle...a little atmosphere and a couple revisions with some automation moves and you’ve won the war.
There is occasionally a technical thing that throws off a mix, though. Like width or sub could fit really well emotionally at the time....
... But translating onto other systems, all bass in sub, perhaps less headroom for master especially if dynamic,.. And width of course could be phase coherence
I'm not a pro by any means, but I disagree with some of the things on your list. For example, your point about making the mix "deep". In a lot of punk music they purposefully don't use much (if any) reverb and delay to give the mix that "up front and in your face" feeling. Basically the opposite of deep. On a similar point, wider isn't always better. Sometimes the song calls for a more narrow/mono approach depending on what mood it's trying to get across to the listener. My point is that I don't believe there are many absolutes when it comes to art. It all depends on what feelings and ideas the artist is trying to portray.
that is woo-woo,
because everything done in mixing is source+situation-dependent
for example, "saturation" offers no improvement to an already excellent recording of a symphony
This was good, but at my (beginner) level, I think I might benefit more from a video on "What makes a BAD mix," -- things that people hear and know right away that I'm not very good at this (yet).
30 years ago some mixes where better in most real studios, but its all comes down to make good music thats what its all about,if you have good music almost the sound gets better i think so
"Let's use are heart and feel for this". Man, you're amazing at this with just this what you said. It says it all. Thank you for being you, Wytse!
Best thing you said: "Let's use our HEART for this." That's it... ask what fits the emotional context of this music? TY, again.
For me, everytime i hear a mix if it has depth to it, like i can feel every instrument in a cohesive way yet everything has its own space in it then i consider it a good mix
I want the background to support the lead and not overpower it. Like when I use graphs when teaching.
@@DBCisco Take them out of the center and put them in full stereo.
Thanks for all the content this year and a happy compressed and saturated X-mas !
With reverb sounds dreamy. Without reverb sounds vulnerable and real.
Nicely put, some great advice and good options. Have a great Christmas and New Year 👍
Q: WHat makes a mix good?
A: Client satisfaction.
I would disagree, the client may be happy, but then utterly pissed at one because none of the levels adhere to any broadcast calibrations.
I disagree also. A Mix Engineer's job is to sell the Song. No more or less. You hire a Mix Engineer to help make your Song shine, not to flatter your ego.
Besides whoever mixed "Hotel California" flattered both the egos & wallets of the Eagles. If they liked or didn't like the mix doesn't matter. It sold the song like hotcakes - with a very long use-by date.
The bass player may not have liked the mix of "And Justice For All" but it is actually a great mix as that is one rippingly brutal record that totally transitioned the band from big in a small pond to almost everywhere (Black did the rest).
@@BenedictRoffMarsh no, And justice for all sounds like crap unless you hear it in vinyl. You, sir, have nostalgia ears. The bass is almost non existent but when you hear it in high quality, it's there in all its compositional glory and the bad mix keeps making you wish it was more pronounced. I'm all for raw and harsh sounding albums but you can't just side line one of the MAIN instruments like that i guess.
@@willb3698 We're talking about the mix. There are no "broadcast calibrations" for elements of a mix.
@@BenedictRoffMarsh The Mix Engineer's job is to mix the song. That is to say level out the various elements of the song to the approval of the client while being mindful of established norms and standards. If the client Ok's it...the mixer can wash their hands.
Yep, i liked the reverb on that voice too! Really learning a lot from you, thanks!
You should consider doing streams so that viewers could send you their mixes and you comment on them!
Tanks for the tips, it helped me tio understand that i'm working my mix in the right way! with my hands of means!
What an excellent way to explain a very tricky concept. Great job with this.
So nice that you made this video! I am currently preparing a workshop on this topic and am going into detail with a spectrum analyzer, but this is way better. It is all about taste, what the client wants, for which audience and what you want to achieve with your music.
You are such a great resource for new producers, thank you!!!
Gracias por el tutorial. Un saludo y abrazo desde Colombia
If it
a) tells a story
and
b) you want to hear it again
it's a great mix
nothing else matters
When all the chunks have been ground up to the desired taste without making it too watery or too distracting..... Oh wait that's a smoothie.
