Sweetening the high end on a mix

I've read tips saying that a slight boost with high shelving around 10kHz can help give mix a "sparkle", but to me it often is too crisp and slightly harsh up there - doesn't seem like my tracks have too much pretty stuff in that range that I want to boost. On a recent recording, I added the VX-64 vocal plugin to the master bus of a mastering project and used it only to add saturation to the upper frequencies. There's the option on that plug-in to activate saturation at the input or output stage, or to just a specific EQ band. I only used it on the upper band at 10k and was pretty happy with the results. It seemed to add a nice polish. There may be other plugins better suited for this, but this seemed to do the trick.
Just wanted to share this little trick and see if anyone else has stuff they use for that precious high end that they want to share?

I like Voxformer. When you back off the compressors, saturation and presence you can get some great results. I bought an AKG Perception 220 and didn't like it at all for vocals. It has a presence boost, I think somewhere around 4k that was too harsh and brittle for my liking. Sounded pretty decent on my acoustic though.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec01/articles/warmth.asp

This area of top end in a mix is a very interesting one indeed. Most mixes are too bright by far. I think maybe a by product of the digital age but also the fact it is too easy to forget about the top end in all our production stages. I agree with batsbrew it all starts right at track level. And one way to get it right there is to marry the right microphone to the source. eg a bright microphone on a dull source or a warmer smoother mic on a bright source. When you get this marriage right your tracks will sound just about right top end wise. Keep an eye on your highs at track level.

If everything in a mix is bright then nothing is bright or nothing will stand out. Think dark sky and a few bright stars here and there. You don't need everything in your mix to be bright. Only one or two things bright will sound way better. Check out Steely Dan's 'Everything Must Go' On some of those tracks only the hats and the vocals are crisp and everything else is warm. Yet the track sounds crisp!

I mentioned on another thread (Stereo widening) that putting your final mix through anything should warrant careful consideration in order to maintain integrity. Dave got a good sound but he is still saturating or applying distortion in some capacity. I would be looking to get to that without doing anything like that but going back to track level and checking things there. But I must say it is still better to have to brighten a (duller) mix slightly than put heaps of top end cut in order to make it sound normal. (mastering) If you have to do that, it means everything was way too bright to start with.

The way to make digital recording processes sound much more analog is to maintain a watchful eye on the top end of everything, tracks and all. Bob Katz says we still prefer the smoother roll off at the top end type mastering curve.

Make sure you don't adjust the top end of your mix straight after days of mixing. Bad idea. Wait a full week and let your ears recover. You will use way less and in fact you might end up attenuating the top end instead!

I also agree with batsbrew in that it may be that area from say 4K to 7K or so that you are really interested in. You can provide a gentle boost there (if required that is, you may need to drop it down too) and still roll off top end from 8K onwards and get a nice punchy bright sounding mix that is still not over toppy. Some mixes can build up a little too much energy in that 200 to 300 Hz range too. Put in a gentle dip around that area and listen to how the top end can seriously change for the better.

Everyone should listen to Dave Gilmour's 'On an Island' for a serious lesson in overall mix top end or total lack of it, yet things still stand out and cut through beautifully. When the tops are a bit lower our ears open up and start to really hear the top end more accurately. When we blast out ears with highs they shut down (over time) to protect themselves and then you cannot really hear the top end accurately at all.

Philip your post got me thinking about how automation could be implimented to control the amount of high end in your tracks especially going from one section to another in a piece of music. I am thinking a Low Pass filter with the cutoff frequency and slope automated.

How many of us set some great EQ over a sound but leave it or don't touch it in any way (EQ wise). Volume shifts of course, but why not tame things down (high end wise) in verses and open them up slightly in choruses. (or the other way around) That would add so much class to a mix. And of course in mastering it is cool thing to alter the eq from one section to another too. 

But at track level you would have incredible control over the top end in your final mix.

I'm finding that more and more, I'm using a LPF on certain tracks in order to tame unruly highs.

I haven't gone so far as to automate any of this yet, though the benefits are starkly apparent!

At the 10khz frequency range and above, it's not so much the actual instruments that are there, it's the harmonics that are there. Harmonics of the lower frequencies. (About the only instruments that come close to that area are cymbals) 

THIS CHART IS GOOD

I printed that chart and have it taped on my studio wall. Looking at it, you will see there in nothing in that area of the frequency range except the harmonics of the lower stuff.

