Recording Tip 40: When mixing better to have your faders plus or minus 10db of “0.” Insert trims if you find them far from that

This tip came from a project I mixed a few years ago, and I’m finding the problem happening pretty often these days. I was mixing a project which had been sent to one of the best guitar players on the planet for him record his parts. The tracks he recorded were mostly power/crunch guitars and they sounded great. The problem however, were that all of them were recorded at near full scale, almost totally filling up the meters. (This relates to TIP 3-4.  where I advise to only record percussive instruments that hot.)

This was a problem because I had to pull the faders almost to the bottom of the fader track in order to balance them in the mix. The reason this is a problem is at the bottom of the fader track, there’s not enough resolution to make small changes. You can easily see this on the faders with their dB marks. When the fader is near 0 the distance between dBs is fairly large. On my screen moving the fader about an inch near 0 gives about 7-8dB of gain change. But at the bottom of the fader track, an inch is maybe 15dB or more. I’m not going to get into the math of that. You can search that if you want more information. The bottom line of it all is there’s more resolution a the top half of the fader track than near the bottom. So if the fader is down near the -20 mark it’s really hard to make a small level change...and consequently, hard to get the balance of that track just right.

All to say, I needed better fader resolution for my rides. So what I did was to put a Trim plugin on those track at -20dB. That allowed me to raise up the fader so it was more like -5dB or so for a good balance. From there I could make the small rides more accurately.

Using the trim plugin in this situation will also help keep from any plugins from overloading, especially if you add a good bit of EQ. Maybe you’ve wondered why an equalizer overloads when you add EQ. If the level going in is too hot, when you add gain at certain frequencies, you’ve maxxed out the plugin. Lowering the level will also give you more room with the threshold setting if you’re compressing it. When you find tracks like this, put the trim plugin first, so the following plugins have better gain structure.

One last thing. Don’t deceive yourself that hot recording levels will make for a loud record. That will happen when you mix. Super hot recording levels are likely just to give you unintended distortion. While you may get a thrill seeing all those lit up levels, all they’re really doing is making it harder to make a great mix. Healthy recording levels are important for sure. But again, re-read TIP 3-4.

So use that Trim in and get those faders back up to where they should be. Your moves will be much more accurate, you’ll not be as likely to overload your plugins, and your mixes will sound better as a result.

Recording Tip 39: Once you have basic levels and pans, listen in mono, THEN adjust pans. One small move may help something pop thru

This is a wacky tip and a bit more advanced than some of the others. And while the end goal is to make your stereo mixes better, your mixes heard in mono will be better as well.

Of course 99% of the time your mix will be heard in stereo, but checking your mix in mono is still a good idea for a few reasons, the most obvious being that if your mix is heard in mono you want it to sound good. And if you’re lucky enough to mix a big hit it will be heard in mono a lot more than you imagine. Playback from a smart phone’s speakers or in stores at the mall are a few places where songs are heard in mono by a lot of people. While mono isn’t common, it’s not totally dead. The fact is a great mix sounds good in both mono and stereo and it’s worth your time to check it.

So that’s my little sermon on why it’s good for your mix to translate well to mono. But for this tip that’s really the icing on the cake. The point is to listen in mono so your stereo mixes sound better.  So now you may be wondering, “How do panning changes in mono help my stereo mix?”  

The reason is that mono gives another reference for hearing how your levels, pans, and eq are working. If things are fighting in mono, they’re probably fighting in stereo as well. You may not hear it so much as things are spread across the stereo image, but it’s still there.  

The idea is this. Once your mix is in good shape, hit the mono button on your monitor section and make small panning changes. (Now I’m not talking about changing your pans to mono and then listening.  I’m talking about using your monitor’s Mono button so it combines the stereo mix to mono in your speakers. If you don’t have a mono button on your monitor this tip won’t work for you. You have to have a Mono button in your monitor section to do this.)

So get your mix in good shape, preferably before you’ve begun automating the faders.  TIP 37.  By then you’ve panned all your tracks the way you want them so now hit the mono button on your monitor section and listen. Are all the tracks in a good balance? Does the mix still sound like your mix, or something dreadful?  Hopefully it’s still pretty good. If not, go back to stereo and work a bit more, checking things in mono. Once it sounds pretty good in both, then take the next step. While listening in mono, select a track and move the pan a bit.

Now I’m not talking about making big changes. In fact when I go back to stereo I might not even be able to tell it’s moved at all. The idea is to give a small bump to the panning of the track a bit and see if it pops out better while listening in mono. One thing also...while panning is mostly what I’m working on, level and eq are also something I’m paying attention to, and often I’ll make changes to those as well.  (This is also why it’s good to do this before automation. If you need to make real changes to level you won’t have to backtrack fader automation.)

