TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- How to bring a sound forward in the mix
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

How to bring a sound forward in the mix

I've done a search, and cant really find anything to answer my question, and perhaps im not asking the right question to begin with.

But I'm having trouble with Hardware synths as apposed to VST's which i've been using for a while now..

The hardware although sounding much better, doesn't seem to sit right in the mix, kinda behind the bass and percussion, and doesn't stand out..

Should I be looking at EQ? laying off the reverb? can anyone point me in the right direction?

Yeah Reverb could hide sounds... Don't use it too much.

And you need obvisously an EQ. The EQ is there for that, so use it. You can use it to remove some frequencies of a sound to let this frequency range to another sound (for ex. un lead doesn't need bass frequencies from 20Hz) or to "exaggerate" a sound to bring it to the front (for ex. adding some 4-5kHz frequencies on a lead).

there are some patches that dont fit into a mix...eq,filter,reverb and some tweeking solve that.

how about a chorus or sound imager aka Stereo enhancer...
they'r usefull to make ur sound wide and bring to the front

especially on vocals

Bringing a sound forward in a mix is mostly a combination of using compression and reverb. The use of reverb should be straight forward enough, but use compression to tame the dynamic peaks on a sound in order to draw it forward. Compressing a sound will make it louder, and thus appear closer to the front of the mix.

And, yes, you could use a little EQ as well, primarily by bringing out the 'presence' frequencies in the ~4 kHz to ~6 kHz range.

Really though, I'd look into compressing the sound (depending on what the sound is, but most probably using high level compression, in that you will want to compress the high peaks to create a 'harder' sound), and laying off the reverb if possible.

@Perry: I would consider "wide" and "forward" to be two completely different terms.

The key is to make the sound dry and loud.

the trick is to use all of the fx together and get the best resault . compression, paning, eq & filters. but EQ is your best friend.. and i cant see how a hardware synth is THAT different from a vst. it depends on the patch.. use the parametric eq to cut everything below 50-100 and lower abit the 100- 300 part (for a lead synth that is). and ofcourse experiment with the settings.

I really don't understand how people are refering to EQ when positioning a sound with regards to the z-axis (back to front). It's compression that's your best friend, trust me. No need to experiment - that's what you do when you don't know what you're doing. OK, so this will take a few years, but learn and understand how to equalise and compress and eventually it'll come to you naturally, without the need to tweak settings randomly.

Because our ears are most sensitive in the ~4 kHz to ~6 kHz range, boosting a sound here will give it more 'presence', because it will appear to stand out as louder when played back at an average volume.

However, EQ alone will not simply bring a sound forward in a mix. OK, so we've established that it's a combination of effects, but using a highpass filter to remove the bass frequencies and sucking out the lower mids with a peaking EQ (this one is very instrument specific, by the way, so watch out) won't do the sample justice at all with respect to the z-axis, although I do agree that boosting some 'presence' frequencies helps, as does rolling off the bass-end if it isn't important to the sound in question.

Just try some compression to start out with. That's why heavily compressed drums are always loudest and at the front of the mix, and airy, distant pads are left uncompressed to make them sound further away.

Also, one final comment on dj jasonF's comment of "using all the effects together": Often, you'll find that less is in fact more, and, as I said previously, a dry sound will in most cases appear louder and at the front of the mix. Of course, compression is an exception here, but don't cloud your sound in effects, including reverb, widening, delays, EQ, panning...they all aren't specific to bringing a sound closer to the front of a mix.

I don't see how compression has anything to do with the "distance" of a sound. Compression by definition is supposed to be an "invisible" effect - it flattens dynamics but doesn't affect localization. The only instance in which I can see this making any difference is when the sample already has a lot of reverb and the compression is being used to flatten some of it out.

"Dry" is definitely correct, though. Reverb is one of the best ways to move a sound back. Use the predelay - higher predelay gets perceived as further back (think about what reverb actually is, it makes perfect sense). Then when you need to bring instruments "forward", give them less reverb and less predelay, or possibly no reverb at all. That's why kicks and basslines always sound close to the front - not because of compression, but because they typically have no reverb.

