Please have a look at this spectrum graph and let me know your thoughts

[MotifCity.Com]

First and foremost I use my ears to mix. Check. I also test my mixes in a lot of systems. Check. I have an acoustically treated room and nice Adam A7 monitors. Check. HOWEVER, I also like to use spectrum analysis to help me identify problem areas that might not be so apparent given my own biases (I mix my own stuff so it's sometimes a challenge to be 100% objective) and less than top-of-the-line studio treatment.

Blah blah blah. Just laying down some disclaimers in the hopes of filtering any lectures on the aforementioned points

Please have a look at this graph. This graph shows average levels accumulated after rendering a song. I have some questions:

1. Does this curve at least look like its in the ballpark for hip hop music? If not, can you please point out any red flag areas ?

2. If you use spectrum analysis, when you mix do you use peak or average graphs or both?

3. Should the average line be straight and smooth as possible from left to right (with the exception of the low and high ends). Is that the objective with spectrum analysis?

4. Can you please post graphs from your projects so I can compare mine to yours?

5. Is it normal for the graph to slope down on the right? (Seems like it always does in my mixes and if I bring up those levels any higher my mixes are too bright)

Thanks, just want to learn more about properly using spectrum analysis to get a nice final master

[SirElliot]

Hi.

That is the typical curvature of an old analogue dance recording with the exception of a gradual roll-off beyond 16 kHz.

The spectrum analyser (It appears to be Bluecat?) offers their own scaling in terms of frequencies which makes it difficult to determine the frequencies with the muted lines. Possibly you know the where the peak lies in terms of frequency between 47 and 101 Hz?

Many will say to butcher the sub frequencies. However, upon analysing the track "Hard" by Rhianna there is an ample amount of sub frequencies within the 25 - 20 Hz region.

Cheers!

[Bubbagump]

I know you tried to "disclaimer" yourself to safety... but I gotta say, an MP3 would be a much better thing to post than a spectrum analysis. All i can tell from that is in the given period of time, things average out to that... averages don't account for outliers if the outlier can hide in the math... AKA, you may have terrible harshness in small sections, out of kilter bass in sections, disappearing mids in sections, but if over 3 minutes it adds up to that, well, who knows? It looks like it COULD be ok, maybe.

Also, assuming this graph applies a 3db/octave slope, perfectly flat would be pink noise. Keep in mind in Fletcher Munson, things increase exponentially past about 5k.

[24-96 Mastering]

Ask yourself: Without any other information, do you really think that any meaningful judgment can be made about your specific track by looking at that one static graph?

Not dissing analyzers, but I have an idea to simplify this: If you want an opinion on whether the track sounds good, why not just post the track?

[adamgonsa]

Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering

why not just post the track?

Agreed.

4. Can you please post graphs from your projects so I can compare mine to yours?

For the reasons outlined above, comparing graphs of songs won't reveal anything valuable. A spectrum plot of a hip-hop song might have more in common with one from a metal band than it would from another hip hop song. There are too many variables at play and too much averaged out energy in a song-length plot.

Not trying to circumvent your disclaimer, but gleaning anything from a post filled with comparative spectrum graphs wouldn't amount to much.

[MotifCity.Com]

Ok, thanks. I will post a link to the MP3 shortly

The reason I ever started using analysis in the first place was because I would mix a song and it would sound good in everything I played it in, then I would hear it on someone else's system, etc and it would have a huge problem (like those mentioned in this thread)

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by MotifCity.Com

The reason I ever started using analysis in the first place was because I would mix a song and it would sound good in everything I played it in, then I would hear it on someone else's system, etc and it would have a huge problem (like those mentioned in this thread)

But the solution to that is monitoring and acoustics.


DC

[manman]

Based on graphs you have huge roll off at 10 KHZ, usually high quality recordings go up to 20 without roll offs at all. [again not a rule as to go]

[MotifCity.Com]

Ok here is a clip of the MP3. It actually sounds pretty good in my Adam A7's as well as iPod, etc.... but I've learned not to get to excited until I've heard one of my mixes in the car.. on a boat... in a train... with green eggs and ham... and so forth

Any and all insight on the overall balance of this mix is appreciated

Thanks guys

[SirElliot]

Originally Posted by MotifCity.Com

Ok here is a clip of the MP3. It actually sounds pretty good in my Adam A7's as well as iPod, etc.... but I've learned not to get to excited until I've heard one of my mixes in the car.. on a boat... in a train... with green eggs and ham... and so forth

Any and all insight on the overall balance of this mix is appreciated

Thanks guys

Hi.

