Print

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

[xonlocust]

hi all-

i have a mix that in a perfect world of infinite time and money i'd remix, but... that's not gonna happen for any number of reasons.  a couple issues i hear on it are:

a) there are a couple songs that start with samples, then the band kicks in.  i mixed the samples too loud in relation to the music.

b) hihat.  damn that hihat.   all the time WHIISSHHHHHing away on the right side.  shoulda cought that in tracking and repositioned the overheads and/or mixed them lower or shoulda had a drummer not bashing the thing.  it is what it is.

what sort of expectations are realistic walking into the mastering session? (i'm going with the client, so i don't really wanna come out and say out loud - hey, i kinda fucked up mixing this)

do you guys routinely deal with issues like these? are they easy/hard fixes?  is the only answer "remix"?

fortunately i'm using one of your esteemed peers here, a "real" ME luckily (mastermind), maybe he'll chime in - but i was interested in the grand consensus.

thanks.

oh, in case it matters it's mixed to 1/4" 15ips no nr. 1k,10k,100hz,50hz tones already printed on head, stored tails out, leadered, all that jazz.

[Level]

In the grand scheme of things, I would have to hear it and then I would produce another set of channels and start playing with phase on the right channel on the high end only and see if they can be blended in better. Of course, this is one technique out of litterally hundreds and the ears would have to be involved big time before any judgements can be made.

[bobkatz]

xonlocust wrote on Wed, 05 January 2005 18:11

hi all- i have a mix that in a perfect world of infinite time and money i'd remix, but... that's not gonna happen for any number of reasons.  a couple issues i hear on it are: a) there are a couple songs that start with samples, then the band kicks in.  i mixed the samples too loud in relation to the music. b) hihat.  damn that hihat.   all the time WHIISSHHHHHing away on the right side.  shoulda cought that in tracking and repositioned the overheads and/or mixed them lower or shoulda had a drummer not bashing the thing.  it is what it is. what sort of expectations are realistic walking into the mastering session? (i'm going with the client, so i don't really wanna come out and say out loud - hey, i kinda fucked up mixing this) do you guys routinely deal with issues like these? are they easy/hard fixes?  is the only answer "remix"?

Well, almost everything is a compromise compared to a remix. It depends on how tolerant you are. I've been very proud of the results of various "fixit" tools that we have, and I tout a lot of them in my book, but rarely are the fixits as transparent as a remix.

But if you're game, and I'm sure a versatile masteing engineer would be if you are game! For a swishing high hat that's really bothersome I'd suggest a de-esser, like the Weiss DS1-Mk2. Pity the DS1 is always linked, because I think you MIGHT get better results just processing the high hat channel. The less tweaking you have to do (less de-essing) the better the results with fewer artifacts.

How's that?

Quote:

oh, in case it matters it's mixed to 1/4" 15ips no nr. 1k,10k,100hz,50hz tones already printed on head, stored tails out, leadered, all that jazz.

Well, since analog tape is a pretty good "de-esser" or high frequency softener in its own right, it does muddy the issue (pun intended) and possibly the digital de-esser in mastering would have less of an effect on your high hat mix issue.

BK

[ammitsboel]

Bob, have you tried the dynamic EQ?
I find it too limited so i havent used it very much, but it can process only one of the channels.

[Level]

Quote:

but it can process only one of the channels

There goes the center image.

[ammitsboel]

Level wrote on Thu, 06 January 2005 00:47

Quote: but it can process only one of the channels There goes the center image.

Bob asked for it.

[bblackwood]

Hi-hat eats up tons of space, frequency wise. Really hard to tame when it's overbearing, ime...

How about posting before and after examples when it's done?

[mastermind]

aww hell nick... i gotta save one of your mixes AGAIN !!!  

