# What exactly is your mixing & mastering workflow in order to deliver a good sounding mix?



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

Dear VI Controllers,

I've been struggling with mixing & mastering for 6 months now and I don't seem getting any closer to a decent result. I've spent countless hours in those 6 months everyday. What I mix in my headphone monitors sounds good but bad in my car's stereo system. There are tons of audio tools out there to buy if you know what you're doing and the choices are overwhelming. I just finished a track using Ozone 9 (which is by far and based on artists' reviews the top mastering plugin on the list) and it is still sounds shitty. What I did was just selecting a reference track in the plugin and it came up with the closest result which sounds as ugly as it gets.

I understand that these skills take a long time to be at least good at it. But 6 months and not even a tiny progress??!!! 

I would also be grateful if experts in here take a listen to my track to get an expert feedback in order to know what I am currently weak at. Without feedbacks, I won't even know if my mix is good if it's actually good. 



Appreciate ANY feedback :(


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 4, 2020)

How does your mix sound without Ozone? Everything sounds super loud to me - like the whole track is overly compressed.

From a mix perspective, the keyboard instrument that comes in at 0:15 takes up an enormous amount of frequency spectrum... and it's also very loud. Then, when the bass comes in at 0:30, it is also very loud.

I am not sure if you mixed these instruments each so loudly, or if Ozone on your master bus just slammed the hell out of everything. Or maybe you put Ozone on every buss? I don't know, but there is not really a mix here - just an evolving wall of sound that gets murkier and murkier (it does clear up a bit at the 1:00 drop).

But even after the drop, although clearer, there is basically no dynamic range, so I think you might be using too much compression. Try doing a mix without Ozone. In fact, try to get a nice mix without _any_ compression... (at least on the stems or master buss - I understand if you need compressed drums). In the end, I think compression is the culprit here.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 4, 2020)

I mix as I write and don't apply mastering until I'm finished composing. At that point I do apply mastering for demos. That way it already sounds pretty good and the mastering process makes it sound 'more better.' 

That's separate from the process when we record live; for that I use an engineer and he does 'stuff.'


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

marclawsonmusic said:


> How does your mix sound without Ozone? Everything sounds super loud to me - like the whole track is overly compressed.
> 
> From a mix perspective, the keyboard instrument that comes in at 0:15 takes up an enormous amount of frequency spectrum... and it's also very loud. Then, when the bass comes in at 0:30, it is also very loud.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the feedback.

I put Ozone on the master bus only. In Ozone, I clicked on "Master Assistant" which took me to a wizard to select the type of mastering, the EQ/Loudness settings, and the delivery option (for streaming or CD). I selected Modern, a reference track, and streaming respectively. Then, I played a two steps from hell's protectors of earth track. It then calculated all the parameters and applied those on my track. It sounded like that 

And yes, I wanted this track to be loud but not extremely loud.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

JohnG said:


> I mix as I write and don't apply mastering until I'm finished composing. At that point I do apply mastering for demos. That way it already sounds pretty good and the mastering process makes it sound 'more better.'
> 
> That's separate from the process when we record live; for that I use an engineer and he does 'stuff.'



Hey John, thx for the feedback.

I applied Ozone after I finished with all the composing, arrangement, and mixing. However, while writing, I arrange the volume levels and panning. Of course, reverb is there as part of my mixing template. After I am done, I start to apply EQ very lightly to certain instruments that needs EQing. Finally, I apply the mastering. 

I mean this is the usual that everybody does.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

The weird thing is that I keep everything at low levels, even the master channel. All tracks are on -7db and the master on -10db. I always do this to have more headroom and to avoid clipping as much as I can.


----------



## tc9000 (Aug 4, 2020)

(all this could be complete BS feel free to ignore!) ... from a dynamics perspective i feel like the music you hear after the drop should be bigger and louder that what came before - thats like the ensemble all playing together - right? but the build up before the drop is louder (at least - its bigger on the soundcloud waveform - not a great measure - i concede that)... so maybe drop the volume of the build up a little so that after the drop the enseble sounds bigger and more in your face...


----------



## tc9000 (Aug 4, 2020)

also for the individual tracks - you are gainstaging these to -18db? again - IDK WTF im doing, but watching (and re-watching) this helped me (i think):


----------



## Robo Rivard (Aug 4, 2020)

You should post a version of your mix without any Ozone. It sounds like it was processed two or three times in a row with a loudness maximizer.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

tc9000 said:


> ... from a dynamics perspective i feel like the music you hear after the drop should be bigger and louder that what came before - thats like the ensemble all playing together - right?



Yes 



tc9000 said:


> so maybe drop the volume of the build up a little so that after the drop the enseble sounds bigger and more in your face...



Good point. I will definitely do this.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

Robo Rivard said:


> You should post a version of your mix without any Ozone. It's sounds like it was processed two or three times in a row with a loudness maximizer.


 
Ok hold on.
I am posting it without Ozone. Give me 5 min


----------



## tc9000 (Aug 4, 2020)

and also - i think your track sounds really good! you already are a lot of the way there - maybe as
*marclawsonmusic *said - try to bring more dynamics back into the track - e.g. less compression? or maybe bringing more dynamic variation from the arrangement - anyway - i feel like you are moving into the point where small tweaks make a big difference* - *it gets harder here to know what the 'right' tweaks are because you are getting close!


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 4, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> In Ozone, I clicked on "Master Assistant" which took me to a wizard to select the type of mastering, the EQ/Loudness settings, and the delivery option (for streaming or CD). I selected Modern, a reference track, and streaming respectively. Then, I played a two steps from hell's protectors of earth track. It then calculated all the parameters and applied those on my track. It sounded like that



Ok, don't do that again I'd say. 


In those 6 months that you practiced mixing and mastering, how often did you make a mockup of a part of an existing track, and tried to make the closest copy you can of it?


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

Here we go. This without Ozone


----------



## method1 (Aug 4, 2020)

There's a lot of distortion (intentional?), and almost dynamic range, it's been squeezed to death.
Try bouncing it with NO plugins, except maybe eq.

It takes a long, long time to develop an ear for mixing, 6 months is early day, so go easy 

EDIT: The mix without ozone is already an improvement.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

tc9000 said:


> and also - i think your track sounds really good! you already are a lot of the way there - maybe as
> *marclawsonmusic *said - try to bring more dynamics back into the track - e.g. less compression? or maybe bringing more dynamic variation from the arrangement - anyway - i feel like you are moving into the point where small tweaks make a big difference* - *it gets harder here to know what the 'right' tweaks are because you are getting close!



Ahhh!! finally some nice words hehehe.
Thanks mate a lot. I am trying my best to get close. I am only in this game for 6 months only. I feel I am progressing in composition and arrangement but not in mixing. LOL


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

method1 said:


> There's a lot of distortion (intentional?), and almost dynamic range, it's been squeezed to death.
> Try bouncing it with NO plugins, except maybe eq.



OK I deleted it. 
Sorry for destroying your ears guys


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

Going for a smoke to digest and absorb the feedbacks )))))))
Love ya all !!!!


