Mixing Help

[Creativemind]

Hi All!

Found this article online:-

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advi ... uddy-mixes

I'm trying to apply it to my track as my track sounds muddy thus far.

I started with an acapella vocal, then a kick drum, then a bass line, then a piano and then a lead. This is a House track btw. Other elements will obviously come later as this is by no means finished. Other drums will be added later, a snare, claps, some closed and open hi-hats and a crash cymbal and probably a pad, strings and some effects.

The first thing this article suggests, is to build up the tracks in order of importance before EQ'ing. I would say the vocal is the most important. This is (as it's an acapella from an already released track) already very processed. Straight off I hear plenty of reverb, occasional delay and I'm assuming EQ, De-Essing and Compression will have been added too. Possibly layered as well.

I'd say the next most important track (and I'm taking it, he means important as in what should be the main focus, second most main focus in the song etc etc, am I right?). If so for me, it would be vocal first, piano second then drums (which are not yet completed) but honestly the drums could be as important as the piano as it's a dance track essentially eh.

Firstly, d'you think I should I get all the elements of the track laid down before I apply his method, I.e - the rest of the drums, strings, pad and effects first before I attempt it?

I also notice this article is more aimed at a guitar / band tracks perspective. Will this technique still apply to House?

What does he exactly mean by "low frequencies use the majority of the headroom"? 'cause of the build up? how does that use up headroom, what exactly does he mean here?

So back to the first 2 elements anyway. Acapella and Piano. First off, I want reverb on the piano (in the Korg M1) as it improves the overall texture of the piano but on the Korg M1 doesn't have proper readings to measure it (I read somewhere it's important to have the reverb time in time with track by setting the decay time to the exact ms for the bpm) but I can't as it's 0-100 reading which relates to nothing. Should I remove the reverb in the Korg M1 itself and add a reverb (probably a VST) as a Send Effect?

Also, I'm not sure what to cut or boost as yet when A-B'ing the vocal and the piano, what do people suggest?

Thanks!

[aeox]

Where is the audio example?

[WongoTheSane]

Regarding the relative importance of the tracks, yours being a House track, I would argue that the most important one is the drums. Do you want them to dance? Yes? It's the drums.

By headroom, he means that there is a limited amount of sounds that you can stack on any frequency band (the ceiling being... max volume). In the low frequencies, your kick will take up most of the space (think the vertical space between the lowest and the highest position of the VU-meter - the headroom is the space left when your kick hits). If you want to master to 0dB, and your kick hits at -3dB, your headroom left is 3dB. If you add some other low frequency (bass, piano...), you'll go overboard, i.e. you'll clip (colloquially speaking). So you'll have to lower the volume of the kick to compensate. And then it won't be as punchy... So he's saying that your best interest is to watch the frequency band occupied by your kick, and avoid piling useless other signals there. High pass the piano, for instance, to leave that particular frequency to the kick.

Then, if your second most important track is the voice, watch where it is on the spectrum. Say, 300-600 (depends on who sings, how...): try to cut that range on the less important tracks, to make sure that the voice gets the most of that band, proportionally.

And the exercise gets more and more difficult the more instruments there are . Also be aware that the "main" band (the one where the instrument hits the highest) isn't necessarily the most important one. Most instruments have several "sweet spots" that will enhance their presence (for instance, even though a bass is loudest in the 60-120 Hz range, it can - depends on the genre... - benefit from a boost around the 2000 Hz range to bring out some character).

Be aware that I'm not a good mixer, just giving you my own interpretation of that article!

[selig]

What does he exactly mean by "low frequencies use the majority of the headroom"? 'cause of the build up? how does that use up headroom, what exactly does he mean here?

Also, I'm not sure what to cut or boost as yet when A-B'ing the vocal and the piano, what do people suggest?

Thanks!

At to the latter:
"SOS contributor Mike Senior replies: The first thing to say is that there are no specific frequencies that will always work, irrespective of the instrument concerned, as this kind of EQ use is entirely about the unique context of your mix."

To the former:
In context it appears he is referring to the fact that the bass and kick pretty much "own" the bottom 2-3 octaves in a modern mix. Toms are one exception I can think of, but otherwise that's pretty much all that goes on down there.

