I'm mixing a song right now. I'm listening all over the house and in my car and have gotten the balances right. This is my lastest project since updating my studio. I'm really getting good results in that my recording sounds good on every system I test it on. By good I mean it sounds like the same recording, even on a boombox. Then I put in a reference CD. REM's Green. It sounds so much brighter and, of course, somewhat louder. The REM CD sounds so harsh in comparison to what I'm doing, yet I know that my ears will attenuate when I'm just listening to commercial releases. Is this brightness shelving eq? or some sort of an exciter? I've noticed this before. I've heard two recordings pre and post mastering. the most noticale thing I noticed on listening to the post mastering recording was how bright and "harsh" it was. Now, I only have access to those post mastered recordings and my ears have attenuated. So, I'm wondering if I should try to put more shelving eq on my recording or just leave it kind of flat. Or get an exciter. Or run the whole recording through an equalizer. What's the consensus?
mixing, mastering and eq
- Thread starter Apple
- Start date
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Let's assume that you're looking for that natural sounding "air" in the mix...
Mastering can help bring it out, but it really needs to be there from "Step 1" for it to be effective. The choice of source sounds, the signal path (preamps, EQ, compression, etc.) during recording and mixing, etc. Exciters and aural enhancers can fake it, EQ can tweak it, but if it's not there to begin with, it's very hard to reproduce.
Mastering can help bring it out, but it really needs to be there from "Step 1" for it to be effective. The choice of source sounds, the signal path (preamps, EQ, compression, etc.) during recording and mixing, etc. Exciters and aural enhancers can fake it, EQ can tweak it, but if it's not there to begin with, it's very hard to reproduce.
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
Apple said:
I doubt very much that it's an exciter, most high-end mastering studios do not use them for the reasons you mention, they are harsh.
Very likely it's shevling EQ that your're hearing, a high end harshness can also be brough on by excessive limiting, but I doubt that it's the case with REM.
One question I have is what kind of monitoring are you using? Do all commercial releases sound bright and harsh? If this is the case it sounds like bad montoring situation and you should check your mixes on several different systems before making any commitment in regards to EQ. If it's just REM and a few other CDs that you don't like, don't emulate them. Use the CDs that sound good to you on a variety of systems as references. Personally I like to use Bob Ludwig's projects for references in a lot of cases.
The 'harshness' may be the product of the VOX amps and Rickenbacker guitars that Peter Buck is so fond of. Honestly, I think Green sounds great... one of my favorite REM albums... along with Document.
Don't get me wrong
REM and the albums you mention are favorites of mine as well. My point is, that I'm pretty conservative with EQ when mixing and it seems to be a common complaint among those who record at home that commercial releases are louder and brighter sounding. Adding brightness can increase the perceived loudness of a recording. My observation is that our ears can attenuate to different standards. If you've been listening to one of your own recordings for the past hour and then switch to a commerically released album, then there is a noticeable difference in brightness and loudness. I notice this with my own recordings, and I've noticed it with two other recording that I heard before and after mastering-one was recorded in my studio by another artist and one was recorded in a professional studio by a friend of mine. I only have copies of the mastered versions now and I no longer notice how bright and harsh they intially sounded to me. They no longer sound overlly bright and harsh. I read once that Elvis Presley used to get upset about how much EQ was added to his records during mastering. So, from my experience, what I'm noticing is something that is added at the mastering stage. And to try and add that much shelving eq when I'm mixing would certainly add a lot of distortion.
REM and the albums you mention are favorites of mine as well. My point is, that I'm pretty conservative with EQ when mixing and it seems to be a common complaint among those who record at home that commercial releases are louder and brighter sounding. Adding brightness can increase the perceived loudness of a recording. My observation is that our ears can attenuate to different standards. If you've been listening to one of your own recordings for the past hour and then switch to a commerically released album, then there is a noticeable difference in brightness and loudness. I notice this with my own recordings, and I've noticed it with two other recording that I heard before and after mastering-one was recorded in my studio by another artist and one was recorded in a professional studio by a friend of mine. I only have copies of the mastered versions now and I no longer notice how bright and harsh they intially sounded to me. They no longer sound overlly bright and harsh. I read once that Elvis Presley used to get upset about how much EQ was added to his records during mastering. So, from my experience, what I'm noticing is something that is added at the mastering stage. And to try and add that much shelving eq when I'm mixing would certainly add a lot of distortion.
