The Amazing Top End of the Pro Mixers!

[Hardtoe]

both bold and off topic - what a brute!

[Beyersound]

Originally Posted by lucey

Accepting the givens, that everything starts with tracking quality/sound, and before that arranging, and before that the talent performing/writing....

Lesser mixers are always 'pushing' to hear things, so you get a mess of frequencies in the high mids and high end pushed by eq, plus compression, and more compression. Great mixing is hearing the whole accurately in the head of the mixer from the beginning (knowing the monitoring, and where they want to go) and cutting and boosting to sculpt the sound that works for them, and for the tracks. EQ or Compression is not a crutch but a tool, and a little or a lot is used on purpose, not as a fix.

One of my clients is Dan Auerbach who produces in a rich old school sound, exactly as you describe. Just enough top end to be clear, but a lot of meaty low mids that are not in the way of each other, and mids that speak, not scream. This starts at tracking and carries through to the equipment used, but it's really all about the ear of the mixer. Not to push a mix to sound good, but to create it by having perspective and vision from the outset.



These are (maybe) the rules for lessser eqs, but that's about it.

+1 Brian, I like the "lesser EQs" comment as well!

[u b k]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

If you had access to the true pro gear, your mixes would sound better immediately.

I recently unplugged my entire rack, all $20,000 worth, moved all my stuff out of the room, and started from ground zero with a 1/2" 8 track Tascam open reel deck, a Tascam M30 8 channel mixer, and $500 worth of mics.

I haven't finished a mix yet, but the basics sound 100x better/deeper/fatter/whatever than anything I'd ever got on the daw with a serious $$$ front and back end, and the rough working mix already pancakes any of my previous work.

So I'm going to say that, in my experience, my mixes immediately sounded better when I got access to the right gear for my working style and sonic aesthetic, and for me that not only means cheaper gear, it also means less gear.

I have yet to bring 80% of my rack back into the room. It's unclear whether I ever will.

Back on topic, IME the surest path to a clear top end is the right cut on the low mids and the right shape to the telephonic mids. From there, if anything is needed on top, it's usually way less than originally thought.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

[Fabian M]

To me the finite answer is hard work, pro ears with years of experience and proper monitoring/Room. I agree with earlier comments regarding great gear and a amateur mixer will give you some pretty harsh as well as brutally muddy on the bottom. Its a dream to get a great production, with everything in its place and it also recorded properly! Woah i fell asleep and was dreaming for a second, sorry. REality is more times than not we as mixers receive less than stellar recordings with a lot of elements stepping on each other then ultimately drowning the vocals. I get spoiled when I get a track from Tpain or Pharell and everything has a position in the production and their recording engineers (Javier Valverde and Andrew Coleman respectively) do an incredible job of getting the stuff recorded to top quality. But back to the other 60 percent of the stuff i recieve..... I think a good mix is just knowing when you are done. I add a lot of eq, I subtract a lot of eq... There is a method to the madness. But ultimately the top sounding records come in recorded properly, they are layed out properly and i can focus on mxiing them to their full potential. Then off to the mastering engineer who is equally as important as who you choose to mix. I use exclusively Brian Gardener and Vlado Meller. They are both, to IMHO the best at what they do for certain projects. But hey does it really matter when it gets dumped down to a 3Mb mp3 and blasted all over the universe.....

[JoaT]

Originally Posted by glissando

OK look, you proposed a set of two rules. I didn't.

Again that is hogwash. Additive eq is just as important as subtractive. If you don't experiment with that sometime, then you are selling yourself short. IMHO. Please take other people's opinion lightly. Find out yourself! Then you will know definitively.

And do you think I haven't found out myself? And do you think I don't use additive eq?

I never said any of that.

OP asked how to achieve the amazing top end of the Pro mixes. I provided him some food of thought. I'm certainly not trying to stipulate anything to him or to you. And as it comes to mixing, the most important rule still is "there are no rules".

But in order to get the sound to stay as natural as possible and to achieve clarity those two principles (I called them rules, silly me) generally apply.

Why are you so pissed about it? Did that somehow question your integrity as a mixer?

Consider those "rules" I posted to be something a lot of people have find useful. Myself included. If you disagree, you have every right to do so. But keep it civilized.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Ed Cherney

For me....it takes discipline...but I try to duck the bad frequencies and push the fader up. I know it's easier to just grap and boost...especially upper mids and hi freq's...but it just sounds better to me dipping and pushing the fader.

