EQing Trance Music

EQ is one of the most commonly used tools in mixing. This also makes it one of the most commonly misused tools, particularly when starting out. There is great temptation to apply massive EQ cuts or boosts to fix frequency imbalances, rather than making level adjustments, or even finding more suitable sounds in the first place. The vast majority of a great sounding mix comes from sounds which fit together well, set at appropriate levels relative to each other. if the mix isn't sounding decent before EQ and other tools have been applied, then the work of mixing is going to be much more difficult.

So we have a mix which sounds decent - how can EQ help? I picked up a very handy summary from Bobby Owsinski's "Mixing Engineer's Handbook" - cut to make things sound better, boost to make things sound different. This is how I apply it as well. Cuts clean out the parts of the sound we don't want, while leaving the overall character of the remaining parts of the sound relatively intact. Boosts introduce coloration which can spice up or change sounds quite a bit.

The first EQ I apply in a typical trance song is highpass filtering. Low frequencies take up a lot of headroom, due to the prominent kick and bass. So I remove the low frequencies from all the other sounds. This clears out the low end, leaving plenty of room for the kick and bass. Where I set the highpass cutoff frequency depends on the sounds in the song (including both the sounds being highpassed as well as the kick and bass). The filters are applied either directly to individual sounds, or to groupings of sounds. While the full mix is playing, I find the point where the filter begins to cut away part of the sound I want to retain, and move it back a bit from there. Sometimes I'll use a low shelf EQ instead, to use a much gentler slope - my goal is simply to significantly reduce the low end content which isn't essential to the sound within the context of the mix. When I started highpass filtering sounds I made some sounds too thin by setting the cutoff frequencies too high, in a misguided attempt to introduce separation and clarity into my mixes. As usual, experience helps to train our ears and get better at finding the sweet spot.

With the highpass filtering done, I turn to problematic or resonant frequencies, finding and taming them. Certain sounds (especially basses and pads, though sometimes kick drums) frequently have a lot of content around a particular frequency, in a way which isn't pleasing to the ear. To me, it makes the mix sound like it's under pressure. It can quickly cause muddiness and will mean the apparent loudness of the song is decreased, since the overpowering frequency will be hitting the ceiling of our levels. To locate these problem frequencies, a frequency analyzer can be used on the particular sound to see where there is excessive content. Another way is to set an EQ to maximum boost, with a very narrow Q, and sweep around the problem area to find the frequency where the resonance is greatest (be careful with your ears, don't do this at high levels). With problem areas, my first instinct is to try pulling the fader of the offending instrument down a bit and see whether that fixes the problem. If not, I notch out the problem frequency on that instrument. The depth and width of the notch are dependent on the sound. Sometimes it will only take around 4 dBs of cut with a very narrow Q to fix the problem. Sticking with the "under pressure" viewpoint, this feels like taking a small pin and deflating the pressure in the mix. Suddenly, the mix is cleaner, clearer, more open, and the offending sound's character hasn't changed at all. It's a great feeling.

At other times it's not so much a resonant frequency as a conflicting region - say, a pad which is overlapping with the bass sounds at 350 Hz, muddying things up. In this case I'll apply a much wider cut. I make it as deep as it needs to be - just to the point where the conflict is resolved. if the pad (or whichever sound) disappears, I've either chosen the wrong sound or I should move it up an octave. Conflicting regions extend all the way up the frequency spectrum - I'll sometimes cut back a bass sound's high end if it's getting in the way of the lead sounds (even if it makes the bass sound less defined when solo'd - it's the mix that counts, not the individual sound). I'll sometimes pull back the high end of a particularly hissy hihat for similar reasons.

Then I apply a few boosts. I generally don't boost the low end, there's rarely a need. Only when I feel there's a particularly flat spot do I add a bump of a dB or so, with a medium to wide Q, either to a particular sound or to the kick and bass grouping. I use boosts much more to bring out definition - 1 or 2 dBs added to the kick, centered between 3 to 8 kHz. Mid/high bass sounds often benefit from a 2 to 4 dB boost centered around 1 kHz. A large, wide boost of 2.5 to 5 dBs to lead sounds, centered around 3 to 6 kHz really helps to bring these sounds through clearly. Drum sounds are sometimes treated to a boost around 1.5 to 2.5 kHz. Sometimes a high shelf boost is also applied to the drums to bring out high end above 8 kHz. However, often with appropriate levels and highpass filtering applied the high end will already be where it should be. All these frequencies and amounts are ballpark figures. Actual usage in a particular song may be quite different.

