Techniques to Unmask tracks when mixing...

[FMiguelez]

.

Hello, everyone.
I've been busy mixing some tracks. One of the songs has a lot of distorted electric guitars. there are 3 comping ones, and the main melodic one that makes fills and leaks in certain places.
The song is very busy (arrangement wise). There are strings, all the guitars, keyboards, etc.
The thing is that I'm feeling that the comping EGs are masking the melodic one at times, and if I turn the volume up things start sounding not very good.

What I did is I sent the comping EGs to an aux track, and I've been automating the EQ in the parts where the melodic EG plays to unmask it. Most melodic EG parts range one and a half octaves, so I'm not very happy with the EQ tweaking for the comping gtrs. I feel it's either, not enough, or I take out too much.

What technique should I try?
I'm letting my ears rest, so I will continue on Monday. On the way home, I started thinking that MAYBE (you tell me) it is better if I use a multiband compressor in such a way that I "enclose" in the comping guitars whatever frequency the melodic guitar encompasses, and reducing them a few dB.
Do you think this is a better way?

Another thing that occurs to me is I could duck certain frequencies at times, but I'm not sure I know how to set this up. I can make the track duck in volume, but I just want to duck CERTAIN frequencies and leave the volume alone (I think it sits right). How can I do this? (my tools are DP's plugs and Waves Platinum).

If you think of a better technique, or something you wish to suggest, please let me know about it.

I really want to master these techniques, so I can apply them with ease when necessary.

Thank you, my friends!

[Phil O]

Another thing that occurs to me is I could duck certain frequencies at times, but I'm not sure I know how to set this up. I can make the track duck in volume, but I just want to duck CERTAIN frequencies and leave the volume alone (I think it sits right). How can I do this? (my tools are DP's plugs and Waves Platinum).

There's a sneaky way to do this, but requires a linear phase EQ. (I don't know if Waves has this in their Platinum bundle.)

So the idea is this. You already know that if you duplicate a track and invert it, they will mix and null. Well if the inverted track is set at some low fader setting, they will mix and attenuate. That's the key.

Set up a duplicate track and invert or use Invert Phase plug. Next insert your linear phase EQ and boost all frequencies you want to duck, cut all you want untouched. Next insert a gate with sidechain. MOTU Dynamics works well for this (and I think the MW Gate has sidechain as well with more flexibility). Set up a bus for the sidechain and you're good to go. The settings will be tricky, but this does actually work. Don't forget that the fader setting on this duplicate track will adjust the amount of ducking.

Phil

[FMiguelez]

There's a sneaky way to do this, but requires a linear phase EQ. (I don't know if Waves has this in their Platinum bundle.)

So the idea is this. You already know that if you duplicate a track and invert it, they will mix and null. Well if the inverted track is set at some low fader setting, they will mix and attenuate. That's the key.

Set up a duplicate track and invert or use Invert Phase plug. Next insert your linear phase EQ and boost all frequencies you want to duck, cut all you want untouched. Next insert a gate with sidechain. MOTU Dynamics works well for this (and I think the MW Gate has sidechain as well with more flexibility). Set up a bus for the sidechain and you're good to go. The settings will be tricky, but this does actually work. Don't forget that the fader setting on this duplicate track will adjust the amount of ducking.

Nice!
Sounds like fun!

So I boost the frequencies I want to cut... a little unintuitive, but it makes sense (because of the inverted phase, right?).

And I'm in luck, since the Platinum bundle contains a linear phase EQ.
I will try the hell out of this trick on monday.

Thanks for your tip, Phil!

Not to be too picky or anything, but is there a single plug-in that can do all this without all these steps? Just curious.

And what do you think about multi-band compressing the "unwanted" frequencies for certain sections? What do you think works more effectively, that, or your frequency ducking trick?
I mean, I will find out this for myself, but I'm interested in learning what YOU think.

Gracias

[Phil O]

So I boost the frequencies I want to cut... a little unintuitive, but it makes sense (because of the inverted phase, right?).

Right.

Not to be too picky or anything, but is there a single plug-in that can do all this without all these steps? Just curious.

I would think a multiband compressor with side chain would do the trick, but I was trying to give you a solution with what you have.

And what do you think about multi-band compressing the "unwanted" frequencies for certain sections? What do you think works more effectively, that, or your frequency ducking trick?

I honestly don't know. I think it really depends on the material. In general, I think fussy automation gives better results, but is very time consuming. Ducking with sidechain is just a time saver IMO.

Phil

[FMiguelez]

.

Now, for your trick to work properly, DP must compensate for plug-in latency PERFECTLY, correct?

I hope DP7 fixed this, because 4.61 SOMETIMES has trouble with this although putting the same plugs in both tracks should fix this (bypassed in one, of course). Seems like a waste of CPU power, but if it works it works.