It sounds fine on the speakers I am currently using. I can give you a better description on how it sounds tomorrow on a large sound reinforcement system.

It appears the spectrum analyser you are using is based on some type of topology for the characteristics differ to what SMAART offers.

I’ve muted the sound before putting it on Youtube.

This is the measurement from a 16 – 32,000 kHz bandwidth.



Cheers!

[trmchenry]

Originally Posted by manman

Based on graphs you have huge roll off at 10 KHZ, usually high quality recordings go up to 20 without roll offs at all. [again not a rule as to go]

Not true AT ALL. There is something very pleasant about a roll off that starts ~10-12 kHz and tons of great records have that. Granted, most pop recordings these days do have a lot of high frequency content.

I see another major fiasco developing... Now, not only must we "use all the bits" we must fill up the frequency range as much as possible!

Frequency analysis can be useful for pinpointing some problems but like it was said before, they hardly tell the whole story. There is no such thing as an ideal frequency plot for a good mix. I chased this ghost for a long time and then I gave up and just upgraded my monitoring.

[MotifCity.Com]

Sir Elliot thank you! I see you called out the low and high end with bubbled comments in the video. What can I learn from those remarks you made?

Thanks you so much for posting this video

[MotifCity.Com]

Trmchenry, I hear you. Personally I do NOT like all the high frequency content in today's music. In fact, I have heard "pro" recordings where the vocals are so crisp that it sounds like they didn't even DeEss them. The s's and t's and so forth literally whistle at times and pierce my ears. Other recordings it seems like the entire mid range has been scooped out. These songs sound horrible to my ears.

I am really fond of mids myself... so much so that I constantly have too much build up there. Thing is, when I try to remove some of that build up using master EQ, inevitably the lows and highs come powering through and end up being too overbearing. I've yet to find the recipe.,.. but I will keep searching for it

The mix I posted here sounds really too crisp on my Bose computer speakers... but fine in my Adams... and fine in my iPod..

[SirElliot]

Originally Posted by MotifCity.Com

Sir Elliot thank you! I see you called out the low and high end with bubbled comments in the video. What can I learn from those remarks you made?

Thanks you so much for posting this video

Hi.

My notations are only there if you are not familiar with SMAART's visual display. Now you know exactly where the bass peak stands on the master. 47.8 Hz is not a sharp note so even with such a peak it will not be over bearing on the bass like 46 Hertz. On the higher end 9 kHz falls within a sharp note so it will give you an accent which, is probably why you can get away with a gradual roll-off without it sounding like the track lacks treble.

The dynamics will play a factor as well due to having the peaks reaching 0 dB while the continuous average level is – 10 dB. This gives the user the opportunity to listen to the details of the music better than having the continuous average level @ - 3 dB with the peaks hitting 0 dB It is not loud as commercial recordings (due to the continuous average level falling within the –10 dB range) however the overall dynamics appears to be well balanced from 47.8 – 9 kHz.

My apologies if this sound too technical. This how I decipher music material. I guess the non-technical term is it sounds very clean.

I agree on the excess high frequencies, which is occurring on a lot of recordings these days. When your hearing can register up to 20 kHz, a lot of ultra-high frequencies are very fatiguing to your ears.

From my analysis, it appears the only way to achieve overly loud recordings is to add a lot of high frequencies while reducing the midrange to maintain some means on intelligence. And of course, the sub low frequencies a cut. Midrange is a dying art so I am not too surprised you favour it more and more these days.

I will drop you a pm on how it sounds on a large system tomorrow.

Cheers!

[trmchenry]

The clip you posted, assuming the rest of the track shares the same instrumentation, doesn't have anything in it that would naturally have that exaggerated high frequency content anyway.

All you'd be boosting would be air in the vocals and maybe some reverb trails and that would make the vocal sound distant.

I keep seeing it referred to around here lately as chasing ghosts. "My mix doesn't look right so there must be something I have to fix"

By the sounds of it i'm guessing it's part of your production demo to let prospective clients hear so I understand the need for it to be "perfect" but you have to understand that if sounds good to you when you've a/b'd it against a ton of other material in the same genre on different speaker setups and it sounds quality everywhere you're done. You've done your job and it sounds good. Pat yourself on the back.

