sparkly high end escapes me

  • Thread starter Thread starter noground
  • Start date Start date
N

noground

New member
I am really confused here.

I can track bright sounding electric guitars with mics that have peaks in the upper frequencies (also using the bass cutoff switch). I can turn up the treble knob on my bright sounding guitar pedal and amp... maybe even the bright switch on my amp. Then when I mix it in I can just arbitrarily shelf everything above 4k up 6 dB and then it starts to sounds like commercial recordings. I have a pretty hifi signal chain too.

Is this all accomplished in mastering or something? This seems to be the case with all the instruments I've dealt with... vocals, bass, drums...

If all instruments were recorded flat, with flat mics, unequalized... mud is all we would get. not a little bit off but totally unacceptable. What should I do? Track absolutely everything through one of those exciter boxes or something?

Any thoughts?
 
noground said:
If all instruments were recorded flat, with flat mics, unequalized... mud is all we would get. not a little bit off but totally unacceptable. What should I do? Track absolutely everything through one of those exciter boxes or something?
Click to expand...
That's a pretty broad statement. It entirely depends on the mic and signal chain. What are you using? High sparkle should not require tons of EQ and processing.
 
I frequently use The Rode NT1 or the Shure KSM32. I use pretty good Monster cabling through a Grace 101 preamp. Sometimes I go through either my Drawmer DL241 or my RNC for compression. From there I go straight into my Roland VS1680. I use good interconnect cables for all of the connections.

As far as I know, these are the main variables involved: mic position, instrument, preamp, cabling, microphone, room, strings. I have pretty much exhausted all of these options and I still come to the same conclusion every time. The NT1 is a very bright mic. The Grace 101 is a high quality pretty colorless preamp. My cords are good. I own a Taylor acoustic which is known for being "bright". I have miked it in almost every posible place, including all those suggested in this mic technique book that I have. I've recorded it outside even (taking the space mostly out of the picture) I put on brand new strings before I record.

If I follow this procedure and what I get sounds like mud compared to commercial recordings, I have only a few variables left which might make it sound as bright as these recordings:

1. equalization
2. processing
3. mastering

From my experience, it seems to require a large amount of equalization to match these recordings.

Am I off the mark here? Is there some other variable I have not taken into consideration which could make this large of a difference?

Does anyone else have this problem?
 
yo-I feel your pain noground-I actually started a thread a few weeks ago called "high end sparkle"-if you go back a few pages you should find it. I got some good advice there. The most important thing is recording a good strong signal-I also noticed as I pull my "virtual" faders down i start to lose what little "sparkle" i have. Your monitors and monitoring environment may have alot to do with it as well. Anyway not too much advice to be had from me, I'm on the same quest as you-keep pluggin away.
 
I'm a big fan of "getting it to sound right at the source."

That being said - guitars in real life, especially acoustics, don't generally have the same shimmer you hear on recordings......

Yes - EQ certainly gets used...... once you've captured the proper sound, the next step in mixing is to make the songs "larger than life" -- and generally, that means drawing things out, making things shine and sparkle... creative use of EQ and other processing are all tools used to get the "larger than life" sound you hear on a lot of POP/ROCK material.....

If you're recording a jazz group or classical ensemble, you probably will stick to very flat, natural-sounding tracks........ in many other musical styles, however, all bets are off........

So - presuming that you already know your shit and you're not over-processing simply to compensate for deficiencies in either your recording technique or gear - if you have to twist the knobs inside-out to get the sound you want from a track, so be it!

Creative use of processing is the fun part of mixing......!!
 
The same thing happens to me. I'm a firm beleiver in garbage in garbage out. But even if I put gold in I get garbage out. So I play with it until my ears fall off. Go to bed. Get up the next day. Repeat. After a while it starts to sound right(either due to being subconciously tired of the song, or because you hit gold with something processing wise). Usually the eq is what I have trouble with. And what gives me 'sparkle' one day, will sound harsh the next when I listen to it again. Then the day after that it's dull again. Oi. But things have gotten better as eq is starting to come second nature to me. I find it, I fix it. Not enough clarity, I add a bit o 3-4k. That sound's harsh? I slightly cut 200-300hz to clear up the mud. I don't twiddle around like I used to anymore(as much).
 
High noground!

At first: if you think that these tips are below your knowledge - sorry. I simply try to jot down what comes to my mind :)

You're talking about electric guitars, right? Very often, you don't even get these high frequencies through your guitar speakers... No wonder you have to push them like crazy if you want them to be there. I'm assuming, you get the mic placement right and that you hear the tracks immediately AFTER positioning NOT while the guitarist is playing. I had so many ugly guitar recordings, simple because of the bleed through my phones :(

IMO, you might try to record your guitars with two tracks, one miced and the other DId from your amp (if possible without speaker sim). Use cuts on the lower frequencies and push the higher ones a little on the DId track and blend them...

You might also try the enhancer (I did not like it for voice, but...) in your vocal multi patches, or try the mic sims. I know that a lot of people absoulutely don't like them, and they don't really 'clone' the high end mics, but nevertheless, they can be very helpful as effects... When I did not have any condenser mics, they would significantly improve my vocal recordings through an AKG3700... Added kind of a sparkle... ;)


Loads of commercial recordings use exciters/enhancers or other psycho-acoustic processors on the single tracks and in the sum, to get that sparkle. I don't have experience with them, though, as I prefer a rather 'earthy' sound... BTW, Are you sure, you're not spoiling the tracks in the mix. If you push the high end everywhere, it will be gone (well not exactly). So think, where you need the sparkle.