Great info and thoughts, a refreshing change from the mentality of "you need to buy more stuff to get better" or "this one weird trick to fix your mix" etc.
Great insights - well put across
THANK YOU THANK YOU. I love the ambiguity of your explanations - it's how it should be; not lead the listener to the answer, rather give them the facts of 'what is' and have them make a decision based on what their looking to accomplish. Bravo!
Thank You Sir...This just elevated my Mixing!!👍🏾
Nice one big sir... Luv these kinds of discussions/topics
Love your explanations man, great advice 👌🏼
1st - the arrangement of the piece
2nd - the fidelity of the recording
THEN we begin to matter
and the best we can do - in the end - is to get out of the way between the composer and listener
Hey man, this was such a nice video to watch. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Great presentation as usual.
A big thanks from Morocco
You Rock! You've claered me the theme a lot. Lot's od thanks!
A few weeks ago I transferred a +/-50-year-old Punk-rock song, recorded on 16-track 2-inch tape, to digital. I played back the digital version with all the faders on unity and I was amazed by the quality. I think we have a wrong idea about these old recordings because of the consumer medium of that time. The recording medium wasn't that bad at all.
You help a lot! TYVM!
love your channel man keep it up
There was an old dave pensado quote "I'm not selling you my techniques, I'm selling you, my taste."
Really helpful video. Dankjewel!
I mix a completely different genre of music than what is usually presented on this channel but your videos are pure quality and are a great service to independent producers. Keep up the great work.
Balance, levels, colors and good stereo detail image
I do get it, and its great info, thanks!
You make a mix good. You're going to do it for me.
Wytse has done it again: he explained a subject very well and left the audience dazzled in a good way. 😊 Still waiting for that coffee!
Great insight
You are like a car mechanic, you are not required to make judgments on the design of the vehicle, but to make it work better according to the characteristics, its limits and its strengths. I think it's this point that people don't understand very well. You can make judgments on how to improve mechanics and performance, but the design remains the same
I'd also be interested in the subject of "how do i know if the sounds i selected are good", because, imo, a bad sound selection dooms the mixing from the start.
@Onauc C,,,i agree,,,i have wondered about this myself…..good point..
Terrific video! I hope you will make many more riffing on the same general subject.
There is a sense in which almost all of us would agree about a good mix, or a beautiful face, or a beautiful car-but we can never seem to explain it for some reason. Robert Pirsig tried to deal with this issue in his two books “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” and “Lila.”
Rock on!
Well said..thanks a lot for ur tips bro
Really enjoy your channel here. Thanks for your thoughts, make a lot of sense.
Trying to judge a mix I tend to consider the following - to what extend is the song benefitting from effective use of:
- Width (L-R), depth (front to back) and heigt (lows to highs, or just frequency range)?
- Dynamics (macro and micro)
Some elements in the mix you want to separate, others to gell.
Sometimes you want contrast to highlight changes from one section to another.
Where the textures of the sounds, the melody, the rythm and the harmony are all things that are taste related, the things above tend to be important to present any taste of music.
Once I get the width, depth, frequency range and dynamics "balanced" or "mixed" properly, I am generally happy.
Gr.
Dirk Brouns
Studio Maasland
Looking forward to the mastering video
When it sounds good on different speaker-systems perhaps?
Can you do a video on automation (i.e. automating send levels to a bus, volume levels on multiple busses to make other parts of the mix stand out, etc). I see a lot of sound designers, mix engineers, mastering engineers using this and find myself using this technique a lot more often to really control a mix.
Thanks bro 👍🏾
This is really helpfull
I really enjoyed this type of "honest talk" format with little examples but big subject. With that being said, it would be so cool to analyze some actual examples of great mixing that stood the test of time (I'm talking like "legendary" status), and the engineers/producers behind them, or that have a particular sound artists are looking for.
