ston
13KHz is the upper limit of my hearing these days...

 
Presumably due to listening to too much music with high end sheen.

Kev999
Presumably due to listening to too much music with high end sheen.

:-)
 
It's probably more the inevitable march of time...

Kev999
Alan Parsons has said that he often records with "too much" brightness and reduces it later, to avoid having too little and needing to boost it.
 

Is this part of the justification for the very expensive microphones that tend to separate the big studios from the typical home studio?

If it's to add a soft sheen, I will use slight Flux in the Waves Tape simulator. I haven't tried the Aural Exciter, but I hear/read that's really one of the best tools for "exciting" the top end.

cparmerlee

Kev999
Alan Parsons has said that he often records with "too much" brightness and reduces it later, to avoid having too little and needing to boost it.
 

Is this part of the justification for the very expensive microphones that tend to separate the big studios from the typical home studio?

 
Probably not.
 
The microphones that seem to be the most expensive have characteristics that cater to a keen awareness of what is happening in the lower mid range. You will see discussions comparing which of those special mics have the airy hi end but it is within a context of an appreciation of shared qualities in the more important mid range character.
 
In other words, people usually don't start speaking about the difference between a U47 and a 251c until they are taking the wonderful translation of the lower mids for granted.
 
All those other mics that have gotten cheaper as they get older missed the boat on the midrange... most newly made mics missed that boat too.
 
When you see folks focusing on the hi frequency extension available with condenser mics they are conveying a specific range of appreciation. It may be a factual observation, but it is not the characteristic that has fueled the hi valuation of the mics that cost $300 in the 1950s and cost $10k these days.
 
 
best regards,
mike

mike_mccue
Probably not.
 
The microphones that seem to be the most expensive have characteristics that cater to a keen awareness of what is happening in the lower mid range. You will see discussions comparing which of those special mics have the airy hi end but it is within a context of an appreciation of shared qualities in the more important mid range character.
 
In other words, people usually don't start speaking about the difference between a U47 and a 251c until they are taking the wonderful translation of the lower mids for granted.
 
All those other mics that have gotten cheaper as they get older missed the boat on the midrange... most newly made mics missed that boat too.
 
When you see folks focusing on the hi frequency extension available with condenser mics they are conveying a specific range of appreciation. It may be a factual observation, but it is not the characteristic that has fueled the hi valuation of the mics that cost $300 in the 1950s and cost $10k these days.

Thank you.  I'll have to keep working on my ear in that range.  These subtleties are mostly lost on me.  But then, almost everything I do is live recording, so the background noise is probably louder than these subtleties.
 
BTW, last year, I had several otherwise nice recordings killed when halfway through the set, the cicadas decided to start singing.  Once they really got going, those darn things are loud.  I haven't had any of that this year.  I guess this is an off year for the broods.  Talk about adding a sheen to the recording ...
 

It is almost a standard thing to boose 10-12K on acoustic guitars, but, with my source signals, I hear very little difference.

Sorry if someone posted this suggestion.
 
You may find that taking away some frequency around 300hz to 400hz, give or take some hz, will do the trick just fine. A lot of times is mid range clutter that is fooling you into thinking you need high end.
 
Someone suggested making sure each part has what it needs. This is most helpful as one part can step on another. You can alleviate this by panning and giving each part it's own EQ space.
 
What I like to do is this:
 

• EQ, give eSolo each part and get it sounding the way I like it. I do the panning here.
• Route groups, say guitars, to one bus and get them sounding the way I want them. Do this for each group.
• Then, using subtractive EQ, give  ach group it's own space.

HTH

There is very little energy up there.  And as you get older you start losing it anyway (esp. if you do rock or go to concerts and like to experience trouser flapping).  Plus you have to have nice monitors etc. for the +10K frequencies to shine (or sheen) over the all the energy below 1 kHz.  So it isn't disabling if you understand your limitations.  It is something you feel more than hear anyway - like tummy rumblings for bass at a live big venue show.
 
So even if you can't hear it distinctly, you can add some sheen to the instruments w/ a gentle lift up there.  I use a shelf on vox and one or two other selected instruments to provide air to the entire soundscape.  Your kids and dog will notice ... but actually there is some interference (just like overtones from a fundamental) in the lower registers which helps defines the "air" frequencies - or that is my theory.  Lifting the high end brings out the vox etc. subtlely, even if you don't hear those 16 kHz shades.
 
That is why the old classic mics still sound good - it ain't the 12 kHz so much that they do their magic on - it is lower than that.  In the frequencies you can actually hear and not increase the sibilance around 6/7 kHz if you don't clobber them w/ a compressor.
 
@

 When I first started listening to music in a big way years ago I always liked to hear  that little high end *ting* coming from a good set of tweeters. It made cymbals sound like real cymbals, and you could hear the pluck of acoustic guitar strings along with the finger noise. Later on I realized that a lot of that energy isn't in the high end but some of it is.   I still like that effect, although not everyone does. Some people prefer a mix that doesn't have much high end energy in it.
 
 EQ clarity between tracks, is probably one of the best ways to bring out each track and in doing so brings out more  in the instruments you want to hear it in,also, like someone else has  already said phase cancellation can generally muck things up. Some pre amps/mics can add subtle harmonics and exitation in a good way simply because of the way they are designed, and this can be duplicated pretty well with the right plug ins.
 
 I would rather err by adding a little much than the other extreme and not adding enough, but that's just me. My rational is that most systems are low end systems and won't reproduce it anyway. On the ones that will, if it's too much for the listener they have a tone control to roll some of it off. Nothing is worse than wanting more sheen, rolling your tone control up and it isn't there. I have both the Sonic Maximizer plug and the hardware. In the right setting it can help but the catch is not to use it like catsup at the restaurant.
 
 I agree with others here that less is usually more..even though Alan Parsons said it :) Cutting rather than boosting the right frequencies can clarify a mix.If it is boosted in a desired range the boost is very minimal. Trying to  impose a trait to a track that was never there in the first place usually doesn't work. Good at the start means something good to work with. Mediocre at the beginning has usually resulted in me fighting my mixes to death and still not getting good results.
 
 There are some good  approaches to a mix with regard to EQ and frequency roll off for various instruments to fit better in a mix, but none of them are across the board every time and this is why I am starting to really dislike those pre dialed settings in things like Alloy 2. Bass adjusted to one song will sit different in another, same with all the rest. Unless you make carbon copy songs with all the same instruments every time recorded in the same space there will always be subtle differences.