You have a lot of great points here, and some tips I will undoubtedly use, but I have to disagree with number 3. Although you are correct - having a simpler arrangement is an EASIER way to get a punchier mix, I find it kind of a lazy suggestion as it's only a quick fix for the engineer. Plenty of bands have fantastic sounding mixes with way denser layers than this. It just takes work and a lot of problem solving. Unfortunately, telling bands that "your mix will be punchier without this or that layer", is how you may compromise the uniqueness of the track (and their sound/ identity) and turn it in to generic sludge. It's your job as an engineer to problem solve and figure out how to realize THEIR artistic vision in the best way. Can't deny your experience though and thanks for the video!
Totally agree with you. But if there are specific parts that really wants to hit harder than other parts of the song like e.g. a breakdown, less is more. And sometimes it can help the band to realize their vision of the part come to life by cutting stuff out.
I agree. I think that might be a misconception of the idea that musicians themselves need to overcome of "doing too much". I've been there, and every musician goes through that, where you're learning all the things, and you want to do all the things all the time. If you have a bunch of musicians doing all the things, all the time, that's where the music loses punch. And I don't think his example track was that good. Other than the "busier" guitar riff being a bit hard to pick out of the mix, that arrangement sounded great. The bass doesn't exist to play at the same time as the kick, it exists to play in partnership with the entire drumset. The point he's trying to make is actually an extension of his second point, not a separate one. When you have sloppy takes, the music lacks punch because there is no moment where the music "hits" together. However, the part people don't often recognize is that playing sloppy means there is no moment where the music "shuts up" together. If the parts that are supposed to hit together don't, and the parts that are supposed to shut up together don't, you lose contrast in the rhythm, and THAT is what causes music to lack punch. The reason people might confuse a dense arrangement for one that is "too busy" is that having more layers of music puts an increased burden on each individual layer to be perfect. A drummer, bassist, guitarist, and singer, have plenty temporal space to work with so that 4 instruments can work together to hit and shut up at the right moments. However, if you have a drummer, a bassist, a rhythm guitarist, a lead guitarist, a pianist, a lead tenor, and accompanying vocals in the bass, tenor, alto, and soprano, ranges, you now have 10 different musical elements that need to divide the same space that the 4 other guys had to work with. In that situation, everybody needs to be on their game to make sure their attacks and cutoffs are exactly where they need to be so that every layer contributes to the pulse, instead of taking away from it. The example that was given here for an arrangement that was "too busy" had 6 layers, that I could identify: drums, bass, guitar 1, guitar 2, lead vocal. I sing in a choir, and we have accompanied an orchestra in our city to sing some sections from Handel's Messiah. At minimum, that means there are: 2 parts for each chorale section - bass, tenor, alto, soprano a soloist for each section - bass, tenor, alto, soprano 2 sections for violins, 2 sections for violas, 2 sections for cellos, 1 section for double bass, 1-2 sections for the wind and brass instruments (most of my orchestral experience has been with strings, not a full orchestra, unfortunately) Various layers of percussion And several solo instruments That means we have 8 chorale parts, 4 solo parts, 7 orchestral parts, a bevy of wind and brass parts, multiple percussion parts, and the solo instruments. At minimum 19 parts before i wasn't really able to count other sections due to lack of experience. And I'd challenge anyone to say that the music doesn't "punch" when you have all of these sections playing at once during fortissimo sections of, say, the Dies Ire all playing off of each other in a wonderful fugue of combining and intermingling layers at the direction of a competent conductor who has rehearsed each section to the limits of their abilities.
@@ATTACKofthe6STRINGS The example track was indeed a bad one to explain this. I couldn't help thinking that his suggestions would have actually ruined the vibe the band was going for. Again, just needs a little effort to find the focal point, and give everything it's space without being overbearing. For example, the lead guitar could easily come way down. The bass could also be automated to have less low end there so it would be easily heard and not clash with the kick drum since they "aren't playing the same pattern".
@@DMIXMusic and plenty of counterexamples are easy to find. In Dua Lipa's "Don't Start Now" the bass line line almost never hits with the kick. This is true of many songs in that style, as the groove comes from each instrument hitting at the right time, not together. However, it could be fair to say that there aren't as many layers in this song during the verse (drums, bass, vocals) as in the example. L'arc~en~ciel's "Daybreak's Bell" has a more comparable 6 layers that I can identify in the first minute of the song (guitar, organ, drums, piano, bass, vocals). In this example, the arrangement makes space for each instrument's purpose. There are moments where the guitar and bass are playing together with the kick of the drum, but there are moments when that isn't the case. The organ is providing an important textural pad that glues different sections together, and the song is driven by timbral contrast in each section. Another thing to note is that the drums for this song might be considered "busy" by people who aren't used to them being orchestrated with such complexity. There are 6 layers in the verse section of "Insomnia" by Coldrain (drum, bass, bg effect/pad, voice, vocal harmony, guitar), though there are only a few playing at a time. However, what drives this verse is actually the way the kick of the drums, and the bass line, specifically MISS each other by a 16th note some of the time, yet land together at the beginning of the measure. To have the bass in this song hit at the same time as the kick the entire way through would actually rob the song of its energy entirely. As a final example, at 1:13 of City Mouth's "Wednesday", there are 6 layers of instruments (Drums, bass, guitar, piano, male vocal, female vocal), and only 2 of those layers (male and female vocals) are doing anything remotely similar. The bass part in that section is fast, alternating, 16th note, octaves that decidedly do NOT line up with the kick drum. The rhythm guitar is the instrument that shares the most with the kick, but it isn't perfect match. There is a keyboard garnishing the upper register of the right channel of music. The female vocal doubles the lead male vocal an octave above his part. Song's do not have a pulse because every layer does the same thing, but with different sounds. Song's have a pulse because every layer serves a purpose while making space for every other layer that the arranger has decided to include. And this is all without me pulling out my mixed race heritage, because using music of latin or black origin, or that has been arranged with latin and black musical ideas in mind, would basically be cheating. th-cam.com/video/nb9FMg8GFoc/w-d-xo.html
a little bit on rhythm instruments is okay to let the lead parts through, but unless you're trying to replicate old school metal sound, keep the midrange instead.
