Freqs Fighting for the Same Space

[malcolm123]

Hello All,
Has anyone ever written or read some place where someone may have wrote an article that deals with certain Freqs at certain gain settings they will almost all of the time fight for space. I know that this can vary depending on the project and the instruments used,, but is there like a general rule of thump that if you have X instrument at X Frequency playing with Y instrument at Y frequency,,, their gonna fight for that space?

I know you can pan ,sweep, Q and all to fix these type of problems,, but I generally do it by ear,,, Am I making any sense?

If not,, somebody who has an idea as to what I may be talking about help me explain better.

Yeah,, Like Blue Bear has a nice Freq Chart that deals with certain instruments at certain gain levels and frequency and most likely what the result would be if you do xyz to them.

I guess another way I could ask is,, what on Blue Bear's chart would clash if played at the same time without any panning,sweeping,etc?

Thanks .. LOL

Malcolm

 

[jugalo180]

hmmm

i'm a novice, but i believe that that there are too many variables in recording for what you are looking for. frequencies can be altered by enviornments, an instruments material, (i read humidity somewhere), and volume. for such a chart, everyone would have to play the same instruments in the same room when ever they record. this is just my hypothesis. frequency analyzers however are wonderful. i noticed results in my music when i started using wavelab's frequency analyzer. btw, i'm in augusta also.

 

[Stealthtech]

Read thru the post by Harvey in the mic forum. I was reading thru this the other night and there was a topic discussing this.
In fact if you do a search there's bound to be more threads on that topic.

 

[Raydio]

Yeah! I want to know if this such chart exist because Im puzzled on using Cool Edit Pro's Frequency Analyzer. I scan the source and it has all types of peaks at certain levels. If I do the scan on my vocals, Im confused on what to EQ to get them to "break thru" the instruments. I understand the whole "digging a whole" thing, but Im not sure of what frequecies to dig and how much. Anywho... if you guys know where to find a Conflicting Instruments Chart, reply back! Thanks.

 

[littledog]

It seems a lot of people, at least around here, use various kinds of spectrum analysis to mix. Or frequency charts. Maybe it is useful, but to be honest, I don't really understand how. (Yeah, I know the theory, but I can never seem to make it work that well in practice, unless maybe you are trying to locate a frequency that is either subsonic or supersonic).

Also, in my admittedly limited experience, I've never seen top pros using spectrum analysis to mix. I just use my ears, but I'm probably too old to understand these new-fangled techniques. Soon they'll be digging my fossilized bones out of the LeBrea tar pits along with my contemporaries: the woolly mammoth and the sabretooth tiger. Sigh.

 

[jugalo180]

a true delimma indeed

posted by raydio

Yeah! I want to know if this such chart exist because Im puzzled on using Cool Edit Pro's Frequency Analyzer. I scan the source and it has all types of peaks at certain levels. If I do the scan on my vocals, Im confused on what to EQ to get them to "break thru" the instruments. I understand the whole "digging a whole" thing, but Im not sure of what frequecies to dig and how much. Anywho... if you guys know where to find a Conflicting Instruments Chart, reply back! Thanks.

this is what i do, i scan for peaks and write the freq down, i then open up what ever equalizer i choose to work with and sweep those frequency ranges i have written down. which ever freq makes my voice sound good that is the one i choose to cut through. in the analyser the dominant peaks may be unpleasant or pleasant freq's, depending on how the mic picks up sound, accoustics, gear, all that stuff plays a part. when you cut those back your sound should sound better because the mud or whatever that was extremely present is no longer dominant.

i am a beginner to this, but this is just the way i have thought the process through, and in theory it seems like a good idea. i hear good results, but my ears are far from golden. if the instrument sounds good at 300hz and you notice that particular frequency being drowned by these other spikes that sound less apealing cut those that are less apealing back untill it sounds better, save it under a different name and recheck it in the analyzer to see the difference. you shouldn't have to cut back too much because you may change the harmonics too drastically. i figure that those like me who don't have (professionally) treated enviornments that would suit any instrument, we encounter a lot
of unwanted artifacts in our music.


posted by little dog

Also, in my admittedly limited experience, I've never seen top pros using spectrum analysis to mix.

i figure that those like me who don't have (professionally) treated enviornments that would accomadate any instrument, we encounter a lot of unwanted artifacts being addede to our music as it is recorded through the mic. i think the pro's have trained professionals with equipment that can read the frequency response of a room, to come in and help them with their room treatments. i think they seriously treat thier rooms and not (only) hang foam or bass traps here and there. most of my ideas are just theoretical so please take them lightly.

