# ELI5: Mixes in headset sounds great, in friends monitor sounds shit - why?



## rlundv

I'm a beginner in both mixing and mastering, and this issue is apparent in all my mixes. I make something in my DAW, mixing it with my Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro cans, and then sending the mix to my friend for him to record guitars, bass etc.

The first time I was visiting him, I was shocked about how thin the mix sounded.

Do I need some kind of headset calibration or are there other methods to make my music sound good on a broad spectrum of speakers and earplugs?

Is Sonarworks Reference 4-plugin something that would help me?


----------



## BenG

Had this issue many years ago with similar headphones that were closed and making it sound as if the bass was way louder than it was! 

If you are going to mix on headphones, I would suggest using open-back cans (or at least semi-open) and Sonarworks as you mention. Check out the DT880 Pros for mixing as they will give you a much better, accurate depiction of the soundscape.


----------



## Alex Fraser

beyd770 said:


> I'm a beginner in both mixing and mastering, and this issue is apparent in all my mixes. I make something in my DAW, mixing it with my Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro cans, and then sending the mix to my friend for him to record guitars, bass etc.
> 
> The first time I was visiting him, I was shocked about how thin the mix sounded.
> 
> Do I need some kind of headset calibration or are there other methods to make my music sound good on a broad spectrum of speakers and earplugs?
> 
> Is Sonarworks Reference 4-plugin something that would help me?


Always annoying, isn't it? 
Before you go any further, are you sure your friends monitoring environment is a good baseline? Else you'll only end up chasing your tail. Good luck!


----------



## Erik

You also could try these ones:

https://www.flux.audio/project/ircam-hear-v3/

https://www.toneboosters.com/tb_morphit_v1.html
install packages: https://www.toneboosters.com/download.html

If I remember well: in the Bus tools there is a plugin named Isone, maybe that one suit your needs...

Good luck!


----------



## Zx81

Are you using reference tracks as part of your mixing workflow? 

(edit - improve phrasing of answer)

There is already some excellent advice in this thread but I thought it useful to mention that regularly comparing your mix against a reference track in a similar genre is great way to maintain objectivity about your own mix.

w.r.t headphone choice, as others have suggested (IMHO) the DT880 Pros are a great choice. I picked up a pair recently now use them all the time.

I seem to recall reading an eBook 'mixed by marc mozart' ??? which I found quite useful when first starting to try and learn more about the mysteries of mixing.

Good luck,
D


----------



## rlundv

BenG said:


> Had this issue many years ago with similar headphones that were closed and making it sound as if the bass was way louder than it was!
> 
> If you are going to mix on headphones, I would suggest using open-back cans (or at least semi-open) and Sonarworks as you mention. Check out the DT880 Pros for mixing as they will give you a much better, accurate depiction of the soundscape.


DT880 Pros - got it! Thank you


----------



## rlundv

Alex Fraser said:


> Always annoying, isn't it?
> Before you go any further, are you sure your friends monitoring environment is a good baseline? Else you'll only end up chasing your tail. Good luck!


Good point! They are a fair baseline, as far as my untrained ears can tell. Yamaha HS 8, to be specific. Are they ok?


----------



## rlundv

Erik said:


> You also could try these ones:
> 
> https://www.flux.audio/project/ircam-hear-v3/
> 
> https://www.toneboosters.com/tb_morphit_v1.html
> install packages: https://www.toneboosters.com/download.html
> 
> If I remember well: in the Bus tools there is a plugin named Isone, maybe that one suit your needs...
> 
> Good luck!


Wonderful, thanks a bunch for those links!


----------



## rlundv

Zx81 said:


> Are you using reference tracks as part of your mixing workflow?
> 
> (edit - improve phrasing of answer)
> 
> There is already some excellent advice in this thread but I thought it useful to mention that regularly comparing your mix against a reference track in a similar genre is great way to maintain objectivity about your own mix.
> 
> w.r.t headphone choice, as others have suggested (IMHO) the DT880 Pros are a great choice. I picked up a pair recently now use them all the time.
> 
> I seem to recall reading an eBook 'mixed by marc mozart' ??? which I found quite useful when first starting to try and learn more about the mysteries of mixing.
> 
> Good luck,
> D


Reference track - advice taken. Have tried a couple of times, but while the referencetrack sounded good in my cans, I mixed to match that profile, but when later played in my gfs earbuds or at family-stereo, the mix still sucked 

Will really consider those cans, you are the second one to mention them. Will also look for that e-book, thanks for taking your time to mention it.


----------



## Alex Fraser

beyd770 said:


> Good point! They are a fair baseline, as far as my untrained ears can tell. Yamaha HS 8, to be specific. Are they ok?


Yep, I'd imagine so, but the room will be a major factor. It's at this point that my knowledge in the area of acoustics comes to a crashing halt.


----------



## rlundv

Alex Fraser said:


> Yep, I'd imagine so, but the room will be a major factor. It's at this point that my knowledge in the area of acoustics comes to a crashing halt.


Aha, right! Well, will try the plugins and the new cans, and then check with new referencematerial and monitor the mix in another room. Thanks again!


----------



## Fredeke

@beyd770
You're experiencing two basic issues :

1. You always need to check your mix on many different monitoring systems in order to make them sound good everywhere. Take your current work with you everywhere, play it wherever you can, and in time making mixes that sound good everywhere will become natural and intuitive to you. It took me about 2 years of this exercise to get there. Maybe I'm slow, but it's a learning curve anyway.

