#197: Why I Don’t Touch Plugins Before Doing This - The Art of Static Mixing (feat. Nate Kelmes)

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

Chapters

• 0:41 What is a Static Mix in Audio Mixing?
• 8:35 Why a Static Mix Is Important Before Adding Effects
• 19:53 How to Transition from Static Mix to Full Mix
• 29:23 Top-Down Mixing Approach: How It Improves Workflow
• 38:23 Analog Gear vs Plugins: What Mix Engineers Prefer
• 43:53 Sound Discussion Podcast: Insights from Industry Pros

Transcript

Nate Kelmes: 0:23

I'll say that taking the time to really dive into achieving a static mix, a really good balance, takes I'd say that's 70 to 80 percent of the mix of your song right there, because at the end of the day, when you are done mixing your song, you've done all the things, you've put all the plugins on it and you've done all your tricks. If you take all those plugins away, your static mix should be there. The song will be there when you've done your static mix properly. If you have all your plugins loaded and you take them all away and your song falls apart, you've done it wrong. You're listening to the Inside the Mix podcast with your host.

Marc Matthews: 1:08

Mark Matthews, welcome to Inside the Mix, your go-to podcast for music creation and production. Whether you're crafting your first track or refining your mixing skills, join me each week for expert interviews, practical tutorials and insights to help you level up your music and smash it in the music industry. Let's dive in. Hey folks, today I am joined by the 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 quality mixes and deep insight into the production process, covering everything from recording and songwriting to mixing and mastering, and you might know him from the Sound Discussion Podcast which he co-hosts. If you're looking to improve your mix fundamentals, today's episode is packed with actionable advice.

Marc Matthews: 2:02

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 to this. Yeah, me too. I say this because I've had a number of different podcasters on the podcast. It's always enjoyable talking to other podcasters, notably because you know they're going to have a good mic and a good set of cans and they're adept with the podcasting life that we lead.

Nate Kelmes: 2:25

So really looking forward to this one oh crucial to have a good mic and a good set of cans oh yeah, man, and and the background as well.

Marc Matthews: 2:32

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 of yours yeah, I wish I had time to play them, right, yeah yeah, I remember this conversation that we had, uh, probably leading up to this.

Nate Kelmes: 2:45

Yeah I'm the same man.

Marc Matthews: 2:47

Yeah, I've got a guitar sat to the left of me here just gathering dust oh god it's. It's a cruel.

Marc Matthews: 2:53

It's a cruel life yeah, and they need restringing as well, to be, oh yeah, most definitely so. Folks, in this episode we are diving into one of the most possibly overlooked sweeping statement maybe, but absolutely essential parts of mixing the static mix and I've banged on about this on the podcast numerous times and probably since the podcast inception. So we're breaking down why it's important and how to build one before you even think about reaching for plugins and processing. So nate's going to share his take on mixing order, both the full tracks and vocals as well. So if you're struggling to find a starting point for your mixes or you're looking to refine your process, this episode will help you create more clarity, consistency and intention in your mixing. So now I think it's a good opportunity. To start with, can you talk about what is a static mix to begin with?

Nate Kelmes: 3:43

Yeah, Well, a static mix is one without plugins at a very high level. So forget all the cool tools that you've been purchasing and hoping to use. A static mix is when you get the balance of everything in your song right. You have an overall view of all the tracks in your song and you have, you have achieved that balance where everything is in its place, both level wise and panning wise.

Nate Kelmes: 4:18

You could make an argument for maybe performing some low cuts or high cuts here and there, just to clear out some of that low end from something or maybe too bright on another, you know.

Nate Kelmes: 4:31

So there's an argument to maybe reaching for some sort of filter plugin to do that as part of the static mix.

Nate Kelmes: 4:39

But that is as far as it would go for plugins on a static mix, and I'll say that taking the time to really dive into achieving a static mix, a really good balance, takes, I'd say that's 70 to 80% of the mix of your song right there, when you are done mixing your song, you've done all the things, you've put all the plugins on it and you've done all your tricks. If you take all those plugins away, your static mix should be there. The song will be there when you've done your static mix properly. If you have all your plugins loaded 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 if your song falls apart when you take away all those plugins, something's not right, something's not working, and so that's why taking the time to really achieve that static mix and get that balance just right, that is so important.

