OT: Mixing first CD

[Kent F]

Finally! We're mixing our first family CD... Never mixed for a music CD before. Just for radio programming. So, I'm on a learning curve.

It's Gospel Bluegrass, lots of acoustic instruments and a range of vocals (kids to adults) and I'm using my ears to mix. :) But I realize that I also need to standardize things.

Anyone have some tips on approaching levels, etc and how to prepare the master disc?

Thanks for your help.

Kent

[CurtZHP]

Find a level setting for your monitors that doesn't make your ears bleed and leave it there. If you're not hearing something well enough, adjust your faders, but never touch the monitor level.

[soundchicken]

True dat....

But I do occasionally like to turn the monitors way down to see if anything is popping out too bad.

Find yourself some good recordings of sounds that you think work and reference back to them often.

[Kent F]

Wouldn't have thought of that. Thanks

I've loaded the tracks into the multitrack. Everything is labelled, organized and ready to mix... including the monitor level :)

One thing that I would like to know... how do you approach the levels for the instruments so that when it's time to add the vocals, the instrument mix is not so hot that making the vocals rise above them is not a challenge? Any rules or best practices that you follow?

Thanks again.

[soundchicken]

Don't forget that up is not the only direction to move a fader:cool:

[Kent F]

I'm thinking that I need to mix the instruments and send each of those instrument tracks to a different (single) output channel than the vocals are on. Then I can adjust the corporate level of instrument mix independent of the vocal levels. Does this sound right?

[CurtZHP]

Don't be afraid to start with the vocal and bring everything else on board based on that.

Some guys always start with the drums, and after agonizing over them for a while, bring in the bass, guitar, vox... You get the idea.

Others just throw up all the faders and then make adjustments as they see fit.

Some guys surgically solo each track and process it, then mix them all after that. Others never solo anything and make all processing decisions based on the way all the tracks blend together.

No need to assign instruments to one output buss and vox to another. Keep everything within the same context.

Think "salad," not "veggie platter."

[Kent F]

Very helpful.

[Cary B. Cornett]

First, about monitor levels:
Every time you change the monitor level, you change the way the mix will sound to you, because the frequency response of your hearing changes with level (look up Fletcher Munson loudness curves).

Listening for long periods at loud levels causes your physical hearing mechanism to work to defend itself. We call this ear fatigue or hearing fatigue. Things will start to sound dull, and you will "fix" them. When you listen the next day (after your hearing is rested), they will sound too bright.

A mix made while monitoring at loud levels may well "fall apart" at lower listening levels. A mix made monitoring at low levels will usually still sound OK "played loud". So, it is best to do most of your mix work at a low monitor level, and occaionally make a brief check at loud volume.

You want to monitor at consistent levels that you can accurately go back to at any time. That's why the best monitor setups use volume controls that are actually stepped switches. I would then pick three "favorite" settings: a modest level for most work (maybe around, oh, 55 - 65 dB spl), a LOUD level for occasional tests, and a really quiet level to se if you can still hear the "most important" stuff.

Now for the mix:
The first temptation is to try to make everything stand out and sound big. You might manage that with as many as three different sounds at a time, and maybe not even that. Too many "big sounds", and all you will get it mud.

Not everything has to be loud to be heard. Some sounds "cut through" better than others. Instead of asking yourself, "How loud does it need to be?", ask, "How low can it go and still be heard?" It can be useful to mix in dynamic layers. Theres the "Main Features" layer, and a little under that a "Supporting Sounds" layer, and maybe the occasional lower "Tasty Bits" stuff. This works best, BTW, if your musical arrangements aren't too crowded.

A note about EQ:
Try for clarity. In each instrument or track, there may be parts of the spectrum that either step on something else, or just aren't needed. It is better to find what you can cut than to grab what you can boost. If an instrument or part doesn't need low end, carve it out. Try running up the HP filter until you hear something going away, then back down just below that.
Watch out for low mids: you can get fat sound there, but you can also make mud. For all the parts that don't NEED to be FAT, try to drop a wide but shallow dip, centered somewhere within an octave or so of 300 Hz. If there's a sound that drives a nail in your head, look for the offending peak frequency in it and try for a narrow notch there to see if it will help.

