How To Clean Up Muddy Mixes

Cakewalk Sonar's Sonitus:fx EQ is

creating a slight cut around 300Hz and
a gentle rolloff starting at around 80Hz,
both of
which can help reduce muddiness.

STOP THAT LEAK

Leakage (signal bleed) in a multiplemic situation is a major cause of muddy sound.
Examples of leakage are the drum sound picked up by a scratch-vocal mic, or the
electricguitar sound picked up by an acoustic-guitar mic. I explained several ways to
reduce leakage in the June 2008 issue of EQ: place mics closer, overdub instruments,
record direct, gate the toms, deaden room acoustics, omit the bass amp, and impose high-
pass filters on most instruments. It also helps to position bass traps in your studio and
control room to suck up boomy low end.

BACK OFF THE EFFECTS

Too much reverb can muddy the mix. For some reason, many recordists assume a song
sounds more “produced” if it’s bathed in reverb and/or echo. But if your mix is sounding
muddy, mute or disable all effects for a moment. Does the mix suddenly become clearer?
If so, turn down the effects send levels. You might be surprised how little reverb you can
get away with. I also recommend putting no reverb on the bass and kick drum, using
shorter reverb times (especially if the song’s tempo is fast), and trying echo instead of
reverb (just be sure to reduce feedback so you get fewer repeating echoes, and adjust the
delay time so the echoes don’t mess with the groove). Another trick is adding about 50ms
to 100ms of pre-delay in your reverb unit or plug-in so that the listener hears the direct
sound of the instrument for a short time before the reverb kicks in. This can clarify the
sound by separating the reverb from the direct sound, as well as help the reverb appear
more audible so you can use less of it.

COMPENSATE FOR FLETCHER-MUNSON

As discovered by audio researchers Fletcher and Munson, we hear less lows and highs
(around 4kHz) when monitoring at low volumes rather than high volumes. For example, a
rock band might sound bright and punchy when you hear it playing live at around 110dB.
But when you record the band, and play back the track without EQ at a normal listening
level of approximately 85dB, it can sound dull or muffled. Compensate by boosting EQ
levels in the highs and/or upper mids.

CUT EXCESS LOWS

If the sound is bloated or tubby, try cutting 1dB to 2dB around 300Hz. This seems to be a
“magic frequency” where a lot of mud resides. It’s also common to cut between 400Hz and
600Hz on toms and kick drums. In addition, recording several background vocals can
result in bass buildup, so turn down the lows in massed harmonies. If the mix sounds kind
page1
of “heavy,” or too strong in the deep bass, use a high-pass filter on each track. Starting
with a low corner frequency, slowly turn up the frequency until the sound thins out, and
then back off a bit.

RESTORE HIGHS
Sometimes, a mix sounds muddy or dark because it’s weak in the high frequencies. Try
using EQs to boost the presence of instruments that lack clarity, apply an audio enhancer
(but watch for added noise), and make high-frequency boosts after you compress, as
compression tends to reduce the perceived impact of tonal tweaks.

GIVE ELEMENTS THEIR OWN SPACE

A clean mix is uncluttered—meaning that too many parts are not playing at once. Arrange
the music so that similar parts don’t overlap. Mix selectively so that not too many
instruments are heard at the same time. For example, you might bring in vocal harmonies
only during the choruses, or have guitar licks fill in the holes between vocal phrases, rather
than playing on top of the vocals (think “call and response”).
In a clear-sounding mix, instruments do not “crowd” or mask each other’s sound. They are
separate and distinct. Clarity arises when instruments occupy different areas of the
frequency spectrum. For example, the bass provides lows, keyboards emphasize mid-
bass, lead guitar punches out upper mids, and cymbals fill in highs. Often, the rhythm
guitar occupies the same frequency range as the piano, so they tend to mask each other’s
sound. You can aid clarity by equalizing them differently. Boost the guitar at, say, 3kHz,
but cut the piano at that frequency. In other words, use complementary EQ. If the bass and
kick drum blur together, thin out the kick and add lows to the bass, or vice versa. Use a
high-pass filter or turn down the lows on some tracks— especially guitars—to leave room
for the bass guitar and kick drum. The guitars might sound thin when soloed, but the
overall mix should sound balanced. It also helps to pan similarsounding instruments to
opposite sides. For example, the rhythm guitar and keyboards might cover the same
frequency range, but you can make them more distinct by panning the guitar hard left, and
the keys hard right.

page2
 The Fastest Way To Clean Up Your Mix
Many times when recording you feel that
each track sounds great at first, yet once
all the pieces are in place (drums, bass,
guitars, vocals, keys) the mix becomes
“muddy”, is lacking clarity and just overall
doesn’t have the vibe you were hoping for. If
you’ve run into this problem, you’re not alone.
Mixing music is a complex task due to the
even more complex nature of frequencies,
harmonics, and how they interact with those of
other instruments. And while great mixes don’t
come from simply reading one post online,
there is one tip I can share that will help clean up your mixes faster than any other I know.

