[296]

is that a bad kind of "^this" or a good kind?

 

[Kim]

you snuck in between when I replied to !!59's post

 

[Leona]

That mix is horrible. I can't hear any drums at all (or any bass for that matter) and the guitars are ridiculously loud.

Agreed. What kind of headphones are you using that are making the drums hearable over that wall of off time guitar?

 

[Seanbabs]

Agreed. What kind of headphones are you using that are making the drums hearable over that wall of off time guitar?

:agreed: The mix can't be good if the guitar is multi-tracked and each guitar is sloppy as all hell. Like I said before, just stop posting stuff if you only spent 30 minutes (which is actually a good amount of time for a 15 second clip) on it and you know it sounds like hell.

Not doubting your skills, but if you want to be a pro, release only your best sounding stuff. You don't see Mike Sherman posting pictures of a Squire he raped.

 

[eleven59]

Incidentally, you can mix on good headphones, you just need to reference to a set of speakers to check your bass frequencies and reverb levels, and it takes a lot of getting used to the headphones.

 

[296]

Incidentally, you can mix on good headphones, you just need to reference to a set of speakers to check your bass frequencies and reverb levels, and it takes a lot of getting used to the headphones.

well that was the point in this thread. TO hear what you guys can/cannot hear that i can hear just fit in my headphones

 

[Jason]

Do you not own ANY speakers ?

 

[296]

Do you not own ANY speakers ?

the ones built in my mac, they might as well be used as reference speakers for the time being

 

[eleven59]

the ones built in my mac, they might as well be used as reference speakers for the time being

Yeah, that won't tell you much about low frequencies or spacial imaging/reverb, but I always check my mixes on my iMac's built-ins just to see how the "average listener" will hear it.

 

[296]

Yeah, that won't tell you much about low frequencies or spacial imaging/reverb, but I always check my mixes on my iMac's built-ins just to see how the "average listener" will hear it.

the only thing that im weary about with that is that something will pop out so much even though it really isnt and its just because the bass isnt there to drop it down

 

[eleven59]

the only thing that im weary about with that is that something will pop out so much even though it really isnt and its just because the bass isnt there to drop it down

The bass never drops things down. If the bass is missing from your mix, the rest of the frequency range still sounds the same. Besides, 90% of listeners will be listening on crappy speakers with no bass response. That's why those checks are important. If the mix sounds good on tiny speakers or, god forbid, in mono, it'll take very little tweaking (and mostly in the low frequencies and extreme highs) to get it sounding good on proper monitors or full-range systems.

 

[Harry]

Hard L/R pan is sort of a standard when it comes to metal man, mostly because it works like 99% of the time. If you're using two pretty different tones, I'd do 2 tracks per side, mixing the two different tones on each side. Like this:

Left: Take 1, Amp A + Take 1, Amp B
Right: Take 2, Amp A + Take 2, Amp B

That way you get the blending of the two tones, but consistency across the stereo spectrum :yesway:

Edit: Made a slight mistake! Also, you WANT some slight differences between the two sides anyway, having exactly the same tone either side is gonna give a sort of mono feeling to the guitars, even if they're hard panned.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe I am reading this, because this is so completely untrue it's not funny.
I guess all those top level productions that feature amazing stereo width that were tracked with both or all four guitar tracks on the same settings had it all wrong then?
The difference in sound across the two tracks will come from minor playing inconsistencies that are inevitably unavoidable which will avoid the mono effect.

hard panned guitars aren't my favorite. since i start panning them to say between 60 - 80 each side, my mixes have started sounding better. try that.

also, the whole thing here is while you can technically mix in headphones(i can technically sing but sound like shit) it's one step above blindly setting faders without hearing the mix as it's happening.

To be honest, if panning 80/60/60/80 is giving you problems, you're definitely doing something wrong somewhere else in the mix, because it should sound fine, and actually better if you plan 100/80/80/100 using quad tracked guitars

 

[Drew]

I'll be honest, for a guy who talks a pretty big game, this really wasn't what I was expecting. Granted, a lot of the problems are tracking-related, out-of-time guitars that are too gains and fizzy, and if there's a bass in there I'm having a hard time differentiating it enough from the guitar's low end (of which there's a ton) to say much about it. Still, while "fixing it in the mix" isn't really ideal, there's a ton of room to make this better. I'd start by trying to save the rhythm guitars - maybe high pass anywhere from 60-120 hz, with the Q set to also tighten up the low mids a little, and then do something about that high end - try a shelf taking off3-6db starting between 6-8khz, or maybe even just low pass them. Bring the drums up, too - they seem to sound kinda thin, but it's really tough to say because they also sound kind of buried.

