Monday, March 31, 2014

How to Mix and Master with EQ – CDSoundMaster.com – 12 EQ Issues Part 16

Audio Recording Issues – Nice sound when tracking, but way too much "-----" when blending parts together, Part Two


So, what happens when we get too much overlap of a given range of Frequencies? Obviously, it sounds wrong. The overall volume of a mix is compromised because it has to make room for a lot of a certain Frequency range, thus the other Frequencies are too low in comparison. Some people attempt to rectify a good mix that is too heavy in a given range by squeezing it flat with compression. This results in one of several bad endings. The mix may distort in reaction to an abundance of spectral tones, or we may get pumping and breathing from Frequencies that were fine otherwise. The point being, that if there is too much build-up in a certain range of Frequencies, they have to be dealt with before a good mix can happen. It is better to identify any conflicting tracks before mixing down, or the result will have to be dealt with at mastering, at which point other parts of the mix may be compromised that didn't have to be.

Why does this build-up tend to happen? As I mentioned in the previous post, sometimes it is the mere fact that multiple parts of the instrumentation or music performance involve instruments or vocalists that are in the same range as each other. This can also happen by using the same microphones and preamps over and over again. It is likely that some of your favorite “go-to” tools are not only the super-flat, super-precise ones, but often are chosen because of their personality. “I love the ----- for bass and the ----- for vocals, etc.” These choices can create intentional boosts and cuts in our mixes by preference, but come mix time, the same hills and valleys are already there. If we don't know when this is a good thing, we might end up doing some truly awful things to the mix.

Sometimes people have no reason to run into the issue until mix time, because of their routine mix practice. Some people like to use high or low pass filters on every track. They say that it cleans things up and always leads to a better mix. I understand the logic and agree that this process is logical and people that are successful with it have their reasons. It is a well planned process for selecting certain Frequencies to cut out of each portion of a mix, so that there is plenty of space for each instrument in the blending together of the mix. However, this can also be the first stage that a person realizes the over-use of other Frequencies, or there may have been better mixing options before removing certain sections of extreme spectral ranges, and now the focus brings rough central frequencies to the surface. I personally avoid using high/low pass on all tracks as a practice for one main reason: there is a lot of intricate timing information captured across all Frequencies. I tend to only change or eliminate things if I know I want the color, musical, or surgical result, and only if it is not sacrificing details that give the brain lots of feedback about timing, placement, distance, etc. But, regardless of what got you there, we are talking about the situation where nothing was a mistake, but there is simply too much x, y, or z happening. So, the toughest question: “what do you get rid of?” You like the balance and you like the individual sound. You don't really want to get rid of any of it, but the mix is simply too heavy on certain Frequencies. I recommend going to the center of the issue, which is to identify the bump.

“Huh? Identify the bump?” It is very likely that the overlap that is happening has a complex texture that is not all built up in a perfect slope across all of the exact same Frequencies. There are bound to be smaller patterns within the overall offending range. For instance, where an earlier example there was too much mid range coming from a lead vocalist, guitar, and tom tom section that were all awesome but sharing lots of mids, I recommend listening to only these elements and follow the rhythmic choices for the specific song. How often is each element running in unison? Which of these are more prominent? Is it possible to turn an instrument track down to lessen the load, or does it need to be up in the mix? Can you carve only one small part of each of them out to make room for the other? Although I will go into that in more detail with a future post, what I recommend is to think of this like the range of Frequencies that you are dealing with is a mountain. We are looking for the molehills, or to put it more accurately, we want to dig little chunks out of the least important sections within that mountain range.

Let's pretend the mountain starts at 500Hz, peaks at 2kHz, and recedes back down at 5kHz. This is not a consistent bell shape, but has the most build-up towards the middle Frequencies. The highest peak represents the Frequencies where the most overlap occurs between the multiple tracks. The greatest issue occurs from notes that sustain the longest, but if any notes stick out that are harsh or cause peaks that force the rest of the mix to a lower average than needed. The goal is to isolate how much to reduce, only from the Frequencies that overlap the most. You may want to only reduce a little of the guitar in one part of the range, a little from the vocal, and a little from the tom toms. This will lead to an overall reduction of the problem Frequencies without having to reduce them all the same amount, or to reduce any other parts of the mix by the same amount. You can also do a small amount of multi-band compression to slightly reduce the peaks in these areas, especially if any of the instruments are short notes instead of sustain. This allows short peaks to come into balance with less noticeable effect on the mix. The entire mix can increase by the resulting change. I have spent many years developing my own process of a more complex complementary Frequency process as well, but for the sake of staying on topic, let's stick with the effective process of reducing the bumps of Frequencies from combined sources by identifying them to their sources, and reducing them at the source, in order to make the mix smoother.

