Mix Challenge

ChatGPT is a nice tool, however it’s not completely deterministic, I asked a similar question that you did (because I didn’t agree) and got a completely different result

Every kid that grew up in the 80s (like me) started out listening to music on a mono cassette deck with FM-radio, and the music sounded great, those stereo hifi-systems were (if you were lucky) at your parents disposal and not something you played with without consent. I’d say having a mono compatible mix was even more important back then than it is now.

The sound of the 80s to me has more to do with the fact that the technology and tools available shifted a lot, and new is always cool. Clean, transformerless signal paths, synths and digital effects (especially reverbs) made sounds possible that just wasn’t possible in the 70s. Also, music was still mastered for Vinyl which meant less limiting, overall sound pressure, and most of all BASS than in modern recordings. Synthwave is a retro-style that has borrowed aesthetics from the 80s but isn’t confined by the limitations of that time, and usually sounds much more modern than music that was actually recorded back in the days, that’s why it’s so fun!

As for phase issues in particular, the music was still recorded on tape, meaning it all came down to mic placement or flipping phase completely for a track. The possibility of doing micro shifts is a very modern thing that is DAW-dependent. The use of big stereo reverbs always increase the risk of running into phase issues, but given the tools available at the time my guess is that recording engineers were much more meticulous about phase then than now. The concept of “fix in the mix” is a very modern mindset

Thanks to @BenjiRage for submitting this amazing track, I’ve loved working on it, it’s such a great track. I’ve not spent enough time listening to this genre, I think I’m now a big fan! Thanks as usual to Mister Fox for all your hard work.

Here’s the link to my mix

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oFAVo1 ... sp=sharing

For this track I began working on the AKG 371 headphones, but then switched to the Audeze LCD-X as really I should be using the good ones and not the bad ones and I was really struggling on the AKG with judging the massive reverbs etc. With the Audeze cans I am using Reveal and spent the most time in the old Warren Huart studio which seemed to be a good fit to work on this track.

I thought @BenjiRage did a really nice mix so I used that extensively as a reference. My approach was generally to add effects to nearly everything and then try to balance it. I am concerned that my track sounds too Pop genre by the end, but I liked it and have run out of time sadly. My favourite part was trying to make the piano solo epic

Specific mix note on the Synth Bus
plugin chain:
—————————————
EQ hpf 50Hz

COMP DIODE-609
doing 1-2 dB
25ms attack
400ms recovery
ratio 2:1
dual mono

FabFilter C2
used to duck the synths sidechained to the kick

Studer A800 for some light saturation, GP9, 30 IPS
——————————————

WIth so many synths and such heavy effects, the settings on this synth bus were important and also on the FX bus which I used in the way the Brauer approach advocates.

Cheers all and have fun with this one!

Hi all,
this is my attempt to mix:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/91oxbj1m ... 7k0cw&dl=0

For all track are used:
- Waves Q10;
- Waves C4;
- Db ProComp.

AUX Effect;
- Waves TrueVerb;
- Waves SuperTap;

Good luck to all.
VasDim

Thanks everyone for updating your posts with monitoring details!

VasDim wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 09, 2025 07:58 CEST

Hi all,
this is my attempt to mix:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/91oxbj1m ... 7k0cw&dl=0...

For all track are used:
- Waves Q10;...

@VasDim I would be grateful if you could do the same. It would be appreciated too if you could add more detail about the thoughts and choices behind your mix - it would be a much more interesting and beneficial read for the community instead of the same copy/paste submission you've used for the last 40+ challenges

Edling wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 09, 2025 04:19 CEST

ChatGPT is a nice tool, however it’s not completely deterministic, I asked a similar question that you did (because I didn’t agree) and got a completely different result

Every kid that grew up in the 80s (like me) started out listening to music on a mono cassette deck with FM-radio, and the music sounded great, those stereo hifi-systems were (if you were lucky) at your parents disposal and not something you played with without consent. I’d say having a mono compatible mix was even more important back then than it is now.