Another problem with trusting your monitors only (be them speakers or headphones), is that you probably chose them because you like their sound. Which mean they will be flattering to your work, at least according to your taste. You have to listen to your work on sound systems you don't like, too.

2. Mixing in headphones is particularly difficult. Headphones are great to check for minute details (like stereo balance or reverb tails), or to verify the cleanness of a recording (like clicks and background noise), but I don't trust them for the overall balance.

Two common mistakes when mixing/mastering with headphones: overmixing or undermixing the bass and drums (because you never physically feel their punch, or lack thereof), and consistently undermixing the reverbs (because without the room's natural reverb, the reverbs in the mix stand out more).

At least, I fall for this every time.


----------



## vitocorleone123

Yeah - you'll need to listen on those headphones a lot to other music and also practice translating your mixes. I have the dt880s. They're overly bright and, to my ears, almost require correction (I use sonarworks) AND more recently I've also added Can opener by goodhertz as well in the monitoring chain before sonarworks to better approximate speakers. Others can't stand any software and think it's bad or that mixing on headphones is evil and will never turn out well.


----------



## shawnsingh

Fredeke said:


> Two common mistakes when mixing/mastering with headphones: overmixing or undermixing the bass and drums (because you never physically feel their punch, or lack thereof), and consistently undermixing the reverbs (because without the room's natural reverb, the reverbs in the mix stand out more).



+1 on this. the natural compression effect of human hearing really kicks into high gear with headphones, and its harder to sense loudness differences - this is a great thing for hearing details, but it makes it hard to know if you got the right levels - you might not know when one thing is to loud compared to another because you can hear them both just fine with headphones. This human hearing compression effect also totally screws with the perception of reverb decays. And on top of that, combined with the "in your head" stereo image (as opposed to "in front of you" phantom center on speakers), it really gives you a different sense of space than speakers. I feel it's been easier to get mixes to translate from speakers to headphones rather than from headphones to speakers.

I'm not an expert, but have learned of several other gems of advice thath have worked for me, and I think these are essential:

Listen at slightly lower-than-comfortable volume levels. It will help force you to mix the song so that important elements are all audible without the human hearing compression effect.
Try to make levels sound good in both mono and stereo, favoring mono slightly. Between lack of acoustic treatment and casual listener setups, mono might actually be a more representative baseline of what people hear when they don't use headphones. An awesome stereo image is only a bonus.
Try checking heavily high passed and low passed versions of your mix - it should still sound decent. For example, if you high pass at 400-800 Hz, or even as high as 1000 Hz with a 12db/octave slope, it would be ideal to still feel like the low frequency stuff is at least present and audible... Like the click of the kick drum, or the rich harmonics of a string bass. Obviously there are limits to this - a subbass with no harmonics and no transient isn't expected to be audible after a high pass...
I find it necessary to test multiple speakers/ headphones
mix referencing in combination with all the above tricks is pretty essential too. It's the only way to overcome the human psychology biases of judging your own mixes
Looks like dt770 did have a bit of a bass bump and a dip around 4-5 kHz - https://www.innerfidelity.com/headphone-measurements

Knowing that can also help you decide how to mix. No long term experience with sonarworks myself but had a demo from them before, and it was definitely great for ironing out the frequency response part. But that's still only part of making mixes translate well.

Cheers!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

What type of system does your friend's studio have?


----------



## averystemmler

I've been mixing in headphones a lot lately , and I think it's always a bit of a gamble. Having several different headphones/monitors to alternate between is helpful, as is constantly checking the mono mix. I've been using Sonarworks lately, but that sure hasn't stopped me from making bad decisions, particularly in the bass.

I'm considering iZotope's Tonal Balance Control, as a reality check. Visually comparing your mix to one you know and love on a spectrograph or analyzer can point out things your ears may have missed too.

And most importantly, if your mix sounds even better than the reference to you in your monitors, something is probably horribly wrong. I make this mistake every single time.


----------



## storyteller

I haven’t seen it mentioned yet, but mixing in mono will reveal quite a lot. Mix mono first, then stereo, then back to mono, etc. It is surprising how bad your mono mix will sound when learning how to mixing on headphones. Seriously. It happens to the best of us.

Waves NX is a great tool used in conjunction with Sonarworks. But, being honest about it, I find I strongly dislike the artifacts added by both pieces of software and find myself returning to a clean signal straight to headphones (HD650s btw). But I do use the plugins on every headphone mix before I return to hating them again. Necessary evil I suppose...

You’ll need to make sure you have a great headphone preamp with great DA converters too. Even if you don’t think you’ll hear the difference, you’ll be mixing to an inadequate signal chain that you will subconsciously mix to.

*Edit: *And as Avery mentioned just before my post, Tonal Balance is an excellent tool! I use it all the time.


----------



## chimuelo

Another great plug in that works great is Mono maker by BX Digital.
Not sure if it’s in the BX Digital Suite as I use their ancient DSP Plug Ins.
But it’s a mid/side mastering plug in, it can go from mono to stereo, or mid /side, and Mono maker keeps everything below a selected sub range frequency in Mono.

This is very useful as a stereo mix where low freqs get dual signals is no bueno.
Cancellation is destructive to a mix.


