Why do some mixes, even with top plugins and techniques, still sound off? The answer might lie in a step you’re overlooking: the static mix.
In this episode of Inside The Mix, Marc Matthews talks with mix engineer Nate Kelmes to explore: What is a static mix in audio mixing? And why is a static mix important before adding effects? Nate explains how balancing levels and panning, before any processing, can account for 70–80% of a great mix. “If the plugins disappear, the song should still work,” he says.
You’ll learn how long to spend on a static mix (hint: 2–3 hours is a sweet spot), what the benefits of starting with a static mix are, and how a static mix improves overall mix quality by building emotion and clarity from the start. Nate also shares how a strong static mix can reduce the need for heavy processing later, making your workflow faster and more intentional.
From native DAW tools to vocal automation and top-down mixing, this episode is packed with actionable insights for producers at any level. If you want more cohesive, impactful mixes, this is where it starts.
Links mentioned in this episode:
Follow Nate Kelmes
Listen to the Sound Discussion Podcast
Listen to Microphones and Recording Audio with Mike Senior
Listen to Music, the Industry and Everything Else with Warren Huart
Episode sponsors:
Master your music with confidence - enrol in Pro Home Mastering before the doors close! *If you grab the course using my link, I may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
Ways to connect with Marc:
Radio-ready mixes start here - get the FREE weekly tips
Grab exclusive access to BONUS content
Book your FREE 20 Minute Discovery Call
Follow Marc's Socials:
Instagram | YouTube | Synth Music Mastering
Thanks for listening!!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Nate Kelmes (00:00):
I'll say that taking the time to really dive
into achieving a static mix, areally good balance, takes I'd
say that's 70 to 80 percent ofthe mix of your song right there
, because at the end of the day,when you are done mixing your
(00:22):
song, you've done all the things, you've put all the plugins on
it and you've done all yourtricks.
If you take all those pluginsaway, your static mix should be
there.
The song will be there whenyou've done your static mix
properly.
If you have all your pluginsloaded and you take them all
away and your song falls apart,you've done it wrong.
You're listening to the Insidethe Mix podcast with your host.
Marc Matthews (00:45):
Mark Matthews, welcome to Inside the Mix, your
go-to podcast for music creationand production.
Whether you're crafting yourfirst track or refining your
mixing skills, join me each weekfor expert interviews,
practical tutorials and insightsto help you level up your music
and smash it in the musicindustry.
Let's dive in.
(01:05):
Hey folks, today I am joined bythe multi-talented Nate Kelms,
a mix and engineer, consultant,podcast host and developer based
in Cleveland, ohio.
Quite a lot of stuff there.
He's known for his high qualitymixes and deep insight into the
production process, coveringeverything from recording and
songwriting to mixing andmastering, and you might know
(01:28):
him from the Sound DiscussionPodcast which he co-hosts.
If you're looking to improveyour mix fundamentals, today's
episode is packed withactionable advice.
Nate, welcome.
How are you?
Hey?
Thank you, I am great.
How are you?
I'm very well.
Thanks, mate, I'm very well.
I've been looking forward tothis.
Yeah, me too.
I say this because I've had anumber of different podcasters
(01:50):
on the podcast.
It's always enjoyable talkingto other podcasters, notably
because you know they're goingto have a good mic and a good
set of cans and they're adeptwith the podcasting life that we
lead.
Nate Kelmes (02:01):
So really looking forward to this one oh crucial
to have a good mic and a goodset of cans oh yeah, man, and
and the background as well.
Marc Matthews (02:08):
Um, I always get drawn to the background that
people have mine's pretty boring, to be fair, but I can see
guitars in the background ofyours yeah, I wish I had time to
play them, right, yeah yeah, Iremember this conversation that
we had, uh, probably leading upto this.
Nate Kelmes (02:22):
Yeah I'm the same man.
Marc Matthews (02:23):
Yeah, I've got a guitar sat to the left of me
here just gathering dust oh godit's.
It's a cruel.
It's a cruel life yeah, and theyneed restringing as well, to be
, oh yeah, most definitely so.
Folks, in this episode we arediving into one of the most
possibly overlooked sweepingstatement maybe, but absolutely
(02:43):
essential parts of mixing thestatic mix and I've banged on
about this on the podcastnumerous times and probably
since the podcast inception.
So we're breaking down why it'simportant and how to build one
before you even think aboutreaching for plugins and
processing.
So nate's going to share histake on mixing order, both the
full tracks and vocals as well.
So if you're struggling to finda starting point for your mixes
(03:05):
or you're looking to refineyour process, this episode will
help you create more clarity,consistency and intention in
your mixing.
So now I think it's a goodopportunity.
To start with, can you talkabout what is a static mix to
begin with?
Nate Kelmes (03:20):
Yeah, Well, a static mix is one without
plugins at a very high level.
So forget all the cool toolsthat you've been purchasing and
hoping to use.
A static mix is when you getthe balance of everything in
your song right.
You have an overall view of allthe tracks in your song and you
(03:44):
have, you have achieved thatbalance where everything is in
its place, both level wise andpanning wise.
You could make an argument formaybe performing some low cuts
or high cuts here and there,just to clear out some of that
low end from something or maybetoo bright on another, you know.
(04:07):
So there's an argument to maybereaching for some sort of filter
plugin to do that as part ofthe static mix.
But that is as far as it wouldgo for plugins on a static mix,
and I'll say that taking thetime to really dive into
achieving a static mix, a reallygood balance, takes, I'd say
(04:33):
that's 70 to 80% of the mix ofyour song right there, when you
are done mixing your song,you've done all the things,
you've put all the plugins on itand you've done all your tricks
.
If you take all those pluginsaway, your static mix should be
there.
The song will be there whenyou've done your static mix
(04:55):
properly.
If you have all your pluginsloaded and you take them all
away and your song falls apart,you've done it wrong.
Actually, I hate saying wrong,because there's no wrong or
right in a lot of this, but ifyour song falls apart when you
take away all those plugins,something's not right,
something's not working, and sothat's why taking the time to
(05:15):
really achieve that static mixand get that balance just right,
that is so important.
Marc Matthews (05:21):
Yeah, I totally agree and it echoes what we've
said on the podcast before.
So we're looking at level andpan, and then you mentioned
there that occasionally youmight use some form of eq just
to to maybe some some high pass,low pass filtering possibly, or
low or high shelves, but that'sonly occasionally.
Nate Kelmes (05:37):
Yeah, yeah, only occasionally and that's it,
because, again, like you know,some of those, uh, some of those
tracks that might have some ofthat low end there, I don't want
to remove it right away becauseI might want to keep some of
that there when I finish thestatic mix.
Just because a vocal hassomething going on at 80 hertz
(05:59):
doesn't mean we automaticallychop it out, because you might
want that as part of the songand you haven't gotten to that
part of the process yet.
You're still evaluatingeverything yeah, what you
mentioned.
Marc Matthews (06:11):
That was really interesting about the vocal at
80 hertz, and you might wantthat later on.
I think this is why the staticmix is so important, because you
can read books and you canconsume content that says, to
achieve a particular result, forexample, with a vocal, you
should automatically roll offthose lower frequencies, but
(06:32):
that isn't always the case anddoing something like a static
mix can really highlight thatand you get to that point where
you go.
Actually, I don't need to dothat and if anything, that is
adding to the mix itself, itsounds better with that in there
.
Yeah, so another reason whyit's so important and it's
interesting you mentioned aswell 70 to 80 percent of the mix
is done, in that, in terms oftime, let's say you have a
(06:56):
client that sent you a mix overto you.
I know it is subjective, youdon't know how many tracks
you're going to get, but onaverage, how long are you taking
, would you say, with a staticmix?
Nate Kelmes (07:05):
that's a good question and it really depends,
um, if it's an artist that I'vemixed with before, uh, it might
not take that long, mostlybecause I might also be
operating from somewhat of atemplate that I use for that
particular artist.
But let's say it's a fresh setof tracks.
You've never mixed a song fromthis artist before, this
(07:26):
producer, whatever, um, yeah, Imean it's.
It's tough to say uh, butgenerally I will spend at least
two to three hours puttingtogether my static, and that's
taking breaks as well.
I'm not going two to threehours straight, but in total I
(07:46):
like to sort of do a part oneand a part two of a static mix.
I get my static balance going onand I let it sit.
Maybe it's overnight, maybeit's, you know, I go eat lunch
and then I come back and listento it again.
But in general, two to threehours for a moderately sized
session.
Let's say I don't know 40tracks.
(08:09):
I wouldn't spend anything lessthan two hours on that because
it again is really important andyou want to make gut decisions
and you don't want to sit thereand stew on things for too long.
You want to make gut decisionsand you don't want to sit there
and stew on things for too long,but you also don't want to just
gloss over things and, you know, set it and forget it type of
(08:31):
thing.
Marc Matthews (08:32):
Yeah, makes sense , makes sense.
I like what you said about gutdecisions and it's something I
do more and more on.
I trust my initial instinct andI think the more you do it and
the more you go down thiscreative route I think, with any
creative aspect really, I mean,I'm a big advocate of just
going trust in your instincts.
If you did that for immediately, you probably did it for a
reason.
Uh, but what?
What I was going to mentionthen is sorry, go ahead.
Nate Kelmes (08:53):
I think you're gonna say no, I'm just agreeing
with you absolutely yeah, umiterations.
Marc Matthews (08:58):
now I haven't always used a static mix I.
I have been now for a few yearsnow.
It's now in my workflow.
But what I've noticed is, sinceI've brought it in, the amount
of iterations, the mixiterations, so the mix versions
I do have dramatically decreased.
Oh yeah, comparing to what Iwas doing before, where it was
(09:23):
not a crazy amount.
But I would say I did a mixthis week and I think I did
three iterations of thatparticular mix, whereas I think
probably going back five, maybe10 years ago, it probably would
have been 10 times that, I meanthat comes with experience as
well.
Nate Kelmes (09:41):
It totally does.
Yeah, do you find something?
