View Full Version : Mixing Question
jimst57
11-15-2007, 07:14 AM
I'm having trouble getting loud and clear mixes and thought I'd post to see what others might think.
It's hard to explain what I'm questioning, but I'll try.
I know about limiters, mastering, etc, and I don't have a problem getting the mix "loud". But I have a problem getting the individual tracks loud and clear when mixed, or summed, together.
As an example, if I listen to a pro rock mix, lets say there's a drum intro followed by a guitar coming in playing power chords:
The drums start off loud and clear. I'd have no problem mixing that sound on my own. But to get it I'd have the meters right up near the red. Now the guitar comes in, and in the pro mix it is also loud and seperately clear. I could get that sound also, if mixing the guitar on its own. But when trying to mix the two tracks together, the master meter ends up in the red and I have to start backing off faders. Add a few more instruments like bass, and vocals all summed together and by this time everything is backed off so much that it all sounds distant and unclear. It doesn't have the individual instrument loudness and clarity that I hear in some pro mixes.
While I know it's not the case, but hopefully makes the point, it almost seems like if I could mix each track on its own system and play them back together I'd get close to the sound I hear on pro mixes.
I'd really like to hear opinions from others, maybe from those that might have done some pro work, as to where I might be going wrong.
Hope I explained it well enough. Thanks.
eightnine
11-15-2007, 07:23 AM
Not really a pro, but I remember having your same problem when I started mixing.
As someone else stated pretty cleverly in another thread "mixing isn't just about volume and pan".
The secret is to "make room" for the instruments, and that means cutting frequencies (with reaeq is utterly simple) in some of the instruments.
That's too generic maybe, let me add a practical example.
When you mix the guitars alone it's easy to get the right sound from them, in fact they have a full range of frequencies to use.
But when you add other instruments to the mix, they will probably have some frequencies in common with the guitars, and that means that they will add up, causing an increase in db (power) in that specific range, and bringing you the need to drop down the master volume.
So, it's easy to get a nice sound from the guitars alone, the hardest part is getting a "not so nice" sound from them! That seems weird I know, but they need to sound nice in the mix, not alone. And that means you'll have to sacrifice some frequencies to "make room" for the other instruments.
...The drums start off loud and clear. I'd have no problem mixing that sound on my own. But to get it I'd have the meters right up near the red.
Part of the problem is that you're using the meters wrong. If the only time the solo'd drums sound right is when the out meters are close to the top, then you don't have your monitors loud enough, and maybe you've got compression/limiting set wrong.
Try ignoring the meters, other than to confirm that you're not clipping or absurdly low. If the solo'd drums only come up to -9 or -12, so what? You make the mix first, then tweak the master fader to optimise the level.
and as 8-9 pointed out, don't make mix judgments and adjustments on solo'd instruments. Adjust things while listening to the MIX, or at least in a subgroup. Most people will tell you that when something sounds right in the mix, it will suck when solo'd, and vice versa.
Diogenes
11-15-2007, 07:46 AM
Yep... what ^ 8/9 said...
Another thing that is super important and not specifically a "mix" thing is the arrangement. If you have two guitarists and they are both essentially banging the same parts and both have almost identical tone, the guitars can be (usually is in my experience) a big mushy mess and all the EQ in the world won't really help the part stand on it's own. You can have instruments stepping all over each other in the sonic spectrum if you are not careful with the arrangement AND mixing.
I was recording my sons band a few years ago and I kept telling him they needed to clean up their guitar amps a bit and play different parts or at least different chord voicings. Well, they insisted on doing it their way. At mixdown time, he seen the light. Of course it was too late to do much about it. I wish I had a splitter where I could have recorded the dry guitars and re-amped them later...
D
d. gauss
11-15-2007, 07:48 AM
perhaps this will help:
first, just play a steady, sustained note (like an organ note) that reads -6 on the master meter.
now turn your physical monitor speaker volume up until the organ note is roughly the same volume as when you hear a recorded CD. (you'll have to turn it up quite a bit)
now mix, and try not to let the master levels go over -6.
enjoy.
LanceP
11-15-2007, 08:09 AM
First off, ditto on what Eightnine said. Second, you mentioned "loud" quite a few times in your post and in that case just turn your monitors up. Now, if by loud you meant present and focused I would first start with tracking. I would bet that the pro mix was tracked by a pro with a few years of experiance and a decent selection of mics and preamps. Mic placement is key to getting a good mix. It took me awhile before I figured out the best mic placement for my drums in my room. Same with vocals,guitars, acoustic etc. If you have a few mics then mic selection comes into play as well. For me, if I do a poor job here, no amount of eq,compression, panning or voodoo is going help me at mix time.
jimst57
11-15-2007, 09:38 AM
Thanks for the replies.
