Balancing and your approach...

[Ged Leitch]

Ok, so instead of talking about crushed CD's and multiband whatever, i'd like to discuss how everyone approaches *Balancing*

I.e - Equalization , though i know a few folk who use multibands for this (And they do really well)


Tell me your unbalanced mix horror stories and the like!

How you solved the problems etc...

Are you mainly *Correcting* or *Shaping* perhaps both ( which is what I do BTW)


Discuss please!>>>

[Darius van H]

For me it's just a question of communication - from the client - to the end listener.

[robot gigante]

The way I always think when I'm mastering is getting rid of crap that's getting in the way of the hearing elements in the mix and bringing stuff out that helps you hear the mix better... I guess that means 'correcting' and 'shaping,' I don't know. Most of the time it's EQ and compression to achieve this, maybe a titch of the HEDD process.

Thank goodness, no real horror stories.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Ged Leitch

Ok, so instead of talking about crushed CD's and multiband whatever, i'd like to discuss how everyone approaches *Balancing*

I.e - Equalization , though i know a few folk who use multibands for this (And they do really well)


Tell me your unbalanced mix horror stories and the like!

How you solved the problems etc...

Are you mainly *Correcting* or *Shaping* perhaps both ( which is what I do BTW)


Discuss please!>>>

Hmmmm.... the horror, the horror.... I think it would be fun to talk about the tricks that we could not do 10-15 years ago. It is important to say would probably sound better if we could return the mix to the mix engineer for a remix. But nevertheless, when a remix is not possible or practical, we have some clever ways of...

Rebalancing bass drum versus bass instrument to some degree

Restoring presence and high end to an old, worn analog tape while simultaneously controlling a harsh-sounding vocalist!

Simultaneously warming up AND giving presence to a mix that needs both!

Next chance I have to post I'll talk about some of the methods I've used for these "eq tricks".

[dcollins]

Bright track, dark vocal.
Bright vocal, dark track.

Probably the toughest things to deal with.

DC

[Jerry Tubb]

Originally Posted by Ged Leitch

Are you mainly *Correcting* or *Shaping* perhaps both ( which is what I do BTW)

Hello Ged -

I tend to go for Correcting (notching) problem (overly resonant) freqs first, possibly these:

Giant Lows @ 50 or 73Hz, HPF @ 21Hz, or whatever is needed.
Boomy upper bass @ 120-180Hz
Muddy lo-mid @ 240Hz
Honky vocal mids @ 620Hz
Edgy guitars & vocals @ 2.8k
Harsh hi-hats & tambourines @ 7-8k
Vocal sibilance @ 6-10k (use a de-esser here)

usually EQ these pre-compression, maybe even pre-DAC.

Then Additive or "Shaping" EQ possibly these:

add a little air @ 21k bell
a touch of presence @ 3-4k
some vocal warmth @ 350 or 420Hz
a bit of punch @ 62 or 90Hz

sometimes pre-comp, sometimes post-comp... whatever the music requires.

Also tend to use tighter Qs for corrective (esp mid EQ) cuts (except for LF roll-off),

Wider Qs for Shaping EQ.

I think that's what you're asking for Ged, of course these freqs are just general examples, may or may not apply to any given situation (insert standard disclaimer here).

About a year ago I posted a similar thread on BBs forum: "EQ: Boost more -or- Cut more ?", got some really intestesting replies, some parodying the query, & eventually the thread devolved into a discussion of "what kind of car do you drive" & lug nut installation.

But Mike Fossenkemper really grokked it with:

"I think it's more of a question of how you hear something. some people listen to something and say to themselves, I think it needs more of this or that. Others listen and think it needs less of this or that. "

I tend to Cut problem freqs first for Correction, and then Boost or "fill in the holes" for Shaping and Enhancement.

Cheers JT

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by dcollins

Bright track, dark vocal.
Bright vocal, dark track.

Probably the toughest things to deal with.

DC

I thoroughly agree. And many solutions are bandaids, but here are a couple of things I've done with some success. Again, I've communicated with the producer first and a remix was not possible:

M/S EQ... I think that's the first thing that mastering engineers would turn to in that situation. If the snare drum is right down the center, though, it can be a conflict, in which case it's possible to turn to....

A compressor on the M channel band limited to handle either the snare or the vocal, depending on the goal.

The way I handled the track that needed high end but also contained a harsh, slightly distorted vocal was to find a "sweet spot" in the Weiss DS1-Mk2 that miraculously (literally) picked on the vocal without much touching the track. It was a very powerful solution, you could listen to and watch the Weiss picking on those harsh vocal peaks while the brass, percussion and keys were clear and open. Attack and release on the Weiss were critical. Momentary gain reduction in the Weiss on some peaks in the song was a much as 3 dB, yet it did not produce any artifacts; it helps that I had it working in about a 1 octave band around 4-5 kHz. The EQ was in front of the Weiss, I honestly did not experiment with the reverse, and it would be worth a try (in my copious free time :-) to see which order of patch is the most effective. And I didn't use any MS manipulation at all!

