Mixing Questions!

[Crowley6595]

Hi,
I just have a few questions on mixing that have been really confusing me recently.

When I use eq to give my mix clarity, at what point does this start to make my mix louder?
For example, if I eq my bassline and it gets more quiet, how does this make the overall mix louder? I understand that the eq works by cutting out all of the other frequencies that are clashing with the bassline but if it is too quiet after I have eqd it, can I turn it up?

I recently read that to make the drop louder, one should turn the rest of the mix down by 1db and turn it back up for the drop. Is this bad practice? It feels like cheating.

When using a limiter during mastering, how exactly should this affect my mix? If the peaks are during the drop, will this not make the rest of my louder and my drop quieter? Do I make headroom for the sole purpose of being able to make the track louder during mastering? And is turing the master volume down by a few db not pointless, if it is going to get louder during mastering anyway??

Thanks for taking the time to read/answer!

 

[DarkRed]

Hi,
I just have a few questions on mixing that have been really confusing me recently.

When I use eq to give my mix clarity, at what point does this start to make my mix louder?
For example, if I eq my bassline and it gets more quiet, how does this make the overall mix louder? I understand that the eq works by cutting out all of the other frequencies that are clashing with the bassline but if it is too quiet after I have eqd it, can I turn it up?

I recently read that to make the drop louder, one should turn the rest of the mix down by 1db and turn it back up for the drop. Is this bad practice? It feels like cheating.

When using a limiter during mastering, how exactly should this affect my mix? If the peaks are during the drop, will this not make the rest of my louder and my drop quieter? Do I make headroom for the sole purpose of being able to make the track louder during mastering? And is turing the master volume down by a few db not pointless, if it is going to get louder during mastering anyway??

Thanks for taking the time to read/answer!

Instantly, no matter if you EQ boost the lows, mids or highs. At your particular playback volume the mix will now move forward and become more present at that playback volume. It's just that the brain "applies" a frequency filter on the signal before it hits the ears, the frequency response of this filter peaks at the 2 - 4 kHz frequency range, this at least partly to protect the ears but likely also to keep a certain softness of the attack in the sound and warmth, to help make people create a more soft and pleasant sound in the environment for human pleasure. From the perspective of understanding the brain's frequency filter of boosting some frequencies and attenuating others, you can visualize that you normalize that frequency response so that the sum of those frequencies yield 0 dB signal increase. Now you suddenly can understand that you have a net gain increase on some frequencies and a net gain decrease on some frequencies. The frequency response of the filter is likely dynamic in nature, so that with increased input gain, the filter is more active. When so, this means that you basically have an amplitude multiplication ratio on all frequencies in the frequency range so that where the filter does gain increase, the amplitude multiplication is greater than 1 and where the filter does gain decrease, the amplitude multiplication is less than 1. Therefore what now happens is that if you focus the frequencies of the mix towards the sensitive area where a lot of gain increase happens, then even though the rms level of the mix is the same, the perceived rms is higher when it hits the ears, hence the increase in loudness perception.

Now, because a mix has a fundamental, that can either be lower or higher than the peak of the brain's dynamic EQ filter, by adjusting the fundamental you can increase perceived loudness without having to increase the power/rms level. The integrated LUFS measurement tries to account for some of this. But it is for this reason that in order to understand the real loudness of a reference mix, you cannot read the rms level, you need to combine the rms level with the fundamental frequency and translate that into what the net effect is therefore when the brain's dynamic EQ filter is applied on it. This is partly why so many are so confused about the loudness of mixes.

Now, because the ears are sensitive in the 2-4 kHz area, it sort of becomes a paradox, because the whole point of the ears to have sensitivity in that area is so that people can adjust the level of those frequencies down and now during the loudness war people do the opposite. Therefore, increasing perceived loudness in the most high quality way becomes an art form. You need to align to the brain's dynamic EQ filter for increased loudness (= presence at a specific playback volume) yet at the same time do so in a way that the ears will still find it is pleasant. So theoretically you need to boost the signal close enough towards the peak of the dynamic EQ filter for increased perceived loudness, but distant enough not to remove pleasure. One way of doing so is to cumulatively boost towards the peak on both sides of the peak, then at a certain distance on each side of the peak, do a cumulative attenuation and at the same time within a range that maintains enough balance on the frequency range as a whole. Monitors or cans that become increasingly loud near the dynamic EQ filter's peak, should at least theoretically be helpful when gaining the mix.

