hi guys as from the title..


i have read many articles about this topic, but still some doubts remain; to add "clarity", and "shine" to you mixes, its generally reccomended to act on the higher frequencies; what is your favourite way of doing that ? for example:

1) do you use high shelf eq on the highest frequencies?

2) has compression ( in a multiband compressor) which only acts on the highest frequencies make sense? and, why? ( I would really like you to answer me on this point)

3)what is the role of "exciters" on this topic? and what is the difference between the results obtained with the "exciters" and a simple eq action?

4) are there any favourite plug ins that you would reccomend to give more clarity on the top frequencies of your songs?


thanx
Last edited by Giusmex on Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:09 am; edited 1 time in total

It's not about "adding" shine, clarity or sparkle really, but rather use subractive eq to get rid of stuff you DONT like. Learn to eq this way and a new world opens

Read more here: http://therecordingrevolution.com/2011/12/12/subtractive-eq- will-make-your-mixes-better/

/Jon

If you emphasize high frequencies of a shitty sound like FM7/FM8's for example, you will just get more of that horrible buzzy sound, not more clarity. If you emphasize high frequencies of a DX7 or TX7, you may either just overdo what's already good, or get a nice brighter than usual sound.

If you record a voice with a usual cheap microphone and preamp, emphasizing the weird sounding choppy high frequencies won't add more clarity, and if you use a good microphone and preamp, you could emphasize the high frequencies and you'd either overdo it or get a fine brighter than usual sound.

If you use a lousy EQ, like most of them are, don't expect good results. Use a good one like PEQ Blue, X-eq, EQuality.

If you use a compressor to emphasize frequencies, you'll most likely just get an annoying result compared to just using a proper source sound or equalization. If you resort to equalization to "fix" things or make them "crisper" too often, you're making a big mistake. If you don't treat equalization as an evil force that must be avoided and only be used when you really have to, you make your life harder.

Hilarious. Thanks I needed a good laugh this morning......

The thing I see a lot is how people say sample rate affects audio. 24 bit/96Hz, I believe, is what I see mentioned. I'm guessing this is what the pro's used. Haven't tried, because there's so many variables that can screw me up, but this is what I think can make a WORLD of difference/

Someone posted a link to this Computer Music tutorial with Rockwell (DnB producer). Lots of great info:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pyg_AwPXLw

Plenty of EQ abuse going on here; depends what you're trying to achieve.

Peace,
Andy.

lots of good informations here thanx


but what about the difference between compressing higher frequencies in a multiband compressor and just using a high shelf or a notch eq on them?


PS what's hilarious about fm7 sounds? i can catch that point anyway

@zen: is that for serious? I may never have been more confused and less inspired in all my years here

This is a good place to start. Sure, you need to boost certain things like snares but you can get more from rolling off the low end with a HPF than you'd think.

Of course you should always record, mix and master at 24 bits! But that's got to do with headroom and dynamic range primarily, not 'clarity' and 'shine'.

With 96 kHz you get an extended high frequency range which can make a difference, IF you've got high quality hardware that can make match it (mics, pres, AD/DA converters, etc.).

BUT, to retain the advantage of that extended high frequency range, you've got to play back/distribute at the same sample rate! There may be some slight advantage even when you downsample to 44.1/48 kHz, but ONLY if you use a premium class downsampling algorithm.

My advice, FWIW: forget about 96 kHz, always use 24 bits and learn to mix well!

/Joachim

Clarity & shine to a mix? Well, the key at first is listening to what you have for sounds in the first place and see if the mix can support being ultra clear and shiny in the upper registers. Some mixes just do not handle it all that well, they'll actually thrive on a bit of argument up there, so to speak. That would be the very first thing to do. Listen to the track.

From there you've got a few things to think about. Really anything above 10KHz is Harmonics (well technically, take the highest freq you can hear and divide it in half, from there anything roughly above that is going to be harmonic content. Just an estimate). The thing with digital audio though is that you have to be mindful of High Frequency buildup. Simply put, Digital is so clean that HF builds up and can be fatiguing to listen to for extended periods of time. So, instead of using additive high shelves, use subtractive ones. Also, use LPFs just like you would with HPFs. Start with a pretty gentle slope though, 1 or 2 pole. Keep the cutoff pretty high as well.

Keep in mind though this is the opposite of what a lot of modern mixes use to make them appear louder. They actually push a lot of HF content forward or add it intentionally because it does not take up a whole lot of headroom and can make a mix appear quite a bit louder than it was before.

With all that being said though, distortion is your friend. Distortion in the form of harmonic coloration or addition is your friend. Not clipping a guitar or such. Adding just tiny bits of distortion to sound can make it much easier for your ear to pick out where something is at in a mix. EQ is incredibly valuable as I stated above using subtractive EQing. However, I'm a bit hypocritical of my own statements I'll use both interchangeably because frankly sometimes it works better to do it one way or the other. But give it a try both ways. Just be mindful that you can cut more before you really start to notice it than if you boost. Psychoacoustics, gotta love it!

The thing is to get clarity & shine in a mix requires separation just like the mids or lows. Things have to have a place in the mix. Space! Give some reverb to a sound. Even if you cannot hear the reverb it can help add a layer of depth to the sound. I'm a fan of compression for the effect of compression and I actually use quite a bit of it in a mix. I've found that judicious amounts of compression in the right places with EQ before and after and slight bits of reverb can really help place things in a mix. Panning is not to be overlooked as well. You can place two instruments with different but similar harmonic content on your different ears and you have gained some clarity while making the mix a little bit more interesting.

It's a bit slow, but I think these insights in to how respected producers work are really useful. It can be very surprising how simple their mixes are. Also, it depends on the type of music you are writing. I don't know what you prefer to work on, I thought you played guitar? Rock? Techno? Cats? You play a cat on the internet?

Peace,
Andy.

Oh ... the other (main) reason I posted the video is because he's using some really extreme EQ for some of the sounds, to balance out the comments about using less EQ posted earlier.

No special Waves plugins or Pultec emulation, just your basic Logic parametric channel EQ, but he's getting great mixes.

Peace,
Andy.

I was just thinking though that that might be the last viddy I'd recommend considering the op Sorry, don't mean to be a snot

Those "basic" logic plugs are really really good