When doing this I tend to focus more on tracks panned between L-C-R, but those panned hard left and right might need a change as well. It may be that panning a bit less than hard left or right is better. I’ll make my final decisions and passes in stereo, but like listening on a second set of speakers, this gives another perspective to hear relationships of the tracks.

If I hear a problem right off the bat, I may swap back and forth between mono and stereo to find it. But mostly I stay in mono for this little exercise. I’ll take a pass or two like this and once it sound good I’ll go back to stereo and see how things sit.

Almost always when I go back to stereo I find my mix is much more open and sounds better. Of course a great stereo mix is the goal, so if what I heard in mono doesn’t work as well in stereo, I’ll change it for the sake of the stereo mix. But as I said before, a great mix almost always sounds great in both stereo and mono. Check out your favorite mixer’s work. You’ll hear that’s true.

One thing you must remember when doing this. Anything panned dead to center will sound louder when listening in mono because it adds equally from both sides. So expect the bass guitar, kick, snare, and vocal, etc. to be a bit louder. If it does a little bit, that’s normal. But if it’s radically louder, you need to work some more. Listen back and forth between stereo and mono and find the place where those things sound right in both. In mono you’ll also usually lose a bit of stereo reverb so things may sound a bit drier. That’s also due to the things in mono, like the lead vocal are louder in mono, so that relationship with the reverb is different. This may sound a little odd, but with a little experience, you’ll find what works between the two and your mixes will be better.

Give this rather nutty method a shot. I bet you’ll find good results. And if nothing else, it’s a good way to hone your chops.

Recording Tip 38: Panning is a lost art. Try other than hard left, center, and right positions

There are several aspects of mixing which can make a huge difference, level being the most obvious. But the position of the pan knob is just as important as the fader level.  The fact is, the two are wholly related.  If you have a track which can’t seem to find it’s place with the fader, it may be moving the pan a bit may just be what is needed to make it pop through.  

You gotta remember that panning is a form of level.  It’s something that can be easily seen with an oscillator.  Put a 1K tone in a track and put the fader so you get a reading in the master fader.  From there pan the track from hard left to hard right and watch the corresponding level change in that master fader.  You’ll see it move up and down as you pan.  That’s a clear demonstration and reminder of this relationship.

I wrote this a while back and recently found an Q&A video with the famous rock mixer Andrew Sheps who has become rather famous for mixing only with L-C-R (Left, Center, Right) panning.  By the way...watch this video.  It’s great!

In the video he was asked about this and confessed he does it not because of some mix philosophy, but because of the limitation of the Neve console he uses.  (He hates the pan pot insertion)   However when mixing in the box, he often pans between those three primary spots.  

All to say, listen carefully to great mixes. You’ll hear (almost all) great mixers use all of the stereo space.  They don’t just use hard left, right, mono, but use all the available space to find a place each track.   So when you mix, don’t’ hesitate to use all that sonic real estate.

Recording Tip 37: When mixing, spend plenty of time getting levels right before automating faders

Not long ago, the great Nashville engineer, Chuck Ainley and I had a conversation on the subject of mixing.  Chuck told me the most important mix tip he could give was to spend most of his time getting things to sound good with the faders in a static position before turning on the automation.  

That’s it?  Sounds like rather simple advice doesn’t it?  As simple as it is, I think it’s one of the greatest tip I’ve ever heard.

In the world of DAWs EQ, panning, levels, reverb sends, and fader automation can be done in a second with a click of the mouse.  And when wrestling a troublesome mix, turning on the automation early is a real temptation.  

You’re mixing along and the first verse and chorus the mix sound great.  But now that punchy, sparse track is competing for air with the onslaught of new parts beginning in verse 2….and so on comes the automation to “fix” it.

But when you do that, it’s likely you’re really just putting on a band-aid for basic flaws in the mix. Even though you automated the buried parts with fader levels or eq and can hear them better, the mix fundamentally hasn’t congealed and soon a lot of your faders are moving constantly.  (By the way, if you followed TIP 36 “Recording with the mix in mind” you probably won’t have this issue so much!)

While of course automation is almost always needed, I’ve found when I spend more time working without it (getting better balances, eq, compression, etc.) the mix has a better foundation.  The faders don’t need to be moved so much and the final mix sounds better because it is better.  If you can find a place where everything sits well for the whole song and then turn on the automation, you’re starting in a better place.