Marc Matthews: 5:45

Yeah, I totally agree and it echoes what we've said on the podcast before. So we're looking at level and pan, and then you mentioned there that occasionally you might use some form of eq just to to maybe some some high pass, low pass filtering possibly, or low or high shelves, but that's only occasionally.

Nate Kelmes: 6:01

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 of that low end there, I don't want to remove it right away because I might want to keep some of that there when I finish the static mix. Just because a vocal has something going on at 80 hertz doesn't mean we automatically chop it out, because you might want that as part of the song and you haven't gotten to that part of the process yet. You're still evaluating everything yeah, what you mentioned.

Marc Matthews: 6:35

That was really interesting about the vocal at 80 hertz, and you might want that later on. I think this is why the static mix is so important, because you can read books and you can consume content that says, to achieve a particular result, for example, with a vocal, you should automatically roll off those lower frequencies, but that isn't always the case and doing something like a static mix can really highlight that and you get to that point where you go. Actually, I don't need to do that and if anything, that is adding to the mix itself, it sounds better with that in there. Yeah, so another reason why it's so important and it's interesting you mentioned as well 70 to 80 percent of the mix is done, in that, in terms of time, let's say you have a client that sent you a mix over to you. I know it is subjective, you don't know how many tracks you're going to get, but on average, how long are you taking, would you say, with a static mix?

Nate Kelmes: 7:29

that's a good question and it really depends, um, if it's an artist that I've mixed with before, uh, it might not take that long, mostly because I might also be operating from somewhat of a template that I use for that particular artist. But let's say it's a fresh set of tracks. You've never mixed a song from this artist before, this producer, whatever, um, yeah, I mean it's. It's tough to say uh, but generally I will spend at least two to three hours putting together my static, and that's taking breaks as well. I'm not going two to three hours straight, but in total I like to sort of do a part one and a part two of a static mix.

Nate Kelmes: 8:13

I get my static balance going on and I let it sit. Maybe it's overnight, maybe it's, you know, I go eat lunch and then I come back and listen to it again. But in general, two to three hours for a moderately sized session. Let's say I don't know 40 tracks. I wouldn't spend anything less than two hours on that because it again is really important and you want to make gut decisions and you don't want to sit there and stew on things for too long. You want to make gut decisions and 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 thing.

Marc Matthews: 8:56

Yeah, makes sense, makes sense. I like what you said about gut decisions and it's something I do more and more on. I trust my initial instinct and I think the more you do it and the more you go down this creative 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 mention then is sorry, go ahead.

Nate Kelmes: 9:17

I think you're gonna say no, I'm just agreeing with you absolutely yeah, um iterations.

Marc Matthews: 9:22

now I haven't always used a static mix I. I have been now for a few years now. It's now in my workflow. But what I've noticed is, since I've brought it in, the amount of iterations, the mix iterations, so the mix versions I do have dramatically decreased. Oh yeah, comparing to what I was doing before, where it was not a crazy amount. But I would say I did a mix this week and I think I did three iterations of that particular mix, whereas I think probably going back five, maybe 10 years ago, it probably would have been 10 times that, I mean that comes with experience as well.

Nate Kelmes: 10:05

It totally does. Yeah, do you find something?

Marc Matthews: 10:07

similar.

Nate Kelmes: 10:08

Yeah, Most of the time when I'm making a mix, I mean I'd love to every time nail it on mix one and the client says wonderful, I've had that happen a few times and it's great when it does. But usually I land on mix two or mix three, and by the time we get to mix three it's small stuff, Like you know. There's an effect somewhere that might be a little too prominent right in that area, right, and so I just need to dial it back, Like, and that's it. If we're doing major overhaul stuff on mix three, then the mix is not right, Something's completely off and we need to probably tear it down and start over.

Marc Matthews: 10:53

Yeah, I totally agree, echo what you said there. Just this week I was doing that exact thing where it's just subtle automation, with a particular effect coming out on a vocal, just coming out of the verse into a drop and just okay, well, that delay, maybe I'll bring that up a db and automate it coming out there. It's not going to be wild wild movements because, like you say that, I think there maybe you need to go back to not the beginning of the mix, but definitely a different stage of that mix, because something might not be quite right, something's not right. Yeah, definitely. So my question with regard to static mixing yeah, what? At what point did you transition to doing it? Because I think before we started this episode it might have been actually when we were talking. I think you said that you haven't always done it. Yeah, so what? At what point did you realize? Or did someone interject and say are you doing this?

