Why does small notch make such a big difference

[muzician21]

I've been working on this mix for a while and "something" just wasn't
right. I'd brightened some backing vocals which helped to make them
stand out some, but there were still sections where the combination of
the lead and backing vocals was muddy and you couldn't hear either
distinctly enough.

Then just experimenting based on a half-remembered concept I'd read
related to mastering, using a parametric eq I tried slowly sweeping a
notch across the spectrum and found that a notch at about 250 Hz makes
a huge difference. Just -4 db at .1 octave and suddenly horns, backing
vocals and lead vocal stand out from each other much more clearly, so
much so that I actually had to change the pre-mixdown level envelope
for the backing vocals in places where the new clarity makes the part
too prominent. Also, it cured a problem of a funny tubbiness in the
lead vocal that was bugging me.

I clicked/unclicked bypass numerous times, with my eyes closed to
assure myself it wasn't just my imagination. Why would this skinny
little notch make such a difference in the sound? It also makes me
wonder what other changes like this there are to be found.

[RD Jones]

On Jul 28, 11:05*pm, muzician21 > wrote:
> I've been working on this mix for a while and "something" just wasn't
> right. I'd brightened some backing vocals which helped to make them
> stand out some, but there were still sections where the combination of
> the lead and backing vocals was muddy and you couldn't hear either
> distinctly enough.
>
> Then just experimenting based on a half-remembered concept I'd read
> related to mastering, using a parametric eq I tried slowly sweeping a
> notch across the spectrum and found that a notch at about 250 Hz makes
> a huge difference. Just -4 db at .1 octave and suddenly horns, backing
> vocals and lead vocal stand out from each other much more clearly, so
> much so that I actually had to change the pre-mixdown level envelope
> for the backing vocals in places where the new clarity makes the part
> too prominent. Also, it cured a problem of a funny tubbiness in the
> lead vocal that was bugging me.
>
> I clicked/unclicked bypass numerous times, with my eyes closed to
> assure myself it wasn't just my imagination. Why would this skinny
> little notch make such a difference in the sound? It also makes me
> wonder what other changes like this there are to be found.

There's always a buildup in the midbass due to overlapping
frquency ranges of instruments and voices, and the contribution
of room and mic's proximity. It's far worse in live sound because
of the poor tone coming off the backs of wedges, stage resonances
amp/speaker peakyness and generally mediocre equipment.

I suspect, however, in this case there's something else at work here.
The narrowness of your notch gives it away, I think there's a peak
in your monitor system and/or room that's being taken out and
clearing things up. I'd use a variety of playback systems (not in your
room) to verify the midbass problem is in the recording and not the
listening environment before using drastic measures in the mix to
repair something that's not actually in the recording.

rd

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

muzician21 wrote:

> I've been working on this mix for a while and "something" just wasn't
> right. I'd brightened some backing vocals which helped to make them
> stand out some, but there were still sections where the combination of
> the lead and backing vocals was muddy and you couldn't hear either
> distinctly enough.
>
> Then just experimenting based on a half-remembered concept I'd read
> related to mastering, using a parametric eq I tried slowly sweeping a
> notch across the spectrum and found that a notch at about 250 Hz makes
> a huge difference. Just -4 db at .1 octave and suddenly horns, backing
> vocals and lead vocal stand out from each other much more clearly, so
> much so that I actually had to change the pre-mixdown level envelope
> for the backing vocals in places where the new clarity makes the part
> too prominent. Also, it cured a problem of a funny tubbiness in the
> lead vocal that was bugging me.

A small notch is 0.5 dB or at most 1 dB, as a mix tool it shouldn't be that
narrow imo, I think you're fixing something else, ie. either a recording
frequency response issue or a monitoring frequency response issue. Some of
the time very small increments are enough to change a mix ... to be fair to
your use of the word small then perceived ""size"" of the notch is "the area
under the curve", ie. it is also about width.

