spectral balance

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I don't know If your mixing for someone else and have never heard the piece before then your going to run it through faders up to get an impression of the thing and then talk to the artist(s) about what their vision is and build a plan to achieve it.

Most of what I've done has been mixing for others. Sometimes I did the tracking, sometimes not. In many cases - for my situation, anyway - talking to the artists doesn't yield a lot of help. If they haven't gone through the steps of sweating out much of an actual arrangement and really don;t have the ear for producing or mixing themselves, they often don't have much of an answer beyond "just make it sound good", or "do your best", or something like that. You still gotta ask them first, of course, but you gotta be ready to make some decisions on your own.

I remember one of my early jobs where I had to record three acoustic guitars and an acoustic bass as instrumental tracks before over-dubbing some vocals and harmonica on a second pass. There really wasn't much in the way of an arrangement between the acoustics, they were all just playing the basic progressions in teh same key in their own styles, except for one who was the better of the three players who lead with more embellishment than the others.

Anyway, the trick to making that mix work was to listen to each guitar track and decide where the timbre of of each acoustic guitar (and player style) tended. One had a deeper, more resonant body sound, another tended to sound a bit more plucky, and so on. Adjusting the EQ on each guitar just a bit to emphasize the positive parts of the timbre of each track helped both to separate them and sound less like a muddy mess of an arrangement, made the overall mix sound fuller (even if it really wasn't), and made it easier for later automation to emphasize the more interesting parts of each track in it's turn. No changes to the arrangement, no real need to heed the arrangement much in that case - other than giving the lead guitar player some mix priority, of course - just a matter of giving each guitar track a little emphasis of it's own natural personality.

It's not so much a natter of choosing frequency range x for this one and frequency range y for that one or choosing specific frequencies from a Chinese menu; there was still a shitload of overlap between the three guitars, but by adjusting the EQ slightly to emphasize general areas of their natural timbre (and sometimes equally cutting on the other tracks in classic differential EQ style), it can certainly help clean up an otherwise gumbo soup of a mix. But no recipes, you still gotta use your ears.

G.

 

[miroslav]

... just a matter of giving each guitar track a little emphasis of it's own natural personality.

It's not so much a natter of choosing frequency range x for this one and frequency range y for that one or choosing specific frequencies from a Chinese menu; there was still a shitload of overlap between the three guitars...

Yes...that’s the same as what I was getting at.

There's always going to be a bit of EQ give-n-take between certain tracks...
...but I just never went with some preconceived ideas about always using certain EQ settings for specific instruments or *totally* cutting out some of their natural frequencies in order to "make room" for something else.

I think overlap (just like a little bleed) is what gives it a cohesive quality...though yeah, sometimes you have to tame or emphasize certain areas to help it all gel.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think overlap (just like a little bleed) is what gives it a cohesive quality

It's not like we have a choice. Unless we're talking timpani vs. piccolo, or pure sine wave synths, something extreme like that, there is virtually ALWAYS either overlap or inter-weaving or both. Even when playing in different registers, the instrument overtones and harmonics are going to cross paths all over the place.

I think this is one of the key newb misunderstandings in threads like this, they think "giving each instrument it's space" means restricting an instrument to a narrow frequency range. It doesn't. Most instruments will sound like crap if you tried doing that; they'd all sound like a cheapo AM radio emulator. It's about letting each instrument have a predominant musical role in a given range or ranges. It's going to share those ranges with forments of the other instruments - sometimes it's wanted, sometimes it can't be helped - but when it does so, it should do so in a way where the instruments cooperate and not clash, ad where one usually takes the dominant *role*.

There's one fairly recent song that I love to use as not only an exemplary example of instrument frequency assignment on a pretty fine scale, but one in which some of the roles break some traditional molds and throw you some curve balls. Check out Moby's "Extreme Ways" (the real version, not some UTube streaming video version). Never mind what you may or may not think of the song (I'm tired of the whole AM radio vocal thing, personally), but the use of instrument "frequency assignment" is IMHO a real schooling in the topic. Just when you think you have one instrument's place figured out (and start to worry about the quality of the mix), another instrument comes in and surprises you and lets you know that Moby really did have a grand plan and didn't mess up the way you first thought he did before all the instruments came in.

G.

