Mixes are lacking in high frequencies

silentsky

silentsky

Member
My mixes seem to really be lacking in high frequencies when I compare them to commercial recordings. When I look at a spectrum analyzer, the high frequencies fall off sharply around 9 or 10 kHZ on my mixes, whereas there seems to be a lot of energy up there on the commerical CD's.

My question is--how do I rectify this? Do I need to compensate by boosting the highs using EQ? If so, should I do it only for selected instruments when mixing (if so, which ones), or should I use the Master EQ in my mixer to EQ the whole mix?

Could it be that my room is over-treated? My room is treated with Ready Acoustics Ready Bags. I've got 4" traps in the corners from floor to ceiling and 2" traps spread out over the the walls and ceilings. I've got an 8-foot ceiling, which I've also read can be one of the causes of this.

BTW, I'm mixing In The Box. Would it help to try mixing Out of the Box instead? I'm open to any and all suggestions.
 
Are you wanting to add high frequencies because you think they need to be added based on what you're seeing on the analyzer?

Or are you wanting to add high frequencies because you don't like the way your mixes sound and you think it's because they're lacking in high frequencies?
 
Let's take this a point at a time:

Mixing in the box Vs OTB- I would be shocked if this was the problem.

Room treatment - I don't think 4 inches is enough to trap bass. I know 2 inches is not enough to trap bass. So I would guess that your room is removing highs and leaving lows. Impossible to say without being there, but try a recording with no treatment. If that is the problem, bring in a pro to treat the bass properly or go ahead with no treatment.

Adding high EQ to tracks- Absolutely yes. Learn what a dull track sounds like and add the right amount of EQ in the right place until it isn't dull. You will learn this much faster if you put away all visualization plugins. Ears only. Be aware that sometimes a dull track needs a bass cut instead of a high boost (and sometimes it needs both). They are very different things but they can be hard to differentiate to an untrained ear.

Adding high EQ to the entire mix- Absolutely yes. Careful, this can get way out of hand in no time. If you decide you need the "whole mix" EQ you will likely have to go back and re-balance some tracks after adding the EQ. Again, you need to train your ear to hear it.



Something important I want to add- Don't reach for any EQ (or compressors or plugins of any sort) until you get the mix most of the way there using only level faders. Many perceived EQ problems are actually not EQ problems at all. A track playing at the wrong volume can sound a hell of a lot like bad EQ. I'm talking 1-2 db here. Small adjustments. Tracks that are way too loud simply sound like they are way too loud.
 
It sounds to me like you have a low pass filter or a high frequency roll off in your sound chain. Try recording a track from your commercial cd and see what your system is doing to the spectrum and then find the exact source doing it.
 
NYMorningstar said:
It sounds to me like you have a low pass filter or a high frequency roll off in your sound chain. Try recording a track from your commercial cd and see what your system is doing to the spectrum and then find the exact source doing it.
Click to expand...

I was thinking this too plus...

What are you recording with? Are you infact recording highs or are you missing those frequencies right out of the gate with a mic choice or setting or something that means you are not even recording any highs. EQ can't help you if there is nothing there to boost
 
Could also be your monitoring chain. Are your monitors unusually bright that would make your compensate for it in your mix? Do you tend to roll off the highs from a lot of tracks? I've found I've done this when mixing on headphones for example.
 
Hey, thanks for the replies. That gives me some ideas. To reply to some of your questions, I had already been thinking that my mixes were somewhat dull-sounding compared to some commercial CD's, so I imported some tracks from those CD's and compared them using the spectrum analyzer, which confirmed that there's not much going on up there with my mixes.

I don't have any low-pass filters engaged in my signal chain. I'm using Yamaha MLA8 preamps for drums, bass, & guitars running straight into my Echo Layla 24/96. For vocals, I use an ART MPA Gold into an FMR RNC into the Layla.

I'm using decent mics on everything, too:

Oktava MC012 Overheads in Recorderman setup
Audix i5 on Snare
Audio Technica ATM25 on kick
Sennheiser e604's on Toms
SM57's on guitars
Direct Box and/or SM57 or cheap OSP kick mic on bass
Behringer B2 Pro LDC on vocals
 
My monitors are Behringer Truth B2031A's, which I know aren't the best monitors in the world. I've got the high frequency compensation swtches on them set to cut some of the highs, because they are overly bright.

