Getting that "polished sound" mixing question?

[gtrman_66]

EQ is like makeup. On an ugly chick it can make her look better if not done to excess, but won't make her look like a million bucks. On a better looking chick she may need none at all to look great, or may look even more glamorous with it.

Trying to think of an analogy with plastic surgery, but I'm too tired at the moment ...

That's a good way to look at it.

Lately I have started to think of tracking as "shooting a photo" of the music.
A fashion photographer isn't going to just grab a camera to shoot a layout and just snap shots of the models without having their hair, makeup, clothes, lighting etc. as good as they can get it, then go into photoshop and "fix" it all up. Sure, they touch the photos up later, but the people at the shoot setting it up get the "look" of everything as together as they can beforehand.

I think this is analagous to what goes into a great recording. Substute "sounds" for "look" and I think you can see where this is going. Make up the model and do her hair the best you can before you shoot the picture. Then you don't have to "photoshop" so much at the mix. Instead of creating a hairdo for her because her hair was a mess when you took the picture, you might just need to touch up (eq) that little strand that went astray during the shoot or whatever.

Mic placement, new drum heads and guitar strings, placement of the source within the space whether that space is perfect or not and yada yada yada is money in the bank when it comes to getting a polished sound. Recording ugly sounds is like photographing ugly women.

"At the shoot" is a good time to make sure she is wearing the right "clothes". For example, I was not only recording but I was also in the producers chair on the most recent project I worked. We were cutting guitar tracks late at night and the guitarist was listening to playback, shaking his head, knowing the sound just wasn't right for the song.

"Should I go back and cut some mids on the amps, boost the highs, play dirtier, cleaner, WTF?" he asked. My answer after thinking for a few minutes was "no, what this song needs is for you to put away the SG and pull out the Les Paul." ......worked like a charm.

Nope, just twisting knobs trying to "airbrush" a sound into place doesn't work. Sometimes, the more you twist the more "fake" the whole thing sounds. Which is fine, if fake is what you like.

 

[masteringhouse]

Very good analogy gtrman, a lot of parallels can be drawn between both the visual and aural arts substituting things like frequency for colors, volume for brightness, etc. Sometimes it helps to view things a bit more objectively from another reference.

I suppose that you could copy and paste a head from one body to another in Photoshop to fix a bad hairdo. Likewise you can copy and paste a drum track in Pro Tools. That's going to be my plastic surgery analogy for today ...

 

[rgraves]

Well, I'm new here, but out of this post, by far the most useful person has been jeap... Kevin and Blue bear sound and mastering house are not really answering the question posed, but seem to prefer to talk about how things "should" be done.

Most of us don't have time or experience to get ideal
tracks down, but just kind of have to work with what we've got. I'm lucky if I can get my singer to record his track more than twice, and that's in the corner of my living room, never the less getting the sound just how I wanted it and worrying about placement or anything.

Now, whether you guys want to admit it or not, working with what I had (crappy ameteur tracks) and mixing and mastering those, versus using some of the EQ "tricks" and suggestions in the links made a world of difference and elevated the songs to a decent DEMO level that at least could be played in the car or someone's crappy system and hold up.

And I think that's what most people were interested in, a lot of people can find information on best recording situation, but it seems to me that there are few that would be able to accomplish that. And perhaps rather than just saying what would be the best way to do things, you guys could have added what to do if that didn't happen and we already have the tracks and need to make do.

Anywho, I'm starting to feel less and less sorry for the flaming that occured.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Again - those new to recording are more than welcome to argue with each other about work-arounds to avoid proper technique and which piece of Radio Shack gear sounds better than another, or they can actually LEARN something from the pros and adapt it to their needs.... whatever.......

 

[lpdeluxe]

It's a fact: if you want a polished sound, you can't get it with bottom-line gear and no experience. Everybody starts there, and inexpensive gear is a good way to get started, but the question was about how to get a polished sound. Just don't think your RS mic and free recording software are going to get you a Grammy. More likely you'll be like most of us: you go through a stage where digital sound is SO GOOD, and it takes a while to become critical. Some people never make the transition to serious recording, and that's fine, but don't forget the "polished" part of the question.

 

[XLR]

Well, for me it was the Waves Linear EQ, multiband compressor and L2 limiter that changed it all.

The quality I could get from tracking and mixing seemed to be mucked up by any processing I did until I got those. To me, almost anything can sound good on my studio speakers played back direct, maybe with just a little reverb added. But to get it so it sounds polished and consistent on a variety of other playback systems is tough. The Waves plugs were the only ones that let me tweak the sound without making it even slightly veiled or harsh, and I've tried lots of other processing software.

