[OldG]

yet another useful link to post... this is for anyone trying to get the perfect mix between instuments and vocals >> Linkage

[Andy S]

Very cool graphics on this!! Really helps you understanad the idea of notching stuff. Thanks!

[brandondrury]

The graphic looks good, but did you see the numbers he was suggesting? It appears to me that he's suggesting that you boost the vocals by 10db @ 2.2K.

I've recorded over 700 songs and I've never seen a situation that required that much boost at 2.2K. That's insane!

Brandon

[OldG]

Hi Brandon
I was stuggling to see where any boosting is suggested in the piece, as I read it as a guide to notching out (or reducing) at certain frequencies. Then it ocurred to me that maybe you are misreading the graphs - they show the amplitude in -db if you look close enough.

Did you read the text? I kinda thought it explained in fairly clear terms, maybe it's worth another look - as I found applying this method really does make a big improvement in the final mixdown.

I am also looking into stereo width and placement in mixing, I know how wide and where I want each track to be, I'm just short of a VST or software to try, any suggestions would be appreciated

Regards
Mick

[Tekker]

It appears to me to be talking about notching as well and not boosting. But I haven't read much of the text, just mostly looked at the diagrams.

Originally Posted by OldG

I am also looking into stereo width and placement in mixing, I know how wide and where I want each track to be, I'm just short of a VST or software to try, any suggestions would be appreciated

Are you working with stereo signals or mono signals?

To make mono signals sound "wide" like stereo signals, I use a couple different stereo effects. One of them is a Voxengo freebie Audio Delay which allows you to delay one side and create a "pseudo stereo" effect. This creates a stereo image that is all the way right/left. The other effect I use is one built into my recording program Samplitude that adjusts the stereo image anywhere from mono to "enhanced" stereo. I've been looking for a freebie effect that does this same thing, but everyone I have found sounds terrible.

The way I use it is I use the Voxengo to widen the stereo image using a delay of around 20ms to 28ms, tweaking just 1ms makes a difference in the sound and I often use the knobs to the right of the decimal point to make adjustments under 1ms and really dial in the sound I want. Then I use the stereo width adjustment in samplitude to reduce the stereo image and bring it closer to "mono" if I don't want such a wide right/left stereo image. This method works exteremely well and does a lot to spread out mono signals.

-tkr

[OldG]

Hey Tekker,

I'll try and explain what I'm after...

Imagine a stereoscape from left to right with a centre line. I want to be able to sit the vocals in a narrow band in the centre (about 10% of the total width),

guitars in a 10% band set halfway across the right side

backing vox set in a 40% band starting from the centre and working right

Drums set 50% width at the centre etc,etc

width and placement if you see what I mean

Any help gratefully appreciated

Mick

[Tekker]

Yeah, I know what you mean.

Unfortunately it's hard to do for free with good quality. Esepcially stuff that adjusts the stereo width. Because is sounds like you do want to create "stereo" sounds from mono sources (like the guitar) unless you are able to record the guitar in true stereo with more than one mic. The method I mentioned before is how to get width from a mono (no width) source.

In Samplitude you can use my method mentioned above to get the width you want and with the panning dead last in the signal chain, you can move the entire thing right or left. So basically if you created a guitar sound just the way you like it (say 10% as your example) then you could use the track panner to move that 10% sound field wherever you wanted to place it in between your speakers. So in other words you can adjust the "width" and "placement" separately to get it exactly where you want it. (However, when using the delay method to create a pseudo stereo effect, you would probably want to go wider than 10% otherwise it would sound like two out of sync guitars playing on top of each other.)

But like I mentioned above, trying to get that kind of quality probably won't be easily found for free (if at all). The stereo delay can be done for free with the Voxengo plugin, but I haven't found a good freebie for adjusting the stereo width. All the plugins I found for this were just awful sounding.

Also when I mix I try to keep the left/right sound field "balanced". I don't pan guitars one way or the other unless there is something on the opposite side (like another guitar or a keyboard/piano) to balance it out. This especially makes listening with headphones more enjoyable because your head doesn't feel lopsided. lol

-tkr

[OldG]

Sorry Tek, You did ask,and I forgot to mention my DAW - Acid Pro 6, records my mono signal to stereo track. I have attached a screenie to confirm this. Does this make a difference to things?

[Tekker]

Originally Posted by OldG

Acid Pro 6, records my mono signal to stereo track. I have attached a screenie to confirm this. Does this make a difference to things?

Nope, makes no difference at all. As long as the same signal is in both speakers it is considered a mono signal. Even though it is on a stereo track, it is not a stereo signal because both the left and right channels are the same. So when you push play (without any panning) you hear the signal coming from the center of your speakers.

-tkr

[brandondrury]

Hey Tekker,

I'll try and explain what I'm after...