My send channels (delays and reverbs) get EQ'd, sometimes quite extremely. When I was starting out I didn't think to EQ effects, not realizing they could sound a lot better if I did. Highpass filters are applied to most send effects (except maybe the "small room" reverb), since low end content can quickly build up and it can sound odd to have very low frequencies spread out to the sides of the stereo image. This may be a holdover from the days of vinyl records, where the bass frequencies needed to be centered. The high end is also often pulled down a bit, if I want to blend the effect into the mix. Conversely, if I want an effect to stick out, I lift the high end up. In between the extremes, the same principles apply as with regular EQing - I pull down certain frequencies to make things sound better (sometimes 300 to 500 Hz can get a bit boxy/ boomy on my large reverb, so I'll pull that down for example). I lift certain frequency ranges to give effects a different character and make them stand out, especially on my delays, which I don't feel need to sound "natural". If I have any flat spots in a mix, I like to try boosting one of my send effects in that region rather than altering the sound of a particular instrument. This can work well, filling in the flat spot without changing the sound of any of the instruments.

Finally, there's the master channel EQ. Very rarely this won't require any EQ, which is satisfying in a way, but I don't lose any sleep when a few bands of EQ are required to make a song sound better overall. Sometimes I'll apply a steep highpass filter to bring down excessive content under 40 Hz. Often there will be a broad boost of a dB or two, at frequencies where all the sounds seem to benefit from the treatment. I used to go quite wild with my master EQ, using large cuts and boosts to try to squeeze my mixes into the shape of my reference songs! Nowadays, as noted above, things sound much better through choosing sounds which actually want to fit together and setting appropriate levels, meaning I EQ a lot less.

I hope this article has been helpful, keep making great music!

Fabian

Getting Your Work Flowing

Today I'm focusing on work flow – the things I've learned and incorporated over the years to make the process of creating and finishing songs as efficient as possible.

The main difference between what I do now and what I used to do lies in my mindset. I used to open up my sequencer with a “let's be creative”, or “let's see what happens” mindset. It was quite enjoyable, experimenting and playing around with different sounds, and no doubt built experience in what works and what doesn't (though this learning process probably isn't optimal, in terms of the time spent). I don't do that any more. Now I have a clear goal when I'm in the studio. I know what I want to get out of the session – whether it be composing a melody, building up a mix, adding finishing touches or experimenting and playing around with different bass sounds (yes, I still do it, but now I'm aware that's what I'll be doing when I start the session!)

Something I have made extensive use of during the years are production templates. These are constantly changing – if I find I'm using a certain limiter more and more, at some point I'll modify my template so the limiter is ready to use without me needing to load it in.

Some people are against using templates, claiming they will lead to “cookie cutter songs” - every song which uses the template will sound pretty much the same. To a degree, they're correct, though it depends on how broadly you interpret the expression “pretty much”. I think “pretty much” could well apply to songs by people who don't use templates, unless they change all their tools and learn a new style of mixing between each song. However, if we are using a template and there are certain settings applied when it is loaded up, and we don't look at these settings during our current song to make sure that these settings are meaningful, we do run the risk of coloring our sound in a particular way, which the song may not require. And if we're using a template where actual sounds are loaded in – say, a kick drum – then this will lead extremely quickly to “cookie cutter” territory. This could be okay when working on an album, where a consistent foundation is desired, but could otherwise lead to stagnation. It will not provide experience in mixing a broad range of sounds.

Templates are useful when they contain tools and routings which we will use 95 times out of 100 anyway. Manually setting these up and loading these in those 95 times is quite likely to slow us down and kill our flow when we'd rather just be getting on with making music!

There are many effective ways to configure templates. As with music, there's no “one size fits all”. I'll go through my current template, maybe you'll pick up on some things to try.

I have a number of audio channels set up, ready for instruments which will invariably find their way into a trance song – a kick drum, a hihat, a clap/snare, a crash, a “special fx” channel, low and high basses, a couple of leads and a couple of pads. I have EQs on a number of individual channels, which are initially turned off. A couple of other processors are on some of the channels – processors which color or thicken up sounds. Once again, these start in the “off” position. It's handy to be able to simply turn them on and start tweaking if I feel a given sound will benefit from the treatment. The instrument levels are set at nominal starting positions, rather than leaving all the faders at 0 dB. The faders won't stay in these positions (I'm not a believer in “my kick drum must be at -8 dB” - it totally depends on the sound of the kick drum and the other instruments around it). The nominal level settings simply ensure that sounds come into the mix at ridiculous levels when I put them in.