 

[Freudian Slip]

Why don't they just build that drastic EQ curve right into the mic...?

That was my point, they do

Eq'ing the fundamentals is all we are talking about. The the idea of eliminating overlap has never entered anyones mind. It's impossible. dropping a non-fundamental frequency on one instrument by a couple db's so that another instrument who's fundamentals lay there can peak out and become an active participant in the song is a common thing. Panning is great for creating separation but, when the song is listened to out of a boom box with the speakers less than a foot apart it's effectiveness is limited. Recordings should always survive being played in mono well as well as on head phones etc.

We agree pretty much on most things. Just never forget the end user. You are mixing it for them and they are more than likely listening an a limited bandwidth, majorly eqed system that will not reproduce a truly realistic live sound. Mixes have to be a compromise to make them as universally acceptable as possible or please the most amount of people possible. That means things in the mix will have to under go some possibly unrealistic changes to fit into this midrange world that people live in or at least enough to make them stand out in the midrange.

Anyways. Good talking to ya.
Got to run.

F.S.

 

[bozmillar]

huh, interesting. not that I don't kind of do these things, but my mind set when eqing and mixing is generally not along the lines of what everyone is saying here. maybe that's why my mixes end up sounding cluttered. I'm going to try to take this approach next time I mix a song to see if it works out better for me.

 

[Zeppe]

That was my point, they do

Eq'ing the fundamentals is all we are talking about. The the idea of eliminating overlap has never entered anyones mind. It's impossible. dropping a non-fundamental frequency on one instrument by a couple db's so that another instrument who's fundamentals lay there can peak out and become an active participant in the song is a common thing. Panning is great for creating separation but, when the song is listened to out of a boom box with the speakers less than a foot apart it's effectiveness is limited. Recordings should always survive being played in mono well as well as on head phones etc.

We agree pretty much on most things. Just never forget the end user. You are mixing it for them and they are more than likely listening an a limited bandwidth, majorly eqed system that will not reproduce a truly realistic live sound. Mixes have to be a compromise to make them as universally acceptable as possible or please the most amount of people possible. That means things in the mix will have to under go some possibly unrealistic changes to fit into this midrange world that people live in or at least enough to make them stand out in the midrange.

Anyways. Good talking to ya.
Got to run.

F.S.

I agree... you should be able to flip your monitors to mono playback and not lose anything.

 

[miroslav]

That was my point, they do

I don't really see that as a "drastic" EQ curve....it covers almost the full auditory bandwidth....there are no severe cuts that make room for other instruments.

AFA mono...my mixes never "lose" anything in mono, but I don't MIX for mono, I mix for stereo.
People always throw out the "check in mono" thing...which is OK, as you want to listen for any phase cancelations, but you can't have your cake and eat it too...
You either mix for mono or you mix for stereo…you either mix for Hi-Fi or you mix for dinky….unless you want to get into having alternative mixes…which gets to be a real PITA.

AFA not forgetting the “end user”…I think that’s a dangerous game to get into…trying to guesstimate what the majority of an audience is using to hear your music.
If you want to use limited bandwidth mixing because you’re thinking about how your stuff is going to sound on a 3” computer speaker…well, that’s your call…but how is it then going to sound on a decent, full-bandwidth system?

I find that when music is mixed on full-bandwidth monitors and focused on optimum playback quality usually translates good enough on dinky little systems that some end users might have….but it doesn’t really work the other way around. If you cut too hard and really “shape” your tracks with a dinky playback system in mind…that mix will probably sound bad on anything BUT a dinky system.
Back in the old days…apart from fighting with the EQ limitations of vinyl and AM radio playback…the focus was always on getting the most High Fidelity possible. If the end user chose a dinky playback system..that was on them.

Just like the loudness idiocy…we should all fight to maintain Hi-Fi rather than cater to the dinkyness.
Educate the listener about quality sound whenever possible.

 

[Freudian Slip]

I don't really see that as a "drastic" EQ curve....it covers almost the full auditory bandwidth....there are no severe cuts that make room for other instruments.

AFA mono...my mixes never "lose" anything in mono, but I don't MIX for mono, I mix for stereo.
People always throw out the "check in mono" thing...which is OK, as you want to listen for any phase cancelations, but you can't have your cake and eat it too...
You either mix for mono or you mix for stereo…you either mix for Hi-Fi or you mix for dinky….unless you want to get into having alternative mixes…which gets to be a real PITA.

