The Amazing Top End of the Pro Mixers!

[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.

[dhiltonlittle]

professionally tracked sessions, good ears, good gear, good room, experience, and proper mastering.

[JoaT]

As far as I understand, there's two general rules to follow with eq:

1. Use as little as possible
2. Always cut rather than boost

With these, you can make the best out of a lesser board too.

[MarkRB]

Great gear can help but arrangement (I know, boring answer, sorry) is the crucial part to a great open sounding mix.

Pick and write your parts carefully and use appropriate instrumentation and the rest is easy(ish).

Getting an even tonal balance through the track should be the key, and that largely comes from the writing of the part itself, but can also come from the choice of instrument or amp or (to a much lesser degree) the mic or pre.

[voicegenius]

Originally Posted by JoaT

As far as I understand, there's two general rules to follow with eq:

1. Use as little as possible
2. Always cut rather than boost

This can depend... a lil boost in some frequencies can "sparkle" your mix... Especially with vocals. EQ'ing can also be used as a dramatic effect...

[Infernal Device]

I think a lot of beginners use computer EQ to add high end on EVERYTHING. It adds up. Brittle cheap preamps mixed with bad rooms and computer EQ's are the recipe for every local band "We did this ourselves" CD.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by ToneRexx

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??????.

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.

Originally Posted by JoaT

As far as I understand, there's two general rules to follow with eq:

1. Use as little as possible
2. Always cut rather than boost

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

[audiovisceral]

software eq/compression/summing/tape-sims can add a lot of cumulative crunch up top their smoother analog counterparts don't.

i find it harsh and fatiguing. others call it 'in your face'.

will probably be less of a issue when we're all on 5.8 MHz DSD, but til then...

[jsaliba]

I think a lot of brand new mixers think something needs to be brigher and just add in some extra high end. A pro mixer might recognize that the same instrument just needs some of the mud cut out and uses some subtractive eq in the low mids where the congestion is but still knows what instruments actually do need some highs boosted. This times a bunch of tracks adds up.

[glissando]

Yeah it's something I'm always trying to improve on all the time. Still a ways to go but some of the things improving it for me are. Good sounding eq's, weeding out the arrangement. LOW PASS FILTERS or high shelf cutting (whichever sounds better) on a lot of elements in the mix (most things shouldn't be sitting up there ie electric guitars, keys, some piano, bass, toms, some vox, even hats can be tamed up there and still sound nice)...so I guess keeping a lot of elements out of the high end frequency range can seriously open it up. Clarity doesn't necessarily equal crisp high end.....

[JoaT]

Do you mean that in order to get a natural sounding and darkish, but clear mix I should start using more eq than necessary? And boost all the the other frequencies but the problematic ones?
That, to put it blunt, is a load of crap.
If you need to boost the highs a lot, consider rethinking your recording techniques. And / or your arrangement.

[Storyville]

Originally Posted by JoaT

Do you mean that in order to get a natural sounding and darkish, but clear mix I should start using more eq than necessary? And boost all the the other frequencies but the problematic ones?
That, to put it blunt, is a load of crap.
If you need to boost the highs a lot, consider rethinking your recording techniques. And / or your arrangement.

Who said that?

[glissando]

Originally Posted by JoaT

Do you mean that in order to get a natural sounding and darkish, but clear mix I should start using more eq than necessary? And boost all the the other frequencies but the problematic ones?
That, to put it blunt, is a load of crap.
If you need to boost the highs a lot, consider rethinking your recording techniques. And / or your arrangement.

Yes that is a load of crap...but no one said that. However using a lot of eq can help and or it can hurt. Depends on how you use it. Perhaps YOU should reconsider your mixing approach.

[glissando]

Originally Posted by JoaT

As far as I understand, there's two general rules to follow with eq:

1. Use as little as possible
2. Always cut rather than boost

With these, you can make the best out of a lesser board too.

Uh nope.

[JoaT]

Originally Posted by lucey

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

This got me aggravated and for that I'm sorry. Reading back his whole post I think we are actually standing in the same corner.
I originally tried to simplify to the extreme. Of course my simplification does not rule out sculpting the sound to the shape needed. But I think the common cause of a mix going 'sour' is the mixer's attempt to make everything sound better by applying plenty of eq and effects.
You can easily overdo everything, expecially when working itb. The amount of gadgets is not a limitation there anymore.
But that's a totally different conversation all together.
I am cooled down again, so apologies.

