Overdoing the old exciter

  • Thread starter Thread starter theboy
  • Start date Start date
T

theboy

New member
Howdy again,

still new to this whole mixing thing but i've been finding everything coming off somewhat muddy as hell. Been playing around with some eq stuff but i just seem to be using an exciter a lot, which, yes helps, but i can't imagine it being the best practice in mixing. Any ideas? Is it bad practise to brighten up a mix by using an exiter on every second track or so (maybe an exageration)?

Any other ideas on things i could read/learn about in order to get a brighter, cleaner sounding mix?

Thanks for all the help, once again everybody.
 
theboy said:
Howdy again,

still new to this whole mixing thing but i've been finding everything coming off somewhat muddy as hell. Been playing around with some eq stuff but i just seem to be using an exciter a lot, which, yes helps, but i can't imagine it being the best practice in mixing. Any ideas? Is it bad practise to brighten up a mix by using an exiter on every second track or so (maybe an exageration)?

Any other ideas on things i could read/learn about in order to get a brighter, cleaner sounding mix?

Thanks for all the help, once again everybody.
Click to expand...

Hi...use while tracking....mmmmm.....nup....
Use as a 'program' device for stereo mixdowns?.......yep....I've used the ultramiser for this for a while now.
If used very sparingly, works great to add 'that something' in your home recordings. I don't rely on it, but it does add thump and sparkle to a lot of my old stuff.....even some of the new stuff.
So yes.....use one....if your ears tell you it's ok!!! :)
 
IMO, the key to getting "sparkle" in your recordings is to try to have it there in the tracking stage. Not that you can't add stuff during mixdown (and many people do), but I don't personally care for the sound of exciters, in general. As for mud, it's a constant problem, especially for home recorders with little/no room treatment. Low-mids build up in small rooms and it takes a lot of hacking and cutting EQ to get that straightened out. Not knowing your situation, I can only suggest that you look at your room and monitors first. Once those are situated, look at your mics, pres, outboard effects, converters, etc. If all that stuff is in order, but you're still not happy with your sound, by all means, excite away...sparingly. :)
 
I actually do like using an exciter on the Bass guitar for a more well rounded out sound in the "in your face" rock type mixing. Not sure what genre you are doing though...

Anything else however i found that outboard mixers brighten better than software mixers.
 
What Scrubs said. Get it as close to perfect while you're tracking, not by adding effects and gadgets afterwards.
 
I'll third that. "Clean" and "airy" and "clear" are things that are *captured* - not synthesized later. Get the best core sound possible, capture it the best you can, and stay out of its way.
 
Massive Master said:
I'll third that. "Clean" and "airy" and "clear" are things that are *captured* - not synthesized later. Get the best core sound possible, capture it the best you can, and stay out of its way.
Click to expand...

Yes...of course all three of the above responses are technically perfect and beyond any intelligent argument.....but.....

Let’s use these words...........home, recording, budget, customized and often compromised signal chains, subjective eq.....for example.

Would I be correct in saying that if any one of these is not quite up to par with their professional equivalent, that the chances of the typical home recordist actually 'capturing' the sound verbatim is quite low?

So on that basis, the use of an 'exciter', at the program end, is probably a more practical response to the 'forum starter's' thread (?)......totally not withstanding the fantastic comments you guys made, as we should all strive for capturing THE sound.

But chances are we will never be able to do that, so, on that basis, exciters are ace......for the budget and/or typical home recording enthusiast?

Does that seem reasonable too? ;)

Kindest regards,
Superspit.
 
Yes and no... (IMO/E, YMMV, yada, yada, etc., etc.)

If you can't get "that sound" then you have to manufacture or synthesize "that sound."

I think there are better ways to do it the vast majority of the time, without subjecting it to an exciter.

Honest - Since analog was "overtaken" by digital, I thought for sure that we'd only be looking at Aural Exciters and Sonic Maximizers in the "Vintage" section on e-bay. Most of the time, they do well exactly what digital recordists are trying to avoid.

