"Preliminary" Mix

[jcaudio]

And just one more question (at least for now). It seems I always intend to start out getting a "rough" mix (i.e. Levels, Pan approximations, some EQ) and then realize that if I give this to the client, they may play it around to people who won't understand it's a "ROUGH MIX"...and then ...again, it seems my reputations on the line. Or is it? I hear that buzz coming from his vintage Tweed amp (gorgeous sound) and then start ducking and fading it in and out so no one will think it's my gear...THen before I know it I'm fixing this god awful patch from a keyboard so no one thinks I can't mix or something...one thing leads to another and I've put entirely too much time into a "ROUGH MIX"...How do you guys do it?

[jcaudio]

Then again, I may have come up with my own solution. Have the client in to the studio to listen instead of giving him / her a CD to keep... I don't know.

[RefD]

are you mixing something recorded elsewhere?

i ask cos, personally, i would have addressed these things before recording the instruments.

[jcaudio]

Well, I'm not one to gate a guitar amp on the way in, that as you know can mess up good takes, so an old (literally 1965) amp is going to buzz a little. As for the keyboard patches, this is a keyboardist who is in love with her Roland XYZ that has some terrible sounding patches. I guess I should always, always record a MIDI file along with the audio file in such cases. But my question still stands, how "rough" should a "rough mix" be?

[T-rex]

Man, I catch shit from my recordist friends abut this but I love a little amp buzz. Rock n roll amps buzz ya know. I mean I don't leave it untouched, I may gate it of whatever, but I like to have the buzz there before a solo or something comes in, to build up some subliminal excitement maybe? maybe I am just crazy but that is off topic. . .

I honestly don't worry about it anymore. If they paid for the day and are asking for roughs of what they have done I just mock up a rough mix and let em have it. Some people need the roughs to work on new ideas or figure out solos and backing vocals that they haven't worked up yet, especially solo artists. I would say do the best you can do and let them have it. Honestly it has made me better at mixing faster.

OR you could put in a booming god like heavily reverbed voice every 30 seconds that says "THIS IS A ROUGH MIX, THIS IS ONLY A ROUGH MIX. PLEASE DO NOT JUDGE MY MIXING SKILLS ON THE BASIS OF THIS ROUGH MIX!"

[RefD]

Well, I'm not one to gate a guitar amp on the way in, that as you know can mess up good takes, so an old (literally 1965) amp is going to buzz a little.

there are other ways to deal with it that don't involve gating or other destructive measures.

and i have met PLENTY of mid-60s Fender amps that don't buzz.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

But my question still stands, how "rough" should a "rough mix" be?

my roughs are pretty much just faders up. if we did a lot of overdubs that day, i will maybe spend 10 minutes hacking out some kind of presentable arrangement of them. throw a compressor on the drum room mics and a little verb on the vocals just so the band can listen to it not totally dry, and that's it.

i wouldn't worry about your rep too much. if the sounds in general are good, and the balance between them is reasonable, i doubt anyone's gonna hear a little amp hum or a cheeseball keyboard patch and immediately jump to the conclusion that "whoever recorded this must SUCK! let's find out who it is and NEVER USE HIM." you know?

there's loads of bad sounding records with bob ludwig's name on them, wouldn't stop me from having him master my record...if i had a spare 5 grand and a year to wait...

[RefD]

As for the keyboard patches, this is a keyboardist who is in love with her Roland XYZ that has some terrible sounding patches. I guess I should always, always record a MIDI file along with the audio file in such cases.

are you producing or engineering or both?

if you're engineering only and the client wants that keyboard sound, then that's their business and you probly shouldn't try to second guess their decisions.

[jcaudio]

Well, I have a way of gettiing away with stuff I guess. I sweetened up the keys so that they would at least sit right in the mix. No one noticed and they though everything sounded great. I guess I'll still get that MIDI file though from now on...

[JGriffin]

I guess I'll still get that MIDI file though from now on...

Probably not a bad idea whether they like the original sound or not, just in case.

[cgarges]

That kind of thing is really good incentive to make things sound as good as possible from the start.

It can be really difficult to explain to someone who doesn't get it why it's a bad idea to put rough mixes up on their myspace page or send them to radio stations or whatever. Truthfully, if they've paid you for the day, they can rightfully do whatever they want with their stuff. You can forbid them to use it or print tones across the mix every couple of seconds or do whatever sort of 80s-guy trickery you're hip to, but that can ultimately come across as controlling and douchey. I think you can be as picky and controlling as you want with your own stuff, but being that way with other people's stuff can just be weird.

If you're really worried about it, then just do a damn good job. Make them happy that the rough mixes sound so good, but don't do anything you can't get back. I'm a big fan of the "faders up" rough mix method because then everyone really knows what's there. If something on the rough mix sucks, then everyone has a point of reference about what needs to be fixed and you don't have to try to remember what you did on the rough mix to get it back.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[vvv]

Doing all the internet collabs that I do (at least one going at any given time), and in that I mix 90% of 'em, I, too am a big fan of the "faders-up" mix.

Especially because of the way we do them, where we start with mebbe a bass, drums and voc mix, and then a guy does a guitar, and then a guy does keys, and then someone adds a lead, and then BV's, etc. So I end up doing a mix as each instrument is added, and sometimes as it is re-done.

In the course of posting those, from one to the next, I may do some track-cleaning, even a little pass-filtering, and certainly (non-automated) panning.

But I really try and stay away from fader moves and effects, for exactly what and why cgarges said.

One thing you might do, in that your DAW allows, is name the track "Song X ROUGHMIX", and label so it internally through the software. Then, if Joe the Musician goes to post it, that info might go with the track.

[drumsound]

I avoid ruff mixes like the plague. I find that due to human nature something in the ruff, often bad or unintended, is going to latched onto by someone in the band. Then they are going to demand that it is there in the final mix. "WHy is the tambourine on the right now? Can you make those first two words of the second chorus really loud again (which happened because you caught the fader on your shirt during the ruff mix).

If something is needed to work on a solo or a background or something I usually will give the sections. If it's a performance evaluation type thing I give the speech about not getting married to the ruff and hope and pray they take it to heart.

[T-rex]

If it's a performance evaluation type thing I give the speech about not getting married to the ruff and hope and pray they take it to heart.

Good luck, its never as good as the rough!

[mwerden]

One of the most important things I've learned at my job is how to pump out a rough mix in a small amount of time. It might seem like a shitty rough mix might damage your reputation, but in my experience it's easily outweighed by the positive effect of doing a quick, effective rough mix in front of someone else.

This reminds me of something Joel Hamilton said about constantly zooming in and out (can't remember where). It sounds like you're in too deep. You're not supposed to zoom in that far with a rough mix, just make sure it's clearly labeled as a rough and get on with it.