# Fighting the mid-range mud?



## camerhil (Jan 15, 2018)

This might be more of an issue for non-orchestral arrangements. When my mix gets to the final stages, Ozone invariably tells me that I have an excess of bass and mid-range (up to about 400hz) and a lack of high-end compared to professional mixes of the same genre.

I know that each track should be taken on its own merits, but this seems to be a consistent imbalance across all my tracks, even when I feel that I've done as much tweaking as I can for each instrument. Scooping out more bass would make the instruments sound too thin, and adding more high-end would make them sound harsh. I never EQ a solo'ed instrument and I try not to write parts that overlap musically at the lower range. Nevertheless, I can tell that my mix is muddy compared to professional tracks.

I do get decent results by applying some aggressive EQ's at the mastering stage, but I'm left wondering if I'm harming my track by shaping it so much in post rather than trying to fix it when I'm still arranging.

So, very long question short: do you also have consistent issues with mid-range mud and lack of sparkle in your pre-mastered tracks, and do you wait until the mastering stage before you fix it? Any other tips that might help a relative noob?


----------



## pmcrockett (Jan 15, 2018)

Does your monitoring setup lack lows and low mids? My first thought here is that you're naturally overcompensating for a frequency range that's underrepresented in your monitoring.


----------



## John Busby (Jan 15, 2018)

It could be as simple as refining your orchestration


----------



## Kent (Jan 15, 2018)

Related to the point made by @pmcrockett, are you monitoring at proper levels?


----------



## camerhil (Jan 15, 2018)

It could be the monitoring setup. I do have acoustic panels and a decent room (long rectangle, high ceilings) but I haven't had my mixing position properly calibrated. I'm not aware of an imbalance when I'm listening to professional mixes, but it could be subtle enough that I'm not perceiving it.

When I'm doing ear training (using the excellent TrainYourEars program) I do notice heightened sensitivity to the 2k-4k region, but the bass seems fairly solid. I don't mix at an exact volume level, although I try not to go too loud or too quiet. It might help to set this exactly.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Jan 15, 2018)

Most of the magazines, books and videos are about mixing pop and rock music, drums and guitar. Also Ozone seems to trim mixes more to those music styles. I only can repeat what I always say: Search for professional mixes with similar music to yours.

Buy a CD with soundtracks by J. Williams, Hans Zimmer, etc. Let Ozone test these references and get to know Ozone better (how it analyses music) this way. Compare your music with those professional results. Also use an audio-analyzer to compare the music. If you mix with headphones it can be that you tend to mix too "dark". I always notice that as well when I am doing mixes with my AKG K702 because it sounds so shiny. It is also clear that you always make wrong decisions with monitors that do not sound absolutely neutral. You will only compensate the errors of the monitors instead of producing a good mix.

So again: *Use references* and try to make your mix sound the same or similar. You will get very close to the original sound, regardless of the monitors. Of course you need to know all the effects and what you can do with them and you also need to have "good ears" for all the necessary tasks.
*Example of a Jurassic-Parc excerpt Samples / Original* _(there is also an eaxmple of Bach's BWV 1041)_

As long as you mix sounds with the help of "automata" (MIR and similar software), it probably becomes very difficult to remove certain tonal characteristics of the rooms used. So depending of the Room Venue it could be that you will not be able to reach the sound of the refernce.

All the best
Beat

Edit/Add


----------



## R. Soul (Jan 15, 2018)

camerhil said:


> I do get decent results by applying some aggressive EQ's at the mastering stage, but I'm left wondering if I'm harming my track by shaping it so much in post rather than trying to fix it when I'm still arranging.


You definitely shouldn't do aggressive EQ'ing at mastering stage. Even 3 dB is a bit much. I often put an EQ on the master and cut to test where the problem is. When I've found the problem frequencies, I go back and find the tracks that's causing the problem and EQ those tracks. Much better results


----------



## camerhil (Jan 15, 2018)

Thank you all for the helpful replies - Beat Kaufman, I hadn't encountered your templates before. I'll study them. I do have a set of references that I try to mix to (a John Williams track for classical, a Coldplay track for basic rock etc) but my issue seems to be a disconnect between the arrangement and the resultant frequency balance. I can get all the instruments into the "pocket" volume-wise, and I apply liberal high passes to clear up the bass end without making the other instruments too thin, but the end result is always "too much low, not enough high" regardless, even compared to the EQ fingerprint for the reference tracks.

So, either my monitor setup isn't picking up certain frequencies which are causing the imbalance, or my ears aren't subtle enough to hear them, or this is just a fairly normal stage in the mixing process. R.Soul, it makes total sense to EQ the tracks so that the problems are nullified by the time you get to the mastering stage; with that in mind, what steps do you actually leave for the master, other than loudness maximization? I guess I'm still uncertain on the balance.


