Bright Mixes

[Rednose]

I've been A-B ing my mixes to alot of pro cds.
I do mostly Rock/Metal and a bit of Country and Pop.
My mixes are pretty dull compared to the mastered cds.
Do you generally brighten them up pre mastering or is that something that the mastering guru will take care of?
Funny thing is, my mixes used to be too bright and lack bass.
Another question:
Why would you compress the 2 buss when the mastering guru will do it as well?
Thanks!

[theblue1]

If I was sending a mix for "mastering"* I would in all likelihood avoid mix (output buss) compression and EQ.


_______________

* I tend to think of it as "sweetening" since when I was coming up, "mastering" meant running the cutting lathe -- although some final sweetening/last minute fixup was typically possible if not highly likely at the same time... there was always something that didn't come our right... since I was mostly mixing on JBL 4311's in those days, it was usually the tonal balance... Some folks liked 'em... I really learned to hate them... definitely highly uneven speakers by today's standards.

[Zwinter]

Of the songs that I have been able to hear before and after mastering (stuff you hear on the radio) I notice that the mastering engineer is not there to brighten a mix. Sure if it is needed than the mastering engineer will do it. But most of these mixes already started out being pretty bright.

I know the mastering engineer may compress the mix, but I found most mix engineers will strap a compressor on the 2-buss when mixing.

[Schmacko]

I don't know any mix engineers who don't use mix buss compression on dense material like modern pop/rock/metal/bubblegum-country. I'm not saying they're slamming their mixes, but it's usually there.

[theblue1]

Hell, I suppose you guys may well be right.

Heaven knows I used to -- at least when where I was working had enough gear to make it feasible. And since I often didn't know where those typically very low budget tracks were going to be mastered, I didn't know WHAT might happen to them. I always tried to make them as finished as possible.


Now, I've retired myself from taking clients and, unless someone gives me a budget, there's no way I'm sending anything out for anything...

So I typically develop the mix to the best point I can without buss compression and EQ and then kick that in (right in the DAW's project file, so I can 'go back' and adjust the mix as I sweeten, if necessary). I've been doing that the last 4 or 5 years and it works very well for me.

[mic monkey]

IMHO getting the mix bright enough is the least of your problems... just make sure that the bottom end is good and everything else will fall into place with post..

[GearHunter]

If you're good at it, buss compression and EQ are fine. Just leave room for the mastering guy...and most importantly, leave some db's of headroom! Keep the mixes at least a couple db below zero.

[uncle duncan]

I read an interview where some famous mastering guy said he'd rather add high end than have to try to correct too much high end. Same with compression. You can't un-compress a track.

[Han]

The best experience you can have is when a really good mastering engineer says to you: there's not much I can do to make this sound any better.

So do the very best you can to make it sound great. I found out that even NS10's can sound great, but you'll have to work very hard.

And don't compress the two buss, remember it was Bruce Swedien who said: compression is for the kids and he certainly has a point by saying this.
Depends on the kind of music though (and the artist(s) of course.

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Rednose

Do you generally brighten them up pre mastering or is that something that the mastering guru will take care of?

Maybe the mastering 'Guru' will put a spell on you!

But seriously, there's no need to 'brighten up' the mix to a hypothetical standard because you should mix like YOU hear it. Put 10 of your fave CDs in a boombox (preferably with some older stuff included) and you'll get 10 different opinions of how bright or dark you should mix.

I think that a tad of sparkle is often added during mastering but I'd also say that adding a lot of brightness reeks of 'rescue mastering'. Again, if you want a bright record then mix accordingly in the same way that you should compress the mix if you hear it that way.

[rwhitney]

Unless you're working with the best mastering engineers, or ones you know you can trust, I'd say get the recording sounding as much like you want it except for volume. Just crank the monitors if you want to hear it loud.

There are a lot of wanna-be mastering whatevers out there who will make your recordings sound like nobody wants to hear them. Even where reputable mastering houses are involved you may not get what you want, or what the client wants.

As an example, I recently did a hip-hop recording that went out for mastering twice, both unsatisfactory. They ended up coming back to me to get commercial levels, using only an Oxford Limiter, and everyone liked it better than the mastered versions.

I leave 3-6dB headroom on all of my mixes.

[dokushoka]

Why would you compress the 2 buss when the mastering guru will do it as well?

