# Mixing Wisdom from a Master



## NekujaK (May 8, 2021)

Everything I know about mixing/engineering is self-taught or gleaned from various DIY sources - some more reliable than others. But last year I had the incredible fortune to spend about 12 hours of intense one-on-one sessions with a respected Grammy-nominated engineer who's been doing this since the late 1970s.

I initially asked him to critique some of my mixes for a client's CD project, and in addition to the notes he gave me, we ended up having a series of hour-plus phone sessions to discuss mixing, engineering, audio, and addressing my long list of mixing questions that I'd accumulated over the years. It was like sitting at the feet of a master (I felt I should change my name to Grasshopper  )

Needless to say, this experience had a profound impact on my mixing efforts, so I thought I'd distill and share some of the nuggets of wisdom I learned. Some were quite eye-opening and occasionally flat out contradicted information typically tossed around on the internet. Hopefully, you'll find something of use here...

- Aside from global effects like reverb and delay, the only tools you really need to mix at the track level are EQ and compression. Your DAWs built-in EQ and compressor are all that's necessary to handle 90% of mixing needs.

- Strip away excess mixing plugins from your plugin library, and don't be tempted by the latest and greatest shiny new toys on the market. Too many choices slow down the mixing process and can introduce doubt and second-guessing. All you need is one versatile EQ (that's capable of dynamic EQ), along with a FET, optical, VCA, and multi-band compressor. Familiarize yourself with the bahavioral characteristics of each compressor, so you can predict how each will affect the material.

- Compression is one of the most powerful tools at your disposal. It's not only a technical tool, but a creative one that can significantly shape the sound of your mix:

fast attack to tame transients
slow attack/long release to extend sustain and create a fuller sound
impart consistency to an inconsistently performed instrumental part
alter timbre and tone

- Big proponent of parallel compression - uses it a lot.

Parallel compression can bring out sustain, without bringing up peaks to create a fuller sound that takes up more space.
Fast material generally doesn't do so well with parallel compression.

- Drum compression:

Almost always use parallel compression on entire drum bus.
Use compression to to change timbre/tone, enhance sustain, bring out sizzle and sparkle.
Rarely compress an individual drum mic unless drummer inconsistent. Otherwise if compressing an individual drum, usually it's only the snare.
Passing cymbals thru bus compressor can be okay to get more sparkle.
Use a colored compressor on drums (favorite drum compressor: ProTools Smack).
Use a fast attack to tame transients and let back end come up.

- Use the most un-colored compressor on vocals, unless going for an affected vocal sound.

- Be careful not to over-compress a mix. Individual track compression, plus bus compression, plus things like tape emulation all contribute to the compressed sound of a track and it's easy to squash the life out of a mix and give it a "pinched" sound.

- Plugin compressors are extremely unreliable in reporting gain reduction. Don't trust the GR meters on a plugin compressor, they're usually wrong. Learn to use your ears.

- The idea that one compressor is objectively better than another is bullsh*t. Each compressor has its own characteristics. People on the internet compare compressors stupidly by always placing them on drums. Some compressors aren't ideal for compressing drums, but that doesn't make them bad compressors - they may excel at vocal compression, etc. Evaluate each compressor by its unique characteristics and use it accordingly. Try different compressors on material to find the right one for the situation.

- When EQ-ing acoustic instruments never cut frequencies to "make space" in the mix. The idea of removing useful tonal content from a real instrument is ridiculous. When you listen to a group of musicians playing live, you're hearing each instrument in its full frequency range. Any masking that occurs is part of the natural blend of the instruments. If instruments need to be clearly heard in an ensemble, the proper way to address it is in the musical arrangement so parts don't overlap. What parts do overlap, use panning to separate them.

- Except for rolling off excess low end frequencies or suppressing unwanted resonances, rarely use EQ to cut. Instead, use EQ to bring out the important characteristic tones of an instrument (jangle of a guitar, plink of a hi-hat, blat of a horn, etc.) by boosting key characteristic frequencies for that instrument. Typical boosts are often 3-6db, but don't be afraid to aggressively boost as much as 12db or more, if necessary.

