Let's talk Highs and Lows ?

gamblerschoice


I can't really give you "numbers", because I don't pay attention to them. When I am working on the eq, I use an eq that is divided into twenty frequencies, and I work by ear. All I can say to the high end is that I like a lot of sizzle in the cymbals, and I have always liked a lot of high end in the electric guitar leads. So I try to get the highs evident, but at the same time I want to cut the volume at the higher end because, as you said, it hurts the ears. I work each instrument individually, and then the entire mix gets worked on as a whole. I'm interested how others who do the mixing thing by the numbers will respond to this.

For myself, the top three or four bands are cut just a little, maybe a slow curve down to the highest band in the final stage, but I probably keep more high end in my mixes than most would say is practical. The high end is usually the first part I work on, then work my way back into the mids and lastly the lows, which is also probably opposite what most will recommend.

So, not much help, I'll be checking for the response form others in the next few days.

Later
Albert 

feedback50


I agree that the top end is just as difficult as the low end. Too much distortion on guitars, open hi hat/cymbals, cheap mic's that hype the high end too much, and bad eq plugs, all on too many tracks add up to a headache waiting to happen. I've had some luck eq'ing individual tracks to prevent this and leave room for ambience and the top end of incidental percussion, but I'm still learning. It also took a while to find some eq plugs that I can actuall push to get more high end where I need it. Lots of eq plugs can make cuts nicely, but only a handfull can be used to push the high end without adding to your problems. On the bottom end I like to use a multiband comp on kick and carve out a notch in the rest of the tracks for the bass to live.

A great tweeter or midrange driver will have beautiful sounding highs... while a cheapo may just have lots of highs.

Audio often requires some work. However, that doesn't stop me from using something like Ozone on the finished/mixed midi song, since it does bring out the sparkle and shine.

Butch


I have more trouble with the low end.  Getting it in the proper balance with the rest of the mix across a variety of speakers/headphones seems quite difficult.  I have found it better to error on the side of caution...a little too little bass is better than a little too much.  When you listen to classic rock of the 70s, you won't hear that big, huge, rumbling bottom end...and you don't miss it either.
 
On the high end, I find that I usually mix a little dull.  Probably because my monitors have much better high end response than consumer grade listening devices.  I almost always need a little top end boost in my mastering phase.
 
My M.O. for helping with these issues is to try and record tracks that sound as close to listening to the subject instrument live in the room.  If I can record individual tracks that sound like the instrument itself does while I'm playing it, I'm a long way towards my goal of a realistic mix.

John


I am not sure what is being asked here though it is a very good topic.

My thoughts are a little different as if you would expect anything else.

I think we need to make some starting points in what we are talking about.
If its a MIDI driven song i.e using synths and samples then I don't think there is much to do in shaping the high or low end if you have the basic sounds that are what you are after. Also it seems a strong part of doing this kind of thing with the idea that a sample will be modified if needed to fit the song and really we have total control here. So it should never be a problem.

Where the problems come into it are when we record live audio. What we really record are rooms. These can be dog awful for recording but many of us are recording where ever we are asked to. This means if the room is bright or dull we will need to compensate.

The word brittle was used to describe harshness in the upper end. That means that the room is way too bright. If one has the ability to dull out the room with blankets or acoustic materiel so that a lot of those pesky reflected high frequencies are reduced  we will have a better balleanced room and thus a better recording to begin with.

One thing though is the ability to remove is a bit better the the ability to add. If it ain't in the recording then its very hard to put it there.

I don't think one wants to remove any sound that is really coming from an instrument.

BTW, I strongly disagree about the MIDI stuff needing less attention. Just because someone picks a kick sample they like doesn't mean it won't need treatment in the mix. That's just one example. Sometimes I think MIDI/Sample based tracks need as much if not more attention than acoustically recorded material.

John

BTW, I strongly disagree about the MIDI stuff needing less attention. Just because someone picks a kick sample they like doesn't mean it won't need treatment in the mix. That's just one example. Sometimes I think MIDI/Sample based tracks need as much if not more attention than acoustically recorded material.

This is where you and I will be in disagreement. I know what you are saying but as I said when we record an audio track from a room its the room that is mostly the cause of problems. The mic and micing technique that will often be a source of trouble. With a synth /drum sampler the room is not involved. That is as long as the sampler was taking care in creating the sample. Or the synth is producing a sound one likes.

You're right about having to process the lows and anything else for that matter with MIDI based music. Yet certain considerations would be lees a problem with that then the wild world of mic and room recording. After all its the quality of the sample we are paying for that is suppose to give us a head start in how it will sound in a mix. 

Like I said I use Ozone on nearly everything. That would include MIDI based music.

bitflipper


BTW, I have to amplify Billy's endorsement of the FabFilter Pro-Q. I don't know what it is about that EQ, but I am able to consistently dial in sounds much more quickly with it than any other equalizer.

I used the plugin this weekend to remix an old project that had previously given me headaches. There had been some nasty resonances on vocals due to poor mic placement in a bad room. The problems were multiplied by many overdubs, doubled parts and harmonies. 14 vocal tracks altogether, each one with slightly different issues, and sometimes even different problems between clips on the same track.

I ended up using 17 instances of FFPQ. The CPU hit was surprisingly low, and even more surprisingly, I fixed up those tracks in less than an hour where previously I'd spent days trying to dial in the right fixes.

I would have never thought I'd ever endorse an equalizer, being of the opinion that any well-designed EQ is as good as any other. But I am sure a fan of this one, and thanks to Billy for turning me on to it.