mix advice

[JayPH]

Hi guys

I had 2 different people saying the same thing about my mix on this track:

[i]is this an internet mix with no dither and made for peoples computer speakers???? no low end at all, like a low cut under 200(or 20 or so ....[/i]


[i]the mix is muddy. sounds like a really aggressive bandpass filter got capped over the mix after the limiter stage. this can work if you're going for an intentionally low-fi, AM radio sound. otherwise it sounds amateur.[/i]

I have not intentionally done this so its amateurish. I got a book called mixing secrets of the small studio (excellent book) and he advocates doing eq cuts on tracks were there is little useage in a frequency range. shelving.

Here's a pro eq plugin on my bass track. Where it's cut is where there was no real data there anyway or the bass had way too much low end. I do this for all my tracks and imo it really clears the mix up:



Is this what they mean? I'm cutting too much bass? I don't understand enough about mixing to make the corrections they speak of? I've asked the guys in question but they never responded. i think they can't dumb down enough.

Thanks

J

PS. Any other advice appreciated

Edit Whoops heres the track: [url="http://soundcloud.com/so-green-2/need-some-air"]http://soundcloud.com/so-green-2/need-some-air[/url]

Edited April 24, 2012 by JayPH

[51m0n]

I think your eq slopes are far too gentle for this kind of thing.

You need a very steep slope, start off at 20Hz and slowy raise the frequency of the cut, once you hear it take too much away stop and back off a tiny bit.

You need superb monitors for this or you risk immasculating your bass, cheap bookshelves and ns10 type monitors are not the tool for this job.

Same with the top end, I let very few tracks go all the way up, the last thing I want is a build up of extreme top end, instead I want to allow just the most important tracks (lead vox for instance) to have much info over 16KHz. Gentle slopes terminating in a steep cut are a good way to achieve this IME.

What we have here is an eq on a bass track in a mix I did recently - believe me the bass still has balls, I've ntoched out so me problem areas, and applied some very gentle bell eqs to get a bit more presence. Also note the use of q to get a bit of boost above the lowest cut.

[attachment=106017:bass_eq.jpg]
Most important things are eq in the mix, not soloed, and generally speaking cut tighter than you boost, boost wider than you cut, to get a natural sounding result.

Edited April 25, 2012 by 51m0n

[JayPH]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1335312414' post='1629264']
I think your eq slopes are far too gentle for this kind of thing.

You need a very steep slope, start off at 20Hz and slowy raise the frequency of the cut, once you hear it take too much away stop and back off a tiny bit.

You need superb monitors for this or you risk immasculating your bass, cheap bookshelves and ns10 type monitors are not the tool for this job.

Same with the top end, I let very few tracks go all the way up, the last thing I want is a build up of extreme top end, instead I want to allow just the most important tracks (lead vox for instance) to have much info over 16KHz. Gentle slopes terminating in a steep cut are a good way to achieve this IME.

What we have here is an eq on a bass track in a mix I did recently - believe me the bass still has balls, I've ntoched out so me problem areas, and applied some very gentle bell eqs to get a bit more presence. Also note the use of q to get a bit of boost above the lowest cut.

[attachment=106017:bass_eq.jpg]
Most important things are eq in the mix, not soloed, and generally speaking cut tighter than you boost, boost wider than you cut, to get a natural sounding result.
[/quote]

Thanks man. I'm going to read some stuff I've just downloaded about parametric eq. I think I'm getting mixed up with shelving and cutting. I sort of know what you are saying but need to go back and understand the basic concepts better.

[51m0n]

Cutting just means turning down the volume at a specific frequency.

See my eq graph, that would mean I'm cutting at points 1, 2, 4 and 5.

Boosting is the opposite, point 3 on my graph.


A parametric eq gives you three controls at each point, frequency, gain and Q (or bandwidht).

Frequency enables you to choose the point you wish to alter
Gain enables you to add or subtract (ie alter) the level at that point
Q changes how steeply the eq curve is applied.

A narrow Q effects a very small range of frequencies, a wide one effects a large range of frequencies.

The human ear is very very adept at picking out narrow Q boosts, they sound extrememly unnatural to us.

It is very bad at noticing narrow Q cuts.

So in general try to boost with a wide Q, and cut with a narrow Q.


