Tracking at Home/Having a Pro Mix It

[Nick Sevilla]

Hi,

I've been doing a mix of this for years.

During tracking though you HAVE to know what you are going for in the final mix. No ifs, ands or buts, no "we'll fix it in the mix / mastering / credits" bullcrap.

Get the sound right AT THE SOURCE.

Then you can get away with mixing anywhere. But this step, the mixing, you definitely want done in a controlled room (ie control room) with a copetent engineer who knows the room and the music.

Here's an out-of-date of what I've done like this: the last two DM and the Yes, had some of it done in a home environment, somewhere along the way. Mostly, the some of the tracking and editing.

http://nicksevilla.com/credits.html

Cheers

[drumsound]

I'm gonna agree with those who are mentioning good tracking. If you sounds are weak a good mixer can make them better, but never great. If you tracking is great a decent mixer can make quite nice mixes.

[rwc]

I'm gonna agree with those who are mentioning good tracking. If you sounds are weak a good mixer can make them better, but never great. If you tracking is great a decent mixer can make quite nice mixes.

Finally!

The people who will add 8 plugins to every track and ruin a good source, aren't really mixers IMO.

There are good bottom of the barrel people(i.e. cheap) that can get a good source, and make a better mix out of it than, IMO, subatomic or MSE could with total garbage(no offense to subatomic, or MSE). I still think this is better than having a ton spent on mastering and mixing.

[chris harris]

I'm gonna agree with those who are mentioning good tracking. If you sounds are weak a good mixer can make them better, but never great. If you tracking is great a decent mixer can make quite nice mixes.

Finally!

The people who will add 8 plugins to every track and ruin a good source, aren't really mixers IMO.

There are good bottom of the barrel people(i.e. cheap) that can get a good source, and make a better mix out of it than, IMO, subatomic or MSE could with total garbage(no offense to subatomic, or MSE). I still think this is better than having a ton spent on mastering and mixing.

But, then you're back to paying someone to handle every part of it. That's a great idea! But, it's not what the OP was asking about. They're asking which part they should do themselves and which part they should hire out to professionals. It's the same dilemma that many, many bands are in right now.

So, if you get to the heart of what the original discussion was, I read this question as:

would you rather have an experienced mixer mixing tracks that were recorded by people who have never done it before, but have all the time in the world to experiment?

Or, would you rather have someone who's never mixed an album in their life, in charge of mixing tracks of a band playing "on the clock", that were recorded by a professional?

It's a tough call either way. But, some person in a band, who's never mixed a record before, is exactly the person that's likely to overmix the quality tracks and wreck it. On the other hand, they're probably also exactly the person who is likely to slam their levels "into the red and then back off a hair" and print compression that they probably don't even know how to set up.

I feel like I could teach a band with a couple of microphones how to record some good guitar, bass, keyboard and vocal sounds easier than I could teach someone how to mix a record (even from quality tracks). But, that's just me.

I don't know man.... either way you go, taking the DIY approach to either phase seems to mean some kind of sacrifice.

I've worked on projects both ways. And, I've been a lot more impressed with sounds people manage to capture at home than I have been with mixes people have done on their laptops in the corner of their bedroom.

On the economic side, it's much less expensive to get a couple of good tracking channels than it is to go out and buy the kind of mixing gear that a quality, professional studio will provide you with. I think that it's more of a leap to assume that a home recordist will have trouble stumbling across good sounds than it is to assume that they probably don't have an API or SSL to mix on.

[DrummerMan]

There seems to be this general feeling and assumption from folks that DIY tracking automatically equals crappy tracks. I'm not saying it can't, but with some creative thought and taking some extra time with mic PLACEMENT and analytical ears, you can get really nice sounding tracks without having all super-killer expensive mics, pre's and compressors.

Yes, there's always going to be a compromise with a limited budget, but compromise doesn't necessarily equal bad music. Often, trying something you wouldn't have, if you'd had the funds, can create something more interesting... maybe even something that stands out more.

There, of course, needs to be a basic understanding of sound quality and balance, but listening to the tracks We Have A Map (the OP) put up, I think they are well above that line.

[Jon Nolan]

I've worked on projects both ways. And, I've been a lot more impressed with sounds people manage to capture at home than I have been with mixes people have done on their laptops in the corner of their bedroom.

yup!

On the economic side, it's much less expensive to get a couple of good tracking channels than it is to go out and buy the kind of mixing gear that a quality, professional studio will provide you with. I think that it's more of a leap to assume that a home recordist will have trouble stumbling across good sounds than it is to assume that they probably don't have an API or SSL to mix on.

i agree completely!

[MoreSpaceEcho]

you can get really nice sounding tracks without having all super-killer expensive mics, pre's and compressors.

yeah. i mastered a record years ago that was tracked in someone's grandma's house, all 57s and 58s, whatever pres, straight to protools. sounded amazing, i seriously dunno what they could've done to make it sound better.

also, what subatomic said above

taking the DIY approach to either phase seems to mean some kind of sacrifice.

is likely true, BUT...i think if someone really WANTS to track and mix a record themselves, they should. i mean, would my band's record come out better if i had steve albini record it and tchad blake mix it? probably. but i happen to really enjoy making records, especially ones i'm personally involved in writing, so i choose to just do it myself and it comes out how it comes out. it's not like thousands of puppies are gonna die cause you decide to mix your own record on a laptop.

[DrummerMan]

it's not like thousands of puppies are gonna die cause you decide to mix your own record on a laptop.

I'm sorry, but you're just dead wrong! A recent study indicates that every single instrument or vocal track you mix yourself on a laptop condemns exactly 233 pupies to their deaths!

So, even if you've only got 16 channels available, each song is killing, like, 3728 puppies!

And for those people who mix with 100+ tracks at a time... well, I don't even think they care about puppies at all!!!

[MoreSpaceEcho]

[RefD]

So, even if you've only got 16 channels available, each song is killing, like, 3728 puppies!

just what exactly are you diggin' at, sir??

*ups track count to 24*

[DrummerMan]

So, even if you've only got 16 channels available, each song is killing, like, 3728 puppies!

just what exactly are you diggin' at, sir??

*ups track count to 24*

Nothing, really. Absolutely nothing...

[RefD]

So, even if you've only got 16 channels available, each song is killing, like, 3728 puppies!

just what exactly are you diggin' at, sir??

*ups track count to 24*

Nothing, really. Absolutely nothing...

32!