Adding "air" to make your mixes sound more "open"

[obscure object]

If you have some kind of a spectral/frequency analyzer, play you favourite classic recording thru it, and you will find that in most cases the hi's (12k and above) are not even as loud as 12k and below. nevertheless, you will find that it's airy and just fine.

MHO is that this "air" problem exists only because of the redicolous compression/limiting procedures related to modern mixing/mastering, procedures that won't allow the music to breath but instead suck the air out of it. Just be gentle with your compression, leave some healthy dynamic range and let it breath, and air won't be sucked out of it (hopefully!)

[dbbubba]

Nice idea and theory, but not the case.

My mixes are far from having modern mondo compression, yet the benefit from being run througha friend's GML8200 occasionally.

For rock stuff I prefer a Neve 33609j after it.

There is plenty of dynamic range, so over-compression ain't cause.

[obscure object]

I'm not against using high-end eq's (if they're available ), I meant to address the original poster who's mixing ITB. My guess is that he's also trying to DIY master his recordings or at least bring the levels up to 'modern' standards.

I wish I had a GML or a Neve

[u b k]

my experience is that only one or two elements need to have air in order for the whole mix to sound like it has air. vocals are usually one, drums/perc the other. but you can lay airy vocals on a dark mix and it sounds cool; witness seal's entire human being record, or the first portishead joint.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Empire Prod]

It's really common to boost "air" freq to compensate for HF loss when using a 384 on the 2buss.

[Ciozzi]

I've tried to eq my mixes several times but I always had more troubles than benefits, plus given today mic brightness I usually wish to have less air instead. The real questions is...as a mixing engineer why should I eq the master when I can intervene on single tracks ?

[AllAboutTone]

An open sounding airy mix or track for me comes from only one source !!! And thats nothing but the preamp that you are using, Some of the Studer preamps are the most open/air pre that i have ever heard, unlike preamps like a s20 or a Chandler germ does not open up and has no air. Alot of times i will run a master mix thru a 089 to open it up more if i need it and get all the air i ever wanted, sometimes way too much. IMO

[Jules]

Originally Posted by Empire Prod

People have been boosting HF to add "air" to mixes for years. The GML 8200 is very popular for this.

The GML option for the Sony eq plug in is no slouch either... (works well)

[streetbeats]

Originally Posted by fondone

but I thought we, as a human race, could only hear up to 20khz why would any manufacturer care about frequencies above this?

thanks for answering.

harmonic overtones?

[river]

do have to add that recently (i.e. a week ago), I did add some low end (mastering-wise). I added some shelving at 100 Hz (about 2 dB).

Lots of sonic garbage to be found down there, and it eats up tons of headroom. If you have a copy of the premastered mix, try a high pass at 30Hz and 12 db/octave, and if you need some extra bottom, a really tight Q boost at the frequency of your choice (sweep to find the sweet spot), and a lesser boost with moderate Q at 3x the sweet spot. As mentioned previously, low mid buildup is a source of mud as well. Don't forget to consider reverb as a source for this, you might want to EQ reverb envelopes to cut some of this out. I've also found that the total EQ component in a mix can cause enough phase issues that it adds a gauze like layer to it (why i never print EQ when tracking). I discovered it the first time I ran a mix through a linear phase EQ, without even cutting or boosting any frequencies. It was like Windex.

[Rockman]

Once again, thanks for all the replies guys. That's a lot of valuable advice. I'm still working on my problem, and unfortunately, I have very limited tools to work with (i.e. Waves Renn plugs). On the other hand, I also have the original mix sessions as well, so I can change anything I want to in the mix. However, I'm reluctant to do that, because I don't want to mess with the balance, especially with the low end, which in turn, will undoubtedly have an effect on the Waves Renn compressor plug that I have on the master fader. If I feel my mix is lacking bass in general, and I mess with my bass guitar and kick levels, that will mess with my 2-bus compression, and everything will fall out of place, balance-wise. Right?

That's why I was hoping to solve this issue with "mastering eq" (post 2-bus compression), as opposed to a mix tweak.

It could also be that I have a general misunderstanding of the word "air" when used in this context. I was referring to a general "muffled" sound in my mixes, which could simply mean that there weren't quite enough high mids, as well as highs (frequency balance-wise). Meaning, it didn't quite cut through, presence-wise. In the past, I always had a tendency to have too much high mids, which as you know, can be quite harsh sounding. So eventually, I tamed them quite a bit.... and it could be that I simply went too far in that respect, causing my mixes to sound very "closed" and "muffled".

By the way, I'm talking minimal amounts here. 1 dB or so. But on a mastering level, I think it makes quite a difference.

