Well, so far between two of us we've kinda reached a consensus... your EQ prowess sucks! Hehehe, I'm kidding, I'm kidding! Please don't take that seriously. But it is interesting that Jeff and I both feel and hear that the simulated track is the weakest of the three.

Me? Hell no! I'm a hack climbing the hill. Not even half way to the top. It's my EQ prowess that sucks, lol. One thing about the Sonitus EQ that always kinda impressed me was how transparent and uncolored it is. I wonder how the Vintage Channel EQ would sound in this experiment?
 
IMO the BBE plug is doing something more than just boosting highs and lows... to my ears there is something else there... it's not that it sound seems colored, but it just doesn't seem like a transparent EQ boost, if that makes any sense.

 Pretty impressive test there quantum effect. I liked the BBE track the best. My musical taste seems to run more toward the higher more sparkly cleaner tracks. I guess this is at least one reason why all stereos have controls on them because our tastes are all subjective.
  I also can well understand why the more experienced engineers lean away from using it. I mainly follow what my ears like to hear and listen to logic later which is undoubtedly not the best way to mix a track.

  I compare it to me being in the HVAC field and trying to tell someone who thinks they are warm that the temp is at 72 degrees. No matter what you say they are convinced because people feel temps in a different way. The same thing holds true in audio engineering/mixing. A pro is taught to do things that might not seem right or natural to the regular guy and might even seem contrary to what you should do but the proof is in the mix.

quantumeffect


Reference:
http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=10719755&q=hi&newref=1

Simulated BBE:
http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=10719758&q=hi&newref=1

BBE:
http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=10719756&q=hi&newref=1

-- Thanks for that experiement, QuantumEffect!  On my Adams the BBE kick seemed only slightly more 'colored' to my crony ears, and expectation bias may be involved.
 
-- Its interesting that you all validate difficulties with harmonizers and that you all love and eschew many.  Lately I've eschewed the voxformer (64-bit version) saturation knob ... it corrupts tracks containing vox waveforms obtained from the Newman-mic --> Avalon Pre signal chain.
 
I'd gleefully ponder just continuing with my 'present exciter plug-ins' (namely the Ozone exciter module on the stems and/or master buss) 
 
I'd be curious to know how many of you cascade your harmonic exciters and claim 'good' results from such 'mixed' colorations.

batsbrew


from my experience, using any exciters, typically ends in making the already somewhat digital harsh high end of modern recording, even more harsh.

and ultimately, for miced signals, this is where the quality of the mic, and quality of the front end, really shines.
add to that, the quality of the digital conversion, and there's all the high end you'd ever need.

AGREEEEED in terms of quality mic and high end. Further to that, exciter on cheap, harsh mic, BAD. Exciter on nice, expensive mic, CONSIDERABLY more effective (and still not necessarily good, depends on the song and purpose). Without high quality mics, the high end is really just screwed. And you can push effects SO much further and have them still sound good when you are using quality gear. In my expereince at least.

most of the time, the best way to 'sweeten' a certain frequency, is to drop something else.

cutting almost always sounds more natural than boosting.

adding plugs to get there (with tape emulation, exciters, all that trickery) only degrades the original sound.

well just goes to show you, whatever works, WORKS!

The first example without any BBE reveals why you like using it. The mix of the first example (no BBE I assume) is basically very dull, boxy and lacks any shine or sparkle to start with. You are not getting the individual tracks to sound clear and that is why you are reaching for the BBE in order to give some of the sparkle back. Learn to create crisp mixes without the BBE and you won't want to use it. 

And I know I have been saying avoid over bright mixes but this just lacks tops and is too dull to start with. 

Unless this is due to the quality of the compressed format I am hearing on Soundclick. Maybe the master sounds better I am not sure but that was my impression anyway. 

I think what I am try to say is examine each individual aspect of the mix and check high freq content right back at track level. Snare is an important one to get correct amount of crispness. Hats I have found can be quite warm sounding and not ticky at all and still cut through nicely. Overheads of course nice tops without being too zingy or splashy etc. The acoustic guitar needs strong mid range presence without pushing too far forward and just that icing pick going across strings sizzle. Not too much of that either. Vocals seem OK top end wise. If you get the band a little crisper maybe the vocals could be tamed up there. 

Also it was early in the morning here when I did that first listen and had limited SPL capacity in the room. I will give it another listen again soon at higher volume.

