Commodore Remix

I don't think looking at graphs and spectrometers is a solution to your problem. I'd rather teach my ears and try to learn analytic hearing. It's all about experience. Grab an EQ and fiddle around with it and try to get what different eq setting do to your instrument and to your mix.

Romeo Knight wrote:I don't think looking at graphs and spectrometers is a solution to your problem. I'd rather teach my ears and try to learn analytic hearing. It's all about experience. Grab an EQ and fiddle around with it and try to get what different eq setting do to your instrument and to your mix.

Thats my problem, I'm too much into looking at numbers. I dont know if its from playing with Trackers on the Amiga, but even sequencing on the Atari 1040STE I would go into each track I recorded and manually change the numbers so they were perfect. Its does make things sterile but for some reason I like doing that. Which does make things too mechanical/robotic.

I don't think looking at graphs and spectrometers is a solution to your problem. I'd rather teach my ears and try to learn analytic hearing. It's all about experience. Grab an EQ and fiddle around with it and try to get what different eq setting do to your instrument and to your mix.

No no... I'm not using a graph as a definite rule to where my instruments are to be in the spectrum, I'm just using it as a general guideline... It's just very easy to spot, which frequency band a given instrument is occupying using such a graph... I'm able to see "gaps" in the spectrum, and thus can watch the spectrum as I search for new instruments, easily seeing if I need to "go higher or lower" on the keys to give the new instrument a place of it's own, and it DOES help.... me at least don't get me wrong! I'm definitely using my ears as the all-ruling tool... my ears has final word on the outcome, but the graph just help me in the right direction faster than my ears sometimes

The reason I initialy posted this thread was, that I enjoy having FX on the instruments themselves in the beginning phase of creation, as effects helps give me inspiration... the problem seem to come up, when the tune is developping, as more and more instruments have different verbs on them, muddying the score... thus my dilemma lies with, if I'm to remove all verbs on my patches to begin with, loosing that inspirational benefit, or just keep them during the creative phase, and then adjust them in the mixing phase... in my situation, it's just REALLY hard keeping my fingers from the mixer in the creative phase

So I'm not after someone telling me what to do, as only I will be able to make that decision anyway... I'm just curious to hear how others work with effects actually... to see if anybody has something new to me

Guess the thread has just evolved into more of a debate, which I think is nice... it's always good to see how things work from others point of view ... not just your own.

So PLEASE stop this debate upon what is right or wrong... because THAT is what is pointless about it all, as DHS was saying earlier.

Analog-X:

I don't see why it's wrong to be nit-picking numbers... I do that all the time myself in making music... it's just that bit of perfectionalism some people has (including me), and I don't feel that being a perfectionist is wrong, as long as you do not consider yourself to be perfect, and as long as it does not hinder you getting things done ... when people start feeling perfect, they usualy stop evolving... bad bad bad!

It's easy to fall into the trap of doing things the way the "mob" says is right... I wouldn't rely on that... Make music the way you feel is best for you, share your knowledge with others, and recieve knowledge... use the later for whatever you feel will benefit you, and trash the rest

and ... ehhh!? ... sorry for bringing the debate of right and wrong on again...

Analog-X wrote:Which does make things too mechanical/robotic.

Good. That's how synth music SHOULD sound!

Tonka! ... you are now expelled from this class!

But I have to admit, that I also like things synthetic and robotic
Well... guess you can "sit down" afterall

well... guess we'll just let the right/wrong thing debatable anyways, jsust don't forget to tell the rest of us what YOU do with effects/EQ also... I'm eager for knowledge

This is a great thread!!!

ITS MORE FUN TO COMPUTE....DOOOO...ROOOT...

I need help.

What type of piano is used in song 'Jakatta - American Beauty'?
Is there anyway to recreate this piano sound on sny vst, soundfont?

I tried with FL Keys, but sound is not good enough (notwith my EQ "experience").

Speaking from my own experiences, fiddling and all the different ways/phases I've been working. I think the power is to get the EQ right and to learn how to work with the compressor and dynamic effects. When I started to make music, I kind of just normalized all the tracks, added a general EQ, Compressor and some dynamic effects. Then I routed the tracks to the "after-klang" effects, such as Reverb, Delays, Stereo Imager and a final Compressor. Sure that did work. Later on I had one of the, "okay let's throw all kind of bizarre effects in and see what the mangler will come out with this time", the result was kind of like to throw in buckets of colors in a washing machine and then just trow in a clean white blanket, let it spin around for a while, get out the blanket... Sometimes it was good, while sometimes it was just horrible. Not only was this quite time consuming and lead into a lot of frustrations, but at that time I had NO idea about what mixing was all about. But then started to analyze the music, tried to figure our HOW to reach for a specific sound and not just throw in tons of effects.
What I've come up to is the following:
Play with the EQ to "lift" the soundscape in a channel.
Play with the EQ to get rid of unwanted "muddy" sounds, like disturbing rumbling sounds around 60hz and down.
Play with the compressor to get a better balance.
Go easy on the effects.
Add different reverbs for different purpose, like one for the strings/pads/choirs, one for the drums, one for the lead, and so on.
Also, as mentioned, try and replace a reverb with a delay, multi-tap delay or delay-bank, it can get a more clean and precise effect, than a reverb can do.

The best tool you have are your ears, so use them. and If you want to buy a lot of synths, effects to cover up your work forget about that. Put the money on some good monitors instead, then you can move on
As far as it comes to get that "Dance/Trance" feeling, yeah don't we all want to have that cool sound. I am not a typical dance/trance music maker, but afaik, they tend to work with layers of compressors or Multiband Compressor, to tighten a specific range, and compress and release it just "that" time, to get that pumping effect or gated effect.. Okay this did sound unclear but I don't know how to put it.