Nate Kelmes: 11:41

yeah, well, you know, it was when I first started out. Like a lot of us do, we get enamored by the tools and the toys and the plugins, and, and just you know, you, you watch a youtube video and and somebody big name, mixer x, is doing this to you, to their track, and you're just like, wow, oh, that sounds great, let me try that right. And so you automatically just start 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't clipping, I was mixing right. Yeah, I was like, all right, great off to the race as we go.

Nate Kelmes: 12:20

Um, I don't remember exactly when I learned about a static mix and when I started to incorporate it, but I know that, as part of sort of my, my practicing of mixing, um, whether it was with a paid client or just mixing some tracks, you know, I just picked it up somewhere. I want to say that the community that I started working in, the community that I started learning in I should say not working, but learning in Home Studio Corner with Joe Gilder I know that he's talked about this and I think, probably just over the years, it was something that I picked up and it finally clicked for me that a static mix you know, is really where the intention of the song is set, and the tools are secondary to all of that.

Nate Kelmes: 13:13

Right a, an eq, while transformative to a sound, isn't going to make your vocalist sound like Rihanna, shall we say? Right, that comes down to the talent singing into the microphone, not the EQ you put on the track.

Marc Matthews: 13:32

Yeah, totally agree. I like what you said there about the intention of the song. I think very, very, very well well put. So moving on then. So we've tackled the static mix. So can you talk a bit about your usual starting point in a mix? So let's, I suppose we'll go back to the static mix again. Uh, but the starting point, what do you start with?

Nate Kelmes: 13:52

let's say just, uh, an average session that comes across to you well, I mean this is a great segue from that comment of the intention of the mix and the intention of the song, because it completely depends. You have to listen to all of the tracks and get an idea of what is that sort of core emotional element of the song. Is the vocals, is it the drums? Is it a groove based song? Is it a just a guitar-driven song? You know, it really depends. So you have to be tuned in to what the song is telling you, whether that's from the artist's standpoint or from what you're hearing in the tracks that you've been given. So, generally, my one of two starting points are either going to be the vocals or the drums.

Marc Matthews: 14:45

Yeah, and did you make that decision quite early in the process? I think you said you did that. So you're identifying that sort of to uh to paraphrase the core emotional element quite early in the process.

Nate Kelmes: 14:56

Yeah, it's. You know, once I bring the tracks into my mixing template, um, I haven't ever. My faders are at zero, the tracks are at the levels that they are at and I'm just listening. Right, it might be the worst balance ever, but I'm just listening to what everything is, maybe muting some tracks if they're getting in the way, or I just want to focus in on the vocals, or you know a group of instruments. I might do some muting just to hear. But before I do anything, I'm trying to identify. What is this song all about? What's the foundation of this song and where is it going to go? What is everything going to rest?

Marc Matthews: 15:35

on Touching on the time, you mentioned a template there. So you're bringing the tracks into your template with that template. Is it just sort of arrangement in terms of the instrument groups, or do you have buses with your send effects in there as well in your template that you're using, and sort of a mixed bus, whatever it may be? So you've got your plugins already in there as well.

Nate Kelmes: 15:58

Yeah, I've mixed bus with my plugins already there. Group buses sends. All of that is there and all of it is turned off. So I'm not mixing. I'm not beginning my static mix through anything not even any outboard gear that I might be using. All of that is bypassed.

Marc Matthews: 16:22

Yeah thing, not even any outboard gear that I might be using. All of that is bypassed.

Nate Kelmes: 16:24

Yeah, and I can imagine I know what the answer is here, but obviously that is speeding up your workflow oh yeah quite significantly yeah, you know, and there's an argument to be made about you know, creativity in the flow and and then sticking with tools that you, you know, know and and like I have various plugins that I use all the time and then, depending on what's happening in the song, I might say, well, this isn't working for me, so I need 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 with what you know and what works, but also being open to listening to what the song and the track is telling you and going with again, sort of that gut feeling, instead of trying to force it. Like I use this reverb all the time, so it's going to work, but if it's not working, then quickly move on to something else, pick a different one and keep going yeah, interesting.