 

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

How to Mix and Master with EQ – CDSoundMaster.com – 12 EQ Issues Part 15

Audio Recording Issues – Nice sound when tracking, but way too much "-----" when blending parts together, Part One

In the past several posts, I have been writing about scenarios where you have a great sounding mix in progress and a great sounding track you just recorded, but the track doesn't work in the context of the mix. Now I want to discuss a similar scenario where this is happening across several tracks, or even across every track in the mix. I'm not necessarily talking about a situation where every track is completely wrong for the mix, as this would suggest something wrong in the technique, or maybe this song wasn't ready for recording at all. I am rather talking about the actual process in mixing where we are blending all of the creative elements together.

Whether it is at a stage of working with raw tracks, in the process of editing, or through the process of adding effects and making changes, that it seems as though tracks are simply not working well together. It is easy to run into issues during the tracking and mixing process that are simply not relevant until real mixing begins. Sometimes we are working under the pressure of time constraints and other times we have to play multiple roles, where we are thinking in terms of doing everything as an engineer to capture the best sound, and later flipping to the role of critical listening in the context of a mix.
 
Regardless of the reason, often we find that when it comes to balancing levels, panning, EQ'ing, adding compression, reverb and other effects, we run into a situation where the overall spectral balance is totally out of balance. How does this happen? You may have a very well-tuned room. You might choose great microphones and preamps and have the best singers and musicians with awesome equipment. You might even be using everything correctly. But, now that you are in the mode of serious, critical listener Mixing Engineer, you start to pile on the tracks and the Frequencies are simply not working well with each other. We often run into this with the “too much of a good thing” scenario, where the exact reason that everything seemed to go so well in tracking is now the downfall, as every layer is adding the same room elements, the same subtle boosts and cuts of microphone and preamp combinations, or it may not be anything technical to blame.

The chances are good that you have the same excellent sounding mid range Frequencies pounding the tom toms as you do screaming from the Marshall Cabs, and if the lead vocals are roaring through at the same notes as the rhythm guitar guy, then you are going to have a lot of mid range Frequencies in your mix. This might sound like it is ideal. Sure, just make sure the kick and bass guitar have some killer low Frequencies and the hi hat is spitting out a beautiful high end, and it should all come together, right? Well, the problem isn't necessarily about this kind of balance.

That sounds like the perfect imaginary land we have all pictured before reality sets in during session work. The truth of the matter is that every studio session that involves multi-tracking and mixdown has some element of surprise that will be dealt with in some unique manner. The way we react, the way we hear things, and the skills we acquire will be the parameters that affect the end result. This is where we put our signature to our sound in the mix.

CDS

Monday, March 24, 2014

How to Mix and Master with EQ – CDSoundMaster.com – 12 EQ Issues Part 14

Audio Recording Issues – It Sounds GREAT On Its Own, but... Part Five

Maybe it is a difference of room dimensions making it difficult to adjust a track properly within the context of a mix. Maybe it is a timing issue related to similar Frequencies. But, maybe it is about dynamics and distance. Along with the wonderful things that our brain does with sound interpretation, it pays close attention to where sound is coming from. The human ear, as limited as it is compared to what some animals can hear, is designed to send an incredible amount of information to our brain for approval. Complex timing elements are combined with location to tell us not only what we are hearing, but whether it is close to us or far away, to our left or right, and whether it is an obvious sound that we recognize or if it is very subtle and hard to identify.

In a mix, the context of these things work together for our approval or distaste. We may have a music track that is a little washy and distant, with a lead vocal that is extremely loud and dry. Some people like this; others don't. Usually, a good mix brings it all together in one form or another, but sometimes we intentionally bounce one character off of another to get a new response. What happens if a track is exactly what we want, but in the context of the mix, it sounds weak? We turn it up but now it is too loud. We turn it down where we think it belongs regarding volume, but it sounds weak. We solo the track, and it sounds perfect! Is it possible that we are dealing with a symptom of conflicting dynamics? What I mean is that we may have consistent performance levels from everything else in the song, or we may have already compressed other elements in a song individually, but the natural dynamics in our new track sink down too low in some parts of the arrangement and maybe sit just loud enough at other times.

