A question about lower mids

I have the most problem with 200-400Hz. I think it's because although there is obviously valuable data in that range it's hard to put your finger on what it is exactly. Not like the thump of a kick or the bite of a vocal or the sizzle on a ride. What's at 300? Parts of other things.

I rely heavily on the old peak-and-sweep method to find which tracks have too much down there.

Regarding reverb returns, for most tracks you can HPF the reverb pretty severely. I think I read somewhere that the cutoff for the chamber at EMI was 600Hz. What I sometimes forget is that if I need to do a big cut on a vocal track, I also need to make the same cut on the reverb, too.

The biggest mistake I see people making is attempting to fix mid with an EQ on the master bus. 

To quote Mixerman: "don't cut the low mids, make 'em yer ****!".

It seems the op is going overboard on the lower mids.  As said above, judicious and light cutting in those frequencies is the answer, not severe cutting.  a lot of energy of most instruments lies below 500 hz and you are cutting more meat and less harmonics. Dip, don't cut. 

And yea,  reverb rolling off way up the frequency spectrum can clear up a lot of the mud and boxiness.

@

@

"Why let bass or lower frequencies get into the reverb and bounce around just like they do in real life."




Because it sounds like real life?


More than once I have mixed up a full MIDI sequence and had folks assume it was a live band, room mic... mix in a bad sounding room.


I don't know about you... but pulling that off can feel satisfying every now and then.


:-)






best regards,
mike

I don't worry so much about high-passing flangers and choruses because they're basically HPF'd internally due to the way they work. But generally, yes, if you put a HPF on the source track you should probably put it on any parallel busses as well.

150 is the devil.


500, on the other hand, is the schizophrenic.

sometimes, it's perfect.
sometimes, it's a cold stoned killer.


you gotta learn when it's what.

kick, nuke that 500...
but voices, hell, maybe you boost it.

it really depends on the source, track by track.

that's what learning how to mix is all about,

learning to tell the difference.




trust your tools and eyes, but not before your ears.

Quite right!  Where am I???  LOL!!!
 
Thank you for those thoughts.  That may start to shed some massive light on my issues?  Let me go back to the mix and listen again to see if the kick is as prominent as I thought it was.

Danny's assessment of the mix is spot on. He has a  way of speaking about the mix that gets right to the heart of the issue.
 
I mix in an untreated room. However, I have learned, to one degree or another, the speakers I mix on. I also have ARC which is a tool I use (not always) when I mix. It helps to give me a more accurate picture of the actual mix.
 
I also check the mix on both my headphones (in the studio) as well as exporting it to my mp3 player where I am used to the sound quality of professional mixes on that player. Very often it's there, where I catch the flaws, bass freqs too heavy or too light, high end crispy or mushed......
 
I never make assumptions that any given freq should be cut or boosted until I hear the song playing back in the mixing process. I say that, but I do generally have a steep drop (EQ) for everything below 40hz as a starting point. It's in the preset I use with Ozone. Nothing, however, is cast in stone. Each mix requires totally different tweezes to the preset to get it right. I seek to have the mix sound full, not boxy, thumping and full on the bottom without mud, and crisp on the high end without frying the tweeters in the speakers.  Most often, the EQ curve resembles a mountain with a wide flat top, and sides that are fairly steep on the left and not so steep on the right (hi end) and the flat top area is pretty much just that.... flat perhaps with a slight curve so there is full range stuff happening there. But that's just on the master.  EQ in the tracks is also customized to the instrument and the total mix. Again, what worked in the last song doesn't always work in this one.
 
Ditto to what Danny said at the end.... forget mixing by the book or by the numbers, and learn to mix by the ears. Learn what you need to listen for and it opens a whole new aspect to mixing.
 
I almost always start my mixing sessions just like the old gigging days when I was setting up a sound check for my band in a club. We always started with the drums and the bass. One then the other..... get them sounding good by themselves and then together..... then start adding the other things in the mix, one by one.  I like to put the drums and bass into a bus so that once I get them where I want them I can easily change levels slightly and keep the ratio between them constant.
 
Use the song forum as well as this one as a sounding board for the mixes and use the advice. This has been one of the main ways I have learned things. (at least to the point I am now.... with still more to learn) Post the tunes and ask about the mix. People will help you dial them in. As a result, your craft gets better.
 

ahh, the old 'post divorce-this is what I have left' situation.. 
 
You mentioned you didn't think the auralex was doing much.
What is your placement? I've got my walls treated with it and it seems like it works very well.
As for cans, I recently purchased AKG 701's. Very nice.
I have not mixed extensively with them, but when I do use them they reproduce very well, in
my opinion.
 

Danny DanziMe personally, I always like a sub. Nearfield monitors to me just don't give me the low end I need and I'm always second guessing. There are many people that are against subs in a small room. I am NOT one of them. You can always control the amount of sub you have going on. If you mix bass light you are using too much sub, so you back it down a bit until your mixes start to sound like they have enough bass. If you mix bass heavy, you raise the sub a bit so it makes you mix bass lighter.
 
