Making Everything Sound Up-Front and Present?

[DarkEcho]

I have been trying to mix with an attitude of, "I will make the most important instrument the loudest, then as their priority decreases, I will simply lower the levels of the rest of the instruments so they go 'behind' the higher in the chain of hierarchy". But what I end up with is a lame sounding mix where, yes, you can hear everything, but it sounds staggered and mostly distant and.... just not "right".

I listen to some commercial stuff and everything is up front and audible, as if every instrument is the same relative volume, but still somehow not stepping on eachother.

A) Is it typical to have most of the elements in the mix be roughly the same SPL?

B) Is volume more an effect than a way to let a crowded mix breathe? In other words, Should I stop using the fader instead of the EQ?


Maybe if I scooped and boosted more, I could have everything relatively the same volume (unless for effect) and not masking.....?

[Mayor999]

Level is very important of course... however EQ (and compression) is a lot of the magic behind everything being up front. The most important aspect of it is arrangement.

You really need to find a place frequency wise for everything to shine...

EX: For me the Kick is usually occupying the bottom with the bass tucked between the low end of the kick and the "click"...

This is where arrangement really comes into play. You don't want instruments to be occupying the same frequency "space"... this sounds like they are "fighting" for prominence.

Take a RTA plug (such as the free Rodger Nichols Inspector) and import your favorite songs to a session and look at the frequency make up of those songs... Then expierament with trying to EQ your mixes to get a similar picture.

Filters are super handy in this regard.... I tend to do a lot of my filtering when tracking and then some more severe filtering when mixing.



(If you are having problems with the low end of your mix, throw a EQ on the buss and high pass above 30 hertz... its amazing how much this helps out sometimes).

[DarkEcho]

I am still curious if the apparent loudness of most of the instruments is generally equal.. it sure seems like it to me, maybe with a bit more dB on vocals or the solo, but generally speaking.

I guess I'll have to get the Linear Phase EQ out and start hacking away, maybe hi-pass everything that doesnt need to be in the bottom end, maybe even hack away everything that doesnt need to be there...

[Sunim Koria]

I reckon it's a combination of EQ and the appropriate use of dynamics, the former usually being the most important. I usually prep my mixes with EQ on everything first - I'm not afraid of being brutal with it if I have to be. I try to reach the point where I can push and pull anything by +/-12dB from its optimal level and still end up with a decent and clear sounding mix. Most of the work is done here, and I can usually direct the mix wherever I want it to go with the levelling, compression, automation etc.

SK

[ryanojohn]

the fader level and intensity is of course important, but the EQ is what allows sounds to sit TOGETHER and not on top of one another. As previously suggested, try using an RTA like Roger Nichols Inspector and take a look at what an instrument is doing.

For example you might notice that guitars cover a wide range from 60Hz all the way up to about 16kHz. That often just steps on other aspects of your mix if you make it 'huge and up front.' In said example I might end up low passing at maybe 12kHz with a shallow slope, to leave space for cymbals, high pass at maybe 100Hz to leave space for the bass and kick. Possibly even a notch at 1.2kHz ish to make some space for the vocals. Doing any EQ in this manner is relative to the frequency content of what you DO want to take up that space... Meaning if you've got vocals and guitars, if you cut something out of the guitars to leave space for the vocals you can likely boost that same frequency in the vocals.

Arrangement is key though, often in a mix one might think that everything is up front all the time, but there is almost always a lot of automation to make you notice parts here and there, and once you've noticed a part, it's easier to hold on to that part mentally.

Use your ears and not just an RTA, but the RTA is a good tool to use if you need it... best wishes

[ryanojohn]

another thing you can do is compress the master to oblivion... usually makes everything one dimensional and suuuuuuuper in your face...

but that only works with a decent mix already. and i wouldn't recommend it anyways...

[DarkEcho]

Thanks Ryan,

I did throw compression over the master to see what it sounded like, and you are right, it brought everything forward very well, but now there is no punch after my swells/crescendos an the transients of the drums seem to have been lost a bit. sound pretty typical of overcompressed material?

maybe I should just back it off a little..


Also- Logic's EQs have a built in RTA, can I just use that? I often do look at it to see if there is any low end build up that I should be aware of.

I think the arrangment is pretty good, I mean, i've heard some pretty crowded arrangments come out sounding good, so I know what I have isnt too cluttered, though a bit. I dont feel artistically comfortable with removing any of the parts, i've already been very minimalistic in that regard.

