Those damn bad frequencies!

[Last Alternative]

So by now I know how to do everything but the biggest problem I have now with mixing is so many piercing frequencies. Whether it's guitar, cymbals, vocals.. what do you guys do about it? It's weird how none of the mixing tips and books really say much about it but it's always a problem.
This goes for whether it was a recorded track with a mic, or just a sample.

I try to cut them but sometimes there are too many! So now I'm even automating special cuts just where they poke out on certain notes but it's as if I'm chasing my tail because there's always another one and then the sound is hollowed out. Anyone else have any tips? Of course one would say pick a different sample or re-record but sometimes that's not an option.

By the way, I have a pretty dead "vocal booth" area of my room padded by hanging blankets and also acoustic panels strategically placed around the room.

Also, for those who have been anticipating another LA song, I just posted one! It's been too long, I know.. hope you like it. It's the first song Reason ever deleted of mine. I was about a day from releasing it about 9 months ago so I had to start from scratch but I think it's better now. And yes I backup everything twice now.

[Benedict]

Hi Mr Alternative

Can't really say without hearing an example.

What concerns me though from the way you say it (and knowing you) is that I worry you may be obsessing and hearing problems that aren't really there to avoid finishing and shipping.

Perhaps you have lost sight of the whole. Rock isn't smooth so if your piece is full of jagged edges then maybe that is the nature of the piece and you should play it that way.

[Scoobyman II]

I'm listening right now, and it sounds pretty balanced. I think the spacing on this one is great. I'm listening with cans. I'm finding there's gotta be compromise. Don't have to suffer. I've cut the highs and it sounds thumpy, then I listen to a lot of my stuff and it's overwhelming in the mids and highs. Back to your song, I like the headstock sweep before the hard guitars come in.

[Gaja]

I used to have the same problem. For me it was that after cutting all of what I heard "new resonances" came up, because all the rest was cut away. I think Benedicts idea might actually have some truth in it, not to say you're hearing ghosts, but you're overdoing it for any reason.
When I had this issue I managed to get around it by listening without applying eq first and then decided on three frequencies maximum and then not cut it all thenway down, but only a few dB. I tend to forget that most of these resonances won't be audible in the context of an entire piece, therefore totally overdoing it. It might help to do the cutting on really low levels and without headphones, as one tends to hear more on those (if they're good). Another way of working could be to turn down the track and then instead of cutting unwanted resonances to boost between them. It won't work in all cases, probably, but I've heard some very good results from this technique, especially in a Rock context.
I guess it comes down to some kind of disciplin thing. I need to realise that I'm overdoing it, then bypass the EQ and come back to it at a later stage. Usually I found that what I did didn't really help, but created problems in other areas. As soon as I realised that I could focus on the maximum 3 frequencies to cut.

[selig]

I used to have the same problem. For me it was that after cutting all of what I heard "new resonances" came up, because all the rest was cut away. I think Benedicts idea might actually have some truth in it, not to say you're hearing ghosts, but you're overdoing it for any reason. When I had this issue I managed to get around it by listening without applying eq first and then decided on three frequencies maximum and then not cut it all thenway down, but only a few dB. I tend to forget that most of these resonances won't be audible in the context of an entire piece, therefore totally overdoing it. It might help to do the cutting on really low levels and without headphones, as one tends to hear more on those (if they're good). Another way of working could be to turn down the track and then instead of cutting unwanted resonances to boost between them. It won't work in all cases, probably, but I've heard some very good results from this technique, especially in a Rock context. I guess it comes down to some kind of disciplin thing. I need to realise that I'm overdoing it, then bypass the EQ and come back to it at a later stage. Usually I found that what I did didn't really help, but created problems in other areas. As soon as I realised that I could focus on the maximum 3 frequencies to cut.

First, of course there are no "bad" frequencies, and second the upper midrange is often discussed as a problem area.

Each frequency range has a positive and negative quality associated with it, as aptly pointed out in Bob Katz excellent book Mastering Audio. The down side to seeing one band as "negative" is that you'll tend to avoid it altogether leaving a 'hole' in your productions. I've heard folks do this to the "critical midrange", as well as the lower midrange to get rid of mud (and also get rid of body and fullness). 