Oh yes one last remark: might it be an 'ambience' topic? you can spoil a lot of 'sparkle' by using too much verbs - try delays instead...


Now, my fingers are bleeding ;), so I'll stop...

Ciao,

Axel
 
If you're happy with your mix for the most part, you can try something like the BBE Sonic Maximezer or Aphex Aural Exciter. Either of those can add some sheen as long as you don't over do it. Just be sure to check against a few other playback systems so that you don't drown someone in spit.
 
volltreffer said:
...Oh yes one last remark: might it be an 'ambience' topic? you can spoil a lot of 'sparkle' by using too much verbs - try delays instead...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’ve found reverb is a major culprit – especially short predelay. Try to keep the predelay set at some even fraction of the tempo, but open it up as much as you can.

Short compression attacks and long releases are also a sparkle robbers.

barefoot
 
barefoot said:
Yeah, I’ve found reverb is a major culprit – especially short predelay. Try to keep the predelay set at some even fraction of the tempo, but open it up as much as you can.

Short compression attacks and long releases are also a sparkle robbers.
Click to expand...

great tips!
 
All of you have given me good some stuff to think about, I thank you for it, and I have run with it. I'd like to tell you about it. I haven't even put on any reverb or substantial compression to any of my tracks yet, so that is out of the equation here.

It does seem to me that the high frequencies in general are hiped in many commercial (especially rock) albums.
At first I thought it might have been the mastering (at the time I started this thread). Not only have I been told otherwise, but I heard some mastering examples since, and the high end that went in was not significantly different from what came out.
So, as many of you have told me, this seems to be both a processing and tracking issue that I have to deal with.

distorted electric guitars:

volltrefer got it right on the money for electric guitars. I have been realizing that no matter how much I turn the treble up on my amp, and no matter what teeth-jarring distortion I am running through, there are some frequencies that are just not there and that I distinctly hear on commercial recordings. I notice that I do hear these frequencies when recording direct in through a pedal. So now I plug my guitar directly into my direct box, running the 1/4" out to the amp and the XLR to the console. Later I pass the latter undistorted signal through a really bright distortion and mix in just a bit. Exactly what I was looking for!

I have yet to figure out what to do with acoustics, drums, or clean guitar. There is the aforementioned Sonic Maximizer or Aural Exciter. I just wonder what the professionals do. Do they run many of their tracks through gear similar to this, or do they just have really bright mics or pres or use heavy-handed eq in the mix? Maybe it depends on the person. What do all of you do to produce bright sounding mixes?

I agree with Blue Bear Sound: acoustics, in general, don't quite have what I'm hearing on CD's. I feel like I'm missing something. like the boat left without me. Like there's some big secret I'm not let in on. I've never even used a Sonic Maximizer.

And to think I used to believe I just had to make it sound natural to stack up against what's already out there

I'm glad that a couple of you here feel my pain.
Stratomaster-I'll check out that post
 
I have yet to figure out what to do with acoustics, drums, or clean guitar. There is the aforementioned Sonic Maximizer or Aural Exciter. I just wonder what the professionals do. Do they run many of their tracks through gear similar to this, or do they just have really bright mics or pres or use heavy-handed eq in the mix? Maybe it depends on the person. What do all of you do to produce bright sounding mixes?
Click to expand...

I don't think a Sonic Maximizer is the answer. EQ can do the trick but you need pretty nice EQ's to boost highs and not get a lot of crap.

The high frequencies are very fragile and they are the first to suffer any time you run your signal through anything. So be very conscious of your signal path. You have pretty decent gear so maybe micing technique could help.

Do you have any examples to post?

Are you using a new set of monitors? Maybe you are not used to a flat sound.
 
I use Yorkville YSM-1s. I also have a pretty descent set of consumer speakers. I have compared my stuff and commercial stuff through the same amps and speakers (both sets) and that is how I have noticed my missing high end.

Unfortunately, I have nothing to post (I still haven't figured out really anything about getting wav files onto my computer).

It's difficult to imagine that mic position could fully resolve this problem (but what do I know). I've moved the mic all around both of my acoustics looking for brightness. I'll use the NT1 direct into my Grace 101 direct to disc. It's still missing something that's on commercial recordings. Is it possible that people are getting this bright sound with an acoustic pickup?

Maybe this will answer my question (though it's a long shot):

Could any of you tell me exactly what you would do from the initial vibration of the stings to the final mix in order to get the most generic sounding, commercially viable glossy-sounding acoustic guitar that you might hear on the average rock CD?

Yes: "what is generic?" or "the EQ in the mix depends on the other instruments" or "it depends on the style of music", but I think you know what information I'm looking for. Just throw something down, even if it's in right field. I promise I won't use it on my next project :)

I much appreciate any replys
 
Is there a certain song you are refering to? One song I can think of with a tremendous amount of high end on the acoustic is Tom Petty's Wildflowers. In that song it sounds like they miced above the bridge for a lot of pick attack and compressed the hell out of it with a distressor or other high end comp.

Are you playing with a pick? Finger picking can be a little duller sounding.

When I mic acoustics I put one mic around the 12th fret and one mic above the bridge. This is the stuff here http://www.nowhereradio.com/texroadkill/singles check out "When I'm Home". From your description it may not be the type of sound your going for so I don't know. This was done with MXL mics and the crappy Roland VM3100 Pres.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top