Home Recording Blog | HomeStudioEssentials.com

It's natural for us to initially hear louder as "better." If we hear a track at one volume and then pop in a plugin that increases the volume we're probably going to think that plugin made the track "better" at first because it's louder. But over time we may find that it didn't actually make it better at all. Maybe we figure this out when we go back to the track the next day with fresh ears.

This is (in as simple of a way as I can put it) why level matching is so important. When we add an effect to something we want to zero in on what the effect is doing (so we can hear whether we like it or not) rather than just being dazzled by an increase in volume.

In order to make sure we are hearing the effect itself rather than a volume increase (or a decrease if the effect makes the sound quieter) we should adjust the output of the effect so that the volume level matches the volume when the effect is bypassed.

In short: by using level matching we are tuning our ears in to what really matters instead of being distracted by a superficial change in volume.

"Everything In It's Right Place" is my general philosophy towards mixing (and also the title of an excellent song by Radiohead.)

What I mean by this is that the ultimate goal when mixing a song together should be to find a "place" for every part of the song that's essential (and this is an important point because with most mixes there are elements that are not essential that should be cut out of the mix in order to leave more room for everything else.)

There are three basic things that I think about when trying to make the mix work: Frequency/EQ, Dynamics, & Panning.

Frequency/EQ

It's important not to have multiple elements of your song fighting for the same frequency space. When you have lots of "fighting" among instruments/vocals for the same frequency space it ends up making all of those elements harder to hear. It sort of turns it into "mush."

The first instinct of people is often to try to boost certain frequencies with EQ to try to get an instrument more clear. Sometimes people will solo an instrument and get sounding just right with EQ adjustments (often boosting some frequencies to get a "brighter"  or "fuller" sound) and this can make the instrument sound great on it's own.

The problem is that unless you're doing a solo instrumental recording, that instrument isn't going to be heard on it's own, it's going to be heard in the context of the full mix. And what usually happens in this scenario is that as soon as you bring in everything else the mix sounds bad.

The key is not to applying EQ adjustments when a track is solo'd because it doesn't matter how an instrument sounds on it's own, only how it sounds within the mix. What you really need to do is to get the instrument to sound good with all of the other parts going on at the same time. And usually the key here is not so much EQ boosts on an instrument mix but EQ cuts on the other instruments that are getting in the way.

Dynamics

I'm not a fan of over compression. I don't like the modern rock sound where everything is compressed to the point where it's just one continuous loud sound. I can't stand it actually.

But I don't mean to go off on a rant here, what I'm trying to talk about is the elements of dynamics and why you need to think about this when you're mixing a song.

I think it's important to first think about this when you're arranging a song. Why try to "create dynamics" in the mix when you could create it with the arrangement of the song in the first place?

What am I talking about? To put it simply I'm saying instead of having everything going on at once, you should have different parts come in at opportune times. If you listen to great recordings closely (and this is something you should be doing if you want to make your own mixes) you should notice how different elements come in at different times during the song. For example if you have a great guitar riff it doesn't go through the whole song, it comes in at certain times where it has the most impact and so that it doesn't get stale by just repeating endlessly.

But this is only one type of dynamics, what people usually think of when this term is used is compression. And yes, compression is important but too many people are abusing it and creating really lifeless mixes because of it.

Most instruments (including vocals) will sound better with compression applied and it's important to realize that compression is not some new thing unique to modern recording. For example, The Beatles used compression on virtually all of the parts of their songs (but they usually used it in a much less intrusive way than is usually the approach today.)

I really recommend starting off with a "less is more" approach with compression. When you start to hear it as an effect, that means you've probably gone too far. (I'm not totally against the idea of using compression as an effect, if it sounds interesting - that's cool - but the sort of over compressed "one volume" modern rock sound is truly awful and I hope it dies a horrible death as soon as possible.)

I also recommend using your ears. Presets and recipes are of very little use when applying compression. You must listen closely to how the settings are effecting your song and then adjust those settings accordingly. I do not want to go into the details of what "attack," "threshold," and "ratio" mean (at least not in this post) but you should really understand what these things mean and, most importantly, what adjusting these settings sounds like.

Panning

I look at panning as a way of creating a "space" for each element of my mix to live. This is especially important when you've got parts that have overlapping frequencies. You can help make those parts audible by panning them away from each other.

But, while I think panning is an important tool - I try not to rely on it. In fact, I like to get my mixes sounding clear when in mono before I start to think about panning for my stereo mix.

Overview

I want to go into a lot more detail on mixing in the future, with this post I am just giving a sort of overview of my approach towards mixing. I think the "takeaway" from this should be that applying adjustments while a track is solo'd is not a good idea and that you should think about cutting EQ from other instruments before boosting EQ on the target instrument. Clarity comes from removing what's not necessary from a mix.

Playing & Recording

I like to record my bass guitar direct in playing with a pick and using my WAVES GTR3 plugin (which is awesome for bass and guitar btw) to fatten up my sound. I play with a pick to get a more even sound. I find that when I play with my thumb, my sound is not as even and it can be more difficult to correct with compression. If you are a good bass player maybe you won't have this issue (I'm not good.)