I can’t describe how much your advice has transformed my mixes. This is the first thing you’ve suggested that I don’t think it’s possible for me to do. But it’s more about the style of music I think. The overlapping patterns are a defining feature of progressive music. At least our take on it. Although I definitely align all of the instruments tightly to the beat when possible.
Fantastic information. I was just wondering lately why my drums weren't as punchy as I would have liked them. Turns out it was a mixture of limiting, performance, and mid range. Lovely!
It's one of the most fundamental rules, and probably one of the most ignored these days. I was watching Rick Beato's breakdown of Coldplay's "The Scientist" the other day. Whatever someone may think of Coldplay, that's a VERY well arranged tune, and a modest number of tracks just sound huge. Each part is well chosen to fit together into a whole, and they all have lots of space to breath. As music has become more and more a branch of IT, and the actual performances less important, I think that this has just gotten lost to a lot of people. Easier to just recording a bunch of stuff (assuming they actually even record any of it) and automated, EQ, tune, edit, etc.... until it sounds something like a song.
Really useful video. I just finished putting together a really complex mix and compared it to something else and was like im missing something. What really amazed me was the visual example of how the take being just a few milliseconds out has sich a huge noticeable effect on the waveform that bounces. I mean, i like to get a good take and i know when something is in and working but i didn't attribute that much to the punch of the mix. Just shows why latency is such a track killer. Great tips in the rest of the video. Thanks a lot. Hoping to get a better result on my work now. Subbed.
Great perspective from a pro, as always. I like to export stuff to WAV or MP3 and listen to it in Logitech PC speakers, in headphones on my Android phone or via a blue-tooth speaker, or best of all in my pickup truck which just has a standard stock system. It seems to expose any overbearing weaknesses. Also, that is where most folks are going to listen to music. If it's obviously muddy or bad sounding in any of those places, then it gets looked at. Also, I have found when I try to layer too many cool guitar parts (like a symphony) I find that I just end up with mud, especially when I experiment with an 8-string guitar. Max two guitars, just like live. One playing a rhythm, and the other doing a similar or leads. Exception might be in a big chorus. I also find it fun to just keep experimenting to see what works.
Too much Gain on guitars is so hard to make people understand, especially guitar players lol It's always better to just pick harder to get the tone than having the tone when you barely pick. Absolutely destroys the dynamics or the guitar, and since there is so little dynamics to distorted guitar you DO NOT want to lose that lol
I mix into a (reasonably set) limiter to try to counteract limiters destroying the dynamics afterwards. Get the limiter off the chain after I'm done if the track is going to get mastered. This makes me mix kicks and snares louder than I would normally do. I read discussions saying this is bad practice, but it works for me. I'm always using mastered tracks for reference, and if I try to match those on an unprocessed bus, drums would surely get wimpy when it's loudness maximization time.
More gain on guitars sounds like putting a reverb tail on, or opening the release on a compressor. Takes away the emphasis of the loudest part of the transient and moves it to the end.
Just discovered your channel and downloaded your cheat sheet. I'm gonna binge your tutorials and then remix a song I wrote for my brother to see/hear how it goes! Subscribed.
Do an extreme effect with your base with what you were just doing okay and just keep working at that and you'll get and you'll get be able to get finer and finer and you build a tune in better and better as you go along with it
Honestly I think #3 is not a good example because to me the "busy arrangement" version doesn't actually need the punch and sounds 100x more interesting and groovy than the "good arrangement version" (which is pretty generic).
Polyrhythms and counter-melodies etc. are widely regarded in music theory. What he is talking about is producing music in a specific way, a more commercial approach. Arraignments are relegated to fit a form that consigns them to be, first and foremost, "punchy' above all else. A good arraingement is a punchy arraingement. It goes contrary to good music theory. Mixing has little to do with "good music" and has everything to do with simple rhythm. Music has to be palatable to even those who have a bland musical palate. No room for innovation in making music more interesting. He, here, is merely trying to sell a product.
