# Mudd in the mix



## Jeffrey Peterson (May 24, 2013)

I'm no engineer. I consider myself a decent composer but mixing has always given me grief.

In big "epic" heavy percussion horn blast trailer music does any one else take huge chunks out of the 100-350Hz range in almost all instruments?

I might be jacking my mixes way up by doing this but if I don't there is no clarity and everything sounds like a think blanket is wrapped around the speakers 3 times around.

I take anywhere from 4-7 db out of this area in the percussion, hybrid tools, damage, anything bass heavy, brass, sometimes low strings.

Thoughts? Concerns? Practices?


----------



## Lex (May 24, 2013)

Are you checking your 20 to 100? Is it clean?

alex


----------



## ghostnote (May 24, 2013)

I do this a lot... especially on percussion and brass, but sometimes it's still not enough and I have to cut 1,5-2,5db at 450Hz on the master bus/at mastering stage.

The problem isn't just in the muddy areas. My mixes tend to get this sharpness when I mix a full orchestra along with a choir. I heavily EQ the choir in this case (different spots between 300 and 1000-2000Hz), but it seems like I can't get entirely rid of this sharpness. Maybe my ears have to develop further to properly identify the problems in the higher frequencys. I was quite about to start a thread about this, maybe someone can share some tips about how to avoid masking or maybe share some useful links.


----------



## Oliver_Codd (May 25, 2013)

Do you have any examples you would care to post? Also how controlled is your mixing environment? It's possible/probable that you have a bass mode thats creating peaks in that frequency range. If so, your EQing something that isn't really there. Check your mixes in different spaces on different speakers/headphones and see if the problem still exists. If it does, I would suggest going back to your arrangements and seeing if you can fix the problem from the source material. 

- Oliver


----------



## Jimbo 88 (May 25, 2013)

I'm in the same boat as the OP. Big projects sound like mush many times cause I'm not good at mixing. Lots of cool orchestrating, but it sounds like noise.

Since I am not a mixer, and never want to be, I try to hand my stuff off to mixers I have gotten to know thru work. I try to pay something no matter what the project (that's getting harder these days). It is a good business practice for many reasons. It puts a new set of ears on my composition, keeps others working and gets me recommended more often by mixers who become friends.

Another trick is to get a good mastering plugin like Ozone5. It automatically makes things sound better with just presets. When a preset makes a mix sound really good, I try to go inside the settings and see why. I can tweak Ozone some, but it also gives me clues to go back to the mix before Ozone and tweak things.

I feel your pain...


----------



## gravehill (May 25, 2013)

A couple of tips:

- Use low cut filter on EVERYTHING! When filtering an individual channel, play it in context (i.e. not soloed) and start removing lows. See how high you can go before you start to audibly lose content. Then go back from that point just a little bit. The idea is to dedicate the low end of the spectrum to bassy tones and nothing else.
- A lot of mud resides around 400Hz so you might want to cut there a bit.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 25, 2013)

When someone says to do something on EVERYTHING, they are almost bound to be giving bad advice IMHO because nothing works on EVERYTHING.


----------



## KingIdiot (May 25, 2013)

short answer, mostly yes.

Samples are still samples, you start playing multiple voices of the same instrument, and you'll get build up in frequencies that wouldn't build up in natural playback. Add to it, many libraries ahve a hyped sound, and you're going to run into places where you start scooping your mids, and everything starts to sound thin or hollow because it's all highs and ultra lows

the trick is to become a better engineer (well that's not a trick). Learn abut how multiband compression on specific percussion tracks can keep certain built up frequencies in check. Learn when it might be a good idea to switch to a different signal chain/buss when you play many voices, as opposed to a single voice, so you can get the best of both sounding worlds in your arrangement.

Use roll offs on instruments that you might not need the ultra lows (flute for example). Remember that clarity can come from cutting frequencies from another instrument, instead of adding. This can help in the high frequencies so you're fighting less to hear things with voume and in turn mudding up your lows.

percussion, specifically, is a beast to learn to wrangle. Check your arrangements, if you're slamming on a bunch of keys of the same taiko, try and figure out how to only get the lows from the sample or two you want to be prominent, and the snap from all the rest of them. Multibands can help here, but it can be a bit of a cop out and "easy way", separating a small group of the samples, and the rest over a couple of channels can give you more defined and specific control over ow things oscillate.

or hire someone to mix for you. Sometimes it's really about having a separate set of ears on these things and our egos get in the way.


