# Why does my mix sound muddy if it sounded OK in my headphone monitors?



## HarmonyCore (Jan 9, 2021)

Hey Everyone, 

The subject title said it all. I also can't seem to getting a direct answer for this one. When I mix orchestral music, I follow every step I learned in dozens of tutorials and courses. I cut low frequencies from high instruments and slightly boost high frequencies in bright instruments to cut through the mix. I eliminate boxy frequencies by subtracting the mids by -2 or -3db. I apply convolution reverb to put all instruments in a single space. I apply compression on percussion to make them punchy. And all sound very sexy in my headphones. 

However, when I play the thing in my car, bluetooth speakers or normal headphones, it's still sounds boxy and muddy. I barely hear the choir's phrasing and I just hear a punch of loud people in a hall.

This is not a frustration message by any means. I am just tired of not getting an accepted mixing sound. Production quality is what places music in media even though a track may not be a top notch compositionally.

Appreciate your thoughts and tips.


----------



## Living Fossil (Jan 9, 2021)

There is a saying about the first four phases of somebody who starts learning a martial art which translates well to other areas as well.
So, the first 4 phases are:
1) complete beginner
2) almost a master
3) complete beginner
4) still a complete beginner.

I guess more than anything else you need to be patient.
Things take time.
Watching tutorials isn't a bad thing (as long as you pay attention to watch good ones.... Youtube is flooded by bad tutorials that contain mostly dubious half knowledge...)
However: keep in mind that every step you trying to learn is an art in itself that takes years until you have something like a vague idea how it really works.
Why do you think do composers study their craft over several years?
Why do sound engineers study their craft over several years?
Why do professionals with 30+ years of experience still work on their craft?

There are no shortcuts that replace experience and expertise.
And get yourself prepared that with each step of improvement your ability to judge your level gets more critical: The better you get, the more you will be sensible of how much is still missing (of course, some people are delusional about their abilities, but that's not the route one should go)

So, to give you some hints:
- Reverberation is much more than just applying some reverb to glue things together. It's an extremely complex science. 
- Compression (of percussion) is a huge area. It needs several years to get an idea about what it really is.
- Same goes for EQing. It's a very complex area. While there are some simple standard receipts, doing it right requires enormous amounts of ear training and experience.


----------



## pmcrockett (Jan 9, 2021)

This is something I tend to struggle with, too. My most recent successful attempt at fixing a few mixes with this problem involved the realization that I could cut more aggressively than I had been at 100 Hz and below on bass instruments while simultaneously boosting slightly at 200 Hz, which I found gave me a reasonable balance where the mix sounded good both in the mixing headphones and in the cheap consumer headphones. 200 Hz seemed to be low enough to still come across as solid bass in the mixing headphones, but not low enough to completely overwhelm consumer systems that have built-in bassiness. May or may not be applicable in your situation.

It helps to jump back and forth among different pairs of headphones while mixing problem areas. Try making it sound good in the cheap headphones and see what that makes it sound like in the mixing headphones. Working backwards like this may help you develop a sense of where exactly the problem lies.


----------



## Leigh (Jan 9, 2021)

One thing that might help you would be to try Izotope's Tonal Balance Control. Headphone mixes I've made using it have generally translated well. And I've learned a lot about EQ from using it, mostly that less is more.

**Leigh


----------



## tebling (Jan 9, 2021)

After doing this for a few decades I think I've plateau'd at stage 3 of "complete beginner". So in an effort to get to stage 4 ("still a complete beginner") I've decided for the first time to hire a professional mix engineer. I have no doubt this will be quite a learning experience!


----------



## Rasoul Morteza (Jan 9, 2021)

You would recieve much better help if you submit an example. But there are a few general things to consider:

1. Crosstalk
2. Orchestral music, depending on its DR may translate poorly inside cars; but that I wouldn't consider an issue.
3. Is the music meant to be played on compact playback systems? Or mono? This notion that every mix needs to translate well in mono is nonsense (besides verifying your mix doesn't have serious phase issues). Would you judge a spatialized binaural mix on a dusty radio?...
4. Maybe you're applying too much reverb or that you need to EQ the reverb, or that the imaging needs work... again we would need an example.
5. Crosstalk

Hope this helps


----------



## Russell Anderson (Jan 9, 2021)

dSONIQ by Realphones - all you need for mixing with headphones!


dSONIQ Realphones software corrects the sound of your headphones and brings the acoustics of a professional recording studio, night club and car into them. With Realphones, your headphones turn into a reliable monitoring tool for mixing tracks that you can trust.




www.dsoniq.com





It's a software that puts you in a professional mixing room in the optimal listening position between the virtual monitors. 45% off, the middle option (priced at around $50 USD right now) provides you with the correction curve specific to your headphones model and also spatialization/stereo-ization (your headphones, like another couple of posters have said, don't have "crosstalk"; the left channel is only heard by your left ear and same for the right; this keeps you from getting an accurate stereo image). Basically, it's the next-best-thing to a pro mixing room, but inside your headphones, which will go a long way in your effort solve the frequency/stereo issues you're suffering when going between headphones and non-. Getting more expensive than the middle-grade option just gets you more headphone correction curves, which is only something you need if you own more than 3 pairs of headphones that you use regularly.