----------



## Fredeke

shawnsingh said:


> Try to make levels sound good in both mono and stereo, favoring mono slightly. Between lack of acoustic treatment and casual listener setups, mono might actually be a more representative baseline of what people hear when they don't use headphones. An awesome stereo image is only a bonus.


This is true, but it's a little bit more complicated. When wavefronts from both speakers combine in the air, they are not well correlated, wich gives you +3dB compared to if only one speaker was working. When you add signals electrically (or digitally), their correlation is perfect, which gives you a +6dB gain over one sole channel. This means whatever is in the center will get a +3dB rise when downmixing to mono, compared to what's in the sides or very wide.
So, the wider your mix, the more perturbed the balance will be when switching from mono to stereo or the other way around (unless it's so wide there's nothing in the center ).
That is one reason (among a few others) why mix vocals and percussions in or near the center.



shawnsingh said:


> a subbass with no harmonics and no transient isn't expected to be audible after a high pass...


Have you ever tried slightly distorting the whole master (or a bus grouping the bass with something else), in order to hear the effect of the bass modulating the higher frequencies ? It has limits too, obviously, but it's always worth trying.

I 100% agree with everything else you've said.


----------



## rlundv

Fredeke said:


> @beyd770
> You're experiencing two basic issues :
> 
> 1. You always need to check your mix on many different monitoring systems in order to make them sound good everywhere. Take your current work with you everywhere, play it wherever you can, and in time making mixes that sound good everywhere will become natural and intuitive to you. It took me about 2 years of this exercise to get there. Maybe I'm slow, but it's a learning curve anyway.
> 
> Another problem with trusting your monitors only (be them speakers or headphones), is that you probably chose them because you like their sound. Which mean they will be flattering to your work, at least according to your taste. You have to listen to your work on sound systems you don't like, too.
> 
> 2. Mixing in headphones is particularly difficult. Headphones are great to check for minute details (like stereo balance or reverb tails), or to verify the cleanness of a recording (like clicks and background noise), but I don't trust them for the overall balance.
> 
> Two common mistakes when mixing/mastering with headphones: overmixing or undermixing the bass and drums (because you never physically feel their punch, or lack thereof), and consistently undermixing the reverbs (because without the room's natural reverb, the reverbs in the mix stand out more).
> 
> At least, I fall for this every time.



Wonderful response, thanks a bunch! Have taken your advice and already checked my newest mix on several cans and loudspeakers - really interesting to hear the differences.

Undermixing the bass is surely one of my shortcomings - any advice on how to deal with that? My BD770 feels a tad soft and thin in the lower frequencies, so I have applied a headset-adjuster-plugin to flat'en the responsecurve a bit. Is that advisable to use on the master channel?


----------



## rlundv

vitocorleone123 said:


> Yeah - you'll need to listen on those headphones a lot to other music and also practice translating your mixes. I have the dt880s. They're overly bright and, to my ears, almost require correction (I use sonarworks) AND more recently I've also added Can opener by goodhertz as well in the monitoring chain before sonarworks to better approximate speakers. Others can't stand any software and think it's bad or that mixing on headphones is evil and will never turn out well.



Can opener and Sonarworks - gotcha! Thank you for kind advice.


----------



## rlundv

shawnsingh said:


> +1 on this. the natural compression effect of human hearing really kicks into high gear with headphones, and its harder to sense loudness differences - this is a great thing for hearing details, but it makes it hard to know if you got the right levels - you might not know when one thing is to loud compared to another because you can hear them both just fine with headphones. This human hearing compression effect also totally screws with the perception of reverb decays. And on top of that, combined with the "in your head" stereo image (as opposed to "in front of you" phantom center on speakers), it really gives you a different sense of space than speakers. I feel it's been easier to get mixes to translate from speakers to headphones rather than from headphones to speakers.
> 
> I'm not an expert, but have learned of several other gems of advice thath have worked for me, and I think these are essential:
> 
> Listen at slightly lower-than-comfortable volume levels. It will help force you to mix the song so that important elements are all audible without the human hearing compression effect.
> Try to make levels sound good in both mono and stereo, favoring mono slightly. Between lack of acoustic treatment and casual listener setups, mono might actually be a more representative baseline of what people hear when they don't use headphones. An awesome stereo image is only a bonus.
> Try checking heavily high passed and low passed versions of your mix - it should still sound decent. For example, if you high pass at 400-800 Hz, or even as high as 1000 Hz with a 12db/octave slope, it would be ideal to still feel like the low frequency stuff is at least present and audible... Like the click of the kick drum, or the rich harmonics of a string bass. Obviously there are limits to this - a subbass with no harmonics and no transient isn't expected to be audible after a high pass...
> I find it necessary to test multiple speakers/ headphones
> mix referencing in combination with all the above tricks is pretty essential too. It's the only way to overcome the human psychology biases of judging your own mixes
> Looks like dt770 did have a bit of a bass bump and a dip around 4-5 kHz - https://www.innerfidelity.com/headphone-measurements
> 
> Knowing that can also help you decide how to mix. No long term experience with sonarworks myself but had a demo from them before, and it was definitely great for ironing out the frequency response part. But that's still only part of making mixes translate well.
> 
> Cheers!



Wow, overwhelmed by the amount of information in this reply - thanks a lot!
1. Lower volumes when mixing - gotcha.
2. Several here is mentioning mono-mixing. Seems like I have to check that out more.
3. Checking high/low-passed versions - done.
4. Yes, Sonarworks keeps popping up in this thread - downloading the trial-version now.


