Looking for that "ultra crisp pro sound" - aka "Exciters"

[kritikon]

But if I get a stereo file, where everything is "rendered" already, I have to work with what I get.

Then if you get crappy masters to begin with, your results are going to be severely limited. You can do what you can do, but a bad mix is a bad mix is a bad mix.

Expensive engineers and producers aren't hired by labels for the fancy equipment they bring to any mix session - it's for their mixing/production expertise. Without that mixing, you can buy the most expensive gadgets on earth and you still won't get the results those labels get.

[Sequent]

What he said...

Meaning... garbage in = garbage out. That is the first and foremost consideration.

You have to go all the way back to step 1. Your levels at the source, levels going in, quality of gear being used (source, mic, pres, etc., etc.) Example... if you're recording a hardware synth... generally speaking... do you have your main turned up all the way? Or is your main maybe down really low somewhere because you're getting ahead of yourself and premixing things maybe and thus getting worse signal?

Then... what you do with it once you've captured it all. The mix, but also as part of that, how things are processed, what are they processed with.

Are you not processing something that maybe could use being processed? Are you processing something (to hell) that maybe should have been left alone or processed less?

So very many factors to consider.

Another thing if you're using softsynths and if you have a lot of tracks in your project... are you mixing down at 16b/44.1? That imho is a mistake. You should mix down at a higher rate and then do your dithering conversion in Wavelab (since you mentioned Wavelab).

Once you're in Wavelab there are certain things you can and should do to make that mix sound its best. And also if you want it to sound comparable to commercial recordings.

All just my own opinion, of course. Having also spent a lot of time trying to make things sound okay.

[Compyfox]

Well for own tracks, it's a different thing of course. It's only troublesome if I get tracks to master. Here the tricks mentioned apply of course.


Still... can it be that "exciters" or "vitalisers" are overused on purpose? Is it like the loudness race, the sharper/crisper the sound, the more it's listened too? Then again, I was listening to a stream of Trace TV with Eminem latest song. it was very bass intense.

Or is this all just a matter of preferences? Or does the industry really say "the crisper, the louder, the more it has success"?!

[SaviorNeeded]

Compyfox--I'm no pro, but I've read something that might interest you and maybe the experienced among us can chime in with some thoughts on this.

Different frequencies travel at different speeds through an analog circuit. Even if the speaker is the only analog thing in the circuit, bass and treble will arrive at your ear at different times. The result is mud. Exciters can be used to fix this (though of course you'd have to have a good mix and so forth to begin with).

Anyway, that's what I've heard and it sounds like what you may have been looking for with your original question. Again, anyone with real knowledge on this, I'd be interested in what say you.

Tom

[Compyfox]

This has more to do with room treatments and how "sound" actually works (in this case, theory about "sonic"). Which makes it even more important to have a goodand balanced mixing environment.

Still this doesn't clear the theory with "overusage on purpose". Thanks anyway, though.

[michu]

TrevorMag's advice is sound
when you try to polish a not so great mix your chances are
multiband compressors,
dynamic equalizers, maybe a broadband compressor with tunable sidechain...

[StrangeCat]

the loudness competion with radio stations cd's etc. is big pile of @#$# yea you bet it is! Anywayz read articles by "Bob Katz" then Read stuff like "mixing engineers hand book", then test out different monitors in a Accoustic treated Control Room, then buy Aurlex stuff and treat your own room you mix in, then after you get rid of all your bass flutters and what not, then compare your mixes to the cd's you like^_*

[Barbarossa]

"Mud" is always a result of "errors" in the spectrum. A crisp sound is achieved by spectral balancing. Get rid of the peaks in the spectrum.

[Kingston]

"Mud" is always a result of "errors" in the spectrum. A crisp sound is achieved by spectral balancing. Get rid of the peaks in the spectrum.

only part of the story.

generally mud and smear in mixdown is two or more instruments' spectrums clashing with each other in a bad way. Very little can be done at later stage. One has to find the frequency slots within the mix.