----------



## method1 (Aug 4, 2020)

Another couple of comments, sounds like there's a fairly aggressive high cut on the whole mix, which is making things sound more boxy and "band limited"

If you are using plugins and you don't know EXACTLY what you're using them for, just take them off. You should be able to get a nice sounding mix with just eq, panning and riding the faders.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

method1 said:


> There's a lot of distortion (intentional?), and almost dynamic range, it's been squeezed to death.
> Try bouncing it with NO plugins, except maybe eq.
> 
> It takes a long, long time to develop an ear for mixing, 6 months is early day, so go easy
> ...



Good to know but why Ozone sucks with me ONLY? :(


----------



## method1 (Aug 4, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> Good to know but why Ozone sucks with me ONLY? :(



Are you doing manual settings or letting the "assistant" decide?


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> Ok, don't do that again I'd say.
> 
> 
> In those 6 months that you practiced mixing and mastering, how often did you make a mockup of a part of an existing track, and tried to make the closest copy you can of it?



Martin, do you mean track reference? I do this every time I compose something and I compose 4 pieces in a month. So, 4 times 6 = 24 times I tried to master based on a reference.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

method1 said:


> Are you doing manual settings or letting the "assistant" decide?



Letting the assistant decide first then tweaking things (of course in the wrong directions) if I find an instrument need more clarity. But don't take my words for it, I probably do the tweaking incorrectly.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

method1 said:


> Another couple of comments, sounds like there's a fairly aggressive high cut on the whole mix, which is making things sound more boxy and "band limited"
> 
> If you are using plugins and you don't know EXACTLY what you're using them for, just take them off. You should be able to get a nice sounding mix with just eq, panning and riding the faders.



I understand you method1 but the question is, when am I going to use these mastering tools and why other people use it and succeed? That's all !! I removed the LOUDNESS WAR from soundcloud and kept the nice one.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 4, 2020)

The second version sounds much better dynamically. Great!

So, next problem... the intro gets really muddy before the drop. I think the culprit is the keyboard sound at 0:13, which (I think) also has a pad underneath it. This is colliding with the first pad and leaving things a bit muddy. Then, the synth bass has additional overtones that are creating even more of a 'wall of sound' effect. 

If the keyboard sound has layers, maybe bring down the pad (or mute it), or you can try to filter using EQ. Then with the bass, maybe filter down to just the lower bass frequencies to remove its mud. 

I don't know exactly what to do - I'd need to experiment, but you just go piece by piece until you can hear each instrument clearly and not too many instruments are fighting for the same sonic territory (same frequencies).

PS - With synths it is really easy to saturate the frequency spectrum because there are lots of overtones (especially with pads), so sometimes you need to tweak your synth sounds (with EQ) to remove unnecessary low end (or low-mids).


----------



## method1 (Aug 4, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> I understand you method1 but the question is, when am I going to use these mastering tools and why other people use it and succeed? That's all !! I removed the LOUDNESS WAR from soundcloud and kept the nice one.



The mix has to be balanced for the limiter to do it's best work.
Take care of the mix balance and any excessive transient peaks before the limiting stage.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

marclawsonmusic said:


> The second version sounds much better dynamically. Great!
> 
> So, next problem... the intro gets really muddy before the drop. I think the culprit is the keyboard sound at 0:13, which (I think) also has a pad underneath it. This is colliding with the first pad and leaving things a bit muddy. Then, the synth bass has additional overtones that are creating even more of a 'wall of sound' effect.
> 
> ...



Excellent points. 
The keyboard pad sound is from "Ethereal Earth" library. I thought it would be great to expose this pad sound more in your face to put you in space and get this interstellar feeling. But it turned out to be wrong. 

Overall, we're going somewhere with these amazing feedbacks. 

Thanks a lot marclawsonmusic


----------



## tc9000 (Aug 4, 2020)

the new mix is a big improvement! but i still want the ensemble to feel bigger! haha! maybe the silence after the drop could hang for just a little longer? also maybe the last bit of sound leading into the drop could increasingly lose low frequency so that (after the slightly extended silence) when the ensemble comes in it would contrast, sounding beefier.... IDK!


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

method1 said:


> The mix has to be balanced for the limiter to do it's best work.
> Take care of the mix balance and any excessive transient peaks before the limiting stage.



Can you please tell me what is the meaning of "Mix Balance"? Do you mean volume levels? Sorry newbie here


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

tc9000 said:


> the new mix is a big improvement! but i still want the ensemble to feel bigger! haha! maybe the silence after the drop could hang for just a little longer? also maybe the last bit of sound leading into the drop could increasingly lose low frequency so that (after the slightly extended silence) when the ensemble comes in it would contrast, sounding beefier.... IDK!



Hey, I just uploaded the track without Ozone. About the tweaking stuff, I promise I will take your advice for it and do it tomorrow. I just wanted to show people the mix without Ozone.


----------



## tc9000 (Aug 4, 2020)

i tend to lead into big ensembles with a reversed cymbal crescendo - so its like ssSSSHHH...BOOOMM or at least thats in my head :-D


----------



## tc9000 (Aug 4, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> Hey, I just uploaded the track without Ozone. About the tweaking stuff, I promise I will take your advice for it and do it tomorrow. I just wanted to show people the mix without Ozone.



no - good point! this is about the mix not the arrangement... my bad!


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

tc9000 said:


> no - good point! this is about the mix not the arrangement... my bad!



Nobody's bad with excellent feedbacks.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

tc9000 said:


> the new mix is a big improvement! but i still want the ensemble to feel bigger! haha! maybe the silence after the drop could hang for just a little longer? also maybe the last bit of sound leading into the drop could increasingly lose low frequency so that (after the slightly extended silence) when the ensemble comes in it would contrast, sounding beefier.... IDK!



Ok a question.

Are you doing the slow build up before the drop using only volume automation or are there any other secret sauce? I usually do that by using less instruments then add them slowly every two or three bars depending on the tempo and the mood. Then, I use volume automation to increase the volume gradually.

Is that all?


----------



## method1 (Aug 4, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> Can you please tell me what is the meaning of "Mix Balance"? Do you mean volume levels? Sorry newbie here



I mean firstly that the parts all have their own space in the mix, so partly this is also arranging.

Most of the heavy lifting here is done with EQ and panning.

Then the strong transients are going to need to be dealt with if you want to go LOUD, because the limiter will react to those first.

You can manage transients with volume automation, compression, clipping etc.
Just always know why you are using a specific tool/plugin, because used incorrectly, most of the time these things are doing more harm than good.

Think of the mix as a pie chart, there's only so much that can be crammed into that circle, bass takes up a lot of that energy, so it has to be managed judiciously to leave some space.
Decide which instruments get priority in certain frequency ranges in certain sections of the piece. 

I would say focus on getting the best mix you can without using any unnecessary stuff.
Use the meters in your daw or an analyser to see where things are peaking/clipping/hot and make adjustments.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

method1 said:


> I mean firstly that the parts all have their own space in the mix, so partly this is also arranging.