Marc Matthews (09:43):
similar.
Nate Kelmes (09:44):
Yeah, Most of the time when I'm making a mix, I
mean I'd love to every time nailit on mix one and the client
says wonderful, I've had thathappen a few times and it's
great when it does.
But usually I land on mix twoor mix three, and by the time we
(10:07):
get to mix three it's smallstuff, Like you know.
There's an effect somewherethat might be a little too
prominent right in that area,right, and so I just need to
dial it back, Like, and that'sit.
If we're doing major overhaulstuff on mix three, then the mix
is not right, Something'scompletely off and we need to
(10:27):
probably tear it down and startover.
Marc Matthews (10:30):
Yeah, I totally agree, echo what you said there.
Just this week I was doing thatexact thing where it's just
subtle automation, with aparticular effect coming out on
a vocal, just coming out of theverse into a drop and just okay,
well, that delay, maybe I'llbring that up a db and automate
it coming out there.
It's not going to be wild wildmovements because, like you say
(10:50):
that, I think there maybe youneed to go back to not the
beginning of the mix, butdefinitely a different stage of
that mix, because somethingmight not be quite right,
something's not right.
Yeah, definitely.
So my question with regard tostatic mixing yeah, what?
At what point did youtransition to doing it?
Because I think before westarted this episode it might
have been actually when we weretalking.
I think you said that youhaven't always done it.
(11:12):
Yeah, so what?
At what point did you realize?
Or did someone interject andsay are you doing this?
Nate Kelmes (11:18):
yeah, well, you know, it was when I first
started out.
Like a lot of us do, we getenamored by the tools and the
toys and the plugins, and, andjust you know, you, you watch a
youtube video and and somebodybig name, mixer x, is doing this
to you, to their track, andyou're just like, wow, oh, that
sounds great, let me try thatright.
(11:39):
And so you automatically juststart doing this.
And so when I first started out, I didn't know what a static
mix was.
Um, as long as the track wasn'tclipping, I was mixing right.
Yeah, I was like, all right,great off to the race as we go.
Um, I don't remember exactlywhen I learned about a static
(12:00):
mix and when I started toincorporate it, but I know that,
as part of sort of my, mypracticing of mixing, um,
whether it was with a paidclient or just mixing some
tracks, you know, I just pickedit up somewhere.
I want to say that thecommunity that I started working
(12:25):
in, the community that Istarted learning in I should say
not working, but learning inHome Studio Corner with Joe
Gilder I know that he's talkedabout this and I think, probably
just over the years, it wassomething that I picked up and
it finally clicked for me that astatic mix you know, is really
where the intention of the songis set, and the tools are
(12:48):
secondary to all of that.
Right a, an eq, whiletransformative to a sound, isn't
going to make your vocalistsound like Rihanna, shall we say
?
Right, that comes down to thetalent singing into the
microphone, not the EQ you puton the track.
Marc Matthews (13:08):
Yeah, totally agree.
I like what you said thereabout the intention of the song.
I think very, very, very wellwell put.
So moving on then.
So we've tackled the static mix.
So can you talk a bit aboutyour usual starting point in a
mix?
So let's, I suppose we'll goback to the static mix again.
Uh, but the starting point,what do you start with?
Nate Kelmes (13:29):
let's say just, uh, an average session that comes
across to you well, I mean thisis a great segue from that
comment of the intention of themix and the intention of the
song, because it completelydepends.
You have to listen to all ofthe tracks and get an idea of
what is that sort of coreemotional element of the song.
(13:49):
Is the vocals, is it the drums?
Is it a groove based song?
Is it a just a guitar-drivensong?
You know, it really depends.
So you have to be tuned in towhat the song is telling you,
whether that's from the artist'sstandpoint or from what you're
(14:11):
hearing in the tracks thatyou've been given.
So, generally, my one of twostarting points are either going
to be the vocals or the drums.
Marc Matthews (14:21):
Yeah, and did you make that decision quite early
in the process?
I think you said you did that.
So you're identifying that sortof to uh to paraphrase the core
emotional element quite earlyin the process.
Nate Kelmes (14:32):
Yeah, it's.
You know, once I bring thetracks into my mixing template,
um, I haven't ever.
My faders are at zero, thetracks are at the levels that
they are at and I'm justlistening.
Right, it might be the worstbalance ever, but I'm just
listening to what everything is,maybe muting some tracks if
(14:53):
they're getting in the way, or Ijust want to focus in on the
vocals, or you know a group ofinstruments.
I might do some muting just tohear.
But before I do anything, I'mtrying to identify.
What is this song all about?
What's the foundation of thissong and where is it going to go
?
What is everything going torest?
Marc Matthews (15:11):
on Touching on the time, you mentioned a
template there.
So you're bringing the tracksinto your template with that
template.
Is it just sort of arrangementin terms of the instrument
groups, or do you have buseswith your send effects in there
as well in your template thatyou're using, and sort of a
mixed bus, whatever it may be?
(15:32):
So you've got your pluginsalready in there as well.
Nate Kelmes (15:34):
Yeah, I've mixed bus with my plugins already
there.
Group buses sends.
All of that is there and all ofit is turned off.
So I'm not mixing.
I'm not beginning my static mixthrough anything not even any
outboard gear that I might beusing.
(15:55):
All of that is bypassed.
Marc Matthews (15:59):
Yeah thing, not even any outboard gear that I
might be using.
All of that is bypassed.
Nate Kelmes (16:00):
Yeah, and I can imagine I know what the answer
is here, but obviously that isspeeding up your workflow oh
yeah quite significantly yeah,you know, and there's an
argument to be made about youknow, creativity in the flow and
and then sticking with toolsthat you, you know, know and and
like I have various pluginsthat I use all the time and then
(16:22):
, depending on what's happeningin the song, I might say, well,
this isn't working for me, so Ineed to go find a different
reverb or find a different delay, because the one in my template
I'm not feeling it today.
So it's all about sticking withwhat you know and what works,
but also being open to listeningto what the song and the track
(16:42):
is telling you and going withagain, sort of that gut feeling,
instead of trying to force it.
Like I use this reverb all thetime, so it's going to work, but
if it's not working, thenquickly move on to something
else, pick a different one andkeep going yeah, interesting.
Marc Matthews (16:57):
Interesting because out there you've pretty
much answered my next question,which was going to be, uh, like
how often do you deviate fromthe template and what plugins
are in there?
But I do have another questionthat sort of moves on a little
from that, or rather linked toit, and that is I've done about
you.
But I I have quite an array ofplugins.
I wouldn't say I've got amassive amount, because I try
(17:17):
and streamline it, because Idon't want to get sort of alert
fatigue, I don't want to getplugin fatigue when I'm looking
through.
But how often do you findyourself sort of experimental
trialing with new plugins thatare released, because it can be
quite easy just to get stuck?
not stuck but fall into aroutine of this is what I have.
I might venture into my libraryfor other plugins if I'm
(17:40):
looking for something different.
But how often do you ventureeven further outside of that and
think, okay, well, maybe I needto see what else is out?
Nate Kelmes (17:48):
there, man.
Um, this is where it getstricky, because you know you get
into the whole plugin marketingum sort of area, right and what
, what captures your attentionand eventually makes you pull
your wallet out.
How often do I do that?
Not often, I'd say 80% of thetime I stick with what I have in
(18:11):
my template because I've beenusing various versions of those
plugins for years.
I do have some newer stuff inmy template, but I'm not going
to name any plugin names.
But there are some plugins thatcome out and I'm just like why?
Marketing and advertisementsand flashy this and that and it
(18:36):
looks cool.
But at the end of the day, ifit takes me just as long to
learn, if it takes me a longtime to learn that plugin and
figure out how it's going to fitin my template, I'm not gonna
try it out.
I'm not even.
I'm not even gonna try it outbecause I don't want to waste
the time on something that maynot benefit me.
(18:59):
I've tried out a couple of newplugins here and there and
sometimes you know they dosomething cool, but most of the
time they just sort of end upgathering digital dust.
Marc Matthews (19:10):
Yeah, I like that phrase.
I've used that many times onthe podcast digital dust.
Nate Kelmes (19:14):
So many times I haven't heard that, so I'm not
even trying to take that yeahyeah, yeah, um, I should get
like a t-shirt made.
Marc Matthews (19:21):
That's something made up with that.
But I usually use it, um, formy projects that I because I
release my own tunes.
But, yeah, I've got a, aproject folder which was
gathering digital dust, but Ihave been slowly chipping into
it now releasing my own stuff.
But that's where I.
That's why I was using it,because, uh, I think I put a
post out the other day and I waslike, oh, this is my uh next
(19:41):
project.
Nate Kelmes (19:42):
And then I looked at the time stamp on it and it
was from like a year ago I'vegot riffs I recorded like three
or four years ago that I'm likethis is cool and I've, yeah, not
done anything with them.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, get back tothat yeah, 100 out of hundred
percent.
Marc Matthews (19:56):
Man, I'm there and it I'm slowly, slowly
chipping into it.
Before we move on to the nexttopic, I just want to touch on
DAW.
So, um, um, before I ask whatDAW you are using native plugins
, are you using native pluginsas well as third-party ones in
your template, and what DAW areyou using?
Okay?
Nate Kelmes (20:17):
Well, I'm not using native plugins.
Okay, I used to, yeah, and Ithink that they are a great
starting point, so I'm a fierceadvocate for using them.
I think that they are a greatstarting point, so I'm a fierce
advocate for using them.
I think that when you get to acertain point in your skill
level and this isn't the casefor all native plugins so you
(20:40):
get to a point where maybe youcan't take them quite as far.
You've exhausted what you cando with those tools and so then
you know you reach out tothird-party plugins that can
either bridge that gap and getyou what you're missing, or take
your use of that tool wellbeyond what the native plugin
(21:02):
allows you to do.
They don't.
I would say most native pluginsdon't sound bad at all, and to
that point.
So I use Studio One.
I've used it almost since thebeginning.
