Let's talk about CLEAN mixes...

[Hjlphilp]

In my 14 years of making music and learning production I have forever been entranced by clean mixes.

Live. Studio. Don't care. If it's clean, I end up drawn to it like a moth to flame.

But how many know that it's not the easiest thing to pull off... especially of you aren't in the most conducive of environments.

So these are some of my rules of thumb to a clean mix... PLEASE... and I mean PLEASE... share your tips to getting a mix squeaky clean!

• Garbage in, garbage out

• the "pause" or the "lock" - one time I did a rough mix in my masterclass and the tone was IMPECCABLE. Tone is everything in the studio. I said "let's mix it"... but this knucklehead didn't hear what I did! So he started over from the top... when the drums were already clean master the PAUSE

• Picturing the statue at the marble stage. Whether it be EQ, or Compression... I've got to see how it COULD be clean before I make mixing decisions.

• Isolation. Not location... but frequencies. This is how its done! If you get every single instrument in its own pocket in the spectrum, the mix will have POCKET... and it MIGHT be clean. Whatever tool is necessary to make it happen... use it.

• Warmth usually mean im done. Im always tryna get my final mixes and masters warm. On all records I've heard that are truly great... the sounds were made to work together in a way that added to the others. Everything was EVENTFUL... everything was made to be there!

I could go on... but I wanna hear from the community...

How do you make consistency clean mixes??

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

[Zukan]

You need to define what you mean by a clean mix. I assumed you meant a mix with no effects and dynamics used.

If you are talking about corrective processes, well, that's par for the course for good mixes anyway.

[RichardT]

Hi Hjlphilp,

Well, I don’t think I achieve that consistently! By a clean mix I would mean one where every instrument can be heard as it should be, there are no murky resonances or over-emphasised frequencies , there’s a sense of openness and the dynamics are good.

One thing I always do is to turn down or off the delay and reverb effect levels on any synth patches I use. They are often far too rich out of the box.

The other things are good recording and mixing practice I think, as Zukan says. As you covered above, you need to have a good source signal, give it space and clarity using automation, EQ, panning and dynamic processing (but only as much as necessary), and not go overboard with effects. It’s very important to know what to listen for and listening critically to good reference material helps with this

One thing that is absolutely vital, probably the most important of all, is to have a good monitoring system and room that enable you to hear into the mix properly.

[muzines]

I have no idea what "clean" means either. Once upon a time that would be one where you didn't hear the noise in the quiet bits.

I assume that CLEAN is a pseudonym for "good" in this context, but to be honest, I couldn't understand half of what the post says. Maybe someone can translate this bit for me into English because I genuinely don't have a clue and I'm fairly convinced there's words in there that are just being used as codewords for entirely different concepts:

the "pause" or the "lock" - one time I did a rough mix in my masterclass and the tone was IMPECCABLE. Tone is everything in the studio. I said "let's mix it"... but this knucklehead didn't hear what I did! So he started over from the top... when the drums were already clean master the PAUSE

Edit: Yes, this does make me feel old...

[Drew Stephenson]

I think that bit just means 'only process for a reason.'

[CS70]

In my 14 years of making music and learning production I have forever been entranced by clean mixes.

Cool but what do you mean with "clean"? Mixes where you can hear well every individual part?

[Sam Spoons]

As a guitar player the default definition of 'clean' is 'without distortion'. When I first read the threat title that is what I assumed.... Until I read the OP, obviously...

[Hjlphilp]

So to promote further confusion, I'm defining clean by all elements in a mixes working together so well there is no mud, no harshness, everything is in their own pocket in the spectrum.

Popular examples are Steely Dan records, a few gospel records (Marvin Sapp's I win comes to mind).

I wanted to start this thread to try to crack the code to consistenly clean mixes... some good rules of thumb to the elusive amazing pocket!

BTW guys... don't have to be mean. Just say you don't get it... its ok. If you dont have anything nice to say.......

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

[muzines]

I can't see anyone being mean, just not understanding what you were trying to say. Thanks for clarifying.