Remember this are only thoughts, ideas, tips and tricks from the bag, so to say, so if I am totally out of the blue, let me know

Dees: you make yourself perfectly clear, and thank you for the lengthy explanation. I use many of the tricks you mentioned, but one area that I'm still pretty novice at is compression... actually I don't think I've ever used it, and mostly this is probably due to the fact, that I'm mixing on an analog mixer that do not have that many inserts. I'd surely like to put some experimenting into this field at some time.

The problem I've had with reverbs are when more than one is used actually. They seem to make the "picture" pretty blurred when too many of them are there, and especialy the lengthy ones. If the problem are with poor build in effects on the synths themselves or just because I did not EQ them weel, I'm uncertain... but it has made me want to remove the use of all space-related FX on my synths like reverb and delay.... many times.. and just use a single reverb and delay to get a more uniform and clear sound. And it does work...

I'll just have to fiddle around with the EQ I guess. I have to ad though, that using a decent reverb unit does a lot... the sound of the M-One kills everything I've got build in, in the synths... it's just so clear and crisp, and leave anything you throw at it nice and transparent.

Oh yeah. That's a bit of the owl in the bag sometimes. When you have a good chain of synths with effects, reverbs. It gets pretty unclear and like you said blury and I am still strangling with this. and When you're working with analog mixers, you don't have the same "flexibility", as when you're working digital or semi-digitally. It's very hard and I guess there's really no shortcut to get a clean and perfect sound, and this can really drive me bananas. You know when people say, "Oh if I but this and that I will sound like "Mr.Uber", I have his presets and wow HE adjusted the mixerboard too!!". Yeah right as if there's such a thing as a "preset". No, that's the error a lot of people do, including myself of course.
You've been working on a song for "this" long time and then you stir it down to the actual mixing part and after slitting your breath out, sweat, tears, and all the frustrations are spilt all over the place, you finally get the perfect mixing for the song. Yeah there you are, quick as freaking Flash Gordon, you save the preset! and Thinking, "Oh man this is the ultimate mixer settings - won't EVER change!". and Yeah, that could work but then you change the ways you're working, you want to try new things, add more texture to the sound, I mean the actual soundscape. Yeah there you go, you just can't "get it to sound right". and You keep thinking about that time when you could do it, you had that special to retain a certain sound but "ooooops!!" You forgot to change the mixerboard Yeah, not sure this is making any sense, but my point is you have to understand HOW it works and the techniques, behind the gears/notes... well Just what you want to make.
The best is to twist and turn, share and talk about ideas, or just anything. Myself been doing music for the last 10 years, and still I keep learning new things all the time... crazy or what

I hope this made some sense and wern't just a total mess.
Dees

He he! ... no it's clearly understandable... cause I experience it all the time Every mix has to be looked at from scratch... every EQ tweaked customwise... the problem is just with all that technology that has to be tweaked, as it kills creativity because I tend to mix as I compose (bummer!)... many times I find that I'm in need of changing stuff in the presets themselves, and it's a real pain in the neck, especialy when you want to save the changes with your project. Most presets made for synths are made standalone, and as such they take up a great deal of the spectrum on their own... drained in chorus and reverbs making them sound so cool played alone.... but as soon as other instruments are to be there too, it like a bunch of "Big fat guys, competing to fit in a 1 square meter box"!!!... you really have to send those instruments on a "diet" to get a clear sounding mix!

i just often find that if I remove all reverb and delay on the presets, it's MUCH easiler to quickly find a suitable instrument when composing as the instrument then blend much better into the mix... many more instruments are then suitable because they don't have this reverb on them... different reverbs often make the instruments sound out of place when played together i think... with smaller verbs it's no problem, but longer ones seem to compete about making you believe what environment you are in. when too many verbs are playin you get a picture like the TARZAN REMIX riff I made (20:26)... it's one pile of blurr! when only one verb is used for all sounds, it sounds like the riff in my demo at: 10:36 ... very ambient but still very clear.

Very true!
There is quite some work to get things to "sit" in a song. For eg. while I worked on my last remix there was a time I thought I was about to go bald if I didn't stop pulling my hair. This was a pretty deep freq. ambient mix of Hysteria, the actual mixing time was longer than the "writing process". It was just hard to crystallize the low frequencies to not melt into a big pool of old sticky fat. So talk about to send the evil freq. on a diet! Very good idea I had some Diet Coke in the fridge
Anyhow I think that's why some dudes got a stack of 10 reverbs in their racks. Because well a good quality reverb it does what it's good at, while a powerful synth does its jazz. and That's also why there are one gear for one thing. No need to spend loads of money and resources on a "Hey I can do everything" -gear.

And with delays... you're right, as they do not pose as big a problem with making the environment believable, no matter what delay you use... a delay will always blend a sound well into a mix somehow... the major problem with these delays on presets are though, that they are never in sync with the tune... surely some newer synths can sync to MIDI clock (hooray!), but then... there is the older synths that do not, and happen to have ROM presets, making these presets useless unless you change and edit them, which in turn complicates the saving process of your project... AAAAAARGH! .... this is one of the greatest hazzles of hardware gear, and one of the really nice things when it comes to softsynths.

So because of all this I'm really close to simply edit all my synths patches for good, and remove all reverb and delay... exept for those darn ROM presets that cannot be stored again ... ooooh the perrils of hardware! ... I'm just reluctant to do the change in the presets because I feel that I miss out on all the wonderful verbs and delays in the presets themselves... oh my! what a dilemma! ... but I think I'll eventually do it anyway... any other FX can be left intact as Chorus, Flanger, Phaser etc. does not disturb the mix the way delay and verb does...

so in general it's all about setting sound sources with built in spatial and spectrum FX, and choose the overall master verb and delay to set the environment I guess.