Clipping is pretty much what Analog Gear does if you push it hard enough, and engineers have exploited that to make your favorite records sound very exciting.
I get your arrangement point but I think its still more subjective than you are saying. Yeh sure the punch is affected, but maybe you want a section to have less impact and then become punchier in the next section (contrast) that's a composition thing anyway. I write using this sometimes, I will have a less cohesive section deliberately going into a very focused cohesive section, You may not like that idea, but that is subjective. You cant be re writing a bands basslines, If a Mix engineer did that to my tune without us prompting them, I would fire them on the spot. Suggestions are one thing, a suggestion is fine and I might follow that suggestion, but the Mix engineer is not a composer. If they are Producer as well,, then its a different matter.
I don't understand what he's trying to demonstrate with his third example; the goal of the "bad" example is obviously not to be punchy and is obviously trying to be layered. Why would you compare that with a track that's some powerchords lining up with the drums? Why is he talking about classical music? It has nothing to do with trying to be punchy, it's usually trying to be layered and have a lot of melodic and harmonic information (even though you can listen to all the famous bits of Stravinsky's "Rite Of Spring" and hear plenty of punchy parts, parts where things are *supposed* to play loud and together).
Hey on the L2 Limiter your using those peaks that are getting pushed down and crushed is kinda being effected automatically from the release section of the limiter I watch a lot of videos here on TH-cam and no one teaches you to turn that down. Click on ACR and bring down your release and then listen to what’s being happening and compare it to the way you just did you will more than likely still have your peaks !!
Was it easier in the 70s to make things tighter sounding, because of different recording equipment? Thats a question I keep asking myself because they very probably sloppier back then, for example bands like Sex Pistols sounds tight but I keep wondering if the "cleaner" sound of today also make it harder to sound tight? The sounds back then maybe made it easier to just play okay and still sound really great?
A lot of what you're hearing on the Sex Pistols record is Steve Jones doubling his own guitar parts and playing many of the bass part. Sid barely played on the record, if at all and Glen Matlock was gone by the time a lot of it was recorded. Good question, but that example is one guy playing to his own rhythm so it feels tighter. too.
It's also what our ears are most sensitive too. This is why NS-10 monitors and mixcubes work so well. They're hyper-detailed in the midrange but don't show you much else. They allow you to get the most important part of your mix right.
I thought you were gonna take that orchestral example in a different direction. Because when an orchestra does sound punchy and full it’s usually because everyone IS doubling and tripling up on parts. Just figured I’d point that out.
a little subjective on some parts i feel. so me the busier arrangement was way better and more interesting and the high gain guitars sounded way heavier the low gain ones sounded weak.
4:20 this arrangement is far more interesting than the one that follows. Maybe you haven't noticed the biggest bands in this genre now are progressive or math rock artists like Sleep Token, Polyphia & for decades now, Tool. The 2nd arrangement is lame AF jaja. You say "even the vocals just double that up" as if that's a good thing. That's horrible arrangement & lazy songwriting. Heard of Polyrhythms? The 2nd arrangement hits harder but who cares, it isn't doing anything remotely musically interesting.
Complexity can still hit hard, ever heard of Meshuggah?? Complex yet very unified around one base rhythm, despite being polyrhythmic. I agree tho I was not a fan of that arrangement you demonstrated with too much going on. Having a lot of different things going on CAN sound cool if it’s done in moderation and intentionally.
During the 5 to 6 minute mark, maybe a little bit later than that, I understand the point you're trying to make here and it's important for everybody else to understand it as well, however the biggest elephant in the room is not that layers can cloud up or muddy up a mix. The elephant in the room staring at you is that everybody needs to go back to the basics and learn how to write a song using dynamics. Take a van like slip knot, nine musicians most of the time all doing their own thing for the sake of the song. But they know how to write a song and they know when to be cohesive and syncopate, yet at the same time they also know when to layer and have those layers provide support to the different sections of the song in a dynamic way in other words, in order to be dramatic or do the opposite and help to tone down certain passages of a song. And seriously if everybody can learn those aspects of writing a song and utilize them properly, they would tremendously help lower pre-production costs and frustration when they walk into studio or start to work with a producer and find that the producer is pulling his hair out because the song preparation is not there yet.
Multiband compressors. It's quite easy to drag one on to your master bus, open up some preset and voila, your mix sounds big and fat, untill you play it in your car and realise nothing in your mix punches and it sounds flat and lifeless.
I agree with his beginning to point 3 but not his conclusion - based on the examples he used. I think that if one is looking for a punchy mix, the bass guitar and the drums should lock in together. Particularly, the kick. The exact same example he shared would have sounded way “punchier” if the kick and bass were locked in. Tool is a great example of a band that has sections where everyone sort of goes off in their own direction, but the kick drum is always emphasizing the bass part.
after listening to Jordan, I set my mackie hr824 to 80Hz high pass and I could hear my mids totally sucking. Thank you for these videos. You're a straight shooter. Respect.
