solution for muddy mix !!!

[sadboy]

hi guys.
i have been working with a couple of projects recently and then when i got to the mixing point, i noticed that the mix sounds a little muddy or if you like calling it boxy... so is there any EQ solutions to fix this issue.. what are the concerned frequencies to work with in such cases???

[Dave Rose]

If you still have access to the mix try and treat the instruments/vocals/sounds that are causing this. This way you can, for instance, clean up the track without affecting, say, the weight of the snare drum. But the frequencies for mud IMO are between 200-500hz, and boxiness 400-900 hz (becoming more 'nasal' from 800-1000hz.) Gental low shelving on guitar and vocal busses can help, but don't overdo it as you will end up losing weight, density and warmth if your not careful. Perhaps a piano or synth is interfering with the upper harmonics of the bass? Don't necassarily try and get rid if the offending freqs, but bring them to a level where they allow the parts to sit comfortably next to each other. Half db adjustments (especially in mastering) are sometimes all that's needed in these areas, they can be very sensitive and easily affect the overall shape of the mix.

[sadboy]

Originally Posted by gearslag

If you still have access to the mix try and treat the instruments/vocals/sounds that are causing this. This way you can, for instance, clean up the track without affecting, say, the weight of the snare drum. But the frequencies for mud IMO are between 200-500hz, and boxiness 400-900 hz (becoming more 'nasal' from 800-1000hz.) Gental low shelving on guitar and vocal busses can help, but don't overdo it as you will end up losing weight, density and warmth if your not careful. Perhaps a piano or synth is interfering with the upper harmonics of the bass? Don't necassarily try and get rid if the offending freqs, but bring them to a level where they allow the parts to sit comfortably next to each other. Half db adjustments (especially in mastering) are sometimes all that's needed in these areas, they can be very sensitive and easily affect the overall shape of the mix.

these info sounds interesting, I'll give it a try and let you know... thanks anyway

[Red Mastering]

upload audio file, it will be much easier to say what is wrong

[CJ Mastering]

Originally Posted by sad boy

hi guys.
i have been working with a couple of projects recently and then when i got to the mixing point, i noticed that the mix sounds a little muddy or if you like calling it boxy... so is there any EQ solutions to fix this issue.. what are the concerned frequencies to work with in such cases???

So your still in the mixing stage. That's good, because thats where you need to fix it.
EQ is the solution, just as you suggested.

I suggest using high pass filters on individual tracks to take out all the unnecessary low end frequencies that each track doesn't need or use.
Use your ears to adjust the filter and slope as each track and instrument is different.

You might even want to cut some frequencies in some tracks that are competing with other tracks/frequencies in the mix.
This will clear up your mix and take the muddyness away, when done right
Cj

[manman]

Mostly mudiness comes from lack of proper Eq and lack of punchiness of compressor.

[miro]

Originally Posted by manman

Your production is muddy

You need to use Liquid mix 32 or UAD SSL bundle

You need a to eq and compress it properly

Mostly mudiness comes from lack of proper Eq and lack of punchiness of

compressor.

Its how you mix, but i think your problem lies in the fact that you are lacking

LM and UAD plugs.

Try mixing in Cubase 5 with their native Eq, it sounds awesome, i think its called studio 10 eq.

Also do not use maudio speakers lol

If you are mastering then you need compress it with api, ssl or fet compressors, also use high

quality eq to boost highs or cut at low mid bass or cut bass.

OP: You can't get proper answers, since we don't know your case by hearing it.

[RiF]

Originally Posted by manman

Your production is muddy

Yes, that's what he told.

Originally Posted by manman

You need to use Liquid mix 32 or UAD SSL bundle

No

Originally Posted by manman

You need a to eq and compress it properly

Yes

Originally Posted by manman

Mostly mudiness comes from lack of proper Eq

Yes

Originally Posted by manman

and lack of punchiness of compressor.

No

Originally Posted by manman

Its how you mix,

Yes

Originally Posted by manman

but i think your problem lies in the fact that you are lacking LM and UAD plugs.

No

Originally Posted by manman

Try mixing in Cubase 5 with their native Eq, it sounds awesome, i think its called studio 10 eq.

Dunno.

Originally Posted by manman

Also do not use maudio speakers lol

?

Originally Posted by manman

If you are mastering then you need compress it with api, ssl or fet compressors,

No

Originally Posted by manman

also use high quality eq to boost highs or cut at low mid bass or cut bass.