----------



## chimuelo (May 25, 2013)

Well there are mastering plugs that can solve many problems for a workflow that doesn't make you sit around quastionin yourself.
Brainrox Digital has a mono maker for helping out with Mud/Reverb/Phase issues.
Takes the low end below a selected frequency and then Make it mono, better focus tighter rounder mix.
Just think about Kick Drums in stereo as an example.
Sounds cool solo'd maybe but starts getting muddy adding dozens of "stereo" samples and taking away more and more focus.

Just a thought.
Idiots like me love it as I can't stand spending too much time mixing, I'd rather play, or use a plug in like BX, or if really important hire someone like they do on the big jobs.


----------



## Goran (May 25, 2013)

Michael Chrostek @ Fri May 24 said:


> My mixes tend to get this sharpness when I mix a full orchestra along with a choir. I heavily EQ the choir in this case (different spots between 300 and 1000-2000Hz), but it seems like I can't get entirely rid of this sharpness. Maybe my ears have to develop further to properly identify the problems in the higher frequencys. I was quite about to start a thread about this, maybe someone can share some tips about how to avoid masking or maybe share some useful links.



Try the octave between 2,5 kHz and 5 kHz. What we identify as being "sharp" or "edgy" in higher frequencies is normally located in this area (the problem usually lies between 3 and 4,5 kHz).


----------



## Goran (May 25, 2013)

KingIdiot @ Sat May 25 said:


> Learn abut how multiband compression on specific percussion tracks can keep certain built up frequencies in check.



+1 for what is stated above. for real control over dynamically driven "frequency response" of a loud percussion/brass section, you won't really get around using multiband compression. however, using it properly is something you have to practice a bit - otherwise it's very easy to end up making a bad mix worse...


----------



## lux (May 26, 2013)

What has been said before, expecially the roll-off thing King pointed out. 

Most of times sampliists tend to keep, in the rec, frequencies which are not peculiar to that specific instrument (in a mix), in order to offer the best possible picture of the timbre. As a result you have instruments playing in the hi range and putting lot of unwanted mid-low freqs in the mix.

In a busy mix every instrument concentrates on the frequencies most peculiar to its timbre, rolling out the rest. 

Its like you have a room and lot of people asking for a sit. They will have to leave bags out of the door and just sit down on their chairs.


----------



## ghostnote (May 26, 2013)

Goran @ Sat May 25 said:


> Michael Chrostek @ Fri May 24 said:
> 
> 
> > My mixes tend to get this sharpness when I mix a full orchestra along with a choir. I heavily EQ the choir in this case (different spots between 300 and 1000-2000Hz), but it seems like I can't get entirely rid of this sharpness. Maybe my ears have to develop further to properly identify the problems in the higher frequencys. I was quite about to start a thread about this, maybe someone can share some tips about how to avoid masking or maybe share some useful links.
> ...



Thanks for your input Goran. I'm familiar with the basics.

What I ment was how to change those frequencys in a mix, inside seperate instruments. For example: Lowering those frequencys you've mentioned at the mastering stage might be helpful but will affect every other instrument aswell. Are there any common techniques that I can apply when a mix gets too dense?


----------



## reid (May 26, 2013)

I've often found that a cluttered / dense mix is due to poor orchestration or arrangement of the track. Whenever I have to sort out the clutter in a cue, it's often solved by rethinking how I'm voicing harmonies and assigning parts amongst the orchestra sections. Often, remedying problems with EQ, compression and so on, is only half the solution to the problem - might be worth taking a look at the whole picture, next time you're pulling a mix together.


----------



## Oliver_Codd (May 26, 2013)

reid @ Sun May 26 said:


> I've often found that a cluttered / dense mix is due to poor orchestration or arrangement of the track. Whenever I have to sort out the clutter in a cue, it's often solved by rethinking how I'm voicing harmonies and assigning parts amongst the orchestra sections. Often, remedying problems with EQ, compression and so on, is only half the solution to the problem - might be worth taking a look at the whole picture, next time you're pulling a mix together.



+1


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (May 26, 2013)

Jeffrey, 

I have been and continue to be with each new project in a problem area with music because usually the latest track we do is not so similar to the previous one and every new track poses a different kind of mix problem but here are a few things I have learnt and applied to my music off late.