- Can use dynamic EQ as an expander. For example on the drum bus to bring out the kick drum.

- How to get rid of high-frequency harshness?

EQ or dynamic EQ is the best approach.
Applying saturation typically doesn't work so well.
Often harshness is not an artifact of digital mixing, but is baked into the source material. Overdriven circuitry (like on a Mackie board) and some mics can introduce harshness into the source material.

- Fade outs?

Fade outs should run about 20-25 seconds from the first gentle bit of pull to silence.
Most listeners don’t hear the last few seconds regardless, so start slow, and then speed up on the way out.

- Mixing bass for small speakers?

Generally don't worry about it, small speakers will never convey bass content.
Can try applying distortion to bass to add harmonics.

- Reverb techniques?

Almost never use hall reverbs because they tend to turn everything to mush.
Bricasti plates are great for vocals.
To get a bigger reverb sound, run a delay into the reverb.

- If you're delivering stems for a project, don't master them because the mastering processors won't have the benefit of reacting to the full mix arrangement.

- Never uses clipper.

- When mixing a track, the goal is not to make it sound like some other track. You need to make it what it wants to be. Listen to the track to hear what's working and what's not working - enhance what works and bring out the track's inherent feel and emotion.


----------



## Markrs (May 8, 2021)

This is really useful set of mixing tips. Thank you for sharing them


----------



## alcorey (May 9, 2021)

Very nice share Nekujak I'm copying and pasting into my "important" folder


----------



## doctoremmet (May 9, 2021)

This is an invaluable post - many thanks


----------



## Crossroads (May 9, 2021)

That very last paragraph is the most helpful advice here. Listen to what the track needs, not to what it is ''supposed'' to sound like.


----------



## Scalms (May 9, 2021)

Thanks for sharing, very helpful indeed! 

Is there a comprehensive list of plugin compressors somewhere? This forum is helpful, but it's often daunting when searching trying to sort out what some of the better ones may be.


----------



## SupremeFist (May 9, 2021)

Disclaimer: I am by no means a great mixer, but though a lot of this makes a lot of sense from the point of view of traditional mixing of mainly acoustic/electric rock/pop music, it doesn't necessarily apply to many modern electronic or hybrid/epic styles, where eg frequency carving is absolutely necessary to build the "wall of sound" that is essential to the genre aesthetic.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 9, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> Disclaimer: I am by no means a great mixer, but though a lot of this makes a lot of sense from the point of view of traditional mixing of mainly acoustic/electric rock/pop music, it doesn't necessarily apply to many modern electronic or hybrid/epic styles, where eg frequency carving is absolutely necessary to build the "wall of sound" that is essential to the genre aesthetic.


Kind of explains why these tracks always sound so damn awful.


----------



## SupremeFist (May 9, 2021)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Kind of explains why these tracks always sound so damn awful.


Absolutely, it's a matter of taste! But I don't think "never cut, only boost" is any more useful as a general rule for EQ than the more familiar "never boost, only cut". 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Ben (May 9, 2021)

NekujaK said:


> Except for rolling off excess low end frequencies or suppressing unwanted resonances, rarely use EQ to cut. Instead, use EQ to bring out the important characteristic tones of an instrument (jangle of a guitar, plink of a hi-hat, blat of a horn, etc.) by boosting key characteristic frequencies for that instrument. Typical boosts are often 3-6db, but don't be afraid to aggressively boost as much as 12db or more, if necessary.


Very interesting, I often read the exact opposite: "rarely boost, mostly cut, it will make everything sound better."
I don't know which one is more true; imo it's more important to learn how to use an eq, learn what to listen pay attention to and then simply trust your ears.