----------



## Anders Bru (Jan 15, 2018)

I do the majority of EQ'ing on the tracks themselves. When I feel I've made some progress with the track, and need some extra umph I put on my "generic master"-chain which consists of:
Ozone:
- M/S EQ (cutting lows on the side, and a brickwall highpass at 30hz. This is also where general EQ'ing would happen)
- Imager (widening the middle, and narrowing down the sub)
- Exciter (adding some sizzle)
- Dynamic EQ (controlling the lower mids, and 3-4kHz)
SSL Bus Compressor (which is basically magic)
OTT (depends on the track, usually 4-5%)
C6 Multiband compressor (taming the low-end, 80Hz and below, and also some top-end)
Ozone Maximizer

The settings are fairly soft, and I adjust them according to the track.


----------



## camerhil (Jan 15, 2018)

Anders, do you start with those plugins on zero, then gradually bring them up until you get the desired effect, or do you have go-to settings which you apply first and then tweak? 

I'm also unclear on the use of bus compressors when the maximizer basically does the same thing. I understand the benefit of the multiband, but would you mind elaborating on why the SSL bus compressor works for you?

Right now I'm aware that changes at the mastering level should be subtle, but unfortunately that means I'm often not aware if my changes are actually improving anything or not. Hopefully that will come with time.


----------



## brett (Jan 15, 2018)

I recently had a successful mixing engineer tell me that there is often too much information around 400 Hz in orchestral samples . He regularly carves out a little, or sometimes a lot, on individual tracks as required. Ideally it's better that way then applying a dip to the entire mix and this is the approach I try, although I often end up still dipping touch around 400 give or take on the master bus . There are no rules though. Your mileage may vary of course so do what sounds good to you. Good luck.


----------



## conan (Jan 15, 2018)

You referenced non-orchestral arrangements in your initial post. Since instrument realism is not as critical for electronic or hybrid works, I use spectral analysis to help carve out a space for each audio source. You have to be careful not to rely on your eyes at the expense of your ears but, as stated, this is not as important for pieces that rely on the overall mix and do not require each individual instrument to sound pristine. In any event, the master should require very little EQing. If there is mud in the mix, it should be fixed at the individual track level.


----------



## Greg (Jan 15, 2018)

brett said:


> I recently had a successful mixing engineer tell me that there is often too much information around 400 Hz in orchestral samples . He regularly carves out a little, or sometimes a lot, on individual tracks as required.



I second that opinion. Many libraries of all types of sounds are almost always full of mud in that range. I eq everything besides strings very heavily. Especially drums. If you want that subby low end punch in your perc, chiseling out the mids is the quickest way to get there.


----------



## Scoremixer (Jan 15, 2018)

The original post talks about problems more in non-orchestral tracks, although a lot of the same techniques for making good mixes are applicable across genres, and many of the best-sounding dense orchestral/hybrid mixes owe more to rock and pop mixing than they do to anything classical.

The first thing that springs to mind, as others have mentioned, is to sort out your monitoring environment, and at the very least get some really good headphones as another reference point.

The next point is - WHATEVER WORKS. Abandon the idea of too much EQ/compression/distortion or whatever. If you like the sound of popular music made in the last 20+ years, the very well paid guys mixing those records dive in and do whatever they have to to make mixes sing. Spike Stent starts off by strapping a GML eq across the mix bus with something like a +6dB hi shelf, firing into the SSL bus compressor. In fact, working from the top down with some kind of preset mastering in place can be a good point to start from, as you'll have to do less work on the individual channels.

Don't be afraid to dive in and carve out what you need from the individual elements too. Plenty of genres and sounds just don't work without a liberal application of engineering whizzbang. If you've got the Waves SSL channel strip, open that up and take a look at some of the Chris Lord Alge presets for drum mics and the like.... there's no shame in doing something perverted if it gets you where you need to be.

The other aspect is that heavy duty mix processing generally isn't a set and forget kind of deal, particularly if you're working on dynamic material. Lots of automation, lots of fixing edits that only became apparent under severe EQ duress, lots of dup'ing things out and processing them differently for different sections of the track. Any time anything goes by that bothers you, jump in and fix it. 

That's the short answer. The long answer is that it takes a long time to learn and get good at this stuff, and there are hundreds of tiny decisions that go towards making a great mix which are impossible to quantify in a forum post. If you want something more concrete though, you're welcome to post up a sample of something you're not entirely happy with for a bit of feedback. Sometimes it just takes a bit of distance from something to work out what's wrong.