40-day trial. Very customizable so you can listen to all of the music you like, and when you get it sounding just how you like it, use that preset to do your production.



There's also other software available, like Canopener, Waves NX, Slate VSX, and a few others I think... But Realphones gets some pretty comparatively solid reviews on gs forums, people ditching their VSX/SonarWorks/Waves NX to use Realphones instead. I use Realphones, I love Realphones. Super useful for making headphone mixes/sound design sound waaay more "right" on other setups, and it just gets better with the better/more accurate headphones you have. Can't speak to canopener personally, haven't tried it. (and also canopener may be doing something basic enough that you could just do it in your DAW, just make sure to save it as part of your opening template so you don't have to set it up each time, just toggle on/off. And whatever you do/get, make sure to turn this off before doing a render, because this kind of mixing solution is to counteract your setup alone, and thus will sound weird on everyone elses')

And all of that being said, like other posters have said: keep working on it. Even without software, if you're careful and attentive with referencing and the decisions you make/how aware you are of your setup, you can do really well. Just keep working on it.


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 9, 2021)

HarmonyCore said:


> Hey Everyone,
> 
> The subject title said it all. I also can't seem to getting a direct answer for this one. When I mix orchestral music, I follow every step I learned in dozens of tutorials and courses. I cut low frequencies from high instruments and slightly boost high frequencies in bright instruments to cut through the mix. I eliminate boxy frequencies by subtracting the mids by -2 or -3db. I apply convolution reverb to put all instruments in a single space. I apply compression on percussion to make them punchy. And all sound very sexy in my headphones.
> 
> ...


Reference other mixes you'd like to emulate frequently when mixing. This is standard practice in engineers ranging from novices to veterans... Some take breaks and reference a few times a day, some reference in the morning before beginning.. When you're new to mixing and still developing an ear referencing frequently is the best 'teacher' you can find... TLDR: The simplest way to know if one thing is as good as another is by comparing the two....

The important thing to understand about referencing is that our ears adjust to the sound of something very quickly, and tire after prolonged periods of listening to the same thing.. Mixing when you have _*ear fatigue*_, especially if you don't know how to identify it yet can be fatal to a mix. Referencing also helps in that regard by giving your ears (your brain really), time to reset, listen to something else, then come back with a fresh perspective.

Because of this a referencing plugin like metric ab, melda mcompare, ozone standard/advanced, or similar can be incredibly useful. These let you make an immediate comparison, and any frequency imbalances will stand out to you easily, as opposed to listening to something, taking a break to get coffee, then coming back to your mix...

Finally levels... and headphones.... Ears can tire easily when mixing on cans, especially if listening at too loud a level. Listening at loud levels causes ear fatigue quicker. Ironically listening too quietly can also influence mix decisions negatively.... The general standard for listening levels is somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 dB. However this can vary from person to person, can be influenced by the mix environment, etc... The main thing is to find a level that's comfortable to you, reference on it frequently so you know how lows/mids/highs respond at that level, and mark or memorize that level on your interface, monitor controller, etc. Basically you should find a comfortable level and get in the habit of working at that level consistently.

If for any reason your not familiar with ear fatigue here's short and well written summary I just found:

....

"The literal translation is ‘tired ears.’ Ear Fatigue is not really a clinically recognized state, but audio professionals have been referring to it for years. It’s caused by a combination of TTS (Temporary Threshold Shift) and general fatigue.

The condition we call ear fatigue usually occurs after many hours of listening to or working with audio, especially when working at relatively high SPL‘s. It causes us to not hear the sound in the same way we do when we are fresh. Sometimes people report soreness of the ears associated with this, but not always. There are ongoing studies of this phenomenon, and the phenomenon of fatigue and how it affects performance in general, but much remains unknown.

Suffice to say that *making critical audio decisions while in a fatigued state is not advised and generally results in doing the work over again*."









Ear Fatigue - inSync


The literal translation is ‘tired ears.’ Ear Fatigue is not really a clinically recognized state, but... Read more »




www.sweetwater.com


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 9, 2021)

Russell Anderson said:


> dSONIQ by Realphones - all you need for mixing with headphones!
> 
> 
> dSONIQ Realphones software corrects the sound of your headphones and brings the acoustics of a professional recording studio, night club and car into them. With Realphones, your headphones turn into a reliable monitoring tool for mixing tracks that you can trust.
> ...



