Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bert]

i was recording some tracks two weeks ago and am mxing on them right now. it's loud guitar rock music and while mixing right now, i've always come to the same conclusion regarding the recorded tracks. everything lacks a bigger or smaller amount of clarity. when using a master eq, cut at low mids and boost above 10-12 kHz, it suddenly becomes brighter like it should be. the fact that i had to do this while mixing, is this "common" in most recordings? or am i going wrong somewhere while tracking the different instruments?

greetings

[scottoliphant]

what are your monitor and mixing room like?

[bert]

it's a very decent monitor room, 5 by 7,5 meters, nice acoustics and KRK E8T monitors. i've been working on other monitors for a while and i must admit the KRK's don't let me down..

i wonder about this problem, is this "clarity" really something that must be added during mixing, eq'ing and stuff like that? or is it really a matter of mic'ing, preamps, etc? also, don't understand me wrong, the tracked instruments don't sound bad at all and sound like they are in real, but they only lack that bit of clarity i hear in other cd's. so maybe it's only mastering, i don't know?

[j.hall]

it is VERY common for me to boost high end in guitars during the mix phase.

even if my first impression is that the tones are really good.  by the end of the mix it's very common to have the top end boosted a bit to get them to cut through.

[John Ivan]

It sounds like your tracking one instrument at a time? The low mid can start to build up quick. especially if you are using the same mic or two up close on everything.Same with using the same pre/mic combo.

When you track a band live or, mostly live you can avoid this with mic placement and choice while you track. It's tough to hear for us guys who do a lot of "one thing at a time" stuff. I miss full band tracking,{still do it but not as much as I'd like.}

One thing I would mention about the EQing while mixing. Do the subtraction in the low mid's before you do anything else EQ wise. This can be amazing sometimes. You'll think something need's more top or high mid but suddenly,, it's clear as a bell when the mud is taken out of something ELSE that was masking it.

Try to avoid the build up caused by the proximity effect of mic's. I love small Omnis and this is part of the reason for me.

Ivan..........................

[John Ivan]

j.hall wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 20:57

it is VERY common for me to boost high end in guitars during the mix phase. even if my first impression is that the tones are really good.  by the end of the mix it's very common to have the top end boosted a bit to get them to cut through.

Hi J''

He mentioned "above 10-12-K" is this where you boost guitars to get them to cut? I know it changes from tune to tune for sure but this seems like "air" teritory to me... I too find that even when I really think I dig a guitar tone, I end up adding a bit of high end but this is usualy down around 5 or 6-K.

Yeah man, it's so hard to talk about this without Hearing the stuff in question. Eh?

[j.hall]

2 - 3k on guitars is what i'd consider upper end "bite"

4 - 6k is what i'd consider to be "clarity" and top end

anything aobve that is "air" in guitars.

[beau]

ya, it seems to me, a lot of people like to track most instruments darker than they need to be.  

i get a lot of tracks sent to me and the engineers tell me that they are really pleased with the tracks they are sending me, because they are really "warm" and "fat"  when in reality, they are just too darn dark or muddy.  

but, i can also understand why it happens.  a lot of the times when you dont constantly check your tracks against finished records, and when you are monitoring at high volumes, it is just more pleasant to listen to things without the high end ripping your ears off.

my 2 cents

peace

beau

[Fibes]

j.hall wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 22:29

2 - 3k on guitars is what i'd consider upper end "bite" 4 - 6k is what i'd consider to be "clarity" and top end anything aobve that is "air" in guitars.

I dunno anything approaching 6k+ in electrics just sounds like piss on a flat rock, or a freshly opened can of Fresca.

4-6k is also the range most of lose first out of the frequencies "that matter."

No J. I'm not saying you're deaf.

I am.

And thank Mithra.

[wwittman]

It's common for me to add a bit of top and a bit of bottom at the mix, often on a global stereo EQ... but I never 'cut' globally.
NEVER..

and I can't say that my tracks are universally dull either, more often than not I am using EQ at the mix stage just to blend things, not for tonal adjustment.

[John Ivan]

Oh Crap! I thought we were talking about "per channel" here. Yeah, I don't use buss EQ .

Sorry I misunderstood this.

[bert]

so it's partly probably a mixing issue.  though i keep on asking myself whether it could also be a mic placement/choice issue. i've been tracking most of the instruments pretty close, guitars/bass and drums. some drum tracks also with room mics. i tried room mics (omni and others) on guitars which didn't really work out. i used oktava 012 and 319 most of the time and a beta57 sometimes for some guitar parts. everything into a daw and/or rme ad converter. and yeah, everything has been tracked apart from eachoter, instrument after instrument.

it's also not a guitar thing only. it's as if the whole mix lacks this clarity/air...

[pg666]

if you only need to boost a little high end on the stereo buss at the last minute, i wouldn't sweat it. just boost the high end some. (EDIT: or ask the ME to do it if you aren't confident in your EQ)

but if the problem is excessive low-mids, i'd try some different stuff during tracking. it could be a lot of things, but i wouldn't sacrifice the entire mix for what could be a single cluttering element.

[bert]

yeah i understand what you're saying. i'm cutting a lot around 200 and sometimes at 1-2k right now, and i must admit, it does a lot. i 've also been cutting a lot in oh's and hh, to make them sound less harsh. also some drive and cut on 1k to 1.5k on vocals makes them sit better and gives the whole mix more clarit, at least in this case with these musicians and voices..

