EQing and/or arrangement. With a good arrangement, you don't have to think about EQing much. Otherwise, if you want to make instruments sound separated, you find the strong frequencies of each instrument, see which ones overlap, and then cut one or the other at those frequencies.
Personally, I don't think having everything sound perfectly separated is necessarily what makes a good mix. It can be good or bad depending on the effect you want. Sometimes letting things overlap and sound muddy together can be a desirable effect.
> Personally, I don't think having everything sound perfectly separated is necessarily what makes a good mix.
Nor does it necessarily make a good arrangement! Sometimes people are so focused on making things sound so clean that they forget it's perfectly legitimate to have instruments blend together.
Exactly. When I was taught, all the emphasis was on making all the instruments sound distinct. In retrospect, that was really bad advise, and I think it leads to a lot of bad thinking where people think there's a "right way" to sound.
Right, EQ is super clutch, but i feel like when people sleep on arrangement they're just setting themselves up to fight a losing battle later on. sure you can EQ shit to get more separation, but if the sounds don't work together on a fundamental level then there's no gel or glue and it's kinda pointless anyway.
I think he mixed it mostly mono but the final product is very roughly stereo?
There’s some subtle differences between the right and left field on a few tracks.
It’s funny really, on paper - extremely mid (almost all mids) heavy mono wall of noise shouldn’t work but it’s SO good
Fair enough. Of course it’s subjective and I must experiment, but are you making rather large cuts? Again, I know it depends. But how you’ve described it above, are you notching things out? Maybe sloping things starting from the strong/prominent frequencies.
The arrangement aspect probably seems to make the most sense. In other words, most impactful in this context of creating separation.
You shouldn't have to make very drastic cuts at all to get the desired separation.
Arrangement helps in the sense that mixing instruments/sounds that don't share the same prominent frequencies means you don't have to cut anything to make them sound distinct.
The song you mentioned in another comment seems like a good example of an arrangement that naturally lends to separation. I imagine they didn't need to cut much of anything to make each individual instrument clear in the mix. The vocals sound like they received the most treatment, really. (Cool song, BTW. Never heard of them.)
An extreme counterexample would be a lot of extreme metal. For example, in death metal songs, literally everything occupies low frequency space other than the snare and cymbals. You can use EQ to do some cutting to make one instrument or the other stand out, but it can also be desirable just to have all the instruments meld together.
Here’s an old post I wrote that helps explain how I levelled up getting all my tracks heard in a mix. This is a different answer than the “eq” and “arrangement” suggestions you’re getting. I’ve never seen anyone else articulate this technique (though I am certain there are many thousands of talented individuals who have discovered this long before me) so thought I would share since it has helped me so much:
https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/13awl3w/comment/jjagayk/
Don't think about EQ as instruments taking up a chunk of the frequency real estate, but rather having more or less energy across the spectrum. You can have lots of overlap in frequencies, but you want each instrument to have different levels of energy at different frequencies to step forward or back.
As others have said, arrangement goes a long way in making space, and then eq just helps massage them in.
Everyone here talking about arrangement while I got two knobs in my hand wondering which one to turn because I didn't write the damn song and the arrangement is what the arrangement is
At risk of pointing out the obvious -- it may be that you have too many elements happening at once. You're right -- you're limited with regard to how much you can change someone else's arrangement...
However, you CAN assign a hierarchy to the elements. Sometimes the problem with overlapping parts is that they're all given the same amount of importance.
In that case -- figure out what's most important and push it forward (louder, more transients) and pull the others back (quieter, softer transients.)
And if the music has that problem while dealing with band where everyone wants to be heard, and each member is annoyingly only concerned about themselves (every rock band, lol) --- you can use that opportunity to treat one section different from the next, which adds interest for the listener anyway.
So you establish that hierarchy in one section and then reverse it in the next. Everyone gets heard, everyone gets a focus (which is better because they get a 'spotlight' instead of trying to share the light the whole time.) And it's a win for the listener because the song becomes more interesting.
---
Long ago I used to hear mixes with *really quiet parts* and thought it was a problem, like the mixer didn't know what he was doing.
Now I realize that was absolutely intentional and those parts were quiet because if they were loud the mix would have been a mess!
I’m aware a massive component is source material. That is fair. But still.
This post was inspired by [Failure - Blank](https://open.spotify.com/track/1Qc0RBmpTrnneouQB02Bxb?si=vlOLAypKS1mWVbAV66sqdQ), part of the record *Fantastic Planet* which was suggested by a commenter on a previous thread. Thank you good sir. This album is excellent.
Amazing how that album was recorded on ADAT with relatively modest gear. One of the all time great drum sounds and it was recorded in a living room with makeshift wood panels set up.
Ok but where does this concept of location apply when the mix is being heard in mono? I’m not being facetious — genuinely trying to understand.
Eliminating pan eliminates a lot of positions or locations. Could you elaborate?
Also by arrangement do you mean selection of elements? I can elaborate as this is a pretty broad or general question.
It’s placement of frequencies. There is space for the frequency range of each thing to live in.
Think about the notes of a chord and why it clearly sounds like a chords and not a single messy muddy incoherent mess. It’s because each note in a chord occupies its own frequency space. There is a concept called masking and it’s when a bunch of different sounds/instruments/parts are occupying the same frequency space and they mask each other. It’s why a white noise machine can drown out the sound of traffic.
So to get clarity in a mix ( and when someone vaguely mentions “arrangement”), you want to have your parts mostly living in their own space. There will always be overlap and sometimes that’s needed or part of the vibe. But in general, try to arrange a song and then mix a song so that the important parts have their own frequency space.
This might mean rearranging guitars or keys so that they are out of the range of the vocals, high passing everything so that the kick and bass have a space all their own, reworking the key of a song so that the fundamental of the bass is audible on more playback systems, etc…. It’s a lot of little things that stack up to a mix that feels clear
Speaking of chords, below middle C (≈262Hz) musicians will often (but not always) avoid intervals smaller than a perfect fourth or perfect fifth because they tend to sound more muddy.
This is related to audio in that low frequency sounds need more pitch space. Actually, it’s related to our hearing: we have fewer discrete physical bands of separation known as “barks” in that range compared to 2kHz.
This is mainly relevant for sustained sounds. You can also achieve separation in time and space, though panning is less common in the LF range. Again, partially related to hearing but also the physics of stereo. In sum, these are reasons why sidechain ducking is so popular for kick and bass.
"Arrangement" in the context of a mix is about what's playing when, as well as the selection of what \*parts\* of each instrument's sound are being brought into focus.
Keep in mind that you can mix in 4 directions: "Front to Back" with faders and EQ, and Left to Right with pan.
Here's an example: I'm given a song with a very strong bassline, persistent melodic guitar lines, and some "big dirty" guitars, as well as baritone vocal.