I started on Reaper way wayback in the day, like 2016.
(21:25):
But then I just couldn't get it.
But I found, well, joe Gilder.
I found his tutorials onYouTube and he was using Studio
One and it just clicked for me.
So I dug into it and haven'treally dropped it.
I do dabble with Pro Toolsevery now and again, especially
if I'm getting a session fromsomebody in Pro Tools.
(21:46):
That's really helpful.
But my primary doll is Studio.
Marc Matthews (21:50):
One Interesting Studio One is one of those DAWs
that I've never used but I'veheard great things about it.
That and I think FL Studio buta Reaper user I am, but I know
Reaper is fantastic, but I thinkfor the audience listening if
you're listening to this,thinking you want to choose a
DAW Reaper is quite a steeplearning curve.
Nate Kelmes (22:11):
Yeah, that is very true, and that's why I fell off
that curve pretty early on.
It just was too much for me andI've used it every now and
again because I still have itinstalled.
I hear that it does really wellwith video, so I might give
that a roll.
I heard from another podcasterthat they're editing their video
(22:32):
podcasts in Reaper and so I'mlike, yeah, okay, yeah, I mean I
might need to try that out, sothat's interesting.
Marc Matthews (22:41):
I have never used video with Reaper.
The reason I got into it was Ispent some time with a mastering
engineer in South Wales and hewas using Reaper for mastering.
This was Christ.
This is over 10 years ago now,so I don't know what iteration
of Reaper we're on at the moment, but yeah, so, yeah, you know
what?
I've never used MIDI with iteither.
I've only ever used audio withit recorded audio files.
(23:04):
I've never used MIDI with it,but no video.
That's an interesting one.
Nate Kelmes (23:07):
I might have to look into that but yeah, well,
you and me both, then I, youknow, I gotta check that out.
Marc Matthews (23:12):
Yeah, yeah, um.
I like what you said there withthe native plugins, though,
going right back to that umabout bridging the gap, because
I think, like you say, nativeplugins are fantastic.
I use logic myself and andreaper, but I use logic and the
logic plugins are brilliant.
Oh, I've heard great thingsabout the logic plugins are
brilliant.
Nate Kelmes (23:27):
Mark MANDELBAUM oh, I've heard great things about
the Logic plugins, so I thinkthat that's kind of where that
comes from, is not?
All native plugins are bad andshouldn't be sort of stigmatized
, right?
Marc Matthews (23:38):
You use native plugins oh well, pfft.
Nate Kelmes (23:41):
good luck, buddy.
No, native plugins are greatand they do a fantastic job,
especially the ones in Logic.
I haven't used Logic, I've usedGarageBand.
I have an iPad and I'll fiddlearound with that every now and
again and again.
Those plugins are great andthey're sort of baby plugins to
what's available in Logic.
Marc Matthews (24:01):
Yeah, it's like that gateway I was going to say
gateway drug.
Nate Kelmes (24:04):
That's a gateway, exactly, it's Logic.
Marc Matthews (24:09):
Audience listening.
Please don't take that as likedo drugs, um, but yeah, it's,
it's just like a gateway intousing logic.
But yeah, it's, it's uh, thethe recent release and update of
it.
It's got a a new plugin in itcalled chromaglide, which is a
fantastic like saturation plugin.
So so good.
But bridging the gap.
I think it's important becauseyou can use native plugins to
(24:29):
really get your teeth into whatit is that you are trying to
learn.
For example, if you want to getthe idea of eq, the
fundamentals of eq, thefundamentals of compression, use
the native plugins.
If you're starting out, reallyget that dialed in and then,
like you say, you've taken thenative plugins as far as they
can go and then you needsomething a bit more.
Uh, maybe it's in terms of eqand you want dynamic eq or
(24:51):
something along those lines.
Or you want mid-side eq, which Ithought you might be able to do
that in logic now I haven'tlooked because I use another
like an eq, but, like you say,bridging the gap, which I, which
I really, really like.
So, moving on to my nextquestion, so we've sort of
approached the full mix.
So, oh no, we haven'tapproached the full mix yet.
(25:11):
That's what we're going to moveon to next.
So we're going to go all theway to the end, to the full mix
one thing before we jump intothe full mix, let's do it.
Nate Kelmes (25:20):
Uh, in regards to the static mix I forgot to
mention this and this playsright into the next step, which
is the full mix.
Um, my very last step in mystatic mix once I've set my
balances and everything is inits place, panning wise, I will
do automation moves, especiallyon the vocals, especially.
Marc Matthews (25:39):
So are you doing this before any processing?
Nate Kelmes (25:42):
Any process, so you're doing automation, then
yeah, I'm doing automationbefore I do any processing,
because again, I'm trying to nothave to use so much compression
on things, right?
So especially the vocals, yeahyeah yeah, Clip gaining certain
areas, certain words, bringingout the emotion in a phrase,
(26:03):
tail ends of phrases that dropoff.
I don't want to have to rely ona compressor or three to do
that heavy lifting when I canuse my fader, you know, and ride
that automation to make surethat that phrase is heard, and
then when I get to the full mixand it's time to start adding
tools to it, compression has todo a lot less work and thus have
(26:29):
less opportunity to well ruin amix by overusing something that
makes perfect sense.
Marc Matthews (26:37):
Uh, the fact that I was so shocked when you first
said that and but now you'veexplained it, I'm like oh yeah,
I do the same.
Uh, like with a vocal, forexample, with clip gain um, so I
use the, the tool in where Ican just put it, the marquee
tool, select it and then useclip gain to bring it down, so
you're not hitting thecompressor so hard.
Right?
Whether it's bass, it's vocal,so that makes perfect sense.
Yeah, so you do that before youare then moving onto the actual
(27:01):
?
Nate Kelmes (27:01):
okay, well, let's bring some plugins into this and
then you're going to do moreautomation after all, the
plugins are done, right, butagain you're setting the stage
for the song and gettingeverything to where it needs to
be before you start processingit.
Marc Matthews (27:19):
So here's another quick question.
Nate Kelmes (27:21):
So before we move on to the final part.
Sorry, I didn't mean tosidetrack, no, no no, no, no.
Marc Matthews (27:25):
This is really good.
You've done the static mix,you've got all of the uh, the
tracks playing, so then when youmove on to actually okay, well,
I'm going to start to introduce, um, some eq, some dynamic
control, are you doing that inthe context of the full mix, or
are you then muting theinstruments and then bringing
them back in again?
Nate Kelmes (27:46):
oh yeah, I mean context of the full mix.
For sure, um and again, itdepends.
It depends on what's going onand how I feel about the static
mix.
But I might start from the topdown on my mix bus.
I might start there by addingan EQ and compression, or EQ or
compression, maybe not both, andthen I'll work my way back to
(28:07):
the instrument buses and then ifthere's anything specific on a
track that's bothering me, thenI might go and address that
there.
Marc Matthews (28:15):
Interesting.
This is a nice segue.
Then onto the next question,which is, uh, the approach to
the full mix.
So you, what you mentionedthere was that you start with
the mix bus and EQ compression,so you're doing it top down.
Nate Kelmes (28:27):
Yeah, Most of the time most of the time Most of
the time, Maybe not every time,and maybe sometimes I'll turn it
on and hear what it's doing andthen I might turn it off and go
and address something, Becauseonce my track is going through
my mix bus processing which alsoI've been making an effort the
(28:47):
last I don't know 18 months tomove my mix bus processing out
of the box and into the analogrealm, yeah, so the nice thing
about that is I can easilyswitch those things in and out.
I mean, you can do that withplugins as well.
So that is not anything specialor hard to achieve, but, um,
(29:11):
you know, I find it.
It works with my workflow a lotbetter, as I'm looking over to
the side at my equipment thatnobody can see.
I do that all the time.
Marc Matthews (29:21):
I've done that before on the podcast where I've
pointed and I realized no onecould see what.
Nate Kelmes (29:24):
I'm pointing at yeah.
Marc Matthews (29:25):
They can see me.
I'm pointing at something, butthey can't see what I'm pointing
at which.
Yeah, I do that all the time.
Nate Kelmes (29:49):
So your rationale then, for top-down mixing?
For the audience listening whomight not be familiar with it,
what's your rationale withstarting that way?
Well, you know.
So again, it may not be doneevery single time, but most of
the time, when you have achieveda really, really good balance,
static mix again, 80% of yoursong is gonna be there, right?
So you're not trying to change,you're not trying to.
Well, I, my, my, I, oh my gosh,my analogy.
There we go, brain startworking.
(30:10):
My analogy that I frequently useis chiseling a sculpture out of
stone.
Right, you're not going to takethree good whacks with a hammer
and bam, you know, sculpturethis beautiful image.
You're not going to just do itin one pass.
(30:34):
So when you do a top-downmixing approach, you're, yes,
taking the entire song intocontext with that processing,
but you're hearing what'shappening with that processing
and maybe you like it and that'sa great starting point to
continue working from, and maybeyou don't like what's happening
(30:55):
, but you know that you're goingto go back to that processing
at some point.
So that's an opportunity for youto evaluate, okay, with this
bus compressor, that everythingis going through what's
happening.
Is it bringing up the drums toomuch?
Is it squashing the vocals toomuch?
Is it doing, you know, is itraising things where they
shouldn't be or lowering thingstoo much?
(31:15):
If it is, then you need to goback to those individual tracks,
maybe through automation orjust clip gaining, and readjust
how those tracks are sitting inyour mix without any bus
processing.
So maybe you need to go backand do some individual track
processing on those tracks orsome instrument group processing
(31:36):
on those groups before youbegin mixing into your bus
compressor, but having thatthere as a reference to hear
what's happening, to give you anidea of where you are on your
pathway for mixing, to know like.
Well, this is where I'm goingto end up.
What does it sound like now?
Am I getting close by turningthis on at this point?
Marc Matthews (31:56):
No.
Nate Kelmes (31:57):
Okay, let's go and address these issues that I'm
hearing.
If it is great, Turn it on andkeep mixing into that equipment.
