Hi - I'm a beginning mixer, and till now almost all my EQ has been very basic, like taming resonances, and maybe a shelf boost or cut.
I'd like to start learning about making more discrete EQ cuts and boosts, for the purpose of making 1 track sit better with another. I'm referring to the things I read about like, " ... 3dB cut at 250Hz and 700 Hz on the piano so the voice is heard more clearly".
I believe I've seen a vid where one of the Melda plugs compared two tracks and displays collision frequencies. Would using that be the best way to start learning how to make tracks fit well with each other using Melda plugs?
My tracks are almost always just voice and piano, often with drums and bass as well. The voice, then the piano are usually the main focus.
Thank you for any advice!
Beginning mixer ... Melda for EQ collisions?
-
- KVRian
- 1297 posts since 23 Sep, 2008 from Germany
Hi Alexis,
MMultianalyzer could help finding collision frequencies, but at the end it's all about your ears and nitty your eyes.
But with these few tracks you are talking about the collisions shouldn't be so problematic. Give every track its own space in the frequency range where it dominates over the other tracks. Record and mix as much as you can and you will get better in mixing and recording. Use reference tracks for your songs.
Greets,
Marek
MMultianalyzer could help finding collision frequencies, but at the end it's all about your ears and nitty your eyes.
But with these few tracks you are talking about the collisions shouldn't be so problematic. Give every track its own space in the frequency range where it dominates over the other tracks. Record and mix as much as you can and you will get better in mixing and recording. Use reference tracks for your songs.
Greets,
Marek
-
- KVRAF
- 1759 posts since 11 Nov, 2009 from Northern CA
For the ultimate solution in this area, check out this:
http://soundbytesmag.net/spectraldynamicsdynamiceq/
The article is mostly about another Melda plug-in that can often overcome the most challenging of frequency contention situations.
http://soundbytesmag.net/spectraldynamicsdynamiceq/
The article is mostly about another Melda plug-in that can often overcome the most challenging of frequency contention situations.
-
- KVRian
- 923 posts since 8 Aug, 2011
MDynamicEqualizer is a great way to easily fix the colliding frenquencies. It's not necesserily discrete cuts and boost that are needed. It's often the case but there times when big cuts or boosts is what fits. Normally that depends on the source recorded. Think also, if you have a high pitch note on the vocal for a long while, for that part you might want to keep the low end of the piano or even boost it to get a good low end for this particular part of the song (automation). All rules are meant to be broken and the ear, to your taste, is the final judge. There are some general rules though and they have a reason to be.
Now some sounds have a lot of information. Like when saturation is added they have a lot of harmonics taking the entire spectrum so in these cases finding the right frequencies only by how they look on the graph is not a good option. The main part of the voice is usually situated between 2-3khz. So a cut there on the piano is usually a good idea. The frequencies you mention might work as well you need to test all pianos don't sound the same the voice also can vary. But...if say the piano is playing something in the very low end there might absolutely be no reason to cut ! So when composing with clashing frenquencies in mind, you can actually select the best range for various instruments to avoid overlapping frequencies as much as possible making the mix a breeze and a fuller, more audible overall sound and better separation between instruments.
Now some sounds have a lot of information. Like when saturation is added they have a lot of harmonics taking the entire spectrum so in these cases finding the right frequencies only by how they look on the graph is not a good option. The main part of the voice is usually situated between 2-3khz. So a cut there on the piano is usually a good idea. The frequencies you mention might work as well you need to test all pianos don't sound the same the voice also can vary. But...if say the piano is playing something in the very low end there might absolutely be no reason to cut ! So when composing with clashing frenquencies in mind, you can actually select the best range for various instruments to avoid overlapping frequencies as much as possible making the mix a breeze and a fuller, more audible overall sound and better separation between instruments.
Win11, 16 Gig RAM, Intel i7 Quad 3.9, Reaper 7.16, RME Hamerfall HDSP9652, Steinberg MR816x
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 354 posts since 27 Jan, 2015
Thank you Marek!Svama wrote:Hi Alexis,
MMultianalyzer could help finding collision frequencies, but at the end it's all about your ears and nitty your eyes.
But with these few tracks you are talking about the collisions shouldn't be so problematic. Give every track its own space in the frequency range where it dominates over the other tracks. Record and mix as much as you can and you will get better in mixing and recording. Use reference tracks for your songs.
Greets,
Marek
Voice and piano in the same range (like Elton John), so I am trying to cut some of the harmonics of the piano to see if that helps the voice out a bit. Does that sound like a reasonable thing to do?