Lots of good advice to try.
The "carving some space" in the mix for each instrument is something I've heard before.
I think when I get home from work I'm going to take a look at a drum track with an analyzer as well as a guitar track.
So would the idea be to see where the drums are peaking and remove some of that from the guitar so they don't fight for the same fequency space? As well as remove some from the drums to make room where the guitar is peaking?
Sounds like it could get confusing quickly, as you add more tracks.
JasonTheron
11-15-2007, 09:45 AM
eightnine is on it.
I remember when I discovered how different things had to sound in order to fit into a mix.
You sometimes need to go pretty high up on a guitar with a high pass filter to make room for everything.
I thing what took the longest to learn was how to give the kick and the bass their own little spaces in the low frequency spectrum.
Always takes a bit of time to get it just right.
bigwoody
11-15-2007, 09:51 AM
A huge change for me (thanks to this forum) was to start recording everthing at -6 to -12 rather than the old analog style of near or at peak. Now when I get to mixing I find that I have so much more headroom. Like others have suggested I turned up my monitors to where I can get a clear mix, and the only time I start to worry about the final volume is AFTER I get a good fit of all the tracks. Then I usually insert 3 band comp and or Limiting to bring up the dynamics. Then in final mastering I address the overall volume and sonic feel of all the tracks.
Tallisman
11-15-2007, 10:33 AM
there are some good ideas in this thread, good advice and following it you probably can't go wrong...errmm well not too far wrong anyway.
So to break away ffrom the good advice here's my take and it varies a little.
First off, I take issue with the soloed sound is crappy thing. Caveat: It may sound crappier in the final mix when soloed compared to its potential when left solo (hehe)...
Let me explain. I like to begin bygetting a rough idea. once the tracking is done, I throw up the levels tweak levels and panning a little to just get a basic feel for the the sound. (I will often render that once I am happy with it for later reference... just to see if I am wandering way off from my original idea).
Then I begin to focus on the individual sounds, sculpting the best out of each - this often involves soloing as i fine tune the nuances of each element - FX included (reverbs and delays, etc). Once I am please with the optimal tone/sound of the individual elements, I print the mix for reference 2. Now it is time to build the final mix by priority... I start with vocals and drums for my won stuff, and add the rest as I go. When conflicts occur and they always do, then I begin the post-perfect-tone tweaking, usually by palying with panning first followed by muting delay and reverb returns, then eq etc... This is where the soloed sound can become crappier than the optimal, but it is usually quite minimal.
I like this approach, because it allows me to creat a dynamic mix... if the perfect tone guitars clash a little with the perfect tone lead vox, then the guitars will recieve a little treatment - in those overlapping spots -
I am all about feel and grease. Lots of the first and the second to taste :D Once that is there... then i worry about loudness.
boogiewityabadself!
.t
JasonTheron
11-15-2007, 10:42 AM
My feeling is that a soloed sound doesn't necessarily need to sound BAD to fit in the mix, they just end up sounding a bit different than the natural source.
Good stuff in here.
LanceP
11-15-2007, 10:57 AM
I think when I get home from work I'm going to take a look at a drum track with an analyzer as well as a guitar track.
So would the idea be to see where the drums are peaking and remove some of that from the guitar so they don't fight for the same fequency space? As well as remove some from the drums to make room where the guitar is peaking?
Sounds like it could get confusing quickly, as you add more tracks.
Sounds like a good place to start. However, I i'd suggest you try to use your ears first. Analysers are great for double checking or zeroing in on a problem but I think arbitrarily making adjustments solely on what you see could lead to more problems. Also, by using your ears you will start to develop your hearing which will do more for your recordings, IMO, than any mic, preamp or plugin of any price.
Lance
jimmy v
11-15-2007, 11:21 AM
by using your ears you will start to develop your hearing which will do more for your recordings, IMO, than any mic, preamp or plugin of any price.
Lance
For some reason,this strikes me as the truth.
Lawrence
11-15-2007, 11:40 AM
The above advice is dead on target... turn your monitors up. :D
Not only turn your monitors up but pick a reference level and try to stay there for most of the mix. Use one of the Radio Shack SPL meters... get a good level that's not fatiguing and which doesn't bring the room into play and mark it. Use that general SPL level for all your mixes... by turning the speakers up... or down as the case may be.
Side Note: One HUGE problem is turning the speakers up and down too much during mixing and not having a reference level that can be set and returned to at any time. Small changes in volume will affect mix decisions, very small changes. You need a reference level that you can return to after occasionally checking the LOUD and SOFT settings. Mixing at different levels causes inconsistency.
