Automatic Mix-EQ?

[LordBTY]

Is there such a thing that automatically analyses the natural EQ of each track and adjusts the tone of each in order to make room?

 

I would've thought you'd be able to tell it do different things depending on what you were mixing, or to the extent you wanted the 'space' to be created.

 

Has this been thought of?

[WRGKMC]

If you track properly there isnt a whole lot of EQing needed. To have an intelegent mixer as you're speaking of though just wouldnt be able to account for all the variables. You have thousands of different amps, guitars, Pickups, Speakers, mics, rooms, preamps, interfaces, monitors, plugins all with their own frequency responces. Then you have the various gene of music that have as many different mixes as the ears permits thrown in there too.

 

Best you can do is use something like Voxengo Span and put it in your main bus, then solo each track and use the EQ along with the Readout to guide your adjuatments. You still need to know something about audio and how to mix for it to be of any use to prevent masking though.

[chris carter]

There is no such tool (that actually works).

[wwwjd]

I bet it would be very simple to create a plugin EQ that contained a bunch of generic presets for things like "Keys" "Drums" "Guitars". Trouble is, it would sounds like total crap if used and be nearly completely worthless.

 

There is one device we use analyze and adjust EQ and that is our brain.

[skibob]

You're talking about a "suck" knob. It should be turned all the way down.

 

If your DAW has a "talent" knob (or slider) it should be turned all the way up.

 

Most DAWs do not have these knobs displayed by default, you need to go deep into the preferences to enable them.

[Lee Knight]

...you need to go deep into the preferences to enable them.

 

Funny, yet so true.

[LordBTY]

 

You're talking about a "suck" knob. It should be turned all the way down. If your DAW has a "talent" knob (or slider) it should be turned all the way up. Most DAWs do not have these knobs displayed by default, you need to go deep into the preferences to enable them.

 

 

I'm going to have to quote you in my siggy with that one.

 

But surely you could measure overly clashing frequencies...

[Lee Knight]

 

But surely you could measure overly clashing frequencies...

 

 

That's an aesthetic choice. If you read enough internet audio lore you might believe otherwise... but the truth is, you have to make an artistic choice. Is a kick drum overlapping the bass guitar? Yes. Does it sound good? Yes. Great? Yes.

 

But what about that one that doesn't sound great. The kick and bass sound mushing an ill defined. And yet, when you look at the spectrum analyzer it looks the same as the pair that sound great.

 

Hmmm. Artistic and aesthetic choices. One's right for one scenario and wrong for another. Do you really want some algorithm figuring that out for you?

 

I don't.

 

The way to go about it is to find things you like and analyze them. Find out what constitutes things you like. What goes into those things you like. Why do you like them. What are their ingredients? Do the same thing to things you don't like. Now proceed and taste. Your taste.

[MrKnobs]

Crazy talk! Next thing you know, your car will be driven by a little computer under the hood! You won't have a cable between your accelerator pedal and the engine, cops will be able to shut down your engine remotely, pylons by the roadside will override your speed to slow traffic, and the road maintenance people will find the potholes by interrogating your car computer to see where the sudden vertical accelerations are...

 

Oh wait....

 

Terry D.

[wwwjd]

Isn't technology great?

 

Computer in car: now we pay $200 jsut to hook up to anther computer to START to find out what is wrong, instead of paying "Hank" to use his experience.

 

Drive without wire - why? it's overcomplicating (see note above)

 

ONSTAR remote slowdown - you gotta pay subscription for this???

 

Pylons - too much money to be made off tickets, this will never get wide spread use, not in the USA anyway

 

BLACK BOX - because it is SOOO HARD to SEE potholes if you are a road worker I guess. Again, more pointless overly expensive and the tax payers end up with the bill

 

BRING ON THE MACHINE STATE! So we can get even lazier

[brandonhackler]

Har-Bal?

 

I will admit i read one line of your post. After rereading it I realize I am the culprit of lazy message boarding and I apologize to everyone!!

[LordBTY]

Har-Bal? I will admit i read one line of your post. After rereading it I realize I am the culprit of lazy message boarding and I apologize to everyone!!

 

Yeah, that's why I described it as 'mix-eq' instead of 'master-eq'

 

But surely it could help...

 

Maybe technology that could explain why instruments are clashing and 'slushing' together in an unpleasant way - maybe taking into account the actual instrument...

 

Like... you run the vox and guitar through it and the program suggests a cut at 3khz.

[UstadKhanAli]

I guess you could design something that indicated that there was a large peak at 250Hz between several instruments and give you a heads-up that this might be a "problem frequency" in your mix. I don't know of anything that does that, of course, although obviously you can use Har-Bal and similar programs to indicate that for yourself.

