Subject:SF Mastering & EQ: would like advice from a Pro

Posted by: fjk1138

Date:12/3/2004 8:29:11 PM

Hi,

Any professional studio people out there who record, mix, and/or master (including Sony Media people) please offer any advice/comments you can on this touchy subject of EQ/mixing/mastering:

I am using SF 6.0e to "master" songs, which are recorded and mixed in either Vegas or Acid first.

I can get a great mix on the pc w/ the monitors (Event Project Studio 6's). Everything will sound tight, crisp, and balanced. I always record and initially mix with all EQ settings flat. Later on I punch up the bass and treble a bit and readjust as I see fit, trying to achieve a balance between the two. Often times, I will go back and forth between the two and make several comparisons.

I record all instruments through an Edirol USB connection at 44.1 kHz/16-bit.

Once I burn the CD w/ CD Arch 5.0, I usually will test the CD on about 5-6 different CD players/stereo systems of varying wattage, size, and quality and even on a DVD player with a digital connection to a receiver (set to 2 ch stereo only).

I've always read that you should compare your mix to a "pro" job and use it as a guide. When I do this, I notice that I have too much bass for my liking. Again -- I am basing this on putting the disc in, say, my car (supposedly an accurate playback device??!) and comparing my disc to a professional one with the same eq settings.

I usually find that if I put the eq settings flat on any player/stereo, it sounds closer to what the monitor mix was like.

Am I taking the right approach to all of this? It seems like I am always cutting out bass. I just did a new CD over the past week and even using a paragraphic eq it seems like I still don't cut out enough.

Or, should it be that if I play my own music on home systems I should always set the EQ flat on the player and listen that way? If you have mixed pro album, does th final mix ever sound the same after it is mastered?

I know this is a complicated issue, but hopefully my details provided didn't put you to sleep and gave you some insight as to where I am coming from.

Thanks to any and all who respond!!!

Subject:RE: SF Mastering & EQ: would like advice from a Pro

Reply by: drbam

Date:12/4/2004 6:33:41 AM

Are you listening to similar music (commercial CDs that you like) during your mix sessions on the Event monitors? Although comparing your mixes on other systems is crucial, you should spend a lot of time checking your favorite reference CDs throughout the mixing sessions. Most importantly though, your Event project 6 monitors will not give you an accurate reading of the low end, AND, unless your mixing room is set up correctly and properly acoustically treated, you are pretty much guaranteed some low end problems making it even more difficult (or impossible) to produce accurate mixes. This seems to be the biggest problem in home based project studios. After I fixed the low end issues in my room, my mixes improved dramatically and I am now confident that what I'm hearing will tranlate well to other systems.

drbam

Subject:RE: SF Mastering & EQ: would like advice from a Pro

Reply by: fjk1138

Date:12/5/2004 6:39:37 AM

Yes, I have listened to a lot of albums through the monitors. In fact anytime I make CD for the car or whatever I do it on the same speakers. On classic rock songs, the bass often sounds weak when the eq is flat. On more modern recordings, the bass sounds more accurate.

Previous to these monitors, I just used to mix on an average, but good set of stereo speakers but I tried to get away from that as I was afraid that the music would be mixed "for" that set of speakers. I am sure that, even though they weren't exactly cheap, the Event speakers are not the best monitors around -- would you suggest dumping those and if so, for what brand/model?

Thanks!

Subject:RE: SF Mastering & EQ: would like advice from a Pro

Reply by: drbam

Date:12/5/2004 7:03:05 AM

I would concentrate efforts on getting low end issues in your room fixed before considering other monitors.To the extent that the room is problematic, the greatest monitors in the world still won't help you produce accurate mixes. There's a lot of great info on web regarding DIY room treatment so do some searches, follow some of the room testing methods (most are fairly straight forward) and go from there.

drbam

Subject:RE: SF Mastering & EQ: would like advice from a Pro

Reply by: fjk1138

Date:12/5/2004 11:39:40 AM

What about the issue of how your stereo's EQ setting should be when you listen to your finished product? Should it be flat? Or should you just mix it flat and let the listener adjust their EQ as needed?

Thanks...