When you mix, you have to set initial targets based on the material. When you initially bring in your drums, you have to set a reasonable target to leave headroom. For drums? Maybe -20 -15? That way when you bring in the other stuff you still have ample headroom. If it's not loud enough turn your speakers up.
Finally... always use groups. Always. Group your drums (with bass), instruments (guitars, keys, maybe two groups, groups in groups)), pads (strings etc) and vox. Even if you have no treatment / FX on the groups. You do need groups in groups ability to make that work easier though.
Having groups allows much easier mix adjustment if you go too hot or not hot enough into the master... you just push the group faders up or down. Peak and RMS levels are not a major concern until much later on in the mix and then often still not.
I'd even suggest one final group with all of the other groups going to it before the master.
When you're done mixing you should still have 3db of headroom left over in the master... at least. I usually end up around -3/-4.
LanceP
11-15-2007, 01:38 PM
One important note that must be said. as far as turning up your monitors, I think it's a given to keep it reasonable. As someone with 30 -40 db threshold shifts in my right ear and tinnitus in both ears I can tell you that's a place you don't want to go. Turn 'em up for sure if you concerned with volume but it's not a rock concert. 115db is not needed.
Lance
Lawrence
11-15-2007, 01:46 PM
One important note that must be said. as far as turning up your monitors, I think it's a given to keep it reasonable. As someone with 30 -40 db threshold shifts in my right ear and tinnitus in both ears I can tell you that's a place you don't want to go. Turn 'em up for sure if you concerned with volume but it's not a rock concert. 115db is not needed.
Lance
No doubt. +1
The OP obviously had his monitors turned down too low and was overloading his mix-bus just to get more speaker volume. When all he really had to do was ... turn his monitors up a little?
Extended loud (especially in a substandard or very small mix-room) is not good for the ears or the mix. :(
nicholas
11-15-2007, 02:05 PM
Thanks for the replies.
The "carving some space" in the mix for each instrument is something I've heard before....
So would the idea be to see where the drums are peaking and remove some of that from the guitar so they don't fight for the same fequency space? As well as remove some from the drums to make room where the guitar is peaking?
Not necessarily where they are peaking, more likely where they sound the most present.
Problems can and do arise even so when two or more instruments need or appear to need the same acoustic space. That's when you have to consider other strategies like using the dimensions of width, depth and time to achieve more separation.
LanceP
11-15-2007, 02:09 PM
No doubt. +1
The OP obviously had his monitors turned down too low and was overloading his mix-bus just to get more speaker volume. When all he really had to do was ... turn his monitors up a little?
:(
Yeah, that's what I was thinking but since no one had issued the warning yet I felt a responsability to do so.
Lance
KaoTeK
11-15-2007, 02:41 PM
Still very much learning this particular subject.......I found "subtractive" EQing very helpful ie: instead of boosting frequencies, play around lowering them instead. Normally when you have a "muddy" sound it's because you have too much going on at a specific frequency, so the subtractive method is a good way to isolate the frequency, and train your ears ;)
Attached is a tutorial that helped me a lot...
Bubbagump
11-15-2007, 03:14 PM
There is also something to said for order of mixing... My usual order goes something like this....
Bring the bass and kick up to a reasonable level. We're in digital, so we can always turn up later... so forget loud at this point. Now, EQ and compress the bass and kick so they sit nice. Leave plenty of head room as we're going to start turning up all sorts of stuff. Again... we can make it loud later.
From this point forward, "sit nice" means a combination of volume, pan, compression and EQ. That doesn't mean every track should have every one of those done to it, but those are the basic tools to make it happen.
Next, bring up the snare and get it to sit nice.
Next, bring up the other drum tracks and get them to sit nice.
Bring up your rhythm tracks be it guitar or piano or whatever and get them to sit nice.
Now it is time for the vocals.
Lastly, bring in your solo instruments and cram them in whatever space is left.
Now start in on the reverb and delays to make the physical space that the mix lives in work. Panned a guitar left but want it "further" from the listener? Throw some long delay on it. Want a rhythm part to be all mushy and barely noticeable... add reverb. Want a close vocal... add a short delay. Etc. I find I use delay much more than reverb. Reverb tails tend to pile up on one another making mud. Really, your space is more defined by the early reflections which is essentially what delay gives you.... folks seem to think of delay simply as "that U2 effect". Subtle use of delay can really add some space to your mix. So I will regularly use one or two reverbs to define the space overall and then panning and delays to define the placement of something with in that space.
I find a lot of guys just turn up the faders and start massaging all over the place rather than taking a logical and ordered approach to a mix... and that is just a waste of time IMO.