I also have a number of groups set up, which the various instruments are routed into. The groups I currently use are: Kick/Bass, Synths, Drums, Loops and Pads. Some of these have highpass filters set up at nominal frequencies – a decent starting point which I can refine when the sounds come into the mix. There are various EQs and compressors which are ready to be turned on, including sidechained compressors – I have a MIDI triggered sidechain input channel set up, ready to push other sounds out of the way of the kick drum. Using groups makes it easy to make broad adjustments to levels and EQ, rather than individually adjusting a number of channels.

I have four send channels ready to go – two delays (one shorter, one longer) and two reverbs (a small room and a large hall). Send channels make it easy to add some sonic interest to sounds, and sending a few sounds through the same send channel at various points in a song gives the song greater cohesion. Sending a number of sounds into the same main reverb ensures they all sound like they're playing in the same space. I have to admit, I rarely change the delay times on my short and long delays – this is one area where my template is leading into “cookie cutter-ness”.

These groups and sends are then routed into a master channel, which contains a number of processors: a compressor with very restrained settings, an EQ (initially turned off) and finally a limiter (which starts off producing zero gain).

Well, that's my template. It allows me to get into the process of making music incredibly quickly. I'll now move onto my broad method of creating a trance song, from start to finish. The actual process will always differ in some ways (it's hard to fully predict the creative process), but this method works for me currently.

A song starts with the song – I generally have separate composition sessions where I come up with melodies, chords and basslines. Most often the sounds I use are sounds which get my creative juices flowing, and don't end up in the final version of the song. So, I have the main melodic elements ready to go when I start building up a production. From here, I'll start with either the melody, finding a sound which brings it to life, then build a suitable drum and bass foundation to go with it, or I'll start with the drum and bass foundation. Around half the time I'll build up the foundation from nothing, the other half I'll dip into my treasure trove of kick and bass foundations, usually opting for a setup I haven't used before. These kick and bass foundations usually arise out of sessions where I try to recreate other people's songs. Even when I don't get that close to the original, I'll still often end up with a great set of sounds to use in a future production.

I get the main elements in place – it is essential that the kick and bass lock together seamlessly. A strong foundation makes the rest of the mixing process much easier – it practically all falls into place, having a solid reference point to build on. If I start with the lead, then the kick is chosen while the lead is playing, then the bass (and bass pattern) is chosen while both the kick and lead are playing. After the first sound, none of the sounds are auditioned in isolation. Sounds in isolation have no meaning.

At this point, if I didn't start with the lead, I'll add it now. I'll generally have a feel for the type of sound I'm looking for, and reach into one of my synthesizers or samplers. Once I find and tweak my main sound I'll generally layer it with another sound – if my main sound is direct and centered, maybe I'll layer it with a wider, more washed out sound to lushen things up. Or I'll layer a fuller sound with a thinner sound.

Then I'll add the other drum sounds – clap/snare, hihat, crash, loops. I'll take my time going through my sample libraries. I'm looking for sounds which:

sound different to what I've used before

come through clearly when all the other sounds are playing

sound like they belong with the kick (and bass), during the intro and outro of the song.

I'll often apply a stereo enhancer to loops, and have them out wide while the main drum elements are in the centre.

After that I'll add a pad – lately I've been using just the one. Again, I'm looking for something which sits nicely in the mix, but also sounds quite nice on it's own, if it happens to be isolated at some point in the song.

I'll perform some preliminary processing to get things sounding decent – adjusting highpass filters on sounds and groups, to leave the low end open for the kick and bass. I'll often add a doubler/ unison effect to a lead sound to thicken it up.

At this point I like to get the mix sounding as “finished” as possible. I turn on the speakers and check out where the bass is sitting (I do the vast majority of my mixing in headphones). Then I export the main sequence as it currently stands, and run it through a frequency analyzer, which I then export and bring into a program I've set up where I can compare my song to a ballpark of other great sounding songs in my style. This tells me where my overall level is at, and where my frequency balance is at, relative to the ballpark. This lets me know if any levels are unbalanced, or there are resonant frequencies in some instruments. I make level adjustments and repeat the process three or four times, after which the mix usually sounds “finished”. Quite often I end the session at this point, to get some distance from the mix. The next day I'll be able to listen and evaluate it more objectively before deciding to turn the main sequence into a complete song. Some songs get shelved for a while at this point, if I don't think they're strong enough in their present form.

