I was just watching this:

http://www.pensadosplace.tv/2012/12/17/into-the-lair-58-ear-training-part-2-full/

He mentioned as he was sweeping upward with a bandpass where a part finished and a new part began. He didn't really go into this in depth, but I realised how amazingly useful this technique was. I experimented.

What you do is use something like Sonitus EQ where you can great a bandpass and drag it around (or FabFilter ProQ if you have it). If you don't know, you simple make a bandpass somewhere and set your Q and bring the two nodes close together. Then lasso the two nodes and you can drag them around together. Now, I like to mono the signal but up to you. Then you slowly sweep the filter up whilst your song is playing. As it goes up, you tend to only hear ONE dominant instrument or component in the mix if there is no masking. If it's masking, you can't tell what you're hearing. You litterally sweep up and see where things are, and where they need to be pushed to sit comfortably.

For example. As I was sweeping my high end which has an acoustic, hi hats, shaker and tamborine, I noticed that the acoustic, hats and tamborine pretty much all dominated in the same spot around 8-9kHz. Without the distraction of the rest of the mix, it's really easy to hone in on what's exactly going on. As I went up, there was a gap and then the tamborine was up at nearly 15kHz. I'm talking the main portions. This is a completely raw and unmixed song. No processing yet. But I could VERY subtle tell that the acoustic was slightly lower by maybe only 300-500Hz (and we are talking in the 8kHz region here so that's close!) than the hats and the shaker was barely higher by maybe just 200Hz. I can use that to push them more easily where they need to go. I can push the acoustic down away from the hats and into the space that's available below. The little gap between the acoustic and hats that I've created could now be used for some acoustic reverb to fill in. The hats can pretty much stay where they are and I could remove some info from the other areas, but keep them centered here. There is a big gap between the hats and tamborine so I can push the shaker mid way here and pad at the spaces in between with reverb.

All this can be done the whole way down the mix for every instrument. Without a super trained ear like the pros, it's quite difficult to hear this stuff precisely and know what you need to do. This technique makes that process SO SO easy. I knew those high components were clashing, but I could in no way tell to that amount of precision where they really where and where they could most easily be moved to.


Anywho, just though I'd share that. I'm yet to fully try it out in a mix and see if it ultimately results in a better mix with less masking, but I like its chances. I think it's going to be very helpful. I honestly think this is one of the most important things to master when mixing because if you ain't got your masking out of the table, it just makes for a lifeless mix which is just confusing to the ear. It's the techniques used to GET there that we see all the time. Adding distortion on a snare to make it 'stick out' is pointless if you don't know WHERE you want it to stick out. Same with adding a reverb that is just going to be masked by the rest of the mix. Everything needs space. You can be much softer on compression to make stuff stand out if it already has its place in the mix. Everything comes back to this, I feel.

Enjoy.

Matt.

Pro-Q facilitates this method quite nicely with its band-solo feature. When enabled, you can then use your mouse's scrollwheel to narrow the band and zoom in tightly on a narrow range. Great for identifying nasty resonances, too, so you can notch them out.


Keep in mind as you're practicing this technique that frequency clashes aren't necessarily a bad thing that must be mitigated. Using an EQ this way only shows the average spectral content and does not take into account the volume envelope or how a note's spectrum changes over time. For example, the frequency conflict may actually be OK because it's the attack of one of the components you're interested in. 


Tambourine is a good example. Even though there's a lot of overlap with the hats, it may be the initial hit of the tambourine you're after, or the relatively long sustain compared to the hats. 

the idea of certain frequencies 'clashing' is one thing..

but it's another when those same frequencies come together to enforce a common element, say, a downbeat or accent.


the art of mixing, is balancing ALL of these elements in a way, that is unique from mix to mix.

matt, i think it is still a great exercise in learning how to make better mixes.
and i dig pensado.....


because sooner or later, MASKING (and frequency build-up) will be a number one offender in a mix, and when you have the skills to find it and nuke it, mixing becomes easier and easier.

OK, I should have watched the video first before commenting. I'd assumed it was about using narrow bandpasses to locate conflicts, but that wasn't its focus. What he's saying is that your intuition is often wrong when guessing which frequencies are most significant for a particular instrument. That's a very valuable message! One of Dave's best tutorials, for sure.

Thanks - will have to check that one out. Took me a while to get used him way back when I first started watching the ITL vids, but I quite like his manner / style now. Funny how thinks that really irritate you to start with end up becoming quite endearing. Only trouble I have now is remembering it all !

Bit, can't wait to have some many so I can get some FabFilter plugs. They look so amazing. I love them. So many cool things they do. And yes, his video didn't really mention what I was talking about, it just got me thinking. Make sure you watch the first vid too. It's amazing when you close your eyes and guess what frequency he is at and realise how far off the mark you are. Well, I was. It shows how untrained my ears are. It emphasises some great things to learn.

Bat, you're right, sometimes you do want them to join together in unity, so it's obviously a matter of what the mix needs. The additionally information all plays a part in the full mix of course, so this is really just a tool to get an idea if what's happening. A microscope I guess, but in the end, it's important to ensure the big picture is in context! It's all about know when to use the tools and what tools work best for you. I'm excited to play with it more and see if it becomes quite useful to me or not.

Paulo, I can understand why you might have felt that way! I guess it's maybe one of those things that you just get used to and then don't really notice any more? I just love the information we get from the show. So much good stuff.

Hahahahaha!  This is a Mastering video, Matt!  I love Dave's sympathetic persona (like a flight instructor).

He seemingly approves LPF--ing the snare at 5k!  That is a pearl for me.

He validates the 2k to 4k hyper-sensitivity area ... that tricky area that requires much deft.

The HHat is my fav 'clang' instrument (but not on Dave's video where he collab's the HH with the triangle)

Extreme lows and highs (above 10k) are eschewed (which I and most of us agree with).

But his synth song (the 1st one) didn't seem to require much EQ screwing, IMHO.  The thing about sampling is that much EQ is already PERFECTED!  (until the mix gets too busy :):):) )

The second song is more rock-intensive and quite muddy and busy (vs. a ballad):

No wonder the Vocals: "Consonants/radio voice" at 1.2K ... becomes excellent advice (to allow lower instruments (muddy guitars etc).

Vs. Most of us ... usually HPF vocals at 120 to 300 hz !!!!

IOWs, the radio voice has enough girth in this song with the lead-vox HPFed at 1.1 to 1.2kHz ... thanks to the muddy guitars blending with the vox.

5k to 7k for focusing on vocals (vs. above 10k) ... I agree.

3K (of course) is notoriously annoying and requires "careful mastering"

------------------------------------------

Again, HHats are incredibly important to me (Philip) ... but of course ... mix dependent (per Dave).


This is a great video, Matt, for beginner engineers ... and intermediate producers (like you and I)!

In sum:
EQ-ing, is important for busy mixes (Dave's polyphonic paintings) 

(... but there were other issues in both of Dave's songs that struck me as 'off' ... like the quirky synth song-rhythms and the rock-song muddiness as a whole ...  Dave addresses both with utmost compassion and skill!)

Saw the video a while back and forgot about it. Glad you brought it up! I've got many ITLs on my offline DAW and try to keep up with Dave but he's got so many it's kinda tough to do so sometimes.