The sound of the 80s to me has more to do with the fact that the technology and tools available shifted a lot, and new is always cool. Clean, transformerless signal paths, synths and digital effects (especially reverbs) made sounds possible that just wasn’t possible in the 70s. Also, music was still mastered for Vinyl which meant less limiting, overall sound pressure, and most of all BASS than in modern recordings. Synthwave is a retro-style that has borrowed aesthetics from the 80s but isn’t confined by the limitations of that time, and usually sounds much more modern than music that was actually recorded back in the days, that’s why it’s so fun!

As for phase issues in particular, the music was still recorded on tape, meaning it all came down to mic placement or flipping phase completely for a track. The possibility of doing micro shifts is a very modern thing that is DAW-dependent. The use of big stereo reverbs always increase the risk of running into phase issues, but given the tools available at the time my guess is that recording engineers were much more meticulous about phase then than now. The concept of “fix in the mix” is a very modern mindset

It's both interesting and worrying how ChatGPT can throw up two different answers to the same question - that has been my experience with it too. We use it occasionally at work and we've seen it outright lie to us before, so yeah not the most reliable source!

I'm not exactly a font of knowledge on production in the 80s, but this tallies much more with what I've come to understand about the period (I'm an '85 baby but my first cassette deck was a stereo one )

Hi everyone

Thanks to @BenjiRage and @Mister Fox Fox for making it possible to work on these tracks. Very nice song and well recorded tracks.

Since asked, the song is mixed using Harrison Mixbus 11 Pro DAW on Kali Audio LP-6 monitors and WS-6.2 sub. ATH M40X(closed) and Ollo X4S(open) Headphones is used for control. My bedside 'kitchen radio' is used to test that the mix translate well.

There's a lot of ordinary work on the tracks, so I'm only comment on the important stuff as usual.

My goal with this mix is to make a open, transparent soundscape that has life, depth, air, separation, energy and movement(should not be a surprise ref my previous mixes/comments). In the tracks there's synth and string voices that can create a 'wall' of sound. They are broad and full, freq wise. If used heavily they will fill up the mix and give very little room for the nitty gritty thing to shine, so there's important to avoid that instruments/sounds fight for space or drown. I've therefor chosen to make a cleaner mix and use these tracks to shape the 'room' behind other instrument/sounds and pushed them back, contrary to the original mix where they are more upfront.

I was doing FOH jobs as a teenager already in the late 70s, so the soundscape is influenced by the sound of the 70s and 80s(old retired guy now he, he)

There's a lot of automation added to make the song breathe, give life and movement and put forward some nice sounds and hooks for the listeners. Variations are made by eg. having the strings in the back and only pull it a bit forward in one of the more silent parts. Automation is also used to ensure that the vocal do not drown in the mix and that words and phrases are heard.

To ensure that the mix translate to different types of listening devises, harmonics are added to the kick and bass. This trick our brain to 'hear' the lows that isn't properly reproduced on eg. a kitchen speaker.

This mix might sound unfamiliar to some that are used to listen to MP3s and loud, glued mixes.

Sound is always Left/Right and DEPTH. Clarity, air, separation and depth are in the transients, so if you kill'em you'll lose'em. If someone is interested, here's my rule of thumbs to achieve open, clear mixes:

1. Avoid using compressors in the signal path if possible
2. Preserve transients if you have use compressors in the signal path.
3. Use parallel compression instead and by that enhance the transients. This makes more clarity and can be used to moving a sound source backwards and forward in the mix.
4. Use M/S EQ processing to make space for vocal and instruments
5. Use reverb and predelay to make "depth"
6. Send sound sources to the same reverb bus, even if it's nearly inaudible. This makes our brain put them into the same "room".
7. Do NOT "glue" the mix
8. I also use a technic to open up the mix and enhance the depth that's already present.

These are of course not strict rules.

Good luck to everyone.

