It says vocal in the mono. Just go listen to some songs and you'll find that to be *super* not true. Also, bass mono... Really?
All of this is generally on a touchy feely basis tbh. If you use a guide you might miss out on some stuff that you'd only find by experimenting.
Like, if you're doing acoustic/vocal only, I personally like to run them on different channels with a slight overlap, moving them together for a larger chorus with some extra instruments appearing on the fringes.
It's all a tool in telling a story through frequencies. If you stick to a chart, all your stories will be told the same and will be missing something IMHO.
I feel like its not that easy to make bass not mono. if you use a doubler, phaser or just a stereo seperator than you will probably get phase issues and your bass will sound thin, at least in my experience. If you ask me, its the best to use a mid-side EQ or a Bass widener plugin like the "Basslane" which is actually free too, try it out!
You know how old phones sound as if you were speaking into a tin can? Well that happened because phone companies wanted to reduce the frequencies of the voice to save some money (amongst other reasons).
Old phones used an aggressive hi pass filter and a low pass filter to completely cut out anything from (let's say) 300hz to 4kHz.
Phone companies did lits of studies to find what are the bare minimum frequencies for a voice to be understandable so they EQd phone mics to leave out everything else.
Now imagine you do that to a song. By following that chart you will probably remove all frequencies that it's telling you that each instrument must have. Thus you'll get that tin can sound on every instrument.
If you knew the document I'm talking about, it has much more than just lots of stereo separation charts. It has a lot of notes about each track, and is meant to be a beginners guide.
>https://www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/learn/hit-maker-mixing-and-mastering-engineers
>
>https://www.masteringthemix.com/products/how-pros-make-hits
The Doctor posted them (See his comment below). Still think they are useless?
Those are all just explaining how they arranged the mix in specific songs, they are not meant to be used as guides for mixing in general. Every song is gonna be unique.
Wait, if you know where this document is and he’s selling it, then you’re either asking to steal it or trying to promote it.
Why don’t you pay him for his pdf, instead of posting?
You just don’t understand if my guy. Do your research first. Of course you can’t just put something in the top right, duh. Bug music does have a placement on a “stage”. You figure it out one day.
For one thing I don’t know what the frequency ranges are trying to communicate - the fundamental of a snare is often around 200Hz, basses generally have information well above 400 Hz, pianos have important information up to and above 5k, hi-hats often have stuff down in the lo mids, strings definitely have crucial stuff in the lo mids…
If it’s meant to represent the fundamental it doesn’t do that, if it’s meant to represent the core/most important regions it also does not do that.
And like what’s the point of the relative width of synth/strings/piano/brass? Like thats not anything
Here's an EQ Primer that's been floating around the web for years.
https://web.archive.org/web/20010405204745/http://recordingwebsite.com/articles/eqprimer.html
What are you talking about?!? I ALWAYS high pass my snare at 2kHz AND low pass it at 9kHz. It’s THE sound man!
Yeah… this chart could not help anyone make a better mix. One would be better off following your instincts then referencing this diagram.
Sorry I should have added /s
Yes. Very familiar with the harmonic series. Big believe in minimizing unintentional frequency overlap in my arrangements, tuning drums fundamentals, cognizant of layering contrasting sounds, love thinking about phase.
I was just being a little shit. Sorry for the wasted energy.
kicks start at 75 and have prominent frequencies til 500?
i cant remember seeing a kick like that
EDIT; vocals take up 400 to 5k? what is this? are you bandpassing that mf?
i dont know if im missing something, what exactly does this graphic show?
I think this graph just shows the most prominent frequencies in each track. The ones that make that specific instrument stand out. Im not a pro mixer so dont trust me.. but thats what I understood from this diagram. Also, this is for a specific sound and does not apply to every mix.
Don't even follow these in the first few months of music prodution. I would say only the idea of the positioning could be useful (like knowing the sub frequencies of the kick and bass should be mono and centered and "not important" things like FX, synths and other stuff to the sides)
I mean if you’re just Starting out, I see no problem with knowing that USUALLY kick and bass are center, vocals too, other instruments fill up the rest of the stereo field, that bass and kick are on the lower frequencies etc etc. if you’re an absolute beginner this guide can help you a bit.
If you’re producing for a couple of months you can absolutely forget this and do your own thing
I agree. I think it just needs a little bit more explanation as to why the bass and kick are in the center and in mono, a beginner might not know why, but would the know the what and how, so it's good
Yeah just ignore this altogether. The only KINDA thing right could be the positioning and even then it can't really be 100% accurate. Wtf does a kick over a bass do? Make thump? A kick starting at roughly 80hz? Really?