Also, in regard to me boosting 100 Hz (shelving), River, you mentioned the risk of boosting too much "sonic garbage" there. That's a good point. I don't know if this makes a difference, but in the mix process, I filtered out the lows on just about all my tracks, except for kick and bass (usually around 150 Hz, sometimes up to 200 Hz or even higher). Do you think that would minimize my risk of causing too much "sonic garbage" in the lows, when boosting 100 Hz shelving?

Hope that makes sense.

[river]

However, I'm reluctant to do that, because I don't want to mess with the balance, especially with the low end, which in turn, will undoubtedly have an effect on the Waves Renn compressor plug that I have on the master fader.

You can always apply any changes and use "Save As" to capture the modified mix without changing your original mix. Just rename the "Save As" version. Honestly, if you high pass at 30 Hz, you shouldn't notice it sucking away any existing bottom from the mix, just making it tighter. I usually high pass kick, bass, any other tracks with significant low end content also (a gain stage management technique, since digital bandwidth goes down to 5Hz...you can't hear it, but it's there and eating up headroom), but you can get subharmonics building up between all the low end stuff in a mix, so it will help to high pass the main mix buss. Also, try applying the high pass pre and post fx to see which sits better. BTW, I usually use RenComp for main mix glue, if I'm going to use one at all. I use the "Kneeless Opto" preset, set the ratio to 1.05, no gain, threshold somewhere slightly above my main fader level, which is typically -4dB.

[Rockman]

Originally Posted by river

You can always apply any changes and use "Save As" to capture the modified mix without changing your original mix. Just rename the "Save As" version. Honestly, if you high pass at 30 Hz, you shouldn't notice it sucking away any existing bottom from the mix, just making it tighter. I usually high pass kick, bass, any other tracks with significant low end content also, but you can get subharmonics building up between all the low end stuff in a mix, so it will help to high pass the main mix buss. Also, try applying the high pass pre and post fx to see which sits better. BTW, I usually use RenComp for main mix glue, if I'm going to use one at all. I use the "Kneeless Opto" preset, set the ratio to 1.05, no gain, threshold somewhere slightly above my main fader level, which is typically -4dB.

Thanks River. I forgot to mention that I already do use a HP filter on the 2 bus. I usually set it between 30 Hz and 40 Hz. That's on the mix session itself. I then saved the 24 bit file, and imported it to a new Pro Tools session (for mastering). That's where I boosted 100 Hz (shelf) to the entire mix.

[Bob Olhsson]

FWIW my experience has been that "air" eq. is lots more effective when there is tape hiss present.

[NathanEldred]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

FWIW my experience has been that "air" eq. is lots more effective when there is tape hiss present.

Bob, I've got a question for you. In your 40+ year career, have you ever added 10k or 12k to a stereo mix (in mastering or mix two bus)? This is not a rhetorical question either.... :-)

[river]

Just curious, what size is your control room/mix location? Is it treated? Bass traps, side absorption?

[Rockman]

Originally Posted by river

Just curious, what size is your control room/mix location? Is it treated? Bass traps, side absorption?

Is that question for me? (original poster?) God I don't know. My entire studio is basically my living room. Carpeted floor. About 14 ft by 11 ft ... and the ceiling is 8 ft. It's basic drywall (as in most apartments). But I got tons of auralex all over the walls. And when I record, I use additional hanging blankets... . plus an additional thick auralex wall which I place directly behind the artist (be it recording acoustic guitar or vocals).

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by streetbeats

harmonic overtones?

subharmonics to be precise

the 20 k you don't hear subs down to 10, 5, etc etc..which you do

[robot gigante]

Originally Posted by peeder

I would suspect that what's going on with the >20K bell boosts has to do with a subsequent interaction with the AD converter's filter. (Or a later SRC filter.)

Those boosts are going to be revealing everything about that filter, especially, I suspect, aliasing distortion. That aliasing distortion might be providing some dynamic sheen way up there that the listeners are sensing and interpreting as open airy top. Because most things at that frequency approximate white noise anyway, the aliasing distortion might not sound particularly nasty, and you're just getting your highs doubled-up under the filter that is already clamping down on them.

You can boost that high with some software EQ's (Massenburg MDW for example, probably the only plugin I'd use across an entire mix anyway) and you get the same air effect.

So I doubt your theory.

Back to the original topic, those ultra-high boosts are great, 40k on the air band on a Nightpro EQ for example can be super sweet. It really depends on the song and on the EQ. I still think that dialing in the mids first is the way to go, once those are super clear then the air frequencies are just icing on the cake.