Yep, I already did that using panning and EQ. I actually still don't know whether an instrument need an EQ or not. But I learned that strings for example sound very good when I boost the high frequency a little to expose the their transients. I hate the strings to sound muddy. I rarely do any EQ with brass because they sound very good already out of the box. And I am talking about Metropolis Ark 1/2 specifically. 

Ya know, my real my problem is when I use strings and brass from different libraries and blend them together. In other words, I do very well in arranging and orchestrating a piece that utilize only one library. I am still working on improving my sense of judgement when it comes using more than two orchestral libraries. 

But your points are very important to study and experiment.


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 4, 2020)

In addition to all the good points mentioned already, here are just few other tips:

- Mix to a reference track. Find one or more commercial tracks that are similar in style and tonality to yours, and as you mix, constantly refer to them and try to achieve the same sound and balance in your track. This is an incredibly useful process that not only will you get better mixes, but will also hone your ear so you know what to listen for.

- Don't expect magic from a car stereo or any other listening environment. Although one of the primary goals of mastering is to enable tracks to sound as good as possible in all listening environments, you can't fight the laws of physics - for example, a booming bass won't register on an iPad speaker, no matter whose track it is. We are so close to the tracks we work on, and spend so much focused time listening to them in a (hopefully) idealized environment, that when our track is played elsewhere, we naturally notice all the differences and think there's a flaw in the mix. Getting a track to sound good in multiple environments is always a compromise, so don't be too hard on your mixes in other environments.

- Do you use Tonal Balance Control with Ozone? Although not a magic bullet, it can help you improve the tonal balance of your track by guiding you to the appropriate relationships between different frequency ranges in your track. If you don't have TBC, you can use any spectrum analyzer, provided you know how to interpret it. Here's a great video that will point you in the right direction:



- Like someone said earlier, 6 months is still early days for learning how to mix and master properly. It's an evolving process that is made up of an accumulation of small incremental insights. Just keep doing what your doing. Putting in the 10,000 hours will definitely payoff!

Good luck!


----------



## tc9000 (Aug 4, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> Ok a question.
> 
> Are you doing the slow build up before the drop using only volume automation or are there any other secret sauce? I usually do that by using less instruments then add them slowly every two or three bars depending on the tempo and the mood. Then, I use volume automation to increase the volume gradually.
> 
> Is that all?



im learning also! but i like to build using arrangment - as you say - adding stuff every 4 or 8 bars rather than automating volume.

its useful also to be aware of the frequency energy in dynamics also - i like using high frequency stuff in quieter passages - high strings or high woodwinds... gentle with a bit of reverb... it seems to lure the ear in... and then DROPPING THE F**ING HAMMER of a full (bandwidth) ensemble or thundering drums on that HF bed is more powerfull :-D


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 4, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> Martin, do you mean track reference? I do this every time I compose something and I compose 4 pieces in a month. So, 4 times 6 = 24 times I tried to master based on a reference.



Yes and no. First of all, it's _great _that you use reference tracks! It's a good practice, keep doing that. 

What I mean is slightly different: take a piece from your reference track, copy it as closely as you can. I mean change everything you have to change in your template to get as close as possible. Don't put anything on the master fx for now. Automate it so that during playback of that part it switches back and forth at random points between the original and your mockup. Make it so that they align perfectly. Then play it back on a loop and carefully listen to each and every detail and try to get your mockup closer inch by inch. That achieves two things: a) It gives a clear goal with direct feedback on whether or not you're moving in the right direction. And b) You learn much better how to handle all those tools at your disposal. You get a feel for EQs and compression etc.. 

I also recommend watching a couple of mixing sessions by pros on youtube. Like Alan Meyerson etc.. I was amazed how small the differences on every single step are, most of them I can't even hear in A/B comparisons. You'll learn a lot from that too. 

Personally I would focus on orchestration and mixing first, before you do anything on the master other than some slight limiting maybe.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> Yes and no. First of all, it's _great _that you use reference tracks! It's a good practice, keep doing that.
> 
> What I mean is slightly different: take a piece from your reference track, copy it as closely as you can. I mean change everything you have to change in your template to get as close as possible. Don't put anything on the master fx for now. Automate it so that during playback of that part it switches back and forth at random points between the original and your mockup. Make it so that they align perfectly. Then play it back on a loop and carefully listen to each and every detail and try to get your mockup closer inch by inch. That achieves two things: a) It gives a clear goal with direct feedback on whether or not you're moving in the right direction. And b) You learn much better how to handle all those tools at your disposal. You get a feel for EQs and compression etc..
> 
> ...



Amazing idea !! never thought of this idea before. I've done couple of cover tracks and I tried to get them as close as I could to the original ones. Alan Meyerson? Oh boy, I just watched a mixing roundtable stream hosted by Dirk Ehlert and it was gorgeous.


----------



## NoamL (Aug 4, 2020)

Keep in mind that "mixing" is not just done with plugins! 

The single greatest tool you have as a mixer, or if you like, the #1 free plugin, is* the volume fader*.

The second greatest tool you have is *multi signal recording**.* Look at any Alan Meyerson video, all of his great orchestra mixes start with a well organized lineup of microphone signals, and possibly some reverb returns, where he can tweak the balance to create the perfect sense of space.

So, practical application - if you have a VI orchestra piece and the trumpets are from a different library than the violins, the #1 task is to set the levels of both libraries so that they sound relatively sane. You can do this with the full mix presets of both libraries just going to stereo out - nothing else. Once that is done, the #2 task is to dial in your mic settings on both libraries, and perhaps add a little reverb to whichever is the drier library, so that these two instruments now feel like they're playing together in the same space. Reference recordings you admire a lot during this process.

After applying steps 1 and 2 you have a soundstage recording, just like if you'd recorded the orchestra live, with all of the electronic stuff added later.

Your dry orch mix will sound "tame" compared to trailer music but it should still sound GOOD because this is the foundation of the mix. It should also have as much dynamic range as is appropriate for the material, so, for orchestra - a lot. A string track could be bouncing around from -30 to -9 on the fader for instance. And knowing you're gonna add a ton of percussion and brass it's probably healthy to leave even more headroom than -9.

ALL of mixing is downstream from getting the no-fx mix to work. Your revised mix even without Ozone sounds SLAMMED. I think you should, #1, solo your orchestra (strings n brass) and start with all your faders such that your orchestra is producing healthy dynamic range. #2, bring in your drums and make sure they have a healthy sense of space & a purposeful one - do you want them in front of the strings or behind? from there other mix problems might make themselves more obvious. It's hard to tell right now.