Steinar

MC104 - BenjiRage - Above The Clouds

44.1 Hz/24 bit
-16.0 LUFS
-1.7 dBTP
4:57:52

sthauge wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 09, 2025 14:35 CEST

Hi everyone

Thanks to @BenjiRage and @Mister Fox Fox for making it possible to work on these tracks. Very nice song and well recorded tracks.

Since asked, the song is mixed using Harrison Mixbus 11 Pro DAW on Kali Audio LP-6 monitors and WS-6.2 sub. ATH M40X(closed) and Ollo X4S(open) Headphones is used for control. My bedside 'kitchen radio' is used to test that the mix translate well.

There's a lot of ordinary work on the tracks, so I'm only comment on the important stuff as usual.

My goal with this mix is to make a open, transparent soundscape that has life, depth, air, separation, energy and movement(should not be a surprise ref my previous mixes/comments). In the tracks there's synth and string voices that can create a 'wall' of sound. They are broad and full, freq wise. If used heavily they will fill up the mix and give very little room for the nitty gritty thing to shine, so there's important to avoid that instruments/sounds fight for space or drown. I've therefor chosen to make a cleaner mix and use these tracks to shape the 'room' behind other instrument/sounds and pushed them back, contrary to the original mix where they are more upfront.

I was doing FOH jobs as a teenager already in the late 70s, so the soundscape is influenced by the sound of the 70s and 80s(old retired guy now he, he)

There's a lot of automation added to make the song breathe, give life and movement and put forward some nice sounds and hooks for the listeners. Variations are made by eg. having the strings in the back and only pull it a bit forward in one of the more silent parts. Automation is also used to ensure that the vocal do not drown in the mix and that words and phrases are heard.

To ensure that the mix translate to different types of listening devises, harmonics are added to the kick and bass. This trick our brain to 'hear' the lows that isn't properly reproduced on eg. a kitchen speaker.

This mix might sound unfamiliar to some that are used to listen to MP3s and loud, glued mixes.

Sound is always Left/Right and DEPTH. Clarity, air, separation and depth are in the transients, so if you kill'em you'll lose'em. If someone is interested, here's my rule of thumbs to achieve open, clear mixes:

1. Avoid using compressors in the signal path if possible
2. Preserve transients if you have use compressors in the signal path.
3. Use parallel compression instead and by that enhance the transients. This makes more clarity and can be used to moving a sound source backwards and forward in the mix.
4. Use M/S EQ processing to make space for vocal and instruments
5. Use reverb and predelay to make "depth"
6. Send sound sources to the same reverb bus, even if it's nearly inaudible. This makes our brain put them into the same "room".
7. Do NOT "glue" the mix
8. I also use a technic to open up the mix and enhance the depth that's already present.

These are of course not strict rules.

Good luck to everyone.

Steinar

MC104 - BenjiRage - Above The Clouds

44.1 Hz/24 bit
-16.0 LUFS
-1.7 dBTP
4:57:52

Having been around the houses on this myself I would say do use compression. When you put the compressor on be mentally prepared to spend some time with the controls. If you put them quickly on here there and everywhere you will undoubtedly destroy the mix and perhaps this kind of thing is what you are concerned with @sthauge. When you are fiddling with the controls it doesn't feel great sometimes. This is because I believe we as humans fear wasting time. If you have lost an item you fear looking too long for it and that process of looking will not feel good. However you must work through this feeling. Explore the plugin as much as you can. Learn to embrace all the controls. What's that button there that you never tried before? Read the manuals, dare to try the settings that you think shouldn't be used much just to find out what it does. Do use compression and spend as much time on the settings as you need. Later you'll find you need less time.

Anyway I think you have made some other points with validity @sthauge but saying avoid compression in mixing for me is a bit like saying avoid using red, brown and green colours in a painting.

Hi @scottfitz

Thank you for commenting, it's nice to have a little discussion on this topic. We might not be that far apart after all. It's important to know that the framework for my comments was related to mixes with clarity, air/space, separation and depth. If you on the other hand want loud, compact and glued mixes, go ahead and use a lot of compressors and limiters.

