Tag Archive for: mixing

Mixing Issues And Solutions

/in /by

As a mastering engineer, I’m exposed to dealing with mixes every day, and as we know, quality masters are directly linked to the mixes’ strengths. When in the mastering stage, I’m dealing with a stereo file, which means I can make adjustments but also have limitations. If the mixed file has all its issues fixed, I can focus on bringing the best of the song to life. On the other hand, if there are some issues, I might have to fix them the best I can, but that will also blur the song’s best part(s).

Asking the client to fix some issues is part of my job. How about a blog post to cover the most common problems I deal with?

Before I start, I’d like to say that mixing is an art that takes years and years to get the most out of. While you can take many different classes, practicing and exposing yourself to many other issues is the best way to learn. Sending them to me for mastering trains yourself to how specific tests come out in the end.

 

Some clients send me music every week for mastering. Not because they want to release the song but because they want to see what it will be like. They constantly practice and tweak their songs and start new ones, and those are the ones who learn to mix fast.

 

But like a client asked me recently, “Will I always have to depend on someone for learning to mix?”

I replied, “No, but you need to learn the basics first and then the rest will be much easier.”

But before you read this post, I encourage you to watch this video I recorded for clients.

 

 

The most common mixing issues I deal with in mastering

 

As a reader, you probably expect easy pointers to what you do wrong within your mixing session, but some of the issues come from external factors. If those aren’t addressed, you’ll have the same problems no matter what you do with your software or how you use your plugins. This is why, quite often, after listening to the first 20 seconds of a song, I already know in what context the producer is working.

This leads to the first most problematic issue I deal with every day.

 

Lack of experience with mix-translation

 

What is mix translation?

One develops this skill when they know how their sound will be projected into the world outside the studio. Mix translation requires spending time in the outside world, listening to different types of music, then returning to the studio and listening to the same songs to see how they sound. Your ears eventually understand that if you have your low end at a certain level in the studio, it will have a particular impact in a club or a car. Some people rely on their car to see if the track sounds right, which is, in a way, a form of mixed translation.

But this has a particular twist. If your studio doesn’t have appropriately adjusted settings, your monitoring will trick you into misleading directions. Or even worse, it might mask some issues or enhance parts that don’t translate well.

 

Does this mean you need a studio with a full range of acoustic treatments and a room correction by Sonar Works?

 

The answer is no.

 

I wouldn’t say I like Sonar Works’ plugin because I would rather get used to an imperfect signal than deal with a plugin-induced flat tone. Some like it, and that’s good for them, but honestly, it’s not something you need. You need a sub or Subpac to understand your low end if you do music where the low end is essential. Get a pair of headphones you love that are not consumer grade and get to know them well.

 

A client kept asking me to boost the sub, and I eventually found out he had no sub. He had a nasty surprise when he got to play the track in a local club.

 

Many clients have mixes with too much of a certain range (ex. exaggerated low end) which will have repercussion of be sounding wrong in certain clubs and will for DJs to have to readjust their EQ on the mixer to match other songs they mix.

 

When clients receive the master of their track, they listen to it in their studio and sometimes feel it’s wrong. That is because they have mixed their song to fit the studio’s flaws, and once those are fixed, then something will feel off. The right way to listen to a master is to compare it to a third-party song that we know sounds right. You can also listen on headphones where there’s no external acoustic disruption.

 

Solution(s):

The easiest solution is to get yourself a wide array of reference tracks. Some people don’t like working with them, but using and knowing them properly will resolve many issues regarding presence, impact, loudness, tone, and general impression. While I work with a client, I usually propose a master that is, according to my understanding, the best presentation possible. Still, if I miss the aesthetic, a reference will significantly help. It goes beyond the words and explanations of a client as it is a concrete demonstration of the wanted result.

 

That reference cannot be a client’s track. It must be from a third party with whom we agree sounds excellent. Tracks from the client will sound right in his studio because they were made there.

 

As mentioned, knowing your environment and going out will help you understand mix translation.

 

If you handle this first point, it will resolve many issues. But I see other problems, no matter if you hold that point, so let’s continue.

 

Low-End Clarity

 

Having a good understanding of the low end is the key to many dance music-related electronic music. How the sub, bass, and kick perform in a club or a festival drives a crowd and keeps energy. I recently brought my son to a local festival where he heard electronic music loud, and he was so impressed by how the bass felt that it gave him a new understanding of why I love the genre and why people get into dancing.

On the opposite side, if the low end lacks clarity, the mushiness will have a sluggish effect on the people listening, mainly because it will lose its power and punch.

 

What is low-end clarity?

The low end refers to a frequency range of about 150Hz and below. This covers the kick, part of the bass, and the sub. The bass can start at around 250Hz and go as low as 30Hz. The kick can start high, around 1.5kHz (for the transient) to 20Hz. But its punch will be between 200Hz and 20Hz, depending on the genre, which all have a different recipe for handling the kick. The sub is pretty much under 30hz.

Considering how these three main sounds cover and share presence within that range, they can easily overlap, causing confusion. It can easily be disruptive once one masters if one masks another.

 

Solutions:

One can do multiple things, but the first solution is to handle this right from the start when you’re in the arrangement stage and sound design.

  • Adjust your sound’s length so they don’t overlap. This is within the ADSR, where you can cut the tail of one sound so it doesn’t hit another.
  • Amplitude modulation is another option if you’re struggling with the length. This means you can use side-chaining compression or a tool like Trackspacer to make one sound that should be the leader to force others to duck when it plays. While Trackspacer is the easiest to use, that can also be done with Pro-Q, Fuser, Shaperbox, but those require a bit more tweaking to get a satisfying result.
  • You can also clear your low-end by learning to use a Gate. The gate helps create space, muting anything under a certain threshold. This means it will silence the tail of certain sounds. My favourite Gate is included in the Neutron Suite.
  • Considering your low end has limited space, consider having a shorter kick if you have a longer bass or vice versa.
  • Cutting the unnecessary frequencies for each sound can also help, but it starts with the amplitude first.

 

Gain Staging

 

For many, this music production and mixing aspect remains a bit esoteric. Even for myself, it was confusing for years, mainly because no one would adequately explain it to me. Eventually, I understood it independently, which was good because now I can describe it easily to anyone.

 

What is Gain Staging?

Let’s summarize it to the essential: it’s about giving enough loudness during the mixing stage so that once I master it, I don’t have to compensate and boost it too much. That is not just for the general loudness of the track but also per frequency sections, such as the low end or the mids.

 

Why is this a problem?

Once I have mastered it, I’m left with only a few options to compensate for the mix’s loudness to hit the commercial levels the market needs. If the mix given has a loudness of -19 LUFS, I need to compensate by adding 9 to 10 LUFS, which is quite a lot. This means that the level differences between sounds and the depth, noise floor, and relationship between all the sounds will be altered drastically, giving my client a shock.

Also, sometimes the loudness is almost perfect, but the low end might not have the required density. I must focus on that zone alone, which can alter the track’s direction.

 

Solutions:

Gain staging is a series of different actions one can do right from the beginning once samples are selected. When you load up a sound, it is essential to normalize it so it hits zero unity, then check its RMS level to see how much power it has. There’s a difference between the peak loudness and the RMS. The last one is about its density. You can stimulate the density with distortion in one of its numerous forms: compression, distortion, saturation.

This means that plugins such as pre-amps, emulations of hardware, overdrive, and waveshaping, to name a few, can help a sound pop out of the mix because it is thicker. See it as if you would put the sound in bold, where it is dense and thick compared to a standard font.

One mistake I often see with clients’ mixes is applying compression at the end of the chain, either on buses or the master. While that can be useful for glueing multiple sounds simultaneously, it also significantly reduces your dynamic range, killing punch if not used properly.

 

Harshness, Resonances and  Transients

 

This one covers three issues at once because they’re related. The umbrella that covers them all at once would be named harshness.

We all know when a song sounds unpleasant, but what causes it?

 

Generally speaking, harshness means that when you listen to the song, it feels uncomfortable or worse; it slightly hurts the ears. This is a given in 99% of contexts because you want people to listen to an enjoyable experience. The last 1% is about some noise, punk and Lofi music, where the uncomfortable feel is enjoyed because it creates tension. But even with those genres, there is a threshold on what human ears will handle.

 

What makes a song harsh is related to one or the combination of different characteristics. One of them is poorly handled transients that feel sharp and will feel like a stabbing to the ear drum. Transients come from the ADSR of a sound where the attack might be too sharp, paired with annoying frequencies. Some people think, de facto, that 3kHz is automatically uncomfortable, but sometimes, that frequency can be ear-pleasing if boosted. The envelope of the sound is sharp, and the concentration/density at a specific spot might be affected. It is just like putting bold in something ugly.

 

In sound design, different sound sources help replicate real-world instruments. For instance, noise or inharmonic content can replicate a hihat or a snare. Poorly managed noise, such as white noise, which covers a full range, can be sharp. Picking a filter and applying an ADSR to it can help manage that.

Other sources, such as feedback, which can be helpful for non-linear sound design, can be beautiful but can create resonances. That type of sound, if handled properly, can add an organic feel to your sound, but if you exaggerate, it will be uncomfortable. This is why that resonance on a filter can be ear-pleasing at a certain level, which is the same for boosting EQ’s filter.

 

When I work on a master, I call myself the general ear’s advocate. I’m the wall between the general public and the client’s song. I adjusted the song so that it felt suitable for the average Joe. It can sometimes be shocking for a client to hear their song fixed, where I removed all the uncomfortable points.

 

Solution:

 

Quite often, clients or people I coach ask me which online ear trainer they should try to be able to spot problems in their music. My reply confuses you as I suggest not to use any since, in my humble opinion, they won’t train you for that. The real issue is that many clients don’t understand the harshness for multiple reasons.

  • You will lose the criticism if your monitoring equipment masks your song’s harshness. This is why consumer headphones or, sometimes, hi-fi make everything sound perfect.
  • Your ears eventually adjust to imperfection if you overexpose something to them. In other words, if you listen to an ugly song in a loop, your brain will trick you. It’s nice because it’s the only option to not go mental by listening to that loop.
  • Comparing your music to well-adjusted music is a cross-validation system that will reveal imperfection. If you AB your music, you can feel something is wrong with your sounds. Then, what should you do?

 

No tool will directly educate you about resonance, but some will give you hints. A plugin like Soothe is a good eye-opener because it shows you potential resonances and controls them dynamically. Different alternatives are cheaper. But honestly, a good way to educate yourself on the harshness and rough mixes is to trust your intuition that something is wrong and then follow this routine:

  • Using a 3-band EQ, isolate one of the three primary ranges (Low, Mid, High) to pinpoint the issue’s approximate location.
  • While you pinpoint the range, pay attention to which sounds are playing.
  • Mute some of the channels to find which one is causing the issue. Once you mute one that seems to impact the ear’s comfort, you know you have found the problem.
  • Sometimes, the problem comes from combining multiple sounds playing simultaneously. If you solo the sound, you won’t have a problem, but playing with others creates a concentration of frequencies that hurts your ears. You can group those channels at once and then apply an EQ cut at the frequency where it hurts. The methodology is the same: put an EQ dip of 6dB to start with and then scrub the area to see if a position makes it more comfortable. Once you find it, adjust it to -3dB to see if that works. Adjust to taste from there.

 

Consider removing a sample if you must EQ out 3-4 points at 3- 5 dB. This usually means the sample is plain garbage (for your song).

You can also manage transients with a transient shaper or use a compressor with a short attack to control the problematic envelope of certain sounds.

 

Stereo Width and Depth

 

Wide mixes are impressive—I get it—but that can also be an issue in some listening contexts. Those issues mean loss of punch and power; some sounds become ghosts by disappearing or losing considerable loudness. In a stereo signal, there are the Left and Right (LR), but there is also the Mono signal and the Sides (MS).

The mono signal is distributed in both speakers. If you go very close to a speaker and hear only that one, you should distinctively hear the mono and panned signals. When the two speakers are positioned, the mono signal will appear right before you (center), so your ears perceive a stereo representation. On headphones, the mono signal feels right up to your nose or in the middle of your head.

The right and left signals are encoded in the specific signal, which is the same on headphones.

The Side signal, once isolated, will feel on each signal but will have the mono signal muted. It’s a hard one to describe. On headphones, it can feel like hearing the ambience of a space alone, almost tricking your ears that you can listen to behind and around your head.

 

There are many wideners out there that play with psycho-acoustics to trick your ears. The signal is wider, but this can blur out your sounds to a point where they will phase. What we call phasing issues is that the sound cancels itself out because it can’t be properly represented in the stereo image. I could go deeper in the description, but you must know this.

One of the issues I often deal with is the mono signal being too weak compared to the sides. Sometimes, it can be where the side signal, but only a specific frequency, is louder than its mono signal. In the opposite scenario, the sides are too weak, and I will try to open them to give some presence. If I did that, I would never exaggerate it.

 

Solution:

This is a tricky one. Using a tool that shows your mixe’s MS balance is best. You can also learn to spot if sounds are phasing with a spectrometer. I’d encourage you to get the free vst Span by Voxengo.

 

General recommendations for enhancing your mixes

 

Some healthy habits you can start when you make music will directly impact your mix’s quality. I will share a few of them here as bonus content. These tips don’t necessarily address a specific problem but will help you achieve consistency and better results after mastering them.

 

Mixing Flat / Using an FFT

Keeping an FFT reader on your master bus, such as SPAN, will give you an idea of whether the tone of your song is slanted or flat. For mastering, it’s easier to deal with a mix that is flat than one that is slanted (dark or bright). Having a flat mix gives me the chance to propose to the client a specific direction that will be best for the given song. If the song has an exaggerated tone, and I have to fix the tone, the client will automatically believe I messed up the song.

 

Testing in Mono

 

I’d encourage you to test your song in mono during the mixing stage. Multiple plugins, including the Utility plugin from Ableton, can convert a stereo to mono. When your song is in mono, try to see how certain sounds are heard compared to when in stereo. If the sounds in mono signal drastically get attenuated, you must accentuate its presence to solidify its level. You might have overused some phase-inducing plugins, and it might be good to mellow that out.

 

A/B your music

Drop a few songs directly in your arrangement section to use them for referencing. You can then A/B your song with that one and compare the tone, levels, and width. You can also check the arrangements, which sometimes reveal flaws in yours.

 

Learn to DJ and use Rekordbox

This might sound strange if you’re only producing, but if you learn to DJ, this will be helpful in how you prepare tracks. When you DJ music you love and then play yours, does it feel right? Is there a gap? Not only can DJing be a fun hobby, but it is an activity that will significantly help with your mixing and arrangements. I consider this essential if you aspire to make dance music-related music. It is a way to put yourself in a DJ’s shoes.