100-350 Hz is a critical range. In fact, if you import most of the Hyrbid or larger sounding music, you will find that it is not heavy on the sub range. Make it sound good on your normal speakers and the normal frequency range expected of a recording. Of course, there are exceptions but make sure your low end is clean.

* It is very important to clean up tracks - sometimes even a hat may have unwanted frequencies that are just making the mix muddy. Synth percussion or in general most synths sounds will have something going on in the 30-50 range. Tidy this up and I usually remove these frequencies if that sound is not supposed to be doing that or if another sound or group of sounds is already taking care of that range. 

* You need to be objective about what each sound is doing in a mix. Less is more sometimes. Make sure there are no lost sounds in the mix - when you write, you will open up a lot of sounds and then sometimes forget about them because another sound has completely masked it - remove this sound in that case or EQ it to the point that only the most essential part of it is highlighted. 

* If you want the highs to come out in a sound, lower the lows or the opposite. Instead of trying to boost everything.

* If its a hybrid or tight track, mono the bass sounds from a certain frequency down. This will give you more headroom. Keep you low end clean. 


* Tune all percussion and aux sounds - this is very important. Every kick, every snare, every transition sound needs to be tuned to the pitch of your track. This will clean up a lot of mess and unwanted frequencies. Once again, only make sure the absolute essential parts are being kept by tidying up everything else.

* Use shorter reverbs for some percussion, longer for other instruments. Think about front to back in a mix, top to bottom and side to side.

* Experiment with Mid-Side if you know what that is in a track on the master in case an engineer is not available to you.

* Watch the hi-mids. Most of the time I find, I have to reduce this because you dont want the hears hurting when the track gets louder - you want that nice sheen on the top end, the essential bottom end and the clean but very important mid-range. 

* No rouge sounds left in the mix - this is again a problem I face. When I am mixing, I sometimes find sounds which are not needed or not tight enough or just sitting their because in the plethora of tracks, I forgot about that. 

* Try to separate sometimes the mix process. This helps because mixing is as creative as composing and important specially for hybrid tracks or anything that is composed with samples IMHO.

* When you bounce each track for the mix, you hear the part soloed, this gives you a time to once again understand the significance of that sound. Keep the lab opened so to speak till the final moment while also commit to some other sounds as you compose. I print a lot of sounds as well while I am writing - this is mostly applicable to hybrid tracks.

* Make something your reference point. I do not have a million dollar studio so I mix on my headphones and the speakers and then I will listen to it in the car as well. This gives you clues toward an average response of your tracks and sounds. 

*Depending on what room you are sitting in, the tuning of the room will make some sounds boom, only to realise in a proper studio that this was the room resonating, the sound was absolutely fine. 

*Hire an engineer whenever you can - A good one of course!

*Do not crush the dynamics of your track. If so, you are doing soemthing wrong. It is absolutely possibly to maximise the volume without loosing dynamics and this is not because you need to use the Neve Summing mixer all the time. If we follow the basics of audio production and make it nice and tidy, then it all works ITB as well.

*Keep the mixing process musical - highlight or subtract certain frequencies based on the tone of the whole mix. 

*Make choices at the composition level - certain bass notes resonate more and I sometimes put my key in a hybrid track to a situation where the first beat of my main part is that resonant note (or not) so that without EQ, the natural frequency of that note is highlighted at the orchestration/production level. If its written well in a particular medium, its easier to mix and other times its still not easy because you are putting some new stuff in which you havnt before and its a new problem for you!

* Sometimes, I will transpose the entire thing while I am writing to hear what key it sounds best in - usually, I am making these choices at the absolute start. You can even do this on the piano but for hybrid tracks, the orchestration rules are different!


As always - no set rules and please ignore my points, this is generally what I am doing with my tracks or not depending on the situation.


Good luck!


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## jemu999 (May 26, 2013)

Excellent Tanuj!


----------



## Goran (May 27, 2013)

Michael Chrostek @ Sun May 26 said:


> Goran @ Sat May 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Michael Chrostek @ Fri May 24 said:
> ...




That's not (normally) possible in a mix (although tools exist which make this sort of "surgical" procedures at least partly possible, f.e. Algorithmix reNOVAtor). But skilled use of multiband compression can do wonders in dealing with dynamically induced frequency clogging, even if it cannot always fully compensate for a lack of clean eqing/compression of single instruments themselves. For me, it is the first way to go when dealing with such problems.


----------



## Greg (May 27, 2013)

I like to use reverb very sparsely to create extra space with this frequency. If everything is washed out with dense reverb, then muddy mixes are guaranteed. 