[scottoliphant]

care to post a sample file for us to hear? the guys here are awesome with advice, sometimes hearing it makes it easier to help

[mr jason]

Yeah, very often the sounds that your ears construe as a good sound (when recording seperate instruments) is your problem, cos you're hearing (for example) an electric guitar which you want to sound "full" or "warm" in isolation, but then if you put that in a busy mix it's that fullness that is the problem. When people here the finished song, they aren't going to be listening to each instrument in isolation, so you need to change the way you think about those instruments when you're tracking, and think where each instrument needs to sit in the mix.
What frequencies are vital to the listener, for them to recognise what what instrument is? There's no point trying to get some nice warm lower-mids and bottom end on guitar a lot of the time (unless it's JUST guitar and vocals), cos then you're not gonna be able to seperate it from the bass guitar or bass drum without some serious EQing later on.
As has already been pointed out, cutting lower mid on instruments is a great way of clearing things up in that region, but as others have also pointed out, bearing the finished product in mind whilst tracking will help more.
I was recording overdubs on a song last night, including sax, tambourines/shakers, handclaps, backing vocals etc, and when I was listening to the vocals (to set levels) they sounded a bit harsh and bass-light, but once recorded they fitted in the mix perfectly without needing EQ, and without getting in the way of anything else.
I was using a 421, which is great for that kind of thing.
If you want to hear that song as an example, or to slag off my song/playing/work, then either is fine with me, hehe: http://laprecords.co.uk/studio/mp3s/ap_rebel.mp3
I haven't done the final mix yet, but it's getting there.

[Pingu]

bert wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 07:18

i was recording some tracks two weeks ago and am mxing on them right now. it's loud guitar rock music and while mixing right now, i've always come to the same conclusion regarding the recorded tracks. everything lacks a bigger or smaller amount of clarity. when using a master eq, cut at low mids and boost above 10-12 kHz, it suddenly becomes brighter like it should be. the fact that i had to do this while mixing, is this "common" in most recordings? or am i going wrong somewhere while tracking the different instruments? greetings

Most times mastering will add that sheen.

Just aim for a balanced diet and mastering will add the sparkle.

[j.hall]

dangerous advice.........

we should always push each other to rely on mastering as little as possible.

i know when the mastering guy tells me he used very little EQ i am very happy.

my clients aren't doing recalls off mastered mixes.  if it's dull, they are going to tell me, and i'll have to deal with it right then and there.

"don't worry, mastering will brighten it up"  simply doesn't work for my clients.  they won't sign off on a mix till it's what they want.

[floodstage]

I battle w/bass build up/muddyness very regularly.

I just finished a 6 song project last night and although it ended up sounding pretty darn good, it took a TON of EQ to get it there.

I cut low mids from just about everything but the drums, lows from the guitar and some from the vocals, boosted highs on voc's and guitars, etc.

Then I went back for a second round and cut some more.

Finally, put a compressor on the 2 bus to glue and tame the kick and the bass.

That last step helped a lot.

I'm going to have to revaluate what I go for in tracking because I'm sculpting with a chain saw and not just fine tuning.

Not really giving advice, just saying "I feel your pain!"

[John Ivan]

j.hall wrote on Mon, 27 March 2006 13:32

dangerous advice......... we should always push each other to rely on mastering as little as possible. i know when the mastering guy tells me he used very little EQ i am very happy. my clients aren't doing recalls off mastered mixes.  if it's dull, they are going to tell me, and i'll have to deal with it right then and there. "don't worry, mastering will brighten it up"  simply doesn't work for my clients.  they won't sign off on a mix till it's what they want.

I agree with this 100%. I like to have the mix where I want it when it leaves my room. Mastering might end up adding a little top or other shaping but I like to hear back from the mastering engineer to find out what he thought the "problems" were so I can do all I can at the mix stage.

My 2 cents.

[Fibes]

Get what you want, don't ever ask others to do what you can do for yourself.

That said we all should be eternally unsatisfied with our work. It's the only way to grow.

[Pingu]

Yes i suppose mastering has never added sheen to a mix and he should really be playing around with eq on the 2 buss to get that finished sound whilst mixing.

[j.hall]

Pingu wrote on Tue, 28 March 2006 07:40

Yes i suppose mastering has never added sheen to a mix and he should really be playing around with eq on the 2 buss to get that finished sound whilst mixing.

mastering can add, and for me, usually does add, some top end or "sheen".  you were for sure right about that the first time.

i just think we should be pushing each other toward perfection, not settling for mediocrity.

[Pingu]

Yes i hear yer there.


I dabble in a bit of mastering and some clients expect me to turn there crap into gold.
Im so over trying to polish dog shit.


Plus  when i wrote the initial statement i was too lazy to explain myself.

My bad.

But its 100% correct that you get the mix sounding as best you can.

Do not rely on mastering as it can only do so much.

And as they say the best records required the least amount of mastering/processing.

[j.hall]

i'm happy to polish turds, i just tell the bands,

"polishing a turd typically leaves you with a smaller, different shade of brown.....turd"

[floodstage]

Mastering is like makeup, it can make an ugly girl look better, but it works even better on a really pretty one!


 




(at least that's what I've heard, haven't been playing with makeup .... not that there's anything wrong with that ...... ummm nevermind!)

[Pingu]

i always play with makeup
































gain as well.