When searching for the right frequency to cut, first boost an eq point by say 6dB, then sweep the freqency knob until you hear the area you dont like get louder, tighten the Q and home in on the area as best you can. Then reverse the gain, cutting until the issue is gone without leaving wany weird artifacts.

Once you have cut all the crap out of a sound you can then apply gentle wide Q boosts whilst listening in the mix to a sound to get it to sit right, if necessary.

This all takes skill and plenty of practice, and equally decent monitors.

[Rimskidog]

Agree with everything 51mon says. In respect of the eq on your bass, you are rolling of from 200hz. To put this in some context the bottom-end/low-mid oomf of your bass lives between 60hz and 500 hz. You've cut out almost half of that. 51mon has given good advice on how to find the bit to roll off in practice. It's all just practice and learning to use your ears from there.

[JayPH]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1335365037' post='1629933']
Cutting just means turning down the volume at a specific frequency.

See my eq graph, that would mean I'm cutting at points 1, 2, 4 and 5.

Boosting is the opposite, point 3 on my graph.


A parametric eq gives you three controls at each point, frequency, gain and Q (or bandwidht).

Frequency enables you to choose the point you wish to alter
Gain enables you to add or subtract (ie alter) the level at that point
Q changes how steeply the eq curve is applied.

A narrow Q effects a very small range of frequencies, a wide one effects a large range of frequencies.

The human ear is very very adept at picking out narrow Q boosts, they sound extrememly unnatural to us.

It is very bad at noticing narrow Q cuts.

So in general try to boost with a wide Q, and cut with a narrow Q.


When searching for the right frequency to cut, first boost an eq point by say 6dB, then sweep the freqency knob until you hear the area you dont like get louder, tighten the Q and home in on the area as best you can. Then reverse the gain, cutting until the issue is gone without leaving wany weird artifacts.

Once you have cut all the crap out of a sound you can then apply gentle wide Q boosts whilst listening in the mix to a sound to get it to sit right, if necessary.

This all takes skill and plenty of practice, and equally decent monitors.
[/quote]
Sorry 51m0n I have been meaning to try this over the weekend before I responded but I still havent got around to doing it. Very busy at the moment but do appreciate your advice. Will feedback soon. I think I've been using the software wrong.
[quote name='Rimskidog' timestamp='1335811894' post='1636466']
Agree with everything 51mon says. In respect of the eq on your bass, you are rolling of from 200hz. To put this in some context the bottom-end/low-mid oomf of your bass lives between 60hz and 500 hz. You've cut out almost half of that. 51mon has given good advice on how to find the bit to roll off in practice. It's all just practice and learning to use your ears from there.
[/quote]
Cheers. Yes, I think I follow but it's applying it to pro-eq that comes with studio one. I've seen some youtube videos were they eq a snare drum. I'll try and use my soiftware to find those problem areas in the vox and try and cut them.

[JayPH]

Guys I finally get it. It's like the lights are on. I redid some instruments purely by ear and messing with cutting/boosting at different frequency regions and when i went back to other tracks in the mix it sounded like night and day. Literally used the presets and adjusted frequency. I get what those fellas meant now. I was basically producing telephone grade signal music haha what a tit.

Completely used the wrong gizmo.

I'm still a bit puzzled tho. My simple brain could compute the high/low cuts/pass filter because it was simple to see that nothing existed beyonf a range once the filter was applied. But why would you want to do a narrow cut of a bass say at any specific range? Is it just a case of leave it if its ok but if there is a muddy noise from the bass recording you just sweep for the problem area? And alternatively there may be nothing wrong with a sound but a subtle change in eq either by boosting or cutting can improve the sound?

I'm confused about the low, mid and high bands tho. Are there standard cutoff points where you shouldn't go beyond i.e it would be pointless cutting the bass at 2k. Is it possible for the bands to pass each other so to speak or do they need to be linear, like bass band point cannot go past the mid band point? I find sometimes I am pushing the High band back and it crosses where the mid range icon is so I naturally back off thinking it shouldn't pass that mid point marker.

Sorry for rambling. I cant articulate what i mean about the bands overlapping. Hope it makes sense.

Thanks again 51.

PS. I bet it's a bitch mixing these instruments now

[51m0n]

That vst you are using is busy imposing ideas like hi mid and low on you that dont really exist.