The problem with that is copyright... youtube still does not allow me to play music, unless its royalty free 🥴
great video man! id like one day to be able to buy avantone cubes.... anyway im waiting for the master one since i do both mixes and masters and i have a question: people say one engineer can't do master and mix. that another person is needed for the master... how much of that is true in your opinion?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts publicly
A good mix touches me and the puplic who hears it. For sure it depends on the genre you‘re in, but regardless of this, any time you‘ll feel the harmony and the tension, the feeling and your wellbeing- if you don‘t get this, the mix is bad- believe me😉 I know, it‘s very subjective , but aren‘t feelings this all the time? Forget hoping to find a measurement for your decisions- use your heart and your ears!
Happy x-mas 💋
good mix starts with the quality of the performance and the recording
Hamasushi, a restaurant you can find around most of Japan, actually serves sushi with crispy fries on the side topped with epic melted cheddar! It's delicious!
I have written and mixed music all night before and before bed thought I had some really awesome sounding vibe created and .... get up the very next day and listen and wonder if it was even discernible as music it was so weird or just bad. Only to come back to it in a year and think wow that was cool... Great topic to breach... almost too much to get into but I think you balanced it nicely that its many or some part subjective and many or some part scientific... either way if it pleases the ear then mission accomplished :)
I had it on 1.25 speed, and that 1st song grooved well like that !!! 😊
Is there such a function in the Reaper where you can see the information and the total time spent on the project?
Een zeer leerzame video, goed uitgelegd Wytse 😎👍👊✌️
I think that being a mix/mastering engineer might be challenging because there might be a lot of re-doing, even if the mix engineer did a terrific job, the client will often have a different opinion. Its an area that can be subjective.
How can we try to make our own most basic studio in the analog world? Could you do a video on what is most basic and essential to build our own mixing station? Please!
Awsome video
Look at that like ratio. Fucking dope bro. I bet none of your subscribers ever miss a video
*How did you customize Reaper? Do you use SWS or any other extensions?*
Hey Steven Wilson, we know it's you
Could you talk about "how much compression is enough?". In mixing, EQ is very easy to understand because it changes the sound in an obvious way, and for example you know how a good guitar curve sound sound. However, for compression, there is not a good measure.
Finally, you've mentioned "emotions...", after 12 mins :). There will never be an exact answer, what is good and what is bad. But in general, if people feel connected, the mix is great, even if the technical part is off sometimes...;)
GREAT music and performances can mix itself to great art regardless of the mix or production
While mixing and mastering my debut record i have realized that making a song sound good on a stereo is not hard. The real difficulty is making it sound good on earbuds. i had to go back and mix almost half my album because the guitars were too loud or not of solid tonality on earbuds.
Hopefully they weren't dynamic earbuds.
I think it is worth pointing out that if things were solely recorded in mono, then balancing the mix to fit in a mono package was/is just a crucial, due to not having the luxury of placing things L+R to assist with the balancing, therefore in one aspect, balancing would be harder to accommodate everything.
DO you have a routine of "warming up" your ears before mixing? Sounds weird but I hope you get what im asking
Brilliantly described, like food. Now I'll go bake some good tasting music being aware of all the ingredients, not just my chocolate faders.
I understand your frustration in trying to explain mixing. People want an easy answer but there isn't one. Every song, every track, and every little sound within a track all need artistic attention. For example, just because you use a reverb plugin on one song doesn't mean you'll use it on another and you'll never really know when or if you'll even use it to begin with. You just know when you hear it what you think would sound good. And what you think a track needs at that moment may not be the same feeling you might have at a different time. I have really old songs that I did that I thought sounded great but listening to them now, I might feel completely different about it. Not that it isn't good in its own sense. I just feel creatively different about it. That's pretty much it. I hear songs on the radio all the time and think, for example, "They shouldn't have compressed that drum bus so hard for this track." But just because I think that doesn't mean everyone is thinking that, so a lot of it is very personal. Now, if something sounds really bassy, muddy, harsh, or whatever to multiple people then, yeah, there's probably an issue. You cannot please everyone individually because everyone expects something different when they listen to music. But when you listen to the engineer's goal, you have to wonder if it was intentional or maybe something they just didn't catch.. It's kind of a never-ending loop to try and explain lol If a producer sat with an engineer and watched, or listened, to them do everything from start to finish then they would probably think it sounded amazing at the end. But sending them a track and then getting something back that is entirely different than what they are used to or what they expected to hear, then of course it may not sound good. Perhaps the track the producer is used to the kick and bass frequencies are really clashing. When they get the track back and those frequencies are no longer clashing, the overall vibe can be totally different, though, technically, it is better. Or perhaps a reverb that had a long decay is now gated because it was muddying up the mix and they are wondering where the reverb went that they couldn't wait to brag about. But if they were sitting with you when you made the decision and showed them an A/B comparison then they would probably agree lol See how long my comment is? I feel you.