Marc Matthews: 17:20

Interesting because out there you've pretty much answered my next question, which was going to be, uh, like how often do you deviate from the template and what plugins are in there? But I do have another question that sort of moves on a little from that, or rather linked to it, and that is I've done about you. But I I have quite an array of plugins. I wouldn't say I've got a massive amount, because I try and streamline it, because I don't want to get sort of alert fatigue, I don't want to get plugin fatigue when I'm looking through. But how often do you find yourself sort of experimental trialing with new plugins that are released, because it can be quite easy just to get stuck?

Marc Matthews: 17:57

not stuck but fall into a routine of this is what I have. I might venture into my library for other plugins if I'm looking for something different. But how often do you venture even further outside of that and think, okay, well, maybe I need to see what else is out?

Nate Kelmes: 18:12

there, man. Um, this is where it gets tricky, because you know you get into the whole plugin marketing um sort of area, right and what, what captures your attention and eventually makes you pull your wallet out. How often do I do that?

Nate Kelmes: 18:29

Not often, I'd say 80% of the time I stick with what I have in my template because I've been using various versions of those plugins for years. I do have some newer stuff in my template, but I'm not going to name any plugin names. But there are some plugins that come out and I'm just like why? Marketing and advertisements and flashy this and that and it looks cool. But at the end of the day, if it takes me just as long to learn, if it takes me a long time to learn that plugin and figure out how it's going to fit in my template, I'm not gonna try it out. I'm not even. I'm not even gonna try it out because I don't want to waste the time on something that may not benefit me. I've tried out a couple of new plugins here and there and sometimes you know they do something cool, but most of the time they just sort of end up gathering digital dust.

Marc Matthews: 19:34

Yeah, I like that phrase. I've used that many times on the podcast digital dust.

Nate Kelmes: 19:38

So many times I haven't heard that, so I'm not even trying to take that yeah yeah, yeah, um, I should get like a t-shirt made.

Marc Matthews: 19:45

That's something made up with that. But I usually use it, um, for my projects that I because I release my own tunes. But, yeah, I've got a, a project folder which was gathering digital dust, but I have 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 was like, oh, this is my uh next project.

Nate Kelmes: 20:05

And then I looked at the time stamp on it and it was from like a year ago I've got riffs I recorded like three or four years ago that I'm like this is cool and I've, yeah, not done anything with them. Yeah, yeah, yeah, get back to that yeah, 100 out of hundred percent.

Marc Matthews: 20:20

Man, I'm there and it I'm slowly, slowly chipping into it. Before we move on to the next topic, I just want to touch on DAW. So, um, um, before I ask what DAW you are using native plugins, are you using native plugins as well as third-party ones in your template, and what DAW are you using? Okay?

Nate Kelmes: 20:40

Well, I'm not using native plugins. Okay, I used to, yeah, and I think that they are a great starting point, so I'm a fierce advocate for using them. I think that they are a great starting point, so I'm a fierce advocate for using them. I think that when you get to a certain point in your skill level and this isn't the case for all native plugins so you get to a point where maybe you can't take them quite as far. You've exhausted what you can do with those tools and so then you know you reach out to third-party plugins that can either bridge that gap and get you what you're missing, or take your use of that tool well beyond what the native plugin allows you to do. They don't. I would say most native plugins don't sound bad at all, and to that point.

Nate Kelmes: 21:36

So I use Studio One. I've used it almost since the beginning. I started on Reaper way way back in the day, like 2016. But then I just couldn't get it. But I found, well, joe Gilder. I found his tutorials on YouTube and he was using Studio One and it just clicked for me. So I dug into it and haven't really dropped it. I do dabble with Pro Tools every now and again, especially if I'm getting a session from somebody in Pro Tools. That's really helpful. But my primary doll is Studio.

Marc Matthews: 22:13

One Interesting Studio One is one of those DAWs that I've never used but I've heard great things about it. That and I think FL Studio but a Reaper user I am, but I know Reaper is fantastic, but I think for the audience listening if you're listening to this, thinking you want to choose a DAW Reaper is quite a steep learning curve.

