References, References, References!!

[OctopusOnFire]

So, I was listening back to my mix for this month and I noticed some overall mistakes on the tone that could've been easily spotted while mixing if I had used some references.

Using references is both one of the most helpful and overlooked "mixing techniques" (?). At least for me. When I start a mix I want to start doing stuff, moving faders, turning knobs, get my hands on it. I don't want to start thinking "what could I use as reference for this mix?". Later in the mix, I have that feeling that I'm guessing many of us have, and don't want to put my mix to the test against pro mixes because ego.

Anyway, the point of this thread is having a list of references at hand, and include a little info, mostly to help rookies and not so rookies to get good mixing habits.

I'll start the list with some recommendations from Warren Huart (Produce like a Pro) and I'll be updating it as people share their own go-to reference tracks.

Feel free to reply with your favourite references, and most importantly, references that you know well established mixing engineers use. Include a little info if possible (genre, mixing engineer, reasons for referencing the song). If the list grows and people contribute, I'll organize it by categories.



Song: Hey Soul Sister
Artist: Train
Mixing engineer: Mark Endert
Genre: Modern Pop-rock.

[quote]Outstanding vocal sound sitting in the mix very well, very good space, starts with ukelele and voice and ends up with the whole band.
[/quote]


Song: Woman In Chains
Artist: Tears For Fears
Mixing engineer: Bob Clearmountain
Genre: 80s Pop-rock.

[quote]Not modern mix, 80s feel. Awesome space and use of reverb, very clean sound. Awesome guitar tone. Male and Female Vocals.
[/quote]


Song: Uptown Funk
Artist: Bruno Mars
Mixing engineer: Seban Ghenea
Genre: Modern Funk-pop.

Uptown Funk - Bruno Mars - Seban Ghenea

[quote]Super Up-front with a funky, groovy 70s feel. Slamming and in your face while mantaining openness and depth.
[/quote]

Song: Slave to the Rhythm
Artist: Grace Jones
Producer: Trevor Horn
Genre: 80s R&B.

[quote]A masterpiece for detail and depth. 80s Sound.
[/quote]

[Tbase2000]

Reference tracks are a huge part of mixing as has been pointed out in various other threads. Finding songs that fit your specific style your working on can be a little tedious but nonetheless very important to a "pro sounding" mix. I have two questions...

1) Since we are working in the "mix" period of a song, pre-mastered...assuming that you gain stage for equal volume comparison...how do you know when your highs and lows are equal to a mastered reference track which is always shiny and beefy. When you compress the 2 buss and add that extra sparkle and "master" the track, it changes the dynamic of the mix and brings highs louder. When and how exactly are you confident that your mix sounds as good as the "reference mastered" track when its not possible really until your mix is mastered? Are you visually eq comparing the two waveforms and listening for an overall dynamic between the levels of the tracks? 1-10, where do the most important instruments sit level and spatially?

2) There are general genres out there. Rock. Metal. Pop. Rap. Are there any tracks that you think are just epic, best mix ever that you continuously go back to as benchmarks or do you try new reference tracks every mix?

[Mister Fox]

[moderate=Mister Fox]Threads fused due to topic similarities, originally posted in the Mix Challenge sub-section.[/moderate]




Since I don't have much time to answer...

1) Since we are working in the "mix" period of a song, pre-mastered...assuming that you gain stage for equal volume comparison...how do you know when your highs and lows are equal to a mastered reference track which is always shiny and beefy.

Short answer: Experience.


The idea of mastering is not to "blow things up even more" (unless you really got a faulty track to begin with - been there, done that), but to add so called "fairy dust" - neutral/minimal touch ups. Keep in mind that strong compression/limiting also adds to the placebo effect of "loud = better".

So in other words - it's down to your experience how close you get to a finished/mastered/released mix with the tools you have at your disposal. The closer, the better, the less work for mastering needed.

2) There are general genres out there. Rock. Metal. Pop. Rap. Are there any tracks that you think are just epic, best mix ever that you continuously go back to as benchmarks or do you try new reference tracks every mix?

See first post. Which is why I fused the threads.

[Mange]

Remember two reference mentionings from Mike Seniors book Secrets of mixing

All four seasons by Sting. Very even bass.

Torn by Natalie Imbruglia. Vocals this sibilant is too much.


Personally I often go back to How Long by Eagles. Don´t really know why.

Last I used some track from Keith Urbans Ripcord. Can´t remember wich, it wasn´t Wasted Years, that one is a bit too smiley to my taste.

[HerbFelho]

Remember two reference mentionings from Mike Seniors book Secrets of mixing

Best book on mixing in my opinion, you should also check the newer "recording secrets..". Simply fantastic.
He´s also a great guy, already ment him twice since he´s also based here in Munich.