Marc Matthews (32:04):
Interesting.
So is it kind of like abenchmark in a way?
Nate Kelmes (32:08):
It's a check.
Yeah, it's a checkpoint.
Marc Matthews (32:10):
Yeah, and which one are you starting with then?
Are you starting with EQ orcompression?
Nate Kelmes (32:18):
Or again does it.
Usually I'm turning on the EQbecause that's going to give me
a really good idea of sort ofwhere my track is headed.
Marc Matthews (32:26):
Yeah, and I'm going to hazard a guess and say
the EQ moves aren't sort of wild.
Oh God, no Cuts.
Nate Kelmes (32:33):
And boosts Very broad.
The EQ that I've been usinglately is a 500 series EQ based
off of the Sontek topology.
And basically I'm doing a Bach'scurve on it, a Bach's and Dahl
curve.
So if people are familiar with,say, and basically I'm doing a
Bax curve on it, a Baxendallcurve.
(32:54):
So if people are familiar with,say, the dangerous EQ from
Plugin Alliance, that Bax EQthat they offer, that's a
Baxendall EQ, and so I'm doing asimilar curve on my Sontek 500
series EQs, Can you justdescribe what that curve is?
Yeah, so a Baxendahl EQ curveis something that we're actually
(33:16):
really all familiar with.
I mean, I'm 43 years old so Iremember the days of sitting in
my parents' car playing with thebass and treble tone knobs on
the radio.
Right, that's a Baxendahl EQ.
There's no mid control, it'sall bass and it's all treble
control and it.
You know that smiley curve EQthat people talk about.
That can be achieved with aBaxendahl EQ Very broad and
(33:42):
smooth and musical curves.
Nothing sharp, nothing surgicalabout it.
It's a broad lift or a broaddrop if you're bringing the
levels of your high and low down, if that's what you're doing?
Marc Matthews (34:00):
Yeah, it makes perfect sense.
And with regards to compression, are we talking sort of subtle?
Are we talking like 2 to 1, 3to 1, and then sort of medium to
long attacks, short releases?
Nate Kelmes (34:13):
I guess again, it's going to depend on the.
Again, it depends on theprogram, but obviously you have
to have a starting pointsomewhere.
So generally I'm starting at3-1, fairly fast attack and
fairly slow release.
Marc Matthews (34:30):
Yeah, audience listening.
There, nate was appearing tohis right.
This is the benefit of havinganalog gear, because if I'd have
asked you this and you weremixing in the box, I had no idea
.
Nate Kelmes (34:41):
You know.
So that is a really I'm not onefor, like you should get analog
gear.
Yeah Right, plugins are great.
I'm not going to tell anyonethat they should dump their
plugins and pour money intoanalog gear.
Yeah, yeah, yeah Right,Plug-ins are great.
I'm not going to tell anyonethat they should dump their
plug-ins and pour money intoanalog gear if they don't want
to, Absolutely.
But the one benefit that I'veseen so far in using analog gear
, aside from just being able totouch things and getting that
(35:04):
eye to hand, to brain connectionand ear, you know.
So you're getting a connectionbetween what you touch and what
you hear and what you see, whichyou don't get on a screen with
a plug-in and a virtual knob,but also being able to just look
over and be like oh yeah,there's my compressor settings
right there.
I don't have to open up asession, I don't have to
remember it To me, I can work alot faster with a bus compressor
(35:31):
in a hardware version than Ican on a plug-in version.
Anyone's mileage may vary.
Marc Matthews (35:36):
What I'm saying is not gospel truth in any way
shape or form, but for me itworks yeah, definitely, I think,
having the uh, the tangiblesomething, something tactile to
move and listen, because I cansee where it's positioned.
I can imagine when you'reactually making those changes,
you cannot see a screen asyou're doing it.
(35:57):
I'd ask a guess.
Nate Kelmes (35:59):
PAUL LEWIS O', yeah , exactly, I have to turn away
from my screen in order to lookat those, and so then I'm not
sort of distracted by thefrequency response curve that a
plug-in might be showing me Like, oh, I've increased this by 9
dB, that's way too much.
I can't possibly do that.
No, you know what 9 dB might beexact.
12 dB might be what we need.
(36:21):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But on a screen you see thatcurve jump up by 12 dB.
You're like oh no, nope, can'tdo that.
Bring that curve jump up by 12db.
Marc Matthews (36:32):
You're like, oh no, that, nope, can't do that,
bring it down, I'm breaking therules.
No, it goes back to what wesaid right at the beginning of
trusting your gut, yeah, and ifyou're not using your eyes,
which I mean, there's always anargument to say sometimes we
need to have that visual element.
But sure, trust in your gutsometimes and thinking, actually
this song does need that.
And the rules?
I mean the rules, it'screativity, isn't it?
(36:54):
Ultimately, at the end of theday, it's art, right?
Yeah, exactly.
Nate Kelmes (36:57):
And it's subjective , and someone else may hate it
and someone else may love it,and you know what.
As long as you are able tostand behind what you put out,
it doesn't matter Anything.
None of it matters.
9 dB, 12 dB, hell, 30 dB if youwant to.
But you know hell, 30 dB if youwant to.
But if it resonates with you,then that's all that matters.
(37:19):
It doesn't matter what anybodyelse thinks.
Marc Matthews (37:22):
I like that.
I think that's a fantastic wayto wrap up this sort of talk of
the static mix.
We've gone right from thebeginning of the static mix to
the top-down approach as well,once we've come out the other
end.
So I think, before we wrapthings, things up here, I think
it's a good opportunity just tomaybe talk a bit about this
sound discussion podcast andwhat you guys are doing over
there, and maybe just I shouldhave preempted this and asked
(37:44):
you before the episode, maybe anepisode of sound discussion
that the audience should startwith.
Nate Kelmes (37:51):
They've not listened before oh well, um,
certainly you could start withepisode one.
We just do a sort of genericintroduction of ourselves
because we're a group ofnobodies doing a podcast, but
one of my favorite episodes thatstand out uh, we did with mike
(38:15):
senior, um he was the editor atsound on sound magazine.
Um, he runs the uh cambridge mtwebsite.
So we did a great.
We had a great conversationwith him, um, about microphones.
He is a microphone expert, anerd, if you will.
His website has a library ofmicrophone positions which goes
(38:38):
into a lot of depth maybe toomuch, but we had a great time
talking about just microphoneplacement and types of
microphones and all that kind ofstuff.
So that was a great episode.
And we just released, at thetime of this recording, just
released an episode abouthearing health, which I think is
really important.
So we had a pair ofaudiologists on and we talked
(39:03):
about earplugs and IEMs andtinnitus, yeah, and just taking
care of your ears because, again, at the end of the day, these
are the tools that we use.
This is the ultimate tool ourears.
If we can't hear what we'redoing, then we can't do what
we're doing Really, I'm going tohave to dig that one out.
Marc Matthews (39:27):
It must have come up on GoodPods as a new episode
, so I'm going to download it.
Nate Kelmes (39:31):
Well, it was just released yesterday.
Okay, as of this recording.
So, yeah, no fault that youhaven't seen it yet.
Marc Matthews (39:39):
Um, but mike senior, I would hazard a guess
and say he might well be him andbobby azinski the most quoted
when I was doing my degree inmusic production and the sound
on sound mag.
Yeah, because there, becausethere was quite a large element
of recording in it.
Now I remember Mike Sr andquoting him numerous times when
I was doing my studies fromSound and Sound.
(40:02):
So really interesting, did youhave Warren Hurt?
Is Hurt pronounced correctly onyour podcast?
Hurt, hurt.
Nate Kelmes (40:08):
Yeah, I think it's Hurt yeah, yes, we did, and you
know we'd hope to have him onagain.
He was a great guest.
I met him at NAMM this pastyear and had a chance to just
chit chat with him.
Yeah, we had him on for anepisode, so that's a great one.
I mean, it's kind of hard.
I love all the episodes right,they're all my babies.
So, yeah, I mean, scrollthrough.
(40:31):
We do one a month so there'snot a lot to choose from, so you
don't have to worry about likemissing out on one.
I'm sure there's going to beone that resonates.
We cover things from topicslike touring.
We had a touring musician, agood friend of mine, lee Turner.
He's a touring musician withDarius Rucker and Hootie and the
(40:51):
Blowfish.
We had on another friend of minewho is a tape machine expert,
so we dive into the world oftape machines and tape
formulations and what tape doesphysical tape does for your
recordings?
We recorded an episode with amastering engineer Ian Shepard
(41:14):
was one and another masteringengineer friend of mine who has
won a number of Grammys.
So you know we want to gettopics from all over the sort of
audio, soundscape, audiolandscape, if you will, because
there's a lot to what we do andwhile we may be, you know,
(41:37):
banging out a mix in ourbasement with little input from
anybody else, there's a lot thathappens before we ever reach
the mixing stage, whether it'srecording, producing after the
mixing stage, mastering andeverything else hearing, health
and publishing we had had anartist on and we were talking
(41:59):
about sync publishing and BMIand ASCAP.
So you know there's a lot totalk about.
Marc Matthews (42:07):
There is indeed many facets of the industry that
we find ourselves in.
The Warren Huard however it'spronounced episode.
I listened to that whilst goingon a run and it's a fantastic
episode.
Yeah, I listened to that afterwe had our initial conversation
a few months ago and it is agreat episode.
The audiologist one I'm goingto dig into as well.
Really really intrigued by that, but lots of interesting stuff
(42:31):
there, folks to go and have alisten to.
So, nate, thank you so much forjoining me on the show.
Obviously, we've broken downthe fog that can cloud the early
stages of mixing, especiallywhen it comes to building on
that strong static mix.
Nate Kelmes (42:44):
Well, there's so much to think about, right, so
there's so much to take intoaccount.
And no fault if you arelearning something for the first
time and maybe you've heard itor maybe you haven't, and this
is one way of working, right.
Again, it's not gospel fact.