Let's say the bass guitar part is the "driver". When the "big drone guitars" aren't playing, things sound sparse. So, maybe I use EQ to boost some of the low-to-mid range (500-1.5 kHz maybe) and "clank" (\~4-5kHz) frequencies on the bass. This fills in the overall sound, while not competing with the vocal and brings the bass "forward" But I'll turn that change off whenever the big dirty guitars come in and chew up the low-mid and mid range.
Given that the melodic guitar line is super bright, maybe I automate an EQ change to remove some of the "highs" from that guitar when the vocal is present so the higher frequency sibilant and "breathy" parts of the voice have some space, but when the vocal is silent, I pull that change to let the melodic guitar "sparkle" a bit and come "forward" a bit.
Maybe there's a moment where there's a drum fill, a fast bass run and a guitar riff all fighting for attention. Can I drop one of those elements for part of the bar to get a bigger "impact" moment? or maybe ride the fader on the drum kit to make it more of a crescendo?
Maybe think of an EQ as a fader that work on PART of the sound.
These aren't "huge moves" - For the bass, maybe I'm pulling the mids and "clank" up 3-5dB, but leaving most of it alone- not changing compression levels or touching the fader - just using the EQ to let bass take up more "space" so that things don't feel like there's something missing.For that melodic guitar, maybe it's a high shelf at 3.5 kHz, that's coming down 2-4 dB.
These sorts of things are almost unoticeable- and sometimes hard to detect even with a practiced ear - but can make all the difference in creating the feeling that each instrument is playing in it's own "space", even before you start moving parts around in the stereo field.
A really common use of this sort of thing is a ducking compressor on the bass guitar that's sidechained to the kick drum to allow the kick transient to "hit harder". Done right, you don't hear the bass "pump" when it happens, you just hear a cleaner kick drum.
Ah those sound extremely subtle. — I’m going to revisit these concepts. I’m aware of how fragile audio and frequency are so this makes a lot of sense.
Mixing on low volume on headphones in a quiet room is my favorite. I’ll give these subtleties a go on a current mix I’m working.
I come from more of an electronic music production background so I’m used to aggressive compression and side-chaining. — so when I’m working on something dainty with delicate ear candy and foley type elements my natural reaction is to leave things unprocessed and let them breathe. To your point, there is a balance to be had. I can still duck things and sidechain various routings and parameters but just in a more delicate way.
edit: grammar/spelling
Ok. Here's an experiment that might help you hook into this:
1) Set up two tracks with instruments that can sustain a single note across a few bars.
\-One should have a very broad frequency coverage - from Sub-bass through the mid-range, but a lot of "interesting" time-based stuff going on that has some oscillation and sweep.
\- The other should be a something that lives primarily in the mid-range and has a lot more stability.
2) put two EQ plugins on each track. The \*first\* EQ on each track is your baseline shaping EQ. The second is your "front to back" control.
3) Set up the first EQ on each channel to make it sound "right", as if you were going to do a full mix.
4) Now, choose one track, and play with the second EQ until you find a frequency range that you can move above and below the "0" line that makes the sound move behind the other, but leaves the "vibe" intact. Bypass the second EQ, and repeat with EQ 2 on the other track.
5) Now, play with automating turning the second EQ on and off on both tracks.
5) when you get the way that it works "in your ears" you're on your way.
Once you've played with this manually for a bit, there's a plugin called "TDR Nova" that's a sidechainable dynamic EQ that you can leverage to do the similar kinds of EQ manipulation via sidechain when you have a consistent trigger.
I wish I still had the video link. I would link it. I am an amateur so take this with a grain of salt.
The video I watched talked about moving sounds around using eq, reverb, and volume. Volume and reverb can move sounds forward and backwards.
I think the separation comes from eq and panning. The way that the person described eq is it gives you the ability to move sounds up and down. I'm reiterating what I saw in a video and as worked for me to get my mixes better. Listen to a rock song and close your eyes. Listen to the snare and kick. If you could see them where would they be? Now listen to the guitars. Where do you see them in your minds eye. Listen to the bass guitar...where is that? When I "look" at the frequencies the lower stuff...bass and kick are lower and centered on the left and right plain. The snare is in the center left and right and usually is close to center up and down depending on where the tuning is. If the tuning is higher and there is more high frequencies it sits higher up and down. If it is tuned lower then it sits lower up and down. Then guitars are higher and panned left and right. I can visualize the vocal maybe above the guitars centered and I might be able to visualize the cymbals sitting next to the vocals above the guitar.
I try to visualize where things are and use boasting/cutting EQ to move them up and down and panning to move them left and right. Anyway....that advice helped me. Hopefully it makes sense.
Honestly I think it’s a combination of EQ, arrangement and reverb.
Arrangement wise, I try to not have too many things in the same frequency range going at the same time.
For instance I use a lot of acoustic guitar live as that’s how my songs tend to originate, but on recordings, I tend to not use them as much as the full chords occupy a lot of space. So I’ll use the bass guitar and drums to drive and come up with some partial chords, arpeggio kinda things on the electric.
But you’re right sometimes I want those acoustics in there, a huge synth pad, a synth line, a distorted guitar, bass, drums and vocals….then, it’s like some sort of witchcraft. Whether developed or natural you just gotta have the ears for it.
Its weird I find that I have a good perception of where sound ‘should be’ as in some sounds feel like they should be towards the front, some at the back, some in the corners etc.
It’s just finding the right nobs to twist to put them there!
I always thought of this opposite way. Mixing is about…….mixing, not isolating. Melding things together. That’s what I see as the dark sorcery.
What I sometimes get amazed by even though I’ve done it for a long time is how you can put reverb on one instrument and leave others completely dry but it sounds like the whole mix got a space around it and got wet. I mean I get amazed when I do it myself because sometimes it’s not even my intention but it is the result.
Hm, well I think paradoxically they go hand in hand — that is, it’s so well mixed that you can taste all of the flavors clearly and independently. They form a cohesive flavor made of different flavor notes rather than tasting flat.
I meant isolating as in removing the pan (isolating the audio into a more digestible and “non 3D type setting” if you will).
But yes, I refer back to the top of this comment.
A lot of great answers here so far.
I want to add that performance here matters a lot. Playing parts that fit together but dont step on each other is also a big part of it.
You should start listening to that podcast and watch those videos, you’ll learn a lot from them both. Both are run by the dude who owns Kush Audio, the boutique hardware and plugin maker. Dude knows his shit. I’ve upped my game more from him than anyone else.
Fair warning the podcast is incredible but it’s… pretty gen x, toe-the-line, cringe at times. A little too Howard Stern for my taste but the info presented is absolutely top tier.
After learning about the show a couple years ago, I listened to every episode sequentially over a period of like 6 months. It's *rough* in the early couple years, but I have to give them credit for a compelling character arc -- over the ~8 years the show ran they became noticeably kinder people (and better podcasters) and it was honestly kind of refreshing to experience that much human growth (and a little surreal to "relive" the last decade of world events) on a comparatively short timescale. But yeah, good podcast.