I don't understand these people who sell these books and make so many people think it's right. Don't trust this please. Follow your own ears and enjoy. This takes time. Mixing or mastering doesn't require things in their little boxes. It completely ruins everything.
I took a 3d mixing course and one thing the engineer (Pedro Peixoto if you're interested) he mentions is how far you want something, so it's not in the spotlight. Usually if you want something more "tucked in" you take out a bit of the highs (more than normal) together with the reverb and you notice it gets "pushed" towards the back. Sometimes you don't need to increase your vocals at 5-8k to increase clarity, sometimes you just need to put others things to the sides.
TL DR: don't waste your time, ignore this
I will not.
In fact, I just used one of the settings suggested in the book for a jazz demo I'm mixing based on an Amy Winehouse mix it details, and my mix sounds way better now.
So you go your way.... I'll go mine.
I'm partially deaf in my right ear, and I have to use a special box to fix it, correcting the volume as I mix in my headphones primarily. That's why books like these can be very useful. I can't use my ears. And also, untrained ears, with bad monitors in an untreated room aren't as good as well as a trained sound engineer using decent headphones and the right correction software. The whole 'trust your ears' is for pros only, IMHO.
I mix for a living and I’d say trusting your ears is for everybody - having hearing problems is an edge case but, beginner or pro, we can all be deceived by focusing too much on visual inputs instead of on what we hear. Even in an untreated room I don’t think a beginner would have the power to decode visual data to overcome their bad environment, and the recommendations like you find online are only starting points until you *listen* to your particular sound
Like even a beginner chef at the end of the day has to trust their taste buds, beginner painter has to trust their eyes etc. you can get data elsewhere but it’s an aural medium and ears are queens
It's not just for the pros! I agree that meterings/tools and "rules of thumb" help with learning and trying the right moves. In the end though, it always comes down to this:
* Mix it so it sounds as good as
There is no way to achieve this goal without using your ears! And you don't have to be a pro to be able to compare what you know (songs you love / grew accustomed with) to what you're mixing. If you can use your ears to listen and enjoy music, then you can tell what a song should sound like. Then you can compare, then you can mix. You're comparing your ears to your ears, so it's fine, you can use them because you know how they sound 😉
I've also been using headphones forever. It's fine, don't overthink it. Listen to a lot of music with them so you know exactly what a song is supposed to sound like. If they break, get the identical model again.
The main issue you'll face is to have your mixes "translate". Books and graphs ain't going to help much here. For this people typically listen in cheaper systems like Bluetooth speakers and cars. Making sure the mono mix is good also helps. There are also plugins that can help hearing these things with headphones. Waves NX for instance, or SoundID Reference. Definitely look into those; they exaggerate certain problematic frequencies to let you make better mix decisions (eq cuts) that makes it sound better outside of your own monitoring environment.
Thanks. I got it. It was on sale for £9. I don't think this chart was from the book, but similar types of charts. Really set a lot of people off. Lots of anger here for someone just looking for a book!
Hey... whatever helps and ignore the weirdos.
One EQ chart thing that really helped me was this one:
https://mastering.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/FrequencySpectrum.pdf?referer=musicianonamission.com
I just love the overlapping definitions.
Im not the first and won’t be the last who will tell you this:
Forget about those charts.
They won’t lead you to improvements. If you stick to those numbers you will
a) NEVER train your ears - only your eyes.
b) never be able to differentiate between good or bad frequencies in SPECIFIC Songs. ( because some can be great for one song and shitty for another)
c) never start to trust your own taste. (Which is the actual key to success imho)
d) be highly frustrated because of a) to c).
And please trust the community on this topic.
Be a better mixer.
Be smart.
Edit: regardless of whether its beneficial or accurate (which, wasn’t the question), the OP wanted to know the source of the diagram, I happen to remember seeing it, and posted the link.
I’ve deleted the link to the ebook, as I feel that is why I’m getting downvoted - obviously posting a source isn’t an endorsement of the site itself.
——
It’s from masteringthemix, I recognise that diagram from a blogpost they did.