 

Photo by Tobias Tullius on Unsplash

 

Crafting Club-Ready Tracks

/in /by

It’s no secret that I’m an engineer for mostly electronic musicians but whoever comes to me for mastering, one of my main task is to make sure their music sound solid in club/festival context. In the last years, it’s been impressive how bedroom producers, not just pros, will have their music played in a context where the music is loud. This is due to the rising number of people who turns themselves into DJs and then this opens door to play in a local pub, party or club.

But it’s the same for producers. There’s been more and more people making music and for a lot of them, their hopes is to be played by DJs, not just in a podcast, but in moment where it can be heard by more than a handful of people. That becomes a test of the quality of their production and mixing.

But it can also be falling flat if the track isn’t following some basic standards.

I’ve been asked to go through a checklist of points that can help anyone to avoid feeling frustrated with their music.

 

1. Tone: The Foundation of Sound

When preparing music for clubs, tone is paramount. Many producers overemphasize certain frequencies because it sounds good at home, leading to mixes that are either too shrill or too muddy. Having the wrong music references, not understanding that all clubs are different can lead artists to pick some bad decisions.

Aim for a more balanced, flatter tone.

While there’s room for experimentation, avoid excessive highs, which can sound harsh, and overly pronounced lows, which can leave your track sounding hollow or muddy. A balanced tone ensures your track will work across various sound systems and club environments. This would apply to home listening as well.

TIP: I love to put an EQ on the master bus to see the tone of my track. If it tends to have one section higher than the rest, that is not always a good sign. If there are some peaks over 10k, this can be pretty harsh on a big sound system. If your low end is louder than your mids, by more than 4dB, you can expect your song to lack presence in a club. The melodies will sound behind.

 

2. Loudness and Density: Power Without Overpowering

 

Loudness is undeniably crucial in a club setting, but it’s a balance as well as a double-edge sword. While ensuring your track has punch, remember DJs need some wiggle room for gain staging during transitions. The goal isn’t just about raw volume, but rather the density within specific frequency areas, especially the low end. While a track that’s slightly quieter isn’t an issue, it should have the right energy and weight in crucial frequency areas.

DJs should know how to do gain staging. When they complain the track isn’t loud enough because they had to turn the gain up, I’d suspect that they might know that this is absolutely normal to have differences. Tracks that aren’t as loud will have more dynamic range, giving the track more details, punch and ultimately, life.

To reach a certain loudness level, the mix will need gain staging done right and then, in mastering, compress and limit more. Loud music means sounds bleed into one another.

TIP: After years and years of mastering, playing and attending, I find that -10LUFS is sort of the ultimate sweet spot. Some will argue that music should be louder but I believe not.

 

3. Mono Signal: The Unsung Hero in Club Tracks

 

While stereo spread adds richness and dimension to tracks on headphones or home systems, the mono signal is a powerhouse in a club setting. Songs that rely too heavily on stereo spread without considering their mono compatibility often lose potency on club systems. Prioritize the main elements in your mix to be mono-compatible, ensuring they drive the track without muddying the sound.

Sounds that should have some presence in the mono signal: Kick, Bass, clap/snare and melodic content between 200 and 800hz.

TIP: Create a return channel, add a utility plugin set to mono and then send your different sounds towards that channel. This will solidify your mono signal as you’re either doubling or enhancing your sounds’ presence.

 

4. Resonances: Subtle Saboteurs

 

High resonances can wreak havoc when played on large sound systems, turning subtle tones into screeching sounds. I often say that as a mastering engineer, I hunt those. Resonances can come from various sources such as resonance on a filter or the use of sine waves. I won’t get into details about what they are exactly but they’re sort of the type of sound, just like distortion, that sort of sound amazing at the right dose.

It’s vital to control and tame these, ensuring that your track remains pleasant and consistent across various volume levels and systems.

I’d add in parallel to this, as a 4-B, transients. Those are also to be careful with.

TIP: Using an EQ, you might want to tame the resonances but if you can’t spot them because this concept is not easy for you, don’t hesitate to start by putting in solo each sound and find the ones that have a “eeee” sound in it (it can be pitched high or low). We often find resonances into synths, because they often have either a sine wave oscillator or a filter with resonance.

 

5. Clarity: Space is the Place

 

Every sound in your mix should have its designated space, both in the stereo field and in the frequency spectrum. Overcrowding with prolonged decays or excessive reverb leads to a soupy, unclear mix. By ensuring that each element has room to breathe, your track will retain punch, definition, and that coveted dance floor energy.

TIP: Gating is your best ally in mixing. You can remove tails and reduce the decay of sounds with it which helps much.

 

6. Phasing: The Silent Song-Wrecker

 

Phasing issues can lead to essential elements of your track disappearing, especially during mono playback. This phenomenon is exacerbated by phase-inducing effects like flangers, phasers, chorus, delays, and reverbs. By understanding and addressing phasing, you ensure that your song’s core elements remain consistent across all playback scenarios.

 

A good way to find out if one sound is phasing in your project is by using a Correlation Meter such as SPAN (it’s free!). You’ll see this moving meter and basically, you want it to stay from 0 to +1. If it goes into negative, you’ll have phasing. Another way is to put a mono utility on your sound to see if it loses a lot of power or disappear completely.

TIP: How to fix is a bit tricky but you can start by lowering the stereo width, remove effects or make them drier.

7. Low-End Clarity: Making Your Bass Dance

 

The relationship between your kick and bass is akin to a dance. These elements should groove seamlessly, complementing rather than conflicting with each other. Using techniques like gating or side-chaining can ensure that these foundational elements coexist harmoniously, driving the rhythm without muddying the mix.

In the recent years, I have been enjoying shorter kicks beyond long powerful ones. There’s too many issues with using long kicks and in a club, they eat up too much space to be interesting enough. Short kicks support well a song and leaves you plenty of space for lower notes of a bass.

Rumbles, depending of the genre you’re making, might be a problem. You might have a DC Offset as well so I would highly recommend cutting (highpassing) at 20hz to block the garbage down there. Most clubs but at 30hz anyway but cutting at 20 is a good safeguard and will also provide some headroom for your mix.

Align the phase of your kick and bass! Simple trick that does a good little difference in some cases.

TIP: For people that heavily rely on side-chaining for making both work, I always say that arrangements are the root of mixing. In other words, if you program/design your kick and bass properly at the beginning, then it will be cleaner and you won’t have to fix it with gizmos.

Club environments pose unique challenges for electronic music producers. By taking into account these seven pivotal factors, you can ensure your tracks not only sound great in the studio but also shine on the dance floor. Remember, a club-ready track is a synergy of balance, clarity, and energy. Aim for these, and you’ll have club-goers moving to your beat in no time.

How To Mix A Track As You Arrange

/in , /by



One question I get a lot when I teach production is, “Should I start mixing as I work on the track?” There isn’t a precise answer to that as each song is different. I will say though, I do start working on the mix in the beginning, but it isn’t necessarily in the way that people would think. 

 

There are 3 things I look into when it comes to making sure my mix is right, from the start.

 

  1. Gain staging. This is something I cover in mixing tutorials and workshops but it’s mostly about normalizing. You want your input (sample, synths) to be close to 0dB. Then you’ll adjust the fader to the level you want (ex. -10dB).
  2. Amplitude hierarchy. Which sound is the leader? That one would be the loudest of your mix for most of the song’s duration. The others will be adjusted in relation to the leader.
  3. Sequencing and negative spacing. This is where the important part is played. Many people struggle with the mixing done at the end of a song’s production because of all the overlapping in the song’s amplitude (volume) and timing. For example, if you need to use side-chaining between the kick and bass, that’s because you didn’t prepare any negative space for the kick to lead. Then you’ll have to carve both frequencies sharing and amplitude.

 

Proper Sequencing Means A Proper Mix

 

My motto is that if your sequencing is done properly, you won’t have much to juggle with once in the mixing stage. You basically don’t want the sounds to overlap so much so you won’t have to carve into masking issues.

 

When I get a song for mastering, one of the main tasks I have to do is adjust the loudness. If the gain staging is poor, then I need to boost it much to reach the standard loudness. If I need to boost the loudness, this means any sound that is overlapping will be squashed and merged with others, killing all the precision an airy mix would have, creating a muddy and lifeless master.

 

Now some sounds can share the same position in sequencing, such as how, in techno or house music, kicks, claps and hats will shuffle around. But as you know, they are not in the same frequency areas. Kicks will be in the lows, claps in the middle, and hats in the highs. Therefore there is space in the spectrum for all sounds to cohabit. The claps’ transients can also accentuate the kicks, giving them more punch. 

 

(H2 Tag – Make sure to adjust this on WordPress) Pay Attention To Dynamic Range

That said, those sounds will have more punch if you have control of their length. Dynamic range accentuates punch and precision. What we refer to as dynamic range is the difference between the loudest peak and the lowest part. If you insert negative space (silence), your sounds will hit harder in theory.

 

This means reverb, delays, and background noises can kill the dynamic range as they will take some space out of the noise floor. Adding too much will make a song sloppy and muddy.

 

When you have this in mind, you’ll start by picking sounds and adjusting their length, then normalize them (eg. bring them near 0dB). 

 

Be Strategic With Your Voicing

 

When it comes to creating the main idea of a song, we will refer to the sounds as voices. You’ll make your life easier by sticking to 4 maximum.

 

One voice can be a synth or an instrument. If you add layers to it, then it’s still one voice. But if you add a second instrument that plays different notes at different times, it will be a second voice. So four of them make it quite busy.

 

Space In The Mix

 

Amplitude wise, we know the levels must differ, but panning and stereo positioning can also make a difference. You want to keep in mind that you will try to avoid stereo overlapping as well but in terms of amplitude, if two sounds are fighting, you can pan them differently so then you have space, and clarity.

 

Again, when it comes to amplitude, you can cut some frequency based so that some low-end or mid-range don’t interfere. This is why EQs that are passive, such as Pultecs or 3-4 band EQs come in handy. They’ll let you adjust a range of frequencies without changing the whole spectrum.

 

In the end, I invite you to consider how you sequence your music with care and I believe your mix will be way easier.

Mid Side Processing Explained

/in /by

Often when I listen to tracks in my coaching group, I notice that the mid/side processing is often really off. Not having a solid M/S mix makes mixes sound thin, and muddy, rather than expansive and crisp. It’s often the M/S that is the make or break between an ok mix and a radiant one. Therefore, it felt prudent to write an article on what mid/side processing is, and how producers can have it done properly in the mix. Therefore, without further ado, here is Mid / Side processing, explained. 

 

What Is Mid/Side Processing? 

So what is Mid/Side processing? Basically, if you want a wide-sounding mix, you’re going to have to concentrate on mid/side processing. Often these sort of mixes sound “better” to the listener, and allow the producer to throw more sounds in their mix, without it sounding cluttered. While a wide-sounding mix can be accomplished through a bunch of different panning and stereo processes, mid/side is a strategy that can really dial that in, and create a spatial mix.

 

Mid in Mid/Side Processing, Explained

The “mid” part of the mid/side process is basically mono. It’s the sound(s) that sits in the center of the mix. Kick drums, snares, melodies between 200 – 500hz (like a pad), and any other “static” sounds can, and often should be placed in mid. Sure, there are artistic exceptions, but this is a good rule of thumb. 

Also, bass below 100hz. This is best practice. Why? If you print a vinyl, and if the bass is in stereo, the needle will jump. Also, in clubs, they do serial summing, where anything under 100 will be summed into 1 mono signal, but if your bass is in stereo, and it’s summed, it can quiet phased parts of the mix.

 

Side in Mid/Side Processing, Explained

The side-channel is the edges of the mix. Note: This is not to be confused with panning, where you can move sounds specifically into the left or right stereo field. Side processing is strictly hard to the right, or hard to the left, and is technically a mono signal.

When the side’s amplitude is increased, the listener hears a wider, fuller sound. A good way of using it is to increase the width of leads, or strategically move a percussion bus to the sides of a mix to create a fuller listening experience.

You can even get creative with this, and widen parts of the mix at different intervals in the song. For instance, whenever the chorus comes in, you can widen the leads on it, to give it a more present feeling, allowing it to become more expressive to the listener.

Pads are great for the sides as well, since it’s audio that “hugs” you, in a way. Other things that work well on the side are background noises, like field recordings, or weird ambiance -, that stuff works well on the side, it’s not present. Only present stuff should be in the middle. All decorative percussion can technically be on the side – swingy hi-hats, bells and whistles.

 

Side Processing May Cause  Phasing

Once mid/side processing is explained to many newbies, often they just go out and start messing around with it. However, side processing can reveal one of electronic music’s most dastardly foes: phasing. Basically what happens with phasing is when you have two of the same sound, on opposite sides of the stereo field, they cancel each other out. That means, we have to be judicious with the sounds we put on the sides. Generally, “less is more” is a good approach when dealing with phasing since there are fewer chances of frequencies canceling each other out. 

 

How To Correct Phasing

If you want to correct phasing while keeping them in stereo, the trick is to have one of the sounds reveal itself immediately after the other, so they don’t phase. This can be done with a very short delay. When dialed in, the sound will perceptually happen at the same time, but be delayed ever so slightly, allowing the other sound to peek behind the other one and be heard.

A more immediate, definitive way to correct phasing is to make the sound more mono. There is a tool you can use, called SPAN. This plugin allows you to see in yellow, mono, and in red, side signal. When the red goes beyond the yellow, you have to reduce. The tool you use to fix this is the utility plugin, native to Ableton. You can control the width in this. If you want it more mono, you just adjust the width down, and then turn the volume up. 

mid side processing can be explained well with the VST SPAN. Here's a photo of it.

However, let’s say you have a purely mono signal that you want to add some subtle stereo width to. There are certain effects that can impact this. You can use reverb with little decay (otherwise it will be too loud). 

You can also use a chorus. Eventide made a harmonizer that is beautiful for that. It’s two delays – left and right – and when you play with the delay of each other, it creates a weird signal/shape, and then you can play with the wet/dry to add degrees of stereo. However, if you don’t have the money, you can use the echo delay, and control the left-right, and create a very short delay to create a little more phasing and the width you can play with opening and closing it.

 

EQing in Mid/Side Mode Is A Must

In my opinion, all EQing should be done in MS mode. Sometimes people hear things that they don’t like in the mix, and if you just cut, you are cutting both the left and the right at the same time. However, sometimes you want a sound to be EQ’d differently, depending on the channel that it’s in.

For instance, let’s say you have a synth in your left channel, and it doesn’t exist as much in your right channel. When placing decorative percussion, there will most likely be a crossover in the panning.