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 4, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> Here we go. This without Ozone




the music is good. but yeah, the mixxing has issues.

for once, try panning and giving some space between elements as they are all fighting for the same space in both X/Y axis.

ans also, you might be just using the defacto panning from sample libraries. like that drum perc loop part is really hard to tell where it is pan wise. try using a plugin to make it more mono and focus it to only place.

the most obvious issue for me is compression.. or lack there of. and balance of volume between elements. 

try thinking as compression as grabbing a chunk of paint and forcing it into position to make a square or circle. the strings and drums are all bouncing around too much. they also share the same frequencies so those overlap and pannning make it all be a little hard to see it clearly.
so forcing more the drums and other instruments to fit into the mix will help a lot.
And not mak it sound pumped or artifacty.
Also the volume is going a ittle all over the place. and both spicc and long strings are fighting for the same space pan and freq wise.

the initial synth has some raspiness and too much presence, lack of depth. compression and eq will help.
also some filter rides to give it some movement.. but not too noticeable.

one thing that worked for me... not sure in your case... was to bounce everyting to audio.
this sort of thing reminds me of just the issues with trusting midi.

for mastering a simple glue compressor, some harmonic enhancer (like blackbox)/tape machine etc , eq and master reverb with just a touch of reverb should do it. some limiting to reach something like -12LU.


the music has some nice emotional context so you should pursue it.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 4, 2020)

@NoamL and @gsilbers thank you for the expert feedbacks.

Here my routinely mixing workflow from start to finish:

1) After I am done with the midi arrangement part, I render in place all the tracks to audio stems.

2) Checking the audio stems for any issues such as clipping and drop outs and fix them with cross fading.

3) Checking the volume and panning of each track and tweaking them based on the mood of the piece and my imagination. I use the Cubase panning in the mixing console. If the instrument is already panned out of the box, I leave it as it is. I rely on the traditional orchestral positioning. Please see the attachment. Actually, I admit that the volume and panning alone need a skill to deal with them the right way before any EQing or compression. Gone the days when I thought that I was the best mixer by tweaking the bass and treble in my car's equalizer and WinAmp in 1998 (God bless its soul). 

4) Listening to each track carefully and see if something needs an EQ. It's all about distributing every instrument to its own place in the frequency spectrum. That's how I look at it. It may sounds simple but it is not and I keep practicing it as hell.

5) I use Ozone Imager on the master bus to stereoize stuff and to check that all the frequency spectrum is correctly utilized by all instruments. But I am not sure of this step because I still don't fully understand it. 

6) Export the audio mixdown to WAV.


BS: Compression? Honestly, I still can't figure out when I need it. I can't feel it. I can't notice it. Only talented engineers notice and feel compression. However, I slightly feel it with percussion as it makes it more alive. Never knew if I needed it for brass or strings though. But based on experimentation, it kills the dynamics in strings and brass. For example, if I applied mod wheel and expression, compression completely hides them.

About step 3, I want to add that I always decrease all track volumes to -7db and -10db in the master volume for extra headroom as @NoamL pointed out.


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 5, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> 5) I use Ozone Imager on the master bus to stereoize stuff and to check that all the frequency spectrum is correctly utilized by all instruments. But I am not sure of this step because I still don't fully understand it.



You can use the Imager, but make sure the "stereoize" setting is OFF and don't overdo it with the amount of widening or narrowing you apply. And I wouldn't use it on the master - I recommend using it to get different pre-panned libraries to sound more like they are recorded in the same space. That's especially important if you mix together a section like for example strings from different libraries like Metropolis Ark 1 and Fluid Shorts.




HarmonyCore said:


> BS: Compression? Honestly, I still can't figure out when I need it. I can't feel it. I can't notice it. Only talented engineers notice and feel compression. However, I slightly feel it with percussion as it makes it more alive. Never knew if I needed it for brass or strings though. But based on experimentation, it kills the dynamics in strings and brass. For example, if I applied mod wheel and expression, compression completely hides them.



Honestly compression is one of the hardest ones to "get". Took me years and I still can't quite hear it like others here can. Maybe this helps, it did for me:


----------



## ryst (Aug 5, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> Dear VI Controllers,
> 
> I've been struggling with mixing & mastering for 6 months now and I don't seem getting any closer to a decent result. I've spent countless hours in those 6 months everyday. What I mix in my headphone monitors sounds good but bad in my car's stereo system. There are tons of audio tools out there to buy if you know what you're doing and the choices are overwhelming. I just finished a track using Ozone 9 (which is by far and based on artists' reviews the top mastering plugin on the list) and it is still sounds shitty. What I did was just selecting a reference track in the plugin and it came up with the closest result which sounds as ugly as it gets.
> 
> I understand that these skills take a long time to be at least good at it. But 6 months and not even a tiny progress??!!!



Since there is 3 pages of advice here, I don't really need to add anything technical to the discussion.

However, I do want to point out that 6 months is absolutely miniscule in terms of learning how to mix. Also, you probably don't realize that you've been making progress in those 6 months. I've been getting paid to mix for over 15 years and I'm still constantly learning. There is no end to this stuff. 

Just give yourself a little more room for failure and mistakes. And keep showing up and keep trying. 
Listen to your mixes 6 months from now and you'll see how much better you've gotten. Then try 6 years, and so on. 

Right now it's like you're trying to drink through a fire hydrant. It's impossible to intake all the info out there because there is just too much. Some stuff will stick, most won't. But it starts to become clearer the more you keep doing it. You'll see. All you need it more time!


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 5, 2020)

Thanks everyone for the amazing advises and feedback in those 3 pages as @ryst pointed out haha.
I am also very relaxed to know that 6 months just not enough to know everything in M&M and I am very happy that I even made a progress in arrangement and orchestration. You would laugh if you listened to my beginning tracks when I started out. And I deleted dozens of unnecessary tracks too along the journey.

You guys are really VI Controllers and Masters.

Stay SAFE for me, will ya?


----------



## Geomir (Aug 5, 2020)

@HarmonyCore

As you already know, even if many times mixing/mastering are mentioned together as one, mixing is 90% of importance and only the 10% is the mastering. If you have a very good mix, mastering is just the final polishing (which is very important of course). If you have a crappy mix, even the God of Mastering could not be able to help you with it! 

Have you ever tried CloudBounce? This is what I am using right now as a hobbyist.

After reading your post, the last few days I am testing Ozone 9 (Pro) Trial. I am testing many presets combinations, I like it, it looks very polished and easy to use, but so far I cannot achieve the results of CloudBounce. CloudBounce has some basic presets, in 2 different screens/categories, all of them simple ones (self explanatory), and you don't need to mess with numbers:









You can try it for free. And it costs (right now) $59/year for mastering unlimited WAVs and MP3s of any quality. It works like a charm for me, it adds this volume boost, brightness, stereo width, etc that I am having hard time to achieve by myself. And so far no incidents of distortion or clipping, etc. I am really impressed with its results (the exact opposite happened with Landr and eMastered, that I tried them and disliked their AI mastering algorithms). CloudBounce is the only one that keeps the character of your instruments intact, with the right selection of preset, i.e. "Classical" (which is very important for orchestral music), without over-boosting everything to sound as loud as possible!