So when EQ'ing those freqs, you must be careful not to eliminate them or damp them too much. They give the realism and open top....airy sound to the mix.  At that range, I have found that making very small adjustments is all that is needed.

Treating each track I think is the key to a crisp sounding vocal without the harshness of the cymbals resonating and turning into a screeching, static sounding top end.

Look below the keyboard on the chart.... the lines with titles.... mud, thump, sibilance, air.............  all show you at a glance what frequency range affect that particular issue. Very handy chart. I refer to it alot when I am working.

That chart is interactive as well.... mouse hover shows details on the instruments.  But print it out so you have a quick guide when you are mixing.

Dave. I think the first thing to consider is WHAT will need the sparkle. Often times in my mastering endeavors for clients, I'm dropping 16k on up as well as curbing 12k and then compensating a bit at 10k. What this does is, it takes the excessive air frequencies out of the mix and you can add a bit back in at like 10k. This is good for over-all brightness IF need be, but you have to be careful. You should never just add top end in unless you absolutely need to. The best way to handle this is to take care of it when you mix a tune. The high end freqs to watch for usually show up in cymbals, vocals and a bit to much sizzle in guitars...especially if they are over-driven guitars.

Someone here had mentioned the BBE....be careful when using that thing because it strips out good, warm mids and adds in synthetic highs as well as sub low bass if you're not careful. I'd not even use it in moderation because it just doesn't give you enough control. A good eq will do everything that thing can do and then some...as well as give you the proper control over what you are cutting or boosting.

I'd also watch how much of that saturation stuff you're using, Dave. The reason being, (and I mean none of the companies any disrespect that make plugs that do that) it's not the same saturation that you'd get from tape or a slightly driven analog pre-amp. As a matter of fact, it's dirty, nasty drive that to me, degrades a mix in 2 seconds flat. The only plug that I have used with great success for this type of saturation that wasn't something analog, is the Studer 800 plug from UAD. Those dudes have come up with the closest saturated/driven sound in plug format that I have ever heard. It's the only simulated saturation I'll use IF I need that sort of thing.

But, at the end of the day, if you feel you need more high end in a mix after you have recorded and mixed it, you very well may be going for too much warmth. Instead of adding in highs, what Jeff mentions in the 200-300hz range is completely true. Try dropping some of that and you WILL hear the highs open up. You're removing low-mid congestion, which is an ear sore in the majority of mixes along with guys that are going for excessive warmth and seem to have too much 640-860 Hz going on in a mix. Removing a few dB in that area can help loads too. But the first thing you have to determine is "what needs to be brighter" and this is important. Some instruments need to maintain their warmth and thickness. As soon as you add in highs, you sometimes lose that warmth and thickness. The same as if you remove too much mid range. You start to have a thin mix...so you have to find that happy medium.

Another thing that Jeff mentioned that needs to be considered is WHEN you do the mix. If you've been working on something for a long time at a decent volume, the high end in your ears is probably shot for the day and you will always add more highs at that point. I was taught that if you mix at high levels, your high end is toast in 30 minutes. So make sure you don't go too volume crazy and never mix or make a final decision after you have worked on something for a long period of time. Especially if you mix through headphones. They totally kill your ears man as well as the high end freqs. Any time you work on something for a long period of time, it's good to take a break for 2-4 hours (or longer) before you come back to it and make any real decisions. You'll be amazed at how different things sound when you come back to them after a break. :) 

bitflipper

If everything in a mix is bright then nothing is bright or nothing will stand out.

This is a wise observation, along the same lines as "if everything is loud, then nothing is loud".

I'm a fan of EQ automation as a way to bring out certain elements of the mix when I want to call attention to them. This is most effective on stereo tracks, because it has the added benefit of widening the sound - our stereophonic cues come mostly from the high frequencies.

Here's another aspect to the question to ponder: the effect of hearing loss on mix brightness. I worry that I am mixing to satisfy my own degraded hearing, resulting in overly-bright sound to other people's ears. You always hear the tired slogan "trust your ears" or "use your ears, not your eyes", but this is one case where visual aids save the day.

Good point Dave... I have some high frequency hearing loss.... according to the audiologist I went to many years ago, who did a test and graphed it out for me..... I have a noticeable dip in the 4k range as a result of guns and a certain band I was a part of.... that is the ringing frequency I hear 24/7, below that dip range I have normal hearing and above that I have good hearing, slightly diminished in the higher ranges.

So when I mix, and I'm listening to a mix, I have to really focus on the high end to be sure I am not compensating for my ears as you pointed out.

