Sounds being drowned out, where does it end?

[Anuma]

I find that with a lot of tracks, I find some elements getting lost amongst the mix so if I compress these sounds or use something to make them stand out then it work, but then I lost a different element of the track, how much is too much? Surely I don't have to compress every element of the mix or boost it's volume to get it heard?

As for EQing overlapping frequencies, I sometimes find that it's not accurate enough (at least not in the 'Fruity parametric EQ' I'm using) and can end up changing the sound more than I desired just for the sake of another one being heard...

[Marrow Machines]

It depends on the severity of the drowned out nature you're speaking off.

Assuming, you're using the word literally, it's a combination of EQ, Volume, Panning, and stereo width adjustment.

Those ideas are the fundamental to my mixing technique and seem to be the basis for other people, regardless if they say so. It's a common technical skill to understand those fundamentals before moving on to other things.

Your clarity would come from using just those simple tools on your mixer channel.

That being said, and given the information you have presented, it seems like you may not be balancing things correctly based on frequency content of the individual element in your track.



You might need to understand how amplitude effects those frequencies in order to best project them in the mix.

IE, you need less volume for top end elements than you do for bottom end elements. Because of how fast the vibrations travel over time (aka cycles, aka frequency)

top end content needs less to be project, bottom end needs more to be projected.

I also suggest you strip away ALL your effects from the project, and try to get a mixdown with EQ, Volume, Panning, and stereo width adjustment.(take note of what you have right now, as it might change later, and you can reapply with a new understanding hopefully)

If you do this, you it should help you get a better picture of what you're dealing with and potentially eliminate any other unnecessary variables that you may not be considering.

Plus, using those tools as your foundation will help you identify problems better in the future as you get to do more complicated things with your ears.

[FarleyCZ]

If you do crazy stuff on eqs and it's still not helping, I guess your problem is somewhere else. Probably wrong overall balance. Automation helps a lot with this.

Also over-compression might be a problem. When that sound has a transient and fall-off, your ear can track it down even when another sound "shot" it's transient over it. When you make them all steady-leveled, they are ironocally easier to clash. Applying compressor in order to make something "stand out" works only when other stuff stays fairly dynamic.

[Cosmic Fugue]

Some sounds just overlap in frequency too much and don't really work together. Sometimes I'll replace one of the sounds because of this, other times I just avoid using them at the same time -- i.e. if the chords and bass don't work together, use a different bass in the part with the chords.

[Marrow Machines]

Some sounds just overlap in frequency too much and don't really work together. Sometimes I'll replace one of the sounds because of this, other times I just avoid using them at the same time -- i.e. if the chords and bass don't work together, use a different bass in the part with the chords.

You have to consider where you're playing the notes. This also corresponds to the octave range you choose the oscillators to be in.

It's easy to continue to stack layers that are in the same range/octaves and have it clash.

You do have a good suggestion about choosing the right sound, because the characteristics do influence the play between the layers.

[lopryo]

this sounds like more of an arrangement issue than a mix issue to me. at any single point in time, there should really only be one element that the lister's attention is drawn to, and every other element is just "felt" in a way that complements or contrasts that main sound.

typically in EDM, that "main" sound is a bass or a lead. after deciding your focus, don't worry about how full or detailed the surrounding sounds are (i.e. chords, pads, percs, arps) because they are not there to steal attention. they exist almost entirely to get "lost in the mix" as you put it. if everything is loud and full and competing for attention, then nothing gains the attention, and your track sounds like mush.

[Anuma]

this sounds like more of an arrangement issue than a mix issue to me. at any single point in time, there should really only be one element that the lister's attention is drawn to, and every other element is just "felt" in a way that complements or contrasts that main sound.

typically in EDM, that "main" sound is a bass or a lead. after deciding your focus, don't worry about how full or detailed the surrounding sounds are (i.e. chords, pads, percs, arps) because they are not there to steal attention. they exist almost entirely to get "lost in the mix" as you put it. if everything is loud and full and competing for attention, then nothing gains the attention, and your track sounds like mush.

That's a good point! So if for one section I wanted the chords to be the main focus and then have a lead come over the top, do you have any advice on how to then mix those, it doesn't made sense to then quieten the chords to make room for lead particularly if it's at a dramatic point in the song. Likewise I wouldn't want to just continually have to amplify each layer as it becomes the focus?

[lopryo]

That's a good point! So if for one section I wanted the chords to be the main focus and then have a lead come over the top, do you have any advice on how to then mix those, it doesn't made sense to then quieten the chords to make room for lead particularly if it's at a dramatic point in the song. Likewise I wouldn't want to just continually have to amplify each layer as it becomes the focus?

yeah, I think chords should be designed/mixed differently based on if they are going to be the focus of a section, or if they are just there to support a lead melody. the chords behind a lead might be quieter, and have an EQ cut around 2-4k for the lead to poke through, and maybe cut off some high-end to send them further back in the mix. and similar for arps and other musical elements, if they're only there to support, they typically have more significant low and high-cuts and some EQ dips in critical areas. also, these elements can benefit more from panning and stereo width.

IMO, the contrast between these supporting elements and your bright and full foreground elements (lead, kick & snare, etc) is what really makes a "clean" mix. if you keep building loud sounds on top of loud sounds, the focus is lost.

[lopryo]

also, if you are set on featuring multiple large sounds during a drop, you could try separating them in time. this is how genres like dubstep and complextro function. you have massive sounds that take up the entire frequency spectrum, but instead of layering on top of one another and clashing, they are played individually in succession, in a specific pattern. this is kinda the best of both worlds. you could also try this composition technique by alternating big chords and big leads. throw some glitchy bass chops in there and you're well on your way to being another Virtual Riot clone haha

[Marrow Machines]

That's a good point! So if for one section I wanted the chords to be the main focus and then have a lead come over the top, do you have any advice on how to then mix those, it doesn't made sense to then quieten the chords to make room for lead particularly if it's at a dramatic point in the song. Likewise I wouldn't want to just continually have to amplify each layer as it becomes the focus?

You have to make sacrifices in terms of volume balance to get the message across.

You also need to understand what the focus of the song should be for that section.

For this particular instance, you'll have to do some automation and maybe some play adjustment.

If you're lead is wicked sick, and your chords are just being chordy, yet you want the chords to be the focus; you might want to consider how the lead is being used in terms of the chords. So maybe make it less wicked sick on that part, but eventually you transition into the wicked sick part. But that transition is a bump down in chords and a bump up in lead. And opposite when it's before the transition.

TL;DR: you're gonna have to make some sacrifices if you want to make things shine. Understanding your synth's frequency range helps with how much you should have of what in your mix. Things project easier than others ie lows= more volume highs =less volume, comparatively.