All the best engineers do this, and the great Al Schmidt is a perfect example.  A few years ago I was visiting Al’s mixing home, Capitol Records Studios in LA.  Al graciously invited me into his room where we talked for a while.  (I know Al from the days I assisted him at Bill Schnee Studio)  After catching up a bit, Al stepped out of the room for a call, so I asked Steve Genewick, his fantastic assistant (also a great engineer and producer in his own right) about Al’s mix methodology.   Steve told me most of time Al is mixing he works without automation.  When he finally turns it on, Al would need only two or three passes of rides and the mix was done.  (Al also rarely ever uses eq or compression either...but most of us mere mortals need some help with such things!)

Of course there are times when you’ll find a part on a track that really does need a significant change during the song.  But instead of automating it, do this.  Make a new track, pull those files down into it and treat it as needed.  To me, this a bit like changing a mic to get a better sound when recording.  It’s also less likely you’ll make some compromise due to the inserts or whatever which are on that track and you’ll end up with the exact sound needed for that part.

Again, this is really simple advice.  And as in life, the best advice is usually simple.  Of course there are no rules in mixing, only guidelines.  Sure, sometimes you’ll have a mix with a lot of automation, and that can be a lot of fun.  But do that only once the mix has a good solid foundation and then pull out the DAW’s bells and whistles.

So give it a try.  Next time spend at least half of your mix getting it as close as you can before resorting to automation.  I think you’ll find that not only will the final mix sound better, you’ll learn more about what was really needed and your skills will improve.

Extra note...in the Andrew Sheps article I mention in the above blog he discusses this same idea as well as some other great tips.

Recording Tip 36: When recording, record with the mix in mind.

The ability to record with the mix in mind is a bit of a lost art these days.  When someone gives me a song to mix, I can tell within a few minutes if the person who recorded it understands this concept.  A well recorded song has certain characteristics technically, and I don’t mean subjective preferences of sounds.  These characteristics have to do with how the tracks were recorded, and consequently, how they play back.

When a well recorded song has a good basic balance, the faders should sit in the “sweet spot” of the fader track; somewhere between -15dB and 0.  Also, as the mix plays, a lot of fader pushing won’t be required to keep the mix balanced.  A well recorded song maintains a good balance with the faders sitting still.

This is something which was taught to me from day one as an assistant.  In the bad old days we couldn’t click a mouse and have the song open up with the exact levels we had last time we worked on it.  We’d load up the tape machine and have to quickly get up a mix from scratch with each song.  Good engineers soon learned that if they recorded with consistent fader levels, moving from song to song was much easier.  And of course as the label exec would invariably appear unannounced, they’d be able to make the best showing for the producer and artist, not to mention showing their own skills at things sounding good when they were at the helm.

To do this, engineers developed the idea of setting the monitor faders at an even level, and adjust recording levels into the stationary monitor faders.  We’d record almost like a live mix; adjusting recording levels as we worked so a lot of the balancing was already done.

Back in those days, the old joke was that if you recorded things well you could mix with a nickel and a yardstick.  Line all the faders up evenly with the yardstick, put a nickel under the lead vocal fader so it was a bit louder, move the yardstick up, nickel and all, until there was a good level on the stereo buss, and the mix would be done.  Of course I never saw such a thing happen and I doubt anyone ever really did that with a final mix.  But the story made for a good point about how to record well.  As an assistant I was fortunate to work with a lot of great engineers.  And every one of them worked this way.  Bill Schnee, Jack Joseph Puig, Elliot Scheiner, Al Schmidt....every one.

Now there’s no Grammy for “Best Fader Position in a Mix.”  And you may be thinking, “That sounds like some old fart spouting some old school technique which is pointless today.  Isn’t that why we have automation?”  Sure.  You can put your faders wherever you want and sort it out later. But there’s an additional benefit of setting the faders and adjust your recording levels to fit.  When you do, you end up choosing better parts and sounds.

The reason is this.  By not moving faders around so much you start thinking more about how each part works with the rest of the track.  A good part with a good sound blends into the mix more easily.  When recording if I can’t find a good level...if it always seems too loud or too soft, I wonder about what’s being recorded.  If I can’t find a balance where the part works throughout the song, I probably need to change the part, the sound, or both.

One last thought about this.  While recording with the mix in mind has a lot to do with levels, it also has to do with coming up with parts that will work well in the stereo field.  A great stereo mix has a good balance of parts in both speakers, giving the mix size and power.  So when recording, think of where a part may end up getting panned in the final mix.  Spatial interest is a huge part of good mixes..and makes song much more fun to listen to.  I always love it when I get a mix where somebody took the time to make parts that work well in stereo.  Of course, there are no rules.  Sometimes having a big guitar part on one side can be great, in particular if it’s a power trio.  But most songs sound better with a balanced feel between the two speakers.