Another tip... flip the master buss to mono when setting levels between tracks then flip back to stereo and do your panning.
KaoTeK
11-15-2007, 03:16 PM
Another tip... flip the master buss to mono when setting levels between tracks then flip back to stereo and do your panning.
Nice tip! would never have thought of that one.....
Tallisman
11-15-2007, 03:24 PM
once your panning is done... flip back to mono and ensure that the mix still holds.
.t
KaoTeK
11-15-2007, 03:34 PM
Can't take credit for this (it's nicked from a saved HTML file) but it gives you a good idea about which frequencies do what:
20 Hz and below - impossible to detect, remove as it only adds unnecessary energy to the total sound, thereby most probably holding down the overall volume of the track
60 Hz and below - sub bass (feel only)
80(-100) Hz - feel AND hear bass
100-120 Hz - the "club sound system punch" resides here
200 Hz and below - bottom
250 Hz - notch filter here can add thump to a kick drum
150-400 Hz - boxiness
200 Hz-1.5 KHz - punch, fatness, impact
800 Hz-4 KHz - edge, clarity, harshness, defines timbre
4500 Hz - extremly tiring to the ears, add a slight notch here
5-7 KHz - de-essing is done here
4-9 KHz - brightness, presence, definition, sibilance, high frequency distortion
6-15 KHz - air and presence
9-15 KHz - adding will give sparkle, shimmer, bring out details - cutting will smooth out harshness and darken the mix
Lawrence
11-15-2007, 03:38 PM
I'm just passing on stuff here that many people passed on to me so with that in mind ...
One thing everyone should try at least once... probably on a ballad or a song where the vocal sounds really good already ... is to mix from the lead vocal down instead of the drums up.
Try it at least once. It's not the ticket all of the time but sometimes it can be just the right thing. It often changes your focus and leads to a different place.
1. Lead Vocal: Add verb, delay or whatever you need to make it sit in a nice 3d space. Treat it like an acapella recording. 2-3 discreet subtle delays will often do the trick. You want to close your eyes and hear where the walls are. Pretend for the moment there will be no drums or bass.
2. Background Vox (if any): Again treat it like an acapella choral performance (except for the lower master bus levels). Stage the backing vox across the stereo field. Different pre-delay verb settings and/or delay settings and carve out whatever you need to carve out to not affect the lead vox.
That's the thing in this method, not letting the next instrument make you change the last.
When that sounds great start bringing in the instruments with the express intent of NOT changing anything in the vocals. Nothing. If you bring in the keys and it starts to mask the vox, carve it a bit. Pan the acoustic guitar or whatever to a spot where nothing else is and then send it backwards with verb or delay. If it starts to mask the keys, find the overlap and cut a bit.
Bring in the bass. Get it where it's making a nice bottom along with the lower guitar or keys notes. Then group your drums and bring them in slowly. Or one at a time from the kick drum up.
This often leads to a totally different mix in the end. On ballads (I do mostly R&B stuff) I often mix this way, carving stuff around the vocals as I bring things in. A clear and natural sounding vocal often makes you think "professional", the other stuff is there for support and groove.
On the other hand, making the drums sound great then making everything else fit around them (and/or the instrumentation) can sometimes be the thing not to do. Especially with a good singer and a really good vocal track. Given the choice (on certain styles) I'd rather have great vocals and good drums than the other way around.
YMMV.
P.S. One thing we did in engineering school many years ago that helped a lot is put masking tape across the console armrest and mark the freqs on each ch. that were being cut/boosted. Not sure how you do that in a daw. ;) If piano is cut at 4k you might boost the guitar a bit at 4k... that sort of thing.
It was an immediate recognition of where the "gaps" in the frequency spectrum were that kinda got lost in the daw age.
darjama
11-15-2007, 03:50 PM
Another thing that I don't think has been mentioned yet: Don't be afraid to have volume changes in the song. You've got the drums lound in the intro and then the guitar comes in? drop the drums 3-6 DB after the intro. Are the guitars coming too loud in the verses but okay in the chorus? drop their volume in the verses. Need to accentuate the fill at a transition? bring up those toms.