----------



## rlundv

Wolfie2112 said:


> What type of system does your friend's studio have?


He has a Apogee Duet soundcard, with two Yamaha HS 8 in an untreated room. Sounds fairly decent to my untrained ears.


----------



## rlundv

averystemmler said:


> I've been mixing in headphones a lot lately , and I think it's always a bit of a gamble. Having several different headphones/monitors to alternate between is helpful, as is constantly checking the mono mix. I've been using Sonarworks lately, but that sure hasn't stopped me from making bad decisions, particularly in the bass.
> 
> I'm considering iZotope's Tonal Balance Control, as a reality check. Visually comparing your mix to one you know and love on a spectrograph or analyzer can point out things your ears may have missed too.
> 
> And most importantly, if your mix sounds even better than the reference to you in your monitors, something is probably horribly wrong. I make this mistake every single time.



Thank you for mentioning the Izotope-plugin! Will check that out, sounds really handy.


----------



## rlundv

storyteller said:


> I haven’t seen it mentioned yet, but mixing in mono will reveal quite a lot. Mix mono first, then stereo, then back to mono, etc. It is surprising how bad your mono mix will sound when learning how to mixing on headphones. Seriously. It happens to the best of us.
> 
> Waves NX is a great tool used in conjunction with Sonarworks. But, being honest about it, I find I strongly dislike the artifacts added by both pieces of software and find myself returning to a clean signal straight to headphones (HD650s btw). But I do use the plugins on every headphone mix before I return to hating them again. Necessary evil I suppose...
> 
> You’ll need to make sure you have a great headphone preamp with great DA converters too. Even if you don’t think you’ll hear the difference, you’ll be mixing to an inadequate signal chain that you will subconsciously mix to.
> 
> *Edit: *And as Avery mentioned just before my post, Tonal Balance is an excellent tool! I use it all the time.



Yes, mixing in mono is something new for me - really have to look more into that. Just tried my newest mix in plain mono, and it was very hard to separate the instruments from one and another. Think this can be a good way to create a wider listening experience / stereo-field.

Thanks for mentioning Waves NX - will check it out!

And yes, guilty as charged - my portable soundcard is both old and with a weak DA, so need more power in that departement too.


----------



## rlundv

chimuelo said:


> Another great plug in that works great is Mono maker by BX Digital.
> Not sure if it’s in the BX Digital Suite as I use their ancient DSP Plug Ins.
> But it’s a mid/side mastering plug in, it can go from mono to stereo, or mid /side, and Mono maker keeps everything below a selected sub range frequency in Mono.
> 
> This is very useful as a stereo mix where low freqs get dual signals is no bueno.
> Cancellation is destructive to a mix.



Mono-plugings keep being mentioned in this post, thanks for sharing the advice!


----------



## rlundv

Fredeke said:


> This is true, but it's a little bit more complicated. When wavefronts from both speakers combine in the air, they are not well correlated, wich gives you +3dB compared to if only one speaker was working. When you add signals electrically (or digitally), their correlation is perfect, which gives you a +6dB gain. This means whatever is in the center will get a +3dB rise when downmixing to mono, compared to what's in the sides or very wide.
> So, the wider your mix, the more perturbed the balance will be when switching from mono to stereo or the other way around (unless it's so wide there's nothing in the center ).
> That is one reason (among a few others) why mix vocals and percussions in or near the center.
> 
> 
> Have you ever tried slightly distorting the whole master (or a bus grouping the bass with something else), in order to hear the effect of the bass modulating the higher frequencies ? It has limits too, obviously, but it's always worth trying.
> 
> I 100% agree with everything else you've said.



This one is a bit too advanced for me at the moment, but I'm glad to see pro's commenting and helping out others in the same situation as myself. Cheers!


----------



## Fredeke

beyd770 said:


> Undermixing the bass is surely one of my shortcomings - any advice on how to deal with that? My BD770 feels a tad soft and thin in the lower frequencies, so I have applied a headset-adjuster-plugin to flat'en the responsecurve a bit. Is that advisable to use on the master channel?


If you want to use EQ correction, why not EQ-correct your monitoring (the opposite way you would your master), instead of your master ?

Personally I would reserve that solution for extreme cases, however (like when I mixed student films for optical 16mm - the loss of HF was so drastic, I just couldn't compensate by ear), partly because it's approximative.

Alternatives are: get used to your BD770's sound (by listening to a bunch of other music you like in it)... and if you can't get used to it, then replace it.

Just as it is a good idea to check your work on other systems, it is also a good idea to listen to works of the quality you aspire to on your own system, to get a reference. As others have suggested in this thread.

As for replacement... I don't know your budget, but the Senheiser HD25 is a reliable headphones set, a de-facto standard, and still affordable enough. Or save a little bit for decent monitors. Here's a thread about affordable ones: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/best-studio-monitors-for-price-quality.79727/ - but before you open your wallet, know this: if your room is small and rectangular (or even worse, a square), new monitors won't help you much in the bass department - not without serious acoustic treatment.



beyd770 said:


> This one is a bit too advanced for me at the moment, but I'm glad to see pro's commenting and helping out others in the same situation as myself. Cheers!