Nate Kelmes: 22:35

Yeah, that is very true, and that's why I fell off that curve pretty early on. It just was too much for me and I've used it every now and again because I still have it installed. I hear that it does really well with video, so I might give that a roll. I heard from another podcaster that they're editing their video podcasts in Reaper and so I'm like, yeah, okay, yeah, I mean I might need to try that out, so that's interesting.

Marc Matthews: 23:05

I have never used video with Reaper. The reason I got into it was I spent some time with a mastering engineer in South Wales and he was 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 it either. I've only ever used audio with it recorded audio files. I've never used MIDI with it, but no video. That's an interesting one.

Nate Kelmes: 23:31

I might have to look into that but yeah, well, you and me both, then I, you know, I gotta check that out.

Marc Matthews: 23:36

Yeah, yeah, um. I like what you said there with the native plugins, though, going right back to that um about bridging the gap, because I think, like you say, native plugins are fantastic. I use logic myself and and reaper, but I use logic and the logic plugins are brilliant. Oh, I've heard great things about the logic plugins are brilliant.

Nate Kelmes: 23:50

Mark MANDELBAUM oh, I've heard great things about the Logic plugins, so I think that that's kind of where that comes from, is not? All native plugins are bad and shouldn't be sort of stigmatized, right?

Marc Matthews: 24:02

You use native plugins oh well, pfft.

Nate Kelmes: 24:04

good luck, buddy. No, native plugins are great and they do a fantastic job, especially the ones in Logic. I haven't used Logic, I've used GarageBand. I have an iPad and I'll fiddle around with that every now and again and again. Those plugins are great and they're sort of baby plugins to what's available in Logic.

Marc Matthews: 24:24

Yeah, it's like that gateway I was going to say gateway drug.

Nate Kelmes: 24:27

That's a gateway, exactly, it's Logic.

Marc Matthews: 24:33

Audience listening. Please don't take that as like do drugs, um, but yeah, it's, it's just like a gateway into using logic. But yeah, it's, it's uh, the the recent release and update of it. It's got a a new plugin in it called chromaglide, which is a fantastic like saturation plugin. So so good.

Marc Matthews: 24:49

But bridging the gap. I think it's important because you can use native plugins to really get your teeth into what it is that you are trying to learn. For example, if you want to get the idea of eq, the fundamentals of eq, the fundamentals of compression, use the native plugins. If you're starting out, really get that dialed in and then, like you say, you've taken the native plugins as far as they can go and then you need something a bit more. Uh, maybe it's in terms of eq and you want dynamic eq or something along those lines.

Marc Matthews: 25:15

Or you want mid-side eq, which I thought you might be able to do that in logic now I haven't looked 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 next question, so we've sort of approached the full mix. So, oh no, we haven't approached the full mix yet. That's what we're going to move on to next. So we're going to go all the way to the end, to the full mix one thing before we jump into the full mix, let's do it.

Nate Kelmes: 25:43

Uh, in regards to the static mix I forgot to mention this and this plays right into the next step, which is the full mix. Um, my very last step in my static mix once I've set my balances and everything is in its place, panning wise, I will do automation moves, especially on the vocals, especially.

Marc Matthews: 26:02

So are you doing this before any processing?

Nate Kelmes: 26:05

Any process, so you're doing automation, then yeah, I'm doing automation before I do any processing, because again, I'm trying to not have to use so much compression on things, right?

Nate Kelmes: 26:18

So especially the vocals, yeah yeah yeah, Clip gaining certain areas, certain words, bringing out the emotion in a phrase, tail ends of phrases that drop off. I don't want to have to rely on a compressor or three to do that heavy lifting when I can use my fader, you know, and ride that automation to make sure that that phrase is heard, and then when I get to the full mix and it's time to start adding tools to it, compression has to do a lot less work and thus have less opportunity to well ruin a mix by overusing something that makes perfect sense.

Marc Matthews: 27:00

Uh, the fact that I was so shocked when you first said that and but now you've explained it, I'm like oh yeah, I do the same. Uh, like with a vocal, for example, with clip gain um, so I use the, the tool in where I can just put it, the marquee tool, select it and then use clip gain to bring it down, so you're not hitting the compressor so hard. Right? Whether it's bass, it's vocal, so that makes perfect sense. Yeah, so you do that before you are then moving onto the actual?

