"grindy" or "harsh" frequencies

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris Jahn
  • Start date Start date
C

Chris Jahn

New member
Ive been messing around with my new studio set up for about 4 months now and ive finally got some stuff im pretty happy with.

But one lingering problem is a harshness over the top of everything. I remixed something were this problem was particularly bad, and by pulling in the 6, 8, and 10 khz range on the guitars and the overheads and a little in the vocals, i got much better resualts.

But its still knda there and it changes from mix to mix, and on top of that i lose a little brightness when i do this. Any suggestions for solving this problem and getting the best of both worlds, FYI:Im using a 31 band graphic EQ, because i dont like the other EQ's i have to work with, so please try to answer based on that, also the music is very high gain guitar driven, with heavy drums and sorta shouted vocals (more bruce springsteen shouted then punk or hardcore screamed) if any of that helps with some answers.
 
Chris, without knowing your set-up and signal chain, it's hard to answer.

I remember having a similar problem when I first started out. I tried EQ'ing and everything else. I learned as time went on that it was a harshness that came from using a crappy pre-amp (Behringer) and not knowing anything about gain staging.

I'm not saying that's your situation. But it might not be a simple matter of EQ'ing it out. It might be a harshness that doesn't have to be there in the first place depending on the things I mentioned above.
 
I use two presonus firepods first, which have alright pre's, then daisy chained to my external harddrive, then out to my computer, when mixing i compress first (this is all plug ins) then i sind the compressed signal into the eq, then any other processing (reverb etc...) comes after that. I mic the gutiars with an sm58 or an sm57 depending in the sound i want, and somtimes i double mic using a large condensor with a tube (and yes i reverse the phase, and its sounds fine so its not that) mabye that further info will help. and on the drums i use 8 mics, all from a Audix pre-pack drum mic set (pretty mid range, not fancy, not cheap) and the vocals are done with the same condensor mic.
 
Frequency ranges aren't by nature harsh, but certain harsh qualities do tend to fall within particular freq ranges - like gtrs in the 3-4 kHz range. Assuming the source sound is not itself harsh, you're best off to look first at at mike positioning and room sound, secondly - mike, pre and converter quality. Then use EQ after that for finessing things. But really, it's mostly mike use and room sound that makes or breaks it IME.
 
What level do you record at. I mean, in your recording program what level does your signal average and peak at?
 
Um, i honestly dont know, at least in Db. I know ive been told that i track way to low, and i have not had the chance to do a rcording since this info came to me, so i dont know how much it will effect my sound. Basically my train of thouhgt was to track low (meters bouncing about a quarter of the way up) because i thought the further away from clipping you could get and still have a audible signal would be a good thing. then a pro engineer told me that its quite the oposite, that in digital you want everything bouncing about 2 thirds on the meter, because more input means more information, meaning that if im tracking with the meters a quarter of the way up im only getting 16 bits of info or less, were as tracking higher litereally translates to 24 bits of full info.

As for mixing, i mix pretty hot, no clipping of course, but I start with kick and snare, and those are mixed about two thirds up the meter at their peaks and the guitars fall just under that (on a song by song basis of course)
 
Chris Jahn said:
... somtimes i double mic using a large condensor with a tube (and yes i reverse the phase, and its sounds fine so its not that) mabye that further info will help. and on the drums i use 8 mics, all from a Audix pre-pack drum mic set (pretty mid range, not fancy, not cheap) and the vocals are done with the same condensor mic.
Click to expand...

Reversing the phase is not necessarily the right thing to do when using two mics on a guitar cabinet. You generally want the peaks and troughs of the waveforms to match up so that certain frequencies aren't cut or boosted. Just zoom in and look at the waves up close, and nudge if need be. Harshness will start with two things: The source (the instrument combined with it's environment) and the microphone and it's placement. Your pres and converters are pretty middle of the road, so we'll assume what is going to your diskdrive is pretty accurate in the scheme of things.

1. Tracking..........
Listen to the guitar amps in the room. Do they sound harsh? Do the cymbols sound harsh? If yes, the only way you're going to tame that is using different mics, mic placement, or changing the source itself. Try different amp settings, different guitars, amps, cymbol's, etc. If everything sounds fine and dandy while you're tracking and playing back the music dry with no eq, compression, or effects, move on to the next step.

2. Processing........
-Watch it with the compression. Certain compressors, hardware and plugins alike, will have various affects on the high frequency content of material. If I am compressing the overheads, I usually use a multiband compressor for greater control over the higher frequency range. I tend to compress snare drums fairly heavily, and back the attack down to about 5-8ms. Other than that, only compress if you need it, and do it lightly (unless it's for effect).
-Eq's are tricky. I'd stay away from graphic eq's. There's some pretty cool free parametric VST plugs out there (http://antress.myweb.hinet.net/). Boost in small amounts. If you are having to do crazy things with your EQ, unless it's for effect, go back to the source and make sure everything is fine on that front. It's very easy to get carried away while mixing. If you realize that you are, the best thing you can do is clear the effect bins and start from scratch.
 
Also, if you're recording distortion guitar...back way off the gain. I recorded a band not too long ago with a very distorted metal sound and I found I had to find just the right gain level, because if it was too much, I found it very harsh and buzzy.
 