But I've never been one to go through a mix and cut resonate (singing) frequencies, or do arcane automation to work around them - maybe I've just never put them in the mix in the first place? I AM very sensitive to upper frequencies and have to all but force myself to increase them in the mix - we all have sensitivities and must learn how to work around them (as a drummer I tend to rush, so I had to learn to ignore that tendency and now I can play to a click even if I can't hear it well). I also like too much low end, and have to setup my sub woofer to play a little louder than "flat" so I can mix "flat"! These personal "issues" are everywhere in our field - you just gotta figure out which ones are getting in the way of your work, and work around them! 

[normen]

Agree with that, when people start using EQs etc. they tend to overdo it. If you *need* to apply lots of "fine grained" EQ on all of your tracks you have a different issue, either in your recordings (microphone setup), samples or in your listening setup. Look at what you have and work on the actual problems. E.g. if your guitarist records through a classic Marshall head with a RATT distortion pedal you won't get a Pantera or NuMetal sound out of your guitars and if thats what you expect from guitars you will fight frequencies that are the essence of the sound your guitarist is trying to achieve.

What does your recording sound like when you apply no effects at all, what can you make out of that, what are the issues. Thinking like that will get you to a good mix. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole won't. Especially as a live mix engineer I experience this so often. I use the same mics on the same PA in the same room and yet every band sounds different (some better, some worse ) and I simply have to work with the input that I get. I don't even try to EQ the heck out of a totally overladen "mid-y" synth patch the keyboarder plays when his Rhodes sounds are fine. Maybe put a wide dent in there to let the singer still come through or just pull down the synth

[Last Alternative]

Aside from piercing frequencies in the mids, I think it would be wise for me to stop EQ-ing right off the bat because I do start off pretty severe. For example, HP everything besides kick, bass, toms 150-200+ Hz. Then LP stuff as far as I can push it. Then it's mids cuts time and I go pretty deep sometimes but I shoot for only a few dB if I can. By then there isn't much left and I have to start over. But there is a method to my madness. Hmm maybe not..
I've realized pro songs have the living shit cut out of everything to make it so open and breathe. Anyway, I'm still trying to figure out EQ I guess.

[normen]

Aside from piercing frequencies in the mids, I think it would be wise for me to stop EQ-ing right off the bat because I do start off pretty severe. For example, HP everything besides kick, bass, toms 150-200+ Hz. Then LP stuff as far as I can push it. Then it's mids cuts time. By then there isn't much left and I have to start over. But there is a method to my madness. Hmm maybe not.. I've realized pro songs have the living shit cut out of everything to make it so open and breathe. Anyway, I'm still trying to figure out EQ I guess.

Hm, most "pro" songs are mainly "pro" recordings.. Like I always like to point out, the guys getting grammys for their mixing are those who put a wee bit of EQ and compression on an otherwise pristine Adele recording, not those who polished a turd for days 

HP and LP are actually the easiest to work with in a final mix as you instantly hear whats happening in terms of adding oomph/air/content and in terms of mud/covering and you only have to tweak one knob

[Chango]

I used to have the same problem. For me it was that after cutting all of what I heard "new resonances" came up, because all the rest was cut away. I think Benedicts idea might actually have some truth in it, not to say you're hearing ghosts, but you're overdoing it for any reason. When I had this issue I managed to get around it by listening without applying eq first and then decided on three frequencies maximum and then not cut it all thenway down, but only a few dB. I tend to forget that most of these resonances won't be audible in the context of an entire piece, therefore totally overdoing it. It might help to do the cutting on really low levels and without headphones, as one tends to hear more on those (if they're good). Another way of working could be to turn down the track and then instead of cutting unwanted resonances to boost between them. It won't work in all cases, probably, but I've heard some very good results from this technique, especially in a Rock context. I guess it comes down to some kind of disciplin thing. I need to realise that I'm overdoing it, then bypass the EQ and come back to it at a later stage. Usually I found that what I did didn't really help, but created problems in other areas. As soon as I realised that I could focus on the maximum 3 frequencies to cut.

First, of course there are no "bad" frequencies, and second the upper midrange is often discussed as a problem area.

Each frequency range has a positive and negative quality associated with it, as aptly pointed out in Bob Katz excellent book Mastering Audio. The down side to seeing one band as "negative" is that you'll tend to avoid it altogether leaving a 'hole' in your productions. I've heard folks do this to the "critical midrange", as well as the lower midrange to get rid of mud (and also get rid of body and fullness). 