What if you start to listen to the mix on the worst speakers u have, and after making the mix sounds acceptable on it, then change speakers to a better ones? For example start to mix with sounds coming from a smartphone, and when it sounds good from it's speaker, switch to headphones and then to monitors?
It is a subjective thing sure, but you have to stay as objective as possible too! "Focus, Stage, Contrast, Depth, Colour, Texture, Definition, Mood and Fire".. use those concepts as check boxes and find these elements in other great mixes before just referencing levels, or pressures. Also use some of your older mixes, or lucky mixes and identify these concepts or elements in those mixes.
You'll be floating in the right direction. Maximise the EMOTION by making sure details are exalted one by one and "certain" parts are EXAGGERATED. Took me some time to realise this tons of AUTOMATION and alternating between "safe and subtle" to "a leetle OTT" and back toward safe again, gives surprising results that can't be imagined or planned. Automating prominent sustained sounds to make them ebb and flow. Automating reverb tails, automating the lead vocal, especially quiet parts upward before any compression, Automating levels to enhance transients manually, whatever it takes Its like little opportunities that show themselves one after the other until you have full "fire". Makes "translation" way more stable too.
It also goes without saying, The better the inputs, the better and simpler the mix. That means inputs as far as artist, mics, rooms, producers, everything. Sometimes you can just trust the inputs and focus on glue, and tone alone.
Also, "loud and "clear" is a great way to start and prevents over-processing things!
Or make the mix impulsively, and emotionally, do your best emotional effort, disregard thoughts about "protecting the sound", finalise and burn your new stems, go and test it on your reference speakers (preferably with a mate), make your notes and redo the mix, but this time with minimal processing, just gently yet firmly moving things into and out of focus. Balancing and settling in a cleaner colour. This is another opportunity to further automate levels and various things to squeeze out more detail and contrast. You get to keep all the heart and still make it psycho acoustically relevant.
Here are some guidelines to judging a mix,(both live and studio mix) hope this helps :D
MAIN PARAMETERS SUB-PARAMETERS EXAMPLES
1. Spatial impression Spatial sound homogeneity
Spatial reverberation
impression (too much/ dry)
Reverberation Direct/indirect sound ratio
Acoustic balance
Too large/too small room
Perspective
Apparent room size
Spatial reverberation
2. Stereo impression Balance
Wide / narrow Precise /
imprecise
Sound image stability
Jumping transfers
Sound image width
Location precision
Center
location
3. Transparency Sound source definition Clear / unclear Masking
Time definition
Intelligibility
4. Sound balance Sound source
definition Sound source too loud/too
weak
Dynamic range Sound
compressed/natural balance
Loudness
balance
5. Sound colour Sound colour Unclear/sharp, Dark/light,
Warm/cold
Changing
sound
6. Noise and distortions Presence of phenomena
Noise and distortions are
present/ not present
such as electrical noise,
audience noise, bit error,
distortions, etc.
ACOUSTIC BALANCE
Represents the subjective impression of the relation between direct and indirect sounds.
ACOUSTIC NOISE
Unwanted sounds in the room of origination, caused by
air-conditioning equipment, movement of chairs, noise from outside, etc.
