Six Essential Tips for Better-Sounding Mixes
-
- KVRAF
- 4054 posts since 8 Jan, 2005 from Hamilton, New Zealand
3rd point was innaccurate. It depends entirely on the style of music you're doing. You want to suck the life out of a mix, go ahead. It only works on some styles.
I make music: progressive-acoustic | electronica/game-soundtrack work | progressive alt-metal
Win 10/11 Simplifier | Also, Specialized C++ containers
Win 10/11 Simplifier | Also, Specialized C++ containers
-
- KVRAF
- 4083 posts since 29 Jun, 2011 from USA
Well I've had a few more thoughts about this. This might be old news to a lot of you but it was dawning on me today
Lets say we are making a dance track and we open up a spectrum meter. Most of the time in my mixes the greatest portion of energy from 20 to 100hz. After that it tapers off. This is because I have a deep and heavy style Kick and try to make the bass as deep as I can also.
Now again, we don't want too much of the high frequencies, so if those are lower in volume that's just what we expect. However, what we notice is a lot of range, say between 150hz and 1-2k still have a lot headroom. Applying broad EQ boosts to various frequencies in this region results in a louder sounding mix, because there is unused space in those regions.
Now, this is applying the technique to an already mixed track. What if the whole song were composed in order to fill the spectrum, not only to avoid clashes, but to utilize all available room. Then basses would perhaps be simpler, kicks would be designed to reach higher up the spectrum. There are many things that change now.
This results in a full sound as the mid-range, that area which the brain is so well tuned to hear, is really being utilized. The reason I think I failed here in the past is I did not realize this. And when I did apply EQ, usually it was to a whole mix, it sounded odd to me because I was comparing it to the original version. The shift in tone seemed to be a negative effect. What I realize now though is that you soon adjust to it. Its not actually worse, just different. This depends on how you EQ of course.
I will post a remix of the track I posted earlier, this time with the goal of utilizing the mid-range. (I did btw program many presets with a mid-range boosts as Largo seems benefit a lot from this and the EQ is very handy)
Again, may be not news to some.
Lets say we are making a dance track and we open up a spectrum meter. Most of the time in my mixes the greatest portion of energy from 20 to 100hz. After that it tapers off. This is because I have a deep and heavy style Kick and try to make the bass as deep as I can also.
Now again, we don't want too much of the high frequencies, so if those are lower in volume that's just what we expect. However, what we notice is a lot of range, say between 150hz and 1-2k still have a lot headroom. Applying broad EQ boosts to various frequencies in this region results in a louder sounding mix, because there is unused space in those regions.
Now, this is applying the technique to an already mixed track. What if the whole song were composed in order to fill the spectrum, not only to avoid clashes, but to utilize all available room. Then basses would perhaps be simpler, kicks would be designed to reach higher up the spectrum. There are many things that change now.
This results in a full sound as the mid-range, that area which the brain is so well tuned to hear, is really being utilized. The reason I think I failed here in the past is I did not realize this. And when I did apply EQ, usually it was to a whole mix, it sounded odd to me because I was comparing it to the original version. The shift in tone seemed to be a negative effect. What I realize now though is that you soon adjust to it. Its not actually worse, just different. This depends on how you EQ of course.
I will post a remix of the track I posted earlier, this time with the goal of utilizing the mid-range. (I did btw program many presets with a mid-range boosts as Largo seems benefit a lot from this and the EQ is very handy)
Again, may be not news to some.
Aiynzahev-sounds
Sound Designer - Soundsets for Pigments, Repro, Diva, Virus TI, Nord Lead 4, Serum, DUNE2, Spire, and others
Sound Designer - Soundsets for Pigments, Repro, Diva, Virus TI, Nord Lead 4, Serum, DUNE2, Spire, and others
-
- KVRian
- 926 posts since 15 Mar, 2004 from Tokyo, Japan
Let's keep this going guys - tons of good tips here for producers of all levels.
