KVR Audio

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:01 am

Thinking about making a mix work so that everything supports everything else, from bottom to top: strong bass, articulate chords, strong melody. Everything tends to fight everything else since, let's face it, it's a whole bunch of intruments squashed into two waveforms (L and R). It's really an illusion that it's different instruments. Making this illusion work, I'm learning, is one of the central art forms of great sound engineering and production.

I'm starting this thread partly to ask a specific question about the role of EQ vs. compression and panning to make this bit of magic work, but also to hear any thoughts and suggestions anyone may have in general on the whole challenge of coaxing order from chaos in the mixing and mastering processes and how various tools fit into it.

So the question is this: how many of you would put careful, almost "analytical" EQ tweaking at the top of the list of priorities in allowing otherwise competing instruments to work together and reinforce one another in a mix? How many think band-wise and/or track-wise compression is really more critical? How many think panning is the most magical element? Reverb?

All of these are assuming that one knows what to do with these tools and how to go about doing it.

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Dave

skybax · Post by **skybax** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:15 am

For me, EQing is mostly filtering rather than using parametric bands to boost/cut certain frequencies. Bass being an exception, though, as I tend to cut "muddy" frequencies somewhere in the 'middle' of the spectrum.
I read EQ tips about boosting a certain frequency area in snares for example - I simply don't do that at all.
Simply put, probably 75% of my EQing is in fact merely high pass filtering.

So I wouldn't say the "analytical" EQing you speak of is on the top of my list at all. In fact, in many cases where certain frequencies in a sound are taking over the rest, a compressor will come in handy. Therefore I would say a compressor is a more useful tool than complex/accurate EQing.

I have only recently got into multi-band compressing - it's a new thing to me so I won't comment on it

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:16 am

skybax, can you give some indication of your common types of arrangements?

garret · Post by **garret** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:17 am

I'd put instrument choice and arrangement at the top. Everything should be musically in it's place, not stomping over each other... well okay, unless you want to sound like George Clinton.

One thing that works for me is to solo combinations of two tracks -- like vocals with the drums, vocals with the bass, drums with bass, etc. I find it easier this way to hear when tracks are clashing harmonically or rhythmically than when I listen to a full mix. If the arrangment works, I find the tune almost mixes itself.

I'd put eq #2.... One incredibly valuable trick I picked up a while back, I think from a column in Tape Op, is to use eq to affect the depth of a track rather than reverb. Try it.. just the slightest roll off of high frequencies (like a -4db shelf at 5khz) on a drum kit will push it way back in a mix. The same trick works nicely for pad instruments/sounds.

Panning is #3. A good mix will work reasonably well in mono... stereo panning is just bonus separation.

Reverb is #4... I think reverb is oversold as a way to separate tracks in a mix... I have better luck with my (admittedly amateurish) mixes when I leave reverb off until the end, then just add a bit of plate to the vocal and room to the snare.

-Garret

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:20 am

garret wrote:I'd put instrument choice and arrangement at the top. Everything should be musically in it's place, not stomping over each other... well okay, unless you want to sound like George Clinton.

...or Phil Spector.

Garret, thanks for the input. Good points.

skybax · Post by **skybax** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:23 am

garret wrote:I'd put instrument choice and arrangement at the top. Everything should be musically in it's place, not stomping over each other...

I agree but this doesn't exactly fit in the category of EQ/mixing.

skybax · Post by **skybax** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:26 am

Frippertronix wrote:skybax, can you give some indication of your common types of arrangements?

sorry I don't understand what it is that you want to know?

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:27 am

Garret, the one exception I'd take to your point about arrangements is just in the "real world" sense of limited resources. Many home recordists have only a few instruments and/or samples to work with, so they are forced to try to take that and then throw effects and mixing techniques at their limited intrument arsenal to forge something good out of it.

Same can go for things like mic placement/mic choice. A lot of us just have to work in a bedroom or living room with only one or two mics, and we may be relying on a lot of samples and DI instruments so we fall back of processing more often than we do the traditional, old school studio approach of tweaking arrangements, recording environments, and mic'ing techniques.

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:29 am

skybax wrote:
Frippertronix wrote:skybax, can you give some indication of your common types of arrangements?
sorry I don't understand what it is that you want to know?