If this is the case, we may be able to resolve the issue with a simple limiter. By raising the average volume up by a few decibels or reducing the peaks, we may get a consistent performance that sounds more full all of the time. What if we try that and now it is way too loud or sounds different than we want? Or, it just doesn't fix things? Sometimes, the reason comes back around to Frequency adjustment. Let's say that we have the example of another mix on the same album. Using the same approach, everything is great. So, why is it not working here?

You listen to tracks and suddenly you realize that one song is more up-beat than the other. Why should that matter so much if the process worked so well? Shouldn't that always be the case? It is possible that the performance is different from the working mix to the troublesome mix? This might mean that the drummer is tapping at the bell of the hi hat in the working mix, but is sizzling at the edge of the hi hat in this one. The change in performance can change the length of time it is resonating those powerful high Frequencies. You may have a beautiful EQ boosting the pristine recording of that hi hat in the same amount on both mixes, but this time around, the fact that it sustains for a long time instead of gentle taps, means that the Frequency just isn't available to your other track now. Having both tracks contribute to the same sound range makes for a busy neighborhood! You can try to select different Frequency options to get this under control, but the chances are that one change will lead to another and so forth, you find yourself changing elements that you used to be happy with. You might try lowering the hi hat volume, but it may make the rest of the drums sound unbalanced. What can you do?

Maybe you can try very small changes in the stereo field, making a little room for the hi hat just a tiny bit to the left or right. Or, you can try narrowing or widening the stereo field of just the track or the offending part of the mix so it gives a different location for the Frequencies to sit in the mix. Or, you can see if trading one high Frequency for another just on the track in question helps. All of these things are good ideas, but what if none of them work? You may consider a very small amount of several options. Try things I have mentioned that deal with timing, balance, dynamics, ambient rooms, Frequencies, and location. Try them in combination with each other and with different, small increments. Are any of these helping a little bit?

Most likely, some very small changes to multiple pieces of the equation will resolve the issue and help you to be pleased with that track once again. If that is not the case, you might actually be dealing with a case of “if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.” By this, I mean that you may need to incorporate that new track more into the room environment that the rest of the mix resides in, or vice versa. Is it possible that your new track is simply too dry and needs a tiny bit of reverb to get it to sit closer to the context of the song? Is it possible that the song sounds great dry but might work well with a tiny bit of the same kind of reverb that worked well for the new track?

Add these different elements together and see if some combination leads to a better result. I have a feeling that it will. There are plenty of other scenarios that affect the outcome of mixes, but this should give you an idea of some ways that tracks interact with each other and hopefully it can inspire you to spend that extra time listening and tweaking mixes that leave you less than inspired. I don't encourage you do overdo anything that is already mixed the way you like, but if you are left unimpressed with a mix, there are things you can do to potentially bring things to life that are not drastic, and leave very little changed from track to track.

CDSoundMaster.com

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Audio Recording Issues – It Sounds GREAT On Its Own, but... Part Three

Our poor track. It sounds awesome, but either the rest of the mix is a bully, or it doesn't want to play fair. Before getting into a political topic of individualism versus collectivism (don't even get me started!), let's stick with a finite list of situations that we can identify as a root cause for mix injustice. It can be a timing issue. The song is not being mixed wrong, and the track is excellent, but we may be dealing with the way that the brain interprets sound signals. If we record something incredibly precise in a dry environment with very little character from the room, then we can get a recording that is amazingly present, in your face, intimate, and measuring somewhere between realistic and super-realistic. If we record something else that has some distance to it, then the complexity of the sound that bounces around in that environment will get measured in the context of the whole mix, and this may not be a good thing. One problem can be that when added, our brain says “nope, that isn't realistic.”

I don't mean to say that it is fake or bad sounding, but that the idea that a lot of sounds came from one place and another is from somewhere else that does not fit, can mean that a perfectly blended mix is not working from a completely conceptual, functional standpoint. If this is the intention, then obviously we don't need a solution. But, if you think the problem with balance is coming from two environments that do not belong together, then we may be on to something. But wait, what if there is some room presence, reverb, or liveliness that is making the new track conflict? Now what?

