digmudvayne4lif
New member
Does anybody know of a plugin or something that will help smooth out the equalization of a mix or is doing it manually the only way?
LeeRosario
New member
digmudvayne4lif said:
Well, since smoothing is really more of an intangible term, I'm going to assume you mean "tame" or "control". For that, a limiter is not uncommon. In fact, widely used.
Almost like a very simple drive rack setup in live sound. You'd have your graphic EQ, your limiter to catch sudden pops and excess transisents, and then your crossover.
Limiters are really powerful in production because of this.
But if you're talking in pyschoacoustic terms, then that's another story. That can mean almost anything. Analog tape can smooth things out a certain way. An analog simulation plug-in would be the closest in digital form.
Not that it really needs mentioning, but you can try out convolution EQs (like Q-clone) to steal a good EQ's phase response and natural EQ characteristic. That theroretically can help smooth things out.
Or, for the most surgical way, aka the mastering engineer's tool, good old fashion parametric EQing-manually. Which I think is probably the best way to do it. Other than that, it really has to do with how the song was tracked and mixed in the first place.
D
dementedchord
Psychotic State alumni ch
$ .02
while lee's response is good info in general...its possible that you were really asking about eq's like you said and not dynamics controll... which is often the assumption when asking about smoothing in a final stage... is it possible what you are hearing is in fact more of a "CLUTTER" ? you see the need to "smotth" later can often be traced back to individual instruments "fighting" for "space"... guit1 and guit2 playing essentially the same part /or variation of
overlap sonically and the answer often is to eq them differently giving them each allitle more unique character and alowing them to apear more forward with out being "louder"... if i can recommend a search ya might want to try parametric EQ ... an invaluable tool...
while lee's response is good info in general...its possible that you were really asking about eq's like you said and not dynamics controll... which is often the assumption when asking about smoothing in a final stage... is it possible what you are hearing is in fact more of a "CLUTTER" ? you see the need to "smotth" later can often be traced back to individual instruments "fighting" for "space"... guit1 and guit2 playing essentially the same part /or variation of
overlap sonically and the answer often is to eq them differently giving them each allitle more unique character and alowing them to apear more forward with out being "louder"... if i can recommend a search ya might want to try parametric EQ ... an invaluable tool...
digmudvayne4lif
New member
thanks for the help. so are you saying i should try working on the eq a little more the the indivdual instruments eq before the mixdown? Cause right know after I mix down the final track and look at it with an frequency anylyzer, there's alot of hills and valley across the whole thing. Then when I put an anylyzer on a commercial song, its alot "smoother" (less/smaller hills and valleys). Thats what I mean by making the eq smoother. Ill try little work with the eq of the seperate tracks to see if that helps.
K
kylen
New member
Please do a search at this forum on:digmudvayne4lif said:
RTA
Spectrum Analyzer
It should take you a few days to digest the results. There's been a lot of discussion about that you could benefit from. Notably - comparing your mix to a commercial cut is somewhat apples to oranges in that mastering compression and limiters have been applied to the commercial mix which squishes that mix into a smaller dynamic range than the one in your own mix. This affects the comparison no matter if you are using your ears or metering such as the RTA you've mentioned. It makes a real big difference - I'll bet you suspected that already...
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Yeah, it's called "mixing"digmudvayne4lif said:
. Purposely waiting to fix a bad mix until mastering is as bad as purposely waiting to fix bad tracking in the mix.Why?digmudvayne4lif said:
Using one of your senses to judge a product intended for another one of your senses makes no sense. It's like creating an oil painting and then running your fingers over it to make sure it feels right.
Seriously - and I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but frankly it is blunt - if one can't trust their ears, they shouldn't be doing this.
G.
K
kylen
New member
BTW digmudvayne4lif what monitoring are you using - you got the basic good speakers and a fairly nice room to listen in, yes?
R
RAMI
Guest
Man, I tried to stay out of this, but I have to jump in.
First of all, I guess I have to appreciate anyone that tries to help aynone in any way, so I'm not insulting anyone who tried to help in this thread,
But, seriously, talk of spectrum analizers and compressors, etc...???? Please give me a break.
Glen's answer was the only valid one here ( No offense, Lee, I consider you an expert and I realise you were exploring the possibility that he said "EQ" but might of meant meant something else).
Even Glen was way more polite than this question required as an answer.
There are NO plug-ins that will smooth out an EQ. You should be getting the individual tracks to sound as good as they can before you go anywhere near a mix-down. In fact, you should get the individual instruments to sound good before you even go anywhere near the RECORD button.
There are no short cuts, plug-ins, chants, Mantras, rice-throwing-over-the-shoulder remedies, Voodoo dolls, or potions that will just "fix it in the mix" for you. If there were, people wouldn't spend years matering the craft of tracking, mixing, mastering and everything else that makes a recording sound good.
Who cares what it looks like with a spectrum analizer (look at the first 4 letters of "analizer"...That should tell you what it's good for at this point in time)
You need to get the sound as good as possible at the source. Then the individual tracks, then the overall mix.
Unfortunately, and I hope you're sitting down for this....It takes alot of time, patience, research and practice.
There is no plug-in for those 4 things. PERIOD.
First of all, I guess I have to appreciate anyone that tries to help aynone in any way, so I'm not insulting anyone who tried to help in this thread,
But, seriously, talk of spectrum analizers and compressors, etc...???? Please give me a break.
Glen's answer was the only valid one here ( No offense, Lee, I consider you an expert and I realise you were exploring the possibility that he said "EQ" but might of meant meant something else).
Even Glen was way more polite than this question required as an answer.