KaoTeK
11-15-2007, 03:52 PM
This is turning into a superb thread......here's some more I lifted from the same file:
Voice: presence (5 kHz), sibilance (7.5 - 10 kHz), boominess (200 - 240 kHz), fullness (120Hz)
Electric Guitar: fullness (240 Hz), bite (2.5 kHz), air / sizzle (8 kHz)
Bass Guitar: bottom (60 - 80 Hz), attack (700 - 1000 Hz), string noise (2.5 kHz)
Snare Drum: fatness (240 Hz), crispness (5 kHz)
Kick Drum: bottom (60 - 80 Hz), slap (4 kHz)
Hi Hat & Cymbals: sizzle (7.5 - 10 kHz), clank (200 Hz)
Toms: attack (5 kHz), fullness (120 - 240 Hz)
Acoustic Guitar: harshness / bite (2 kHz), boominess (120 - 200 Hz), cut (7 - 10 kHz)
-And-
To find the sweet spot of a sound...
solo it..
make the q as small as it will go and boost the eq 6dB and sweep the frequency until you really hear the sound come out (usually on the attack)...
then reduce the amount of q and gain....
this also works if there is something you want to get rid of in a sound.. find that sound by using this same method and reduce the gain...
-And-
Boost or Cut? Or both in combination?
I just recently read an article that recommended EQing sounds in the mix (not solo) and then finding the most prominent frequency range (by sweeping a heavily boosted paramteric EQ) and boost that just as much as needed to bring out the target sound in the mix, not more.
Then use a heavily cut parametric EQ and sweep below the frequency you just boosted, to see if you can find a frequency range that is good to cut in order to bring the target sound out in the mix even further.
I find I often use cutting frequencies to remove irritating ringings, rumble, noise etc but I don't think I've thought about it in terms of actually listening if it brings out the sound more in the mix by subtracting some of the frequencies of said sound.
Lawrence
11-15-2007, 04:18 PM
I find I often use cutting frequencies to remove irritating ringings, rumble, noise etc but I don't think I've thought about it in terms of actually listening if it brings out the sound more in the mix by subtracting some of the frequencies of said sound.
Yes, it really does. ;) The idea is to subtract frequencies that may partially mask (or is being masked by) another sound, without killing the fundamentals and good harmonics of the first sound.
Masking is a fundamental mixing problem that boosting EQ does not really solve by itself. With two sounds fighting in the same frequency range you'll only really hear the loudest one clearly. The other is "masked". Understanding how to eq around it will help your mixes a lot. Panning helps also.
And boosting digital EQ (imho, YMMV) generally sounds audibly worse than cutting to get to a similar place... clarity-wise.
Guitars, pianos, vocals (and some other stuff like horns) often have a lot of midrange overlap. A complimentary cut and boost (or just a cut) is often just the thing. Maybe cut the piano a little around 7k (leaving the tones and attack around 3-4k and below) and maybe do a complimentary boost of the guitar at 7k using a similar bandwidth. If necessary.
You open a "hole" in the frequency spectrum with the cut and then fill it with a small boost of another instrument, if necessary, for more clarity. Sometimes the boost isn't even necessary, often the hole is filled already, you just removed the mask with the cut, putting the focus of the instrument you cut more into another frequency range.
In the above example, now you're hearing the piano more in the 2-4k range and it's not being masked by the guitar, which is more prominent around 7k. Cut the piano and push up the fader a little bit.
Suddenly you can hear them both much more clearly. ;) I suspect great mix engineers are masters at knowing what is living where (in the frequency spectrum) at any given time in a song. When that great sax solo comes in, it probably has a little more room cut for it with eq automation, then returned to it's previous state afterwards. Again, if necessary.
In the context of the song you never even notice those changes. You only know that you can always hear everything.
Take a solo piano song intro... come in with "the whole magilla" ... fat piano sound... then switch in the freq cut with automation (and maybe push it up a bit) when the other instruments come in.
KaoTeK
11-15-2007, 04:55 PM
Am I the only thinking this thread should be stickied? (perhaps changing the name to "EQing tips" or something) Lots of great advice here, I tend to only read about production techniques as it applies to electronic music, but the tips here are from a multitude of disciplines so I'm picking up stuff that I've not come across before....Nice one!
(BTW Lawrence, I won't take credit for the quote as it was cut n pasted along with the rest of the tips)
Lawrence
11-15-2007, 05:05 PM
(BTW Lawrence, I won't take credit for the quote as it was cut n pasted along with the rest of the tips)
Dude, unless somebody here is like... 80 years old or more ... nobody here can take personal credit for any of the tips in this thread. :D
This stuff was all worked out long before we were born. :)
People just pass it along... and we all benefit.
KaoTeK
11-15-2007, 05:13 PM
Dude, unless somebody here is like... 80 years old ... nobody here can take personal credit for any of the tips in this thread. :D
This stuff was all worked out long before I was born. :)
People just pass it along... and we all benefit.
lol..... fair enough just don't wanna be accused of plagiarism :D
PaulG
11-15-2007, 07:05 PM
Okay, I didn't read every word here, but one thing you absolutely HAVE to do to get the clarity you seek is to hi-pass everything but the kick and bass guitar/bass synth.
