Nice to see the new forum taking form. I recently read this article about Steven Wilson (Porcupine Tree, No Man, etc..) who I am a huge fan of his 5.1 mixes and also his own albums. I was just so surprised when I see the room that he mixes in. It has just about everything wrong you image and yet he makes incredible mixes with Logic and the UAD Apollo platform, which is the same that I use. See the article below.
Also, Ed Wynne from Ozric Tentacles. I really admire the work he does (his mixes do tend to have too much low end) but the clarity is incredible and he mixes in a bedroom these days with no acoustic treatment at all!!
How do they all get away with it or do they?? I am guess they are just extremely good at what they do and use the headphones a lot as well and if they actually had a proper acoustic mixing room, they would make even better mixes. Curious what people think. It makes you think that if you have world class equipment and some talent, you don't need a good room??
https://www.soundonsound.com/people/steven-wilson-remixing-classic-albums
Check out the pictures of where he mixes..
Scott aka Dr Space
http://oresundspacecollective.bandcamp.com
Amazing mixes in bad rooms??
Re: Amazing mixes in bad rooms??
I remember reading this very article. Steven Wilson does fantastic work, and is highly respected in the prog rock world, with its many devotees of surround mixes - an audience with very high standards.
There are several quotes from him in the article that confirm extensive use of headphones to reference and match the original stereo mix. He uses this as a basis for the enhanced stereo and surround mixes;
Of course, there will be no reference tracks for his original music, which is also excellent. It would be interesting to know what his mixing approach is on these.
Also, it's possible his room is pretty good acoustically. I recently had the privilege of visiting a respected recording and mix engineer's studio with no explicit acoustic treatment in the form of panels or what have you. REW analysis confirmed he had done an amazing job with the natural layout of the room. Excellent choice of room shape, monitors sufficiently far away from walls to eliminate the effect of SBIR, correct use of treble tilt, use of throws, ad hoc partitions and so on. All done by ear. It was deeply impressive.
Of course, many studios are not large enough or sympathetically shaped to allow this. And there are usually additional benefits to be gained with further acoustic treatment.
I've not heard any of Ed Wynne's solo work, but I love the sound of Ozric Tentacle's Erpland EP. Wonder if he mixed that?
Cheers,
Jennifer
There are several quotes from him in the article that confirm extensive use of headphones to reference and match the original stereo mix. He uses this as a basis for the enhanced stereo and surround mixes;
"If I've got a couple of days off in a hotel and time to kill," Wilson says, "I can load up an album remix project and start to piece it together. I can't create definitive mixes, and obviously I can't do the surround mixes, but I can do a good 60 percent of the work sitting in a hotel or dressing room: editing, compiling, getting basic balances, figuring out stereo placement on the original mixes.
Even more close listening follows, as Wilson lines up the original stereo mixes to compare them with the master-take multitracks. This is a slow, painstakingly intense part of the process. "I start listening to 10, 15 seconds at a time, and it'll be 'Oh yeah, the guitar's muted for those first four bars of the second verse, so I need to do that in my session.' Then I'll listen to the next 10 seconds, and 'Ah, OK, there's a phaser been added to the hi-hat there.' And so on through each song."
"Some of these mixes were real works of art," he says. "They'd spend a couple of days, and there'd be three or four of them, all on the faders, bringing phasers in, bringing reverbs in on particular words, panning things left and right, riding solos or phrases in and out, that kind of thing. So listening on headphones and identifying all of these mix moves and where things have been muted or taken out of the mix maybe for a few bars — all of that takes the most time. That's the detective work. And it's so easy to miss things without full concentration."
Finally, Wilson reaches the point where he can actually remix the track whilst remaining true to the artist's original vision: he stresses that his stereo remixes provide an enhanced version of the original and not a wholly new experience. His task to this end is often made easier by the clarity and exposure that the original multitracks can reveal, and then it's a case of making adjustments only where necessary. "At this stage in the workflow, it's a matter of refining," he says, "trying to get as close as possible to the original mix, tweaking EQs and so on. Over a period of days, I'll finish the mix, and then when I go back to it a couple of days later I'll hear things that aren't quite right."
At that point, with an agreed final stereo mix, Wilson either goes on to create the 5.1 mix, if that's part of the job, or he'll deliver a stereo mix if that's all that's required.
Of course, there will be no reference tracks for his original music, which is also excellent. It would be interesting to know what his mixing approach is on these.
Also, it's possible his room is pretty good acoustically. I recently had the privilege of visiting a respected recording and mix engineer's studio with no explicit acoustic treatment in the form of panels or what have you. REW analysis confirmed he had done an amazing job with the natural layout of the room. Excellent choice of room shape, monitors sufficiently far away from walls to eliminate the effect of SBIR, correct use of treble tilt, use of throws, ad hoc partitions and so on. All done by ear. It was deeply impressive.
Of course, many studios are not large enough or sympathetically shaped to allow this. And there are usually additional benefits to be gained with further acoustic treatment.
I've not heard any of Ed Wynne's solo work, but I love the sound of Ozric Tentacle's Erpland EP. Wonder if he mixed that?
Cheers,
Jennifer
Website: https://www.jenclarkmusic.com/
Re: Amazing mixes in bad rooms??
It has been for decades that you can mox in any room if you npw it. When the first wave of modern control rooms started some of the advantages included mixes taken jalf the time and not feeling tired because they were not listening through a muddy mess.
Good studio building is 90% design and 10% construction.
Re: Amazing mixes in bad rooms??
Very true. I've experienced a similar effect in good, well organised live rooms with predictable acoustic properties. No need to spend a long time hunting around for sweet spots for performer and mic. And if you and / or the talent wish to spend time on sounds, it's about details and fine tuning. Very liberating.
Cheers,
Jennifer
Cheers,
Jennifer
Website: https://www.jenclarkmusic.com/
- Soundman2020
- Site Admin
- Posts: 890
- Joined: Thu, 2019-Sep-19, 22:58
- Location: Santiago, Chile
- Contact:
Re: Amazing mixes in bad rooms??
It's certainly possible to mix pretty much anywhere, if you take the time to learn the place, but part of the issue is making it easy, I think. In a great room, it's a lot easier to do mixes that translate well, first time, every time. Sure, you can do the same in a not-so-good room, but why make your life hard? Life is hard enough already, without making it harder. In a well-designed room, it's less tiring, simpler, and more pleasant.
IMHO.
- Stuart -
IMHO.
- Stuart -
- Soundman2020
- Site Admin
- Posts: 890
- Joined: Thu, 2019-Sep-19, 22:58
- Location: Santiago, Chile
- Contact:
Re: Amazing mixes in bad rooms??
Dr Space wrote:Nice to see the new forum taking form. ...
Scott aka Dr Space
http://oresundspacecollective.bandcamp.com
By the way: Welcome to the forum, Scott! It's great to have you here! Feel free to invite your friends and acquaintances to join up as well: the more the merrier!
- Stuart -
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests