PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic "Sparkle" -- is it a mixing or mastering issue.

When I compare my songs against "reference" tracks, my songs sound a little "dark". When I listen to my song all the way through, my ears adjust and it sounds fine -- but I can tell a difference when the next pro track cranks up. Is it a purely EQ thing that should be adjusted in mixing or is it a global EQ thing that needs to be taken care of in mastering. Sorry for the less than "technical" terms ("dark", "sparkle"). I do compare the EQ graph (Voxengo span) but I can't tell much difference (I think that is a lack of experience, though).

Here's an example: http://soundcloud.com/kevin-emmrich/01-little-bit-of-loving (this one is lacking a little in dynamics, so I have to gain stage a little more).

Any thoughts on the subject?

It's really in the EQ at the mix level. The mistake most people make is to EQ and tweak each track as a separate thing. You can not do that. Frequencies accumulate(add) and they also subtract. Just like making a stew. You don't add spices to each ingredient. If you did it would be WAY to spicy,salty, etc. when you through it all together. The biggest frequencies to back of is the mids in all the instruments because vocals are all mids.The same goes with other instruments.Watch for the accumulation.Then using multiband compression on the final mix will further help

That track sounds fine to me Kevin. Clean and well-balanced. If you are referring to "punch", maybe a bit of multiband comp like John suggested would punch it up. A touch of Ozone perhaps?




Regards,


Bob

Pay good attention to John's advice up there.

And I'll add that the real answer to your question may just be, "BOTH" -- The mixfit is certainly very important here, the Mastering, however, should not be ignored, for if done properly, the Mastering also adds to the overall sound as well, as ANY thing done to the sound at any stage of the game should be expected to affect the sound.

Kemmrich's posted sample file is not all that bad at all IMO.

I wouldn't sweat the mentioned lack of dynamics on this one, give or take a few levels within the mix such as that lead guitar, which is sticking out a bit to my ears, given the chosen genre -- but I would recommend that you remix the file but on the second try, don't attempt to make it sound like a "finished" or Mastered file in that pass, instead, go for a good (no, great) mixfit. This is often at Volume Levels that are below what we want to hear in the finished product, something that can be taken care of later on during the Mastering pass. Digital audio seems to respond better to that sort of treatment and it takes a bit of experimentation, PRACTICE and education/learning about the use of the various plugins available to us that can work towards making that mixfit happen. Compression, used properly on tracks separately is one of the key tools, as well as the EQ, ofen necessary to "sculpt" EQ of a particular track in order to make room for other tracks that may be playing the same frequency at the same time, or perhaps to emphasize or deemphasize certain things about a certain track. For instance, use of the Graphic EQ plugin on a Guitar Track and knowing what areas of the frequency range define certain parts of the guitar sound is a very useful tool. Example, the "pick marks" of a Guitar are usually somewhere around the 5KHz mark or so, and boosting or cutting that can change the entire base sound of that guitar and how it fits into a mix. Etc.

Speaking of the Audio Compressor, it is also a good idea to Compress the vocal tracks as separate entities in the mix as well. I greatly prefer use of an Optical Compressor plugin emulator for vocals, due to the speed. This is how we can showcase a singing performance that, while the singer is not obviously having to "belt" in order to be heard overtop of the mix. Still one of the very best examples of that are the old late 60s/early 70s recordings made by The Carpenters. Optical Compressor can place a "small" voice out in front of a rather huge band if you follow what I'm trying to say.

Use of Compression is an Art in itself, that only comes together as the aspiring engineer works to study and UNDERSTAND what the Audio Compressor does that is good -- AND what it can do that is not so good. It is essential to learn to listen for "pumping" and the like, which basically means that you have set the darn thing to work TOO hard.

As far as EQ goes, study of the "Fletcher-Munson Curve" and the reason that it exists, plus awareness about those critical midrange frequencies that our ears hear a lot more readily while the low and high extremes are suppressed is absolutely essential.

Mastering Pass? "6dB per octave" is perhaps the first bit of knowledge to explore, after understanding what dB is really all about, that it MUST be cited as referenced to someting, never can be a standalone figure without being meaningless, that the 6 dB per octave rolloff is "musical" sounding in and of itself, and why that is the case.

That's a really good performance you've got there, nothing to be ashamed of, very good song values, tracking and strong performance.

Couple what you already have going on with a bit more study and effort to understand these engineering terms and the like, practice using them as that is the only way to gain the kind of experience necessary to have your product compete with those that you are comparing them to and you will have it ALL.

One excercise you can start on immediately is to direct A/B compare that song playback to a reference recording of the same style and genre that does sound like what you are after, and start trying to define the differences in what you hear in engineering terms rather than descriptives like, "warm" (really? what temperature? *g* or "dark" (What's the matter, can't you SEE it?) and how those kind of descriptors may translate into actual values about audio. For example, most people, not all, when they say, "dark" when attempting to describe an audio event, are likely trying to say that there is a lack of the higher EQ frequencies in the file, or perhaps the highs are there but there is just way too much LOW end on a track or too and using the EQ to shave the low end back rather than boosting the HIGHs may be a better answer. To find out, try it both ways and listen to the differences.

Over the years I've noticed that a lot of good songwriters and performers just don't seem to want to have to deal with the engineering aspects of this craft, many search for one-button automated answers rather than just spend the couple of months or so it would take to actually learn the ins and outs, the terminologies, the care and feeding and such that being a recording engineer demands. Well, we are built that way, but in my experience, there are no shortcuts here and each aspect that you work on learning, coupled with deep desire, will indeed be what is needed.


--Mac

Mac,

Where can I find some examples of mixes you have done? I looked here and at your site, but couldn't find any.



Regards,


Bob

While everything stated above is true (you have to get the mix right sonicly for best results), comparing your tracks to pro level finished tracks will be futile if they haven't been mastered at all.

As 90 dB suggested; download Ozone (trial period) and run your song through a few presets. Look for presets where the enhancer is enabled. This may be the 'sparkle' of which you speak. This should give you a basic idea of what can be done later.
A dark mix (which to me implies overbearing mid-lows) can be a battle without access at the track level, but missing *sparkle* is a different thing.

Be forewarned; chasing sparkle can easily lead to abuse. The more you add the more your ears adjust and the longer you go on (tired ears) the more it gets abused.
I try to keep any effort on 'sparkle' at the beginning of a session or after a break.
Ultimately the better the original mix, the less effort is required.

"separate thing" was key term in the quote ...

I think he meant-
Beginners make each track sound as good as it can (read solo), then try to throw it all together in a mix. It's not how a track sounds on its own (separate thing) that matters; it's how it fits with everything else. You obviously know that.

Pat,

The theory is to make those adjustments in context with the other tracks instead of "soloing" each individual track to make the adjustments so that you're making decisions for the vibe of the "whole" song.

Also a country, pop, rock, blues or jazz genre will have basic principles in common but there are subtle and sometimes not so subtle differences in how they are mixed. And of course each individual song has it's own signature.

From what I hear - sometimes "sparkle" is confused with "brightness" and all that treble tires my ears. I know what Kevin is talking about - I believe - it's that magic I call sheen which makes the mix both warm and sparkly. Pulling it off is the holy grail of mixing - especially for the home recording crowd.

Kevin,

Personally I think the basic mix has to be there and then it comes from the mastering. One thing the mastering plugs like ozone will do is show your mix faults loud and clear. I also have Final Mix which I find to be much brighter than Ozone. The T-Racks compresser I have is warmer. So there are differences in the overall sound of the plugs as well as the individual settings imo.

In the end tho I don't know how close a home studio can get to that pro record sheen and sparkle without investing serious wads of cash and trading ears with a mastering engineer. I think hardware beyond plugins is definately involved.

BTW, as the disclaimer, I'm a better mixer than I used to be and not where I wanna be - but I study this stuff every chance I get and continue to experiment to get better.

My main complaint with Ozone so far is the stupid names they have for their presets. It's almost like they took a list of nouns and a list of adjectives and randomly mixed and matched them. Exactly, I suspect, how Wrinkle Neck Mules named their band.

The topic goes back to a very astute comment Silvertones John made about a month ago on a similar post. To tell someone "Put on a commercial CD of the same genre and make it sound like that." is like saying "Look at The Mona Lisa and paint like that. If we knew what made it sound "like that" we wouldn't be posting here and working day jobs. We would be mastering engineers.

If you think about the concept that the EQ should be applied to the summed total of the work, then the next logical thought would be that the more tracks you have, the more difficult the interaction is going to be when trying to smooth a bad spot in one track. When the bass on track 2 is hot so you cut some lower end to compensate, that is also going to affect the baritone voice singing the song unless you EQ just the bass track. So I understand the concept of working the whole piece vs individual tracks, but that's why it's called learning.

Mac,

Where can I find some examples of mixes you have done? I looked here and at your site, but couldn't find any.



Regards,


Bob

Nevermind.

Some really good info here, so thanks to all the comments and the in-depth analysis by Mac. It will take a little bit to digest all this. I sort of knew the answers in advance, but I wasn't confident enough in my thought process. It really is hard wearing all the hats in the music recording endeavor.

Classic example of Silvertones' comment is strummed acoustic guitar in a pile of rock mixes. MOST of the content is high pass filtered out, leaving the pick strum across the strings there as mostly a rhythmic element. Unless it's a section where it's featured, then they have normally dialed in more of the low frequency content.

-Scott

Turn on your AM or FM radio and listen to the nationwide commercial music$ there, some of it, anyway.

ALL of it has to be pristine audio, though, we all work to the same standard, or we don't get paid, whioh means that you ain't workin'...

Copyrights and such other legal issues prevent me from webpublishing work that does not belong to me.


--Mac

"ALL of it has to be pristine audio, though, we all work to the same standard, or we don't get paid, whioh means that you ain't workin'..."



A personal attack? Curious, and rather sophomoric, I might add. I never said my stuff was 'pristine'. But then, I never claimed to be an expert, either.






"Copyrights and such other legal issues prevent me from webpublishing work that does not belong to me."




Some credits, then perhaps? You don't have to post the actual music. What "nationwide commercial music$" have you produced? Just curious.




Regards,


Bob

I think Mac was making a generic statement. If it ain't pristine,in this biz you won't be getting paid and thus you're not really working.

Bob,
You have to either take or leave the info that is presented here.No pro is going to divulge that info in this Forum.

I respectfully disagree. People in this business are notorious for trumpeting their achievements. Take another forum member, for instance: Harvey Gerst (sorry Harvey!)

http://www.digitaldarkness.com/view/page/Harvey+Gerst


Pretty impressive bio, no? Is Harvey a "Pro"? Definitely. Is he condescending to beginners? Never.


My reading comprehension is adequate, and when I read:

"ALL of it has to be pristine audio, though, we all work to the same standard, or we don't get paid, whioh means that you ain't workin'..."

I must assume that the 'you' refers to me personally. How else would one interpret that statement?



Regards,


Bob