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

@DJ RANN: We are in agreement, you're right correcting my wording.

u r al rong bcuz hardwer dosnt lossy lol

Re: How to create more headroom in your mix (with EQ)?

quote:

Originally posted by Dance123 Whenever I start mixing multiple sounds, it doesn't take long before my master meter goes in the red. Anybody can give some good advice regarding how to create more headroom in your mix and if EQ'ing can help with this?

1. when EQing try to subtract. Not only is this better with regards to how digital EQs work and prevents phasing and interlacing, you'll also prevent your meters from going up. Then just boost the channel fader. Think inverse...

2. On your fx, roll off the junk <90-150hz. Aux reverbs and delays don't really need that range, low freq. range will add to your volume allot.

3. Any instruments you want to sit further back in the depth of the mix should be rolled off on the highs to soften them back and rolled of on the lows. Use this to create depth

quote:

[i][b]Also, do frequency-overlapping sounds in a mix eat up headroom alot faster? I notice when I mix sounds that have overlapping frequencies (like bass and pad), the master seems to go much faster in the red then when you mix for example a kick and a hi-hat. Is there a logic behind this? Anybody can explain this please? Thanks!

Careful Left and Right spreading will allow your instruments to overlap in the same freq. range. If you have a phat synth with allot of low-mid meat, try panning the other similar freq. range instrument to the other side. Be careful not to throw off your stereo field when in Mono and whatch out for phasing.

have fun

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN This unfortunately is not a point for subjective discussion. Headroom is the space before you exceed 0dbfs. If you want to use the term headroom for the differences between loud and quiet peaks then you're using the term incorrectly. That is called relative dynamics. ....exactly why it has nothing to do with relative dynamics becuase that's not headroom (as above). But the second file does have transients they are just closer together in relative terms - it doesn't mean they don't exist. Well the space between peaks and 0dbfs is (not "if") headroom, but that's only one part of it becuase headroom also takes in to consideration the overall RMS level as peaks alone don't give a true representation of the level of the track. They both are components of headroom and both affect it's value. err...How about the thread that I posted a while back called "what 0dbfs actually means" which also happens contains the tutorial I made with a step by step guide to calibrating your monitors to the K system (including the download link for the claibration noise files)... (I also already posted the link to this tutorial at the beginning of this thread).... http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=512627 Actually, you are completely technically right that if you eq a frequency (especially a bass frequency that has more result on final dbfs) down then you could create more headroom but this would be the least significant/effective method of creating headroom - relative mixing, ,limiting, compression are so many more times effective at creating headroom that it's not really the right way to go about it. It's like trying to kill someone by stabbing them with toothpicks - you'll get there eventually but there's a lot more effective ways of doing it. A Generally speaking (and there are obviously exceptions) eq is a precise tool, not really used to significantly like a blanket tool to lower the overall DB to create headroom. Yes you could use many separate instances of EQ to acheive this, but you would just normally use things like band specific compression etc. That's why personally, I don't consider EQ a way to really create headroom (in the correct definition of headroom as stated above). Laurent - that's actually very good advice. Even slight timing issues can really fuck up things in a mix and so many sounds have lower harmonics that eventually add up to just make everything muddy. Eldritch - I don't like to touch that master fader because that's an integral part of my speaker calibration gain staging. By lowering the master I'm affecting the accuracy of the calibration, and therefore my ability to mix accurately. It's really a minor consideration in fairness, but I just don't see the need to touch the master. I just adjust the tracks themsleves and problem solved. Finally at Kismet - I disagree with a lot of what you've posted on here recently but what you're saying here is totally spot on. phew......

Yesss someone finally agrees with me on something. I am now a whopping 1 for 20. haha.

Well actually i've gotten a few +1s and "I agree", so the ratio is not that bad. I often go against the grain so people do disagree with me often, and i'm fine with that, since im not looking for agreement, I want to learn more and share what I do know. In that -dbfs headroom discussion thread, even though I felt I was right and had a few engineers for reference, I still learned something from the thread.

That said, while lurking DJ RANN I pretty much agree with what you've said here in this thread as well, but feel free to disagree with me in the future, because maybe i'm wrong and you know the right way. In other words, I don't look to create agreement based relationships with fellow artists/musicians, rather...rational objective communication based relationships with a dash of idealism and philosophical reasoning, with some mystical sprinkles on top.

quote:

Originally posted by Lolo time correct everything so timing is as precise as a swiss clock,

why on earth would you do that

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