When I've decided to turn the main sequence into a full trance song, I get away from the computer and imagine the overall journey, the flow of the song. What will happen during the intro? When will instruments come in, how will they come in? How will the main melody be introduced? Suddenly, all at once, or gradually evolving from a pared back version? I write down how I imagine the journey to go. Then I go back to my sequencer and write in a guide track (I currently use Cubase. Not every sequencer may have this, a text track where you can specify the various sections of a song). I write in where instruments come in or drop out, where levels or filters should be automated, and so on. This is very handy for keeping the overall song in mind when working on sections.

Then I record all the instruments. I use a number of hardware synths for a lot of my sounds, so here is where I write in all the notes and MIDI automation to control the various synth parameters (resonant lowpass filters feature heavily in trance). Once I'm happy with all the notes and automation I record the incoming audio, then that track is "locked in". I proceed in this way through all the sounds I'm bringing in from external sound sources. I really enjoy committing to sounds and finishing songs. In my early years of mixing I was using only software synths and I'd leave my sound choices wide open right up until a song was finished - I'd find myself still agonizing over whether my lead sound was good enough, well after choosing the original sound. I have a better selection of sound choices these days (this is for me personally - I don't buy into "better" and "worse" sound sources per se), and I find it so much easier to commit to sounds early and get on with the process of finishing the song.

Once all the sounds have been recorded I get my drum programming in place - where they have fills or drops leading into transitions, where levels, filters or other parameters can be automated to heighten the effect of certain sections. Often I extend this to other instruments as well - maybe a few bass notes can be cut out heading into a transition as well. I don't feel I need to stick with exactly what has been recorded if a bit of creative editing at transition points will work well. I also automate send effects - for example, the feedback control on a delay, or maybe the overall volume of a reverb (rising up, or even having the reverb cut out briefly for effect). I'm aiming to get as much of the flow in place from the main sounds before adding any other effects.

Then, when I do get around to placing the special effects sounds, they're the icing on the cake rather than trying to carry a lot of the flow by themselves. I look for a good selection of uplifters, downlifters, crashes and other effects as desired. I look for a decent range, and see if I can use them two or three times - more than this and they can sound very overused (especially if they're quite distinctive), less than this and it can take away from the overall integrity of the song - it sounds like I've pulled out all my special effects and dropped them in all over the place.

Then the song is done. I'll export it as a WAV file and listen to it now and then over the next few days, making notes for adjustments. After a few days I'll try out all the adjustments I've noted and re-export the song. Then I like to let some time pass before hearing it again, to come back to it with fresh ears. Usually at this point I don't pick up anything which can be further improved (maybe after another 6 to 12 months of experience I'd be able to improve it).

I hope you've enjoyed reading about my work flow - feel free to ask me some questions!

Keep making great music!

Fabian

Listening Techniques

Listening is the most important skill we use when working on music. Being able to hear what's happening to all of the instruments and sounds in our mixes, as well as being able to hear the mix in it's entirety, is essential in order to create songs which sound excellent. Good technology will help (high quality speakers, headphones, a high quality sound card), but the most important element is experience – with practice, your ears will develop and you'll be able to make many more fine distinctions than you were able to when you started out. Through experience, you'll sense when a bass or pad is boomy, when a hihat needs to have it's high end pulled back slightly with a shelving EQ, when the kick drum needs to be pulled down just a fraction to sit better in the mix.

There are good listening programs around. I've seen a few book/CD combinations, which take you through a variety of exercises, training you to recognize certain frequency bands, types of distortion and so on. These can be very helpful for some people. I went through one and perhaps I got something out of it – it's hard to separate all the different lessons I've learned through the years and quantify how much each contributed to my understanding. However, my feeling is that the many years of actually mixing audio is by far the biggest factor in my improved sound. I've mixed an enormous number of kick drums in my time, in a wide variety of contexts, and have made an enormous number of mistakes. By now I know a lot about what not to do! These days, experience saves me a lot of time, because I don't stumble down as many dark alleys as I used to.

Having established that the best way to get better at listening is through a lot of experience, how do I make this article at all useful to newcomers to mixing? Well, there are a number of ways you can catch imbalances or bad sound combinations in your songs via creative listening techniques.