----------



## Piano Pete (Jan 15, 2018)

I'll second the automation suggestion. I am by no means a trained mixing engineer, but I recently had a lot of issues with clarity on really loud "epic" pieces-- the sort of works that would by no means function well in real life. 

Automation, especially just with the faders, did wonders for cleaning everything up. That in combination with a bunch of individual tweaks, such as subtle compression, saturation, and eq, did wonders for those tracks. As scoremixer stated, I find it hard to have set and forget perimeters for entire tracks. I really like having plugin combinations that affect different parts of a piece. For example, You may wish to carve a hole in your bass to let other instruments in, but if the c.b. are playing exposed, you may not want that cut sitting there. 

Another tool that I have had great success in using is anything mid-side and making tweaks to L and R channels individually. There are a ton of ways that you could utilize this; in my case, it also helped clear up my stereo image. Fabfilter has some great tutorials on Youtube regarding different applications. While they only utilize their products in the demos, I personally love their suite, what is discussed can be applied with other gear. 

This last bit may be completely psychological for me, but I always seem to have more trouble mixing sampled instruments than when I am using live recordings. Whenever I am using live stems, it always seems that I get away with much less engineering witchcraft, but I guess this trade-off is worth it to be able to have an orchestra in the box.

Ultimately, everything we do is a game of balancing. The right amount of "this" before "that" happens.

To answer your question, as many have already done, these problems should be fixed in the mixing stage, not the mastering stage. Sometimes it can be fixed in the mastering stage, but it is not a habit one really wants to develop.


----------



## Phillip (Jan 15, 2018)

Try taking a break from looking at Ozone for a while and force yourself to trust your ears more. Also, mock up some arrangements and mix as close as you can to the original. When EQuing go in small increments and listen carefully to the changes. Good luck


----------



## Anders Bru (Jan 16, 2018)

camerhil said:


> Anders, do you start with those plugins on zero, then gradually bring them up until you get the desired effect, or do you have go-to settings which you apply first and then tweak?
> 
> I'm also unclear on the use of bus compressors when the maximizer basically does the same thing. I understand the benefit of the multiband, but would you mind elaborating on why the SSL bus compressor works for you?
> 
> Right now I'm aware that changes at the mastering level should be subtle, but unfortunately that means I'm often not aware if my changes are actually improving anything or not. Hopefully that will come with time.


They don't start at zero, necessarily, but close. The C6 Mulitband is controlling the very low-end, which allows me to crank the maximizer a bit more, since low-end tends to "activate" the maximizer eariler. I honestly can't say what the bus compressor is doing, but I find it's "gluing" the mix together in a very smooth way. And I second what several others have said about the 400Hz - range. But it took years for me before I was able to actually hear the messy midrange.


----------



## camerhil (Jan 16, 2018)

These replies have been extremely useful - many thanks all.


----------



## Henu (Jan 16, 2018)

Piano Pete said:


> This last bit may be completely psychological for me, but I always seem to have more trouble mixing sampled instruments than when I am using live recordings. Whenever I am using live stems, it always seems that I get away with much less engineering witchcraft, but I guess this trade-off is worth it to be able to have an orchestra in the box.



Hah, you're not the only one! I spent one year basically completely destroying my sample- based mixes until I realized that you're just simply not supposed to treat them like the real instruments (-where I come from mixing- wise). I'd take a well- recorded live instrument any day over a sampled one, that's for sure.

(Ok, not everything. You can keep that too close- miked muted trumpet section I once did. _That_ was the definition of mixing hell, really.  )


----------



## creativeforge (Sep 26, 2022)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> Also use an audio-analyzer to compare the music.



Hi Beat, sorry to revive an old thread but do you have any recommendations for this kind of VST (*audio analyzer*)? Mostly will be used in Logic. Thanks!


----------



## proggermusic (Sep 26, 2022)

creativeforge said:


> Hi Beat, sorry to revive an old thread but do you have any recommendations for this kind of VST (*audio analyzer*)? Mostly will be used in Logic. Thanks!


There are a couple built-in plugins in Logic that I find really useful for these kinds of things! One is the "Multi-Meter" (in the "metering" category for inserts) which is great for loudness and left/right balance for your mix. Another is the "analyzer" in the stock channel EQ plugin, which is very handy for noticing significant humps in any channel's frequencies. Really helpful for cutting excess buildup in lows and low-mids in targeted areas! (Production is, so often, reduction, after all...)