Do this as your first step in EQing and you'll find it easier to find the clarity of the other instruments.
If you record a distorted guitar, put an analyzer on the track and turn your hi-pass filter on and off. You won't BELIEVE the low end rumble that you don't think you notice until you cut it out.
60-80hz is good to try but you can go beyond that range if it helps the clarity.
nicholas
11-15-2007, 07:59 PM
Still very much learning this particular subject.......I found "subtractive" EQing very helpful ie: instead of boosting frequencies, play around lowering them instead. Normally when you have a "muddy" sound it's because you have too much going on at a specific frequency, so the subtractive method is a good way to isolate the frequency, and train your ears ;)
Attached is a tutorial that helped me a lot...
Subtractive EQ is best for corrective mixing (ie fixing problems), Additive EQ best for creative mixing (ie enhancing particular frequencies).
As a rule, treat each as a separate activity, or stage, within the mixing process.
pipelineaudio
11-15-2007, 08:38 PM
mud
MUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudddddd ddddddddddddddddddd
kill the mud
all of it!
Mercilessly, strike it down wherever you may find it!
Sure, theoretically you might lose a bit of the organicness or reality or whatever, but lets worry about overused terms like "too clean (yeah RIGHT)", "sterile", "stiff" etc...when you actually GET there, and Publisher's Clearing House shows up with a check
You can always back off on whatever process you did
Start clear
jaydottcomm
11-15-2007, 08:39 PM
Thier is alot of great information here in this post. Can anybody, whose familier with carving these frequencies, post a couple of screen shots of maybe an EQ or a Spectral Analyzer in action utilizing these techniques? that would be the icing on the cake for me. I cant figure how to carve the kick drum and bass to save my life. If someone had a srcreen shot or two that would be helpfull.
KaoTeK
11-15-2007, 09:02 PM
Thier is alot of great information here in this post. Can anybody, whose familier with carving these frequencies, post a couple of screen shots of maybe an EQ or a Spectral Analyzer in action utilizing these techniques? that would be the icing on the cake for me. I cant figure how to carve the kick drum and bass to save my life. If someone had a srcreen shot or two that would be helpfull.
Did you download the tutorial I posted? I think you'll find it pretty much covers what you're after :D What I did to help me understand EQing was load up samples in Soundforge, and just play around with the frequencies. At the end of the day, each sound is unique, so the frequencies that I posted give you a starting point, but aren't definitive, also remember with kicks and bass that they will both have frequencies other than low ones, and the dominant frequencies occupy a similar region in the spectrum and so may be clashing....
Diogenes
11-15-2007, 09:05 PM
mud
MUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudddddd ddddddddddddddddddd
kill the mud
all of it!
Mercilessly, strike it down wherever you may find it!
Sure, theoretically you might lose a bit of the organicness or reality or whatever, but lets worry about overused terms like "too clean (yeah RIGHT)", "sterile", "stiff" etc...when you actually GET there, and Publisher's Clearing House shows up with a check
You can always back off on whatever process you did
Start clear
Sooo uh... Pipe? Mud is for wrestling right? With female participants of course. All you hairy monkey men can stay at home... :p
Seriously... this thread rocks. If there was ever a thread worthy of "Sticky status" it's this one. I agree with KaoTek. There is such good stuff here, it'd be a shame to let it fizzle off to page 192 or summat...
D
LanceP
11-15-2007, 09:29 PM
I cant figure how to carve the kick drum and bass to save my life.
I read some where awhile ago that you need to make a decision first on which is going to hold the actual bottom. I use an 18" kick so the decision's pretty much made for me. Bass will carry the bottom. From there I usually highpass the kick at 60hzand maybe give it a slight,narrow boost around 100hz. For the bass Iusually give it a slight boost around 50hz and a broad scoop around 200hz which usually has it start dropping right around 100hz. Now, of course I do mostly blues in E so this generally works fine. If you have a high bassline or monsterous kick it would be different but It's just an example.
Lance
dungbeetle
11-16-2007, 03:21 AM
Great thread guys!
This stuff helps everyone - doesn't matter what setup you've got.
Doing these things right can improve your sound way more than any gizmo, soft-synth or other new toy you care to mention.
Deserves it's place in stickyland. :)
mschuster
11-16-2007, 07:30 AM
yea, great thread! another one of those "the lightbulb is on now" kinda threads..
thanks for everybody's contribution.
in a world of more, more, more .. it's nice to be reminded that sometimes LESS is actually MORE! there is an order to chaos..
me thinks this should almost be a STICKY??
mark
Bubbagump
11-16-2007, 08:38 AM
mud
MUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudddddd ddddddddddddddddddd
kill the mud
all of it!