Without the sub, you have neither and it's like peeing in the wind as far as I'm concerned and you're always gonna get wet. :) So if you can afford a sub, I'd definitely look into one...

Completely agree! I've learned this the hard way over years of practice. I don't use the sub to make the mix sound good, I use it as an alarm. When it starts making too much noise and I start to notice the SUB, I know I've got my bass out of whack. Once I think I'm getting close, I turn up the monitors and sub and go into the next room to see if anything sounds really bad...lol.
 
Doing it this way allowed me to spend on really good monitors, but save on the sub. Also, you really do need to get your monitors off the walls.
 
Regards,
Dan
 

Great advice.  Thank you!  I will have a listen tonight.

Don't worry Danny all is good. Not upset at all in fact I welcome the differing opinions. You know I enjoy a good discussion with you any time. I am someone like you who bases what they say on real world experiences.
 
Yes I was not putting down the importance of good production either but sometimes a lot of production wont correct a section that might be too busy and yet editing parts around can make a massive difference.
 
After listening to it again the verses are not suffering from this as much as I think the choruses do. The choruses can get busy in places and I would be wanting to re arrange what various things are doing behind the vocal line in the chorus. When the big vocal harmony lines come in the chorus I would be changing what the parts are doing there too as to really bring those vocals out. Think of how the Beatles would arrange a similar part. They often had huge clarity in the vocal harmonies with the music carefully crafted behind at times.
 
I half agree with Danny in that about half of the song is OK in terms of what parts are doing but not all of it though. I am hearing clutter in certain areas. Taking things out can really make a difference. What would a top producer do to this song. That is how I tend to think of it. Groove wise it is very OK in places but then there are other spots I am hearing drums and bass sounding a bit strange unless a very looses sort of vibe is intended here. That is just the drummer in me being very sensitive to groove issues. Somehow when the groove is killer all the way through it sort of distracts you a bit because it is so good. In some ways secretly we are all trying to make a killer groove. That is what all the greats have in common.
 
What has been said here regarding the more technical aspects of the production and mix are all good and that is why I did not mention that so much. The mix is not good in places too. Things are too loud here and there and also there seems to be some jump in levels here and there too. These are very definite production issues. I was just trying to draw attention to that beautiful all important aspect of how parts interweave with each other. As you start clipping out the unwanted clutter the black backdrop becomes clearer and the song gets clear too.
 
At the moment I am working with projects that have got a lot going on (more than enough going on) and I am in edting mode full swing right now pruning things down. I am always impressed as to how clear things can become and how much space can appear when doing things like this. Taking things out I guess. That is what a good producer would start doing with this track, I can almost guarantee it.
 
 

Jeff: Cool, glad you didn't take it the wrong way. Like I said, I agree with what you said...but my point was, if you or I got Sunny's mix...the arrangment/performance wouldn't stop US from adding the right stuff or taking away the bad stuff because WE can hear this stuff and fix it. :) So to me, though arrangement and timing are always super important...you or me would change his mix for the better based on our experience as well as our monitors showing us what we should be hearing at all times. :)
 
Sunny: In your last post...you mentioned:
- Hi pass everything but the bass and kick.
- Lo pass everything but the cymbals.
 
You have it backwards. Hi pass removes bothersome low end. Lo pass removes harsh highs. LOL! I know it's weird...it seems like it should be the other way around, right? Hahaha!
 
Now, though what you said there is sort of right for most things, you have to be able to determine when to hi pass/lo pass. The reason being....sometimes an instrument may not be recorded with excessive lows. Sometimes the instruments may not have harsh high end. If you just "do it" because you feel the masses agree that you should, you can ruin something that may not need major hi passing or lo passing. You have to be able to hear this to execute it. For example, just about all of my guitar tones could be presented just as they are without a hi pass or a low pass. Now depending on what type of song it is would determine this...but if I wanted to just throw something together and show you what my tones would sound like without any high passing or low passing, they don't contain blatant issues that would make someone just execute the "passing".
 
So you have to be able to determine what needs it and what doesn't. Yes, just about always you will do some high passing and low passing...but your ears have to tell you that first. Some guys record bass properly. What that means is....a bass guitar has less low end than people think. When it's recorded properly, 9 times out of 10 we need to ADD low end to it. It you start high passing it "because you're supposed to high pass everything" you can make the track suffer. So get your listening environment up to snuff this way you can tell when you need to do something and when you can maybe be a bit more lenient.
 
Also, be careful with this way of thinking: - every frequency band is sacred. Treat them with respect and don't overcrowd them.  Figure out one or two sounds that are the most important in that range.  Cut the rest.
 