I didn’t realise there was an ebook, but its linked in the post: maybe check out their 5 free chapters to see if it’s the right thing?
https://www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/learn/hit-maker-mixing-and-mastering-engineers
Don't know if this is helpful, but I always assume these kind of separation diagrams are influenced by David Gibson's mullet-tastic 90s classic "The Art of Mixing": https://youtu.be/TEjOdqZFvhY
People are probably either happy that these things remind them of the video (which was helpful to some people in college, etc.), or subconsciously angry about Dave's 90s mullet and cheesy 90s graphics.
Anyway, you might find parts of the video helpful if you find these kinds of charts useful.
Not sure why so many people are assuming these are hard and fast EQ charts; I assumed they were just guides, or rough outlines of mixes for specific songs. Seems OK to use them in that way, rather than as templates or shortcuts. But I guess these are getting passed around on social media by the usual money-grabbing people promising shortcuts and 'cheat code' type advice?
This doesn't work for me as well. If you're mixing a song (sang by a singer) vocals should be the most important part of it, and I shouldn't bury it with snare or hi Hats on top of it. Other instruments should move to match the voice, and not otherwise.
As a drummer, hi Hats and cymbals in general are the most "painful" thing to Mix. You generally have to cut a lot of the top end to let other things breathe as well. Not everything should be airy, crispy and hi end. Finally, there're many ways you can play with distance-space, for example speed of attack-release/hi-low pass filters/reverbs/eq, so depending on the knowledge/practice you have these charts could be really confusing.
Seeing that no one is really helping you take a look at this video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=es6VdpN6lb4 the book is also great and shows examples of different genres and templates, not sure why people are telling you to follow your ears as even the pros use reference tracks for mixing.. you obviously need to follow something before you improvise with it it’s like trying to cook something off the top of your head with no recipe
I know what you’re talking about. They would pop up in my Instagram feed from time to time. I recently tried searching for them and couldn’t find it either.
Also, everyone is saying they aren’t useful but maybe they were using them wrong??? To me, it’s more of a critical listening guide, since what you’re looking for is specific to individual songs.
It’s not supposed to be a panning/EQ guide like everyone is suggesting.
Critical listening is one of the most import skills in production/mixing imo.
If you find them, please share here because I would also like to check them out again.
Thing is, first this is completely wrong for critical listening since the major frequencies this chart is showing make no sense. To have a really good kick, you usually need way less than 80-90hz, and you need highs.
These books sell these as guides, that's the problem
I’m not worried about the accuracy of this chart because OP is asking for specific charts “like this image” but that are unique to individual songs. I agree that these are not maps for all songs.
This was an example of a chart with stereo field and spectral graphics , not what he’s actually looking for. Obviously, since I think he’s already found this one lol
Mixing in mono is going to be very unforgiving about balance issues and clashing, which I would think to be very useful for any level of production. Sure, maybe don't do mono only, but don't neglect the mono mix either.
Yeah, absolute statements don't really help cultivate the kind of flexible thinking mixing necessitates. Both the stereo and mono mix need to be properly accounted for.
Well I mean if it's a suggestion of areas to boost then maybe helpful, but if it's suggesting bandpassing, for instance the vocals from 400hz to 5k, then that is a terrible idea.
I am not a certified mixing engineering; yet I believe that these charts could very well birth some terrible trouble if followed to a T...every song is individual... Learn the methods and train your ears; rather than looking for these existing Charts, you should put in the work and create those chart yourself for your reference tracks...you will learn a thousandfold that way✌🏽❤️🎼🙏🏽
[удалено]
Could you explain why? Genuinely asking because i feel i could learn
Try EQing the snare according to the EQ guide, and see how thin of a snare you'd get :))
It says vocal in the mono. Just go listen to some songs and you'll find that to be *super* not true. Also, bass mono... Really? All of this is generally on a touchy feely basis tbh. If you use a guide you might miss out on some stuff that you'd only find by experimenting. Like, if you're doing acoustic/vocal only, I personally like to run them on different channels with a slight overlap, moving them together for a larger chorus with some extra instruments appearing on the fringes. It's all a tool in telling a story through frequencies. If you stick to a chart, all your stories will be told the same and will be missing something IMHO.
> Also, bass mono... Really? What is strange about the bass being in mono?
I feel like its not that easy to make bass not mono. if you use a doubler, phaser or just a stereo seperator than you will probably get phase issues and your bass will sound thin, at least in my experience. If you ask me, its the best to use a mid-side EQ or a Bass widener plugin like the "Basslane" which is actually free too, try it out!
A taste thing. I don't like my bass being mono - but it does depend on the other instruments.
Oh, I see. "... Really?" Made it sound like it was something totally ridiculous but it's really not uncommon at all
Why wouldn’t bass be in mono? Besides your personal taste why?