In general, every once in a while stop and ask yourself, "Am I making mud here?" :confused: If you are, look for what you put in too much of and pare it back some, either with level or EQ.

And yeay, you're right: above all, use your ears. Use them today, and use them again tomorrow or the next day. When you think you've finally nailed that mix, go away for a day or two, then listen again and see if you still respect it in the morning. :rolleyes:

[Brent Bennett]

You can place instruments in their own directional location (panning), their own spacial location (volume), and their own sonic location (eq). There are a lot of options for separating your instruments.

Also, don't try and make each individual instrument sound great when you solo it. It may sound great soloed but don't make that your goal - make the instrument sound great WITH the mix not out of the mix. A bunch of great sounding soloed instruments played together end up giving you a mess. They all have their place in your mix you just have to find it.

As far as including the vocal into the mix, don't mix the track so hot that you don't have any headroom left for the vocals. You can normalize it afterward if you want but mixing is not the place to push the dynamic range to the limit.

Brent

[UpTilDawn]

Finally! We're mixing our first family CD... Never mixed for a music CD before. Just for radio programming. So, I'm on a learning curve...


Don't know if this is your experience or not, but having done a bunch of radio mix projects, myself, I've discovered that the material that sounds best to my ears when I hear it played back on the radio is music that I've mixed "bland" to my tastes. Other music that I hear on that same station (including mixes that I did for my own listening tastes) tends to sound over processed in any number of ways... over compressed, too much highs, or lows, etc.

If I were re-mixing one of those projects for CD release, I'd end up putting all the flavor back in that I thought was missing from the radio version. Maybe the way I put this makes it sound completely "wrong".... Maybe you can relate to what I mean. Anyway, hope it's helpful.

[Cary B. Cornett]

... don't try and make each individual instrument sound great when you solo it. It may sound great soloed but don't make that your goal - make the instrument sound great WITH the mix not out of the mix. A bunch of great sounding soloed instruments played together end up giving you a mess. They all have their place in your mix you just have to find it.

I would have said, "don't try to make each and every individual instrument sound great when you solo it". For the rest, I absolutely agree. It kind of ties in with my earlier riff on "no more than three 'big' sounds". Very often the best treatment of an instrument in the context of the overall mix won't sound very good if you solo it. Context is everything here.

[Kent F]

Thanks for all the input. I've been implementing some of these suggestions and I can hear a difference from the stuff I mixed before I asked.

Couple of more questions:

How much quiet space do you have at the beginning and end of an individual song mix (inside the wav file... not between tracks on the CD)?

What kind of levels are you mixing down to in preparation for the master?

Do you do anything special to prepare the files for the master disc?

Sure appreciate this community... and the software we use.

Kent

[Cary B. Cornett]

One tricky thing to consider is that you might be selling downloads as well as physical CD's. Suppose you have gone to some trouble to make the pauses between cuts "just right" for the transition from each cut to the next. Sometimes you want the next song to hit almost instantly, and other times you may want a pause of exactly so many beats at the tempo of the previous cut. (I sometimes try to make the beginning of the new cut land on the "one" of a bar at the old tempo.) The question is, so you want somebody to experience your "album" on their mp3 player the way they would on your CD. For that, but pause between cuts needs to be built into the end of each .wav file.

Some media player apps also will sometimes add an unwanted "echo" from the previous cut before the next one if you don't build a brief silence into the end of the sound file (effectively clearing buffers in the application).

For both of the above reasons, I will usually build the pause between cuts into the soundfiles, and have a short bit of silence at the end of the last cut.

[Kent F]

If you were to suggest a standard amount of silence at the end of the track how much would you say (for CD)?

[CurtZHP]

2 seconds, maybe?

What I usually do is wait until the last reverb tail dies out and then I draw a breath. That's where I end the track.

[UpTilDawn]

I also have gotten in the habit of leaving 300-500ms of silence before the start of content in a track. That's based on the fact that many CD players have trouble starting exactly at the beginning of the content, if placed dead on the index mark.... at least that's what I have always been told was common practice. It works for me, because even when played on a software player, the music begins just a breath after the click of the keyboard, or mouse, instead of right on it, or the moment the player opens.