The thing to remember is that what's in the center will get a slight boost in mono.
Since mono sounds more crowded than stereo, compensate for that by placing what needs to stand out in the center. That's usually the soloist or vocals. And the percussions, if you make percussive music.

We also like to place the bass in the center, but for another reason: since the human ear can't locate low frequencies well anyway, this reduces the risk of clipping one channel, by spreading the high energy of the bass equally across both channels.

[EDIT: except in classical music, where one convention is to pan the instruments like a real orchestra, placing the bass to the right. But there's much less energy in bass string instruments than in an electric or synthetic bass.]

I know this is more than you asked for, but it's free


----------



## Gaffable

An alternative to the CanOpener software mentioned earlier is Audified's MixChecker. This allows you to simulate playback on various consumer devices.


----------



## rlundv

Gaffable said:


> An alternative to the CanOpener software mentioned earlier is Audified's MixChecker. This allows you to simulate playback on various consumer devices.


Thanks a bunch, will check that one out for sure!


----------



## rlundv

Fredeke said:


> If you want to use EQ correction, why not EQ-correct your monitoring (the opposite way you would your master), instead of your master ?
> 
> Personally I would reserve that solution for extreme cases, however (like when I mixed student films for optical 16mm - the loss of HF was so drastic, I just couldn't compensate by ear), partly because it's approximative.
> 
> Other alternatives are: get used to your BD770's sound (by listening to a bunch of other music you like in it)... and if you can't get used to it, then replace it.
> 
> Just as it is a good idea to check your work on other systems, it is also a good idea to listen to works of the quality you aspire to on your own system, to get a reference. As others have suggested in this thread.
> 
> As for replacement... I don't know your budget, but the Senheiser HD25 is a reliable headphones set, a de-facto standard, and still affordable enough. Or save a little bit for decent monitors. Here's a thread about affordable ones: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/best-studio-monitors-for-price-quality.79727/ - but before you open your wallet, know this: if your room is small and rectangular (or even worse, a square), new monitors won't help you much in the bass department - not without serious acoustic treatment.
> 
> 
> The thing to remember is that what's in the center will get a slight boost in mono.
> Since mono sounds more crowded than stereo, compensate for it by placing what needs to stand out in the center. That's usually the soloist or vocals. And the percussions, if you make percussive music.
> 
> We also like to place the bass in the center, but for another reason: since the human ear can't locate low frequencies well anyway, this reduces the risk of clipping one channel, by spreading the high energy of the bass equally across both channels.
> 
> I know this is more than you asked for, but it's free


Great, great advice. Really appreciate it, man! Also, thanks for the link for the monitors.


----------



## rlundv

So, I made a mix after following some of your suggestions:


Can I ask you what you think about the sound in general? To much hiss, high frequencies etc? What about the lows? I'm struggling to make my mixes sound the same across headphones and monitors. This piece was mixed on Beyerdynamic DT700 pro with Sonarworks-plugin + Goodhertz Can Opener, after checking in mono and mixing on fairly low volume.


----------



## Fredeke

Gaffable said:


> An alternative to the CanOpener software mentioned earlier is Audified's MixChecker. This allows you to simulate playback on various consumer devices.


I'll check it out too 



beyd770 said:


> So, I made a mix after following some of your suggestions:
> 
> 
> Can I ask you what you think about the sound in general? To much hiss, high frequencies etc? What about the lows? I'm struggling to make my mixes sound the same across headphones and monitors. This piece was mixed on Beyerdynamic DT700 pro with Sonarworks-plugin + Goodhertz Can Opener, after checking in mono and mixing on fairly low volume.




I am by far no expert in orchestral music, but as the spectral balance goes, I would say: there are too much low mids, and not enough highs. So it sounds kinda 'closed'.

Maybe correcting the low mids will automatically balance the highs... Start by trimming the former before boosting the latter.

Since the third quater of the song (from 2:00 to 3:00) is better balanced spectrally (it sounds more open, with enough highs), I would advise EQinq tracks individually before trying to EQ the whole master. There are good tutorials for that, e.g. on Youtube.

It's hard to judge the low freqs, because there's not a lot of them in the composition to begin with.
(If anyone wants to check them out, the lowest notes are around 1:30.)

I find the song pleasing btw


----------



## averystemmler

beyd770 said:


> Thank you for mentioning the Izotope-plugin! Will check that out, sounds really handy.



I've been demoing it for the past few days, and it's actually really handy. I'm not using any of the integrated features with Ozone or Neutron, but it's a great guide. Might be worth upgrading Ozone for? Maybe.


----------



## rlundv

Fredeke said:


> I'll check it out too
> 
> 
> 
> I am by far no expert in orchestral music, but as the spectral balance goes, I would say: there are too much low mids, and not enough highs. So it sounds kinda 'closed'.
> 
> Maybe correcting the low mids will automatically balance the highs... Start by trimming the former before boosting the latter.
> 
> Since the third quater of the song (from 2:00 to 3:00) is better balanced spectrally (it sounds more open, with enough highs), I would advise EQinq tracks individually before trying to EQ the whole master. There are good tutorials for that, e.g. on Youtube.
> 
> It's hard to judge the low freqs, because there's not a lot of them in the composition to begin with.
> (If anyone wants to check them out, the lowest notes are around 1:30.)
> 
> I find the song pleasing btw


Great! Will take you up on these advices, and try to mix it again, instrument by instrument. Will try to post the new version sometime tonight or tomorrow. Glad you found it pleasing!