 

[Bstage]

^^^^

Do they do this with independent tracks ????

 

[malcolm123]

Re: hmmm

i'm a novice, but i believe that that there are too many variables in recording for what you are looking for. frequencies can be altered by enviornments, an instruments material, (i read humidity somewhere), and volume. for such a chart, everyone would have to play the same instruments in the same room when ever they record. this is just my hypothesis. frequency analyzers however are wonderful. i noticed results in my music when i started using wavelab's frequency analyzer. btw, i'm in augusta also.

LOL Augusta huh,

Ill send you some tracks from some of the people I work with so you can get your practice on. Also post you equip list or email me and ill give you one of mine. We could swap gear to act like the pros and say yeah I traid one or I had a set of those. LOL

Later

 

[jmproductions]

but is there like a general rule of thump that if you have X instrument at X Frequency playing with Y instrument at Y frequency,,, their gonna fight for that space?

Getting back to your orginal queston: I have found that guitars and vocals seem to fight more for space than anything else. They seem to primarily be defined in the same part of the frequency range. I think that what some of the others have said about boosting/cutting certain frequencies that seem to compliment a certain voice or guitar will help differentiate the instruments. Although I have to agree with Littledog that I don't think it is really necessary to use a gadget to tell you what sounds good. I see too many people in this business that are dependent upon spectrum analyzers or think that knobs should be turned this way or that way because that is what someone said is right. These people generally suck at their job because they are not listening and result is usually crap. Bottom line is you have to USE your ears to get better at hearing. It is a skill like anything else, practice makes you better at it. Now before I get off on a rant here...

 

[chessrock]

is there like a general rule of thump that if you have X instrument at X Frequency playing with Y instrument at Y frequency,,, their gonna fight for that space?

In some cases, yes.

Example: If kick drum is occupying primarily the 100 hz range, for example, it will often be competing with the bass guitar.

Another example: Accoustic guitars battle everything, and so do keys. Roll off the bass on acc guit starting around 400 hz, and if you view it on the spectral analyzer and notice it's pumping out a lot of 100 hz, then you have another conflict with the bass guitar again.

As far as elec. guitar tones go, it all depends on the tone. A lot of rythm guitars already seem to have a wide hole in them centered around 1000 hz or so; a nice pocket for the vocals to fit right in. A lot of cleaner tones and leads however, especially when layerd, have a tendency to duke it out big-time with the vox in the midrange -- for guys between 500-800 hz usually and for girls between 1K to 4K.

Keys are always a bitch for me -- I always find myself just playing around with them untill I find a complimentary tone.

 

[jugalo180]

posted by jmproductions

Although I have to agree with Littledog that I don't think it is really necessary to use a gadget to tell you what sounds good. I see too many people in this business that are dependent upon spectrum analyzers or think that knobs should be turned this way or that way because that is what someone said is right. These people generally suck at their job

ooooh that's why my stuff sounds like crap. i hear what you are saying. . i think that would go for the people who are more dependent on their eyes and not there ears. i'm brand new to this, and i'm not questioning your expertise, but this is how i look at it: i feel that it wouldn' t hurt to use both, however (i) only use it in a tight jam, but as far as that goes how do you suppose they were able to name those frequency ranges that an instrument is audible at? so if you say analyzers are for people who suck, then you may as well say that those charts that are a written format of analyzed info are also for people who suck at their job. some engineers make use of charts until they are familiar with the frequency response of instruments they work with, and some use the analyser to familiarize themselves with the frequency responses from the instruments they work with after it has been altered by their signal chain.

posted by malcom

post you equip list or email me and ill give you one of mine. We could swap gear to act like the pros and say yeah I traid one or I had a set of those. LOL

mackie hr824 monitors
general midi keyboard(from radio shack), i have a triton on the way
mackie 1202 mixer (old model)
audio technica at4050 mic
audio technica ath-d40fs closed headphones
art tube preamp (i use this to listen through my headphones as i record) that's all it's good for to me.
waves 3.5 platinum bundle
vegas video 3.0
soundforge 6.0
fruity loops 3.5
wavelab 4.0

 

[HangDawg]

I suck at this shit too but I can tell you when my mixes started getting better. When I stopped using my eyes. I thought the same as you, why not use both, can't hurt. I found out different. Unless like littledog said, you are looking for some strange subsonics or something. Just my .02

 

[jmproductions]

so if you say analyzers are for people who suck, then you may as well say that those charts that are a written format of analyzed info are also for people who suck at their job. some engineers make use of charts until they are familiar with the frequency response of instruments they work with, and some use the analyser to familiarize themselves with the frequency responses from the instruments they work with after it has been altered by their signal chain.

