Resisting the urge to turn it up

[Julian Nichols]

I assume that we have all been there.

You listen to a really well produced track. Then you suddenly have the bright idea of A/Bing your latest work in progress against it. And your work sounds thin, uninspiring... your heart sinks, then the devil on your shoulder says "Just turn it up", so you turn your monitors up and HEY PRESTO it sounds great, the energy has returned, your ego is saved for another day.

But somewhere deep down, you know that you cheated.

Next time I reach for that volume knob, I'm not going to turn it up. What should I do instead? I realise that this is a stupidly open-ended question (and possibly obvious - EQ, stereo spread, re-record source material, frequency balance, compression...?) . But maybe there is someone out there with some inspiration that they could throw my way. Not a silver bullet plugin, more of a been-there-done-that, here is how I changed the way I look at things type message.

[Thirteen]

Turn the amazing track down and see if still sounds good. That's the only test that matters.

[Chris H]

Well, as 13 said, and I assumed that was implied, you would have to have the two tracks at the same volume to do a decent comparison. So assuming that, and your track still sounds thin etc, then the search for answers as to why really begins, and i think this is a great thing to move us forward in our craft. I did this when I played one of my recordings of acoustic guitar next to a Bruce Cockburn recording........I was devastated at how my previously delusional self had thought mine was a great recording.
So the search for answers led me to the discovery that often it's the processing i did after recording. Nine times out of ten this is where some if not all of the problem sits. Many times I have got to a stage in a mix where I have decided to compare with an earlier faders up and balanced simple mix and was hit with the realization of how much bigger the unprocessed mix sounds even if it needs some tidying up.
The other main component is the quality of original recording, and if because of mic placement or room sound it's not so great and it's a major component in the mix then there is no better fix than to do it again.
So in summary, for me it's two main reasons....
A) the original recording.
B) over processing.

[Julian Nichols]

Thanks for the quick replies. It's got me thinking - I went off and thought some more about "Minimum Voltage, Maximum Illusion" Stav type stuff, about punching holes in music to increase dynamic range, about things like Avid Heat, the new Waves NLS Non Linear Summer, just a whole pile of jigsaw pieces that I need to make a bit more sense of before I work out where or if they fit into the puzzle somewhere.

I was hoping that this wouldn't all be boiled down to me asking how to mix better, because that is a bit of a silly question, really. It is more along the lines of maximum sonic illusion type stuff, and thinking out of the ITB box that I generally inhabit.

As for what Chris said, I am definitely guilty of that. But I suppose there is the flip side of the coin, where you have something like a London Choir that has been immaculately recorded and sampled, sounds great on its own, and you layer it over a thumping kick drum, side chain compressed bass line, vocals... and suddenly it's time to get the parametric EQ razor out. But then in the mess of it all you realise that your 80 tracks of synths and effects have more resemblance to primordial sludge than dynamic music. Yes, I am CERTAINLY guilty of that.

[jkhuri44]

the arrangement of music in your tracks will greatly affect the perception of the engineering too....

3 billion layers of transients, is gonna suck balls...pretty much.