A really good technique is listening very quietly, in mono. I use a stereo imager plugin on the master channel for this. It allows me to set a stereo width of zero, so the signal is straight up the centre, and also has a level control, which I turn way down. Most of the time this plugin is bypassed, but it's very easy to do a quick mix check by turning it on. This combination is helpful for two reasons – in well mixed songs, the sounds come through clearly even at very low levels. When you're working at high levels, it's easy to think the bass is prominent enough. But often the bass can disappear entirely at low levels, since it doesn't have enough midrange content. The same is true for other instruments – a mix that is well balanced at low levels will sound even better when you turn the volume up. So turn it right down, listen and take notes – do any instruments get lost in the mix? Then listen out for instruments which seem to be sticking out more than they should – maybe you'll notice a bright hihat that's cutting through rather harshly, that will still come through fine if you drop it a couple of dBs. The other reason the quiet mono combination is helpful is that by listening in mono you'll firstly be able to tell whether any instruments disappear or drop considerably in volume due to phase cancellation (because inappropriate stereo treatments have been applied to the instruments) and secondly you'll get a better feel for the relative volumes, without the distraction of having some sounds out at the sides, some in the centre, some narrow, some wide. A lot of venues play music in mono, so it's good to have some idea how your song will play under these conditions (unless you're adamant your music will never be played in venues).

Another technique which is along the lines of the “listening quietly” technique is to use high and low pass filters to cut out low and high frequencies, leaving just the midrange. The midrange is the key to a great sounding mix. Some systems won't reproduce a range as wide as you're working with. The reason this technique is similar to listening quietly is that both techniques bring the midrange to greater prominence. Human hearing isn't linear, certain frequencies are perceived as louder than others when played at the same volume (the human ear can hear very well at the frequencies associated with human speech). At low levels, the low and high end of the frequency spectrum drop off considerably. The louder the volume is pushed up, the more linear our response to sounds becomes.

A technique I've found useful is the “morning after” listening test. I usually combine this with listening quietly (though not necessarily in mono). This just involves playing the song after not having heard it for a good chunk of time, and noting which instruments are the most noticeable. I've often pulled a few faders back a touch the next morning after this listening test, or removed some frequency content from a sound which was sticking out where it shouldn't.

A technique I used to use more often a while back is listening to a song in a variety of spaces – in the car, on the hi-fi, at friend's houses, at venues when I got the chance. Each time I made mental notes of things that sounded odd and tackled these when I got back to my studio. In time, though, I got to know my listening environment in my studio and these days I rarely get surprised by anything when I hear one of my songs in an unfamiliar environment. For me, the “listening in a variety of places” technique served to teach me more about the sound of my studio – once I could hear the imbalance in my studio, I could hear it the next time it occurred, and fix it before I played the track elsewhere. Techniques such as stepping out of the studio and listening from various places outside the room are similar to this – again, I find myself doing this less and less because I don't seem to get surprised any more.

Having said that, I do check my songs both on my headphones and speakers. I do the vast majority of my mixing through headphones at low levels, but I do send the sound out through my speakers, primarily to check out the low end. Through headphones, it may sound like my low end is very decent, but sending it out to the speakers can sometimes disappoint! In trance, the bass has to hit me in the chest in a certain way. There's no way to hit my chest through headphones. I have a certain spot in the corner of my room where I stand and feel the chest-thumpiness of my song. I'll play a variety of reference songs interspersed with my song so I can tell if it's hitting my chest in a satisfying way.

Speaking of reference songs, these are absolutely vital. If you don't yet have a collection of great sounding songs in the style you're producing/ mixing, I can't recommend enough that you build one up. I have a whole bunch of short snippets from the middles of great sounding trance songs, so I can quickly flip from one to the next, then to my song, and compare like with like. This will quickly let you know if there are any areas that are lacking or overly prominent.

Well, there are some brief thoughts about listening. You'll be amazed at how much more you're able to hear as you build mixing experience. You'll be able to tell much more quickly if a kick drum/ bass combination just isn't working, if a lead is too washed out, if percussive elements have particularly shrill high end frequencies. At this point I'll briefly mention frequency analyzers – as with some of the other techniques detailed above, analyzers can help you to train your ears to hear problem areas in your mix. By comparing a frequency chart of your song to frequency charts of reference songs you may see that your song has a big dip at 300 Hz compared to all the other songs. You may correct this area in your next few songs, based on the frequency analyzer, until you eventually start hearing and fixing it before you need to reach for the analyzer. Analyzers can be dangerous if used incorrectly (such as indiscriminately pushing up 300 Hz with an equalizer rather than looking first to correct the level of the bass), but as stated, can also be great learning aids.

Keep making great music!

Fabian

Giving and Getting Good Feedback

To varying degrees, many of us are holed up in our studios for significant amounts of time. We can achieve a lot by ourselves – developing our mixing and listening skills, maybe playing a few instruments, creating great sounding music.

At times, though, we're too close to our music and can lose objectivity. After we've set the room reverb for our drums and have listened to the mix a number of times while we're working on other areas, the reverb can simply become part of the way the song sounds – it's easy to not reflect on it further if it's not really pushing for attention. This is where a fresh set of ears can come in handy – another person may comment that the reverb is too bright, may provide a perspective we hadn't considered. Of course, they may not comment on the drum reverb, which could well mean it sounds fine (depending on who the feedback is coming from).