It may be possible to reduce only the part of the room's character that is feeding the majority of information to our brains. This can have multiple benefits, but some of it is covered in a later topic. We may be tricking our ears into re-interpreting tracks that we were happy with before, because those Frequencies that are the most obvious in carrying the room's qualities may also fluctuate in a different rate or pattern than they occur in the balance of the mix, so now our brain says “not only is it coming from a different location, but it carries information that doesn't fit into the groove of the song.”

Isolate your Frequencies with a narrow boost signal, control your output with a limiter for safety to your ears and monitors, and see if the issue is the most noticeable in the lows, mids, highs, or all of the above? Find the problem Frequencies, figure out the width of their “Q” if necessary, and reduce only the amount that reduces the complexity in the context of the mix. This means to solo the track and also check it with the mix, both while making adjustments all along. Did this help? Then, maybe the only problem was timing from the complexity of a room signal. Excellent! Did it help, but not enough? Likely so. Maybe we should see if there is something else going on here. I will cover these other possibilities in Part Four.

CDSoundMaster.com

Audio Recording Issues – It Sounds GREAT On Its Own, but... Part Four

Maybe the room was part of the issue in our track that won't work quite right in context. Maybe there are other timing issues as well. What if we are looking at the way we interpret timing as it relates to dynamics. What I mean here, is that there is the natural flow of the song, and there is the rate of expression that comes from each track in the song. You may have punch from drums and melody from bass and vocals, or you may have sustain on drums and cymbals and more rhythmic elements from percussion or busy bass and guitar. There are numerous things in the musical arrangement that affect our interpretation of sound. When we put it all together, there may be the wrong punch or sustain in Frequencies that otherwise sound wonderful. For example, a great vocal is intentionally recorded up close with a cardioid pattern large diaphragm condenser microphone.

The presence of the recording fills out the low Frequencies of an amazing vocal performance, we also have this incredible sustaining bass guitar with energetic sub-bass Frequencies that sit beautifully on top of a clean, clear, punchy kick drum. But now, the smooth low end of the vocal makes you reinterpret the perfect blend of sustain and punch that was there before. Should we reduce some of the bass on the bass guitar? Should we take a little out of the vocal and bass? Or maybe, a little compression on the vocal would serve well? Maybe the vocal compression should be grouped with the bass and kick? Perhaps this group compression could lock the timing together and re-orient our listening to hear these elements as a unified process?

This works sometimes, but usually we have more do deal with. I've found that often the simplest solution is also the best solution. I have developed a process that I will write about with more detail at a later time (would anyone read a full book if I wrote one?). I will mention it briefly here. Using a little low shelf EQ in this instance may be the perfect solution. You can use the same wide slope, like something found on the “Cooltec EQP-1A3S” or the “ARQ,” or you can try a combination of two different slopes, like the “115HD” for one instrument and the “AMK9098” for another.

The idea is to reduce a very small amount of a very wide Frequency range down to its lowest point so that we still feel the energy that is there, but it reduces the focus and allows us to concentrate on the other instruments in that range. What I add to this, is to listen to other mid and upper mid Frequencies on the same tracks and see if there is something that has a similar quality that impresses you the same way as the lows. For instance, the low may emphasize an incredible “pluck” of a pick on the bass guitar or the moody sustain of a vocal. Is there another place in the different Frequency registers that are complementing this trait? If so, there is a good chance that you can reduce the lows slightly for one instrument and boost a tiny amount somewhere else that gives the same energy but from a different range. A “pluck” may sound great in a fast attack at low Frequencies, but it may also give precise information in the upper mids, and we might re-orient the conflict from an offending Frequency to one that doesn't clash, and now we can have everything that sounded so nice without conflict.

Monday, March 17, 2014

How to Mix and Master with EQ – CDSoundMaster.com – 12 EQ Issues Part 12


Audio Recording Issues – It Sounds GREAT On Its Own, but... Part Three

Our poor track. It sounds awesome, but either the rest of the mix is a bully, or it doesn't want to play fair. Before getting into a political topic of individualism versus collectivism (don't even get me started!), let's stick with a finite list of situations that we can identify as a root cause for mix injustice. It can be a timing issue. The song is not being mixed wrong, and the track is excellent, but we may be dealing with the way that the brain interprets sound signals. If we record something incredibly precise in a dry environment with very little character from the room, then we can get a recording that is amazingly present, in your face, intimate, and measuring somewhere between realistic and super-realistic. If we record something else that has some distance to it, then the complexity of the sound that bounces around in that environment will get measured in the context of the whole mix, and this may not be a good thing. One problem can be that when added, our brain says “nope, that isn't realistic.”