In context he follows that statement by suggesting (I'm paraphrasing) that other instruments may be high-passed to remove any excess energy in that same range, leaving all the headroom OF THOSE OCTAVES to the bass/kick.

Here's his quote in context:
"Low frequencies take up much of the headroom in many mixes, so if your bass part is already providing the low–end weight you need, you may find that the low frequencies of any guitar parts, in particular, will serve no useful purpose and can be high–pass filtered to keep the bass part clear."

The key there is the idea of "keeping the bass part clear". My only comment is that it IS possible to go too far with the concept of filtering out all the low end on everything but kick/bass, leaving a gap between the low end and the rest of the mix. Just move in baby steps - listen - move a little more - maybe wait - listen - etc!

[Creativemind]

Here's his quote in context:
"Low frequencies take up much of the headroom in many mixes, so if your bass part is already providing the low–end weight you need, you may find that the low frequencies of any guitar parts, in particular, will serve no useful purpose and can be high–pass filtered to keep the bass part clear."

The key there is the idea of "keeping the bass part clear". My only comment is that it IS possible to go too far with the concept of filtering out all the low end on everything but kick/bass, leaving a gap between the low end and the rest of the mix. Just move in baby steps - listen - move a little more - maybe wait - listen - etc!

Thanks Selig.

To the first quote above, are you saying that you want an even weight between the bass frequencies and high frequencies in your track? then you'd have mid-range frequencies so don't know how that work then, hmmm.

To the second quote. So you don't recommend just hard cutting all that isn't bass and kick, ok. 2 things:- 1) what would you recommend not hard cutting in particular, guitars? sax? just tryna think of instruments that may warrant low end in them too. I assume certain strings will require high and low frequencies. If I did start to high-pass something that I deemed not wanting too much in the low end, you say in baby steps, what would I be listening for to know when to stop?

[aeox]

What does he exactly mean by "low frequencies use the majority of the headroom"? 'cause of the build up? how does that use up headroom, what exactly does he mean here?


Thanks!

It has to deal with how our brains perceive sound. Look up Fletcher-Munson! For the low frequencies to be perceived well, the low frequencies have to be louder, taking up more headroom.

[selig]

What does he exactly mean by "low frequencies use the majority of the headroom"? 'cause of the build up? how does that use up headroom, what exactly does he mean here?


Thanks!

It has to deal with how our brains perceive sound. Look up Fletcher-Munson! For the low frequencies to be perceived well, the low frequencies have to be louder, taking up more headroom.

That’s what I initially thought too, until I read the context of the quote.

FletcherMunson speaks to how relationships change with monitor level. If you turn down the speakers, you’ll “sense” less low end energy compared to high (to simplify), but if you turn up the monitor level you may hear too much bass. The key there is to mix at more than one level - but that’s not what’s being discussed, I wouldn’t think…

It’s more likely referring to a listener’s preference for a pink noise type response, favoring the lows over the highs by 3 dB/octave. If you play pink noise it sounds fairly balanced, while white noise can sound thin and bright. However, white noise has equal energy at every frequency, so it SHOULD sound “right” - but it doesn’t!

It could also be referring to how more power is required for lower frequencies to sound as loud as higher. Bass waves are literally bigger than treble waves, and thus take more power to move. That’s one reason why a Tuba has to be so much larger than a piccolo- to more more air.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[selig]

Here's his quote in context:
"Low frequencies take up much of the headroom in many mixes, so if your bass part is already providing the low–end weight you need, you may find that the low frequencies of any guitar parts, in particular, will serve no useful purpose and can be high–pass filtered to keep the bass part clear."

The key there is the idea of "keeping the bass part clear". My only comment is that it IS possible to go too far with the concept of filtering out all the low end on everything but kick/bass, leaving a gap between the low end and the rest of the mix. Just move in baby steps - listen - move a little more - maybe wait - listen - etc!

Thanks Selig.

To the first quote above, are you saying that you want an even weight between the bass frequencies and high frequencies in your track? then you'd have mid-range frequencies so don't know how that work then, hmmm.

