Getting that "polished sound" mixing question?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DizziDevereux
  • Start date Start date
And something I have learned, is there is no "ONE WAY" to do any of this, so experimentation on your part is a prerequisite. Take a look at any advice you are given, and if it sounds reasonable, try it. There will always be conflicting advice, and both parties may be right, just in different siruations.

And remember, don't get frustrated, this is music, and should be FUN!!

Ed
 
Dogman said:
And something I have learned, is there is no "ONE WAY" to do any of this, so experimentation on your part is a prerequisite. Take a look at any advice you are given, and if it sounds reasonable, try it. There will always be conflicting advice, and both parties may be right, just in different siruations.

And remember, don't get frustrated, this is music, and should be FUN!!

Ed
Click to expand...

i still say if you really want to know about mixing EQ you should do some web searches and read some articles - and not just one or two

i certainly wouldnt be satisfied with any of the other advice given here no matter how puffed up the poster
 
Last edited:
jeap said:
i still say if you really want to know about mixing EQ you should do some web searches and read some articles - and not just one or two

i certainly wouldnt be satisfied with any of the other advice given here no matter how puffed up the blowhard spouting it
Click to expand...

Making a fool of yourself has a really bad effect on you doesn't it? Let it go man, or go and see a shrink.
 
Kevin DeSchwazi said:
Making a fool of yourself has a really bad effect on you doesn't it? Let it go man, or go and see a shrink.
Click to expand...

are you saying people shouldnt read articles?

haha i toned down my response but i see you immortalized it

i dont really have a problem with you so much as the jackass who keeps making radio shack accusations

toward the beginning i was reacting to said jackass more than to you



i realize that a lot of people here have problems reading. as someone with a lot of higher education i dont have those problems.

the best way to learn for me is to read a lot of articles and use the forums. each spurs on pursuit of the other.

since some people want all their questions answered in a forum i try, at times, to guide them to helpful information.

i know you think i flamed you and you have been very upset. i didnt think my sarcastic response was much of a flame at all. obviously there are much worse flames going on in this thread as well as the board in general.

i get frustrated when i feel that people are getting bad advice and im sorry i upset you with my sarcasm. it was not directly solely, or even predominantly, at you.
 
jeap said:
are you saying people shouldnt read articles?

haha i toned down my response but i see you immortalized it

i dont really have a problem with you so much as the jackass who keeps making radio shack accusations

toward the beginning i was reacting to said jackass more than to you



i realize that a lot of people here have problems reading. as someone with a lot of higher education i dont have those problems.

the best way to learn for me is to read a lot of articles and use the forums. each spurs on pursuit of the other.

since some people want all their questions answered in a forum i try, at times, to guide them to helpful information.

i know you think i flamed you and you have been very upset. i didnt think my sarcastic response was much of a flame at all. obviously there are much worse flames going on in this thread as well as the board in general.

i get frustrated when i feel that people are getting bad advice and im sorry i upset you with my sarcasm. it was not directly solely, or even predomintly, at you.
Click to expand...

You've made several good points, it's just the way you choose to make them that bugs me a bit. Of course people will always have conflicting opinions on all sorts of different things. But you seem incapable of disagreeing with someone without getting all uppity about it and flaming people.

I worked in forensic psychiatry for 6 years so i have a very high stress threshold. It would take a hell of a lot more than a teenager who wants to make a name for himself on a message board to upset me.
 
Kevin DeSchwazi said:
You've made several good points, it's just the way you choose to make them that bugs me a bit. Of course people will always have conflicting opinions on all sorts of different things. But you seem incapable of disagreeing with someone without getting all uppity about it and flaming people.

I worked in forensic psychiatry for 6 years so i have a very high stress threshold. It would take a hell of a lot more than a teenager who wants to make a name for himself on a message board to upset me.
Click to expand...

ha! it wasnt me who made the radio shack accusations.

really i thought you folks appreaciate a little sarcasm. i learned a lot of it from watching britcoms after all.

now you are making teenager allegations which doesnt bother me in the least. it fits the rock n roll image.

on the other hand it looks like the dude hasnt read any articles at all. given the probable result of such a one "messing around" with EQ without a plan, and in the absence of any indicators to the contrary, i must at this time humbly admit that my advice had no impact on him and that the result of the bulk of the advice here, "best to not touch the EQ", would likely provide the best outcome.

i respectfully admit defeat.