Stereo imaging uses a similar concept to position sounds from left to right. Panning doesn't tell the whole story - even if a sound is coming from directly on your left, you will still hear it in your right ear, just later than the left ear. Sound localization is all about timing. You might even play with the MIDI timing of the instrument (but use multiples of the tempo for delays - a 64th note is usually good).

Most importantly though, think more along the lines of moving the other sounds to the back than bringing the particular synth you want to the front.

quote:

The only instance in which I can see this making any difference is when the sample already has a lot of reverb and the compression is being used to flatten some of it out.

Can this not be a valuable argument to support the fact the compression draws a sound closer then?

Well OK, have you ever worked with, or heard a drum (snare, clap etc.) track with a fast decay that you've placed in a mix, only to find it just doesn't cut through? Turn the volume up, and you end up with clipping, or the sound taking over the mix; turn the volume down again, and it gets lost. You can never find a good balance between the two, and you just can't seem to give it focus, the only solution to this being compression. You can draw instruments closer, making them stand out more as they have more volume overall.

quote:

Panning doesn't tell the whole story - even if a sound is coming from directly on your left, you will still hear it in your right ear, just later than the left ear.

Yes, which is why I use a stereo balance control to pan stereo instruments in a mix to preserve more of the stereo width, but, that's a whole different topic.

quote:

You might even play with the MIDI timing of the instrument (but use multiples of the tempo for delays - a 64th note is usually good).

So, you're suggesting using delays to localise the sound then? imo that would again only cloud the sound in effects, taking the focus away from it.

quote:

Most importantly though, think more along the lines of moving the other sounds to the back than bringing the particular synth you want to the front.

Brilliant advice there, couldn't have said it better myself. This is very true actually, only didn't think to mention it earlier. I think it's a combination of both really, but applying more reverb to other instruments, or reducing the 'presence' range here and there would definitely be a good thing.

Not sure what synth your using, but try using less oscillators on your synth. Sounds stupid, I know... but I find with my MicroQ, the less osc I use, the clearer and fatter the sound is. Go back to your synth programming first as it is the source of your signal. Failing that... check your recording source.. are you using a good soundcard to record the signal? Are the cables good quality?

Another suggestion would be to make numerous recordings of the synth and layer them to get a fatter signal. Perhaps with slightly different filter settings to accentuate the frequencies you are lacking in. This might help thought its hard to say without an audio sample.

A pre-amp may help too. Even a cheap one will do and will help to tighten up the signal before it gets recorded. You can pick these up on ebay for less than $200 now. If this is a recurring problem, then you might like to have a look at these.

Theres no need to go running to either compression or fx straight away as these will either reduce the dynamics of your source and essentially make the sound more processed. Use them only when you deem it necessary. You will undoubtably do so during the mixing and mastering process anyway so using them at the recording process is an unecessary step imo.

Good luck =)

Have to back Atlantis up here.... Compression (=volume more or less!!) is just as important as reverb&delay as those two are the major things about getting your sound in front of the mix...

Reverb and delay wil make a sound more natural, thus place it more in the background. Dry (and loud) sounds are on the foreground. Also making something loud places it in the foreground. Thus compression is just as important!

Very special effects which don't correspond with the regular character of your track will also stand out. So do something weird with your isntrument or something and it will stand out!

On the other hand EQ-ing can be used to make your mix more transparant,which makes every sound speak for itself instead of hearing a bunch of sounds which you can't tell waht actually is playing. EQ ing can be used to place an instrument on top of a mix, but it sure isn't the usual way.

quote:

Originally posted by Atlantis-AR I really don't understand how people are refering to EQ when positioning a sound with regards to the z-axis (back to front). It's compression that's your best friend, trust me. No need to experiment - that's what you do when you don't know what you're doing. OK, so this will take a few years, but learn and understand how to equalise and compress and eventually it'll come to you naturally, without the need to tweak settings randomly. Because our ears are most sensitive in the ~4 kHz to ~6 kHz range, boosting a sound here will give it more 'presence', because it will appear to stand out as louder when played back at an average volume. However, EQ alone will not simply bring a sound forward in a mix. OK, so we've established that it's a combination of effects, but using a highpass filter to remove the bass frequencies and sucking out the lower mids with a peaking EQ (this one is very instrument specific, by the way, so watch out) won't do the sample justice at all with respect to the z-axis, although I do agree that boosting some 'presence' frequencies helps, as does rolling off the bass-end if it isn't important to the sound in question. Just try some compression to start out with. That's why heavily compressed drums are always loudest and at the front of the mix, and airy, distant pads are left uncompressed to make them sound further away. Also, one final comment on dj jasonF's comment of "using all the effects together": Often, you'll find that less is in fact more, and, as I said previously, a dry sound will in most cases appear louder and at the front of the mix. Of course, compression is an exception here, but don't cloud your sound in effects, including reverb, widening, delays, EQ, panning...they all aren't specific to bringing a sound closer to the front of a mix.