(seriously though... this guy's work is top notch.. I'd rather master his mixes than most others).

a) are the samples still going when the band kicks in, or are they just in the intro part? if they're just in the intro, dropping the level on just that section overall will work just fine and be super easy. if they're in the intro and continue when the band comes in then it's a different story. are we talking about a huge level issue here or a little one? where are the samples placed in the stereo field?

b) i use the  de-esser in the 6k to take care of hats all the time, and as far as i'm concerned it works just great, but then again i don't have any fancy weiss gear sitting around - but i have used quite a few dessers in my time and i think the one in the 6k is pretty groovy.

in any case... we'll take a shot at it and hopefully we'll be able to make all the concerned parties happy... it's always such a pain when the drummer hits the hats like it was the guy that just raped his sister....

looking forward to seeing you this sat ....

t

[jfrigo]

Attack it with frequency selective dynamics: a de-esser or a band of a multiband compressor. If it's far to one side, you may be able to try a little M/S de-essing, but on the side rather than the typical mid, or maybe just process the hat side in L,R stereo. Also you can simply EQ a little differently on the hat side in conjunction with the dynamics technique. The M/S or 1 side only thing can screw up the image and have things moving around in the stereo field, so beware and be careful.

If it's not too ot of control, just the normal mastering processing may help. If you happen to bring up some mid range for guitars just below the hat freq and compress and limit some, you may not notice the hat sticking out so much anymore. No fix is a remix, but if it's not too bad, there are a few techniques and you can certainly tame it somewhat in mastering. Trev will kick some hi-hat ass I'm sure.

[xonlocust]

first off - thanks guys, this is fascinating for me - i appreciate the lesson.

trev - thanks so much for the kind words - i just want everything i do to go through you first so it makes me look better in the end to new clients!

a) in one song the sample is before the band kicks in, and i thought that should be easy as it seems it will be.  however, in another song the samples serve as a vocal track (ie instrumental with wierdo samples).  in my grasp of hopes i though this could simply be a limiting issue, and thought maybe if you set your threshold just above regular program material with a decently steep ratio and pulled these peaks down, that'd address our issue.  my only concern was if that would adversely affect any settings from the other "ok" mixes (and by ok i mean, assuming we've addressed our hihat issue!)  

it;s really trashy sounding punk with lots of room mic/overheads.  the band wasnt the tightest, so i sorta downplayed that by emphazing the room mics. the whole thing was 14 songs, tracked, overdub, mix in 22 hrs. we're talking local band - self released here.  fortunately the main guy respects my opinion and followed my advice to take it to trev for mastering. i can't wait to hear it on trev's fancy speakers.  frequency wise top to bottom i think it's ok with the exception of the hat issue - maybe conservative on the low end - you know those B&Ws. i'm interested to hear trev's analysis. it's also the first mix done in a new room BTW.

b) awesome.  and really, i think my attention to detail on this is wayyyyyyyyy deeper than the band.  they're already totally stoked on everything, it's already far beyond thier expectations (good for me).  i'm just not happy with my work. (quite common i assume)

jfingo - that's exactly what i was thinking - if i were remixing i think maybe i'd try and de-ess the hats in the overheads - but like you said - i'd be wary of what that did to the image. can you go into the reasoning of using MS de-essing vs regular stereo?  my only experience w/MS is in tracking... so i guess, in effect are you saying your compression only affects the side signal - even though the source material is regular stereo, the method of de-essing is sort of a reverse processing?  does this tend to leave your center image intact and only mess with the sides?

brad - i don't really have a problem with posting before/afters. trev?

thanks all for your input.

best,
nick

[Level]

So Nick, we are not going to hear this issue to be able to give proper guidance? Snip?

As I said, takes some ear action to make a valid decision.

[bblackwood]

Yah, it'll be interesting to hear his approach as it's very difficult to deal with it transparently. All sorts of tricks to dealing with it, but none that I'm aware of that aren't essentially 'stopping the hemorrhaging'...

[jfrigo]

xonlocust wrote on Wed, 05 January 2005 23:39

jfingo - that's exactly what i was thinking - if i were remixing i think maybe i'd try and de-ess the hats in the overheads - but like you said - i'd be wary of what that did to the image. can you go into the reasoning of using MS de-essing vs regular stereo?  my only experience w/MS is in tracking... so i guess, in effect are you saying your compression only affects the side signal - even though the source material is regular stereo, the method of de-essing is sort of a reverse processing?  does this tend to leave your center image intact and only mess with the sides?

That's pretty much it. If you de-ssed unlinked in regular stereo, you could get your center shifting a little with each clamp down, and very obvious things that share that part of the spectrum in the center like snare and vocal could be shifted a little. Also, de-essing regular stereo may take some snap out of the snare - no way to say for sure what the side effects are going to be until you listen.