I'm a hobby musician, not an expert, so I can only comment based on my observations. But since there are also a lot of hobby musicians here in the forum, I want to share some of my thoughts:
While I agree with some of the points made, my impression is that most of these are based on analog workflows of past days. Sure, as beginner it is definitely useful to limit the number of plugins to a minimum and learn how each of these work.
But, especially as non-professional, to me modern plugins (for example that can't be strictly classified as eq or compressor) can be a huge time saver. With "analog" gear/plugins I would never be able to get results I'm satisfied with myself in a timely manner. But thanks to my technical background I'm able to get an idea of what the plugins do on per sample or per frequency field base, and can make use of these to get the result I want with all the tools available to me. 
Especially AI based EQs are a huge time saver for me, not for doing my job, but to give me suggestions I then carefully evaluate.
But as beginner, don't get the most expensive and fancy plugins. Start with the basics and your DAWs plugins, read a lot and find some useful videos explaining the things you don't understand. Only after you got a basic understanding you should consider getting new plugins.


----------



## storyteller (May 9, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> Absolutely, it's a matter of taste! But I don't think "never cut, only boost" is any more useful as a general rule for EQ than the more familiar "never boost, only cut". 🤷‍♂️


I’d agree with you on this one. The rest of the tips were great... but boosting only works well with the right EQs. If the logic is to cut resonances, but boost highlighted areas, this makes sense with the right EQ. Otherwise, I stick with cutting as the primary approach. My $0.02 that probably isn’t even worth that...


----------



## SupremeFist (May 9, 2021)

Ben said:


> But, especially as non-professional, to me modern plugins (for example that can't be strictly classified as eq or compressor) can be a huge time saver. With "analog" gear/plugins I would never be able to get results I'm satisfied with myself in a timely manner. But thanks to my technical background I'm able to get an idea of what the plugins do on per sample or per frequency field base, and can make use of these to get the result I want with all the tools available to me.
> Especially AI based EQs are a huge time saver for me, not for doing my job, but to give me suggestions I then carefully evaluate.
> But as beginner, don't get the most expensive and fancy plugins. Start with the basics and your DAWs plugins, read a lot and find some useful videos explaining the things you don't understand. Only after you got a basic understanding you should consider getting new plugins.


Absolutely, I read an interview with a cool electronic artist where he explained he felt no shame about using things like smarteq and smartcomp, because they helped him get to what he wanted more quickly.


----------



## NekujaK (May 9, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> Disclaimer: I am by no means a great mixer, but though a lot of this makes a lot of sense from the point of view of traditional mixing of mainly acoustic/electric rock/pop music, it doesn't necessarily apply to many modern electronic or hybrid/epic styles, where eg frequency carving is absolutely necessary to build the "wall of sound" that is essential to the genre aesthetic.


My personal theory is that the mantra of "carving" EQ to make space in a track has a lot to do with the rise of the bedroom producer, where you have people who never played in a band or ensemble, or had minimal understanding of arranging, making music with limitless options. Carving becomes necessary because music was/is being made with no thought to how instruments and parts should properly interact.

On paper, carving seems to make a lot of sense, and I've been doing it for years. But much to my astonishment, when my mentor engineer had me eliminate my carving moves, and instead boost selected frequencies of different instruments, the mixes improved exponentially, gaining more clarity, vitality, and impact.

Ultimately, whatever works is what you should be doing to get the mixes you want, and carving may be the technique that works best in a lot of situations. But I've experienced first hand how it can be detrimental to a mix.

There are many paths to the top of the mountain.


----------



## SupremeFist (May 9, 2021)

NekujaK said:


> My personal theory is that the mantra of "carving" EQ to make space in a track has a lot to do with the rise of the bedroom producer, where you have people who never played in a band or ensemble, or had minimal understanding of arranging, making music with limitless options. Carving becomes necessary because music was/is being made with no thought to how instruments and parts should properly interact.
> 
> On paper, carving seems to make a lot of sense, and I've been doing it for years. But much to my astonishment, when my mentor engineer had me eliminate my carving moves, and instead boost selected frequencies of different instruments, the mixes improved exponentially, gaining more clarity, vitality, and impact.
> 
> ...


I absolutely agree that arrangement is primary, but I also do think carving can be more necessary in modern genres than this approach allows. But also I agree that one shouldn't do it as a matter of course!


----------



## cet34f (May 9, 2021)

slow attack/long release to extend sustain and create a fuller sound
Just checking: a longer release actually compresses the sustain part more, right? So it's just an illusion that it creates more sustain. Our brain is tricked by the new envelope, so we feel the sustain somehow "extended".

