How do the pro's achieve that high quality sound with their mixes?

Welcome to Old Skool Anthems
The Old Skool Resource. Since 1998.
Join now

Jiglo

Active member
Mar 21, 2005
15,261
0
36
53
Wigan
This is something that's always baffled me. It doesn't seem to matter if i'm using original vinyl, or using Scratch Live with the control vinyl, the sound quality of my mix sessions are always underwhelming when I compare my recordings to the pros recordings.

My method is vinyl played though a decent quality mixer, then fed either into my old Sound Blaster Platinum soundcard, or (more recently) piped into the Line In (yes line in, not mic in) of my Mac, then into Audacity, then saved as a wav.

What does a pro do differently?
 

ste huxley

Active member
Jul 17, 2001
5,637
0
36
51
Planet E
www.huxtableshouseparty.co.uk
I do something similar, with an extrenal sound card etc. But use sound forge, dont think theres a difference when saving to raw wav tho. They come out good enough when saved to a 320kb mp3 but I must admit, my old technics tape deck for recording did the best, you could record the tape to a 128kb mp3 and it would be brilliant and louder and clearer than what Im doing now

Maybe there are some effects and processes that you can put the wav through, other than Normalise which I always do on sound forge
 

djperkins

New member
Sep 22, 2011
631
0
0
Not Manchester
It's afterward when they throw it through a mastering software suite and it gets a stereo mix compression...Monty would prob be the fella to speak to about this, my knowledge is severly out dated now. I used to have a Waves Mastering Plug In for Wavelab which was a very similar thing.
 

Jiglo

Active member
Mar 21, 2005
15,261
0
36
53
Wigan
I'll have to ask Monts for his input then. They're definitely a bit flat dynamically, so maybe compression is what's needed. I know butty used to normalise every mix he put on the site in the gold section for radio play too for a more even output.

I'd be interested to hear how the mastering software works. Does it require a sound engineer, or is it something that takes time to learn? Obviously i'm sure most of us would just prefer to load it into the software and hope it achieves a premium sound from little input, but I can't see it working that way unfortunately.
 

Monty

Active member
Apr 8, 2006
2,003
6
38
Aye, they seem to have a much better dynamic range Monty :thumbsup:

Do you know how it's achieved mate?

Its a number of things its all trail & error you can use these: Adding a touch of each one not over doing anything,like the clipper will give you some extra gain & then limiter will be like a brick wall stopping the music set @ -0.1db

Eq
Exciter
Maximizer
Stereo Enhancer
Clipper
Limiter

If it is older music like seventies & eighties they we need more processing than todays music i have never really done this to a Dj mix myself (think i tried it once) mastering is something i stay away from you can spend hours on it (which i have) it wrecks my head,you would be best off finding a good mastering engineer to do this as they spend hours doing it all the time.

You could try an all in one mastering plugin like Ozone,you have to be willing to spend hours on it very time consuming until you know how to do it faster.
 
Last edited:

Jiglo

Active member
Mar 21, 2005
15,261
0
36
53
Wigan
Ah.... presumably the top jocks have access to studio engineers then, or have the patience and time to find a happy compromise.

Cheers for your input Monty A few nice tips there and I'll have to have a play about with those if they're built into Audacity.
 

Monty

Active member
Apr 8, 2006
2,003
6
38
Ah.... presumably the top jocks have access to studio engineers then, or have the patience and time to find a happy compromise.

Cheers for your input Monty A few nice tips there and I'll have to have a play about with those if they're built into Audacity.

What kind of music (mix) are you wanting to master? Audacity would be a pain in the ass you need to use something you can use on the fly with your music playing so you can bypass instantly,unless you can do this with Audacity i can't remember.
 

U31

Active member
Dec 18, 2007
2,115
4
38
Kiss me brown eye
What are you trying to achieve Jim, compared to what?
If by "Professional" mixes put out commercially by labels as mix sets, say the Ministry Of Sound type shit as an example, I very highly doubt that it was done using a pair of 1210's - or even 2 CDJ200 for that matter, and a mixer- its all done in DAW if you ask me...
 

Jiglo

Active member
Mar 21, 2005
15,261
0
36
53
Wigan
Nothing special, just talking generally, if the mood catches me.

The only mixes i've done since Bring The Beats Back in 2005, have either been live mixes on the radio, or live mixes out and about, so this isn't really me trying to get into producing mixtapes, just trying to get my recordings up to scratch.