Have another look at the VST I was using, 5 bands, all happen to be shelves, but they arent in order 1 to 5 from lowest to highest, I can add as many bands as I want or need, whenever I hear a part of the sound I need to change.

So the lo mid high thing is not real, its to make it seem more accessible really.

You also have a high pass and low pass filter on that device I can see, which would possibly be better for the top and tailing you are doing, it even appears to have variable steepness (dB per octave) of filter to play with.

You cut parts of the sound that you dont like, on a bass there could be fret clack or string squeaks around 2 to 4KHz that needs taking down a couple of dB, there may be a flaw in the bass neck or set up that makes it resonate particularly well around 350Hz that just sounds of mud, a player may have a habit of clunking the E string with their thumb as they move across the neck causing a very low frequency spike, say 25Hz.

Or you may hear a ring on an instrument or voice, just some frequency that clashes with the other instruments that you dont even notice on its own.

You see you you need to think beyond a single instrument at a time when mixing. You make a hole for one instrument in the sound of another and often vice versa at a different frequency. The goal is not to make each individual instrument sound great on its own, the goal is to make all the instruments sit together in a perfect interlocking jigsaw of frequencies. The human brain can, and will, fill in incredible gaps in spectrum for you, especially if another instrument is in those gaps, the user takes clues from elsewhere in the spectrum and builds the missing piece of the first instrument.

Take a kick drum and a bass. Tough to mix these two instruments since they both have a lot of low end and are high energy instruments in a mix. The song and genre of the music will help guide you in the choice of basically a low kick and mid bass or vice versa (huge simplification here). Dub would have deep deep bass so you would cut the bottom of the kick out to make space for the deep bass, and have a punchier kick. Rock may have a grindier more midrangey bass, with a really deep kick.

This 'frequency mixing' is one of several incredibly important keys to good mixes, with great seperation between instruments and a sense of a cohesive whole at the same time.

Edited April 30, 2012 by 51m0n

[cheddatom]

It's a pleasure to read your mix posts Si, there's always something i've not thought of before or needed reminding of

[51m0n]

Cheers, its nice to know its striking a chord with people reading it. Worth fighting past the tidal wave of typos at least

Can't imagine there's anything in there you don't know already though.....

[Wil]

+1, your posts (particularly regarding compression and EQ) have improved my mixing immensely, keep up the good work!

Edited May 1, 2012 by Wil

[JayPH]

Hi Si. Thanks again this is really helpful to me. I'm glad that the low, mid, bass thing is just a proprietory thing it does make more sense to just think of them as placeholders.

Do you always use EQ on an instrument to try and enhance it? The book I'm reading advocates mixing the most important instrument first so it will have enough headroom. this makes more sense to me now that I understand a little more. Tha author says; listen and if you keep wanting to alter the volume of a track it might be a candidate for compression. Once you sort those tracks out mix again for levels and see if there are other problems, this is where EQ comes in.

I'll be honest I end up with compression and EQ on everything because the plugins just seem to enhance. I am pretty subtle with the compression in most cases though I think.

Do you have a particular workflow when applying EQ and compression? ARe there "well known" frequency ranges that always need care?

Cheers Dude

J

[cheddatom]

I wouldn't worry about having EQ and compression on every channel, as long as it sounds good!!

[51m0n]

The workflow is the same always.

1) Use your ears
2) Stop using your eyes, and really use your ears, screens and pretty graphics are irrelevant distractions to the job at hand
3) Did I mention you should use your ears?

The process is all about evaluation and analysis of whats there, whats good and whats bad about it, especially when its brought into play with everything else.. 99.9% of getting good at mixing is learning how to use your ears to make the right choices when you are presented with the millions of options you have.

I start by chucking every fader up to unity gain and seeing what kind of a mess I'm in (I mix stuff other people have tracked a lot of the time so its always an interesting journey for the first half an hour fiuguring out what is what).

Then I group and subgroup things together so I can keep the level of an entire mixed section (ie the drums, the drums and bass) more easily under control. This also gives me a lot of leeway to add fx across sections and subsections of the different parts as well as on specific tracks (so I can parallel compress the drum kit but not the cymbals if I want).

