String Line Mix revisited

OK, first let me say I've done NO mixing yet, not that I wouldn't like to try it at some point.  But on that topic I would like to revisit SteveG's mixing discussion of a couple years back, because something about it was really intriguing.

Last month, and again today, I was listening to an Aerosmith cut, "What It Takes", at least I think that was it (fyi it was mixed by this guy Mike Fraser).  And it struck me how clearly I could hear all the different instruments and parts.  This to me was amazing and it reminded me of the String-Line Mix discussion.  I seem to recall SteveG explaining more than was captured here.  I recall something about using EQ to carve-out "sonic" space to give room for the different tracks in the mix to coexist.

??So I was wondering, could you please review and/or expand on that somewhat, maybe give a rough example of how you would actually do this in CoolEdit  ...er, Audition.  Maybe using a simple example such as drums, a piano, a rhythm guitar, and a female vocal.  I hope I'm not being too simplistic-- I do realize drum/bass mix is a whole science in itself.  Mainly I'm interested in the Cooledit carve-out process (assuming I got that right).  And especially if that process has since been refined any, with the advent of 2.1 ...er, x.x.

Thanks!  
-clintfan

[Basic 'String Line' mix primer]

Since we have no idea of how long that link is going to stay up, and yes you are right, there is a longer version of it, I'll repost it here:

Basic 'String Line' mix primer
Those of us who have been fortunate enough to have been able to dissect multi-track recordings that sound as good as some of Paul Simon's do will tell you that the qualities that you are looking for have got more than a little to do with compression and limiting. It's a BIG subject, but I can certainly give you a few starting hints here.

For a start, you need to get INDIVIDUAL TRACKS sounding good and smooth on their own. Start with tracks as 'dry' as you can get them and limit any really bad peaks. How? To begin with, you probably need to get the top 5-6dB of each track squashed down to about 1-2dB. This is only a starting figure - it varies widely with individual tracks, especially vocals, which always seem to need treatment. Compression is a little harder to get right, as you have to be careful not to take all the life (dynamic range) out of the track and bring up the noise level. You have to experiment a lot with settings, but after a while you will get an ear for what's going on. Sometimes, cassette recordings 'accidentally' sound good. That's because all audio tape has a built-in mechanism which has a very similar effect to a compresser/limiter when you record it at moderately high levels. Especially cassettes. (It's all to do with magnetic saturation of the tape - any decent audio textbook will explain it.)

Anyway, if you want to add other spatial effects to an individual track, you can, but listen carefully to the results, and be prepared to go through the whole process again. Effects added to a compressed/limited track often stand out more than untreated ones - you may need less than you think. As for time-based (temporal) effects, delay is fine at this stage, but try to resist the desire to add reverb, if you can...

When you've got your individual tracks sorted out, you can position them in the soundfield. You might find at this stage that you've got tracks 'masking' each other, and it may not just be the panning that's a problem. As well as their own 'physical' space, most tracks need their own 'frequency' space to occupy as well, so you might find yourself eq-ing individual tracks to give others enough space to exist in the audio spectrum.

By now, you should be getting a good idea of the relative levels and position of each track, and hopefully the mix is starting to come together. This is often the point where you will need to apply a little overall reverb, and quite possibly a multi-band compressor to your mix, especially for radio. This will get the overall levels higher, hopefully without the bass and drums punching the rest of the track's levels up and down. You don't usually need too much of this, either - you should have got the sound pretty much right earlier in the mix. Quite often this is the 'magic fairy dust' element that gets added at the mastering stage, often with a judicious bit of final eq.

A couple of other things; If you feel that you need to use an enhancer, then try adding it to individual tracks, not the mix, and remember that 'less is definitely more' with them. The other thing is drums. They can be complete buggers to get right. It's often worth doing a complete submix of them on their own (using the same principles as above). Then add the bass. Then do everything else. There are mastering processor plugins like iZotope's Ozone available which can do amazing things to enhance your mix, but you have to be extremely careful not to overdo it.

So the clue to a 'string line' effect is that every sound must be defined within its own space in time, position and frequency, and you have to get them right individually.

Finally, (for everybody else) I KNOW that there are loads of other ways to do mixes, and that everybody has their own little tricks that work for them. But everybody has to start somewhere, and the procedures that I've outlined are pretty basic. When you've learned the rules, however painfully, you can start to break them AND KNOW WHY!

Now there are other things that can be said about this, and you must remember that this was written in answer to a specific request - it doesn't apply to all mixes by any means, and it's not comprehensive, even about this particular type - we could have quite a lot more discussion about EQ, for instance. But like I said, it's a starting point...

There is also some discussion about normalising that relates directly to the primer here.

Thanks for that Steve, it's an important addition to the new forum.  Indeed that's more how I remembered it.  

...most tracks need their own 'frequency' space to occupy as well, so you might find yourself eq-ing individual tracks to give others enough space to exist in the audio spectrum. -SteveG

I guess that's the part I don't quite understand: the EQ'ing.  Is it simply narrowing the frequency spectrum of the track, via some sort of inverse notch filter?  Or is it more involved than that?  Doesn't narrowing the frequency range of an instrument make it sound tinny?  Or is it done in such a gradual way that the tonal quality doesn't typically get affected?

