Mixing

[Puckboy2000]

Maybe this been addressed before, but is there a list showing where certain instruments should be EQ'd frequency-wise? i.e. High hats, kick, baseline, vocals (male or female). And are there general setting for compressing each instrument for a starting point (ratio, attack and release)? My music is synth alternative\dark wave with male lead and female back vocals. As always, thanks for any help and feedback. Charles

[Nicolo]

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn ... isplay.htm

[Puckboy2000]

Thanks for the awesome chart Nicolo!

[Benedict]

These charts are great as an educational tool but only and ever use your ears (and perhaps a spectrum analyzer) on a real mix as every situation is different. The same violin can be bitter and shrill like your mother in law or smooth and lyrical as Juliet. You should know which based on the song not a chart.

[Rook]

This is a basic one that I refer to sometimes.

[Puckboy2000]

This is a basic one that I refer to sometimes.

Thanks. So should I cut out or decrease the mudiness frequency ranges on the EQ? I see people using inverse bells on the EQ to cut out frequencies

[Gulale]

go to presonus.com and inside community there is a learn page click on it.
here it is  http://www.presonus.com/community/learn

I highly advice you to consider what Benedict said. there is no right or wrong. 

[Exowildebeest]

Thanks. So should I cut out or decrease the mudiness frequency ranges on the EQ? I see people using inverse bells on the EQ to cut out frequencies 

This is quite an interesting question even for the more advanced mix engineers.

I can think of 2 approaches:

1. Cut as much as you can, right up until the edge of where it becomes detrimental to the sound.

2. Cut as little as you can, right up to the point where it's enough to get the sound to sit in the mix, but no more.

Consistently applying approach 1 might lead to a very clean, surgical, modern mix, while 2 might lead to a more muddy, oldschool analog mix. Both could be desirable. In practice, you'll probably end up somewhere in the middle in most cases. Use the spectrum analyzer EQ for visual feedback - once you see the curves of the EQ, they're self-explanatory really. Use filters for extreme cutting, and wide or narrow bells for boosting and cutting. Take mental note of the things humans perceive as "bass", "middle" and "high", listen, and you'll soon know at what frequencies roughly to EQ.

[virtualpt]

This is a really good way to learn freuencies & eq https://www.trainyourears.com

[submonsterz]

Something else to practice that I find extremely good is This.
turn of the sound all together.
Madness you say but no bear with me
a good few of sonic spiral soundcloud snippets/tracks have been done by eye 99.9%.
I'm finding it a great way to get to know the spectrum analiser.
Turn of sound eq level and filter each track by eye then turn on when done .
I'm so stoked usually that doing very very quickly by eye like that that it almost everytime sounds exactly like I'd had wanted to achieve by ear.
And I find its just a quick tweak to how I like it without going into overdrive and going deep down the rabbit hole of eq and filtering.
I just do a ten min sort of time frame eq level and mix down on my stuff.
Obviously you probally want to go deeper.
but that technique I mentioned really has made ears and eyes work together and not really think about it.

[Puckboy2000]

Thanks for all the great advice. I really have a hard time trusting my ears. It gets so frustrating. I've been writing songs for the last 15 years but get discouraged when trying to mix them down. I've made it my mission this year to really try and get good at it so I can start publishing some of my music.

[selig]

Thanks. So should I cut out or decrease the mudiness frequency ranges on the EQ? I see people using inverse bells on the EQ to cut out frequencies 

This is quite an interesting question even for the more advanced mix engineers.

I can think of 2 approaches:

1. Cut as much as you can, right up until the edge of where it becomes detrimental to the sound.

2. Cut as little as you can, right up to the point where it's enough to get the sound to sit in the mix, but no more.

Consistently applying approach 1 might lead to a very clean, surgical, modern mix, while 2 might lead to a more muddy, oldschool analog mix. Both could be desirable. In practice, you'll probably end up somewhere in the middle in most cases. Use the spectrum analyzer EQ for visual feedback - once you see the curves of the EQ, they're self-explanatory really. Use filters for extreme cutting, and wide or narrow bells for boosting and cutting. Take mental note of the things humans perceive as "bass", "middle" and "high", listen, and you'll soon know at what frequencies roughly to EQ.

You can also cut anywhere in between those two points, which I would consider to be the edges of what would be useful. In other words I would phrase is more to say this: Cut at least as much as #2, but no more than #1.  

[Puckboy2000]

Something else to practice that I find extremely good is This.
turn of the sound all together.
Madness you say but no bear with me
a good few of sonic spiral soundcloud snippets/tracks have been done by eye 99.9%.
I'm finding it a great way to get to know the spectrum analiser.
Turn of sound eq level and filter each track by eye then turn on when done .
I'm so stoked usually that doing very very quickly by eye like that that it almost everytime sounds exactly like I'd had wanted to achieve by ear.
And I find its just a quick tweak to how I like it without going into overdrive and going deep down the rabbit hole of eq and filtering.
I just do a ten min sort of time frame eq level and mix down on my stuff.
Obviously you probally want to go deeper.
but that technique I mentioned really has made ears and eyes work together and not really think about it.