-
- KVRist
- 460 posts since 25 Jan, 2016
Don't forget that volume and panning can also help your mix gain clarity and separartion.
Sidechaining tracks to EQ, volume or both can help one track's placement over another. Saturation can help replace a limiter for fullness. Removing (permanently or temporarily) the mid or side of a signal can change our perception of it, just as shifting one from out of full center.
Be creative with your mixing choices. Ask yourself "what if" and try it. Make small steps over big ones, or even parallel steps...do half of the process to one track and the opposite to the other. eg. -1.5dB cut @ 750Hz to Vocals paired with a +1.5dB boost @ 750Hz to the Piano instead of a 3dB boost or cut to either. Instead of EQ you might want to use a filter to either or both tracks. Hell, shift from stereo to mono, use a modulating effect to blur one track, increase reverb/ delay on backing tracks....experiment, have fun, be creative. Just because you haven't heard of someone doing it one way doesn't mean that it isn't effective....and possibly interesting!
Sidechaining tracks to EQ, volume or both can help one track's placement over another. Saturation can help replace a limiter for fullness. Removing (permanently or temporarily) the mid or side of a signal can change our perception of it, just as shifting one from out of full center.
Be creative with your mixing choices. Ask yourself "what if" and try it. Make small steps over big ones, or even parallel steps...do half of the process to one track and the opposite to the other. eg. -1.5dB cut @ 750Hz to Vocals paired with a +1.5dB boost @ 750Hz to the Piano instead of a 3dB boost or cut to either. Instead of EQ you might want to use a filter to either or both tracks. Hell, shift from stereo to mono, use a modulating effect to blur one track, increase reverb/ delay on backing tracks....experiment, have fun, be creative. Just because you haven't heard of someone doing it one way doesn't mean that it isn't effective....and possibly interesting!
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 354 posts since 27 Jan, 2015
Thank you so much, gentlemen!
As so often happens when receiving such excellent replies from experts, it's helped me to go back and think about the issue better. I had an idea, involving the MAutoDynamicEq (MADEQ) I already own ...
Regarding making more room for the vocal in the stereo piano track, putting aside for the moment panning and some M/S things I do at the moment already, I wondered if the following might be something to try:
1) HPF the voice at 400 Hz or so (higher than any of the sung notes, and roughly low enough to encompass the 1st harmonic of the lowest sung note).
2) Route it to the side chain input of MADEQ.
3) Activate a few bands to dynamically cut a few dB up around 1K - 2K (where the majority of the vocal harmonics lie? ... or should I drop it to 400 Hz to encompass the 1st harmonic of the lowest sung note? ...).
4) Then listen - adjust the vocal HPF cutoff, adjust the frequency of the dynamic cuts on the piano track, and listen again to see if the changes made things better or worse. Lather/rinse, repeat ...
Does that seem like a reasonable way to start out on this process of having the piano "step back a bit" when the vocal is playing? I thought maybe an advantage would be that during periods where the vocal is silent the piano would remain unprocessed and sound full.
As an aside, I wonder ... on the piano track that has the MADEQ inserted ... is there a way to have it display the spectogram of not just the piano, but also the HPF'd vocal?
Thank you again for any thoughts!
As so often happens when receiving such excellent replies from experts, it's helped me to go back and think about the issue better. I had an idea, involving the MAutoDynamicEq (MADEQ) I already own ...
Regarding making more room for the vocal in the stereo piano track, putting aside for the moment panning and some M/S things I do at the moment already, I wondered if the following might be something to try:
1) HPF the voice at 400 Hz or so (higher than any of the sung notes, and roughly low enough to encompass the 1st harmonic of the lowest sung note).
2) Route it to the side chain input of MADEQ.
3) Activate a few bands to dynamically cut a few dB up around 1K - 2K (where the majority of the vocal harmonics lie? ... or should I drop it to 400 Hz to encompass the 1st harmonic of the lowest sung note? ...).
4) Then listen - adjust the vocal HPF cutoff, adjust the frequency of the dynamic cuts on the piano track, and listen again to see if the changes made things better or worse. Lather/rinse, repeat ...
Does that seem like a reasonable way to start out on this process of having the piano "step back a bit" when the vocal is playing? I thought maybe an advantage would be that during periods where the vocal is silent the piano would remain unprocessed and sound full.
As an aside, I wonder ... on the piano track that has the MADEQ inserted ... is there a way to have it display the spectogram of not just the piano, but also the HPF'd vocal?
Thank you again for any thoughts!
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 354 posts since 27 Jan, 2015
Well, I've learned a fair bit more than last I was here, in my goal of setting up a learning environment for learning how to EQ the piano track to open up space for the vocals.