But since the synth is primarily in the left channel, the percussion in the left channel is going to have to be EQ’d different to not conflict with that synth. However, since there is all this open space in the right channel, there is no need to EQ out some of the frequencies, allowing that sound to better express itself.

Fabfilter ProQ3 allows you to easily enter MS mode for EQing, and make precise cuts to the sound. If you don’t have ProQ3, you can unlink the left/right in Ableton as well. On EQ 8, there is a mode called stereo, but you can unlink left/right by clicking edit and then selecting left or right. You can also switch it to MS (Mid/Side), where you can edit either the mid or the side or you can treat left/right independently. When you do this, your sound feels more organic, because you’re not cutting in one place. 

A photo of ProQ 3 which has a mid/side processing mode.

More Plugins That Impact Width and Phasing:

 

Panman

mid side processing explained through the vst Panman. This is a photo of that VST.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PanMan really splits open the possibilities of panning. First and foremost, it’s a hardware emulation, which allows producers to mimic the syle of vintage hardware panning gear. You can also trigger panning if the track hits a certain parameter. The automation allows you to generate complex rhythms and stunning sweets.

 

Microshift 

This is an image of Microshift, a great plugin for modifying your stereo field

Need some width? Well Microshift’s got width. It provides you 3 separate kinds of stereo widening in just a single button push. It uses a specific algorithm to pitch shift and add delay to your sound, that morphs over time to generate brilliant stereo width. It’s very easy to play around with and can be used to give more flavor to instruments, or create nice blends.

 

MStereoGenerator

an image of MStereoGenerator, an excellent plugin for stereo imaging

With MStereoGenerator, you can convert mono recordings into stereo (or even surround). MStereoGenerator is a unique natural-sounding mono to stereo (or even surround) expander, which makes your tracks sound wider, stronger and punchier.  It’s especially good for acoustic instruments. 

 

Panshaper 3 by Cableguys

An imagine of Panshaper, which allows you to do crazy stuff with MS Processing and panning.

PanShaper 3 takes control over your stereo field to another dimension. The real-time LFO that can be drawn on every band and the envelope follower allow you to design evolving, dynamic pan patterns and make dialed-in stereo edits in seconds.

 

Energy Panner

an image of Energypanner which allows for dynamic panning responsiveness to inputs

Energy Panner reacts to the sound intensity by moving in response to it. A drum kit that moves to the beat, synth notes that move on attack, and many other behaviors are possible. Whether it’s stereo or Dolby Atmos, Energy Panner is a plugin you shouldn’t be without.

 

Width Shaper 2 by Cableguys

an image of the vst WidthShaper 2 which allows for amazing stereo mid/side processing.

With WidthShaper 2, you can fine-tune your stereo image to the finest detail. With three mid/side stereo adjustment bands, each with its own drawable LFO and envelope follower, you can gain precise control over the sound. It is perfect for sound design, mixing, and mastering, and can be used on single tracks and buses.

Once you have mid/side processing explained to you, you can see there is way more to stereo than just left and right. With M/S EQing you can surgically cut into sounds, and make them fit precisely in a mix. You can expand and retract sounds at different points in your mix, creating those illusionary, almost psychedelic effects in music that are almost inexplicable, since they are best described as space, rather than music.

However, with this power, comes the responsibility of not phasing your sounds out, and destroying the punch of your songs. Keeping in mind space, and how sounds relate to each other is a paramount skill in music production, and often an overlooked aspect.

I understand this can be complicated. If you need coaching or you just want to delegate this process to me, I’m available to help. Check out all of my services here.

Do You Love Your Track? Or Are You Just Overly Committed?

/in /by
  • The creative process involves a lot of fantasizing. You fantasize about the reaction you’ll get from crowds, and the reaction you’ll get from promoters. You fantasize about the reaction you’ll get from their creative peers, and the reaction you’ll get from your friends. Perhaps the person you have a crush on will like it. Perhaps you’ll get it signed to the label of your dreams, and it will break your career as a musician. This often creates a deep level of love for your track. 

However, the caveat is that many people feel this adoration in that euphoric phase of composition, where you’ve discovered an amazing loop or a basic structure of a song that enraptures you. 

This is that moment when you pull the hammer back on the metaphorical pinball machine and bounce your idea into the summit of the board, where it starts bouncing off the bells, whistles, and fixed, flashing bumpers, sending it careening into a space of infinite possibilities. 

Then after a while, it slows down, and you begin to see that the ball is falling deeper and deeper towards your flippers and that if you don’t hit it just right, you may destroy your track forever.

This is that moment of self-reflection and doubt that most creatives have. It’s in this period that you might think that you messed the whole track up by adding a part that doesn’t elicit the same joy as before, almost like chasing the high the first time you took a drug. 

The problem is that you’ve committed so much time to this track that you may be convinced that it’s still incredible, and become stubborn about any suggestions. 

Or it could go the other way, where you’ve committed so much time to this track that you feel like you need to do something with it, but you don’t love it like you used to. There are solutions to both conflicts, resulting from the same emotion – love for your track.

 

A photo of Ableton next to a cup of coffee.

 

A solution to loving your track too much

This is a hard one because people often get stubborn about their art. They love it so much that they can’t absorb any feedback or rejection from their peers about it. Often that’s because their love for it is built on the cognitive heuristic of commitment, rather than them actually believing it’s an incredible track. 

Therefore, often this fallacy is built on eggshells and critique may seem like a personal attack, and therefore the creator protects it from opinion and rejection, lest they be rejected too. This sometimes leads to people not putting their track out at all, always “waiting for the right moment.”

The way to get over this fear? Truly don’t give a shit what other people say. Most great artists didn’t. We always hear stories about the albums that critics lambasted or art that sat obscurely for decades before being dusted off and appreciated. Or there is the opposite, where their art’s controversy was appealing to some, and appalling to others, creating a maelstrom of press. 

This is what happened to John Cage and Karlheinz Stockhausen, who made some of the most challenging music in modern history, where to this day most people don’t understand it. But they are both considered important in the canon of music. 

They knew their music was threatening, but they probably didn’t care, because they thought it was important, and thus put it out there. 

If people want their music to get out there, especially if they still hold onto the original fantasy of other people listening to it, then they need to put it out there for critique. Whether that’s your friends or a marketing campaign that goes out to media contacts and DJs, you’re going to feel rejection, even if it really is brilliant. That’s because music is subjective. 

 

A photo of Deadmau5, who understands that his love for his tracks can often be misguided.

Credit: Wikipedia

A solution to not knowing if you still love your track

If you got to the point where you can put the song out, but are still having doubts about it, keep in mind that you really have no idea how it will sound to others. Remember, when you first started the track, there were elements about it that sent your brain bouncing off the proverbial pinball machine. Therefore, there is a good chance that other people will love it too. 

Deadmau5, love him, or hate him, knows how to finish tracks, and has released some of the most seminal modern rave anthems. With his hit, Strobe, he was having this conflict. He liked it enough to finish it, but not enough to be confident with it. 

Since his label hadn’t seen anything in a while, he decided to send it over to them, suggesting that it could be a B-side to a record; another piece of content to whet the appetite of his fans. Then, to his surprise, it blew up in 2009, right at the advent of the EDM explosion, helping to propel his career into the stratosphere. 

If you listen to Strobe, you might be able to see why he wasn’t confident in it. It’s at least two minutes longer than any other song on the album, clocking in at 10:33, and it takes a few minutes before the kick drum comes in. It’s not necessarily a radio anthem. 

But believe it or not, people like challenging music, because it gets them thinking.

A less mainstream example of this is from one of my clients who had a song that they sent me that I thought was pretty good, but they were having doubts about. I was like “Look, how about I send it to some labels and see what happens.” 

So I sent it out to some labels, and it didn’t just get signed, it got picked up by a bunch of different places. They were having doubts, and their doubts were squashed when it became as successful as anything else they’d released.

You also don’t know who tracks are going to resonate with. While they might not vibe with your primary (often fantasized) audience, they could resonate with an entirely new audience. 

A good example of this is a client of mine who sent me over some ambient tracks they made, which was surprising based on his previous work. What was also surprising is that they had all these Indian-sounding names. 

Well, it turns out those Indian names were actually holy words in a religious sect, and when people searched for those on Google in regards to the sect, their songs would come up. With this, their music, in a way, became holy music and ended up performing better than any of the other, more branded tracks that we worked on together.

 

A Note On Expectations

As I get older, I realize that the desire to be understood, or liked by others is a trap for the creative process. The real joy should come from if a song is technically solid, or if you changed your style to something that you’ve never done before. These are both something to be proud of as they show an improvement in your abilities as an artist.

I like to think of each track as journaling, and it’s a capturing of an idea, rather than trying to make something that will please thousands of people. The most frustrated artists are the ones who have high expectations for their music and where it goes, the least frustrated are the opposite. 

A note on collaboration

As many of you know, I do track finalization. Whether you do it through me, or another session musician, I think what I’m about to say rings true for both. Basically, I only like to work with people who have a realistic expectation of their art or don’t view me as some sort of savant. Just like they have high expectations for the track, they might also have too high of expectations for the session work, especially if they have both. Because whether people realize it or not, they might have subconscious ideas of how their track should go without consciously knowing how it should go. 

Then when I or anyone else goes in and makes edits, these sorts of clients expect it to sound like something completely different. Also, if they’ve heard a track a couple hundred times, any alterations to it are going to be glaringly noticeable, and might not jive with the congruency you have programmed in their head. Therefore, if you have these sorts of expectations, it’s best to forgo them, as they diminish the creative potential of a track. Remember, it took something like 27 people to write “I Feel Love” by Donna Summer. Did they all agree? Did it diminish the value and impact of the track?

The best people to work with are ones who are about a 6 or 7 out of 10 on their love for their track. These people tend to keep an open mind.

 

A photo of someone listening to a track. Don't listen to your track too much or else you might love your track artificially.

 

Favorite Equalizer For Electronic Music

/in , , , , , , /by

People often ask me what my favorite equalizer for electronic music is, and my answer is that it depends on what their goal is, as well as their skill level. However, the EQs that I like for electronic music generally fit a certain set of criteria. Not every equalizer in this article fits all of the criteria, but here is a not-so-exhaustive list of things that I like to see when I’m purchasing a new EQ.

Keep in mind that all EQ’s are at their core, just filters, but some go above and beyond this. Equalizer settings for electronic music vary based on the timbres and styles, but each one of these will work universally for electronic music.

 

Criteria

  1. They have previews of the band that you can solo (you can press the button and hear the band on its own). This allows you to hear things more specifically.
  2. The plugin needs to be able to do oversampling.
  3. The plugin needs to be able solo the filter (EQ band).
  4. The EQ needs to have a mid and side mode, aka M/S mode.
  5. The EQ can switch from digital approach to analog. A digital EQ is very clean, and an analog is a little bit more organic and less precise.
  6. The EQ can be dynamic. 
  7. While all don’t have this feature, it’s nice if an EQ has a piano roll, so you can see how frequencies quantize to notes (this is a good way of seeing if a note will fit inside the track).

 

Fabfilter Pro-Q 3

A picture of one of the best equalizers for electronic music, in my opinion, the Fabfilter Pro Q 3

First on the list is the Fabfilter ProQ 3 – an affordable, easy-to-use EQ that hits most of the points I look for in an equalizer. It’s versatile, as in it can be used in both mastering and mixing. On top of state-of-the-art linear phase operation and the ability to get zero latency readouts on your EQ, you get natural phase modes, mid/side processing, and a bunch of other intuitive options.

 

A Neat Pro-Q 3 Trick


One of my favorite features is that if you have the ProQ 3 on multiple channels or busses, it can communicate with the ProQ 3’s on the other ones and let you know if there are conflicts in frequences.

Then, with the side processing (sidechain), you can easily duck precise frequencies, and you can even solo these frequencies to hear exactly how the sidechain is affecting the relationship between all the individual sounds. Or sometimes you don’t even need a sidechain, and you can just grab the curve and bring the conflicting frequency down.

Another neat trick with the Fabfilter ProQ 3 is that you can use it to split the stereo, and modify the same frequency at different amplitude levels on the stereo. So for instance, sometimes in a recording, you have a sound that mixes well on the right pan, and doesn’t quite mix perfectly on the left, but should be somewhat present on the left panning in order to fill out the stereo field.

With the ProQ 3, you can leave the level on the right channel as is, and on the left, alter the amplitude in order to fit the frequencies it’s conflicting with.

All of these reasons are why it’s a favorite equalizer for electronic music. It produces some of the best equalizer settings for bass, mids, and highs in all genres.

 

Wavefactory Trackspacer

A photo of Wavefactory's trackspacer, which allows you to have some of the best equalizer settings for electronic music without the hassle.

This one is not necessarily an EQ, but if you’re familiar with Wavefactory’s Trackspacer you can see why it would fit well within this list. Basically, it uses a mathematical formula in order to automatically figure out where conflicting frequencies are between two tracks and then it will apply precise side compression to the parts that are necessary to compress to get them to meld better.

You can even apply a low pass or a high pass filter to each end of the frequency spectrum to isolate what part of the sounds you want to compress. It’s ridiculously easy to use.

 

HornetVST Total EQ

a photo of HornetVST's Total EQ. It's one of my favorite equalizers for electronic music.

Not everyone has the money to invest in VSTs. However, HornetVST makes VSTs that are ridiculously cheap, and they often do sales, so you can get decent plugins for 5 bucks. 

The HornetVST Total EQ is similar to ProQ 3, sounds really good, and is easy to work with. Personally, I believe it’s better than Ableton stock EQ’s because you have a team working specifically on developing the best equalizer for electronic music (or all music at that matter).

While it doesn’t have all the gizmos and detail goodies that the ProQ 3 has, it’s still really good. For instance, it has 12 bands, a real-time spectrum analyzer, a whopping 17 different kinds of filters for each band, individual analog response and emulation for each band, band soloing (like in the ProQ 3), mono/stereo for each band, and a bunch more features.

 

Melda Productions – MAutoEQ

Image of one of my favorite equalizers for electronic music - the Melda Productions - MAuto EQ

The thing that makes this EQ special is the MeldaProduction Filter Adaption (MFA) technology which uses a formula to analyze your recording and make suggestions based on your recording, another recording, or even a spectrum that you can “draw” inside the interface. It’s kind of the Photoshop of EQs, in a way. It can also be used extensively for mixing and mastering.

MAutoEqualizer can place a track into a mix using the spectral separation feature, where you can, like in Photoshop, pencil your preferred frequency response. MAutoEqualizer’s technology will search for the best settings and alter the parametric equalizer bands to fit the best form.