> I clicked/unclicked bypass numerous times, with my eyes closed to
> assure myself it wasn't just my imagination. Why would this skinny
> little notch make such a difference in the sound? It also makes me
> wonder what other changes like this there are to be foun

Check this on your two other sets of speakers. I have a pair of small
powered monitors that do not have room for damping inside because if any was
put in, it would be a blanket around the amp. And they have just the kind of
low midrange problem that a notch like the one you describe would fix. Their
purpose in my rig is location playback and that they are ok for, but I
wouldn't want to "do subtleties" on them.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

> Up around 4kHz, there is a narrow notch commonly provided by speaker
> designers, because it increases what audiophiles call "presence."

How can removing energy in the region where the ear is most-sensitive
increase "presence"?

[Scott Dorsey]

muzician21 > wrote:
>
>Then just experimenting based on a half-remembered concept I'd read
>related to mastering, using a parametric eq I tried slowly sweeping a
>notch across the spectrum and found that a notch at about 250 Hz makes
>a huge difference. Just -4 db at .1 octave and suddenly horns, backing
>vocals and lead vocal stand out from each other much more clearly, so
>much so that I actually had to change the pre-mixdown level envelope
>for the backing vocals in places where the new clarity makes the part
>too prominent. Also, it cured a problem of a funny tubbiness in the
>lead vocal that was bugging me.
>
>I clicked/unclicked bypass numerous times, with my eyes closed to
>assure myself it wasn't just my imagination. Why would this skinny
>little notch make such a difference in the sound? It also makes me
>wonder what other changes like this there are to be found.

1. The notch might not be all that skinny. .1 octave is not all that tight.

2. You have a massive 250 Hz room mode that is screwing things up badly.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mark]

On Jul 29, 9:30*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> muzician21 > wrote:
>
> >Then just experimenting based on a half-remembered concept I'd read
> >related to mastering, using a parametric eq I tried slowly sweeping a
> >notch across the spectrum and found that a notch at about 250 Hz makes
> >a huge difference. Just -4 db at .1 octave and suddenly horns, backing
> >vocals and lead vocal stand out from each other much more clearly, so
> >much so that I actually had to change the pre-mixdown level envelope
> >for the backing vocals in places where the new clarity makes the part
> >too prominent. Also, it cured a problem of a funny tubbiness in the
> >lead vocal that was bugging me.
>
> >I clicked/unclicked bypass numerous times, with my eyes closed to
> >assure myself it wasn't just my imagination. Why would this skinny
> >little notch make such a difference in the sound? It also makes me
> >wonder what other changes like this there are to be found.
>
> 1. The notch might not be all that skinny. *.1 octave is not all that tight.
>
> 2. You have a massive 250 Hz room mode that is screwing things up badly.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

look at the signal with a spectum analysis tool and see if there is
excess energy there that the notch removes...

Mark

[dwgriffi]

Could it be one of those eqs (like the original Waves Q10 or first
bundled Digi eqs) where the algorithm doesn't really put everything
back in place except for the .5 change?

[WillStG]

Well....

1. 4db isn't exactly a small amount of eq adjustment. Yes,
sometimes you need that and even a lot more, but as a general rule I
begin self questioning when exceeding 3db of adjustment. I would call
a .5 db or 1.5 db a small adjustment. If you call 4 db "small", you
can probably improve your recording and mixing by being more careful
with your levels. That's a lot really.

2. You need to know *why* that bump you are having to cut is
happening. Was the vocal mic an RE20, is that inducing it? Is it
where you are recording, mic placement? Nothing wrong with having to
eq though, you are by definition trying to "Equalize" the content you
are mixing.

3. What the eq settings, especially the Q - but even compression
attack and release times for example - what they really are you can't
know *exactly* by the labeling on console dial. Don't expect them to
be exactly translatable between audio consoles either, or even between
DAW plugins. A guy working on a different desk might use pretty
different settings "as marked" to arrive at the same actual result.
I'm guessing .1 on your eq isn't so very narrow, is it a "Filterbank"
plugin? A "Filterbank" eq plugin and something else like a Digidesign
"Air" eq plugin setting at .1 aren't the same thing.