Anyway, the question of polished sound made that come to mind.

Tim

 

[masteringhouse]

Most of us don't have time or experience to get ideal
tracks down, but just kind of have to work with what we've got. I'm lucky if I can get my singer to record his track more than twice, and that's in the corner of my living room, never the less getting the sound just how I wanted it and worrying about placement or anything.

If EQing crappy sounding tracks makes things sound "polished" to you, then go for it ...

 

[rgraves]

If EQing crappy sounding tracks makes things sound "polished" to you, then go for it ...


Well thanks for the kind response. Now, since you guys have decided to regrade to the topic of "polished" recordings which was answered 35 posts ago and has nothing to do with what people have been talking about the past 25 or so posts, which is EQ'ing tracks to get a better sound and avoid the muddy sound that can be solved by some simple EQ steps often times.

It seems like this could have been useful information that true "pros" could have shared, rather than sulking in your own expertise...

There are actually common EQ practices which are taught to people studying to be recording engineers which help improve the sound of a mix, perhaps you guys learned your skills by practice, rather than at a recording arts school, and then there's still plenty of room for experimentation.

There's plenty of people out there that have a shure 57 and a crappy MXL condenser mic and have produced CDs that were put out and sound great...it's not necessary to have pro gear anymore to make a competitive sound...

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

it's not necessary to have pro gear anymore to make a competitive sound...

Listen-up Sparky, I've got news for you - it never was........ that's the whole point of what most of the pros, myself included, have been saying here all along.

What it IS about is engineering SKILLS/TECHNIQUES -- good gear just makes the job easier. Bad gear makes it a LOT harder, and poor skills & technique make it impossible.

 

[masteringhouse]

If EQing crappy sounding tracks makes things sound "polished" to you, then go for it ...


Well thanks for the kind response. Now, since you guys have decided to regrade to the topic of "polished" recordings which was answered 35 posts ago and has nothing to do with what people have been talking about the past 25 or so posts, which is EQ'ing tracks to get a better sound and avoid the muddy sound that can be solved by some simple EQ steps often times.
.

Choosing the proper microphone is also a form of EQ as well as a good pre and good placement.

Have you tried using a condenser mic instead of a dynamic to brighten the sound? If you want a warmer sound for guitar have you tried placing the mic away from the cone? How about recording in a carpeted room versus a tiled room? There are tons of variables to the creation of a pro sound, learning how to use an EQ is only one part of the equation.

The pros use less EQ than the less experienced even with less than optimal gear. And because they use less processing things sound better and more polished.

Hopefully this gives you a bit more insight other than dipping 100-200Hz to reduce mud?

 

[gtrman_66]

I think to cut to the chase regarding "getting a polished sound" is to first ask the question "what are we trying to polish?" If the answer to that question is "a turd", then trying to add polish at the mixing and mastering stages is a futile effort. Seriously, if the mix engineer, whether it is a mix-it-yourself or send out to mix, finds himself using eq, compression, fx etc. to fix major problems with the sound of the recorded tracks rather than using those elements to create space and balance as well as correcting MINOR imperfections, the battle is lost. I mean, at that point it is no longer a mix but a goddamn rescue operation, which is never a good situation.

And the majors aren't doing the newbies in recording any favors perception-wise. When they prove they CAN polish a turd like Ashlee Simpson's vocal tracks by using autotune and ghosting a real vocalist in behind her, I think some people might tend to get a little misguided about what quality recordings are made of. You can bet your ass they didn't have to use the same treatment on every track on the album, just her no-talent, out of tune caterwallering.

Every piece of gear doesn't have to be top-shelf boutique stuff either. There is a line between crap and solid, usable gear.If you reasearch and shop wisely using the used market when you have to, you can put together a decent kit of stuff that is utilitarian and will get the job done.

I recorded a release for a local band that will be coming out late April or early May that I am damn proud of. I don't have any boutique stuff. I have a decent set of utilitaritian mics, I would hardly call the preamps in my Yamaha and Mackie mixers "boutique" and I wouldn't apply that term to adat converters either. I knew we were going to use a seasoned mixing pro in LA so I wanted to make the tracks the best I could, so I got in the studio and busted my ass to optimize what we had to work with. Drum tuning and new heads, Guitar intonation and fresh strings, simple room treatments, mic selection and placement, gain and level adjustments and on and on. It frustrated the band a little bit because they were itching to start tracking, but I stuck to my guns and it showed when we got to LA to mix and the first words out of the mix engineers mouth were "these tracks are REALLY WELL RECORDED!". Just what I wanted to hear.