Still, if you take your time to try it, and you tell me that you can achieve similar (or much better!) results with Ozone 9 Master Assistant + Presets, then I may take the big step to advance and buy it! Right now the Standard Edition is only $99 (instead of $249), and I am very tempted... (because I will own it forever, I will not have an annual fee, I will learn many things and I will not be "dependent" on an online service)


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 5, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> Good to know but why Ozone sucks with me ONLY? :(


I've never been able to get Ozone to give me a good mix. I don't know why either. So it is not just you.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 5, 2020)

Geomir said:


> @HarmonyCore
> You can try it for free. And it costs (right now) $59/year for mastering unlimited WAVs and MP3s of any quality. It works like a charm for me, it adds this volume boost, brightness, stereo width, etc that I am having hard time to achieve by myself. And so far no incidents of distortion or clipping, etc. I am really impressed with its results (the exact opposite happened with Landr and eMastered, that I tried them and disliked their AI mastering algorithms). CloudBounce is the only one that keeps the character of your instruments intact, with the right selection of preset, i.e. "Classical" (which is very important for orchestral music), without over-boosting everything to sound as loud as possible!



But honestly speaking, I don't trust all these cloud artificial intelligence type of services including the new soundcloud mastering service. I think it's a bit misleading to call themselves a "Mastering" service. They are more like a "Template-based" for coloring your track but not actually mastering it. I tried the SC service and they offer 4 types of templates to choose from. All of them sound crap on epic orchestral because probably they are good for EDM more.



Geomir said:


> @HarmonyCore
> Still, if you take your time to try it, and you tell me that you can achieve similar (or much better!) results with Ozone 9 Master Assistant + Presets, then I may take the big step to advance and buy it! Right now the Standard Edition is only $99 (instead of $249), and I am very tempted... (because I will own it forever, I will not have an annual fee, I will learn many things and I will not be "dependent" on an online service)



Yeah, $99 is an amazing price but I am not curious at all to buy any engineering tools at the moment because of their learning curve. I invest more in instruments and effects because arrangement, orchestration, and mixing are my main focus. As several users pointed out here, a piece can sound good with the right voluming, panning, and slight EQing. I will definitely take my time focus on those first before learning any other engineering skills. Heck!! I even ordered an audio mixing book from Amazon to study it the formal way lol. 

But thanks for your input, much appreciated !!


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 5, 2020)

dzilizzi said:


> I've never been able to get Ozone to give me a good mix. I don't know why either. So it is not just you.



I am amazed !! Cool to know lol
I think because mastering is just an advanced level of audio engineering. It is not easy at all. Sadly, online services and many people treat it like a "Choose a template and off you go".


----------



## Geomir (Aug 5, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> All of them sound crap on epic orchestral because probably they are good for EDM more.


I agree with you! At least I did until I tried CloudBounce. For the first time, I got nice results by experimenting with the presets (especially the Classical one). But other than that you are right, it's like a competition in which the louder one wins, and in the end the instruments do not sound like themselves anymore!



HarmonyCore said:


> As several users pointed out here, a piece can sound good with the right voluming, panning, and slight EQing.


That's what I also told you! Mixing is 90% and mastering 10%. With a very good mix, you have nothing to fear!  

That's why I insisted you to try something like CloudBounce. If you have a very good mix, then what do you want from your mastering? The final polish! Don't see it as a template. You want you song to sound at a commercial volume level without distortion / clipping, you want it to sound as clean and crispy as possible, you want extreme low (and high?) frequencies to be removed, you want it to spread nicely between your left and right speakers / headphones in a balanced way, etc... These basic things CAN be accomplished by online mastering. Of course, if you have the money or the time, nothing in the world can replace an experienced human sound engineer!  



HarmonyCore said:


> I invest more in instruments and effects because arrangement, orchestration, and mixing are my main focus


Oh I really wish that is was all about composing and basic mixing! I could just spend all my time (and money!) in Orchestral and Choir libraries, "play" with them, learn them, use them, combine then, mix them, instead of having at the same time to be an amateur self-taught engineer (I mean the annoying - for me - EQing / mastering process)!


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 5, 2020)

Most templatized mastering services, including plugin-based technologies like Ozone's Mastering Assistant, are dependent on a decent mix that conforms to certain tolerances, to be effective. Back in the day, I used to hate Ozone (using Ozone 2) because it never gave me good results. Turns out, the fault lay in my mediocre mixes 

On some of my projects, I've had the opportunity to sit with the mastering engineer as they worked on my music. There's no magic to the process, but what always impresses me is their ears and what they listen for. That's really what it's all about. If I could train my ears to listen like a pro mastering engineer, the rest would be easy


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 5, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> I am amazed !! Cool to know lol
> I think because mastering is just an advanced level of audio engineering. It is not easy at all. Sadly, online services and many people treat it like a "Choose a template and off you go".


There are ways to make it work. I think the templates only work for certain music, which most of us here don't do. My usual music is more pop/rock and I've tried most of the templates and they make it sound worse. I wonder if I don't use anything other than a few basics on the mix, if it would work better. I usually get better results with regular effects, so that is what I usually end up using. As a caveat, I have a lot of effects choices.


----------



## Geomir (Aug 5, 2020)

dzilizzi said:


> There are ways to make it work. I think the templates only work for certain music, which most of us here don't do. My usual music is more pop/rock and I've tried most of the templates and they make it sound worse. I wonder if I don't use anything other than a few basics on the mix, if it would work better. I usually get better results with regular effects, so that is what I usually end up using. As a caveat, I have a lot of effects choices.


I prefer to see them as "options" instead of "templates".

I mean, in one of my songs I used Action Strikes combined with some celli / double-basses spiccato "heavy" ostinato riffs. I tried to improve it with my DAW, I cut everything below 40 hz among other things, but still it was too boomy / bassy. So in the mastering process, I let the online mastering AI do it for me: I just chose "less bassy", and at the same time "more crispy"! It worked like a charm! In less than 5 minutes, my song sounded balanced on low and high ends! Or so I believe LOL! Anyway whatever the scientific truth, let's agree that it's hugely improved (the way I wanted it) from the original non-mastered version!  

I have a serious feeling that it would take me months to achieve the exact same result! Did I worked with a ready blind dummy "template"? Or did I chose the right "options" that I wanted to shape the final sound of my song?


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 5, 2020)

@Geomir Yes, I would hire an online mastering engineer who take my piece and spend couple of days working on it then deliver the polished product to me instead of relying on online robots programmed using machine learning and AI to take the closest decision. 

I really want to focus on making the piece and mixing it and that's it. If i can only do that, I will concentrate more on the making rather than the engineering because let's face it, I am not a sound engineer and never expect to become a pro if I just learn it in my home. Sound engineers went to 4 yrs college to do this stuff. The Beatles or Pink Floyd or whatever band or artist out there paid for hire mixing and mastering engineers. To make things complicated, mixing has its own engineer and mastering is a different engineer. This is the unfortunate fact in this computer music industry, that you have to be the All-in-One. 

But I think in the future I will be hiring a mixing and master engineer to do the stuff and pay them money ONLY when I successfully break into the industry and make money from it.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 5, 2020)

NekujaK said:


> Most templatized mastering services, including plugin-based technologies like Ozone's Mastering Assistant, are dependent on a decent mix that conforms to certain tolerances, to be effective.



There ya go. Exactly !!


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 5, 2020)

poetd said:


> Season1:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Amazinggggggggggg !!! Will give them a WATCH !!