Just wondering about what instruments you tend to go to most often, since I don't know anything about your style. A lot of synths? More orchestra or band instruments? Lot's of vocal layering? I'm curious about a context for your comments about mostly using filtering rather than para eq.

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:32 am

skybax wrote:
garret wrote:I'd put instrument choice and arrangement at the top. Everything should be musically in it's place, not stomping over each other...
I agree but this doesn't exactly fit in the category of EQ/mixing.

I think it does indirectly. As Ted Fletcher (creator of the Joe Meek line, which includes EQ and compressors) pointed out, EQ is a second line tool. You want to achieve as much "mix success" as possible first with arrangement and good raw recording technique, which I touched on in my previous post. I think that's what Garret is getting at.

sangha · Post by **sangha** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:32 am

In "The Art of Mixing", David Gibson describes the sound coming out of your speakers as a 3-d soundspace. Each sound/track occupies a specific space in that 3-d space. You avoid having your tracks work against each other by moving them out of each others way, using tools like volume, panning, eq, reverb and other fx

You can move sounds forwards and back using volume, reverb (pre-delay), eq (add/remove some high end), fx (things like chorus will often move the sound back a bit).

You can move things from left to right using panning. Also, someone on KVR has mentioned using the early reflections to help place sounds. Can't say if it works, but it sounds feasible.

Up and down is a function of eq. Where do you hear the bass and where do you hear the hi-hats? If two sounds are panned to the same place, and have the same apparent volume, if they use different frequency spectrums, then they won't interfere with each other and you'll hear it all.

In the book, there are pictures depicting the space with various types of music and how they're typically mixed. It's an interesting book

mystahr · Post by **mystahr** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:35 am

For me EQíng has taken a very important role in my soundscapes. The finer the various elements are tweaked the less FX are needed. There's no way I could tell you how to do a proper EQ/pan-balance as I have learned there just are no golden rules. The only instrument that can be used here are my ears (and I guess a good monitoring system). Subtle tweaking often brings more to life and it's quite amazing how a little bit can do so much good to the mix. Compression is usually something I leave for the end mix (although I feel I'm still dabbling with that). I must confess though to quite regularly put a touch of reverb at the end of the chain in a final mix on top of the side-chain in the compressor.

My other EQ tip; Filterscape Q6

(one of the better software EQ's that comes with 4 individual envelope followers that can be set to a specific frequency)

Oh and PS: this thread would perhaps do better in the production forum (if a mod could move it, so more people will be able to read the thread since in Effects it will soon move to the older pages)

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:35 am

Frippertronix wrote:
skybax wrote:
Frippertronix wrote:skybax, can you give some indication of your common types of arrangements?
sorry I don't understand what it is that you want to know?
Just wondering about what instruments you tend to go to most often, since I don't know anything about your style. A lot of synths? More orchestra or band instruments? Lot's of vocal layering? I'm curious about a context for your comments about mostly using filtering rather than para eq.

Actually, I just saw your tag line, though I'm not sure what psy-trance is. Does that use a lot of synths and heavy drum beats?

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:39 am

mystahr, I thought about putting this in production, but I felt it was a toss up since it also does focus on specific tools.

It may get bumped for a while, though, so people may still see it.

Thanks to everyone for responding so far. I'm learning a lot already.

Dave

skybax · Post by **skybax** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:45 am

Frippertronix wrote:
skybax wrote:
Frippertronix wrote:skybax, can you give some indication of your common types of arrangements?
sorry I don't understand what it is that you want to know?
Just wondering about what instruments you tend to go to most often, since I don't know anything about your style. A lot of synths? More orchestra or band instruments? Lot's of vocal layering? I'm curious about a context for your comments about mostly using filtering rather than para eq.

well I mostly make trance / psytrance where one might say it's a bit easier to simply filter the sounds since there is so much synthetic, generated sound involved.
Other type of music I mix is triphoppy lounge/chillout , where there's more of recorded acoustic or synthetic emulations of acoustic instruments.
Basically I do the bass and drums and highpass everything else on top of it. Piano, electric piano, synth, pads(for which I do need stereo widening) etc.

Your thoughts on EQ and mixing