To the second quote. So you don't recommend just hard cutting all that isn't bass and kick, ok. 2 things:- 1) what would you recommend not hard cutting in particular, guitars? sax? just tryna think of instruments that may warrant low end in them too. I assume certain strings will require high and low frequencies. If I did start to high-pass something that I deemed not wanting too much in the low end, you say in baby steps, what would I be listening for to know when to stop?

I want what SOUNDS even - I want my mix to sound balanced. However, what that means to me will likely be different for you? To that end I don’t actually think of how much low energy vs high energy except to listen and ponder if any one frequency needs to be more pronounced or less pronounced.

For cutting lows, I cut only what is required to clean up the mix and get things to play nice together. I DID say I feel it’s possible to cut too much low end - but that’s different from choosing which instruments to cut (not sure that’s what I meant to say if I said it). You can cut a little from every instrument if you want to do so - but you can also cut too much, something mentioned less often when folks suggest cutting “everything”.

My approach to using a HP filter to clean up tracks is to slowly raise the HP filter frequency until the sound is too thin sounding, then back it down to put some ‘heft’ back. Not every sound in a mix should be “big”, to be sure. But likewise, if only the kick and bass are big, and everything else is small, you’ve lost some opportunities to create a more nuanced perspective between the instruments IMO.

Process of Elimination technique:
If you still struggle to hear the subtleties when moving any control (a HP filter in this example), try this. Start with the filter all the way out/off/down. Raise the cutoff frequency until you find a setting where there’s still too much low end, but you’re not at the bottom of the control range. Note that position on the knob. Then find a setting where there is too little low end. Note that position on the knob. Now you know the range you have to work with, by eliminating the extreme bottom and top of the range of possibilities. With this first step you can eliminate up to 50% of the possible settings, making the job of finding the right setting twice as easy!

From there you can try to find the points in between these two extreme positions where you hear the most change, further narrowing down the range and “eliminating” other possible setting. With the second step you should be down to around 25% or less of the total range of the filter control. With only 25% of the total original range to consider, it can make your job of finding the ‘right’ setting that much simpler, as you have eliminated 75% of possible settings from consideration!

At this point you probably have a tiny range left to work with. By rocking the control back and forth across this much smaller range, you should be able to hear when you’re cutting into the meat rather than simply trimming the fat (another great visual reference for what you’re trying to do, and a reminder that sometimes you WANT to leave a little fat for flavor.)

By gradually narrowing down the range of possibilities, you can act more confidentially when working with a new device or a new process. As always, it’s often better to do as little as possible to a sound to achieve your desired result, so start small and increase things as you go. These are the same rules that apply to adding spice to a dish, because it’s easier to add more than to take out too much…


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Voyager]

In my opinions there isn't a how a song must sound but how you want it to sound, no rules. I know some artists that have their own way to mix their tracks and if it was me i wouldn't have do it that way but..wasn't me and at the end i like their work, just something different with a different touch is sometimes refreshing.

For a House track i'd say the low end and kick not often but usually drive the song. You need give a special attention to this part of the spectrum and make it as clean as possible by giving your low end and kick the space it need to cut through your song. Try using EQ, high pass filter, subtle sidechain, parallel fx and channel bus fx to make your kick and bass stand out and sit well togheter.

Something i did and which helped me a lot to improve my techniques and results is having a sessions with a basic track with a kick, hats, bass, and simple melody and try various things from there. It's like a little lab where i experiments lot of things and when you experiment with the same track over and over, overtime you can directly notice when you make a little improvment from a new experiment.

As Selig said when using EQ or filters try going back and forth with the settings, putting more emphasis on them will help you to found the sweet spot more easely.

[aeox]

It could also be referring to how more power is required for lower frequencies to sound as loud as higher. Bass waves are literally bigger than treble waves, and thus take more power to move. That’s one reason why a Tuba has to be so much larger than a piccolo- to more more air.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

I typed something similar to this out in my previous comment but deleted it because I wasn't completely sure how to word it properly.

I think it's a combo of that^ and the preference towards a pink noise balanced mix (I thought this was Fletcher-Munson but I guess I was wrong)