I wouldn't put too much stock into that, brother. Just about all frequencies make up the sound. Grab an eq and start cutting things on a sound. You'll notice if you toggle bypass that they all make some sort of difference to the original sound. The object is to make the sound get along with the other instruments. If you are a guy that solo's things up and eq's them...that is a major problem when you are inexperienced at this. Any of us can make an instrument sound great by itself. The problem is...when you un-solo and add it with the rest, it won't sound very good.
 
You should always mix with the full mix going because this is where you can tell where the problem areas are coming from. But none of this will be apparent to you until you can get your monitors sorted. Trust me....you'll be spinning your wheels until you can get your monitors working right. A sub is important. I say don't procrastinate on that if you can afford one. Then do the ARC thing again with the sub on following my instructions. If that doesn't fix you, I don't know what to tell you. What monitors are you using again? It may be time for some good ones.
 
See, that's the thing with this field. You can make it a money pit that nickels and dimes you to death buying little things that add up that won't help. Or, you save your money, get a really good set of monitors with a sub, ARC it and you should be golden. You get what you pay for in this field with monitors, that's for sure. JBL's with the room correction that comes with them, Rokit 6's or 8's, Adam, Event, Genelec....those to me are what you should at least consider.
 
Here's the method to my madness. Ok, I get it...you're not a pro, you may never want to be a pro. You don't have a lot of money....I'm with you. That is what most people say. Here's the part to think about though. You spend A LOT of time doing this stuff. From performing to mixing...it's a time consuming hobby that can frustrate you almost as fast as a woman. LOL! That said...if the black clouds that are on you right now were lifted for say, $2000 max (going high here) wouldn't that be worth it?
 
I say that because that was what I was faced with. Working with old NS-10's (the worst monitors to use without a sub or any type of correction) for years to where I stopped using them and mixed through headphones. I got fair results but chalked it up that I'd just be a pre-production studio. here's the short version to a long story I've been telling for years on forums. 
 
One day I was so frustrated, I didn't want to do this anymore. I knew I was a decent engineer with good ears, but for some reason, my mixes sure didn't reflect that. After my mentor told me to update my monitors, I did that. Got a sub, got ARC and all the clouds were gone. I'm still not a great engineer, but I think I do a pretty consistent job and like to think I'm decent at it with repeating clients that have me booked over a year in advance. My Adam rig with the sub was like $1600 total I believe. But the cool thing was...that sub helped me with EVERY set of monitors I have.
 
So if you can invest a little money in the right stuff....definitely consider it. This is a field we love...we spend countless hours doing it. We shouldn't be frustrated or second guessing anything. It should be as easy as hearing something, knowing if it needs work, knowing how to fix it if it does, mixing the song, producing it and moving on. I never sit here and say "is that bass too much?" I never sit here and wonder "should I do this or this?" I just know...and you will too as soon as you can hear things the right way. You'll see, I promise you. When all my black clouds were gone....my business became a business. :)
 
-Danny 

Can you see why the arrangement is so important and the production at the same time. eg you say EQ something very important eg the vocal and scoop everything else around it. Well NO. What if you have done a great job in editing the other stuff to the point that the other stuff behind the vocal actually never happens at the same time as the vocal but rather in between the vocal lines. Would you need to scoop those parts out, no because they don't clash with the vocals at any time do they so they don't need scooping out.
 
When parts are not overlapping anywhere near as much and they interweave much more the great thing about that concept is you can allow the full tone and spectrum on those parts through. In fact the mix sounds better if a guitar lick comes in at some point while the vocal is not that lick should sound good. If a guitar lick does end up behind a vocal at some point, I create a separate clip for that and apply individual clip EQ on that and maybe scoop just the odd lick here and there to allow for that situation and only slight scooping too not massive amounts. You don't want to change the guitar sound too much just for one clip either.
I also agree with Danny about HP and LP. I have just done a big mix where I did not need to HP or LP anything. The reason is that everything was recorded nicely and there was not an issue at the extremes of the spectrum. One should not do a blanket HP or LP on anything, it is silly option. None of the tracks in question needed any of that in my case. I had to boost the bass as Danny says too in one song just to make it pull through the mix down low a little more. 
 
(The only place I put HPF on everything except the kick and the bass is a live mix situation. In that environment it works and works well and avoids a lot of problems later. I think every live sound engineer does that anyway)
 
It is not bad to solo at least for checking if a track needs HP or LP. At least you can hear it on its own and properly and make an informed decision as to HP or LP filtering. But do get the full mix back on asap though.
 
Top end is another issue and you cannot have everything very bright either. If everything is bright then nothing is bright! It is good to smooth out top end on a lot of things and leave only some things clear like vocals, hats etc. Think of a dark sky with stars up there. Most stars should be dim and only a few bright. I tend to use EQ's a bit more doing this because sometimes shelving the high end down a bit is nicer to my ears than LPF which has a slope on it. They are not the same. Your track Sunny is not too bright at all.