treble/high end in mixing and mastering

[nwright]

This is somewhat of a noob post, but it's always something I've been curious about.

Do you guys boost the high end on your mixes with a full mix EQ, or do you find yourself adding more high end in mastering?

I've always wondered if you guys do, because I do. Even on projects that I mix and master from outside studios (i.e. real studios), they are the same in terms of high end as what I do here at my house. However, they always lack a fair amount of high end when you compare to a mastered professional mix...As my own recordings do.

Now I know a lot of the difference comes from comparing a raw mix to a mastered one, but in terms of high end, where do you guys add it - during the mix phase or during the mastering phase?

Usually I end up boosting the high end and extending it in mastering, as the mix is usually pretty even across the board in terms of balance, but it doesn't have that extended high end (or sparkle) you hear in commercial mixes (like from 8kHz and above).

 

[JonWormwood]

I do

 

[ahjteam]

depends on the mix

 

[joeymusicguy]

This is somewhat of a noob post, but it's always something I've been curious about.

Do you guys boost the high end on your mixes with a full mix EQ, or do you find yourself adding more high end in mastering?

I've always wondered if you guys do, because I do. Even on projects that I mix and master from outside studios (i.e. real studios), they are the same in terms of high end as what I do here at my house. However, they always lack a fair amount of high end when you compare to a mastered professional mix...As my own recordings do.

Now I know a lot of the difference comes from comparing a raw mix to a mastered one, but in terms of high end, where do you guys add it - during the mix phase or during the mastering phase?

Usually I end up boosting the high end and extending it in mastering, as the mix is usually pretty even across the board in terms of balance, but it doesn't have that extended high end (or sparkle) you hear in commercial mixes (like from 8kHz and above).

parts of my mix have a lot of high shelf boosts, and then my master has multiple high shelf boosts (one for the sound, another for downsampling treble loss)

 

[nwright]

glad to hear I'm not alone.

I feel like I get into the groove of the mix when the mix doesn't have a ton of high end, and I think my ear accomodates...as soon as I finish a mix and begin to finalize and master, I pull out the reference audio...By comparison the reference audio sounds way to constricted and strident...But then, my ear accomodates

 

[rcg]

i am using high freq warming + parametric eq

 

[Aaron Smith]

I have in the past, but lately it's been a lot more about getting the mix right with high frequencies. Basically all the high end comes from overheads and guitars (and kick clickiness plays a role too), so the right balance on those should get you about right going into the mastering session. I've been mastering with the Oxford Inflator in the chain since December, and as much as I like it, it actually adds too much high frequency sound to the mix, so I've been having to taper off with an EQ from about 2k in the mastering chain as well.

That said, the high frequency content actually varies from pro mix to pro mix, even just in Andy's catalog alone. Even if you just compare "Shadows Are Security" and "This Godless Endeavor" (both high frequency-heavy mixes) against "Ascendancy" and "Resurrection", you can hear a definite difference. I think when it comes down to it, it's just a preference thing, and it won't make or break you mix either way whether or not you add more high frequencies in mastering. Just check with other people too (such as on this forum), to see if they mention the high frequencies thing...if not, then chances are you mix was cool in the first place!

 

[nwright]

I have in the past, but lately it's been a lot more about getting the mix right with high frequencies. Basically all the high end comes from overheads and guitars (and kick clickiness plays a role too), so the right balance on those should get you about right going into the mastering session. I've been mastering with the Oxford Inflator in the chain since December, and as much as I like it, it actually adds too much high frequency sound to the mix, so I've been having to taper off with an EQ from about 2k in the mastering chain as well.

That said, the high frequency content actually varies from pro mix to pro mix, even just in Andy's catalog alone. Even if you just compare "Shadows Are Security" and "This Godless Endeavor" (both high frequency-heavy mixes) against "Ascendancy" and "Resurrection", you can hear a definite difference. I think when it comes down to it, it's just a preference thing, and it won't make or break you mix either way whether or not you add more high frequencies in mastering. Just check with other people too (such as on this forum), to see if they mention the high frequencies thing...if not, then chances are you mix was cool in the first place!

I hear you.

What I've found is that my mixes prior to mastering are dark in comparison to the references I use (which, again, have been mastered whereas I'm listening to my rough). But, they are "even" in frequency spectrum from low to high, so in general I feel good about them...But it seems as though everything starts to really taper down around 7kHz...Most pro mixes start to taper around 7-8, but they have considerably more energy (i.e. a more gentle slope down from 8kHz or so) then mine do raw...Usually some shelf boosts work fine, and keep everything consistent, but at times I boost in the upper range (think 6-12kHz) as much as 5-7dB so I get that "extended high end sparkle", if that makes sense. I have no problem doing it if it makes the mix work, but I think I'd feel better if the mix had that energy on it's own, or if I didn't have this nagging feeling that I'm doing it "wrong".

But then what I'd end up doing is boosting those same frequencies on the tracks that get up to that range (i.e. guitars and cymbals like you said) anyway, so it seems like it's 6 in one hand, half a dozen in another.

I was just curious how you guys do it.

If I were to EQ the instruments in the mix rather than the whole mix buss, I'm hesitant to think 7dB boosts at 3kHz and above on cymbals or guitar is common practice?

I don't know, I'm just in one of those moods/mindsets where nothing is good enough, and that I have no clue what I'm doing.

 

[chonchball]

One thing that is important to keep in mind, especially with high end EQ, is that you can start to introduce a lot of harsh sounds if you're trying to compensate for some presence too late in the stages of the mix/master.

All frequencies are relative to their harmonics and their neighboring frequencies, and if you simply start boosting things here and there, especially with digital plug-in EQs, you'll start to hurt your mix a bit as far as natural presence goes.