Subject:RE: SF Mastering & EQ: would like advice from a Pro

Reply by: drbam

Date:12/5/2004 4:24:53 PM

In terms of eq on your stereo system, you probably need to listen the way you typically listen to other material so you have a familiar reference. In terms of mixing, you don't mix "flat" per se (I wouldn't know how to do that anyway) – if your room and monitors are giving you a fairly flat response and you can then mix how you want it to sound and be able to trust that its going to sound like that on other systems. That's why I have been encouraging you to get your room treated and tuned properly. Listeners will always adjust to their preferences no matter how you mix. The idea is to strive to create mixes that hold up to other commercial material in that particular style or genre. Resist any temptation to try and second guess how a listener may adjust their playback systems.

drbam

Subject:RE: SF Mastering & EQ: would like advice from a Pro

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:12/5/2004 4:41:50 PM

The use of a spectral analyzer could be beneficial also. Look at the spectral curve of a similar music type mix as yours, and compare their spectral curves. Is you're mix drastically different in different frequency areas? If they are then this will explain and show on a spectral analyzer, why your mixes always seem to have too much bass. In addition you should get your overall EQ correct in the mix. Don't leave this too the mastering stage. A good mix doesn't need EQ adjustments in mastering. EQing during the mastering process should be reserved for getting the mix back where it was tonally before you start to add compression to make the overall level louder and fine tuning adjustments to make songs sound similar in tone that will be placed on the same CD.

Subject:RE: SF Mastering & EQ: would like advice from a Pro

Reply by: fjk1138

Date:12/5/2004 7:15:14 PM

Ok, so once you reach the "happy mix stage", do you guys put any additional processors (spatial enhancers, exciters, etc.) between this point and the final master? After reading your kind responses, I did some experiementing and actually have achieved a mix on one song to my liking but it still sounds rather dead.

Subject:RE: SF Mastering & EQ: would like advice from a Pro

Reply by: drbam

Date:12/5/2004 8:13:06 PM

>>Ok, so once you reach the "happy mix stage", do you guys put any additional processors (spatial enhancers, exciters, etc.) between this point and the final master?<<

If this kind of processing was needed in the mastering stage then, IMO, the "happy mix stage" was never reached. I typically would use enhancers, exciters, etc, to "fix" or otherwise improve on mix that wasn't really happening on its own. With a good mix, about the only things that will be added in mastering are some compression, a small bit of EQ, and level matching (not in that order of course). ;-)

drbam

Subject:RE: SF Mastering & EQ: would like advice from a Pro

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:12/6/2004 8:40:20 AM

"do you guys put any additional processors (spatial enhancers, exciters, etc.) between this point and the final master? "

Not unless, if I feel the Mix will benefit from this type of processing. There are no step1, step2, step3, processes in mastering. Look at what you're saying and compare it to mixing a song. Do you use the same effects for every song when mixing a song? In other words, do you say, first I raise the kick to -10dB, and add 6dB boost at 60Hz, then raise the level of the snare, and add a reverb to that? NO!!! you mix the song and add effects to it, that you think will fit the mood of the song and add fX's if you feel the mix will benefit from it. Mastering is the same thing. You need to listen to a mix and be able to tell what the mix needs to make it sound better. There's only one way to achieve this skill, and that's to do a lot of reading on mastering and then start to experiment around with different mastering tools, until you understand what each tool can add to a mix. So in other words, practice...practice...practice. Just like mixing, you learn to mix better as you practice and get more experience. We can't tell you on a forum, what your mix needs to make it sound more alive without hearing it. You need to do that on your own, and to figure that out it takes practice. It's like a good chef, has enough experience to be able to taste a dish, and have a good idea on how to recreate that dish himself. It's the same thing, when you are mixing and mastering, you must try out all the ingredients and become familiar with the taste they add to a mix. Then when you hear something you like, you can have a pretty good idea, on how to recreate that sound.

"but it still sounds rather dead."
Could be the mix is just perfect, it could be the song itself. There's a lot of factors to make a mix sound alive, 90% of that is the musical parts and arrangements in it, before you even get to fine tuning a mix.

There are 2 things that seperate the difference between a good guitar player and a great guitar player. One is natural creative talent, the other is practice. The same can be said for the differences between a good engineer and a great engineer. A great engineered has practiced with every instrument/FX available to him and learned that instrument/FX practically inside and out. So when it comes time to make a composition, he knows which instrument to pick to make that composition come alive. He doesn't automatically put in a violin section, if the song doesn't call for it.

Keep practicing!!!!

Subject:RE: SF Mastering & EQ: would like advice from a Pro

Reply by: fjk1138

Date:12/6/2004 5:28:39 PM

You guys are fantastic...thanks again for all your input!!!

Subject:RE: SF Mastering & EQ: would like advice from a Pro

Reply by: PeterVred

Date:12/8/2004 10:50:27 AM

"but it still sounds rather dead."
Could be the mix is just perfect, it could be the song itself.

Truer words were never spoken. I just finished up a session for a band, 3 songs, one just didn't cut it, we tried to save it by "mixing", but a dead song is just a dead song.

Subject:Advise from an amateur (whether you like it or not)

Reply by: PeterVred

Date:12/8/2004 11:29:42 AM

On this same subject, I am not a pro...my studio is in my rather large, sonically incorrect living room.
I am unwilling to acoustically "treat" my room due to cost and just the look of my home,
and I have the same problem you do.