As with many things, clarity is important. Which aspects of your song(s) do you want input on? Who is going to provide this input? The ideal person to provide feedback on your mix is:

A very experienced producer/ mix engineer

Someone who is very familiar with your specific sub-genre

Someone who cares more about great sounding music than tending your ego

Someone who, in addition to criticizing, will suggest specific techniques to improve the mix

Friends and family, even if they're “easily accessible”, are often not the best sources for self-improvement, since many times they don't fulfill many of the above criteria. There's not much you can do with comments like “Wow, it sounds like real music” or “that's a cool guitar sound!”

Music Forums can be a good source of feedback, though there are drawbacks. Sometimes nobody may bother to provide feedback. Sometimes the only feedback you'll get is of the “friends and family” variety. Some forums are too broad – it's rare to find a forum dedicated solely to a single sub-genre. This means that you may be aiming for a particular type of, say, Death Metal, but get feedback from people who are into a different type of Death Metal. This can make it hard to work out whether their feedback is relevant to your song, or whether it reflects their personal biases. It would be great if every “feedbacker” provided examples of their own work so this could be taken into account. This would certainly help to find out which people are only just beginning to create and mix their own music, who have a lot of development ahead of them before they begin to make halfway listenable music. Frequently these people have no qualms about providing a lot of feedback about many aspects of your mix, as well as suggestions as to how things could be improved. Taken at face value, this feedback can be downright dangerous and actually set us back in our progress. In the end, it's up to each of us to decide what to do with the feedback we receive. If a consistent pattern of feedback emerges, it's more likely there's an issue there (though not necessarily, some people will only comment on something when someone else has already mentioned it). If only one person singles out an aspect, potentially it's not so serious (though again, not necessarily – maybe this one person just took more time to listen to your song in detail).

As important as the person providing us with feedback is the way we ask for this information. Sometimes it may be fine to say “Here's my new song – any comments?” People may reply along the lines of “Cool Hendrix wah on that guitar, dude” or “wtf is up with those lyrics, lolz”. Those comments may well be helpful (and may well stop us from writing lyrics for a while if we were already a bit insecure about them) but if we actually wanted to find out whether our bass sounds okay, since we're a bit unsure about it, then we should be more specific. We could either ask directly about the bass, or (if we feel that shining a spotlight on it before people actually hear the song may lead to skewed opinions) ask if there are any instruments which don't fit quite right and see if the bass gets mentioned. Maybe we'll find out our bass is fine, and it's just our dreadful kick drum which is making it sound like that.

In terms of getting specific, there are a few main areas we could be seeking feedback on:

Engineering (how the mix sounds – relative instrument levels, panning, EQ)

Arrangement (whether the song is too cluttered, or too bare)

Structure (the flow of the song, how it transitions from one section to the next)

Production (Instrument selection/ sound design, automation, special effects)

Composition (Melodies, chord progressions)

Playing technique (where relevant)

Maybe we want feedback on all of these, in which case a broad request for feedback may well suffice. But it pays to think about which aspects of our song we're most unsure about and direct our feedbacker's limited attention there.

Hopefully the above information is also helpful when it comes to providing feedback. All the same concepts apply, just from the other side of the equation. We should be aware of our own biases, the kinds of sounds we prefer. We should refrain from providing extensive feedback in sub-genres with which we're unfamiliar. When we are unfamiliar, we should admit this, to give our feedback some perspective. The same goes for when we have limited experience in mixing a particular genre, or we're aware that our own music has serious limitations. When we criticize a song, we should be able to offer suggestions as to how the song could be improved. This is much more helpful than simply criticizing. It should rarely happen that we say something like “those background vocals just sound odd, but I can't really think how to improve them, or what they could be replaced with”.

I hope that in time a number of skilled producers and engineers offer feedback services on www.InsideMixes.com. This should alleviate some of the drawbacks of anonymous, free forum feedback. We will be able to specify exactly who we want our feedback from (after listening to examples of their work), within what time frame, what they should focus on, and to what level of detail. In short, ideal feedback!

Keep making great music!

Fabian

There are no Secrets

I like looking for certain words on magazine covers. The word “Sex” features often on the covers of both women's and men's magazines. It obviously occupies a lot of our thoughts. Almost as common is the word “Secret”. “Angelina Aniston's amazing secret diet”, “Secret Sex lives of the Stars” (that one guarantees maximum readership). The music production magazines are no better. “Secrets of mixing pros”, “Mastering secrets revealed”, “ten secrets to a killer guitar sound”. Almost without fail the word will appear on the front cover, enticing readers to buy the issue and “get in on the secret”.