I'd agree with #2 - the tightness of the playing, but editing takes ruins it for me at least. If played really well, instruments sound awesome, but if we edit them to perfection - then I don't really like it anymore. Editing is suitable for certain intentionally robotic genres of course. Also #4 - the amount of gain is also a stylistic choice for me, but it is a fact that a lot of gain on amp sims sounds pretty bad. #5 - I'm guilty :)
Good tips, but I would recommend you next time mention that it’s specific tips for fast bpm genres as metal and techno , 100% of tip useless for hip-hop trap pop jazz blues and classical music. Good luck!
I completely agree with you about the bad arrangement part; not so much about the sloppy performance, though. At least in your example, an organic song was made to sound like it was a quantized piano roll render!
Yeah but it's not really noticeable to the untrained dear you know they would never hear it so so you would have to be more extreme with that if it doesn't Rock and if it doesn't roll or if it doesn't mean from one side to the other side in between notes it's not working
*bruh!..* ngl ~4:20 is quite a catchy tune and i didn’t find myself puzzled by the amount of lines doing “different rhythms”. pretty sophisticated composition and arrangement, that i would probably like to hear in full length. it’s polyrhythmic, not that big of a deal - definitely just a stylistic choice by the band. i was also kinda facepalming while hearing the “good arrangement” example to oppose it - i mean, it’s way too basic. personally, i would skip this as soon as i heard 5 seconds of these synchronized uninspired chunks of mediocrity. (the key word in the sentence is *personally* . no doubt someone probably won’t find it mediocre, it’s how it sounded to me - just an opinion from outside) _to make myself clear_ - i’m not hating on you, in fact your channel is mostly always a source of valuable info and useful professional perspective. it’s just that this bit came across like a hell of an unfair “hot take” on someone’s original musical language. it’s not cool to just throw absolute terms like “bad” at output that just doesn’t match your taste. even adding a simple difference as “ bad _to my ear_ ” in wording would be much more honest and true by nature, my man. and to be fair, there are certainly ways to make this recording punchy without changing anything in arrangement. requires quite some time? probably. but for sure it’s not an impossible task. hope i managed to get my point across and didn’t sound too off putting. piece.
And the cereals aren't exactly set up correct they're all wrong their majority rule and nobody's only people only this ain't only the bases what matters but you know they are looking at it all wrong
TF was that??? dude dont even know how to use the limiter smh -8.6 too much and didnt even bring the ceiling back up to -0.3 -0.2 etc and kept the release at default smh
Yeah but it's not really noticeable to the untrained dear you know they would never hear it so so you would have to be more extreme with that if it doesn't Rock and if it doesn't roll or if it doesn't mean from one side to the other side in between notes it's not working
You have a lot of great points here, and some tips I will undoubtedly use, but I have to disagree with number 3. Although you are correct - having a simpler arrangement is an EASIER way to get a punchier mix, I find it kind of a lazy suggestion as it's only a quick fix for the engineer. Plenty of bands have fantastic sounding mixes with way denser layers than this. It just takes work and a lot of problem solving. Unfortunately, telling bands that "your mix will be punchier without this or that layer", is how you may compromise the uniqueness of the track (and their sound/ identity) and turn it in to generic sludge. It's your job as an engineer to problem solve and figure out how to realize THEIR artistic vision in the best way. Can't deny your experience though and thanks for the video!
Totally agree with you. But if there are specific parts that really wants to hit harder than other parts of the song like e.g. a breakdown, less is more. And sometimes it can help the band to realize their vision of the part come to life by cutting stuff out.
I agree. I think that might be a misconception of the idea that musicians themselves need to overcome of "doing too much". I've been there, and every musician goes through that, where you're learning all the things, and you want to do all the things all the time. If you have a bunch of musicians doing all the things, all the time, that's where the music loses punch.
And I don't think his example track was that good. Other than the "busier" guitar riff being a bit hard to pick out of the mix, that arrangement sounded great. The bass doesn't exist to play at the same time as the kick, it exists to play in partnership with the entire drumset.
The point he's trying to make is actually an extension of his second point, not a separate one. When you have sloppy takes, the music lacks punch because there is no moment where the music "hits" together. However, the part people don't often recognize is that playing sloppy means there is no moment where the music "shuts up" together. If the parts that are supposed to hit together don't, and the parts that are supposed to shut up together don't, you lose contrast in the rhythm, and THAT is what causes music to lack punch.
The reason people might confuse a dense arrangement for one that is "too busy" is that having more layers of music puts an increased burden on each individual layer to be perfect. A drummer, bassist, guitarist, and singer, have plenty temporal space to work with so that 4 instruments can work together to hit and shut up at the right moments. However, if you have a drummer, a bassist, a rhythm guitarist, a lead guitarist, a pianist, a lead tenor, and accompanying vocals in the bass, tenor, alto, and soprano, ranges, you now have 10 different musical elements that need to divide the same space that the 4 other guys had to work with. In that situation, everybody needs to be on their game to make sure their attacks and cutoffs are exactly where they need to be so that every layer contributes to the pulse, instead of taking away from it.
The example that was given here for an arrangement that was "too busy" had 6 layers, that I could identify: drums, bass, guitar 1, guitar 2, lead vocal.
