TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- How to create more headroom in your mix (with EQ)?
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

Funny how offtopic this all went. I really don't care about volume standards and have never heard anyone complain about major issues regarding the mixdowns and/or it's volume. Maybe I'll get to learn what benefits it could have when I'll be working in a couple of professional studios (as of next month).

Ontopic: I create a bit more headroom by EQ-ing out all I don't want to hear and all that you can't hear when the full mix is on. Just start filtering upwards/downwards until you hear it affecting the signal which you're editing. This way you remove all the frequencies which are unnecessary in the full mix. Be warned though, in less busy parts this may work counter-effective as the track could sound empty. So some automation with those filters here and there is recommended.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Heh, between my master and the actual speakers there are like 5 volume sliders. The master really becomes irrelevent in everything other than the volume of the end mix. PS I learned what I do from the thread YOU [DJ RANN] started.

mmmm, I bet your signal chain sounds nice

The master fader IS the final level (only noobs use "volume" ) of the mix. Your speakers should put out a level relative to THAT mix level. If not, how do you know whether you're accurately monitoring?

Also, why the hell would you have that many volume sliders after the master fader? And even if you do, I suggest learning about gain staging, otherwise you're not going to have a calibrated mixing setup and will probably be introducing a load of noise in to the signal path from incorrect relative stages.

@Matthjis - You;ve found way of working that works for you, and knowing your stuff, you've definitely got it down.

Any studio worth it's salt will have their monitoring system calibrated so they can mix accurately. That way you can work on any project and always have a point of reference to be able to mix that project correctly. I'm not in to rules about producing - do what works for you, but I am in to rules about setting your kit/studio up so you can use it to it's full potential and therefore produce the best you can.

quote:

Originally posted by Storyteller Ontopic: I create a bit more headroom by EQ-ing out all I don't want to hear and all that you can't hear when the full mix is on. Just start filtering upwards/downwards until you hear it affecting the signal which you're editing. This way you remove all the frequencies which are unnecessary in the full mix. Be warned though, in less busy parts this may work counter-effective as the track could sound empty. So some automation with those filters here and there is recommended.

You're right, the original question was about EQing. I agree with Storyteller here, that's exactly how you create more headroom. It seems to be more important in the bass frequencies than the upper frequencies, but to ignore the upper frequencies is bad too.

The best mixes I've done in the past have ended up 'thinner' than I would like. But still overall they sound a lot better than the fuller ones. I think in general it's probably better to create a too-thin mix via EQ, and then aftewards you can consider carefully layering in something in the thin ares, automating the EQ like Storyteller suggested, or adding fx, ambience, whatever as appropriate.

quote:

Originally posted by Storyteller Funny how offtopic this all went. I really don't care about volume standards and have never heard anyone complain about major issues regarding the mixdowns and/or it's volume. Maybe I'll get to learn what benefits it could have when I'll be working in a couple of professional studios (as of next month). Ontopic: I create a bit more headroom by EQ-ing out all I don't want to hear and all that you can't hear when the full mix is on. Just start filtering upwards/downwards until you hear it affecting the signal which you're editing. This way you remove all the frequencies which are unnecessary in the full mix. Be warned though, in less busy parts this may work counter-effective as the track could sound empty. So some automation with those filters here and there is recommended.

Agreed.

Another tip for just simply not clipping, would be to start your mix at a low enough volume, so that even when you have the full mix going, you don't clip but still have a loud mix. I do this by starting with my kickdrum at around -8 or -9db. Basing my mix around the kick drum at that level always results in my full mix being around -1 to -2db. If that's still not loud enough for you, turn up the volume on your audio interface!

I like to do this instead of lowering the master output because I feel that it helps you mix better consistently rather than just thinking that you can always lower your master output to stop your mix from clipping.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN mmmm, I bet your signal chain sounds nice The master fader IS the final level (only noobs use "volume" ) of the mix. Your speakers should put out a level relative to THAT mix level. If not, how do you know whether you're accurately monitoring? Also, why the hell would you have that many volume sliders after the master fader? And even if you do, I suggest learning about gain staging, otherwise you're not going to have a calibrated mixing setup and will probably be introducing a load of noise in to the signal path from incorrect relative stages. @Matthjis - You;ve found way of working that works for you, and knowing your stuff, you've definitely got it down. Any studio worth it's salt will have their monitoring system calibrated so they can mix accurately. That way you can work on any project and always have a point of reference to be able to mix that project correctly. I'm not in to rules about producing - do what works for you, but I am in to rules about setting your kit/studio up so you can use it to it's full potential and therefore produce the best you can.