Get some EQ scooping going on.

[bleebsen]

I am not a pro but I believe the "ultra crisp pro sound" does NOT come from "Exciters".
I comes from the source of the sound.
That means good mics, pre amps and DI's.

[Space Boy]

One has to find the frequency slots within the mix. Get some EQ scooping going on.

Identify which parts of your mix are clashing and automatically remove the mud. This is exactly what Elevayta Space Boy is doing.

[Kingston]

Identify which parts of your mix are clashing and automatically remove the mud. This is exactly what Elevayta Space Boy is doing.

I would rather suggest him to learn to do it by ear, as it allows for better subjective decisions, and because ears are far more powerful in identifying the problem areas.

Any good parametric EQ will do just fine, possibly with the help of frequency analyser and extensive A/B testing during the early phases of learning.

[kritikon]

Still... can it be that "exciters" or "vitalisers" are overused on purpose? Is it like the loudness race, the sharper/crisper the sound, the more it's listened too? Then again, I was listening to a stream of Trace TV with Eminem latest song. it was very bass intense.

I'm sure exciters are overused commonly. And that goes back many a year...it's not just a recent thing. You can hear hundreds of quite popular dance tracks done throughout the early 90s that were way overdone with a certain harmonic enhancer - it's the nasty grating, hissing open hats that gives them away. But it seemed to be poular by the users and listeners.

As with anything...fame is an end in itself. You only need a few well known tracks to have a certain distinctive sound, and it becomes acceptable, and often desired by the buying public. It's probably not even a conscious thing. I remember a short span (fortunately) when many of the dance compilation CDs were woefully butchered by the mid-scooping thing. I threw away one or two that I bought because they were so ruined (by the remixer...not the original producers). They used to be incredibly bass heavy, very toppy (harshly so) and the mids were so cut, that many of the actual tunes, even lyrics (which were crap anyway) were almost indiscernible. But they were churned out and bought. maybe there was a reason...maybe they were bought by kids going to raves to listen to in the car on the way to a night out? Who knows? But that would explain why they wanted CDs with huge bass and no mids. It only took a couple of compilations to sell well and that whole awful mastering technique flourished for a while. "Euphoria" was one I remember - some decent tunes for the time on it, but it was simply unlistenable to at home on a HiFi .

And loudness is probably due to the same market forces now. A few big US R'n'B CDs sold well and everyone else followed suit. Same with dance stuff (which IMO is far more suited to the loudness race anyway). And soon the kids associate loud with trendy...who knows? It'll die down sooner or later.

Same with multiband comps. You hear them being overabused on TV...I would imagine deliberately, because the admen seem to think that if they bombard us with bass and nasty boomy voices, that we'll buy their products(!?). And of course the TV companies want to keep their customers (the admen) happy).

And anyway...if you are getting crappy masters to start with...there is a place for abusing enhancers. Enhancers have an immediate effect that is initially appealing. That's actually what some punters want - if they want a demo mastering, they want the most immediate impact they can get. And an enhancer properly picked and properly used can make more of an impact on things like vocals. It can make an electronic track have a bit of top end that probably wasn't even there to start with. And you may have to abuse the enhancer to achieve that.

I've made tracks myself that simply don't have top end in them. I used samples for all of the hats etc - some samples simply don't have anything over 8-10KHz. And then had synth lines that aren't played in the top octaves because that wasn't what I wanted. Then I tried with straight Eqs to boost the top...surprise, surprise, the Eqs did nothing - there was nothing to boost. Whereas the right enhancer can add harmonics over the top. And if you want a top end...some harmonic enhancers need to be abused to get the harmonics at an audible level. Not always nice...but I can see why it's done.

[Barbarossa]

I'm sure exciters are overused commonly. And that goes back many a year...it's not just a recent thing. You can hear hundreds of quite popular dance tracks done throughout the early 90s that were way overdone with a certain harmonic enhancer - it's the nasty grating, hissing open hats that gives them away. But it seemed to be poular by the users and listeners.