----------



## shawnsingh

So, hold on - I feel the opposite about @Fredeke 's "low mid" feedback =) But maybe not in a contradictory way.

First off the music itself and performances of the instruments are beautiful. Nice orchestration too. the words "provocative tranquility" are all I can think of to describe it.

For the mix - to me there's an entire octave of richness that is missing from low frequencies. For example - I can barely hear some pizzicato basses at around 0:45. They do exist, right? or am I imagining it? Bringing those out a LOT will help greatly. I feel that the "bed of strings" is not rich enough and needs more fullness. I can't tell if it's an composition/orchestration question or a mixing one, maybe those notes don't yet exist and I'm just yearning to hear them here.

The cymbal swell is another example that's easier to verbalize what I feel is wrong - it doesn't feel like it's place correctly in a stereo image. It sounds panned, but then the natural reverb I would expect to hear is not filling the entire room. Are you by chance panning your post-reverb signals? Are you using virtual instruments, and you can pan/position them before putting them through reverb? and also, are you using a true-stereo reverb (i.e. each input channel is processed twice, one for each output channel)? I'd recommend trying that for at least some of the instruments, or maybe overall.

Are you using dry virtual instruments? Another thing that helps magically make instruments melt into place is to EQ them to simulate the correct distance that I think you had intended. When I do this for myself, I find that the EQ curve usually looks like roughly straight-line sloped so that lower freqencies are reduced and the slope contines all the way past 600-800 Hz. I know this sounds a little bit contradictory to my complaint that there's not enough low frequency present, but it's not - the difference is that you can EQ individual instruments to have a certain tone, but you may still need to adjust the levels of some of the low bass instruments and mid-low instruments, too.


----------



## shawnsingh

Just to add, so that you don't overdo it based on our feedback - a lot of the mix is already lovely and spot on. My suggestions about EQ and levels might only apply to the strings. The piano and woodwinds and bell like layers seemed to work really well together already.


----------



## Fredeke

shawnsingh said:


> For the mix - to me there's an entire octave of richness that is missing from low frequencies. For example - I can barely hear some pizzicato basses at around 0:45. They do exist, right? or am I imagining it? Bringing those out a LOT will help greatly. I feel that the "bed of strings" is not rich enough and needs more fullness. I can't tell if it's an composition/orchestration question or a mixing one, maybe those notes don't yet exist and I'm just yearning to hear them here.


We might indeed not contradict each other. I was not talking from a composition/arrangement point of view, and I wasn't talking about balance (I didn't pay much attention to that). I was merely talking about EQing, because I thought that was the question.



shawnsingh said:


> the difference is that you can EQ individual instruments to have a certain tone


Yes. I didn't want to get too much into that, but it's a good idea to reserve a specific band of the spectrum for each instrument - but less caricaturally than I just made it sound...

What I meant is I think several instruments deserve a dip in the low freqs and low mids (or higher lows ) : certainly some strings, maybe the piano, and maybe some other stuff too...

But it actually sounds like you (@beyd770) didn't EQ anything (I may be completely wrong, but that's my first impression), and if so, the result is a tribute to the quality of your instruments. Nevertheless, you have to EQ each track. You fashion the sonic landscape as much with EQs as with levels or panning.
In fact, when each instrument's EQed timbre fits into the others harmoniously (mainly by not stepping on each other's spectral toes), the right level balance is much easier to find - it practically finds itself.



shawnsingh said:


> don't overdo it based on our feedback


Indeed.

I wish I could compose a piece like that.


----------



## rlundv

shawnsingh said:


> So, hold on - I feel the opposite about @Fredeke 's "low mid" feedback =) But maybe not in a contradictory way.
> 
> First off the music itself and performances of the instruments are beautiful. Nice orchestration too. the words "provocative tranquility" are all I can think of to describe it.
> 
> For the mix - to me there's an entire octave of richness that is missing from low frequencies. For example - I can barely hear some pizzicato basses at around 0:45. They do exist, right? or am I imagining it? Bringing those out a LOT will help greatly. I feel that the "bed of strings" is not rich enough and needs more fullness. I can't tell if it's an composition/orchestration question or a mixing one, maybe those notes don't yet exist and I'm just yearning to hear them here.
> 
> The cymbal swell is another example that's easier to verbalize what I feel is wrong - it doesn't feel like it's place correctly in a stereo image. It sounds panned, but then the natural reverb I would expect to hear is not filling the entire room. Are you by chance panning your post-reverb signals? Are you using virtual instruments, and you can pan/position them before putting them through reverb? and also, are you using a true-stereo reverb (i.e. each input channel is processed twice, one for each output channel)? I'd recommend trying that for at least some of the instruments, or maybe overall.
> 
> Are you using dry virtual instruments? Another thing that helps magically make instruments melt into place is to EQ them to simulate the correct distance that I think you had intended. When I do this for myself, I find that the EQ curve usually looks like roughly straight-line sloped so that lower freqencies are reduced and the slope contines all the way past 600-800 Hz. I know this sounds a little bit contradictory to my complaint that there's not enough low frequency present, but it's not - the difference is that you can EQ individual instruments to have a certain tone, but you may still need to adjust the levels of some of the low bass instruments and mid-low instruments, too.


First off - provocative tranquility - I can _really_ live with that description, thanks a bunch!