Meters are just something to reference for different technical things here and there. Don't let it guide your whole mix, man. Learn to trust your monitors and your ears and when something is done you'll know it and be ready to move on to the next project.

I'm sure this is probably not the answer you came here looking for but it sounds all right to me.

PS: I say it to my clients all the time and you probably know better but when you reference a mix outside of your studio don't make mix decisions based on a system you're unfamiliar with. If you listen to those Bose speakers a ton and nothing ever pops out of them like what you heard in your mix it may be worth looking into but if they belong to a friend just let it go.

iPod earbuds are the new NS10s. If your mix works there good job! It's incredibly hard to build a mix that works on them and I would never do an entire mix on them because they sound like garbage but if it sounds good on those you know a bazillion people will hear your mix back on the exact same setup.

PPS: I don't know how much thought you've put into the placement of your monitors but read this little article I typed up. It's a bit long winded but covers all the basics of what you need to do to set your monitors up properly without being overtly technical or delving into acoustic treatment. http://neonmastering.blogspot.com/20...t-of-your.html

If it helps you trust your monitors a little more then it was well worth the hour I spent typing it up.

[trmchenry]

To all mastering engineers and amateur acousticians who read my blog post and deride me for the complete lack of scientific explanation in that article you've missed the point of it.

I've omitted science for a reason. Most people don't care about the why and all I'm concerned about is that people get better audio quality nevermind the how.

[MotifCity.Com]

Guys I am grateful for your time. This is educational. Very.

Chenry I will read your blog article for sure! Thanks! Man if I just trusted my monitors I could shave off so much time in mixing! But inevitably I will --for example--hear a really annoying frequency in the iPod that prevents me from being able to turn up the volume so I have to go back and fix it. Example: a clap sound sounds awesome coming out of my Adams, then when I hear it in the buds it is up too loud or too harsh in the 1khz to 2khz range (one day I am going to stop using these high frequency sounds for snares!) so when you turn up the volume it dominates the mix and literally hurts your ears. So I go back and knock it down a couple db, or I use transient designer to flatten it out, load it up in the iPod again... til I can turn up the volume loud without anything attacking my ears.

Side note: I have noticed almost without exception that commercial mixes simply distort when you turn them up too loud in iPods.. rather than a single sound attacking your ears as happens with amateur mixes. Anyone else notice this?

SirElliot: I had no clue about the "sharp" component you are referring to. Can you tell me more about that? I take it you are not talking about an accidental when you say "sharp" (forgive my naivety)

[MotifCity.Com]

Todd I read your blog articles. Very insightful. Thank you. I really need to do some calibration.

[minister]

Originally Posted by dcollins

But the solution to that is monitoring and acoustics.


DC

Don't confuse things with these facts.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by minister

Don't confuse things with these facts.

Yes, my mistake.

As to the sound of the mix, I guess it's an advert so maybe it's intended for a particular playback system. If it's a CD mix, I would say it's too hot in the 2-5k range and light in 50-100Hz. No note names or frequency charts were harmed in this study.


DC

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by MotifCity.Com

Ok here is a clip of the MP3. It actually sounds pretty good in my Adam A7's as well as iPod, etc.... but I've learned not to get to excited until I've heard one of my mixes in the car.. on a boat... in a train... with green eggs and ham... and so forth

Any and all insight on the overall balance of this mix is appreciated

Thanks guys

Sounds a little harsh to my ears (could be the MP3 encoding) and I personally prefer a bit more low-end thump. (More a mix thing though. Maybe even just the kick sample being used). But seriosuly, there is something wrong when people come with a frequency plot of their tracks and ask to comment. Can you hand in the frequency plot to the label instead of the actual master? Or sell the plot on iTunes? If not, then why do you care about the plot?

Alistair

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by MotifCity.Com

SirElliot: I had no clue about the "sharp" component you are referring to. Can you tell me more about that? I take it you are not talking about an accidental when you say "sharp" (forgive my naivety)

Curious about that one too.

Originally Posted by SirElliot

47.8 Hz is not a sharp note so even with such a peak it will not be over bearing on the bass like 46 Hertz. On the higher end 9 kHz falls within a sharp note so it will give you an accent which, is probably why you can get away with a gradual roll-off without it sounding like the track lacks treble.

How does that correlate to someones perception of a frequency being natural, sharp or flat?