Becaues at the time of mixing, you have full control of all the elements which will effect how the compressor reacts to the mix. If you don't compress your 2 buss and then throw the comp on later, sometimes things get wonky, and personally, I don't like to leave things up to other people... I want my client's mix to leave my hands sounding as finished as possible.

Additionally, it is a big part of where the mix gets its "attitude."

I've finally settled on a mixbuss compressor that I like and its changed things very much for me. Now I can park the dynamics exactly how I want them and the mixes sound nearly mastered by the time I'm done.

I regards to the brightness, that is actually one of the easier things to get right. If your mix is dull, and you have an M.E. who is worth his salt, he can pretty easily rememdy that (although I've had more than one "mastering engineers" flub this pretty badly). But, again, I view the roll of the mixer as the guy who should get things about 95%, if not 100% of the way there, so I brighten things up quite a bit at mixing if needed.

Like another poster said, I think getting the low end right is the real challenge, and that is where mixbuss compression (DURING mixing) is essential, in my experience for rock, pop, hip hop or any of the "contemporary" sounds.

The only limiting I like to see at the time of mastering is just some minor peak reductions to catch the few little transients that pop through.

[numrologst]

Like others said, certainly the bottom end is gonna be more important than trying to make the mix bright.

Once the mix is anchored with the bottom, then you can open the brightness.

But brightness isn't something I usually have to think about. There has to be something you are doing to make the mix dull. You shouldn't need to brighten the mix, if you are mixing good material then all the elements should be there.

As far as the mixbuss comp, sometimes it's essential... I never start out with a mixbuss comp... I will start out with my usual methods, and if after 30 minutes or so, the mix isn't starting to happen...or if some transients need to be tamed, then I bring it out.

Today I was mixing a song, and I had all my drum tracks going through my distressors... The distressor was compressing about 3-4 db's... Anyways, I got the mixing flowing and almost there, about 85% of the way... After I added in some tracks, the snare was starting to disappear. I raised the snare at it ****ed my whole drum buss. I sent it to my stereo bus/distressor mix and the snare was causing too high of peaks. I strapped on my bus comp. Patched in a another comp on an aux send and sent the snare to it. Got the level i needed. But It was still to high of a peak. Engaged the buss compressor and No more bad snare peaks... It also tightened up the low end to...

Long story, I know... But that is a bus compressor that saved my mix.

Sometimes, I only use a stereo comp on a stereo aux send, and a bus comp/eq... Just whatever the mix needs... And I can remember a few mixes in my day that the bus comp was the only comp that was compressing.

[kats]

I think the inportant part is getting your mix balanced proper before the mastering stage. If you have parts (like cymbals for eg) just right but the rest of the mix can use some air - it gets weird from the mastering stage. Don't forget that they only have the stereo tracks to work with.

I personally never worry about the "overall" sound of the recording, whether it's darker or birghter per se. But I worry about the overall balance - 'cause it that's screwed, your master'er has a PITA on his hands.

[Rednose]

Thanks for the replies all!
Your input is much appreciated.
I think cutting the low end on some tracks that don't need it will helped.
I've brightend up the mixes, now one more question.
How do you guys judge where the bass guitar should sit?
I'm allways afraid of mudding up the mixes, but there has to be some bass for sure.
As far as mastering, I'm taking the next 2 projects done at my studio to a fellow gear slut Doug at Gravity studios.
He did a couple of my last projects and everyone was happy with it.
I will also be there during mastering and bring a few different mixes.
BTW,
I'm mixing via Cubase SX and monitoring on a matched pair of ns 10 m studio monitors.
My "big" spearkers are Event 30/30's.
Thanks again!
Matt

[picksail]

I thinks it's a subconscious thing, really.

The brightness is derived from the way a mixer approaches a piece of music, with regard to the musical style, commercial demographic, A&R suggestions, etc.

For me it's in the way I approach mixing certain instruments, with varying degrees of 'brightness'. For instance in a pop/rock mix I like to balance the hi-hat and acoustic guitar opposite each other. (when playing the same rhythmic pattern). This requires a generous amount of EQing in order to place the in their respective areas within the spectrum.

Some prefer a wholistic approach and just strap an EQ on the 2buss after the fact. Whatever works, right....