AFA not forgetting the “end user”…I think that’s a dangerous game to get into…trying to guesstimate what the majority of an audience is using to hear your music.
If you want to use limited bandwidth mixing because you’re thinking about how your stuff is going to sound on a 3” computer speaker…well, that’s your call…but how is it then going to sound on a decent, full-bandwidth system?

I find that when music is mixed on full-bandwidth monitors and focused on optimum playback quality usually translates good enough on dinky little systems that some end users might have….but it doesn’t really work the other way around. If you cut too hard and really “shape” your tracks with a dinky playback system in mind…that mix will probably sound bad on anything BUT a dinky system.
Back in the old days…apart from fighting with the EQ limitations of vinyl and AM radio playback…the focus was always on getting the most High Fidelity possible. If the end user chose a dinky playback system..that was on them.

Just like the loudness idiocy…we should all fight to maintain Hi-Fi rather than cater to the dinkyness.
Educate the listener about quality sound whenever possible.

10db movements on huge sections of bandwidth not drastic or say agressive? I'd say that's very agressive

You just have to keep crapy systems in mind. Not mix to them specifically, just like you have to keep big booming systems in mind. It all lies in having the mids right.

Of course you should likely just send the stuff of to SouthSide Glenn when your done and he will worry about it for you You are never going to do away with car stereo's etc. Most people don't have time to be educated on what really sounds good, nor do they care. they just want it to crank pretty good without getting ugly or killing thier ears

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Of course you should likely just send the stuff of to SouthSide Glenn when your done and he will worry about it for you

Since my name has been dragged into it, I gotta reply that I personally think way too much is made of the whole "check in mono" thing. First of all, one can pretty easily tell if there's going to be major phase problems or masking when sitting in the center of the stereo field without having to switch to mono.

Secondly, usually I couldn't give a rat's patootie what my mix sounds like in mono or on a boom box (BTW, does anybody actually still use boom boxes any more? When's the last time you actually saw one being used by anybody who wasn't drunk on the beach eating sand to solve their munchies?) Ansel Adams didn't care what his photos looked like under candlelight, nor Rembrandt what his paintings looked like under a garage florescent shop light, and if someone wants to hear my work on earbuds the size of a baby's nipples, that's their problem. If they want to hear the full dimensions of my mixes, they can move to a system that will allow it.

Thirdly, and most importantly, a good mix is going to sound good anywhere anyway. Do it right and you don't have to worry about how it's going to sound on a car stereo, because it's going to sound good anyway of it's own volition. "Avatar" may not have that 3D look on a non 3D projector, but that doesn't make it look like crap in 2D.

Let the flames fly.

G.

 

[miroslav]

10db movements on huge sections of bandwidth not drastic or say agressive? I'd say that's very agressive

Before this thread gets all splintered into smaller and smaller "debates"...
...the heart of my comments was in response to people talking about cutting away chunks of an instrument's natural frequencies in order to make room for other instruments.
I don't see that the EQ curve of your D112 cuts away anything or makes room for anything....and that's what I understood the "drastic" term was initially about as we were talking about cutting frequencies.

Heck...I think if you are cutting away anything on your Kick tracks, it's probably because the D112 boosts too much LF, so I could see why you might cut to make room.

Thirdly, and most importantly, a good mix is going to sound good anywhere anyway. Do it right and you don't have to worry about how it's going to sound on a car stereo, because it's going to sound good anyway of it's own volition.

I admit that many people now days will not follow that SOP...but that is the core of any discussion of mixing approaches. Mix it to sound good on a quality full-bandwidth system, and playback on the dinky systems will take care of itself in most cases.
Absolutely NO reason to mix for iPod buds or computer speakers unless you know that your mixes will never be played on anything else.

 

[miroslav]

... they just want it to crank pretty good without getting ugly or killing thier ears

And that's where cutting/shaping too drastically to "make room" will fail.

When you crank it...it will get VERY ugly.

I find that full bandwidth mixes just get better and better as you increase their volume, and even at the point of being too loud for safe listening, they STILL sound well-balanced, and will fill a large room with great sound.