[MarsBot]

If you had access to the true pro gear, your mixes would sound better immediately. It's sort of like you could go much faster if you had a 100,000 dollar sports car than if you had a 15,000 dollar Honda Civic, even if you didn't know much about driving. Then, if you actually learned how to drive the sports car, you'd be able to go really fast.

Alas, many of us know a lot about driving but are stuck trying to go really fast in a 40,000 dollar "budget" sports cars because that's all we can afford. But the day is coming when the performance of the 40,000 dollar car will be indistinguishable from that of the 100,000 dollar car, at least when it comes to audio.

[voicegenius]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

If you had access to the true pro gear, your mixes would sound better immediately. It's sort of like you could go much faster if you had a 100,000 dollar sports car than if you had a 15,000 dollar Honda Civic, even if you didn't know much about driving. Then, if you actually learned how to drive the sports car, you'd be able to go really fast.

Alas, many of us know a lot about driving but are stuck trying to go really fast in a 40,000 dollar "budget" sports cars because that's all we can afford. But the day is coming when the performance of the 40,000 dollar car will be indistinguishable from that of the 100,000 dollar car, at least when it comes to audio.

Remember dude, it ain't about the car... it's about who's driving it...

As said by Vin Diesel...

[James Meeker]

It's a lot of things, many of which have been mentioned, but what I think is most important:

1.) Novices often put too much top end at too high of a frequency. They'll be boosting 14 or 16k when they should be boosting 8k.

2.) Novices seem to rarely employ shelving filters, which are a very transparent and musical way of adding top end to elements.

3.) Novices rarely get balance levels of the mix elements in proper proportion, making it impossible to get a really nice top end.

4.) Novices often make overheads and high hats too bright, while keeping the guitars too dark.

5.) Novices rarely make ample use of automation that creates the illusion of a "nicer" top end than you have... especially concerning cymbal crashes.

6.) Novices tend to over or under compress elements. Or use too little or too much buss compression. Or fail to properly gain stage. Or a million other crucial little things that pile up and affect the finished product's top end (and everything else).

7.) Novices never get reverb right, which is a big part of snare sounds, which is a big part of the top end.

[James Meeker]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

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

I disagree.

I've worked with some less-than-stellar engineers who's PT mixes were just as wretched and lame as their SSL + 100 grand or more in outboard mixes.

The audio world is very, very skill/taste/talent/work ethic oriented.... the gear is almost besides the point.

[MarkRB]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

If you had access to the true pro gear, your mixes would sound better immediately. It's sort of like you could go much faster if you had a 100,000 dollar sports car than if you had a 15,000 dollar Honda Civic, even if you didn't know much about driving. Then, if you actually learned how to drive the sports car, you'd be able to go really fast.

Alas, many of us know a lot about driving but are stuck trying to go really fast in a 40,000 dollar "budget" sports cars because that's all we can afford. But the day is coming when the performance of the 40,000 dollar car will be indistinguishable from that of the 100,000 dollar car, at least when it comes to audio.

If you are really good at driving you could keep up with a Ferrari on a real road in that Civic. It would certainly be more taxing and you would be pushing that Honda far harder than the Ferrari.

The gear has so little to do with getting a good mix. The harsh mixes have way more to do with who is "driving" than the "car".

Plenty of people make "pro" mixes (whatever that means) using less than £10,000 worth of equipment.

I once drove a Ferrari and spun it out on a roundabout. That was embarrassing. I've also done a few terrible mixes on really great gear, equally embarrassing. Live and learn.

[andychamp]

There aren't that many "real" highs - let's say 8 kHz and upwards - to get around, actually. About 1.5 octaves.
Vocal "air", cymbals "silk", ...what else?
Yet, many less experienced mixers go for the treble knob when they want something to get brighter, more present.
The results are harsh mixes.
There's more action - and more possibilities to f*** things up - in the (high-) mids.
A judicious boost at the right frequency, together with a bit of high shelf cut (or even LPF) can do wonders for clarity and definition.
And removing the right amount of mud also helps.

[MarsBot]

Originally Posted by voicegenius

Remember dude, it ain't about the car... it's about who's driving it...

As said by Vin Diesel...

Vin Diesel notwithstanding, it is about the car to a certain extent. Anybody on this list who doesn't have top notch pro gear could make better sounding recordings simply by gaining access to top notch pro gear. It's about the interaction of the two things: gear and skill.

Sure, some pro engineers are good enough to make decent-sounding recordings on cheaper, mid-level equipment. But a great engineer using mid-level or low level equipment is not going to make better sounding recordings than a great engineer using top notch equipment. In fact, equipment matters so much to great engineers that they spend time researching and discussing it in online forums like gearslutz. If you don't believe the car you're driving matters, then why bother with gearslutz?