As you see in my comments, I've been mixing since around 1974, now I'm retired and doing these competitions just for fun and if I have the time, so yes, I do know compressors and they are great tools - used correctly. I think I bought my first analog compressor to my PA rig around 1976. I'm addressing this because many seems to think compressors is the 'solution to everything'. I read comments from people about putting compressors on whatever, only to hear that it was a failure to do so or I do not understand what they will achieve with it.

What I said was this:

1. Avoid using compressors in the signal path if possible
2. Preserve transients if you have use compressors in the signal path.

1 and 2 turned around and in other words:

1. If you do not have a very specific defined need for a compressor in the signal path, do not use one.
2. If it's needed, use one but think about what it does with your transients so you don't lose them if you need them.

Clarity, air, separation and depth are in the transients, so if you want a mix with that, do not kill you transients. To me, the 70's and 80's was the golden age of soundscape and as younger people now discover the music from that period they seems to like what they hearing. Compressors was not that common back then because we used analog gear and it was very expensive. The best selling album of all time, Michael Jackson, 'Thriller', Bruce Swedien(sound engineer) used, to my knowledge, only ONE compressor and it was on Michael's voice - that's it, that's that. It's therefor possible to make great sounding music without compressors. Go listen and have fun.

To use a painting metaphor also: if I want a house with great view into the surrounding nature and with a lot of light coming in you can paint the walls, but do not paint the window glass.

Thanks to @BenjiRage for the opportunity to work on your song. Clean production!

Imho the original mix sounds a bit squashed and the use of delay / reverb is a little bit too much.
I didn't really have a goal in mind when mixing, I just wanted to make it sound as clean as possible and more on the dry side of send fx.

I think the most "fancy" thing I did was to use Duck on the bass channel to get triggered by the kick and to use two separate buss (instruments and vocals) and regroup them on a final mix buss. I used the ssl g buss for the instrument bus and the api 2500 for the vocal bus.
All elements have some slight eqing and compression, the drum buss and the main vocal have pultec eqs to give a little color and flavour.
To tame the clickiness of some elements I used HornetMBC to tame the region between (200-1200). There was a lot of "spit" and hardness in this area. Vocals have a deesser, it's not doing much, 1 db here and there.
I also flipped the phase of some elements but I can't remember which one, it gave more impact overall.

For instruments like keys and pads I used NI Raum as reverb, using the damp function at 12% helped to tame the clickiness.
Vocals have 2 different delays (Echoboy), one more obvious for the verse and the other more in the background in the chorus. Vocals have also UAD Reflection Engine as send fx.

For a little more drive and glue I used AMEK compressor and StandardClip on the mix buss.


I have Focal Solo 6 Be + Focal Sub 6 as monitor in a treated room with SoundID as room correction software.


Here is the link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S4d772 ... share_link

sthauge wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 09, 2025 19:41 CEST

Hi @scottfitz

Thank you for commenting, it's nice to have a little discussion on this topic. We might not be that far apart after all. It's important to know that the framework for my comments was related to mixes with clarity, air/space, separation and depth. If you on the other hand want loud, compact and glued mixes, go ahead and use a lot of compressors and limiters.

As you see in my comments, I've been mixing since around 1974, now I'm retired and doing these competitions just for fun and if I have the time, so yes, I do know compressors and they are great tools - used correctly. I think I bought my first analog compressor to my PA rig around 1976. I'm addressing this because many seems to think compressors is the 'solution to everything'. I read comments from people about putting compressors on whatever, only to hear that it was a failure to do so or I do not understand what they will achieve with it.

What I said was this:

1. Avoid using compressors in the signal path if possible
2. Preserve transients if you have use compressors in the signal path.

1 and 2 turned around and in other words:

1. If you do not have a very specific defined need for a compressor in the signal path, do not use one.
2. If it's needed, use one but think about what it does with your transients so you don't lose them if you need them.