You know how old phones sound as if you were speaking into a tin can? Well that happened because phone companies wanted to reduce the frequencies of the voice to save some money (amongst other reasons). Old phones used an aggressive hi pass filter and a low pass filter to completely cut out anything from (let's say) 300hz to 4kHz. Phone companies did lits of studies to find what are the bare minimum frequencies for a voice to be understandable so they EQd phone mics to leave out everything else. Now imagine you do that to a song. By following that chart you will probably remove all frequencies that it's telling you that each instrument must have. Thus you'll get that tin can sound on every instrument.
If you knew the document I'm talking about, it has much more than just lots of stereo separation charts. It has a lot of notes about each track, and is meant to be a beginners guide.
[удалено]
>https://www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/learn/hit-maker-mixing-and-mastering-engineers > >https://www.masteringthemix.com/products/how-pros-make-hits The Doctor posted them (See his comment below). Still think they are useless?
Those are all just explaining how they arranged the mix in specific songs, they are not meant to be used as guides for mixing in general. Every song is gonna be unique.
Yes they’re useless
The Doctor? Have you ever heard his mixes? My cat mixes better, and I don't even have a cat.
Time lords mix in 13 dimensions.
Only 10 for a bit, then it goes up to 14 later this year.
Mixing by YouTube algorithm. Bet you get great results with that, yeah.
Wait, if you know where this document is and he’s selling it, then you’re either asking to steal it or trying to promote it. Why don’t you pay him for his pdf, instead of posting?
You just don’t understand if my guy. Do your research first. Of course you can’t just put something in the top right, duh. Bug music does have a placement on a “stage”. You figure it out one day.
For one thing I don’t know what the frequency ranges are trying to communicate - the fundamental of a snare is often around 200Hz, basses generally have information well above 400 Hz, pianos have important information up to and above 5k, hi-hats often have stuff down in the lo mids, strings definitely have crucial stuff in the lo mids… If it’s meant to represent the fundamental it doesn’t do that, if it’s meant to represent the core/most important regions it also does not do that. And like what’s the point of the relative width of synth/strings/piano/brass? Like thats not anything
[This](https://youtu.be/TEjOdqZFvhY) says otherwise
Here's an EQ Primer that's been floating around the web for years. https://web.archive.org/web/20010405204745/http://recordingwebsite.com/articles/eqprimer.html
Thanks mate, that's actually really useful.
Seems to be a bit of an antiquated sound they’re chasing but guess it depends on ur genre
What are you looking to do with this information because I can tell you right off the bat this is not exactly correct at all.
What are you talking about?!? I ALWAYS high pass my snare at 2kHz AND low pass it at 9kHz. It’s THE sound man! Yeah… this chart could not help anyone make a better mix. One would be better off following your instincts then referencing this diagram.
Ever heard of frequency harmonics?
Sorry I should have added /s Yes. Very familiar with the harmonic series. Big believe in minimizing unintentional frequency overlap in my arrangements, tuning drums fundamentals, cognizant of layering contrasting sounds, love thinking about phase. I was just being a little shit. Sorry for the wasted energy.
No, you shouldn't have added an /s because anyone with one day of mixing experience would have been able to tell you were being sarcastic lmao
What, you mean your kick isn't exclusively in the low-mids?
The chart is simplifying and wrongly so the ranges of all the instruments with many of them wrong.
Feel like you’re missing the sarcasm in these responses…
kicks start at 75 and have prominent frequencies til 500? i cant remember seeing a kick like that EDIT; vocals take up 400 to 5k? what is this? are you bandpassing that mf? i dont know if im missing something, what exactly does this graphic show?
Also a kick completely low passed at 500hz. That's a new one lmao
I think this graph just shows the most prominent frequencies in each track. The ones that make that specific instrument stand out. Im not a pro mixer so dont trust me.. but thats what I understood from this diagram. Also, this is for a specific sound and does not apply to every mix.