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 5, 2020)

poetd said:


> Season1:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Isn't there long playlists for mixing too?


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 5, 2020)

I found this one:



But he used a different genre. I will glad to find a long video like this for orchestral mixing.


----------



## Jenna Fearon (Aug 5, 2020)

Just wanted to throw this in there... To get a "drop" to really have impact that hits you in the face, so to speak, try this: Put a bass cutting EQ on a downward ramping envelope shortly before the buildup culminates, so the bass (especially sub bass) is smoothly cut from full-on to almost nothing, over time, during the buildup to the drop. It should be almost zero at the absolute peak.Then, kick the bass up to full (normal level, not over-loud) when the big hit comes in. Works for me. Hope that makes sense.

Getting good at mixing takes a while, and it takes training of your ears, and it takes dedication. I typically think I'm rubbish at mixing, but then again people tell me my tracks sound good, so I imagine I've got better over time. You will, too. Just have fun with it!


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 5, 2020)

Jenna Fearon said:


> Just wanted to throw this in there... To get a "drop" to really have impact that hits you in the face, so to speak, try this: Put a bass cutting EQ on a downward ramping envelope shortly before the buildup culminates, so the bass (especially sub bass) is smoothly cut from full-on to almost nothing, over time, during the buildup to the drop. It should be almost zero at the absolute peak.Then, kick the bass up to full (normal level, not over-loud) when the big hit comes in. Works for me. Hope that makes sense.
> 
> Getting good at mixing takes a while, and it takes training of your ears, and it takes dedication. I typically think I'm rubbish at mixing, but then again people tell me my tracks sound good, so I imagine I've got better over time. You will, too. Just have fun with it!



Thanks Jenna for the amazing tips, greatly appreciated !!
Yes, I can imagine what you're offering here and I can hear it in my mind. I think this technique is being applied in trailers the most.

BTW, this is not my final product indeed. Advises and tips like these are immensely experimented in the project and utilized the most. 

Thanks again


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 5, 2020)

Geomir said:


> I prefer to see them as "options" instead of "templates".
> 
> I mean, in one of my songs I used Action Strikes combined with some celli / double-basses spiccato "heavy" ostinato riffs. I tried to improve it with my DAW, I cut everything below 40 hz among other things, but still it was too boomy / bassy. So in the mastering process, I let the online mastering AI do it for me: I just chose "less bassy", and at the same time "more crispy"! It worked like a charm! In less than 5 minutes, my song sounded balanced on low and high ends! Or so I believe LOL! Anyway whatever the scientific truth, let's agree that it's hugely improved (the way I wanted it) from the original non-mastered version!
> 
> I have a serious feeling that it would take me months to achieve the exact same result! Did I worked with a ready blind dummy "template"? Or did I chose the right "options" that I wanted to shape the final sound of my song?


I was mostly talking about using Ozone. I've had better luck with individual plugins that have presets giving options like "more crispy" than I do with Ozone.


----------



## storyteller (Aug 5, 2020)

*Personal mixing workflow tip #1:* Clean your workstation/desk and room before mixing. I mean, top-to-bottom clean. I've done this intuitively over the years, but recently saw a video where a guy said he does the same thing. It prevents any other thoughts from creeping in or giving reason for procrastination.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 5, 2020)

storyteller said:


> *Personal mixing workflow tip #1:* Clean your workstation/desk and room before mixing. I mean, top-to-bottom clean. I've done this intuitively over the years, but recently saw a video where a guy said he does the same thing. It prevents any other thoughts from creeping in or giving reason for procrastination.



But procrastination also may still exist even after cleaning your desk, no?


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 5, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> @Geomir Yes, I would hire an online mastering engineer who take my piece and spend couple of days working on it then deliver the polished product to me instead of relying on online robots programmed using machine learning and AI to take the closest decision.
> 
> I really want to focus on making the piece and mixing it and that's it. If i can only do that, I will concentrate more on the making rather than the engineering because let's face it, I am not a sound engineer and never expect to become a pro if I just learn it in my home. Sound engineers went to 4 yrs college to do this stuff. The Beatles or Pink Floyd or whatever band or artist out there paid for hire mixing and mastering engineers. To make things complicated, mixing has its own engineer and mastering is a different engineer. This is the unfortunate fact in this computer music industry, that you have to be the All-in-One.
> 
> But I think in the future I will be hiring a mixing and master engineer to do the stuff and pay them money ONLY when I successfully break into the industry and make money from it.


This is what I learnt from my Studio Production instructor, who does work in the industry: mastering was more of a thing when there were albums. Mastering was used to make the albums sound consistent, with no overly loud songs vs overly soft songs. You don't want to have to adjust the volume while listening. Mastering a single piece is not really necessary as your mix should fix all the basics. 

Though I wish they would master the sound on movies better. Can't hear the dialogue but the music and effects are so loud we have to turn it down.


----------



## Geomir (Aug 5, 2020)

dzilizzi said:


> This is what I learnt from my Studio Production instructor, who does work in the industry: mastering was more of a thing when there were albums. Mastering was used to make the albums sound consistent, with no overly loud songs vs overly soft songs. You don't want to have to adjust the volume while listening. Mastering a single piece is not really necessary as your mix should fix all the basics.
> 
> Though I wish they would master the sound on movies better. Can't hear the dialogue but the music and effects are so loud we have to turn it down.


Hahaha this happens to me all the time!  

They can fix it, but they don't want... I suppose it's a kind of realism. I mean, an exploding bridge is much louder than 2 people talking, I get it. But the music? Why is the music so loud?


----------



## storyteller (Aug 5, 2020)

dzilizzi said:


> Though I wish they would master the sound on movies better. Can't hear the dialogue but the music and effects are so loud we have to turn it down.


Agreed. Even with nice surround systems, the dynamic range is way too crazy these days. I mean, put in older movies like Top Gun and the volume rarely has to be touched (even the 4k remaster). Put in anything recent and I don't let the remote leave my hand... and I actually embrace loudness. There is just something nice about older movies when you see a helicopter and don't have to automatically turn it up or down, even though they mix the dialogue to be muffled against the sound.


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 5, 2020)

FYI, "backwards mixing" is one of the best mixing techniques I ever learned. It sped up the mixing process and helped me quickly zero-in on the actual trouble spots in a mix that needed addressing. This video describes the technique:


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 5, 2020)

Another helpful technique you may have heard about is "pink noise mixing". A lot of people look down on pink noise mixing because they think it's meant to be a magic bullet that delivers a final mix, but that's not its purpose. Pink noise mixing simply helps establish an *initial starting point *that's reasonably well balanced for your tracks. Once that baseline is established, it's up to you to tweak the mix further as necessary.

I think it's a great tool for someone learning how to mix because it helps guide your ears to what a reasonably good tonal balance sounds like. Once you start using it and your ears become better attuned, you'll eventually start to recognize the correct balance intuitively, and will no longer need to use pink noise.