Not that anyone cares, but this is my preferred approach as well. It's one of the reasons I never got comfortable mixing without a console: I need to constantly grab two or three things at once, then another two or three things, then another, all in a 15 second span. I need one knob for every parameter, and I need them all within (relatively) easy reach.

That said, some eq's just have a certain color that can only be achieved with a boost. The 3k on a Cinema Engineering, the 10K on a Pultec, the 40k on an eq3; no cut in the world will give you what those boxes will do when boosted.

To the OP, if this seems off topic, it isn't. I can't state strongly enough how much a console with parametrics on each channel makes it easier to fine tune all your freqs in order to maximize clarity, smoothness, and balance. And while itb is making some headway, most of those big guys use big desks to get the amazing top end you're referring to.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

[glissando]

Originally Posted by JoaT

And do you think I haven't found out myself? And do you think I don't use additive eq?

I never said any of that.

OP asked how to achieve the amazing top end of the Pro mixes. I provided him some food of thought. I'm certainly not trying to stipulate anything to him or to you. And as it comes to mixing, the most important rule still is "there are no rules".

But in order to get the sound to stay as natural as possible and to achieve clarity those two principles (I called them rules, silly me) generally apply.

Why are you so pissed about it? Did that somehow question your integrity as a mixer?

Consider those "rules" I posted to be something a lot of people have find useful. Myself included. If you disagree, you have every right to do so. But keep it civilized.

I'm not sure what you do. I'm not pissed at all. It was just bad advice. people won't learn how to eq additively if they don't try to do it. There is a big place for both additive and subtractive. You obviously know that, but others don't and should be encouraged to figure it out.

[raindog]

I know it's been said already, but hi/low pass filters can do wonders for the low and high end. Lots of time you don't need the low lows and the high highs. Keep that for the few key things that need it. Seems to keep the mix from being harsh, but not dull...open top end perhaps. And of course on the other end of the spectrum, it will keep your mix from being muddy, but still have a nice, deep bottom. Also some subtle and strategic nudging out of frequencies on a certain track(s) can help make room for other tracks.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by raindog

I know it's been said already, but hi/low pass filters can do wonders for the low and high end. Lots of time you don't need the low lows and the high highs.

Shelves work great for this as well. Different mojo, equally as useful.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

[Mike Brown]

Originally Posted by u b k

Shelves work great for this as well. Different mojo, equally as useful.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

I see what you did there.

[mu6gr8]

Originally Posted by ToneRexx

Hi there!

There are here many threads about the low end but
one of the things i think is an art is how the top end and high mid Freq. range sounds so good and smooth in the mixes of the Pros.

But in the other hand seems that the vocals, gtrs and other instruments are not very bright at all !! actually some can be very neutral and even many tracks have such a GREAT DARK QUALITY that sounds open, smooth, real and warm!!!

I realized that many amateur mixes sounds harsh and overly bright compared to the Mixes of the Pros, but what intrigues me is how the Mixes of the Pros compared to the Amateur Mixes sounds much more open even if they are less bright!! how do you do that??????

I know lots have to do with Skills, Ear and Experience, but it is also because of the great quality of their gear?
I mean gear that just have such an amazing top end, resolution and clarity that with just a bit of EQ make the track sounds open, real, natural and warm? (Hardware gear?)


Can you guys can explain the tricks, techniques and considerations in order to get that great . tonal balance, smooth and natural top end.
and how do u do make a tracks to sound not so bright but yet very open, natural and real.

The simplest technique for this is to make the lead vocal sound as great (and somewhat warm & "natural") as possible, without hyping the top end. Too much sizzle on top can make the vox thin or too bright. Then mix the rest of the instruments around the vocals, making them sound like they belong together with the singer. "Sonics" are enhanced by high and low frequencies, but "music" lives in the midrange. Balancing the top & bottom with the mids will give you a natural sound, and following the vocal will keep the other instrument tones honest.

Many mastering engineers routinely crack open the top and tighten the bottom with top quality EQs. If a mix sounds a little dark, it's amazing what a difference +/- 0.5 dB of EQ can make during mastering. IHTH.

[JPeters86]

I heard the sweetest highs on this Bob Dylan record called Modern Times the other day. Mastered by Greg Calbi in 2006. I wonder how much is in the mixing and how much in the mastering. But those are some very sweet highs.