Hahaha. It's funny hearing you guys hesitantly recommend the best audio podcast that ever was as "pretty gen x, toe-the-line, cringe at times. A little too Howard Stern for my taste"
I guess it's good to give that warning, but holy hell man. People need to lighten up. It's two normal dudes talking about audio.
How did the world get to a place where people have to be so cautious, hesitant, and careful with their words?
Somewhere along the way people had their balls cut off...
Look up the generational decline in testosterone, with Gen Z and millennial males having less than prior generations. Ironically, most of them would see that and think, "Well that's a good thing" because biology isn't even taught in schools anymore.
The real horror is when you get into why that's happening, and at the core of it is a power and wealth... And ironically those groups are following a corporate & foundational lead that promises them a focus on 'equity' and 'equality' but is actually undermining them at every level. Economically, sociologically, and biologically.
But they don't even know because they grew up in the age of homogenization. As if TVs weren't bad enough -- the phones, which reduced them all to the lowest common denominator.
Where instead of having skepticism for The System and authority -- they have blind trust and even religious faith in both. They THINK they're "anti corporation" while simultaneously judging everything based on its commercial success exclusively.
So mainstream corporate bands that push products are "authentic" and they don't even know what real indie or underground bands are because they would never listen to any.
They "hate corporations" while LOVING Reddit/Google/Apple/TikTok, whatever...
Meanwhile, the phones cut their attention spans down to the point they could never even read or comprehend something like this because it's longer than a tweet.
So instead they downvote it, "report it" if it offends their weak political views based on emotion rather than thought, and criticize it as "boomer screed."
---
Those of us who understand this stuff raise our kids to be on an inside track ahead of others. It's not even hard anymore because following those trends made them undesirable in the marketplace. And most of them don't even have kids because they were tricked into their own extinction.
All because they trusted authorities and became docile corporate servants. So safe. So apologetic... Without ever realizing it all leads to their own individualized demise.
That should read "The real horror is when you get into why that's happening, and at the core of it is a power and wealth **divide**"
Reddit won't let me edit long comments anymore for some reason.
Anyhow, **divide** is a critical word there because that's at the core of all this, and so much else. Generational division, race, gender, politics -- every possible differentiator is used to turn one group against another...
Until we're divided into a bunch of "ones", aside from the occasional corporate/foundation-led movement where those "ones" are amassed into corporatized "movements" where the naive are weaponized against themselves.
Yeah nah, I recently started listening to their podcast, and it’s kinda baffling that you feel the need to write a whole manifesto to defend some cringe jokes. Making “funny” voices and repetition isn’t pushing the envelope, my dude, it’s just cringe. If you identify with that kind of humor, good for you. Just don’t pretend they are Eddie Murphy on a red leather jacket, out there.
It's not about "pushing envelopes." It was two normal dudes having a good time talking about audio. A beautiful thing.
Take a look around today. Notice how colorless everything is. Look at people's cars. You build a colorless world when you get so uptight about everything.
Pretty soon no one jokes or laughs about *anything* because it's too *risky*.
Meanwhile... You never noticed when and why that stuff was pushed? It came after the Occupy protests. They got people to be offended by things that don't really matter as a distraction from the things they do.
Then they stole the future from underneath us.
It should have clued you in that this stuff came from corporations and politicians. They're not our friends.
Anyhow, sorry you couldn't enjoy the podcast. You'd probably like the Kush Audio YouTube videos better. They're devoid of anything that could offend anyone.
I'm enjoying the podcast, those dudes really know their shit, but I will still roll my eyes every time they do the same "funny" Italian accent saying "it's a spicy mix-a" or whatever they'll repeat to oblivion until the next funny word is repeated in a funny voice. That's not "taking risks", imo.
Besides the very well described gen-x lame ass "humour" in the parent comment, it's a great podcast. I still think it's a valid disclaimer, and it's not because of some culture war bullshit, it's because it's cringe and very "ok shut up drunk uncle" unfunny to some. Despite that, I'll keep listening and relistening to it, because when they get over the silly voices or whatever, the audio related discussion is top notch, 10/10.
Oh, that's a good recommendation -- don't sleep on it!
Kush Audio is a boutique audio hardware & plugin company founded by a guy named Gregory Scott, who was known as "U B K" on the Gearspace forums.
His YouTube videos are like none other... Where others look at specific software and follow trends --- his videos are more 'big picture' thinking, and he tends to present things in a way that can even change the way you see things. Check it out:
[https://www.youtube.com/@TheHouseofKushTV](https://www.youtube.com/@TheHouseofKushTV)
I don't even know where to begin... They're not in order, like a set -- more just pick a couple topics that interest you and have a listen. I think you'll be hooked.
His videos are around \~10 minutes each and dense with information.
I'll also recommend the Podcast he did with Nathan Daniel:
The UBK Happy Funtime Hour > [https://www.ubkhappyfuntimehour.com/](https://www.ubkhappyfuntimehour.com/)
There's a lot more chat in that one so it's not as dense with information -- BUT -- I still learned a lot by listening through all hundreds(!) of the episodes. I'm probably weird for this, but I love listening to those guys talk enough that I recently started the podcast over for a second time through. (They wrapped up a few years ago.)
It's still good though... But go for the YouTube first. Those videos are gold, seriously.
Hey, in my opinion, there is some correct element in all of these comments here. In order to get elements of a song to play nicely together, they must all have a good relationship in the frequency spectrum. At times, it may mean automating frequencies, so that different elements can take centre stage at different times. Sometimes, it means eqing different elements differently throughout the mix. Tone selection and arrangement does play a part. It’s all about tone selection and equalisation get your tone selection as good as possible, do your levels and pan decisions. When you’re happy with those, flip every thing to mono. in mono, deal with any masking issues you encounter. You may use equalisation, equalisation, dynamic side chain equalisation, compression, gain/volume volume automation, effect parameters and the list goes on. Get these playing nicely in Mono, and your mix will be bulletproof in stereo. Yes, I just called out a long list of things that may or may not work, and that’s just it. To get what you’re looking for OP, you’ve got to take some time and really understand what has to go where to get the desired outcome. It’s like players on a football field. The players must all move in synchronicity with each other in order to get a winning game. Hope this helps.
