Common problem in your mixes too?

[valdemar]

Just thought I wanted to share something which I would like to get some opinions on.

I record with a portable setup consisting of a computer running Cubase VST and a Maxi Studio ISIS soundcard. I concentrate on recording acoustic sounds as drums, guitars, bass guitar etc. I have an array of "bang for the buck" microphones, an SM57, two MXL603s, two MXLV67, an AKG D12 and a couple of dynamics that really don't get much use. I use a Behringer 2004 mixer for mic amplification, running from the inserts to the ISIS.

I have been using this rig for the last two years and it works although I obviously would like to have a better mixer and a 24-bit soundcard.

Problem: Although trying to get a good, natural sound when tracing I ALWAYS lack treble in the mix. When the balance between the instruments is right it sounds extremely muddy compared to any professional recording. I know it's not a professional rig but it should only be worse, not just muddier, right? I monitor through KRK K-ROKs with a Samson Servo 150 amplifier. I have been using these for four years and this is also my setup for casual listening to records and so on. I'm pretty used to the sound of my monitors, that is.

What I was wondering was if this treble loss is a common problem among home recorders or if I have a major problem with the listening environment/monitors/tracking technique/whatever? It just doesn't seem right when the whole mix opens up when I use a high shelf eq of 5-6 dB from 2k and up on the whole thing. I would just rather be able to get the tracks sounding right from the beginning, and that's part of the problem. They sound right to me when I'm tracking!

Thanks for reading the full post,
Regards,

/Henrik Wikner, Uppsala, Sweden

[asi9]

Could you involuntarily be putting in too much bass? That seems to be a common problem... too much bass in the final mix, and since everything is relative, a boost bass can seem like a cut in treble.

I remember looking at a "muddy mix" on the graphic equalizer on winamp after turning it into an mp3.... all the spiking was on the left side of the spectrum.

[Gidge]

"I have been using this rig for the last two years and it works although I obviously would like to have a better mixer and a 24-bit soundcard. "

That will probably be what it takes....first off a decent preamp is needed to take advantage fo what you can get out of those mics.....then, Im assuming you are recording at 16bit which wont get u too far towards the sound you are looking for......

you have a pretty darn good mic selection and monitoring system.....but the sound you are looking for wont come from Behringer or Guillemot.....sell that of and look for a used Mackie VLZ mixer and a Delta sound card.....

its not my style to recommend spending money as I am a hopeless cheapskate, but the first rule to remember is to have a decent recording chain (mic,pre,soundcard).....

[valdemar]

Thanks for the replies.

I use the Winamp Analyzer as a fast visual testing device for my mixes too, and yes, only the left bars move in a satisfactory way. I don't want to trust these meters only, but a well defined mix seems to show in Winamp as movement all over the analyzer's spectrum. I check with the Wav-files, though.

Gidge, I am with you all the way, I'm working my ass off this summer to be able to upgrade to a RME Hammerfall LE with RME's 24 bit converters (the cheaper ones, mind you...) and a pair of Joe Meek VC3Q's. I'm moving and won't be able to record as many bands as I would like to, thus I'm starting with two good preamps that I really like the sound of, instead of a mixer in the Mackie price/performance range. Back to basics, they say, recording vocals and acoustic guitar...

I just have hard time believing that it's only in the gear, being very selfconcious, I really want to be sure that it's the gear that's holding me back somewhat. It's far too easy to grow an opinion where it's in the gear and not in the ears... But I've always been really happy with the sound I get recording with the same outboard to my trustworthy Fostex R8 tape machine. I'm going for the preamp/24-bit solution and if my recordings don't get any clearer I'll forget everything I know and learn all over again, hopefully getting it right... *grin*

Thanks,
/Henrik Wikner, Uppsala, Sweden

[tubedude]

Its PROBABLY the gear, although I've been surprised before... Good preamps and a better soundcard will most probably remedy this. I have used a Behringer mixer, and it seemed to suck the life out of good mixes. I have some old tapes that would probably sound very familiar to you as far as muddiness goes.
Instead of buying to Meeks, why not maybe consider something a little cleaner and brighter/bigger sounding. Those are kind of dark sounding preamps, and maybe you really arent wanting that. I like the Presonus MP20 with the Burrs in it, and RE seems to LOVE the sound of the davisound mic-alls, and you get 4 preamps for $650 with those. I'm looking into the davisounds as we speak. A good preamp will make all your mics sound better. The behringer sounds like ass.

