perfect mixing

T

The Scientist

Guest
Theres something i have to tell you:

i had contact to a label (psytrance-techtrance), which got my stuff via audio-cd. the owner and dj said, that the tracks are good, but(!!!) the recorded mixing hasnt enough dynamics, specially under 100hz.

i felt confused ... under 100hz?!! theres just the realy subbass area. so i startet to eq- some sounds whith a punch at 80 and 60hz around. and then i knowed what he meant. this make your mix realy phat!
 
Thanks for the tip !

Although I don't usually compose dance or techno, this can be very useful depending on the instruments, in order to give such effect.

See ya
Herten
 
It's not like every mix would sound better with 60-80hz boosted. Your mix just happened to be weak on the low end, it doesn't mean everyone else's mix is too.

Btw. my advice would be:
don't EQ the whole mix - boost 60-80hz on the kick drum only, and perhaps around 150-300hz on the bassline. If you want some instrument (eg. a lead synth) to stand out, boost it's high frequencies.

This is one good advice for all genres of music:
sweep out everything from 20hz down because your ear can't hear it and it'll eat up your dynamics.

I might post some more tips later... c'yall !

Toni L.
www.mp3.com/NativeAlien
 
perfect mixing and bass/sub-bass

One good thing about analog and outboard gear was that you could experiment in real time. That made it a lot easier to "mix with your ears." You could try something for a moment, play around with the depth of an effect or the Q of an equalization curve and then whip it around continuously.

While real-time tinkering capabilities are finally coming online on "workingman's workstations" a lot of folks still do their mastering in a non-real-time environment so it's hard to get the feel for where to start with mix fix-ups.

One caution I'd add with regard to bumping the sub-bass -- make sure you your monitors really let you know what's going on down there. It's not the same thing but if you know what you're doing you can use various audio spectrographic analyses and 'topology charts' to scope out potential problems -- but there's really no substitute for having monitors that accurately report the subspectrum in question.

Unfortunately most nearfield monitors don't always get down there and a lot of popular monitors drop off rapidly under 80-90 Hz or so. For rock, folk, etc, this might not be much of a problem -- since there's often not a lot of meaningful content down there in a lot of it -- but for dance and club music problems with the sub-bass can be disastrous -- not only does there tend to be a lot of content from synthesizers and even extended range bass guitars (5 string, etc) but (with luck) the track might find its way onto a club or rave soundsystem and that will really magnify any problems with the bass -- or a lack of bass will be glaring contextually.

A lot of us don't much like summed-mono subwoofers but I've known people whose monitor setup included as an alternate a cheap but effective sub-woofer mini system. They'd switch back and forth between their hi fi (but inadequately sub-bass-responsive) stereo pair and the funky but bassed-up subwoofer system to iron out problems at the low end.
 
Last edited:
yes, its better to have good monitors.... but i dont have, but a am able to have no problem with this, when i listen to good released trancetrack out of my hifi and connetc my own track in relation to that sound.


the problem wasnt also the bass. the bass was phat, but i cut the deeps out of the other sounds, to make the sound transparent. this was wrong. cuttting down the deeps with only little bell punches under 100 hz makes the sound "earthly" a famos word in the psytrancescene, which is similar to the feeling on open air-partys your hear the synthies coming out of the earth, but with outstanding transparency.

test: " atmos- the only process"
any tracks of "antix" or "noma":cool:
 
yes, you got it.

this is very special, better listen to the tracks i told you.
 
The Scientist said:
yes, its better to have good monitors.... but i dont have, but a am able to have no problem with this, when i listen to good released trancetrack out of my hifi and connetc my own track in relation to that sound.


the problem wasnt also the bass. the bass was phat, but i cut the deeps out of the other sounds, to make the sound transparent. this was wrong. cuttting down the deeps with only little bell punches under 100 hz makes the sound "earthly" a famos word in the psytrancescene, which is similar to the feeling on open air-partys your hear the synthies coming out of the earth, but with outstanding transparency.

test: " atmos- the only process"
any tracks of "antix" or "noma":cool:
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're basically setting up what's called a "comb filter" ( they call it a comb because of the up and down shape... the shape could be thought of as a 'sawtooth' shape, too (not to be confused with a sawtooth wave). This seesaw EQ process produces a phase shift effect which is probably part of what gives your mix the 'transparency" you describe.

(In the early days of "stereoizing" mono mixes people used to try to use separate and opposite comb filters to create a stereo ambience ... but this kind of stereoizing wreaks havoc with stereo phase and should almost always be avoided in low frequency content -- the two sides cancel each other out and your bass disappears -- esp noticeable in a summed-mono mix or the kind of stereo that FM radio uses. Of course, that's a very specific use of comb filtering.)

Your technique of using a "guide" mix that you know is good is a very good (and old) one. It won't completely protect you from sub-bass problems if the problem is way below the low end of your monitor but it gives you a good, quick way of "calibrating" your monitor...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top