Enquiry regarding mids and unusal looking master sound waves

Well, IMHO, there's nothing wrong with using EQ and FX to get a sound you want. The Springsteen clip has some background stuff going on, vox/pads/keys, something like that - maybe a simple pad, and then send it to a delay or reverb with a filter to just let the highs out of that to add some "shimmer" or such. Just a little "schmear" of something.

I did some heavy-handed EQ and sent the original to a delay and reverb both with the output of those shelved up at one end and down at the other, more or less (very quick). Not the sound you want, but just to kind of demonstrate the idea, except you'd probably want to use something other than the basic tracks you have now.
 

Attachments

  • 1LastStand7-krd.mp3
    5.7 MB
Benjitara said:
you might be right. but starting with eq / effects you can go down a big rabbit hole and end up complicating things.
Click to expand...
Would you let me have a crack at mixing the song? If I could I would want the one without any EQ or Effects and the one with EQ and Effects - but not printed.
 
Hmmm .. What sounds like a bass guitar in the first clip sounds like a rhythm guitar in the second clip being strummed with a thumb, felt pick or eraser.
 
keith.rogers said:
Well, IMHO, there's nothing wrong with using EQ and FX to get a sound you want. The Springsteen clip has some background stuff going on, vox/pads/keys, something like that - maybe a simple pad, and then send it to a delay or reverb with a filter to just let the highs out of that to add some "shimmer" or such. Just a little "schmear" of something.

I did some heavy-handed EQ and sent the original to a delay and reverb both with the output of those shelved up at one end and down at the other, more or less (very quick). Not the sound you want, but just to kind of demonstrate the idea, except you'd probably want to use something other than the basic tracks you have now.
Click to expand...
Well that sounds pretty good to me Keith! A couple of questions
When you say reverb do you mean a universal reverb where you've added certain amounts to differents parts of the mix or is it just a master send to reverb? and when you say heavy handed Eq'S how heavy is heavy. like are you cutting out poor frequencies with tight q's etc...
 
HumanPlanet said:
Been there, done that!


I didn't love the bass and if it were my project I would probably re-track it and I'd redo the vocal with you a few inches further from the mic.

I like the song and I would keep it simple with a light touch.

View attachment 129816

Or maybe not...
Click to expand...
I agree with the vocals. I was too close given the fact that I was really only speaking the words. It's somethign i'll look into doing again. I do believe the guitars work better if heavily eq'd because i simply cant record them to a high enough standard to take any presedence in the mix. Thanks for your feedback and efforts.
 
I listened to both tracks, Benjitara.
The difference is black and white.
The first has a blanket over it, and the second is perfectly ok, but could do with being a bit louder.
The mistake is being obsessed with plug-ins, and over tweaking.
My recordings might be rubbish, but I rarely do much to them.
That way I achieve crystal clear rubbish.
 
Concur with the comments but I’ve a guess on the waveforms. The effects on the hard panned guitars give a left right sort of flip flop, and I bet it’s comb filtering that is creating those closely space spikes in the middle. I remixed some tracks I was collaborating with. We both run Cubase, so it’s seemed easy to just share the projects and source files, but there were big problems. A strat that went twang twang three times had its own track, the tambourine used twice had its own track, and my mate, the guitarist had three of each track, one labelled di, one 57 and another with another mic’s name. Over 120 track. Worse still the error list gave me zillions of plugins missing. Ozone ones, mostly. I listened to the guitars, picked one of each that sounded best, and dumped the rest. Ended up with three different reverb types, and two chorus type effects. Cubase compressor, not clever plugin. Sounded so much better, in my humble view, and the processed sound in the stereo mix he gave me gone. It’s easy to get carried away.

the only thing I am always cautious about is band limiting and changing voices. If you use it as an effect, it needs to obviously be an effect, and not something music illiterate listeners hear as a mistake. Remember the Cher Autotune? People first heard of autotune because of the setting on just a very few notes, they never notice it on the rest of the track, or lots of other famous tracks. I have never managed to make this kind of thing work, as making a voice breathy and thin is really hard, without people thinking it’s a mistake?
 
Last edited:
Benjitara said:
Well that sounds pretty good to me Keith! A couple of questions
When you say reverb do you mean a universal reverb where you've added certain amounts to differents parts of the mix or is it just a master send to reverb? and when you say heavy handed Eq'S how heavy is heavy. like are you cutting out poor frequencies with tight q's etc...
Click to expand...
I've attached a screenshot to show the EQs - one on top is the output EQ-shaped reverb on an aux with only that effect. I have another aux with a simple delay and on that I put a similar kind of EQ in front of the delay as there's not a similar EQ for the delay's output. The input into the delay isn't as drastic as the reverb out, but the same idea that I didn't include anything from low-mids down and added a bit of hi-shelf, and then an "exciter" on the output of the delay. The about of the main (original stereo) that's actually getting to those two aux tracks is controlled by the "send knobs" on the original track.