Use Your High Pass Filter

Simply put, use a high pass filter like a mad man! For those unfamiliar with the high pass
filter, it is a one band EQ curve that cuts out low frequencies while letting the high
frequencies pass through unaffected (hence the name). Any basic EQ plugin will allow you
to implement a high pass filter. The idea here is that many instruments like guitars,
keys, and vocals have musical “information” in the low to mid-low frequencies that
if taken out (via a high pass filter), the human ear doesn’t really miss. In fact, in the
context of a whole mix where the bass guitar and kick drum are holding down the low end,
the listener won’t even notice that you’ve cut out anything at all.

How This Works Practically

What does this mean for you and your music? When you’re starting to mix, make it a habit
to fire open a simple high pass filter on most tracks (pretty much anything other than bass
and kick drum), roll off up to anywhere from 100 hz to 350 hz (just listen to it and make
sure the track isn’t getting too thin), and within seconds you will start to notice a lot more
clarity in your mix. You’re basically taking away a ton of volume of tracks on
frequencies that we don’t need to hear, thus “opening” up your mix and letting tracks
play nicely together.

Cut It On The Way In

Another way to speed up this process (as fast as it is already) is to cut out much of the low
frequencies while recording. To do this you’ll have to have a microphone or mic preamp
that features a “bass rolloff” switch (sometimes called a low cut). This is a great move for
us home recording guys as the rumble of air conditioners, the frig, as well as outside traffic
can creep into your recordings just building up unnecessary low end that steals the
headroom from your mix.
So do yourself a favor, cut the lows on the way in when possible and definitely use your
high pass filter as a first stop in mixing EQ. It truly is the fastest way to clean up your mix
and one of the simplest tricks to implement. So what are you waiting for? Get to it!

page3
 How to get impact and loudness in production and mixing

In order of importance:

1. The Arrangement
With a real life band playing in front of you, the more instruments you add to the band, the louder
the music will be. That's because real life doesn't have an upper limit for volume. So more is more.
In your sequencer less is more. The more different parts you play simultaneously in your song, the
less headroom you have left before the master bus overloads.
This means you have to lower your master level each time you add another instrument that plays
at the same time as other instruments.

Think of a musical arrangement as a conversation between instruments, not as an argument where

they speak all at once.

Short answer: use as few (simultaneous) instruments as possible to achieve your goal.

2. Choice of Sounds/Recording Quality

Some types of sounds have more natural impact than others. This is a combination of several
factors such as frequency balance, amount of attack and decay, phase relations, harmonics,
distortion, natural compression, etc.

Fix any problems by going to the source. If you have a synth that's too bright or has too much
resonance, then fix it in the synthesizer by adjusting the filter, resonance or velocity. Don't
postpone it to the mix if you have a choice.

You can't polish a turd. "But you can rub it it glitter", I hear you say. However, most of the time
you're better off by spending a little extra time on finding the right sample or synth or improving
your recording by adjusting microphones, preamps, recording position or the acoustics.

Short answer: spend 3/4 of your time finding or recording the right sound for the part, and 1/4 of
your time on mixing it - not the other way around.

3. The Mix
Achieving a mix with lots of impact is a combination of addressing some very real issues such as
relative level balancing, frequency contents and dynamic control. But it's also a question of
"fooling" the way our ears or brain interpret sound, i.e. psychoacoustics.

A good non-abstract painting has a focus point, and so should your mix. Just like the viewer's eyes
wander to particular areas of a painting, so should the ears focus on what's important in a mix.
Make sure you prioritize in your mix, and you will have less clutter. This will help you achieve more
impact, too.

This is not a mixing guide and some of these points may seem very obvious, but here goes:
Use the equalizer to remove unnecessary frequency content that eat up headroom, e.g. sub
frequencies. Correct each sound until it sounds good - but the most important thing is how it
sounds in the mix as a whole
page4
The reason being that as sounds interact, the phase relations change. That's why you can't mix
instruments in solo and then add the tracks one by one. Pay attention to the phase relations and
experiment with switching polarity of layered instruments. Experiment with nudging the timing of
tracks in ms or samples to get the best phase relation. This could provide some extra headroom
and punch at the same time.