[Chrislpp]

Let's see

For a good guitar sound you need a few things...this can all be done and mapped for every instrument.

A good studio guitarist, not a kirk hammet slopping out a solo thinking if he can hit 90% of the notes in roughly as fast as possible he's amazing


New Strings----> Good quality construction (intonation, wood, neck joint) ---> Decent Pickups ----> Decent cables ----> Good amp (new t00bz) ----> Good tone, always taken for granted ---> Good Mic ----> Even better mic placement -----> another good XLR ----> Decent preamp and the gain set right -----> Good outboard for mixing later -----> Good mixing engineer ------>

All within properly treated rooms.

And 'Mozart' wonders why he can't get a killer sound with a 57 (if even real) pointed at the very outside of his 6'' speaker going into one of those cheapo adapters for a cheap soundcard and using audacity EVEN THOUGH! he uses kir hammett's excact guitar and he has the gain at 10 and the treble at 10

so folks? What is it that is gonna put that ''sheen'' on the mix? Pretty much every element and pity mozart will get ****ed into being advertised an M-Aduio fast track thinking he'll improve more.

[firby]

I am a punter here in comparison to you guys. I recently got in the habit of high pass filters on almost everything, sometimes even fighting low boost eq. I hardly ever reach for the highs to boost or cut. My mixes got another layer more detailed and alive.

Still though I love and fight the ghetto gene that I have which is to slam the bottom and compress it until it rips everything else in the mix to bass oblivion. THWHOMMMMP!

[princeplanet]

there are no rules there are no rules there are no rules........

I'm a pro mixer that has been mastering also (yes!) for 20 years. I'm good enough now that my mixes don't need much tonal shaping (yep, I've been mastered by all the top guys etc). Funny thing is, when my assistant sometimes pulls flawed mixes for some clients, with brutal mastering I am often surprised (well shocked actually) at the results that can be had. Infact, now that he is getting better, I prefer his early mixes which were horrible, but in a totally fixable way, ie, freq stratas containing elements mixed in good proportion. When you have no choice (short of remixing) you can be gung ho, extreme compression (not limiting) extreme EQ, extreme enhancers and shapers, extrem m/s processing, extreme stereo widening etc etc. The result was often more spectacular than anything that could be achieved by sensible mixing, where you dare not do more than 0.5 db of anything come to mastering. There is a certain "homogenaiety" caused by extreme mastering when it works that I could never emulate in ordinary mixing. It's an effect, even a bold statement! Successful too. Now, if you listen to "expert" opinions in recording forums, you would never ever be brave enough to try such a thing.

Follow you ears kids, just feel your way through and find someone who knows how to finish your work so it sounds compelling to the listener. In time you learn through trial and error what works and what doesn't. This is intentional provocative advice, to provide some balance in such discussions.

Oh, and did I mention, there are no rules.....

[gainreduction]

Bad room treatment is a big issue. Remember that your mix will basically be a mirror image of what you are hearing.

Example. What does the average low-budget home- or project studio look like ? Square room, low ceiling, and a shitload of foam on the walls. So exactly what will be going on in that room ? The foam will absorb most of the high frequencies while leaving the low-mids and bass building up to an uncontrollable mess.

In a room like that you will cut lows and low-mids although there might not be a need to do that (as it´s the room building up the mud and crazy subs) and you will start boosting highs like crazy to compensate for all that foam on the walls.

The mix will sound thin and overly bright because the room sounds muddy and boomy.

Today´s most odd solution for a sweeter high-end: basstrapping.

[RainbowStorm]

Originally Posted by ToneRexx

Hi there!

There are here many threads about the low end but
one of the things i think is an art is how the top end and high mid Freq. range sounds so good and smooth in the mixes of the Pros.

But in the other hand seems that the vocals, gtrs and other instruments are not very bright at all !! actually some can be very neutral and even many tracks have such a GREAT DARK QUALITY that sounds open, smooth, real and warm!!!

I realized that many amateur mixes sounds harsh and overly bright compared to the Mixes of the Pros, but what intrigues me is how the Mixes of the Pros compared to the Amateur Mixes sounds much more open even if they are less bright!! how do you do that??????

I know lots have to do with Skills, Ear and Experience, but it is also because of the great quality of their gear?
I mean gear that just have such an amazing top end, resolution and clarity that with just a bit of EQ make the track sounds open, real, natural and warm? (Hardware gear?)