With a normal equalizer, you are listening to the spectrum and then increasing or decreasing the amplitude of the band to fit what you believe is the correct level, which can be a chore. With MAutoEqualizer it gives your ears a little bit of a break by setting things to levels based on its algorithmic predeterminations. 

Also, if you are allergic to resonance in your sound then this EQ is for you. One of the things it does best is listen to the incoming signal, where it then finds resonances that it can apply filtering suggestions to. Then with the wet/dry knob, you can determine how much resonance you want in the areas it pointed out. It’s really simple, and a favorite equalizer for electronic music.



Brainworks’ BX3

A photo of the Brainworks’ BX3, which produces some of the best equalizer settings for electronic music.

A mastering and mixing EQ I recommend is BX3 by Brainworks. It’s an extremely powerful, surgical EQ that I use extensively. It can make space, clean, and can really polish things up. This EQ is not meant for adding color or character to mixes, but rather making sure that everything sounds as clear and crisp as possible. It’s a bit difficult to use if you’re not super familiar with mixing and mastering, but it’s extremely powerful, making it a favorite equalizer for electronic music.

This EQ’s Auto Listen feature automatically solos each band’s Gain and Q (resonance) controls based on their respective settings while doing the same with the channel’s Frequency controller. By setting Gain, Q, and Frequency on an individual channel (L or R), Auto Solo switches the monitoring to that channel.

Your tweaks are illustrated with separate frequency-response graphs for each channel. With this feature, you may notice that your adjustments will become more visible and audible than ever before since it allows for some of the best equalizer settings for electronic music.

 

Brainworks’ AMEK200

photo of one of my favorite analog emulated EQ's for music, the Brainworks’ AMEK200.

My favorite analog emulation EQ is AMEK200 by Brainworks. This is modeled after classic 70’s and 80’s mastering EQ’s, such as the GML 8200 and vintage SONTEC vintage EQs, but with some plugin specific upgrades, such as Auto-Listen features, variable high-pass and low-pass filters, and M/S processing.

All of these features result in a very transparent mix that does a really beautiful finishing. Note that the AMEK200 has no spectral readout, just knobs you twist, which is good for learning how to trust your ears.

 

So, which one is my favorite equalizer for electronic music?

There is no specific one. All of these plugins will allow for the best equalizer settings for music, whether that’s minimal house, techno, jazz, rock, hip-hop or k-pop. They all allow for the best equalizer settings for rolling bass, or entrancing mids, it just depends on your experience level, and your desire to learn and experiment.

This article contains affiliate links which I may make a commission off of.

How To Mix In Headphones

/in /by

Not everyone has access to a treated studio, with perfectly placed acoustic padding, bass traps, and calibrated studio monitors whose balance is perfected by professional metering. Many aspiring producers have aspects of this, but ultimately will fall short when it comes to setting up everything perfect, since a well tuned studio is something that professionals charge a lot of money to do correctly. 

Therefore, a lot of my students ask me what they can do instead, since many don’t have thousands of dollars in order to tune their room. The answer is simple – mix in headphones. But should you mix with headphones? There is a lot of chatter online saying that if you mix in headphones, you will screw up the mix, since it’s not an accurate representation of sound in space. They’ll say in a true stereo field, your left and right ears hear both channels, not each in mono. And while this is true, there are plenty of artists, myself included, who do a lot of mixing on headphones, and their productions turn out fine.

A photo of Sennheiser HD650, which are great to mix in headphones

Sennheiser HD650

A Good Mix In Headphones Starts With Quality Headphones

My first piece of advice is that you need a really good pair of headphones, and you need to get used to them. I’d recommend Sennheiser HD650 on the high end, and for the best budget mixing headphones, I’d recommend Sennheiser HD350BT which are also bluetooth.

Once you get these, or equivalent, don’t start mixing right away, since you have no idea what these headphones truly sound like. Instead, choose 10 or so songs that you really respect, buy the lossless version of them, and listen to them intimately through the headphones. Learn how the kick sits in the mix. Learn how the different layers sidechain when said kick is introduced. How bright are the hi hats? How crisp is the lead? After listening to this set of songs over and over again for a month or so, then you’ll be ready to give it a go on your own stuff. 

Mixing In Headphones Is Like Cooking Authentic Food

Another good tip is to choose songs that have a particularly excellent element. I liken this a lot to eating authentic food. Whenever I visit a new country, I make sure to ask the locals what location has the truest food, and what elements of that food really define the regional cuisine. 

With music, I take a similar approach. For instance, when I started mixing a lot of Romanian techno, it became apparent that the aspect that producers craved the most was the kick. Therefore, if you want an example of a really pretentious kick, a good place to start would be with Romanian techno. It’s like with a food like Mexico’s mole. If you wanted to replicate the best mole, you’d use Oaxacan mole as your reference.

 

Mix In Headphones At Multiple Volumes

Listen to your mixes at multiple volumes to get a good idea of how it truly fits in the mix. Different levels will expose what’s wrong in the mix pretty accurately. While it may sound good at high intensity, when you listen to it at a low intensity, you may notice that it doesn’t quite fit. In my experience, it’s the low volumes that reveal the most, so if it sounds good, low, and just ok, high, then chances are that the lower volume is the correct one.

REFERENCE Plugin is great for mix in headphones

REFERENCE plugin

Best Headphone Mixing Software

The best mixing with headphones plugin has to be Mastering The Mix’s REFERENCE.

Ever felt that your mix was not quite comparable to your reference mixes? 

In order to keep you closer than ever to the sound of your favorite music, Mastering The Mix created REFERENCE. It’s packed with powerful features and insights that allow you to get closer to your reference than ever before.

With REFERENCE you can:

  • Compare your master with up to twelve reference tracks, and creating several loops will allow you to quickly compare various sections of your track with a reference track.
  • Match the loudness of your track and the references instantaneously and accurately. This will enable you to make more informed decisions about shaping your sound.
  • Make matching the true peak, loudness, EQ balance, punch, and stereo width of a reference track smoother than ever. 
  • Adds a source plugin called REFSEND to make loudness-matched A/B comparisons.

If you want to emulate stereo crossfeed like you’d get on loud speakers, you can also use a VST such as Goodhertz’s CanOpener, which simulates the stereo bleed you would get with loudspeakers. I’ve personally never used a crossfeed emulator, but they do exist.

CanOpener allows you to mix in headphones more accurately

CanOpener

Stereo Is Different In A Headphone Mix

The biggest hurdle to overcome when mixing on headphones is that the stereo field is mono in each can. Especially in electronic music, we tend to have extreme pans, which in headphones can prevent that natural left/right bleed that you get when you listen to a song with both ears from monitors.

To fix this, you can simply tweak left/right panned instrument settings a little but don’t overdo it because this will compromise the loudspeaker performance. Keep in mind that stereo, when heard through loudspeakers, will have a noticeably narrower image than when listened to on headphones.

Another trick is to add just a tiny bit of reverb to up-front exposed sounds (5-10% wet). This allows them to glue themselves together like they would in a natural room.

 

Judging Low End With Headphone Mixes

Having an idea where the bass sits in the mix is difficult unless you have some serious subs. However, we live in the 21st Century, where Subpacs are a thing. If you’re not familiar with Subpacs, they are essentially wearable subwoofers, where they use your body as a bass transducer. Therefore, they produce all the sensation and feeling of low end, without any of the decibels required to pump it out. Therefore, with a solid set of headphones, and a Subpac, you can get a full frequency experience, and accurately judge where the bass sits in the mix. 

I often prefer using a Subpac to even using a good set of subs, because unless you are in a place where your mixing isn’t going to disturb anyone, having club ready loudspeakers that allow you to feel the bass is usually intenible in most environments. It’s also a faction of the cost.

 

A Mix In Headphones Reveals The Small Details

The best aspect of mixing in headphones is their precision. Even with a well tuned room, and professional grade monitors, you often miss many of the finer details of a mix, such as hisses, artifacts, unwanted distortion, and clicks/pops. With headphones, these become abundantly clear, allowing you to surgically correct these issues.

On the flip side of this, it allows you to add small details that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to. Let’s say you want that synth to have just a touch of white noise to give it a warmer feel, a mix in headphones allow you to do that with immense clarity.

As you can see, there are many advantages to mixing on headphones. However, nothing truly beats a professional mix. Therefore, if you want it done right, consider going through me. I’ve mixed thousands of songs, all for a very reasonable rate. Your music will last forever, so you may as well have it sound as good as it possibly can, at an affordable price.

 

Links may contain affiliate offers.

 

Sound Design and Arrangements Series Pt. 2: Balance

/in , , /by

This post is a part of a series: Part 1 | Part 2

Balance in mixing—and in music in general—is one of the main aspects of healthy sounding music, mostly because it is a reflection of space, and perhaps, our life as well. While this post is mostly about my philosophy of work, I’ll still discuss some technical tips that can be applied to your mixing strategy and arrangement work.

Let’s define what balance means in design and see how this translate to music:

Balance is the distribution of the visual weight of objects, colors, texture, and space. If the design was a scale, these elements should be balanced to make a design feel stable. In symmetrical balance, the elements used on one side of the design are similar to those on the other side; in asymmetrical balance, the sides are different but still look balanced.

Source: Getty Edu

While this comes from visual design, you should already able to see how this is applicable to the world of sounds. When I first read this definition, I could understand how I was already applying it to mixing music, as I get very conscious of space and the distribution of the frequencies. One of my favorite tools at the moment is Neutron, which I use on all my groups and sometimes, all channels, so I can monitor all of them visually. I can also apply EQ flipping, where if you boost on one channel, you’ll do the exact opposite cut on another channel that is battling the first one to be heard. Using the Visual Mixer tool, you can then place each sound in space. For people who struggle with panning, this is a precious tool that will also help you see if you have distributed your sounds properly.

One of the most misunderstood aspects of mixing I see is the volume difference between elements. Thinking that everything should be loud is a not only a misconception, but it creates imbalance. The volume difference represents the space use and you need some that are further away otherwise the louder one won’t be important, they’ll be lost.

Same goes for textures. Not all your sounds can be textured simultaenously, otherwise you won’t be able to notice their differences. However they can all be textured at different times. I like to split the arrangements timeline in 3 parts and will let sounds have their moment in each; it keeps the story evolving.

Regarding the stereo spectrum, we often relate this to left and right panning, but one important part a lot of new people to mixing don’t see is the importance of the mono section. If you want your song to have a backbone, you need that part to be dead solid. One trick I like is to have a compressor in a return channel and add a mono utility there. I’ll send a lot of my groups to that mono’er channel that will beef up the mono signal of the track.

As for the frequency spreading, I find that your whole spectrum can be divided in 5 sections: low, mid-low, mids, highs-mid, highs. You can technically have them all loud, but that’s not really good balance, and your mix will probably sound harsh if you don’t control resonances and transients properly. I think having 2 out of those 5 frequency ranges slightly lower than the others will give some room for your mix to breathe. When people book me for mastering, they can select a coloured or transparent master, and if they ask for coloured, this is basically what I’ll do. Re-adjusting 2 of the bands will give a new tone to the track and most of the time, mixes I get are already unbalanced as there’s often a band that is way too loud (most of the time, the lows). If the lows are too loud, then I will lower them.

Now, when it comes to arrangements, this is where it gets fun.

I find that there’s a lot to say about the significance of arrangements. Arrangements come in many forms: short stories, edited experiences, live jams, etc.—but I find those three types are a good starting point. A pop song can be a short story, and a piece of minimalist techno music can also be one, but with a different purpose. The reason we apply a certain methodology to arrangements is to maximize the potential of the sounds, as well as the patterns. In the previous post in this series, we talked about contrast and how it can be used in a specific sound—balance, on the other hand, can be exists on multiple levels.

How Do I Know if an Arrangement is Well-Balanced?

The idea of using balance to leverage creativity is not a rule, but an idea and approach. There are countless pieces out there that have no balance and it work perfectly. I find that balance in arrangements is a method of regulation, but it’s not something I’d focus on alone as the main approach.

See balance as tomato sauce. It can be a really great base for a lot of dishes and yes, it can be used as-is, but it does a better job when it’s combined with other ingredients. This is why it works well on a pizza and pastas, etc.

So It depends what you listen to and of course, some great songs are totally unbalanced and that’s what makes them special. I like to say that rules are made to be broken, but you need to know the rules first. A balanced song has a better chance of creating a quality that we all strive for in music: timelessness. In visual arts, minimalism aged well. The logo of Mercedes has basically remained the same, compared to Google’s original disaster brand. Same for music, in general. What I see is that music which is balanced, has a number of sounds playing at a time and has an organization and internal self rules that are set to keep a clarity and easy understanding.

I find that balanced arrangements usually feel easier to understand and are not too destabilizing. But if you go in the opposite direction voluntary, it can be a good way too create contrast.

A song with a balanced mix has a full presence and usually doesn’t have one element stand out. So for percussion, I like to have a balance of numerous sounds but you can then have one that pop out, in contrast (refer to part 1).

As for having balanced arrangements, I’d recommend the following:

Set the rules of your song in the 1st minute (or first part). This can be the tempo, time signature, density, motif preview, etc. The rest of the song is a balance of contrast operating in the rules you’ve set. By balance, we can agree that it’s about not placing all your tricks into the same thing.

Distribute your ideas evenly across your song. I’m talking about the motif for instance, that could reveal one variant more per section. Balance predictability as well unpredictability by having your sounds come in and out at times the listen gets used to.

Use repetition to create patterns that support one another. The famous call and response technique is a good example.

The best way to leave annotations in your arrangements is by adding a empty MIDI channel and creating blocks that you can stretch over sections of your song and leave notes accordingly. This can be very helpful if you have a hard time seeing how sounds are distributed once a channel is flattened.

I like to have colours for each genre of sounds. This usually tells me if there’s too many percussion blocks compared to another group, for example.

Background sounds are often a good way of helping everything work together. Songs that feel full have a background, a noise floor. It can be a reverb, noise, or it can be field recordings. People often ask me where you can find sounds like that. Archive.org, Freesounds.org, Loopcloud, and Soundly are all super useful for finding these as well as odd and out of ordinary ideas.

This post is a part of a series: Part 1 | Part 2

Sound Design and Arrangements Series Pt.1: Contrast

/in , , , , /by

I’ve been wanting to do a series of posts about arrangements because I’m passionate about this aspect of music production, but also because I noticed many of the people I work with struggle with arrangements in their work. There are so many different approaches and techniques to arranging—everyone has their own, and that’s sort of the goal I’d like to drive home in this series. I invite you to make a fresh start in developing a personal signature, aesthetic, vocabulary, and personality.

This post is not for people who are just beginning with arrangements, but if you are, it still contains information that could be interesting to consider down the road.

What do I Mean by “Contrast” in the Context of Arrangements?