Wow, thanks for the analysis guys!  My intention was just to throw something out there where you could listen to the effect of the BBE applied at different points in the signal chain but since you took the time to listen …here are some comments (more than I thought but yes I knew it needed work)

Please keep in mind it is a basement recording (my basement is a not for profit institution … more like a money sink)and this in an unfinished working mix.  I write the songs and basically just bring friends over to record whenever we can squeeze in the time so there is no “band” per se (I am only playing drum and tambourine).  All the parts were recorded separately with long periods of time between some of them and please take a moment to read the comments I posted in the song forum..

The difficulty started with recording of the acoustic guitar.  I was experimenting with an AEA ribbon in combination with an SM81 and I had some major gain issues (I think I tried using my Art pre otherwise it would have been the Mackie board ... I have since aquired a Grace 501 pre but did not have it at the time. ).  I added a massive amount of gain (in Sonar) to all of the acoustic guitar takes in the verse section and you can hear the noise right from the beginning of the song.  The acoustic guitar in the chorus section is just a scratch take but it was all I had so I used it.   

The electric guitar … my guitar player friend is obsessed with guitars that cost $250 or less so I can’t tell you what kind of guitar he used but it was through a Blues Jr. close mic’ed with an SM57 through a Mackie board.

The bass was recorded by mic’ing the cabinet through a Mackie board and recorded direct.  I crafted the bass part from several different takes and ended up using the DI and using a “Detroit Bass” from the Guitar Pod.

The drums … SM81’s overhead in an A/B configuration (Paiste cymbals) an SM57 on the snare and an Audio Technica ATM25 on the bass drum  through a Mackie board.  The drums have a Sonitus EQ and Compressor in the track’s effect bin and the drum buss has a PSP “Old Timer” on it (emulates an optic compressor)

Vocals – an AKG414 (my best mic purchased on ebay) through a newly acquired Great River pre in an also newly acquired Lunchbox.

So, I guess I will spend some time tonight trying to get a better rough mix of the highs.
 
Oh, and please say something positive about the tambourine.  I spent a lot of time thinking about how the part would be arranged and I think I captured a good tone too.

LOL, I didn't mean to start such a debate and discussion about the Merits/Demerits of using the BBE!  But it's interesting.

I should clarify by saying that I don't use VERY much at all.  And I really haven't been using it very much at all lately.

I've found something by Voxengo - Voxengo Overtone EQ - which has a "Stereo Sheen" setting that really does some cool things to my master output.  My layman's description is, it EQ's the exact same frequencies on the L & R channels but in slightly different ways.  It, in some ways, provides a bit of an "excitement" type effect.  I don't know, but to my ears, it just kinda "dances".  I love Voxengo's plugs anyway - they're just fantastic.

I have also been doing just a bit of a high pass filter (at about 35-40hZ) on the master bus as well, in addition to some light compression.  I do this while I'm mixing too, so I don't get any surprises on my print.

My S.O.P. is to leave most of it to the mastering house, all but the compression.  Mixerman vehemently stresses it's a good idea and he knows more than me so I listen.

Danny, I appreciate everything you've said.  Again, I just listen to somebody that knows more than me, and though you do too in this area - no doubt - I rather like mixing with a compressor on the stereo bus.  I've also been told by more than one Mastering engineer, to do what I have to do to get it to sound as close to possible as what I want - compression is part of that equation.

Here is Mixerman's argument that I read and I'm also reading his book that's quoted here:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mixerman in Zen and the Art of Mixing
If you’re mixing classical music, straight-ahead jazz, or any music that is best delivered with a dynamic worthy of only a dedicated listening room, a stereo compressor is unwarranted. If you’re mixing any other popular genre of music, you need a stereo compressor, and you need a good one.

The bottom line is if your mix is going to need compression at the mastering stage, your balances in that mix are going to change significantly. This means all the time that's being spent on overall balance adjustments is nothing more than a waste if the ME is just going to add compression later. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the motivation of "self-defense" if it's actually a defense of the mix itself, and 2-bus compression is most certainly that. Besides, it's way more efficient to mix with a 2-bus compressor. I discuss that in Zen, as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixerman in Zen and the Art of Mixing
You can certainly mix without an analog stereo compressor, and if your monitoring and summing have left your bank account depleted, this coveted addition to your mix arsenal can wait. But this will put you in the unenviable position of having to do all of your compression on the individual channels, which is time-consuming and nowhere near as effective as a stereo compressor on the 2-bus. One high-quality analog stereo compressor can make your life so much easier and mixing so much faster that the time you ultimately save (once you get past the learning curve) will pay for the unit in just a few projects.