[Andreas G]

So your mixes always sounds too dull... and after cutting the lowend to brighten it up, you're not sure anymore how to judge where the bass guitar should sit? To me it sounds like your roomacoustic and monitors don't tell you the truth.

Regarding the to buss-processing... lately I built up my mixes FROM the 2 buss. First I gained all elements without eq, maybe with a 2 buss compressor, then I use one or two eqs on the 2 buss to create the overall soundshape. What I can't fix with the 2 buss eq I do with indvidual eqing. Once you are familar with this workflow you'll be amazed how fast you can work and how good and glued it sounds. It is also easier to correct bright or dull mixes if they don't translate.

Andreas

[u b k]

the overall brightness or bassiness of a mix is almost completely irrelevant, as those can be adjusted very handily by any mastering guy worth his salt.

what *is* critical is the internal balance of the mix, both in terms of levels and freqs. if the guitars need top but the cymbals are sizzly, you got issues. if the vocals are airy and sibilant but the drums are sleepy and murky, you got issues. if the kick is slamming your chest but the bass barely manages to honk its nose, you got issues.

but a sleepy mix where all the elements are equally sleepy is a piece of cake: open up the highs with a solid eq and everything wakes up. a coherent, well balanced mix will survive almost any eq curve.

balances, it's all about the balances.

on another note, the tracks you have will let you know how far you can push things. listen to the music, not everything wants to be like what's on the radio. lots of music feels right when its dark; hell, most classic records begin rolling off after 4k. tape and vinyl were good like that.

and on a final last note, i disagree that bass is the most difficult to get dialed. to me, midrange is what separates the men from the boys. and, surprise surprise... midrange is where almost all the critical balancing happens.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Rednose]

Originally Posted by Andreas G

So your mixes always sounds too dull... and after cutting the lowend to brighten it up, you're not sure anymore how to judge where the bass guitar should sit? To me it sounds like your roomacoustic and monitors don't tell you the truth.

Regarding the to buss-processing... lately I built up my mixes FROM the 2 buss. First I gained all elements without eq, maybe with a 2 buss compressor, then I use one or two eqs on the 2 buss to create the overall soundshape. What I can't fix with the 2 buss eq I do with indvidual eqing. Once you are familar with this workflow you'll be amazed how fast you can work and how good and glued it sounds. It is also easier to correct bright or dull mixes if they don't translate.

Andreas

I don't think my mixes are too dull, its just when I try to get the bass guitar at a decent level, it muddies it up.
Probably need more punch from the bass and less bottom.
I'm working on it, thanks for the tips.
I think my mixes are really coming along.
I'll post some samples in a bit.
Matt

[Tom H]

There was a big thread about this a while ago, i can't find it anymore but it helped me out a bit at the time.

I noticed dipping in the 200 - 300 Hz area can help out a lot in making mixes seem brighter, be careful though those are your "warm" frequencies. It is, like mentioned, a case of balance.

Also the longer you work on a mix the more tired your ears get and that usually affects brightness the first in my case. I like to keep listening to other tracks for their tonal balance during mixing, not so much to copy it but to keep a reference of the frequency spectrum.

Good luck

[absrec]

I agree with everyone that said balance is the most important thing. So true.

I had a talk with a ME that had to redo something for me this summer and I had a bit of an epiphany. He made a great point. He said that in order for the level to come up, things are going to change slightly. It's not just as simple as putting a limiter on the mix to catch the snare hits that get out of the box. Any of us could do that with an L1 or something similar. It's a more complicated science that I can't really begin to understand.

That being said, I like to get everything as close to the final product and then let go and hope for the best. It's all anyone can do.

-Aaron

If the records that you consider "professional" are brighter than yours to a point where it bothers you, then YOU ARE NOT FINISHED MIXING!!!

Don't wait for a mastering engineer to add "sparkle". AND DEFINATELY don't look for someone else to "SAVE" your mix.

Think about the logic at play. AS a mixer, you have all of the separate tracks to do whatever you choose to them. Your mastering engineer will only have a two track mix. YOU are the one with the power to change/fix the mix.

Also YOU are the one who is responsible for fixing the mix. (That's why YOU get the MIXING credit.)

REMEMBER it is the MIX engineer who fixes the MIX. It's really simple to graspthumbsup
\
Now as for a tip, if your mix is dull it's probably not because of something missing on your 2 buss. It's because all the wee little faders and individual channels are missing something.