I sing in a choir, and we have accompanied an orchestra in our city to sing some sections from Handel's Messiah. At minimum, that means there are:
2 parts for each chorale section - bass, tenor, alto, soprano
a soloist for each section - bass, tenor, alto, soprano
2 sections for violins,
2 sections for violas,
2 sections for cellos,
1 section for double bass,
1-2 sections for the wind and brass instruments (most of my orchestral experience has been with strings, not a full orchestra, unfortunately)
Various layers of percussion
And several solo instruments
That means we have 8 chorale parts, 4 solo parts, 7 orchestral parts, a bevy of wind and brass parts, multiple percussion parts, and the solo instruments. At minimum 19 parts before i wasn't really able to count other sections due to lack of experience.
And I'd challenge anyone to say that the music doesn't "punch" when you have all of these sections playing at once during fortissimo sections of, say, the Dies Ire all playing off of each other in a wonderful fugue of combining and intermingling layers at the direction of a competent conductor who has rehearsed each section to the limits of their abilities.
@@ATTACKofthe6STRINGS Very well put!
@@ATTACKofthe6STRINGS The example track was indeed a bad one to explain this. I couldn't help thinking that his suggestions would have actually ruined the vibe the band was going for. Again, just needs a little effort to find the focal point, and give everything it's space without being overbearing. For example, the lead guitar could easily come way down. The bass could also be automated to have less low end there so it would be easily heard and not clash with the kick drum since they "aren't playing the same pattern".
@@DMIXMusic and plenty of counterexamples are easy to find.
In Dua Lipa's "Don't Start Now" the bass line line almost never hits with the kick. This is true of many songs in that style, as the groove comes from each instrument hitting at the right time, not together. However, it could be fair to say that there aren't as many layers in this song during the verse (drums, bass, vocals) as in the example.
L'arc~en~ciel's "Daybreak's Bell" has a more comparable 6 layers that I can identify in the first minute of the song (guitar, organ, drums, piano, bass, vocals). In this example, the arrangement makes space for each instrument's purpose. There are moments where the guitar and bass are playing together with the kick of the drum, but there are moments when that isn't the case. The organ is providing an important textural pad that glues different sections together, and the song is driven by timbral contrast in each section. Another thing to note is that the drums for this song might be considered "busy" by people who aren't used to them being orchestrated with such complexity.
There are 6 layers in the verse section of "Insomnia" by Coldrain (drum, bass, bg effect/pad, voice, vocal harmony, guitar), though there are only a few playing at a time. However, what drives this verse is actually the way the kick of the drums, and the bass line, specifically MISS each other by a 16th note some of the time, yet land together at the beginning of the measure. To have the bass in this song hit at the same time as the kick the entire way through would actually rob the song of its energy entirely.
As a final example, at 1:13 of City Mouth's "Wednesday", there are 6 layers of instruments (Drums, bass, guitar, piano, male vocal, female vocal), and only 2 of those layers (male and female vocals) are doing anything remotely similar. The bass part in that section is fast, alternating, 16th note, octaves that decidedly do NOT line up with the kick drum. The rhythm guitar is the instrument that shares the most with the kick, but it isn't perfect match. There is a keyboard garnishing the upper register of the right channel of music. The female vocal doubles the lead male vocal an octave above his part.
Song's do not have a pulse because every layer does the same thing, but with different sounds. Song's have a pulse because every layer serves a purpose while making space for every other layer that the arranger has decided to include.
And this is all without me pulling out my mixed race heritage, because using music of latin or black origin, or that has been arranged with latin and black musical ideas in mind, would basically be cheating.
th-cam.com/video/nb9FMg8GFoc/w-d-xo.html
Love that you mentioned the midrange. I was guilty of scooping mids in my early years because of TH-cam audio engineers. Great tips!
a little bit on rhythm instruments is okay to let the lead parts through, but unless you're trying to replicate old school metal sound, keep the midrange instead.
Great teacher. This channel is great for musicians and engineers alike.
This is the first time the song that the dude is working on in the youtube tutorial is actually something i would listen to
I can’t describe how much your advice has transformed my mixes. This is the first thing you’ve suggested that I don’t think it’s possible for me to do. But it’s more about the style of music I think. The overlapping patterns are a defining feature of progressive music. At least our take on it. Although I definitely align all of the instruments tightly to the beat when possible.
Fantastic information. I was just wondering lately why my drums weren't as punchy as I would have liked them. Turns out it was a mixture of limiting, performance, and mid range. Lovely!
I've heard the "arrangement has a huge effect on the mix" before and this is by far the best explanation I've seen. Thanks for breaking it down!
It's one of the most fundamental rules, and probably one of the most ignored these days. I was watching Rick Beato's breakdown of Coldplay's "The Scientist" the other day. Whatever someone may think of Coldplay, that's a VERY well arranged tune, and a modest number of tracks just sound huge. Each part is well chosen to fit together into a whole, and they all have lots of space to breath.
As music has become more and more a branch of IT, and the actual performances less important, I think that this has just gotten lost to a lot of people. Easier to just recording a bunch of stuff (assuming they actually even record any of it) and automated, EQ, tune, edit, etc.... until it sounds something like a song.