2-bus compressors are also quite useful for getting a mix sing and gel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixerman in Zen and the Art of Mixing
The best way to make your mix sing is to use a 2-bus compressor. We’ll discuss this further in the gear section of this book, but a good analog 2-bus compressor is essential for dealing with balance inconsistencies in your mix. Not only will the 2-bus compressor control the bottom of your mix, but it will also make it gel. Be careful, though. If you hit your 2-bus compressor too hard, you once again risk making your mix small. If you hit it too lightly, your mix won’t sing due to distracting inconsistencies on the bottom. There’s a sweet spot on your mix bus compressor, and if you can find that spot, your mix can be both tight on the bottom and big too. The combination of a tight and big bottom goes a long way toward delivering a mix that jumps out of the speakers. So if your mix isn’t singing, the first place to look is your overall compression.

Further, there's only one way to learn how to mix with a 2-bus compressor and that's to buck up and strap one on the 2-bus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixerman in Zen and the Art of Mixing
While there’s no doubt that mixing with a stereo compressor takes practice, and while it’s quite possible that you’ll fu*ck up several mixes in the process (can you say overcompression?), it’s essential that you as the mixer—and only you—compress your mix.

My advice in this book is based purely on assisting with the steep learning curve involved in mixing. The book contains all the necessary caveats--in this case that one doesn't HAVE to use 2-bus compression (it's just less efficient), and that the use of 2-bus compression is program dependent and not a given. But if one wants to get good at mixing modern music, one should also learn how to mix with a 2-buss compressor so that they can mix with a 2-bus compressor, and so that they at least know and understand why it might give them an advantage once they get over the initial hump. Until one learns first-hand what quality 2-bus compression does for a mix, one doesn't have it as a tool in their arsenal. My suggestion is to get that tool in your arsenal as soon as you can. How often one uses that tool after that, is obviously up to them and their preferences.

Again, my book and the information contained within is designed to assist with, and speed up, the learning process in mixing.

Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up.

Enjoy,

Mixerman __________

Hi spindle, and thank you for sharing that. I'm also glad what I had posted previously didn't upset you as it was never my intent, honest. :) If you read the stuff you posted to me, which I know you have, probably several times, you'll notice he keeps on mentioning "analog compression". This is what I meant by "hardware compressor". This is definitely acceptable in moderation. But a plug compressor is not going to do the same thing really because the analog comp literally colors the sound in a way that you will use a different eq curve with it on than you would with it not in the signal chain.

It's fine to mix with a good compressor on your 2-bus, but the key is to do it correctly so that it doesn't sound "compressed" so to speak, know what I mean? I also would have to peacefully disagree with Mixerman's take on compressing individually. To me, that is not a shortcut I'd want to take. I sincerely feel just about every instrument should be processed with it's own compressor because you have the control to work that instrument way better than you would just allowing a 2-bus comp to do the work for you.

In my experience with working with huge mixes on analog consoles and watching big guns do this stuff, the 2-bus comp just tightened things up and colored the sound. You couldn't even see the compression in the wave form when we'd send a mix to digital. It tightened things up really nice, but not tight as in seeing and literally hearing the compressor. Add in the fact that tape was used and this really colors things even more. But like I said, this is still something everyone should be careful with. Getting the tone you hear in your head for your project is of the utmost importance at all times. But having something come through that is already capped because it was compressed a bit too much can really be a nightmare in the mastering stage.

That said, it all depends on what your vision is. Some mastering guys prefer to just put a little eq on, limit things and send it out the door. I'm so anal about this stuff, I really like to have a bit more control whenever possible because to me I just think it makes things sound better. I have a client that I master for in China that is a die hard analog man. He's an excellent engineer but he likes to use his outboard gear a bit to the extreme for my personal liking. I had asked him if we could try an experiment and made him knock the compressor way down. I told him to mix through it and use it for color, but not to abuse it to where we were seeing no peaks at all. When I sent him the final master and we compared the two, he agreed instantly that the less 2-bus master was the best one. It just breathed better and sounded better both sonically and was more spacious....and I didn't use any imagers or anything.