You can use a compressor both in order to shape the sound (add or remove punch) and to make
the signal more steady in level. You can have several compressors in serial or parallel, each
having its own specific purpose. Parallel compression is a separate subject which you can look up
in Google or you can use the search function on this board.

Use a brickwall limiter or even a clipper to control transients (very short and loud peaks) but be
careful not to eat up all the punch. Use the limiter at the last stage of your insert chain on each
channel or subgroup. Not all tracks need a limiter though.

Compress or limit groups of tracks on a bus such as drums, guitars, keys, backing vocals, pads,
etc. Output/route (don't send) tracks to a bus and sum process. This can make groups of
instruments gel and it helps maintain headroom and increases the loudness potential.

Use external sidechain compression to automatically duck the bass when the kick is playing. When
used in a subtle fashion it can be almost inaudible but it will save a few dB of headroom in the mix.
When used excessively it can be used as a pumping effect as heard in dance music. The trick is
useful for many types of music including pop, R&B, rock, and electronic music. Check out this link:
Compressor sidechaining for dance music

Use external sidechain compression to automatically duck the delay effect when the source sound
is playing. The concept is similar to the above trick but the compressor is inserted on the delay
bus, after the delay effect. The external sidechain is keyed to the source track, e.g. the vocal. More
clarity and less clutter increases the potential of the mix in many areas.

Adjust the pre-delay in your reverbs. A pre-delay that is too fast can obfuscate the sound. Too
long, and it can sound messy. Getting the pre-delay right means more punch in the original sound,
and as a bonus you can use less reverb. Both result in a more clear mix and more potential
loudness.

4. Mastering
Real impact and loudness is achieved in the above three points. Good mastering enhances that
but it's rarely possible to create a lot of impact during mastering if it was not there to begin with.

Mastering is a separate subject which I'm not going to discuss in details here. I've written a
Mixdown for Mastering PDF which can be downloaded here: Mastering FAQ | Download Mixing
Tips PDF. Red Book, ISRC

I've also written this: Guide to Levels in Digital Audio that deals with the more technical side of
things

page5
 How To Clean Up Muddy Mixes

This week we are going to talk about muddy mixes.

You may have heard the term used several times before, but really did not know what it
meant and were afraid to ask. So let's take a closer look at how to clean up muddy mixes.
In this article we are going to cover the following topics;

 WHAT DOES A MUDDY MIX REALLY MEAN?

 SOME COMMON AREAS OF A MUDDY MIX?
 WHAT CAUSES A MUDDY MIX?
 TOOLS TO USE TO GET RID OF MUD

John and Larry Make Some Music...

John: Hey Larry....how's the track we recorded last night coming along?

Larry: Not too bad. I just finished mixing it. Do you wanna take a listen?

John: You bet!

Larry: Okay, let me just start the track, there you go.

John: Wow. Larry it sounds kinda muddy to me.

Larry: Yeah I need to get some better plugins or maybe a better DAW. Hey I saw the
GOODMIX 3000 down at the music shop. I read that it has the best sound engine on a
page6
producer's forum. This should give our track that crisp professional sound and get rid of
the muddiness.

John: Alright! Let's go get it!

So John and Larry are headed to the store and have decided to throw some plugins at the
problem.
Is this the right answer? Let's find out...

WHAT DOES A MUDDY MIX MEAN?

In the world of audio we like to use very descriptive words to describe the sounds that we
hear. It is really hard to keep track of all the terms that are out there. This is because
engineers not only use the standard terms, but also incorporate a lot of slang terms as
well. These audio terms can differ depending upon what area of the world you live in or
even down to the studio that you work in. I once worked in a studio that used a derogatory
term for a former client to describe an audio sound. Outside of that studio I don't think
anybody would know what that term meant as it relates to audio.
In this case the term “muddy” is a pretty standard term that is used to describe a mix, but
what does it really mean? Well “muddy” is universally meant to describe the way a mix
sounds when it is not clean or clear sounding. The mix usually contains weak harmonics,
smeared time response and/or inter-modulation distortion to some degree by definition.
Most often a muddy mix is due to sonic crowding. This happens when too many
instruments are fighting for the same real estate in the mix. Simply there is just too much
going on there (from a frequency standpoint) and the mix lacks clarity. Some use the term
“boxy” when describing what I would describe as mud. I think this term is slightly different
in my option, but very close. Either way it is describing a muffled, clutter sound or sounds
in the mix.
COMMON AREAS O A MUDDY MIX
I suppose mud could happen anywhere within a mix but most commonly when someone is
describing mud in the mix they are usually talking about the lower end of the frequency
scale. Lows and mid-lows more specifically speaking. This would be the 200 Hz to 600 Hz
area (boxiness in also found in this area but can extend to the 900 Hz range).

