Mixing, mastering, and getting "that" sound...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mercuri
  • Start date Start date
Gee John,

giving away the proper way to induce an exciter to the chain are we? Im really surprised that with DAW's more folks aren't doing parallel compression on BVG's, DBX900 series dolby codecs or exciters on the auxes. Ive been using the Samplitude's "image widener" alot because of digital collapsing.


SoMm
 
Badda boom, badda bing, that's all there is to it. That will make your mixes clear and crispy, but not ear-piercing. (Unless it's abused, as mentioned... ;) )

Jeez, Massive, why didn't you say something before everyone went bananas trying to decode the mystery behind my statement... :p
 
What you're talking about are rescue operations.

The only instances where I've done anything even remotely similar were in specific instances where the high end was severely lacking something, or there was just an overall dullness to the mix. Most good engineers will view it as a last-resort kind of thing. Turd polish, if you will.

In either case, I should have done a better job tracking / mixing (there I go again) . . . and if I had, the whole exciter thing shouldn't have been necessary.

If you can't naturally boost the high end without getting a bunch of harsh nasties, then you probably need to use better / different mics (Ditch those Chinese condensers). . . or stop tracking with your 8-bit converters from 1986. :D
 
That sound???

Interesting comments people.

To me - "that sound" is ...transparency! Where it doesnt sound like a recording, but instead sounds alive. Yes you have youre multi-band compressors/limiters, your tube preamps, your exciters/enhancers, your pricey mics etc. But can you pin it down - i dont think you can. Its as much a creative process as a technically superior process.
Think Led Zeppelin - to me Zep II has got "that sound" - great performances captured well. But if that album was recorded on todays equipment - would it have "that sound"?
Its often the performance of home recordists that let them down. Too much time spent on getting the technical accuracy rather than playing a blinding part! Im guilty of it myself. Spending hours trying to get a killer distortion on a s**t guitar part.
I recorded a live performance to MD straight of the LR bus of a live desk - not a bad recording - and not a "good" recording either - but hell - the performance that was recorded still sends a shiver down my spine! If I ran it through some of my mastering tools - im sure it would not be out of place on a commercial cd release.

Yes I agree the sound of Britney and Timberlake production does sound great when it first kicks in - hmm im sure theyre using the Quantum 64 Plugin on "Toxic". But then again - listening to the gritty sound of DJ Shadow drunk at 2am really does it for me!

That Sound - its your choice!
 
Mercuri said:
Whoa whoa whoa guys, chill chill chillllllllll outttttttt.........
Did anybody stop to guess that maybe Mercuri works two jobs including running a business and it sometimes slips his mind to scan the BBS's for responses to his posts??? Sheeeeeesh.
Click to expand...
hehe, sorry Mercuri - I though you went away never to return after figuring the secret of life ! :D

Now I understand better what you were referring too.

Massive Master - yes, Auxes are agreat idea I'll have to try that one. I've busted a stereo mix out into it's m/s components and applied BBE plug independently to the mid and side pieces and it sounds much more natural that way too, if it is necessary. I've got a couple of tube exciter plugs I was going to try that out with later (I'm into NR this month!)

SOM cool comments, same to everybody else !

chessrock - Yes I'm a remastering repair guy currently so this kind of stuff appeals more to me that a fine tracker/mixer like yourself. I haven't heard your stuff but I've gotten that from your posts - plus being a Chicago-ian, hehe !

Fun thread Mercuri ! Now get back to work, hehe :D
 
CRock - We're really talking about putting in highs that don't exist. And it's true, most pop-stuff currently has a lot of it going on, most of it being added during the recording itself.

My idea is geared towards those who don't have the high-end tube gear that it takes to achieve that sort of color. Exciting the highs, as opposed to adding them. If the Aphex/BBE-type sound will help a recording, I certainly don't have a problem with it. I just find using an aux send a better and more controlled technique. I do the same thing with a lot of the high-end hardware also when it's needed. Running a thinned-out parallel signal to a Manley SLAM! is a wonderful way of achieving similar results. However, not too many people have one lying around. So, if all you've got is a BBE plugin or some sort of tube emulating software, I say go for it.

Just know when to say when. Friends don't let friends mix in too much tube distortion emulation.
 
"Friends don't let friends mix in too much tube distortion emulation."