My recordings most always come out "bassy". I use Mackie SR824 monitors which are light years ahead of anything else I ever used and I must say since buying them my mixes are way better.
However, they also yield too much bass. This tells me it's a room problem.

I try to keep this in mind as I mix, and tell my clients before we begin mixing that bass is the case, and that they bear it in mind, so they aren't always saying "bring up the bass". It's worked pretty well.

I do use a couple of things to help out after I have gotten the best mix I can. One is to use SF paragraphic EQ and use the 80hz roll-off to remove the excess bass. Of late I have been moving that setting to 50hz since it seems I'm getting better at keeping the bass where it should be during mixing. Doing this makes the recording sound a bit "hard" in the studio, but comes out sounding very good elsewhere.

I also use a bit of Maximizer to bring the levels closer to factory CDs...it's a mindless quick-fix approach I know, but I think it helps alot. Do this when using limiting:

1) Check the mix after doing the compression and see what instruments get brought out too much by doing it. Then go back and remix with that in mind, then compress again and see how it changed. In the end, you want the song to be louder without effecting the blend of instruments as they were before you compressed.

2) Check for distortion after maximizing, that seems to be the biggest artifact.

3) Listen to see that the "life" has not been squeezed out of the song by too much compression.

4) Less is more, pull down the threshold control by only 1-2db at first...if it's not right, undo it and go for a bit more. When it's too much...step back a bit.

Subject:RE: Advise from an amateur (whether you like it or not)

Reply by: fjk1138

Date:12/19/2004 7:09:09 PM

PeterVred,

Not only am I glad you replied, but I am glad that someone else out there is experiencing the same thing that I am (although I would rather we didn't have any problems at all !!).

Personally, I think the room I record and mix in is not worth spending a lot of money on getting it acoustically treated either. In fact, I think it sounds quite nice compared to some studios I have visited.

Since your posting and the others above, I have gone back and remixed the album I was working on and utilized the paragraphic eq (it's a life-saver) and spectrum analyzer. As a result, the album turned out a lot better and even playing it for completely tone-deaf non-musicians I got compliments for how tight and focused it sounded. Even though I consider it complete, I will toy around with running it through a Behringer Ultrafex Pro to give it some depth and life. If that sounds better, then so much the better.

I agree with your info on compressing the mixes also. I noticed that when I bring modern recordings into SF that they almost look like a solid blue line across the timeline as they are compressed so hard. Only if you zoom in can you see where they peaks/valleys are. Personally, I think this is a bit much and I am not sure what the record companies are trying to achieve; the things sound so squashed that I am glad that my music is not being recorded by them.

I have talked to people who are not musicians and even they are not happy with the way some modern music is mastered in this way. It makes you wonder why is music mastered this way??

Subject:RE: Advise from an amateur (whether you like it or not)

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:12/19/2004 8:20:53 PM

FJk,
I totally agree with you. I wish more people had a trained ear and understood a little more about this overcompression loudness race that's been going on. Maybe then, if a lot more people who bought the recordings would start to complain, then this madness would stop. A prime example of this loudness madness is when I listen to a modern group like Linkin Park. I think this group has some really good songs, but I can't bring myself to listening to them in a dose of 2 or more songs before, my ears start to feel fatiqued. The problem is I know exactly why. I'm sure I have no extra oridinary hearing, so my personal feeling is that this type of mastering is intended for one time doses of grabing your attention, where listening to an entire album is no longer the market focal point. Record companies no longer make hit albums...they make hit songs.

Subject:RE: Advise from an amateur (whether you like it or not)

Reply by: fjk1138

Date:12/20/2004 6:45:10 PM

Red, thanks again for the feedback. You're right on about hit songs versus hit albums. As for the compression, it's amazing how much you notice it once you know what to listen for. In some ways, I am forever ruined in how I listen to music -- I am forever analyzing every aspect of everything I listen to. Perhaps this is why a lot of the modern music annoys the crap out of me because the production values pretty much suck. Take the latest Jane's Addiction album, a group I love to death, but sounds so squashed compared to their older stuff.

I often wonder if this high-compression approach to mixing makes it easier for for TV/radio/satellite studios to broadcast the songs in a more narrow frequency range because of the FCC's limits (being there are so many channels and stations jamming the airwaves) or if they take the attitude of "if it's loud all the time then people will want to listen". it seems that just about any store or restaurant I go into the music is blasted and I am sick of it.

I once read a clip of George Lucas talking and he said that aside from professionals or true audio die-hards, people do not see audio as a beautiful thing and take it for granted since they are basically smothered by it in their everyday lives. I could not agree more.