If so, does the "long release equals long sustain" rule apply to every instrument or just instruments with long sustain? I am curious because I still hear people say "fast release creates/preserve more sustain" from time to time.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 9, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> Absolutely, it's a matter of taste! But I don't think "never cut, only boost" is any more useful as a general rule for EQ than the more familiar "never boost, only cut". 🤷‍♂️


Yeah, absolutely agree.


----------



## Nimrod7 (May 9, 2021)

Ben said:


> Very interesting, I often read the exact opposite: "rarely boost, mostly cut, it will make everything sound better."
> I don't know which one is more true; imo it's more important to learn how to use an eq, learn what to listen pay attention to and then simply trust your ears.


I have seen some famous engineers boosting like crazy, and saying that people afraid to boost.
I believe it was CLA.

Not sure myself, I just do whatever works. No hard rules.


----------



## NekujaK (May 9, 2021)

cet34f said:


> slow attack/long release to extend sustain and create a fuller sound
> Just checking: a longer release actually compresses the sustain part more, right? So it's just an illusion that it creates more sustain. Our brain is tricked by the new envelope, so we feel the sustain somehow "extended".
> 
> If so, does the "long release equals long sustain" rule apply to every instrument or just instruments with long sustain? I am curious because I still hear people say "fast release creates/preserve more sustain" from time to time.


The attack time generally determines whether or not the transient is going to get grabbed by the compressor. If you're only interested in enhancing sustain, you may want the compressor to only go to work on the sustained part of the sound, hence a slow attack.

Rick Beato does a good job of explaining how a long release enhances sustain.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 9, 2021)

NekujaK said:


> The attack time generally determines whether or not the transient is going to get grabbed by the compressor. If you're only interested in enhancing sustain, you may want the compressor to only go to work on the sustained part of the sound, hence a slow attack.
> 
> Rick Beato does a good job of explaining how a long release enhances sustain.



For strings, I like to keep compression as transparent as possible, with a fast attack and slow release.


----------



## Henu (May 9, 2021)

RE: boosting,

When you work with analog EQ's, "boosting instead of cutting" is way more accurate and advisable than when working ITB. Especially when working with "character" EQ's. Considering the background and experience of the said advisor, it might be that his mindset is more in the analog workflow.

(Also, every time I waste a parameter on cutting when using my mastering EQ, I feel a sting in my heart. :D )


----------



## Snoobydoobydoo (May 10, 2021)

I have mixed (..) feelings now.


NekujaK said:


> - Strip away excess mixing plugins from your plugin library, and don't be tempted by the latest and greatest shiny new toys on the market. Too many choices slow down the mixing process and can introduce doubt and second-guessing.


To many sure, but some Plug's are there for a reason and they exceed the DAW's stock ones, in terms of 
sound (there are so many comparisons, its no bogus), usability and tweaking options. But the point is clear.



NekujaK said:


> - Compression is one of the most powerful tools at your disposal. It's not only a technical tool, but a creative one


When the input is already fine enough together, dont compress it just for the sake of using a compressor.
Some tools should not be used just because they exist, that applies for a compressor also (sometimes).



NekujaK said:


> Almost never use hall reverbs because they tend to turn everything to mush.


Oh no.


----------



## NekujaK (May 11, 2021)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Yeah, absolutely agree.


Some folks are misinterpreting the advice conveyed in the original post. "Never cut, always boost" was never mentioned, nor is it the intended message.

To clarify... cutting is perfectly fine (and absolutely necessary) to remove unwanted frequencies and resonances. But what cutting shouldn't be used for, according to the veteran engineer, is to remove good sonic information from ACOUSTIC instruments for the purposes of "making space" in a mix. This should ideally be accomplished thru the musical arrangement, or if necessary, proper panning.

As for boosting... the key point here is that each instrument has specific frequencies that describe its unique sonic characteristics, and we shouldn't be afraid of boosting these frequencies to enhance the overall presence and impact of an instrument in the mix. This doesn't mean "always boost" as some have chosen to interpret, but rather, the point is you can enhance an intrument's role in the mix by boosting its signature freqencies, and you don't need to be shy about it.


----------