As an experiment, (Turn your monitors to a low listening level). Place a high shelf on your mix as you compare it to your ref. Ask yourself how much gain you need to apply and at what frequency before your mix begins to come close to your ref.

Whatever these values are in your mix should tell you approx what is missing in your mix. (OF course it will throw off your mix a bit, but so will a mastering engineer throwing on a high shelf to "SAVE" your mix. At least YOU have the power to fix it.).

Now stop your mix and REALLY listen to your ref.

DONT settle for saying "well the ref mix is brighter."

You need to analyze WHY your ref sounds brighter. Which elements make it brighter?

Once you have an idea, then you should have some direction as to where you want to go.

Some of the best recording lessons are in the RECORD STORE (depending on what you listen to )

Listen to the guys who do it how you think it should be done.

Don't just say "OH his work freaking sounds great!" ANALYZE it

What do you like about his style? What do you think should have been done just a touch differently?


GO LISTEN, GO MIX, GO Listen, GO MIX

BUT dont EVER hand some guy a 2 track and expect him to save you. (though it can be done. WHY count on it being done?)

[Musiclab]

Originally Posted by Han

The best experience you can have is when a really good mastering engineer says to you: there's not much I can do to make this sound any better.

So do the very best you can to make it sound great. I found out that even NS10's can sound great, but you'll have to work very hard.

And don't compress the two buss, remember it was Bruce Swedien who said: compression is for the kids and he certainly has a point by saying this.
Depends on the kind of music though (and the artist(s) of course.

What works for Bruce Swedien and the type of music he does, doesnt mean it will work for you, Andy Wallace bangs his 2 buss compressor as do the Alge brothers and Bob Clearmountain. Tony Visconti in an interview once said compression is the sound of rock and roll. Consider this, you mix can change in mastering if you're not using 2 buss compression. As far as EQ goes a/b with some records in the ball park of the music you're mixing. Try to get close, one of the easier things for ME's to do is brighten up your mix.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

You need to analyze WHY your ref sounds brighter. Which elements make it brighter?

this is a really good point. you can have a dark drum and bass mix, slap a dark vocal on it, and the whole thing sounds veiled. but if you open the top on the vox and get them airy, suddenly the whole picture opens up and everything feels more open, even though the drums haven't been touched.

this is psychoacoustics at its best. not everything needs to be bright in order for a mix to sound open. listen closely to how each element contributes to the overall presentation, experiment with lifting the top of one element, listen, then put it back and lift another, listen.

you're probably a lot closer than you think, and the solution is usually less radical as well. i'd look to the vocals and the drums first.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[RainbowStorm]

Yeah I agree that a lot of popular mixes are captured that way. In my case it depends on what material I have to work on. In a setup that includes guitar, synth/organ, background vocals and piano I often feel I want to remove some of the lows with a high pass filter on some of these sound sources. I apply the filters with different pass points depending on the instrument, the key etc. I try to be very flexible in this process. The producer (in me) thinks that a lot of songs sound great when played pretty high, so I often move the medium frequency a bit higher, making the whole mix a bit more bright.

When it comes to mastering I seem to end up with pretty bright mixes when the low and high bands have been optimized on the multiband compressor. I mix against filters (that I later remove) to succeed with this process. I think mixing and mastering is a bit like hair dressing. Sometimes you need to use separation techniques to be able to achieve a certain overall result (knowing how to cut/boost). Knowing what to separate, how and why prior to effect application is one of the keys out there.

Generally I like pretty bright mixes.

[Mike Caffrey]

I don't understand why there's a belief that a mastering engineer is going to be better at stereo buss compression than a mix engineer.

Since most people do compress their stereo buss, you could argue they have less experience compressing an uncompressed stereo buss than a mix engineer.

I think Drew said if you're good at compression and EQ, go ahead an do it. I agree, but I think if you're bad at it, you'll have already butchered the mix with bad compression and EQ, so why worry.

If you're not good at it, why are you doing the mixing in the first place?

So, let's make the assumption that a person asking about compressing the stereo buss is good enough at using compressors and EQs that they're able to adequately mix the track. Go ahead an do it.

There are a couple of fail safes. One - there's a producer right? Or at least someone in that role. Second, there's the artist. Third, there's whoever is paying you. IT's also possible that all three of these are the same person. Do your best and if they love it, you're done. It doesn't matter how it sounds if it sounds the way they're paying you to make it sound.