Can you guys can explain the tricks, techniques and considerations in order to get that great . tonal balance, smooth and natural top end.
and how do u do make a tracks to sound not so bright but yet very open, natural and real.

This difference is derived from the difference in experience, with that comes a difference in focus and with that comes a difference in recording approach. Professionals are good at aligning the components of a recording infrastructure, because they know how to approach it. In this particular case, when we are talking about differences in frequency composition, it is mostly derived from a difference in mixing monitoring setup. Professionals use large well calibrated high quality mains with a set of well calibrated small high quality near fields in a large well calibrated high quality room. This produces a tonal landscape that amateurs cannot match. Professionals are able to do more with the volume faders which results in a better mix frequency balance.

[DavieB]

Originally Posted by ToneRexx

Hi there!

There are here many threads about the low end but
one of the things i think is an art is how the top end and high mid Freq. range sounds so good and smooth in the mixes of the Pros.

But in the other hand seems that the vocals, gtrs and other instruments are not very bright at all !! actually some can be very neutral and even many tracks have such a GREAT DARK QUALITY that sounds open, smooth, real and warm!!!

I realized that many amateur mixes sounds harsh and overly bright compared to the Mixes of the Pros, but what intrigues me is how the Mixes of the Pros compared to the Amateur Mixes sounds much more open even if they are less bright!! how do you do that??????

I know lots have to do with Skills, Ear and Experience, but it is also because of the great quality of their gear?
I mean gear that just have such an amazing top end, resolution and clarity that with just a bit of EQ make the track sounds open, real, natural and warm? (Hardware gear?)


Can you guys can explain the tricks, techniques and considerations in order to get that great . tonal balance, smooth and natural top end.
and how do u do make a tracks to sound not so bright but yet very open, natural and real.

Assuming a good mix environment this is an example of doing a mix for a rock band consisting of vocals, guitar, drums and bass. Principles apply to mixing anything.

1-Learn the instrument frequency ranges you are mixing, fundamental and harmonic before you mix.
2-Learn the keys and tempos
3-Level the tracks
4-Group the tracks by instrument and start with vocals
5-Listen to the vocal and make it sound balanced using an eq, if needed, refer to your frequency range chart for voice. What voice? Female? Then what type? Mezzo-soprano, ok now I know the frequency range that the voice has. Add some ambience to the voice to make it exist in a space, all sound has ambience when experienced in the world and to make a recording sound real you need to add ambience otherwise it doesn't sound right, so use your reverb. Listen to the vocal and make any corrections as you go, mic changes, sibilant problems etc.
6-Add the guitars to the vocals and make sure they are nice and bassy sounding they should be full and clear sounding. If they are harsh sounding then they have too much upper harmonic content so correct that by increasing the lower fundamentals of the instrument. Listen to the guitars and vocals and balance the sound so it sounds warm and clear. Add ambience to the guitars.
7-Add in the high end frequencies from the drum kit starting with the overhead and room mics. Bring them in so they are clear against the vocals and correct any sudden changes with crash, bell honks etc with automation or eq. Balance with the guitars and vocals and make sure they all sound great together. It should all sound full and clear.
8-Add in the close mic from the hi-hats so it's balanced with the rest of the cymbals and room kit sound.
9-Bring in the snare and balance with the kit, vocals and guitar. Too thin? Add some of the lower fundamentals back into the sound using an eq.
10-Bring in the lower frequency instruments starting with toms, make sure they thump but also make sure they don't sound dull against the snare, use your eq. Balance the levels with the rest of the mix.
11-Bass drum next and make sure it sounds clear and not muddy. Use your eq to correct any problems and balance it with the rest of the mix.
12-Bass guitar last; solo it with the other low end instruments and make sure it sounds clear and not muddy against the other low end instruments. The low end should sound as clear as day, if it doesn't then add some of the upper harmonic content back in. Balance the low frequency instruments with the guitars and make sure the low end and low mid range instruments sound right together, then bring the vocals back in.
13-Now listen to the whole mix again and balance it with the reverb.

Tools used for mixing are a 4band parametric eq, a reverb and a mixing desk or DAW.

