Obtaining High Frequency crispness in mixes

fatalforce

fatalforce

Member
Sep 27, 2007
463
0
16
Nashville, TN
As I've been comparing my mixes to some of the pros and the more established members here, I feel the most stand out problem for me is the high end. I think I'm so focused on the fundamental frequency I tend to forget about everything else. Recently I've gotten better and my mixes have been less muddy but I'm missing this crispness in my mixes. At the same time I don't want everything to be too bright but any frequencies I boost tend to be overkill or unnecessary. Maybe I'm shooting to high and I need to focus on the subsequent overtones.

How do most of you go about this? I've read about how compression kills the higher frequencies on your 2bus so some lift the the high end after compression. Any other suggestions?
 
what I've been taught is never to boost presence (1-4khz) if possible, but boost the overtones instead, because of the masking. The ear is most sensitive to the presence area and if you boost it too much, it masks the higher frequencies and the song more tiring to listen.
 
myownsilence said:
Smooth top end is captured not boosted.
Click to expand...

That's true but when I compare mixes that are posted from the sessions that people post on here, there are these full sounding mixes. Maybe I'm describing it wrong. I don't mean ultra high frequencies like 14k-20k.

For instance, the emination mix that was a big topic here for awhile. Listen to some of those and then listen to the most recent mix but Sptz. That is what I'm talking about. Killer snare by the way, man.
 
link or it didn't happen fatalforce - haha

dude / dudette - we could use a track to listen to so we could hear what your missing

go to your DAW, bounce, get dropbox download dropbox and drop your .wav / .mp3 and post it here

thats my referral link - shameless advertising for the betterment of myself and others - more fucking space! why not!
 
fatalforce said:
Maybe I'm describing it wrong. I don't mean ultra high frequencies like 14k-20k.
Click to expand...

That's not what people are getting at - they mean that more than anything else, good top-end comes from a good source, in a good room, with a good mic and a good pre-amp.

Cheap gear (which I'm not knocking, as my entire life is constructed from it) can be great for lots of things, but the one thing it never does well is detailed, crisp high frequencies. Getting good high frequencies needs precise, high quality parts, which cost more. A lot of cheap gear just boosts the whole top-end to try and make up for it, but it ends up sounding harsh and nasal.

Basically, if it's not there to start with it's really hard to try and add later. You can try a saturation plug-in - adding in harmonic content to the whole signal can help make everything a bit more lively, and if you put one straight after an EQ you can get away with much smaller alterations in both.

Steve
 
If you got cheap gear like me, slight saturation is your friend for smoothening these frequencies. OH's per example, are really good to colour with slight saturation IMO, makes them stand out in the mix in a better way and makes them smoother too.
 
Try cutting instead of boosting to emphasize higher frequencies if you think your source isn't the best. Boost only when necessary.
 
I've posted about high end in mixes in the past, and it's one of the areas I constantly have to check myself about.

One big tip I've been given on here is to check the content of the sources actually taking up that high end in the mix, namely cymbals/overheads and a bit of guitar. Going back to the mix and honing in on those specific instruments rather than general 2 bus EQ manipulation has been the biggest boon to my mixing. Although, in general I do apply some light shelf boosts to make up for losses during compression (if necessary).

In general, I've found that in recording, I end up getting the best results when I have perhaps a little too much high end on an instrument when solo'd. But come mix time, having that extra bit of "air" can be handy in getting things to fit and sound right without resorting to crazy boosts and cuts then trying to "bring back" high end that was never really there in the first place due to bad miking on my part.
 
the most delicate thing ever. DO NOT, try too hard with this. you will result in mixes that when blasted in a car will cause the listeners ears to ring for days to come. also don't let this motivate you to not lowpass where you should be lowpassing, especially with guitars and such. just remember why the "air" range is called that, room presence can't be faked.

that being said: if you have ozone, or wanna try the demo, try tickling the top-end with the multi-band harmonic exciter, since this is obviously the instant plug-in cure you're asking for....haha. If the problem is only in your head, this will probably scratch the itch that's been bothering you. BUT DON'T OVER-DO IT! This is really unnatural coloring and what sounds good to one set of ears may be harsh and unpleasant to another.
 
What you got to remember is if you boost a smooth top end you boost wht is already good and make it shine more. This actually goes true for everything, I have not been a big eq fan but I realised EQ is there to enhance not create.

You can't boost what you dont have.
 
Maybe you allready know this but..Try Voxengo Curve EQ, with this you can capture a spectrum from a professional recording and you can compare this with your own spectrum. You can easliy see which EQ band has to boosted or limited. Also you can blend this captured spectrum on your mix to hear the difference. Sometimes I insert Curve EQ in my masterbus loaded with a captured spectrum as a mastering tool, toy with the amount of EQ and you'll get some nice results!

You also should take a look at this plugin Meldaproduction Auto Equalizer, same possibilties as CurveEQ .

http://www.voxengo.com/product/curveeq/
http://www.meldaproduction.com/mautoequalizer/
 
for some reason, don't ask me why, i hate the word "crisp" and it's variations used in relation to audio... probably because even within the very subjective realm of descriptive terminology used to relate the qualities of an audio program verbally, it seems somehow even more open to interpretation, and/or misinterpretation, than many... could also be because everyone uses it so much, especially non-engineers/clients/label reps/etc. Maybe it's even just the sound of the word itself. i really can't explain why i hate it so much, lol.... just one of those strange pet peeves we all develop over time for whatever reason.
489_shrugging.gif
whaddayagonnado?
 
yea, "crispy" is definitely onomonopeia cause of the "isp" sound in it, but somehow, it's just understood that everyone knows what it means...a metallic sortof high-end sizzle... haha i don't know, there's a handful of words in audio-land that when over thought have no meaning at all but when casually passed around, are just universally understood. like the "mud" range, mud? wet dirt? has nothing to do with sound...yet without any explanation at all, the term makes perfect sense. to me, anyway.
 
The best way to do it IMO is to capture enough high-end sizzle in the first place. Don't overdo it. If you're having a hard time perceiving how much top end you need stop right there and stick to whatever you usually do. No matter how fuckin awesome an artist is, if the listeners get fatigued after a while they wouldn't listen to it that much, followed by them not telling their friends about it or bitching about it due to a certain stereotype. For example, Death Magnetic. It took me a year to get into the album.

Excuse my grammar skills. I typed this out in 15secs.
 
James Murphy said:
for some reason, don't ask me why, i hate the word "crisp" and it's variations used in relation to audio... probably because even within the very subjective realm of descriptive terminology used to relate the qualities of an audio program verbally, it seems somehow even more open to interpretation, and/or misinterpretation, than many... could also be because everyone uses it so much, especially non-engineers/clients/label reps/etc. Maybe it's even just the sound of the word itself. i really can't explain why i hate it so much, lol.... just one of those strange pet peeves we all develop over time for whatever reason.
489_shrugging.gif
whaddayagonnado?
Click to expand...

haha. the worst of all is "warm"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

johnjm22
Soft/weak/muddy low mid build up in my mixes :(
Replies
15
Views
5K
F.O.H.
LeSedna
L
Morgan C
Weird high-frequency distortion in my recording..
Replies
11
Views
2K
F.O.H.
TranscendingMusic
T
TheWinterSnow
Frequency Response, SPAN and other questions
Replies
3
Views
810
F.O.H.
Maamar Huq
M
Soopahmahn
Avoiding Fatiguing Mixes
Replies
5
Views
1K
F.O.H.
Soopahmahn
S
N
treble/high end in mixing and mastering
Replies
31
Views
7K
F.O.H.
myownsilence
M
Top Bottom