Really useful video. I just finished putting together a really complex mix and compared it to something else and was like im missing something.
What really amazed me was the visual example of how the take being just a few milliseconds out has sich a huge noticeable effect on the waveform that bounces.
I mean, i like to get a good take and i know when something is in and working but i didn't attribute that much to the punch of the mix. Just shows why latency is such a track killer.
Great tips in the rest of the video. Thanks a lot. Hoping to get a better result on my work now.
Subbed.
Great perspective from a pro, as always. I like to export stuff to WAV or MP3 and listen to it in Logitech PC speakers, in headphones on my Android phone or via a blue-tooth speaker, or best of all in my pickup truck which just has a standard stock system. It seems to expose any overbearing weaknesses. Also, that is where most folks are going to listen to music. If it's obviously muddy or bad sounding in any of those places, then it gets looked at. Also, I have found when I try to layer too many cool guitar parts (like a symphony) I find that I just end up with mud, especially when I experiment with an 8-string guitar. Max two guitars, just like live. One playing a rhythm, and the other doing a similar or leads. Exception might be in a big chorus. I also find it fun to just keep experimenting to see what works.
Thanks for the tips. Even after all these years, I learned something new.
Too much gain is a gamechanger, I agree with this 100% , I think many guitarist fall into the too much gain trap
This video contains gold! Love this!
Using Silverstein as an example of what tightness sounds like made my day!
The elysia master bus compressors soft clip wi shave massive peaks without changing the sound. Also transient shapers help a lot.
Too much Gain on guitars is so hard to make people understand, especially guitar players lol
It's always better to just pick harder to get the tone than having the tone when you barely pick. Absolutely destroys the dynamics or the guitar, and since there is so little dynamics to distorted guitar you DO NOT want to lose that lol
9:08 Sounds great, Jordan! You got a ringing frequency in the OH/Cymbals around 5770khz, though. A bit squeaky!
thanks. amazing . especially, the last one. just a little boost of mid-range !
The editing example from tip 2 was awesome! Those performances sounded great, but the edited clip hit so much harder!
3:33 What exactly is he doing here to quickly A/B the tightening edits he applied to the guitars??
what song is the third 'bad' example, it was so good
absolute game changer for me
All this advice is GOLD! Thank you!
I mix into a (reasonably set) limiter to try to counteract limiters destroying the dynamics afterwards. Get the limiter off the chain after I'm done if the track is going to get mastered. This makes me mix kicks and snares louder than I would normally do. I read discussions saying this is bad practice, but it works for me. I'm always using mastered tracks for reference, and if I try to match those on an unprocessed bus, drums would surely get wimpy when it's loudness maximization time.
Try using some natural distortions and suppressions and saturations and thresholds of stuff like that through natural effects
More gain on guitars sounds like putting a reverb tail on, or opening the release on a compressor. Takes away the emphasis of the loudest part of the transient and moves it to the end.
Thanks Jordan. Excellent as always. What's your favourite way to control peak level if not a limiter?
I found your BSA Clipper video, thanks.
Bro, great lesson here. I really enjoyed these tips and tricks.
Great advice/tips - I took a lot of notes - thank you!
Which song is used as the example for the chugs/guitar gain part of the video? Love that sound and would love to listen to the full song.
same here
thank you!
why the gate on your guitars is always off?
what about noise in pauses?
I've just bought your clipper its great thanks.
Just discovered your channel and downloaded your cheat sheet. I'm gonna binge your tutorials and then remix a song I wrote for my brother to see/hear how it goes! Subscribed.
Another great vid Jordan! thankyou for sharing!
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. But how do you suggest we set the Limiter? Or no need for a limiter at all?
This vid is gonna help me alot. Much love
Awesome video, Jordan. Pro tips, well illustrated and easy to follow. Well done
You don't like Prog, huh?
song name 8:29 ?
I see all those Silverstein LP covers on your wall. Did you mix/master/produce on those?
Awesome points and teaching!
Do an extreme effect with your base with what you were just doing okay and just keep working at that and you'll get and you'll get be able to get finer and finer and you build a tune in better and better as you go along with it
Great points. Thanks
Honestly I think #3 is not a good example because to me the "busy arrangement" version doesn't actually need the punch and sounds 100x more interesting and groovy than the "good arrangement version" (which is pretty generic).
Polyrhythms and counter-melodies etc. are widely regarded in music theory. What he is talking about is producing music in a specific way, a more commercial approach. Arraignments are relegated to fit a form that consigns them to be, first and foremost, "punchy' above all else. A good arraingement is a punchy arraingement. It goes contrary to good music theory. Mixing has little to do with "good music" and has everything to do with simple rhythm. Music has to be palatable to even those who have a bland musical palate. No room for innovation in making music more interesting. He, here, is merely trying to sell a product.
I love busy arrangements from a song writing standpoint.
Nice stuff/info, thanks
Clipping is pretty much what Analog Gear does if you push it hard enough, and engineers have exploited that to make your favorite records sound very exciting.