Why not.

[Red Mastering]

uberman is joking, all right ??

[saovi]

Originally Posted by manman

You need to use Liquid mix 32 or UAD SSL bundle

-and-

Originally Posted by manman

Its how you mix, but i think your problem lies in the fact that you are lacking

LM and UAD plugs.

Sorry, but this is wrong. The fix is not to throw plug-ins at it. Knowledge rules (and is also cost effective).

sadboy, try here:

EQ Frequency Chart.

[ringemaster]

Originally Posted by manman

Your production is muddy

You need to use Liquid mix 32 or UAD SSL bundle

You need a to eq and compress it properly

Mostly mudiness comes from lack of proper Eq and lack of punchiness of

compressor.

Its how you mix, but i think your problem lies in the fact that you are lacking

LM and UAD plugs.


Try mixing in Cubase 5 with their native Eq, it sounds awesome, i think its called studio 10 eq.

Also do not use maudio speakers lol

If you are mastering then you need compress it with api, ssl or fet compressors, also use high

quality eq to boost highs or cut at low mid bass or cut bass.

This has to be one of the funniest posts I've seen in awhile. Some good advice in there, but it's amazing the loyalty and random comments about certain products

[manman]

I was referring to MIX BETTER you can not fix muddy mix lol

[wado1942]

Most muddiness comes from microphones being too close to their sound sources or using muddy mics. Fix that first, then EQ just becomes about nudging things this way or that way to help them sit together better. Composition also has a lot to do with it. If a bunch of instruments are sitting in the same frequency range, you can't hear one over the other, thus taking away from the clarity.

When I started micing instruments from farther away, using good mics, my need for EQ almost disappeared.

[sadboy]

Originally Posted by saovi

-and-



Sorry, but this is wrong. The fix is not to throw plug-ins at it. Knowledge rules (and is also cost effective).

sadboy, try here:

EQ Frequency Chart.

thanks bro, really appreciate it.... so useful stuff though.

[sadboy]

Originally Posted by CJ Mastering

So your still in the mixing stage. That's good, because thats where you need to fix it.
EQ is the solution, just as you suggested.

I suggest using high pass filters on individual tracks to take out all the unnecessary low end frequencies that each track doesn't need or use.
Use your ears to adjust the filter and slope as each track and instrument is different.

You might even want to cut some frequencies in some tracks that are competing with other tracks/frequencies in the mix.
This will clear up your mix and take the muddyness away, when done right
Cj

having a high pass filters on almost all the instruments gave me a great result, even though i usually put a high pass filter on the mix buss, but with individually high pass filtering, the effect was so noticeable. wondering why

[CJ Mastering]

Awesome, and the reason I explained in my other post. It takes out the unused and unwanted frequencies for each track.
For example, A vocal track doesn't need anything under 80 hz in most cases. There are some exceptions.
A guitar track can have a high pass filter set at 125Hz is some cases without effecting the sound. Each instrument doesn't need the entire frequency spectrum, so you cut
out the unwanted frequncies

[sadboy]

Originally Posted by CJ Mastering

Awesome, and the reason I explained in my other post. It takes out the unused and unwanted frequencies for each track.
For example, A vocal track doesn't need anything under 80 hz in most cases. There are some exceptions.
A guitar track can have a high pass filter set at 125Hz is some cases without effecting the sound. Each instrument doesn't need the entire frequency spectrum, so you cut
out the unwanted frequencies

you just added some great values to my world of mixing dude, thank you very much... i also need your help in choir projects.... what are frequency adjustments to make the choir sounds like very in the back and at the same time doesn't interfere with my my lead vox ?

if you want me to send you a reference sample of the choirs kind am working with just let me know please.... am really gonna appreciate it becasue this my real challenge it's all with the damn choirs, because i have to give them a huge amount of hall reverb at the same time i have to avoid the annoying feedback of it...

[CJ Mastering]

... i also need your help in choir projects.... what are frequency adjustments to make the choir sounds like very in the back and at the same time doesn't interfere with my my lead vox ?

Reverbs and delays can do this. I suggest you read up on these to effects,as there is no rules for doing this. After you learn the plugins, like reverb and delays and hoe they effect the audio signal, you will then use your ears and adjust to taste.
Read this: Reverbs

I don't have time to accept free mixing samples. They take too much time.
Because you just dont add effect to one track, you have to mix it into the context of the mix while adding effetcs to the track(s)

[wado1942]

having a high pass filters on almost all the instruments gave me a great result, even though i usually put a high pass filter on the mix buss, but with individually high pass filtering, the effect was so noticeable.