Except I don't give a shit about mixing that much...if the song isn't clipping its ready for release, and you don't need monitors to see if its clipping or not. That said, I don't hardly ever hear anyone say anything bad about the mix in my tracks. I do have a few tracks that clip though, but no project files so I cannot fix them And they are in mp3 format.

quote:

Originally posted by No Left Turn Agreed. Another tip for just simply not clipping, would be to start your mix at a low enough volume, so that even when you have the full mix going, you don't clip but still have a loud mix. I do this by starting with my kickdrum at around -8 or -9db. Basing my mix around the kick drum at that level always results in my full mix being around -1 to -2db. If that's still not loud enough for you, turn up the volume on your audio interface! I like to do this instead of lowering the master output because I feel that it helps you mix better consistently rather than just thinking that you can always lower your master output to stop your mix from clipping.

I hate to say this but this is not a "tip" - it's is the basis of mixing in the first place. You get your relative levels down and try to balance them to just below -0dbfs. Kicks are all different too and some tracks even in the same subgenre have completely feels based on the type and how loud the kick is in the track. Hell, some tracks just have real sub kicks which don't get near -8dbfs.

The master fader being pulled down is the very last resort to a mix engineer - there's so many other less destructive things you can do before resorting to that. I don't think anyone suggesting doing that understands what headroom and mixing is actually about.

Also, turning up the "volume" on your interface does nothing apart from make your speakers louder? What would be the point in relation to mix levels of the project?

Finally, and not to be too pedantic - the titale of this thread is actually a misnoma. You can;t create headroom as such with EQ. Headroom in it's correct sense relates to dynamic range of the mix. EQ can;t by definition create more headroom. EQ can however provide frequency separation and there provide space between elements, but again it is technically impossible to "create headroom" with EQ.

Sorry, I feel like I'm lecturing people, which I'm not trying to do but it does astound me how much misinformation there is out there about basic/101 stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Except I don't give a shit about mixing that much...if the song isn't clipping its ready for release, and you don't need monitors to see if its clipping or not. That said, I don't hardly ever hear anyone say anything bad about the mix in my tracks. I do have a few tracks that clip though, but no project files so I cannot fix them And they are in mp3 format.

Fuck it. Why bother with monitoring your track at all? Just make sure no tracks are clipping on the mixer and bounce to 128k mp3. job done.

There's just slightly more of an artform to mixing than "not clipping".....

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN mmmm, I bet your signal chain sounds nice The master fader IS the final level (only noobs use "volume" ) of the mix. Your speakers should put out a level relative to THAT mix level. If not, how do you know whether you're accurately monitoring? Also, why the hell would you have that many volume sliders after the master fader? And even if you do, I suggest learning about gain staging, otherwise you're not going to have a calibrated mixing setup and will probably be introducing a load of noise in to the signal path from incorrect relative stages. @Matthjis - You;ve found way of working that works for you, and knowing your stuff, you've definitely got it down. Any studio worth it's salt will have their monitoring system calibrated so they can mix accurately. That way you can work on any project and always have a point of reference to be able to mix that project correctly. I'm not in to rules about producing - do what works for you, but I am in to rules about setting your kit/studio up so you can use it to it's full potential and therefore produce the best you can.

To be honest, i think this is useless information, or at least does not make a practical difference.

The master channel is simply one of my volume controls, together with the internal sound card volume control and the mixer that goes out to the monitors.

And i change all of them as i see fit, i mean you listen to music at different volumes, so it makes sense to mix at different volumes too.

I mean everything you hear in your mix is relative to what you have heard in other tracks/mixes.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Fuck it. Why bother with monitoring your track at all? Just make sure no tracks are clipping on the mixer and bounce to 128k mp3. job done. There's just slightly more of an artform to mixing than "not clipping".....

I listen to the track and watch for clips on my same speakers I used to make it. If it clips I move the overall volume [master] down to preserve dynamics. If something is clipping it has to already be a loud element in the mix, and I would have made it loud for a reason.

I don't do 128kbit either. People can either accept 450kbit or not have the song. Or they can have the 35 MB wav :P Why should I make the quality shit because everyone else does it?

