The Mixing and Mastering Thread

[Drew 590]

What are your preferences for the mixing, mastering, and remastering of recordings? This has been a hot topic recently with people getting offended over claims that some RCP scores sound sampled. I prefer mixing to be organic, with some reverb. I tend to prefer hearing the ensemble rather than instruments (which has to do with microphone placement), but not so much that it sounds sampled. I don't like center-heavy mixes or excessively dry mixes (Dan Wallin).

 

I'm generally not a fan of some of the remastering reconstructions that have been done on various expanded releases. The LLL Jurassic Park and Batman releases sound way inferior to the OSTs in my opinion. Everything sounds too separated and too dry when put back together in full, and not very organic.

 

What are your thoughts?

[karelm 2,913]

This of course depends on many factors (ensemble size, venue, style, etc.) but lets say its a modern large orchestral score in a famous studio.  I generally prefer most of the sound to come from the decca tree and far left, far right mics.  That is the work horse of the sound.  There is actually quite a difference depending on how far the decca is.  You can actually hear a difference between 12 feet high and 13 feet high.  I prefer most of the reverb to be actual room tone but with a touch of extra reverb by a high fidelity reverb hardware unit is certainly not a problem.  The point I want to make is you don't want to record a close instrument then drown it with reverb.  That is not an accurate or natural sound.  Best to give the instrument some space so you get space for all the frequencies to be heard at their various wavelengths, a clean room tone then add just a touch of high fidelity reverb.  I hate close mics with one slight caveat.  If barely mixed in, it does provide clarity and an ability to add greater dynamic control and detail however almost all instruments sound horrible up close...even by world class performers.  For example, the The ideal sound of an orchestra is around 30 to 50 feet in front of the ensemble (so 40 feet behind the conductor) which isn't practical in a studio plus an omni mic mid stage that captures the room tone.  It is a complex topic and requires much skill and a wide range of high quality equipment and experience. 

 

Take a listen to this close mic sound of trombones:

This is very good playing and to me sounds very tinny, small, none of the rich sororities of the brass.  Yes, yes, it's not an ideal mic but that shows you a pretty good idea of what this sounds like up close without any post processing.

 

Another one with the same issues:

 

This is pretty much the sound of a spot mic. 

 

Here is mostly decca tree in Disney Hall with omni mics.  Try to focus on the timbre of the trombones rather than the fact that now you hear all the other instruments blended.  This is now the more idiomatic sound of what you think of when you think of how a trombone should sound like.

 

And of course the OST uses decca tree, room mics, plus spot mics blended low just to add an edge.  If you listened to just spot mics the sound would be horrible. 

 

Something like this is one of the world's great orchestras in one of the greatest halls with superb sound but it's a symphonic sound rather than a film score sound which wouldn't be quite as cavernous.

I will also guarantee the Mahler recording of the Royal Concertgebouw is very good but nothing like the full range of room filling sororities you would experience if you were actually in that venue.

 

I know I am focusing on brass but all of these issues apply in different ways to all instruments of the orchestra.  For example close mic'ing a violin will get a rosin scratchy tone emphasis rather than the characteristic tones.  To get the warmth, the sweet spot is a minimum of several feet away. 

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

I agree with karelm.  The brass especially suffers when heard in close proximity or with little liveness in the room.  A tuba up close sounds like a fart in a bathtub.  Stick it in Todd-AO (RIP) and it's a beast.  Speaking of Todd-AO, it was the best sounding room in Los Angeles.  Slim pickings with it gone. 

[karelm 2,913]

Some might find it useful, but this is my recording and performance of Mussorgsky's Pictures recorded with only three mics (roughly a decca tree).  We used a vintage NEVE 1073 preamp which adds subtle colors. 

http://picosong.com/wnby9

 

This is my orchestration of Pictures with yours truly playing the bass trombone.  I did rent hi fi mics and a hi fi pre-amp (the NEVE 1073) which is extremely expensive https://www.ebay.com/i/163072498878?chn=ps but they can be rented for a modest price.  There are many apparent issues here in this recording and performance.  Lots of stage noise, lots of audience noises (coughs), low representation of middle channel (I needed another mic) but in general, this does get 90% of the music through. I used software reverb which you can hear the tail of it at the very end of the clip.  The difference to get to 95% might cost thousands more.   The high fidelity equipment very much might add a noticeable color but that is part of why we love them.  For example the vintage 1073 is what Abbey Road used in the 1960's and 1970's but these days they are digital and don't have the same color.  Pretty much only sound engineers and audiophiles will catch the color they add.  Plus the engineer can adjust how much or how little noise to add. 

 

This is the hardware reverb everyone raves about: https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/M7--bricasti-design-model-7

 

So you can see the cost is very high.  If you do a studio recording, you'll be mixing multiple pre-amps and muptle high fidelity microphones some of which are vintage so the costs quickly get astronomical!  My point here is if you ignore stage noises, coughs, etc., you can hear that you don't need that many mics to get a pretty symphonic sound.