However, I don't typically use any low-pass filters when EQ'ing. I do commonly use a low-cut/hi-pass filter set at around 100 Hz, though, on lots of tracks (everything except bass guitar and kick drum) to try and reduce the mud.
 
silentsky said:
...I imported some tracks from those CD's and compared them using the spectrum analyzer, which confirmed that there's not much going on up there with my mixes...
Click to expand...
Try re-recording them on your system systematically removing components from your chain until you find the culprit.
 
9-10k is awfully low. Make sure you're not accidentally recording at a low sample rate or bit depth like 22.05k/8-bit.

G.
 
Is there nothing above 9-10k, or is it just not as much compared to a mastered commercial mix?

If you think your mixes are dull, add some high shelf.

But comparing your raw mix to a mastered commercial release on spectrum analyzer is not going to give you any useful information. It's apples and oranges.

BTW, if you had too much acoustic treatment, your mixes would tend to be brighter, not duller.
 
Farview said:
Is there nothing above 9-10k, or is it just not as much compared to a mastered commercial mix?
Click to expand...

Just not as much

Farview said:
BTW, if you had too much acoustic treatment, your mixes would tend to be brighter, not duller.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with this statement. From everything that I've read, the thinner acoustic panels (2") will absorb more high frequencies, whereas the thicker panels (4") will help more with low frequencies. I've got a lot of 2" panels hanging on the walls and on the ceiling, so I wonder if I've got too much high frequency absorption going on.

BTW, I'm recording at 24-bit, 44.1 kHz.

I think I'm going to try running a line out of a CD player to a preamp to my soundcard, record that, and compare that to one of the tracks that was imported directly from the CD-ROM on my computer. If there is something in the signal chain that's filtering out high frequencies, it seems like that would be a good way to test it.
 
silentsky said:
I've got a lot of 2" panels hanging on the walls and on the ceiling, so I wonder if I've got too much high frequency absorption going on.
Click to expand...

If you had too much high frequency absorption going on, you'd compensate for it in your mixes, which would translate into brighter mixes, not duller.
 
philbagg said:
How would a low bit depth affect frequency? :confused:
Click to expand...
It wouldn't. Sample rate is the key factor there. I was just picking a typical choice (you don't see many choices for 22.05k/24bit, for example ;) )

I tend to not think that room acoustics are the main issue here. Even if the OP were in an anechoic chamber, there should not be such a low virtual cutoff.

G.
 
Question. If you put a frequency analyzer on a single track w/o any other treatment on it (EQ, compression or any other processing) does it also lack in high frequencies? Can you do this on every single track and check? What about things like drum overheads especially when you have cymbals and hihats going?

Finally, if using balanced cables, are they plugged all the way in? Are the plugs in good condition?
 
noisewreck said:
Unless you are Noisewreck :D
Click to expand...
Well, we all know that you are "special", George ;) :D (just messin' wit ya :) )

My point was not all hardware/software automatically gives you completely independent choice of any combination of sample rate and word length. 22.05/24 is not always an option, whereas 22.05/8 is fairly common.

I'm sorry I even brought up the word length as that was not the relevant technical point.

---

Another common issue on this board is that many folks tend to play back their CDs and CD rips through crap like Media Player and don't realize that they have their "enhancer" engaged or their EQ set to an unsuspected curve. If you're playing your CDs through there but playing your homies flat, that can make a big difference.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Well, we all know that you are "special", George ;) :D (just messin' wit ya :) )
Click to expand...
Oh, gee Glen thanks. I am hurt! :( :D

SouthSIDE Glen said:
I'm sorry I even brought up the word length as that was not the relevant technical point.
Click to expand...
Meh, I am just yankin' your chain :D

SouthSIDE Glen said:
Another common issue on this board is that many folks tend to play back their CDs and CD rips through crap like Media Player and don't realize that they have their "enhancer" engaged or their EQ set to an unsuspected curve. If you're playing your CDs through there but playing your homies flat, that can make a big difference.
Click to expand...
This is definitely a good point. Although if he's missing the high freqs in his analyzer in the DAW (presumably? :confused:) then this might not be the case in this instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top