That's pretty much it chaps. I don't want to get into mastering. I just want a dynamic mixtape that's satisfactory to my ears and on par with the vast majority of other live mixes I hear on soundcloud and elsewhere. I'm thinking I must be missing a trick, something that's pretty obvious to others that release live mixes. Are they all mixing live in Ableton, or have they sussed out a few basic techniques with sound recording or post production that i've not sussed out?

I'm not going to spend hours in mastering, life's too short, even to prepare a mixtape to near perfection. I want simple, or i'll just have to put up with what I can achieve now.
 

U31

Active member
Dec 18, 2007
2,115
4
38
Kiss me brown eye
The more professional and certainly the commercial ones have been at the very least cleaned up, if not fully produced in a DAW like Ableton or Cubase as you rightly say, so thats not a level playing field Jim and is unfair on yourself to compare with those.

And i agree, you dont wanna be spending hours messing around mastering mixes, wheres the fun in that?

Im telling you how to suck eggs here, but what we CAN do, is the basics... Get your settings spot on, never punch above 0db or in to the red and clip.

What i do before hand is set the recorder on the booth out so its totally separate from the master. If you mixer aint got booth out your stuck with the master out, thats fine but remember to never touch it once set!
Set two of the most dynamic choons that your gonna be using ,off, together, not beat matched, just playing, it don't matter for this, your just finding the peak level.
Set your gains, wack the lines up to the top, and take each eq to the 11 oclock position, with both decks playing and bring down the levels so the VU on the mixer just touches red, and the levels on the recorder stay below -2 db or so- now by rights however wild you go bringing a tune in it should never start to clip.
Pay attention to your levels throughout your recording.
Remember you can always use software to amp up a quiet recordng, where as an overloud clipped recording is fucked.

The recording? i take it your doing that digitally?
Use WAV, and have your sample rate set to no less than 44kh or more if your processor can take it.
Id say sample rate is slightly more important than bit rate, as this sets the frequency range cut off -
human hearing tails off at the upper range of about 20kh and tails off with aging, a rough rule of thumb is you sample rate wants to be twice your desired upper frequency cut off.. top of me head cds settle for 44100hz, its good enough for them it'l do for me ;)


That shit made sense in my head so anything unclear, ask away!
 

U31

Active member
Dec 18, 2007
2,115
4
38
Kiss me brown eye
Have a look at this
Loudness war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember, by mastering for peak volume, you are taking away the dynamics of the tunes,a tune is often more what isnt there, if you get my drift, the gentle, quiet portions leading up to the explosions of sound that raise goosebumps, the dynamics that create the emotion we feel when we connect with a choon, and more importantly, the dynamics the artist, either by pure fuckin genius,( Dereck May, Pierre, etc ) happy accident (Again the godfathers of house ;) ) or wilful intelligent design and intent, (Jean Michelle Jarre, Giorgio Moroder, Aeroplane and even Daft Punk)
spent hours on getting "Just Right" for our enjoyment
 

Jiglo

Active member
Mar 21, 2005
15,261
0
36
53
Wigan
Nice one Dave but I already have those sussed mate:thumbsup:

I'm starting to lean towards the opinion that probably most of the mixes i'm comparing mine against have been made by people that have already had a hand in producing their own tracks, or know people that can bring out the best from their mixes from hanging around studios and being in the business, so they're way more clued up in dynamics and shizzle.

I'll just have to start thinking about recording some messing about sessions and tinker with some of the effects/settings Monty mentioned, see if anything works. If not then back to ye olde methods.
 

Jiglo

Active member
Mar 21, 2005
15,261
0
36
53
Wigan
Had a look into that thanks SCR101.5, but i'm still non the wiser. Doesn't seem to have compatibility with Audacity anyway, so I guess that rules it out.

From what i've found and read online since, it seems a lot of people are claiming Pro Tools is the default tool of choice for the finish, so not the easy fix I was hoping for.
 

U31

Active member
Dec 18, 2007
2,115
4
38
Kiss me brown eye
Jimmers, just my personal take, but i reckon Audicity is half the problem, i had no end of issues using it as recording software, and aint looked back since i got a stand alone recorder.. if you have a listen
on mixcloud, despite them using their own compression algorithms, i think ya can tell the diff between the ones where i used audacity.

If ya wasnt on Mac, i could have hit you up with Sony Soundforge, mind ;)