Can opener has some pretty complex crossfeed, not something you can do in your DAW outside of M4L (maybe?), even then the math, the psychoacoustics, etc are something you won't get right on your own... Can Opener also has some baxandall shelves that you can use adjust to adjust highs and lows, basically dial in a more 'speaker-like' tone.... I use can opener (as well as a binaural impulse response of commercial studios called Spatial Soundcard - basically the same idea as the one you linked...) Both are good solutions, but none - and I mean none of these products (and I've tried most of them) do the one thing that is critical to imaging - present a phantom center image that sits in front of you. They all still sound like the music is happening 'inside your head'.

This is crucial for how we perceive depth and width, even altitude... We've evolved to listen to music as a _performance_ in front of us (at least in most generic _cultural_ contexts). It's at the heart of the term soundtaging... Does the music listening experience create an image that has a sense of envelopment, or an image that has depth, width, and height in such a way where it (somewhat) creates the illusion that it's being performed in front of you, in an almost stage-like array? A good stereo image should feel somewhat alive by having these 3 discernible axes... (Width, depth and height).

And like Jon says in the video above, sound is visceral. Nothing will replace the experience of feeling the bass underneath my feet or my palm resting on my desk, the slight air pressure on my chest, etc... Not even a subpac, (although clever idea for sure...)

Until software can discover a way to hack our brains into hearing the music as being in front of us it's still good, but not nearly as good as the hype suggests it is... So basically these things are useful, and improve imaging somewhat, but despite all of the claims they aren't 'just like mixing in a studio inside your headphones'... That's a marketing gimmick.


----------



## Russell Anderson (Jan 9, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> Can opener has some pretty complex crossfeed, not something you can do in your DAW outside of M4L (maybe?), even then the math, the psychoacoustics, etc are something you won't get right on your own... Can Opener also has some baxandall shelves that you can use adjust to adjust highs and lows, basically dial in a more 'speaker-like' tone.... I use can opener (as well as a binaural impulse response of commercial studios called Spatial Soundcard - basically the same idea as the one you linked...) Both are good solutions, but none - and I mean none of these products (and I've tried most of them) do the one thing that is critical to imaging - present a phantom center image that sits in front of you. They all still sound like the music is happening 'inside your head'.
> 
> This is crucial for how we perceive depth and width, even altitude... We've evolved to listen to music as a _performance_ in front of us (at least in most generic _cultural_ contexts). It's at the heart of the term soundtaging... Does the music listening experience create an image that has a sense of envelopment, or an image that has depth, width, and height in such a way where it (somewhat) creates the illusion that it's being performed in front of you, in an almost stage-like array? A good stereo image should feel somewhat alive by having these 3 discernible axes... (Width, depth and height).
> 
> ...


Appreciate the more detailed reply, my memory then fails me about what canopener does, or my limited reading never did it justice in the first place. Indeed, nothing compares to a real room, but if you’re tight on cash and also use headphones with regularity, a software like this is one I’d recommend. It’s a stand-in for me for the real thing until I have a better space, and it’s certainly quite a difference from not using it (I spend a lot of time in headphones). I will welcome the change to a real studio and will then be still grateful for Realphones while traveling.


----------



## Bakhtin (Jan 9, 2021)

It may be that the headphones you are mixing on are contributing to these issues. For example, if they are not very flat frequency-wise this can result in hearing a significantly different EQ curve when you play the material other playback systems. You could try reading about Sonorworks headphone calibration to see if that makes sense to you. Cheers!









SoundID Reference - Speaker & Headphone Calibration


Create with full confidence in sound with speaker & headphone calibration software SoundID Reference. Already trusted by over 100'000 studios globally.




www.sonarworks.com


----------



## GNP (Jan 9, 2021)

Never mix using your headphones. You need proper monitor speakers.
Headphones should only be used to check your mixes.


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 9, 2021)

Russell Anderson said:


> Appreciate the more detailed reply, my memory then fails me about what canopener does, or my limited reading never did it justice in the first place. Indeed, nothing compares to a real room, but if you’re tight on cash and also use headphones with regularity, a software like this is one I’d recommend. It’s a stand-in for me for the real thing until I have a better space, and it’s certainly quite a difference from not using it (I spend a lot of time in headphones). I will welcome the change to a real studio and will then be still grateful for Realphones while traveling.


It's a crossfeed algorithm that lets you adjust the angle in degrees, and has some basic tone controls for increasing/decreasing lows and highs... It's pretty old school at this point, but it's super transparent and overall I tend to prefer it over the simulation app I mentioned (Spatial Soundcard).