you are talking like compression is the most importand thing... its not if you are a newbie and you are trying to make a lead (that fills the hole spectrum), fit in the mix and make it loud and clean.

and saying "using all the effects together" i ment using the right fx compbination and amount to get the best of it.

Hey. It would be great if you would provide a sample of what you are talking about. This might possibly just be a problem with the mixinf od the sound levels, i.e. some things are jsut up too loud. When you get a sample on here, I as well as most of these guys will probably be able to provde better info on how to fix it. While compression works a lot of the time, dont use it as the holy grail because the difference between a distortion pedal and a compressor isnt as different as youd expect so use it somewhat sparingly, such as on the sounds that make the mix the muddiest (pads, basses, kicks, etc.) and of course you will ALWAYS want a compressor over the entire mix if you ever plan to have the song sound right. Generally if you have 3 or more sounds that cover the same spectrum or atleast overlap on a lot of frequencies, you get muddiness. For that instance, you need a compressor and some EQing to give each sound a slightly different focus range on the frequencies. But like I said, I cant provide anything worthwhile without hearing exactly what you mean .

Cheers,
Zac

hey

Reverb truly isnt the killer alot of times u might want a heavy stab u got from a piece of hardware and those always sound good with plenty of reverb.I just started using hardware and i will tell you.

EQ AND COMPRESSION

thats the key.....

those two make the diffrence.

obviously the bass and sometimes the kick reside on lower frequencys so just bring down the lowers on the sound your using and raise the higher frequencys a bit and there u have it.

quote:

Originally posted by dj jasonF you are talking like compression is the most importand thing... its not if you are a newbie and you are trying to make a lead (that fills the hole spectrum), fit in the mix and make it loud and clean.

Exactly. In this case, besides reverb, compression is the most important thing.

Why is it not important "if you are a newbie trying to make lead ... loud ... "? That's exactly what compression will do. You're absolutely right that EQ will make a sound "clean" and "fit in the mix", but it will not specifically draw it forward, as I believe the original question was. A lot of the replies are just going way off topic, and aren't specific to the question.

OK, another example: Imagine two tracks side by side, one is mastered by use of a compressor with the intend of increasing the overall volume, the other is a simple render of the mixdown. Both files are normalised to -0.3 dB. Now, play them one after another and what do you hear? The compressed mix is louder, while the mixdown is softer. How does your brain localise sounds in the real world with regards to volume?

Therefore, being able to turn a sound up within a mix without casuing clipping (i.e. by use of compression) is a valid way of drawing it closer with respect to the other instruments, as the increased overal volume allows it to stand out more.

quote:

Originally posted by Atlantis-AR Can this not be a valuable argument to support the fact the compression draws a sound closer then? Well OK, have you ever worked with, or heard a drum (snare, clap etc.) track with a fast decay that you've placed in a mix, only to find it just doesn't cut through? Turn the volume up, and you end up with clipping, or the sound taking over the mix; turn the volume down again, and it gets lost. You can never find a good balance between the two, and you just can't seem to give it focus, the only solution to this being compression. You can draw instruments closer, making them stand out more as they have more volume overall.

The majority of instruments start out dry and reverb gets added later... it's pretty rare to want to cut the reverb *out* of a sample with compression, but yes, I suppose in those rare cases, it would be useful.

