Jump to content

"Pro Recordings" is there not really as much high as you think?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Listening to everything from Porcupine Tree, to 311 on my KRK V4s (and various decent hi-fi speakers), it seems like compared to my recordings, there is a ton more mid/high mid, and not really all that much high end in the final product of pro stuff. It seems like everything over say 15.5K isn't really there on pro stuff. I tried putting a low pass? filter at 15.5, then boosting around 11.5K and a little bit at 3.2K and everything sounded a little more up front and not as "small" sounding in my recordings. Now is this the way things are recorded/miced/preamped, or tweeked/eq'd/compressed, or is this more a mastering sort of thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

FWIW, I know for a fact that I can't hear anything over 16K. my ability to hear starts dropping off around 12k.

 

If it isn't in the mix, I'm not missing it.

 

A fun experiment: take a pretty dense mix, and high/lowpass each track as extremely as possible without being able to hear it audibly.

 

Just something to try one time for fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really depends on the material. You can look at an RTA of two different "pro" mixes, and see completely different frequencies represented, yet both are "good". For example, I did a jazz recording recently, and if you were looking for a flat plot on the RTA, you'll be disappointed. Fortunately, music is handled by the ears and not the eyes, so who cares what the plot says as long as it sounds appropriate. :idea::)

 

An acoustic guitar / vocal song is not going to have the same amount of bass in the mix as a full band recording, or a trance track. The high frequencies of a particular mix are also subject to the content of the mix. If it's a bass and cello duet, then chances are it's not going to have as much HF content in the mix as a recording of a percussion and cymbal ensemble. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I feel like when listening to pro mixes especially on my monitors, that there is a ton more "large" sounding mid, and a smoother more rolled off high. When I go back to MY mixes, it sounds like there is a huge hole in the mix, and too much high, not enough low, and that everything is "too far back" in the mix, professional stuff can even if it seems drenched in reverb remain very forward. I just don't get it. ha

 

Heres a link to a semi recent, song/idea thing. I mean I'm not trying to pimp my stuff, but is this what all "home studios" sound like? Is it cheap mics/equipment, a bad room, or if a "pro" was in my basment studio, would it sound 30000x better?

 

http://c_corie.tripod.com/id1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I feel like when listening to pro mixes especially on my monitors, that there is a ton more "large" sounding mid, and a smoother more rolled off high. When I go back to MY mixes, it sounds like there is a huge hole in the mix, and too much high, not enough low, and that everything is "too far back" in the mix, professional stuff can even if it seems drenched in reverb remain very forward. I just don't get it. ha


Heres a link to a semi recent, song/idea thing. I mean I'm not trying to pimp my stuff, but is this what all "home studios" sound like? Is it cheap mics/equipment, a bad room, or if a "pro" was in my basment studio, would it sound 30000x better?


 

 

A skilled sound engineer could take that and make it better but in their own studio they would also start with much better recorded tracks.

 

One trick that your mix appears to be missing is doubled or heavily compressed tracks for fullness and punch without adding reverb. Have a few copies of the same guitar track to thicken it up. I like the snare sound for that style but it's much louder than the rest of the kit and a bit too loud overall. Get the fullness and then add the reverb and/or delay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I feel like when listening to pro mixes especially on my monitors, that there is a ton more "large" sounding mid, and a smoother more rolled off high. When I go back to MY mixes, it sounds like there is a huge hole in the mix, and too much high, not enough low, and that everything is "too far back" in the mix, professional stuff can even if it seems drenched in reverb remain very forward. I just don't get it. ha


Heres a link to a semi recent, song/idea thing. I mean I'm not trying to pimp my stuff, but is this what all "home studios" sound like? Is it cheap mics/equipment, a bad room, or if a "pro" was in my basment studio, would it sound 30000x better?


 

 

Home studios range all the way from recording setups consisting of a tin can and a string to giant analog reel-to-reel or Pro Tools HD setups with separate acoustically tuned rooms and that kind of thing, so no, that's not what all home studios sound like.

 

Many home studios, of course, do not have acoustically treated rooms, cheap mics/preamps/converters, and that kind of thing. But even under adverse conditions, a pro engineer would be able to squeeze a lot more from the equipment and know how to track and mix properly, and have a strong knowledge of acoustics.

 

And, not to be overly pedantic, but so much of it has to do with the players as well. If you have an amazing bass player or drummer, for instance, you can almost stick any mic in front of them and they're gonna sound...well, amazing. So the player has so much to do with it. And obviously, they're most likely going to be playing great sounding instruments as well.

