Low-Mids & upper treble management

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve Henningsgard
  • Start date Start date
Steve Henningsgard

Steve Henningsgard

New member
I've noticed a problematic trend in my mixes that I'm not sure how to approach. I know most beginner/non-pro mixers typically have problems in these areas, specifically the low-mids or "mud", and I must say I have issues with these frequencies as well.

Typically, let's say with standard heavy rock/metal mixes, what information do you keep in or take out of the low mids? In general, I've been removing most of 'em from the kick/snare/toms, a little from the guitars, a bit from the vocals, and a bunch from the overheads, but I still find the area problematic (generally, too much mud).

As for the "high" highs, I generally take all of them off of the guitars, boost 'em a bit in the vocals, and leave the overheads to themselves or boost just a small amount, but listening to my mixes vs. commercial mixes, even after "mastering", they still seem "cloudy". I'm not sure how much of this is technique, vs. equipment, vs. room I'm recording in (not great), but assuming it's technique what can I do differently? :)
 
steve.h said:
I've noticed a problematic trend in my mixes that I'm not sure how to approach. I know most beginner/non-pro mixers typically have problems in these areas, specifically the low-mids or "mud", and I must say I have issues with these frequencies as well.

Typically, let's say with standard heavy rock/metal mixes, what information do you keep in or take out of the low mids? In general, I've been removing most of 'em from the kick/snare/toms, a little from the guitars, a bit from the vocals, and a bunch from the overheads, but I still find the area problematic (generally, too much mud).

As for the "high" highs, I generally take all of them off of the guitars, boost 'em a bit in the vocals, and leave the overheads to themselves or boost just a small amount, but listening to my mixes vs. commercial mixes, even after "mastering", they still seem "cloudy". I'm not sure how much of this is technique, vs. equipment, vs. room I'm recording in (not great), but assuming it's technique what can I do differently? :)
Click to expand...



Why don't you post a clip?:D
 
Don't forget that there is a time line where the eq is applied , I'm more inclined to use something like Gliss eq ( voxegno) because of it's dynamic nature.
straight cuts or boost are applied to everything that comes along and they don't always need it.

Dynamic eq is very musical !!

You must also plan in advance during the composition phase since there is only so much spectral real estate to go around. Sometimes , after eq'ing something in order to notch it into the mix , if you solo it it sounds like shit!! don't ever work on a track in isolation, always think about how and WHEN it's gotta fit in and play with others! Use panning, dont put a bunch of stereo tracks panned wide as possible together , as this just gets you BIG MONO!!!



:D
:D:D
:D:D:D
 
steve.h said:
listening to my mixes vs. commercial mixes, even after "mastering", they still seem "cloudy". I'm not sure how much of this is technique, vs. equipment, vs. room I'm recording in (not great), but assuming it's technique what can I do differently? :)
Click to expand...
First, I'd recommend getting off of the mindset that there's a standard recipe to follow that goes something like "for instrument A I do X to frequency B". Every individual track needs what it needs and doesn't need what it doesn't. Get off of the pre-programmed pre-judging and let your ears make the decision s to what to do.

There is one important exception to that, and that is the general idea of rolling off the bass below around 90Hz or so on any track where there's noting happening down there, just to keep subsonic mud buildup away.

Second (assuming you're mixing on computer), is to use levels automation or gating on each track to mute sections of each track that are not going to be heard in the final mix. This can help reduce wax buildup in the mix from multiple sources of otherwise low-level noise.

Third, I don't know what your equipment situation is, but excessive use of the same microphone/preamp combo can cause buildup of those frequencies favored by that signal path. Mix it up a bit if you can.

Fourth, try using more EQ cuts and less EQ boosts in your EQing. And if the use of compression is what seems to be bringing out the offensive frequencies, use EQ to fix the bad frequencies before you compress instead of trying to fix it after compression; it's usuallly much easier that way.

Fifth, pull back on how hard you're pushing the limiter in mastering. With your home gear, home room, and home technique, it's not always realistic to expect to pancake the dynamics and get the same volume as the big boys can. Pull back on the final compression a couple of dBs.

Finally, if it's a translation problem where the mix sounds OK in your room, but muddy outside, mix with those problem frequencies in mind. Like a quarterback leading the receiver, lead your mix by mixing it so that those problematic frequencies sound a bit deficient in your room so that by the time they get to the outside world they sound more balanced.

G.
 
flatfinger said:
Don't forget that there is a time line where the eq is applied , I'm more inclined to use something like Gliss eq ( voxegno) because of it's dynamic nature.
straight cuts or boost are applied to everything that comes along and they don't always need it.

Dynamic eq is very musical !!
Click to expand...

not to get off track here, but i'm still having some trouble wrapping my mind around the concept of dynamic eq. can somebody break that down for me?
 
