Add high end at mixing or mastering?

R

RKB

New member
I have a midi studio, so everything I record is sequenced and comes from some kind of sound module (roland JV-2050 primarily). I've noticed that the mixed I produce and then transfer to my ipod are significantly duller than commercial recordings. I realize I can't create the kind of "energy" with my home studio equipment, but I can come close. In the past, I've added these high while mastering the project, but I'm afraid I'm adding color to instruments that don't need it.

The question is, for you experts, how much high-end do you add during the mixing stage, and what do you leave for the mastering? Should the mix be as close to a master as you can make it, or should I create a mix that sounds good in terms of instrumentation, general levels, and overall EQ in relation to all of the instruments, and then use an enhancer and EQ in the mastering stage to add that extra energy in the high end?

My current thinking is that as long as the mix can stand on it's own in relations to all of it's components, then it's best to leave the high-end push to the mastering stage, but I'd love your opinions. Again, please remember I'm dealing with sampled instruments, all instrumental mixes, no live recording or vocals.
 
RKB said:
how much high-end do you add during the mixing stage, and what do you leave for the mastering?
Click to expand...
Why leave anything for mastering? I'd even take it a step further and say that you should get the source to sound as close to what you want the final product to sound like even before you record anything. Any tweaking you do after that will be so that the instruments will make room for themselves and general fine tuning. But there's no reason to keep something sounding dull to your ears so that you can fix at the mastering stage. Get it right as early in the process as possible.
 
Hmmm... I usually record the samples "raw" and then modify the EQ to make them sound compatible and recognizable in the mix. I guess I've found it easier to work with the sounds in the mix after they've been recorded by adding EQ, FX and panning to fill up the stereo spectrum.

My problem seems to be that it sounds fine in my studio, both in headphones and through speakers, until I get that mix on a commercial playback device and then it doesn't quite compare. Like many amateur engineers, it sounds great in the studio, but then doesn't quite measure up in the "real world". That's my problem: I'm a musician, not an engineer, and I'm a firm believer that the artist shouldn't produce his own work. But I have no other options.

Thanks for the suggestion. It helps to validate my suspicions.
 
That's almost always a monitoring problem - Fix the room, perhaps fix the monitoring.

The room needs to be properly tuned, and you need to be "in tune" with the room. That's what makes for good translation to the rest of the world.
 
Hi RKB

I think some high frequencies issues perhaps are easiest to identify on a mix ... "anoying" frequencies on hihat/shakers, or even high frequencies on loops, for example

Try to cut it on mix, before masterig.

Ciro
 
RKB said:
My problem seems to be that it sounds fine in my studio, both in headphones and through speakers, until I get that mix on a commercial playback device and then it doesn't quite compare. Like many amateur engineers, it sounds great in the studio, but then doesn't quite measure up in the "real world".
Click to expand...
That where the admittedly tough art of "translation" comes in.

It can be a very hard habit to get into (and a hard old habit to break), but try not to record it to sound good in the studio. Instead, try to get to the place where you can say "If it sounds like A in the studio, it'll sound like B on the outside. Therefore I won't make it sound like A in the studio, I'll make it sound like C in the studio, because then it will sound like A, like I want it, on the outside."

The key to starting down that road is to play some of your favorite full-fidelity commercial CDs in your studio and see how they sound there. Memorize how your room is affecting each frequency band - learn how the room is translaiting the sound. Then when you record and mix you can adjust for that by anticipating that translation.

Of course acoustic treatment may be in order also, if the room is not a closet.

G.
 
RKB said:
Hmmm... I usually record the samples "raw" and then modify the EQ to make them sound compatible and recognizable in the mix. I guess I've found it easier to work with the sounds in the mix after they've been recorded by adding EQ, FX and panning to fill up the stereo spectrum.

My problem seems to be that it sounds fine in my studio, both in headphones and through speakers, until I get that mix on a commercial playback device and then it doesn't quite compare. Like many amateur engineers, it sounds great in the studio, but then doesn't quite measure up in the "real world". That's my problem: I'm a musician, not an engineer, and I'm a firm believer that the artist shouldn't produce his own work. But I have no other options.