Ofcourse it's the people buying "wrong" music, because they don't have the correct taste...

As with anything...fame is an end in itself. You only need a few well known tracks to have a certain distinctive sound, and it becomes acceptable, and often desired by the buying public.

I still can remember the impression, when i heard Technotronics "Pump Up the Jam" for the first time. I immediately knew, that i must have this tune with such a fantastic bassound and such a knocking bassdrum. Only after a very short moment (maybe a few seconds), i fell in love and i wanted to hear more of it.
Same with Snap's "Rythm is a dancer", because of the synth-&bassound or with Haddaway's "What Is Love". Always only the very first moments, the very first impressions of the sound were enough to fall in love and left me listening with an opened mouth. No matter if i heard it first in the bathroom, or in the Club.

That's the way dance trendsetters work. It's just because a new kind of pleasuring sound (on most systems) makes people open their ears for it and makes them want more of that sound, and not vice versa, that the repeating of a bad sound makes them want more if it.

It's probably not even a conscious thing. I remember a short span (fortunately) when many of the dance compilation CDs were woefully butchered by the mid-scooping thing. I threw away one or two that I bought because they were so ruined (by the remixer...not the original producers). They used to be incredibly bass heavy, very toppy (harshly so) and the mids were so cut, that many of the actual tunes, even lyrics (which were crap anyway) were almost indiscernible. But they were churned out and bought. maybe there was a reason...

This is still somtetimes the case, but remixes live from the original anyway, ao we associate it with the original on a psychological level. So with Remixes we usually hear what we're used to hear from the original, and not what is really there. Therefore technically much worse remixes than the original still can work very good.

maybe they were bought by kids going to raves to listen to in the car on the way to a night out?

IMO the car is one of the most critical monitoring locations. What sounds great in cars with subs, usually sounds good on many other systems. IMO the car test is the ultimate test and any lack of mids, sound extremely thin or bassy in the car.

And loudness is probably due to the same market forces now. A few big US R'n'B CDs sold well and everyone else followed suit. Same with dance stuff (which IMO is far more suited to the loudness race anyway). And soon the kids associate loud with trendy...who knows? It'll die down sooner or later.

I couldn't disagree more. The loudness race is there, because louder usually means better. It's not because the people were forced to listen and like music with higher loudness, but louder music sells better because it simply sounds better. A part of Michael Jackson's success was built on loudness. He was louder than the rest at that time.

If you can manage today, to sound louder than the rest without the deficits of badly mastered songs for the loudness race, then you definately have better cards even today.

IMO you wrongly blame the overuse or misuse of techiques on the technique itself. That leads to bad conclusions. No one would say, that EQs were bad, because they can be used wrongly.

[Compyfox]

Well Jacko also had some other benefits. If you listen to his CD compilation "HIStory", you realise that these tracks are "quiet", but at the same time "loud". Some are muddy, some are not. They have an RMS level of -8dB but they're crystal clear.

So loudness is a matter of preferences, and this is why I adapted the K-System. On DVD players and if you produce stuff in 5.1, you can't get wrong. Okay it might not "bite" anymore to some ears, but it's easier to get the stuff on vinyl and the listener doesn't have to turn the volume knob every time.


Okay, so my question with the overusage is cleared now. The Space Boy is a nice add, but I was looking for something for stereo mixdowns, cause in-depth engineering takes time and if somebody comes over and is like "can ya master this", he wants it fairly quick, and not after a week or so. Not to mention that I know how to free up "frequencies" by ear.


Speaking of this, just a personal question:
If you engineers (may I say colluegues) get bad tracks to start with, do you say to your customer "sorry, get back to the track and change the mix" or do you simply brush it up and say nothing?

Okay it is a risk to tell the customer to work on his track again, he might never come back to you anymore. But then again I know a couple of musicians (from average to semi pro) who appreciate the comment of an engineer. But I guess, this is not a common thing in the industry either, right?