High pass filters are meant more for hiding "oopsies", like the rumble of a nearby moving truck on a vocal track or vibrations in the mic stand, deep plosives on a ribbon mic etc. They really shouldn't be used to MAKE your tone. If you're micing instruments well, you shouldn't have to use such tools as a rule. If the instrument/voice you're capturing doesn't contain anything below 100Hz or whatever, there's really no reason to add more circuitry (read more distortion) cutting out that range is there?

what are frequency adjustments to make the choir sounds like very in the back and at the same time doesn't interfere with my my lead vox ?

Again, it's all in the mic and the room. Most choral stuff out there has absolutely ZERO processing on it.

I think you should spend some serious time learning how to record rather than fixing bad tracks later. The time you spend on your projects will be cut in half if you get what you want at the source.

Case in point, I mix a lot of projects for other people. I once spent a whole day mixing a single recorded on an 8-track reel. It still sucked because it was poorly recorded, though it was WAY better than the original mix both to my ears and the clients'. Another case, I was hired to mix a couple of 16-track tapes. This project was much more complicated in the arrangements, instrumentation, not to mention the fact that it was a full album. I got this whole job done in a day also because it was recorded by somebody WHO WAS DANG GOOD at it. I just brought up the faders, added a little reverb (and I mean a little), maybe -2dB of EQ on a third of the tracks, compression on the vocals and it was a done deal. I'm willing to bet that it didn't take much longer to record per song than that 8-track single either.

[sadboy]

Originally Posted by wado1942

High pass filters are meant more for hiding "oopsies", like the rumble of a nearby moving truck on a vocal track or vibrations in the mic stand, deep plosives on a ribbon mic etc. They really shouldn't be used to MAKE your tone. If you're micing instruments well, you shouldn't have to use such tools as a rule. If the instrument/voice you're capturing doesn't contain anything below 100Hz or whatever, there's really no reason to add more circuitry (read more distortion) cutting out that range is there?




Again, it's all in the mic and the room. Most choral stuff out there has absolutely ZERO processing on it.

I think you should spend some serious time learning how to record rather than fixing bad tracks later. The time you spend on your projects will be cut in half if you get what you want at the source.

Case in point, I mix a lot of projects for other people. I once spent a whole day mixing a single recorded on an 8-track reel. It still sucked because it was poorly recorded, though it was WAY better than the original mix both to my ears and the clients'. Another case, I was hired to mix a couple of 16-track tapes. This project was much more complicated in the arrangements, instrumentation, not to mention the fact that it was a full album. I got this whole job done in a day also because it was recorded by somebody WHO WAS DANG GOOD at it. I just brought up the faders, added a little reverb (and I mean a little), maybe -2dB of EQ on a third of the tracks, compression on the vocals and it was a done deal. I'm willing to bet that it didn't take much longer to record per song than that 8-track single either.

yes dude i agree with you, but my recording source is just fine it's just that am talking about the whole mix not specifically the vocal, beside, are you sure about not processing anything in the choral stuff ? not even a soften eq to push them in the back ?? i don't think so

[CJ Mastering]

are you sure about not processing anything in the choral stuff ? not even a soften eq to push them in the back ?? i don't think so

Use your ears bro. Each situation is different. I have not used the same effects and settings for anything in 25 years.

If someone is telling you not to use any effetcs, that doesnt mean anything. Exspecially whne that soemone never heard your tracks.
Use your ears......
Cj

[miro]

here's some usefull tipps to tighten up your mix:
Loudness when Producing and Mixing [Tips]

[Teddy Ray]

this thread makes me want to pull my teeth out

[dibravibra]

Originally Posted by CJ Mastering

Awesome, and the reason I explained in my other post. It takes out the unused and unwanted frequencies for each track.
For example, A vocal track doesn't need anything under 80 hz in most cases. There are some exceptions.
A guitar track can have a high pass filter set at 125Hz is some cases without effecting the sound. Each instrument doesn't need the entire frequency spectrum, so you cut
out the unwanted frequncies

I always try to avoid using HPF. Maybe sometimes in problematic, boomy accoustic guitar. Try to EQ without it. It's better to shape bottom with low shelving. Radical cuting in low frequencies leads to small mixes IMHO. And yes, good tracking, good mix!!