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir I listen to the track and watch for clips on my same speakers I used to make it. If it clips I move the overall volume [master] down to preserve dynamics. If something is clipping it has to already be a loud element in the mix, and I would have made it loud for a reason.

Sorry to say it but not a good way of working at all. If your mix (master) is clipping, then change the individual elements/tracks so it doesn't cip, as the problem lies there. Treat it at the root. No need to compromise the noise floor and dynamics of the entire mix just because your levels aren't right.

Its not about levels, clipping only occurs [for me] when a synth hiccups [z3ta] and sends a spike way out of the roof. Sometimes it doesn't even happen, you hit play and its fine, hit play another time and it may spike somewhere. All of my levels are in the -20db to -5db range, not much can go any lower.

Lowering individual channels to fix something compromises the dynamics. I have a sound at a good level with the mix, but for some reason it peaks somewhere..if I lower that synth, I have to lower every single other channel I have...or i can lower the master. Lowering the master does absolutely nothing to the mix but make it quieter, there is no distortion, there is no limit or anything. And the dynamics of the track are 100% untouched.

Dynamics is the relationship of one sound to another. The master changes all sounds at the same time, dynamics are preserved.

Show me one downside in the quality of the mix that lowering the master has when there is no clipping.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Its not about levels, clipping only occurs [for me] when a synth hiccups [z3ta] and sends a spike way out of the roof. Sometimes it doesn't even happen, you hit play and its fine, hit play another time and it may spike somewhere. All of my levels are in the -20db to -5db range, not much can go any lower. Lowering individual channels to fix something compromises the dynamics. I have a sound at a good level with the mix, but for some reason it peaks somewhere..if I lower that synth, I have to lower every single other channel I have...or i can lower the master. Lowering the master does absolutely nothing to the mix but make it quieter, there is no distortion, there is no limit or anything. And the dynamics of the track are 100% untouched. Dynamics is the relationship of one sound to another. The master changes all sounds at the same time, dynamics are preserved. Show me one downside in the quality of the mix that lowering the master has when there is no clipping.

By making the mix quieter, you are then creating the relative noisefloor at that given lower point. Then you bounce/export and when someone wants to hear it loud, they find the mix is proportionately quieter and adjust the volume to louder...and guess what?...the noise floor increase proportionately with it, meaning your mix actually contains more noise than the mix would have it you got as close to unity as possible in the first place.

you can choose to disagree all you want but this is fact, and just simple physics at work.

Also, It does affect the dynamics, because they are in relation to the overall dynamic range which, as you know, is less if you're not going to unity on the master fader. The dynamics change in directly proportionally to each other - ever heard what happens to perceived frequency band at different levels....? There's a reason unity gain established, and this is it.

I'm not arguing with you for the point of arguing. This is the science of audio engineering and I do this for a living where this shit is drilled in to you.

DJ Rann, what if your mix does not have alot of dynamic range, just a smooth flat line, is not that what you want to have for your mix?

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle DJ Rann, what if your mix does not have alot of dynamic range, just a smooth flat line, is not that what you want to have for your mix?

Then you probably mastered the sine wave


Seriously though, that's a matter of taste I suppose. Personally, in general, I prefer music (all types) that has real dynamic range, so the quiet parts are quiet and the loud parts really push it, but it all depends on the track.

Some tech house just builds and builds with really complex sounds and a lot going on so the key with them, I feel, is to have separation of the elements (frequency, space, stereo imaging etc.), rather than the overall dynamic range being the prime consideration. So it all depends.

Please don't get the wrong impression - I'm not saying a totally flat mix is the goal - in fact the exact opposite, which is why I try to work as close to 0dbfs as possible for the peaks of the master because that is your dynamic range ("limit").

Classical music (and most melodic EDM), IMO, should have have real dynamic range because of it's content.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Then you probably mastered the sine wave Seriously though, that's a matter of taste I suppose. Personally, in general, I prefer music (all types) that has real dynamic range, so the quiet parts are quiet and the loud parts really push it, but it all depends on the track. Some tech house just builds and builds with really complex sounds and a lot going on so the key with them, I feel, is to have separation of the elements (frequency, space, stereo imaging etc.), rather than the overall dynamic range being the prime consideration. So it all depends. Please don't get the wrong impression - I'm not saying a totally flat mix is the goal - in fact the exact opposite, which is why I try to work as close to 0dbfs as possible for the peaks of the master because that is your dynamic range ("limit"). Classical music (and most melodic EDM), IMO, should have have real dynamic range because of it's content.