[MrKnobs]

Isn't technology great? Computer in car: now we pay $200 jsut to hook up to anther computer to START to find out what is wrong, instead of paying "Hank" to use his experience. Drive without wire - why? it's overcomplicating (see note above)

 

It's dangerous for sure. Note the recent rash of Toyota "stuck throttle" incidents. Those are drive by wire cars and the accelerator pedal is nothing but a sensor so the computer can know your foot position. Pulling up on the pedal with the side of your shoe at that point doesn't give the same fix as it did with old cars.

 

My wife's car (Nissan) currently has a computer/sensor failure (after getting the fuel injectors cleaned) where it's randomly setting various throttle positions. Hopefully we'll get that fixed at the dealer tomorrow.

 

ONSTAR remote slowdown - you gotta pay subscription for this???

 

Not too long from now it will be on every car. The equipment already comes in many cars and the cops / DOT don't have to pay a subscription to use your car's box.

 

Pylons - too much money to be made off tickets, this will never get wide spread use, not in the USA anyway

 

It's currently used for accident prevention in Japan and parts of Europe (windy mountain roads where people drive too fast). The beauty of it (a phrase I heard at a recent presentation) is that even if only 15 percent of the cars are equipped to be operated remotely the result is that the entire flow of traffic is slowed.

 

Gotta be a lot of horn honking there, I'm thinking.

 

By the way, the pylon control thing is currently being pilot tested in 9 US cities. It's coming.

 

BLACK BOX - because it is SOOO HARD to SEE potholes if you are a road worker I guess. Again, more pointless overly expensive and the tax payers end up with the bill

 

To see them you have to first drive all around looking, and that's expensive.

 

This is simply using public vehicles to report potholes without the driver having to do anything. There are many more OnStar equipped vehicles than there are DOT maintenance crews, so it's a very fast and accurate way to find the potholes very soon after the rain event that creates them.

 

BRING ON THE MACHINE STATE! So we can get even lazier

 

Well, I'm not for that, but I do understand the tradeoffs.

 

There's more and more computer control in vehicles because there's more and more governmental mandates for fleet fuel efficiency and low emissions.

 

The only basic things you can do to make a car get more mileage is (a) make it lighter. (b) downsize the engine (and performance) and © improve the transmission. With unibody construction and automatic transmissions now nearly as efficient as manual transmissions, the only variable remaining is the driver, and that's outside the control of the manufacturer.

 

Sooo... they added a bunch of sensors and the computer continually fine tunes everything as the parts age, including the throttle control. This gives a long period of stability where the car is just plug and play until the computer no longer has enough room in the adjustments to make it run right and keep the emissions down.

 

Unfortunately, the throttle is one of the things it needs to control.

 

But this thread is about music.

 

So yes, you could write a computer program to make everything heard in the mix. It's not even all that complicated, and it can be an expert system in the sense that it learns from the operator(s). The computer would have to listen and compare what it's sending out vs what the room is hearing, and that first step is already quite common in automatic real time analyzers and studio room "treatment" plugs.

 

The second level would be to EQ the various instruments into "appropriate" tonal ranges for the genre of music played, then examine the masking between instruments and tweak the EQ on tracks that are too similar tonally so that both can be heard.

 

Finally, the computer would have to know which instrument or voice was currently being featured, so that it could adjust the level on that channel a bit higher.

 

That's a very simple explanation, but it's what we do as live sound people.

 

For instance, running a live show one of many decisions I must make is whether to have a "punctuated bass" on the bottom or a "melodic kick." Generally in country music (for instance) you have the former. This decision simply means whether you have the bass primary with the kick adding punch to it, or the kick primary and the bass adding tonality to it. It's a subtle thing, but it's one of the decisions you make as a sound guy.

 

It's really not much more complicated than a computer controlling an internal combustion engine - at least until the politics get involved. Then it's waaay more complicated.

 

Terry D.

[wwwjd]

The best example of how technology's false gifts backfire:

Now we carry around little pocket calendars to keep our schedules strait, but maybe if we DIDN'T we wouldn't have such overbloated scheduled stress filled lives. eh?

 

"We believe when you create a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man." - Star Trek

"and it all happened so slowly that most men failed to realize that anything had happened at all." - THX-1138

 

People STILL want there fingers to do the creating. Well... MANY music people do. I want to touch keys, faders, EQs, create chords and lyrics off the top of my head. Why not let the computer make the music too? Why not? Well, >I

 

I enjoy the mixing and MANUAL EQing of it as much as creating the song itself. Please don't take away one of the things I'm really good at.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Yeah, that's why I described it as 'mix-eq' instead of 'master-eq' But surely it could help... Maybe technology that could explain why instruments are clashing and 'slushing' together in an unpleasant way - maybe taking into account the actual instrument... Like... you run the vox and guitar through it and the program suggests a cut at 3khz.