Dave

[bob humid]

Originally Posted by ToneRexx

Can you guys can explain the tricks, techniques and considerations in order to get that great . tonal balance, smooth and natural top end.
and how do u do make a tracks to sound not so bright but yet very open, natural and real.

hmm. I'll try to answer by pointing my fingers at some typical "beginner's mistakes" ...

a) its not the gear, its the ear

b) the hi-hat is WAY too loud

c) the most relevant frequency range is between 1 and 5.5 KHz (stop boosting bass and treble like there is no tommorow)

d) panning an instrument does NOT make it sound dimensional. use pre-delays ( hint, hint: Silverspike - RoomMachine 844 )

e) look, the hi-hat is still too loud

f) OVERS above 0dB within a mix in your DAW are

g) okay, I lied. its the gear. get yourself a decent (linear) pair of monitors!

h) no. 16 bit / 44.1 kHz is NOT a target format for your mix-down rendering... record and render at at least 24 Bit / 44.1 kHz (always)

i) the hihat is too loud...


I might add some more as I remember them ..


good mixing,

robert

[joeq]

Originally Posted by MarkRB

Stupid "subtractive only" EQ thing. Pisses me off.

"I'd like some more top end on that snare"
"No problem, I will turn every other frequency than the one you need, down, then gain the entire signal back up to it's original level"

I have always had a sneaking suspicion that people claim they use "subtractive EQ only" in much the same way that they claim their TV watching is "only PBS" or that they read Playboy "for the articles".

I can understand how someone might be embarrassed to admit watching The Hills or ogling Miss September, but how DID Additive EQ become so déclassé?

[bob humid]

Originally Posted by joeq

I have always had a sneaking suspicion that people claim they use "subtractive EQ only" in much the same way that they claim their TV watching is "only PBS" or that they read Playboy "for the articles".

I can understand how someone might be embarrassed to admit watching The Hills or ogling Miss September, but how DID Additive EQ become so déclassé?

haha... :-)



indeed. I have never heared a single slick and kickass production from a" producer" who only dips OUT frequencies with a handkerchief around his potentiometer ...

[Beardhead]

I'm no pro mixer by any means nor have I done a ton of records like must guys here nor do I own a nice studio but I do own some top equipment and I'm very dedicated to recording and mixing. One thing I've realised that helped a lot was what was mentioned earlier: a good arrangement and balance between the instruments, the use of high and low pass filters and critically listening. The critical point seems to know what to listen for.
Claus

[lakeshorephatty]

There have been some good constructive comments by some experienced guys here with great chops. Anyone who is convinced the gear is a major factor put your ego on the sidelines and realize, it isn't.

I'm starting to get a little better at this top end thing. Its certainly not amazing and perfect but i feel I've made some good strides. Through this i've learned that there's way more to be gained in my ear than in any piece of gear.

One little tip i have to train ears on the high end is try:

Boosting the 2bus by a reasonable amount with a shelf, lets say around 5-6k so the whole top end gets brighter. Make it unnaturally bright then you will easily hear anything in your mix that is harsh. Make the harsh elements blend with the less harsh elements, then back off on the 2 bus boosting to a more natural level that works for the track. You will end up with something with a reasonable boost across all tracks and much more intelligible.

Its basically like the search and destroy method with problem freq's, except I used it to train my ears more on the high end.

Hopefully that helps, and just keep listening, as I will.

Russell

[lakeshorephatty]

Originally Posted by lakeshorephatty

There have been some good constructive comments by some experienced guys here with great chops. Anyone who is convinced the gear is a major factor put your ego on the sidelines and realize, it isn't.

I'm starting to get a little better at this top end thing. Its certainly not amazing and perfect but i feel I've made some good strides. Through this i've learned that there's way more to be gained in my ear than in any piece of gear.

One little tip i have to train ears on the high end is try:

Boosting the 2bus by a reasonable amount with a shelf, lets say around 5-6k so the whole top end gets brighter. Make it unnaturally bright then you will easily hear anything in your mix that is harsh. Make the harsh elements blend with the less harsh elements, then back off on the 2 bus boosting to a more natural level that works for the track. You will end up with something with a reasonable boost across all tracks and much more intelligible.

Its basically like the search and destroy method with problem freq's, except I used it to train my ears more on the high end.

Hopefully that helps, and just keep listening, as I will.

Russell

Something to add to that is if in the end I'm going to do a real 2 bus boost on the track I won't EVER do it with software. It just sounds wrong to me. I have one nice sounding top boost in a pair of chandler tg channels and I will use that if the whole mix needs brightness in the end.

Russell