If something works for you,great, but I'd say, 99% of the
time, a static mix is your mostcrucial step when you're
(43:07):
building a mix.
Marc Matthews (43:08):
Indeed, indeed, I totally agree, nate.
Where should our audience go ifthey want to find out more
about you and the podcast andall the podcasts?
Nate Kelmes (43:19):
Yeah, Well, the podcast is easy to find
Sounddiscussionpodcastcom.
We're on Instagram at SoundDiscussion Podcast and me
natekelmscom, and at Instagramnatekelms.
Marc Matthews (43:32):
Lovely stuff.
I will put links audiolistening, audience listening.
I'll put links to all of thatin the episode description.
Until next time, keep mixingwith intention and don't forget,
sometimes it's the simpleststeps that make the biggest
difference.
Thank you, nate, I will catchup with you soon.
I'll say that taking the time to really dive
into achieving a static mix, areally good balance, takes I'd
say that's 70 to 80 percent ofthe mix of your song right there
, because at the end of the day,when you are done mixing your
(00:22):
song, you've done all the things, you've put all the plugins on
it and you've done all yourtricks.
If you take all those pluginsaway, your static mix should be
there.
The song will be there whenyou've done your static mix
properly.
If you have all your pluginsloaded and you take them all
away and your song falls apart,you've done it wrong.
You're listening to the Insidethe Mix podcast with your host.
Marc Matthews (00:45):
Mark Matthews, welcome to Inside the Mix, your
go-to podcast for music creationand production.
Whether you're crafting yourfirst track or refining your
mixing skills, join me each weekfor expert interviews,
practical tutorials and insightsto help you level up your music
and smash it in the musicindustry.
Let's dive in.
(01:05):
Hey folks, today I am joined bythe multi-talented Nate Kelms,
a mix and engineer, consultant,podcast host and developer based
in Cleveland, ohio.
Quite a lot of stuff there.
He's known for his high qualitymixes and deep insight into the
production process, coveringeverything from recording and
songwriting to mixing andmastering, and you might know
(01:28):
him from the Sound DiscussionPodcast which he co-hosts.
If you're looking to improveyour mix fundamentals, today's
episode is packed withactionable advice.
Nate, welcome.
How are you?
Hey?
Thank you, I am great.
How are you?
I'm very well.
Thanks, mate, I'm very well.
I've been looking forward tothis.
Yeah, me too.
I say this because I've had anumber of different podcasters
(01:50):
on the podcast.
It's always enjoyable talkingto other podcasters, notably
because you know they're goingto have a good mic and a good
set of cans and they're adeptwith the podcasting life that we
lead.
Nate Kelmes (02:01):
So really looking forward to this one oh crucial
to have a good mic and a goodset of cans oh yeah, man, and
and the background as well.
Marc Matthews (02:08):
Um, I always get drawn to the background that
people have mine's pretty boring, to be fair, but I can see
guitars in the background ofyours yeah, I wish I had time to
play them, right, yeah yeah, Iremember this conversation that
we had, uh, probably leading upto this.
Nate Kelmes (02:22):
Yeah I'm the same man.
Marc Matthews (02:23):
Yeah, I've got a guitar sat to the left of me
here just gathering dust oh godit's.
It's a cruel.
It's a cruel life yeah, and theyneed restringing as well, to be
, oh yeah, most definitely so.
Folks, in this episode we arediving into one of the most
possibly overlooked sweepingstatement maybe, but absolutely
(02:43):
essential parts of mixing thestatic mix and I've banged on
about this on the podcastnumerous times and probably
since the podcast inception.
So we're breaking down why it'simportant and how to build one
before you even think aboutreaching for plugins and
processing.
So nate's going to share histake on mixing order, both the
full tracks and vocals as well.
So if you're struggling to finda starting point for your mixes
(03:05):
or you're looking to refineyour process, this episode will
help you create more clarity,consistency and intention in
your mixing.
So now I think it's a goodopportunity.
To start with, can you talkabout what is a static mix to
begin with?
Nate Kelmes (03:20):
Yeah, Well, a static mix is one without
plugins at a very high level.
So forget all the cool toolsthat you've been purchasing and
hoping to use.
A static mix is when you getthe balance of everything in
your song right.
You have an overall view of allthe tracks in your song and you
(03:44):
have, you have achieved thatbalance where everything is in
its place, both level wise andpanning wise.
You could make an argument formaybe performing some low cuts
or high cuts here and there,just to clear out some of that
low end from something or maybetoo bright on another, you know.
(04:07):
So there's an argument to maybereaching for some sort of filter
plugin to do that as part ofthe static mix.
But that is as far as it wouldgo for plugins on a static mix,
and I'll say that taking thetime to really dive into
achieving a static mix, a reallygood balance, takes, I'd say
(04:33):
that's 70 to 80% of the mix ofyour song right there, when you
are done mixing your song,you've done all the things,
you've put all the plugins on itand you've done all your tricks
.
If you take all those pluginsaway, your static mix should be
there.
The song will be there whenyou've done your static mix
(04:55):
properly.
If you have all your pluginsloaded and you take them all
away and your song falls apart,you've done it wrong.
Actually, I hate saying wrong,because there's no wrong or
right in a lot of this, but ifyour song falls apart when you
take away all those plugins,something's not right,
something's not working, and sothat's why taking the time to
(05:15):
really achieve that static mixand get that balance just right,
that is so important.
Marc Matthews (05:21):
Yeah, I totally agree and it echoes what we've
said on the podcast before.
So we're looking at level andpan, and then you mentioned
there that occasionally youmight use some form of eq just
to to maybe some some high pass,low pass filtering possibly, or
low or high shelves, but that'sonly occasionally.
Nate Kelmes (05:37):
Yeah, yeah, only occasionally and that's it,
because, again, like you know,some of those, uh, some of those
tracks that might have some ofthat low end there, I don't want
to remove it right away becauseI might want to keep some of
that there when I finish thestatic mix.
Just because a vocal hassomething going on at 80 hertz
(05:59):
doesn't mean we automaticallychop it out, because you might
want that as part of the songand you haven't gotten to that
part of the process yet.
You're still evaluatingeverything yeah, what you
mentioned.
Marc Matthews (06:11):
That was really interesting about the vocal at
80 hertz, and you might wantthat later on.
I think this is why the staticmix is so important, because you
can read books and you canconsume content that says, to
achieve a particular result, forexample, with a vocal, you
should automatically roll offthose lower frequencies, but
(06:32):
that isn't always the case anddoing something like a static
mix can really highlight thatand you get to that point where
you go.
Actually, I don't need to dothat and if anything, that is
adding to the mix itself, itsounds better with that in there
.
Yeah, so another reason whyit's so important and it's
interesting you mentioned aswell 70 to 80 percent of the mix
is done, in that, in terms oftime, let's say you have a
(06:56):
client that sent you a mix overto you.
I know it is subjective, youdon't know how many tracks
you're going to get, but onaverage, how long are you taking
, would you say, with a staticmix?
Nate Kelmes (07:05):
that's a good question and it really depends,
um, if it's an artist that I'vemixed with before, uh, it might
not take that long, mostlybecause I might also be
operating from somewhat of atemplate that I use for that
particular artist.
But let's say it's a fresh setof tracks.
You've never mixed a song fromthis artist before, this
(07:26):
producer, whatever, um, yeah, Imean it's.
It's tough to say uh, butgenerally I will spend at least
two to three hours puttingtogether my static, and that's
taking breaks as well.
I'm not going two to threehours straight, but in total I
(07:46):
like to sort of do a part oneand a part two of a static mix.
I get my static balance going onand I let it sit.
Maybe it's overnight, maybeit's, you know, I go eat lunch
and then I come back and listento it again.
But in general, two to threehours for a moderately sized
session.
Let's say I don't know 40tracks.
(08:09):
I wouldn't spend anything lessthan two hours on that because
it again is really important andyou want to make gut decisions
and you don't want to sit thereand stew on things for too long.
You want to make gut decisionsand you don't want to sit there
and stew on things for too long,but you also don't want to just
gloss over things and, you know, set it and forget it type of
(08:31):
thing.
Marc Matthews (08:32):
Yeah, makes sense , makes sense.
I like what you said about gutdecisions and it's something I
do more and more on.
I trust my initial instinct andI think the more you do it and
the more you go down thiscreative route I think, with any
creative aspect really, I mean,I'm a big advocate of just
going trust in your instincts.
If you did that for immediately, you probably did it for a
reason.
Uh, but what?
What I was going to mentionthen is sorry, go ahead.
Nate Kelmes (08:53):
I think you're gonna say no, I'm just agreeing
with you absolutely yeah, umiterations.
Marc Matthews (08:58):
now I haven't always used a static mix I.
I have been now for a few yearsnow.
It's now in my workflow.
But what I've noticed is, sinceI've brought it in, the amount
of iterations, the mixiterations, so the mix versions
I do have dramatically decreased.
Oh yeah, comparing to what Iwas doing before, where it was
(09:23):
not a crazy amount.
But I would say I did a mixthis week and I think I did
three iterations of thatparticular mix, whereas I think
probably going back five, maybe10 years ago, it probably would
have been 10 times that, I meanthat comes with experience as
well.
Nate Kelmes (09:41):
It totally does.
Yeah, do you find something?
Marc Matthews (09:43):
similar.
Nate Kelmes (09:44):
Yeah, Most of the time when I'm making a mix, I
mean I'd love to every time nailit on mix one and the client
says wonderful, I've had thathappen a few times and it's
great when it does.
But usually I land on mix twoor mix three, and by the time we
(10:07):
get to mix three it's smallstuff, Like you know.
There's an effect somewherethat might be a little too
prominent right in that area,right, and so I just need to
dial it back, Like, and that'sit.
If we're doing major overhaulstuff on mix three, then the mix
is not right, Something'scompletely off and we need to
(10:27):
probably tear it down and startover.
Marc Matthews (10:30):
Yeah, I totally agree, echo what you said there.