In design, contrast refers to elements (two or more) that have certain differences, and their differences are used to grab attention or to evoke an emotion. When I teach my students about contrast, the easiest example to understand and summarize this concept is a difference of amplitude (volume). In movies, to create surprise, excitement, or tension, the amplitude will be low, and then rise either quickly or slowly, supporting the images in the emotion that is present.

In many electronic music songs, we have heard (too often) noise used as a rising element to create a tension. Noise builds became a caricature of themselves at some point given their overuse—but it’s a good example, nonetheless.

How is Contrast Used in Sound Design?

I spend my days working with musicians—contrast comes into play in different circumstances.

Within a single sound, it can be fast or slow changes from one extreme to another. I like to visualize this by analyzing a sound through different axes to help me understand what can be done to it.

  • Attack: Does it start abruptly or slowly?
  • Decay/Amplitude: Does it get really loud or is it more subtle?
  • Frequency/Pitch: Is it high, medium, low?
  • Release/Length: Short – Medium – Long – Constant?
  • Positioning: is it far or near? Low or higher in front of me?

Good contrast, generally, is to have two extremes in some of these domains. Think of a clap in a long reverb, as an example of how a super fast attack with a long release can create something unreal, and therefore, attention-grabbing. A sound that changes pitch is another form of contrast, as we go from one state to another.

Another way of thinking about contrast is to think about how pretty much all complex sounds are the combination of multiple sounds layered. When done properly, they feel as one, and when it’s done with contrast, the contrasting layer adds a movement, texture, or something dynamic that revives the initial sound. Of course, short sounds are more difficult to inject contrast into, but if you think of a bird’s chirp, which is basically the equivalent of a sine wave with a fast attack envelop on the pitch, it’s sounds are short but incredibly fast moving, too.

If you think about using contrast within a sound itself, the fastest way to make this happen is to use a sampler and really take advantage of the use of envelops, mod wheel assignment, and of course LFOs, but it’s really through the use of the envelops that you’ll be able to produce a reaction to what’s happening, sonically.

As I mentioned, the easiest way to produce contrast is by using two sounds that different characteristics, for example, short vs. a long, bright vs. dark one, sad vs. happy, far vs. close, etc. When you use two sounds, you give the listener the chance to have elements to compare, and the ear can easily perceive the difference.

When you select sounds to express your main idea, think of the characteristics in each sound you’re using. Myself, I usually pick my sounds in pairs, then in batches of four. I’ll start by finding one, and the next one will be related to the first. I’ll keep in mind the axis of both sounds when I select them and usually start with longer samples, because I know I can truncate them.

In the morning I usually work on mastering, and in the afternoon, I’ll work on mixing. The reason is, when you work on mastering, you get to work on all kinds of mixes; they have issues that I need to fix to make the master ready for distribution. By paying attention to the mix, I often deal with difficult frequencies and will spend my time controlling resonances that poke through once the song is boosted.

When I’m mixing, often I deal with a selection of sounds that were initially picked by the producer I am working with. The better the samples, the easier will be the mix and in the end, the better the song will feel. What makes a sound be great comes from different things:

  • Quality of the sample: clarity, low resonances, not compressed but dense, well-balanced and clear sounding, open.
  • High resolution: 24 or 32-bits, with some headroom.
  • No unnecessary use of low quality effects: no cheap reverb, no EQ being pushed exaggeratedly that will expose filter flaws, no weird M/S gimmicks.
  • Controlled transients: nothing that hurts the ears in any way.

You want to hunt down samples that not too short, because you want to be able to pick it’s length. You won’t need a sample that covers all frequencies—you’ll want to feel invited to layer multiple sounds all together without any conflicts or have one shelf of frequencies to be overly saturated.

When I listen to a lot of mixes, the first thing that I look for is the overall contrast between the sounds. If they lack contrast, they will be mostly mushed together and difficult to mix, and harder to understand.

In theory, a song is a big sound design experiment that is being assembled through the mix. If everything is on one axis, such as making everything loud, you lose the contrast and make your song one-dimensional.

How is Contrast Used in Arrangements?

If contrast in sound design is within one single sound, it’s through and entire song or section that we can approach contrast in arrangements. A song can have different sections—in pop, think “chorus”, “verse”, etc., which are very distinct sections that can be used in any context as moments through the song. You can move from one to another, and the more of a distinction between one another, the more contrast your storytelling will have.

Is this type of contrast essential? No, but it can engage the listener. This is why, for a lot of people, the breakdown and drop in electronic music is very exciting, because there’s a gap and difference and the experience to go from one to another, is intense and fun (especially on a big sound system).

In techno, linearity is a part of the genre because songs are usually part of a DJ set and made to be assembled and layered with other tracks, to create something new. Huge contrast shifts can be awkward, so it’s avoided by some—tracks emit contrast very slowly and subtly, instead of a sudden drastic change.

So, what makes a song interesting, to me, or to anyone, is the main idea’s content, based on the listener’s needs. What do I mean exactly?

  • A DJ might be looking for song of a specific genre and want its hook to match another songs he/she has.
  • Some people want to have a song that expresses an emotion to be able to connect with it (ex. nostalgic vibes).
  • Some other people might want to have some music similar to songs they like, but slightly different, while others, to be exposed to completely new ideas.

When I listen to the songs I work on, my first task is to quickly understand what the composer is trying to say/do. If the person is trying to make a dance-oriented, peak-time song, I’ll work on the dynamics to be able to match music of the same genre and make sure all rhythmic elements work all together.

The precision in the sound design is quite essential to convey a message, whatever it might be. Sometimes I hear a melody and because of the sample used, it makes me frown—a good melody but weird selection of sounds results in an awkward message.

It’s like you trying to impress a first date with a compliment/gift that doesn’t make sense—you wouldn’t tell someone his/her nose is really big…?!

The combination of good sound design and supporting your idea, is executed by arrangements. The whole combination of multiple sounds through a mix is what creates a piece.

Some examples of contrast use within arrangements could be:

  • Different intensity between sections, either in volume or density.
  • Different tones, emotions.
  • Changes in the time signature, or rhythm.
  • Changes in how sounds move, appear, or evolve.
  • Alternating the pattern, sequence, or hook, adding extra elements to fill gaps, holes, or silences.

One of the biggest differences between making electronic music 30 years ago and the present, was that back then, you’d make music with what you could find. Now we have access to everything, so how do you decide what to do when there are no limits?

I find that when you remove all technical limitations like sound selection from your session, you can focus on design and storytelling. Same goes for if you feel like you have managed to understand your technical requirements and now want to dig deeper—then you can start with contrast.

To summarize this, use contrast within a sound to give it life, either by slow or fast movements. Create contrast in your arrangements by having differences between sections of your song—play with macro changes vs. micro changes.

Stuck on a Song? Tips to Help You Overcome Negative Thought Patterns

/in , , , /by

One of the best things I’ve ever done has been a challenge I signed up for in early 2020 to make one song per week for the entire year. It felt a bit like wishful thinking at the time knowing how busy I am; I didn’t think I’d be able to pull it off, but it’s turned out to be one of the best exercises I’ve ever done. The most important lesson for me was learning that writer’s block comes and goes, but being stuck on a particular song seems like it happens more frequently. The more you make music, the more you develop personal strategies to overcome this problem quickly. My experience making one song per week has been extremely useful when working with younger artists, as I quickly spot where they’re stuck and can help them see options they’re not seeing.

I made myself a list of rules and tricks to refer back to when I get stuck on a song and noticed they usually stemmed from two categories: technical issues, and mindset. Rethinking your mindset helps re-frame what the problem is, exactly—but that’s usually the hardest part of overcoming issues finishing a song.

The trick, as an artist, is to quickly spot in which of those two categories of problems you’re facing, and then find a solution. Let’s discuss some of the most common problems that makes people get stuck on a song:

“I don’t know where to start.”

Category: Technical Issue & Mindset

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: I lack material to start using, I have difficulty translating my ideas into software, or I lack motivation.

This is a fundamental question that, even with experience, many artists sometimes still have. The thought of starting something new can be overwhelming. Coming into a new session with tons of motivation and ideas doesn’t overcome the very first hurdle you face when starting a new project: how to get it done, and of course, how to get started.

My first recommendation is to take a Kaizen approach (a Japanese project management methodology) and first think about what you want to do, and then start with the first thing you know about it. For example, if you are making a house track, maybe you know you’ll want a 4/4 kick as a loop, so start with that, then add a few other elements. Maybe it won’t be the right sound exactly, but just start with that. Can’t make a loop? Get pre-made loops, slice them, and rearrange them to taste, and have that as your starting point.

For productivity’s sake, use sounds you find, don’t chase something you have in mind. Find one that you like and then play with it to see what you can make out of it. Break your project down to things you know you can do, as this will bring self-confidence before tackling tasks that are difficult to do.

Is there a right way to start a song? No. Each song can be started in multiple ways. But capturing yourself jamming with loops and sounds is about yourself being “in the moment”, and that is very much what music is about.

If you’re overwhelmed by a lack of resources, I’d encourage you investing into LoopcloudLoopcloud. It’s a quick-fix solution to gather samples based on what you need, instead of buying bundles. It’s also an incredible option to find that missing link, as you can open it in your project, sync it to your DAW and play samples in context to see how things fit. Using samples is, for me, a hip-hop inspired approach that never fails. It’s also a way of layering different sounds to create something new. When I’m lost, I go back to sampling.

“I don’t feel motivated to make music.”

Category: Mindset

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: I don’t see why I’m doing this, or I lack an idea of where this will go.

One of the reasons why people are obsessed with releasing their music comes with the fact that their efforts are now validated. A lot of artists are goal-oriented, others are more interested in the journey. As life goes on, you might find you’re more one or the other. If you lack motivation, it’s possible you lost track of priorities. Maybe you need to have a goal in mind? Or perhaps you need to be exploring a new technique?

Knowing your needs, you can reorganize your music sessions accordingly. If it’s because you don’t have labels to send your music to, perhaps you can focus on podcasts or DJs. If you need new ideas, I suggest you check YouTube and look for a technique, either new or something else.

I’m a firm believer that I get better results by seeing each song as a lesson, an experiment, something to learn…instead of seeing it as something to be controlled or perfected.

Every time I find myself in front of someone who lacks motivation, I try to bring them back to what makes them happy and encourage them to get back to what works, what brings them joy. Do that for a while, and prepare material for when the inspiration returns.

“My sounds (or anything I use) don’t feel as solid or as cool as my references”

Category: Mindset

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: I lack the technical knowledge to achieve something similar to artists I like.

Comparing yourself is nothing new or uncommon; we all do it. Where it fails is, when you compare yourself with people who are not in your league. It’s like playing football and complaining you’re not able to play like Ronaldo or other pros. Your friends would start laughing, right?

How is that any different than comparing yourself to artists who has a lot more experience? You’re seeing a song but you don’t see the 30 other songs they did before nailing that one. Do you need to be a pro to enjoy playing a sport? No. It should be the same for music.

If you keep in mind that each song you make is a lesson, then making 20-30 songs will teach you a lot. On the 50th, you’ll have a vocabulary and fluidity to express yourself with a lot more ease. After this, you can slowly look to others to pick up tricks, inspirations, or ideas.

“After a while, I lose interest in what I do.”

Category: Technical

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: Listening to my song for too long bores me.

Welcome to music production! If you only work on one song, you’ll get fed up with it quickly. The idea of working on a song is that it’s something you want to finish quickly so you don’t lose sight of your initial idea, but you want to take your time to fix the issues. I usually wrap a song and then I’ll come back to it in sprints of 30 minutes to an hour (max) to fix as many issues as I can, but then I’ll close it and do something else. I never get bored and the distance I take between sessions keeps my judgment fresh. As you might have already read, I’ve encouraged musicians to make multiple songs at once to not get bored in this blog many times before.

I have more and more clients that come to me being frustrated with their first song. Usually, this is normal. A large part of my songs don’t feel right, but I need to move on. Moving on is an important habit to learn, I find.

“My song feels boring because of getting too technical.”

Category: Technical

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: I tend to over-analyze what I do to the point where I get lost.

Technical tweaks often kill the beauty of spontaneous creativity—I try to find a balance between the two. Sometimes, I ask friends to take care of the technical part of certain songs I don’t want to ruin the rawness of. The thing that makes it boring, is that you have been over-hearing it. To think that anyone would listen as much as yourself, or that someone would analyze your song as much as you do after 100 listens, is highly misleading. Again, this comes down to taking a lot of breaks and working on multiple songs at once.

“Mid point in the song, I don’t know what to do next.”

Category: Technical

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: I struggle to make the story-line evolve properly.

Having a loop is one thing, but keeping it interesting is another. Many people make the mistake of starting a song by at the beginning, thinking their loop is the starting point, but I like to think of putting the main loop you’ve been working on, right in the middle of the song. Then I deconstruct it by simplifying it from the beginning. You can then add elements to create the last stretch of your song.

Usually when you’re at the mid-point, most of the song’s main work has been done and you can process your elements to create “child” ideas that you can use as supporting elements, which will help a song carry on until the end.

I usually start working on the main part of the song as well as what follows so I have a better idea of the song’s core. Creating the intro and conclusion ends up being a piece of cake. This usually solves this issue of now knowing what to do in the middle.

Now the other technique is also to give variation to your main idea. The fastest way to do that is to slice it and then change the order, either randomly or by hand, depending of your style.

“I’m lacking ideas on what to add to my song, is it enough?”

Category: Technical

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: My song needs validation.

I always like to start with the premise that my song is enough, and that if something seems to be lacking, it could simply be because I’m not exploiting enough what I have already. Less is more, is the school I come from, and I’ve made tracks with three sounds alone, which was probably the most useful exercise ever, as well as an eye opener for creative use on whatever I had already. If someone playing the hand drum can make a song out of it or if a pianist can write an album, you can do a song with what you have already.

Now, if you say something is missing compared to… that’s another story. The best way to validate your work is to load up the reference and to A/B. The first question is, do they have the same amount of sounds used? Take the time to count them, you’d be surprised sometimes that you might have more than your references. Sometimes, what’s missing is just a good mix, a reverb, or modulations.

“I don’t know how to create a new idea that I’ve never made before.”

Category: Technical

If you’ve made 20 songs, at some point you might run out of ideas. If that’s the case, there are a few quick things you can do to get your inspiration back. I’m not talking about having a writer’s block here.