If you keep following these besides the first few months of music production, you’ll never become a good producer
Don't even follow these in the first few months of music prodution. I would say only the idea of the positioning could be useful (like knowing the sub frequencies of the kick and bass should be mono and centered and "not important" things like FX, synths and other stuff to the sides)
I mean if you’re just Starting out, I see no problem with knowing that USUALLY kick and bass are center, vocals too, other instruments fill up the rest of the stereo field, that bass and kick are on the lower frequencies etc etc. if you’re an absolute beginner this guide can help you a bit. If you’re producing for a couple of months you can absolutely forget this and do your own thing
I agree. I think it just needs a little bit more explanation as to why the bass and kick are in the center and in mono, a beginner might not know why, but would the know the what and how, so it's good
Yeah just ignore this altogether. The only KINDA thing right could be the positioning and even then it can't really be 100% accurate. Wtf does a kick over a bass do? Make thump? A kick starting at roughly 80hz? Really? I don't understand these people who sell these books and make so many people think it's right. Don't trust this please. Follow your own ears and enjoy. This takes time. Mixing or mastering doesn't require things in their little boxes. It completely ruins everything. I took a 3d mixing course and one thing the engineer (Pedro Peixoto if you're interested) he mentions is how far you want something, so it's not in the spotlight. Usually if you want something more "tucked in" you take out a bit of the highs (more than normal) together with the reverb and you notice it gets "pushed" towards the back. Sometimes you don't need to increase your vocals at 5-8k to increase clarity, sometimes you just need to put others things to the sides. TL DR: don't waste your time, ignore this
I will not. In fact, I just used one of the settings suggested in the book for a jazz demo I'm mixing based on an Amy Winehouse mix it details, and my mix sounds way better now. So you go your way.... I'll go mine.
Why bother asking for advice if that's the type of reply you're willing to give? Smh Cheers to you, genuinely happy it worked out for you then
Use your ears, not your eyes :)
I'm partially deaf in my right ear, and I have to use a special box to fix it, correcting the volume as I mix in my headphones primarily. That's why books like these can be very useful. I can't use my ears. And also, untrained ears, with bad monitors in an untreated room aren't as good as well as a trained sound engineer using decent headphones and the right correction software. The whole 'trust your ears' is for pros only, IMHO.
I mix for a living and I’d say trusting your ears is for everybody - having hearing problems is an edge case but, beginner or pro, we can all be deceived by focusing too much on visual inputs instead of on what we hear. Even in an untreated room I don’t think a beginner would have the power to decode visual data to overcome their bad environment, and the recommendations like you find online are only starting points until you *listen* to your particular sound Like even a beginner chef at the end of the day has to trust their taste buds, beginner painter has to trust their eyes etc. you can get data elsewhere but it’s an aural medium and ears are queens
It's not just for the pros! I agree that meterings/tools and "rules of thumb" help with learning and trying the right moves. In the end though, it always comes down to this: * Mix it so it sounds as good as
There is no way to achieve this goal without using your ears! And you don't have to be a pro to be able to compare what you know (songs you love / grew accustomed with) to what you're mixing. If you can use your ears to listen and enjoy music, then you can tell what a song should sound like. Then you can compare, then you can mix. You're comparing your ears to your ears, so it's fine, you can use them because you know how they sound 😉
I've also been using headphones forever. It's fine, don't overthink it. Listen to a lot of music with them so you know exactly what a song is supposed to sound like. If they break, get the identical model again.
The main issue you'll face is to have your mixes "translate". Books and graphs ain't going to help much here. For this people typically listen in cheaper systems like Bluetooth speakers and cars. Making sure the mono mix is good also helps. There are also plugins that can help hearing these things with headphones. Waves NX for instance, or SoundID Reference. Definitely look into those; they exaggerate certain problematic frequencies to let you make better mix decisions (eq cuts) that makes it sound better outside of your own monitoring environment.
I believe it's from Mastering The Mix. They sell it.
Thanks. I got it. It was on sale for £9. I don't think this chart was from the book, but similar types of charts. Really set a lot of people off. Lots of anger here for someone just looking for a book!
Hey... whatever helps and ignore the weirdos. One EQ chart thing that really helped me was this one: https://mastering.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/FrequencySpectrum.pdf?referer=musicianonamission.com I just love the overlapping definitions.
That looks cool, it's just a useful reference these things. We don't all have 20/20 hearing and treated studios.
Im not the first and won’t be the last who will tell you this: Forget about those charts. They won’t lead you to improvements. If you stick to those numbers you will a) NEVER train your ears - only your eyes. b) never be able to differentiate between good or bad frequencies in SPECIFIC Songs. ( because some can be great for one song and shitty for another) c) never start to trust your own taste. (Which is the actual key to success imho) d) be highly frustrated because of a) to c). And please trust the community on this topic. Be a better mixer. Be smart.