Imagine a stereoscape from left to right with a centre line. I want to be able to sit the vocals in a narrow band in the centre (about 10% of the total width),

guitars in a 10% band set halfway across the right side

backing vox set in a 40% band starting from the centre and working right

Drums set 50% width at the centre etc,etc

width and placement if you see what I mean

Any help gratefully appreciated

Mick

Where did you come up with these numbers? Did you use a ruler? It sounds like you have a remeditated opinion before going into a mix. I realize that you may just be trying to explain your ideal sound in text form. However, there is a real risk with this premediated stuff (one could even call it prejudice). If you decide how you are going to pan and what EQ you are going to use on vocals before hearing it, then you are using your brain way too much and not your ears.

As for this whole EQ thing. Maybe I've just been doing this for a while, but I don't see a difference between notching and boosting. I've read that one method is more likely to introduce phase problems, but I've heard opposing arguments suggest that cutting also causes phase issues. When I track, the goal is to come out with a sound that "wows" the client without the need for ANY eq. The track should sound "pro" going in.
This guy is suggesting to beginners that there is a 10dB discrepency between 1k and 2.5k on vocals. I find that to be about as fundamentally unsound as you could possibly get. He should be recommending to beginners not to reach for the EQ at all. Instead really work on mic selection and placement to capture the source as intended.
For me, EQ is only used during mixing because I have to cram a lot of tracks into a dense space. EQ is just there to help make room for everything (usually by thinning instruments out).
I must say, however, that I do get aggressive with high pass filters. I almost never feel bad about using those.

Width

Width you speak of is created mostly by panning. Proper tracking have a lot to do with how "wide" a source sounds as well. After that effects come in to play, but be very careful with effects. The stereo images and wideners may make the track seam huge on your monitors but this effect doesn't always translate well. Some mixes will sound completely screwed in your car. Try it. You'll see.

Brandon

[Tekker]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

Where did you come up with these numbers? Did you use a ruler? It sounds like you have a remeditated opinion before going into a mix. I realize that you may just be trying to explain your ideal sound in text form. However, there is a real risk with this premediated stuff (one could even call it prejudice). If you decide how you are going to pan and what EQ you are going to use on vocals before hearing it, then you are using your brain way too much and not your ears.

I think he was just using them as an illustration. Creating a "width" and then move it around in between your speakers. It's usually easier to demonstrate with numbers.

He should be recommending to beginners not to reach for the EQ at all. Instead really work on mic selection and placement to capture the source as intended.

That's great if you have the equipment and the great sounding acousticallly treated rooms to be able to get those sounds exactly like you want when you record... But try taking a $15 Radio Shack mic into the bathroom and get the sound you want with no EQ. Probably not gonna happen.... It probably won't happen with EQ either, but you can get closer.

I've got decent equipment (not great, but not Radio Shack) but my room acoustics are terrible and I can never get the exact sound I want without tweaking it. I do spend a lot of time on mic placement, espeically on vocals. I'll move it in close, try it further back, angle the mic, etc. etc. and it never sounds the way I want it. So hence the need for tweaking.

I've heard recordings on recording message boards where people simply throw up the faders and it sounds awesome, but they are using several thousands of dollars worth of equipment in big open rooms that don't have the issues my cramped little space does. I have also mixed other tracks that was recorded with very nice equipment and mixing it is SOOO much easier.

For me, EQ is only used during mixing because I have to cram a lot of tracks into a dense space. EQ is just there to help make room for everything (usually by thinning instruments out).

That is what the article is describing though. To make room for each instrument by carving out certain frequencies so they don't step on each other. I think you just have to take their charts with a grain of salt. The idea that the vocals have very little below the 2.1KHz range is certainly not accurate.

After that effects come in to play, but be very careful with effects. The stereo images and wideners may make the track seam huge on your monitors but this effect doesn't always translate well. Some mixes will sound completely screwed in your car. Try it. You'll see.

Exactly, and that brings up another topic that you should burn a CD-R and play it on as many sound systems as you can such as studio monitors, stereo speakers, headphones, computer speakers, in your car, and even take it to friends' houses and try it on their systems. The more you listen the better idea you'll have about how it translates to other stereo systems.

-trk

[brandondrury]

That's great if you have the equipment and the great sounding acousticallly treated rooms to be able to get those sounds exactly like you want when you record... But try taking a $15 Radio Shack mic into the bathroom and get the sound you want with no EQ. Probably not gonna happen.... It probably won't happen with EQ either, but you can get closer.

Cry Cry! The notion that you can't get really good recordings in crappy little room is bologna. Drums need a big open room (at least the drums I like do). With a few sheets of rockwool wrapped in fabric and a few blankets you can get some killer acoustic guitar recordings in a terrible room. The same is true with electric guitar and vocals.