Definitely will be demoing this though since SSC's development's never been reliable, and as I mentioned, while these don't compare to a good room they are still useful when a room isn't available... (I'm at my family's place currently for example... CanOpener's been serving me well without my room available...)

My main point is that people should understand that the claim that these sound just as good as a studio is marketing, and more importantly it's useful to understand how the image you hear on any of these products differs from the image you'll hear listening on a good pair of speakers in a decent room...


----------



## AudioLoco (Jan 10, 2021)

I once tried to build an electric guitar, as a project.
I saw every single youtube tutorial, I chose every part carefully after reading expert advice on line. I followed every advice to the letter.
The guitar ended up looking amazing, sounding amazing, but completely unreliable tuning and other performance related issue, too heavy, well at the end of the day unusable in the real world, I never played it live.
The only way I could build a better guitar was by, not only learning from other people, possibly for years, in a workshop, but by practicing practicing for years.

Mixing is a difficult and complex thing, mastering even more so.
One of the main challanges IS creating mixes that translate on any system.
So your issue is very common.
It takes years to get right, years to get great, and, if you are built for the skill, years to get "pro-fantastic"...
Tutorials help and give invaluble info, and some guidelines, but are not enough. 

Where to cut on what instruments, etc, varies from track to track. No universal set of rules exist. So if doing these things automatically on any track, more damage might be done then good. On a given track you might want to compress the strings and leave the percussion dynamic and uncompressed. If you follow a set of rules, without grasping exactly why you did what you did, it is not going to help with bettering mixes in my opinion.
One good way of learning also is having reference tracks in the mix/mastering project.
Choose a commercial, successful track similar in genre and instrument structure to what you are working on. AB the two during the mixing process, hear what is missing in your track, compensate... 

Last thing, from what you write it seems more of a mastering issue to me. 
Maybe try, as an experiment, to hire a mastering engineer for a couple of tracks. If the ME manages to make it sound great anywhere, your mixes are just fine.

Hope that helps
All the best


----------



## rnieto (Jan 10, 2021)

GNP said:


> Never mix using your headphones. You need proper monitor speakers.
> Headphones should only be used to check your mixes.


I disagree. Someone who knows their headphones well can put out great mixes.

I took one of the albums I mixed on my DT770 headphones over to Abbey Road studios for mastering, and we did all 45 minutes of music in two hours, even though I had booked 8 hours.

Like @jcrosby says, referencing other mixes is very important to getting your mix to sound the way you want.


----------



## ReleaseCandidate (Jan 10, 2021)

Muddyness can be a problém of any stage, from the composition (no important parts emphasized, the instruments fight against each other for attention) to the recording (MIDI 'programming' ), the mixing and the mastering.
Without an example the only possible answer is that you made one or many common error(s)


----------



## ThomasJ.Curran (Jan 10, 2021)

Yeah I always have the exact same problems with mixing. I think it’s one of those things you get better at gradually each time you do it. My first mixes were total shite and now... they’re only a little bit shite 😅 

Also taking your time helps a lot, you should have regular breaks to rest your ears when mixing. When I started doing that my mixes started to get better.
Also whenever you compare your mix to someone else’s you will always think yours sounds worse, it’s just our self critical nature which is actually a good thing in my opinion. Your mixes probably aren’t as bad as you think. Its certainly worth getting another pair of ears to listen to it.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 10, 2021)

One mistake people make is that they use music recorded with real orchestras as a reference for their sample based compositions. Generally, that is a road to frustration. Instead, use a sample based composition that you think sounds great on several listening devices.


----------



## RogiervG (Jan 10, 2021)

Headphones can distrort (they allmost always do) the balance/EQ quite a bit. This is because the music enters the ears directly, without a room ambiance you normally have. 
yes even with treatment of the room, you ears are in a 3d space and as such it influences how the waves (music) enters the ears.
Because of this, your mixes (can) sound different, it's normal. That's why most professional (a.k.a. as their main job) mixers/engineers don't use headsets in the final mixing stage. You can use a headphone as A reference, but not THE reference.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 10, 2021)

GNP said:


> Never mix using your headphones. You need proper monitor speakers.
> Headphones should only be used to check your mixes.


While certainly highlighting the aspiration, that also fails the reality of many. So, get over it.

Headphones definitely make it harder to mix, which would mean a LOT more practice, tools, and "tricks". Given that a lot of music is only ever listened to on cheap headphones, or on a tiny mono speaker, I don't believe there's such a hard rule anymore about what you mix on as there was in the old days.