I understand what you're saying and you are correct, I just had a different interpretation of the question. If you interpret bringing a sound out as raising its perceived volume, then compression is the answer; in the context of depth perception, though, the apparent loudness of a sound doesn't effectively communicate distance to a listener any more so than the size of an object communicates distance to an observer. Loudness is perhaps part of the overall picture, along with the more important elements like echo patterns and timing differences (sort of like light and shadow in the visual field).

quote:

So, you're suggesting using delays to localise the sound then? imo that would again only cloud the sound in effects, taking the focus away from it.

You're thinking too complex! Keep it simple, I was not talking about a delay effect, just delaying the onset of the sound, as in playing the note a 64th of a beat earlier or later. Obviously this won't work with tight rhythmic patterns like drumloops or arps, but you'd be surprised how much of a difference it can make for pads and leads and such.

If you still don't believe me, try an experiment (I assume you have a MIDI keyboard, if not, forget it): take the skeleton of a track and record some piano riffs (simple ones - use notes no longer than an 8th) over it, but set your quantize to something like 1/32 or 1/64. Assuming you don't suck, it should sound decent as recorded. Now, edit the recording and re-quantize them to the 1/8 or 1/16th, and make sure that the attacks all happen where they "should" happen. And change all the velocities to a constant value (i.e. total compression). Now tell me if you can honestly say that the "tight" version draws as much attention?

Trust me on this one, I'm no expert on sound design but I've been a musician most of my life, and I know that the way to draw people's attention to something is to vary the timing and dynamics. It sounds more human that way, and thus, more pronounced. Compression crushes those dynamics - it may make a sound louder but all I am saying is that this is not always the desired effect when one wants to "bring out" a sound.

I'm not trying to advocate against compression, but it's important to use it in moderation - nothing sounds worse than a flat, flavourless, over-compressed track.

quote:

Originally posted by Atlantis-AR Exactly. In this case, besides reverb, compression is the most important thing. Why is it not important "if you are a newbie trying to make lead ... loud ... "? That's exactly what compression will do. You're absolutely right that EQ will make a sound "clean" and "fit in the mix", but it will not specifically draw it forward, as I believe the original question was. A lot of the replies are just going way off topic, and aren't specific to the question. OK, another example: Imagine two tracks side by side, one is mastered by use of a compressor with the intend of increasing the overall volume, the other is a simple render of the mixdown. Both files are normalised to -0.3 dB. Now, play them one after another and what do you hear? The compressed mix is louder, while the mixdown is softer. How does your brain localise sounds in the real world with regards to volume? Therefore, being able to turn a sound up within a mix without casuing clipping (i.e. by use of compression) is a valid way of drawing it closer with respect to the other instruments, as the increased overal volume allows it to stand out more.

lol you dont give up do you ??

you are trying to fit the lead in the track... the lead is covering the hole spectrum 20hz and up.

what is better??? compression or EQ???

if you raise the volume (Even if you compress the damn lead) enough to make the lead stand out.. you wont be able to hear the kick and bassline. with a good sub atleast. but if you eq... thats why i say EQ is the most importand part. ofcourse as i said in my first post a combination of fx and techniques is the way to make it sound good and forward.



anyway lets not argue about this. id use eq first youd use compression. there are endless possibilities to make it sound right.

quote:

Originally posted by dj jasonF lol you dont give up do you ??

Give up? I'm just trying to discuss the topic to a little more professional extend rather than just posting "Use EQ", or "Use a filter/chorus/whatever". Not trying to flame you, or even anyone in this thread, but I'm sorry if my input isn't allowed or seen as offensive.

quote:

you are trying to fit the lead in the track... the lead is covering the hole spectrum 20hz and up. what is better??? compression or EQ??? if you raise the volume (Even if you compress the damn lead) enough to make the lead stand out.. you wont be able to hear the kick and bassline. with a good sub atleast. but if you eq... thats why i say EQ is the most importand part. ofcourse as i said in my first post a combination of fx and techniques is the way to make it sound good and forward.

Again, you're describing exactly how to place a sound in a mix in which is doesn't fit with regards to EQ, but this isn't what the original question was. Don't get me wrong, your points are all valid (I should know, I have years of experience behind me working as an engineer), but the question was how to move an instrument that had already been placed in a mix forward.

Again, not trying to offend you, but I see answers such as yours as off topic, which is why I feel the need to express my opinion to hopefully not confuse those reading the thread. Your points are perfectly fine, but it just isn't directly related to the topic question. Unless I misinterpreted the words "bringing a sound forward".