From all technical standards, my room is crap, but I refuse to use that as an excuse. Am I blowing the major labels away? No. I'm behind a little bit. However, I think that there is enormous problem with just blaming the room and giving up. Besides the song and the performances, I think the #1 weakest link in the chain is the guy mixing it.

People want to blame their room acoustics for their terrible mixes. I think that's hogwash. While I agree that it's much easier to mix in a $30,000 room, I do have to say that very seldom is the room the weakest link in the chain. The "excitement" in a mix is what is lacking from most home recordings and it has little to do with control room monitoring acoustics. That comes from having a skilled mixer (and well produced / engineered tracks).

The whole gear thing is entirely over rated too, in my opinion, but that's another topic.

Brandon

[Tekker]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

Cry Cry! The notion that you can't get really good recordings in crappy little room is bologna.

I never said it's not possible to get a good sounding recording, just that you can't expect to place mics in a room with serious problems with radio shack type equipment and get it to tape just the way you wanted it to sound. There's only so far mic placement will go, I know as I can spend hours moving mics around. Hence where the effects come in.... which is what we were talking about before.

With a few sheets of rockwool wrapped in fabric and a few blankets you can get some killer acoustic guitar recordings in a terrible room. The same is true with electric guitar and vocals.

No doubt, I have taken what advantages I can with a college student income (in other words, almost nothing ) to deaden the sound of my room, but it only goes so far.

People want to blame their room acoustics for their terrible mixes. I think that's hogwash.

But we weren't talking about mixes, we were talking about getting "that" sound to tape exactly the way you want it to sound with no effects. In a small and cheap home studio environment that is likely not going to happen. Even using effects it may not happen, but you can certainly get closer. That's all I was saying.

BTW, do you have any recordings avaiable to listen to? I'd love to hear them.

-tkr

[Tekker]

Originally Posted by Tekker

BTW, do you have any recordings avaiable to listen to? I'd love to hear them.

Never mind, I found some.

You've got a nice collection of gear there. I've been drooling over the Myteks for some time.

The few mp3's I listened on your page range quite a bit in terms of recording sound quality. Some are indeed very close to pro sounding, while others not so much.... It'd be interesting to get a little background on some of the songs and know what gear you used and also when you recorded them.

-tkr

[brandondrury]

I've been recording a long time. My oldest work is USUALLY going to be worst. Although, there are notable exceptions. For example, the very first project I recorded had a son that was recently played at a funeral. Every person in that room had tears in their eyes. I quickly learned that even though I was quite clueless about the process of recording at the time, if a song is powerful enough, the engineering doesn't matter much.

About 6 months ago I gave up the notion of recording local bands with the cram-as-many-songs-into-a-weekend-as-possible-mentality. Now I only produce. That means that time is not taken into account. I'd rather spend a year on a project and be proud of it and at least have the possibility for commercial success.

The tracks also very in quality because the bands very in quality. Where you stick the mic has so little to do with the sound. Actually, it's VERY important, but I used to think that mic placement was 100% of the sound. It's more like 10%. 90% is having a great song, played by great musicians, with great instruments. The room does come into the picture somewhere.

Here's a mix I did the other day:
http://forum.recordingreview.com/showthread.php?t=1106

This is a first mix. This song, as noted in the thread, needs some producing work. Unfortunately, I have a deadline for this particular project. (I'm actually recording someone with a marketing plan). However, you can get an idea of quality I'm getting in boxy rooms that have been poorly treated at least. Again, I'm not quite pro, but I'm convinced that the songs do come through, at least.

Gear
Ahh. The gear has little to do with it. The terrible sounding recordings I had done use the same gear I've always had. I snagged the Myteks about 2 years ago. I added my Presonus M80 at about the same time. I got my Royer R121 about 1.5 years ago. I bought my Soundelux U99 about a year ago.

None of these items have directly boosted my recording quality to an amount where my friends/family/whoever says "Wow! Because of this piece of gear, the sound quality in your studio is WAY better!". I've had to learn that these pieces just sound a little different. I could get very similar tones with cheap gear. It would just take a little more effort.

The Myteks do help with that 1-2%. There is a slight boost in clarity that is noticeable. I'm glad I have them. However, I've recorded a lot of band sounding, terrible songs through the Myteks. The song that made an entire room cry was recorded with my Delta 1010s. I'll take the tear jerker every time! j

Fancy converters do help, but not as much as the average home recording guy would think. It's an issue of budget really. Home recording guys want to spend $2,000 and having everything. Pro faciliites spend $2million on their bulding (maybe 10 times that) and maybe a million on gear. In that setting, converters cost about as much as their sound quality impact makes.

Brandon

Brandon