Getting that "polished sound" mixing question?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DizziDevereux
  • Start date Start date
D

DizziDevereux

New member
Hello,

I am using sonar3 producer edition. I am tracking through a Boss br1600cd, and then transporting the individual waves via USB 2.0 to my PC,( Not in real-time). My question is: How should I use EQ to get that polished "scoop" sound? Should there be some adjusting from the BR1600CD, or should I only use my WAVE plug-ins? I have been told, in a LIVE situation that too many EQ's cause frequency confusion, is this the same for studio recording? We are sending the final product for mastering after the fact. I would just like to know if there is any trick to getting better quality in my mix before we send it up for mastering. The less he does the less it costs. You can here an un-mastered track called "Separation" on my bands MySpace acount @ myspace.com/devereuxband. The entire song was recorded with the BR1600CD, and some minor editing in SONAR, the intro is an upright bass being beaten and used so to speak, and the drums are synthed. This is a decent example of what I am going for, and I would like to know of any tips, or feedback you could give me. ----- Dizzi Devereux
 
Just MHO, but I think that any EQ you apply to the whole mix is only going to make life tougher (translation: more $$$ from you) for the mastering engineer. Get your best mix, then leave the rest to the ME. In all likelihood, he has better EQs than you do, anyway.
 
You can use EQ at the track level as much as is neccessary for the mix. I agree on the buss EQ - If it *needs* it, it would *probably* be better to find out exactly what is creating that need at the track level.

As far as which EQ to use... The one that sounds better for that track. :cool:
 
DizziDevereux said:
Hello,

I would just like to know if there is any trick to getting better quality in my mix before we send it up for mastering. The less he does the less it costs.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the less that you do the less it will cost as well. Adding compression and/or EQ to the final mix before sending it in for mastering may make the mastering engineer's job even more difficult. Not to mention the fact that processing multiple times helps to degrade audio quality.

Concentrate on getting the mix to sound it's best by modifying the individual tracks (something the ME won't have control over) and leave the mastering to the ME.

OTOH, giving him a "pseudo-master" along with the original tracks to give him an idea of what you're going for is cool.
 
i dont think he is talking about eq'ing the entire mess right before it goes to the mastering house.

he is talking about eq at mixdown time which is how you avoid the mess.

while its possible to use corrective eq at mastering time that is not the best time to do it.

my first strategy was "hey if my tracks sound like my sources then i will just add them all together and it will sound great".

what i got was a muddy boomy mess.

you need to read up on mixing eq strategies.
 
How confident are you in your tracking skills? What's wrong with the way your recorded tracks sound prior to any processing at the mixing stage? Could the sound have been improved by adjusting the mic position, using a different mic, using a different instrument, cab etc? Do you have a good live recording area/s?

If you get all of that stuff right the use of EQ etc. becomes much easier. You should be fine-tuning sounds and just giving each element of the mix it's own space. If you're trying to make crappy sounds into good sounds using eq then you won't get a 'polished' sounding product.

I can't listen to your track as I'm at work so I'm not commenting on that, but getting a 'polished sound' is a lot more than just using a bit of EQ.
 
Kevin DeSchwazi said:
How confident are you in your tracking skills? What's wrong with the way your recorded tracks sound prior to any processing at the mixing stage? Could the sound have been improved by adjusting the mic position, using a different mic, using a different instrument, cab etc? Do you have a good live recording area/s?

If you get all of that stuff right the use of EQ etc. becomes much easier. You should be fine-tuning sounds and just giving each element of the mix it's own space. If you're trying to make crappy sounds into good sounds using eq then you won't get a 'polished' sounding product.

I can't listen to your track as I'm at work so I'm not commenting on that, but getting a 'polished sound' is a lot more than just using a bit of EQ.
Click to expand...
Couldn't have said it better myself!
 
oh yes

what you need is a large properly treated recording space and state of the art equipment

then add an experienced staff of recording professionals

hire some studio musicians and singers

have everything absolutely perfect

THEN you can concern yourself with mixing EQ

:rolleyes:
 
for the rest of us there are strategies we can use to polish our turds. this is the kind of stuff you may need to try:


http://www.recordingproject.com/bbs...opic.php?t=1033


when you are mixing you can compare your mix to commercial cd's that you want your mix to sound like.

be aware that there may be a LOT of eq used on commercial stuff at mixdown.
 
jeap said:
oh yes

what you need is a large properly treated recording space and state of the art equipment

then add an experienced staff of recording professionals

hire some studio musicians and singers

have everything absolutely perfect

THEN you can concern yourself with mixing EQ

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Your attitude and aggression confuses me, do you think I gave bad or innappropriate advice?