[Sonixx]

i'm not inclined to believe it's the mixer or card. for it to be the mixer or A/Ds, they would need to be roling off a lot of the mid's and highs, not a little, but a lot. generally the mixer and or converters will add distortion that results in graininess or harshness, but not necessarily rolling off the highs. these devices are generally pretty flat.

clarity quite often is mask by other frequencies and or the room reponse (modal problems and early reflections comb filtering) due to the room dimensions and room volume.

i'd start by rolling off some low end 80 to 125 hz then around 250 to 500hz with a fairly low Q. but, not a lot. play around with these two and see if the upper mids and lower highs become more apparent. leave 2k and above flat for now.

secondly, take a look at the room response. the room will have way more influence on the general frequency response than does the signal chain, assuming you have the signal chain setup properly. maybe download ETF http://www.acoustisoft.com/Index.html and take a look at your room response.

a low end modal reponse problem could be part of the problem.

what are your mixing room dimensions?

regards,
-kp-

[valdemar]

My room dimensions are 3,5x3,5 meters. I live in a one room apartment so this is my mix/tracking/sleeping/living room. Therefore the possibilities of optimizing the room are limited... But I will definitely look into the ETF analyzing program anyway.

Personally, I think it's a combination of bad preamps/converters and a bad listening environment. First of all I would think I need a bigger room and perhaps a bass trap of some sort.

I've heard (in some forum) that a bookshelf with books can be a (cheap) lifesaver in a mixing situation, as an absorbant. Anyone know something about it?

I'll look around for articles on this topic, but if you have some advice or links, please share them with me.

Thanks,
/Henrik Wikner, Uppsala, Sweden

[valdemar]

Yeah, sonusman, the idea was to get an opinion on what the best investment would be to get around the problem.

I see your point, and the others who replied probably saw it too, maybe they just answered me with a little more finesse and ingenuity.

blahblah
/Henrik

[Tom Hicks]

Get a frequency analyzer plugin like FFT. Import a reference CD track with an EQ profile that you like.Run the analysis on the reference track and then compare it to your material.This will at least tell you if your problem is tracking or monitoring.

Tom

[Sonixx]

Originally posted by sonusman
You get what you pay for.

Ed

can we quote you??? your posts are so insightful...

yea, but if you're saying that his mixer and sound card are rolling off the highs enough to have to compensate that much.

I DON'T THINK SO...

yea, you get what you pay for, but even modestly priced boards and sound cards are basically flat.

the issue really isn't about flat freq. response. expensive equipment doesn't necessarily deliver a flat response, it's for a non-flat response, or the character of the equipment. you pay for the EQ response (transfer function) and for the quality of distortion it adds and i'm not refering to bad distortion, i'm refering to the Equipment character.

-kp-

[Sonixx]

Originally posted by valdemar
My room dimensions are 3,5x3,5 meters. I live in a one room apartment so this is my mix/tracking/sleeping/living room. Therefore the possibilities of optimizing the room are limited... But I will definitely look into the ETF analyzing program anyway.

Personally, I think it's a combination of bad preamps/converters and a bad listening environment. First of all I would think I need a bigger room and perhaps a bass trap of some sort.

I've heard (in some forum) that a bookshelf with books can be a (cheap) lifesaver in a mixing situation, as an absorbant. Anyone know something about it?

I'll look around for articles on this topic, but if you have some advice or links, please share them with me.

Thanks,
/Henrik Wikner, Uppsala, Sweden

here's one problem, looks like you have a square room. this leads to modal problems. if i assume an 8ft ceiling, then we basically have,

10.5ft x 10.5 ft x 8ft

if you have 10 ft ceilings it's even worse:

10.5ft x 10.5 ft x 10ft

below is a quick calculation for a 10.5x10.5x8 showing the modal frequencies. the first column is frequencies and the second column is frequency differences. for the differences column, everywhere you have a value that is close to Zero or even worse, is Zero, you have stacked resonant frequencies (too much room support). the resonant frequencies are based on room dimensions in the three planes X, Y or Z and where two frequencies are close or are the same. this is problematic.

if your ceiling is 10 ft also, this is about as bad as it gets.

bass traps will help and so will some early reflection aborption, but your listening position is still going to suffer.

here's the frequencies:

Frequency Difference

53.
53. 0 *
70. 16.
107. 36. **
107. 0 *
141. 33.
161. 20.
161. 0 *
211. 50. **
215. 3.
215. 0 *
269. 53. **
269. 0 *
282. 13.
322. 40. **
322. 0 *
353. 30. **
376. 23.
376. 0 *
423. 47. **
430. 6.
430. 0 *
484. 53. **
484. 0 *
494. 10.
538. 43. **
538. 0 *
565. 26.
635. 70.
706. 70.