Mercilessly, strike it down wherever you may find it!
Sure, theoretically you might lose a bit of the organicness or reality or whatever, but lets worry about overused terms like "too clean (yeah RIGHT)", "sterile", "stiff" etc...when you actually GET there, and Publisher's Clearing House shows up with a check
You can always back off on whatever process you did
Start clear
To my post above and Pipe's... think of this like painting a picture. You can either use sharp distinct lines (modern pop) or go the finger painting route with everything smearing into one another (which most newbies do unwittingly... throw all the faders up and start to smear).... or meet in the middle for a bit of an impessionistic approach (Neko Case?). In any event, EQ is the knife that lets to carve these things out and make them distinct. Don't be afraid to hack off big chunks with low shelves or high pass filters etc. Often times things sound very thin soloed, but sit very well when in the mix. For instance, I will routinely high pass acoustic guitars at like 350 hz so I just have the string sound in a dense mix. Solo acoustic is of course a different animal. Or maybe that super crunchy eletric rhythm track that had this booming low end in the room that sounded great needs to be hacked up to not stumble all over the bass or kick. Just be sure to be mindful of your space and what is occupying what areas of that space.
Lastly, go buy yourself a ticket to the local symphony. That is the best thing in the world you can do for mixing. Good orchestration is essentially organic mixing. The bass, cellos, violas, and violins all have their distinct space they occupy. The horns occupy another space... the wood winds another... and a bassoon and flute will occupy very different spaces. Listen to those interactions in a live setting and apply it to your mixing.
johnmix
11-16-2007, 01:37 PM
another tip:
I use mini stereo ( The CD player combo kind of stereo ) speakers they are powered by a regular stereophile technics amplifier. 2 way , 1 woofer , 1 tweeter. I record with another PC so, Reapers "monitor" feature allows me to mix exactly whats being recorded by that PC. And I suffer from none of the maladies you would think because I don't have a subwoofer, and seldomly use my KRK RoKit's. And mixes stand up on those 2 way panasonic speakers, and translate well even on the speakers in my Macbook.
JT
jaydottcomm
11-16-2007, 04:19 PM
I found this one searching through the net...Very good tutorial!!! http://www.traxmusic.org/bass_end_EQ_rudi.shtml
Bebop52
12-03-2007, 02:40 PM
All good above. Also monitor/mix very quiet, even listen from another room. Then turn up the monitors, annoy the neighbours and go to sonic heaven. Or jail, depending on how loud you turn em up! It's gotta sound good REAL quiet first. Ears play tricks on ya at high levels. Hey, post some stuff so we can annoy our neighbours and give better ideas. Cheers.
Narcoleptigon
04-08-2008, 09:58 AM
"Elevayta Space Boy" can be used in RX (Receive) mode on a buss to duck some of the frequency spectrum of track outputs sent to said buss, which I call "RX:Bckgrnd".
It can be triggered by the spectrum of track sends sent to another buss I call "TX:Vocs", "TX:Leads" ,(or whatever), on which another instance of "Space Boy" is loaded in TX (Transmit) mode. The output of the later buss should be disabled, so as to not double the signal from the track sends sent to it.
Two instances of this setup can be...set up in a song. This setup offers more than enough versatility to tame frequency build ups of most any type, especially considering you can choose several different tracks as "Triggers" per instance, god dammit!
rm -rp ./Matt*
05-18-2008, 10:19 PM
I'm pretty new to mixing but the common rules that seem to be apparent in the books I've read is 1. never touch the master fader and 2. never solo mix.
Rule no2 isn't mandatory once your ears get good, I myself find it really hard not to solo mix cause it's just so much easier, but obviously makes the final result nothing like whats in your head (ie rubbish).
labyrinth
06-06-2008, 12:47 PM
I agree with rule one, but sometimes you need to so solo mix to hone in on details, but must A/B with the mix constantly.
synthie
09-10-2008, 06:56 AM
Here's something I found quite useful - an online frequency chart for a couple of instruments.
http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm
I actually copied/pasted the instrument pics into one document and printed that out for reference. Makes life a lot easier.
labyrinth
09-10-2008, 07:04 AM
Thanks synthie...very helpful.
vanija mashoy
10-13-2008, 03:36 PM
Here is a nice trick for strong punchy and CLEAR bass I have heard from Dave Pensado:
If you want much bass just rise the fader.Never boost the lows.Cut the mids and highs instead.This will give you same effect without phase problems.
However you have to be patience and develop this technique step by step for yourself.But I must say that IT REALLY WORKS!!!