Compression

I think compression is often overused these days but the bass guitar is one place where it's usually needed. Start off with a compression ratio of 4:1 with an attack of 25 ms and a 500 ms release and then tweak things to your liking.

EQ

There's no set rules on how to EQ your bass but here's a hint to get you going: Try boosting the 400 Hz, 800 Hz, or 1600 Hz frequency. Notice that I said "or." That means figuring out which one sounds best, not boosting all three!

If you are getting a "muddy" or a "boomy" sound then try lowering the 120 to 200 Hz region.

Mixing

In the end you have to mix everything together. Set your panning for each instrument and set your levels. What am I getting at? Well the compression and EQ that sounds best on the bass on it's own may not be what sounds best when everything is playing together. You have to find "space" for each sound in your mix. That may mean further adjusting your compression & EQ.

You may also want to wait to do any compression and EQ until you get to this final point. I've often seen this recommended, but it's something I've never been able to do. I usually like to start twiddling with things right from the get go. I think it depends on what kind of music you are trying to create and what your own creative process is like.

Your recording/mixing software (or "digital audio workstation") is something you will be constantly working with if you plan on producing music with a computer based system (which is what this site is all about.) Because it's going to make up the core of your studio, choosing the recording software you're going to go with is a pretty big decision.

The first thing you should probably consider is what kind of computer you have (or are planning on getting.) Some recording software works only on the Mac or the PC and some software is known to work better with one or the other (such as Pro Tools' reputation for working better with Mac computers.)

The second thing you should consider is what kind of music you plan on recording/producing and whether or not you will be using MIDI heavily. Some programs such as Cubase are very good for MIDI while others such as Nuendo are not very well suited for MIDI. If you plan on creating music that is entirely (or almost entirely) loop based then Sony's Acid may be the best choice for you.

The third thing you will definitely be considering is your budget. Some recording/mixing software is far more expensive than others. For example, Nuendo 4 is $1800 at GuitarCenter.com while Cubase 4 is only $600.

The fourth thing you'll want to consider is your audio interface. If you do not already have one you may be interested in buying an audio interface package which includes reasonably high quality recording software. If you've already got your audio interface then you'll want to make sure that your recording software works well with the interface you own.

Summaries Of The Seven Top Choices For Recording Software:

Pro Tools - Pro Tools works with both the PC & the Mac although it doesn't yet (as of this writing) work with Windows Vista. The next release of Pro Tools is supposed to be compatible with Vista but even then it will work only with Vista Ultimate. Pro Tools has a reputation for working better with Mac computers, if you are a PC person you may want to consider another option.

If you do not already have an audio interface then you may be interested in one of the Digidesign audio interface packages which come with "light" versions of Pro Tools (you can then upgrade these versions if you become unsatisfied by any limitations.) If you do already have an audio interface then you'll probably want to choose another option as the Pro Tools software probably will not work (or at least not work well) with your non Digidesign audio interface.

Pro Tools may be considered the "standard" for producing audio but that doesn't mean it's the only choice or the best choice for you. You also must make note that the Pro Tools LE versions that come with the cheaper Digidesign audio interfaces are not the same thing as the Pro Tools versions that professional studios use, it's a "light" version which has quite a few limitations that you may be very irritated by. Other choices such as Cubase & Nuendo do not have these limitations.

Nuendo - This software works well with both PC computers and Mac computers, it also works well with almost any audio interface. The only drawbacks are it's price (about $1800) and that it's not particularly strong with MIDI. If you do not use much MIDI (or don't mind using MIDI through Reason, which can be rewired inside of Nuendo) and you have money to burn then this may be a great choice for you.

Nuendo is excellent for surround sound mixing. If you are interested in mixing in 5.1 (and many other options) then this is a great choice. It also includes a video element so if you are interested in producing music for television, movies, or any other video format then Neundo will get the job done.

Nuendo works well with Windows Vista.

Cubase -  It is made by the same company that makes Nuendo (Steinberg.) It also works well with both PCs (including Vista based machines) and Macs. Cubase is an excellent choice if you are MIDI based, although it also works fine for recording audio. It's far less expensive than Nuendo.

SONAR - Cakewalk makes SONAR which is PC only software. Obviously if you have a Mac you'll be crossing SONAR off your list of possibilities. It works well with audio & MIDI. It's capabilities are similar to those of Cubase. In the end it comes down to which program you are most comfortable with, as each program has it's own quirks but generally the end result (in capabilities & audio quality) will be similar.

Digital Performer - Mac only. This software works well with both MIDI & audio. It's created by MOTU (Mark Of The Unicorn) which also makes quality audio interfaces. This is a great alternative to Pro Tools for Mac users, but you should note that their audio interfaces do not come with Digital Performer, you'll have to purchase it seperately.

Logic - Mac only. This is Apple's recording software. If you are an Apple fanatic you'll probably be pleased with how it works. It's reasonably priced and has a lot of great extra features. It works well with audio and MIDI.

Acid - Sony's Acid is a PC only program. It's designed primarily for creating loop based music. For Hip-Hop or electronica it may be a good choice but you should probably avoid it unless that's what you are doing. It is considerably less expensive than the other options as it's only $300 for the Pro version currently at GuitarCenter.com