There are dozens of YT videos describing the technique, here's one example I selected at random:


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 5, 2020)

@NekujaK Definitely helpful tutorials !! but I wonder which one to start with first? lol

I am also trying to look for a cool long playlist in YT for mixing that covers everything from scratch up to an advanced level.


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 5, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> @NekujaK Definitely helpful tutorials !! but I wonder which one to start with first? lol


Yes, it does seem a bit like a chicken-and-egg conundrum ... I would start with pink noise to initially establish reasonable volume levels for the different parts in a piece, then move on to the backwards mixing approach to further refine the mix.

Pink noise only gets you good volume levels for each given frequency range, the remaining mixing tasks beyond pink noise are for clearing space among the diffferent instruments and shaping the sound.

Good luck!


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 5, 2020)

NekujaK said:


> Yes, it does seem a bit like a chicken-and-egg conundrum ... I would start with pink noise to initially establish reasonable volume levels for the different parts in a piece, then move on to the backwards mixing approach to further refine the mix.
> 
> Pink noise only gets you good volume levels for each given frequency range, the remaining mixing tasks beyond pink noise are for clearing space among the diffferent instruments and shaping the sound.
> 
> Good luck!



Thanks my friend for sharing. I am overwhelmed by the many helps I got in here. I think I am going to read the thread from the beginning.


----------



## Henu (Aug 6, 2020)

NekujaK said:


> FYI, "backwards mixing" is one of the best mixing techniques I ever learned



I'd personally suggest to keep your master bus clean for starters and work with the buses first if you really want to take this approach. The whole backwards mixing is -in my opinion- understood a bit wrongly nowadays and is too often considered as a instant-gratification-shortcut to desired results. For me, it's at worst the equivalent of that you'd paint your car just because you don't bother to clean it.

The whole point with the backwards mixing is what has been done for since the very early days- listening to the bigger picture, doing some big moves first and then working towards little things. It's definitely not a shortcut for a better mix and never should be considered as one either.

Sure, you can carve a nice master EQ for your bus and slap a compressor and (god forbid) a LIMITER onto it and get instantly loud results with over-the-top fletchermunson-curves. And then you realize in the next 30 minutes that everything you do afterwards to single tracks _completely alters the overall sound_ and your mix is shit again.


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 6, 2020)

Henu said:


> I'd personally suggest to keep your master bus clean for starters and work with the buses first if you really want to take this approach. The whole backwards mixing is -in my opinion- understood a bit wrongly nowadays and is too often considered as a instant-gratification-shortcut to desired results. For me, it's at worst the equivalent of that you'd paint your car just because you don't bother to clean it.
> 
> The whole point with the backwards mixing is what has been done for since the very early days- listening to the bigger picture, doing some big moves first and then working towards little things. It's definitely not a shortcut for a better mix and never should be considered as one either.
> 
> Sure, you can carve a nice master EQ for your bus and slap a compressor and (god forbid) a LIMITER onto it and get instantly loud results with over-the-top fletchermunson-curves. And then you realize in the next 30 minutes that everything you do afterwards to single tracks _completely alters the overall sound_ and your mix is shit again.


I've mixed many different ways (forward, backwards, along the way, etc). All paths lead to the same desired result. None of these approaches are about "instant gratification", they are simply a mixing workflow.

Many pro engineers like to put a compressor on the master buss and mix into it. Others prefer to keep the 2-buss clean until the very end. Both approaches are valid.

If backwards mixing isn't for you, that's perfectly fine, but for others, myself included, it's a viable approach that delivers good results.


----------



## Henu (Aug 6, 2020)

The compressor on master bus and mixing into that is _completely_ different thing than putting a whole mastering chain to it. But I -and countless of other engineers I work with or know- never put that _first_ there before even starting to mix. Apples and oranges.


----------



## Loek Mulders (Aug 6, 2020)

Sound pretty cool.
EQ and Volume control are most important.
Try to find the essential frequency range of each instrument and take out the rest.
Example, if you have a bass sound, then take out the mid and high frequencies.
now you have breathing room in the mid and high sections for other instruments.

There is more to this ofcourse but using EQ to remove something is way more important then boosting.


----------



## GtrString (Aug 6, 2020)

You are asking about steps to follow in a mix process? I follow the basic steps as described here https://www.musicianonamission.com/mixing-music/ 


_Step 1: Prep_
_Step 2: Volume Balance_
_Step 3: Compression_
_Step 4: EQ_
_Step 5: Space (Panning, Reverb, and Delay)_
_Step 6: Volume Automation_
_Step 7: Effects_
_Step 8: Final Checks_
Pretty much a primer. Just repeat (the same) process x100 and you'll get the hang of it. It's important to follow the same procedure, I've found. It becomes like muscle memory when learning an instrument..


----------



## Henu (Aug 6, 2020)

GtrString said:


> _Step 3: Compression_
> _Step 4: EQ_



Subjective, but usually you want to compress _after_ EQ due to the fact that you may have e.g. excessive and futile low end in the sound which affects the compressor too much if you don't carve it away before it hits it. That and of course the fact that as you want to control the dynamics with the compressor, you need as "final" sound to hit that as possible.

That being said, sometimes you just want to compress the fuck out of something before anything else. Because in mixing, there are no strict rules- only guidelines- and sometimes they are to be broken if it just works.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 6, 2020)

poetd said:


> There's a couple of things offered in the thread that you see on forums again and again. Passed on as Wisdom, but not so wise....
> 
> The best thing you can do imesho is find a good set of tutorials or a book, or even an expert willing to teach you, and stick with that.
> 
> ...



Well, yes I have already the mixing secrets for the small studio and audio engineering 101 and I keep reading them. But I rely on videos more. Yes, I immediately added those mastering playlists that you posted. I checked Joel Dollie mixing course but not sure if it's good as I didn't find any reviews for it. I am currently waiting for Evenant's cinematic music course to open too. I already signed up for their waiting list.

So, as you can see, I am well prepared  but not in mixing yet hehe


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 6, 2020)

HarmonyCore said:


> Well, yes I have already the mixing secrets for the small studio and audio engineering 101 and I keep reading them. But I rely on videos more. Yes, I immediately added those mastering playlists that you posted. I checked Joel Dollie mixing course but not sure if it's good as I didn't find any reviews for it. I am currently waiting for Evenant's cinematic music course to open too. I already signed up for their waiting list.
> 
> So, as you can see, I am well prepared  but not in mixing yet hehe



one thing that is obvious but still underrated, and I think it might apply in your situation, is good listening environment. This helps a lot with knowing things like compression or volume levels between high vs lows and how much reverb is too much. 

Since every room ad situation is different, maybe try out sonarworks and remix it. 

and the other thing that helps is finish composing and mix a little (fast). then wait a few hours, go for a walk, forget about it for a bit. once you listen again... that first listen... that's the key. your ears don't get used to it so that first listen will help easily see where the levels, eq and comp have issues. 
and don't stop. just write it down.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 6, 2020)

poetd said:


> Learning from Mastering engineers is great for ear training, as they're making tiny changes (that often make a huge difference) that you really have to learn how to hear.