Other usefull technique is sweeping your mix(when playing)with a narrow eq boost thru the whole spectrum and finding problematic areas .You can hear clearly in that way where the possible frequency problems are.
This is a good starting point for setting up the eq.
Very usefull plugin for this is SPAN analyser from Voxengo.It is free.
Just press CTRL and click&hold left mouse button to make the sweep.
Span also offers great tools for checking spectral balance.Just check the slope functions.For example slope 3.5 is very very bright mix.Slope 4, 4.5, 5
have more low end but they are still very strong in mids and higs.Just play your favorite mix with different slopes and watch the frequency curve.
It can tell you more then tons of tutorials.
Hope it will be helpful for others:)
drillbit
12-27-2008, 05:19 AM
Some great tips here.
I always have a bit of a problem with EQ charts. As more of a club producer who works with many sounds (most not of the traditional rock lineup) I don't like to limit myself to certain frequencies for certain sounds.
For example: Sometimes I like a mid range more 'Motown' bass sound and a seriously subby dub organ and no kick just HH. Or, I cut up some 40s jazz recording with all the instruments in it then filter it till I find some cool sounds.
This way of mixing is more about production exploration than traditional roles.
I understand how these EQ presets can be good for learning, but once learnt I think they should be thrown out to leave room for more creative production.
This is how I roll. Obviously not that useful if you are mixing an orchestra (even though I have done classical remixes with this mind set).
Also, you should never mix on a Tuesday morning ;-p
Ahh, its all good.
GreyBeard
01-11-2009, 12:17 AM
After I mix for so long, my ears get kinda fried. I like to include a control track of similar music that is from a really good CD. I insert the track at the bottom of the project and mute it. On playback I just hit the solo button and the control track will kick in and mute everything else. This way I can compare and pick out problems with balance and EQ. This works well for me.
legba
04-14-2009, 07:37 PM
This is a reply to an old thread but.. the original was about the clarity of mixes. I had a lot of trouble with my mixes when they seemed liked being filled to the max in the overall sonic soundscape, sometimes, combined with making them sound punchy, as one friend commented, the band sounded like "driven into a corner" or sometimes, the band sounding like a coal train with the listener in front of it.
So time passes.
Then it hit me. I was actually listening to The Dark Side of The Moon by Pink Floyd. Man, what space, what definition!
So instead of listening to music while outside I learned how to listen to "silence", the ambience of my neighbourhood, my room, in a forest and the countryside, in city centres and under briges.. All these sounds and how they reflect off surfaces. After a while, my ears started to get really analytical. After learning how to listen to a natural environment, and how sounds interact with each other in it, I started to hear the same in my mixes.
I learned how to create space and clarity, by placement, compression, EQ, reverb.. It was all about teaching my brain and my ears to hear spatialization.
Maceman
07-04-2009, 07:10 AM
Hi Guys,
Stumbled on this thread and thought, wowzers...this is exactly what i've been looking for! This whole concept of cutting into frequencies was totally unknown to me. I've been mixing generally from bottom up(drums to vocals) for most stuff, but had no idea about how you need to look at frequencies.
Thanx for everyone's imput here.
One thing that would be extremely helpful in conjucton with this is a EQ tutorial, that is, I need a practical example of how to do what is suggested. I use ozone3 and the EQ is pretty good for sweeping the spectrum and such, but i am not sure how to go about cutting frequencies and such. I need an example of say Bass guitar where someone shows what to do fot that, then the rest would be easier to follow.
Great stuff here! Cheers,
Maceman
JayTheProducer
08-18-2009, 04:13 PM
Clearly, its an environment the mixer creates with automation..
In the beginning start out with a loud guitar, when the beat builds, were just lowering volumes and adding compressed animation to the song to fool the listener.. Because once the beat builds, the only thing the listener hears is the Lead Vocal, other sounds may have excitement, but punning and automation play a huge role in pro rock recordings.
kludge
10-15-2009, 01:44 PM
I'm pretty new to mixing but the common rules that seem to be apparent in the books I've read is 1. never touch the master fader and 2. never solo mix.
Rule no2 isn't mandatory once your ears get good, I myself find it really hard not to solo mix cause it's just so much easier, but obviously makes the final result nothing like whats in your head (ie rubbish).
To me, mixing solo (or whatever) because it's easier is like looking for your keys in the kitchen even though you lost them in the living room, because the light is better in the kitchen...
KOEminator
10-15-2009, 10:21 PM
...but rule #1 makes me ask: Does it still make sense? We have a DAW with a 64bit internal audio engine. All I do with the master fader is: scaling the output, so I have enough headroom for mastering afterwards.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.