Bartman
I count on me
Bright Commercial Mixes
Initial thread:
"I'm really getting good results in that my recording sounds good on every system I test it on. By good I mean it sounds like the same recording, even on a boombox. Then I put in a reference CD. REM's Green. It sounds so much brighter and, of course, somewhat louder. The REM CD sounds so harsh in comparison to what I'm doing, yet I know that my ears will attenuate when I'm just listening to commercial releases. Is this brightness shelving eq? or some sort of an exciter?"
Comment:
I'm assuming you want your mix to sound like your reference CD's? If yes, you'll need to carve out most of the lows on your guitar and bass parts (probably vocals as well) and boost select frequencies to the point that it will sound terrible when you solo the tracks.
I've used the very basic, but specific advice in the web link listed below as a STARTING POINT for less muddy, brighter, more commercial sounding mixes:
http://www.trinitysoundcompany.com/eq.html
Pay close attention to the sections on Bass Guitar and Electric Guitar. Your Guitar EQ graphs may surprise you as they will look bell curvish.
If this works for you, apply the same philosophy to your vocals.
One more point....are you "scrubbing" all of your individual tracks? Eliminating all unnecessary data or bleed will lend to better clarity.
Again, the solo tracks may sound like wimpy thin dog-doo but the end result should resemble what you desire.
I hope this helps and I am not stating the bloody obvious.
Bart
Initial thread:
"I'm really getting good results in that my recording sounds good on every system I test it on. By good I mean it sounds like the same recording, even on a boombox. Then I put in a reference CD. REM's Green. It sounds so much brighter and, of course, somewhat louder. The REM CD sounds so harsh in comparison to what I'm doing, yet I know that my ears will attenuate when I'm just listening to commercial releases. Is this brightness shelving eq? or some sort of an exciter?"
Comment:
I'm assuming you want your mix to sound like your reference CD's? If yes, you'll need to carve out most of the lows on your guitar and bass parts (probably vocals as well) and boost select frequencies to the point that it will sound terrible when you solo the tracks.
I've used the very basic, but specific advice in the web link listed below as a STARTING POINT for less muddy, brighter, more commercial sounding mixes:
http://www.trinitysoundcompany.com/eq.html
Pay close attention to the sections on Bass Guitar and Electric Guitar. Your Guitar EQ graphs may surprise you as they will look bell curvish.
If this works for you, apply the same philosophy to your vocals.
One more point....are you "scrubbing" all of your individual tracks? Eliminating all unnecessary data or bleed will lend to better clarity.
Again, the solo tracks may sound like wimpy thin dog-doo but the end result should resemble what you desire.
I hope this helps and I am not stating the bloody obvious.
Bart
Personally most commerical records are TOO bright these days... a byproduct of too much brick wall limiting. My idea of a good master is when there are about 4 times more bass frequences, and twice as many mids as the highs are. I want to hear that rolloff.
Im getting sick of the commercial sound.
I like it when a mix sounds like a goddamn mix.....
But everybody wants the polished stuff still.
So thats what i have to practice alot of my time away at.
But when i do my own stuff i get to experiment.
It always turns out better to me than the polishy stuff i do.
But no one agrees with me.
So im either crazy and deaf.
Or theyre friken brainwashed.
Probably both minus the deaf part.
I like it when a mix sounds like a goddamn mix.....
But everybody wants the polished stuff still.
So thats what i have to practice alot of my time away at.
But when i do my own stuff i get to experiment.
It always turns out better to me than the polishy stuff i do.
But no one agrees with me.
So im either crazy and deaf.
Or theyre friken brainwashed.
Probably both minus the deaf part.
Bartman
I count on me
I agree with my esteemed forum contributors
All,
Todays over-compressed, over-excited and generally over-sterile commercial music "sound" is not my idea of a great mix either.
Unfortunately, many artists seek that sound because record companies are looking for that sound. The initiator of this string described the sound as "harsh". I tend to agree.