WHAT CAUSES A MUDDY MIX?

So what are some causes for your mix coming out muddy? Well the short answer is pretty
much everything that is entered into the mix could be responsible for adding to your
muddiness problem. This is because the mud is due to a build up so anything that you add
to your mix could theoretically speaking be part of the overall issue of muddiness.
A good starting point to look for mud would be at the microphone and preamp. The
microphone used, the placement of that microphone and the microphone techniques used
can all play a part in the muddiness that you may find in your mix later on at the mix stage.
With mics a lot of the time muddiness is due to signal bleed due to recording from mics
that are too close together or recording in a room without bass traps to capture some of
that evil low end. It is really a good idea to start thinking about muddiness at the recording
stage and be aware of all the things that can cause it during the recording stage.
If you are smart about the mics that you choose and the placement of those microphones
then you will have less issues with muddiness. Remember that muddiness is caused by
crowding. If you are recording everything the same or similar in sound then you run the
risk of possible muddiness. It is also important to keep preamp artifacts in mind when
thinking about causes of mud. Your favorite preamp and microphone combo might make
you sound great but that extra character may add some unwanted muddiness.
page7
Next take a look at any instruments that can be found in the 200 Hz to 600 Hz range. This
can be a kick, snare, bass, a guitar, a vocal, a saxophone, etc., etc. The list of possible
instruments that can be in this range is practically endless. It really depends on what
instruments you have in your song. It is important to note that you should not just assume
that the mud is being caused by a bass instrument. More often then not the muddiness is
due to an accumulation of instruments. So that being said there could be a lot of sonic
power from instruments in areas that are not really necessary for them to be in. This will
cause unnecessary muddiness. Also effects like reverbs and delays can cause muddiness
in the mix so watch out for those too.
T TOOLS CAN I USE TO GET RID OF MUDDINESS?
So now that we know what muddiness is and where it can live, let's talk about how to get
rid of it.
First off it is important to identify the source of the muddiness. As I said earlier it can come
from lots of different places. As a matter of fact you can add monitors to your growing list
of possible muddiness culprits. This means that your first tool in getting rid of muddiness
should be knowledge. With the proper knowledge you will know ways to avoid introducing
mud into your track in the first place. If you are always thinking about frequencies from the
time you start composing your song, up through the recording process, then when you get
to the mixing stage it will be a non factor.
If you have to deal with a muddy mix then “in the mix” is exactly where you want to deal
with it.

Things that can help:

 HPF – Using a high pass filter is one way to handle issues within know muddiness
zones. By using a HPF on an instrument can cut out the area of trouble and keep
the rest of the sound in tact.
 EQ – Anytime that we are dealing with frequencies your trusty equalizer is always
good to have around. By using some corrective equalization before you get deep
into the mixing of your track is a great way to control muddiness at the mix stage.
 REDUCE EFFECTS – Too much of effects like reverbs can cause your track to
become muddy sounding. It is always best to A, B compare your track with the
effects on and then off to see how they are effecting the overall mix. If your mix
sounds cleaner with that reverb off then you might want to consider backing it off
some or using a different effect altogether.
 ADDING SOME HIGH – When dealing with a dark sounding track sometimes you
can just add some high frequencies to balance out your mix more. Although this is
personally my least favorite method it does have it's place. I just prefer to address a
problem with subtraction before I go adding even more stuff to the track.