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I understand what you're saying and you are correct, I just had a different interpretation of the question. If you interpret bringing a sound out as raising its perceived volume, then compression is the answer; in the context of depth perception, though, the apparent loudness of a sound doesn't effectively communicate distance to a listener any more so than the size of an object communicates distance to an observer. Loudness is perhaps part of the overall picture, along with the more important elements like echo patterns and timing differences (sort of like light and shadow in the visual field).

Yes, I see what you're saying and where we interpreted the question differently. In that case, the answer should have been a simple "lay off the reverb". I assumed that the sound was alread in its final form, and that Analog Artisan was looking for a way to move it 'forward', but more so in the context of giving it focus. The use of compression can give the instruments more of a hierarchical structure as to which gets to be the predominant one, whereas, you're right, reverb is the only effect that will truely communicate distance.

quote:

If you still don't believe me, try an experiment (I assume you have a MIDI keyboard, if not, forget it)

No, I see what you mean. And, no, unfortunately I'm just an engineer so don't have those sort of capabilities at hand, but I understand where you're coming from. It's a good point nonetheless.

quote:

Compression crushes those dynamics - it may make a sound louder but all I am saying is that this is not always the desired effect when one wants to "bring out" a sound. I'm not trying to advocate against compression, but it's important to use it in moderation - nothing sounds worse than a flat, flavourless, over-compressed track.

You're right, and I don't favour the use of compression all that much either, but more often than not a little can often do wonders. I'm definitely with you on the use of too much compression though.

Anyway, back on topic: Lay off the reverb.

quote:

you are trying to fit the lead in the track... the lead is covering the hole spectrum 20hz and up. what is better??? compression or EQ???

What's better? A lead that doesn't fill the entire damn spectrum, that's what's better. Fat sounds are fat, and all, but they're shit if they don't fit in the mix.

The key is to program sounds that don't clash so much, then let EQ tie up loose ends.

AR is right; sounds come to the front of the mix with loudness, commonly provided with post-compression gain (strictly speaking, compressors make a sound quieter, but after compression, they can be made to sound louder by increasing post-gain). EQing ensures that they don't interfere with other sounds in the process. They're two separate solutions to two separate problems.

One thing I do to typically make a sound seem right on top of me is I invert one channel. Not sure why it works, but it makes the sound seem closer.

"those who knows which sounds to ditch, are those who are much likely to make a living out of it.."

computer music

quote:

Originally posted by Atlantis-AR Give up? I'm just trying to discuss the topic to a little more professional extend rather than just posting "Use EQ", or "Use a filter/chorus/whatever". Not trying to flame you, or even anyone in this thread, but I'm sorry if my input isn't allowed or seen as offensive.

i was just joking lol.

Good discussion tho. Finally a bit more grown up (check the Lord of Bass thread in the music promotion forum...need I say more?)

Thank you so much for all the replys, alot of different ideas to work with. I should have left out the bit about "lay off the reverb" in my oringal post. I acctully want to keep whatever reverb/delay is on the synth and bring it forward, as im happy with the sound just not how its sitting.

Like IDarkISwordI said, we really need a sample to work with, and make sure my idea of a sound being at the back of a mix is the same as everyone who posted.

There wasn't something in particualar I was working on at the moment, this is just a question thats been floating around in my head after it comming up a few times using my JP-8080

the other thing is, its all good and well to read up on compression and EQ, mixing ect.. and to fiddle around trying things yourself. But its a bit like going to science class at school and the teacher says "Ok heres your textbook and some chemicals, have fun" and leaves you for the rest of the term.

So my proposal is the following, tommorow I'll make up small clip with some mixing problems, Ill try any suggestions you guys make, and post different clips with the suggestions used. at the very least it should be a good dairy of how to take a compleatly rough mix and get it ready for the mastering stage.

Thanks Again all.

quote:

Originally posted by Analog Artisan the other thing is, its all good and well to read up on compression and EQ, mixing ect.. and to fiddle around trying things yourself. But its a bit like going to science class at school and the teacher says "Ok heres your textbook and some chemicals, have fun" and leaves you for the rest of the term.

That's the fun part.

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