Making the Mix Shine tipical "POP HITS"

[weeman]

Hi guys here's going to be an opinion based question for you all. How do you make your mix/master's shine like modern Pop hits. By shine i mean very bright sounding mix's. Recently ive been achieving very 90's mix's but more recently ive been working on pop projects and so i find my self not geting the mix or master too shine. If you believe this is a input based answer such as using hi-end pre-amps to record every signal explain why. If you believe this is EQ placed before the master limiter explain why/how. Feel free to talk too each other and talk out ideas and theorys. Thanks for any and all replies and for my poor english skills i do appologize. This isnt a exemplified question but one that should be answerable with experience.

[wwwjd]

- let a PRO "Master" the finished product

- lots of MULTIBAND compression

- EQ

- stereo enhancer [widener]

- an "exciter" that coagulates the harmonics

 

- Use popular CDs [not iTunes] as a reference to compare quality and mix tone

[kylen]

 

as a reference to compare quality and mix tone

 

Would any old exciter do or is there a specific you have in mind. Which commercial recordings that you know of use exciters that you recommend for reference?

Thx, Kyle

[weeman]

good comments from both lets wait for a wider opinion

[wwwjd]

 

Would any old excier do or is there a specific you have in mind. Which commercial recordings that you know of use exciters that you recommend for reference? Thx, Kyle

 

 

Aphex Aural Exciter is an industry standard, as well as the BBE unit - both obtainable to the common man pretty cheaply nowdays. BUT WARNING: They are VERY EASY to overdo quickly. keep listening to other reference material to stay on the playing field. Best example I can give you is John Meyer vocals - his vocs always drip with exciter.... it's ads that kind of hissy "air" minus siblence you hear in his voice. I think you will recognize the effect. Most recorded vocals use an exciter - at least all that I've heard.

I been messing with software VST exciters and they do okay also sometimes. The key is to just add a tiny bit of sparkle.... any more than that and it sounds like poorly EQ'd amature garage band

 

here's a video about the Aphex

 

ok that video doesnt cover much of the exciter, but oh well

I own a 204 and love it. It does not have a compressor on it, but does exciter and big bottom bass

[kylen]

Best example I can give you is John Meyer vocals - his vocs always drip with exciter.... it's ads that kind of hissy "air" minus siblence you hear in his voice. I think you will recognize the effect. Most recorded vocals use an exciter - at least all that I've heard.

 

OK - I see what you're saying. Maybe put an exciter on a track or 2 in the mix, not across the mix buss. Good idea to try. Speaking of VST I recently picked up the Voxengo VariSaturator as well as the PSP MixPack2 update with the sparkling MixTreble and MixSaturator.

http://www.voxengo.com/product/varisaturator/

http://www.pspaudioware.com/plugins/mix2.html

 

Unfortunately living in hotel rooms it's hard to hear what they fully sound like yet so I might book some time in a local studio to hear them.

[wwwjd]

OK - I see what you're saying. Maybe put an exciter on a track or 2 in the mix, not across the mix buss. Good idea to try. Speaking of VST I recently picked up the Voxengo VariSaturator as well as the PSP MixPack2 update with the sparkling MixTreble and MixSaturator. http://www.voxengo.com/product/varisaturator/ http://www.pspaudioware.com/plugins/mix2.html Unfortunately living in hotel rooms it's hard to hear what they fully sound like yet so I might book some time in a local studio to hear them.

 

Yeah, those two should work. If it sounds good, roll with it. You can excite individual tracks, but if you have a very poor finished recording, you can liven it up a little with an Exciter. I'd reach for a multiband compressor to fix it instead of an exciter though

[Dean Roddey]

It's pretty easy to create a nice sounding vocal exciter effect by hand really.

[UstadKhanAli]

Hand, mouth, or other body parts...whatever works to get the vocal exciter effect is all good.

[wwwjd]

before Exciter, I would recommend a decent MULTIBAND COMPRESSOR first. With that, you can "fix" levels, and sometimes even EQ issues - say if you have too much mud in the low or too little high end [shine], it can REEL those back in to where they work better. To experiment, try the free vsts: Broadcast, and Stardust. Also Izotope's Ozone 3 is great and they have a demo product you can try.

http://www.jeroenbreebaart.com/audio_vst.htm - Broadcast

http://www.aodix.com/pagestardust.html - Stardust

http://izotope.com/products/audio/ozone/ - Ozone

[Lee Knight]

High end without the harshness. How do you do it?

 

One thing I've noticed in my own work. If I am attempting to get a nice sheen on things and boost the highs on the OHs for instance. And maybe the lead vocal. Then come mastering the overall mix needs a high end kick... I'm doomed. The cymbals will be like knives and the vocal like fine grit sandpaper.

 

so the key for me is to make sure the overall high end is balanced... and enough. One way I've been experimenting with is to use a high quality EQ on the master buss. A gentle tilt with a shelf starting at 6k keeps me honest.

 

No more spikes later on down the line. If something needs more high end, so be it. But no more shooting in the dark. At least that's the way I've been thinking lately...