Nate Kelmes: 27:25

okay, well, let's bring some plugins into this and then you're going to do more automation after all, the plugins are done, right, but again you're setting the stage for the song and getting everything to where it needs to be before you start processing it.

Marc Matthews: 27:43

So here's another quick question.

Nate Kelmes: 27:44

So before we move on to the final part. Sorry, I didn't mean to sidetrack, no, no no, no, no.

Marc Matthews: 27:48

This is really good. You've done the static mix, you've got all of the uh, the tracks playing, so then when you move on to actually okay, well, I'm going to start to introduce, um, some eq, some dynamic control, are you doing that in the context of the full mix, or are you then muting the instruments and then bringing them back in again?

Nate Kelmes: 28:09

oh yeah, I mean context of the full mix. For sure, um and again, it depends. It depends on what's going on and how I feel about the static mix. But I might start from the top down on my mix bus. I might start there by adding an EQ and compression, or EQ or compression, maybe not both, and then I'll work my way back to the instrument buses and then if there's anything specific on a track that's bothering me, then I might go and address that there.

Marc Matthews: 28:39

Interesting. This is a nice segue. Then onto the next question, which is, uh, the approach to the full mix. So you, what you mentioned there was that you start with the mix bus and EQ compression, so you're doing it top down.

Nate Kelmes: 28:51

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 and then I might turn it off and go and address something, Because once my track is going through my mix bus processing which also I've been making an effort the last I don't know 18 months to move my mix bus processing out of the box and into the analog realm, yeah, so the nice thing about that is I can easily switch those things in and out. I mean, you can do that with plugins as well. So that is not anything special or hard to achieve, but, um, you know, I find it.

Nate Kelmes: 29:37

It works with my workflow a lot better, as I'm looking over to the side at my equipment that nobody can see. I do that all the time.

Marc Matthews: 29:44

I've done that before on the podcast where I've pointed and I realized no one could see what.

Nate Kelmes: 29:48

I'm pointing at yeah.

Marc Matthews: 29:49

They can see me. I'm pointing at something, but they can't see what I'm pointing at which. Yeah, I do that all the time.

Nate Kelmes: 30:13

So your rationale then, for top-down mixing? For the audience listening who might not be familiar with it, what's your rationale with starting that way? Well, you know. So again, it may not be done every single time, but most of the time, when you have achieved a really, really good balance, static mix again, 80% of your song 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 start working.

Nate Kelmes: 30:34

My analogy that I frequently use is chiseling a sculpture out of stone. Right, you're not going to take three good whacks with a hammer and bam, you know, sculpture this beautiful image. You're not going to just do it in one pass. So when you do a top-down mixing approach, you're, yes, taking the entire song into context with that processing, but you're hearing what's happening with that processing and maybe you like it and that's a great starting point to continue working from, and maybe you don't like what's happening, but you know that you're going to go back to that processing at some point.

Nate Kelmes: 31:22

So that's an opportunity for you to evaluate, okay, with this bus compressor, that everything is going through what's happening. Is it bringing up the drums too much? Is it squashing the vocals too much? Is it doing, you know, is it raising things where they shouldn't be or lowering things too much? If it is, then you need to go back to those individual tracks, maybe through automation or just clip gaining, and readjust how those tracks are sitting in your mix without any bus processing. So maybe you need to go back and do some individual track processing on those tracks or some instrument group processing on those groups before you begin mixing into your bus compressor, but having that there as a reference to hear what's happening, to give you an idea of where you are on your pathway for mixing, to know like. Well, this is where I'm going to end up. What does it sound like now? Am I getting close by turning this on at this point?

Marc Matthews: 32:20

No.

Nate Kelmes: 32:20

Okay, let's go and address these issues that I'm hearing. If it is great, Turn it on and keep mixing into that equipment.

Marc Matthews: 32:28

Interesting. So is it kind of like a benchmark in a way?

Nate Kelmes: 32:32

It's a check. Yeah, it's a checkpoint.

Marc Matthews: 32:34

Yeah, and which one are you starting with then? Are you starting with EQ or compression?

Nate Kelmes: 32:41

Or again does it. Usually I'm turning on the EQ because that's going to give me a really good idea of sort of where my track is headed.