But again - IMO/E, YMMV, yada, yada, etc., etc. If I don't say that, Ed gets all over my case.
 
IF you feel you need a little something Try a little, if it works use a little.
It can desensitise your ears to what you should be hearing & doing (esp the sneaky bypass tampering) BUT sometimes it works. I've used it as fairy dust when I just couldn't get the goods happening on one or two things I've submitted to the MP3 Mixing Clinic & those tracks were well received.
Mind you they were MP3s AND I was reasonably subtle in the use.
OPITIMALLY you & I'd like to get the magic in the tracking but, as superspit reinforces, homerecording isn't optimal & some folk don't have the magic.
 
if you want to rescue a bad take, since rami is right about tracking it right and you and me both have budgetsituations :(, use highpass-eq filter (also cut a little around 160 hz) + a compressor. If youre using cubase the tubeamp-plug under distortion is a nice one to add sparkle and crush the signal into more tunes, use it careful though. Of course, play around around 2khz with eq. Be careful.

+ the whole mix may not be wrong cause its muddy, just a lack of tracks positioned in the high ends. Put a tamburine or programme a midi-percussion that are really bright, and the mix can end up "warm" instead of muddy ...

good luck!

/sam
 
Last edited:
Hey,,theboy....
come and see what your friends have suggested! :)
 
All that effort & no response. P'aps we've unsettled the little blighter.
 
rayc said:
All that effort & no response. P'aps we've unsettled the little blighter.
Click to expand...

mmmm....yeah....sort of makes the next time not so worth the effort, I guess. :)
 
oh know please give help all you can. A couple of grand debt on the old credit cards for this gear also begs for further help. :) thanks eveyone for the help, really do appreciate it. Just had a busy weekend and havent had a chance to look at a computer. Ive got a couple of songs which i can't retrack anything on being that our drummer is overseas, business end of the uni semester etc etc so im just working on mixing and remixing what ive got over and over trying to get it better each time. I think upon sale of an old guitar amp a few hundred dollars will go into acoustically treating the mixing room. Im assuming money well spent? But please dont confuse my amazing lack of spare time with ingratitude, i appreciate it all very much.
 
theboy said:
oh know please give help all you can. A couple of grand debt on the old credit cards for this gear also begs for further help. :) thanks eveyone for the help, really do appreciate it. Just had a busy weekend and havent had a chance to look at a computer. Ive got a couple of songs which i can't retrack anything on being that our drummer is overseas, business end of the uni semester etc etc so im just working on mixing and remixing what ive got over and over trying to get it better each time. I think upon sale of an old guitar amp a few hundred dollars will go into acoustically treating the mixing room. Im assuming money well spent? But please dont confuse my amazing lack of spare time with ingratitude, i appreciate it all very much.
Click to expand...

cool..............we know you do! :)
 
Ah, you see I'd hate to have felt that you'd posted & bolted - oft done.
You're safe & your acknowledgement appreciated.
 
I don't think there is a formula for using an exciter, as in putting it on every other track. Just use it where you think it is necessary. Use it as little as possible and always follow the practice of getting it where you think it is right and then turn it down from there. You should never be aware of hearing it.
 
superspit said:
Let’s use these words...........home, recording, budget, customized and often compromised signal chains, subjective eq.....for example.
Click to expand...

We all know those words, most of us have to live with them every day because our money-grubbing wives have to have blah blah blah and we can't spend anything on gear and....... :mad:


.... but to stay on topic :D , considering that if we don't have neve or api preamps and a locker full of neumann mics, the chances of spending a couple hundred bucks on an exciter and having it "magically" turn mackie or yamaha preamps into neves and $99 MXL mics into Neumanns isn't very realistic.

In the end, it's just another piece of gear in the rack adding it's own unique coloration and noise to the mix. The exciter has its uses, but I'd use it very sparingly if at all if it were in my studio.

great core sounds and the best technique you can apply during tracking are going to take you a lot farther than any piece of gear, cheap or expensive, ever will.
 
superspit said:
Let’s use these words...........home, recording, budget, customized and often compromised signal chains, subjective eq.....for example.