[Dean Roddey]

The best answer of all is, mix it the way it should sound to begin with, instead of trying to fix it in the mastering stage. Try to make sure the shimmer is there in those instruments that are actual contributing to those airy frequences.

 

If you examine a lot of commercial mixes in a frequency analyzer, they often aren't really all that toppy. But there are one or two things that live up in that area that provide that high end. It might be an ongoing ride cymbal, and in some types of music a constant barrage of crashes and splashes. Or an accoustic guitar high passed up really high. Or a synth or organ part that's high passed up really high.

 

Instead of trying to push up everything with a high shelf, it just seems to me it's better to build that shimmer in with just those instruments that need it, so that you do end up with the right balance. You can still use an exciter or smoething in the end, though perhaps that's best done on a per-instrument basis as well, only where it's important, I dunno.

[Lee Knight]

If you examine a lot of commercial mixes in a frequency analyzer, they often aren't really all that toppy.

 

Really? There is so much high end on newer pop releases (that I've heard at least) that my cilia has curled up and gone on vacation.

[Dean Roddey]

Oh, maybe so. I don't listen much to new pop releases. Or, I hear them on the radio (super compressed) but don't have them on CD so I can't examine their spectra. I have mainly a collection that covers the 60s to the late 90's mostly, with a couple things that are more recent but they aren't top 100 type pop stuff.

 

So maybe things have changed, but most stuff in my collection follows pretty closely the standard 3dB down or 6dB down schemes. Some things are more aggressive, like the RHCPs or Green Day and such, but most things are pretty close to one of those tonal balances. 3dB down will be brighter and 6dB down a little more laid back.

[wwwjd]

I agree with Dean to try to bring it out in the mix... but sometimes mix engineers are afraid of adding [or subtractive] eq to brighten up individual instruments that were recorded very well to begin with. You know, it was a clean recording so why wreck it with EQ? Well, ya have to, to MIX it in.

Plus, "Mastering" consists of:

- MULTIBAND compression

- EQ

- stereo widener

- exciter

so without doing those, probably won't get that "pop shine"

 

SADLY, I always run out and buy the latest NOW 2X and other CDs to use as reference comparisons. And if you listen closely to all those masters, you notice they are not all exactly the same - thus professional mastering is not an exact science, and if I can hit it into that ballpark, I's doing just fine

 

If I didn't want to spend money, I'd be all about that BROADCAST plug in with it's compresson, enhancer, limiter. But I've been messing with Ozone and itputs my stuff EXACTLY on par with commercial stuff. So, to me that is worth the $200. I WAS about to toss $690 on Mastering, but I think I can get what I want with Ozone, save money, and use it in the future over and over

 

Actually, as an example of getting that "shine", some friends sent me a mix, and for kicks I used the "Loud" preset on Broadcast and sent it back to them. They were stunned and excited what I had done. I didn't DO anything! Just processed it with a preset and it sounded VERY pro to them. Great stuff is out there!

 

MAN I talk too much!

[nerol1st]

Post some songs that you like and I will post some pics analysing the EQ spectrum using Ozone (as long as I can get my hands on them leagally or already have them).

[wwwjd]

nerol1st, what's your review of Ozone? fun toy or must have? I messed with the demo to know I LOVE it, and will probably buy it instead of speading on mastering. I feel it "gets you there" with little effort

 

I'd love to hear more people's input on "shine". It's one of those mystery topics that people wish they knew about when they A/B their PERFECT mix to a commercial CD and it comes up lacking. Other's adventures?

[Dean Roddey]

There are various ways to go about it. There are other tools like Ozone such as T-Racks that provide kind of all in one mastering type tools. But you can do much the same stuff with separate tools as well, which you may already have.

 

A lot of times I think it's the mix, and not the mastering. One thing about really good mixes is that every instrument is in its place, not stepping on each other frequency-wise, and each instrument takes up the frequency space it needs, but not more, and has the appropriate balance of high and low end (and was recorded very well to start with.)

 

And, every instrument has the appropriate level of dynamics, sometimes that might be a good bit and sometimes very little at all or none at all, depending on the circumstance.

 

And every instrument is placed front to back appropriately. A common problem with our own mixes, and I'm definitely guilty, is that you played every part and you want every part to stand out. But you can't let every part stand out unless the mix is quite sparse. Go mixes showcase instruments when it's appropriate, sometimes phrase to phrase, so that each instrument shines when it should, but doesn't get in the way when it shouldn't.

 

And there's a smoothness about really good mixes. They are not harsh, but they aren't dull. I think that a lot of the thing that people see as 'sheen' is really that. They think it's really pushed highs, but it's more a matter of getting rid of the harsh frequencies in a way that doesn't destroy the rest of the high frequency content. For instance, probably most of use just grab the low pass filter, when in many cases, you could leave it flat all the way to the top but just notch out some specific frequencies. This would leave the air but keep it smooth.

 

A great example of this is snares. Really good mixes often manage to have a snare that is super-crisp and seems to have plenty of brightness but which are never harsh. Often you can notch out in that 3K to 7K range of a snare to de-emphasize the bite but leave that high crispness that goes the rest of the way up. It's too high to be abrasive, but it keeps that sparkle on the snare.