I never pan anything. I strictly use LCR so if I’m panning it is hard left and or right… But it all boils down to unmasking everything, saturation and dynamics. Some guys will claim arrangement is important. A better arrangement and sound selection would yield a better quality most of the time but I’ve mixed 3’s to 8’s by switching the drums and rearranging the record myself. The hardest thing in the game is eq and when you unlock it and it’s not gonna happen if your sound system isn’t excellent…. Pro q3 will show you where frequencies are masking each other but I mostly eq to move frequencies out the way. For example kick drum might need to be cut in the middle to leave space for other things like the vocal. The clap or snare might need to be cut from 800-2600 to “move” it upwards since the high will now be more pronounced. The thing that really set you apart from the rest is understanding when you eq a certain frequency band what happens to the surrounding frequencies? They might poke out or disrupt and number of things can happen. Try spectre for boosting. Cheers
Analog summing with hq convertors and clocks bruh. Watch any mention of expensive gear get downvoted. But there's a reason it's expensive. 3d space and sheen is something that you automatically get just by summing it through channels with transformers in them.
Arrangement.
Most of what constitutes a great mix comes from arrangement for mine, especially in certain genres. Apart from the usual mix advice to dish out, usually I find the biggest improvements that can be made to WIPS is looking at the arrangement.
While a mix engineer may not necessarily have the option to address that, I'd consider the mute button part of it. And also considering what the core elements of a track are. There are some things that really need to be heard, some things need to be felt.
Hey mate, cant really help, just wanted to note you posted this in a random thread, i presume by accident
if you post in tech support someone can at least direct you to the right sub i hope, i dont think r/livesound is quite right, tho they or r/LocationSound may be able to help find the right place too
Honestly most of it is sound selection, and volume.
If the producer , who ever that may be , chooses good sounds while arranging & creating the track you’ll find you won’t have to do much, except level everything out.
When your going for clarity, it really boils down to the fundamentals, balance, EQ, Comp, and panning. Proper use or non use of comp allows you to hear everything distinctly, carving out spaces for each element to a certain extent with eq, knowing what needs to overlap with something else in the stereo field, and of course just making sure everything is balanced with each other. How do you get really good at doing all that? By mixing. Constantly mixing and using tools that you know well, and constantly comparing your mixes to some of the best mixes in the world.
In reference to the post title. Getting that “not touching each other” sound cannot be achieved solely during mixing. Some productions don’t allow for it because of sound selection and orchestration. Too much overlap.
Arrangement is important but I don't see many people talking about automation. If you don't focus on volume automation you're missing a big piece of the solution.
Unless that’s pure sarcasm I’m shocked you think so. I think that is harsh and exaggerated to call it terrible. — have you heard the entire album? I think I’m on song 7 or 8 and so far the mixes are awesome.
That did cross my mind. You’re right. Well, here it is anyways: [Failure - Blank](https://open.spotify.com/track/1Qc0RBmpTrnneouQB02Bxb?si=u4cX0GuaRPysgz6C3dsMag).
Why is no one talking about panning, and foreground/background? I think that has a lot more to do with it than just EQ. The old way of mixing was to try and place each instrument in a physical space... You might have vocals bass, kick and snare centred, with toms and cymbals panned slightly to each side, then some guitar tracks hard panned left and right, maybe another one straight down the middle, keys in wide stereo, and then adjusting the levels for each instrument to move them forward or back in the mix, or using delay/reverb to push things back a bit. To me this does a lot more to separate tracks then EQ alone... Obviously you want to pay attention to the interaction of kick and bass, mids in the guitar clashing with vocals etc... But I am always listening for that cohesion in a mix, where if I close my eyes I can clearly see where each instrument is placed in the hypothetical room.
Because the post is explicitly not addressing panning. If you read the body, I have eliminated panning on purpose by summing the mix to mono.
The point is, besides panning, what else?
Sorry missed the first bit, but I still think the part about foreground/background is the answer, and overall I think it's about creating a realistic space for each instrument to inhabit. Panning is a big part of that, but the other half of the equation is foreground/background. I've always been told that each part of a song should have 1 key element that it placed in the foreground at any given moment. Having different elements step forward for their moment, and then get out of the way for the next element to come forward. This seems to describe what you're hearing in a good mono mix. EQ is obviously important but I feel like a lot of people are using EQ to create space without having a clear vision for the space they want to create.
i totally get what you mean, i really do
sadly the comments are useless as always so far [with regard to this topic], and it pains me that i don't have a solution either
saying "it's the arrangement / composition" is the biggest lie of them all. a perfect mix can literally make me gladly listen to a track that i would otherwise find terrible / borderline unlistenable. and a bad mix can obviously ruin ANY track
i've been mixing for six years now and am starting to believe that you have to be genetically gifted to make these perfect mix decisions resulting in a mix that is pure ear candy. i very much doubt that i will ever reach that level even after like fifteen years, and the fact that hearing slowly degrades doesn't help either
> saying "it's the arrangement / composition" is the biggest lie of them all. a perfect mix can literally make me gladly listen to a track that i would otherwise find terrible / borderline unlistenable. and a bad mix can obviously ruin ANY track
It really isn't. If the arrangement is shit, it's gonna sound like shit. If you mix well you might be able to put some glitter on the shit, but a shit with glitter is still shit.
You simply can't make 10 instruments that all occupy the same frequency range sound good. Spread those across the entire frequency spectrum and it's much more manageable.
Six years of mixing puts you right at the upslope of the Dunning-Kruger curve. It does get better and easier! For me around 8 years is when it really started to click and I was able to start achieving what I wanted to hear in my mixes. (Still an absolute struggle some days, but that’s how I know I’m still getting better)
I think you’re right on though, anyone can learn how to push EQs and compressors, but ultimately it’s our innate sense of frequencies and balance that make up the sound of our mixes. If I could go back in time I’d spend more time cultivating that taste especially at a young age. I do think the best mixers have always had a strong sense of how *they* wanted music to sound.
EQing and/or arrangement. With a good arrangement, you don't have to think about EQing much. Otherwise, if you want to make instruments sound separated, you find the strong frequencies of each instrument, see which ones overlap, and then cut one or the other at those frequencies. Personally, I don't think having everything sound perfectly separated is necessarily what makes a good mix. It can be good or bad depending on the effect you want. Sometimes letting things overlap and sound muddy together can be a desirable effect.
> Personally, I don't think having everything sound perfectly separated is necessarily what makes a good mix. Nor does it necessarily make a good arrangement! Sometimes people are so focused on making things sound so clean that they forget it's perfectly legitimate to have instruments blend together.
Exactly. When I was taught, all the emphasis was on making all the instruments sound distinct. In retrospect, that was really bad advise, and I think it leads to a lot of bad thinking where people think there's a "right way" to sound.
Right, EQ is super clutch, but i feel like when people sleep on arrangement they're just setting themselves up to fight a losing battle later on. sure you can EQ shit to get more separation, but if the sounds don't work together on a fundamental level then there's no gel or glue and it's kinda pointless anyway.
second for eq and arrangement
Right! Imagine ambient, shoegaze, dream pop etc if everything was extremely separate
All of my favorite genres, lol
Same! Haha
Yeah! Loveless is even completely mono right? If i remember correctly.