I'm looking forward to try your suggestion

Either way, I think either, encapsulating with multi-band compressing to lower the unwanted frequencies or your trick will work better than just automating the EQ in the offending tracks, because the main melody goes up and down with many notes, and it would be silly to follow the melody with the frequency cuts... right?
And having a static EQ for that section either, takes away too much or not enough at places (as I did it today).

[waitsongs]

.

One of the songs has a lot of distorted electric guitars. there are 3 comping ones, and the main melodic one that makes fills and leaks in certain places.
The song is very busy (arrangement wise). There are strings, all the guitars, keyboards, etc.
The thing is that I'm feeling that the comping EGs are masking the melodic one at times, and if I turn the volume up things start sounding not very good.

I know this may sound boneheaded, but have you tried taking out a comping guitar track or 2 and seeing what happens? (I'm assuming they're doubling or tripling each other). Even though I've done this stuff for many years, sometimes in the thick of it I forget the simpler solution may be the best.... good luck!

[Kubi]

A simple thing to check is to make sure you have a high pass on every track except the few tracks that need to cover the lows (bass kick, whatever.) Depending on the part and the filter's slope, the high pass can be set as high as 150Hz on a rhythm guitar part, even higher on a solo. This is of course entirely context- dependent. You won't believe how much that clears up. If you have a sub, turn off your mains and listen t it alone. You should hear nothing or almost nothing when you mute the dedicated low end tracks like bass, kick, gran cassa, pipe organ, whatever has the lows.

Also, ditch reverbs completely for now on all but essential tracks (solos, vocals, etc.), until you have the mix working. Be sure to kill the low end in the reverb, usually best on the input into it (so before the signal gets reverberated.)

Most importantly, especially if you have multiple rhythm guitars, use mono tracks. IMO, mono tracks are the single-most forgotten tool in the age of stereo sample instruments. Pan them pretty hard (You want to have at least one element far left and far right anyway, why not make one of them a guitar? U2 Vertigo, anyone?). But panning in general, not just hard panning, is a very potent tool that helps to avoid having to neuter two competing elements via EQ because they clash too much.

Once you have the overall panning layout working OK, fold your mix to mono and fine-tune the panning of mono parts within a few notches of their position, while listening in mono. The best pan position will sound louder in the mono fold. Unfold back to stereo and listen in amazement at how your mix opened up.

Once the (almost) dry mix is working, if you need a room on i.e. the rhythm guitars now, try a mono reverb, or even better, a mono delay panned somewhere close to the original. Have a spacious feel without crowding the entire stereo field. Have your cake and eat it too!

Personally, I would use all these techniques before getting too fancy with the multi-band compressors, though that does sound like fun!

Oh, and +1 on the solution of thinning out the arrangement. Not always the desirable option (sometimes you want everything and the kitchen sink), but as mentioned in the post above, it is too often overlooked.

[FMiguelez]

I know this may sound boneheaded, but have you tried taking out a comping guitar track or 2 and seeing what happens? (I'm assuming they're doubling or tripling each other). Even though I've done this stuff for many years, sometimes in the thick of it I forget the simpler solution may be the best.... good luck!

Not boneheaded at all!

In fact, That's exactly what I've been doing. There was a synth pad that wasn't contributing much. It was just a held chord with sweeping frequencies, and I killed it. I kept 3 of the 5 (!) comping guitars (and are seriously thinking of dropping the third. Maybe it will work better panning the 2 comp ones opposite and leave the lead one center(ish) ).
Also, as much as I LOVE the Cellos, I took them out... they were mudding the bass part, and there are keyboards and everything, so killing them isn't noticeable except that it sounds clearer without them (in the busy sections).

This is a very good thing to check, as you say, because it's simple and effective.

[FMiguelez]

A simple thing to check is to make sure you have a high pass on every track except the few tracks that need to cover the lows (bass kick, whatever.) Depending on the part and the filter's slope, the high pass can be set as high as 150Hz on a rhythm guitar part, even higher on a solo. This is of course entirely context- dependent. You won't believe how much that clears up. If you have a sub, turn off your mains and listen t it alone. You should hear nothing or almost nothing when you mute the dedicated low end tracks like bass, kick, gran cassa, pipe organ, whatever has the lows.

Funny you mention this because I did it, and curiously, since I have much less frequency space to work with in the guitars, it makes it a little harder. This helped clearing the mix a lot, and now I need to make the guitars not clash among themselves given the reduced frequency space.
I stuck a high pass filter first, and then put another EQ to do the corrective stuff because some gtrs had these HORRIBLE resonances.

Most importantly, especially if you have multiple rhythm guitars, use mono tracks. IMO, mono tracks are the single-most forgotten tool in the age of stereo sample instruments. Pan them pretty hard (You want to have at least one element far left and far right anyway, why not make one of them a guitar? U2 Vertigo, anyone?). But panning in general, not just hard panning, is a very potent tool that helps to avoid having to neuter two competing elements via EQ because they clash too much.