I agree and disagree with Jim Williams' post about capturing the source air- I think that he is right that it all comes from how the source is captured, but from what I have gotten to mix at least I think that the problem is that people aren't getting enough definition in the mids, esp. the low mids, which muddies up everything and makes the mix sound like it has no air. If I get a track that has well defined mids from the low mids to the high mids, I have little problems boosting the highs and getting a good sound. Those of us that sometimes use darker pre's that have great midrange know that they most usually take EQ really well, especially when boosting highs. So I think that when there's a problem, it's more due to pilot error than to gear trends, even if I mostly do agree with what he's saying.

[u b k]

But I got tons of auralex all over the walls. And when I record, I use additional hanging blankets... . plus an additional thick auralex wall which I place directly behind the artist (be it recording acoustic guitar or vocals).

your space is too dead, your source tracks likely have no air to begin with, as was already suggested by a few people. lose the foam, put up some 703 traps.

you can't capture and reproduce air if your walls are absorbing all of it.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

When you heard the instruments in the recording room and the voice before it was recorded, they had plenty of natural air. Just like an acoustic group, there is lot's of natural air from these sources.

The problem is you didn't capture it.

No suprise, considering the plethera of color boxes, preamps, transformers, etc. now in style used to record with.

I consider most of them low pass filters. They suck out the natural air. Then you are left with trying to "recover" it even though it's now gone.

So instead of having natural air, you try to recreate it electronically.

That will never work as well as having not lost it in the first place. A simulation is never as satisfing as the real thing.

Then again, some do like their plastic blow up dolls....

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Originally Posted by u b k

your space is too dead, your source tracks likely have no air to begin with, as was already suggested by a few people. lose the foam, put up some 703 traps.

you can't capture and reproduce air if your walls are absorbing all of it.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

Great answers. And I think the most important element has nothing to do with equipment at all, you add air by having the proper arrangement. That is what does/doesn't leave room for any of the elements of the mix to breath. A lot of modern music to my ears, along with choking all the life out of the dynamics, also chokes out all the air with too dense arrangements.

[river]

Ain't nothing like real air. I count my blessings that my tracking space is decent size, cathedral ceilings, hardwood floors, lots of diffusion. I agree with ubk, lose the auralex. Nothing to be done about the static ceiling height, so put some 703 traps on it. Also, some slatted diffusers on the walls to eat up flutter echo. Wood shutters are a cheap, ad lib approach.

[dbbubba]

Which is the original poster asking about.

"Air" as in ultra-high EQ boosting or "air" because of "space" in an in-crowded mix which is the result of MANy factors?

You guys are describing two different things.

Yeah, yeah, I know that adding "air" can give the illusion of space.
Don't explain how they are the same or influence each other.

[robot gigante]

Originally Posted by Rockman

Thanks for all the replies guys. Hmm, I guess I"m gonna have to experiment a little. It's weird. For a while now (the past couple of months), I thought my mixes sounded decent... but all of a sudden, they started sounding a bit "closed" overall.. or muffled. Hard to explain. It's not over-compression (I don't think). It's more a frequency thing (once again, I think).

This is the problem he is dealing with...

[sonicdefault]

I've learned not to jump into a thread and post too quickly, and it's a good thing because everything I wanted to say has already been said! I think this thread is a shining example of GS at its best. I love you guys! Keep up the good work!


-SD

[dbbubba]

OK, then "a frequency thing" means EQ.
I was just wondering how the replies got on the topic of what his room sounded like.

They can kinda' go hand in hand, I guess.

[Rockman]

Originally Posted by u b k

your space is too dead, your source tracks likely have no air to begin with, as was already suggested by a few people. lose the foam, put up some 703 traps.

you can't capture and reproduce air if your walls are absorbing all of it.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

I put the foam up to avoid the nasty slapback echo (parallel walls). I'm very limited in my rented condo apartment. Only so much I can do. I figure that since my room sounds horrible, the best I could do is to make it as dead as possible, and then try to simulate a bit of ambience with my Lexicon 300. Also, I have to add that the only things I record "live" are vocals, acoustic guitar and elec guitar. Everything else is samples and synths. I obviously could not get away with recording a live band in my place (even if I had more room).

Originally Posted by dbbubba

Which is the original poster asking about.

"Air" as in ultra-high EQ boosting or "air" because of "space" in an in-crowded mix which is the result of MANy factors?

You guys are describing two different things.

Yeah, yeah, I know that adding "air" can give the illusion of space.
Don't explain how they are the same or influence each other.

Yes, I think I was referring to a frequency thing... but then again, I'm still learning about all this "air" stuff.

Originally Posted by dbbubba

OK, then "a frequency thing" means EQ.
I was just wondering how the replies got on the topic of what his room sounded like.

They can kinda' go hand in hand, I guess.

I guess these topics can sometimes lead to other related topics...

Thanks to everyone for all your input.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by NathanEldred

Bob, I've got a question for you. In your 40+ year career, have you ever added 10k or 12k to a stereo mix (in mast