Final mixes sound "lo-fi" HELP

B

brunob

New member
Probably just lack of experiance, but all of my final mixes after limiting, eq, reverb, normalizing,etc, sound really low in quality when burned to cd. The volume levels are great, but everything always sounds muddy or low quality and always very bassy. Like it was done on a cheap tape recorder. I have tried everything I can possibly think of, but nothing works. Could I be over processing. Using hard limiting on tracks, normalizing final mixdown etc.? I dont think Im clipping anything. Limit all of the tracks that need it.
I use a MR-8 to record the basic tracks, then do all of my editing and mastering in Cool edit. The stereo wave file out of the MR-8 actuallly sounds better than the finished stereo wave files out of Cool Edit. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
 
If your mixes sound muddy, the first two things to consider are the mic(s) you're recording with and the EQing you're doing.

What mics are you using?

How are you EQing the tracks?
 
I use the Sure sm58 for vocals. Guitar, bass, are plugged in directly to my powered mixer. Djembe drum mic'd with SM57. Same setup I use on stage. Everything sounds great when recorded on Mr-8 , but when I start touching up the tracks or "messing them up " in Cool Edit, the end result comes out all Mid Range or muddy and very tinny and weak.Vocals especially sound thin. I tried eq'ing the vocal track. Used the preset in the graphic eq called vocal presence boost for the vocal tracks. Had to cut all of the lows out of the bass track. Still too much low end when burned onto cd. Same with drum. The rest, backing vocals, guitar, I just leave flat unless it needs something. I think one of my big problems is the use of headphones and cheaper monitors. Sounds like I have it just right untill I bring the music into a car or home stereo.Then it gets disgusting after all of the hours of hard work.
 
A few thoughts: first, using the same type of mic for everything is going to cause a frequency "hump" where each track is getting emphasized in the same range...and with an Shure dynamic, this is a midrange area as I understand it. Your mixer most likely also had a characteristic frequency shape and you may be hearing the sound of the mixer more than anything. Powered mixers, God bless 'em, are not high end, and you may have to allow for less-than-perfect sonics. Use the Noise Reduction feature in CEP to scrub each track before you do the final mix. You can also use the "Analyze" feature in Edit View to look at the spectrum of a track to see what's going on. I have a room with a boomy low end so I almost always end up running each track through a high-pass kind of EQ setting on the graphic EQ before I do the mixing so my bass doesn't disappear.

Second, use the EQ feature in the Multitrack View. There is a row of buttons along the top left that says "Vol-EQ-Buss"; the default is "Vol". Click on "EQ" and you'll see different windows that show the EQ boost/cut. Right click on this section for the track you want to EQ and an easy to use parametric EQ window will appear. You can tweak the EQ of a track while it is playing back with the other tracks, so you can tell what it sounds like in the mix.

Third, you have to have decent monitors. Get a test CD (about $20) with test tones on it and a $50 Radio Shack SPL meter. Set the meter on a tripod or a stool where it won't move around and put it at a measured distance from each speaker in turn and plot the sound levels for each frequency band on the CD. Then try moving the speakers, adjusting any knobs they have etc to get a reasonably "flat" response. This won't take the place of $3000 monitors but it'll get you closer than you probably are now.

Fourth, plan to burn some CDs for comparison. Make a mix, burn a CD, put it the car or house stereo and critique it. Analyze what it lacks and go back and do it again and burn another CD...

Hope this helps.
 
"I use the Sure sm58 for vocals. Guitar, bass, are plugged in directly to my powered mixer. Djembe drum mic'd with SM57."

That should be okay.

"the result comes out all Mid Range or muddy and very tinny and weak.Vocals especially sound thin. I tried eq'ing the vocal track. Used the preset in the graphic eq called vocal presence boost for the vocal tracks."

First, don't use the presets. Next, it's the lower midrange you gotta deal with primarily (250-500 Hz especially). Pay attention to what lpdeluxe said about how using the same mic for everything piles up particular frequencies, which you then have to cut. Finally, learn how to use Cool's parametric EQ instead of the graphic.

"Had to cut all of the lows out of the bass track."

Do you know how to run a highpass filter on a track? Apply a highpass to your bass track with the cut at about 50 Hz. Apply a highpass to your vocal at about 90 - 100 Hz. Guitar highpass at 80 Hz. Not sure what the range of the djembe is, but start around 70 Hz and explore. Using a highpass this way dumps all the mud and rumble off the lower end of each track, but leaves its main body and muscle intact. After that, it's a matter of exploring that midrange of each track in the mix using the parametric EQ (cut rather than boost) so that things sound less muddy without sounding thin.