The first thing I encourage people to do to find new ideas is the “talking out loud, describing what you hear” method. I’m not sure if I’ve shared this idea before, but it’s fairly simple. The way I use it is to check a random song, either in my Soundcloud feed or Spotify, or whatever you use to be exposed to music you haven’t heard before. Play it, and then, using your smartphone, record some vocal notes of you describing your best what you hear. Try to do it for the duration of the song and when it’s done, stop the annotation. I like to have a bunch of tracks described like that and have vocal notes without any references to what I have listened to. When you eventually listen to your notes, it will be very abstract ideas of songs you can listen to. You can also do this throughout the day—some people think about making music all day and don’t know how to vent, so I suggest to record all the ideas they have, vocally.

This method came to me as I was waking up during the night with ideas and I would record a description of my dream. I would later listen to them and have a lot of concepts.

The other way to get a lot of ideas is to use songs or samples and chop them into random ideas. This sometimes will generate an idea that you can extrapolate by pulling out the best of it.

“I don’t feel satisfied with my mixes.”

Category: Mindset

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: I feel technically inadequate.

This one’s a bit complicated. First and foremost, the idea of a perfect mix is counter-productive because such thing doesn’t exist, or at least, for the person who mixes it doesn’t. There’s always something to fix and at one point, you need to wrap it up and call it done, even with imperfections. What’s left undone, unless it’s a huge issue (which are usually hard to miss), will often be seen as something that is part of the song. People who are looking for the flaws of your song are rare. Usually someone will like or dislike it. This is why very few people care for details. People have small attention spans, and those who really see the issues, aren’t the people you’re making music for.

The idea that each song is a lesson also applies to mixing. You bring your song to the max you can bring it to. I like to have my mixing sessions in three rounds: the first, I remove all issues. The second, I work on embellishments. Third, I do the final adjustments and fix the tone.

You can’t fix everything effectively in one session so it’s always a good thing to take a second look after a night of rest.

“I don’t know how to finish a song.”

Category: Technical

Finishing music is a hot topic. It’s a good thing to know but it’s not a prerequisite to enjoy making music. Some people have a lot of fun jamming or starting loops and that’s it. The idea that you have to finish a song and potentially release it is, what I call, a romantic idea, and just like any romance, it’s not a necessity. Some beautiful relationships exist without romance. I find it way more important to collect ideas, create sketches, and make loops in large quantities. Eventually, when you get to finishing songs, if you have all those ideas and loops ready, it will feel like you have a gold mine.

Learning to finish songs is a skill that comes with using references, as I’ve explained many times in this blog. You use one song, check how it’s made, then apply part of the template to a loop you have. That’ll do it. Really, it’s that’s simple; it’ll feel like cheating.

I hope this was helpful in your day-to-day struggle!

Tips to Keep a Loop Interesting for an Entire Song

/in , , , /by

To keep a song built mostly on a single loop interesting, we need to discuss how you work and your perceptions. I can’t just recommend technical bells and whistles that will solve everything. You need to think about how you see your music, and from there, there are certain things that I think can make a difference in helping to keep a listener engaged, even if your song is built around a single loop.

There are two main things you need to consider with regards to listener engagement when making a song:

  1. How someone listens to a song.
  2. How your song can engage the listener in his/her experience.

Meeting Your Listener’s Expectations

If you read this blog, you’ll know that this topic has been covered in other posts, so I won’t deeply go into this again but I’d like to remind you of a few key elements. The first and foremost important point here is to understand what you want to do in the first place. From the numerous talks I’ve had with clients, this is where many people get lost. To know what you want to do with a song has to be clear from the start.

Is a plan for a song something set that can’t be changed afterwards?

Of course you can change your mind, but this can open a can of worms, as the direction and vision of what you want to do becomes less clear. Music is about communicating some sort of intention.

When, in the music-making process, should you set your intention?

You don’t have to about your intention explicitly, of course, but doing so helps if you’re struggling with a lack of direction or when you feel you can’t reach goals. I find there are two important moments where setting an intention can provide significant benefits. The first is when you start a project—when you start a song, you can think of something somewhat general, such as “an ambient song” or “making a dance-floor track”; but the more precise you are, the more you are establishing some boundaries for your wandering mind. Many people don’t feel this approach helps and may skip this aspect of writing music, but for others, it can be a leveraged to maximize your efforts in what you do.

For instance, I often make songs without a precise goal because I just like to let things flow and to see how it’s been made affects the end-product. But when I’m asked to make an EP, I need to focus the results.

For me, for example, to meet my client’s expectations, I need to know what they want. It helps if they work in a specific genre or can reference an artist they like so I can help them deliver music that will appeal to people with similar tastes. When working with a clear intention, one needs to study how the music is made, more or less, in terms of variations, transitions, number of sounds, duration, tones, etc.

The objection I always get to this recommendation is “yes, but I want to have my own style.” I feel this a bit of a erroneous statement. We always are influenced by other artists and if you’re not, then you might have a problem in your hands: who are you making music for?

I know some people who make music for themselves, which is great. But when they tried to sell it or promote it, there was no way to know who it was for because we had no model to reference. Can you be original and still be heard? Yes, but I think a certain percentage of your songs need to have some sort of influence from a genre that people can relate to. For example, a very personable version of drum and bass, or house—then your music will fall under certain umbrella.

Meeting Your expectations and Your Listeners’ Expectations at the Same Time

The number one problem I hear is of the producer being bored of his/her own music, rather worrying that the listener might be bored, and that’s quite normal, considering the amount of time one can spend making music. Personally, I make my songs with a meticulous approach:

  • 1 idea, 2 supporting elements.
  • Percussion, limited to 5 elements maximum.
  • Bass.
  • Effects, textures, and background.

That’s it.

The main idea rarely evolves more than 2-3 times in a song. If it changes more frequently than that, you might want it to evolve on a regular, precise interval, i.e. changes every 2 bars.

When Writing Music, How Can You Keep a Single Idea Interesting?

I use design principles that are used in visual content and apply them to my music. If you learn about these principles for music-making, you’ll develop a totally new way of listening to music. In searching for these principles, you’ll see some variety, but generally these are the ones that usually come up:

Balance: This principle is what brings harmony to art. Translating this to music, I would say that, mixing wise, this could mean how you manage the tonal aspect of your song. If we think of sound design, it could be the number of percussion sounds compared to soft sounds, or bright vs dark. I find that balanced arrangements exist when there’s a good ratio of surprises versus expected ideas.

Contrast: Use different sources, or have one element that is from a totally different source than the others. This could be analog vs digital, acoustic versus electronic, or having all your sounds from modular synths except one from an organic source. If everything comes from the same source, there’s no contrast.

Emphasis: Make one element pop out of the song—there are so many ways you can do this! You can add something louder, or you could have one element run through an effect such as distortion, and so on. Emphasis in music is often related to amplitude, dynamic range, and variations in volume. In a highly compressed mix, it will be difficult to make anything “pop”.

Pattern: This is about the core idea you want to repeat in your song. It can also be related to the time signature, or an arpeggio. It could be the part you repeat in a precise or chaotic order.

Rhythm: This is the base of a lot of music in many ways, and this, to me, can directly refer to time signature, but it can also mean the sequence of percussion. You can have multiple forms of rhythm as well, from staccato, chaotic, robotic, slow-fast…it’s really one of my favourite things to explore.

Variety: This relates to the number of similar sounds versus different. This is a bit more subtle to apply in music compared to visual design, but a way I see this is how you repeat yourself or not in your arrangement. If you make a song evolve with no variety, you might lose the listener’s attention…same thing for if you have too much variety.

Unity: This is what glues a song together. To me, the glue is made from mixing, but there are things you can do that makes it easier, such as using a global reverb, some compression, a clean mixdown, same pre-amps (coloured ones) or a overall distortion/saturation.

To wrap this up, I can’t recommend to you enough to space out your music sessions, set an intention and pay attention to your arrangements. If you know what you want to achieve with your song, you can refer to a specific reference, and then build up your ideas using some of the design principles I have discussed in this post. Good luck!

Creating a music sketch

/in , , , /by

In this post, I’d like to explain how making a music sketch can help you to stay on track when creating a song or track, much like how a painter creates an initial sketch of his/her subject. I’ve explained in previous posts that the traditional way of making music goes something like this:

  1. Record and assemble sounds to work from.
  2. Find your motif.
  3. Make and edit the arrangements.
  4. Mix.

Here we’re talking about a way of making music that was popularized in the 1960s and is still used frequently today. But what happens when you have the ability to do everything yourself, and from your computer alone? Can you successfully tackle all of these tasks simultaneously?

When I do workshops, process and workflow are generally questionable topics to address because everyone has different point of view and way of working. However, to me it always comes down to one thing—how productive and satisfied an artist is with his or her finished work. Satisfaction is pretty much the only thing that matters, but I often see people struggle with their workflow, mostly because they keep juggling between different stages of music-making and get lost in the process (sometimes even losing their original idea altogether). For example, an artist might start working with an initial idea, but then get lost in sound design, which then leads them to working on mixing, and then sooner or later the original idea doesn’t feel right anymore. For some people, perhaps its better to do things one at a time; the old before-the-personal-computer way still works. But what if breaking your workflow into distinct stages still doesn’t work? Is there another alternative approach?

In working with different artists and making music myself, I’ve come to a different approach: creating a music sketch—a take on the classic stage-based process I just mentioned. Recently, this approach has been giving me a lot of good results—I’d like to discuss it so you can try it yourself.

Sketching your songs and designs

I completed many drawing classes in college because I was studying art. If you observe a teacher or professional painter working, you’ll see that when they create a realistic painting of a subject, they’ll use a pencil first and sketch it out, doodling lines within a wire-frame to get an idea of where things are. Sketching is a good way to keep perspective in mind, and to get an idea of framing and composition. The same sketching process can be used in music-making.

When I have an idea, I like to sketch out a “ghost arrangement”. Sometimes I even sketch out some sound design. The trap a lot of people fall into when making a song—particularly in electronic music—is to strive to create a perfect loop right from the start. Some people get lost in the process easily which is, honestly, really not important. People work on a “perfect loop” endlessly in the early stages of making a song because when you are just starting a song, the loop will have no context and it will be much more difficult to create something satisfying. By quickly giving your loop a context through a sketch-type process by arranging or giving the project a bit more direction, you’ll hear what’s wrong or missing.

I’m of the belief that having something half-done as you’re working can be acceptable instead of constantly striving for perfection. I think this way because I know I’ll revisit a song many times, tweaking it a little more each time.

Sketching a song can be done by understanding at the beginning of the process that you’ll work through stages of music-making more quickly and roughly, knowing you’ll fix things later on. This is more in line with how life actually goes: we live our lives knowing some problems will get solved over time, and that there are many things we don’t know at a particular moment in time. In making music, some people become crazy control freaks, wanting to own every single detail, leading them down rabbit hole of perfectionist stagnation, in my opinion.

Creating a sketch in a project is simple. Since I work with a lot of sound design, I usually pick something that strikes a chord in me…awakens an emotion somehow. Since this will be my main idea, next I’ll try to decide how it will be use as a phrase in my song. In order to get that structured, I need to know how the main percussion will go, so I’ll drop-in a favourite kick (usually a plain 808) and a snare/clap. These two simple, percussive sounds are intentionally generic because I will swap them out during the mixing process. You want just a kick in there to have an idea of the rhythm, and the snare clarifies the swing/groove.

Why are the basic kick and snare swapped out later?

I swap out the snare and kick later because I find that I need my whole song to be really clear before I can decide on the exact tone of a kick. A kick can dramatically change the whole perspective of a song, depending on how it’s made. Same thing goes for a snare—it’s rare I’ll change the actual timing of the samples, but the sound itself pretty much always changes down the line.

For the rest of the percussion, I’ll sketch out a groove with random sounds that may or may not change later on, but I use sounds I know are not the core of my song.

With bass, I usually work the same way; I have notes that support the main idea but the design/tone of the bass itself has room to be tweaked later.

As for arrangements, when creating a music sketch I will make a general structure as to what goes where, when some sounds should start playing or end, and will have the conclusion roughly established.

Design and tweak

Tweaking is where magic happens—this is where, in fact, a lot of people usually start their music-writing process. Tweaking and designing is a phase where you clarify your main idea by creating context. I usually work around the middle part of the song; the heart of the idea, then work on the main idea’s sound design. I layer the main idea with details, add movement and velocity changes.

  • Layering can be done by duplicating the channel a few times and EQing the sub-channels differently. Group them and add a few empty channels where you can add more sounds at lower volume.
  • Movement can imply changes in the length of the sound’s duration (I recommend Gatekeeper for quick ideas), panning (PanShaper 2 is great), frequency filtering, and volume changes (Check mVibratoMB for great volume modulation). The other option is to add effects such as chorus, flanger, phaser, that modulate with a speed adjustment. Some really great modulators would be the mFlangerMB (because you can pick which frequency range to affect—I use this for high pitched sounds), chorus (mChorusMB) to open the mids, and phasers (Phasor Snapin) for short length sounds. Another precious tool is the LFO by XFER—basically you want the plugin to have a wet/dry option and keep it at a pretty low wet signal.
  • Groove/swing. This is something I usually do later—I find that adjusting it in the last stretch of sketching provides the best results. The compression might need to be tweaked a bit, but in general the groove becomes much easier to fix once everything is in place.
  • Manual automation. Engineers will tell you that the best compression is done by hand, and compressors are there for fast tweaks that you can’t do. Same for automation, I find that to be able to make your transition and movement using a MIDI controller is a really nice finishing touch that is perfect in this stage.

Basically, the rule of finalizing design is that whatever was there as a sketch has to be tweaked, one sound/channel at a time. Don’t leave anything unattended—this can manifest from a fear of “messing things up”.

When tweaking specific sounds from the original sketch, you should either swap out the original sound completely, or layer it somehow to polish it. I always recommend layering before swapping. I find that fat, thick samples are always the combination of 3 sounds, which make it sound rich. When I work on mixing or arrangements for my clients and I see the clap being a single, simple layer, I have to work on it much more using compression, sometimes doubling the sample itself, which in the end, gives it a new presence. Doubling a sound—or even tripling it—gives you a lot more options. For example, if you modulate the gain of only one of the doubles, you not only make the sound thicker but also give it movement and variation.

All this said, I would recommend making sure your arrangements are solid before spending a lot of time in design. Once you start designing, if your arrangements have a certain structure, you’ll be able to design your song and sounds specifically according to each section (eg. intro, middle, chorus, outro) which gives your song even more personality. Sound design completed after a good sketch can be very impactful when the conditions are right.

Try sketching your own song and let me know how it goes!

SEE ALSO : Creating Timeless Music

The benefits and risks of using a reference track when mixing

/in , , , /by

In the group I run on Facebook when we discuss using a reference track when mixing, I often ask people what sort of tracks they have been using as a reference—I ask so regularly that people find my predictability funny. There are so many reasons why I encourage people to use a reference track when mixing, but for me personally to give someone feedback, I find it critical that I provide commentary based on the artist’s views. In the early days of the Facebook group, someone posted a song and everyone was criticizing its kick, but after a bunch of people commented on it, we all realized that the song creator was trying to mimic the low end of a very lofi song where the kick was intentionally “ugly”. From the perspective of people who love highly-produced techno, this particular kick was “wrong”, but only from this point of view. There’s no one-size-fits-all kick.