 

You can certainly use RTA's and programs like Har-Bal to tell you where that unpleasant resonant peak at 3.4 kHz is happening, or where you have massive dips or buildups (and then use that information to help you dial in your EQs manually), but IMO, those are just tools to help your ears along. The ear, and artistic judgment, still trumps all, and as Lee said, I don't want the program making those decisions for me. Advise me - fine. But the final decision is mine to make... at least that's what I prefer - YMMV.

[I was The Funk]

You seem to be talking about a plug in that does......

 

 

everything that a mix engineer is supposed to do.

 

 

Thats the skill of it. You have a build up of frequencies in the upper mids....do you cut the guitar or the rhodes? what if you pan them? what it you change the balance? when the vocal comes in how does that change it? OR you could side chain a compressor on one to the other? so that the Rhodes volume goes down when the guitar plays.....

 

All of these are techniques to deal with a single problem...overlapping frequencies. But no one plug in could have the artistic effect of any of the above. This is the skill that we are all trying to practice. There are no shortcuts.

[WRGKMC]

 

Har-Bal? I will admit i read one line of your post. After rereading it I realize I am the culprit of lazy message boarding and I apologize to everyone!!

 

 

Other than some false claims by those who dont own the product, Theres nothing automatic about Harbal, its simply a Frequency analizer/multipoint EQ in a single package. In stead of using two plugins, like looking at a frequency analizer while making adjustments with an EQ. The thing does a static shot of the wave file and you make adjustments with the displayed analizer line to shape the frequency. Harbal is a stand alone mastering program and not a plugin so it wont work well in this case anyway.

 

 

About the only plugin I know that comes close to doing anything automatic is Waves Multiband Phase Limiter. It samples the maximum peaks of the set frequency bands and you set those after playing the song through. Still its a mastering plug, and really not designed for solo instruments.

[LordBTY]

Izotope3 has a matching EQ feature that matches a tracks EQ to another.

 

It would only really replace sound guys if it were to work well and you could do a similar thing with compressors....

 

And if they could tell the program to be creative with various effects (which is just too far off technologically.)

 

If such a thing were to work, it would only make the job of a soundman easier

[UstadKhanAli]

So much of the mixing is what the person does with the huge amount of choices available, those aesthetic decisions that make someone great...well, great!

 

So maybe you can program software to find the nodes between several tracks and have it dial it down, but that'd be kinda it, wouldn't it? I mean, tracks frequently sound different from song to song, studio to studio, etc., so I don't know what else you could do EQ-wise to automatically EQ for a mix.

 

When i use plugins, I will sometimes create some general templates as *starting points* for particular things, such as "electric guitar - starting point" or whatever. For example, with electric guitars, I may use a high-pass filter and eliminate everything below 100Hz, so I'll have that in my template along with some sort of roll-off at the high-end to minimize "fizz". Sometimes, I'll have a particular EQ that I will label "electric gtr - no fizz" or something like that which gets me to a starting point, as I record a fair amount of people who are beginners and come in with really crappy solid-state amps and lots of distortion. But these are starting points, and obviously, there's nothing "automatic" about this at all. I'm just saving mouse movements/clicks.

[Phil O'Keefe]

It's dangerous for sure. Note the recent rash of Toyota "stuck throttle" incidents. Those are drive by wire cars and the accelerator pedal is nothing but a sensor so the computer can know your foot position. Pulling up on the pedal with the side of your shoe at that point doesn't give the same fix as it did with old cars.

 

Not to get too far OT, but if I had a runaway car I'd

 

1. Toss car into neutral

2. Apply brakes.

 

 

If that failed, I'd kill the ignition... which locks the steering on many cars, but as soon as it's dead, you can unlock it...

[WRGKMC]

 

Izotope3 has a matching EQ feature that matches a tracks EQ to another. It would only really replace sound guys if it were to work well and you could do a similar thing with compressors.... And if they could tell the program to be creative with various effects (which is just too far off technologically.) If such a thing were to work, it would only make the job of a soundman easier

 

 

? I have Ozone 3 & 4 and never found this in the program so its news to me.

 

I dont know how well matching say a track of a Les paul playing through a marshal playing say metal - to a Tele playing through a Fender amp playing jazz would sound. I think theres way too much wishful thinking here and a really big lack of understanding of what sound is and what computers can do to influence that sound.