If you would expound on "the pause" and "the lock" that would be useful too.

[Hjlphilp]

I can't see anyone being mean, just not understanding what you were trying to say. Thanks for clarifying.

If you would expound on "the pause" and "the lock" that would be useful too.

So in a mixing session, there's a moment where an element FEELS like it just got into pocket. Whether volume wise or frequency wise.

That's when you need to PAUSE so it LOCKS in the mix. Don't touch... when it locks leave it alone.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

[muzines]

Ok, gotcha - thanks.

My favourite references for the kinds of mix you are describing would be mixes by Bob Clearmountain, and Kevin Killen, both of whom I'm a huge fan of.

[shufflebeat]

One of the hallmarks of any Steely Dan recording is the sympathetic quality of the musicianship and the nature of the performance arrangement which I would suggest goes a long way towards achieving the kind of mix you describe.

[Arpangel]

Popular examples are Steely Dan records, a few gospel records (Marvin Sapp's I win comes to mind).

Had to laugh, that’s what I would have said, also James Taylor, and Roxy Music "Aavalon" and anything produced by Bob Clearmountain.

[The Elf]

One element of a mix only 'fits' if the other elements around it allow it to. This all sounds like basic mixing of any description.

[Hjlphilp]

One element of a mix only 'fits' if the other elements around it allow it to. This all sounds like basic mixing of any description.

It can't be basic... if so how come every mix isn't clean... we're talking about the perfect mix, not just a mix in pocket

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

[Drew Stephenson]

For me, a key part of this is orchestration. Everything can be clearly heard in its place because the track has been planned so that each element has its own space to shine at a certain point.

As to the Elf's point, just because the concept is basic, the execution might not be. So much depends on the quality of what you're given to work with.

[Murray B]

Is it a case of Clean In = Clean Out?

Can I coign an acronym from this?

I also like the idea of having a CICO Path for those who are instrumental manipulators.

[Murray B]

On a more serious point re: 'Clean In'

I've found that recording when monitoring myself and moving the mic or myself until I get the tone I want saves a lot of time in the mixing stage and allows me to get a sound that fits better.

But I'm a bit of a newbie to mixing and production so will bow to experience and expertise of those who are already posting.

[The Elf]

For me, a key part of this is orchestration. Everything can be clearly heard in its place because the track has been planned so that each element has its own space to shine at a certain point.

As to the Elf's point, just because the concept is basic, the execution might not be.

Oh, agreed. It's one of those easy things we spend a lifetime trying to master!

[Drew Stephenson]

Thinking a bit more about it, I think there's a summing effect involved as well.
If you start with a good room, and a good instrument, and a good player, then you choose your mic position carefully, and choose the right mic for the job, and you capture a good performance onto your medium of choice having maintained good gain-staging throughout, you've got a good start. Clean In, to paraphrase Murray.
Take a collection of parts recorded with the same care and attention to detail and you have the components for a clean mix.
Now if you mix through a listening environment that's clear enough for you to make good decisions, and use tools that are transparent where they need to be, and coloured where they need to be, and you have the skill and experience to make the right decisions to support whatever artistic direction is required, you can get your Clean Out. (If that's the desired response.

But, for we hobbyists, most of the time, we're dealing with compromises. Whether that's in the recording environment, the instrument, the player, the microphone position, the mixing environment, the quality of processing... whatever they might be. A lot of the time we're compromising at many stages and I think there can come a point where the addition of too many compromises can lead you to a mix that just doesn't come together 'clean'.
Sometimes this can be fixed by just reducing the amount of processing that's going on, sometimes a particular part can be identified that's causing a noticeable problem, sometimes a very experienced set of ears can guide a way out.
But sometimes a chain of very small compromises can end up flawed beyond recovery.

I reckon.