Your monitoring set up may depend on your target audience, genre, and expected common playback scenario. If you're scoring music for movies, you'll probably want it on speakers. If you're composing for a club, you'll want to match that. If you're just making music for general consumption these days of compressed music and horrible playback systems...... headphones can likely work if you work at it hard enough.

I think there's a parallel here of that, if you want to score a movie with a classical score, you should only ever use a real, full orchestra. Anything else won't sound realistic, and is just extra work. Yet, this entire forum is on virtual instruments of people using "fake" (pre-recorded) instruments and achieving spectacular results.


----------



## ReleaseCandidate (Jan 10, 2021)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Headphones definitely make it harder to mix, which would mean a LOT more practice, tools, and "tricks". Given that a lot of music is only ever listened to on cheap headphones, or on a tiny mono speaker, I don't believe there's such a hard rule anymore about what you mix on as there was in the old days.


The biggest problem with headphones is the stereo image, using headphones you don't hear sound coming from the other side. That's where the room/speaker simulations help.


----------



## Paul Grymaud (Jan 10, 2021)

A solution: if you want to market your music you offer the same headphones as yours to the buyers. Problem: this will make the album expensive!


----------



## AceAudioHQ (Jan 10, 2021)

My mixing teacher would probably say: stop mixing with headphones.


----------



## ThomasJ.Curran (Jan 10, 2021)

I’d argue it’s still better to mix with headphones if the room you’re working in isn’t acoustically treated.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 10, 2021)

Whatever you mix on, the most important thing is to have tried playing it back on other systems enough that you have a good idea how the mix will translate.

Obviously, easiest to do that in a treated room with flat speakers and also headphones to check it out but not something everyone can afford.


----------



## tebling (Jan 10, 2021)

AceAudioHQ said:


> My mixing teacher would probably say: stop mixing with headphones.


I hear this a lot, and I just don't know...

In my musical formative years I had to use headphones due to space constraints and close living situations (parents, roommates, babies), and it just became the way I did things. In the mid 90s I got a pair of HD580s and I've been using them ever since as my primary monitoring tool - replacing the ear pads, headband padding, and cables a couple of times along the way - and almost 25 years later they're still in active use.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think consistency, predictability, and familiarity are really important factors in the monitoring chain. By now my headphones are practically part of my anatomy and I have thousands of hours of use on them. I know _very_ well what a good mix sounds like on them, and also how my headphones based mixes will translate to speakers. I do always validate them against monitors as well as my hi-fi setup with a sub, and sometimes I still need to make adjustments, usually in the far high and low ends.

The bottom line is that I've received enough positive feedback from other musicians (and even a mix engineer) to feel that the general "never mix on headphones" rule isn't necessarily true.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 10, 2021)

tebling said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think consistency, predictability, and familiarity are really important factors in the monitoring chain.


You are not wrong.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Jan 10, 2021)

Wow! Thank you so much guys for the great responses. I read some but I'll make sure to read the rest and reply accordingly


----------



## HarmonyCore (Jan 10, 2021)

Rasoul Morteza said:


> You would recieve much better help if you submit an example. But there are a few general things to consider:
> 
> 1. Crosstalk
> 2. Orchestral music, depending on its DR may translate poorly inside cars; but that I wouldn't consider an issue.
> ...


Here is a trailer track I am struggling to make it sound professional as an example.

Listen to Turbulence by HarmonyCore jr. on #SoundCloud








Turbulence (Futuristic Trailer)


I am a full time composer for film,TV, and video games. I mainly compose for a hybrid epic orchestral genre.




soundcloud.app.goo.gl


----------



## sIR dORT (Jan 10, 2021)

Ashermusic said:


> One mistake people make is that they use music recorded with real orchestras as a reference for their sample based compositions. Generally, that is a road to frustration. Instead, use a sample based composition that you think sounds great on several listening devices.


Can you expand on this a little bit? In my mind, the goal of using samples has always been to get as close as possible to real recordings (knowing that I'll never get there) and not to emulate other samples. I feel like it is only frustrating to reference real recordings if you expect your track to sound that good.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Jan 10, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> Reference other mixes you'd like to emulate frequently when mixing. This is standard practice in engineers ranging from novices to veterans... Some take breaks and reference a few times a day, some reference in the morning before beginning.. When you're new to mixing and still developing an ear referencing frequently is the best 'teacher' you can find... TLDR: The simplest way to know if one thing is as good as another is by comparing the two....
> 
> The important thing to understand about referencing is that our ears adjust to the sound of something very quickly, and tire after prolonged periods of listening to the same thing.. Mixing when you have _*ear fatigue*_, especially if you don't know how to identify it yet can be fatal to a mix. Referencing also helps in that regard by giving your ears (your brain really), time to reset, listen to something else, then come back with a fresh perspective.
> 
> ...