I don't mean to say that it is fake or bad sounding, but that the idea that a lot of sounds came from one place and another is from somewhere else that does not fit, can mean that a perfectly blended mix is not working from a completely conceptual, functional standpoint. If this is the intention, then obviously we don't need a solution. But, if you think the problem with balance is coming from two environments that do not belong together, then we may be on to something. But wait, what if there is some room presence, reverb, or liveliness that is making the new track conflict? Now what?

It may be possible to reduce only the part of the room's character that is feeding the majority of information to our brains. This can have multiple benefits, but some of it is covered in a later topic. We may be tricking our ears into re-interpreting tracks that we were happy with before, because those Frequencies that are the most obvious in carrying the room's qualities may also fluctuate in a different rate or pattern than they occur in the balance of the mix, so now our brain says “not only is it coming from a different location, but it carries information that doesn't fit into the groove of the song.”

Isolate your Frequencies with a narrow boost signal, control your output with a limiter for safety to your ears and monitors, and see if the issue is the most noticeable in the lows, mids, highs, or all of the above? Find the problem Frequencies, figure out the width of their “Q” if necessary, and reduce only the amount that reduces the complexity in the context of the mix. This means to solo the track and also check it with the mix, both while making adjustments all along. Did this help? Then, maybe the only problem was timing from the complexity of a room signal. Excellent! Did it help, but not enough? Likely so. Maybe we should see if there is something else going on here. I will cover these other possibilities in Part Four.

CDSoundMaster.com

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

How to Mix and Master with EQ – CDSoundMaster.com – 12 EQ Issues Part 11

Audio Recording Issues – It Sounds GREAT On Its Own, but... Part Two

Our goal is to get an individual track working with the rest of its mix. We've identified that it was recorded and performed well, so this is not an issue of quality. Most often in the modern mixing scenario, we use a combination of limiting, compressing, EQ'ing, and effects to build the collection of sounds into an arrangement that accomplishes the final sonic goal. The issue of a track's success becomes contextual in place of individual merit. In this case, I am not talking specifically about an issue where you discover an imbalance of Frequencies in context, but rather we have a blending process that does not work.

My recommendation here is to identify the reason, or reasons. What is the context of the recording? Is it a tight, punchy radio hit, or is it about natural performance and room ambience? Is it about a strong lead vocal in front of a balanced music track, or about a band's sound having simultaneous impact? Is the track that you are struggling with not working because it sounds out of place, too quiet, too dynamic, off pitch, boring? You may have a combination of issues taking place. If you cannot identify what bothers you, you will be using random techniques to resolve the issue that may or may not work.

I know from experience that this process is not always as easy as we would like for it to be. Sometimes the problem is very subtle, and other times it results from various combined issues. It may be that a wonderful, elegant, smooth, rich, rounded low end Frequency sounds muddy once bringing things together. Or, the mere fact that something was recorded with an incredible spectral range is making other parts of the mix sound inferior in comparison. For example, you start with a great, punchy drumset, that is until you record one of the best rhythm guitar tracks ever, and all of a sudden the full range of energetic lows and screaming highs now make the drum heads sound papery, thin, and clicky. You didn't necessarily do anything wrong when recording the drums OR the guitar, but the end result doesn't measure up.

Monday, March 10, 2014

How To EQ – Mixing and Mastering - CDSoundMaster.com – 12 EQ Issues Part 10


Audio Recording Issues – It Sounds GREAT On Its Own, but... Part One

How many times have you set up a great sounding microphone, plugged it in to one of your favorite preamps, set up your level, tested positioning, and recorded a wonderful sounding performance. You can't wait to get down to mixing. Despite the fact that you have done your job well, it is simply not coming together. Highlight any single track, and there is nothing you would change. Start adding things back in, and it simply is not coming together. I am breaking certain elements of this concept down into different topics because it is part of the complexity of mixing itself. When treating recording, mixing, and mastering as art forms just as much as a science, we find that there are vitally important interpretations of what makes an identifiably successful mix. For this reason, we see massive trends in what the listener considers high quality.
At one time, the trend leaned towards increasingly louder mixes.