 

And cymbals, the bane of many mixes (mine particularly.) I keep finding that a nice cymbal sound often means low passing them down like down in the 10K range or something. They still have plenty of sparkle but aren't abrasive. The kind of smooth out. The rolloff isn't instant, so it it continues on up for a number of more K before getting completely cut off. This seems backwards since you'd think that you'd want them all the way up to the highest frequencies to keep that sparkle, but I find that makes them abrassive in a lot of cases and it sounds better to limit their high end. Others might think this is completely stoopid, I dunno. But it works for me.

 

And guitars. There's a fine line between present and abrassive. Good mixes ride that line so well. The line is so fine that it's hard to get right unless you have a really good monitoring environment I think. A wee cut in the presence range of a guitar can make all the difference between something that sounds pro level and something that sounds either dull, or nerve grating. And here again, sometimes you can not low pass them necessarily, but notch out those overly aggressive frequencies and keep the air (though sometimes that's not desirable I'm sure.)

 

Anyway, it seems to me that, if you get those types of things right in the mix, and as long as you aren't going for some kind of super-processed, extremely artificial sound, that you should have most of the sparkle and sheen you need, and the rest should be just subtle adjustments.

[Dean Roddey]

And, BTW, my 'by hand' comment above actually wasn't a sly double entendre but I was being serious. You can create an 'exciter' type effect pretty nicely using simple tools. So, for instance, for a vocal exciter:

 

1. Clone the track

2. Put a high pass on it, up pretty high. Probably around 2K to 2.5K you have to play with it.

3. Put an auto-gain compressor on it, like Ren Vox, and crank it down pretty hard so that it's very consistent in volume.

4. Perhaps put a warmer or tape sim on it to soften it up a bit

5. Now route the track to split harmonizer buss, i.e. directly route it so that there's no center channel at all, just the two harmonized sides.

6. Adjust volume to suit.

 

This creates a very nice effect. The benefits are multiple:

 

1. The harmonizer f/x buss will detune the two sides slightly and delay both sides slightly differently, so it thickens up the vocal more without thickening the deeper parts.

2. Because it's delayed slightly it doesn't interfere with the direct vocal.

3. Because it's really just the high frequencies, it really enhances comprehensibility without extra volume on the lower frequency part of the vocal

4. It widens the vocal out a lot because of the harmonizer effect, but again only the higher parts so it doesn't get messy. So you get what seems like a really nice, wide vocal part that doesn't stomp all over everyone.

5. Because it's highly compressed, the higher frequency stuff stays very under control and never calls attention to itself, while the regular performance can provide more of the dynamics.

 

You may want to roll off the highs in the original performance a little and let this excited track take over a little more. It depends.

 

I don't know if this would work for an overall mix exciter, but probably it would. It's not a multi-band type exciter, but generally you mostly would probably apply even a multi-band one in the higher ranges anyway.

[nerol1st]

I think it's a plug that needs to be tweaked to death. I loath the presets. That said I got a discount when I upgraded from lite (came with PT bundle) and I like the plug for most of it's features.

 

Anyhow I picked a few mixes to do spectrum tests from my own collection of a few commercial modern CDs (within the past 5 years):

 

Keep in mind these are the averages. I noticed 10k went up with cymbol hits as well as the main bass freq boost you see went up with kick hits. Most of the midrange stuff stayed the same though.

 

Nickelback-"Someday"

Disturbed-"Ten Thousand Fists"

Ciara-"Oh"

Beyonce-"Baby Boy"

 

These images really don't do much for helping you master as mastering didn't get it to look like this mixing did but it gives an idea to how the song ended up.

[Dean Roddey]

You really do have to be careful about taking spectra, since one big cymbal splash in the middle of an otherwise fairly non-toppy tune can completely change the spectrum relative to the overall average. Those first two go up pretty high before starting their rolloff. I would usually see them starting that back closer to like 1K'ish or something. You can turn on a 6dB down guide line in the Ozone graph so that you can see how your mix compares to that.

[nerol1st]

Oh I know. Like I said in the post cymbal and kick hits definitely peaked up places on that spectrum when hit.

 

That being said I did start them in middle of the song as I kind of wanted the song to smash into the spectrum hard then even out.

 

But yeah like I said at the end of the post these don't really do that much to help you master as mastering doesn't get a mix to that point the mix does.

[Dean Roddey]

 

Oh I know. Like I said in the post cymbal and kick hits definitely peaked up places on that spectrum when hit.

 

 

Oh, yeh, I was agreeing with you, not correcting you. It would be interesting for the other folks maybe ifyou turned on the 6dB down line and re-posted those.

[Gus Lozada]

Start with a good song and let it flow...

[GZsound]

 

It's pretty easy to create a nice sounding vocal exciter effect by hand really.

 

 

Dean.. Somehow what you wrote caused me to laugh out loud...

 

I immediately thought of my wife....

 

Sorry.. I just couldn't resist..