Yes, I think referencing is in the master stage. My struggle is still in the mixing stage. I could be wrong. There are many professional tracks that were mixed before being mastered or never mastered at all and they get placed in media. Music libraries only care about a good mix as they usually apply their own mastering. So, my real problem is a good mix. Then I will be worried about mastering later.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Jan 10, 2021)

Bakhtin said:


> It may be that the headphones you are mixing on are contributing to these issues. For example, if they are not very flat frequency-wise this can result in hearing a significantly different EQ curve when you play the material other playback systems. You could try reading about Sonorworks headphone calibration to see if that makes sense to you. Cheers!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe! I am using cheap ones Presonus HD7. I am highly considering buying a new pair of expensive ones. However, not sure if this will solve the problem because maybe it's my ears that need the skills 

Do you suggest quality headphone monitors?


----------



## HarmonyCore (Jan 10, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> I once tried to build an electric guitar, as a project.
> I saw every single youtube tutorial, I chose every part carefully after reading expert advice on line. I followed every advice to the letter.
> The guitar ended up looking amazing, sounding amazing, but completely unreliable tuning and other performance related issue, too heavy, well at the end of the day unusable in the real world, I never played it live.
> The only way I could build a better guitar was by, not only learning from other people, possibly for years, in a workshop, but by practicing practicing for years.
> ...


That's why at some point in my life I will have to hire a mix engineer and focus on my arrangement and orchestration. Because I don't want to fool myself. Getting good in a field that is being taught in 4 yrs degree college is not going to happen overnight. I beleive in the saying of "Give the profession to their people and move on". And if I wait years for myself to get good at it, then I will never pitch any of music to any library anytime soon.


----------



## Bakhtin (Jan 10, 2021)

HarmonyCore said:


> Maybe! I am using cheap ones Presonus HD7. I am highly considering buying a new pair of expensive ones. However, not sure if this will solve the problem because maybe it's my ears that need the skills
> 
> Do you suggest quality headphone monitors?


If I read your original post correctly, you like the mixes you do on these phones, so that suggests the issue is more to do with you they translate to other systems.

From what I have seen, a lot of headphones have a pretty extreme frequency responses, esp the less expensive ones, and especially in the low end. Means the translating to other systems will be really hit and miss.

A flatter set of cans designed for mixing, along with sonorworks calibration, will give you a much better starting point for your mixes.

Can I ask if you are also using monitors/speakers?


----------



## HarmonyCore (Jan 10, 2021)

Ashermusic said:


> One mistake people make is that they use music recorded with real orchestras as a reference for their sample based compositions. Generally, that is a road to frustration. Instead, use a sample based composition that you think sounds great on several listening devices.


But how should I know if a reference track is a samples track? I always reference to Dos brains and Audiomachine for trailers and TSFH/Jo Blankenburg for soundtracks.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Jan 10, 2021)

Bakhtin said:


> If I read your original post correctly, you like the mixes you do on these phones, so that suggests the issue is more to do with you they translate to other systems.
> 
> From what I have seen, a lot of headphones have a pretty extreme frequency responses, esp the less expensive ones, and especially in the low end. Means the translating to other systems will be really hit and miss.
> 
> ...


Yes I have speakers as well but I can't use them right now because I am in a temporary accommodation and my studio still not acoustically treated. 

You're right! I highly doubt my HD7. Need good ones to getting used to the craft in as much cleaner way as possible.


----------



## ryans (Jan 10, 2021)

Ashermusic said:


> One mistake people make is that they use music recorded with real orchestras as a reference for their sample based compositions. Generally, that is a road to frustration. Instead, use a sample based composition that you think sounds great on several listening devices.


I half agree with this.

At least for me, real orchestra recordings are always the goal so I meticulously analyze them and reference/compare to the point of insanity.

BUT.. I totally agree that comparing a sample based recording to a live orchestra is an endlessly frustrating endeavour.


----------



## Bakhtin (Jan 10, 2021)

HarmonyCore said:


> That's why at some point in my life I will have to hire a mix engineer and focus on my arrangement and orchestration. Because I don't want to fool myself. Getting good in a field that is being taught in 4 yrs degree college is not going to happen overnight. I beleive in the saying of "Give the profession to their people and move on". And if I wait years for myself to get good at it, then I will never pitch any of music to any library anytime soon.


I came to a similar conclusion myself, though I am as interested in the sounds and sonics of composition as much as the notes, so I have committed myself to learning more as its part of my writing process.

That said, having a monitoring system that I have confidence in has been important to me. A lot of audio speakers are designed to make all audio sound good, but what we are looking for are audio tools that provide us with the information we need to make decisions on a composition or mix.