[Iron Man]

To the OP, sadboy:

When mixing, watch for a buildup of frequencies from 250 Hz to 600 Hz. Put an eq on your master buss, set the gain at +12 with a tight Q, and then just move this gain between the frequency range I've listed. When you find a frequency that just jumps out at you, that's the one you want to tame. Just eq'ing a narrow notch around there can pull out some mud.

Also, put a high pass filter after all of your reverbs and delays. Every one of mine has a 250 Hz HP filter.

You can send your choir to the back of the soundscape with reverb with no, or very little, predelay. You could also duck the choir under the lead vocal. Don't try to go too big or long on a hall reverb.

High pass filters can be very beneficial to some tracks. If there's any noise or something, say at 100 Hz, then you will have harmonics that will build to 200 Hz, and then to 400 Hz and into our mud zone.

Hope this helps.

[sadboy]

Originally Posted by Iron Man

To the OP, sadboy:

When mixing, watch for a buildup of frequencies from 250 Hz to 600 Hz. Put an eq on your master buss, set the gain at +12 with a tight Q, and then just move this gain between the frequency range I've listed. When you find a frequency that just jumps out at you, that's the one you want to tame. Just eq'ing a narrow notch around there can pull out some mud.

Also, put a high pass filter after all of your reverbs and delays. Every one of mine has a 250 Hz HP filter.

You can send your choir to the back of the soundscape with reverb with no, or very little, predelay. You could also duck the choir under the lead vocal. Don't try to go too big or long on a hall reverb.

High pass filters can be very beneficial to some tracks. If there's any noise or something, say at 100 Hz, then you will have harmonics that will build to 200 Hz, and then to 400 Hz and into our mud zone.

Hope this helps.

thanks bro i'll give it a try and let you know...

[wado1942]

yes dude i agree with you, but my recording source is just fine it's just that am talking about the whole mix not specifically the vocal, beside, are you sure about not processing anything in the choral stuff ? not even a soften eq to push them in the back ?? i don't think so

I was just using the vocal thing as an example. And sorry, but if your mixes are always muddy, your sources are NOT fine. As for choirs and "pushing them back", that's usually done by moving the mics farther back.


@ CJ Mastering
I'm not saying one should not use any effects. I'm just saying if he consistently has the same problems, he should look at preventing those problems, not habitually put band-aids on them.


Long story short, if you have good sources, you won't need to MAKE the sound work in post production. What's better, taking a picture that's lit the way you want or taking a really flatly lit picture and making all the contrast and shadows in Photoshop? Which takes longer? Which is more convincing?

Sorry if I sound like a jerk, but everybody was giving every suggestion possible (even giving specific settings) except the obvious one. Say that I'm in error suggesting that somebody could be recording better but somebody else saying "cut 250Hz" without hearing the tracks is fine? Even the best engineers still have room for improvement after all.

[Red Mastering]

Originally Posted by Iron Man

To the OP, sadboy:

When mixing, watch for a buildup of frequencies from 250 Hz to 600 Hz. Put an eq on your master buss, set the gain at +12 with a tight Q, and then just move this gain between the frequency range I've listed. When you find a frequency that just jumps out at you, that's the one you want to tame. Just eq'ing a narrow notch around there can pull out some mud..

i disagree....
leave masterbus for mastering process,
if you have access to solo tracks it is always better to get back to single track and tweak it, then 'play' with masterbus;

agree with divravibra - that's a better idea to use shelf filters instead of HPF

again - upload mix so we can hear it!

[CJ Mastering]

I always try to avoid using HPF. Maybe sometimes in problematic, boomy accoustic guitar. Try to EQ without it. It's better to shape bottom with low shelving. Radical cuting in low frequencies leads to small mixes IMHO. And yes, good tracking, good mix!!

Yea, you shouldnt be doing radical cutting with highpass. I do use low shelving and make it look like a high pass filter, but I dont go all the way down with the cut

@ CJ Mastering
I'm not saying one should not use any effects. I'm just saying if he consistently has the same problems, he should look at preventing those problems, not habitually put band-aids on them.

I hear you and agee with you, 110%.

[sadboy]

thank you all guys, and will try to upload an audio ASAP, and for my vocal mixing thing, the strange is that when i record a solo vox i get a great sound but when i try to mix a choral or choir which about 32 mono tracks equally panned left and right i get the muddy problem... any ideas why ?