I meant more like flat as little peaks, which means you gain more volume without loosing dynamics.

here is a picture of what i consider a bad and a good mix.

BAD MIX

GOOD MIX

As you can see one of them is spiking like shit, and is a tough track to master at a decent volume, while the other is evened out and is easy mastered to a decent sound level.

Well this is really difficult to answer because it depends on the actual track itself, which I can't tell from the waveform.

I'll answer as best as I can....

In terms of the "loudness" aspect (war) the flatter one (good mix) wins because it will stand out more than the other. It also has dynamic range in that it has an obvious quiet part (breakdown) which in artistic terms gives is variance which is good. Dance music also needs to keep people dancing at it's most basic component so keeping thjose levels equal allow it to be more accessable as the level is constant. If the elements themselves are well mixed (proportionately to each other), then obviously it will help people get in to it.

The bad mix might be more interesting from a artistic point of view, but probably annoying to listen to as they would turn the volume down on loud parts and then have the quiet part too low. On a club system this could be annoying (and I've experienced this myself) to the DJ as the track has very different levels throughout, making mixing and getting the gain right at different point of the track more difficult.

So basically, my guess, all things considered is the flatter mix is the better version, but again I haven't heard it....

hope this helps

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN By making the mix quieter, you are then creating the relative noisefloor at that given lower point. Then you bounce/export and when someone wants to hear it loud, they find the mix is proportionately quieter and adjust the volume to louder...and guess what?...the noise floor increase proportionately with it, meaning your mix actually contains more noise than the mix would have it you got as close to unity as possible in the first place. you can choose to disagree all you want but this is fact, and just simple physics at work. Also, It does affect the dynamics, because they are in relation to the overall dynamic range which, as you know, is less if you're not going to unity on the master fader. The dynamics change in directly proportionally to each other - ever heard what happens to perceived frequency band at different levels....? There's a reason unity gain established, and this is it. I'm not arguing with you for the point of arguing. This is the science of audio engineering and I do this for a living where this shit is drilled in to you.

Where does this "noise" you mention come from? Digital Audio files do not develop noise or artifacts over time. They don't have a noise floor, there is sound and when its quiet there is nothing.

You do realize what you are saying is the cause for audio shitness in today's era? I make my music as if that is what the person is going to listen to. What other people do doesn't concern me, nor should it. People will turn the volume up or down anyways. I usually turn it down. I put the volume levels the way I personally enjoy them and others can deal with it. If they do something that destroys the quality, it isn't my fault.

Subtle your "good" picture looks fucking horrible man. It has 0 dynamic range. Its just a big nasty mass of sound.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Its not about levels, clipping only occurs [for me] when a synth hiccups [z3ta] and sends a spike way out of the roof.

Did you put a limiter on it?

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Where does this "noise" you mention come from? Digital Audio files do not develop noise or artifacts over time. They don't have a noise floor, there is sound and when its quiet there is nothing.

No but summing them can introduce noise especially if there are any samples or recorded elements involved. All recordings have a noise floor to some degree, and yes even many softsynths are not noise free either. Then you compress and gain those sounds and guess what: even more introduced noise.

The more you post the more I realize you have no idea. Please go find another pro engineer and ask them if it's a good idea to pull the master down because a couple of your tracks are causing the master to clip.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir You do realize what you are saying is the cause for audio shitness in today's era? I make my music as if that is what the person is going to listen to. What other people do doesn't concern me, nor should it. People will turn the volume up or down anyways. I usually turn it down. I put the volume levels the way I personally enjoy them and others can deal with it. If they do something that destroys the quality, it isn't my fault.

Who doesn't make music with the listener in mind?

"What other people do?" I'm talking about what veteran pro engineers do, in a professional studio environment. This isn't shit that is just made up - it comes from years (decades) of experience and knowledge, but hey, you know better, making tarnce in your bedroom.
What I'm saying is that the way you're working goes against the proven and tested methods of engineering music properly or at least is not making the most of the potential quality you could achieve.
Do whatever you want, I totally don't care but tell other people to do it your way when it's proven not be the optimum way of working.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Subtle your "good" picture looks fucking horrible man. It has 0 dynamic range. Its just a big nasty mass of sound.

This actually proves you don't understand what dynamic range is. Without hearing the music there's no way to tell is the dynamic range has been compromised in the "busy" parts, epscially at that resolution of the waveform.
(but just so you know, there is dynamic range because there are parts that are dramatically quieter than the louder parts).