----------



## creativeforge (Sep 26, 2022)

proggermusic said:


> There are a couple built-in plugins in Logic that I find really useful for these kinds of things! One is the "Multi-Meter" (in the "metering" category for inserts) which is great for loudness and left/right balance for your mix. Another is the "analyzer" in the stock channel EQ plugin, which is very handy for noticing significant humps in any channel's frequencies. Really helpful for cutting excess buildup in lows and low-mids in targeted areas! (Production is, so often, reduction, after all...)


Thanks, here is the actual request I received from a dear friend of mine. I think it may be a bit different in this case as he has to deal with a less than optimal room (he's a renter). Des that bring anything else to mind?

"a simple VST or AU audio analyzer that easily pinpoints problem areas to fix and is simple to use. My new room is a sonic mystery and I have no idea where the mix is at."

Thanks again!

EDIT: Checking this one out: SPAN by Voxengo.


----------



## utopia (Sep 26, 2022)

I'd recommend something like Metric AB by PA. It's very easy to load in several reference files in your genre, automatically gain match and compare freq spectrum, dynamic levels etc. Quickly tells you where you're off.
Get it on one of the million sales they do.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Sep 27, 2022)

creativeforge said:


> Hi Beat, sorry to revive an old thread but do you have any recommendations for this kind of VST (*audio analyzer*)? Mostly will be used in Logic. Thanks!


The problem with almost all analysers is that you get a fidgeting or rapidly changing display that doesn't really allow a good assessment of which fequences are dominant. If then the peak values are displayed, the analyser is more or less a nice decoration that moves to the music.
Whenever possible, analyzers should display the RMS value ...for the evaluation of frequency matters.

I myself have been using the HOFA-Analyzer V2 for a long time. *One of its curves shows the intensity (energy) of the different frequencies over the whole measuring time. In my opinion, this is the most reliable method to determine really dominant frequencies over the time. I have not seen this possibility in other analyzers.* Furthermore, you can show the difference between two measurements as a new curve (calculated), you can measure the correlation - broken down to different frequency bands, M or S measuring and much more. In addition, the analyser provides various references (curves of a string orchestra, symphony orchestra, opera, big band, choir... that kind of thing).
Good and complete measuring instruments cost something. So does the HOFA-Analyzer as well, but it is really worth the money in my eyes because I use it every day even I own all the mentioned analyzer plugins above as well.

I would try out this tool and then compare the information gained about the music with that of the previously beloved analyser. You will probably not want to do without the HOFA tool afterwards either.

All the best
Beat


----------



## Loïc D (Sep 27, 2022)

brett said:


> I recently had a successful mixing engineer tell me that there is often too much information around 400 Hz in orchestral samples . He regularly carves out a little, or sometimes a lot, on individual tracks as required. Ideally it's better that way then applying a dip to the entire mix and this is the approach I try, although I often end up still dipping touch around 400 give or take on the master bus . There are no rules though. Your mileage may vary of course so do what sounds good to you. Good luck.


I feel that too.
I often get to the concert hall and feels like the sound libraries has way more “informations” in the low/low mids register, especially with high strings and woodwinds. I always carve this register to get closer to my reference sound.


----------



## creativeforge (Sep 27, 2022)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> The problem with almost all analysers is that you get a fidgeting or rapidly changing display that doesn't really allow a good assessment of which fequences are dominant. If then the peak values are displayed, the analyser is more or less a nice decoration that moves to the music.
> Whenever possible, analyzers should display the RMS value ...for the evaluation of frequency matters.
> 
> I myself have been using the HOFA-Analyzer V2 for a long time. *One of its curves shows the intensity (energy) of the different frequencies over the whole measuring time. In my opinion, this is the most reliable method to determine really dominant frequencies over the time. I have not seen this possibility in other analyzers.* Furthermore, you can show the difference between two measurements as a new curve (calculated), you can measure the correlation - broken down to different frequency bands, M or S measuring and much more. In addition, the analyser provides various references (curves of a string orchestra, symphony orchestra, opera, big band, choir... that kind of thing).
> ...


Thank you Beat! Noted and recommended the trial.


----------



## Joël Dollié (Sep 27, 2022)

Most orchestral instruments have too much there. Let's say from 200 to 1k.

Part of it is the instruments themselves but also the fact that they are recorded in big spaces. It's easy to end up with a mid rangy flat sound. 

The amount that could be carved really depends on the libraries/recordings but carving at least a bit definitely improves the sound in most cases. 

Typically, the denser the orchestration is, the more you need to cut there in order to prevent mid range buildups and retain clarity. 

On the flipside, a common beginner mistake is to overcut this range as the strength of the effect isn't so obvious for someone starting out, and then you can end up with unnatural over scooped mid range which is just as bad if not worse than muddy mid range..


----------