Thanks for the suggestion. It helps to validate my suspicions.
Click to expand...
Oh, don't get me wrong. What you're doing isn't bad or wrong. If you're adding FX and eq'ing during MIXDOWN, that's fine. I record pretty much dry and flat, also. I was just saying that you shouldn't wait until mastering to hope to make the mix come alive. When I said get it sound as good as possible at the source, I just meant that there's no reason for things to sound "dull", especially if you're using mostly sequncers and sampled sounds.
 
I've tried to "tune" the room, and have gotten closer, but don't have the right mic. I've got a spectrum analyzer, but need the right mic.

As for CIRO's comments, I don't really need to cut anything. It's a matter of adding highs to the mix/master.

Is there a standard "curve" on a spectrum analyzer that could be used as a reference?
 
RKB said:
I've tried to "tune" the room, and have gotten closer, but don't have the right mic. I've got a spectrum analyzer, but need the right mic.

As for CIRO's comments, I don't really need to cut anything. It's a matter of adding highs to the mix/master.

Is there a standard "curve" on a spectrum analyzer that could be used as a reference?
Click to expand...

hummm , sorry
you´re talking about dull, not harsh frequencies...

then, what John "massive " saids

Ciro
 
My standard method for evaluation is to mix the song, and download it to my ipod and then compare it to commercial recordings. I use quality ear buds, and figure that I've got a standard for comparison. Sounds like the concensus is to make the mix sound as good as possible, and leave mastering for minimal tweaks.
 
I agree with the general consensus. The whole point of mixing is to get it to sound the way you want it to. So if it is sounding dull, then that's not the way you want it to sound. When the track leaves your studio you should be able to say it sounds as close to the way you envisioned it as you could possibly make it.

It does sound like you have a monitoring issue. What monitors are you using and what is your room like?
 
My room... hmm, that's an interesting question. It's in my basement, and I've hung sheets on the walls to try to dampen the sound. I'm using Alesis monitors. I'm not at home now, so I can't provide more specifics. Unless there's a known issue with Alesis monitors being heavy on highs. I used my DR mic with the spectrum analyzer on my vs-2480 to reset the frequencies. But I don't think the DR mic is sensitive enough to analyze the frequencies.
 
I'm not talking about tuning the speakers - You can do that till you're blue in the face and it isn't going to do anything.

I'm talking about tuning *the room* - Nothing to do with the speakers *in* the room.

You can have the greatest, flattest, most accurate monitoring in the world. If the room isn't accurate, no amount of EQ'ing is going to fix it.

Neither is foam or blankets...
 
RKB said:
My current thinking is that as long as the mix can stand on it's own in relations to all of it's components, then it's best to leave the high-end push to the mastering stage, but I'd love your opinions. Again, please remember I'm dealing with sampled instruments, all instrumental mixes, no live recording or vocals.
Click to expand...

In general mixes are on the duller side of life. I believe that your statement above is totally accurate. A good mix stands on its own when the relationship of it's components are sitting correctly. These are the things that are difficult to change once you mix to stereo. Adding a little "gloss" later is easy.

There is the added advantage that overall there will be less in the way of distortion (either phase or quantization dist.) since there is only one EQ applied. The less EQ (or processing used in general) the better.

I think that you hit on one of the main differences between mixing versus mastering. Don't try to fix an overall problem in the mix phase (e.g. little to no stereo buss processing), and likewise if you can prevent it, try not to have to fix a problem at the track level during mastering. If you need to hear it brighter however for mix reasons, add the bus processing and remove it when sending tracks out for mastering or doing it yourself.
 
RKB said:
I used my DR mic with the spectrum analyzer on my vs-2480 to reset the frequencies. But I don't think the DR mic is sensitive enough to analyze the frequencies.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "reset the frequencies"? Are you using a graphic eq to "tune" your monitors? The first thing I would suggest is set everything regarding monitoring to flat--no eq at all.
 
SonicAlbert said:
What do you mean by "reset the frequencies"? Are you using a graphic eq to "tune" your monitors? The first thing I would suggest is set everything regarding monitoring to flat--no eq at all.
Click to expand...