I used MAutoDynamicEQ to create a spectrum of the vocal during the verse (for example), and loaded that red curve onto the MAutoDynamicEQ's blue piano curve. I played with smoothing a bit until I had what looked like a decent amount of detail. Then I added some dynamic EQ cuts of 3-4 dB on the piano where it looked like the piano was stepping on the vocals, with fairly high Q values for now.
Finally I fed the side-chain of the piano track's MAutoDynamic EQ with a send from the vocal, so that there was a little downward bouncing of the EQ nodes on the piano track as the vocal track was played.
Having set all that up, I'm now in the listening stage. I find that by toggling back and forth between the piano track's dynamic EQ on vs. off I can barely hear that the piano is a bit softer when the vocals are being sung (and it is nice that the piano track bounces back in volume between vocal phrases!).
What I am trying to learn to hear now is improved clarity and presentation of the voice corresponding to those periods that the piano is down a bit - i.e., learning to hear the difference in the vocal tracks when the piano is ducked in this fashion.
Setting all this up was fun, but the hard part lies ahead!
Thanks for everyone's help in getting me situated here!
PS: This vid is very helpful,
I used MAutoDynamicEQ to create a spectrum of the vocal during the verse (for example), and loaded that red curve onto the MAutoDynamicEQ's blue piano curve. I played with smoothing a bit until I had what looked like a decent amount of detail. Then I added some dynamic EQ cuts of 3-4 dB on the piano where it looked like the piano was stepping on the vocals, with fairly high Q values for now.
Finally I fed the side-chain of the piano track's MAutoDynamic EQ with a send from the vocal, so that there was a little downward bouncing of the EQ nodes on the piano track as the vocal track was played.
Having set all that up, I'm now in the listening stage. I find that by toggling back and forth between the piano track's dynamic EQ on vs. off I can barely hear that the piano is a bit softer when the vocals are being sung (and it is nice that the piano track bounces back in volume between vocal phrases!).
What I am trying to learn to hear now is improved clarity and presentation of the voice corresponding to those periods that the piano is down a bit - i.e., learning to hear the difference in the vocal tracks when the piano is ducked in this fashion.
Setting all this up was fun, but the hard part lies ahead!
Thanks for everyone's help in getting me situated here!
PS: This vid is very helpful,
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 354 posts since 27 Jan, 2015
Thank you jmg8! That is a great vid. I had started doing that last night, and will have to revisit it again. It seemed to me during my brief couple of tries then that it painted with too broad a brush, and the piano track seemed "unnatural". I could minimize that effect of course with the W/D control. There were also other options that could help me zero in on what I might want, such as # bands, space in mix limit, bottom and top frequencies, etc., of course. I got to wondering if the time spent making all those settings would get me to a better place than doing it more "manually" as in my earlier post ...I will have to make some comparisons!jmg8 wrote:
In either case, it is wonderful what can be done with MAutoDynamicEQ!
-
- KVRist
- 298 posts since 26 May, 2016 from Byron Bay, Australia
Alexis
I really think you should train your ears to hear frequencies where the clashes are happening.
Use the display by all means but don't stop training your ears.
I totally disagree with automatic mixing. It is complete rubbish.
Mixes need to connect to emotions. The only way you will achieve this is to use your ears.
How does the bass affect you. Is the reverb creating fantasy for you. Is it floating or is it just getting in the road.
Does the mix make you happy or sad. Your job is to trigger emotions in the listener.
Don't just load the "GreatMix" plugin or you will become completely "NotRequired"
Spencer
I really think you should train your ears to hear frequencies where the clashes are happening.
Use the display by all means but don't stop training your ears.
I totally disagree with automatic mixing. It is complete rubbish.
Mixes need to connect to emotions. The only way you will achieve this is to use your ears.
How does the bass affect you. Is the reverb creating fantasy for you. Is it floating or is it just getting in the road.
Does the mix make you happy or sad. Your job is to trigger emotions in the listener.
Don't just load the "GreatMix" plugin or you will become completely "NotRequired"
Spencer
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 354 posts since 27 Jan, 2015
Thank you spencerlee! I am definitely trying to learn to mix by ears, and I'm using these tools to help me get there. I know I want less collision between the voice and piano, and having tried things like simple volume automation, shelf EQ, and mid-side manipulation, I'm trying to learn a new way (dynamic EQ of colliding frequencies).spencerlee wrote:Alexis
I really think you should train your ears to hear frequencies where the clashes are happening.
Use the display by all means but don't stop training your ears.