Thanks!

[ryanojohn]

Yea, compression is one of those dark mysteries that takes a while to get figured out. If you slow your attack time to about 30ms, the transients should still get through, and it should keep some of it's punch. Although you are also very possibly over-compressing... but hell isn't that the new sound these days?

The RTA in logic EQs will be fine. Just use them to get an idea of what is important in each instrument, and use that information to your advantage when mixing... potentially informing you of what you CAN cut out of a track that isn't necessary...

You don't need to change the arrangement, you just need to automate to make certain things the focus of the moment etc...

[DarkEcho]

Automation... that's the next dark mystery after compression!!!

[amishsixstringe]

Try using a really fast limiter (L-1 or 1176, TLA-100 (summit)) and hitting the tracks that seem to be getting stepped on. Don't be afraid to hit the limiter -10dB if you need to. Limiters are much more transparent (if you set them right) than compression. AFTER the limiter, hit the eq and compression for envelope shaping. That is how the IN YOUR FACE everything is right up front mix is done. Also, scooping the mids brings things forward. NO REVERB!


Good luck.


Neil

[Sigma]

3 khz

[sage691]

Have you sent off one of your mixes to a good "in yo face" type mastering engineer ? If not, then you might be suprised at how much the stuff that seems background-ish now will sound afterwards.

If you compare your stuff to commercial CDs that have been mastered in this fashion, then your stuff will definitely sound quite lame by comparison. Even if you smash it to death with a plugin you won't get the same effect.

[Benmrx]

Originally Posted by Sigma

3 khz

beat me to it.

[warhead]

Sometimes -20 or -30dB of limiting / compression can do the trick...!

LA3A would go a ways towards up front sound...

War

[Mr.HOLMES]

I mean talking about such a topic is very difficult and the term "everything up front" irritates me a lot because not everything can be up front. Thats a main part balacing the sound.

As others wrote here it has to do with EQ a lot most beginners tend to boost with EQ and forget about this that cutting with the EQ would bring wanted frequencies up too without getting too hot on the mix bus.

Only practice will bring you to you there .....

[Sk106]

Creating the illusion of distance and space requires more than lowering of volume. I've just been going through this process myself, and you need to eq and reverberate accordingly (and more), or else our ears won't approve of it. Our ears a veritable masters at picking up errors in direction and space.

The commercial stuff on the other hand, is not interested in spacing or realism. It's is deliberatly done to make everything a thick and saturated sweetened chocolate sauce. If you solo anyone of those tracks, you'll usually find it sound surprisingly bad, many times downright awful. To be able to croud it up like that you focus on the whole, and not the parts. My way for this is to mix while listening to all (or most) tracks at once and simply tweak the EQs to make each track fit into what I got at the moment. I gotta be careful not to solo any single tracks though, because if I do ... yuck.

I wouldn't say that a commercial mix rests upon using comparable SPL levels for most tracks - although it sounds like that - but rather to chisel things out for one another to become a whole. It sounds to me like you have been attempting the opposite, creating a more realistic room experience where individual parts forms the whole, rather than forming a whole out of raw parts. It's 2 different approaches, used for two different end goals.

[thethrillfactor]

You need to learn how to maximize micro enhancement, not just macro.

Micro enhancement includes, compression,hyper compression, parallel and serial compression. Same for EQing both individual, serial and parallel. Next is the right effect choices & combinations. Sometimes you have to EQ the sends and returns. Finish it off with micro automation moves both individual and master fader.

The Macro stuff is added as a whole to hopefully tie the sound together and give it the so called "finished" mixed sound.

[PlugHead]

Just make everything louder than everything else!

Honestly, as War and maybe a couple others mentioned, try hard limiting: that method most def. can make things sound very aggressive, even if they are not THE loudest instruments in the mix.

Otherwise, compress every single channel into oblivion, strap a 2bus comp set to NUKE, then master it with an L1 set to obliterate - that should quickly get it to sound close to most everything currently on rock radio.

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

You need to learn how to maximize micro enhancement, not just macro.

Micro enhancement includes, compression,hyper compression, parallel and serial compression. Same for EQing both individual, serial and parallel. Next is the right effect choices & combinations. Sometimes you have to EQ the sends and returns. Finish it off with micro automation moves both individual and master fader.