One more tip:
Removing unnecessary low-frequency content is of course important, but so is removing unnecessary high frequencies. Use a spectrum analyzer and you'll see that lots of sounds have very high-frequent harmonics even though the "body" of the sound is not so high-frequent. There may well also be sharp peaks in very high areas like 16kHz to 20kHz that you may not actively hear but a) clash with other high-frequency elements b) help cause ear fatigue.
In my experience, it is especially important to filter such frequencies on hard-panned sounds to help keep the stereo image centered.
One more tip:
Removing unnecessary low-frequency content is of course important, but so is removing unnecessary high frequencies. Use a spectrum analyzer and you'll see that lots of sounds have very high-frequent harmonics even though the "body" of the sound is not so high-frequent. There may well also be sharp peaks in very high areas like 16kHz to 20kHz that you may not actively hear but a) clash with other high-frequency elements b) help cause ear fatigue.
In my experience, it is especially important to filter such frequencies on hard-panned sounds to help keep the stereo image centered.
Eion Flow: Lush, cinematic electronica from the urban galaxy that is Tokyo, Japan. More on eionflow.com | Facebook | Soundcloud
-
- KVRian
- 538 posts since 7 Apr, 2007 from Melbourne, Australia
One little tip and its not scientific - only meant as a starting point:
If you're having trouble finding the elusive level of a particular instrument in the mix, especially vocals or bass, take it out and have a look at your overall RMS levels in the track. Bring the offending track back in the mix and note at what point it starts to push the RMS levels (NOT peak) up appreciably. Consider that point on the fader the point at which that instrument can be said to be a dominant instrument in the mix and adjust your level from there depending on whether its supposed to be dominant or sit back in the mix. Works for me anyway, especially with vocals
Jim
If you're having trouble finding the elusive level of a particular instrument in the mix, especially vocals or bass, take it out and have a look at your overall RMS levels in the track. Bring the offending track back in the mix and note at what point it starts to push the RMS levels (NOT peak) up appreciably. Consider that point on the fader the point at which that instrument can be said to be a dominant instrument in the mix and adjust your level from there depending on whether its supposed to be dominant or sit back in the mix. Works for me anyway, especially with vocals
Jim
-
- KVRAF
- 3878 posts since 28 Jun, 2009 from Wherever I lay my hat
I think this whole idea of "unnecessary frequencies" needs a very careful approach. If you just go about cutting all the things you *think* you don't need, your mix will sound artificial. Not in every case, mind you, but I tried this a few times (due to reading this ubiquitous piece of advice time and again) and was not pleased with the results. Now, most EDM is not known for sounding natural and vibrantly acoustic, but there ARE other genres and approaches to sound out there.
I prioritize in this way:
1. Be careful about the sounds you pick in the first place. Use things that go together naturally. Leave things out that don't add anything to the song. This is the most important part of "mixing" imo.
2. If, despite following 1. to the letter, your mix is clouded, use panning, volume automation, sidechaining, and careful EQing (no HPF/LPF!).
3. If there are still some frequencies cluttering your arrangement, THEN remove them with a filter.
I'm aeons away from being a pro, mind you, but this approach works well for me. I realize that this is talking from a little-dictator-bedroom-musician/producer perspective, and that, if you're mixing something for someone else or have no access to the original tracks, you won't have the freedom to follow this advice.
I prioritize in this way:
1. Be careful about the sounds you pick in the first place. Use things that go together naturally. Leave things out that don't add anything to the song. This is the most important part of "mixing" imo.
2. If, despite following 1. to the letter, your mix is clouded, use panning, volume automation, sidechaining, and careful EQing (no HPF/LPF!).
3. If there are still some frequencies cluttering your arrangement, THEN remove them with a filter.
I'm aeons away from being a pro, mind you, but this approach works well for me. I realize that this is talking from a little-dictator-bedroom-musician/producer perspective, and that, if you're mixing something for someone else or have no access to the original tracks, you won't have the freedom to follow this advice.