Fourth, print a version without the stereo processing. If you've got comrpession and EQ, print all permutations - nothing, comrpession only, EQ only, and both compression and EQ together. It's not going to take you too many projects until you get tired of the extra work and have heard the various options and you'll be able to cut it down to one or two versions.

Theoretically, with digital, a masterting engineer should do nothing. Historically, mastering has been about making the Duplication Master. So, once people no longer cut to disc, you sent your tape to a specialist who would make changes that were necessary for the format. For instance, too much low end could bounce the needle off the record. So they'd filter or compress.

Then think about the era where a mix was going to be released on 8-track or cassette as well as vinyl. What about adding a little extra top, or tweaking the noise reduction?

So now you've got someone making artistic changes relative to the format. And yes, people heard comrpession from radio stations and asked for it during the mastering stage, but conceptually the artistic work in mastering was to translate the mix effectively to it's distribution format.

If you're working at 16bit/44.1, theoretically, the mastering engineer doesn't have to alter it in any way to suit the format. Just sequence and QC the PMCD.

So theoretically, you should be mixing the song the way you want it to sound when it's released.

Now, I'm sure people want to point out that mastering engineers have better gear or better monitoring environments. That's possibly true depending on the studio your mixing in. But to argue that the mastering engineer's job is to finalize the sound of the record artistically, independent of the format, is to assume some kind of shortcoming at the studio level, like bad skill, monitors, or gear.

If that's in fact the case, rather than worry about whether or not to compress the stereo buss, fix the shortcoming. Mix someplace else, or have someone else do it. That's the real answer and is kind of what people are saying when they suggest leaving stereo buss compression for the mastering engineer. If you're not capable of comrpession the stereo buss properly, maybe someone else should be mixing.

But, going back to our assumption, that the mix engineer is good, or at least adequate, that means go ahead and mix it to sound like the client wants it to sound when it's released. If because of budget restrictions, or experience there is some kind of shortcoming at the mix stage, then the mastering engineer can do a little extra to compensate for that. In that case, you have to evaluate and shortcomings of that particular mix context and make the stereo buss decision based on that, not some kind of generalization of whether or not to compress the stereo buss.

Do you think Calbi or Athens would prefer a Michael Brauer mix without stereo compression? Of course not, that's part of the mix. Would they prefer an uncompressed mix from someone who had compressed it poorly? Of course.

Stereo buss compression is part of the mix stage, not the adaptation to the format.

It can also be part of the mastering stage as part of the adaptation to the format or to compensate for mix stage shortcomings.

[dokushoka]

Great post, Mike.

[picksail]

Yeah. Very good post.

[dreamsongs]

I guess it might me because of the type of music I'm listening to and working with lately but I'm straying away from overly bright mixes.

In the last John Mayer CD that I've been using to ref my latest projects, the entire CD has more of a colored sound. Not too dark but definitely not bright.

I was surprised and intrigued by this because on most of my other Pop projects, I've gone for a very bright feel. Now this CD comes along that was released about 3 months ago that is very different sounding. And guess what, I like it better...my other ref CD's now sound a bit too bright.

At closer inspection, I noticed that mainly the lead voice and to a lesser extent, the high hat and snare are the only things that are bright. All other guitars, keys and arrangements are on the darker side but very well balanced. I haven't yet looked at the credits (strangely enough) but I love the way this whole record was mixed.

So re-think your whole idea of what a mix should really sound like and what components are responsible to achieve balance.

I guess in the end it all comes down to how you or your clients would like the mix to sound. But as for me, I'm rethinking my whole "bright mix" attitude.

[DeathMonkey]

Jeez, there is a ton in this thread to think about.

I'll add my noob 0.02 to say this - I have started throwing some comp on my 2 buss, gently, to smooth out the transients and peaks that may cause the mastering stuff to warp my mix. I would akin it to putting down primer before paint. Paint over imperfections and they can get larger.

The guy that does my mastering has remarked on this, and how much easier it is for him, so I figure that's a pretty good thing, huh?

I did send him a mix where I went too far with it, however, so he did comment on it being overly compressed as well.




I will point out that I rarely compress anything by itself, so having overall compression works for me. If you are using a lot of individually compressed elements, this might not work for you.