I add groups for auxes and start setting up routing to save processing power, plus a lot off good convolution reverbs definitely sound better to my ears when thye are given the sum of many tracks togetherrather than a singel track, esp if you are putting everything in a 'space' - which would be the normal thing to do.

Panning is the next thing to take care of, even before eq. If you seperate things in the stereo field then the eq requirements are different. Pan wide, pan hard, dont be afraid of the pan, esp in contemporary pop/rock get as much info out of the center as you can, try and keep things balanced from side to side, a guitar on one side keys on the other, or a complimentary guitar on the other, or a delayed send from the guitar, whatever it takes.

I eq out the nasty bits solo'ed in the first instance, but I refer to the mix constantly, so I listen to a kick in situ, try and hear where it clashes with the bass, make a decision about how they interact and then get rid of what is wrong with the kick.

Compression where its needed, as much or as little for glue, to control transients, to glue a buss, to thicken a vocal, whatever its for, its different every time. Becoming an epxert with when, and how to use a compressor is as important as eq. Used wrong it will ruin a mix, used right it wil make a mix and no one will realise just jow much is used. It is a huge topic, and you need to really get to grips with it.

It is important to realise that compression will not even out a really wide ranging vocal (or anything else) on its own without unacceptable artifacts. I very very rarely really use compression to do that more than a dB or so anyway, instead I use compression to control the enmvelope of sounds to make them fit together better. When it comes to fine level control automation is the way. Its time ocnsuming and can get fatiguing but the mix will sound better for careful automation rather than compression as a level control strategy. You then have the choice of where to control that level, do you automate how you drive a compressor, or automate the comrpessed result. Entirely depends opn the sound of the compressor at that point. Choices.....

Spaces. Everything lives in a space, an acoustic space, and you need to find ways to trick the listener into believing the space you are creating. You can use reverbs (many of) on one or many tracks to bring different aspects of space to a track, eq to set things forward or further back, delays to add ambience with the musical pulse. You can add other effects to the ambience you create, phasers, flangers, compressors, distortions, whatever makes it more exciting, more engaging, more 'super real'.

I regularly end up with around three reverbs on the lead vocal, one or two on the rest of the track. The lead vocal has to be right there in your face, yet within a space, understanding how to give it some ambience, a touch of a near space and a pleasant tail to that space will lead you to the conclusion that 3 subtle reverbs can allow you to more carefully control that vital piece of the mix throughout the duration of the mix better than chucking a single verb on there. Each reverb will be eq'ed as well, differently because they are doing different tings, and you dont want the verb to eat into you frequency range and smear the track too much. Subtle is usually best unless you are going fo r amajorly clever effect (huge reversed snares or whatever).

Delays [i]tend[/i] to eat into that space less overtly, I use delay based ambiance a lot too. For me its more important the more tracks you have to give a sense of space but not eat up those precious frequencies. Panning and eqing the returns is absolutely vital, often I'll use a limiter to clamp down on the transient at the beginning of the sounds before the delay to help keep it in the background, and the mix of any such 'space' effect back into the track is massively important to judge right.

Early reflection times on reverbs and delay times for this kind of thing are critical, some fraction of the musical pulse is always a good place to start, then I tend to play with that time to get the feel spot on.

I may end up with a mix of 80+ tracks with over 200 vst instances, or only 2, I dont know whats going to happen until I start. I dont try and second guess it either, neither whould you.

If there were a rule about this stuff (other than there are no rules) its that there are [i]no[/i] cookie cutter approaches that work, use your ears.

Edited May 2, 2012 by 51m0n

[51m0n]

Of course this is all just technical b*ll***s.

The real place a mix starts is the arrangement.

The most important thing is turning the individual tracks you are given into a cohesive whole that works in the time domain, trying to get each section to pull the listener into the next section, grabbing attention yet promising something even more exciting around the corner of the song.

If the song is rubbish, or the arrangement is rubbish then the best mix in the world wont save you for a second. You're doomed to have your name down next to a piece of unadulterated plop.

For far more information on this aspect of the whole puzzle of mixing than I would ever have space for here I cant recommend Zen and The Art of Mixing by Mixerman enough. Its not all about the technical aspects of eqing and compressing (although he covers this stuff perfectly adequately) its all about communication skills. With the listener, the artist, the producer, everyone really.