I want to try your technique. Do you use the Red Rock spectrum analyzer RE? Or do you open your song in another DAW and use a plug in??? Thanks

[selig]

This is a really good way to learn freuencies & eq https://www.trainyourears.com

+1 on this - otherwise you are training your "eyes", and no one who "listens" to you music will "see" it anyway!

[Puckboy2000]

These charts are great as an educational tool but only and ever use your ears (and perhaps a spectrum analyzer) on a real mix as every situation is different. The same violin can be bitter and shrill like your mother in law or smooth and lyrical as Juliet. You should know which based on the song not a chart.

Hi Benedict . Do you use a spectrum analyzer in Reason? And if so, do you EQ using a multi-band EQ or just the Reason mixer EQ? What EQ do you thing gives the best results?

[selig]

I'll share my even simpler approach to EQ'ing tracks.
Each sound can be very roughly divided into three basic ranges.
First you have the bottom area where the "body" exists - if there's too much you'll have overpowering low end issues, too little and the sound will have no "body" or fullness.
Above that there can be some mud that needs to be cut, or there can be a hollowness that needs to be boosted so you can hear the "note" (pitch) more clearly in the mix.
Finally, above that are the upper harmonics which can be harsh if too loud, and dull if too weak. 

Of course, there can also be sub-sonic or super-sonic frequencies that need to be removed, but more often for ME it's a matter of boosting for body, cutting for mud, and boosting for clarity. BTW, "Mud" isn't always at 300 Hz as the one chart above seems to suggest. 

As you can see it's much more simple when you look at it from this perspective, because the key is to show that each sound follows a similar pattern from it's lowest to highest frequency (often boost/cut/boost as you go higher), and also that each frequency range can either be beneficial OR can be harmful! That's why it's called an "equalizer".

Looking at the number given in the various charts, you'll find they vary often by a wide degree in the real world. So I devised my approach to work on ANY sound in ANY context. Start at the bottom (first cutting any thing not needed), find the "body" and get that where you want it. From there you know any mud will likely be above that frequency, and any harshness/clarity will be above the mud area. Simples!

[Puckboy2000]

This is a really good way to learn freuencies & eq https://www.trainyourears.com

Did you do this program? It looks cool. Is it worth the $?

[submonsterz]

Something else to practice that I find extremely good is This. turn of the sound all together. Madness you say but no bear with me a good few of sonic spiral soundcloud snippets/tracks have been done by eye 99.9%. I'm finding it a great way to get to know the spectrum analiser. Turn of sound eq level and filter each track by eye then turn on when done . I'm so stoked usually that doing very very quickly by eye like that that it almost everytime sounds exactly like I'd had wanted to achieve by ear. And I find its just a quick tweak to how I like it without going into overdrive and going deep down the rabbit hole of eq and filtering. I just do a ten min sort of time frame eq level and mix down on my stuff. Obviously you probally want to go deeper. but that technique I mentioned really has made ears and eyes work together and not really think about it.

I want to try your technique. Do you use the Red Rock spectrum analyzer RE? Or do you open your song in another DAW and use a plug in??? Thanks

No just the reason spectrum display its not brilliant but its ok to get it there .
Even though I`m gearing towards reaper to be my main daw until then
everything I have done and do to that point will still and has all ways been pure reason nothing else. Soon to change asap though.
Reason is good for learning the basics so when you use something a little more full on you are all ready geared to go .

[Puckboy2000]

Something else to practice that I find extremely good is This. turn of the sound all together. Madness you say but no bear with me a good few of sonic spiral soundcloud snippets/tracks have been done by eye 99.9%. I'm finding it a great way to get to know the spectrum analiser. Turn of sound eq level and filter each track by eye then turn on when done . I'm so stoked usually that doing very very quickly by eye like that that it almost everytime sounds exactly like I'd had wanted to achieve by ear. And I find its just a quick tweak to how I like it without going into overdrive and going deep down the rabbit hole of eq and filtering. I just do a ten min sort of time frame eq level and mix down on my stuff. Obviously you probally want to go deeper. but that technique I mentioned really has made ears and eyes work together and not really think about it.

I want to try your technique. Do you use the Red Rock spectrum analyzer RE? Or do you open your song in another DAW and use a plug in??? Thanks

No just the reason spectrum display its not brilliant but its ok to get it there .
Even though I`m gearing towards reaper to be my main daw until then
everything I have done and do to that point will still and has all ways been pure reason nothing else. Soon to change asap though.
Reason is good for learning the basics so when you use something a little more full on you are all ready geared to go .

I read up on it. Great reviews. and only $60.00.
Might give it a try. Do you know people that use it? Do they like the final sound they get out of it?

Thanks

[rvman]

I spend half my time mixing with my eyes closed. I just listen and ask, "what am I hearing and does it sound good?" This is a lot easier with a physical board where I can have my hands on a knob and turn it with my eyes closed.

I do this when mixing live music all the time. Otherwise I'm using the spectrum analysis.

[iramrezso]

What spectrum analyzer do you use? The built-in one in Reason? Or an external stuff?