Since most popular music today targets "A.D.D. ridden" teens and young adults, producers tend to include lots of nuances and movement in the arrangement/mix to keep the listeners interest. The traditional retro-sounding mixes that I grew up with (Led Zeppelin, The Who, ELP, etc.) kept my interest with phenomenal musicianship, creativity and tones. The brighter mixes of today better accomodate all the modern "bells and whistles" producers and record companies feel they need to sell CD's.
So.....I'm a purist and produce my mix with my sound on my own material, but give the artist (customer) what they want on their material. A quasi-sellout but..........
All,
Todays over-compressed, over-excited and generally over-sterile commercial music "sound" is not my idea of a great mix either.
Unfortunately, many artists seek that sound because record companies are looking for that sound. The initiator of this string described the sound as "harsh". I tend to agree.
Since most popular music today targets "A.D.D. ridden" teens and young adults, producers tend to include lots of nuances and movement in the arrangement/mix to keep the listeners interest. The traditional retro-sounding mixes that I grew up with (Led Zeppelin, The Who, ELP, etc.) kept my interest with phenomenal musicianship, creativity and tones. The brighter mixes of today better accomodate all the modern "bells and whistles" producers and record companies feel they need to sell CD's.
So.....I'm a purist and produce my mix with my sound on my own material, but give the artist (customer) what they want on their material. A quasi-sellout but..........
I feel a good punk rock vibe happening here. This is good even if we aren't talkin about punk rock.
I would like to add the following...
1. I don't think breast implants on women are cool... too commercial. I'll take flat and floppy over a well rounded implant any day. That's like having a studio musician come in to play your guitar part. It's like the Monkees... or something. Natural Breasts = Beatles, Breast Implants = Monkees. There.. that makes a little more sense. (Or does it?)
2. I prefer the carpet to match the curtains. When you mix you want all the tracks to relate to each other.. not work against each other. The same thing goes for the chicks. Nothing is worse for a guy than to see a blonde at the bar then later back home find it brown and bushy "down-there". Do us a favor and at least shave that hairy muff into a nice landing strip. A little reverb helps tie a mix together.. so does shaving the muff that just-so-happens to not match your hair color.
3. Women who shave their eyebrows off and draw new ones on are EVIL. That's like going from using a Mic on a Marshall to plugging into a PoD and recording direct.
Lastly..
Brick-Wall is the name of a "Mastering Suite" patch in my T-Racks program. (perhaps you've heard of this fine piece of software) All you do is load in your unmastered tune and select "BRICK WALL" and kablam... your material goes from zero to suck in .03 seconds. It shouldn't be called Brickwall.. it should be called Shitwall or Shit-stew..just add music.
I can't stand the bright crunchy masters of today. When I do master something (not my specialty to be sure) my points of audio reference are Nirvana's Nevermind, Led Zeppelin's Presence, Def Leppard's Hysteria (I hate the album but the production... amazing), and Guns N Roses Appetite (cheesy band, classic album).
Personally, the height of audio engineering was from 1975-1985. Most of the stuff after '85 was TOO much (i.e. the first Winger album... can you say BARF? I mean, this album sounds ten times worse than anything produced today--possibly the worst sounding major label album ever. It makes St. Anger sound well produced.)
Led Zeppelin's engineering from Physical Graffitti onwards was a-friggin'mazing to me. So much sound, yet you can hear everything perfectly. The remasters are crap though.
Nirvana's Nevermind, while not perfect, has a good overall feel and balance to it. Maybe a bit too polished (but compared to what was out at the time it didn't seem so at first). The interplay between guitar, bass, drums and vocals is perfection to me. You can hear everything all the time.
Personally, the height of audio engineering was from 1975-1985. Most of the stuff after '85 was TOO much (i.e. the first Winger album... can you say BARF? I mean, this album sounds ten times worse than anything produced today--possibly the worst sounding major label album ever. It makes St. Anger sound well produced.)
Led Zeppelin's engineering from Physical Graffitti onwards was a-friggin'mazing to me. So much sound, yet you can hear everything perfectly. The remasters are crap though.
Nirvana's Nevermind, while not perfect, has a good overall feel and balance to it. Maybe a bit too polished (but compared to what was out at the time it didn't seem so at first). The interplay between guitar, bass, drums and vocals is perfection to me. You can hear everything all the time.