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN No but summing them can introduce noise especially if there are any samples or recorded elements involved. All recordings have a noise floor to some degree, and yes even many softsynths are not noise free either. Then you compress and gain those sounds and guess what: even more introduced noise. The more you post the more I realize you have no idea. Please go find another pro engineer and ask them if it's a good idea to pull the master down because a couple of your tracks are causing the master to clip. Who doesn't make music with the listener in mind? "What other people do?" I'm talking about what veteran pro engineers do, in a professional studio environment. This isn't shit that is just made up - it comes from years (decades) of experience and knowledge, but hey, you know better, making tarnce in your bedroom. What I'm saying is that the way you're working goes against the proven and tested methods of engineering music properly or at least is not making the most of the potential quality you could achieve. Do whatever you want, I totally don't care but tell other people to do it your way when it's proven not be the optimum way of working. This actually proves you don't understand what dynamic range is. Without hearing the music there's no way to tell is the dynamic range has been compromised in the "busy" parts, epscially at that resolution of the waveform. (but just so you know, there is dynamic range because there are parts that are dramatically quieter than the louder parts).

Except every piece of music or audio from a major studio sounds like shit. Highly compressed garbage. The things they teach are about making your audio stand out, not about the best possible quality.

So sure, you may have went too school and you are a professional engineer, but the fact is 99.9% of "professionally" processed music sounds horrible. And this garbage is brought into the audio when ever a track is sent to be mastered.

So somewhere along the line, something tells me these processes fail at some point. Wether the processes are bad, or they are implemented incorrectly, who knows.

All of that said, as I mentioned before ive never had any problems with my mix from anyone, and I have had a few tracks released on compilations.

Yes ive used limiters on channels before, but sometimes stuff still gets by.

I'm a logic 8 user and I've been trying to find a way to "avoid" mastering - recently I ran into an article which recommended putting;

*Compressor
*EQ
*Compressor

on the master channel - Has anyone done this?

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Subtle your "good" picture looks fucking horrible man. It has 0 dynamic range. Its just a big nasty mass of sound.

Seriously, the good mix sounds good, and the bad mix sounds bad mixing wise, why did u think i picked them? Or maybe you got some special ability to hear waveforms you see?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN No but summing them can introduce noise especially if there are any samples or recorded elements involved. All recordings have a noise floor to some degree, and yes even many softsynths are not noise free either. Then you compress and gain those sounds and guess what: even more introduced noise.

Now, this is what i dont understand fully what has to do with the master channel.
How can there be a difference between having having the master channel at higher volume and the individual channels set lower, as opposed to having the individual channels set higher and the master channel lower.
The output should be exactly the same, no ?

Alekos, currently on my master I'm going with compressor - EQ - limiter. I used to never have a compressor on the master channel, but a discussion on here a few months ago prompted me to try it out. I set the ratio low, 1.1:1, and the threshold really low as well, -40dB, so the compressor's always working on the audio. But because the ratio is so low, it doesn't sound heavily compressed. It brings the whole dynamic range in a bit, rather than just working on the peaks the way a limiter does.

Using a master compressor in this way still requires you to mix well - if one of your sounds is too loud the compressor's not going to help you out very much at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle I meant more like flat as little peaks, which means you gain more volume without loosing dynamics. here is a picture of what i consider a bad and a good mix. BAD MIX GOOD MIX As you can see one of them is spiking like shit, and is a tough track to master at a decent volume, while the other is evened out and is easy mastered to a decent sound level.

I think most engineers will not agree. your "good" mix has no dynamics left. those aren't spikes, they are transients. your "bad" mix is actually the better of the 2... start reading about the loudness war...

quote:

Originally posted by Raphie I think most engineers will not agree. your "good" mix has no dynamics left. those aren't spikes, they are transients. your "bad" mix is actually the better of the 2... start reading about the loudness war...

Yeah i know about the loudness war, and if i see spikes in my tracks i keep them, because i know limiting them will make the sound worse.

I realise posting pictures was the worst idea ever.

What I mean about bad mix is that the volume cannot be raised alot without loosing dynamics, while the good mix can have its volume raised without it sounding different than in the sequencer. Which means lesser processing to get an even volume overall, thus a more correct mixdown.

The bad mix sounds good, it just cannot sound as high in volume as other tracks going with it.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.