[Cary B. Cornett]

If you were to suggest a standard amount of silence at the end of the track how much would you say (for CD)? At one time, I think 3 seconds was pretty common, but that was back "when vinyl ruled", and some time before the CD took over there were a lot of LP's that abandoned that "rule" for artistic reasons.

These days, it's basically "do what feels right for how each song leads to the next".

One of the beauties of working in SAW is how you can try as many different ways as you want without fear of wrecking your precious master tape. Take advantage of it, then do what your ears tell you.

[Kent F]

Good stuff I wouldn't have known or thought about. Now what about the output levels for each track?

Right now I'm mixing for what sounds good... aiming for the vocal levels to be consistent from song to song... then using the levelizer on the output track - 99% Peak and 96% Normalize. But I'm not exactly sure why :o

[Cary B. Cornett]

Good stuff I wouldn't have known or thought about. Now what about the output levels for each track?

Right now I'm mixing for what sounds good... aiming for the vocal levels to be consistent from song to song... then using the levelizer on the output track - 99% Peak and 96% Normalize. But I'm not exactly sure why :o

It took me a minute to get that by "track" you meant "song". If you expect people to want to listen to the whole CD together, as opposed to picking out just one song at a time in some random playlist, you need to think of the whole thing as one larger work, like a symphony for example. A symphony is split up into movements, and the movements are often different from each other in sound and feel, and that includes how loud they are. You will never hear a commercial classical CD where each movement was individually normalized to get the loudest possible peak.

Are some of your songs full of energy, and other songs more reflective, maybe even (shudder) quiet? Then you need to allow the quieter songs to be, well, quieter than the loud songs. So, as you put together the master sequence, stringing the song mixes together in order in one common session (you are doing this, right?), listen to how the songs compare in loudness to each other, and make sure you preserve the emotional differences you had in mind when you wrote (or chose) the songs. You can mark a whole song and make a simple auitomation move to shift its overall level if you need to. When you have all of these level changes properly worked out, you find the loudest place in the entire project, set the normalization for that, and apply it to the whole project as a body. Sure, some songs won't hit max peak, but guess what? They don't have to.

So, normalization, if and when you use it, is for the whole project as one thing, not separately for each song.

<rant> <fast loud disclaimer tag mode>
Of course, if it's all gangsta rap or that tuned chainsaw stuff, you can ignore all of this and just go "full shred" on the whole thing song by song like it seems everyone else does.
</fast loud disclaimer tag mode></rant> :rolleyes:

Ah, HTH...

[Kent F]

Yes, I meant individual songs. Sorry about the confusion.

Regarding your thoughts about levels... that's interesting. I was thinking that the "presence" of each song should match... even if the intensity of the songs don't. I have listened to CDs that have had a mix of songs from contemplative to hard-driving (speaking of bluegrass music). I was under the impression generally that if one had to turn the volume up or down as different songs were played from the same album, that the CD wasn't produced very well. But, if I understand what you're saying, that is not necessarily the case.

You've given me more food for thought. Thanks.

[Brent Bennett]

Are you getting your CD mastered by someone else or are you making a final mastered version?

If you're sending it out to someone else, you want to leave the levels so they have full dynamic range and just use the Levelizer PK Limit function set to 99% without using Normalize. That should work fine unless you've mixed all the tracks so hot that they are getting severely limited. Don't worry about the song to song levels as the mastering engineer will adjust those levels to sound good on the song transitions.

If you're doing it yourself then you are going to have to decide how much headroom you are leaving and use the appropriate compressor and if needed the Normalize function.

Cary is right about finding the "loudest" spot in the song although it's really the spot with the most energy. That's where you set your final output levels if you're doing the mastering yourself. (see below)

As per Bob's instructions many years ago: I always find the spot with the most energy, select a 10 sec spot or so with no Levelizer and do a "Build Mix to New Soundfile". The when the Soundfile pops up you can visually set your PK Limit by watching the new wav in the Soundfile. Build Mix again but choose "NO" so the file is appended. Play the whole sound file and check if you hear changes between the two. Do this as needed to get it right including using the compressor. When you are finished, set the Normalize to 98% and you should do a final build-mix and comparison. If you are happy with it, Build Mix but choose OK this time and you have only your final wav.

This has worked for every time without fail. If you zoom into the apparent flat-topped wav you'll see that nothing has been flat-topped or altered, just a miniature version of the original wav form.