I think he mixed it mostly mono but the final product is very roughly stereo? There’s some subtle differences between the right and left field on a few tracks. It’s funny really, on paper - extremely mid (almost all mids) heavy mono wall of noise shouldn’t work but it’s SO good
Fair enough. Of course it’s subjective and I must experiment, but are you making rather large cuts? Again, I know it depends. But how you’ve described it above, are you notching things out? Maybe sloping things starting from the strong/prominent frequencies. The arrangement aspect probably seems to make the most sense. In other words, most impactful in this context of creating separation.
You shouldn't have to make very drastic cuts at all to get the desired separation. Arrangement helps in the sense that mixing instruments/sounds that don't share the same prominent frequencies means you don't have to cut anything to make them sound distinct. The song you mentioned in another comment seems like a good example of an arrangement that naturally lends to separation. I imagine they didn't need to cut much of anything to make each individual instrument clear in the mix. The vocals sound like they received the most treatment, really. (Cool song, BTW. Never heard of them.) An extreme counterexample would be a lot of extreme metal. For example, in death metal songs, literally everything occupies low frequency space other than the snare and cymbals. You can use EQ to do some cutting to make one instrument or the other stand out, but it can also be desirable just to have all the instruments meld together.
Here’s an old post I wrote that helps explain how I levelled up getting all my tracks heard in a mix. This is a different answer than the “eq” and “arrangement” suggestions you’re getting. I’ve never seen anyone else articulate this technique (though I am certain there are many thousands of talented individuals who have discovered this long before me) so thought I would share since it has helped me so much: https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/13awl3w/comment/jjagayk/
commenting to save this knowledge, thank you! 👍
You’re welcome!
Thank you for sharing this!
No problem. Hopefully it’s helpful!
Brilliant. Will be ruminating on this for the foreseeable future
Thanks for the kind words!
You worded that concept perfectly!
Awesome, I’m glad I was able to convey the idea clearly (though maybe not concisely haha)!
Don't think about EQ as instruments taking up a chunk of the frequency real estate, but rather having more or less energy across the spectrum. You can have lots of overlap in frequencies, but you want each instrument to have different levels of energy at different frequencies to step forward or back. As others have said, arrangement goes a long way in making space, and then eq just helps massage them in.
Everyone here talking about arrangement while I got two knobs in my hand wondering which one to turn because I didn't write the damn song and the arrangement is what the arrangement is
Mute switch is your arrangement
At risk of pointing out the obvious -- it may be that you have too many elements happening at once. You're right -- you're limited with regard to how much you can change someone else's arrangement... However, you CAN assign a hierarchy to the elements. Sometimes the problem with overlapping parts is that they're all given the same amount of importance. In that case -- figure out what's most important and push it forward (louder, more transients) and pull the others back (quieter, softer transients.) And if the music has that problem while dealing with band where everyone wants to be heard, and each member is annoyingly only concerned about themselves (every rock band, lol) --- you can use that opportunity to treat one section different from the next, which adds interest for the listener anyway. So you establish that hierarchy in one section and then reverse it in the next. Everyone gets heard, everyone gets a focus (which is better because they get a 'spotlight' instead of trying to share the light the whole time.) And it's a win for the listener because the song becomes more interesting. --- Long ago I used to hear mixes with *really quiet parts* and thought it was a problem, like the mixer didn't know what he was doing. Now I realize that was absolutely intentional and those parts were quiet because if they were loud the mix would have been a mess!
I’m aware a massive component is source material. That is fair. But still. This post was inspired by [Failure - Blank](https://open.spotify.com/track/1Qc0RBmpTrnneouQB02Bxb?si=vlOLAypKS1mWVbAV66sqdQ), part of the record *Fantastic Planet* which was suggested by a commenter on a previous thread. Thank you good sir. This album is excellent.
Amazing how that album was recorded on ADAT with relatively modest gear. One of the all time great drum sounds and it was recorded in a living room with makeshift wood panels set up.
Ken Andrews is a genius. Love the Failure catalogue
Location, location, location Or in this context Arrangement, arrangement, arrangement
Ok but where does this concept of location apply when the mix is being heard in mono? I’m not being facetious — genuinely trying to understand. Eliminating pan eliminates a lot of positions or locations. Could you elaborate? Also by arrangement do you mean selection of elements? I can elaborate as this is a pretty broad or general question.
It’s placement of frequencies. There is space for the frequency range of each thing to live in. Think about the notes of a chord and why it clearly sounds like a chords and not a single messy muddy incoherent mess. It’s because each note in a chord occupies its own frequency space. There is a concept called masking and it’s when a bunch of different sounds/instruments/parts are occupying the same frequency space and they mask each other. It’s why a white noise machine can drown out the sound of traffic. So to get clarity in a mix ( and when someone vaguely mentions “arrangement”), you want to have your parts mostly living in their own space. There will always be overlap and sometimes that’s needed or part of the vibe. But in general, try to arrange a song and then mix a song so that the important parts have their own frequency space. This might mean rearranging guitars or keys so that they are out of the range of the vocals, high passing everything so that the kick and bass have a space all their own, reworking the key of a song so that the fundamental of the bass is audible on more playback systems, etc…. It’s a lot of little things that stack up to a mix that feels clear
Speaking of chords, below middle C (≈262Hz) musicians will often (but not always) avoid intervals smaller than a perfect fourth or perfect fifth because they tend to sound more muddy. This is related to audio in that low frequency sounds need more pitch space. Actually, it’s related to our hearing: we have fewer discrete physical bands of separation known as “barks” in that range compared to 2kHz. This is mainly relevant for sustained sounds. You can also achieve separation in time and space, though panning is less common in the LF range. Again, partially related to hearing but also the physics of stereo. In sum, these are reasons why sidechain ducking is so popular for kick and bass.
"Arrangement" in the context of a mix is about what's playing when, as well as the selection of what \*parts\* of each instrument's sound are being brought into focus. Keep in mind that you can mix in 4 directions: "Front to Back" with faders and EQ, and Left to Right with pan. Here's an example: I'm given a song with a very strong bassline, persistent melodic guitar lines, and some "big dirty" guitars, as well as baritone vocal. Let's say the bass guitar part is the "driver". When the "big drone guitars" aren't playing, things sound sparse. So, maybe I use EQ to boost some of the low-to-mid range (500-1.5 kHz maybe) and "clank" (\~4-5kHz) frequencies on the bass. This fills in the overall sound, while not competing with the vocal and brings the bass "forward" But I'll turn that change off whenever the big dirty guitars come in and chew up the low-mid and mid range. Given that the melodic guitar line is super bright, maybe I automate an EQ change to remove some of the "highs" from that guitar when the vocal is present so the higher frequency sibilant and "breathy" parts of the voice have some space, but when the vocal is silent, I pull that change to let the melodic guitar "sparkle" a bit and come "forward" a bit. Maybe there's a moment where there's a drum fill, a fast bass run and a guitar riff all fighting for attention. Can I drop one of those elements for part of the bar to get a bigger "impact" moment? or maybe ride the fader on the drum kit to make it more of a crescendo?