* Stacked frequencies too much room support

** Little or no room support

what you'd like is for the differences to be evenly spread and have very few stacked frequencies.

i'd download the ETF software and analyze your room.

their site also has a lot of good info on this and other room issues. this is but one.

regards,
-kp-

[dobro]

"I've heard (in some forum) that a bookshelf with books can be a (cheap) lifesaver in a mixing situation, as an absorbant. Anyone know something about it?"

I don't track in a very good room, but one reason it's as good as it is is because it's used as a closet and a bookroom. Behind me when I record, there's an entire wall of clothes on a rack - it's an excellent baffle. Most of the other walls have got shelves of books. Carpets all over. Sloping ceiling, too, and some irregularities that make it less than rectangular - nice.

This weekend, I'm going shopping for a big light carpet or a big heavy blanket (some pro engineers use the heavy blankets that house movers use) for the upper wall, which isn't baffled by clothes or books. The deal is to hang a clothes line up about 15 cm away from the wall and hang the blanket over it - excellent baffle. The sound has to go through: blanket > air > bounce off wall > air > blanket again, and so it's less loud. Won't do much for bass frequencies, of course, but what do you expect from a blanket? Better than nothing, too.

[Sonixx]

actually a single book shelf will have little affect but will probably be more diffusive in nature than absorptive.

any randomly shaped object(s) will have some diffusion but you need something like a Quadratic Residue Diffuser to get the most even diffuse treatment. there are others like convex panels and primative root diffusers. convex diffusers can be made fairly cheaply.

a bookshelf, floor to ceiling, placed at the early reflection location can help some and it would be best to have many books of differing sizes and depths. but you need a book shelf on both sides of your listening position at the point of incidence.

absorption is hard to get below about 500hz due to the wavelength without going to a bass-trap type of design. you can treat a room fairly inexpensively with fiberglass board and a basstrap or two. but you need to make sure you don't absorb to much of any range of frequencies. an incorrect treatment may be just as bad as none at all. also, it's not all about absorption. you really need some diffusion too, but thats a bit more expensive.

if you want to try a bookcase select both hardcover books and some cloth covered books so you'll get both absorption and diffusion.

-kp-




four inches of fiberglass board placed several inches out from the wall,

[Sonixx]

Originally posted by sonusman
I have found little value anymore in sharing long essays

good...

i guess we can finally agree on something...

-kp-

[musicsdarkangel]

if high eq doesn't work, (you can do it on guitar, the mixer, amps), then chances are theres too much bass, its the problem in many mixes actually.

And yea, equipment makes a difference.

Theres my .0051 cents.

[Sonixx]

Originally posted by sonusman
Wait untill you realize your room is crap and have to fix that! You will know what spending money is about

doesn't have to be so.

there are a lot of low cost alternative solutions to treating rooms. all the way from Bass traps to diffusers. if one is willing to invest some time and research, treating a home studio can run in the Hundreds of dollars and not thousands. it may not quite have the aesthetic appeal of store bought treatments, but they can be very effective.

-kp-

[LI Slim]

In case this is not obvious, I do see a general consensus here that the particular problem you have identified has more to do with the room than anything else...

[tubedude]

Like I said, I had a little Behringer board I bought to pack around with me. It sucked, and it sounded muddy with no high end definition. Borrow a real preamp or board from someone and check and see if thats it. Most likely, it is. Then, problem solved, happy tracking.
And, let me be the 1st to say it (heehee)... You get what you pay for.

[Razor]

It sounds to me like you may have a "pile-up" at some frequency (s) that is clouding up your mix. By this I mean that if there is an excess of a low or lower mid freq in your tracking chain, every time you add another track/overdubb that freq piles up. With even a slight bump, this freq attenuation gets added to every track that you record. By the time you get to mix there may be no way of getting it out without over eqing.
This has always been my complaint with Berringer and to a lesser degree Makie boards. A couple of chanels by themselves aren't too bad, but as soon as you have six or more signals going through the same pre's, eq's etc....you can really hear the board's weakness.