4. The stuff below around 600 Hz is where the "masking" effect
takes place. The prominent stuff covers up everything else, you have
to tame that region 0f 100 - 600Hz or everything will sound tubby.
Like a digital photo in RAW format, all the content is there, but when
you remove some of it other things become more perceptible. Sometimes
a multiband compressor can help you as an after the fact fix.
Sometimes I wonder about the differences in how other species hear and
see, and if they have a wider window of perception than we (not just
upper or lower spectrum/frequency extension, but bandwidth at the
areas where we mask out information.)

5. Live show mixes can have tons of ultra low frequency content
from the bass guitar, maybe the kick bleeding into every open mic.
You can be quite surprised at how much like a "Dub" bass your bass
sounds like when all you have tracked is the DI. You have to be
ruthless with filtering the low stuff out. Filtering everything up to
say, 160Hz on almost every open mic isn't so uncommon for mixing live
music, when you have bass bleed. Of course, for a news anchor in a
studio, I love the lower/mid bass region. I love a bump in the spoken
voice for authority. But mixing music there are few chances to do
that, because other realities will force you to compromise. I quite
like mixing a solo piano and vocalist in a big hall though, where I
can use minimal filtering (and a lot of open audience mics.)

best

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits



muzician21 wrote:
> I've been working on this mix for a while and "something" just wasn't
> right. I'd brightened some backing vocals which helped to make them
> stand out some, but there were still sections where the combination of
> the lead and backing vocals was muddy and you couldn't hear either
> distinctly enough.
>
> Then just experimenting based on a half-remembered concept I'd read
> related to mastering, using a parametric eq I tried slowly sweeping a
> notch across the spectrum and found that a notch at about 250 Hz makes
> a huge difference. Just -4 db at .1 octave and suddenly horns, backing
> vocals and lead vocal stand out from each other much more clearly, so
> much so that I actually had to change the pre-mixdown level envelope
> for the backing vocals in places where the new clarity makes the part
> too prominent. Also, it cured a problem of a funny tubbiness in the
> lead vocal that was bugging me.
>
> I clicked/unclicked bypass numerous times, with my eyes closed to
> assure myself it wasn't just my imagination. Why would this skinny
> little notch make such a difference in the sound? It also makes me
> wonder what other changes like this there are to be found.

[drichard]

Hi,

I don't consider a change of "just -4 db" to be small, especially
after a mix is finished. That sounds like a very significant change to
me, even if in a narrow notch. But like previous posters I suspect
that you may actually be correcting your room and monitor system more
than the mix itself. I'll agree with their advice to check out those
factors.

Dean

On Jul 28, 10:05*pm, muzician21 > wrote:
> I've been working on this mix for a while and "something" just wasn't
> right. I'd brightened some backing vocals which helped to make them
> stand out some, but there were still sections where the combination of
> the lead and backing vocals was muddy and you couldn't hear either
> distinctly enough.
>
> Then just experimenting based on a half-remembered concept I'd read
> related to mastering, using a parametric eq I tried slowly sweeping a
> notch across the spectrum and found that a notch at about 250 Hz makes
> a huge difference. Just -4 db at .1 octave and suddenly horns, backing
> vocals and lead vocal stand out from each other much more clearly, so
> much so that I actually had to change the pre-mixdown level envelope
> for the backing vocals in places where the new clarity makes the part
> too prominent. Also, it cured a problem of a funny tubbiness in the
> lead vocal that was bugging me.
>
> I clicked/unclicked bypass numerous times, with my eyes closed to
> assure myself it wasn't just my imagination. Why would this skinny
> little notch make such a difference in the sound? It also makes me
> wonder what other changes like this there are to be found.