Fascinating book, exceptionally good info. if you are at all interested in mixing, buy it, read it, read it again.

Then go practice, mix anything you can get your hands on. More than once.

[Wil]

Great book that. And the Mixerman diaries, informative and hilarious!

[LiamPodmore]

Si, have you ever thought of starting a blog, where you go through all the tricks and techniques you use when recording (something similar to Shep's, but obviously to do with recording), i reckon it'd be a pretty useful thing for people wanting to know more about what they're doing, as you seem to have quite a lot of knowledge on the subject. It's something i would read, i know that for sure.

Liam

[51m0n]

[quote name='LiamPodmore' timestamp='1335952767' post='1638430']
Si, have you ever thought of starting a blog, where you go through all the tricks and techniques you use when recording (something similar to Shep's, but obviously to do with recording), i reckon it'd be a pretty useful thing for people wanting to know more about what they're doing, as you seem to have quite a lot of knowledge on the subject. It's something i would read, i know that for sure.

Liam
[/quote]

Maybe.....

[cheddatom]

If you've saved all your BC posts you'd have 2 years worth ready to copy paste!

[51m0n]

Yeah, then we'd all know how often I contradict myself wouldnt we

[JayPH]

Thanks SI. Just ordered the book on Amazon for £8. Bargain

Reading through your workflow illustrates that I have very much to learn. Pretty overwhelming and too much to comment on here but I shall keep this as a reference guide and begin to fill in the gaps in my knowledge.

Is it right that the ears are important? haha

Thanks mate

J

PS - Once I've remixed this track will you give me some mix notes on it?

[51m0n]

Its a huge topic though, and you're jumping in dry, I'd be worried if you didnt think it were overwhelming, I still think its over whelming and I've been mucking about with recording and mixing for over twenty years now.

For every engineer out there there are two or three different solutions that can work for every challenge you face as well, so the amount of learning is never ending, part of why I like the topic so much I guess.

I'm happy to listen to anyones mixes, but my mix notes are hideously abrupt, because I write what I think as I listen to something the very first time. Anything else and I find my brain and ears are already compensating for anything that stood out as odd or off in some way, which is the opposite of what you want from mix notes IME.

If you can cope with a Mr Wolf style uncompromising attack on your mix without it upsetting you then it'll be fine

[Rimskidog]

Go on then Mr Wolf. Do your worst: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-LHIXeWhNY&feature=relmfu[/media]

Edited May 2, 2012 by Rimskidog

[Mornats]

I've ashamedly skimmed this post to just pop a graphic on to show the master track EQ that I used for this track: [url="http://soundcloud.com/mornats/rift-1"]http://soundcloud.com/mornats/rift-1[/url] just to show you the curves when I've trimmed the bass end. Sounds like 5imon has given you some grand advice though (which I do plan to read through myself when I've got a bit more time!) Not saying the mix is perfect on my track but you can hear the overall effect on the bass I hope.

[Mornats]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1335365037' post='1629933']
Cutting just means turning down the volume at a specific frequency.

See my eq graph, that would mean I'm cutting at points 1, 2, 4 and 5.

Boosting is the opposite, point 3 on my graph.


A parametric eq gives you three controls at each point, frequency, gain and Q (or bandwidht).

Frequency enables you to choose the point you wish to alter
Gain enables you to add or subtract (ie alter) the level at that point
Q changes how steeply the eq curve is applied.

A narrow Q effects a very small range of frequencies, a wide one effects a large range of frequencies.

The human ear is very very adept at picking out narrow Q boosts, they sound extrememly unnatural to us.

It is very bad at noticing narrow Q cuts.

So in general try to boost with a wide Q, and cut with a narrow Q.


When searching for the right frequency to cut, first boost an eq point by say 6dB, then sweep the freqency knob until you hear the area you dont like get louder, tighten the Q and home in on the area as best you can. Then reverse the gain, cutting until the issue is gone without leaving wany weird artifacts.

Once you have cut all the crap out of a sound you can then apply gentle wide Q boosts whilst listening in the mix to a sound to get it to sit right, if necessary.

This all takes skill and plenty of practice, and equally decent monitors.
[/quote]

Ok, just gone back and read everything. This. This is great, I'll give this a go myself.

Also, here's how I EQ'd the bass on that track to give it more context.