I encourage people to be super careful with feedback they give to artists in the event one may not totally understand what that artist is trying to do. I’ve developed this habit as a mastering engineer—if you’re too technical and detached from what the person is actually trying to do, it will be hard to really achieve mastering results that will please them, while respecting the artistic direction he or she is trying to achieve.

Think about using a reference track in the same way as how a painter might draw someone—it would be easier for the painter if he/she had an image of the person to use as a reference. Of course, the painter could try to “freehand” the drawing from memory, but it would probably end up less accurate.

The main concerns people seem to have with respect to using a reference track is that it might be too much of an “influence” on what they’re working on, and that they’re trying to find their own original sound. Many people think using a reference track would sort of corrupt their vision.

The problem is, if you’re trying to “sound like no one”, you’ll get a lot of confusing feedback about your work because most people won’t understand it. People always have something already in mind when they listen to something new. They’ll compare and try to make sense of it, but if it’s totally unsettling, they might feel a bit lost. If you refer to something they know, then there’s link that can be made by the listener.

A reference track can only be used for certain portions of a song and not all of it, which to me is the reason why it can’t totally corrupt your vision. Plus, if you use the same reference a few times, you’ll introduce new habits into your workflow, and this will ensure that your tracks are on the right path.

How can a reference track benefit your mix?

  • Tone: This is mostly what I use references for, myself. The longer I work on a track, the more fatigued my ears get, and I lose sense of the lows and highs. If I can quickly A/B another track, I’ll know if I’m on the right path.
  • Arrangements: If you know a track is really successful at, let’s say, creating a tension, or really nailing it with the timing of the drums in a timeline, you might want to study its structure to understand it.
  • Mix levels: Very useful if you want to know if one element of your sounds is loud enough in a mix, then you can see what kind of relation the reference has. People are often confused with the mids which is the part I always fix in clients’ works; I can fix it because I can check my references that have very clear, present mids. Mids are critical to have right on a big sound system.
  • Loudness: You can also check if you’re matching the power of your reference—but keep in mind that your reference has probably already been mastered by someone with experience!

How can a reference track harm your mix?

Despite having many benefits, using a reference can have pitfalls as well. The most common error in using a reference track is using a song that’s actually poorly mixed or mastering and trying to emulate it. If your reference isn’t great from a production point of view, you risk messing up your whole perspective on music production and mixing up what’s “good” with what’s “bad”.

How should you find a good quality reference track?

If you’re in doubt, to me there are two main ways to find a reliable reference track:

  1. Ask a reliable source to validate something you’ve chosen, or to provide you with one that’s similar to your selection. The source can be someone in the industry, a record store owner, a DJ, a fellow producer, etc. Make sure your source is someone you trust.
  2. If you go out in a club and hear something that sounds really great, ask what it is. There are a lot of people who want to know what’s playing so if the DJ is unable to tell you, perhaps someone else can.

Once you have your reference track chosen, you can compare anything to it to see if it’s in the same “ballpark”. Try to get a 24-bit WAV or AIF version of the reference track. Once you have a high-quality version of the reference track, I recommend “audio jogging” everyday—listen to the reference on your sound system, not too loud but at a comfortable level, and then don’t change the volume for the whole duration of the session. Now your reference track has been set up as a guide for you to work from; cross-check your own project with the reference as you work!

SEE ALSO : How to balance a mix

How to balance a mix

/in , , /by

In general, I find that there are certain common elements found in mixes I’m sent, and I’d like to share my thoughts on how to balance a mix. If you google “mixdown tips”, you’ll see that mixdowns have been covered in a lot of detail online, but most articles on the topic are geared towards rock music. Since I am dealing with electronic music and DAWs like Ableton, I thought adding my own perspective to help correct and polish different types of mixdowns might be beneficial.

Let’s run through a basic mixing exercise together. To do this, you’ll need an FFT—like SPAN by Voxengo—to analyze the overall frequencies in your mix. The more time you spend checking a frequency analyzer as you work on your mix, the more likely your mix will come out balanced and have fewer mistakes.

Why does a balanced mix matter?

Balanced mixes are important because you don’t really know how clubs’ PAs are EQed until you play on them. If a club has too much low end in its system, then a bass-heavy mix will sound incredibly messy. Yes, a DJ can tweak the mix , but it will never sound the same as if he/she started with a track with a nicely balanced mix.

When people send me music to be mastered, they often forget to double check the frequency analysis of their mix, and sometimes it’s just not balanced.

A balanced mix (or flat, if you prefer) usually has a full range of frequencies more or less hitting 0dB on an FFT reader. You can go -/+3dB around it, but keeping it around 0 is the best. For electronic music, it’s pretty normal to have the low end sticking out by about +3dB though.

Now, the classic mixdown curves I see most are fairly common—they have something appealing about them, but also create downsides with risks.

“But I check masters, and they’re often not flat,” you say.

Well yes, that can happen, but the mastering engineer’s job is also to remove unwanted resonances before boosting. It’s always better to have something balanced that won’t need a lot of cutting before the engineer can make the critical decision(s) of boosting a range of frequencies.

That said, let’s examine some common mixdown curves I see that aren’t really balanced, according to how they look in a frequency analyzer.

How to balance a mix according to different types of mix curves

The Smiley Curve

Look at that smiley, similar to a shark I believe.

This shape is well-known, and sometimes you’ll see EQ presets with this name—it means the lows and highs are boosted, hence the curve looking a bit like a smile.

The good: First impressions with this curve is that it’s instantly gratifying. Exciting feel, bright and shiny highs, and low end power—pretty much what humans love in music; foundation and excitement.

The bad: A lack of mid-range frequencies can mean that on a large system it feels hollow, confusing, lacks body, presence, and emphasizes hi hats and kicks over everything else, making the main theme of the song hard to discern. Harsh, boosted highs are also quite tiring on the ear and produce listening fatigue.

The fix: If you look at the FFT and your mix is smiley, there are a few ways to fix it. The first, is to manually readjust the elements who have the hot frequencies and turn them down. Highs are mostly likely high-frequency percussion, such as hats, but could be transients or the very upper part of synths and atmospheric elements. If you can spot which sound(s) have that range exaggerated, filter it with a low pass curve of 6dB/octave. Another way to fix this curve is to put a 3 band EQ on the master and lower the lows and highs, then boost the master for the loudness lost. The mids will magically appear and might feel overwhelming at first, but that’s simply because the human ear is sensitive to mids—more mids mean more presence and power, plus clarity on most systems.

The bright mix

  • Bright mixes destroy my ears

A bright mix is dominated by an accentuation of the highs. Many of my clients frequently mix this way because it’s exciting and electric, but bright mixes also very harsh on certain systems and as previously mentioned, they’re very tiring on the ears.

The good: Excitement, air and powerful transients.

The bad: Bright mixes will sound rough at high volume level and I swear that in 50% of the time it will be played in a club, the DJ will have to turn down the high-EQ. If the system isn’t great quality, bright mixes can also create distortion.

The fix: Use a shelving EQ and turn down those highs. Look at your curve and see where the steep part starts (sometimes at 5khz, sometimes at 8khz), then just lower it down by 3-5dB until the FFT becomes a bit more flat.

Note: If you feel like you really need it bright, try to keep it under +3dB.

The bass-heavy mix

Bassy mixes are ski slopes.

Bass-heavy mixes are very common in electronic music because of the lows needed to make people dance. It sometimes becomes a huge issue for me where clients really want their kicks to punch through, but a kick will sound powerful if it exists on a full-range frequency scale (also in the mids, and high mids).

The good: Bass-heavy mixes will be powerful and can blow away the crowd.

The bad: After a few minutes of pounding lows, if you can hear anything else, it feels very dull. Bassy mixes will sound muddy, messy, blurry, and insignificant. For instance, on a Sonos (like the one I own), all you’d hear would be a thump, thump, thump…annoying, not nice sounding.

The fix: Just like the bright mix, add a shelving EQ but work with the lows. I’d encourage you to revise your kick-design process if they sound too bass-heavy, and also get to familiarize yourself with how your favourite home sound system is calibrated.

The peaky mix

Look at this peaky curves! So sexy… not…

A “peaky” mix is my own term—it’s when I look at a mix and the curve has these big frequencies sticking out, while everything else is low (hence “peaks”).

The good: If done well, emphasizing certain peaks can be a good way to create dynamics in a song in terms of volume differences between your sounds. In some cases, it can create a sense of depth, but in doing so you demand a very active listening experience from the listener to be able to achieve this effect. This technique common in jazz, for instance.

The bad: Done wrong, a peaky mix just feels like there’s no power to it and the song will feel thin and some sounds will feel resonant.

The fix: Revise your mix entirely. Pull down the gain on the peaking sounds, then turn up the gain on the master to create something more even. Fixing peaks demands patience and practice.

The Gruyere mix

A rare specimen that is a mix between Gruyere and peaky, wearing red glasses.

A Gruyere mix is one with hole(s)—on a big sound system, they can feel partly empty, or just wrong. Basically, the feeling of holes in a mix is a sign that it could tweaked to cover the missing areas.

The good: Truth be told, you can always live with a mix with holes. You won’t really face any serious issues, but your sound might feel flat.

The bad: Let’s say you could cover more mids with your percussion to cover a hole—then perhaps your percussion would feel more powerful. If your pads are lacking body at around 200hz, they will lack power. These holes are simply pointing out that some sounds could use a bit of tweaking.

The fix: Revise your mix. Try to see if you can boost weak parts of certain sounds. On the master, use a high quality EQ and gently boost the holes up, as that can make a difference.

The thin mix

A thin mix is one that, on the spectrum, looks good, but somehow doesn’t seem to drive at all.

The good: It’s gentle. Maybe you like it that way on purpose?

The bad: No power, no loudness, dull.

The fix: Add a compressor in parallel mode (50% wet) on the Master bus to give the mix a bit of thickness.

The punch-less mix

Punch-less means a mix just doesn’t punch, slap, or kick as it should.

The good: Non-punching mixes could be good if your music on the ambient side of things.

The bad: For dance music, you need at least some elements with punch, like the kick and/or clap.

The fix: Use transient shapers and/or compression with a slow attack and high ratio to turn your lifeless elements into something with attitude.

All these fixes need practice before you come out with a nicely balanced mix—I hope this has been useful advice on how to balance a mix!

SEE ALSO : The benefits and risks of using a reference track when mixing

Mixing projects with many tracks or sounds

/in , , , /by

If you are familiar with my music, you know I love things complex and busy. Many people in our online community share songs they are currently working on that have a lot of content in them, so I thought it would be practical for me to share what I’ve learned about mixing too many tracks at once.

The pros and cons of using a large number of different sounds in a song

Pros

  • The song becomes exciting to listen to.
  • For listeners, there’s always something new to discover on each listen—this is good for replay value.
  • A song can develop complex call-and-response story-lines. After multiple listens, a listener might notice that certain sounds are “talking” to one another.
  • A song becomes very colorful—covering many frequencies of the spectrum in a single track can feel like a rainbow to the ears.
  • Movement—using multiple sounds can be a cool way to create the impression that many things are moving at once.
  • Stereo effects—if you like action and panning, playing with the panning of many sounds can be fun.

Cons

  • The song can feel overwhelming. Work by someone who is not familiar with producing with many sounds can feel irritating and hard to connect with if the brain of the listener doesn’t know what to focus on.
  • Complex tracks are harder to DJ. If there’s a lot going on in a track, it can be hard for a DJ to find other appropriate songs to mix it with.
  • Complex songs can feel confusing. If a sound isn’t well mixed, it can be confusing on certain sound systems.
  • Phasing issues—if you’re not careful, some sounds can technically disappear in mono, and on some sound systems, this effect can be weird.
  • The timelessness of the piece suffers—if you’re overdoing it, it might be difficult for people to get emotionally attached to the track and it will not age well.
  • Losing the hook in the mix—it’s super important to have your hook be very clearly discernible in a jungle of sounds.

Despite these cons, it can be quite fun to use a lot of sounds in your work; most of the risks come from technical challenges in mixing too many tracks or sounds at once.

Sometimes people crowd a track with tons of different sounds because they’ve spent too much time on it and they’re afraid people will get bored.

Mixing multiple sounds requires the producer to approach the mixing process in a few different phases. Let’s say you’re happy with the arrangements in the track—you can then move on to the next step(s).

Should you mix while working on your arrangements simultaneously?

Yes and no. When I’m arranging, I make sure the levels are OK but I won’t deploy an armada of plugins to polish the mix yet because it drains CPU and also because some unfinished arrangement details might completely change the mix itself; I would have to re-polish afterwards.

One of the first things I do when I get to mixing is to question if all of the sounds I’ve included in the project are essential to the narrative of the song or not. You can start by listening to the song and perhaps cross-checking with a reference.

How does one know if a sound is essential? Try removing it. Sometimes, having fewer sounds in a mix can be beneficial to other sounds so they can be heard properly. If you are in love with certain sounds, you can save them for the next track you’re working on if you don’t think they work in your current mix.

Establishing a hook

What’s your hook? Is it the bass? Or is it a 2-bar melodic sequence? Are the rest of your sounds either decorative, percussive, or supporting your hook? What’s the purpose of those additional sounds? People will remember the hook when listening to your song—the other sounds can be described as “decorative”. While some producers are really against using too many decorative sounds in a song, there are no rules to making the music you like and I encourage you to say to anyone telling you “you’re doing it wrong” to just mind their own business. If you like lots of sounds like I do, that’s all that matters, really.

In the late 90s, there was a huge interest in minimalist techno. One of the approaches that artists like Hawtin were obsessed with back then was trying to use as few sounds as possible in a track and still getting their message across. [Hawtin] would come up with an idea and surround it with only the bare-minimum; his idea was that a track was a part of a bigger picture that included assembling it with other tracks.

Mixing with groups

Mixing with groups can be done in many different ways, but to use groups effectively it’s essential that you have a good understanding of the nature of each sound in your project. For instance, I usually have a big group named “Percussion” which will have its own sub-groups. The sub-groups can be different themes on that main group:

  • Same “family”. All “metal” samples could be grouped together, wooded ones, synth, tonal, atonal, etc. Having a group for each family of sounds is excellent for EQing similar resonances these sounds might all have.
  • Same length. All short samples could be grouped together, all long ones, etc. This is useful if you want to use compression and control the groove.
  • By stereo position. All sounds in mono could be grouped together, sides on another. All high, forefront, or far-back sounds could be assigned to different groups. Grouping by position is useful for controlling a portion of the stereo field’s positioning and volume all at once.
  • Other sub-group types. You can come up with your own sub-groups based on what seems the best for your particular track. The idea of a group and sub-group is to control something common to all its members.