Correct, there are indeed pizz bass going on in the background, but sparsely. On my mix they are already quite loud, so something is certainly a bit off with the mix. And it's true that a lot of the tones in the lower register is not there, since I've only included bass strings, and tuba / trombones in small parts of the track. Will really look into how to make that stand out a bit more.

Interesting with the observation on the cymbals, I struggled quite a lot with them. I have used SF Percussion, but the swells are Loops de la Creme, and they are recorded smack in the middle, so I used Viritual Sound Stage to place them according to how the Spitfire-cymbals are positioned. Will try to remove this artificial placing, and see how it affects the overall sound.

No completely dry viritual instruments, but some lack the proper mic-options, and had to be treated with some extra reverb to sound more back on the room. But I'm still very new til all this, so might have screwed up the soundstage while trying to place them correctly.

Thanks again for taking your time to write such good feedback!


----------



## rlundv

Fredeke said:


> We might indeed not contradict each other. I was not talking from a composition/arrangement point of view, and I wasn't talking about balance (I didn't pay much attention to that). I was merely talking about EQing, because I thought that was the question.
> 
> 
> Yes. I didn't want to get too much into that, but it's a good idea to reserve a specific band of the spectrum for each instrument - but less caricaturally than I just made it sound...
> 
> What I meant is I think several instruments deserve a dip in the low freqs and low mids (or higher lows ) : certainly some strings, maybe the piano, and maybe some other stuff too...
> 
> But it actually sounds like you (@beyd770) didn't EQ anything (I may be completely wrong, but that's my first impression), and if so, the result is a tribute to the quality of your instruments. Nevertheless, you have to EQ each track. You fashion the sonic landscape as much with EQs as with levels or panning.
> In fact, when each instrument's EQed timbre fits into the others harmoniously (mainly by not stepping on each other's spectral toes), the right level balance is much easier to find - it practically finds itself.
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> I wish I could compose a piece like that.


Duly noted, I already am hearing something related to strings and piano, so will try to adress that with some EQ and volume-tweaking.

But it's true - the original is not treated with EQ at all. I am very new to this, and usually when I try to scope out the "good stuff", it often sounds to muddy or to nasaly, so I end up with reverting to no EQ, which also is the case with this track.

I have also noticed that there are a lot of collision from instruments in the same mid-low range in the part we already talked about, so I have decided to alter some of the orchestration as a start, to see if that can deal with some of the sonic aspects of it, before I start cutting like a madman 

Thanks again for write such nice comments, I'm learning a ton!


----------



## rlundv

shawnsingh said:


> Just to add, so that you don't overdo it based on our feedback - a lot of the mix is already lovely and spot on. My suggestions about EQ and levels might only apply to the strings. The piano and woodwinds and bell like layers seemed to work really well together already.


Point taken! Will try to alter both by changing orchestratin and some cutting to make the overall sound change to the better.


----------



## Fredeke

beyd770 said:


> Duly noted, I already am hearing something related to strings and piano, so will try to adress that with some EQ and volume-tweaking.
> 
> But it's true - the original is not treated with EQ at all. I am very new to this, and usually when I try to scope out the "good stuff", it often sounds to muddy or to nasaly, so I end up with reverting to no EQ, which also is the case with this track.
> 
> I have also noticed that there are a lot of collision from instruments in the same mid-low range in the part we already talked about, so I have decided to alter some of the orchestration as a start, to see if that can deal with some of the sonic aspects of it, before I start cutting like a madman
> 
> Thanks again for write such nice comments, I'm learning a ton!


Indeed, arrangement should come before mix. You can hardly mix your way out of a lacking arrangement.

I can't give a whole EQ lesson here, but here's a bit of insight:

Digital EQs sound better when dipping than when boosting (contrarily to analog ones), so try to favor the former whenever you can.

For example: say you want to boost instrument X at Y Hz because that's the portion of the spectrum where it sounds most useful or interesting. Instead of boosting instrument X at freq. Y, try to dig into instrument Z at that frequency, to make room for instrument X to cut through.

This is of course a simplification on top of a generalization, but I hope it puts you on the right track...


----------



## rlundv

Fredeke said:


> I'll check it out too
> 
> 
> 
> I am by far no expert in orchestral music, but as the spectral balance goes, I would say: there are too much low mids, and not enough highs. So it sounds kinda 'closed'.
> 
> Maybe correcting the low mids will automatically balance the highs... Start by trimming the former before boosting the latter.
> 
> Since the third quater of the song (from 2:00 to 3:00) is better balanced spectrally (it sounds more open, with enough highs), I would advise EQinq tracks individually before trying to EQ the whole master. There are good tutorials for that, e.g. on Youtube.
> 
> It's hard to judge the low freqs, because there's not a lot of them in the composition to begin with.
> (If anyone wants to check them out, the lowest notes are around 1:30.)
> 
> I find the song pleasing btw


Here is my remix after taking all your good suggestions into account. Trying to make more space for the woodwinds, rebalanced many instruments that was sticking out, removing spatial placement of sustained cymbals, increasing prescence of pizz bass and reorchestrating to remove muddiness in the mids. Do you think this mix is an improvement from the first version?


