Commodore Remix

Razmo:

I had a similar situation... I had just figured out how to hook my C64 to my Amplifier!! , we had a plumber doing some work in our kitchen and I decided to blast "Delta".

I can still remember him yelling at me.."What the F**K is that sound?? Turn it off my ears" hahahahaha. I turned it off, till he left and than I cranked it even louder.

I'm sure my neighbours weren't too happy about it.

Some people just didnt appreciate the SID back than.

Analog X: ... yeah! and that is exactly why I devoted myself to build a SID synthesizer some years back... I wanted to prove to all who said that SID sounds like a "mad bee, lost in an organ", that this is in fact NOT true! ... When the SID chip is used as a single monophonic synthesizer chip utilising all three channels just like on an ordinary synth of today, it's pretty darn capable, considering 3 oscillators, independent amp EG for every osc, analog multimode filter, oscillator sync, ringmod, filter routings and all... its a rather impressive chip for 1982!!! just the sheer CPU programability it has is marvelous. only regret is the envelope bug, and why they F**CKING never fixed that on the 8580R5 9V version is a mystery to me... maybe to be backwards "compatible" with the 6581...

The only problem with showing it's capability is, that no one believes my sound demos until they see the machine in action

Analog-X wrote:Speaking of separation, I've often seen charts showing which frequency Drums, Bassline, Synth Leads should sit so they dont interfere with each other.

For me such a chart doesn't say a lot. It merely says something about the range of a particular instrument, which could be handy if you want to orchestrate or arrange something. But it doesn't say anything about the frequencies it has. In this case an EQ would only work if you hit exactly the note the instrument plays. The thing that makes an instrument interesting and separates it from the rest are his harmonics, which are EQ-able...

If I want to separate things in a mix or get something extra in and want some room for it in the spectrum, I just look for a frequency that is still 'free' in the mix and boost that on the instrument I want to add. Which could mean, when you 'solo' that track it could sound awful, but it will work really good in the mix and you can pick it out easily.
You know, trying to make all instruments sound good in solo-mode is pretty useless if there is no room for all of them in the mix, fighting for the same low-mid frequencies most of them want for themselves.

I haven't read the messages after this, so I don't know if this has already been discussed. But I thought it might be interesting to share...

And yes, it's only one way to look at it. To be honest, I like to work with engineers/mixers who don't have ONE way of doing something, but change their methods and ideas every day...who are in for experiments... It frightens me when some of them say 'I've recorded drums like this for 20 years....'.....

R.

Reyn wrote: You know, trying to make all instruments sound good in solo-mode is pretty useless if there is no room for all of them in the mix, fighting for the same low-mid frequencies most of them want for themselves.

So than you either dont use the instrument or as Razmo said earlier dont play both of those instruments at the same time?

Analog-X wrote: So than you either dont use the instrument or as Razmo said earlier dont play both of those instruments at the same time?

That's most of the time the best option. Unless they are both great ideas, then simply try to pan one more to the left and the other to the right. OR, like in my example, boost like 3k on one instrument a bit and 7k on the other. Or maybe place them both in a different room......

R.

Analog X... basically: yes.... But as with everything in this world, there is no rule without the exeption. You COULD actually mix different patterns of bass instruments and get some really interesting textures, even if they reside at the same frequencies... I've tried that numerous times before, but as a general rule, if you want every single instrument to be clearly defined in the mix, they should have most of its main frequency range for itself... total non-overlap is impossible as most sounds have frequencies in a very wide range, but it's the most dominant (it's fundamentals and a bit) that it is important to find room for.

But always remember to believe in your ears... they are the main tool, so don't rely totaly on a graphical display or a golden rule, if your ears tell you that something different sound better. Inovative thinking should be rewarded ... and it's also the most fun to listen to... personaly I'm not into mainstream music... why?... it's too predictable. I want music that can impress me... I want to go "WOW! What is that?... wonder what's next!?"... pieces with intriguing build ups that make me want to listen on, has lots of arrangement dynamics and generaly puts me in a special mood.

Reyn: If your last example has two instruments competing for the same space, and just boosting two different spots in their spectrum, would you then not need to EQ out some of the overlapping frequencies to prevent "mud" anyway? ... I never tried that trick of yours, but my first thought would be to also EQ out some of that space-combat

Man, I've gone cross-eyed following this thread but it's all interesting stuff.

It just goes to show that mastering is an art and not a science!

