Making Decisions: From Tracking to Mixing?

[yourmomsp]

Hi everyone,

I am interested in hearing your opinion for those of you who frequently working on mixing projects that people have tracked at home. I am finishing up a project that I have been tracking on my own and I?m trying to get the tracks ready to take into a studio to have someone else mix. I?ve already done some straightforward things like identifying the best take for each track, eliminating extraneous noises during silences. However, some of my songs are kind of complicated and have quite a number of tracks (70-80). For example, I?ve tried to re-create a full string section by overdubbing individual strings 10-12 times. Also, I have some guitar and synth drum sounds where I?ve added a lot of different plug-in effects. I?m trying to consolidate some of these tracks by making submixes or going ahead and printing tracks with various plug-in effects. I feel that making some of these decisions before going into the mixing stage will simplify the job a little bit and save some wasted time that could be used for experimenting and playing around with the mix. However, I am also concerned about going too far and making too many submixes and printing too many effects (particularly panning effects) that will actually restrict the ability for the mixer to play around and experiment. For instance, what if there are some better sounding effects within the studio that could be used instead of the plug-ins I have currently? What if I make a submix of some of these string parts that might take away from how they fit in from the overall mix? How do I find the right balance? What are things that you as mixers in general would prefer to have consolidated and what should I leave alone? Should I just be on the safe side and make duplicates of every track (a raw version and a submixed/effected version)? Thanks.

[cgarges]

Should I just be on the safe side and make duplicates of every track (a raw version and a submixed/effected version)? Thanks.

If someone brought me something to mix and gave me two sets of discs with these options on them (one disc of the submixed stuff and one disc with the raw stuff), I would likely kiss their feet! As long as it's labeled in an intelligent manner where everything could be easily-located, I'd be floored. I'd probably start with the submixed stuff, but if I needed to submix something differently or whatever, I could pull those files off of the other disc. Man, I'd love that.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[@?,*???&?]

Be sure to have a very clear image in your mind what you expect your mix engineers. If you're running plugins or effects, sounds like you've already started mixing.

Be sure there are no ambiguities. Don't expect the mix engineer to make arrangement decisions with your tracks.

Also, when you take your tracks to someone to mix (likely a real HD system and not necessarily an 80-input SSL), be sure they have the capability of processing power your mix will require. Safe to assume each section of your song should require about 16-faders on a console or in Pro Tools for the mix. A safe, conservative estimate was typically that you'd need a console twice the size of the maximum number of audio tracks for a mix.

Sounds expensive!

[yourmomsp]

thanks for the info so far.

i usually write as i track, so i have been making rough mixes as i go along to imagine how all the parts fit together and to figure out what parts i need to add or change. some of the plugins i've used (delay or funny EQ) i would say contribute to the inherent sound of the instrument/track, others things (reverb or compression) might not necessarily be and could definitely change depending on the mix, but again i guess sometimes the distinction get a little blurry.

primarily, i'm looking for the mixer to help me achieve a complete sonic environment for the songs and also a mix that translates well on different listening systems. while, i don't forsee the engineer having to make any arrangement-type decisions, i also want to be open to the completely off the wall idea that the engineer has that i have not considered.

in the past when i've had songs mixed, we would run tracks (that i've recorded on cubase) out through a console. the main instruments would get their own channel/fader while the more weird background stuff would be submixed ITB and then get sent to just a couple of channels on console. i think that works pretty well. i doubt i'd have the money to do go into studio with a system like you've suggested.

[Snarl 12/8]

Pick the guy who's going to mix it and ask them what to do.

[nortstudio]

As CGARGES said, if someone showed up with two sets of data, it would be a blessing. Either that, or someone who has figured out how they want the tracks submixed, and then bounced those sub mixes, and hidden the original tracks in the same session for tweaking, if need be.

Taking the time to make sub mixes for the engineer is important for a few reasons: A) the studio you end up at might not have all the same effects that you have become accustomed to hearing, B) even if he/she ends up wanting to tweak the sub mix, they will understand clearly what you were going for, by listening to your attempt and C) 70-80 tracks/outputs for any studio is quite a bit, so the time it will take for an engineer to sub mix what you want - when you could take the time to do it yourself, will allow more time for the mix itself.

[kayagum]

70-80 tracks? My head just exploded.

[@?,*???&?]

C) 70-80 tracks/outputs for any studio is quite a bit, so the time it will take for an engineer to sub mix what you want - when you could take the time to do it yourself, will allow more time for the mix itself.

If I have to submix, the project is not ready to be mixed yet. Indecision at that level is a waste of time.

[Nick Sevilla]

As CGARGES said, if someone showed up with two sets of data, it would be a blessing. Either that, or someone who has figured out how they want the tracks submixed, and then bounced those sub mixes, and hidden the original tracks in the same session for tweaking, if need be.

Taking the time to make sub mixes for the engineer is important for a few reasons: A) the studio you end up at might not have all the same effects that you have become accustomed to hearing, B) even if he/she ends up wanting to tweak the sub mix, they will understand clearly what you were going for, by listening to your attempt and C) 70-80 tracks/outputs for any studio is quite a bit, so the time it will take for an engineer to sub mix what you want - when you could take the time to do it yourself, will allow more time for the mix itself.