APPARENT ROOM SIZE
The subjective impression of the apparent size, real or artificial, of the origination room,
resultingfrom additional equipment, compared with the expected model.
BIT ERRORS
Discrete noises or distortions originating in a digital system
DEPTH PERSPECTIVE
The subjective impression that the sound image has an appropriate front to back
depth. (Listeners should be aware when assessing this sub-parameter that it may be an
artefact of listening conditions, in particular with two-channel stereophonic recording).
DIRECTIONAL BALANCE
The subjective impression that the sound sources within the sound image are placed
in a way that contributes to the sound image balance.
DISTORTIONS
Deterioration of the sound quality which may be due to non-linearity in the recording
or reproducing systems.
DYNAMIC RANGE
The subjective impression of the range between the strongest and the weakest levels
during reproduction, relative to the expectation of the listener for the presented programme
material.
DISTORTIONS
Distortions resulting from electric and acoustic transmission channel or devices for
signal processing, such as noise, clicks, non-linear distortions, etc.
ELECTRICAL-ACOUSTIC NOISE AND DISTURBANCES
Absence of all possible unwanted noise in the sound image such as acoustic noise,
public murmur, bit (digital) errors, various distortions, etc.
HOMOGENITY OF SPATIAL SOUND
The subjective impression that the sound spaces is an integrated whole. Unpleasant
impression of more than one sound source.
INTELLIGIBILITY
The possibility to distinguish the words in spoken and sung text.
LOCATION ACCURACY
The subjective impression that all sound sources can be accurately positioned in the
sound image.
LOUDNESS BALANCE
The subjective impression of the relative balances of loudness between different sound
sources.
OVERALL IMPRESSION
A subjectively weighed average of the other parameters which helped us obtain a
total sound image as it is, resulting from the interaction of the different parameters which
influence main impression of the quality of a sound image.
AUDIENCE NOISE
The subjective impression of how audience may be a disturbing factor in listening to the
sound image.
REVERBERATION
The subjective impression of natural or artificial indirect sounds.
SOUND ATTACK
The subjective impression of the speed at which sounds begin.
SOUND BALANCE
The subjective impression of the balance of the individual sound sources in the
general sound image
SOUND COLOUR
The subjective impression of each sound source within the sound image, including all
its characteristic harmonic elements in a spectrum.
SOUND COLOUR OF REVERBERATION
The subjective impression of the changing of natural sound colour with regard to the spatial
position of the very sound source, including any artificial reverberation.
SOUND IMAGE WIDTH
The subjective impression of the width of the sound stage in the stereo sound field.
SOUND SOURCE DEFINITION
The subjective impression of the position of different instruments or voices sounding
simultaneously in stereophony, and the possibility of their identification.
STABILITY
The subjective impression that all sound sources stay in their intended positions.
STEREO IMPRESSION
The subjective impression that the sound image has the correct directional distribution of
sound sources.
TIMBRE
The subjective impression of the accurate portrayal of the different sound characteristics
of the sound source.
TRANSPARENCY
The subjective impression that all details of the performance can be clearly perceived.
SPATIAL IMPRESSION
The subjective impression that the performance takes place in an appropriate spatial
environment.
There's the music and there's the listener, and between them is a pane of dirty glass. Our job as mix engineers is to clean the muck off the glass, using the right tools and processes until the glass is totally transparent and all the listener has in front of them is the music and it's qualities.
Love this personal view on mixing.... I thought myself that the vocal could be with way less reverb because the note of what she was saying was so real and maybe it automate in to more reverb as it progressed... although that is more of a producers thought... something I was thinking watch this: for producer and mixer to work together in more back and forth before the final mix.
So, Producer sends it to be cleaned up, then the producer adds the colour they are sort of looking for and says what they used and the settings they used... then the mixer make suggestions of automation ect to the producer and it become a much more of a relationship combining ownership to what is created and be set that the gift of a song be owned by all that love it.