[trmchenry]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

Curious about that one too.


How does that correlate to someones perception of a frequency being natural, sharp or flat?

I think he's referencing the harshness of that particular frequency but, yeah, poor wording there.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

How does that correlate to someones perception of a frequency being natural, sharp or flat?

I like that the window is 1.8Hz.


DC

[SirElliot]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

Curious about that one too.


How does that correlate to someones perception of a frequency being natural, sharp or flat?

Hi.

It is how the human eardrum is excited under the given frequencies. Since there is a gradual roll-off below 9 kHz, the perception of high frequency is more heightened based on the accent because it is sharp than shall we say 8000 kHz.

For an overly aggressive track, the more accents the better. For a more timid track, you want more natural/flat frequencies with the least amounts of sharps.

Here is a perfect example.

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Sounds a little harsh to my ears (could be the MP3 encoding) and I personally prefer a bit more low-end thump.

The harshness stems from 9000 kHz because it falls within the sharp region and, preferring a bit more low-end thump is due to having the peak on 47.8 Hz, which is not aggressive enough for UnderTow’s taste. If the bass had peaked around 46 Hz, it would sound more aggressive on the bass line.

Cheers!

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by MotifCity.Com

I am really fond of mids myself... so much so that I constantly have too much build up there. Thing is, when I try to remove some of that build up using master EQ, inevitably the lows and highs come powering through and end up being too overbearing. I've yet to find the recipe.,.. but I will keep searching for it

Try EQ'ing less?

[trmchenry]

Originally Posted by dcollins

I like that the window is 1.8Hz.


DC

Oh, I totally spaced and missed that part. YOU'RE TALKING CRAZY TALK!

Originally Posted by SirElliot

Stuff.

This steps into all of that crazy resonant Earth stuff, how the ****'s made A = 440 to control us, and how Judas Priest made kids kill themselves. Fun, but crazy.

A 1 Hz difference with a wide EQ swoop is not noticeable to any human being. Sure, the difference can be measured, but our ears are NOT that precise.

My guess is that if you're hearing different frequencies pop out like that the problem lies in your monitoring. You're probably catching the resonant frequency of whatever speaker cabinet you're listening on which is probably either made of plastic or extremely lightweight wood/mdf.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by trmchenry

My guess is that if you're hearing different frequencies pop out like that the problem lies in your monitoring. You're probably catching the resonant frequency of whatever speaker cabinet you're listening on which is probably either made of plastic or extremely lightweight wood/mdf.

Never in the history of audio has a resonance occupied only 1.8Hz. Your monitors would implode in a supernova or something.

Bizarrely, even that level of LF resolution is a new development in the vital new science of Mastering Frequency Analysis. Because it takes a large FFT to get down to a Hertz or two in the bottom.


DC

[trmchenry]

Originally Posted by dcollins

Never in the history of audio has a resonance occupied only 1.8Hz. Your monitors would implode in a supernova or something.

That analyzer is something else, huh?


DC

I like physics so I'm just trying to make some sense out of nonsense. I'm grasping at straws.

YouTube - Julius Sumner Miller - Physics - Acoustic Toys pt. 1
YouTube - Julius Sumner Miller - Physics - Acoustic Toys pt. 2

[SirElliot]

Hi.

Originally Posted by trmchenry

Oh, I totally spaced and missed that part. YOU'RE TALKING CRAZY TALK!

This steps into all of that crazy resonant Earth stuff, how the ****'s made A = 440 to control us, and how Judas Priest made kids kill themselves. Fun, but crazy.

I'm sorry I am not into Judas Priest so I have no idea what that music sounds like.

A 1 Hz difference with a wide EQ swoop is not noticeable to any human being. Sure, the difference can be measured, but our ears are NOT that precise.



My guess is that if you're hearing different frequencies pop out like that the problem lies in your monitoring. You're probably catching the resonant frequency of whatever speaker cabinet you're listening on which is probably either made of plastic or extremely lightweight wood/mdf.

You may be reading what I wrote incorrectly. I never said I heard frequencies popping out. I merely explained why their is harshness which stems from a 9 kHz peak that, falls within the sharp note's region.

Bear in mind High frequencies cannot resonate a wood much less plastic cabinet for there is no xmax to create excursion from a tweeter.

If you are wondering what analysis I used to show the results you can read about it following the link below.

http://www.eaw.com/products/software/EAWSmaart/

Cheers!