Hehehehehehehehehehe... I'm going to use that quote at the next party I hit and claim full credit for it. :p
 
shevsound said:
Think Led Zeppelin - to me Zep II has got "that sound" - great performances captured well. But if that album was recorded on todays equipment - would it have "that sound"?
Click to expand...

I've been listening to Al Green's I Can't Stop lately, supposedly the original guys in original studio using vintage mics etc. Al's voice sounds unbelieveable, but everything else is very OK. It's almost like they created a standard modern mix and laid Al on top after everything else was mastered. Very odd, he's buried underneath backing vocals and horn, whereas that was assuredly not the case in the '70s.

So I think the answer is no, even with Bonham back from the dead and Page at a modern studio, it wouldn't sound the same. Perhaps all of our minds have become polluted in the intervening period and we can no longer mix a classic track.

Massive lemme ask a stupid question--your excitement is generally the way I route effects, so what is particularly unusual (other than the EQ)?
 
The "standard" way of using tube emulation or BBE-type exciters is to use them inline, as opposed to mixing them with the dry signal. In fact, it says so in the manual. That's why I didn't think of running it through an auxillary return, and thanks for the tip!

BBE is great, but it adds a smear of highs over a wide spectrum. I think by eq'ing the source of the signal to be effected, you could possibly fine tune the "excitement" that it adds. I'll experiment a bit and post results.

Right now, I'm wrestling with a sibilance problem on a vocal track, which is relevant since it was in the hopes of getting "that sound": a dry, in-your-face, highly compressed, mid-rangy vocal (think Sheryl Crow). Any attempt to remove the sibilance destroys the airy sheen on the track. Oh, well, I'll keep working at it.
 
Lance135 said:
The "standard" way of using tube emulation or BBE-type exciters is to use them inline, as opposed to mixing them with the dry signal. In fact, it says so in the manual.
Click to expand...
I use an in-line BBE 462 to tune up an old PA rack that I use for practice, using the BBE plug (or any of the other exciters) in-line in a DAW is usually too brutal for me. :)

If you don't have a de-esser for that vocal, and it's a once in a lifetime take, you can probably repair it with Voxengo Soniformer2 MB compressor.
 
The "standard" way of using tube emulation or BBE-type exciters is to use them inline, as opposed to mixing them with the dry signal. In fact, it says so in the manual. That's why I didn't think of running it through an auxillary return, and thanks for the tip!
Click to expand...

Aha! To me every effect is an aux send in DAW-land, I just set the aux to prefader and kill the fader if I want inline, compression and EQ being exceptions. Of course since I don't (can't?) master this is generally only a single channel technique. Hmmm, learn something new here everyday.
 
Lance135 said:
Right now, I'm wrestling with a sibilance problem on a vocal track, which is relevant since it was in the hopes of getting "that sound": a dry, in-your-face, highly compressed, mid-rangy vocal (think Sheryl Crow). Any attempt to remove the sibilance destroys the airy sheen on the track. Oh, well, I'll keep working at it.
Click to expand...

Compress first, then de-ess the compressed vocal. Be careful with your attack/release times.
 
Okay...so If u add these excitments, or harmonizers?...would the starting point for a high-end shelf or curve have 2 start at a higher freq? or just be set more gently?
 
chessrock said:
Go ahead and make fun of Britney, Justin and Averill. Yea, they suck. But their voices have something to them that makes them sound the way they do.
Click to expand...

Well... yeah. It's called Auto-tune.
 
Well, yea, but ... I think there needs to be at least some sort of statute of limitations on this kind of "burn."

I mean ... if it takes you three years to come up with something, then I'm afraid any sly remarks should be completely null and void.

However witty they may be.

.
 
The secret is to keep the drummer outta the mixing sessions. Unless you wan´t it to sound Led Zeppelin.
And hes right, you have to be in harmonics; thats uttermost important.
And if you have a cat , shes gotta be in perfect harmonics as well.
If you ever sense this setting is there, kick the drummer out (not the kickdrum) and mix till you hit the floor.

And - proudly - this theory can only be read about here - not in any cheap mixing books.

/harmonics

Sorry; could´nt resist
 
Last edited:
Daisy said:
Well, yea, but ... I think there needs to be at least some sort of statute of limitations on this kind of "burn."

I mean ... if it takes you three years to come up with something, then I'm afraid any sly remarks should be completely null and void.

However witty they may be.

.
Click to expand...

heh I know, I was joking :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top