Mixers and Mastering Engineers had to increasingly become experts in learning ways to trick one's perception into hearing "high fidelity" while simultaneously crushing the very life from mixes with extreme gain drive and compression techniques.

To address the topic of sounds that are on target in technique but are not working in context, I am writing here to address some reasons for this along with ideas to correct the issue. In following posts, I will write about how this is sometimes the result of having too much of a good thing, and in the specific issues of overlapping spectral balance. For this post, let's look at the fact that different recording techniques give unique results. If we are talking about the most complex aspect of tracking or recording, then we are looking at the source, microphone, preamp, and then the mix context. In slightly easier form, we are dealing with virtual instruments, loops, or samples, which provide source that is selected in the composition and mixing process, but recording and some processing decisions have already been made for us. Let's assume that we want to address the problem first at the source. Is the offending track recorded in the same environment as the rest of the mix or a different one? Is it recorded at a distance or closely? Is it extremely clean or does it have a lot of ambient sound? How these variables connect to other tracks in the mix can have a huge impact on what our brains are interpreting from what we hear.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

How To EQ – Mixing and Mastering - CDSoundMaster.com – 12 EQ Issues Part 9

Audio Recording Issues – Overtones That Overstay Their Welcome, Part Two

Now that we've addressed some of the potential scenarios that can come up in sessions that produce unwanted overtones, let's look at some EQ solutions that make the most sense.

The goal in properly addressing and resolving specific overtone issues is to play the offending track against the mix. This may be tricky, depending on what role the track plays in the prominence of the mix. Set up as many final elements in the mix as possible. I recommend slowly fading in the track you are operating, on and listen for the tonal issue. Does it come across like a specific Frequency or set of Frequencies, or does it tend to clash with legit notes from other instruments? Is it a wide range of Frequencies, narrow, or multiple? Usually, you can use a fairly standard bell shape to reduce the effect of the overtone. If it has the characteristic of a specific pitch, you may want to use a narrow EQ to reduce its effect.

Some overtones may be built into the fundamental notes, like a Hammond organ for example. The notes on a Hammond are controlled by multiple sliders, each controlling a different pitch, or harmonic order. Quite literally, the tonal character of the organ's sound is being controlled by adding or subtracting octaves to the fundamental. These may sound fantastic until final mix, where they resonate the wrong way compared to other notes. Usually, a medium "Q" can reduce the specific Frequency range where it gets into trouble.
Where Program Equalizers, like Pultec-type designs, are very effective for enhancing wide portions of sound, like the entire mid-range, specific low end or high end sweetening, they are not perfectly suited to the surgical elimination of overtone issues. A flexible multi-tasking tool like the AMK-9098 can handle tasks with multiple width narrow band EQ's but also uniquely shaped EQ slopes and curves. EQ's like the Focal Point 115HD are flexible for certain surgical processes as well, but this EQ has a unique tonal character of its own. The 9098 and 115HD can be extremely useful with very different, equally phenomenal high end sound. Where the 9098 has an aesthetic quality that is very precise and musical, the 115HD is gorgeous and rich in texture. In some circumstances, one EQ may eliminate issues easier because of the right mix of flexibility and precision, where the other may be helpful because of its ability to correct some issues while simultaneously adding some of its own rich overtone qualities into the mix. These EQ choices then become creative choices, and not just solutions for eliminating an issue.

In the case of a drumset that has been carefully tuned to work with the songs being tracked, we sometimes still run into issues despite our best efforts. Often, the initial attack of tuned Tom Toms are clear, bright, and have an attack that works great with their use, but as they sustain, the vibration of the tone becomes resonant in mid and lower Frequencies that sound like an annoying atonal hum against more important elements. This may be accentuated by the use of compression that gives the attack desired. As the toms shift from sharp, bright attack to long sustain tones that hum, and become increasingly muted, the compression continues to bring up some of the level of the extended tail, making it conflict with musical elements in the song. Individual EQ on the toms may be the most helpful way to avoid further trouble. Some may choose to gate the Toms in traditional mixing and perhaps in the DAW as well, although it is not a well-taught method in modern tracking. This can lead to further issues and may not be as effective as one would hope. In this case, a Program Equalizer, like a Pultec-Style design, or a regular "Q" width bell, can reduce the center Frequency of the hum. With 2-3 Toms, this EQ can be done on a single tom bus without reducing the positive qualities. Just a dB or two of reduction on a couple of resonant tom tones can eliminate the conflict.