The Macro stuff is added as a whole to hopefully tie the sound together and give it the so called "finished" mixed sound.

the macro-micro idea is a good metaphor. i use different speakers to see the big/small picture because it forces the issue.

what i tend to do is pull the faders up, listen for the 4 most important sounds, and base all mix decisions on humans not being able to distinguish more than 4 things at a time.

so if the handclaps are stepping all over the vocal i'll roll off some of the top end on the claps, put a peak somewhere in the mids underneath the peak freq of the vocal, and make a hole so the vox can peak thru.

its all really about finding out what's stepping on the important sounds and twisting them around till they stop fighting for space.... if you continue this process thru a mix starting from the highest priority sounds and working down to the lowest then things tend to fall into place....

i also tend to pan sounds either hard right, hard left, or centered... and use reverb and delays to fill in the spaces... for some reason this seems to make everything sound more focused and coherent.

i also tend to use analog outboard in order to make things sound bigger or smaller... if you need to "shrink" a sound, send it thru a cheap fx processor like a zoom... if you want it to be huge, use the eventide... etc. this also works with mic preamps, compressors, EQs..

the other thing is that most instrument sounds dont have much content over 6-7k... because this is where the vocal will "grab" attention.. the sibilance freq... i always try to have the instruments sit "underneath" this freq... with the exception of drum OHs.. which always sit above...

on the low end there really isnt much going on in a mix under 200Hz except the kick/bass... so i'll use HP filters to clear space here.

i could go on and on about this stuff...

[u b k]

OP, is there any chance you'll ever just pay a few hundred quid to go into a studio with a talented engineer and watch him work for a day or two on your tracks?

it'll change everything for you. all these questions, all this struggle; it might seem like a meritorious fight, but i guarantee you it's a lot more enjoyable to just get on with the business of mixing songs than it is trying to parse the aramaic text of the bible one symbol at a time.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[FreshSkweez]

I had to go through a similar phase a while ago when I moved to a country where mastering was considered just another stage of mixing. And I had to re-think my entire workflow so that my clients get not only a loud but a 'mastered' track ready to be printed. I was all about THE FADER as my main tool before that happened but that doesn't seem to cut it nowadays.

The short answer is:
1. Master Bus Compression and/or limiting
2. Parallel compression

The more duties you put on one compressor the more audible its work's gonna be. Spread it across a parallel comp, master comp and master limiter and chances are it's gonna sound a whole lot better (more natural) than the kid-next-door using L1 to smash the living crap out of the music.

(I still try and get a perfect dynamic mix before I get into this utter destruction - I gotta get my fun outta the whole thing at some point, right? )

[Unclenny]

Choose the elements that you want to be up front and back the others off.

I like to use stereo delays to create that space.

[allencollins]

Up-Front and Present is all about mic placement more than anything. Turning up mic's that were shot at a distance is not going to sound 'in yo face'. Eq won't really do it though you can try it. It all depends on how everthing was tracked. Limiting/expanding/comp can help.

Up-Front and Present can also be 'Up-Front, Present and offensive' if things were tracked poorly. So be careful.

'But Up-Front and Present is subjective'. What do you consider up front? cite an example?

[TurboJets]

Originally Posted by allencollins

Up-Front and Present is all about mic placement more than anything.

+1 on this.

Capture all the mids you can in the tracking phase.

Arrangement should be thought out ahead of time so instruments aren't fight each other for space on your canvass.

And use minimal minimal minimal minimal processing when mixing.

Of course, this mostly applies to acoustic/electric music, not electronic styles.

[Sigma]

eq, reverb, and placement creates depth of field in a mix..everything "up front" like stated before is kinda 1 dimensional and irritating..maybe it's semantics that 's why i said 3 khz in mastering pushes the agressivness of a mix..

just listent bob ludwigs stuff

[Chrisc_o]

Lots of good advice here, but I would ask to hear a clip of your mix before getting too specific on solutions.

[ryanojohn]

Basically... the answer is 'years of practice...'

[u b k]

Originally Posted by ryanojohn

Basically... the answer is 'years of practice...'

with the caveat that it's gotta be the right *kind* of practice.

that's where mentors and teachers come in; yeah, they teach you 'stuff', but mostly they teach you how and what to practice.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[amishsixstringe]

Originally Posted by u b k

with the caveat that it's gotta be the right *kind* of practice.