 

[Crowley6595]

Instantly, no matter if you EQ boost the lows, mids or highs. At your particular playback volume the mix will now move forward and become more present at that playback volume. It's just that the brain "applies" a frequency filter on the signal before it hits the ears, the frequency response of this filter peaks at the 2 - 4 kHz frequency range, this at least partly to protect the ears but likely also to keep a certain softness of the attack in the sound and warmth, to help make people create a more soft and pleasant sound in the environment for human pleasure. From the perspective of understanding the brain's frequency filter of boosting some frequencies and attenuating others, you can visualize that you normalize that frequency response so that the sum of those frequencies yield 0 dB signal increase. Now you suddenly can understand that you have a net gain increase on some frequencies and a net gain decrease on some frequencies. The frequency response of the filter is likely dynamic in nature, so that with increased input gain, the filter is more active. When so, this means that you basically have an amplitude multiplication ratio on all frequencies in the frequency range so that where the filter does gain increase, the amplitude multiplication is greater than 1 and where the filter does gain decrease, the amplitude multiplication is less than 1. Therefore what now happens is that if you focus the frequencies of the mix towards the sensitive area where a lot of gain increase happens, then even though the rms level of the mix is the same, the perceived rms is higher when it hits the ears, hence the increase in loudness perception.

This is actually really cool and I didn't know this was a thing. I'm studying neuroscience found this particularly interesting. I will have to read over this a few more times to fully understand it.

I never really tend to touch the rms level or judge how loud it is from the rms level because it was one of the first things I was taught was bad. Not that I use them, but it makes lots of sense why a lot of mastering presets on EQs have decreases in the 2-4 kHz area!

 

[MarcDHall]

If I read the question correctly it was "how can cutting from the bass line make the mix louder". It can't**. It can make room for other instruments that carry more perceived information making the mix clearer (and subjectively louder).

I've literally never heard any mix engineer ever say that a mix has a fundamental frequency. If it did it would sound like a monotonous drone at a single pitch. Also understanding the frequency response of human hearing is interesting but ironically irrelevant because you are a human with human hearing. If you were an alien mixing human music for humans it might be useful.


** the only exception to that is if you have two bass lines out of phase with each other and you cut one of them.

 

[DarkRed]

If I read the question correctly it was "how can cutting from the bass line make the mix louder". It can't**. It can make room for other instruments that carry more perceived information making the mix clearer (and subjectively louder).

I've literally never heard any mix engineer ever say that a mix has a fundamental frequency. If it did it would sound like a monotonous drone at a single pitch. Also understanding the frequency response of human hearing is interesting but ironically irrelevant because you are a human with human hearing. If you were an alien mixing human music for humans it might be useful.


** the only exception to that is if you have two bass lines out of phase with each other and you cut one of them.

Not at all, this is stuff every pro mastering engineer is aware of. Start by reading the book "Total Recording" written by David Moulton.

 

[DarkRed]

When using a limiter during mastering, how exactly should this affect my mix? If the peaks are during the drop, will this not make the rest of my louder and my drop quieter? Do I make headroom for the sole purpose of being able to make the track louder during mastering? And is turing the master volume down by a few db not pointless, if it is going to get louder during mastering anyway??

Thanks for taking the time to read/answer!

Keep in mind that there is power, loudness and air. Power is voltage, voltage is resonance, you increase the rms of the mix to increase its resonance. Resonance is the most important quality of a mix and you use automation to bring that resonance to the listener in a nicely empowering/resonancing way. Loudness is how the power is translated by the ears as frequencies in terms of perceived loudness at a target playback level. Air is how well the transients of the sound sources combine at the specific power and loudness configuration.

I'm a pro mastering engineer. The most important thing in mastering is to be aware of the rms level of the main chorus. If that's too low no matter how loud or quiet it is and no matter the amount of air, I have failed, as simple as that. I have to bring out the vitality of the mix in order for the master to sound great. If I get a mix to work on that has not been properly gain staged I send it back. I want the mixing engineer to send me a version that is crisp and clean enough in the transients and that has very good resonance at a loudness level that is already loud enough for commercial use and has enough air. This means I have a complete picture of what the mixing engineer wants the final to sound like and can verify that it will work commercially, my task is now to improve that and still maintain that original picture within that improvement. Because I want high enough rms, it also means I want good enough mix balance so that the amount of air will be enough at the power + loudness target. It is the former part - mix balance - mixing engineers struggle with when it comes to what they call "loudness", because they are commonly confused about rms, loudness, air etc.

Power + loudness + air = Presence

A master can have lots of power and loudness and still breath well due to the air. When mastering you deal with maximizing that relationship. During the mastering engineer's mix readiness evaluation stage the mastering engineer validates whether the mix CAN be set at a target presence level, because that is totally depending on what is inside of the signal to master.

Ultimately it is great presence that mastering engineers must ensure, because that means the mix has great emotion, depth, balance, vitality/life and impact.

 

[MarcDHall]

Not at all, this is stuff every pro mastering engineer is aware of.

Which stuff? Human auditory features or the idea that a mix has a fundamental? If the former I'm sure everyone knows it. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter because you are a human. No mix engineer or mastering engineer worth hiring is going to make decisions based on human auditory theory over just listening.

If you mean the latter then I don't believe you. It's clearly bollocks.

 

[MarcDHall]

Resonance is a feature of oscillating systems, a track isn't an oscillating system, it has no resonance frequency. Voltage is resonance? What does that mean?