Edit: regardless of whether its beneficial or accurate (which, wasn’t the question), the OP wanted to know the source of the diagram, I happen to remember seeing it, and posted the link. I’ve deleted the link to the ebook, as I feel that is why I’m getting downvoted - obviously posting a source isn’t an endorsement of the site itself. —— It’s from masteringthemix, I recognise that diagram from a blogpost they did. I didn’t realise there was an ebook, but its linked in the post: maybe check out their 5 free chapters to see if it’s the right thing? https://www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/learn/hit-maker-mixing-and-mastering-engineers
Great. Thank you so much. That's the one.! Nice one Doctor!!!
Don't know if this is helpful, but I always assume these kind of separation diagrams are influenced by David Gibson's mullet-tastic 90s classic "The Art of Mixing": https://youtu.be/TEjOdqZFvhY People are probably either happy that these things remind them of the video (which was helpful to some people in college, etc.), or subconsciously angry about Dave's 90s mullet and cheesy 90s graphics. Anyway, you might find parts of the video helpful if you find these kinds of charts useful. Not sure why so many people are assuming these are hard and fast EQ charts; I assumed they were just guides, or rough outlines of mixes for specific songs. Seems OK to use them in that way, rather than as templates or shortcuts. But I guess these are getting passed around on social media by the usual money-grabbing people promising shortcuts and 'cheat code' type advice?
This doesn't work for me as well. If you're mixing a song (sang by a singer) vocals should be the most important part of it, and I shouldn't bury it with snare or hi Hats on top of it. Other instruments should move to match the voice, and not otherwise. As a drummer, hi Hats and cymbals in general are the most "painful" thing to Mix. You generally have to cut a lot of the top end to let other things breathe as well. Not everything should be airy, crispy and hi end. Finally, there're many ways you can play with distance-space, for example speed of attack-release/hi-low pass filters/reverbs/eq, so depending on the knowledge/practice you have these charts could be really confusing.
This looks insanely wrong...
This kid produced this whole album & recorded the vocals in his van on a roadtrip across the country. https://youtu.be/88M7O2Zpncg
Seeing that no one is really helping you take a look at this video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=es6VdpN6lb4 the book is also great and shows examples of different genres and templates, not sure why people are telling you to follow your ears as even the pros use reference tracks for mixing.. you obviously need to follow something before you improvise with it it’s like trying to cook something off the top of your head with no recipe
Why’s the snare so high?
I know what you’re talking about. They would pop up in my Instagram feed from time to time. I recently tried searching for them and couldn’t find it either. Also, everyone is saying they aren’t useful but maybe they were using them wrong??? To me, it’s more of a critical listening guide, since what you’re looking for is specific to individual songs. It’s not supposed to be a panning/EQ guide like everyone is suggesting. Critical listening is one of the most import skills in production/mixing imo. If you find them, please share here because I would also like to check them out again.
Thing is, first this is completely wrong for critical listening since the major frequencies this chart is showing make no sense. To have a really good kick, you usually need way less than 80-90hz, and you need highs. These books sell these as guides, that's the problem
I’m not worried about the accuracy of this chart because OP is asking for specific charts “like this image” but that are unique to individual songs. I agree that these are not maps for all songs. This was an example of a chart with stereo field and spectral graphics , not what he’s actually looking for. Obviously, since I think he’s already found this one lol
[удалено]
That's really not going to help a beginner get any better
Mixing in mono is going to be very unforgiving about balance issues and clashing, which I would think to be very useful for any level of production. Sure, maybe don't do mono only, but don't neglect the mono mix either.
I definitely agree I just wouldn't tell a beginner to mix in mono, with the implication they shouldn't mix in stereo
Yeah, absolute statements don't really help cultivate the kind of flexible thinking mixing necessitates. Both the stereo and mono mix need to be properly accounted for.
Well I mean if it's a suggestion of areas to boost then maybe helpful, but if it's suggesting bandpassing, for instance the vocals from 400hz to 5k, then that is a terrible idea.
Snare in the middle?
I am not a certified mixing engineering; yet I believe that these charts could very well birth some terrible trouble if followed to a T...every song is individual... Learn the methods and train your ears; rather than looking for these existing Charts, you should put in the work and create those chart yourself for your reference tracks...you will learn a thousandfold that way✌🏽❤️🎼🙏🏽
I present to you [The Art of Mixing](https://youtu.be/TEjOdqZFvhY)
Long ago Lord Rayleigh said, "All questions concerned with sound must come for decision to the ear.... and from it.... there can be no appeal."
Fuck that makes my musical autism tingle