Agreed. The tracks came in stereo, and the Trim plug came in SO handy. I reduced the stereo width for the comp guitars by a lot! Not quite mono, but now that you mentioned it I will make those mono and see what happens.

Once you have the overall panning layout working OK, fold your mix to mono and fine-tune the panning of mono parts within a few notches of their position, while listening in mono. The best pan position will sound louder in the mono fold. Unfold back to stereo and listen in amazement at how your mix opened up.

Nice idea. I've never tried this, but I will

Once the (almost) dry mix is working, if you need a room on i.e. the rhythm guitars now, try a mono reverb, or even better, a mono delay panned somewhere close to the original. Have a spacious feel without crowding the entire stereo field. Have your cake and eat it too!

Aha! I've been using stereo reverbs and delays only. I will try those in mono too.
So you mean to try the reverb and/or delay close to the source sound, even if it's hard panned? Interesting. This should clear things up a lot.

Personally, I would use all these techniques before getting too fancy with the multi-band compressors, though that does sound like fun!

You've given me very good ideas.
I need to pay more attention to the placement and equalizing of the effects!

Thank you, Kubi!

[waitsongs]

Glad you're making such good progress, and glad you posted this in the first place because now I have a few more tricks to try next time I'm stuck on a mix!

[Shooshie]

Glad you're making such good progress, and glad you posted this in the first place because now I have a few more tricks to try next time I'm stuck on a mix!

+1 on that!

I've printed this thread to PDF TWICE now.

[mesaken]

This is a unique plug that might be of use in your situation. Its not cheap, but you get a good bang for the buck with the mini bundle. SPL and Brainworx work together on a lot of the code.

http://www.brainworx-music.de/shop/prod ... 6fd204f219" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bongo_x]

I'm going to back up Kubi on this. What he said.

The eq ducking and multi-band thing always sounds like fun, but in the real world I've never seen anyone do this. It seems like the sort of thing you read in audio magazines and on web sites but you don't see the big name mixers doing this. I have change the eq between verse and chorus, but very rarely.

Like Kubi said, try turning all the reverbs off, make things mono, get to basics, then find a place for everything. Then worry about the effects and such. Add things in one at a time and see which is causing the problem.

Don't forget that the eq of the reverb is affecting your guitar sound, I mostly use reverb on guitar for the eq effect (and not very often) since you can't here the space so much in a dense rock track. I will often put an eq after the reverb to make the whole thing sit right.

I often find that the problem is something I'm attached to. "but I LIKE the big washy delay".

bb

[Shooshie]

I'm going to back up Kubi on this. What he said.

The eq ducking and multi-band thing always sounds like fun, but in the real world I've never seen anyone do this. It seems like the sort of thing you read in audio magazines and on web sites but you don't see the big name mixers doing this. I have change the eq between verse and chorus, but very rarely.

While I was tempted to write something similar to what Kubi wrote, -- thinning, rather than processing -- I'm going to reserve judgement on Phil's extraordinary ducking method until I try it. It may be pretty nifty. I use a lot of unorthodox methods, myself -- things I've designed for the way I work -- and when I describe them people often react the same way: "I've never seen anyone do this, and I don't see the big guys doing this, so I think I'll pass." That's fine, of course. Doesn't bother me, except that it sometimes makes me sad that people would pass up such time savers only because I invented it rather than learning it from a "big guy." Herd mentality generally leads to average results. Trying the odd method can catapult your productivity and/or results. After trying Phil's method, I'll decide whether MY results merit the method, but I'd hate to write it off before seeing what it does and how easy it is to get what you want that way.

Shooshie

[bongo_x]

I think you took that the wrong way. I wasn't saying he shouldn't do it, I'm not going to tell anyone what to do, I'm just saying there might be an better way to fix the problem. I find that the more complicated your fix gets, the more that's a sign that there is something basically wrong with your mix. You might want to step back and take a big picture view. Solutions like that can often be a band aid, and sometimes a band aid works. And sometimes you just keep reaching for more and more band aids trying to stop the bleeding.

The reality of mixing is boring, people like to hear about crazy tricks and like to think that that's why some guys mix sounds better than theirs. Automating eq on guitars is not a crazy trick, but it is polish. It often is a better idea to make sure the foundations of the mix are solid before you get to far into trying to polish it into shape.

I'm all for experimenting. I've used the approach he talking about, and probably will again at some point, if that's what's called for. I guess I'm coming from the other point of view. I see things written for people learning about mixing that say "this is the way it's done" and it's often some esoteric, complicated fix that is maybe a technique to salvage a track, not a basic method. But it makes for more interesting articles.

bb