The lower EQ in the image is what I'm doing on the main bus, so more upper lift and a HPF with the tiniest bit of low shelf. There's a dynamic EQ (along with the shown EQ) that does a little bit of cut on around 250Hz and a bit less of a wider lift in that 2-4kHz area just because...

In an actual mix, the reverb send bus would be on either individual tracks or possibly a group/folder of similar tracks. I'd use Logic's "Space Designer" for a "space" sound, and that might be all, but I'll sometimes put a lead vox send that goes to a different kind of reverb, usually a plate, and with different settings to keep it a bit more forward. It might still go into the room some. My approach is more of a "try it and see if it's better or worse" approach, like when your getting your eyes tested :). Anyway, because I only had the mix to work with the sends are on that stereo track.

Hope that answers some questions. But, there are a lot of ways to skin these cats - you have to figure out what gets you to the sound in your head (or in the reference track, which I highly recommend!).


Screen Shot 2023-06-01 at 6.01.43 AM.jpg
 
keith.rogers said:
I've attached a screenshot to show the EQs - one on top is the output EQ-shaped reverb on an aux with only that effect. I have another aux with a simple delay and on that I put a similar kind of EQ in front of the delay as there's not a similar EQ for the delay's output. The input into the delay isn't as drastic as the reverb out, but the same idea that I didn't include anything from low-mids down and added a bit of hi-shelf, and then an "exciter" on the output of the delay. The about of the main (original stereo) that's actually getting to those two aux tracks is controlled by the "send knobs" on the original track.

The lower EQ in the image is what I'm doing on the main bus, so more upper lift and a HPF with the tiniest bit of low shelf. There's a dynamic EQ (along with the shown EQ) that does a little bit of cut on around 250Hz and a bit less of a wider lift in that 2-4kHz area just because...

In an actual mix, the reverb send bus would be on either individual tracks or possibly a group/folder of similar tracks. I'd use Logic's "Space Designer" for a "space" sound, and that might be all, but I'll sometimes put a lead vox send that goes to a different kind of reverb, usually a plate, and with different settings to keep it a bit more forward. It might still go into the room some. My approach is more of a "try it and see if it's better or worse" approach, like when your getting your eyes tested :). Anyway, because I only had the mix to work with the sends are on that stereo track.

Hope that answers some questions. But, there are a lot of ways to skin these cats - you have to figure out what gets you to the sound in your head (or in the reference track, which I highly recommend!).


View attachment 129822
Click to expand...
Thanks for this. Must appreciated. I've always rolled off the top of reverbs and delyas whihc would go some way to explainign the lack of sparkle. I'll try some of the setting and mixes out. Thanks once again
 
Slouching Raymond said:
I listened to both tracks, Benjitara.
The difference is black and white.
The first has a blanket over it, and the second is perfectly ok, but could do with being a bit louder.
The mistake is being obsessed with plug-ins, and over tweaking.
My recordings might be rubbish, but I rarely do much to them.
That way I achieve crystal clear rubbish.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated
 
Benjitara said:
I cant seem to record them too accurately you're right. But i also think they overwhelm the mix. they play a very muted role in the mix
Click to expand...

I'm so confused now!

I don't think the guitars are badly tracked and they wouldn't overwhelm the second mix you posted 'before their heavy eq' if you'd just turn the volume up on the vocal which is way too low, this is not an EQ issue but a levels issue. On the arrangement you seem to prefer (the first mix posted), you're saying the guitars play a very muted role. I thought you'd replaced them with that synth sound as I can't hear them at all.

One of the main problems with the first mix posted and the reason it has no sparkle is that you've EQ'd out a lot of the mids, most of the high mids and almost all of the high end out of your instruments and smothered them in a blanket of blandness. Start by giving this back to them and you'll hear the whole mix open up then move on from there.

By the way the songs good, who wrote it?
 
HumanPlanet said:
I'm so confused now!

I don't think the guitars are badly tracked and they wouldn't overwhelm the second mix you posted 'before their heavy eq' if you'd just turn the volume up on the vocal which is way too low, this is not an EQ issue but a levels issue. On the arrangement you seem to prefer (the first mix posted), you're saying the guitars play a very muted role. I thought you'd replaced them with that synth sound as I can't hear them at all.

One of the main problems with the first mix posted and the reason it has no sparkle is that you've EQ'd out a lot of the mids, most of the high mids and almost all of the high end out of your instruments and smothered them in a blanket of blandness. Start by giving this back to them and you'll hear the whole mix open up then move on from there.

By the way the songs good, who wrote it?
Click to expand...
I agree with the mids and high end lacking. it's something i'll try to inject into my tracks - the sue f reference tracks is ey there.
The vocals are too close in - as you've said, so i'll re-track them at some point.
I wrote and sung the song - it's about my fathers death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top