Is bright mix without additive EQ possible?

[nezvers]

When I put together recorded tracks they are not bright to begin with and with mid buildup, that gets cleaned up and make sound bit brighter, but still doesn't have that silky bright tops - cymbals and vocal. I know that for that I should get rid of guitar top, but that make guitars too dark. Maybe that's the reason why some dudes like darker guitar tone.

I want to get better at subtractive EQ but I can't get away without adding tops.

 

[Jim Siou]

If you have balanced the top with minor adjustments on the individual tracks you can add brightness in mastering. It's better to have one eq adding than 15 of them. Also the brightness on guitars is much lower than the cymbals and vocals. try adding a lowpass on them at 9-10k and boost at around 4k (be careful not to get in the way of vocals though).

 

[egan.]

I think it's a good rule of thumb to do your cutting and filtering first but there is absolutely no reason to be afraid of boosting either. Turn the knobs until it sounds good.

 

[nezvers]

I've read and took it as thumb of rule to my self, that if I'm mixing it than I should do everything in mix and I've trained ears a bit so I don't need to boost more than 2-3db if I need.
Vocals mostly have +2db around 3-4k that's why I utilize 6k for guitars.
But I haven't LP further than 12k yet, although that's my favorite area for cymbals if they don't have harsh cutting resonances around.

 

[SoundSpiral]

I'll have to echo Jim Siou a bit and remind you that the current trend in mastering is "unnaturally" bright.
You'll have to add a fair amount of top end (even when you are working with good cymbals, microphones, what have you) to get your track to match the current brightness trend.

 

[Sethis]

Perhaps something is wrong with your mic placement? Maybe the mic you're using is not the best for your needs? You don't really need to get rid of too much of the high end in your guitars. Mostly that high hiss and any annoying fizz spikes. For me with subtractive EQ my goal is not to actually shape the sound but to remove any junk so that the track can shine. That's how I think of it at least.

 

[Daybreak]

I'll usually put a top shelf on my master - Sure, I could do that on individual tracks but TBH it's just easier to do it on the master. But this is of course AFTER I have taken out all the harsh high frequencies on the individual tracks, so when I'm boosting the high-end it only boosts the "nice" frequencies.

 

[nezvers]

I'm asking that to have more knowledge in this mixing area. I can't do drum recording or guitar micing yet, so I can't do anything regardless to micing.
I got what I wanted with additive EQ/ exciter. But I was wondering is that possible purelly with subtractive EQ.

 

[SoundSpiral]

There is nothing inherently evil about additive eq.
Sure it might be better not to boost the lows and highs by 10db if you want a more scooped sound. You'll just be killing the headroom and what not. But if you want a brighter sound for the cymbals or guitars, you can just give them a high shelf boost without any problems.
The modern trend in sound just happens to be quite bright, and there is nothing wrong in that. I myself usually leave my mixes a tad dark when I send them out for mastering. It's much easier to brighten than it is to rid the sizzle from an overly bright mix.

I'm not sure if you are looking for mix critique but you might want to concentrate on the guitar sound and in humanizing of the drums.

 

[SoundsLikeFog]

I got what I wanted with additive EQ/ exciter. But I was wondering is that possible purelly with subtractive EQ.
My mix I did and reason I asked it is - THIS - no volume automatization yet.

If something needs more highs, you add highs.. If something has too much mids, you cut mids. Cutting mids and bass won't give you more highs.

There's no need to try to be clever. There really isn't anything more to say about that.

 

[egan.]

^^^^^
This.
I think the "cut don't boost" thing is good beginner advice gone rogue.

 

[Klosure]

^^^^^
This.
I think the "cut don't boost" thing is good beginner advice gone rogue.

Agree!
I think bright is a misused phrase, mixes dont necessarily need to sound bright, just balanced.

 

[amarshism]

Try a gentle 5db shelf at 20k

 

[nezvers]

Probably I stated it in wrong way - I didn't mean cutting mids make it brighter, but taking mid mud out of focus and make overall sound brighter.
I know that boosting isn't bad, but wanted to know if bright mix possible using only subtractive EQ.

 

[SoundsLikeFog]

Probably I stated it in wrong way - I didn't mean cutting mids make it brighter, but taking mid mud out of focus and make overall sound brighter.
I know that boosting isn't bad, but wanted to know if bright mix possible using only subtractive EQ.

There is a fallacy in your logic. Even though brightness is relative, something sounding dull because the excess of low/mids contra something sounding dull bacause of the lack of high end information, is a quite different scenario.

If something lacks highs, it lacks highs. You can't add anything via subtraction. If you consider something brighter because of removed low end content, then your perception is flawed.

 

[~BURNY~]

If you consider something brighter because of removed low end content, then your perception is flawed.

That's not entirely true.
I don't suppose you never heard about a psycho-acoustic effect called the masking effect. It can affect the sum of several sources off course but also a single source.
Audio 101 really.
A source can appear to sound dull because of excess of low end content (which by nature is prone to mask upper frequency content).
However an EQ theoretically can't create what isn't there in the first place be it by boosting or cutting.(actually it can with harmonic distortion but that's beside the point)

 

[SoundsLikeFog]

That's not entirely true.
I don't suppose you never heard about a psycho-acoustic effect called the masking effect. It can affect the sum of several sources off course but also a single source.
Audio 101 really.
A source can appear to sound dull because of excess of low end content (which by nature is prone to mask upper frequency content).
However an EQ theoretically can't create what isn't there in the first place be it by boosting or cutting.(actually it can with harmonic distortion but that's beside the point)

Yes. And as the term psycho acoustic suggests, it's about the fallacy of perception.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's a matter of reference points. If you're listening an isolated single source, then yes, it can work. But if you reference the sound in context of a mix, you're fuck'd. "Gee, this guitar could use some more high end, I'll cut the mids and bass a tad, so it seems brighter", doesn't really work when you have a mix running and you've noticed that the guitar lacks highs.

Same for the whole mix.. "My mix seems to lack brightness and highs, I'll cut away some of the low end and some low-middle mud". Yes, it can work. Then you listen to reference mix and notice that it destroys your mix because it's brighter AND it has the low end / low mid information you eradicated in order to create an illusion of brightness.

So my point is, reference points make all the difference. If it lacks highs, it still lacks highs after you've taken out the 'mud'. You just don't notice that because your brain fucked up because it lost the original reference point.

E: Plus you are describeing a different scenario, as I stated earlier. You example doesn't need more highs. It needs less low end. The trick is to know these scenarios from another.

 

[~BURNY~]

Yes, I think we agree and it's mostly semantics. Being able to tell these scenarios apart comes with experience.

 

[SoundsLikeFog]

Yes, I think we agree and it's mostly semantics. Being able to tell these scenarios apart comes with experience.

I'll drink to that.

 

[Ermz]

But if you reference the sound in context of a mix, you're fuck'd. "Gee, this guitar could use some more high end, I'll cut the mids and bass a tad, so it seems brighter", doesn't really work when you have a mix running and you've noticed that the guitar lacks highs.

I do this all the time.