----------



## rlundv

shawnsingh said:


> So, hold on - I feel the opposite about @Fredeke 's "low mid" feedback =) But maybe not in a contradictory way.
> 
> First off the music itself and performances of the instruments are beautiful. Nice orchestration too. the words "provocative tranquility" are all I can think of to describe it.
> 
> For the mix - to me there's an entire octave of richness that is missing from low frequencies. For example - I can barely hear some pizzicato basses at around 0:45. They do exist, right? or am I imagining it? Bringing those out a LOT will help greatly. I feel that the "bed of strings" is not rich enough and needs more fullness. I can't tell if it's an composition/orchestration question or a mixing one, maybe those notes don't yet exist and I'm just yearning to hear them here.
> 
> The cymbal swell is another example that's easier to verbalize what I feel is wrong - it doesn't feel like it's place correctly in a stereo image. It sounds panned, but then the natural reverb I would expect to hear is not filling the entire room. Are you by chance panning your post-reverb signals? Are you using virtual instruments, and you can pan/position them before putting them through reverb? and also, are you using a true-stereo reverb (i.e. each input channel is processed twice, one for each output channel)? I'd recommend trying that for at least some of the instruments, or maybe overall.
> 
> Are you using dry virtual instruments? Another thing that helps magically make instruments melt into place is to EQ them to simulate the correct distance that I think you had intended. When I do this for myself, I find that the EQ curve usually looks like roughly straight-line sloped so that lower freqencies are reduced and the slope contines all the way past 600-800 Hz. I know this sounds a little bit contradictory to my complaint that there's not enough low frequency present, but it's not - the difference is that you can EQ individual instruments to have a certain tone, but you may still need to adjust the levels of some of the low bass instruments and mid-low instruments, too.



Trying to make more space for the woodwinds, rebalanced many instruments that was sticking out, removing spatial placement of sustained cymbals, increasing prescence of pizz bass and reorchestrating to remove muddiness in the mids. Do you think this mix is an improvement from the first version?


----------



## rlundv

Fredeke said:


> Indeed, arrangement should come before mix. You can hardly mix your way out of a lacking arrangement.
> 
> I can't give a whole EQ lesson here, but here's a bit of insight:
> 
> Digital EQs sound better when dipping than when boosting (contrarily to analog ones), so try to favor the former when you can.
> 
> For example: say you want to boost instrument X at Y Hz because that's the portion of the spectrum where it sounds most useful or interesting. Instead of boosting instrument X at freq. Y, try to dig into instrument Z at that frequency, to make room for instrument X to stand out there.
> 
> This is of course a simplification on top of a generalization, but I hope it puts you on the right track...


Great advice, makes a lot of sense. I have only been doing the first, boosting everywhere - and it made the track very messy. Will for sure try this alternate method to make more room for the actual instrument. Thanks!


----------



## Fredeke

beyd770 said:


> Here is my remix after taking all your good suggestions into account. Trying to make more space for the woodwinds, rebalanced many instruments that was sticking out, removing spatial placement of sustained cymbals, increasing prescence of pizz bass and reorchestrating to remove muddiness in the mids. Do you think this mix is an improvement from the first version?



The spectrum is better balanced already, and now there's coherence between the different parts of the song (that 3rd quarter doesn't sound different from the rest anymore).

However it all sounds 'pinched', or artificial, now. I think that's what you call 'nasal'. You probably need to set your EQs with gentler slopes, lower Q (= broader curves), and if you're working on many frequency points on one track, try simplifying that. Also, did you try the dip-instead-of-boosting trick? (I don't believe your choice of plugin is at fault. Some EQs are better but none is bad.)

It could also be _a little_ brighter, but that's a minor concern, and a matter of taste - and it could be done on the master, or later in mastering.

Btw, I'll give you another trick:
When there's something you don't like but you can't pinpoint the problematic frequency, try this: Boost an EQ band and sweep across the whole spectrum. When you hit the problematic spot, you'll hear the problem stand out. Then dip that frequency. Choosing the right Q that way requires a little more practice, so at first set it to values between 1 and 2.
Just one thing: those sweeps will tend to mess with your sense of reference, so you have to take breaks or listen to something else every now and then. It's especially hard to know how much to dip right after having listened to a boost. So take a breath in between.



beyd770 said:


> He has a Apogee Duet soundcard, with two Yamaha HS 8 in an untreated room. Sounds fairly decent to my untrained ears.


It is possible that coming from headphones (zero room reflection) to an untreated room is what unsettles you...
I wouldn't bet on it, but it's possible.

I don't know the HS8 but if they are anything like the Yamaha NS-10... Those are very unflattering, unforgiving monitors. They make everything sound ugly, the philosophy being that if you can make it sound good on them, it'll sound good everywhere. I personally can't stand them, but they are a reference. Maybe the HS8 are a bit like that too ? 

The choice of soundcard is probably not the problem.


----------



## FrontierSoundFX

beyd770 said:


> I'm a beginner in both mixing and mastering, and this issue is apparent in all my mixes. I make something in my DAW, mixing it with my Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro cans, and then sending the mix to my friend for him to record guitars, bass etc.
> 
> The first time I was visiting him, I was shocked about how thin the mix sounded.
> 
> Do I need some kind of headset calibration or are there other methods to make my music sound good on a broad spectrum of speakers and earplugs?
> 
> Is Sonarworks Reference 4-plugin something that would help me?



Another factor could be your panning. Headphones will isolate the left/right, but when you play it back through monitors you could be getting some acoustic cancellation.


----------

