Where is the mud?

M

minusone

New member
Hello,
Okay I have a quick (or maybe not quick) question. One of the most major roadblocks I hit everytime I master something is mud... mud everywhere!

I record drums (clavia ddrum4), guitar (clean and distorted through j-station), bass (acoustic/electric through a j-station).

I record the drums straight into the recorder (a mackie mdr) via a presonus bluetube pre. Same with the guitars and bass.

Everything sounds fine during performance, and even when mixing... but the mastered piece sounds like mud! The guitars are lifeless and the bass is way too boomy.

So, my question is this... where on an EQ (I have a 4-band 2-channel parametric) does mud live? And could anyone recommend a method in reducing it to a (very) dull roar.

Thanks!
 
Ok, mud usually (mmmnn) resides from about 150k to about 350k. Go back into your mix and make sure nothing is having to compete too much in this area. The bottom ends easy, the top ends easy, the middle is a battle field. Grab your weapons and fight it out a bit more. Here's a tip. Get some clear plastic sheets and place them on your screen over your spectrum anyliser and trace (with a texta color) the top shape of the curve and the outline of the anyliser pluggin and do it for each track. Then overlap them using the pluggin outline as a line up guide. Now you can SEE mud. And now you can much easily wipe the mud of your windshield, I mean earshield.

Us new pc screen button winders find many new ways to mix.
 
Scott Tansley said:
Ok, mud usually (mmmnn) resides from about 150k to about 350k. Go back into your mix and make sure nothing is having to compete too much in this area. The bottom ends easy, the top ends easy, the middle is a battle field. Grab your weapons and fight it out a bit more. Here's a tip. Get some clear plastic sheets and place them on your screen over your spectrum anyliser and trace (with a texta color) the top shape of the curve and the outline of the anyliser pluggin and do it for each track. Then overlap them using the pluggin outline as a line up guide. Now you can SEE mud. And now you can much easily wipe the mud of your windshield, I mean earshield.

Us new pc screen button winders find many new ways to mix.
Click to expand...

Scott,
I think you just saved me from a flight out the window here (too bad its only on the first floor... I would have only looked (more) stupid).

I don't do anything with my PC (but spend too much time on homerecording.com - and to my day job)... but my weapon of choice was that 4-band para... and let me tell you... I set it to 150, and back off it... and almost like magic the mud from a guitar track slid off and I gained some transparancy!

I know I'll have to work at this some more... but you've given me what I've been looking for: a starting point!

Any other EQ tips or places to find more??? Thanks again!
 
Mix in mono,

then pan. Its harder to know if things are clashing if their panned apart. Just like the clear plastic gave you a view of the entire spectrum of everyting in the mix, once lined up. so when EQ'ing, do it in mono. You create create more accurateley when you have the whole world down the middle in the palm of your hand. In fact get it all right in mono first. Your volumes, reverbs, all relative to each other. This creates a flame coming at you thats very focused and condensed. Even your chair position wont ruin your balance. Mono overcomes left/right imbalances in the room acoustics, amplifier, speakers, and even your ears. Yeh and the mud too. But youll find other mud frequencies better too, mixing in mono first. And then with most of us home recordists, with crappy gear, the imbalances arn't as big a deal anymore. Its like your equipment just became better. And get a single crappy speaker to test your mono on as well. Remember that mono from your expensive "pair" of monitors is not the true single mono that you will get from one single crappy speaker. Its easier to judge the precise balance of two instruments when they are supperimposed on one another, than when they are held 6 feet apart. Then, when you finally separate them, it just gets bigger and clearer as it separates.
 
Are you recording flat? I would say that Presonus Blue tube is designed to add "mud" and you are getting a buildup of its character that you do not like. Get a cleaner preamp, even a Mackie would do better.
Open a 3 band parametric in each track.
Next, go through and high pass everything that doesnt need anything below 70, 80, 90hz... guitars and vocals especially, with the 1st band.
Sweep through the mids in each track with the 2nd parametric band with about 6db cut and a narrow Q. Slowly sweep til you find the middle of an area that cleans up the sound some, makes space, and then adjust the Q and amount of cut to taste. This will open up your final mix quite a bit. Then, on the output bus, try cutting about 4db, medium Q, around 315hz, sweep for best area. Then use a high shelf to open it up, and you should have no more mud.
Take care of that preamp 1st.
Peace.
 
tubedude said:
Are you recording flat? I would say that Presonus Blue tube is designed to add "mud" and you are getting a buildup of its character that you do not like. Get a cleaner preamp, even a Mackie would do better.
Open a 3 band parametric in each track.
Next, go through and high pass everything that doesnt need anything below 70, 80, 90hz... guitars and vocals especially, with the 1st band.
Sweep through the mids in each track with the 2nd parametric band with about 6db cut and a narrow Q. Slowly sweep til you find the middle of an area that cleans up the sound some, makes space, and then adjust the Q and amount of cut to taste. This will open up your final mix quite a bit. Then, on the output bus, try cutting about 4db, medium Q, around 315hz, sweep for best area. Then use a high shelf to open it up, and you should have no more mud.
Take care of that preamp 1st.
Peace.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am recording "flat." In fact, I go from mic-pre straight into the recorder (I only use my mixer - mackie 32x8 - to monitor during recording).

I have found, that the bluetube wasn't the biggest contribute of mud (as I am very careful with the drive)... actually when I started using the bluetube... i noticed better transparency (in snare and kick). I have started just using the mackie pre's for guitar (which has helped).

Now... your eq pointers... I have just started playing with some of what you said... and I must say: THANK YOU!

I think I'm finally getting the hang of this parametric eq stuff... and you and Scott Tansley has provided me with a lot of insight.

Thanks!
 
also make sure that what you are recording isn't mud to start with.

A drum kit with 1 year old skins is going to sound like mud to start with. Remember that the top recordings you are hearing have used brand new drum skins, the guitars have new strings.

cheers
john
 
John Sayers said:
also make sure that what you are recording isn't mud to start with.

A drum kit with 1 year old skins is going to sound like mud to start with. Remember that the top recordings you are hearing have used brand new drum skins, the guitars have new strings.

cheers
john
Click to expand...

Thanks John!
I make sure to change my strings every 6 or so weeks... and well... my drums aren't real (they are as close to real as you can get if you ask me) I use Clavia's ddrum4 kit http://www.clavia.se/ddrum.htm

They sound great... but because they are so very real, the samples have a lot of "transients" and because of the 1,000 levels of sensitivity with the triggers... they behave just like real drums.

Also... everyone has to take there shoes off before coming anywhere near the studio... so no mud is allowed physically into the studio :)
 
Those are some excellent tips, Scott! Thanks!

I hope I remember to play with those ideas when I get my computer back! (And I hope it works corerctly too... there definately isn't any room left in my budget for a Mac.)

Oh, shoot, I could just get the Ultragraph.... is that an ok EQ?

-Shaz
 
Shazukura said:
Those are some excellent tips, Scott! Thanks!

I hope I remember to play with those ideas when I get my computer back! (And I hope it works corerctly too... there definately isn't any room left in my budget for a Mac.)

Oh, shoot, I could just get the Ultragraph.... is that an ok EQ?

-Shaz
Click to expand...

Shaz, I have the T1951, tube parametric 4-band 2-channel eq... and I got it for like $300... its great for doing the corrections suggested here (not so good when it comes to boosting... but I don't like that anyway).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top