Every mix is different and so there aren't any magical numbers or methods that will work
for every case and every time. The important thing to remember is muddiness can come
from lots of places. Most commonly from improper eqing, poor mic placement and bad
song composition. There is no need to know how to handle all of them right away if you
are learning. I think it is more important to be able to hear muddiness and your mix first off.
Once you can recognize it then you can always use the process of elimination to find out
just what the root cause is and address it from there.
Don't be like John and Larry and just try to throw a plugin at the problem....this is not the
answer. If your track has mud in it then the answer is not found in the newest, latest and
greatest plugin that has come out. The answer is found in gaining knowledge about what
causes muddiness and finding out which one of those causes are creating the issue for
your track.
page8
High Pass Filtering Your Sounds
Now when I say use high pass filters, I mean literally use them on almost every thing. If it's
not a part of the production that is going to be dominating the lower and middle
frequencies, it should be high pass filtered to some extent to push it into the upper
frequency range.
The devil is really in the details when it comes to reducing the muddy sound of a
production. Most if not all synths and samples you will use in your productions are going to
have frequencies you don't want in your mix.
When you hear an open high hat for example, the last thing you're probably going to
consider is what its frequency spectrum looks like and if there is any unwanted low
frequencies. It's a high hat after all, it's going to be mostly high frequencies right?
But if you look at its frequency spectrum, you'll be amazed at all the low frequency
information that is present. This being a high hat you obviously want it for its higher
frequency content, so there is no point in having the lower frequencies in your mix.
Granted it is a single sample and the middle and low frequency content is minimal, but it
doesn't change the fact that it's still there.

Even Percussion Samples Like High Hats Have Frequency Data That Will Contribute To A
Muddy Mix
Most if not all synths and samples you will use in your productions are going to have
frequencies you don't want in your mix.

page9
When you multiply this middle and low frequency content by however many samples you
have for just the drum and percussion grooves of your track; this is where the unwanted
frequencies start to creep in and muddy up in your mix.
In fact the only thing it is adding is rumble. And when that random rumble starts to interact
with the other frequencies from the sounds that you add later, it starts to color the sound in
a not so pleasant way.
This is even more true for synthesizers that are not using samples for their sound source.
Given that more often than not some sort of signal processing is going to be applied to
your synths, such as delay and echo; while they has a pleasing effect on the higher
frequencies of synthesizers, the lower frequencies will quickly turn into nothing but noise. If
you were too keep the lower frequencies of the synth, it would wreck havoc on the rest of
the mix.

When Using Signal Processors Like Delay and Echo The Lower and Middle Frequencies
Often Build Up Into Sonic "Mush", Basically Noise.
Listen to the below samples of my track Space Cowboy to hear the difference using high
pass filters makes. Be sure to listen to the sample of just the low noise, or "mud" that has
been taken out of the track.
Example 01
High pass filters on all major parts
00:00
00:00
Example 02
All high pass filters bypassed
00:00
page10
01:47
Example 03
An example of the middle and low frequency "mud" that has been removed
00:00
00:00

Mid/Side High Pass Filtering

Finally, if you have access to a equalizer or filter that has a mid/side function, you can also
apply this concept by high pass filtering the sides, while leaving the middle frequency
information in tact. Most systems play the lower frequencies in mono, so attenuating the
middle and low frequencies on just the side channels will help clean up the mix and give
you a tighter sounding middle and low end.
The slope that you use to high pass is up to your personal taste, but its generally accepted
that a lower slope will give you a more analogue sounding filter as opposed to a sharp
cutoff. Most analogue filters tend to have a gradual slope that gently tapers off the
harmonics.

Using The High Pass Filter Technique With A Mid/Side EQ

Attenuating the middle and low frequencies on just the side channels will help clean up the
mix and give you a tighter sounding middle and low end.

page11
When EQing, always keep in mind that music is subjective. What sounds good to me may
sound like crap to you. What sounds like "muddy" frequencies to me may be the exact
TAMBER timbre you are going for. But it is still good to keep in mind the concepts.

Conclusion
I hope I've shown the reason for high pass filtering the individual parts of your mix. Keep in
mind a few things: this is just one technique that you can use to help tame the frequency
buildup commonly referred to as mud, and often you'll end up using multiple techniques
together when mixing. I know how discouraging it can be when you just can't seem to get
the sound you're shooting for, so I really hope this helps you out.
Advertisement

page12
 How to clean up a muddy mix
by Kevin Decock · December 10, 2013

If I could only use one thing in my mixes, only one plugin to pick – I would go with an
equaliser.
Sure, I could sum up a huge list of reasons why and maybe I might in the future, but the
number one reason I love the EQ (and why you should too) is this:
It allows me to clean up a muddy mix

After editing and all the nitty gritty with organizing and coloring tracks, the first thing I do is
pop a single band hi-pass equaliser on every track in my mix.
Now, any self respecting music maker that has a concern for achieving a great sound in
mind (and you should!) probably has an internal alarm blazing red right now.
Putting a hi-pass on everything? Just like that? Without thinking?
Yes. Well, okay… almost without thinking. There’s actually a good reason why I slap that
baby on everything I’ve got to clean a muddy mix. Let’s explore…