[UpTilDawn]

...As per Bob's instructions many years ago: I always find the spot with the most energy, select a 10 sec spot or so with no Levelizer and do a "Build Mix to New Soundfile". The when the Soundfile pops up you can visually set your PK Limit by watching the new wav in the Soundfile. Build Mix again but choose "NO" so the file is appended. Play the whole sound file and check if you hear changes between the two. Do this as needed to get it right including using the compressor. When you are finished, set the Normalize to 98% and you should do a final build-mix and comparison. If you are happy with it, Build Mix but choose OK this time and you have only your final wav.

This has worked for every time without fail. If you zoom into the apparent flat-topped wav you'll see that nothing has been flat-topped or altered, just a miniature version of the original wav form.

+10 on this! In fact, check out Bob's tips on using the levelizer in his video: http://www.sawstudio.com/support_videos.htm for a great visual run-through.

[Brent Bennett]

+10 on this! In fact, check out Bob's tips on using the levelizer in his video: http://www.sawstudio.com/support_videos.htm for a great visual run-through.

Perfect! I haven't seen that in years but that's it! Bottom of the page - Levelizer!

[CurtZHP]

Amen! Love me some Levelizer. It's like secret sauce for audio.

That said, if you are having it mastered elsewhere, provide two mixes; a "Levelized" one, and a "non-Levelized" one.

[Kent F]

I'll be mastering it myself. I'll watch the video.

Thanks!

[Kent F]

After watching the video I understand now. Answers the mastering question perfectly. Thanks for the link.

[Cary B. Cornett]

I was under the impression generally that if one had to turn the volume up or down as different songs were played from the same album, that the CD wasn't produced very well. I would say that, when you play your own CD, all of the songs on it should sound right to you without you needing to adjust the volume control from one song to the next. If you think Song B should play softer than Song A, that's the way it should be on your CD. That way, whoever listens to the CD will hear the different songs in the level relationship that YOU intended.

[CurtZHP]

I'll be mastering it myself. I'll watch the video.

Thanks!


If you're going to do that, I'd recommend finishing the mixes and then putting the project on the shelf for a few weeks. Under no circumstances should you listen to the mixes. Your aim is to almost forget what they sound like, so you approach them with fresh ears when mastering.

[Kent F]

As I'm mixing, I'm finding that once I get the vocals where I want in relationship with each other... harmonies and character, that sometimes I want to adjust the overall volume of the instruments.

What's the best way to do this? Can Offset Mode be used to adjust multiple tracks at the same time?

Thanks

[Cary B. Cornett]

As I'm mixing, I'm finding that once I get the vocals where I want in relationship with each other... harmonies and character, that sometimes I want to adjust the overall volume of the instruments.

What's the best way to do this? Can Offset Mode be used to adjust multiple tracks at the same time?

Thanks I think it can, but the first thing I would go for in your situation is to create a vocal submix by assigning all vocal tracks and their effect returns to a different output channel (instead of the the main mix output), then assign that output channel back to the main mix. Then you can adjust overall vocal levels in the mix without having to mess with multiple track levels.

There is nothing wrong with creating submixes. I would rather do that before writing more automation. I try not to load up a mix with automation moves until after I have done all I can without the automation.

[Bob L]

If you have not used any automation on the music tracks and simply have levels set, you can select all the music tracks in any mixer view (click the chan numbers to turn them black)... then just grab any of the music chan faders and adjust... all the music tracks will adjust at the same time.

If you have automation entries on some of those tracks, then you can do the same thing using Offset mode... turn Offset ON... adjust the music tracks together... and turn Offset OFF.

Bob L

[Kent F]

Having trouble with the Offset as you describe, Bob. It has to be my issue. (does this work in SS Basic?) I've clicked on the channels I want to change, enabled Offset Mode, dropped one of the faders all the way down to test it, and then disabled Offset. I did this with both automation turned on and off. Didn't see any change. What could I be doing wrong.

[Shawn]

Make sure that you are selecting mixer channels using a mixer view, and not tracks in the multi-track.

[Bob L]

Yes... you are selecting mixer chans here since this is a mixer function... selecting chans in the MultiTrack is for editing functions.

Remember, you do not need Offset mode at all if there was no previous automation.