I hope this gives you some ideas for digging yourself out of certain technical issues with overtones. One might say that this is a way to get 'over' the trouble with overtones!

Monday, March 3, 2014

How To EQ – Mixing and Mastering - CDSoundMaster.com – 12 EQ Issues Part 8

Audio Recording Issues – Overtones That Overstay Their Welcome, Part One

Next on the list of EQ ideas is solving a rather unusual set of circumstances. Overtones are sounds that occur from various sources that are recorded in addition to the main source sound. Vocals, guitars, drums, and any instrument that is being miked live in a room can be the center of attention for this situation. Overtones can come from room reflections and ambience, from the instrument itself, and they can also come from the addition of effects at a later time, or speakers amplifying a keyboard or guitar amp. There are overtones that come from the musical response of the instrument itself. They can either work with or against the primary sound being recorded. A microphone and a preamp can add creative harmonic overtones to sound material as well. These are mostly natural responses and elements to sound ambience, resonance, vibration, string sustain, speaker cone response, and natural instrument character.

Sometimes these are beneficial and are desired elements in your recording. Other times, we might think we got a great take, but when we go to mix, we realize things are not sounding quite right. Often what happens is that an instrument resonates in a beautiful way or a room gives a great sustain, deepening a performance, or adding liveliness and power to a drum set. But, when these instruments are added together, we discover that some of the beautiful overtones are coming across as actual conflicting notes. They may complement the individual instrument performance wonderfully, but the interaction of multiple instruments recorded with their own microphones may be in conflict.

It may be that the perception that the supporting sound architecture works until it overlaps with other tracks. There is a perceived crossover of smooth, long waveforms that now conflict with others at multiple Frequencies. We don't notice the distraction until they bounce off of other sounds. We may get short bursts of shorter waves that oscillate and accentuate the fact that both conflicting waves are off pitch from each other.

In the same manner that a good chorus effect detunes an accurate pitch slightly above and below the natural pitch, overtones can conflict by forcing your brain and ear to pick up on distortion between tones that are off from each other and the original instrument. You can get very dissonant short fast waveforms from two overlapping, otherwise pleasant, overtones. Harmonics usually structure themselves intentionally and nicely above a root fundamental, but ambient overtones can clash in an endless assortment of situations.
In other instances, overtones start as a nice balance with the instrument, but as the sustain of the root note kicks in, we hear more of the overtone or room ambience and this resonance now interferes with the tonal character of another track. Sometimes this works to our advantage and other times it causes serious balance issues.

A classic example of overtone issues comes from the decision making in recording a live drumset. First, a great sounding drumset requires a knowledge of how to properly tune the drum heads. You have various pitch options, and when you make this decision, you need a balance between the top and bottom heads. Then, you need a knowledge of how to tune each drum from the next. What is the pitch difference between drums supposed to be? How many full notes or half steps sound best from the hi tom, mid tom, to floor tom? These decisions also pertain to the song being recorded. If you have an extremely tonal drumset, you don't want to spend hours tuning each head just right, only to find out that you are micro-tones off from the perfect tuning of the song, and now every sustain of that awesome drum is going to sound like a terrible pitch in the song. Anything that can be done to correct pitch before recording your tracks can offset the number of concerns come time to mix and master.

Let's pretend that you paid attention to these details. Your drums sound awesome with the songs and other instruments. The room is really grabbing this great energy from the set. Now, when you pull up the room mic's or overheads, there is a strange clash going on. What happened? Assuming there is not a phase, distance or timing issue from the multiple miking setup, you can have a variation of surface responses to pitch, reflection time, and so many variables between the attack of direct microphones and distant room microphones.

All of these issues come up in real world scenarios and must be dealt with in the best possible ways. If gobos or various room positions are available, you may get the perfect control over the room just from walking around the room and listening to takes before your final recording. If there is simply too much going on to spend all day working out the ambient kinks, then EQ may be the best response. This is especially true in the fast-paced world or recording, where every second of the session matters, and it is equally true when artists have a window of time for their best performances and creative ideas.
http://CDSoundMaster.com