Clarity, air, separation and depth are in the transients, so if you want a mix with that, do not kill you transients. To me, the 70's and 80's was the golden age of soundscape and as younger people now discover the music from that period they seems to like what they hearing. Compressors was not that common back then because we used analog gear and it was very expensive. The best selling album of all time, Michael Jackson, 'Thriller', Bruce Swedien(sound engineer) used, to my knowledge, only ONE compressor and it was on Michael's voice - that's it, that's that. It's therefor possible to make great sounding music without compressors. Go listen and have fun.

To use a painting metaphor also: if I want a house with great view into the surrounding nature and with a lot of light coming in you can paint the walls, but do not paint the window glass.

Hey Steinar, thanks for your well considered reply.

I'm definitely not far from you in the way I think about music. I'm very much a purist, son of a professional cellist, so I grew up with very dominantly classical music only. I instinctively hated the idea of a compressor, because in classical music you pay close attention to the loudness with which you play and you try to take people along a journey of your phrasing, a very delicate and difficult art and when done well it can be an emotional experience. So then why on earth would you plug something like that into a device with some crude way to flatten the dynamics? You are most concerned with the transients which is absolutely valid. I believe that as human beings our ability to hear needed that we could gain a lot from a transient. Imagine if we hear a loud noise behind us, it is vital for our survival that we can gain a maximum amount of information from the transient of that hit which could tell us what type of animal it could be, what type of weapon it could be, what type of object may have been thrown etc. We need that instantly so that we can begin to react without having even seen anything yet. In most music you are bang on in that if we lose our transients then we have lost the whole game, I'm with you on this, apart from when we reach the more modern era of music. There's now genres where they just play around with white noise! We can argue that's not really music, but the point is that inside that extreme there are so many sounds now without much relation to a real instrument and I think that the rules about the importance of the transients ought to change somewhat. For example we could create 10 different synth bass sounds in an instant, none of which any more 'authentic' than the other, each with a different attack, but otherwise fairly similar sounds, then jumble them up and stick one on our tune. How do we know whether the listener would like more of the attack of that instrument or not? For them there is a certain amount of mystery involved now in what that instrument was 'supposed to be'. Compare that to a recording of a double bass. How much attack should there be now? The answer is that we'd like to be able to give to our ears something that sounds like a nice representation of the familiar sound that they know and have experienced.

The next point I'd like to add in is that I believe that the golden era of music is 80% about the amazing musicians that wrote and performed it and only a smaller amount about the correct audio practises that were used. I feel like although a lot of great production technique like that of Steely Dan has been lost in the digital era and that is a crying shame, that this is not the biggest problem of all. It's that all the people that would have been the 'golden musicians' of today, never bothered because they were too scared about being poor/homeless/broke etc. The result is that we have a lot of 2nd or 3rd tier musicians (or worse) filling the air waves. We should be careful to remember that our tools in the modern age are far better than what they had in the golden age and indeed our knowledge of mixing and production is better too. With this in mind there is no excuse whatsoever in why the best music of all time isn't being recorded right now. I believe compressors if used well will make a more enjoyable listening experience and still retain enough of the transient information. As audio engineers I believe that we should not be afraid to use a tool which is often misused. Also as audio engineers in my opinion we should be focussed more on listening pleasure than on accuracy or purity or some abstract notion of how things ought to be in a more beautiful time.

You are saying "avoid compressors if possible" and I agree with that of course, because it's a well constructed statement. I love avoiding them, but it seems like that's the vast minority of the time. The reason I pull this up is that I feel like people reading this will then make the wrong decision to not compress a lot of things which will improve for it in the music. People I imagine are often looking for ways to save time or to save an awkward period of fiddling around, so they might read a statement from an experienced guy like yourself as their excuse to avoid the compressor, in their mind they followed the good advice and saved time, everything great. However I think most often the compressor was in fact needed.

Anyway sorry to bore people if we slide off topic.