Another approach would be to use the M/S de-esser in Trev's tc 6000 (several other ways to do it for those of you without a 6000). By default it processes the middle and not the sides because that's where vocal sibilance resides. In this case with a hi-hat over to one side, if you process the side and not the middle, it will leave your center image stable and hopefully not impact your snare and vocal. It's still possible to have image shifts, but it would be a hopefully more subtle narrowing and widening of the sides depending on the setting, and this could be far less obtrusive than the featured items in the center shifting around. If the hat isn't very far to the side, however, it may be less effective. Until you try, you won't know which method works better, but it's one more option in the toolbox.

[bblackwood]

I'd be stunned if the hat was either center or hard panned...

[xonlocust]

per requests - here are some links:

http://www.newblack.net/mp3/splints/12MolotovTonight.mp3
http://www.newblack.net/mp3/splints/14BloodLetting.mp3

be nice!  

ps sorry for the novel length last post, i was kinda drunk.

[jfrigo]

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 06 January 2005 11:36

I'd be stunned if the hat was either center or hard panned...

I can't imagine it would be either of those things.

I can imagine it being fairly close to the center or fairly wide out, as opposed to exactly half way between, but I don't think I've ever heard one hard panned, and I've only heard it up the center when it's a minimalist mono drum mic technique or a sample loop. But unless it's exactly in between center and wide, it's going to be more M or more S, and perhaps that offers an opportunity, just as it being more L or R may.

[bobkatz]

ammitsboel wrote on Wed, 05 January 2005 19:36

Bob, have you tried the dynamic EQ? I find it too limited so i havent used it very much, but it can process only one of the channels.

I sent it back with a ton of suggestions. Daniel has been very busy and when (if) he gets back to those suggestions the dynamic EQ will be a helluva box, very useful, I'm sure. But right now the attack/release constants are not adjustable and so it just is not useable for me.

BK

[turtletone]

I have a set of the DYN chips and just recently popped them back into the eq, I would like to see it improved on, but I found it kind of useful if used lightly. Like Bob said, if he just allowed tweeking of the attack and release, this box would be super powerful. but in the meantime, it can add a little something as it is.

[Ronny]

I get the white page on both of these urls. No matter if I right click and save as target or left click for the stream.

Can you check these two.


http://www.newblack.net/mp3/splints/12MolotovTonight.mp3

http://www.newblack.net/mp3/splints/14BloodLetting.mp3

[Bob Olhsson]

And to think I can remember when in the 1970s everybody wanted MORE high hat!

[ted nightshade]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 08 January 2005 09:31

And to think I can remember when in the 1970s everybody wanted MORE high hat!

What's changed, do you think? Is it just that everybody has to hear their work, at one time or another, through tinny little speakers that try to make the hi-hat the loudest thing in the mix if it's present at all?

Or does it have more to do with the role of the hat in the music?

Maybe, so the hat would come across well on vinyl?

[TotalSonic]

ted nightshade wrote on Mon, 10 January 2005 16:43

Or does it have more to do with the role of the hat in the music?

I definitely think it was the fact that the hats were the motor to the disco groove.  Weird in the later 80's that it kind of reversed to just kick/snare ultra simplified boom-tink back beats, with little hat in the mix.

Quote:

Maybe, so the hat would come across well on vinyl?

I don't think so - really loud hi-hat in the mix can often make it more difficult to cut a side.   When you push levels to max for a vinyl side the 8-16kHz region where a lot of the hi-hats sound resides is the first to break up, especially as you get to the inner grooves, so you either have to back off level or use some form of high frequency filtering or limiting.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Gold]

Quote:

I don't think so - really loud hi-hat in the mix can often make it more difficult to cut a side.

I think this may have more to do with it. Forbidden fruit. Transient response used to be a big one too. Now that we have perfect transient response with lightning fast op amps and digital storage everyone is buying tubes and transformers to tame it. Maybe ear spliting high end will fade from fashion too. One can dream.

[Lord Alvin]

Sounds like a job for Cedar's Retouch software.  I recently did a project where the piano pedal noise was too loud.  The thump of the release and the whoosh of the felts were both distracting.  The mix was finished and I thought it was hopeless.  Retouch was able to get just the pedal thump and turn it down without losing any other low end.  We were even able to turn down the felt noise within the mix and I could not hear any noticeable artifacts.  I bet it would work on hi hat as well.