If I had to try this, maybe I would start with a frequency analysis against each track to get a rough idea of where stuff is in the spectrum, then compare all tracks' results to see where the overlaps are.  As I got more experience, maybe I could skip most analysis steps and go by gut feel.  Then using the frequencies identified, I would EQ each track to roll-off somewhat at the boundaries of the range, or where I need more "room".  I guess the degree of rolloff would come with experience too.  Then try a mixdown to see how it worked.  

Is that pretty close to the basic CoolEdit process I would need to use to gain the needed frequency space?

-clintfan

The best way to do these things is when listening to the all the instruments together. When EQ'ing, things may sound bad when soloed. But in the mix it can sound great. And that's what you want to achieve. Take away frequencies, so each instrument has its own place. Guitars for example often don't need the lowest frequencies since the bass covers those ones in a mix. So what you do is remove some of those low ones. The guitar will cut through the mix and the whole mix will be less muddy.
And when mixing bass and bassdrum for example, you raise a certain frequency for one and lower it for the other. That way they really 'work together' without invading eachother's space.

Well-put, AMSG, I think I understood every bit of your reply...  nice explanation, thanks.   I assume I wouldn't know any actual frequency ranges until I hear the real instruments, like it's probably one of those things where each project is different.  

If so then I recognize there's no one-size-fits-all.  But are there any "rules of thumb" I should be aware of, like typical cutoff freq. between the drum & bass?  Or what range most vocals are within?  Like, "a common mistake is to... say, ...cut off the vocal highs too soon, etc. etc.?"

-clintfan

I don't know if the explanation was so nice but I tried my best, hehe

Anyway, you said it a bit yourself. Every projects is a bit different but the instruments will have the same frequency range (approximately).

But I can't really give any typical frequencies for the bass and the bassdrum, for example. Much depends on the musical style you're dealing with. But if a bassdrum sounds 'boxy' you can sink a bit around 500 Hz for example.
And when it comes to bass and bassdrum you can do something like this. If the bass sounds a bit thin you can raise a bit around 150 Hz. Then you cut that for the bassdrum etc.

The vocals then...well, I think it's kind of safe to take away a few decibel under 100 Hz. Often I even go higher.

As said earlier, all depends on the instrument you're working with and the desired sound.

Thanks.  Again this is all theoretical, since I'm only curious, not actually doing mixing.  So the bass guitar frequencies are actually mostly lower than drums?  I guess I had that backwards in my mind.

-clintfan

[TROGDOR!!!]

Well-put, AMSG, I think I understood every bit of your reply...  nice explanation, thanks.   I assume I wouldn't know any actual frequency ranges until I hear the real instruments, like it's probably one of those things where each project is different.  

If so then I recognize there's no one-size-fits-all.  But are there any "rules of thumb" I should be aware of, like typical cutoff freq. between the drum & bass?  Or what range most vocals are within?  Like, "a common mistake is to... say, ...cut off the vocal highs too soon, etc. etc.?"

-clintfan

You're right on the money here.  There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but there are some common things to look for when EQing specific instruments.  Much will depend on the instrument (or voice), the mic used, how it was positioned,  the room it was recorded in, etc.  I could give you some specific examples here, but it would most likely require me stealing that information from somewhere else.

So, to avoid that, let me recommend one of the most useful pieces of literature I have ever purchased:  The Musician's Guide to Home Recording by Peter McIan and Larry Wichman.  You can pick it up on amazon.com right now for under $10, and I would say it is well worth much more than that.

The book is not definitive, but much like the string-line-mix-primer above, it gives you a very practical place to start from.  The book is also a bit dated, but I think you will find that most of the information you need will be found there.

I hope this is helpful to you!

Good luck!
Josh

[*Mod edit* The link to studiocovers no longer works.]

Don't forget studiocovers.com  !!  A LOAD of great reference material.  However... you still have to develop (and trust) your ears.  

*Mod edit* The link to studiocovers no longer works.

Don't forget www.studiocovers.com  !!  A LOAD of great reference material.  However... you still have to develope (and trust) your ears.  

i see that you've snuck it in anyway.  

[TROGDOR!!!]

Don't forget www.studiocovers.com  !!  A LOAD of great reference material.  However... you still have to develope (and trust) your ears.  

i see that you've snuck it in anyway.  

Well, somebody needs to (even if it's a suckerpunch!)  That site is cool of great stuff.

Josh

Haha, voodoo! First I wrote something about studiocovers in my first reply here. But then I deleted those sentences. I just thought you would react on this and I wanted you to have the honor

... but you have to be extremely careful to to overdo it.

Nice typo!

Paul

... but you have to be extremely careful to to overdo it.

Nice typo!

I think that it was an editing typo - and in the original that I lifted straight from the Synt post. Anyway, it's fixed - thank you!

And at least it proves that somebody has read it!
(ps I haven't looked at the G36 yet, but should get around to it over this weekend...)

... but you have to be extremely careful to to overdo it.

Nice typo!

I think that it was an editing typo - and in the original that I lifted straight from the Synt post. Anyway, it's fixed - thank you!

And at least it proves that somebody has read it!
(ps I haven't looked at the G36 yet, but should get around to it over this weekend...)

I read it back then. But after all that time I couldn't remember that typo anymore:) And you get the picture anyway, typo or not.