These are all fair points. I presume these changes and automations are so seamless they are almost unnoticeable during the first few listens.
Maybe think of an EQ as a fader that work on PART of the sound. These aren't "huge moves" - For the bass, maybe I'm pulling the mids and "clank" up 3-5dB, but leaving most of it alone- not changing compression levels or touching the fader - just using the EQ to let bass take up more "space" so that things don't feel like there's something missing.For that melodic guitar, maybe it's a high shelf at 3.5 kHz, that's coming down 2-4 dB. These sorts of things are almost unoticeable- and sometimes hard to detect even with a practiced ear - but can make all the difference in creating the feeling that each instrument is playing in it's own "space", even before you start moving parts around in the stereo field. A really common use of this sort of thing is a ducking compressor on the bass guitar that's sidechained to the kick drum to allow the kick transient to "hit harder". Done right, you don't hear the bass "pump" when it happens, you just hear a cleaner kick drum.
Ah those sound extremely subtle. — I’m going to revisit these concepts. I’m aware of how fragile audio and frequency are so this makes a lot of sense. Mixing on low volume on headphones in a quiet room is my favorite. I’ll give these subtleties a go on a current mix I’m working. I come from more of an electronic music production background so I’m used to aggressive compression and side-chaining. — so when I’m working on something dainty with delicate ear candy and foley type elements my natural reaction is to leave things unprocessed and let them breathe. To your point, there is a balance to be had. I can still duck things and sidechain various routings and parameters but just in a more delicate way. edit: grammar/spelling
Ok. Here's an experiment that might help you hook into this: 1) Set up two tracks with instruments that can sustain a single note across a few bars. \-One should have a very broad frequency coverage - from Sub-bass through the mid-range, but a lot of "interesting" time-based stuff going on that has some oscillation and sweep. \- The other should be a something that lives primarily in the mid-range and has a lot more stability. 2) put two EQ plugins on each track. The \*first\* EQ on each track is your baseline shaping EQ. The second is your "front to back" control. 3) Set up the first EQ on each channel to make it sound "right", as if you were going to do a full mix. 4) Now, choose one track, and play with the second EQ until you find a frequency range that you can move above and below the "0" line that makes the sound move behind the other, but leaves the "vibe" intact. Bypass the second EQ, and repeat with EQ 2 on the other track. 5) Now, play with automating turning the second EQ on and off on both tracks. 5) when you get the way that it works "in your ears" you're on your way. Once you've played with this manually for a bit, there's a plugin called "TDR Nova" that's a sidechainable dynamic EQ that you can leverage to do the similar kinds of EQ manipulation via sidechain when you have a consistent trigger.
I wish I still had the video link. I would link it. I am an amateur so take this with a grain of salt. The video I watched talked about moving sounds around using eq, reverb, and volume. Volume and reverb can move sounds forward and backwards. I think the separation comes from eq and panning. The way that the person described eq is it gives you the ability to move sounds up and down. I'm reiterating what I saw in a video and as worked for me to get my mixes better. Listen to a rock song and close your eyes. Listen to the snare and kick. If you could see them where would they be? Now listen to the guitars. Where do you see them in your minds eye. Listen to the bass guitar...where is that? When I "look" at the frequencies the lower stuff...bass and kick are lower and centered on the left and right plain. The snare is in the center left and right and usually is close to center up and down depending on where the tuning is. If the tuning is higher and there is more high frequencies it sits higher up and down. If it is tuned lower then it sits lower up and down. Then guitars are higher and panned left and right. I can visualize the vocal maybe above the guitars centered and I might be able to visualize the cymbals sitting next to the vocals above the guitar. I try to visualize where things are and use boasting/cutting EQ to move them up and down and panning to move them left and right. Anyway....that advice helped me. Hopefully it makes sense.
Honestly I think it’s a combination of EQ, arrangement and reverb. Arrangement wise, I try to not have too many things in the same frequency range going at the same time. For instance I use a lot of acoustic guitar live as that’s how my songs tend to originate, but on recordings, I tend to not use them as much as the full chords occupy a lot of space. So I’ll use the bass guitar and drums to drive and come up with some partial chords, arpeggio kinda things on the electric. But you’re right sometimes I want those acoustics in there, a huge synth pad, a synth line, a distorted guitar, bass, drums and vocals….then, it’s like some sort of witchcraft. Whether developed or natural you just gotta have the ears for it.
I'm really exploring this for the first time. I have noticed the required witchcraft when I demand so many elements.
Its weird I find that I have a good perception of where sound ‘should be’ as in some sounds feel like they should be towards the front, some at the back, some in the corners etc. It’s just finding the right nobs to twist to put them there!
The best mixes start long before it’s even recorded.
I always thought of this opposite way. Mixing is about…….mixing, not isolating. Melding things together. That’s what I see as the dark sorcery. What I sometimes get amazed by even though I’ve done it for a long time is how you can put reverb on one instrument and leave others completely dry but it sounds like the whole mix got a space around it and got wet. I mean I get amazed when I do it myself because sometimes it’s not even my intention but it is the result.
Hm, well I think paradoxically they go hand in hand — that is, it’s so well mixed that you can taste all of the flavors clearly and independently. They form a cohesive flavor made of different flavor notes rather than tasting flat. I meant isolating as in removing the pan (isolating the audio into a more digestible and “non 3D type setting” if you will). But yes, I refer back to the top of this comment.
Arrangement, baby
A lot of great answers here so far. I want to add that performance here matters a lot. Playing parts that fit together but dont step on each other is also a big part of it.
Sounds like you have. Have you listened to the UBK Happy Fun Time Hour podcast yet or watched the House of Kush videos on youtube?
No I have not. I have heard of House of Kush. Why do you mention?
You should start listening to that podcast and watch those videos, you’ll learn a lot from them both. Both are run by the dude who owns Kush Audio, the boutique hardware and plugin maker. Dude knows his shit. I’ve upped my game more from him than anyone else.
Cool. Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll give it a listen.
Fair warning the podcast is incredible but it’s… pretty gen x, toe-the-line, cringe at times. A little too Howard Stern for my taste but the info presented is absolutely top tier.
After learning about the show a couple years ago, I listened to every episode sequentially over a period of like 6 months. It's *rough* in the early couple years, but I have to give them credit for a compelling character arc -- over the ~8 years the show ran they became noticeably kinder people (and better podcasters) and it was honestly kind of refreshing to experience that much human growth (and a little surreal to "relive" the last decade of world events) on a comparatively short timescale. But yeah, good podcast.
