| Author
|
Thoughts on not mixing while producing.
|
daark
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
1397
Posted : Jan 24, 2012 07:22
|
Quote:
| Why skip this step? |
|
To get out outside the box and focus on a sonic tripped out journey and not cutting everything like a surgeon but to just flow with the output. Well maybe thats my thought on trying out completly different stuff. Cause i like to go crazy with stuff.
Anyway sure you CAN do what you said. My advice is to go with already big sounds like all the best you have in your library. Make it controllable in terms of pitch changes or whatever changes(for easy midi work). Do whatever. Comeback, make the sound surgery and make everything even bigger( eq/dynamic tools whatever it takes just for it to fit but really gentle and minimal), the mixing stage but gentle .Lets say its the rough mix part.
Rendering it all like a remix pack to many channels.
Then there is a possibility to edit it chopping parts, deleting parts,volume automation and glueing parts can even add more vst's.
And Finaly mix the thing like a mixing engi for a rock cd no need to double compress but layering is a good idea.
Then render it again.
Still can edit and add parts while its a long wave.
Then mastering 
Does it matter what was written first the chorus, the bridge or the verse?
If the song is good is good, right?
So i think the same with this may be it sounds bad at the first part and you focus on story melodies rhytms themes and build the bones to work with... And only then to polish it to a complete product.Or just make the sound straight away.
Can do both and see what comes out.
But when you do stages like i said, yes it takes longer, but you have a more clear view on why you eq/comp this or that because you already drew a picture so you don't get stuck on tweaking eq on a lonely sound but on a full picture or almost full and have more control on editing instead of bouncing mediocore one shots you get to work with more big sounds.
  http://soundcloud.com/magimix-1/chilling-forest-whispers
Wierd shit happens :) |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Jan 24, 2012 13:13
|
|
that stage of rendering it all on audio to work like on a remix is a great idea man for more audio editing and trickery |
|
|
|
makus
Overdream
Started Topics :
82
Posts :
3087
Posted : Jan 24, 2012 13:35
|
daark, well, i guess the mothod and way to make a track really depends on the style you make. not much sense in tweaking synths only without using eq in intense night trance. but in progressive where there is much less happening and melodic parts take more attention mixing as a separate process do makes sense.
especially if there is an option to take bounced audio files and go to another studio. and i have such opportunity.
www.overdreamstudio.com |
|
|
|
daark
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
1397
Posted : Jan 24, 2012 14:52
|
I did not say not tweak the eq. I said tweak the eq to shape the lead add saturation if you have analog lamps go for it, bitcrush, transient shaper, chorus, phaser, flanger, etc. to make it sound big and to use it more in a musical and timbre shaping. Does not matter if it is a squelch, a growly saw, a supersaw and square, or a fm mutation make it top notch as possible to get a quality source sound to work with and really no need to bounce too much leave everything midi in reason. Really aim for best result and leave space to work with for further eq and compression process. After rendering its a more detailed mix of a big picture less notching out ringing freqs and shaping the color of the sound but to make parts of the track glued together compression, ny compression, group compression if you hate multibands, layering and glueing parts with one another basicaly making parts still weak become strong and create an even fuller picture leaving the coloring and timbre and focus on quality reaching the limit of "audio distruction" with compression and eq etc and making it pumping more then the mastered version. I think any music can profit can be pop music. Specialy if 2 different people do this its even better. Basicaly its an idea i take from recording studios like record the best result possible (if its a guitar with crazy pedal chain then yes ! ) mix the recording to reasonable audibility. And then get the mixing done layering and compressin or whatever you feel like is gonna make it again leave it pumping like insane use compression to make it pump not squish.
Then mastering engi only needs to focus on mastering and not how to squish the low to make bass come out or making that lead sound better.
http://soundcloud.com/magimix-1/chilling-forest-whispers
Wierd shit happens :) |
|
|
|
daark
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
1397
Posted : Jan 24, 2012 15:04
|
I'm not saying its a must step. Skipping the mixing stage if the result is already good is absolutely more than fine. Its just another tool to use. I wish i had a studio like you have makus.  Working with my studio only brings despair. I absolutely can't hear wtf i'm doing and only do stuff based on my humble knowledge with cheap speakers and nothing more. Soon i'll rob a bank. 
http://soundcloud.com/magimix-1/chilling-forest-whispers
Wierd shit happens :) |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Jan 24, 2012 15:28
|
|
for me it s quiet the opposite makus, on dark stuff i find don t really need to mix...while when making full on or prog spend way more time into production tweaking everyhting with ultra care, a reason why i find these style a bit boring to produce it can too much about technics more than making great arrangement and stories |
|
|
|