Hi_Flyer said:
not to get off track here, but i'm still having some trouble wrapping my mind around the concept of dynamic eq. can somebody break that down for me?
Click to expand...

Not too sure...

flatfinger said:
straight cuts or boost are applied to everything that comes along and they don't always need it.
Click to expand...

Boost/cuts are only applied to the frequencies that are being boosted/cut. So I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. :confused:
 
I think he means that when you're cutting (preferable) or boosting a track say at the beginning of a song on that track at say 2 minutes in there might be a part where that cut might not work anymore?

not entirely sure but he's suggesting there's a "dynamic eq" that will eq only certain parts of a song?

don't know how that would work though... i'd like to find out but my bs detectors are going off..... maybe he's confusing eq with compression? maybe we're just idiots?
 
Thanks for the replies! I tried to word my question in a manner that would make it clear I wasn't asking for specific frequency advice/blanket statements: apparently I goofed that up haha

I think you might be on to something in reference to using the same pre's and such: I'm just using the built-in pres on my MOTU 896 for everything, and my '57 and KSM27 do most of the work outside of the kit.


I hate to blame equipment for what's going on though, as 99% of the time people complaining about equipment just don't know how to use it, and I don't want to be that guy! Getting rid of the 'silent' areas of things like vocal tracks is probably a good idea.

In response to the "don't push the limiter so hard" comment, trust me there's nothing I'd like better than to have not-smashed-to-hell mixes coming out of my studio, but as any engineer here would attest to, the clients simply demand loud and there's basically nothing we can do about it. :(

Any suggestions relating to the lack of sparkle?
 
It sounds too close mic'd to me. The only way to get a full sound is to have some room ambience on the recorded tracks. Once you have some depth and high end resonance then it's not so crucial to fill every frequency. I've always felt that the clicky metal drum sound also kills the low mid feel. That's where the drums should really boom.
 
TexRoadkill said:
It sounds too close mic'd to me. The only way to get a full sound is to have some room ambience on the recorded tracks. Once you have some depth and high end resonance then it's not so crucial to fill every frequency. I've always felt that the clicky metal drum sound also kills the low mid feel. That's where the drums should really boom.
Click to expand...

A good suggestion for sure: I've spent a fair amount of time experimenting with the reverb plugins I have available, as the space I'm recording in is far from stellar (small, but with some acoustic treatment on two non-parallel walls that eliminate most of the "flutter" reverb at least, high ceilings). I know recording out of a better facility would definitely add a lot, specifically in terms of drum sounds.

Yep!
 
steve.h said:
Thanks for the replies!
Any suggestions relating to the lack of sparkle?
Click to expand...


Well Steve H;
As happens allot in such discourse is syntax and nomenclature get in the way!

I think what is important when seeking " NOT muddy or - Sparkle-" is to have clarity.

When you throw a bunch of complex sound waves together (mixing) you can get a whole lot of masking and beating. Thats why EQ is crucial. I listen to stuff I like and try to emulate it , and I find I get the best results by trying to avoid overlapping, competing similar sounds.


Sometimes those different instruments are only competeing for the chourus and not the verse. I think that when your listeneing to a truly great mix, you probably are enjoying the fact that someone micro managed the crap out of little details like that , and did what they had to do , including throwing out some tracks , or savagely eqing something to the point that what once sounded great in isolation sounds like a mere shadow of it's former self!!!

Any how , think clarity.

Remember that we hear in one third octave bands and you cant expect an overly strident , busy multi signal cluster in one of those to have a clear winner, just confusion.

Anyhow, it's late , and I'm starting to sound like walters:p:p:p:p

I'm out!!

:D
:D:D
:D:D:D
 
flatfinger said:
I think what is important when seeking " NOT muddy or - Sparkle-" is to have clarity.
Click to expand...

That's just one approach. There is also the "wall of sound" type of mix where the sum of the parts are greater then the whole. Having several simple parts playing complimentary parts can end up sounding like one bigger part. Orchestras don't worry about separation or clarity.

IMO the quest for clarity is what makes most popular music these days sound so sterile and thin.
 
I say, don't cut or boost anything unless you can explain why the heck you did it. If it's a simple matter of saying "now the kick drum has more slap to it", then it may not be worth it. You have to, definitely, think comparatively about what you're doing! It's an ecosystem; destroying the fundamental in one instrument so that it harmonically accents another instrument should be put before making an instrument sound better. The reason most people say not to solo tracks and EQ is that you oftentimes don't know where there is too much. Trained ears will allow you to solo a guitar, sweep through a frequency range and discover where there is way too much going on. For most people, though, it's best to view it all and think of it all as one big picture.

That's cliche but that's the deal; if you can solo a track, EQ it to what you know it needs to be to work in the mix and not to make it sound better, you're fine, but if you're only trying to improve the sound of ONE instrument, then you've lost sight of what mixing is about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top