I don't have access to any of the things you've mentioned unless I shell out for them like most other people. In fact the only thing I actually mentioned which is on your list is a good live recording space. Unfortunately this is important for getting a good recorded sound but that's not to say it can't be done at home. Check out the Studio building forum.

The point of my post was that you don't get a 'polished' product (which is what DizziDevereux is asking about) by tracking badly and then just processing the hell out of everything.

Therefore it's a good idea to get a grip on the fundamentals of tracking before you turn to processing regardless of your level of experience and the gear/facilities you have to hand.

If you think this is wrong then that's your privelege.

Oh, and the link you posted doesn't seem to be working.
 
Last edited:
I think that there are a lot of beginners look for some magic bullet that's going to turn shit into gold.

Kevin's advice is essential knowledge. You're not going to get a truly great performance from mediocre talent. Yes you can process the crap out of them, edit, etc. but the trained ear knows the difference.

Likewise you're not going to get a Radio Shack mic to sound like a $2,000 Neumann or turn poor engineering skills into something that sounds like they have been doing it for 25 years. Home Recording should be about making the most of the resources that you have, experimentation, and learning. Not throwing on a magic plug-in that's going to fix an essential lack of skill.

Mic techniques can take years to learn, same with EQ, compression techniques, mixing, etc. If it was easy and everything was done the same way there would be a computer program to mix and master years ago, and all of the big engineers that you know and love would'nt be in the business.

The question posed by the thread is way too general. There are thousands of elements that go into creating a polished sound, from the skills of the talent, mic choice, mic placement, which mic pre was used, the cabling to the board, type of recording device, etc., etc., etc.
 
link

thanks for alerting me about the link. try that one.

yeah i think your answer sucked. the question was:

"My question is: How should I use EQ to get that polished "scoop" sound?"

and your answer seemed to be "dont even consider eq until everything else is perfect"


the link is to a thread at another forum that deals with cutting (scooping???) mud out of a mix which seems to be exactly what this guy wants.

there are also links in the thread to some articles which have interesting mixing EQ strategies.

hopefully the link will work this time!
 
Not perfect, just as good as you can get it with the resources you have. Maybe I should have stated that.

And you won't get a polished sound just by using EQ. I felt it was important that that was pointed out. As I said, your privelege to disagree.

Interesting thread, I see one of the guys there recommends room treatment.

So are you gonna flame him too? :p
 
do i flame people for suggesting improvements? absolutely not!

i agree with what you guys are saying!

its just that this guy already has his tracks. room treatment wont improve them at this point.


yes mixing can take years to learn and eq is part of it. thats why i say start learning now.
 
i answered in this thread because this is something i have been working on myself

i saw that link in the mp3 clinic and believe it or not that kind of advice works wonders for home recordists

im just trying to help
 
Well I think it goes back to the philosophy that is mixing and mastering.


Mastering was that thing you did to add the gold in your mixes when you wanted to play with the big boys. Funny considering how mastering didn't even start the way we think it did.

Mixing is an art that depends on the medium it works on: sound. That is plain and simple. You mix true to the source and that fact alone can greatly better anyone's ability to mix. Knowing that, you tend to ease up on EQ and FX when you don't need them and vice versa.


The Modes of listening sorta play a big role as your experience increases. You learn that it's one thing to "listen" to a song rather than listening for specific things in a song.

1) Balance
2) Sonic integrity
3) technical screw ups


all some examples of how you have many different ways you can listen to the same song.

Like was stated, probably the less you do, the better it becomes.
 
obviously if you have a great room you can "ease up" on the eq

unfortunately most home recordists dont have a great room


and lets not forget that this is a home recording board

;)
 
jeap said:
and lets not forget that this is a home recording board
Click to expand...
Which means WHAT, exactly??? You'd prefer the pros leave so the rest can argue over which works better in a bad room - Radio Shack or Behringer???? :rolleyes:
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Which means WHAT, exactly??? You'd prefer the pros leave so the rest can argue over which works better in a bad room - Radio Shack or Behringer???? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I prefer Radio Shack, with multi-band compression and then slam it with an L2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top