 

To get pro sounding mixes, it helps to learn a lot of things, like getting fantastic players to play on fantastic instruments with a fantastic arrangement and learning a lot of mic techniques for proper tracking, thinking about the mix as you go, and using a lot of great mixing techniques to enhance the song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

everything is "too far back" in the mix, professional stuff can even if it seems drenched in reverb remain very forward. I just don't get it. ha

 

Maybe I can help here. A lot of people, when they start out mixing, want to impart a large space with their vocals or whatever, so they drench the vocals in reverb. This also occurs when people are mixing their own vocals and are insecure about it.

 

But if you wish for your vocals to be in a large cavernous spot but you don't want it to be too far back, a couple of things you can do is screw with the pre-delay of the reverb, increasing it so that the onset of the reverb does not interfere with the actual vocal itself. That will clear some space for the vocal to be present and not "cloudy" or "murky" sounding. The other thing you can do is use a delay to impart a large space. Often, you can back off on the reverb after doing this. It's a great way of getting something to sound like it's in a large space or to impart that feeling without drenching something in reverb. This obviously also allows the reverb to be up front.

 

I don't know if this will help, but I also like to roll off everything under 100Hz (or more - gotta use them ears!! :D ) on most vocal reverbs to help free up some of the bottom end gunk.

 

And obviously, if you use a nice mic/mic preamp combination and use a good vocalist with good vocal/mic technique, that helps as well. It'll sound nice and full without having to use much compression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is an over-simplistic way of looking at things, but as someone who's still learning the art or recording/mixing, I had a thought when I read the opening post.

 

Professional recordings tend to have very good tones in the sense that all the parts fit together to make a balanced mix. They're well recorded in good rooms and have a good sense of "Space" and "depth", often even before the mixing stage.

 

I don't know about anyone else here, but when I was starting out I thought you could make things clearer by jacking up the high end. So I'd have my badly recorded mid-scooped/ unbalanced tones that sounded muddy, then I'd try to make it clearer by turning up the treble so it sounded brighter, because that seemed to make sense.

 

I'm not saying you have unbalanced horrible recordings, but does that make sense? When there are good rich tones that leave space for each other, the clarity is all the way through the mix even without boosting the treble on any given parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Heres a link to a semi recent, song/idea thing. I mean I'm not trying to pimp my stuff, but is this what all "home studios" sound like? Is it cheap mics/equipment, a bad room, or if a "pro" was in my basment studio, would it sound 30000x better?

 

http://c_corie.tripod.com/id1.html

 

 

Hmmm, to be a bit bold.... You don't have to be a pro to hear that the snare is too loud, not wel balanced in the mix (to my ears of course..:lol:).

Even you can't catch a pro sound, you can make a balanced mix is my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

MOST pop recordings I RTA for comparisons have this slanty roll off starting around 5 or 6k. everything sounds fine - and a strait line would be white noise! :D The have the proper sounds, tone, and compressed fill to sound natural

 

seeing about that "Standard slope", and knowing what we like listening too, it's always funny to me to hear people argue about high end sound and sample rates of 96k 192 and up etc.... we're gonna roll any of that off anyway :) [you know what I mean]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I believe this is because of the dynamic range of MP3's which are limited just over 15k . Its ironic that they mix and master with such a crappy format in mind.

 

 

For the sake of clarification, dynamic range has nothing to do with frequency response. Also, I've come across plenty of MP3s that have plenty of frequency information above 15kHz. And while I agree with you that MP3s are not the greatest format, the industry was doing this before when we were mixing and mastering for cassettes, so in that regard, not so much has changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I dont doubt there may be mp3 that reach higher K, however Ive yet to hear or see one. I have 4 different programs that convert wave to mp3 and they all chop off everything above 16k during conversion. Sad to say but a good quality cassete sounds better to me than most mp3s(at least until the tape gets stretched and begins losing particles). The conversion process is like running a rake over a pile of leaves. I totally agree with the 96k comment. Yes I shouldve said frequency response and not dynamic range (let this be a lesson not to post before suitable intake of caffeine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It has alot to do with the quality of the sounds going in, too....timbre, tonal quality. I'd realized that in the past, it's hard to add something that's not there. I know that on alot of my favorite recordings, the kick drum and bass guitar were often played well to mirror each others' sounds, just as higher frequency content was matched well with other higher frequency content (percussion played well with other percussion, vpcalists singing well with each other, etc.). I'd noticed that acoustic guitar parts were tracked over regular electric guitar parts too, giving them a higher frequency attack, though they're the same notes, same melodic content.

 

In alot of cases, it's harmonic overtones and percussive compatibility....smaller sounds working together amidst the bigger ones, creating bigger sounds, bigger frequencies; higher highs, lower lows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...