Marc Matthews: 32:50

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: 32:57

And boosts Very broad. The EQ that I've been using lately is a 500 series EQ based off of the Sontek topology.

Nate Kelmes: 33:09

And basically I'm doing a Bach's curve 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 Baxendall curve. So if people are familiar with, say, the dangerous EQ from Plugin Alliance, that Bax EQ that they offer, that's a Baxendall EQ, and so I'm doing a similar curve on my Sontek 500 series EQs, Can you just describe what that curve is? Yeah, so a Baxendahl EQ curve is something that we're actually really all familiar with. I mean, I'm 43 years old so I remember the days of sitting in my parents' car playing with the bass and treble tone knobs on the radio. Right, that's a Baxendahl EQ. There's no mid control, it's all bass and it's all treble control and it. You know that smiley curve EQ that people talk about. That can be achieved with a Baxendahl EQ Very broad and smooth and musical curves. Nothing sharp, nothing surgical about it. It's a broad lift or a broad drop if you're bringing the levels of your high and low down, if that's what you're doing?

Marc Matthews: 34:23

Yeah, it makes perfect sense. And with regards to compression, are we talking sort of subtle? Are we talking like 2 to 1, 3 to 1, and then sort of medium to long attacks, short releases?

Nate Kelmes: 34:37

I guess again, it's going to depend on the. Again, it depends on the program, but obviously you have to have a starting point somewhere. So generally I'm starting at 3-1, fairly fast attack and fairly slow release.

Marc Matthews: 34:54

Yeah, audience listening. There, nate was appearing to his right. This is the benefit of having analog gear, because if I'd have asked you this and you were mixing in the box, I had no idea.

Nate Kelmes: 35:05

You know. So that is a really I'm not one for, like you should get analog gear. Yeah Right, plugins are great. I'm not going to tell anyone that they should dump their plugins and pour money into analog gear. Yeah, yeah, yeah Right, Plug-ins are great. I'm not going to tell anyone that they should dump their plug-ins and pour money into analog gear if they don't want to, Absolutely. But the one benefit that I've seen so far in using analog gear, aside from just being able to touch things and getting that eye to hand, to brain connection and ear, you know. So you're getting a connection between what you touch and what you hear and what you see, which you 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 a session, I don't have to remember it To me, I can work a lot faster with a bus compressor in a hardware version than I can on a plug-in version.

Nate Kelmes: 35:58

Anyone's mileage may vary.

Marc Matthews: 36:00

What I'm saying is not gospel truth in any way shape or form, but for me it works yeah, definitely, I think, having the uh, the tangible something, something tactile to move and listen, because I can see where it's positioned. I can imagine when you're actually making those changes, you cannot see a screen as you're doing it. I'd ask a guess.

Nate Kelmes: 36:22

PAUL LEWIS O', yeah, exactly, I have to turn away from my screen in order to look at those, and so then I'm not sort of distracted by the frequency 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 be exact. 12 dB might be what we need. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Nate Kelmes: 36:46

But on a screen you see that curve jump up by 12 dB. You're like oh no, nope, can't do that. Bring that curve jump up by 12 db.

Marc Matthews: 36:56

You're like, oh no, that, nope, can't do that, bring it down, I'm breaking the rules. No, it goes back to what we said right at the beginning of trusting your gut, yeah, and if you're not using your eyes, which I mean, there's always an argument to say sometimes we need to have that visual element. But sure, trust in your gut sometimes and thinking, actually this song does need that. And the rules? I mean the rules, it's creativity, isn't it? Ultimately, at the end of the day, it's art, right? Yeah, exactly.

Nate Kelmes: 37:21

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 to stand behind what you put out, it doesn't matter Anything. None of it matters. 9 dB, 12 dB, hell, 30 dB if you want to. But you know hell, 30 dB if you want to. But if it resonates with you, then that's all that matters. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks.

Marc Matthews: 37:46

I like that. I think that's a fantastic way to wrap up this sort of talk of the static mix. We've gone right from the beginning of the static mix to the top-down approach as well, once we've come out the other end. So I think, before we wrap things, things up here, I think it's a good opportunity just to maybe talk a bit about this sound discussion podcast and what you guys are doing over there, and maybe just I should have preempted this and asked you before the episode, maybe an episode of sound discussion that the audience should start with.