A compromised "specialty" EQ mix will crap at louder levels and just get annoying...especially if the mid-range is over emphasized either by boosting it...or by cutting away too much of the LF and HF to "make room".

But again....everyone should follow their preferences and beliefs.
I’m not really trying to twist anyone’s arm into doing it the way I like to.

 

[Freudian Slip]

Since my name has been dragged into it, I gotta reply that I personally think way too much is made of the whole "check in mono" thing. First of all, one can pretty easily tell if there's going to be major phase problems or masking when sitting in the center of the stereo field without having to switch to mono.

Secondly, usually I couldn't give a rat's patootie what my mix sounds like in mono or on a boom box (BTW, does anybody actually still use boom boxes any more? When's the last time you actually saw one being used by anybody who wasn't drunk on the beach eating sand to solve their munchies?) Ansel Adams didn't care what his photos looked like under candlelight, nor Rembrandt what his paintings looked like under a garage florescent shop light, and if someone wants to hear my work on earbuds the size of a baby's nipples, that's their problem. If they want to hear the full dimensions of my mixes, they can move to a system that will allow it.

Thirdly, and most importantly, a good mix is going to sound good anywhere anyway. Do it right and you don't have to worry about how it's going to sound on a car stereo, because it's going to sound good anyway of it's own volition. "Avatar" may not have that 3D look on a non 3D projector, but that doesn't make it look like crap in 2D.

Let the flames fly.

G.

Hey! I have two boom boxes!. I use them to listen to in dangerous environments so I won't cry if they get destroyed I don't carry them on my shoulder through town!

Re: panning. All I am trying to say is that you can't depend solely on panning to separate things in a mix. If you bring it to mono you should still be able to tell whats doing what.

I am certainly not saying to mix it to sound good on any particular system and yes a good mix will sound good on almost anything, that would pretty much be the definition of a good mix. I am saying that there is nothing wrong with putting a high pass on things that would likely cause issues on a large variety of systems.

In regards to you're work. I was speaking strictly to your mastering service and that you would likely trim up any bottom end that might be totally natural but might cause resonance issues etc. on many systems. I mean regardless of your personal mixes, I assume you consider it part of your job as a mastering engineer to help make peoples work sound the best it can and translate well to a wide variety of systems. Not to cater to the absolute worst or best systems in the world?

No flaming, I respect your opinion.

F.S.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Re: panning. All I am trying to say is that you can't depend solely on panning to separate things in a mix. If you bring it to mono you should still be able to tell whats doing what.

Agreed that one cannot count on panning to fix masking or phasiing problems. Panning is very useful to help separate instruments that might musically not make as much sense together or throw the overall mix balance off, but actual masking or phasing should be handled as their own discreet problems, IMHO, and not swept under the rug with panning. We're probably in agreement on that.

I am certainly not saying to mix it to sound good on any particular system and yes a good mix will sound good on almost anything, that would pretty much be the definition of a good mix. I am saying that there is nothing wrong with putting a high pass on things that would likely cause issues on a large variety of systems.

I suppose that's true, but for me that would beg the question as to what's happening in the mix that requires high passing to begin with. there are two fundamental possibilities, either there is something down there that's supposed to be there - i.e. integral to the mix - or there's something down there that's not supposed to be there.

For the former, if the listener's playback system can't handle it, that's their problem. If they care about it, they'll take care of it by fixing their playback system. If they don't really care of if they are willing to put up with it in understanding that it's their system's fault and not the music's fault (which IME is the case with the majority of car stereo listeners), then it's really an academic point.

If it's the later - if there's stuff down there that's not supposed to be there, then yeah, a general high-pass will probably handle it fine. And if someone else did the tracking, I'll write it off to that and let them know about the problem when I give the mix back. If it's my own tracking job, then I'll be wary to try and avoid it from happening in tracking again the next time, if possible.

In regards to you're work. I was speaking strictly to your mastering service and that you would likely trim up any bottom end that might be totally natural but might cause resonance issues etc. on many systems.

No flaming, I respect your opinion.

No problem, F.S., my flame remarks were directed pretty much at the board in general, because I know how popular that mono and car stereo check positions are, and that I'm probably going to be considered as speaking blasphemy when I take a different position.

