Q) I've always aimed for recording with
flat EQ on most things. -Ulf (from Sweden)
That technique is
very good, so long as the source itself
sounds excellent (and you don't mind double-eq'ing at mix time). I'd
done everything from cut flat to use double parametric eqs. My
preference is that when anybody hits "Play" on the multitrack, it
sounds really really good.
The most frequent suggestion [I've heard]
is to listen and compare with commercial CD's.
good one, but it takes time for many trials and adjustments. You
still will want to go listen in the car and on several consumer systems
- keeping in mind to not be concerned about how loud some commercial
CDs are. Just listen to tone and balance.
[But when I do that] it involves a bit of heavy eq'ing.
idea, if it sounds good.
[I then] took a look at a spectrum analyzer to actually "see" what was
step in research, but your ears are telling you the same thing.
Every pro I know ignores spectrum analyzers - this makes you rely on
your ears - but again, if it's helpful you should use any tool that
Whenever I try to brighten the sound it gets too thin.
teeter-totter effect. Any eq will displace another aspect of
the sound. You just have to be careful at what frequency you're
adjusting so that you don't teeter-totter out the good stuff. I don't
know about you, but it took me 10 years on incredible speakers to
finally feel that I knew what I was doing.
Am I'm better off leaving it up to the mastering engineer?
very very happy with your mixes right out of the studio. My
pages on eq suggestions
will be helpful and there's no shortage of other ideas here
I'm always mixing at a very, very low level.
but not always ideal. I tended to mix at a variety of
levels, but I looked for some excitement in volume. I also used very
low-fatigue monitors and Class A amplifiers which are very low in
distortion and allow you to use hotter levels and survive to hear
have a couple of JBL 4406
fed from a Quad 520f amp, and I like the
way they sound together with a subwoofer, but they don't seem to
transform very well to other systems. I've tried the Genelec but
they're to harsh in my opinion and I'm afraid that these would boost my
problem (lacking mid's) even more. I also have a couple of Auratones,
but they're also a little bit squeaky. I have the opportunity to try
Event, -Do you have any opinions on those?
fan of standard studio monitors. If I was in your shoes, I
would get a pair of Dahlquist DQ-10's, an excellent sub woofer, a good
pro audio crossover and excellent amps. Look on eBay or go here I used DQ-10's for
18 years and
they were unsurpassed by anything I've heard, next to my own mastering
you must be willing to trying something different than
everybody else. Everyone I've turned on to these speakers LOVES them.
You must be able to sit back 6 feet from them and work with the balance
of the subs. It's not plug-and-play - it's set up, be amazed, and
tweak. You will discover amazing things about how different (and not
always great) records sound. You cannot skimp with this system, because
if you use a cheap amp, the speakers will sound bad. Why? Because the
amp is bad. If you use a great amp and great cables, they will sound
great. They reveal exactly what you give them. For much less than the
Genelecs, you will have a system that has stood the test of time for
over 20 years.
may want to check out the monitor module and analog summing mixer
that I am manufacturing.
Q) Am I best off converting to 24-bit and mixing in 24-bit (in Cakewalk
Pro Audio 9) - Brendan
Yes. Even a 24-bit
version of a 16 bit source sounds
Or am I better off just keeping it in 16-bit and doing my mixing in
16-bit (in SAW Plus32, which I love, but which only supports 16-bit)?
adds a whole new dimension to your question. If you love what
you're getting, I'd stick with it. The added smoothness of going 24 bit
probably would hamper some of the aspects of your process that really
truly work emotionally and/or creatively for you. The essence of the
music and creative process which gives you better music is, in my
opinion, more important than a hair more silky (closer to analog) sound.
Q) I boost little bit those frequencies which appears to be the highest
peaks on every instrument. -Jarno
That's cool if it
works for you, but I haven't used that
approach. Usually if there are peaks or surges in a bass, I try to make
them more even with compression or multiband compression, so that it
stays present and punchy but doesn't overwhelm anything else.
Very often many instruments have the same peak positions and I
don´t know what to do with those.
Usually I try to
shape each instrument in different areas
so they have their own place in the mix without covering up something
else. So I might add 2.5k to one guitar and 1.2k to another one so they
have a slightly different flavor.
I mix with spectral analyser is that recommended?
To quote Stephen
Marcussen "I use two spectrum analysers -
one on each side of my head." - but if it works for you, that's all
I use a subwoofer when I mix, but when listening thru normal speakers
and other systems the kick and bass are too low.
Turn down your
subwoofer a little at a time, till you're
getting the same result in the real world.
(and my woofer is not too loud with commercial cds)
Your room is
interacting with the sub, possibly giving you
low end room reflections or standing waves that add to the appearance
of lows, but not a directly accurate amount. You also may be too close
to the speakers when you mix - it takes distance to build up the real
low end because the wavelengths are longer. It may not be practical,
but try moving back from your speakers, keeping the subs right under or
right next to them.
When I try to achieve brightness of commercial stuff I have to boost
highs in some cases up to 20dB! (cymbals mixed low) Is this normal?
No. Try cutting in
other areas, like around 400hz to 900
Hz. you may have some mid range build up. Keep in mind digital eq's
give about half the result of an analog eq. 20 dB on a digital eq is
about the same as 10dB on an analog unit.
I've tried very hard to copy the frequency structure of commercial CDs
with variable success.
It took me at least
10 years till I felt I was right on
target with my monitor system. I was always adjusting them as I went,
not to mention my ears evolved over time. It just takes time and
refinement - one must trust the process to uncover the formula that
works for your combination of components.
Sometimes I'm overwhelmed with all the
goals I want to achieve.
Shift from goals to intentions. Here's how I put it
into words (but
just to let ya know, really knowing this is a distinct
that boosts your confidence 150%). Here goes:
targets you shoot for - you may hit them, you may not. They
can be very specific and timed. They can feel great to achieve, but
they can also limit things down to a specific, rather than being
unlimited in potential. Intention is when you have decided to make
something happen (with a knowingness of your unlimited power of
creation) and nothing in the world will
stop you in it's
actualization. It can be specific or it can be an umbrella covering an
overall result that encompasses many goals. The process of the
intention (with no regard for time) is as fulfilling and motivating as
the achievement of the outcomes.
Created 03/04/03 • Modified 03/13/03
how to avoid
Must we analyze digital sound
microscope when a 13-year old won't know the difference anyway?