Dubstepforum.com

See I think we work in totally different ways. I'm not a strong musician at all, but I think I'm a lot more technical than you. I start by sitting at a blank synth patch and bashing away at it until I start to get towards a good sound, where I start jamming on it (badly) until I find something I like, and that becomes the skeleton. Point being that I spend far longer on the sound than on the melody.

i just mixdown in cubase.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to mix. Some things sound good and some things sound bad but if we never experimented we would still be in the same place as we were ages ago.

Best thing to do is to read as much as you can from forums/books/ magizenes etc, try it out and see what sounds good, since that is what it all comes down to...what sounds good

Auan wrote: I think I'm a lot more technical than you...Point being that I spend far longer on the sound than on the melody.

I dont doubt that u r more technical. which is y i asked yr advice. tho u seemed 2 b suggesting i was being too technical in mixing from the start...

anyway maybe i didnt explain myself properly, but my point was the same as yours: longer spent on sound than melody ( the melody i often have b4 even sitting down at the computer).

and 2 clarify, i also often start from a blank patch, or even switch synth entirely from the one i originally wrote the melody in to build the sound i want.

but what i would like 2 understand is y its, shall we say, 'not advisable' (rather than wrong) to use EQ as a creative effect.

Auan wrote:It's not a mistake really. Golden Rule: If it sounds good, it is good.

this is indeed golden rule nr 1, applies all the time!
so if eq sound good its good.

so whowant to know rules 2-4?

and to the original poster....

i like the mix down, theres a little lack of bass , but im listening on laptop speakers,
so, dont know, its quite good, sounds like tracker music from the scene,
a little less main lead, a little more rhythm section, get those toms upfront,
love the oldskool retrocomputing style!
dr wurst

drwurst wrote:
and to the original poster....

i like the mix down, theres a little lack of bass , but im listening on laptop speakers,
so, dont know, its quite good, sounds like tracker music from the scene,
a little less main lead, a little more rhythm section, get those toms upfront,
love the oldskool retrocomputing style!
dr wurst

Cheers, thanks for the input!

ITS ALL GOOD!

Deadly wrote:
The main thing was about each element occupying different frequency and can I do that in Ableton? Is it about setting crossover points because I searched the Live manual for the word crossover and I couldn't find it anywhere.

you can use eq three or eight in ableton as a crossover by shifting the crossover points and defeating the undesire bands - eight is better here having more bands.

edit:

i mean use the eq in the above way, to seperate kicks bass and subs into differnet bands, - stereo imaging is increasingly difficult to perceive bellow 100hz - thats why a lot of engineers do this.

- check production bible on appropriate frequency pass bands for different instruments.

can't go wrong with adobe audition for adding polish!

Joe C wrote:

SilentK wrote:

Auan wrote:

Sorry for noob questions

Most noobs don't even bother rendering tracks and think they can just mix while they're still arranging or recording/sequencing new parts. Props for starting out doing it The Right Way.

ive actually been meaning to ask this for a while. so far I've been adding EQ, compression, FX, etc. while i am still sequencing and adding new parts to the track. are these things which should not be used until a final mixdown? as in, once you have rendered each track to WAV?

how is rendering the tracks first the right way to mix?

surely youre completely cutting off your options for retrsospective real time editing that becomes (always) in the mix stage

agreed entirely, seems a bit pointless to me unless your moving from one host to another for mixdown.