eM theory the Master Theory said:

Disagree with this tottally

if a song is technically good, it will always be a good song wether its sonically good or not

if you make a s**tty song on good or bad equipment it will still be a s**tty song.. just with better quality, which quality doesnt define how good the song is

If eminem was on s**t equipment his tracks would still be dope, look at infinite compared to recovery, the quality is s**t comparatively, sonically, yet the songs are just as good if not better in my opinion.

I have debated upgrading for alooooong time, and until my tracks are good enough there really isnt a reason too, cuz its not going to make the tracks any better.

Look at the 70s the era of tons of great music, half those songs where recording on equipment probably less than alot of our stuff now. In houses not recording studios, with rooms with technically not set up for recording.

im not sayin a studio wont benefit you but i dont think it ill make the songs any more enjoyable

and mixing s**t still comes out as s**t

so i do totally agree with your advice at getting everything right on the takes! thats gotta be solid

but sonic quality doesnt effect how good the song is in my opinion. Again look at old music from the 20s, sounds like crap compared to today and the songs are still great

One word.

B.E.N.E.F.I.T.

zackatac3702 said:

eM Theory, I think you TOTALLY missed the point of what I said. Equipment is good and all, but the MIXING is important, and you've just validated this. If Eminem made a dope album on both kinds of equipment, he's following the three things I said needed to be in balance. Eminem has a nasty flow, his takes are clean, with no artifacts, and his tracks are MIXED properly.

You've been thinking about upgrading, but it won't make the track any better? Is that because you've mixed your songs properly? I guess it's just that you don't really have an insight into it.

Ask yourself this: If mixing wasn't all that important, why is it that all the songs on the radio, they come out in a lot better quality than the songs you hear on here? Equipment? yes. But More Importantly, They are mixed correctly.

Sonic Quality is EVERYTHING! If a song has mean flow, but the levels are off, it will only hurt your ears and take away from the song. If there is too much bass, or too much treble, or too much compression, or not enough compression, your ear will hear it, and you won't like it as much.

Last point: The songs from back in the 20s sound like crap, but are good songs, true. But they were STILL MIXED! Point Validated.

Here's a challenge to you sir: Make a track, spit fire, and DONT mix it. Don't Adjust levels, Don't add effect, Compression, Or Balancing. See how quickly your song is disregarded.

mixing is the most important….100% agree

So what about “live” songs?

some bands will hook up hardware so it sounds mixed, but im talking acoustic. If you ever hear american idol the singers on there arent mixed, and when they bring on a featured professional musician you can hear the difference that they are mixed.. Personally with singing i prefer the live natural sound alot more, more emmotions.

Mixing doesnt magically sprinkle on a better song dust, and its not going to give you a better flow, rhymes, delivery, style is what im saying. If you have that, mixed or not you will make good music.

Most of the radio stuff sounds the way it sounds because its recorded on equipment that ranges above $10000 and more. Theres no way I will believe a $200 set up can sound like the pro's if just properly mixed.. It will never sound like that. Michael jackson recorded thriller on a SM7B thats $350 but Id be willing to bet the preamp it was hooked into was well over $2k.

Also mixing is subjective that it sounds “better” theres people out there that will enjoy a live sound. And by adding compression you are taking out the dynamics. MANY old school engineers cant stand the sound of the radio nowadays because its so squashed with no dynamics. And the point of the older songs was yea they are mixed, but not mixed in any way like things today are. So by that theory you're saying as long as you “mix” something, in anyway, it sounds better? Every engineer will mix differently to what they hear, not what others hear… And again theres people that will like a natural sound vs's a mixed sound.

I mix and master my songs, but at the end i dont think it makes the song itself any better.

What i will agree with is that mixing can make a song easier to listen too, but my point i was stating was it doesnt make the song better as a song goes.. if the song is good people will listen to it even if its not mixed at all. Tons of freestyles on youtube i will listen too, they aint mixed. And just because you mixed your song means absolutely nothing when it comes to getting fans.

“Sonic Quality is EVERYTHING! If a song has mean flow, but the levels are off, it will only hurt your ears and take away from the song. If there is too much bass, or too much treble, or too much compression, or not enough compression, your ear will hear it, and you won't like it as much. “

This is absolutely untrue, the human hearing is an amazing sense, that can and will adapt to almost any kinds of sounds it can detect. Ever hear of “ear fatigue” during mixing. Thats when your ears have giving into the sound and can longer determine if it sounds better or worse. If you mixed an entire album badly, in the beginning youll really think its crap, but by the end you have gotten use to it and adapted to the unnatural sound of the frequencys, and probably wouldnt really notice to much highs or to much lows or mids.. when people mix for the radio they try to match every other song on the radio so that the transition between songs have similar cuts and boosts.. not to mention the radio stations throwing every song they play through there own hardware remastering all the tracks

Theres so much badly mixed songs, sonically, that become hits its not even funny.. but by your defintion since theyre mixed theyre better than there natural state? i dont get that..

mixings part of it and gets better every decade, but i dont believe it will give you a better song, you will do that, not the engineer

eM, I may not have made myself clear, but look, You're Correct in saying that mixing a terrible song is not going to make it better (in the case of soulja boy, though the mixing quality in that sucks too) but it doesnt work the other way around. A Good song CAN and WILL be ruined by bad mixing. Every single time.

I hope you realize that American Idol is mixed as well. So are ALL live shows, hence sound checks, and the large mixer boards in the back of the room. True, they're not MASTERED, but thats not what I'm talking about.

If you put a professional in front of average equipment, they can still work some good magic.

Your point about bad songs not getting better is true. But if that good song is the foundation, Mixing is definitely the Mortar that holds it together.

That whole ear fatigue thing, yeah, you will think that the mix sounds good when it doesnt. But when you listen to it the next day, you find yourself disgusted.

I agree completely with acey1994, It's ALL Important, but you can't just get rid of mixing and expect ANY exposure.

Money…