'...the rest... I just leave flat unless it needs something."

Yeah, me too, but most tracks need a highpass in the lows, some EQ cuts in the low mids, and occasionally slight boosting in the highs to bring out a track in a busy mix.

"I think one of my big problems is the use of headphones and cheaper monitors. Sounds like I have it just right untill I bring the music into a car or home stereo.Then it gets disgusting after all of the hours of hard work."

Yeah, you're working at a disadvantage monitoring on less than good gear. Which means you have to check your results on the car and home stereos that much more often to make sure you're on track.
 
Thanks for all of the great advice. I will give all of it a try. It amazes me just how much there is to learn. Just picked up a stack of 100 cdr's so I can get a lot of practice in. I also think I am going to invest in a good pair of monitors.
 
dobro,
please explain why one should use the parametric eq instead?
I'm guessing using alot of graphic eq with cause phase problems and should be saved for mastering?
 
"please explain why one should use the parametric eq instead?"

* Parametric's more precise - you select *exactly* the frequency you want, not a whole band.

* Parametric's more 'musical' - it's a bell curve, and boosts or cuts the frequencies on either side of the chosen frequencies in a gradual way.

* With most software, you can adjust the 'width' or 'range' of that bell curve - again, that means more control.
 
Actually, Dobro, that's why i use the graphic to clean out the bass register. I want to get it all out from about 250Hz down. Parametrics are terrific for actual EQ adjustments.
 
"I want to get it all out from about 250Hz down"

Try a high pass set at 250 Hz instead. You'll be able to adjust the rate or 'angle' of cut with most softwares. More precise.
 
Brunob,

First off, try not to use "additive" EQ. Try to use "subtractive".

dobro,

Which method you think is the best for highpass? I was using scientific for things like that...

RonC
 
Thanks, Mr Dobro. I'll try that.
John

PS: is this a picture of you? If so, who's the cute blonde you're with?
 

Attachments

  • venturadobro.jpg
    venturadobro.jpg
    32.8 KB · Views: 124
Yeah, that's me on the right with the shiny smile. :D The blonde's someone who wanted in on the photo opportunity.

rpc - I don't use Cool's EQ at the moment. I use the Ultrafunk EQ - I find it easier to understand and use than Cool's highpass. But if I wanted a really *radical* highpass, I'd use the scientific filters, yeah. Chris Harris and I were playing around with filters a few months ago and the frequency band splitter as well. I got all excited and thought I'd found the holy grail, but it was just a case of getting better acquainted with 2.1 LOL. Try a search in this forum using 'scientific filters' and 'frequency band splitter' if you're curious.


Anyway, to answer your question: I often use a highpass to dump everything below the lowest audible frequency in order to get rid of rumble and mud - so about 80 Hz for a guitar, or about 95 Hz for my voice (depending on the song), or about 50 Hz for bass, and so on. Sometimes I'll go further than that in a busy mix - if there are a lot of guitars for instance, I'll put a highpass on one of them at maybe 120 or 150 if I want it to be bright and contrast with a darker guitar.
 
This thread kinda' saved my mixing life, lol.

http://www.recordingproject.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=1033&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Pay particular attention to anything posted by Pipelineaudio.

Good Luck, and mudless mixes to all,
Chris

Excerpt: For some fun lets play "mix by numbers: an electronic approach " from the popular book " How to record by reading the back of cereal boxes" by Jack Ortman...hey it works for roger nichols, give it a try and you may be able to make SOME of this work for you:

1. Set EVERY channel eq to ditch 6 dB one octave wide at 315 hz

2. Run a hi pass filter up each and every channel till you HEAR it changing something, then back it off a tiny bit

3. Run a lowpass filter down each and every channel until you HEAR it changing something then back it off a tiny bit

4. Sweep the eq that you set to 315hz of each track down to about 180hz and up to about 450hz

somewhere in there youll have a much cleaner mix, now your job is to go back and make it not as anemic. Or just remember the tracks that this experiment did something GOOD on and apply that to your previous mix
 
Yeah, there ought to be a shrine on the internet somewhere where the best threads are kept. That one would qualify for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top