You don’t need all the frequencies on every track

One of the absolute critical things you need to know when working with sound and figuring
out how to clean up your muddy mix, is that whether you’ve recorded an instrument or are
working with samples or synthesizers, the resulting audiofiles always have a maximum of
frequency information contained within them.
In fact, for all practical purposes you can assume that for every sound we’re working with,
we’ve got information ranging from 0hz to beyond 20Khz.
That’s a lot of information. It’s definitely more than we can chew.
And most instruments, apart from those specifically designed for bass tones, can’t really
reproduce anything in the lower frequency spectrum (let’s say below 100hz, just to put a
number on it).
So we must ask ourselves: “Do I NEED my guitar/hihats/vocals to have low frequency
information?”
In 99% of all cases, the simple answer is that you don’t! So why keep it?
That’s the first reason why I use a high pass filter on all my tracks to clean a muddy mix. I
simply don’t need the info to get a clean mix!

page13
It’s unnecessary, but more important: also unwanted!
Now you could be enticed to say “meh, couldn’t hurt to keep those extra lower
frequencies”. And in a way I understand that reaction
because it sounds logical. The more the merrier, right?
Except you’d be missing out on the best way to clean
up your muddy mix.
The truth is that the lower frequencies in recordings or
samples of instruments that don’t really operate in
those lower registers, only really contain noise, rumble
or a general darkness.
On one track it’s okay, no biggy. Maybe you can even
get away with low end rumble on two tracks. But multiply all that mud by an average of 20
to 30 tracks in a mix and you can start to see a problem arise.

The best way to start with the clean up of your muddy

mix

If you can see the problem – if you understand how low end rubbish is hurting your
chances of achieving a great sound, then you should understand why I told you in the
beginning of this article to put a hi-pass filter on everything.
But wait just a minute — don’t just go ahead and do it without thinking! As with everything
you do to make your music sound better, you need to stop and think for a second: “How
does this sound?”. It’s a mantra I’ll repeat over and over in my teachings, simply because
it’s true. You need to think about how it sounds.
The technique for going about this, or how I usually start to clean up a muddy mix is as
follows:
 Slap a high pass filter on every track — I think I made that one clear already
 Now solo any track you want to start off with — Doesn’t matter which one
 Start with the cut-off frequency at it’s lowest (on most plugins this would be 20hz)
and slowly start to increase it
 You won’t hear any change in the sound until you reach a certain threshold. For a
vocal this might be around 150hz (though every recording is different). Now back up
about 20hz to 30hz and leave the cut-off frequency there
 Bypass the plugin, listen to how everything sounds and re-calibrate your ears to the
original
 Enable the plugin and wait for the gold
Now here comes the funny part… If you did it correctly…

page14
You probably won’t hear any change at all!
Yeah, once again you’re probably considering whether your should just get me
incarcerated: “why the hell do I want to do all of this work if I can’t hear any
difference!?
The answer is that sure, there’s a good chance that you probably can’t hear any change
on any single track when soloed (although you might feel a change). But when you
meticulously remove all the unwanted low-end rubbish that each and every track in your
mix contains (and it’s common to have 40 or more in a commercial production), you’re
effectively cleaning up your muddy mix a lot.
The difference will be night and day. Just try it out. Do the steps on each and every one of
your tracks in the mix and then make a before-after comparison.
In a short while, I’ll upload a video outlining this technique in detail. So you’ll be able to
hear exactly how I’m doing it.
Now that’s more like it, right? See what I mean now? You couldn’t necessarily hear the
difference on one track (and as a matter of fact, if you do hear the difference on a single
track then you’re probably cutting out too much low end at this stage! You’ll want to back
up a bit and leave the heavy duty cutting for a later stage when mixing!)
The only thing you need to really remember when doing this clean-up, is to remember to
think about how it sounds. Point in case: while you might even consider putting a hi-
pass filter on the kick and the bass, you probably do not want to remove anything higher
than 20hz. The bass instruments really do add a lot of useful low-end information to the
mix.
Starting with this simple technique is really the best way to clean up a muddy mix. It
provides you with a nice and clear starting point for achieving a great sounding mix.
Oh, and which plugin to use, you ask? I honestly don’t care. You can use anything that you
feel sounds good. It’s really not about the tools – it’s how you use them!
Hope you got something out of this. If you did, I’d love to hear from you in the comments! If
you disagree, then let’s discuss!
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to be your soundcoach. Hope to see you around!
Kevin – Soundcoach
Share