Bob L

[Kent F]

I see how it works now. I've been editing with SAW many years for radio. I'm almost always in the Multitrack view using automation so I've not really worked with the mixer view like this before. That explains why I was confused. :o

Thanks!

[Kent F]

Trying to figure out the best way to raise vocal presence without losing the pan setting on the particular vocal track. I notice that when the Levelizer limiter/normalizer is triggered via the set threshold that my pan setting returns to center on the vu meters until the signal falls beneath the threshold. I've got the Levelizer in post fader and am thinking that I need to move it to pre fader to keep the pan intact. But then I've got the automation volume settings that will need to be adjusted since they are post fader.

Is there a way to get the Levelizer (or some other tool) to raise the level, incorporate the limiter function, and not change the stereo dynamic of the particular vocal track? Trying to understand this...

Thanks again!

[Angie]

Trying to figure out the best way to raise vocal presence without losing the pan setting on the particular vocal track. I notice that when the Levelizer limiter/normalizer is triggered via

My advice is not to use normalizing on individual tracks. Normalizing is better used on the final mix only.

Use EQ and automated fader moves to control vocals and add "presence". It sounds like you may need to learn to better EQ the instruments to get the vocals to cut through also. Reverb also can mask vocals. So, be careful with that too.

[Kent F]

Thanks Angie. You caught me! :D Your reply is well-timed. As I'm trying to raise the voices, I've lowered the instruments, but something was still not right as far as vocal presence. I was setting up the normalizer to get more umph out of the vocal.

Do you use any limiting or compressing on your vocal tracks in lieu of using the normalizer? If so, are you using the Levelizer for that function?

Wow, I'm on a learning curve here.

[Angie]

Thanks Angie. You caught me! :D Your reply is well-timed. As I'm trying to raise the voices, I've lowered the instruments, but something was still not right as far as vocal presence. I was setting up the normalizer to get more umph out of the vocal.

Do you use any limiting or compressing on your vocal tracks in lieu of using the normalizer? If so, are you using the Levelizer for that function?

Wow, I'm on a learning curve here.

Yes, compression and/or limiting is usually used for all tracks. No need for a plug-in. Its all right there on each channel strip.

Right, getting mixing advice on a forum does not make up for years of experience. Hiring an experienced engineer is not as expensive as you'd think. You can sit in and learn a little something, and get a great sounding CD in the end. :D

[Cary B. Cornett]

There's always what was once called "New York Compression": the vocal track is fed to two channels, one of which is processed normally (whatever that means), and the other being heavily compressed/limited, often with a fair amount of high end boost. This second channel is then "snuck in" under the regular channel. What this does is add more articulation and detail to the vocal without blasting it, as well as bringing up the softer parts a little.

In SAW, I usually do this by sending the track to an additional output bus, putting a Levelizer on the added bus, and maybe an EQ as well. That added bus is sent back to the main "snuck in" underneath in level as described above.

[Angie]

There's always what was once called "New York Compression": the vocal track is fed to two channels, one of which is processed normally (whatever that means), and the other being heavily compressed/limited, often with a fair amount of high end boost. This second channel is then "snuck in" under the regular channel. What this does is add more articulation and detail to the vocal without blasting it, as well as bringing up the softer parts a little.

In SAW, I usually do this by sending the track to an additional output bus, putting a Levelizer on the added bus, and maybe an EQ as well. That added bus is sent back to the main "snuck in" underneath in level as described above.

I've used this often (never knew it had a name) on solo vocals. For a vocal group I tend to go for a vocal/instrument blend. Not knowing what Kent is really doing, some of this advice may be confusing for him.

[Cary B. Cornett]

I think we all go through some confusion from time to time when we are trying to learn new things. I know I do... :rolleyes:;)

[studio-c]

i just jumped to the end after reading a few responses, so excuse if i repeat someone. 85 db is promoted by some (Katz) as a hopefully standard volume level. you can get a db meter plugin for iPhone ("Analyzer" app) that's a nice quick reference.

especially with rock music, the feel of a mix is vastly different between 75 and 95 db, so get used to hearing everything at one level, so you can compare apples to apples in listening to your mixes in different places.

and check your mixes everywhere you can, so you can get an average of how things translate. then hope for the best :)