Hey, Marrow Machines, sorry it appears that there is a misunderstanding somewhere.

I'm not looking for the software to actually do the correction for me, just to do the detection of where it is occurring and what frequencies are causing all in one pass, since bouncing back and forth seems to be an inefficient workflow.

I would hope so, but i thought about it during a car ride and it would be really helpful for a software to do that.

Hopefully i've underlined some mixing procedures that will help during your mastering.

Thanks for the reply Wontolla!

So "off notes" are badly timed notes to you? Do you have example of a song where it's done correctly and it could have screwed the song if it wasn't? Or vice versa maybe.

there's no personality in your melody.

Wontolla might be suggesting you need some more of you in your creation. Something a little more human.

It really sounds the same.

are you playing your melodies?

One way to control your notes, is the length of them, rather than the start.

I tend to quantize a good bit of my musical, but i only do that for the start of triggers(midi notes). Just to make sure they're on top of the beat.

My attack from the synth/drum machine/sampler allows a slight time difference so my transients aren't all on top of each other.

I find it better to adjust the sound with the synth than to do it on the sequencer. (don't over think this, it's just a volume/filter envelop thing)


You need to consider how the sound is being made from all angles, and how you best can control the sound you're after with the tools that are available with your understanding.

i tend to use it as a sculpting tool.

some times things need more other times things need less.

i tend to mark sure i take away before i add.

Considering the sound that's in front of you is very important thing that every one is saying.

If you don't respect what you're working with to a point of you thinking "OH I KNOW HOW THIS SHOULD SOUND BLAH BLAH BLAH, AND I NEED FIVE MILLION EQS" or whta ever, then you just need to go record your own samples with a microphone then. Something from some one else won't be right for you.

But, that aside, individually analysis  of the sound you're working with and figuring out how to best to use it in context of mixing and music should be the mindset when it comes to all mixing. EQ, especially.

I love you farley

I don't agree with you about having a software that "fixes" those clips from happening.

The clips typically appear because of dynamics, build of up frequencies at that point, and volume due to the lack of compensation of the previous two points.

I also don't agree with side chaining, because that doesn't do any thing to actually control any of the three points above.

If you're using groups and you do get the things sitting right, i would consider adjusting your group volume, because  you get to maintain the ratios of your individual tracks but instead lowering the overall volume of that entire group. IE drums, bass (not sub i leave that to go into my master/premaster), leads, sound effects and fills.

If you're still having trouble, apply some group compression. I haven't experience RMS compression, because that particular component in reason's mixer isn't as versatile as i'd like. so i end up using a peak compressor.

But use the compressor as a compressor, i wouldn't recommend messing with the outbound volume, or input volume.

If that's not working, reconsider WHAT you're eqing and adjust group or individual volumes in the group channels (if you have them).

That's generally my work flow when it comes to identifying peaks, but i tend to get them early on and nip it in the bud.

I also tend to start lower in volume and then move up, rather than start at higher level. There's less room to go up, and you have less reference points to consider as well.

ps, i don't side chain any thing. I love how the layers work together to get things nice and fat. #teamwork

I've been taking to the ill Gates methodology of workflow in terms of working on and finishing tracks lately: Set a guillotine timer for working on a sound or effect, and another one for the project. As an example, ill Gates has said he has a "5 minute rule" and a "20 hour guillotine": If it takes longer than 5 minutes for him to get something to fit with the track, he abandons the idea and moves on to something else. If it takes longer than 20 hours for him to finish the song, he'll gut all parts from the song for use in later projects and scraps the entire project.

The theory behind this process is that we can get so bogged down with the endless array of options and possibilities presented to us and the infinite rabbit holes of sound design and audio engineering that we don't ever actually finish our work because we can waste all our time on making this one song perfect instead of making a bunch of really great songs. You put yourself on a deadline, so that you have to get your ideas out faster and don't get so bogged down by details. As you get more comfortable working within your timeline, getting it how you like it and moving on, you also increase your workflow pace which will either mean you complete more songs in the same amount of time, or you complete more detailed songs in the same amount of time.

I think it's also important to stress how important referencing is when it comes to situations like this! If you don't know what a finished song needs, go look at all the songs that have been finished and see what they contain! I bet if you dissected 10 different songs you love, you'd know a hell of a lot about what it takes to finish a record. 

big up, I love the ill.gates methodology.

If you decrease the volume after additive EQing, there's really no technical difference to subtractive EQing; you can get the exact same result using both techniques. This is just how linear filters work. If you use some sort of analog modelled EQ, then there might be differences in the sound.

I think subtractive EQ is often recommended because it fits nicely with the philosophy of giving everything its own space in the spectrum. So to bring something forward in the mix, you should think of where to cut instead of what to boost.

good man.

I use both, but i tend to sculpt things out from the original sound source, before i boost any thing.

I get things to sound pretty good with subtractive eq in terms of placement of the mix. But that often leaves me with a very dull sound, because nothing pops out.

Knowing that i've done as much as i wanted to do with subtractive, that's time i usually spend adding eq's TO CERTAIN INSTRUMENTS ONLY. If you add eq on to many things, that's when you get a mess. It's like, if every one is special, no on is special. Mixing is about enhancing the main ideas of your song.

If your song is electro, you may want more umpf from the kick. dubstep? sub bass and bass synths get priority. progressive house trance? the melodies get more treatment. hip hop? drums.

You don't have to hard line those suggestions, because. What you decide what stands out, that will be the main draw. You will then have to balance volume and additive eq at that point.

I believe that last point, is where many people think mixing begins. When it's actually more towards the ending stages of the entire process.

It's like building a house, you don't put up walls or carpet when you haven't even decided on how to lay the foundation.

The foundation is your signal source, and you should treat that with utmost care and understanding. other wise you won't have carpet or walls in a home.

You should of done such a good job with your volume and subtractive eq stage, that the additive should be a little something...


Also, don't be afraid to add multiple eq's at different points in your signal chain. it works really well if you can't quite clean up a low end. Multiple instances of effects can be an awesome thing, you just have to understand the links in the chain and how it should interact.


another tid bit: i used additive eq on heavily reverb effects (not on my buss reverb) purely for effects of resonance i get. you can automate that reverb resonance frequency and get some cool sounds. then do more stuff on top of it to be even more sweg sauce.

There's a nice list in the end of this article: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1994_articles/nov94/3dmixing.html

Most things have been mentioned here already, but one interesting point was that you should use a narrow reverb instead of a wide one. Which makes sense, because if the sound source is really far, all the sound waves come from the same direction.

Just like how you control the dry signal's stereo width, controlling the reverb's width is also important.

I tend to keep my reverbs wide open, and my instruments fairly reserved in terms of width. I found that mono works better for me.

But like any thing, if you're using busses, you have to treat them like it's a layer in the song because it occupies space.

A well thought out signal chain on an instrument, with a well thought out input to one particular (or all your busses) makes a difference in clarity.

You have to learn how to control the power at your finger tips.