page15
TUTORIAL: 12 Common Mixing Mistakes
Posted on January 26, 2011 by Alex
By Michael Cooper
As a mastering engineer, I hear a lot of mixes from other studios. Some are great,
some are not. But what is striking to me is that the mixes that need help usually
suffer from many of the same problems. The good news is that these shortcomings
can all be avoided or corrected by using a few simple techniques.
In this article, I will describe 12 common problems with wayward mixes and discuss how to
solve them. If your mixes are routinely restrained by a lack of punch, clarity, and detail; if
your productions are held hostage by unruly dynamics and spectral imbalances; or if your
results don’t sound as wide and deep as the mondo tracks created by your competition,
read on for some liberating pointers. I’ll address each problem and its solution individually,
beginning at rock bottom.

Boomy or Thin-Sounding Mix

The most common problem I hear with mixes is uneven levels throughout the range of
bass frequencies. This can present itself as either a thin-sounding mix or a boomy one.
Some mixes sound alternately thin and boomy in different sections of the song.
The main culprit behind a skewed bottom end is mixing in a room that has not been
properly treated with acoustic products to help tighten up impulse response and attenuate
room modes. (Room modes, aka standing waves, are narrow peaks and dips in frequency
response; they are especially problematic in the bass range.) These acoustic problems
might lead you to, for example, unnecessarily boost certain bass frequencies to
compensate for a thin-sounding mix when, in fact, the mix already has a perfectly
balanced bottom end, though the room’s uneven bass response at the mix position is
telling you otherwise.
In truth, even rooms that have had thousands of dollars poured into their acoustic
makeovers usually have some persistent problems with uneven bass response (although
the inaccuracies are usually dramatically reduced in number and severity with proper
treatment). Typically, one or two prominent room modes remain at the mix position,
making it difficult to properly assess the mix’s bass content in these narrow bands.
In most control rooms, there is at least one spot where specific room modes and other
bass-response anomalies that compromise monitoring at the mix position are much
weaker or even completely tame. While this alternate bass-reference spot might have
other problems and be less accurate overall compared with the mix position, it gives you
another reference for bass balance in the narrow bands you can’t hear properly at the mix
position.
How can you tell where the alternate bass-reference spot is? First, assuming that you
have more than one pair of reference monitors, play a respected, full-bandwidth mix
(usually one that a prominent record label has had mastered and released) through the
speakers that have the deepest bass response (include a subwoofer if you use one).
Choose this reference mix carefully: it should be one that has always sounded great on the
bottom end no matter what sound system you’ve played it on.
Walk around your control room while the reference mix plays, listening to how the sound of
the bottom end changes as different acoustic influences come in and out of play. Note the
spot where the bass response sounds the most even at the specific bass frequencies that
are out of whack (too weak or too strong) at your mix position — that spot should become
a second place you go to check the bottom end when making bass-EQ decisions on your
mixes.

page16
Unfortunately, the alternate bass-reference spot is often inconveniently located with
respect to the studio’s mixer or DAW controller. For example, the place where the 40 to 45
Hz band is most accurate in my control room is about 3.5 feet in front of the back wall.
FIG. 1: The Frontier Design Group TranzPort wireless DAW controller is excellent for working from an alternate position in the control room.

There is an easy solution: remote control. I always use my Frontier Design Group
TranzPort wireless DAW controller (see Fig. 1) when checking a mix’s extreme bottom
end at the back of my control room. Using the TranzPort to remotely start and stop
playback allows me to set my control room’s monitoring level high enough that I can really
hear those subterranean frequencies without blasting my ears at close range. I listen,
evaluate the bottom end, stop playback, make the relevant EQ adjustments at my mixer,
and repeat the process until the bass sounds great at both the mix position and the
alternate bass-reference spot.