For synth stuff I rarely use any verb at all, maybe just a few db on a send and thats it. I find that hybrid & analog sounds are much nicer and easier to contain this way. Plus it sounds like they're ripping your speakers apart when theyre dry. Also, my synths are usually the only thing filling up the sub frequencies. And the mids are usually harshly cut out to make room for the orchestra.

Percussion I try to find samples with nice close mics 1-3 feet away and just a touch of room mic. So if you picture it in your head, the percussion sounds like its about 10-12 feet away from the listener.

Long strings, brass, choir, I all mix naturally, no tricks there. Make it sound like it was properly recorded.

Short strings, also usually very clean and up front. I mostly use velocity or volume automation to make them sound further back but still have clarity since there isn't much reverb.

And finally on the strings and brass' bus, I always use a L&R channel sample delay around 90 sam on L and 1500 on R. This gives an additional sense of space and width.

Quick rant, hope it helps.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 27, 2013)

Lost of folks giving some pretty confident advice here. 

Jeffrey, you might want to listen to their music before you decide how much that self-confidence is merited.

Just saying


----------



## rgames (May 27, 2013)

reid @ Sun May 26 said:


> I've often found that a cluttered / dense mix is due to poor orchestration or arrangement of the track.



Sometimes but not always. Got get a score for a Mahler symphony and sequence a fully orchestrated section then tell me if you think that rule still applies. It'll sound like crap without EQ and other tricks on a lot of instruments. If you're willing to accept that Mahler did, in fact, have some orchestration / arrangement chops then you must accept that the problem lies elsewhere.

A bit of "smile" EQ on a lot of tracks (particularly middle voices) helps as does killing a bunch of the lows on instruments that don't need it. I run a standard template with a lot of settings based on previous work and I still tweak it for almost every track. What sounds great for one track will inevitably fail for some other track. Each one needs to be treated independently (which is why "mix engineer" is a profession, by the way...).

Traditional rules regarding orchestration / arrangement are based on centuries of having those instruments play at the same time. Those rules certainly are a good starting point for sequenced work but they will still produce crap if you're not dealing with the other issues like EQ.

rgames


----------



## Goran (May 27, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon May 27 said:


> Lost of folks giving some pretty confident advice here.
> 
> Jeffrey, you might want to listen to their music before you decide how much that self-confidence is merited.
> 
> Just saying



Are you saying I can't use a multiband compressor? I'm thoroughly insulted... 0oD


----------



## Goran (May 27, 2013)

rgames @ Mon May 27 said:


> reid @ Sun May 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Traditional rules regarding orchestration / arrangement are based on centuries of having those instruments play at the same time. Those rules certainly are a good starting point for sequenced work but they will still produce crap if you're not dealing with the other issues like EQ.



+1


----------



## reid (May 27, 2013)

rgames @ 27th May said:


> reid @ Sun May 26 said:
> 
> 
> > I've often found that a cluttered / dense mix is due to poor orchestration or arrangement of the track.
> ...




Richard, the clue in my sentence is the word 'often'. As in 'sometimes, not always'.... Please, try a bit harder next time when looking for a sentence to misinterpret, in order to illustrate your point. :roll:


----------



## germancomponist (May 27, 2013)

And not to forget that the use of an eq often is depending on the tempo. No kidding! 

For example: When the cellos play only 1/1 staccatos, then very often low frequencies are wellcome. But if they play fast 1/16 staccatos, then it is mostly better to cut the low frequencies. EQ automation is a must if you are after a well pro sounding mix! This is true for virtually all instruments.


----------



## alligatorlizard (May 28, 2013)

Tons of really good advice on this thread - I've been looking into improving my mixing recently, but have mainly focused on how to eq my reverb, as this something I just never did before. 

It's certainly not going to rescue a bad mix, but if you've got a good mix and arrangement, I've found a subtle hpf on the reverb send can work wonders, especially if you like a lot of reverb overall! Cut too much though, and the track just loses all it's life, things don't sound in the same space anymore - but I can't see any reason not to roll sub-bass (say from 50/40hz) off the verb pretty much as a rule, and a bit more if necessary on busier arrangements. Certainly it's me helped with the big percussion hybrid style you mention, just reducing the ammount of low end reverb in a mix will allow room for the low drums to really ring out.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 28, 2013)

Since unapologetically declarative sentences seem to be the currency of the realm in this discussion,I will say that if you consistently feel the need to EQ every track, and I see many Logic projects that do that do precisely that, you are going very far astray in your use of the libraries.