It makes sense for the magazine publishers to do this. It's basic human psychology. We're all wired to find the easiest, quickest way to get the results we want. And yes, often these magazines will provide us with a lot of fantastic information - “Jennifer Jolie is sleeping with whose chauffeur? Wow!” Or the magazine may indeed help us towards a better sounding guitar. The issue I have with this method of selling magazines is that there are no secrets! Whenever I've looked, I haven't managed to uncover any secrets. Hmm, this diet and exercise combination expends more energy than it takes in. Kinda makes sense why it leads to weight loss. Hmm, this section on mixing describes a number of really useful techniques, such as cutting out the low end from sounds which don't require it. I'll try it, and find out that this technique does make sense, it does clean up my low end a bit.

I realize the word “Secret” will sell many more magazines than the word “Technique”. Secret implies easiness. It implies “I can eat all the chocolate cake I want, then I just need to, once a month, apply the secret technique of standing on one foot and clapping my hands three times while saying 'fat begone from my temple' and I'll have the body of a supermodel”. The music magazines' “secrets” aren't quite so bad – it's easier to break the habit of excessively boosting bass frequencies when you can see the benefits for the mix, as opposed to replacing chocolate cake with celery when you can see the benefits for your health. The music magazines probably end up being more helpful.

There are many advanced mixing techniques, effective combinations of audio processors arrived at through years of experience (or a lot of trial and error, or “happy accidents”). The tools are rarely custom made or exclusive. With experience we generally get better at uncovering the techniques behind these sounds (though it doesn't hurt to ask the source directly). If you have a number of “secrets” of your own, ask yourself whether it's possible that no other engineer has tried that combination of audio processors. I think very few of us will take any secrets to the grave.

Keep making great music!

Fabian

The Impossibility of Self-Mastering

For me, it's not a question of whether or not to master my own music. The way I see it, even if I wanted to, I literally can't.

In terms of mastering a single song, the mastering process is a chance for a second objective pair of ears, listening in a high end listening environment (some to a higher degree than others), to notice and correct mix imbalances and deficiencies. Hopefully you can see why, even though I'd like to, I can't master my own music. I would need four ears and two brains, and my second brain wouldn't be allowed to listen in during the mixing process.

I do, however, have audio processors on my master channel. Typically I'll have some compression, followed by EQ and finally a limiter. These are tools often used by mastering engineers, who may well use them in a similar way to myself. Just because it's a similar (or the same) process doesn't mean it's the same process from a second-set-of-ears perspective. When I use these tools, I'm still at the mixing stage. The mix just happens to sound the way it will sound when the song is released.

There is a lot of debate about mixing into a chain on the master bus. Many engineers leave their master channel empty and actively try to dissuade others from processing the master channel. I can totally understand this perspective, which I believe boils down to two main factors: firstly, taking responsibility for each individual sound and group in the mix. For example, the end result is generally much better if I fix problem frequency areas on individual sounds rather than subject the entire mix to drastic EQ processing. If the levels are slightly imbalanced, it's much better to adjust the individual faders than to try to correct the imbalance on the master channel. Secondly, depending on the compression applied to the master channel, mixing into it could well feel like mixing when drunk (I haven't actually tried that). Every new sound, every level adjustment, will change the overall balance. I used to mix into heavy compression when I started out mixing and it added immensely to my mix frustrations! I don't use heavy compression any more, but I occasionally hear other people's mixes which are treated to significant compression, and it's often quite eye-opening to hear the relative levels when the compressor is bypassed – they make no sense whatsoever!

Having established that there are very good reasons not to process the master channel, I'll happily admit that I process the master channel. The reason is pretty simple – I want to hear how the song will ultimately end up sounding, as early as possible. I just find it more inspiring to work on something which sounds more “finished”. As stated, my signal chain is typically compression – EQ – limiting.

The amount of compression I apply to the overall song is fairly minimal. I typically set the threshold very low (-40 dBs) and apply a very light ratio (1.10:1). The attack and release times are as fast as possible. This treatment means the song is always being compressed, with the overall dynamic range being reduced evenly rather than just the loudest parts being pushed down. There is no cutoff point where the compression kicks in and out – the loudest parts will be pushed down the most, the next loudest parts will be pushed down almost as much, all the way down to -40 dBs. The relative levels of the instruments will need to be spot on, with or without this treatment. In practice, this treatment will drive the average level up by a decibel or two.

