Tanel Kagan
August 3rd 04, 10:43 AM
> I've been pondering the subjective nature/taste of mixing, and wondering
how
> truly subjective it is. There must be *some* reason that the best
engineers
> in the world are regarded as such...some reason why we can safely say
"this
> mix is better than that one."
My opinion is that the best engineers are those who have the experience to
know what translates well from the raw material to the final pressing. In
other words, the best engineers will know whether that bassline they hear on
your demo tape will fade into obscurity or swamp the mix when played back on
your average music box or on the PA system at Wembley Stadium.
Not an exact science of course, and I doubt whether anyone uses *only* their
ears. Engineers will have the right equipment and monitoring systems to be
able to ascertain where exactly problems lie and how to correct them.
> Suppose you gave a set of all the raw recorded tracks for one song to the
> three best mix engineers in the world, and asked them all to do their own
> basic mixes of the song, separately. By 'basic' I mean just do channel
EQ,
> panning, and mixing for balance between the parts but no reverb, special
> edits, and so forth. All the instruments or voices have to be used, but
> perhaps not every track of them (e.g. not all drum mics have to be used).
Are we talking mixing, remixing or mastering? I think some people use the
first and last terms somewhat interchangeably, whereas "remixing" refers
more to the creative process.
So if the remit given to the three engineers is to polish and clean, perhaps
"mix" in the sense of here are the parts, balance the levels, panning etc,
then probably the three mixes will be pretty much the same. I don't imagine
that any of the engineers will be so wildly out with their analysis so that
they do something completely different to the others.
> How similar do you think the resulting songs would sound? Where would the
> differences be? What are the hard and fast rules of mixing and recording
> that should only be broken when the situation calls for it ("Lead vocals
> should be somewhat louder than background vocals."), and what are the
> elements of art ("There's too much reverb on the lead vocal.")?
I think that mixing/mastering is one of those things that if done well, you
don't notice. Thus all the commercially released material out there is
judged on the content of the music, not on the quality of the mix. You
don't generally pick up a Kylie CD and listen to it thinking "Hmm, check out
the reverb" or "nice compression" (although you might if you are that way
inclined!). Fact is, the quality of the mastering means that the listener
doesn't have to worry about the technical side, and can just enjoy the
music.
The "rules" as you put it are of course made to be broken, but how much you
want to break them depends on whether you are messing about in your bedroom
or looking to release a platinum single.
Tanel.
how
> truly subjective it is. There must be *some* reason that the best
engineers
> in the world are regarded as such...some reason why we can safely say
"this
> mix is better than that one."
My opinion is that the best engineers are those who have the experience to
know what translates well from the raw material to the final pressing. In
other words, the best engineers will know whether that bassline they hear on
your demo tape will fade into obscurity or swamp the mix when played back on
your average music box or on the PA system at Wembley Stadium.
Not an exact science of course, and I doubt whether anyone uses *only* their
ears. Engineers will have the right equipment and monitoring systems to be
able to ascertain where exactly problems lie and how to correct them.
> Suppose you gave a set of all the raw recorded tracks for one song to the
> three best mix engineers in the world, and asked them all to do their own
> basic mixes of the song, separately. By 'basic' I mean just do channel
EQ,
> panning, and mixing for balance between the parts but no reverb, special
> edits, and so forth. All the instruments or voices have to be used, but
> perhaps not every track of them (e.g. not all drum mics have to be used).
Are we talking mixing, remixing or mastering? I think some people use the
first and last terms somewhat interchangeably, whereas "remixing" refers
more to the creative process.
So if the remit given to the three engineers is to polish and clean, perhaps
"mix" in the sense of here are the parts, balance the levels, panning etc,
then probably the three mixes will be pretty much the same. I don't imagine
that any of the engineers will be so wildly out with their analysis so that
they do something completely different to the others.
> How similar do you think the resulting songs would sound? Where would the
> differences be? What are the hard and fast rules of mixing and recording
> that should only be broken when the situation calls for it ("Lead vocals
> should be somewhat louder than background vocals."), and what are the
> elements of art ("There's too much reverb on the lead vocal.")?
I think that mixing/mastering is one of those things that if done well, you
don't notice. Thus all the commercially released material out there is
judged on the content of the music, not on the quality of the mix. You
don't generally pick up a Kylie CD and listen to it thinking "Hmm, check out
the reverb" or "nice compression" (although you might if you are that way
inclined!). Fact is, the quality of the mastering means that the listener
doesn't have to worry about the technical side, and can just enjoy the
music.
The "rules" as you put it are of course made to be broken, but how much you
want to break them depends on whether you are messing about in your bedroom
or looking to release a platinum single.
Tanel.