Just this week I was doing thatexact thing where it's just
subtle automation, with aparticular effect coming out on
a vocal, just coming out of theverse into a drop and just okay,
well, that delay, maybe I'llbring that up a db and automate
it coming out there.
It's not going to be wild wildmovements because, like you say
(10:50):
that, I think there maybe youneed to go back to not the
beginning of the mix, butdefinitely a different stage of
that mix, because somethingmight not be quite right,
something's not right.
Yeah, definitely.
So my question with regard tostatic mixing yeah, what?
At what point did youtransition to doing it?
Because I think before westarted this episode it might
have been actually when we weretalking.
I think you said that youhaven't always done it.
(11:12):
Yeah, so what?
At what point did you realize?
Or did someone interject andsay are you doing this?
Nate Kelmes (11:18):
yeah, well, you know, it was when I first
started out.
Like a lot of us do, we getenamored by the tools and the
toys and the plugins, and, andjust you know, you, you watch a
youtube video and and somebodybig name, mixer x, is doing this
to you, to their track, andyou're just like, wow, oh, that
sounds great, let me try thatright.
(11:39):
And so you automatically juststart doing this.
And so when I first started out, I didn't know what a static
mix was.
Um, as long as the track wasn'tclipping, I was mixing right.
Yeah, I was like, all right,great off to the race as we go.
Um, I don't remember exactlywhen I learned about a static
(12:00):
mix and when I started toincorporate it, but I know that,
as part of sort of my, mypracticing of mixing, um,
whether it was with a paidclient or just mixing some
tracks, you know, I just pickedit up somewhere.
I want to say that thecommunity that I started working
(12:25):
in, the community that Istarted learning in I should say
not working, but learning inHome Studio Corner with Joe
Gilder I know that he's talkedabout this and I think, probably
just over the years, it wassomething that I picked up and
it finally clicked for me that astatic mix you know, is really
where the intention of the songis set, and the tools are
(12:48):
secondary to all of that.
Right a, an eq, whiletransformative to a sound, isn't
going to make your vocalistsound like Rihanna, shall we say
?
Right, that comes down to thetalent singing into the
microphone, not the EQ you puton the track.
Marc Matthews (13:08):
Yeah, totally agree.
I like what you said thereabout the intention of the song.
I think very, very, very wellwell put.
So moving on then.
So we've tackled the static mix.
So can you talk a bit aboutyour usual starting point in a
mix?
So let's, I suppose we'll goback to the static mix again.
Uh, but the starting point,what do you start with?
Nate Kelmes (13:29):
let's say just, uh, an average session that comes
across to you well, I mean thisis a great segue from that
comment of the intention of themix and the intention of the
song, because it completelydepends.
You have to listen to all ofthe tracks and get an idea of
what is that sort of coreemotional element of the song.
(13:49):
Is the vocals, is it the drums?
Is it a groove based song?
Is it a just a guitar-drivensong?
You know, it really depends.
So you have to be tuned in towhat the song is telling you,
whether that's from the artist'sstandpoint or from what you're
(14:11):
hearing in the tracks thatyou've been given.
So, generally, my one of twostarting points are either going
to be the vocals or the drums.
Marc Matthews (14:21):
Yeah, and did you make that decision quite early
in the process?
I think you said you did that.
So you're identifying that sortof to uh to paraphrase the core
emotional element quite earlyin the process.
Nate Kelmes (14:32):
Yeah, it's.
You know, once I bring thetracks into my mixing template,
um, I haven't ever.
My faders are at zero, thetracks are at the levels that
they are at and I'm justlistening.
Right, it might be the worstbalance ever, but I'm just
listening to what everything is,maybe muting some tracks if
(14:53):
they're getting in the way, or Ijust want to focus in on the
vocals, or you know a group ofinstruments.
I might do some muting just tohear.
But before I do anything, I'mtrying to identify.
What is this song all about?
What's the foundation of thissong and where is it going to go
?
What is everything going torest?
Marc Matthews (15:11):
on Touching on the time, you mentioned a
template there.
So you're bringing the tracksinto your template with that
template.
Is it just sort of arrangementin terms of the instrument
groups, or do you have buseswith your send effects in there
as well in your template thatyou're using, and sort of a
mixed bus, whatever it may be?
(15:32):
So you've got your pluginsalready in there as well.
Nate Kelmes (15:34):
Yeah, I've mixed bus with my plugins already
there.
Group buses sends.
All of that is there and all ofit is turned off.
So I'm not mixing.
I'm not beginning my static mixthrough anything not even any
outboard gear that I might beusing.
(15:55):
All of that is bypassed.
Marc Matthews (15:59):
Yeah thing, not even any outboard gear that I
might be using.
All of that is bypassed.
Nate Kelmes (16:00):
Yeah, and I can imagine I know what the answer
is here, but obviously that isspeeding up your workflow oh
yeah quite significantly yeah,you know, and there's an
argument to be made about youknow, creativity in the flow and
and then sticking with toolsthat you, you know, know and and
like I have various pluginsthat I use all the time and then
(16:22):
, depending on what's happeningin the song, I might say, well,
this isn't working for me, so Ineed to go find a different
reverb or find a different delay, because the one in my template
I'm not feeling it today.
So it's all about sticking withwhat you know and what works,
but also being open to listeningto what the song and the track
(16:42):
is telling you and going withagain, sort of that gut feeling,
instead of trying to force it.
Like I use this reverb all thetime, so it's going to work, but
if it's not working, thenquickly move on to something
else, pick a different one andkeep going yeah, interesting.
Marc Matthews (16:57):
Interesting because out there you've pretty
much answered my next question,which was going to be, uh, like
how often do you deviate fromthe template and what plugins
are in there?
But I do have another questionthat sort of moves on a little
from that, or rather linked toit, and that is I've done about
you.
But I I have quite an array ofplugins.
I wouldn't say I've got amassive amount, because I try
(17:17):
and streamline it, because Idon't want to get sort of alert
fatigue, I don't want to getplugin fatigue when I'm looking
through.
But how often do you findyourself sort of experimental
trialing with new plugins thatare released, because it can be
quite easy just to get stuck?
not stuck but fall into aroutine of this is what I have.
I might venture into my libraryfor other plugins if I'm
(17:40):
looking for something different.
But how often do you ventureeven further outside of that and
think, okay, well, maybe I needto see what else is out?
Nate Kelmes (17:48):
there, man.
Um, this is where it getstricky, because you know you get
into the whole plugin marketingum sort of area, right and what
, what captures your attentionand eventually makes you pull
your wallet out.
How often do I do that?
Not often, I'd say 80% of thetime I stick with what I have in
(18:11):
my template because I've beenusing various versions of those
plugins for years.
I do have some newer stuff inmy template, but I'm not going
to name any plugin names.
But there are some plugins thatcome out and I'm just like why?
Marketing and advertisementsand flashy this and that and it
(18:36):
looks cool.
But at the end of the day, ifit takes me just as long to
learn, if it takes me a longtime to learn that plugin and
figure out how it's going to fitin my template, I'm not gonna
try it out.
I'm not even.
I'm not even gonna try it outbecause I don't want to waste
the time on something that maynot benefit me.
(18:59):
I've tried out a couple of newplugins here and there and
sometimes you know they dosomething cool, but most of the
time they just sort of end upgathering digital dust.
Marc Matthews (19:10):
Yeah, I like that phrase.
I've used that many times onthe podcast digital dust.
Nate Kelmes (19:14):
So many times I haven't heard that, so I'm not
even trying to take that yeahyeah, yeah, um, I should get
like a t-shirt made.
Marc Matthews (19:21):
That's something made up with that.
But I usually use it, um, formy projects that I because I
release my own tunes.
But, yeah, I've got a, aproject folder which was
gathering digital dust, but Ihave been slowly chipping into
it now releasing my own stuff.
But that's where I.
That's why I was using it,because, uh, I think I put a
post out the other day and I waslike, oh, this is my uh next
(19:41):
project.
Nate Kelmes (19:42):
And then I looked at the time stamp on it and it
was from like a year ago I'vegot riffs I recorded like three
or four years ago that I'm likethis is cool and I've, yeah, not
done anything with them.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, get back tothat yeah, 100 out of hundred
percent.
Marc Matthews (19:56):
Man, I'm there and it I'm slowly, slowly
chipping into it.
Before we move on to the nexttopic, I just want to touch on
DAW.
So, um, um, before I ask whatDAW you are using native plugins
, are you using native pluginsas well as third-party ones in
your template, and what DAW areyou using?
Okay?
Nate Kelmes (20:17):
Well, I'm not using native plugins.
Okay, I used to, yeah, and Ithink that they are a great
starting point, so I'm a fierceadvocate for using them.
I think that they are a greatstarting point, so I'm a fierce
advocate for using them.
I think that when you get to acertain point in your skill
level and this isn't the casefor all native plugins so you
(20:40):
get to a point where maybe youcan't take them quite as far.
You've exhausted what you cando with those tools and so then
you know you reach out tothird-party plugins that can
either bridge that gap and getyou what you're missing, or take
your use of that tool wellbeyond what the native plugin
(21:02):
allows you to do.
They don't.
I would say most native pluginsdon't sound bad at all, and to
that point.
So I use Studio One.
I've used it almost since thebeginning.
I started on Reaper way wayback in the day, like 2016.
(21:25):
But then I just couldn't get it.
But I found, well, joe Gilder.
I found his tutorials onYouTube and he was using Studio
One and it just clicked for me.
So I dug into it and haven'treally dropped it.
I do dabble with Pro Toolsevery now and again, especially
if I'm getting a session fromsomebody in Pro Tools.
(21:46):
That's really helpful.
But my primary doll is Studio.
Marc Matthews (21:50):
One Interesting Studio One is one of those DAWs
that I've never used but I'veheard great things about it.
That and I think FL Studio buta Reaper user I am, but I know
Reaper is fantastic, but I thinkfor the audience listening if
you're listening to this,thinking you want to choose a
DAW Reaper is quite a steeplearning curve.