But I've never been one to go through a mix and cut resonate (singing) frequencies, or do arcane automation to work around them - maybe I've just never put them in the mix in the first place? I AM very sensitive to upper frequencies and have to all but force myself to increase them in the mix - we all have sensitivities and must learn how to work around them (as a drummer I tend to rush, so I had to learn to ignore that tendency and now I can play to a click even if I can't hear it well). I also like too much low end, and have to setup my sub woofer to play a little louder than "flat" so I can mix "flat"! These personal "issues" are everywhere in our field - you just gotta figure out which ones are getting in the way of your work, and work around them! 

[eox]

I used to have the same problem. For me it was that after cutting all of what I heard "new resonances" came up, because all the rest was cut away. I think Benedicts idea might actually have some truth in it, not to say you're hearing ghosts, but you're overdoing it for any reason. When I had this issue I managed to get around it by listening without applying eq first and then decided on three frequencies maximum and then not cut it all thenway down, but only a few dB. I tend to forget that most of these resonances won't be audible in the context of an entire piece, therefore totally overdoing it. It might help to do the cutting on really low levels and without headphones, as one tends to hear more on those (if they're good). Another way of working could be to turn down the track and then instead of cutting unwanted resonances to boost between them. It won't work in all cases, probably, but I've heard some very good results from this technique, especially in a Rock context. I guess it comes down to some kind of disciplin thing. I need to realise that I'm overdoing it, then bypass the EQ and come back to it at a later stage. Usually I found that what I did didn't really help, but created problems in other areas. As soon as I realised that I could focus on the maximum 3 frequencies to cut.

First, of course there are no "bad" frequencies, and second the upper midrange is often discussed as a problem area.

Each frequency range has a positive and negative quality associated with it, as aptly pointed out in Bob Katz excellent book Mastering Audio. The down side to seeing one band as "negative" is that you'll tend to avoid it altogether leaving a 'hole' in your productions. I've heard folks do this to the "critical midrange", as well as the lower midrange to get rid of mud (and also get rid of body and fullness). 

But I've never been one to go through a mix and cut resonate (singing) frequencies, or do arcane automation to work around them - maybe I've just never put them in the mix in the first place? I AM very sensitive to upper frequencies and have to all but force myself to increase them in the mix - we all have sensitivities and must learn how to work around them (as a drummer I tend to rush, so I had to learn to ignore that tendency and now I can play to a click even if I can't hear it well). I also like too much low end, and have to setup my sub woofer to play a little louder than "flat" so I can mix "flat"! These personal "issues" are everywhere in our field - you just gotta figure out which ones are getting in the way of your work, and work around them! 

Wow..the subwoofer idea here just blew my mind Selig! I have that same issue and now I'm going to give that tip a shot! Didn't mean to make an irrelevant post, but just had to say thank you!

[phasys]

What the hell would we do without Selig.

[tibah]

That's why I'm somewhat lazy when it comes to EQ. I don't want to ruin things, so in most projects, say 24 channels, you will likely not see more than 10 EQs. The main reason being is this: volume and panning are my main tools. If I can't get the mix about 80% with these, I'm doing something wrong, elsewhere. EQ and compression, delay and reverb, those deliver the missing 20%, personally of course.

That said, I try to spend as much time balancing the mix to get to those 80%. I used to be the guy that used something like Q10 from Waves to raise certain frequency bands with a high peak and loads of gain to find those "annoying" frequencies and cut them. Since then I realized, boosting frequencies like that will most likely sound annoying anyway.

I work in a different genre though and my "core" material / samples / patches are quite good, imo. Working with acoustic and recorded material that you actually have to *shape* first to get THAT sound might be a totally different story. Just don't get to *anal* about things!

[Marco Raaphorst]

don't use full range sounds on channels. use a high pass on one channel, low pass on the other one. constrasty sounds. 

[eox]

What the hell would we do without Selig.

Phasys, I've been telling myself that for the last few years! Wish we as a community could take him out and buy him a beer for all his help and commitment!

[motuscott]

Bad frequencies Bad. Bad. Down Boy!

Still Selig is the man.
Even phasys seems calm.
WTF is going on?

[QVprod]

Aside from piercing frequencies in the mids, I think it would be wise for me to stop EQ-ing right off the bat because I do start off pretty severe. For example, HP everything besides kick, bass, toms 150-200+ Hz. Then LP stuff as far as I can push it. Then it's mids cuts time. By then there isn't much left and I have to start over. But there is a method to my madness. Hmm maybe not.. I've realized pro songs have the living shit cut out of everything to make it so open and breathe. Anyway, I'm still trying to figure out EQ I guess.