+1

[@?,*???&?]

As CGARGES said, if someone showed up with two sets of data, it would be a blessing. Either that, or someone who has figured out how they want the tracks submixed, and then bounced those sub mixes, and hidden the original tracks in the same session for tweaking, if need be.

Taking the time to make sub mixes for the engineer is important for a few reasons: A) the studio you end up at might not have all the same effects that you have become accustomed to hearing, B) even if he/she ends up wanting to tweak the sub mix, they will understand clearly what you were going for, by listening to your attempt and C) 70-80 tracks/outputs for any studio is quite a bit, so the time it will take for an engineer to sub mix what you want - when you could take the time to do it yourself, will allow more time for the mix itself.

+1

-1

[@?,*???&?]

So I received tracks today from a band for a mix.

One song across 4 CDRs.

16-bit, 44.1 kHz .wav files.

All stereo tracks- although every single source was mono.

5 guitar parts each recorded with 3 close mics. So that's 30 tracks of electric guitars.

7 vocal tracks- all in stereo- along with 7 wet vocal tracks also in stereo. 28 tracks of vocals.

Once I figured out what these were, I quickly listened to the reverb, and deleted those tracks. Then, I assembled and comped the 7 vocal tracks down to a logical 5- Lead vocal, Lead vocal double, BG Vox 1, BG Vox 2 and bridge vocal.

I am continually amazed how tracking engineers can't get their shit together enough to create a logical lay-out of vocals. Even if the ideas are coming quickly from the singer, arranging them logically afterward is easy. Imagine dealing with a scatter of vocal bits on stereo tracks. Insanity.

Am I in hell? Is this purgatory? Did this thread curse me? wtf? lol

[cgarges]

I am continually amazed how tracking engineers can't get their shit together enough to create a logical lay-out of vocals.

This suprises you, even though the "tracking engineer" doesn't know the diference between mono tracks and stereo tracks?

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[Nick Sevilla]

So I received tracks today from a band for a mix.

One song across 4 CDRs.

16-bit, 44.1 kHz .wav files.

All stereo tracks- although every single source was mono.

5 guitar parts each recorded with 3 close mics. So that's 30 tracks of electric guitars.

7 vocal tracks- all in stereo- along with 7 wet vocal tracks also in stereo. 28 tracks of vocals.

Once I figured out what these were, I quickly listened to the reverb, and deleted those tracks. Then, I assembled and comped the 7 vocal tracks down to a logical 5- Lead vocal, Lead vocal double, BG Vox 1, BG Vox 2 and bridge vocal.

I am continually amazed how tracking engineers can't get their shit together enough to create a logical lay-out of vocals. Even if the ideas are coming quickly from the singer, arranging them logically afterward is easy. Imagine dealing with a scatter of vocal bits on stereo tracks. Insanity.

Am I in hell? Is this purgatory? Did this thread curse me? wtf? lol

No, what happened is that you canceled my earlier +1, so now you're paying for it...

Seriously, mono sources all recorded in Stereo? I've had that happen. I just get rid of one side of all of those tracks, and move on. In PT HD, "split Stereo tracks to Mono" and then erase all the extra tracks. Bingo.

The one I loathe the most though, is when a guitarist puts a SUBTLE effect in Stereo, and it is SO SUBTLE, that in the mix you can't tell that there is any effect on the guitar at all. WTF???

Or better yet, PRINTING A DELAY with the source THAT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE TEMPO OF THE SONG. Makes me automatically seasick, and want to get my gun.

Cheers

[@?,*???&?]

So I received tracks today from a band for a mix.

One song across 4 CDRs.

16-bit, 44.1 kHz .wav files.

All stereo tracks- although every single source was mono.

5 guitar parts each recorded with 3 close mics. So that's 30 tracks of electric guitars.

7 vocal tracks- all in stereo- along with 7 wet vocal tracks also in stereo. 28 tracks of vocals.

Once I figured out what these were, I quickly listened to the reverb, and deleted those tracks. Then, I assembled and comped the 7 vocal tracks down to a logical 5- Lead vocal, Lead vocal double, BG Vox 1, BG Vox 2 and bridge vocal.

I am continually amazed how tracking engineers can't get their shit together enough to create a logical lay-out of vocals. Even if the ideas are coming quickly from the singer, arranging them logically afterward is easy. Imagine dealing with a scatter of vocal bits on stereo tracks. Insanity.

Am I in hell? Is this purgatory? Did this thread curse me? wtf? lol

No, what happened is that you canceled my earlier +1, so now you're paying for it...

Seriously, mono sources all recorded in Stereo? I've had that happen. I just get rid of one side of all of those tracks, and move on. In PT HD, "split Stereo tracks to Mono" and then erase all the extra tracks. Bingo.

Yep. I do the same. People who've never sat in front of a real console don't know any better, I think that's how we end up with tracks like this.