I've used similar "tricks" to control sharp, bright percussion that needed control while still being able to brighten the rest of the track. In the old days of LP, the acceleration limiter could be used to "sweeten" the vocal or control sibilance with "minimal" effect on the track. Today, with the Weiss dS1-Mk2, the ability of the device to be "surgical" in the midst of a complex track has to be heard to be believed.

[cerberus]

i don't find many "sweet spots" on my tools when mastering, the "sweet spots" for me are found entirely in the music, i use the tools to find them, and act on them... the magic setting is never the same for every song. i locate ugly elements and miniminze them likewise with the same tools. so any "sweet spots" don't seem to be on the tools.
i like my tools, but the correctness i try to achieve in mastering is obviously not coming from them. (except for when i've been using renbass lately; technically, it is a synthesis process).

i'm more interested in exploring how to control phase rotation at the moment and reluctant to use a dedicated eq in mastering, only lately as a last resort. dedicated eq has not always gotten me "to the church on time[alignment]". when i try, often there's lots of collateral damage to fix... can become a "circular" or recursive process, like a quagmire for me.

i am comfortable with my tools, but every one of them is a filter. it's really the mix engineer's job to balance their mix...i've usually got my hands full trying to preserve it since every process i might use also does some filtering. i'd rather not mess with the idea of changing the mix eq direclty with an eq "move" if i don't think i absolutely need to. and then i'll print the eq process in reverse to satisfy my desire not to smear transients futher in the same direction, which is an effect of i.i.r. eq.

could we talk about phase rotation more? i think the little labs box may be inappropriate for mastering, but it's the only thing out there that seems dedicated to the task; mix engineers claim it is very powerful and effective.

jeff dinces

[Ged Leitch]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Next chance I have to post I'll talk about some of the methods I've used for these "eq tricks".

please do Bob, look forward to it!


Ged.

[stellar]

Originally Posted by cerberus

. and then i'll print the eq process in reverse to satisfy my desire not to smear transients futher in the same direction, which is an effect of i.i.r. eq.

i think you just blew my mind.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by cerberus

i'm more interested in exploring how to control phase rotation at the moment and reluctant to use a dedicated eq in mastering, only lately as a last resort. dedicated eq has not always gotten me "to the church on time[alignment]". when i try, often there's lots of collateral damage to fix... can become a "circular" or recursive process, like a quagmire for me.

Imo, you should never worry about phase-shift (rotation is actually something different) in equalisers. Not an issue.

Part of what we like about analog eq IS the phase-shift, but for some reason (The Internot) it has become something to avoid.....


DC

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Jerry Tubb

I tend to Cut problem freqs first for Correction, and then Boost or "fill in the holes" for Shaping and Enhancement.

Cheers JT

Me too ...

[Ged Leitch]

Originally Posted by dcollins

Imo, you should never worry about phase-shift (rotation is actually something different) in equalisers. Not an issue.

Part of what we like about analog eq IS the phase-shift, but for some reason (The Internot) it has become something to avoid.....


DC

Hi Dave,

Regarding Phase shift for a sec...

I assume that the *Good* phase shift can only be found in the High end Mastering grade Analog EQ's?

To my ears,
the reason I normally use the FIR mode on the PLP EQ is because
minimum phase in a digital (Plugin) EQ just does not sound so good.

I've probably opened up a can o' worms now!!!

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Ged Leitch

Hi Dave,

Regarding Phase shift for a sec...

I assume that the *Good* phase shift can only be found in the High end Mastering grade Analog EQ's?

In all analog EQ's, if the curves are the same, the phase-shift has to be the same.

You won't see that in EQ magazine!

DC

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by dcollins

In all analog EQ's, if the curves are the same, the phase-shift has to be the same.

You won't see that in EQ magazine!

DC

The curves are mostly not the same, regardless of markings, and other colorations (distortions) come into play as well. This is why we like one better than another, but as DC has observed often, to create the same EQ curve requires the same phase shift.

Often the EQs we like best are the ones that do what we expect them to when we turn the knobs. The designer has to create curves and behavior that we like. Two EQs may technically be just as high quality, but one we may feel sounds sweet, and one not so sweet, based on things not related to high quality components, good power supplies, and low distortion.

[cerberus]

is it correct that phase shift = delay short enough that it is perceived in the frequency domain? i tend to assume from observation that using too much eq can accumulate these delays, eventually it shows up in the time domain as smearing.

an aspect of eq's sound that was not discussed which is somewhat mysterious to me are side lobe resonances... are these the same for every curve? my observation is perhaps there are ways of minimizing them, or perhaps we like pultecs becuase they tend to be so dirty this way, but it works well on music? jay didn't raise whether side band resonance is important to the individual color of an eq.

phase rotators are said to be made with banks of all-pass filters...but i have a hard time understanding how a filter that passes "all frequencies" is a filter at all. are transformers considered all-pass filters? i've seen transfer functions made from line transformers. they look like filters, or combinations of filters...more or less flattish in the middle but not exactly...and with roll off at both ends. isn't that a band-pass filter? in a digital system, by the time we get to up the nyquist freq: nothing there. so every curve has to roll off before that, how could any be "all-pass"?


jeff dinces