Nate Kelmes: 38:14

They've not listened before oh well, um, certainly you could start with episode one. We just do a sort of generic introduction of ourselves because we're a group of nobodies doing a podcast, but one of my favorite episodes that stand out uh, we did with mike senior, um he was the editor at sound on sound magazine. Um, he runs the uh cambridge mt website. So we did a great. We had a great conversation with him, um, about microphones. He is a microphone expert, a nerd, if you will. His website has a library of microphone positions which goes into a lot of depth maybe too much, but we had a great time talking about just microphone placement and types of microphones and all that kind of stuff. So that was a great episode.

Nate Kelmes: 39:15

And we just released, at the time of this recording, just released an episode about hearing health, which I think is really important. So we had a pair of audiologists on and we talked about earplugs and IEMs and tinnitus, 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 our ears. If we can't hear what we're doing, then we can't do what we're doing Really, I'm going to have to dig that one out.

Marc Matthews: 39:51

It must have come up on GoodPods as a new episode, so I'm going to download it.

Nate Kelmes: 39:55

Well, it was just released yesterday. Okay, as of this recording. So, yeah, no fault that you haven't seen it yet.

Marc Matthews: 40:03

Um, but mike senior, I would hazard a guess and say he might well be him and bobby azinski the most quoted when I was doing my degree in music production and the sound on sound mag. Yeah, because there, because there was quite a large element of recording in it. Now I remember Mike Sr and quoting him numerous times when I was doing my studies from Sound and Sound. So really interesting, did you have Warren Hurt? Is Hurt pronounced correctly on your podcast? Hurt, hurt.

Nate Kelmes: 40:32

Yeah, I think it's Hurt yeah, yes, we did, and you know we'd hope to have him on again. He was a great guest. I met him at NAMM this past year and had a chance to just chit chat with him. Yeah, we had him on for an episode, 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, scroll through. We do one a month so there's not a lot to choose from, so you don't have to worry about like missing out on one. I'm sure there's going to be one that resonates. We cover things from topics like touring. We had a touring musician, a good friend of mine, lee Turner. He's a touring musician with Darius Rucker and Hootie and the Blowfish.

Nate Kelmes: 41:18

We had on another friend of mine who is a tape machine expert, so we dive into the world of tape machines and tape formulations and what tape does physical tape does for your recordings? We recorded an episode with a mastering engineer Ian Shepard was one and another mastering engineer friend of mine who has won a number of Grammys. So you know we want to get topics from all over the sort of audio, soundscape, audio landscape, if you will, because there's a lot to what we do and while we may be, you know, banging out a mix in our basement with little input from anybody else, there's a lot that happens before we ever reach the mixing stage, whether it's recording, producing after the mixing stage, mastering and everything else hearing, health and publishing we had had an artist on and we were talking about sync publishing and BMI and ASCAP.

Nate Kelmes: 42:27

So you know there's a lot to talk about.

Marc Matthews: 42:31

There is indeed many facets of the industry that we find ourselves in. The Warren Huard however it's pronounced episode. I listened to that whilst going on a run and it's a fantastic episode. Yeah, I listened to that after we had our initial conversation a few months ago and it is a great episode. The audiologist one I'm going to dig into as well. Really really intrigued by that, but lots of interesting stuff there, folks to go and have a listen to. So, nate, thank you so much for joining me on the show. Obviously, we've broken down the fog that can cloud the early stages of mixing, especially when it comes to building on that strong static mix.

Nate Kelmes: 43:08

Well, there's so much to think about, right, so there's so much to take into account. And no fault if you are learning something for the first time and maybe you've heard it or 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 most crucial step when you're building a mix.

Marc Matthews: 43:32

Indeed, indeed, I totally agree, nate. Where should our audience go if they want to find out more about you and the podcast and all the podcasts?

Nate Kelmes: 43:42

Yeah, Well, the podcast is easy to find Sounddiscussionpodcastcom. We're on Instagram at Sound Discussion Podcast and me natekelmscom, and at Instagram natekelms.

Marc Matthews: 43:56

Lovely stuff. I will put links audio listening, audience listening. I'll put links to all of that in the episode description. Until next time, keep mixing with intention and don't forget, sometimes it's the simplest steps that make the biggest difference. Thank you, nate, I will catch up with you soon.