My "studio" is in my finished basement, unfortunately, in a corner. I've put up blankets and whatnot, and have acoustic tile in the ceiling, but my speakers sound too hot on the highs. (Alesis, near-field, can't remember the model). So I inserted a graphic EQ between the output of the mixer and the speakers, and used that with a spectrum analyzer to try to level out the EQ as much as possible. As was mentioned above, I'm trying to compensate for the room as much as possible, since there's not a lot I can do to change the listening environment (I don't do this professionally, by the way)

I can tell you that my last mix sounded MUCH better when I listened to it on commercial playback devices outside of the studio.
 
RKB,

EQing the monitor chain can help, but it's very difficult to nail down properly for a few different reasons. One the one hand it can be like performing brain suregery with a tablespoon, because the resolution of the EQ correction just cant match the weird peaks and valleys of many room responses. Second, becaue room acoustics vary greatly and often rapidly by position within the room, you can sometimes get it right for one listening position, but it can still be totally wrong if you move your head 4" in either direction.

If your monitors sound hot on the high end and your mixes are coming out weak on the high end, there's two angles that I'd explore in addition to - and actually beofre - what you're doing with the EQ:

First, is it that the monitoring chain is too hot on the high end or is it that it sounds that way because it's cold on the low end? The latter condition is common in small rooms and corner spaces, which tend to wreak havoc on the bass response of the room (regardless of whether you're using nearfield monitors or not). A common condition is that you might be sitting in a bass "null" where you're getting wave cancellations at low frequencies, which is sucking up the sound of the bass. This in turn makes the higher frequencies sound as if they are too hot relative to the bass. This condition can be mitigated rather inexpensively via some homemade fiberglass or rockwool bass traps that can be situated in the corners of your room. Check out Ethan's info in the Studio Building forum on this board, or get more info at his website, www.realtraps.com.

Second, is simply use some ear translation. If your highs sound too hot in your room and you being them down to compensate, and that ends up sounding too dull in the real world, then purposely leave or make your mixes brighter then you think they should be in the studio.

Just some things to ponder...

G.
 
RKB said:
My "studio" is in my finished basement, unfortunately, in a corner. I've put up blankets and whatnot, and have acoustic tile in the ceiling, but my speakers sound too hot on the highs. (Alesis, near-field, can't remember the model). So I inserted a graphic EQ between the output of the mixer and the speakers, and used that with a spectrum analyzer to try to level out the EQ as much as possible. As was mentioned above, I'm trying to compensate for the room as much as possible, since there's not a lot I can do to change the listening environment (I don't do this professionally, by the way)
Click to expand...

A couple thoughts.

I don't think those blankets are doing anything for you, I'd take them down. You mentioned Ethan Winer, so perhaps build some of his acoustic wall treatments and use them instead of the blankets.

Next: *get your listening position out of the corner*, I can't emphasize this enough. You are just killing yourself facing into a corner. Reorient your listening position along a flat wall, and if possible make sure your speakers are at least a foot from the wall.

And again, get that graphic eq out of the signal chain. While your acoustic setup is far from perfect, it is also apparent that whatever is happening with the graphic eq is not correct either, and could be causing more harm than good. You yourself mentioned that you don't ahve the right kind of mic for it.

The idea is to get the room sounding as good as possible without resorting to the eq. This means treat the room for any acoustic problems, not bandaid it with a graphic.

The problem right now is that your room is lying to you, and the graphic eq is making it lie even more. You've got to get the room honest. Some simple helpers are to face a flat wall, take down the silly soundproofing like blankets, put up some well chosen acoustic tiling, and only then think about adding a graphic to the chain. But even then I wouldn't do it.
 
I'm in agreement with Al.

Trying to treat a room by using an EQ doesn't work. One thing to consider is what happens when the sound reverberates in the room? Any acoustical problems are just going to manifest themselves there no matter what you did with an EQ. Using an EQ also introduces a bit of phase distortion that just smears the sound further. Also EQ doesn't help fix any imaging issues your room may have.

Analyze and treat the source of the problem, don't wear aural sunglasses.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, I learn a lot from you all! (I have the same problem with my mixes). Just a thought (budget-one) to high end-problems,

how about a pair of great headphones and listening espicially to the highends, comparing it to recordings I like and modify the eq especially at the intruments put there (like cymbals)? I don´t have a room thats worth building basstraps for, trust me... :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top