When you're tracking, try to listen to the most fundamental sounds that are going to be necessary for each individual track. For example, with guitars, a fair amount of high end is going to come through that you probably won't want later because it's too hissy. Although you might be tempted to EQ that hiss out on the board while you track it, keep it in there because that is the NATURAL high end coming through. If you cut it with a filter and commit that to tape (or hard drive as it may be) you have just limited yourself in your true high end representation. You can shelf out the hiss, but the actual presence will be true to the tonal nature of what you recorded.

The same goes for vocals, drums, even bass (it doesn't hurt to have a little 1k-1.5k in your bass tone if you aren't multiplying poorly recorded high frequencies by just boosting the EQ to COMPENSATE for something that isn't there)

If your tracks, and thereby your mix is representing the right frequencies into the mastering stage, you should hopefully find that most of what you need is there, and then you can multiband compress and/or EQ shelf up the high end to the taste of your liking.

The real trick here though, and it just takes LOTS and LOTS of time and practice (trial and error, trial and error, trial and error), is to not mistake more LOUDNESS or more BRIGHTNESS than a comparable track as better. You could very well be adding in harshness that sounds good to you because you've heard so many multiple versions of the same track over and over and just the sheer DIFFERENCE might excite you.

The fun thing about music is the varying styles, and while it's great to be competitive and achieve sounds that are similar to the pros or to albums that you really like, if you model your style to it too much, you may end up homogenizing your own style before you give it time to develop.

Back to the point though, the thing to remember here is that any time you have to bump up a high EQ too drastically when mixing or mastering, remember for next time what your track or mix is lacking and try to track it with a little more natural high end so you won't have to make too many adjustments later. What you'll find ends up happening is that you'll achieve a more natural sound that is ALSO brighter without as much fuss and a little part of you will feel all tingly inside cuz you just magically got better at manipulating this mysterious world of sound

Hope this helps.

 

[KeithTidd]

sometimes.

 

[crosstalk]

I've been doing like a +1 db shelf at around 1k and then another +1 or 2 db shelf at 5k.

What are others doing? Bigger increases? Higher frequencies? Less?

I'd rather "fix it in the mix," but find that even if I put the same shelves on all of the tracks, I don't get the same result. Not saying that should do it, just that it seems everything needs some brightness. If I don't have the added eq on the master bus, everything sounds really dark.

 

[RiF]

Although chonchball is perfectly right (3 posts above), but I find my self very happy with my UAD-Pultec across the 2bus which adds some air using a little 12+ KHz high shelf.

 

[nwright]

I went back through the mixes in question and through altering the EQ in the mix and then more gentle EQ's, I'm getting where I want.

Thanks guys!

 

[chonchball]

RIF, I wish I had that Pultec ;-)

 

[Joshua Wickman]

parts of my mix have a lot of high shelf boosts, and then my master has multiple high shelf boosts (one for the sound, another for downsampling treble loss)

Are you recording in 96hz and then downsampling to 44.1?

I would like to know more about this freq loss thing if you got a minute.

 

[myownsilence]

it was said before but i imagine you probably monitor loud so you whip out those top frequencies...

bad move...

balancing a mix and getting the best out of your general overall frequency spectrum involves work and time, careful eq adjustment - subtle, and an understanding of how both low mid and upper freq blend.


Relying on mastering to get you there is a sure sign your be opening a can of worms and is lazy mixing.

more time and experience mixing is all thats needed, seems obvious but you will get there, it took me ages to understand what I was doing.


I ctualy found recently that I do not low and high pass the hell out of everything, this is another "preset" method on a road to hell with mixing because you are taking away something.

Im not saying don't lowpass, but is it really a good idea. Same with hi passing, you can remove stuff that gives the balance on the sound and the sound in the mix.

I learnt a lot by actually asking others to listen to mixes I had done of other work, some commented that m mixes were not bright enough etc. (usually a good classicaly trained muso is hand for this sort of thing if no other engineers can be found).

I went back to my dull sounding mix and had another listen, i worked at it and found little points in EQ that made the guitars brighter, gave the kick more presence - and these were little tweaks - 3 or 4 db at most - or using subtle eq and compression to adjust the balance.

Its a dog, but thats the job, work work work, don't settle, many say less is more, yes its true but doesn't mean its any easier.

 

[John_C]

I do not low and high pass the hell out of everything, this is another "preset" method on a road to hell with mixing because you are taking away something.

Im not saying don't lowpass, but is it really a good idea. Same with hi passing, you can remove stuff that gives the balance on the sound and the sound in the mix.

Now my mixes aren't in any way up to the standard of many here, but i do notice there is a bit of trend towards extreme low and high passing of everything, which seems to my ears to produce odd sounding mixes with no feeling of organic life to them, and no glue, all the instruments having their own space so much it never sounds like they're actually together

 

[nwright]

it was said before but i imagine you probably monitor loud so you whip out those top frequencies...

bad move...

Actually, I monitor too quietly I think sometimes. I've never been someone to monitor loud.

And I wrote in a post above, I went back through and tweaked the mix and got a result I like more than adding in too much in mastering.

Relying on mastering to get you there is a sure sign your be opening a can of worms and is lazy mixing.

Hmm, I guess I'm taking these as veiled potshots, but I wouldn't say I've been mixing anything "lazy", and the concern in general over the methods is what brought me here to ask the question in the first place, so these comments don't seem too on the mark?

 

[joeymusicguy]

Are you recording in 96hz and then downsampling to 44.1?

I would like to know more about this freq loss thing if you got a minute.

recording at 48 downsampling to 44 (cd)

and yes, i notice a treble loss from playing mix back in nuendo (at 48) and listening to mix down (44)

so there's a high shelf boost added in the chain to get that treble into the mixdown

 

[Joshua Wickman]

So why not just record at 44.1 and save the trouble?