I get your arrangement point but I think its still more subjective than you are saying. Yeh sure the punch is affected, but maybe you want a section to have less impact and then become punchier in the next section (contrast) that's a composition thing anyway. I write using this sometimes, I will have a less cohesive section deliberately going into a very focused cohesive section, You may not like that idea, but that is subjective.
You cant be re writing a bands basslines, If a Mix engineer did that to my tune without us prompting them, I would fire them on the spot.
Suggestions are one thing, a suggestion is fine and I might follow that suggestion, but the Mix engineer is not a composer. If they are Producer as well,, then its a different matter.
If you don’t want to compromise the tone of the guitars in tip 4 for the sake of punch, try layering a cleaner guitar tone OVER a more distorted one.
Damn - I am a sloppy player who loves complex arrangements (and uses too much gain on guitars)!
haha! Love the self awareness
For rock sloppy can be good. J.P. is a good example, a sloppy style but tight.
I don't understand what he's trying to demonstrate with his third example; the goal of the "bad" example is obviously not to be punchy and is obviously trying to be layered. Why would you compare that with a track that's some powerchords lining up with the drums? Why is he talking about classical music? It has nothing to do with trying to be punchy, it's usually trying to be layered and have a lot of melodic and harmonic information (even though you can listen to all the famous bits of Stravinsky's "Rite Of Spring" and hear plenty of punchy parts, parts where things are *supposed* to play loud and together).
You have great advice IMHO
Hey on the L2 Limiter your using those peaks that are getting pushed down and crushed is kinda being effected automatically from the release section of the limiter I watch a lot of videos here on TH-cam and no one teaches you to turn that down. Click on ACR and bring down your release and then listen to what’s being happening and compare it to the way you just did you will more than likely still have your peaks !!
Was it easier in the 70s to make things tighter sounding, because of different recording equipment? Thats a question I keep asking myself because they very probably sloppier back then, for example bands like Sex Pistols sounds tight but I keep wondering if the "cleaner" sound of today also make it harder to sound tight? The sounds back then maybe made it easier to just play okay and still sound really great?
Tight doesn't necessarily mean on click. It means band plays well together. In 70s bands rehearsed a lot together.
A lot of what you're hearing on the Sex Pistols record is Steve Jones doubling his own guitar parts and playing many of the bass part. Sid barely played on the record, if at all and Glen Matlock was gone by the time a lot of it was recorded. Good question, but that example is one guy playing to his own rhythm so it feels tighter. too.
The mid range boost thing make a lot of sense when you think "it's what you'll hear the most on all devices"
It's also what our ears are most sensitive too. This is why NS-10 monitors and mixcubes work so well. They're hyper-detailed in the midrange but don't show you much else. They allow you to get the most important part of your mix right.
@@rome8180 so what ld be the more exact frequency or region to push?
Yeah the bass will hit was supposedly supposed to bend any other higher signals making them all sound like they're hitting together
amazing video!
In the 3rd tip I actually like the "bad" example more lol
2nd example sounds just like another by the numbers hard rock/metall-ish song.
I thought you were gonna take that orchestral example in a different direction. Because when an orchestra does sound punchy and full it’s usually because everyone IS doubling and tripling up on parts. Just figured I’d point that out.
a little subjective on some parts i feel. so me the busier arrangement was way better and more interesting and the high gain guitars sounded way heavier the low gain ones sounded weak.
4:20 this arrangement is far more interesting than the one that follows. Maybe you haven't noticed the biggest bands in this genre now are progressive or math rock artists like Sleep Token, Polyphia & for decades now, Tool. The 2nd arrangement is lame AF jaja. You say "even the vocals just double that up" as if that's a good thing. That's horrible arrangement & lazy songwriting. Heard of Polyrhythms? The 2nd arrangement hits harder but who cares, it isn't doing anything remotely musically interesting.
True That!
to be fair, i MUCH preferred the version with higher gain guitars. :D
☛ Grab your free Mixing Cheatsheet to learn the go-to starting points for EQ and compression in heavy mixes: hardcoremusicstudio.com/mixcheatsheet
Complexity can still hit hard, ever heard of Meshuggah?? Complex yet very unified around one base rhythm, despite being polyrhythmic. I agree tho I was not a fan of that arrangement you demonstrated with too much going on. Having a lot of different things going on CAN sound cool if it’s done in moderation and intentionally.
During the 5 to 6 minute mark, maybe a little bit later than that, I understand the point you're trying to make here and it's important for everybody else to understand it as well, however the biggest elephant in the room is not that layers can cloud up or muddy up a mix. The elephant in the room staring at you is that everybody needs to go back to the basics and learn how to write a song using dynamics. Take a van like slip knot, nine musicians most of the time all doing their own thing for the sake of the song. But they know how to write a song and they know when to be cohesive and syncopate, yet at the same time they also know when to layer and have those layers provide support to the different sections of the song in a dynamic way in other words, in order to be dramatic or do the opposite and help to tone down certain passages of a song. And seriously if everybody can learn those aspects of writing a song and utilize them properly, they would tremendously help lower pre-production costs and frustration when they walk into studio or start to work with a producer and find that the producer is pulling his hair out because the song preparation is not there yet.