But whatever you do, don’t get caught up in layering part after part, focusing only on the overdub of the moment.  Listen carefully, keeping the end in mind...a great mix for the song. 

Recording Tip 35: On a related note, I’ve heard of a fellow turning on a vacuum cleaner as he listens with the same purpose.

Now this is something I’ve never done, nor am likely to do, but it’s worth bringing up as it relates to Tip 34.  Again, maybe 1% of people who hear your mixes will listen in a quiet room with their head between the speakers.  At best it will be with headphones, but they’ll still most likely be doing something else when listening.  

The vacuum noise will mask a lot of things.  And if your mix is in good shape, you should be able to hear all the important elements over the din of the motor.  

I’m not saying to do this, but on the other hand, hey...if it works, do it!

Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish. A look back after Jobs' passing

A few months ago I wrote a blog about Steve Jobs upon his decision to step down from his position at Apple. Not long after that, he passed away. Recently I read the fantastic biography on his life by Walter Isaacson. It was one of the quickest 900+ page book I’d ever read and I highly recommend it. With that on my mind I felt it good to rewrite the blog a bit and update it after his passing. So here are some of my thoughts. I think there’s a lot to be learned from his life, no matter what field of endeavor we pursue.

In the fall of 2011 the news came from Apple which most of us knew we’d hear sooner rather than later. Steve Jobs resigned his position at the company he started. Over the last few years many of us watched with concern and sadness as Jobs’ physical condition deteriorated. We knew of his tremendous drive and passion for his work and that if he ever stepped down, it would only be because he was very ill. That proved to be more true than any outsider (and many insiders) knew. And as Isaacson revealed, Jobs dealt for a long time with pain very few could handle during his last year on the job.

It’s no stretch to say that Jobs’ vision and creativity has impacted all of us to one degree or another. It’s likely that a majority of you are reading this on some device created under his watchful eye. Even those using Windows or an Android phone are using technologies clearly traceable to Apple’s innovation. And beyond that, who doesn’t have at least an iPod or iTouch? Job’s influence in our world is all around us and his vision clearly set a standard for how things should work.

I remember when I bought my first Mac. It’s still in my studio, now sitting silent on top of my rack of gear. It’s a Mac SE, with a 20 MB hard drive and 4 MB of RAM. I had Speed Doubler installed so it runs at what was then a screaming 8Mhz. It’s a 1984 product which cost $2000. (Funny thing about that...That price point is still the cost of a decent desktop over all these years) It still works and had zero problems over the years. And like all Macs, Y2K came and went without any need for patches to make it cross the millenium boundary.

So what’s to be said for the end of the era of the Silicon Valley Pirates? There are probably some still in trenches who began back with Jobs and Gates, but these days Gates is a figurehead, and has been for a long time. Jobs however was the last active leader of that group. His passing marked the end of the era of the creators of personal computing. Jobs and others like him were Malcom Gladwell’s “Outliers.” They had the right skills, were born at the right time, and put in the ten thousand hours required for world-class proficiency. His retirement closes the book on one of the most significant eras of human invention. The world has forever changed due to their ingenuity and drive.

By now there are numerous articles and blogs written about Steve Jobs by folks much more connected and reputable than I. I’m just a knob jockey who’s never purchased anything but Apple products. So what’s to be said that hasn’t already been written? I may echo other’s writings, but here’s what comes to mind.

When I think of Steve Jobs the first thing that comes to mind is his passion. You could see it every year at the Mac Expo when he spoke of the innovations Apple was going to release. No other CEO has ever commanded such anticipation and spoken to a live and web audience of such number every year. More than once I’d be in the studio and someone would ask, “Hey, did you see the Apple webcast?” It was that significant. But as good as the new products were, we didn’t watch just for information. We watched to be inspired by Jobs himself.

Yet not only did I feel passion when Jobs spoke, I felt it when I used Apple’s products. And that’s something truly remarkable. To be able to create a product which causes an emotional response by the user is nothing short of amazing. I recall the first time someone showed me an iPod. There was no need to demonstrate how it worked. It was as plain as day. After a few seconds of fiddling with it, I was breathless with the realization of what I had in my hand. It was complex, sophisticated, yet agonizingly simple to operate.

Wired writer Steven Levy was the first to show one to Bill Gates at a dinner after the iPod’s unveiling which sort of says it all.