This has been one of the hardest things for me. It really is the little changes. My instructor at the Studio Production class I was taking "fixed" my vocals using 2 compressors. But each one only compresses a little bit in certain spots. Just little amounts. And it sounded great. But not that much different, if that makes sense. 

Part of the problem too, is that by fixing everything separately, you mess up the big picture. So little adjustments work better until everything sounds good. And? I'm still learning this.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 6, 2020)

poetd said:


> Its all a long slog and no doubt.
> 
> There are guys have mixed their whole life and are still learning. Same with any discipline really.
> But try and avoid shortcuts.
> ...



Yes, it sounds like a pain in the butt that I am forced to learn it anyways. I like music more than engineering indeed. I've had enough engineering in my life as I was an IT engineer for 17 yrs. But my long term plan is that I will definitely hand over this task to a mixing and mastering engineer at some point when my works see the light (hopefully) and when it will be an official career. In the meantime, I am working on acquiring the most important aspects of mixing to help me just produce an accepted result. But will never go beyond advanced mixing/mastering anytime soon.


----------



## HarmonyCore (Aug 6, 2020)

gsilbers said:


> one thing that is obvious but still underrated, and I think it might apply in your situation, is good listening environment. This helps a lot with knowing things like compression or volume levels between high vs lows and how much reverb is too much.
> 
> Since every room ad situation is different, maybe try out sonarworks and remix it.
> 
> ...



Yeah I wish I own an acoustically treated floating home studio on the river like what Mr. David Gilmour owns to enjoy nature. What a listening environment !!!


----------



## Geomir (Aug 6, 2020)

Well, after many hours of struggling and experimenting the last 3 evenings with Ozone 9 (Demo) and Lurssen Mastering Console (Demo), I am already achieving similar or even better results than AI Online Mastering!

Lurssen Console is literally something between Landr (or Cloudbounce) and Ozone, it is very easy to use, it gives you instant results, has several different basic and easy to understand presets, and allow some customization of all the frequency ranges. You don't see any details or advanced real-time graphs. I would choose it over any online mastering service, especially in the amazing price of $49, but I knew nothing about it during the last sales. It would be the perfect easy start for me in the world of mastering. If only I knew a few months ago.

But at the price of $99 (instead of $249) I am going to buy Ozone 9 Standard, which gives you a nice starting point with the new Master Assistant, and has so many easy to understand presets with short descriptions for each and every one, plus it allows customization without limits IF one day I master... mastering! 

Thanks to the OP and all the useful comments here, I am going to unsubscribe from CloudBounce so I don't depend from an online service with annual fees for something that I can achieve myself! VI Control deserves its fame: It helps musicians (including hobbyists) spend their money to buy something that will serve them well!


----------



## GtrString (Aug 6, 2020)

In stead of using Ozone ect, you can imitate the same chain with stock DAW plugins, dial them in one by one, and compare with a reference track instead of a preset, to determine when your track is finished.


----------



## Geomir (Aug 6, 2020)

GtrString said:


> In stead of using Ozone ect, you can imitate the same chain with stock DAW plugins, dial them in one by one, and compare with a reference track instead of a preset, to determine when your track is finished.


I am sure that I already have everything I need, but I also need an easy start, and so far I think that Ozone 9 is easier to understand and use than stock plugins. But I will also give it a try to see what Studio One 4 can do about it!


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 6, 2020)

Geomir said:


> Well, after many hours of struggling and experimenting the last 3 evenings with Ozone 9 (Demo) and Lurssen Mastering Console (Demo), I am already achieving similar or even better results than AI Online Mastering!
> 
> Lurssen Console is literally something between Landr (or Cloudbounce) and Ozone, it is very easy to use, it gives you instant results, has several different basic and easy to understand presets, and allow some customization of all the frequency ranges. You don't see any details or advanced real-time graphs. I would choose it over any online mastering service, especially in the amazing price of $49, but I knew nothing about it during the last sales. It would be the perfect easy start for me in the world of mastering. If only I knew a few months ago.
> 
> ...


I see Lurssen on sale every now and then. I have it but tend to forget I have it. I will have to try it out.


----------



## Geomir (Aug 6, 2020)

dzilizzi said:


> I see Lurssen on sale every now and then. I have it but tend to forget I have it. I will have to try it out.


I don't think you are going to like it! It is really too simple! But it works!

EDIT: Also it is very heavy on CPU (I mean, for what it is)! The is the most demanding plugin (including libraries) that I have ever tried!


----------



## Kent (Aug 6, 2020)

Okay, I just skimmed through this thread hoping to find this—and I didn't—so apologies to anyone who did say this, but:

The number one thing to do for mixing (and mastering) is to MAKE SURE YOU CAN TRUST YOUR EARS.

There are two concurrent ways in which this is accomplished:

1. Ear training—not aural skills like a music major has to do, but with an 'engineering' mindset. Can you hear muddiness, boxiness, crispness, air? Do you know when something is out of tune, and by how much? Can you, by listening, name all the elements of a mix, where they are in the XYZ cube, and where in the frequency spectrum they sit? Can you hear the flattening effect of a compressor or when a stereo element is out-of-phase? This comes from listening critically to recorded music.

2. A trustworthy listening environment—a treated room and properly set-up monitoring rig, or at least a pair of nice headphones and amp, and the knowledge of how to compensate, mentally or with software (to a degree), for deficiencies in either (e.g., the bass boost and artificial stereo separation that headphones provide). Importantly: *is your monitoring correctly gain-staged? *If you're monitoring too quietly (both in absolute terms but also in relation to the ambient noise floor of your listening environment), then you'll turn up and compress things that you don't mean to, rendering your final mix squashed and distorted. Likewise, if you're monitoring too loudly, then you'll mix everything too soft, which will create a limp and "noise-floory" mix.

In short: start your mixes and masters _way_ before the literal mixing and mastering and focus on creating an environment, both mental and physical, that works with you and not against you.

Otherwise, it's like trying to paint the subtle nuances of a blue sea while wearing red glasses in a room with green lighting—it just won't work, no matter how nice your pigments and canvas are.

::edit:: 

by the way, this is my favorite place to start for point 2: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/1024968-k-system-try-t-system.html


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 6, 2020)

I always worry that my tinnitus affects my ability to hear some of these things. Others are just experience. You may know it doesn't sound right, but if you aren't given enough examples of, say, boxy vs non-boxy sounding mixes, it is hard to learn.


----------



## Kent (Aug 6, 2020)

dzilizzi said:


> I always worry that my tinnitus affects my ability to hear some of these things. Others are just experience. You may know it doesn't sound right, but if you aren't given enough examples of, say, boxy vs non-boxy sounding mixes, it is hard to learn.



There's an app for that (actually a lot). I think the ur-example is the Moulton Labs Golden Ears set, but you can find cheap and modern solutions that do about the same thing. For example, a quick Google search turned up this.


----------



## SupremeFist (Aug 6, 2020)

I picked up bx_masterdesk when it was $29 and I was sceptical, but it does really nice things in a way that's very easy to understand and dial in. (I don't let it do everything but it's often in the chain.)


----------