:o
 
whoops!

i just went and looked at the "muffled mix" thread and what did i find???

kevin deschwazi is now dispensing exactly the same kind of advice that i gave a link to: the chris harris thread at the other forum. thanks again chris harris!

i really got a good laugh from that kevin and i am glad i could help!

:D

*helping old dogs learn new tricks*
 
jeap said:
whoops!

i just went and looked at the "muffled mix" thread and what did i find???

kevin deschwazi is now dispensing exactly the same kind of advice that i gave a link to: the chris harris thread at the other forum. thanks again chris harris!

i really got a good laugh from that kevin and i am glad i could help!

:D

*helping old dogs learn new tricks*
Click to expand...

Yeah because sweeping through a range of frequencies to find errant frequencies is a new technique isn't it? And of course it's a very recent revelation that there's a lot of mud in the low-mids. :rolleyes:
 
Kevin DeSchwazi said:
Yeah because sweeping through a range of frequencies to find errant frequencies is a new technique isn't it? And of course it's a very recent revelation that there's a lot of mud in the low-mids. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

well since you have obviously and enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon i provided in this thread (judging from the advice you are now giving which appears to be taken verbatim from the chris harris thread) you certainly do seem ungrateful dont you?

tsk tsk

and no i dont believe that you knew it all and were giving it all out as advice since long ago!

it looks like you copied it practically word for word!
 
Well you believe what you want. I don't claim to know a lot but I do know how to use a parametric eq and that 'muddiness' often exists in the low-mid region. And i knew this before you posted that link. I actually said that i'd read about the Hi Pass thing recently although I just assumed I'd read it here.

How to use eq and where you'll find mud in a mix really isn't advanced knowledge.

Why not put the two posts up for comparison? then we can see how 'word for word' they are.
 
Last edited:
on the 18th of this month i posted a link for you to the chris harris thread

then 3 days later on the 21st you gave this reply in the muddy mix thread:
Kevin DeSchwazi said:
Try this on each track.

On tracks with not much low end stuff going on (vocals, guitars, keys etc.) run a high pass filter at around 80-100hz. In fact a tip I heard on here a few days ago was to run the HPF up until you can hear it having an effect on the track and then just cut it back a bit from there. So if you hear the sound start to go at around 120hz, then cut it back to 110-115hz.

In the low-mid range set a narrow bandwidth (or 'Q') and boost it 10dbs or so (make sure you levels are fairly low to start with). Then sweep through that range of frequencies (from around 100-500hz) while playing back the soloed track, you should be able to hear if there are frequencies in that range which are muddying up a track, you can then cut that frequency range (keeping the Q good and narrow).
Click to expand...

notice the words "...I heard on here a few days ago..."...

3 days perhaps? was a link to the entire spiel handed to you on a plate?

at any rate you are now preaching the precisely the same information as in the chris harris thread on the other board! it looks like you copied from more than one post but yes all the same words are there.

coincidence? i think not. your attempts to save face are wonderfully transparent.

i am glad that you are now on the right track and finally offering useful information, however it came about, but as much as i enjoy sparring i find i have overestimated you and now find you somewhat tiresome. i have therefore decided to take the high road and add you to my loser list so i wont have to see any more of your nattering and nitpicking.
 
The 'I heard a few days ago' comment clearly relates to the bit about raising the frequency of the HPF until it has an effect on the sound and then cutting it back a bit. So what's wrong with saying that it's new knowledge for me also? The rest as I've said twice already is not new, special or particularly advanced technique.

Sorry but your attempt to discredit me for 'stealing' top secret or proprietary techniques is laughable, hence you not showing both threads for comparison as I suggested. That really would've backed up your claims that I'd copied 'vebatim' and 'word for word' so it's weird how you've decided not to do it. I'm sure anyone who cares (err, so that'll be no-one then) will have looked for themselves anyway and seen that they're actually quite different.

I sometimes record acoustic guitar with a stereo pair of SDCs (common knowledge/technique), so shall I claim this technique to be my own and berate anyone else who mentions it?