There are NO plug-ins that will smooth out an EQ. You should be getting the individual tracks to sound as good as they can before you go anywhere near a mix-down. In fact, you should get the individual instruments to sound good before you even go anywhere near the RECORD button.
There are no short cuts, plug-ins, chants, Mantras, rice-throwing-over-the-shoulder remedies, Voodoo dolls, or potions that will just "fix it in the mix" for you. If there were, people wouldn't spend years matering the craft of tracking, mixing, mastering and everything else that makes a recording sound good.
Who cares what it looks like with a spectrum analizer (look at the first 4 letters of "analizer"...That should tell you what it's good for at this point in time)
You need to get the sound as good as possible at the source. Then the individual tracks, then the overall mix.
Unfortunately, and I hope you're sitting down for this....It takes alot of time, patience, research and practice.
There is no plug-in for those 4 things. PERIOD.
LeeRosario
New member
RAMI said:
None taken
very valid points.
K
kylen
New member
Nice music off your website RAMI - lead by example! 
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Well, for the sake of discussion, actually Lee was more right that it may appear at first blush. A heavily compressed ond/or limited signal will have constant apparent volume, including a flattening across frequencies. His answer was actually not a bad job of zooming right in on the conclusion.
The problem is that's no guarantee that flat-looking means good-sounding. The way I see it, Lee's answer wasn't incorrect; it's the question that was faulty.
How something looks on an RTA is not an indication of what it sounds like; that's mixing up cause and effect. Bending, folding and mutilating one's signal to "look" like another totally ignores that the source tracking, the mixing, and the mastering are completly different.
To use a more organic example, as beautiful as Diana Ross was, was it really a good thing for Michael Jackson to force his face to try and look like her?
Digmud, if you really want to take it to the logical extreme, run a pink noise generator through your analyzer and look at how almost perfectly flat that slope is on the analyzer. Yet it's just annoying noise.
G.
The problem is that's no guarantee that flat-looking means good-sounding. The way I see it, Lee's answer wasn't incorrect; it's the question that was faulty.
How something looks on an RTA is not an indication of what it sounds like; that's mixing up cause and effect. Bending, folding and mutilating one's signal to "look" like another totally ignores that the source tracking, the mixing, and the mastering are completly different.
To use a more organic example, as beautiful as Diana Ross was, was it really a good thing for Michael Jackson to force his face to try and look like her?
Digmud, if you really want to take it to the logical extreme, run a pink noise generator through your analyzer and look at how almost perfectly flat that slope is on the analyzer. Yet it's just annoying noise.
G.
R
RAMI
Guest
(Thanx Kylen)
I might have seemed to come off too harsh in my response. If I did, I apologise. But it seemed like a different take on the same "How do I make my mix un-suck with the press of a button" question.
I might have seemed to come off too harsh in my response. If I did, I apologise. But it seemed like a different take on the same "How do I make my mix un-suck with the press of a button" question.
Last edited:
digmudvayne4lif
New member
Sorry, Here let me clear some things up. I dont use an RTA to make my recordings look-like commercially recorded one. Ive already figured out that thatll just screw things up. Im not try to make my mix "unsuck" or find some "chants, Mantras, rice-throwing-over-the-shoulder remedies, Voodoo dolls, or potions that will just "fix it in the mix" (I actually thought that was pretty funny).
The reason I brought up this thread is because when Im done with my final mix and its limited at 0dbs it never sounds as loud as normal recordings. That is when I had to just try an anylyzer and I found it was alot smoother than mine so I figured thats why mine wasnt as loud(that my frequencies were boosted too much in some areas). I guess what Im really asking is why I cant get it as loud and what I can do to fix it?
Sorry again for the confusion
Peace
The reason I brought up this thread is because when Im done with my final mix and its limited at 0dbs it never sounds as loud as normal recordings. That is when I had to just try an anylyzer and I found it was alot smoother than mine so I figured thats why mine wasnt as loud(that my frequencies were boosted too much in some areas). I guess what Im really asking is why I cant get it as loud and what I can do to fix it?
Sorry again for the confusion
Peace
K
kylen
New member
That's just gonna make us run over to the other Temple of the Audio Gods and put on our Loudness Warpaint!digmudvayne4lif said:
Seriously though here's my Project Studio type advice. I run into this kind of thing too and untill I get my dream comp/maximizer (Manley VariMu for example) and clipper (Hardware L2 for example) I'm just using software for in the box stuff. It just ain't the same - but it is getting closer lately...
PSP MasterQ (EQ - of course!) --> Ozone3 Maximizer --> Voxengo Elephant Mastering Limiter (Clip mode)
You have to tune these to taste of course - anywhere from ultra smooth to super crunch (don't tell anyone
) . Don't overload either of the dynamics processors - I barely push into them, normally their metering shows no GR (gain reduction), just peaks every 8 or 9 mearures get lopped off at about 0.2db to about 1.5db or so. That's where I like it for this particular piece - it changes depending on the song of course. Splitting the job up into 2 dynamics processors was the key for me so far, the first one smoothly brings up the loudness (even though the meters show no GR the thing is still pulling the audio up gently), the 2nd limiter lopps the heads off anything I don't want poking it's head over the ceiling (-0.2db). You can generally hear when software limiters have had enough - all you can do is back off or try to split the job up.And when you're done and you have a sound - if you decide to look at metering you'll notice that you're anywhere from -14dbfs on up to -8dbfs rms depending on the music. With Ozone3 maximizer I find myself getting a little hotter than I need to - since it's smooth it's a little harder to tell. Like drivin a Cadillac or something - before you know it you're hittin 80 and the sirens are goin off!