Great thread and not a lot I think that I can add here apart from an observation.

Has anyone recently listened to any older recordings? I listened to some classic King Crimson for the first time in ages the other day and I was amazed at the lack of top end. It wasn't bad, in fact it was amazing but it just didn't have that top end focus that a lot of more recent music seems to have.

Undoubtedly this is a direct consequence of the equipment that was available at the time but you can't argue that it doesn't make for an enjoyable, satisfying and ear-fatigue-free experience!

John


Here is a spectrum of a Crusader song "Don't let it get you down". Notice the extended lows? There is no fall off below 30 Hz as one would expect. Yet the song is not boomy.

That's actually the kind of spectrum many records I like have -- and a lot of my own approach is in that range.

I think the reason it's not boomy, as you point out, is twofold:
1- harmonic content isn't as visible in this type of spectrum analyzer (this type generally shows enery and peaks and troughs);
2- In the 100Hz to rouhgly 300Hz range are dips.  A lot of the fundamentals are in there, so reducing that area will definitely have some affect on whether a track is boomy or not.

But that spectrum is very common in pop music.  And it's a good example of what is considered to many a good tonal balance.

ba_midi


Speaking of top acts ...  
 
There was a huge hit by Rhianna called "Rude Boy" ... it's a great record -- but, frankly it sounds distorted and thin in the 'upper' range to me.   I actually would probably never want to mix something that way.
YET - it still had this 'thing', which is hard to explain/describe, that just worked for the record overall.
 
I would never use that record as an example of a 'great' recording.  But 'great recording' and 'great record' can be two very different things.
 
For many here, Rhianna is probably not on the top of anyone's playlist, give or take a few here.  But it is an example of what I think is a weird 'high end' mix.  I mean it sounds awful at times, yet the record still works somehow.
 
This is, again, the thrust of this thread for me.  What constitutes a good balance in the high end -- excluding the bad mixes and occasional hits that have weird high ends ;)
 
 

Yeah that song is stilla  big hit- It is a perfect of example in my opinion of what I base my work on. Bruce Swedian said something similar. It is all about what the song needs. I go into each song with a basis of what I do but ultimately no rules!

But sorry for going off topic a bit as we are into mastering but we are still talking about high and low end. It seems to me that many well mastered tracks have a similar high frequency slope attached to them. The other day I pulled out some vinyl and listened to a few things on my very high quality turntable. I was a bit disappointed actually. I found a lot the mixes were a bit dull in comparison. (to the work I have been doing in the studio) But then again maybe I should listen to it for a few weeks and then I will probably come out saying the highs are perfect. Talking about lows too they can be over loud and what is very interesting to me is when you tame the bottom end or shelve it down to normality, how much the top end suddenly speaks without even touching it. Both ends of the spectrum really effect each other so much.

Jeff, for what it's worth - I do think the concept of mastering comes into play heavily with regard to what I've been calling the "personality" of a mix.

Like you, when I listen to some older recordings I get a little disappointed (not from the musical point of view, just the technical one).

And I agree, when the lows get out of the way (ie, if they are overbearing) a lot of the 'top end' shines through much better.

This is good - because it's this type of discussion that I had in mind to begin with ;)
And your input is always a welcome thing.

Jeff,

I suspect most would not agree with me that working on plugins (synths/samplers, etc) takes more effort in some respects than with acoustical instruments.

Each has its own set of things to tackle, of course -- but I just find EQ'ing digital instruments one has to be careful because there doesn't exist that natural acoustical harmonic structures, generally.   Sure, some synths are even heavier harmonically (transients, formats, and all that) - but synths tend to be very specific in many ways.

I'm not sure I'm conveying what I mean ... but if I EQ a vocal, for example, it seems there's more 'room' for the tonal and apatial qualities to breathe.

With synths, even a little EQ seems to have more dramatic affect (in general).

And, as you point out - many synths (hardware or virtual) tend to have a certain emphasis in some areas.   The Korg M1, as you mention, definitely has a certain sound to it, as did the DX7 as another example.   Even though each were/are capable of many sounds, there was always an inherent quality about them.  True for most synths.

But I suppose one could say that's true for most acoustic instruments as well.  Yes - but not quite in the same limited way, I'd suggest.

As you again point out - even small EQ scoops tend to have much deeper affect on the synths.

ANd, while there's no doubt digital forms of compressors and other processing utilities have come a LONG way, I think, again, they tend to have more dramatic affect than their analog counterparts.  That can be a good thing or a bad thing.

I find it also interesting how using different textures can bring out the highs (or lows) in other parts.   If you have a lot of deep pizzicato strings combined with a basic drum beat and simple bass, the drums will probably need less highs because the pizz strings tend to not have many -- leaving that room for the drums.

Whereas if you have a heavy metal/distortion guitar that is loaded with harmonics, and takes up a lot of frequency space -- the drums probably will need a bit more pushing in both the highs and lows just to cut through.

Which, in summary leads me to say:   "Sigh, there's no rest for the weary when it comes to mixing"  LOL

John


Really really nice discussion from both Billy and Jeff. I even think the idea of "personality" makes more since to me now. I think Billy you have done a great job of explaining what you were getting at. Jeff helped a lot too.

Now you all have got me wanting to look at and listen to a lot of music and see what I can glean from them. Very interesting. 

John,
 
Thanks for your kind words.  I do feel this is important -- to me, and anyone else who feels they want to improve their skills.  Maybe I'm being too self-indulged, in that regard.  But I know that asking questions yields great results.
 
And, as for listenting to music ------um, YEAH :)