  I will try and not get to scientific in the explanation of the BBE as I understand it. Unlike the Apex Aural exciter the BBE corrects the TIMING differences of the various frequencies as they come out of a loud speaker. The higher frequencies reach your ears before the lower ones do and this is characteristic of typical loudspeaker designs.

  When a non processed song leaves a typical speaker and reaches your ears, it sounds muddy  because alignment of frequencies changed due to the inherhent flaw of the speaker. The algorhythm in the BBE corrects for this misalignment resulting in a clearer,cleaner and crisper sound.

  Not all speakers act the same so BBE designed the best overall fix to this problem covering the most types of speakers with some compensation possible through the contour controls.

  The BBE is best used after all other EQ is completed. It is often misused as an EQ when in fact it is not an eq and the only thing it adds to the signal is frequency alignment corrections. Just like a compressor it can be used incorrectly and adjusted the incorrectly.

Yeah. I bought it when it first came out and started using it too much. At first I was blown away by it and then something strange began to occur. My ears got so used to it that I could no longer discern a subtle tweak and would start increasing it. I still occasionally use it but only just a touch. I find nowadays I don't even have to touch the high end in my recordings, just cut through the mud at the bottom end... and I'm even more careful about that now.

Jeff Evans


This area of top end in a mix is a very interesting one indeed. Most mixes are too bright by far.

Yes, precisely.  I would say that more than half of the mastering I do involves taming the high end, not boosting it.

  I only have enough time to engage my passions for recording and music on a part time basis,unlike a few of you who are involved in it to a much greater extent,who have had more time in the mixing chair than I have. So I don't intend to knock what you say,on the contrary I listen carefully.

   I have been a subcriber to SOS for years and every good engineer in that publication says basically the same things you guys here do. The frequencies do need to be notched at the right places depending on the instrument. 

  I can't go so far as to call what BBE calls their equipment marketing BS though. Maybe I'm too trusting. Unlike you bitflipper I did not look in detail at the schematics. I am not calling it a magic box either. But I think that if any audio company  lied about what their stuff is advertised to do they could be held liable and sued.

 So Danni and Bitflipper,no disrespect to either of you.  I am not personally convinced that there isn't a place for it in my studio. But like you two also say it will never taker the place of a good EQ mix either.

 Peace!!

This whole discussion about the theory behind the BBE Sonic Maximizer got me wondering … independent of whether the Maximizer does what it claims … can the so called phase correction be achieved in Sonar via filtering and delay.

I used a drum track from a song I am currently trying to finish off so, it’s a mix of about 16 measures of me playing some straight forward beats.

This is just kind of a ‘proof of principle’ … so, let me know if my description makes sense and if you can perceive the differences between the tracks.

Experiment 1 - Reference

Export the drum track with effects and all (no dither 24 / 48).

Open up a “Stereo Mastering” project and import the drum track leaving the default effects (multiband compressor, etc.) on the master buss.

Put a Sonitus EQ in the effects bin and leave it as default (flat).

Export as mp3 (w/ dither) and call it the “Reference”

Experiment 2 - Simulated BBE

Open up a “Stereo Mastering” project and import the drum track leaving the default effects (multiband compressor, etc.) on the master buss.

Add 2 audio tracks and copy the drum track to the 2 new audio tracks so you have 3 identical drum tracks.

Put a Sonitus EQ in each of the effect bins of the 3 tracks.

Using the default setting (for Q and freq.) on the Sonitus EQ and by toggling the filter button pass only highs on track 1, pass only mids on track 2 and pass only lows on track 3.

Invert the phase on track 2 (the mids) … this is important, I know this from building speaker cross-overs.

Shift the mids 10 microseconds and shift the lows 20 microseconds.

Export as mp3 (w/ dither) and call it “Simulated BBE”

Experiment 3 - BBE

Open up a “Stereo Mastering” project and import the drum track leaving the default effects (multiband compressor, etc.) on the master buss.

Put a Sonitus EQ in the effects bin and leave it as default (flat).  Put the BBE Sonic Maximizer in the effects bin and set both the “Lo Contour” and “Process” to 5 (rolled back the gain a little too).

Export as mp3 (w/ dither) and call it “BBE”

Reference:
http://www.soundclick.com...&q=hi&newref=1

Simulated BBE:
http://www.soundclick.com...&q=hi&newref=1

BBE:
http://www.soundclick.com...&q=hi&newref=1

Or load and use BBE? Or some other exciter?