The reverb for me makes the sound more dream like and makes it a Ballard impact and the dry is a sort of "real" slightly cutting and rawness, this is my creative understanding... then myself would let the reverb slowly make it's way through... so the cutting thruth followed by the depth of the feeling that comes from it to build in with the reverb
Oh there is definitely a wrong - but the only "wrong" that I know of...frame of reference, I've been mixing for 22 years, and I still learn something every day...is bad spectral balance. But even that isn't absolute, because it can and should be stretched to suit the song/genre, and there are an infinite number of ways to achieve spectral balance. But aside from that, it's wide open. Great videos, man - I love this channel.
Wytse.....I don't know if you'll ever see this but what is that song you played a piece of at 10:45 on the video timeline...with the girl singing the lyric (2nd line)
" .... If you won't open your door... "
I've got to hear and know those lyrics!
Thank you!
Audified makes a cool plugin to simulate other speakers including ns10’s
But doesn’t it also affect the person creating the music? Like you can addd more ingredients and go overboard with tracks, layers, effects etc but does it add something extra or can something be left out? Once heard Alan Parsons say in a video that it’s also about knowing when enough is enough in a production. For a hobbyist musical it’s very tempting to add things to a composition but it tends to end up like mixing colours of paint on a palette and going too far with it that you end up with a dark brown colour. A lot music these days is very dense and rich is layers whereas in the 80’s and early 90’s it tended to be a bit less dense.
Any chance of recording stereo audio of your videos?
What are your thoughts in mixing in mono?
Do you consider my JBL305 MK II monitors appropriate to use as a "lesser" type speaker, closer to iPhones listeners? Or do I also need a couple of real cheap ass monitors?
Smart !
Where can I get the Fridge Is Shit plugin please
An equalizer and a good ear is the key to a good mix
Plz give a demo project mixed with fabfilter
This sentence at 7:20 is everything after balancing
I have a ? is mastering a way of make sure all of the songs on an album are at the same level as in volume
Among other things yes. Mastering goes in depth, even bit depth, dithering, 'coding' (adding codes) as well and all the other obvious things you expect and probably already know.
Yes, historically, especially related to even sounding albums. But a lot of this had to do with the manufacturing of, and playback of, vinyl records. Control standards needed to be in place so your record player needle wouldn't struggle to not jump out of place physically. Low end needed to be controlled. Volume controlled. And that's where the use of broad stroke EQs and compression first fell into use. Today, mastering has become more broad , but it is still the final stage of preparation for final distribution, vinyl, digital, CD, TV broadcast, etc., which all have different requirements.
In my opinion, a mix is good once any element and arrangements are audible, glued and balanced.
It's mainly a matter of spatiality
Can u please do the abby road new saturator??
A good mix should have all instruments perfectly distinguishable, at least the ones that should be on top (obviously ambient pads, some FX and other layering can be in the background). It should convey the power needed out of it (a metal mix should have say good punch and transmit aggression). It should have good tonal balance (good lows/highs but not overwhelming), it should have competent loudness level without destroying dynamics. It should sound acceptable on all sound systems, from your monitors, to headphones, to a car with a nice subwoofer, and even to a cellphone speaker, since a balanced mix will be balanced everywhere.
But overall, a good mix is one that is accepted by the client, and one considered "good" by most people you or your client ask for opinion, since they're ones consuming it, not you.
This does not answer the fundamental question - ''what makes a good mix?'' - but it is very very useful, because it is a springboard to dive into more questions about what we want or expect from genres and different kinds of sonic communication. Mathematics is about finding correct answers. The purpose of art is to deepen the mystery. Viva! M X
Taste is keyword once you have the knowledge how to! :D
OT:
Can you make a video about "audiophile"? What is it exactly? Is audiophile only applicable to acoustic instruments/music?
With a violin, for example, I know roughly how it sounds like, but every violin sounds different to another violin!
Does audiophile make sense because consumers never have the same equipment as the sound engineer in his studio?
fck all audiophiles. they are just stupid guys claiming they can hear the difference in gold and steel cables.
@@feggyo Yes, I know these types of audiophiles, but there are also the normal ones who don't hear grass growing.