It's interesting because the limiter can be a useful thing, you just have to use it wisely and not push it too far.
This is very true indeed
I often am the "mixing in solo" guy ... I'm working on it
WOW. Just WOW!!!
Multiband compressors. It's quite easy to drag one on to your master bus, open up some preset and voila, your mix sounds big and fat, untill you play it in your car and realise nothing in your mix punches and it sounds flat and lifeless.
Depends on your settings. If you set it wrong (either too much gain reduction or too fast attack), probably. But presets never work anyway.
The third tip seems *extremely* creatively limiting.
You're right, it goes against his first tip!
I agree with his beginning to point 3 but not his conclusion - based on the examples he used. I think that if one is looking for a punchy mix, the bass guitar and the drums should lock in together. Particularly, the kick. The exact same example he shared would have sounded way “punchier” if the kick and bass were locked in.
Tool is a great example of a band that has sections where everyone sort of goes off in their own direction, but the kick drum is always emphasizing the bass part.
after listening to Jordan, I set my mackie hr824 to 80Hz high pass and I could hear my mids totally sucking. Thank you for these videos. You're a straight shooter. Respect.
Nice powerful monitors. I have a pair
I'd agree with #2 - the tightness of the playing, but editing takes ruins it for me at least. If played really well, instruments sound awesome, but if we edit them to perfection - then I don't really like it anymore. Editing is suitable for certain intentionally robotic genres of course.
Also #4 - the amount of gain is also a stylistic choice for me, but it is a fact that a lot of gain on amp sims sounds pretty bad.
#5 - I'm guilty :)
Awesome, but #3 can be easily challenged by listening to jazz and particularly Latin jazz.
Your tips hit different 🔥
We had your eyes are way too high and your love's got no shake to it
Good tips, but I would recommend you next time mention that it’s specific tips for fast bpm genres as metal and techno , 100% of tip useless for hip-hop trap pop jazz blues and classical music. Good luck!
Spiking the punch ends up in messes….got it
it is so simple to fix it, just use level automation on high, you won't even need to use compressor.
Damn I’ve been scooping 500 like my life depended on it
I completely agree with you about the bad arrangement part; not so much about the sloppy performance, though. At least in your example, an organic song was made to sound like it was a quantized piano roll render!
Using a linear phase EQ on the stereo bus...
Yeah but it's not really noticeable to the untrained dear you know they would never hear it so so you would have to be more extreme with that if it doesn't Rock and if it doesn't roll or if it doesn't mean from one side to the other side in between notes it's not working
*bruh!..* ngl ~4:20 is quite a catchy tune and i didn’t find myself puzzled by the amount of lines doing “different rhythms”. pretty sophisticated composition and arrangement, that i would probably like to hear in full length. it’s polyrhythmic, not that big of a deal - definitely just a stylistic choice by the band.
i was also kinda facepalming while hearing the “good arrangement” example to oppose it - i mean, it’s way too basic. personally, i would skip this as soon as i heard 5 seconds of these synchronized uninspired chunks of mediocrity.
(the key word in the sentence is *personally* . no doubt someone probably won’t find it mediocre, it’s how it sounded to me - just an opinion from outside)
_to make myself clear_ - i’m not hating on you, in fact your channel is mostly always a source of valuable info and useful professional perspective. it’s just that this bit came across like a hell of an unfair “hot take” on someone’s original musical language. it’s not cool to just throw absolute terms like “bad” at output that just doesn’t match your taste. even adding a simple difference as “ bad _to my ear_ ” in wording would be much more honest and true by nature, my man.
and to be fair, there are certainly ways to make this recording punchy without changing anything in arrangement. requires quite some time? probably. but for sure it’s not an impossible task.
hope i managed to get my point across and didn’t sound too off putting. piece.
👌
Doubling your recording without sorting out phasing, will absolutely make your mixes sound muted.
The bass ain't hitting hard enough when your eyes are too high
If I were in an area that had more resources I could become immune are overnight
Near High variable is way too high
I like the unclean chuggs
My choice is a clipper
Timestamps man! Timestamps! Videos like this should have timestamps
There will never be a master without a limiter. So what do you recommend?
And the cereals aren't exactly set up correct they're all wrong their majority rule and nobody's only people only this ain't only the bases what matters but you know they are looking at it all wrong
TF was that??? dude dont even know how to use the limiter smh -8.6 too much and didnt even bring the ceiling back up to -0.3 -0.2 etc and kept the release at default smh
That second approach is kind of lazy. You can't expect each instrument to hit the on the same same spot always, so little creativity!
it's all within the bounds of taste
Your point on arrangements is embarrassing and clearly you're not a fan of progressive rock haha the first example was way more interesting!
If you don’t want to compromise the tone of the guitars in tip 4 for the sake of punch, try layering a cleaner guitar tone OVER a more distorted one.
Yeah but it's not really noticeable to the untrained dear you know they would never hear it so so you would have to be more extreme with that if it doesn't Rock and if it doesn't roll or if it doesn't mean from one side to the other side in between notes it's not working
The bass ain't hitting hard enough when your eyes are too high
Near High variable is way too high
Near High variable is way too high