EQ is a problem solving tool, and a little goes a long way.


----------



## reid (May 28, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ 28th May said:


> ...I will say that if you consistently feel the need to EQ every track, and I see many Logic projects that do that do precisely that, you are going very far astray in your use of the libraries.



Why?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 28, 2013)

reid @ Tue May 28 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ 28th May said:
> 
> 
> > ...I will say that if you consistently feel the need to EQ every track, and I see many Logic projects that do that do precisely that, you are going very far astray in your use of the libraries.
> ...



Because the libraries are not _that_ deeply flawed. If you are EQing every track, there is IMHO a much higher likelihood that you are doing harm to the mix, not helping it.

It is like going into a classroom of 20 girls and deciding every single one of would benefit from rhinoplasty.


----------



## germancomponist (May 28, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue May 28 said:


> EQ is a problem solving tool, and a little goes a long way.



... and the problem depends on what I hear in my head and/or on what I am after... . EQ's also can be very cool toys... . o-[][]-o


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 28, 2013)

germancomponist @ Tue May 28 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > EQ is a problem solving tool, and a little goes a long way.
> ...



Music creation is not a game for children with toys, but adults with tools :twisted:


----------



## germancomponist (May 28, 2013)

Although I still like to experiment so as a small child.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 28, 2013)

germancomponist @ Tue May 28 said:


> Although I still like to experiment so as a small child.



And that is part of your charm 

One last piece of advice and I am out: Because one can does not mean one should, so when dealing with EQ, take the Hippocratic Oath, "First do no harm."


----------



## ryans (May 28, 2013)

germancomponist @ Tue May 28 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > EQ is a problem solving tool, and a little goes a long way.
> ...



Completely agree... EQ can be destructive but I would never want to limit myself to only ever using it sparingly... it can be a very creative tool as well.

Ryan


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 28, 2013)

ryans @ Tue May 28 said:


> germancomponist @ Tue May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Tue May 28 said:
> ...



Oh, well using it for creative effects, like filtering strings, etc. is a very different issue than using it for fixing perceived muddy mix issues, which is the topic., not that people on this forum ever stick to the topic


----------



## alligatorlizard (Jun 25, 2013)

Also, think about creating _space_ for low sounds - eg I just recorded a track with loud, low guitars - at first it sounded very muddy and I was just cutting a lot of lows all over the place, but this can result a wimpy sound - ended up _boosting_ the low guitars around 120hz (it was in the key of B) but then cutting them at 250 (where the fundamentals of the vocals and lead guitar were boosted). The cleaner rhythm guitar then needed to be cut in the 120 region, but it didn't sound as good down there anyway. Then I hpf'd all guitars from 80hz (just to make sure) and used the space below 80hz to boost bass and kick a bit. Resulted in a clear low end, but still with a lot of weight - whereas when I'd just made the standard small mud reducing cuts around 300hz to _everything_, the track was clear, but had lost all it's groove! Sometimes a bit of mud is good (listen to some Stoner/Doom rock!) - but choose selectively which mud you want.

Another tip that might help is if your bass isn't standing out, and you can't boost it's lows any more without resulting in muddiness, try a boost around 1k - similarly with drums, boost anywhere between 3k and 6k if you want them to stand out more without overwhelming the low end - then you might have more room to boost low guitars/strings/brass or whatever - consider that this might result in an overall more satisfying sound than the maybe more intuitive approach of cutting the low guitars/strings/brass in order to make room for excessively low boosted drums/bass.

I guess this is all pretty standard advice, but I mention it as you said you were taking huge chunks out of everything in the low regions, and I'd say this definitely is too simplistic an approach - decide what elements you want to be loud in the low regions, don't be afraid to boost these, but then cut (in the same region) the other instruments/sounds that eg don't have such an exciting low end.


----------



## valexnerfarious (Jun 25, 2013)

cut a lil bit around 300khz to talk away that box sound...hi pass around 10 to 12 k and low pass around 120khz..remove mud around 500 to 800khz


----------



## Psycaudio (Jun 25, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue May 28 said:


> It is like going into a classroom of 20 girls and deciding every single one of would benefit from rhinoplasty.



oh Jay, how I love your similes. Say hi to Thomas J Bergersen for me! Please make post about how that man works! he is a genius


----------