But just for the record, as much as I do appreciate your kind words (and your long-time positive contributions to this BBS, BTW), I do not run a mastering service. I leave that to the real mastering guys here, who could kick my ass in real mastering. Mixing is where it's at for me.

G.

 

[miroslav]

All I am trying to say is that you can't depend solely on panning to separate things in a mix. If you bring it to mono you should still be able to tell whats doing what.

You got no argument from me on that...and I don't think I said panning could do it all, what I said was that I start with panning and balancing the levels...and then the EQ is applied to "touch up" what the panning and level balancing couldn't do for the mix…and I’m still learning how to do it right!!!
Some mixes come easy…others are real whore!

I was mostly focusing on the idea of completely cutting away some sections of a track’s natural frequencies to make room for some other instrument...which is what I think was the initial question in the thread. I've heard others talk about working like that, and I'm only saying I don't, and I honestly see no real reason to.
But sure...there are times when you may need to get a bit drastic with an EQ decision...I just don't pre-plan my EQ strategy based on some "formula"… etc.

I am saying that there is nothing wrong with putting a high pass on things that would likely cause issues on a large variety of systems.

Yes...when you couch it in that manner...that if you KNOW there's way too much HF coming off of something and it's guaranteed to be annoying across *most* systems...then YEAH...cut it away!
But that's a decision I would only make AFTER I have the mix already falling into place...and not in the beginning as I'm just setting up the mix.

Oh...and a funny note on the whole High Pass/Low Pass nomenclature….
I was reading the most recent issue of Tape Op (Jan/Feb)...and editor Larry Crane and a couple of other guys made a list of Do's/Don'ts for gear manufacturers to adopt (found on the magazine’s last page)...
...and one of the items mentioned is the use of the term "High-Pass filter", and they say:

Call it what it is - a "low-cut filter". If it allows highs, mids, low-mids and some low frequencies to pass, it's not a high-pass, it's a flipping low-cut

I laughed my ass off on that one!
It's so true...I NEVER understood how/why they came up with that term...High-Pass...or...even Low-Pass for that matter.
They are CUT filters...not PASS filters.

Anyway...no flaming on either side.
I think we sometimes get caught up on one or two key words made in a post...and then go off on a major debate over it. I think you're probably working very much the way we work and vice versa...but we all have our quirks and subtle differences in perspectives.
IMO...most anyone that really sinks his/her teeth into recording…eventually discovers that same truths at some point or another. But often we are at different points in our discoveries, focusing on different issues that apply specifically to our individual rigs and music ideas...etc...etc..so sometimes our views are a bit different at the time.
Sometimes if it works for you…you assume it’s the best way. I’ve done that many times, only to learn there were other ways equally good…but the “core” truths of recording eventually come out about the same for everyone…who digs deep enough.
I’m still digging….

 

[Freudian Slip]

Before this thread gets all splintered into smaller and smaller "debates"...
...the heart of my comments was in response to people talking about cutting away chunks of an instrument's natural frequencies in order to make room for other instruments.
I don't see that the EQ curve of your D112 cuts away anything or makes room for anything....and that's what I understood the "drastic" term was initially about as we were talking about cutting frequencies.

Heck...I think if you are cutting away anything on your Kick tracks, it's probably because the D112 boosts too much LF, so I could see why you might cut to make room.


I admit that many people now days will not follow that SOP...but that is the core of any discussion of mixing approaches. Mix it to sound good on a quality full-bandwidth system, and playback on the dinky systems will take care of itself in most cases.
Absolutely NO reason to mix for iPod buds or computer speakers unless you know that your mixes will never be played on anything else.

Well, I think you are taking two or three different statements I made and smashing them together.

In general if you have to get two competing instruments to separate so both are heard hopefully you are only talking about making one or two fairly narrow adjustments from 1 to 3 dB's. That is not the drastic cutting away of chunks

Drums, yes they can require or handle pretty drastic Esq adjustments especially if the drums are less than ideal. You may see a couple of bumps in the Esq curve on a d-112 but in effect what you are not seeing is a pretty damn scooped mid response. It's boosted in the fundamentals and yes you may have to mess with those two areas up or down because that's what shapes a kick drum for the most part. To say though that it does not effectively amount to a huge removing of mid range (which happens to be where the toms bass guitar, most of guitar and vocals reside) would be a huge stretch. Perhaps only the sound of the kick was in mind when the Mic was designed but, it so happens that this sound is pretty agreeable with the rest of the mix. Eking drums can get pretty heavy handed. Don't know what to tell you. It does not represent how the rest of the mix on say your typical rock song gets eked.