Hm, most "pro" songs are mainly "pro" recordings.. Like I always like to point out, the guys getting grammys for their mixing are those who put a wee bit of EQ and compression on an otherwise pristine Adele recording, not those who polished a turd for days 

HP and LP are actually the easiest to work with in a final mix as you instantly hear whats happening in terms of adding oomph/air/content and in terms of mud/covering and you only have to tweak one knob

This^. I think a common misconception in mixing is that you have to EQ the heck out of everything. In actuality I find the reverse to be true. Main thing is to listen to everything together, mix with your faders only first and then star making EQ moves. Assuming the recordings were good to begin with (you should always shoot for the sound you want in the recording/production phase) You really shouldn't need to that much to it. It's cool to have a system in place but make sure any cuts or boosts you make aren't systematic but based on how that instrument/vocal needs to sit with the rest of the track .

My best mixes were for tracks that were already recorded well leaving me with considerably little to do. My harder mixes on the other hand were from tracks that didn't sound great to begin with.

[jappe]

Isn't this where you actually have good use of multi-band compressors, so you don't have to destroy the sound by static EQing, but rather let it kick in when it's needed?

I read somewhere...or was it a video...a nice trick: Use the sidechain in the dynamics section of a channel strip, and feed the sidechain with a narrow bandpass signal for the frequency you want to control so it kicks in when that frequency area gets occasional buildups.


And about spectral mixing: I'm also a bit curious how often you pro's and semi-pro's filter out a frequency region for a channel entirely - or perhaps you always let a small amount of frequencies remain. (in order to have something to pull up with multi band compression when the frequency space occasionally is free to use without clashing?)

[selig]

Aside from piercing frequencies in the mids, I think it would be wise for me to stop EQ-ing right off the bat because I do start off pretty severe. For example, HP everything besides kick, bass, toms 150-200+ Hz. Then LP stuff as far as I can push it. Then it's mids cuts time and I go pretty deep sometimes but I shoot for only a few dB if I can. By then there isn't much left and I have to start over. But there is a method to my madness. Hmm maybe not.. I've realized pro songs have the living shit cut out of everything to make it so open and breathe. Anyway, I'm still trying to figure out EQ I guess.

I will employ some "clean up" cuts early on, but try to save all "mixing" EQ for as long as possible in the process. I'm a strong advocate for doing the MOST work at the beginning of any project (planning etc.), so you can do the least work at the end. Work on the basic sounds and parts, weed out issues in the arraignment, work out any panning issues, tweak on your basic levels, add a few core effects, and try to make it as great as possible at every stage. No "fix it in the mix" mentality here - if the mix isn't rocking your world on some level at that point (before going nuts with EQ/FX, etc.), IMO no amount of tweaking is going to make it "happen". Time for a "do over"… 

But also, sometimes a well placed simple EQ boost can suddenly bring out a track that was struggling in the mix previously. Just happened to me with a Rhodes patch and a saturating EQ boost - doesn't always work like magic, but when it does it really makes you smile and appreciate the little things in life.  

[phasys]

Bad frequencies Bad. Bad. Down Boy!

Still Selig is the man.
Even phasys seems calm.
WTF is going on?

Oh I'm calm. I feel very relieved now actually that the trainwreck forum got killed. Yeah sure, 10 years of knowledge destroyed, but hey, this phoenix is doing nicely. A lot better without those stupid Swedes running the show.

[jappe]

Bad frequencies Bad. Bad. Down Boy!

Still Selig is the man.
Even phasys seems calm.
WTF is going on?

Oh I'm calm. I feel very relieved now actually that the trainwreck forum got killed. Yeah sure, 10 years of knowledge destroyed, but hey, this phoenix is doing nicely. A lot better without those

stupid Swedes

running the show.

Hey, it's not a nation problem, it's a marketing enemy problem.

[phasys]

Hey, it's not a nation problem, it's a marketing enemy problem.

I never said it was a nation problem.

[Lunesis]

I tend to stay away from the lpf in 95% of cases. That's where the muddy distant sound comes from. I opt for compression when there is something that pops out as too harsh.

[Ecopro]

Oh I'm calm. I feel very relieved now actually that the trainwreck forum got killed. Yeah sure, 10 years of knowledge destroyed, but hey, this phoenix is doing nicely. A lot better without those stupid Swedes running the show.

Let's not stereotype a whole nation just because you're holding a grudge. Let's be civil to avoid conflicts here.