The EQ I apply is (hopefully obviously) dependent on the song. Very occasionally I won't need to apply any EQ at all and that does feel satisfying. Having said that, I don't lose any sleep when I need to employ a few bands of processing. Whatever leads to the best end result is fine with me. More common EQ requirements are: a highpass filter to cut out excessive sub frequencies – under, say, 35 Hz. I can't hear these in my listening environment so I use a frequency analyzer which measures RMS levels to see whether the sub frequencies are over-represented. I prefer to apply this to my Kick/Bass group, but sometimes other groups also have low end coming through and it's easier to apply it to the overall mix. I'll often apply a broad boost centered around 3 to 6 kHz (it depends on the song), to bring out overall definition. The boost will only be a dB or two, and is applied when the relative high ends of the instruments/sounds are already balanced, that is, all the sounds benefit equally from the boost. Beyond these typical EQ treatments, it's wide open – whether small boosts or cuts anywhere in the frequency spectrum, it's entirely dependent on the mix. I don't take the decision to apply master channel EQ lightly. Where possible, I treat the individual instruments/groups, since that will almost always lead to a better result.

The limiting I apply is purely to bring the RMS level to a “competitive level”, so I can compare my song to the songs in my reference ballpark. I aim my level for the midpoint of this ballpark – usually I could drive the gain up further cleanly, but maximum level isn't my goal. I've heard a number of casualties of the loudness war and I'm happy to be well back from the edge!

At some point soon I'll address “real mastering”, in terms of getting music mastered by a mastering engineer. Not every song requires it – when I put songs up on the internet (or on www.InsideMixes.com) I don't get them mastered. If I had a bigger project, such as an album, or a song I knew would have a large audience, I'd be very likely to go to my local mastering engineer and sit with him while he masters my songs. For the most part though, I'm happy to take responsibility for the entire process.

Keep making great music!

Fabian

Striving for Perfection

Those of us who are suitably obsessive aim high. We try to create songs where both the music and the mix will knock our listener's socks off. Songs where we've held nothing back, where every decision we made improved the song and led to perfection.

As long as we have a good relationship with “perfection”, this mindset is very desirable and helpful. We want our listeners (as well as ourselves) to enjoy our music as much as possible.

However, when our relationship with perfection causes us to never share our music, to feel bad when we fail to meet our high expectations, it stops being useful and can ultimately lead to us withdrawing from creating music.

The thing is, perfection can't be measured. We can listen to a song and appreciate how beautiful the music is, and recognize how great the production is. But there's nothing in the song which we can point to and say “that's perfect”. Or, to look at it another way, there are many things we can point to as examples of perfection, but none of them couldn't be replaced by something else which is just as, or even more, “perfect”.

Perfection is a direction, not an endpoint. When I create music, I do it to the best of my ability, then I let it go. Could I come back a year later, with more experience under my belt, and adjust the reverb on my lead, or nudge the kick drum up slightly and end up with something which sounds better? Absolutely. I doubt there's a song in the world which can't be improved upon in some way. We can listen to a song with a great mix of sounds and see it as something set in stone – which it is, by the time it reaches us as listeners. However, the stone could have been set quite differently and we'd be none the wiser. Perfection has many forms (or none!)

What's true for the song is true for individual instruments or sounds. When I started mixing I obsessed about finding “perfect sounds” - I wanted to have the “perfect kick”, the “perfect bass”, and so on. Maybe I thought that once I'd found all these sounds, I'd simply slot them together and have “the perfect song”. I never ended up finding them all, and in any case, this line of thinking is nonsense. Finding “the best” sounds in isolation practically guarantees an impressive mess when we try to somehow mash them together into a song.

Sounds in a mix only have meaning in relation to each other. An instrument is loud because other instruments are quiet. A sound is hard because other sounds are soft. An arbitrarily unexciting kick drum can sound fantastic in the right context. A snare which stands out can sound great, as can a snare which blends in. Basses with clear, defined high end can work well, as can basses which occupy only the bottom end. I've sometimes been surprised to discover that two very different sounding kicks in two of my songs are in fact the same sample. Because of the other sounds, one comes across in a more defined, hard-hitting way, the other in a smoother way which blends into the mix more. Sounds only have meaning in relation to each other.

Perfection is a great motivating force. It feels exhilarating to put in the effort and end up with a great sounding song. As long as we allow ourselves to do our best, as long as we don't second guess our decisions and always hold our options open because we feel “the perfect lead sound is just around the corner”, striving for perfection will keep us improving every day.

Keep making great music!

Fabian