Would I be correct in saying that if any one of these is not quite up to par with their professional equivalent, that the chances of the typical home recordist actually 'capturing' the sound verbatim is quite low?

So on that basis, the use of an 'exciter', at the program end, is probably a more practical response to the 'forum starter's' thread (?)......totally not withstanding the fantastic comments you guys made, as we should all strive for capturing THE sound.

But chances are we will never be able to do that, so, on that basis, exciters are ace......for the budget and/or typical home recording enthusiast?
Click to expand...
That's not an entirely unreasonable argument, but it makes one assumption that is the root of the REAL problem: that the real reason that the pro stuff sounds so good is because of the pro gear they're using.

While there's no question that a classic Neumann plugged through a good Neve strip sounds a whole lot "better" than an MXL though a Firepod, that's only the icing on the pro cake. The real difference is in what the engineer *does* with the gear, not with what gear he uses.

The fact is that a good engineer can make a much better sounding production with an MXL and a Firepod than a rookie can with a Neumann and a Neve. Because he actually has good engineering TECHNIQUE.

Remember that there are 50-year-old albums recorded on gear that was of a lot lousier sonic quality than what most of us have in our bedrooms right now, that to this day sound a whole lot better than what most of us put out. That's because they took their time and they did it right.

And they not only did not have any exciters, but they hadn't even though of them yet. They also didn't have compressors, parametric EQs, reverbs, spectrum analyzers, modelers, or space age acoustic treatments. The savages! Yet they kicked our sonic asses when they recorded Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra and the like, didn't they?

This is what it means to be a professional. The fact that a pro may wind up finding himself behind a 96-channel desk that costs more than our houses is just a side effect of that professionalism, not a cause.

An exciter is just another example of The Easy Button Mentality and the mislaid belief that technology can make up for or replace technique. Do it right and an exciter will rarely, if ever, be needed, regardless of what preceedes it in the siganl chain.

G.
 
Last edited:
As usual, Glen nails it eloquently and cleanly. He definetly has a knack for conveying this stuff to others :) He's right about the "technique trumps gear" part of the equation.

The only other thing to mention in regards to the subject matter is something I touched on in my earlier post, and that's the core sounds you are recording. All the gear and technique in the world won't help much if the instruments and players aren't up to the task.

For instance, I did a demo several years back with an amazing guitar player that was packing a pristine '52 Fender Esquire (a real one, not a re-issue) and a beautiful '62 Bassman. God, it sounded great, I don't know if I could have made it sound bad if I tried.

So, a couple months later, I get another demo gig and the guitar player has a copy of the demo with the Esquire on it. First thing he says is "I want my guitar track to sound like this one." My answer was "do you think Bobby will loan you the Esquire and Bassman, because that's the only way you'll get close to that tone, and that's assuming you eat your Wheaties and practice hard, because you know what kind of player he is."

He kind of scratched his head and chuckled a little, but what I had told him sunk in pretty quick.

The truth is, sometimes it's not as much "the quality of the camera, but what you're taking a picture of" , that's the only way I know how to put it. Great records aren't made nearly as much by recording technique as they are by great musicians with great sounding axes laying down great performances of well-written and arranged tunes. When that happens, the recording process becomes secondary. Sure you want the best rooms, gear and engineering to catch and mix it all, but it's the content of the recording that makes it exciting to listen to.

When Glen Says:

And they not only did not have any exciters, but they hadn't even though of them yet. They also didn't have compressors, parametric EQs, reverbs, spectrum analyzers, modelers, or space age acoustic treatments. The savages! Yet they kicked our sonic asses when they recorded Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra and the like, didn't they?
Click to expand...


my response is, yeah, they were recording Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra and the like......WTF else did they really need to make them sound good :confused: :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top