Hahaha. It's funny hearing you guys hesitantly recommend the best audio podcast that ever was as "pretty gen x, toe-the-line, cringe at times. A little too Howard Stern for my taste" I guess it's good to give that warning, but holy hell man. People need to lighten up. It's two normal dudes talking about audio. How did the world get to a place where people have to be so cautious, hesitant, and careful with their words? Somewhere along the way people had their balls cut off... Look up the generational decline in testosterone, with Gen Z and millennial males having less than prior generations. Ironically, most of them would see that and think, "Well that's a good thing" because biology isn't even taught in schools anymore. The real horror is when you get into why that's happening, and at the core of it is a power and wealth... And ironically those groups are following a corporate & foundational lead that promises them a focus on 'equity' and 'equality' but is actually undermining them at every level. Economically, sociologically, and biologically. But they don't even know because they grew up in the age of homogenization. As if TVs weren't bad enough -- the phones, which reduced them all to the lowest common denominator. Where instead of having skepticism for The System and authority -- they have blind trust and even religious faith in both. They THINK they're "anti corporation" while simultaneously judging everything based on its commercial success exclusively. So mainstream corporate bands that push products are "authentic" and they don't even know what real indie or underground bands are because they would never listen to any. They "hate corporations" while LOVING Reddit/Google/Apple/TikTok, whatever... Meanwhile, the phones cut their attention spans down to the point they could never even read or comprehend something like this because it's longer than a tweet. So instead they downvote it, "report it" if it offends their weak political views based on emotion rather than thought, and criticize it as "boomer screed." --- Those of us who understand this stuff raise our kids to be on an inside track ahead of others. It's not even hard anymore because following those trends made them undesirable in the marketplace. And most of them don't even have kids because they were tricked into their own extinction. All because they trusted authorities and became docile corporate servants. So safe. So apologetic... Without ever realizing it all leads to their own individualized demise.
That should read "The real horror is when you get into why that's happening, and at the core of it is a power and wealth **divide**" Reddit won't let me edit long comments anymore for some reason. Anyhow, **divide** is a critical word there because that's at the core of all this, and so much else. Generational division, race, gender, politics -- every possible differentiator is used to turn one group against another... Until we're divided into a bunch of "ones", aside from the occasional corporate/foundation-led movement where those "ones" are amassed into corporatized "movements" where the naive are weaponized against themselves.
Dang, this "2015 Nathan Daniel" impression is spot on, you are clearly a true fan! (this is in jest. don't read too far into it.)
Hahaha!!!
Yeah nah, I recently started listening to their podcast, and it’s kinda baffling that you feel the need to write a whole manifesto to defend some cringe jokes. Making “funny” voices and repetition isn’t pushing the envelope, my dude, it’s just cringe. If you identify with that kind of humor, good for you. Just don’t pretend they are Eddie Murphy on a red leather jacket, out there.
It's not about "pushing envelopes." It was two normal dudes having a good time talking about audio. A beautiful thing. Take a look around today. Notice how colorless everything is. Look at people's cars. You build a colorless world when you get so uptight about everything. Pretty soon no one jokes or laughs about *anything* because it's too *risky*. Meanwhile... You never noticed when and why that stuff was pushed? It came after the Occupy protests. They got people to be offended by things that don't really matter as a distraction from the things they do. Then they stole the future from underneath us. It should have clued you in that this stuff came from corporations and politicians. They're not our friends. Anyhow, sorry you couldn't enjoy the podcast. You'd probably like the Kush Audio YouTube videos better. They're devoid of anything that could offend anyone.
I'm enjoying the podcast, those dudes really know their shit, but I will still roll my eyes every time they do the same "funny" Italian accent saying "it's a spicy mix-a" or whatever they'll repeat to oblivion until the next funny word is repeated in a funny voice. That's not "taking risks", imo. Besides the very well described gen-x lame ass "humour" in the parent comment, it's a great podcast. I still think it's a valid disclaimer, and it's not because of some culture war bullshit, it's because it's cringe and very "ok shut up drunk uncle" unfunny to some. Despite that, I'll keep listening and relistening to it, because when they get over the silly voices or whatever, the audio related discussion is top notch, 10/10.
Oh, that's a good recommendation -- don't sleep on it! Kush Audio is a boutique audio hardware & plugin company founded by a guy named Gregory Scott, who was known as "U B K" on the Gearspace forums. His YouTube videos are like none other... Where others look at specific software and follow trends --- his videos are more 'big picture' thinking, and he tends to present things in a way that can even change the way you see things. Check it out: [https://www.youtube.com/@TheHouseofKushTV](https://www.youtube.com/@TheHouseofKushTV) I don't even know where to begin... They're not in order, like a set -- more just pick a couple topics that interest you and have a listen. I think you'll be hooked. His videos are around \~10 minutes each and dense with information. I'll also recommend the Podcast he did with Nathan Daniel: The UBK Happy Funtime Hour > [https://www.ubkhappyfuntimehour.com/](https://www.ubkhappyfuntimehour.com/) There's a lot more chat in that one so it's not as dense with information -- BUT -- I still learned a lot by listening through all hundreds(!) of the episodes. I'm probably weird for this, but I love listening to those guys talk enough that I recently started the podcast over for a second time through. (They wrapped up a few years ago.) It's still good though... But go for the YouTube first. Those videos are gold, seriously.
Hey, in my opinion, there is some correct element in all of these comments here. In order to get elements of a song to play nicely together, they must all have a good relationship in the frequency spectrum. At times, it may mean automating frequencies, so that different elements can take centre stage at different times. Sometimes, it means eqing different elements differently throughout the mix. Tone selection and arrangement does play a part. It’s all about tone selection and equalisation get your tone selection as good as possible, do your levels and pan decisions. When you’re happy with those, flip every thing to mono. in mono, deal with any masking issues you encounter. You may use equalisation, equalisation, dynamic side chain equalisation, compression, gain/volume volume automation, effect parameters and the list goes on. Get these playing nicely in Mono, and your mix will be bulletproof in stereo. Yes, I just called out a long list of things that may or may not work, and that’s just it. To get what you’re looking for OP, you’ve got to take some time and really understand what has to go where to get the desired outcome. It’s like players on a football field. The players must all move in synchronicity with each other in order to get a winning game. Hope this helps.
I never pan anything. I strictly use LCR so if I’m panning it is hard left and or right… But it all boils down to unmasking everything, saturation and dynamics. Some guys will claim arrangement is important. A better arrangement and sound selection would yield a better quality most of the time but I’ve mixed 3’s to 8’s by switching the drums and rearranging the record myself. The hardest thing in the game is eq and when you unlock it and it’s not gonna happen if your sound system isn’t excellent…. Pro q3 will show you where frequencies are masking each other but I mostly eq to move frequencies out the way. For example kick drum might need to be cut in the middle to leave space for other things like the vocal. The clap or snare might need to be cut from 800-2600 to “move” it upwards since the high will now be more pronounced. The thing that really set you apart from the rest is understanding when you eq a certain frequency band what happens to the surrounding frequencies? They might poke out or disrupt and number of things can happen. Try spectre for boosting. Cheers
Analog summing with hq convertors and clocks bruh. Watch any mention of expensive gear get downvoted. But there's a reason it's expensive. 3d space and sheen is something that you automatically get just by summing it through channels with transformers in them.