High passing the bass a little higher than the kick is a little different than most other Esq adjustments. I would venture to say that almost everyone high passes the bass and the kick. The fact that I let the kick pretty much own 60 hz is my own preference. But you will find very few people who don't high pass both instruments pretty much as a general rule. One of the few eq adjustments that are almost always used to some extent or another.

I don't think that I implied that you should narrow the bandwidth of a recording to what a crap ass system can reproduce. More that although your kick or bass produce a good deal of 40hz energy that gives you a great feel, for the sake of everyone that has systems that won't handle 40hz all that well you might want to find another way to get where you want to go. The other thing I said that mid range is important when it comes to a mix working well on many systems. It's true, what can I say. That does not mean chop out everything but the mid range rather that if you have to eq to create some seperation between a could things, a good place to do that would be in the mid range. not at te ends of the spectrum.

I am out on this one.

F.S.

 

[Freudian Slip]

I leave that to the real mastering guys here, who could kick my ass in real mastering. Mixing is where it's at for me.

G.

Well it's been a while. I don't know why I thought you had a mastering studio?
That's why I though some of your comments so odd?

Lmao! That's what I get for dropping in once every year or so lately.

F.S.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Oh...and a funny note on the whole High Pass/Low Pass nomenclature….
...
I NEVER understood how/why they came up with that term...High-Pass...or...even Low-Pass for that matter.
They are CUT filters...not PASS filters.

This is sidebar to the main thread, but since you brought it up...

There *is* a reason for the terms high/low pass as nouns, though admittedly they're often easily technically misused as a verb.

A high pass filter refers to a filter designed to affect frequencies around and below a set threshold frequency. The way in which it does so is not necessarily by simple slope cutting the lower frequencies; it could shelf them, and it could also shelf or slope boost those lower frequencies. In other words a high-pass filter is not necessarily automatically a low cut filter.

It's when we use the term "-pass" as a verb - which we are all guilty of at times (including me) - that it becomes ambiguous to sometimes technically incorrect. While one *can* use a high pass filter (noun) to make a low cut, simply saying "high pass" as a verb does not specify that that's what is actually being done. One can also "high pass" a signal and boost the low frequencies.

Lmao! That's what I get for dropping in once every year or so lately.

Nah, we'll just write it off as a Freudian slip .

G.

 

[miroslav]

In other words a high-pass filter is not necessarily automatically a low cut filter.

But about 90% of the ones that are marked as "High-Pass" filters on much of the gear tend to be Low-Cut...so they should just be called Low-Cut.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

But about 90% of the ones that are marked as "High-Pass" filters on much of the gear tend to be Low-Cut

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, especially (but not necessarily) if you include software. IME there's far more high- and low-pass filers out there that swing both ways than there are ones that'll cut only. In fact, I can't think of a single plug (or piece of hardware, FTM) I have that has a variable bandpass filter that is cut only, but the number of EQs and "shapers" that have true high- or low-pass filters bookending what is basically a multi-band parametric EQ is substantial.

The ones that cut only tend to be the switchable low frequency pads similar to the ones you find on hardware mixer channels for cutting subsonics, but those are almost always specifically called low-cut filters or pads and not high-pass filters.

G.

 

[miroslav]

The ones that cut only tend to be the switchable low frequency pads similar to the ones you find on hardware mixer channels for cutting subsonics, but those are almost always specifically called low-cut filters or pads and not high-pass filters.

G.

And that's what I'm refering to...many are labled as HP.

I know the guys at Tape Op weren't totally off-base when they said it.
I mean, I instantly laughed becuase yeah, I've seen it.

Maybe once again it's a "word thing" here on the forum.... ...'cuz now you added "variable bandpass" in your comments, which I agree is totally different than how and when people use the more specific terms - Lo or Hi Pass - and how those are often designed to work on a lot of gear where often they end up being pure cut filters.

But yeah...a variable bandpass filter can go in either direction.

The real point is that the ones that are just cut filters...shouldn't be labeled as PASS filters.