Leveling many sounds

Attaining proper volumes for each sound is critical for a mix with a lot going on. If you’re using Ableton, I suggest you switch to the session view to be able to see the meter of each channel. Just by eye, try to start by making sure that they’re all roughly even. After they’re even, lower some 20% lower, others 50%, and some very, very low. Which sounds you lower will depend on what sounds you want to be “decorative” and what sounds you think are a part of your main hook. One of the most common mistakes I hear in complex mixes with many tracks is that the producer is concerned that all of the sounds won’t be heard, so they’re all turned up too loud. The thing is, if you use a lot of sounds, it’s better to have some that are way lower in the mix, and just like in percussion—we call them ghost notes.

Creating unity in a busy mix

How can you make sure all your sounds feel like they’re a part of the same song? Sometimes when you use a lot of tracks and sounds, some might sound lost or it might feel as if two different songs are playing at once.

Grouping

Unity is something that groups can really help with. If your mix doesn’t feel like one song, the first fix you can try is to apply reverb to each of your groups. You can either use a AUX/Send bus, or apply different reverb per-group. I usually keep it at a low 10% wet only, but you can exaggerate too. Similarly, if you EQ a group, you modify the signal of each sound, and this usually helps blend all the sounds from the group together. I put an EQ on a group by default and then will do at least one cut where there’s a general resonance. Compression works magic on groups too—especially a vari-mu type of compression with a pretty aggressive setting; this will feel like adding butter to the whole thing.

Gating

There are multiple ways to use gating, but I like the simple gate from Ableton that has an envelope and an incoming side-chain. If you gate an entire group to one of the main percussion elements of your song—such as the regular clap for instance—it can provide a lot of room to other sounds and have them not be in conflict.

Side-chaining

Like I said, compression is great to bring all the sounds together and a bit of subtle side-chain is also really practical. I like to side-chain some decorative percussion to the main hats, so I make sure they peak through. The best option here is to use Trackspacer as side-chain because it will only use frequency of the incoming signal instead of the amplitude. So for instance, if you use it to side-chain hi-hats from a clap, only the conflicting frequencies of the clap will be removed from the hats.

Modulation

One of the riskiest things a producer can do when mixing many tracks or sounds is the use of stereo modulation such as auto-pan, chorus, phasing, or flanger. These effects make sounds move, and if multiple sounds are moving at once, then you’re going to face phasing issues. I always use these modulation effects on specific sounds in each song, but the sounds that are modulated are treated as “main” sounds. This means you have to give them a lot of room in the mix otherwise they’ll get lost.

Finalizing the mix

Finishing a busy mix is where most people get confused and many fail. The main percussion and other main elements of your song should be mixed first as-is. Then, all elements that are decorative should be mixed in, as a second layer like a “cloud” that completes it all—you’re bringing the main sounds and decorative sounds together. Usually, in the end—thanks to Live 10’s multiple groups feature—I end up having only two faders to mix with. You’ll need to compress them both with a gain reduction of about -3dB to create the impression they merge well together.

But before you get to your final mix, it’s important to get all your sounds right, group them, and control them all first. The final blending of these two major layers at the e nd will be pretty easy if you can get your levels together.

SEE ALSO : Creating organic sounding music with mixing

Are Music Schools Worth The Investment?

/in , , , /by

Whether or not music schools are worth the money might spur a heated debate—schools worldwide might not like what I’m about to say, but I think that this topic needs to be addressed. What’s outlined in this post is based on my personal experience(s); I invite anyone who want to discuss this topic further, to contact me if necessary.

Music schools: an overview

Many people over the last few years have been asking me about my opinion regarding enrolling in music production schools. There are many production and engineering schools in the world, and a lot of them ask for a lot of money to attend. In Montreal, we have Musitechnic (where I have previously taught mastering and production) and Recording Arts. Most major cities around the world have at least one engineering school and if not, people can still study electro-acoustics at Universities. University takes at least 3 years to get a degree; most private schools will condense the material over 1 year. During that time, the physics of sound will be studied, mixing, music production in DAWs, recording, and sometimes mastering. While each of these subject usually take years to really master, the introduction to each can be very useful as you’ll learn the terms and logic of how these tasks work and what they are for.

If the teachers are good at explaining their topic(s) and have a solid background, there’s nothing quite like being in the presence of someone with a great deal of experience, not only for the valuable information they provide, but also, the interpersonal context. Having a good teacher will pay off if you ask questions and are curious. While I don’t teach at Musitechnic anymore, some of my past students are still in contact with me and ask me questions—I even hired some for internships. I’ve often been told by many students that they remembered more from hearing about their teacher’s experience(s) than the class content or material.

One issue with audio teachers I hear about a lot is that many times, teachers might be stuck in a specific era or on a precise genre, which might be difficult for a student to relate to; there might be a culture clash or a generation gap between themselves and the teacher.

For instance, if a school has teachers who are from the rock scene, many people who are interested in electronic music or hip hop will have a really hard time connecting with them. Similarly, sometimes the teachers who make electronic music can even be from a totally different sphere as well, and mentalities and approaches can clash.

The advantages of attending a school or program

There are, however, many beneficial outcomes from attending a music school:

  • you’ll get a solid foundation of the understanding of audio engineering, and get validation from experts.
  • you’ll end up getting a certificate that is recognized in the industry.
  • you’ll have access to resources, equipment and experienced teachers that you might not otherwise find.

The main issue I have with some music schools is how they sell “the dream”, in most cases. The reality of the music industry is really harsh. For instance, a school might tell students that when they graduate, they can open a studio or work for one. While after graduating you might have some skills and experience that you didn’t have before, nothing guarantees that people will come to you to have their music mixed. That said, getting your first client(s) will eventually bring in other clients and opportunities.

“What’s the best way to get a full time job in the music industry or to become an engineer?” I’m often asked, and I’m very careful about how I answer this question. I described my thoughts on finding full-time work in the music industry in a previous post, but I’ll share some points about this topic again here and how it relates to music schools:

  • Whatever anyone tells you or teaches you, even if you applied what they say to the finest level of detail, it’s likely that things still won’t work out the way you envision them. I know this sounds pessimistic, but the reality is that no path will provide the same results for anyone else in the music/audio world.
  • The industry is constantly changing and schools aren’t always following fast enough. If you want to make things work, you need to make sure that you can teach yourself new skills, and fast—being self-sufficient is critical to “make it” out there.
  • Doing things and learning alone is as difficult as going to school, but will be less expensive. The thing a school will provide is a foundation of knowledge that is—without question—valuable. For instance, the physics of sound won’t change in the future (unless one day we have some revolutionary finding that contradict the current model; this is not going to come in anytime soon).
  • Clients don’t always care where you’re from or what your background is, as long as they get results they like. Your reputation and portfolio might speak more for itself than saying you went to “School of X”. Where schools or your background can be a deal-breaker though, is if you apply to specific industries, such as video game companies, and maybe you already have some experience with the software they use—companies will see that as a bonus. But I know sound designers for some of those companies who’ve told me that your portfolio of work matters more. For instance, one friend told me that they really like when a candidate takes a video and then completely re-makes the audio and sound design for it; this is more important than even understanding specific software which can always be learned at a later time.
  • The most important thing is to make music, daily, and to record ideas, on a regular basis. Finishing songs that are quality (see my previous post about getting signed to labels) and having them exposed through releases with labels, by posting them on Youtube channels, self-releasing on Bandcamp, or filling up your profile on Soundcloud can all be critical to reaching potential clients. One of the main reasons I am able to work as an audio engineer and have my own clients is mostly due to the reputation as a musician I built a while ago. I often get emails of people who say they love my music and that was one of the main reasons they want their music to be worked by me specifically. Not many schools really teach the process of developing aesthetics (i.e. “your sound”) or the releasing process. While some do, both of those topics also change quickly, and you need to adapt. I’ve been feeling like every 6 months something changes significantly, but knowing some basics of how to release music certainly helps.

Would I tell someone not to attend a music school?

Certainly not. Some people do well in a school environment, and similarly, some people don’t do well at all on their own. So knowing where you fit most is certainly valuable in your own decision-making about schools. Perhaps a bit of both worlds would be beneficial.

Will a school get you a job in the audio world?

Absolutely not—this is a myth that I feel we need to address. It’s not okay to tell this to students or to market schools this way; it would be as absurd as saying that everyone who graduates from acting schools will find roles in movies and make a living from acting.

What are the alternatives to music schools?

If you don’t think music school is for you—because you don’t have the budget for it, or you’re concerned about the job market after, or even because you’re not someone who can handle class—there are still other options for you:

  • Take online classes. This is a no-brainer because there are a huge number of online classes, courses, and schools online, and you can even look for an international school. You can also work on classes during a time that fits into your schedule. This means you can invest some of your time off from work into it. Slate Digital has some nice online classes, as well as ADSR.
  • Become a YouTube fiend. YouTube has a lot of great content if you’re good at finding what you need. You can create a personal playlist of videos that address either a technique or a topic that is useful. There are also videos where you see people actually working, and they’re usually insightful.
  • Get a mentor. People like myself or others in the industry are usually happy to take students under their wing. While you can find most information online, one advantage of having a mentor is to speed up the search for precise information. How can you learn a precise technique for a problem if you don’t even know what it is? Well, someone with experience can teach you the vocabulary, teach you how to spot a specific sound, and teach you how to find information about it. “How do they make that sound?“, I sometimes hear, as some stuff feels magical to students until I explain that it’s a specific plugin. In my coaching group, we even have a pinned topic where we talk about certain sounds and how they’re made.

I hope this helps you make your own judgments about music schools!

SEE ALSO : On Going DAWless

Taking breaks from music-making

/in /by

It’s strange how some topics seem to pop up in the music world again and again, both online and in person—taking breaks from music being one of them. During the summer in Canada most people—including musicians—don’t want stay indoors as much. Many musicians seem to get FOMO this time of year because they’re not making music. Other people I know are hit by writer’s block (including myself), and some people have asked me if I think music-making should be a daily routine or not. While I love this topic, there are multiple ways to approach music production routines and taking breaks from music; I’m sharing some of my own views here, which are based on my experience.

Taking breaks as you work

This usually surprises a lot of people, but when I work on production or mixing, I take a lot of breaks. I often notice that even after just 10 minutes of working hard, you can lose track of the tone of your song. You get used to what “works”, but the low end or the highs might be too much and you can’t tell because you’ve lost perspective. Even volume can be difficult to assess when your ears are fatigued; you might be playing too loud and not realize it.

Taking a 10-second or so break every 10-15 minutes can prevent fatigue and will help restore your understanding of your song.

If you’re in a creative mood and want to do more, I would strongly recommend taking a break after 1-hour to test the true potential of your music. If you’re familiar with this blog, you probably aren’t surprised to read that I recommend to actually stop working on a particular song after an hour and work on another one instead, or even do something completely different.

Taking breaks and making new songs

Sometimes you’ve made a bunch of songs and you feel like you’re repeating yourself, or worse, everything feels annoying (red flag: writer’s block ahead). Some people feel they need to take a break and not open their DAW at all for a while. Is that a good idea?

Yes and no.

My studio is in a building in Montreal that also houses other studios as well, with all kind of musicians. The ones that impress me the most are the jazz and classical musicians. They have a very, very intense schedule for practicing. In talking with them, they say that skipping just one day of practice has an impact on how they master their instrument(s). I can relate; when I take time off over a 3-day weekend, on the Monday I am a bit slower to figure out which tool works best for a specific situation. If I work on music, it takes me a bit more time to problem solve. In a way, I have to agree with the jazz and classical musicians here even though our music worlds are quite different.

The difference between me—as an audio engineer and electronic musician—and classical and jazz musicians, is that I’m constantly working in a space in which I need to invent new ideas, as opposed to practicing something over and over to master it. For my live sets and productions, I do rehearse and play my music—my workflow isn’t just mastering mouse-clicking around a screen. I humanly intervene by using MIDI controllers, mixing by hand, and when working on sound design I’ll also play with knobs too to create new ideas. I see creativity as a muscle that needs to stay fit to be powerful, but if you’re going to gym regularly, you know muscles also need rest in order to grow.

My conclusion on taking breaks from music is this: I think it’s important to work on audio-related tasks daily in order to stay focused, but when it comes to creating new ideas, creativity is not something that can be forced—it needs to come by itself, naturally. Whenever I push myself too hard to force an idea to come to life, it sounds wrong. The best ideas are spontaneous, often invented quickly, and done without much shaping.

So what does this mean for the musician?

Consider taking long breaks if you have really negative feelings towards what you do, or if you don’t feel good about making music. When taking time off from pursuing your own music creatively, what are some of the other alternatives and things you can do when you need downtime from working on your own songs?

Sound design. Try to see if you can spend time creating one sound you like from scratch, i.e. a pad.

Learn production techniques. You can register with online classes to learn something new; ADSR is full of examples with low prices.

Explore presets. Each effect or instrument you have has presets. You now have time to explore everything. The strength of knowing how many presets sound helps to be able to quickly access a specific aesthetic when needed.

Create templates. Have you considered creating a template for Ableton? I have multiple templates for sound design, mixing, jamming as well as song structure templates to play with.

Build macros. Use multiple effects and assign them to some knobs to see how you can alter sounds quickly.

Sample hunting. So many sites exists for finding samples, but finding time to shop is rare. You can do that now.

Build new references. If you don’t have a folder with reference tracks in it, it’s time to start, and if you do, add new ones. A good way is to make reference playlists on Soundcloud or YouTube.

Try demos and sample them. I love getting a bunch of VST/AU demos to try out and then sampling them. Eventually I get to know which new virtual synth or effect I really like.

Re-open projects that have been pending or recycle them. You might have unfinished songs and sometimes they are a good place to scavenge for samples or ideas to use in other songs.

Revisit past projects you’ve worked on and liked to remind yourself of methods you used that worked. Whenever I feel I need a break but still want to spend some time on music, I go through past projects to see how I worked and what could have been done better—I always learn something from revisiting old work.

All that said, most importantly, when you take a break from music, do not sell any gear or buy anything new. Just wait. If you like music and making it, chances are high that you’ll be doing it for years to come. Sometimes we need a break, but breaks don’t mean you have to give up completely. The feeling of needing a break is temporary—even if it’s a long break—but your love of music is permanently with you.

SEE ALSO : Are Music Schools Worth The Investment?