I totally disagree with automatic mixing. It is complete rubbish.
Mixes need to connect to emotions. The only way you will achieve this is to use your ears.
How does the bass affect you. Is the reverb creating fantasy for you. Is it floating or is it just getting in the road.
Does the mix make you happy or sad. Your job is to trigger emotions in the listener.
Don't just load the "GreatMix" plugin or you will become completely "NotRequired"
Spencer
At this stage I don't "hear" collisions anywhere except at the fundamental tones of the two instruments, i.e., I'm not able to appreciate at all how the harmonics of the two instruments are interacting/colliding. But that is my goal!
Thanks!
-
- KVRist
- 298 posts since 26 May, 2016 from Byron Bay, Australia
Alexis
Lets look at it another way.
Collisions is not your Voice and Piano problem.
The piano has to support the voice.
The problem is your vocal sound. Male voices you need a hipass at 75-100hz. Female voices 75-120hz.
This then allows the piano lows to shine through.
Now you will find your voice is not cutting through because there is too much level variation in the Voice. (dynamics)
So now after the hipass you need to compress the voice to a constant level. Then it will sit on top of the piano.
If you have to carve frequencies out of the Piano to fit the Voice, you have the piano parts wrong.
Give this a try and get back to me.
Spencer
Lets look at it another way.
Collisions is not your Voice and Piano problem.
The piano has to support the voice.
The problem is your vocal sound. Male voices you need a hipass at 75-100hz. Female voices 75-120hz.
This then allows the piano lows to shine through.
Now you will find your voice is not cutting through because there is too much level variation in the Voice. (dynamics)
So now after the hipass you need to compress the voice to a constant level. Then it will sit on top of the piano.
If you have to carve frequencies out of the Piano to fit the Voice, you have the piano parts wrong.
Give this a try and get back to me.
Spencer
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 354 posts since 27 Jan, 2015
Thanks so much Spencer!spencerlee wrote:Alexis
Lets look at it another way.
Collisions is not your Voice and Piano problem.
The piano has to support the voice.
The problem is your vocal sound. Male voices you need a hipass at 75-100hz. Female voices 75-120hz.
This then allows the piano lows to shine through.
Now you will find your voice is not cutting through because there is too much level variation in the Voice. (dynamics)
So now after the hipass you need to compress the voice to a constant level. Then it will sit on top of the piano.
If you have to carve frequencies out of the Piano to fit the Voice, you have the piano parts wrong.
Give this a try and get back to me.
Spencer
I actually am HPF the vocal, initially at 40Hz, and recently seeing about automating the HPF so it stays just below the lowest vocal note ... and have compressed the vox as well ... I'm happy that I wound up doing the things you have suggested!
The balance between vox and piano sounds pretty good as things stands now. I am just looking to see if they could be better still by one method or another, using that as a motivation to learn about this harmonic EQ cuts in one track to make the other stand out that I have read about.
Thank you again!
-
- KVRist
- 298 posts since 26 May, 2016 from Byron Bay, Australia
I don't agree with the harmonics thing.
If you are hearing resonant frequencies you don't like, take them out.
Here is the trick to finding the resonance.
Grab an SSL type eq (MTurboEQ would do) set one band very sharp Q.
Then put 12-18db boost in and sweep the frequency till the resonance becomes painfull.
The reverse the gain to negative till you have removed the resonance. You may have to modify the Q to get all the resonance.
This trick can be used for stopping collisions. But I don't seem to get collisions.
I always Hipass every track. I bring the Hipass up to where I hear it changing the sound, then I back it off slightly.
I also often Lopass as well. Lopassing is a very ancient technique but it is more relevant now with digital.
The last thing on my Channel Strip is a lopass filter. This keeps all the crap out of the mix bus and probably uses less CPU.
Spencer (Ancient Engineer)
If you are hearing resonant frequencies you don't like, take them out.
Here is the trick to finding the resonance.
Grab an SSL type eq (MTurboEQ would do) set one band very sharp Q.
Then put 12-18db boost in and sweep the frequency till the resonance becomes painfull.
The reverse the gain to negative till you have removed the resonance. You may have to modify the Q to get all the resonance.
This trick can be used for stopping collisions. But I don't seem to get collisions.
I always Hipass every track. I bring the Hipass up to where I hear it changing the sound, then I back it off slightly.
I also often Lopass as well. Lopassing is a very ancient technique but it is more relevant now with digital.
The last thing on my Channel Strip is a lopass filter. This keeps all the crap out of the mix bus and probably uses less CPU.
Spencer (Ancient Engineer)