The fact is if tracks are going to be "polished" during mixing, they have to be "diamonds in the rough" not turds. Admittedly, my "diamonds" were probably a bit rougher than what the big budget guys turn out, but the effort we put into making the best use of what we had, the great songs and great performances made them diamonds nonetheless.

I know some people don't want to hear that they can't expect to point a sorry mic at something, record it "however", then "fix it in the mix" and get great results. Well, you'll find out now or figure it out later, you simply can't polish 8 or 16 or 24 poorly recorded "turds" together and get a pro sounding mix.

If, after you have recorded your tracks, spending 5-10 minutes setting some basic static mix levels and panning doesn't reveal a good sounding cut, there is nothing to mix.

 

[rgraves]

Well, Woah-ho...a couple of disparaging posts and you guys start busting out some useful information, if someone makes fun of your mother then we'll probably get your full list of compression and limiting secrets.

Anywho, I agree of course mic placement, good gear, knowledge of how to use gear/compression etc is invaluable. But you guys just can't seem to get off this "have you tried this mic and moving everything around and recording in the closet instead of the bathroom" thing. I'm guessing here, but I think most people that have several condensers and dynamic mics, know some intermediate recording skills, otherwise why the heck do they have like 6 different mics to work with.

For the people that have 1 dynamic and 1 condenser mic and some cheap Yamaha board to work with, in the beginning it's all about getting the best sound you can with the tracks that are already recorded, and although there's truth in saying that there's no magic technique that gets you the sound you've been hearing on tracks recorded at one on one studios in LA, there's definately common practices beginners can follow to tune the sound.

Knowing which frequencies to try to adjust might have been useful information, but like I said, guess that was already posted by someone else.

So you guys keep goin for that pro sound, and remember that it takes years of experience, weeks of fine tuning, and perfect tracks to even have something worth talking about improving.

 

[masteringhouse]

Well, Woah-ho...a couple of disparaging posts and you guys start busting out some useful information, if someone makes fun of your mother then we'll probably get your full list of compression and limiting secrets.

Actually it just takes one more annoying twit to repeat what we've said in many other previous posts.

Why not try using the search function and reading instead of reposting the same old boring questions.

 

[rgraves]

Actually it just takes one more annoying twit to repeat what we've said in many other previous posts.

Why not try using the search function and reading instead of reposting the same old boring questions.

Well, I assume you're making a general statement since I have posted no question whatsoever, in which case I wonder why you even hang around if not to answer the same old boring question, when you have the experience you do, I would expect nearly every question would be the same old boring question.

Too bad you don't work in a pro studio, it would be interesting to see how you would react to an artist tearing you a new one. haha, just messing around though in truth.

 

[masteringhouse]

Too bad you don't work in a pro studio, it would be interesting to see how you would react to an artist tearing you a new one. haha, just messing around though in truth.

Actually I do work in a pro studio currently, in the past several years at various places, and teach audio production at 2 colleges.

True professionals know that the artist and studio need to work together to produce great music (just like more experienced individuals on bbs forums and those asking questions). If that breaks down, then both would be wasting their time and I would tell the artist "tearing me a new one" to take his nonsense elsewhere.

In fact, I've never had that happen with any of the artists that I've decided to work with, so the question is hypothetical.

I don't hang out here to answer the same old boring questions. There are actually some very good ones as well as insight into the thought process of people starting out in the biz (helps with the introductory courses that I teach) along with news and opinions on products.

In the process of posting here I've also made a few friends who's opinions I respect as well as learning patience in dealing with Internet trolls.

 

[CoolCat]

disagree all i want! ok i will? no you won't.

Choosing the proper microphone is also a form of EQ as well as a good pre and good placement.

The pros use less EQ than the less experienced even with less than optimal gear. And because they use less processing things sound better and more polished.

Hopefully this gives you a bit more insight other than dipping 100-200Hz to reduce mud?

Scene IV:
you mentioned changing microphones to change the EQ,
or a pre-amp and good placement or a room and a room or tile and carpet can change the EQ.....form of EQ to the incoming signal.
so why is it not the same to just use an EQ to change an incoming sound?
seems 6 of one, half dozen of the other?
how you go about obtaining the "desired freq-of incoming signal" shouldn't matter, it seems.

Scene V:
I kinda disagree when the Quality of Equipment is downplayed,
listen to the Beatle Anthology recording=ASS crackle poop....
then the same song, same singer recorded in ABBEY ROAD with GM and crew and Hi end equipment....ddamnmnnnn!!!!!!
even fhkng Sgt. Pepper in MONO!!!! is like daaammmnnngoood??