Somewhat off topic, last year I transitioned from Focal CMS 65 to Genelec Coaxial speakers, and added Genelec's speaker calibration software.

With the software I can now measure the frequency response of the speakers in a given placement in my room, and this allowed me to find to place in the room with the flattest frequency response for the mix position and speaker position, and this also extended the low end down to 38Hz. I now only have a -7dip at 100Hx vs a -18db dip.

This resulted in vastly reduced masking of quieter frequencies by louder frequencies and a stunning and deep soundstage for eqing, reverb and stereo placement. Importantly, some audio sources sound really bad on this system, and previously my Focals would have told me everything is fine.

All of which to say, understanding the acoustics of you room and monitoring system is critical, and as I am not an audio engineer, the critical piece for me was getting the Genelec calibration software, which quickly allows me to find the best speaker placement with the flattest curve. You can pair the software with relatively inexpensive Genelec speakers too.

Have to say, it did take time to get used to what a flat eq curve sounds like, but my work translates much better now, though I do need to work on my mixing skills!


----------



## sIR dORT (Jan 10, 2021)

ryans said:


> I half agree with this.
> 
> At least for me, real orchestra recordings are always the goal so I meticulously analyze them and reference/compare to the point of insanity.
> 
> BUT.. I totally agree that comparing a sample based recording to a live orchestra is an endlessly frustrating endeavour.


Couldn't (and didn't) have said it better.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Jan 10, 2021)

Bakhtin said:


> I came to a similar conclusion myself, though I am as interested in the sounds and sonics of composition as much as the notes, so I have committed myself to learning more as its part of my writing process.
> 
> That said, having a monitoring system that I have confidence in has been important to me. A lot of audio speakers are designed to make all audio sound good, but what we are looking for are audio tools that provide us with the information we need to make decisions on a composition or mix.
> 
> ...


Amazing! Very happy for you


----------



## Vin (Jan 10, 2021)

While I definitely prefer mixing on speakers (on one speaker in mono, actually), you can certainly get professional results with cans. Thousands of dollars spent on acoustically perfect room and then equally on speakers would be ideal...but it's not realistic for most people and it certainly doesn't stop them at releasing professional mixes. Even some of the biggest mixers don't work in acoustically tested perfect room.

I know quite a bit of pros who work in trailers for example who mix on not even high end cans like Sony 7506s and their mixes translate just fine to large theater speakers.

As others mentioned before, knowing your equipment and making good use of reference mixes is everything. There are some optional gadgets like CanOpener, Sonarworks, izotope Tonal Balance and others that can make your life easier but listening to a lot of well-produced material and using something like Metric AB plugin to reference your mixes will go a long way.


----------



## Rasoul Morteza (Jan 10, 2021)

HarmonyCore said:


> Here is a trailer track I am struggling to make it sound professional as an example.
> 
> Listen to Turbulence by HarmonyCore jr. on #SoundCloud
> 
> ...


1. Your synth is taking a lot of space, both in terms of frequency and loudness. In this context it is nothing more than complementary to your orchestra, so let the orchestra breath
2. Elements are generally too centered, some good imaging could help a lot IMO, use a Lissajous display to help your ears
3. Somehow everything is at the same level more or less, therefore a lack of perspective. This is fine when layering sounds to create one whole unit, but here for instance from 1:23 onward the ff-fff brass are playing at a low gain (relative to everything else) and it is unclear whether the choir is supposed to be the main focus or the brass, or the synth. Melodically we know, but I'm afraid the mix doesn't translate the idea
4. The ostinato line sounds like ketchup, not sure if it's low in gain, too much reverb or a combination of both probably. Your percussive hits could use a lot more punch as well, try layering some LF
5. I have this impression that there's too much reverb, either apply less, or reduce the tail duration, or apply less reverberation and more EDT instead (if needed?)
6. Be more bold in pan automating your transition FX synth
7. When limiting, apply a faster attack to maybe give your brass some pump

Overall don't be timid with your elements, or just hire a dedicated mixer like I intend to, but that's because I have no talent in this field :D

Hope that helps


----------



## ironbut (Jan 10, 2021)

For a years I tried to learn mixing the same way you have described. 
I followed all the general suggestions I read and watched a gazillian tutorials about how to process the tracks I had and I never was happy with the results.
I downloaded multi-tracks and practiced what they preached but without success.

After thinking about how folks learned this stuff before the internet, I realized that I was putting the cart before the horse.
Instead of mechanically applying eq and compression (these were rock/pop tracks) I started by really listening to the music I admired and made a note of what made these tracks sound so good to me. 
Of course it is different depending on the type of music but after a while, I started to find common elements that stood out. 
For me, this is how I discovered my individual "taste".
After a while, I began trying to impose my "taste" on my own mixes. 
I had a sound in my head and I did what had to be done to achieve that sound.
So, instead of just doing what other people said they do, I began to make my mixes into something that I liked and made my toes tap and my head bob.