[MarkRB]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

Vin Diesel notwithstanding, it is about the car to a certain extent. Anybody on this list who doesn't have top notch pro gear could make better sounding recordings simply by gaining access to top notch pro gear. It's about the interaction of the two things: gear and skill.

Of course, but there is too much belief that great gear makes great recordings. The gear can help but in the grand scheme it's the last thing to worry about.

[John Eppstein]

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.

Less EQ (and mostly subtractive), less compression (especially buss compression), less futzing around in general, better mics, good mic placement, good acoustics, professional mastering.....

[MarsBot]

Originally Posted by James Meeker

I disagree.

I've worked with some less-than-stellar engineers who's PT mixes were just as wretched and lame as their SSL + 100 grand or more in outboard mixes.

The audio world is very, very skill/taste/talent/work ethic oriented.... the gear is almost besides the point.

I don't disagree that complete idiots could do this. I'm sure their mixes could be equally bad. This is like putting someone who can't drive at all in the high-end sports car. I think I'm assuming a level of basic competence here. If a person knows enough to drive a Honda Civic competently, he'll be able to go faster in a high-end sports car.

[MarsBot]

Originally Posted by MarkRB

If you are really good at driving you could keep up with a Ferrari on a real road in that Civic. It would certainly be more taxing and you would be pushing that Honda far harder than the Ferrari.

The gear has so little to do with getting a good mix. The harsh mixes have way more to do with who is "driving" than the "car".

Plenty of people make "pro" mixes (whatever that means) using less than £10,000 worth of equipment.

I once drove a Ferrari and spun it out on a roundabout. That was embarrassing. I've also done a few terrible mixes on really great gear, equally embarrassing. Live and learn.

I admit that skill is more important than gear but it's not everything. I'd be happy to give you my Civic and race you in your Ferrari. Do you want to trade? Do you think you'll be able to find any top notch engineers who want to dumb down their gear below a certain level? I just don't think we're at the point yet where the gear doesn't matter. I wish we were. I have a song that's just aching for a Bricasti but I can't go that fast because I don't have the money.

[MarkRB]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

I admit that skill is more important than gear but it's not everything. I'd be happy to give you my Civic and race you in your Ferrari. Do you want to trade? Do you think you'll be able to find any top notch engineers who want to dumb down their gear below a certain level? I just don't think we're at the point yet where the gear doesn't matter. I wish we were. I have a song that's just aching for a Bricasti but I can't go that fast because I don't have the money.

If only it were mine. I don't have a car. I'll trade some "sage words of advice" for your Civic?

I wouldn't suggest gear doesn't matter, but the OP is talking about harsh bad sounding mixes. Gear isn't responsible for that.

Sorry, we've deviated from the original question a bit.

[James Meeker]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

I don't disagree that complete idiots could do this. I'm sure their mixes could be equally bad. This is like putting someone who can't drive at all in the high-end sports car. I think I'm assuming a level of basic competence here. If a person knows enough to drive a Honda Civic competently, he'll be able to go faster in a high-end sports car.

Honestly, I don't think someone is going to mix appreciably better in PT than they would on an SSL. The results are always shockingly similar.

For the most part you mix at the top end of your ability, the top end of the material's potential and are only hit a glass ceiling on very poor gear. Especially if you are talking about digital mixing. You can take a 2000 dollar rig--computer, monitors, software--and get awesome mixes... if you are an awesome mixer.

[mikymike]

Originally Posted by MarkRB

Of course, but there is too much belief that great gear makes great recordings. The gear can help but in the grand scheme it's the last thing to worry about.

Great mixers + great gear = great mixes.
Great mixers on shit gear = decent mixes at best.
Why spend 100k on gear if it doesnt matter? The greatest mixers in the world make better sounding mixes on top notch gear than they could on shit gear. Period. Why is that so hard to understand? Penis envy?

[MarkRB]

Originally Posted by mikymike

Great mixers + great gear = great mixes.
Great mixers on shit gear = decent mixes at best.
Why spend 100k on gear if it doesnt matter? The greatest mixers in the world make better sounding mixes on top notch gear than they could on shit gear. Period. Why is that so hard to understand? Penis envy?

Just to complete that equation:

Shit engineer + Great gear = Shit Mix.

I never said gear didn't matter. It just means less than most people think it means. Not sure where my penis comes into it or why you felt the need to bring it up?