Please don't get me wrong, I think that every tool, including analyzers, have some great uses including the things you have mentioned here and especially in the mastering process. The problem is I see people becoming dependent on these things to the point that they have decided to rely on equipment instead of developing their ears. It's taken me years of painstaking trial and error to develop my ears to the point that they are at, and there is always room for improvement, but I'm glad I did. I guess everyone has a different approach on getting the job done, but I promise you that the most talented engineers are doing more listening than anything else.

What I'm saying is that this is an art. Do you really want your mix to fit perfectly into some cookie-cutter major label spectral profile? Maybe sometimes. But if something doesn't sound right to you, try to eq it or an effect first instead of analyzing this or that, close your eyes and concentrate and really listen to the changes you are making. Make it sound good to you. Then you'll go back and listen to it in a couple of years and say man I didn't have a clue!! HA HA. But that's the process.

I see a lot of people on this forum talking about trying to get the "pro studio" sound. I think we can do better than that guys. Am I the only one that has noticed that most major-label pop/rock CD's are so overcompressed (to make them louder) it's ridiculous? We might not be able to afford the equipment, but many of us have the freedom to do something different. Sometimes I'll listen to the Beatles with stuff like all the drums hard-panned to one side and think man that is pretty cool. What major label would release a mix like that now? I've gotten quite a bit off topic here so I apologize. The point is be an artist, not some guy reading a chart to tell them what to do.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

It seems a lot of people, at least around here, use various kinds of spectrum analysis to mix. ...to be honest, I don't really understand how.

I agree -- your ears tell you more than meters or SA ever could... most times!

There have been some mixes where I've either been overtired, or too used to the sound of the tracks that I needed some visual assistance to help pinpoint an issue... or to check the overall frequency balance of a potential arrangement....

But I admit, the SA is not something that gets used regularly - although I like having it there when I do want it!

 

[jugalo180]

posted by jmproductions

The point is be an artist, not some guy reading a chart to tell them what to do.

i respect your words of wisdom.

 

[chessrock]

Bottom line is, like everything else, if you use a particular tool (spectral analyzer, recorder, computer, chainsaw, hammer, etc.), and you use it to where the finished product sounds like ass, then chances are you're using it wrong.

People who instantly dismiss those who use visual aids are usually those who aren't smart enough to use them right themselves . . . maybe some are intimidated by them. Or maybe they're afraid that if they start using them, that it will somehow cause them to stop listening or something; which is silly.

All I know is that what a spectrum analyzer brings to the table is kind of a no-brainer. Being able to know, at a glance, what frequencies something is occupying is a good thing, and I want this to be made clear and in no uncertain terms.

How you use that information is up to you, but if you cant' figure out at least some small way of making that work for you and be of some benefit, then you're very likely a complete moron.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

murimbi-wabasi somi renaga..........

(ignore me - I just wanted to trip my post count over the 6000 mark and couldn't think of anything intelligent to do it with!)

 

[littledog]

Bottom line is, like everything else, if you use a particular tool (spectral analyzer, recorder, computer, chainsaw, hammer, etc.), and you use it to where the finished product sounds like ass, then chances are you're using it wrong.

People who instantly dismiss those who use visual aids are usually those who aren't smart enough to use them right themselves . . . maybe some are intimidated by them. Or maybe they're afraid that if they start using them, that it will somehow cause them to stop listening or something; which is silly.

How you use that information is up to you, but if you cant' figure out at least some small way of making that work for you and be of some benefit, then you're very likely a complete moron.

Damn! Busted again!

Chessrock has exposed me!

I am officially changing my name from "littledog" to "complete-moron"... kind of has a nice ring to it, dont'cha think?
(It was either that or "sounds-like-ass"...)

Anyway, I never said anyone was an idiot for using anything, only that this particular idiot found it not particularly useful in the moronic context in which i work...

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Damn! Busted again!

Chessrock has exposed me!

I am officially changing my name from "littledog" to "complete-moron"... kind of has a nice ring to it, dont'cha think?
(It was either that or "sounds-like-ass"...)

Figures.........!

 

[chessrock]

Anyway, I never said anyone was an idiot for using anything, only that this particular idiot found it not particularly useful in the moronic context in which i work...

Hmm . . . now that you mention it . . .

I wasn't directing that comment at anyone, by the way. It was just a rant directed to the generalized notion that using SA's is a bad thing, which I don't remember you saying, come to think of it.