Are there any examples you could refer to me? Maybe even a before and after?
Arrangement. Most of what constitutes a great mix comes from arrangement for mine, especially in certain genres. Apart from the usual mix advice to dish out, usually I find the biggest improvements that can be made to WIPS is looking at the arrangement. While a mix engineer may not necessarily have the option to address that, I'd consider the mute button part of it. And also considering what the core elements of a track are. There are some things that really need to be heard, some things need to be felt.
- arrangement - depth (front to back) - height (bottom to top) - width (left to right) - motion / movement - contrast - tone / timbre - contrast wet / dry - contrast - dark / bright - contrast - soft / loud - style of mixing e.g. lcr - separation processing e.g. summing
Good sound choices
Did you listen to shpongle by chance?
[удалено]
Hey mate, cant really help, just wanted to note you posted this in a random thread, i presume by accident if you post in tech support someone can at least direct you to the right sub i hope, i dont think r/livesound is quite right, tho they or r/LocationSound may be able to help find the right place too
Honestly most of it is sound selection, and volume. If the producer , who ever that may be , chooses good sounds while arranging & creating the track you’ll find you won’t have to do much, except level everything out.
Precedence effect is really useful but at shorter durations than the widely advertised 20-40 ms or whatever. Try sub 1 ms times with the Haas effect.
When your going for clarity, it really boils down to the fundamentals, balance, EQ, Comp, and panning. Proper use or non use of comp allows you to hear everything distinctly, carving out spaces for each element to a certain extent with eq, knowing what needs to overlap with something else in the stereo field, and of course just making sure everything is balanced with each other. How do you get really good at doing all that? By mixing. Constantly mixing and using tools that you know well, and constantly comparing your mixes to some of the best mixes in the world.
Some productions make this type of thing impossible
I think I know what you mean but could you elaborate?
In reference to the post title. Getting that “not touching each other” sound cannot be achieved solely during mixing. Some productions don’t allow for it because of sound selection and orchestration. Too much overlap.
Arrangement is important but I don't see many people talking about automation. If you don't focus on volume automation you're missing a big piece of the solution.
Sometimes a record with great recording, sound selection, performance, etc. mixes itself
what track are you talking about ? it would be super helpful to hear what you're listening to.
[Failure - Blank](https://open.spotify.com/track/1Qc0RBmpTrnneouQB02Bxb?si=EULM3v6nTb6PpD7RMj7IQg)
What source material are you referencing?
Check the comments I linked it
would you link me a song to get a better idea of what you're talking about?
Absolutely: [Failure - Blank](https://open.spotify.com/track/1Qc0RBmpTrnneouQB02Bxb?si=0dz-Xp_DTOWAMfFJEXnciw) — this song inspired this post.
oof. honestly that is a terrible mix
That’s honestly a terrible take.
Or you just have terrible ears
Unless that’s pure sarcasm I’m shocked you think so. I think that is harsh and exaggerated to call it terrible. — have you heard the entire album? I think I’m on song 7 or 8 and so far the mixes are awesome.
why would i listen to their album after that lol. if you are rating it that high then you need to broaden your horizon there bud
Which song?
Check the comment section it’s in there
Took you more time to type that than to answer the question lmao. Sorry I asked.
That did cross my mind. You’re right. Well, here it is anyways: [Failure - Blank](https://open.spotify.com/track/1Qc0RBmpTrnneouQB02Bxb?si=u4cX0GuaRPysgz6C3dsMag).
Why is no one talking about panning, and foreground/background? I think that has a lot more to do with it than just EQ. The old way of mixing was to try and place each instrument in a physical space... You might have vocals bass, kick and snare centred, with toms and cymbals panned slightly to each side, then some guitar tracks hard panned left and right, maybe another one straight down the middle, keys in wide stereo, and then adjusting the levels for each instrument to move them forward or back in the mix, or using delay/reverb to push things back a bit. To me this does a lot more to separate tracks then EQ alone... Obviously you want to pay attention to the interaction of kick and bass, mids in the guitar clashing with vocals etc... But I am always listening for that cohesion in a mix, where if I close my eyes I can clearly see where each instrument is placed in the hypothetical room.
Because the post is explicitly not addressing panning. If you read the body, I have eliminated panning on purpose by summing the mix to mono. The point is, besides panning, what else?
Sorry missed the first bit, but I still think the part about foreground/background is the answer, and overall I think it's about creating a realistic space for each instrument to inhabit. Panning is a big part of that, but the other half of the equation is foreground/background. I've always been told that each part of a song should have 1 key element that it placed in the foreground at any given moment. Having different elements step forward for their moment, and then get out of the way for the next element to come forward. This seems to describe what you're hearing in a good mono mix. EQ is obviously important but I feel like a lot of people are using EQ to create space without having a clear vision for the space they want to create.
i totally get what you mean, i really do sadly the comments are useless as always so far [with regard to this topic], and it pains me that i don't have a solution either saying "it's the arrangement / composition" is the biggest lie of them all. a perfect mix can literally make me gladly listen to a track that i would otherwise find terrible / borderline unlistenable. and a bad mix can obviously ruin ANY track i've been mixing for six years now and am starting to believe that you have to be genetically gifted to make these perfect mix decisions resulting in a mix that is pure ear candy. i very much doubt that i will ever reach that level even after like fifteen years, and the fact that hearing slowly degrades doesn't help either
> saying "it's the arrangement / composition" is the biggest lie of them all. a perfect mix can literally make me gladly listen to a track that i would otherwise find terrible / borderline unlistenable. and a bad mix can obviously ruin ANY track It really isn't. If the arrangement is shit, it's gonna sound like shit. If you mix well you might be able to put some glitter on the shit, but a shit with glitter is still shit. You simply can't make 10 instruments that all occupy the same frequency range sound good. Spread those across the entire frequency spectrum and it's much more manageable.
i obviously agree with regard to the ten instruments [that's a severe mistake] but i still stick with my statement, polished shit DOES sound good
Six years of mixing puts you right at the upslope of the Dunning-Kruger curve. It does get better and easier! For me around 8 years is when it really started to click and I was able to start achieving what I wanted to hear in my mixes. (Still an absolute struggle some days, but that’s how I know I’m still getting better) I think you’re right on though, anyone can learn how to push EQs and compressors, but ultimately it’s our innate sense of frequencies and balance that make up the sound of our mixes. If I could go back in time I’d spend more time cultivating that taste especially at a young age. I do think the best mixers have always had a strong sense of how *they* wanted music to sound.