I brought along my new iPod. At the end of the meal, just as the other guests at the table were pushing away their chairs, I pulled out the iPod and put it in front of Gates.
"Have you seen this yet?" I asked.
Gates went into a zone that recalls those science fiction films where a space alien, confronted with a novel object, creates some sort of force tunnel between him and the object, allowing him to suck directly into his brain all possible information about it. Gates' fingers, racing at Nascar speed, played over the scroll wheel and pushed every button combination, while his eyes stared fixedly at the screen. I could almost hear the giant sucking sound. Finally, after he had absorbed every nuance of the device, he handed it back to me.
"It looks like a great product," he said.
Then he paused a second. Something didn't compute.
"It's only for Macintosh?" he asked.
Yes, it was. (Then.)

The iPod was a paradigm shift in handheld digital products. The Mac OS was the same. There was a brilliant clarity about how it worked, and a kind of sex appeal about it. Sure Windows OS worked...at least sometimes. (I’m still baffled at how Vista left Redmond for release.) But somehow Apple continued to make product after product that worked with great efficiency and beauty.

The other thing which occurs to me with Steve Jobs is the personal power of a human being. Of course Jobs had his flaws. His rants and tyrannical behavior are legendary. (Again, read the book!) Perhaps such things were necessary for his work, perhaps not. Yet one cannot deny the very large mark he left on the world.

In 2005 Jobs gave the commencement speech at Standford University. At just under fifteen minutes long, it’s one of the most profound speeches you’ll ever hear.

In it Jobs tells three stories from his life. Three simple stories, all related to what he called “Connecting the dots.”

In this brilliant speech which he wrote himself, (He tried to get a famous Presidential speechwriter to write it for him. But when the writer’s commitments were too great, as was typical, Jobs just did it himself.) In it Jobs discussed how events in life which might seem unrelated today, often have great meaning later. He began with his experience at Reed College, his creation of Apple and his getting fired, then rehired. And finally, his experience with cancer.

I could hardly do justice to Jobs’ speech with some expository ramblings. Do yourself a favor and listen to it yourself. It’s perhaps the finest commencement address ever given. But I will include a few quotes from the speech in the hope that it will provoke you to take time to hear it.

CONNECTING THE DOTS
“You can’t connect the dots looking forward. You can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future.....You have to trust in something....Because believing that that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart...even when it leads you off the well worn path. And that will make all the difference.”

LOVE AND LOSS
“I didn’t see it then. But it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced with the lightness of being a beginner again...less sure about everything. It freed me to enter into one of the most creative periods of my life.”

“You’ve got to find what you love....Your work is going to fill a large part of your life. And the only way to be truly satisfied...is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do.”


DEATH
When he was seventeen Jobs read a quote which said, IF YOU LIVE EACH DAY AS IF IT WAS YOUR LAST, ONE DAY YOU’LL MOST CERTAINLY BE RIGHT. Jobs said, “And for the next 33 years I’ve looked in the mirror and asked, “IF TODAY WERE THE LAST DAY OF MY LIFE, WOULD I WANT TO DO WHAT I’M ABOUT TO DO TODAY” And whenever the answer has been “No” for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.”

Jobs always felt he would die young. Perhaps that was a part of his unshakable drive.
As he gave that speech in 2005 he thought his bout with his illness was over. So of course those words carry even more weight today.

As I said before I’d be a fool to summarize Jobs’ speech. His words and his immense passion speak well enough on its own. My desire is to take them to heart and apply them to my own life. It’s probably no stretch to say that most all of you reading this are blessed to be doing what you love, or working toward that goal. But as the years and decades roll on, we still need to be sure we’re still doing what we love. Times change. We change. And with these changes most all of us are needing to adapt. So while we’re hopefully involved in a career we love, we may need to refine again what we’re doing.

Jobs finished his speech with a quote from the last issue of “The Whole Earth Catalog.” For those of you too young to know what that was, it was an indie magazine published from the late 60’s to the mid 70’s. Jobs described it as, “One of the bibles of my generation.” It was sort of like Google in paperback form....it was idealistic, overflowing with neat tools and great notions.”

They published several issues and when they felt it had run its course, they published their swan song. On the back cover was a photograph of a early morning country road. Jobs described it as, “The kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on, if you were so adventurous.” The quote under the photo was, Stay hungry, Stay foolish. Jobs closed his speech to the assembled class by saying, “Stay hungry, Stay foolish. And I’ve always wished that for myself. And now...I wish that for you. Stay hungry. Stay foolish.”