Again though, my issue with this is the over-use of compression. I'd never tell anyone not to use a 2-bus comp that used one to aid in their vision of the material. But we have to understand what it's really meant to do...and that is, if we go back in time, "glue the mix together" not squash the heck out of it to where we actually hear it, know what I mean? That's where the analog stuff makes an incredible difference. It warms things up to where you don't need to jump on the compressor to hear it roar. It forces you to mix differently than you would without it because it's coloring things like tape saturation does. This is why he keeps on mentioning "analog compression". The digtal plugs just can't achieve this the right way. The more you use a digital comp, the more it colors the sound in a bad way because it's compressing. The analog doesn't need to be jacked up to hear the effect it brings into the mix, understand what I mean?

So you do what you need to do to make your music kick butt brother. I'm only sharing what I've experienced from doing this stuff 24/7. "Everything in moderation" would be my quote on life...it's when we over-use or abuse something that we need to worry. Thanks again for sharing this with me. :)

There are arguments for and against using 2 buss compression. One thing is to also put the analog 2 buss compressor between the mixer and your monitors so it is on the monitor signal chain only. It will allow you to hear the effects of compression on your mix without printing it.

Danny I agree with you about trying to master over compressed mixes. It is horrible and I just don't do it. Whenever I have requested another print of the mix without any 2 buss processing, I have been able to produce a much better master. Loud, not squashed and still plenty of transients. When I am mastering I do not tell the client to get it as close as they want it to be. I tell them get the mix they want and stop there. No processing on the 2 buss unless it is very mild.

But at the other end of the scale there are plenty of mastering engineers that have ruined many a great mix as well. I did a kickass hip hop mix for a client and sent it out for a compilation release and the mastering engineer just crucified the mix. Totally ruined it. No idea.

I don't agree that digital cannot do 2 buss compression. Its actually OK and if I know the client wants a loud master at the end of the day I use it. Digital can be very transparent and not mess with the integrity of the mix much. I use low ratios in this setting 1.3:1 and go for about - 3db GR. I don't agree that it is no use until you hit it hard. I can hear it the moment it is engaged. It is so obvious to me. And the attack setting is important here too. Let the transients through and act on the rms part mainly. I use a Yamaha digital mixer and the compressor on the stereo buss can be set very nicely.

That other thread about how to test compressors/plugins is very interesting and few people are trying it. It uses the null concept to remove the music and you are basically only hearing sound when the compressor engages. That concept more than ever is great for 2 buss compression.

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2282782

Danny  I think you are an adventurous person and I reckon you will like this technique. It is radical but I have used it more than once now and it is very revealing.

Ha!  Yes, I'm actually very recently a FORMER full time chef.  I'll still pick up side work, but I'm now working on building business in my little Project Studio here in Missouri.  Slow start, but fortunately my overhead is very low!  That and I'm being Mr. Mom every other week.  I'll tell you what, my chefdom skills have cut our food budget in half, and we're eating VERY well!

I'll also say this, there is an analog compressor out there with my name on it, in fact it's been around for quite a few years.  It's a vintage compressor that has my name on it, and at some point in time, we will come together when the time (and budget) is right.  I don't know what is is, or where it is, but someday, she will be mine!!  That's comforting in a strange, otherworldly kind of way!

For now, I do the best I can with what I have.  Trust me, if I had a choice, I would choose hardware compressor any day of the week over a software, though there are quite a few good ones out there now.  I think they're starting to get it; either that, or technology is just improving incrementally over the years.

There are a couple of things that are an absolute necessity IMO with respect to EQ'ing your overall mix.

1. Ozone has an EQ matching feature that let's you build an overall EQ reference file using a song that you may either be covering? Or a sound which you are attempting to emulate? While that will only provide a reference for the entire mix EQ wise, and not pan, level, FX etc on the individual tracks? 


2. HARBAL. Which allows you to save your mix out as a .wav, then run it through HARBAL which is essentially a 128 band EQ that uses your reference file (again) and then EQs your mix and shows you where they are different? And allows you to adjust to make yours closer to, or even exactly like what you're using as a reference. 

So whether it's the lows, mids, or highs? If you have a track, and you like the sound of it, you can use it to improve the quality of the one you're trying to create.