Good Luck,

Charles

[Gidge]

Im holding a piece of ham in my hand...tell me if it smells bad......cant do it, can ya......just post an mp3 so we can HEAR it......

[dobro]

Update - okay, I went down to Little India and bought a big, heavy blanket and hung it from a bamboo pole half a foot from the wall on the top half of the wall behind me. It's improved the sound of the room - there was a slightly unpleasant reverberation on loud stuff before,and now it's gone.

$30 for the blanket and the pole - not a pro rig, but everything sounds better.

The blanket was bought for its mass and cheapness, by the way, which might have something to do why my wife says it makes the studio look like a tart's boudoir. Things just get better and better sometimes...

[Henrik]

Let me just comment on the "You get what you pay for"-discussion above:

I think the whole issue here is getting the best possible sound for the smallest possible amount of money. Hey, that's what's FUN about home recording! I just love posts on using bookshelves for diffusors and thick blankets for absorbers. The results can't be compared to pro studios, but still, the results you get are a whole lot better than not making any music at all while saving up a load of money.

Besides, while trying all these DIY tricks, I think you make so many discoveries and experiences that will be useful also when you some day do upgrade to more expensive equipment.

It's fun drooling over top range equipment, and it's also fun eventually buying it and upgrading your studio bit by bit. But don't let anybody tell you that you can't make music without it.

Cheers
/Henrik

[elbenj]

I can relate to the problems you are having valdemar, and here are some suggestions on what you can do to improve the capturing of the high frequency content of your material...

First of all...the room should not be an issue...all of the high frequency content should be closest to the source..so..if you want the highs..1) make sure that you are close micing the source..2) Use a direct box and record a DI copy of track as well..
you can get a DI for about $40..3) dont be afraid to crank up the gain on your mic pre!!!..this was a real good one for me...I found that using the level setting method that Mackie recommended just wasnt cutting the mustard....I actually stumbled on this one by accident...i had the trim knob cranked wide open on the channel I was recording ( I was doing a vocal at the time)and I was recording into a DAW. Well..I sang right on top of the mike ,in a control fashion mind you..and wathced the input meters
on my DAW..the outcome was astonishing!...the recording had warmth...it had the crystal clarity..along with a little harnish but..
when I discovered that the trim knob was practically full open..I redid the performance again at what should have been the proper method for setting input level and I was back to the thin and dull sound...what I surmise from this is that this particular mic pre works better when you crank it up a bit and this makes sense from a physics standpoint also..the high frequency content will be the hardest to capture and will suffer the most if the mic pre is not cranked up enough to capture it! Remember, in close micing you are sure to capture the bass content as well as the high frequency content...try pulling the mike back from the source and see what you loose!
4)If you can, try to make your entire recording signal path balanced..if you are going from balanced to unbalanced anywhere in the signal path you are degrading the signal...sometimes this happens within the gear!

This is some stuff you can try with the gear you have now..that Im sure will make a difference...good luck!

[LI Slim]

Originally posted by dobro
The blanket was bought for its mass and cheapness, by the way, which might have something to do why my wife says it makes the studio look like a tart's boudoir. Things just get better and better sometimes...

Great name for a band!

[sjoko2]

Originally posted by Sonixx
i'm not inclined to believe it's the mixer or card. for it to be the mixer or A/Ds, they would need to be roling off a lot of the mid's and highs, not a little, but a lot. generally the mixer and or converters will add distortion that results in graininess or harshness, but not necessarily rolling off the highs. these devices are generally pretty flat.

Late response, sorry.

I'm also sorry to disagree with the above statement, completely.
In gereral a Behringer mixer, especially the cheaper ones, do very strange things to sound. One thing is for sure, you could not possible call it flat, lifeless, dead, not flat.

The better the quality of an A/D, the more extended the higher and lower frequency ranges are. Lower quality converters do not neccissary distort, (Im not saying they don't, most of them do), they just exist in the midrange bands, and that is why they sound hard.

The combination of gear used will sound rather lifeless. Add the microphone collection and a dullish sound is more or less guaranteed.
The first thing I would do is try another card.