How much should the producer doing, compared to the mixer?

adge2013

New member
I've read a lot about how mixing engineers are often given very raw mixes to work with, with no effects on.

My doubt is... how much do we, the producers need to 'produce' if the mixing engineers are going to add the eq, compression, reverb etc.?

Imagine i'm making the drums for a track. How much do I manipulate each element? For example, the kick? Is it my job to shape its sound, adding eq and other effects, or is it for the mixer to do?

In my understanding, once I have my track laid out and complete, I should send it over to the mixer? Without any reverb or anything? Just completely dry?

It makes me wonder then how much a producer is responsible for the final sound. Anybody shed some light on this please?
 
As a music producer your main job is to get/record the best sound as possible from the source. That also includes getting the right volume. You have to make the song sound as good as possible from the source. That makes it a lot easier for the engineer to do their job when something is properly recorded.

Use minimal processing & effects wherever necessary, but very subtle. To put this easily, simply add effects during recording (only if necessary) then leave the rest to the mixing engineer. Whenever you feel like it sounds right then it's ready to be sent to the mixing engineer but if you get a feeling that "this could/will be fixed in the mix" then you haven't done your job properly. Your job is to focus on getting the best recording by using very minimal effects and processing.

That's the basic rule, but music is all about taste. Maybe there's a sneaky technique or signature sound that you want on your mixes, you can add that before sending your song to the mixing engineer.

And not all engineers work the same so communicate with them to find out how they prefer to work.

Hope that helps :)
 
I've read a lot about how mixing engineers are often given very raw mixes to work with, with no effects on.

My doubt is... how much do we, the producers need to 'produce' if the mixing engineers are going to add the eq, compression, reverb etc.?

Imagine i'm making the drums for a track. How much do I manipulate each element? For example, the kick? Is it my job to shape its sound, adding eq and other effects, or is it for the mixer to do?

In my understanding, once I have my track laid out and complete, I should send it over to the mixer? Without any reverb or anything? Just completely dry?

It makes me wonder then how much a producer is responsible for the final sound. Anybody shed some light on this please?

There is no right and wrong, but there are definitely some different engineering approaches out there.

In my view recording a great production is your best chance of making a hit, so I want to know what is the quality of the recorded production and work my way up to a killer production/recording. During this phase I get the sound of the session player, the instrument and its signal chain and the room. My only rule is that must sound great in the context. So I tune it so that the arrangement in its context is captured to sound awesome.

You can spend a lot of time with the recording, but you should not spend too much time on that, spend more time on the song, the music and the arrangement, so that whatever is recorded, in whatever way, puts the bar high because of the music.

Overall, the more quality that is rooted in the sound sources, the room and the playing, the better. But the producer must also work on making these elements work in the context of the song and the arrangement, no matter how great they sound in solo. Obviously in order to have a great master at the end you also need these sound sources to pass through high quality signal chains. A producer must be focused on the song first of all, then the playing, then the tone of the playing - in that order, because that is by how much the frequency signature is set. A rock song and a ballad will produce totally different frequencies.

So creating a hit production is a lot rooted in mastering the art of music, much more so than mastering the art of engineering. But the tone of the playing is a big component in the final perception, so therefore you should spend time on what the recorded sound sources sound like, much more so than on the mixing and mastering. Having great sounding tones is a great differentiator once you have a great song and great playing. But great sounding tones does not help you much if the song and the playing is not producing great music. And then the mixing and mastering can be killer without doing much to the whole.

So focus on the song, the way the song is presented and the sound of that.

In terms of effects etc., that is part of the tone shaping process, because you shape the tones in the context. I would say you need at least dynamically stabilize the signal of the individual sound sources before mixing, but I think it is even better to implement the whole first stage of dynamics processing (instrument level) in the recording rather than in the mixing, using hardware effects. The "rough" mix of the recording should sound great.

Poor sounding recording rooms can really mess things up, don't underestimate the importance of the sound of the recording room.
 
Last edited:
Both replies have helped me, thank you.
I haven't yet recorded any instruments, all the production is done on the DAW so I suppose this changes the role of the producer yet again right?
 
Both replies have helped me, thank you.
I haven't yet recorded any instruments, all the production is done on the DAW so I suppose this changes the role of the producer yet again right?

Yes, when you are dealing with pre recorded content it sort of becomes more about understanding what you have in the samples. If you for instance use virtual instruments you want to know the amount of velocity layers and you want to know what is the sample rate and bit depth of the samples, the higher on all of these the better. It is also great if you find out what audio interface was used when capturing the samples in order to better understand the information density of the recorded samples.

Since in any genre, you need high information density, when producing with samples in the DAW, understanding the information density of the captured samples becomes even more important for a great sounding final master. So take your time researching the available options out there so that you can pull together digital sources that are rich in information and hence can produce a good sounding production. You can of course use sample packages that are thin in detail, just ensure the bulk of the production has enough information.
 
As the Producer you're in charge of the product. The mixer works for you. That said, you don't want to be dealing with the general minutiae of a mix. You want the mixer to mix it, and then tweak it from there either with the mixer, or through notes if the mixer is remote.

If there are certain FX that you know precisely how you want them, then print them. I realize this goes counter to much of the advice given, but as a professional mixer, I don't want to spend time chasing an effect you already have in mind. And as a Producer, if you know what you want, you should deliver it that way.

Now, if you print all your vocals with reverb and delay, you tie my hands as your mixer. I can't really adjust the ratio of effect to signal, other than through compression and EQ, and that will ultimately be a compromise. This is why so many people advise against printing effects. You can't really determine the best amount of reverb and/or delay (if any) for a track without the context of the mix itself.

In general you don't want to bounce tracks with reverbs and delays, UNLESS it's an integral part of the sound itself (and you can always print the return). For instance, a surfer guitar part might be designed to have copious amounts of spring reverb, in which case, you should print it that way. You should even record it that way, as reverb and delay tails can affect how the guitar player performs the part, particularly if the effect is a bold and integral sound to the part.

the bottom line is, you're the Producer. Find a mixer who is interested in delivering your vision, which should be rather obvious by your recording and the rough mix that you supply. A good mixer tries to get into your head by talking with you, and by "reading" your tracks. Ultimately, as your mixer, I want to help you achieve your vision. And if you come across a mixer that suggests they might know better than you, run.

#mixerman
 
Last edited:
Back
Top