I totally agree with what Fossil said in the first reply of this thread. 
I believe you have to put in your time analyzing and deep listening to the tracks you want to emulate.
Until you understand what makes a mix sound good to you and have a goal, you're just twisting knobs hoping that things work out.


----------



## pmcrockett (Jan 10, 2021)

HarmonyCore said:


> Here is a trailer track I am struggling to make it sound professional as an example.
> 
> Listen to Turbulence by HarmonyCore jr. on #SoundCloud
> 
> ...


I second the suggestions from @Rasoul Morteza and would add that most of the activity in the mix/arrangement seems to be happening in the lower mid frequency area, and that combined with the panning kind of mushes everything together. The high strings, for example, are almost inaudible, and the percussion is the only thing that seems to be taking up much space in the high frequencies.

In the arrangement, I think it might help if the synth/brass weren't a continuous line, which would give everything the opportunity to breath a little. Maybe try removing them from every other measure and see how that sounds.


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 10, 2021)

HarmonyCore said:


> Yes, I think referencing is in the master stage. My struggle is still in the mixing stage. I could be wrong. There are many professional tracks that were mixed before being mastered or never mastered at all and they get placed in media. Music libraries only care about a good mix as they usually apply their own mastering. So, my real problem is a good mix. Then I will be worried about mastering later.


Referencing has been used by mix engineers for decades. Back in the days of CD players it was standard to have a CD player patched into their bay so they could put on references before a client arrived for a session.

Engineers that mix in a studio they don't normally work out of bring references with them, the 1st thing they do is listen to their references in that studio so they can get a feel for the room, monitoring, etc, since no 2 rooms sound identical...

The way mix engineers do it is by turning the mastered tracks down to match the level they'll be mixing at. That's why all of the referencing plugins available have level controls for the references, and/or let you turn the input up, etc. They key is to reference at a matched level...

The main point is that a mix is one stage of of a mastered track, and more importantly it's the stage where all of the tone shaping and level setting occur. You can't reach into a mix and adjust single elements, tonal changes affect everything in that mix once rendered to a single file. This is why referencing before, during, or after mixing is more important in many ways... (I'd argue where it counts most.)

There's mindset that's evolved in the era of home music production - a myth that some things can be _fixed in mastering. _That doesn't exist. Even with some of the slick new AI toys available the quality of your master will always be determined by the quality of your mix.

Think of it like cooking... How can you follow a receipt if you don't have all of the ingredients? And would you ever open a baking business on the premise that you can bake a (traditional) cake without ever ordering flour or sugar? (Not to mention all of the other ingredients...)

Greg from Kush has a great summary about referencing below... The one caveat about some of his comments are that there are some genres where the tone _can_ be married to the genre. (EDM and Hip Hop for example...) Basically referencing is an exercise in analysis, and asking yourself questions about your track compared to the reference, and ultimately where the differences lie. One thing's for sure though, when you get good at referencing something like 'mud' or 'harshness' will reveal itself right away... It's all about comparison, asking yourself if the differences are critical, and determining where to solve them in the mix.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Jan 10, 2021)

Rasoul Morteza said:


> 1. Your synth is taking a lot of space, both in terms of frequency and loudness. In this context it is nothing more than complementary to your orchestra, so let the orchestra breath
> 2. Elements are generally too centered, some good imaging could help a lot IMO, use a Lissajous display to help your ears
> 3. Somehow everything is at the same level more or less, therefore a lack of perspective. This is fine when layering sounds to create one whole unit, but here for instance from 1:23 onward the ff-fff brass are playing at a low gain (relative to everything else) and it is unclear whether the choir is supposed to be the main focus or the brass, or the synth. Melodically we know, but I'm afraid the mix doesn't translate the idea
> 4. The ostinato line sounds like ketchup, not sure if it's low in gain, too much reverb or a combination of both probably. Your percussive hits could use a lot more punch as well, try layering some LF
> ...


I will study those points carefully and apply them accordingly. I won't start a new project until I fix this track . Thanks man


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 10, 2021)

HarmonyCore said:


> I will study those points carefully and apply them accordingly. I won't start a new project until I fix this track . Thanks man


See my edited answer above about the baking analogy. It really is the best thought exercise to understand the mindset behind the practice of referencing...


----------



## HarmonyCore (Jan 10, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> See my edited answer above about the baking analogy. It really is the best thought exercise to understand the mindset behind the practice of referencing...


Sure! 

I actually need to read the beginning of this thread once again 

Thx a lot guys


----------