 

Computers are only as smart as the person writing programs for it and in the case of audio programs, most are still fairly primative as are the instruments you record.

 

The whole thought of making tracks of one instrument sound like another isnt going to happen for hundreds of reasons. Take the exact same setup and settings and use different players and you have different sounds with different playing techniques.

 

It would be a big seller though. Just have a plugin that has buttons that say Billy Gibbons, Jimmi Page, jimi Hendrix etc. Have all the modeling of hardware they used in a chain. Then sell it to kids so they can think that magic button will make them play like those musicians. You can even have live and studio buttons.

 

Again its just wishfull thinking by musicians who havent masterd their instruments no less mastered any kind of recording abilities. They all just want it now. When they find out that recording is very technical and requires practice, talent and study, then they start looking for shortcuts. Recording is an art like music. Its done best by those who have that true talent. You can't steal copy or clone that talent, the best you can do is develop your own.

 

First thing you learn when you get into recording, you realise a recording is a mirror of ones self. If you dont like what you see in the reflection, you have only two choices. Put makeup on the mirror or work on creating a better image.

 

If you tone sucks its because you got suckey tone. You can blame it on the micing and equipment all you want. doing that is like saying the mirror image is bad because its lying to me. Sure the lighting can be off like a mic can be misplaced and not reveal everything. If the sound is poor to begin with though, it will only make the poor sound worse because the faults will be even more detailed.

 

When you record a band and someone sucks what do you do? You mask them and highlight the better performers in most cases. Its like seeing someone in the dark or daylight. Some look better in the daylight and others are better off being night people because that are just butt ugly.

 

Best thing anyone can do whose having tone issues is find a mentor that has better ears and more years to point out why your tone sucks. Then you wont need a magic button to fix anything.

[LordBTY]

 

? I have Ozone 3 & 4 and never found this in the program so its news to me. .

 

 

http://www.mxmethod.com/SpectralEQ/

 

But this thread isn't about making one track sound like another.

 

You can't really emulate the sound with EQ, but you could potentially tell a sound to recognize harmonic patterns and thus use a harmonic exciter.

 

Then it would just be a matter of micodynamics and the proper player.

[WRGKMC]

 

http://www.mxmethod.com/SpectralEQ/ But this thread isn't about making one track sound like another. You can't really emulate the sound with EQ, but you could potentially tell a sound to recognize harmonic patterns and thus use a harmonic exciter. Then it would just be a matter of micodynamics and the proper player.

 

 

 

This thread began with someone wanting a program to automatically mix or eq. In order to do that then you would need a target. What target would you use besides copying another ideal responce curve? Thus my comments do expand upon the whole subject dead on, and points out how rediculous it actually is.

 

As for using a harmonic exciter to mimic parts, I think you should read up more on what a harmonic exciter does. You'll find most audio techs dont use them at all, and mastering techs will flatly tell you, not to use any exciter if you plan on mastering the material.

 

The digital high frequency is unnatureal and it cause all kinds of problems using high quality mastering tools that are used bring out the "real" shine and ambiance a mix contains. As far as using it to make a single part sound simular to another, or what ever, its not even in a mix toolbox list for most. Its usually used in mastering for adding high frequency ambiance as an effect by those who couldnt get that "real" ambiance tracking and mixing. In other words, its a band aid for those who dont know how to properly track/mix.

 

Its not something usually used on individual tracks either, and I have no idea why anyone would use it there. I can attest I've tried the BBE maximiser as an exciter years back when it first came out to see what it could do, but it was pretty much a fail and made quality mastering sound unnatureal. Live and learn.

 

Lastly I have I dont know what you mean by Micodynamics. Its either a miss spelling or maybe you meant Micro Dynamics? Even then it doesnt make

sence as stated unless I'm missing something there.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Lastly I have I dont know what you mean by Micodynamics. Its either a miss spelling or maybe you meant Micro Dynamics? Even then it doesnt make sence as stated unless I'm missing something there.

 

 

From the context of what he's saying, I'd guess that he means "dynamics" but is indicating that he feels they would not require as much "taming" of the dynamics because his automatic EQ device has eliminated or lessened obtrusive nodes with its amazing shape-shifting EQ. Bear in mind, this is only a guess.

 

However, I don't understand his use of "harmonic exciter", as this makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

I used to own a BBE Sonic Maximizer and absolutely loved it....BUT I was using it very abnormally to add an odd sheen to things that were multi-tracked several times, such as backing vocals or certain ambient legato keyboard sounds. For "fixing" things, its intended use, I didn't really care for it all that much.