Timothy Lawler said:
Assuming the source sound is not itself harsh, you're best off to look first at at mike positioning and room sound, secondly - mike, pre and converter quality.
Click to expand...
I second this approach. I'd also add monitoring chain to that list.

Look at it this way, Chris. You mentioned having to "pull in" the same range of frequencies on three entirely different instruments (guitar, overheads and vocals). It's most likely not the individual instruemnts causing the harshness in the same frequencies, but rather a common denomiator between them that's causing it. The usual suspects in common denominators would be

- room acoustics; both in the sound room and in the mixing/monitoring room.

- excessive use of the same mic/preamp combinations on a large number of individual tracks causing a characteristic frequency buildup as the tracks are stacked.

- other hardware coloration common to multiple tracks such as a mixer or common plug.

Of those above, I'd first wonder about your monitoring chain. It's possible - especially if your room isn't bass trapped well - you're sitting in a positive bass mode causing you to actually under-accentuate your bass frequencies in your mixes. This could result in your mixes being unbalanced towares the mids and mid-highs where all the harshness is located.

Nest I'd look into your sound room and it's sound properties. Combine that with the fact that it looks like maybe you're using almost all 57s and an inexpensive drum kit package, and that could be where the frequency buldup is coming.

What kind of condenser are you talking about? If it happens to be something like an NT1 (just for example) which can have somewhat brittle sounding highs, it could be adding to the buildup.

You also mention that you compress before you EQ. Nothing wrong with that intrinsically, but if the freqs sound worse after the compression than they do before, you might get easier or more natural-sounding results by fixing the curve before you compress rather than afterwards.

Just a few ideas to look into for a start,

G.
 
this may sound oversimplistic, but learn how to EQ. there's no substituting for quality raw tracking, but every track is not going to fit and will need adjusting. learn to EQ...
 
Isnt this a candidate for posting in the mp3 forum? I mean us listening to the sound rather than relying on Chris explain the effect in words.

Cheers Tim
 
I think that's a good idea for many things in the mixing/mastering forum, honestly.

Listening and talking specifics is always better than gereralities.

Some may argue that mp3 compression is a problem re audio accuracy but I haven't found that often to be the case myself. Well, with anything 192 kbps and above. But anyone can post a 320 kbps mp3 on lightningmp3.com and it can be remarkably close to 16/44.1 quality.
 
Timothy Lawler said:
I think that's a good idea for many things in the mixing/mastering forum, honestly.

Listening and talking specifics is always better than gereralities.
Click to expand...
Somebody in this forum used to have a great signature line:

"Typing about audio is like dancing about architecture."

:D

G.
 
Thats exactly why i have not sent anything to this site for people to hear, im deathly affraid of sending Mp3's, I HATE THEM. But if somone can explain how to do it "right" Ill send some stuff im workng on!!!!
Chris
 
Im listening to a 192 encoded mp3 of a song I just finished mixing, and the mp3 doesn't sound much different than the wav file (or the mix that plays from the source tapes before they go into the laptop for mastering/finalization)... there is of course a difference, but I wouldn't worry about posting mp3's on the site for fear of loss of quality... lots of people post mp3's and we're able to get an accurate picture of the situation.
 
Re the mp3 clinic...
Somebody in this forum used to have a great signature line: "Typing about audio is like dancing about architecture."
Click to expand...
True if you're talking about arguments over aesthetic values.

Not true if you're talking about comments from listeners you know well like, "mix is too hot in the lower mid's on my X monitors... try cutting some 300 Hz from the bass gtr", or "nice lead gtr tone... but it's buried under the...", or "great drummer but cymbals sound harsh... try a cut at...", or "boomy ac gtr... perhaps retrack and change the mike position...", or "piano has so much verb added that it sounds like it's in a different room than the cello", or "hot solo but the ac gtr verb sounds artificial. If you want it more natural, try rolling off the highs", or "sounds great. But some gtr fills between the vocal phrases would add a lot". All just opinions but often valuable input.

Not dancing about architecture at all.

Often a number of listeners mention the same issues about a tune which doesn't make them right but is further food for thought. Since commenters usually post tunes themselves, getting to know their production style gives added meaning to their comments, and that's a critical aspect. It's not a place you're going to get anything from with just a superficial look.

And it's nice to have others who know about audio listen to your tune and sometimes just say they liked it. Maybe that's dancing about architecture, but dunno, maybe more like a wave and a thumbs up from someone who you know has good ears.
 
Whoah, Tim, you misunderstood my intent completly. I was agreeing with you, buddy. You were talking about how one can talk about their audio problems all day, but it's no substitute for actually hearing them first hand. I felt that quote fit that idea perfectly.

The irony is that this is a perfect example of the real limits to forum-style communication. Even something as simple as that can get misunderstood.

G.
 
Timothy Lawler said:
Ahh. OK, thanks. But damn, I was all like getting ready for a fight and stuff... :p
Click to expand...
This is an internet forum...there'll be plenty of time and opportunity for that to happen ;) . It's like the weather here in Chicago...just wait a couple of hours :D.

G.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XLR
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Even something as simple as that can get misunderstood.
Click to expand...
Haha, or misstated. :p :p

Maybe we can settle on, "miscommunication". :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top