Muddy Mixes

[DaveDrummer]

Hey guys. Well im getting the hang of wavelab and all the other DAWs, but I
still am plauged with my 'muddy' mix disease. I do a cut around 200-280hz
and it still is there. I dont do this to all tracks because then there would
be a freq. hole in the mix. Any suggestions? Thanks

Dave

[area242]

> Use high pass filters as well, one thing I've found with digital is that I
> can end up with masses of accurately recorded subsonics that take up a
> surprising amount of headroom, but only really become an obvious problem
> when I go to master. Could just be my recording techniques, but digital
> seems to capture a lot more subsonics from sources that did not cause
> problems when I worked on tape.

Same here. I have to use high pass filters on almost every track, so that i
can avoid them all adding up to a huge glob of mud at the end of the day. I
don't remember having to do it this much in my analog days...oh well...it
works though!

[Jeff]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 17:50:34 +0100, "philicorda"
> wrote:

>
>"DaveDrummer" > wrote in message
...
>> Hey guys. Well im getting the hang of wavelab and all the other DAWs, but
>I
>> still am plauged with my 'muddy' mix disease. I do a cut around 200-280hz
>> and it still is there. I dont do this to all tracks because then there
>would
>> be a freq. hole in the mix. Any suggestions? Thanks
>
>Mute half the tracks. Try not to have too many parts competing in the low
>end. Change the arrangement if neccesary.
>
>Use high pass filters as well, one thing I've found with digital is that I
>can end up with masses of accurately recorded subsonics that take up a
>surprising amount of headroom, but only really become an obvious problem
>when I go to master. Could just be my recording techniques, but digital
>seems to capture a lot more subsonics from sources that did not cause
>problems when I worked on tape.

I also suffer from the muddy mix syndrome. I'm mixing, I'm thinking it
sounds fine, then I compare to other CDs and it sounds like mine has a
blanket over it. But I'm well aware that those CDs have been through
mastering, so I never know how much I should worry about how mine
sounds. Then I wonder if I should EQ individual tracks, or the mix as
a whole.

[Twist Turner]

I"ve finally gotten to where my mixes don't sound muddy at all,
providing I am the producer and arranger. Of course it took me 40 years
of playing music and 15 years as an engineer to get there.

One of the main things I notice is that I do alot more subtractive
eq'ing, taking things out then I do adding. The sounds have to be right
going to tape, theres no fixing in the mix, get the sound you want to
tape and everything will fall right in place. It takes 10 times as long
to fix it in the mix as it does if you just adjusted the amp or moved
the mic and got it right before it went to tape. The arrangements have
to be right as well. A whole lot of clashing parts, never works. Less
is always more, the more space you can give the sounds the bigger and
better it will sound.





http://www.vintagemicsales.com

[area242]

"Twist Turner" > wrote in message
...
> I"ve finally gotten to where my mixes don't sound muddy at all,
> providing I am the producer and arranger. Of course it took me 40 years
> of playing music and 15 years as an engineer to get there.
>
> One of the main things I notice is that I do alot more subtractive
> eq'ing, taking things out then I do adding. The sounds have to be right
> going to tape, theres no fixing in the mix, get the sound you want to
> tape and everything will fall right in place. It takes 10 times as long
> to fix it in the mix as it does if you just adjusted the amp or moved
> the mic and got it right before it went to tape. The arrangements have
> to be right as well. A whole lot of clashing parts, never works. Less
> is always more, the more space you can give the sounds the bigger and
> better it will sound.

That's excellent advise. I have found this to be true as well over the
years.

[Bob Smith]

Twist Turner wrote:
>
> I"ve finally gotten to where my mixes don't sound muddy at all,
> providing I am the producer and arranger. Of course it took me 40 years
> of playing music and 15 years as an engineer to get there.
>
> One of the main things I notice is that I do alot more subtractive
> eq'ing, taking things out then I do adding. The sounds have to be right
> going to tape, theres no fixing in the mix, get the sound you want to
> tape and everything will fall right in place. It takes 10 times as long
> to fix it in the mix as it does if you just adjusted the amp or moved
> the mic and got it right before it went to tape. The arrangements have
> to be right as well. A whole lot of clashing parts, never works. Less
> is always more, the more space you can give the sounds the bigger and
> better it will sound.
>
> http://www.vintagemicsales.com

Very well put!! My experiences are finding this to be excellent advise
as well (yeah yeah, re-inventing the wheel, I know. I'm a sloow
learner.) The arrangement can create clarity or mud depending on how
many sounds compete for space in the mix.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

[t fitzgerald]

A good mastering job might help bring you out of the mud also.

Todd Fitzgerald
Chief Engineer
OarFin Studios Minneapolis
www.oarfinrecords.com

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Ethan Winer" <ethan at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
...
> Dave,
>
> > I still am plauged with my 'muddy' mix disease. <
>
> I'm surprised nobody else noticed the link between your other post about
> acoustic treatment and this one about mixes coming out muddy. Some of your
> problems will be resolved as you get better at the art of recording and
> mixing. But you should also be aware of the intimate relationship between
> proper acoustic treatment, especially bass traps, and being able to hear
> what you are mixing clearly and accurately.

Man, this can't be overstated. Not only for mixing but tracking too. I don't
think most people really realize how much that affects the outcome even for
close miked, dry, "cardioid patterned" tracks. That why I believe most
people who only have dynamics and hear about how great condensers are
sometimes disappointed by their new supposedly "better" mics. They also tend
to pick up much more "crap". I actually put room ahead of mic choice in
getting good tracks.

[Ethan Winer]

Ricky,

> Man, this can't be overstated. <

Yes, but I continue to try anyway <smile>.

> I actually put room ahead of mic choice <

Me too. We all know that the frequency response of mikes and speakers varies
much more than audio electronics. But those +/- 3 dB variations are NOTHING
compared to what happens in a typical room. Even a GOOD room having proper
dimensions, size, and acoustic treatment varies more than any pro quality
mike or loudspeaker.

--Ethan