That said, I'd toss the whole thing, myself, and start again with less-saturated guitars that are in time with the drums.

if i didnt live in a town house i would buy monitors, but i want to learn how to mix on my headphones effectively until then.

Honestly, maybe you have paper thin walls or something, but the Fletcher-Munson curve is flattest around 80dB, which isn't really any louder than a vacuum cleaner and is as loud as you'll ever want to go, and you'll also want to spend a fair amount of time checking mixes below that, as well. I live in an apartment too, and I definitely use monitors.

 

[1]

This is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe I am reading this, because this is so completely untrue it's not funny.
I guess all those top level productions that feature amazing stereo width that were tracked with both or all four guitar tracks on the same settings had it all wrong then?
The difference in sound across the two tracks will come from minor playing inconsistencies that are inevitably unavoidable which will avoid the mono effect.

I actually agree with Shikaru, I always found that I got the best results doubletracking with two complimentary tones rather than two tones that were exactly the same.

Trav: As said, don't mean to sound harsh but the mix you linked is really quite terrible man.

 

[Drew]

I actually agree with Shikaru, I always found that I got the best results doubletracking with two complimentary tones rather than two tones that were exactly the same.

It's certainly a great way to get VERY big sounding guitars. I generally use pretty similar tones myself, though, for the simple reason that I'm writing instrumental guitar music, and since I'm just going to slap another track of guitar over the top, I wanna leave plenty of space for it. Vocal music might be a different story.

One isn't right and the other's wrong or anything - it's all about context.

 

[Shikaru]

This is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe I am reading this, because this is so completely untrue it's not funny.
I guess all those top level productions that feature amazing stereo width that were tracked with both or all four guitar tracks on the same settings had it all wrong then?
The difference in sound across the two tracks will come from minor playing inconsistencies that are inevitably unavoidable which will avoid the mono effect.

The key part of what I said there Harry was "Minor" differences. Subtle differences will always occur because of the inconsistencies between takes on either side. What I mean is that I generally nudge the mids down on one side, maybe a hint more treble as well. Just gives a bit of extra width to the guitars. I am not talking about having completely different tones either side, and whether this is done by adjusting settings on the amp or with post-EQ, I'm pretty sure it's not as rare in these "top level productions" as you make it out to be. :yesway:

 

[Harry]

I actually agree with Shikaru, I always found that I got the best results doubletracking with two complimentary tones rather than two tones that were exactly the same.

Trav: As said, don't mean to sound harsh but the mix you linked is really quite terrible man.

Oh, I don't disagree that you can get great results from two different tones.
Evanescence's album "Fallen" is a great example. Double tracked with a totally different amp on each side and sounds great.
But what I was saying was, to say that using the same tone on each side will produce the mono effect is just plain wrong, because there heaps of albums that have been tracked that way that have guitars wider than Jenna Jameson in the mix.
The only time it will produce that mono effect is if you play too tightly, which is extremely uncommon amongst mere mortals anyway.
Josh Middleton from the band Sylosis has been known to quad track that tight he gets mono problems and phasey sounding shit, but most guitarists can't even double track that tightly, let alone quad track that tight.

 

[1]

I think you're being a tad overly disagreeable. He said that it's "gonna give a sort of mono feeling to the guitars,". A SORT OF MONO feeling. He didn't say "if you use the same settings, your guitars will sound mono". Big difference.

I get what you're saying, but the and such almost make it seem like you're getting pissed off at his point of view. :lol:

 

[Harry]

I'll be honest, for a guy who talks a pretty big game, this really wasn't what I was expecting. Granted, a lot of the problems are tracking-related, out-of-time guitars that are too gains and fizzy, and if there's a bass in there I'm having a hard time differentiating it enough from the guitar's low end (of which there's a ton) to say much about it. Still, while "fixing it in the mix" isn't really ideal, there's a ton of room to make this better. I'd start by trying to save the rhythm guitars - maybe high pass anywhere from 60-120 hz, with the Q set to also tighten up the low mids a little, and then do something about that high end - try a shelf taking off3-6db starting between 6-8khz, or maybe even just low pass them. Bring the drums up, too - they seem to sound kinda thin, but it's really tough to say because they also sound kind of buried.

That said, I'd toss the whole thing, myself, and start again with less-saturated guitars that are in time with the drums.

I tend to just low pass guitars at like, 7-8KHz.
I've found it's a great way to get closer to those smooth tones found on high level productions by the likes of Randy Staub, Chris Lord-Alge, Jens Bogren, some Andy Wallace productions/mixes etc

 

[296]

Its not just the fact i live in the town house, its also the people who live there and what time im home to mix. i know people next door may not hear it at 2pm on a saturday. but at 2am on a weekday night when im home from school labs they will have a better chance of hearing it. plus my grandparents need to get some sleep.