Nate Kelmes (22:11):
Yeah, that is very true, and that's why I fell off
that curve pretty early on.
It just was too much for me andI've used it every now and
again because I still have itinstalled.
I hear that it does really wellwith video, so I might give
that a roll.
I heard from another podcasterthat they're editing their video
(22:32):
podcasts in Reaper and so I'mlike, yeah, okay, yeah, I mean I
might need to try that out, sothat's interesting.
Marc Matthews (22:41):
I have never used video with Reaper.
The reason I got into it was Ispent some time with a mastering
engineer in South Wales and hewas using Reaper for mastering.
This was Christ.
This is over 10 years ago now,so I don't know what iteration
of Reaper we're on at the moment, but yeah, so, yeah, you know
what?
I've never used MIDI with iteither.
I've only ever used audio withit recorded audio files.
(23:04):
I've never used MIDI with it,but no video.
That's an interesting one.
Nate Kelmes (23:07):
I might have to look into that but yeah, well,
you and me both, then I, youknow, I gotta check that out.
Marc Matthews (23:12):
Yeah, yeah, um.
I like what you said there withthe native plugins, though,
going right back to that umabout bridging the gap, because
I think, like you say, nativeplugins are fantastic.
I use logic myself and andreaper, but I use logic and the
logic plugins are brilliant.
Oh, I've heard great thingsabout the logic plugins are
brilliant.
Nate Kelmes (23:27):
Mark MANDELBAUM oh, I've heard great things about
the Logic plugins, so I thinkthat that's kind of where that
comes from, is not?
All native plugins are bad andshouldn't be sort of stigmatized
, right?
Marc Matthews (23:38):
You use native plugins oh well, pfft.
Nate Kelmes (23:41):
good luck, buddy.
No, native plugins are greatand they do a fantastic job,
especially the ones in Logic.
I haven't used Logic, I've usedGarageBand.
I have an iPad and I'll fiddlearound with that every now and
again and again.
Those plugins are great andthey're sort of baby plugins to
what's available in Logic.
Marc Matthews (24:01):
Yeah, it's like that gateway I was going to say
gateway drug.
Nate Kelmes (24:04):
That's a gateway, exactly, it's Logic.
Marc Matthews (24:09):
Audience listening.
Please don't take that as likedo drugs, um, but yeah, it's,
it's just like a gateway intousing logic.
But yeah, it's, it's uh, thethe recent release and update of
it.
It's got a a new plugin in itcalled chromaglide, which is a
fantastic like saturation plugin.
So so good.
But bridging the gap.
I think it's important becauseyou can use native plugins to
(24:29):
really get your teeth into whatit is that you are trying to
learn.
For example, if you want to getthe idea of eq, the
fundamentals of eq, thefundamentals of compression, use
the native plugins.
If you're starting out, reallyget that dialed in and then,
like you say, you've taken thenative plugins as far as they
can go and then you needsomething a bit more.
Uh, maybe it's in terms of eqand you want dynamic eq or
(24:51):
something along those lines.
Or you want mid-side eq, which Ithought you might be able to do
that in logic now I haven'tlooked because I use another
like an eq, but, like you say,bridging the gap, which I, which
I really, really like.
So, moving on to my nextquestion, so we've sort of
approached the full mix.
So, oh no, we haven'tapproached the full mix yet.
(25:11):
That's what we're going to moveon to next.
So we're going to go all theway to the end, to the full mix
one thing before we jump intothe full mix, let's do it.
Nate Kelmes (25:20):
Uh, in regards to the static mix I forgot to
mention this and this playsright into the next step, which
is the full mix.
Um, my very last step in mystatic mix once I've set my
balances and everything is inits place, panning wise, I will
do automation moves, especiallyon the vocals, especially.
Marc Matthews (25:39):
So are you doing this before any processing?
Nate Kelmes (25:42):
Any process, so you're doing automation, then
yeah, I'm doing automationbefore I do any processing,
because again, I'm trying to nothave to use so much compression
on things, right?
So especially the vocals, yeahyeah yeah, Clip gaining certain
areas, certain words, bringingout the emotion in a phrase,
(26:03):
tail ends of phrases that dropoff.
I don't want to have to rely ona compressor or three to do
that heavy lifting when I canuse my fader, you know, and ride
that automation to make surethat that phrase is heard, and
then when I get to the full mixand it's time to start adding
tools to it, compression has todo a lot less work and thus have
(26:29):
less opportunity to well ruin amix by overusing something that
makes perfect sense.
Marc Matthews (26:37):
Uh, the fact that I was so shocked when you first
said that and but now you'veexplained it, I'm like oh yeah,
I do the same.
Uh, like with a vocal, forexample, with clip gain um, so I
use the, the tool in where Ican just put it, the marquee
tool, select it and then useclip gain to bring it down, so
you're not hitting thecompressor so hard.
Right?
Whether it's bass, it's vocal,so that makes perfect sense.
Yeah, so you do that before youare then moving onto the actual
(27:01):
?
Nate Kelmes (27:01):
okay, well, let's bring some plugins into this and
then you're going to do moreautomation after all, the
plugins are done, right, butagain you're setting the stage
for the song and gettingeverything to where it needs to
be before you start processingit.
Marc Matthews (27:19):
So here's another quick question.
Nate Kelmes (27:21):
So before we move on to the final part.
Sorry, I didn't mean tosidetrack, no, no no, no, no.
Marc Matthews (27:25):
This is really good.
You've done the static mix,you've got all of the uh, the
tracks playing, so then when youmove on to actually okay, well,
I'm going to start to introduce, um, some eq, some dynamic
control, are you doing that inthe context of the full mix, or
are you then muting theinstruments and then bringing
them back in again?
Nate Kelmes (27:46):
oh yeah, I mean context of the full mix.
For sure, um and again, itdepends.
It depends on what's going onand how I feel about the static
mix.
But I might start from the topdown on my mix bus.
I might start there by addingan EQ and compression, or EQ or
compression, maybe not both, andthen I'll work my way back to
(28:07):
the instrument buses and then ifthere's anything specific on a
track that's bothering me, thenI might go and address that
there.
Marc Matthews (28:15):
Interesting.
This is a nice segue.
Then onto the next question,which is, uh, the approach to
the full mix.
So you, what you mentionedthere was that you start with
the mix bus and EQ compression,so you're doing it top down.
Nate Kelmes (28:27):
Yeah, Most of the time most of the time Most of
the time, Maybe not every time,and maybe sometimes I'll turn it
on and hear what it's doing andthen I might turn it off and go
and address something, Becauseonce my track is going through
my mix bus processing which alsoI've been making an effort the
(28:47):
last I don't know 18 months tomove my mix bus processing out
of the box and into the analogrealm, yeah, so the nice thing
about that is I can easilyswitch those things in and out.
I mean, you can do that withplugins as well.
So that is not anything specialor hard to achieve, but, um,
(29:11):
you know, I find it.
It works with my workflow a lotbetter, as I'm looking over to
the side at my equipment thatnobody can see.
I do that all the time.
Marc Matthews (29:21):
I've done that before on the podcast where I've
pointed and I realized no onecould see what.
Nate Kelmes (29:24):
I'm pointing at yeah.
Marc Matthews (29:25):
They can see me.
I'm pointing at something, butthey can't see what I'm pointing
at which.
Yeah, I do that all the time.
Nate Kelmes (29:49):
So your rationale then, for top-down mixing?
For the audience listening whomight not be familiar with it,
what's your rationale withstarting that way?
Well, you know.
So again, it may not be doneevery single time, but most of
the time, when you have achieveda really, really good balance,
static mix again, 80% of yoursong is gonna be there, right?
So you're not trying to change,you're not trying to.
Well, I, my, my, I, oh my gosh,my analogy.
There we go, brain startworking.
(30:10):
My analogy that I frequently useis chiseling a sculpture out of
stone.
Right, you're not going to takethree good whacks with a hammer
and bam, you know, sculpturethis beautiful image.
You're not going to just do itin one pass.
(30:34):
So when you do a top-downmixing approach, you're, yes,
taking the entire song intocontext with that processing,
but you're hearing what'shappening with that processing
and maybe you like it and that'sa great starting point to
continue working from, and maybeyou don't like what's happening
(30:55):
, but you know that you're goingto go back to that processing
at some point.
So that's an opportunity for youto evaluate, okay, with this
bus compressor, that everythingis going through what's
happening.
Is it bringing up the drums toomuch?
Is it squashing the vocals toomuch?
Is it doing, you know, is itraising things where they
shouldn't be or lowering thingstoo much?
(31:15):
If it is, then you need to goback to those individual tracks,
maybe through automation orjust clip gaining, and readjust
how those tracks are sitting inyour mix without any bus
processing.
So maybe you need to go backand do some individual track
processing on those tracks orsome instrument group processing
(31:36):
on those groups before youbegin mixing into your bus
compressor, but having thatthere as a reference to hear
what's happening, to give you anidea of where you are on your
pathway for mixing, to know like.
Well, this is where I'm goingto end up.
What does it sound like now?
Am I getting close by turningthis on at this point?
Marc Matthews (31:56):
No.
Nate Kelmes (31:57):
Okay, let's go and address these issues that I'm
hearing.
If it is great, Turn it on andkeep mixing into that equipment.
Marc Matthews (32:04):
Interesting.
So is it kind of like abenchmark in a way?
Nate Kelmes (32:08):
It's a check.
Yeah, it's a checkpoint.
Marc Matthews (32:10):
Yeah, and which one are you starting with then?
Are you starting with EQ orcompression?
Nate Kelmes (32:18):
Or again does it.
Usually I'm turning on the EQbecause that's going to give me
a really good idea of sort ofwhere my track is headed.
Marc Matthews (32:26):
Yeah, and I'm going to hazard a guess and say
the EQ moves aren't sort of wild.
Oh God, no Cuts.
Nate Kelmes (32:33):
And boosts Very broad.
The EQ that I've been usinglately is a 500 series EQ based
off of the Sontek topology.