Skitz: ... he he!... well, actually the only thing I've said about mastering is the 32hz and below filtering ... All of the topics here I believe is part of the mixing stage where you deal with individual tracks. Mastering is usualy performed on the two track mix-down, and involves very diferent techniques than mixing... I believe that some people has begun doing some mastering stuff on individual tracks these days, but in general it's performed on the final 2track mix, and is the last stage of them all. I've only just begun sniffing a bit to the mastering art.... and surely it is an art!... I find myself damaging more trying this art, than not mastering at all

As I see it, the process of making music is normaly like this:

1. Creative phase... composing and arranging... the fun part... just has to be fun, and sound good for you. (this is probably where most rock bands stop... they send their demo's to the record company, and they take over from there ... some of us nerds, just want to do everything ourselves, and delve deeper into the phases ))

2. Mixing Phase... individual tracks are EQ'ed, effects adjusted, levels adjusted and every track put together to make the whole tune sound clear and uniform. (this is the phase where i SHOULD stop! )

3. Mastering Phase... final mixdown is EQ'ed, stereo enhanced, frequency band compression done, overall level maximised and all tunes ordered correctly and leveled against each other, dithering to 16 bit CD format etc.

Guess there is much more to these phases than I've written, but I asume that this is the normal procedure from creation to delivarance

razmo wrote:Reyn: If your last example has two instruments competing for the same space, and just boosting two different spots in their spectrum, would you then not need to EQ out some of the overlapping frequencies to prevent "mud" anyway? ... I never tried that trick of yours, but my first thought would be to also EQ out some of that space-combat

Oh yes, very good point! It's the same trick really... For instance to get a nice tight low-end, it's really importend to make somebody 'the boss', which is most of the time the bass. (Not counting the kick/808 since that's a short low-end boost.).

Even if I record very fat guitar tracks with really nice low-end, they end up having a really steep and aggressive high-pass filter in the end. Just so the mix won't get muddy. When you would 'solo' these guitar tracks, they would sound very weird and thin. But in the music, with the low-end of the bass added to the mix, you suddenly 'hear' the low harmonics and basics of the guitar. It's like the bass took over the missing (sub)frequencies/harmonics of that guitar.

The same for 100Hz to 250Hz which is maybe even a more difficult area then the low-end, since lots of parts that accompany the music stay in that part of the spectrum all fighting for their own existence. Adding all these instruments can make it sound really muddy. Just give one really warm main instrument that room and search for 'free' frequencies for the other instruments in the spectrum. I often use a graphic EQ for my quest to find frequencies that really help distinguish that instrument in the mix and get the ones out that make it muddy.

Best solution to fight this problem however is still mute and delete tracks, and keep your arrangement simple! (now look how's talking...)

R.

Reyn wrote:Best solution to fight this problem however is still mute and delete tracks, and keep your arrangement simple! (now look how's talking...)

ROFL!!!

Just bought "MusicTech" May Issue (were always 1 month with U.K. Publications) which has a feature on guess what? "Mixing and EQ: Improve the clarity and balance of your tracks.

Right in the first paragraph it says "techniques behind good equalisation lie somehwere between art and science"

The article is more of a what equing is and three types of EQ. Shelving, Parametric, Filter (high-pass)

But sadly its not a how to. There are couple of tips on BASS and DRUM Equing but nothing more indepth.

I think I've learned more from this thread than this magazine.

There is a small chart included but they dont explain it.

Positive Negative

LF 30-50HZ Deep sub-bass Wobbliness
LF 50-100Hz Bass Boomy
LF 100-200Hz Power Heavy

LMF 200-300Hz Deep mid Muddy
LMF 300-500Hz Warmth Boxy
LMF 500-600Hz Body Middy

HMF 1-2kHz Up-Front Nasal
HMF 2-3kHz Clarity Thin
HMF 3-6kHz Presence Aggressive

HF 6-8kHz Brightness Harsh
HF 8-12kHz Top Edgy
HF 12-16kHz Air Painful

The main question is pointless: there's not a 'rule', it all depends on the source matherials and what you want to obtain in that track.

The main question is pointless: there's not a 'rule', it all depends on the source matherials and what you want to obtain in that track.

Why is the question pointless? ... I don't recall having asked for a rule, just what others did, to see if I missed out on anything ... of course there is as many ways to fiddle with effects as there are musicians and material... surely.. but you can still learn from what others do, and find new ways that you, yourself may not have recognised.

Analog-X:

Oh yes, I've seen such a table before myself... and I also find it mostly useless. I'm not very adept at hearing specific frequencies by ear, as I'm more of a visual guy... I find it becomes much clearer when I can see what's happenin' on a spectrum graph, and I do not care if things belong to low, low-mid, mid etc... I just try to believe my ears, and use the graphics as a guideline... the main reason for this is that I'm not good at hearing where some space is "free" in the spectrum, so it's much easier to just actually see it on a graph. It's rather easy to spot actually, using the one in Wavelab where it's represented in a bar graph, rather than a spectrogram (these seem confusing to me).