Most of you probably already know his great site cambridge-mt but for anyone who´s interested in audio podcasts, he also has one on patron, which is great and he recently had a guest appereance in Lij Shaw´s Recording Studio Rockstars podcast (Episode 124). Now I listened to hundreds of podcasts already but this episode the best I ever heard. So much to learn and so entertaining. Highly recommend it!

[HerbFelho]

Here´s an interesting video on how reference tracks can be used in depth and effectively while mixing.
There´s also a link in the shownote for a free guide to referencing which is great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za0FJQORogw

there a also some more videos on referencing directly on Understandin Audio´s YouTube channel.

[Benedict Roff-Marsh]

Be cautious with referencing if that means that you are flipping back and forth between [insert track name] and your track - or even worse, using a plugin to "steal" that freq profile to overlay on your abomination

This means that you are not really mixing your track at all. You are trying to turn it into that other track. Sure that other track my be the octopus' left testicle of coolness but it is not your track.

Mixing is about presenting and selling the Story of the track. If you focus on how it needs to sound like another track then you are at best looking for technicalities to tick off your list, but it is never about how to tell/sell the Story of the track you are working on. This may make for a mix that ticks technical boxes but it cannot make for a track that shines.

Remember that once the Song exists it is your idea to serve it not the other way around

I am all for Referencing but this is part of your general learning about how your speakers/room sound and how music in general works. Listen to great music of all kinds as you type in forums, as you read in bed... Let the magic of how it works sneak into you sideways. This is referencing done right.

:-)

[zed999]

Be cautious with referencing if that means that you are flipping back and forth between [insert track name] and your track - or even worse, using a plugin to "steal" that freq profile to overlay on your abomination

This means that you are not really mixing your track at all. You are trying to turn it into that other track. Sure that other track my be the octopus' left testicle of coolness but it is not your track.

Mixing is about presenting and selling the Story of the track. If you focus on how it needs to sound like another track then you are at best looking for technicalities to tick off your list, but it is never about how to tell/sell the Story of the track you are working on. This may make for a mix that ticks technical boxes but it cannot make for a track that shines.

Remember that once the Song exists it is your idea to serve it not the other way around

I am all for Referencing but this is part of your general learning about how your speakers/room sound and how music in general works. Listen to great music of all kinds as you type in forums, as you read in bed... Let the magic of how it works sneak into you sideways. This is referencing done right.

:-)

Great post. You must listen to the song you are mixing and aim to make it the best it can be.

IMO references while mixing are confusing. For one thing they're mastered but also the mixes I like sound so radically different tonally I don't believe a focus on the eq of any reference is all that important. If one was listening to references to appreciate the way the the arrangement works and how the mixing accentuated it that's useful but I wouldn't do that in the middle of a mix.

I believe it's well known that our ears/brains really only take in about 3-4 things at a time. Our job is to understand the "story" in the arrangement (as well as the vocal) and make sure the key elements throughout the song are highlighted or at the least not buried behind things that at that moment are not so important. Automation is the key. When I listen to great (in my opinion) emotional music sometimes the mixes are crazy. You might have verses where really it's just voice and one loud electric guitar in a song that overall presents itself as easy listening. Drums might be barely audible, instruments leaping from the background for a single bar, really excessive stuff. The thing is that unless you're listening specifically to the mix, you just do not notice all this excess because it worked! I'm tempted to suggest that the more radical your mixes are the better - why accentuate something for a few notes when you can make it leap out.

Quite often I read mix descriptions on here with this and that transformer/valve/tape/channel strip emulations but the balance of the mix is not working with for example key instruments unheard due to "set balance and leave it" approach, sometimes made worse with for example the vocal and drums so loud you barely hear the rest. Or - why a string of 6 effects on a kick sample? I've been there too in the past. It's more than possible that good work was done on the tracks, but if you can't hear them what's the point? That's my point here. One of them.

The other (or is it the same point?) is that fairy dust is for great mixes. Mixes should be 80% inspiration/20% engineering. To be clear, what I personally see as mixing comes down to level automation - riding the faders if you like, including volume of course, but also effects intensity, effects sends and returns, eq... anything can be automated including the master fader. Perhaps some critical reference listening can help to give ideas, but during mixing? Not for me.

This mixing thing - learn how all the tools work yes, but remember why you wanted to do that - because you have heard fantastic music. That music was not great because transformers, valves and tape were involved, it was great because mixers were octopus-like on the faders.

This is of course just my way of looking at it.

[zed999]

This is so very interesting. I hope this is an appropriate place to post.
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... art-mixing

8 very pro name mixers mix the same track.
They're all really good of course, but also very different.

It was eye opening for me to hear the wide range of overall tonal balance these mixers arrived at.

Which would you reference?

Enjoy.