And basically I'm doing a Bach'scurve on it, a Bach's and Dahl
curve.
So if people are familiar with,say, and basically I'm doing a
Bax curve on it, a Baxendallcurve.
(32:54):
So if people are familiar with,say, the dangerous EQ from
Plugin Alliance, that Bax EQthat they offer, that's a
Baxendall EQ, and so I'm doing asimilar curve on my Sontek 500
series EQs, Can you justdescribe what that curve is?
Yeah, so a Baxendahl EQ curveis something that we're actually
(33:16):
really all familiar with.
I mean, I'm 43 years old so Iremember the days of sitting in
my parents' car playing with thebass and treble tone knobs on
the radio.
Right, that's a Baxendahl EQ.
There's no mid control, it'sall bass and it's all treble
control and it.
You know that smiley curve EQthat people talk about.
That can be achieved with aBaxendahl EQ Very broad and
(33:42):
smooth and musical curves.
Nothing sharp, nothing surgicalabout it.
It's a broad lift or a broaddrop if you're bringing the
levels of your high and low down, if that's what you're doing?
Marc Matthews (34:00):
Yeah, it makes perfect sense.
And with regards to compression, are we talking sort of subtle?
Are we talking like 2 to 1, 3to 1, and then sort of medium to
long attacks, short releases?
Nate Kelmes (34:13):
I guess again, it's going to depend on the.
Again, it depends on theprogram, but obviously you have
to have a starting pointsomewhere.
So generally I'm starting at3-1, fairly fast attack and
fairly slow release.
Marc Matthews (34:30):
Yeah, audience listening.
There, nate was appearing tohis right.
This is the benefit of havinganalog gear, because if I'd have
asked you this and you weremixing in the box, I had no idea
.
Nate Kelmes (34:41):
You know.
So that is a really I'm not onefor, like you should get analog
gear.
Yeah Right, plugins are great.
I'm not going to tell anyonethat they should dump their
plugins and pour money intoanalog gear.
Yeah, yeah, yeah Right,Plug-ins are great.
I'm not going to tell anyonethat they should dump their
plug-ins and pour money intoanalog gear if they don't want
to, Absolutely.
But the one benefit that I'veseen so far in using analog gear
, aside from just being able totouch things and getting that
(35:04):
eye to hand, to brain connectionand ear, you know.
So you're getting a connectionbetween what you touch and what
you hear and what you see, whichyou don't get on a screen with
a plug-in and a virtual knob,but also being able to just look
over and be like oh yeah,there's my compressor settings
right there.
I don't have to open up asession, I don't have to
remember it To me, I can work alot faster with a bus compressor
(35:31):
in a hardware version than Ican on a plug-in version.
Anyone's mileage may vary.
Marc Matthews (35:36):
What I'm saying is not gospel truth in any way
shape or form, but for me itworks yeah, definitely, I think,
having the uh, the tangiblesomething, something tactile to
move and listen, because I cansee where it's positioned.
I can imagine when you'reactually making those changes,
you cannot see a screen asyou're doing it.
(35:57):
I'd ask a guess.
Nate Kelmes (35:59):
PAUL LEWIS O', yeah , exactly, I have to turn away
from my screen in order to lookat those, and so then I'm not
sort of distracted by thefrequency response curve that a
plug-in might be showing me Like, oh, I've increased this by 9
dB, that's way too much.
I can't possibly do that.
No, you know what 9 dB might beexact.
12 dB might be what we need.
(36:21):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But on a screen you see thatcurve jump up by 12 dB.
You're like oh no, nope, can'tdo that.
Bring that curve jump up by 12db.
Marc Matthews (36:32):
You're like, oh no, that, nope, can't do that,
bring it down, I'm breaking therules.
No, it goes back to what wesaid right at the beginning of
trusting your gut, yeah, and ifyou're not using your eyes,
which I mean, there's always anargument to say sometimes we
need to have that visual element.
But sure, trust in your gutsometimes and thinking, actually
this song does need that.
And the rules?
I mean the rules, it'screativity, isn't it?
(36:54):
Ultimately, at the end of theday, it's art, right?
Yeah, exactly.
Nate Kelmes (36:57):
And it's subjective , and someone else may hate it
and someone else may love it,and you know what.
As long as you are able tostand behind what you put out,
it doesn't matter Anything.
None of it matters.
9 dB, 12 dB, hell, 30 dB if youwant to.
But you know hell, 30 dB if youwant to.
But if it resonates with you,then that's all that matters.
(37:19):
It doesn't matter what anybodyelse thinks.
Marc Matthews (37:22):
I like that.
I think that's a fantastic wayto wrap up this sort of talk of
the static mix.
We've gone right from thebeginning of the static mix to
the top-down approach as well,once we've come out the other
end.
So I think, before we wrapthings, things up here, I think
it's a good opportunity just tomaybe talk a bit about this
sound discussion podcast andwhat you guys are doing over
there, and maybe just I shouldhave preempted this and asked
(37:44):
you before the episode, maybe anepisode of sound discussion
that the audience should startwith.
Nate Kelmes (37:51):
They've not listened before oh well, um,
certainly you could start withepisode one.
We just do a sort of genericintroduction of ourselves
because we're a group ofnobodies doing a podcast, but
one of my favorite episodes thatstand out uh, we did with mike
(38:15):
senior, um he was the editor atsound on sound magazine.
Um, he runs the uh cambridge mtwebsite.
So we did a great.
We had a great conversationwith him, um, about microphones.
He is a microphone expert, anerd, if you will.
His website has a library ofmicrophone positions which goes
(38:38):
into a lot of depth maybe toomuch, but we had a great time
talking about just microphoneplacement and types of
microphones and all that kind ofstuff.
So that was a great episode.
And we just released, at thetime of this recording, just
released an episode abouthearing health, which I think is
really important.
So we had a pair ofaudiologists on and we talked
(39:03):
about earplugs and IEMs andtinnitus, yeah, and just taking
care of your ears because, again, at the end of the day, these
are the tools that we use.
This is the ultimate tool ourears.
If we can't hear what we'redoing, then we can't do what
we're doing Really, I'm going tohave to dig that one out.
Marc Matthews (39:27):
It must have come up on GoodPods as a new episode
, so I'm going to download it.
Nate Kelmes (39:31):
Well, it was just released yesterday.
Okay, as of this recording.
So, yeah, no fault that youhaven't seen it yet.
Marc Matthews (39:39):
Um, but mike senior, I would hazard a guess
and say he might well be him andbobby azinski the most quoted
when I was doing my degree inmusic production and the sound
on sound mag.
Yeah, because there, becausethere was quite a large element
of recording in it.
Now I remember Mike Sr andquoting him numerous times when
I was doing my studies fromSound and Sound.
(40:02):
So really interesting, did youhave Warren Hurt?
Is Hurt pronounced correctly onyour podcast?
Hurt, hurt.
Nate Kelmes (40:08):
Yeah, I think it's Hurt yeah, yes, we did, and you
know we'd hope to have him onagain.
He was a great guest.
I met him at NAMM this pastyear and had a chance to just
chit chat with him.
Yeah, we had him on for anepisode, so that's a great one.
I mean, it's kind of hard.
I love all the episodes right,they're all my babies.
So, yeah, I mean, scrollthrough.
(40:31):
We do one a month so there'snot a lot to choose from, so you
don't have to worry about likemissing out on one.
I'm sure there's going to beone that resonates.
We cover things from topicslike touring.
We had a touring musician, agood friend of mine, lee Turner.
He's a touring musician withDarius Rucker and Hootie and the
(40:51):
Blowfish.
We had on another friend of minewho is a tape machine expert,
so we dive into the world oftape machines and tape
formulations and what tape doesphysical tape does for your
recordings?
We recorded an episode with amastering engineer Ian Shepard
(41:14):
was one and another masteringengineer friend of mine who has
won a number of Grammys.
So you know we want to gettopics from all over the sort of
audio, soundscape, audiolandscape, if you will, because
there's a lot to what we do andwhile we may be, you know,
(41:37):
banging out a mix in ourbasement with little input from
anybody else, there's a lot thathappens before we ever reach
the mixing stage, whether it'srecording, producing after the
mixing stage, mastering andeverything else hearing, health
and publishing we had had anartist on and we were talking
(41:59):
about sync publishing and BMIand ASCAP.
So you know there's a lot totalk about.
Marc Matthews (42:07):
There is indeed many facets of the industry that
we find ourselves in.
The Warren Huard however it'spronounced episode.
I listened to that whilst goingon a run and it's a fantastic
episode.
Yeah, I listened to that afterwe had our initial conversation
a few months ago and it is agreat episode.
The audiologist one I'm goingto dig into as well.
Really really intrigued by that, but lots of interesting stuff
(42:31):
there, folks to go and have alisten to.
So, nate, thank you so much forjoining me on the show.
Obviously, we've broken downthe fog that can cloud the early
stages of mixing, especiallywhen it comes to building on
that strong static mix.
Nate Kelmes (42:44):
Well, there's so much to think about, right, so
there's so much to take intoaccount.
And no fault if you arelearning something for the first
time and maybe you've heard itor maybe you haven't, and this
is one way of working, right.
Again, it's not gospel fact.
If something works for you,great, but I'd say, 99% of the
time, a static mix is your mostcrucial step when you're
(43:07):
building a mix.
Marc Matthews (43:08):
Indeed, indeed, I totally agree, nate.
Where should our audience go ifthey want to find out more
about you and the podcast andall the podcasts?
Nate Kelmes (43:19):
Yeah, Well, the podcast is easy to find
Sounddiscussionpodcastcom.
We're on Instagram at SoundDiscussion Podcast and me
natekelmscom, and at Instagramnatekelms.
Marc Matthews (43:32):
Lovely stuff.
I will put links audiolistening, audience listening.
I'll put links to all of thatin the episode description.
Until next time, keep mixingwith intention and don't forget,
sometimes it's the simpleststeps that make the biggest
difference.
Thank you, nate, I will catchup with you soon.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com