Anyway it looks like you succeeded in turning this thread into an episode of 'the Jeap Show' which was apparently your aim all along so well done on that one.

The fact you now hold me in such low regard will cause me untold misery. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I knew jeap behaving himself was too good to be true........... :rolleyes:
 
Since DJL has made such great strides in self control, someone had to fill the psychotic flamer vacuum: ergo, jeap.
 
jeap said:
i realize that a lot of people here have problems reading. as someone with a lot of higher education i dont have those problems.
Click to expand...
:D:D:D
Let's see - higher education = post junior high?

the best way to learn for me is to read a lot of articles and use the forums. each spurs on pursuit of the other.
Click to expand...
The best way to learn most processes, including recording, is practice - you have to actually do it.

I play a great number of instruments extremely well, as I've read about how to do it and visited many a forum. :)

"get over yourself dude"
 
Getting theat "polished sound" mixing question

Hello all, I have just discovered this site and was in fact on a search for
how to improve the overall quality of my mixes, and stumbled on this thread.
I have I think the same question as this thread covers. I have an AW16G, and use a Korg N-one keyboard, acoustic guitar and use a fairly good mic, however ALL of my mixes sound flat, one dimensional, not spacious, not lush, there is a sound you hear on pro CD's and I am always experimenting with adding/subtracting EQ and effects, but I have never even come close to that full spacious and very lush sound I am seeking. For instance, on my guitar lines, I can add reverb, and while that thickens it a bit, it still doesn't end up sounding crisp and liquid like I'd like it to sound.
I understand there is knowledge gained by experience, and I realize too there is a difference between my livingroom and a multimillion dollar studio. But, is there a basic way I can start to experiment, and what is it that a pro master actually does to change it from what I have into what my ears want? Has anyone had any success in this area?
 
pianogal said:
Hello all, I have just discovered this site and was in fact on a search for
how to improve the overall quality of my mixes, and stumbled on this thread.
I have I think the same question as this thread covers. I have an AW16G, and use a Korg N-one keyboard, acoustic guitar and use a fairly good mic, however ALL of my mixes sound flat, one dimensional, not spacious, not lush, there is a sound you hear on pro CD's and I am always experimenting with adding/subtracting EQ and effects, but I have never even come close to that full spacious and very lush sound I am seeking. For instance, on my guitar lines, I can add reverb, and while that thickens it a bit, it still doesn't end up sounding crisp and liquid like I'd like it to sound.
I understand there is knowledge gained by experience, and I realize too there is a difference between my livingroom and a multimillion dollar studio. But, is there a basic way I can start to experiment, and what is it that a pro master actually does to change it from what I have into what my ears want? Has anyone had any success in this area?
Click to expand...
I have a few articles on my studio site that can help you - particularly the one on the basics of mixing.... http://www.bluebearsound.com/articles

But there is an art and craftmanship to production that a good professional is accomplished at.
 
I've got to bump this. I'm not quite done reading it, but it seems like some good info in here. I'm dealing with having to mix (thus EQ) our first little CD we're putting together, and after sending a sample song to a masterer, he said it was hard to work with, as there were too many low-mids in the toms, bass, and bass drum.

what i really need to do is figure out how to get these tunes ready to send to a mastering house.

I trim and trim in the low end, and it's either way too much, or not enough. I feel like i'm walking blind. I know to use my ears, but after listneing to a tune a few times i kind of loose my critical hearing. It's kind of like going to the department store and smelling perfumes or colognes...after a few, i can't tell the difference any more.

So, actual numbers or ranges to hit would help out a lot after my ears crap out on me. There's got to be some magical numbers for these things (assuming our band is 2 acoustic guitars, bass, vox and drums). I mean, you know these instruments will be overlapping all over the place, so where do you cut what to get rid off all the low end buildup/mud?
 
There's no way to tell without hearing it at the track level - Each instrument may have muddy frequencies that are different - The resonance of the instrument, the key the song is played in, the mic, the room...

If you can't pick it out by ear off the bat, boost and sweep a tight parametric until the "whoom" comes through - There's your "irritant" frequency. Cut it some. If it's pretty nasty, cut it tight and then widen the Q until it sounds right. If it only happens on certain notes, sweep to find the note and cut it leaving the Q pretty tight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top