[Hjlphilp]

Thinking a bit more about it, I think there's a summing effect involved as well.
If you start with a good room, and a good instrument, and a good player, then you choose your mic position carefully, and choose the right mic for the job, and you capture a good performance onto your medium of choice having maintained good gain-staging throughout, you've got a good start. Clean In, to paraphrase Murray.
Take a collection of parts recorded with the same care and attention to detail and you have the components for a clean mix.
Now if you mix through a listening environment that's clear enough for you to make good decisions, and use tools that are transparent where they need to be, and coloured where they need to be, and you have the skill and experience to make the right decisions to support whatever artistic direction is required, you can get your Clean Out. (If that's the desired response.

But, for we hobbyists, most of the time, we're dealing with compromises. Whether that's in the recording environment, the instrument, the player, the microphone position, the mixing environment, the quality of processing... whatever they might be. A lot of the time we're compromising at many stages and I think there can come a point where the addition of too many compromises can lead you to a mix that just doesn't come together 'clean'.
Sometimes this can be fixed by just reducing the amount of processing that's going on, sometimes a particular part can be identified that's causing a noticeable problem, sometimes a very experienced set of ears can guide a way out.
But sometimes a chain of very small compromises can end up flawed beyond recovery.

I reckon.

EXACTLY

And the thing about it is... nothing beats good stuff coming in! Garbage in garbage out for sure.

However you explained it well! If I was to talk to a beginner I'd say...

• A CLEAN mix is where the elements of a mix are isolated in balance and in the frequency spectrum. No mud, nothing too loud or too quiet, everything working together in a unique way... almost as if the music is shining

• You get there by good arrangement, sounds, music and musicianship, recording

• When it comes to the mixing decisions that when it gets to the nitty gritty.

A monitoring style is necessary to get good TRANSLATION, let alone CLEAN-NESS, (imo that's the MASTERY of the pocket. Good mixes have a solid pocket... a clean mix is when it is perfected to where everything fits into each other in balance or Hz)

• The idea is there, but the execution takes mastery. Fully agreed there

And that's what this post was about?

How do you guys get CLEAN, (not just good), mixes? Have you ever done it? And how do we do it EVERYTIME?

I did for my friend's band in college and I was like yaaaay I'm an engineer

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

[MOF]

Some tracks are mixed to cut through on the radio and don’t sound ‘clean’ (hi-fi?) at all.
Bands recorded together (not overdubbed one at a time) will have spill on every microphone, so eq and compression on one track will have some effect, bad or unintentionally good on other tracks in the mix.
Your idea of a really good mix might be my idea of a sterile and soulless mix. I like delays and reverbs, but in the ‘clean’ scenario you could argue that they are obscuring or muddying the clarity of the mix.
The medium itself is criticised by some people e.g analogue (vinyl) is considered by some, not me, to be better than CD and other digital formats.
To me this is an argument about distortion, vinyl adds different types of distortion to the sound, whereas digital is arguably the most ‘faithful to the original’ means of recording and distribution that we currently have. However distortion, the opposite of clean, is often part of the audio toolbox.

[CS70]

Hm.. you seem to la out under the belief that there is only one type of mix that can work for a song.

Bruce Sweden famously did 92 (or 96?) mixes for Billie Jean... and the published one is #2.

I do like my mixes in a certain way (similar to yours, I feel) where you can focus on every instrument if you so choose and folllow it, but if you do not the result brings about the elements I think important.. but I am not sure it’s the only way to go. Lots of the stuff I love doesn’t sound like that.

We are products of our era but listen to music from many others..

[James Perrett]

Bruce Sweden famously did 92 (or 96?) mixes for Billie Jean... and the published one is #2.

While I haven't seen numbers in the 90's, I've certainly seen numbers in the 20's on some songs. It is interesting to hear how a mix develops with subsequent takes.

It may also be worth saying that clean is the exact opposite of what many artists want.

[Martin Walker]

It may also be worth saying that clean is the exact opposite of what many artists want.

Exactly!

Some may want their music to sound 'raw' and others 'refined' for instance; 'in your face' or 'laid back'...

There are so many ways to realise a dream, and the number of cover versions and remixes over the years reinforce this. There is no one way to produce a track.

Martin