|
How to bring a sound forward in the mix (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| IDarkISwordI |
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 |
|
|
| Signal2005 |
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. |
|
|
| Atlantis-AR |
| 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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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. :p
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. ;) |
|
|
| dj jasonF |
| 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 ??:toothless
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. |
|
|
| Atlantis-AR |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj jasonF
lol you dont give up do you ??:toothless |
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". |
|
|
| Atlantis-AR |
| 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. :D |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
| 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 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. |
|
|
| Subtle |
"those who knows which sounds to ditch, are those who are much likely to make a living out of it.."
computer music |
|
|
| dj jasonF |
| 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. |
|
|
| Beautiful Beast |
| Good discussion tho. Finally a bit more grown up (check the Lord of Bass thread in the music promotion forum...need I say more?) |
|
|
| Analog Artisan |
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. |
|
|
|
|
