How's sound supposed to sound?

[dynomike]

I try to figure out what's been taken out to make room for other stuff, what's been boosted, etc. I only have a few of these, however, so maybe some of you have listening recommendations where there are instruments that are completely solo'd in places?

This whole line of thinking is kind of a bad line of thinking, I'll come right out and say it.

In a well arranged song, you don't need to start eq'ing like crazy to make a great mix. In fact, I quite often do mixes where I don't eq at all, or only high-pass, low-pass things. If you get the right sounds in the first place (the instruments that sound good together naturally, etc) its not that difficult to mix simply by levelling and panning. Don't fall into the trap of eq'ing as a shortcut to a good mix. Well arranged sounds and musically sensible level / pan adjustments are the keys to a good mix.

[gotpop]

In a well arranged song, you don't need to start eq'ing like crazy to make a great mix. In fact, I quite often do mixes where I don't eq at all, or only high-pass, low-pass things. If you get the right sounds in the first place (the instruments that sound good together naturally, etc) its not that difficult to mix simply by levelling and panning.

I'm sure you're right, but I think the key is, as you said, getting the right sounds in the first place. The whole point I've been trying to make is: I don't know when the sound is right!

As far as listening to songs with a section of naked vocal or bass or whatever, you're hearing the way it's eq'd while it's playing with the other instruments, only it's by itself. This would be helpful except in instances where they actually used different EQ on the vocal for the parts where it's completely naked (which I know is done sometimes).

But doesn't it also depend on the style of music you're mixing? The kind of powerpop stuff I like to listen to is not a completely natural sound, it's pretty hyped (Fountains of Wayne, Fratellis, The Feeling, etc), that kind of radio-ready sound. Yeah, it's definitely too compressed, but I'm skeptical there wasn't quite a bit of sound shaping done to get those mixes to sound the way they do.

[floid]

As far as listening to songs with a section of naked vocal or bass or whatever, you're hearing the way it's eq'd while it's playing with the other instruments, only it's by itself.

assuming you're listening to a static mix - additional mics, eq, compression, etc, might be added or subtracted at various points in a mix to improve the flow/transition between big loud chorus and subdued breakdown. Think about "that little tiny drum breakdown from outerspace" Albini ranted about at one TapeOpCon (the video's somewhere here on the site) as an extreme example of a very non static mix...

[tret-lo]

Welcome to the board Steve!

I didn't want a magical EQ recipe--I was looking for spectrum analyses of well-recorded instruments.

This might not be as useful as you hope. For instance, you could look at a spectral analysis of a beautifully recorded piano side-by-side with a crappy sounding piano recording. You could use EQ to boost and cut various frequencies in your crappy sounding piano until its spectral profile looks the same as the great sounding piano, but it would probably sound a lot worse, not better, than it did before.

My point here is that this kind of thinking can lead to a common trap that many beginners (including myself) have fallen into, which is to assume that the FFT spectrum analysis is all there is to know about the "timbre" of a sound, and consequently, that you can create any sound by cutting and boosting different bands. It is definitely a lot more complicated than that. However, as many other posters have suggested, if you start with a source that sounds nice in the room you're in, you are on the right track. Then your goal is just to screw it up as little as possible.

The whole point I've been trying to make is: I don't know when the sound is right!

Dude, give yourself some more credit! Obviously you like music if you want to do this. This is probably one of the most overused quotes on this board, but I'll say it anyway... "If it sounds good, it is good." (Duke Ellington)

[JamesHE]

If you are trying to make the mix sound "right" you are not doing your job as an artist.

Make it sound good, don't worry about right.

If you don't know what "good" sounds like to you, just listen to music that you like- BUT PAY ATTENTION for once. Not to the technical aspects of how much eq, how much compression, just think about context.

I had this ex-girfriend who was a classical flutist. Whenever we would start talking about music she would aways say "let's talk about music in non musical terms" It's a great exercise in a way, to do this when you are trying to analyse some music. It's become a cliche to say talking about music is like dancing about arcitecture. Well, honestly, dancing about arcitucture dosen't sound all that hard. So go out in the street and do an interpretive dance about some arcitecture in your hood - I guarantee your mixes will improve.

[gotpop]

Make it sound good, don't worry about right.

I think I know what you mean--make it sound listenable rather than trying to shape it into something it might not even be capable of being shaped into?

If you don't know what "good" sounds like to you, just listen to music that you like- BUT PAY ATTENTION for once. Not to the technical aspects of how much eq, how much compression, just think about context.

I'm intrigued but a bit unclear. Could you explain what you mean by thinking about context (i.e., what should be thought about in the context of what)?

[ludwig_van]

Make it sound good, don't worry about right.

I think I know what you mean--make it sound listenable rather than trying to shape it into something it might not even be capable of being shaped into?

I think the point is to make it so that it sounds subjectively pleasing to you, and don't worry about comparing it to some kind of objective standard. A guitar doesn't have to sound like some kind of ideal Platonic guitar, it just has to sound enjoyable to listen to.

[JamesHE]

I'm intrigued but a bit unclear. Could you explain what you mean by thinking about context (i.e., what should be thought about in the context of what)?

It's really up to you in a way. Some examples could be like thinking about the vocal performance in relation to how it was recorded and mixed. Is it way out front? buried? and more impotantly what does that do for the song? Does it fit the mood of the song, or is there some sort of contrast going on. Like Tom Waits, with his heavy gravelly voice singing some otherwise really sweet song - the vocals are often recorded very clear and the contrast is just in his tone, or sometimes the vocals are somewhat distorted when it suits the music. How is this important in the context of what the song is about?

Lots of things to think about. How are the drum sounds influencing the attitude of the song? Is the production slick, stripped-down, or a little lo-fi. How conscious of a decision does this seem on the part of the artist, what statement does it make?

Possabilities are endless. There is a value in understanding what is generally acceptable of sounding good, as being crafted well. You qestioning "what should sound sound like" is really valid and very intresting, but ultimatly the answer is what ever answer you decide.

[vvv]

It occurs to me that, context being the thing, it is less important to hear the sound of an excellently, accurately recorded piano (say) then an excellently mixed piano, no matter

(wait for it,)

how crappy it sounds solo'd.

That is to say, I believe that the referencing of mixes, and how a piano sits in, say, a Roger Nichols/Elliot Scheiner Steely Dan mix versus a Jimmy Miller Stones mix versus a Quincy Jones anything mix is, well, more helpful than any reference of a piano recording, or chart, although they do give a place to start.