I agree with the talent requirement, but c'mon good gear is HUGE.
I don't think you can get true "polished" sound with consumer gear.

Eric Clapton wouldn't sound good on a bowed neck, out of tune, buzzing string'd, muddy-sht WalMart sht guitar in the studio.

i'm exaggerating but who cares?

 

[masteringhouse]

Scene IV:
you mentioned changing microphones to change the EQ,
or a pre-amp and good placement or a room and a room or tile and carpet can change the EQ.....form of EQ to the incoming signal.
so why is it not the same to just use an EQ to change an incoming sound?
seems 6 of one, half dozen of the other?
how you go about obtaining the "desired freq-of incoming signal" shouldn't matter, it seems.

Cool, back to a good question.

One reason is that an EQ introduces phase distortion to the signal (at least analog EQs) and degrades the quality of the signal. Another reason is that it affects the natural series of harmonics of the signal and gives it an "unnatural quality". That said, sometimes this is what you want, for example getting a "telephone" effect on a vocal, or a funky sound to an instrument.

My question would be why not get the best sound possible from the start and use EQ to help "fit" tracks together once everything has been recorded rather than using it as a tool to fix something that is broken? Better still not use it at all if possible and avoid a "processed" type of sound?

As an experiment try taking one of your favorite CDs and feeding it into an EQ boosting a particular frequency with one knob and then reducing it by the same amount and frequency with another knob. Compare the sound of this versus the EQ bypassed.

Which sounds better? If you can't hear the difference, listen closer ...

 

[gtrman_66]

Cool, back to a good question.

One reason is that an EQ introduces phase distortion to the signal (at least analog EQs) and degrades the quality of the signal. Another reason is that it affects the natural series of harmonics of the signal and gives it an "unnatural quality". That said, sometimes this is what you want, for example getting a "telephone" effect on a vocal, or a funky sound to an instrument.

My question would be why not get the best sound possible from the start and use EQ to help "fit" tracks together once everything has been recorded rather than using it as a tool to fix something that is broken? Better still not use it at all if possible and avoid a "processed" type of sound?

As an experiment try taking one of your favorite CDs and feeding it into an EQ boosting a particular frequency with one knob and then reducing it by the same amount and frequency with another knob. Compare the sound of this versus the EQ bypassed.

Which sounds better? If you can't hear the difference, listen closer ...

Exactly. EQ and other processing is most often a destructive process wheras the good mic technique, source optimization etc. etc. are constructive process when it comes to creating high fidelity recordings. If you can identify a problem with say, a guitar freq. and correct it by changing the EQ. on the amp, moving a mic or taping down a buzzing corner bracket on the cab before it hits the mic and goes through the preamp, it's money in the bank.

If you find yourself at mixdown using 3-4db adjustments to the EQ where you were making 10-12db adjustments before, you will increase the quality of your product immensely.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I agree with the talent requirement, but c'mon good gear is HUGE.
I don't think you can get true "polished" sound with consumer gear.

I disagree - as one of my SIGs used to say "George Massenburg will get better results with a Portastudio than a monkey with a Neve...." That's VERY true...

It's all about engineering chops - knowing what to do for any given context. The gear only makes the technique easier, or more difficult.... when a contractor builds a house, will he still be able to hammer a nail with a Wal-mart hammer as opposed to a Craftsman? Of course... maybe he has to strike several more times (off-balance cheapies??), but it's their skill that gives them the end result.

Eric Clapton wouldn't sound good on a bowed neck, out of tune, buzzing string'd, muddy-sht WalMart sht guitar in the studio.

I disagree - Clapton will still sound like Clapton no matter what guitar he used...

 

[masteringhouse]

I'm somewhere in between you guys on the gear issue.

I agree with Bruce's quote "George Massenburg will get better results with a Portastudio than a monkey with a Neve...." Or said another way, "It's the ear not the gear". OTOH GM will get better results with a Neve than GM with a Portastudio.

I've mastered stuff from bad engineers using SSLs that sounded like crap, and stuff from budding engineers using Goldwave that sounded amazing. However, given the time to learn the board I would have liked to have heard the guy using Goldwave on the SSL, I'm sure it would have been even better.

In general I find that the better the gear, the less one has to work at getting a good sound because it's already there. Likewise the better the talent/skill the less one has to process, edit, paste, and cover-up which makes things sound better overall.

Like Clapton on a crappy guitar, stylistically he may sound the same but with bad intonation it's going to be an out of tune Slowhand. I'm sure Eric would use the guitar for slide instead and come out with a funky old Elmore James sound. Pros have a way of taking what they have and making the best of it.