Edgy, Fatiguing Sound

Digital audio has a reputation for producing cold, brittle sound, but the problem often stems
from poor engineering techniques. The most common factor contributing to an edgy,
fatiguing mix is indiscriminate boosting of upper-midrange and high-frequency EQ on
multiple tracks.
Here’s a typical scenario: hours of mixing at high sound-pressure levels (SPLs)
progressively compresses your ears’ high-frequency sensitivity, and they become starved
for the highs they’re missing. To compensate, you boost the highs and upper mids to get
back the detail and presence your tired ears can no longer hear clearly.
You check your mix the next morning after your hearing has recovered, and it’s like
fingernails on a blackboard. Rather than cut the offending frequencies, you opt to boost
the bottom end to warm up the mix. Now you have phase shift (unless you’ve been
consistently boosting using a linear-phase equalizer) and alternating peaks in response
across virtually the entire spectrum, resulting in an overly edgy sound, not to mention
decreased headroom.
The solution is to mix at lower SPLs and to cut offending frequencies whenever possible
instead of boosting other frequencies to compensate. For instance, it usually sounds better
to carve away bass frequencies than to hype the midrange EQ when trying to make a mix
sound more present. As a general rule, using EQ to cut will sound better than using it to
boost.
Other factors leading to a harsh-sounding mix include having too many midrange
instruments in the arrangement or mixing them too up front with respect to the other
elements. Know when to lower that bright organ pad to mellow things out a bit. Similarly,
do you really need those 13 electric guitar overdubs? Consider muting some of the
midrange elements that aren’t essential and that only make the mix more fatiguing to listen
to. Often the problem with a mix lies with the arrangement, and no amount of EQ will help.

No Sparkle and Bottom

Of course, sometimes EQ boost is needed to make a mix sound great. You can generally
get away with boosting extreme bass and high frequencies more than you can boosting
midrange frequencies. That’s because the human ear is less sensitive to phase shift at the
extremes of the audible spectrum. Even after boosting the bass and highs a bit, you may
find that your mix still doesn’t have the huge bottom end and sparkly highs you yearn to
hear.
page17
Again, the reason may be that you’re listening at too loud a level while making EQ
decisions. That’s a problem because the human ear is subject to the Fletcher-Munson
effect. In plain English, this means the ear is much less sensitive to bass and high
frequencies when listening at low volumes than at high volumes. (Many consumer stereos
have a Bass Loudness button to compensate for this reduced sensitivity to bass
frequencies at low listening levels.) Ear fatigue aside, if you adjust EQ to taste while
monitoring at loud levels, your mix might not sound sparkly and thunderous enough once
the playback level is turned down.
Knowing this (and to preserve my hearing), I spend most of my mixdown time with my
monitors set no louder than a spirited two-way conversation, and I’ll often set them a lot
lower. If I can get the mix to scintillate and thunder while listening at that low level, it is
going to absolutely rock when it’s cranked. Also working in my favor, my high-frequency
sensitivity won’t be trashed by sustained listening at loud levels, helping me retain an
accurate perspective of spectral balance. That said, I will crank my control room monitors
for about 20 seconds or so every hour when I’m mixing to confirm that the bottom and top
ends still sound great and that I haven’t taken any EQ boost too far.
One other point: if you compress tracks such as bass-guitar and cymbals post-EQ, the
compression will at least partially negate the effects of any EQ boost on those tracks. Try
placing the compressors before any EQ boost to get more sparkle and boom.

Large Swings in Spectral Balance

Sometimes the timbre of specific elements of a mix (or of the whole enchilada) is a moving
target. For example, the electric bass or acoustic guitar might sound boomy on some
phrases yet be well balanced everywhere else in the song. The lead singer might have a
shrill high register that bites your head off during the choruses, whereas the lower register
sounds perfect during the verses. Or the entire mix might get edgy when, for instance, a
bunch of midrange instruments pile on for one section of the song.
In these cases, static EQ settings won’t sound good throughout the song. One worthy
solution, albeit a time-consuming one, is to ride the EQ on individual tracks as needed. But
a quicker and sometimes more elegant-sounding fix is to slap a split-band (aka multiband)
compressor on the unruly tracks — or even on the entire mix. A split-band compressor
divides the audio spectrum into multiple, adjustable frequency bands so that each can be
compressed independently. Examples of outstanding split-band compressors include the
Tube Tech SMC-2BM (a high-end analog unit) and the Waves C4 Multiband Parametric
Processor, Waves Linear Phase Multiband, and PSP VintageWarmer 2 plug-ins (see Fig.
2).
FIG. 2: Electric guitars sound awesome when processed with the PSP VintageWarmer 2 split-band compressor plug-in.

Adjust the bandwidth of one or more of the split-band compressor’s bands to include only
the frequencies that exhibit large swings in level (for instance, bass frequencies that
sometimes get too loud and make the mix boomy), and bypass the other bands. Then set
each active band’s threshold to be at or slightly below the level where the offending
frequencies begin to annoy. Adjust each active band’s ratio, attack, and release controls to
taste to limit how much (if at all) the unruly frequencies can bloom above the thresholds
you’ve set. With the proper settings, a split-band compressor will automatically nip large
swings in spectral balance in the bud. (For more in-depth information on how to use split-
band compressors, see “Let’s Split!” in the January 2004 issue of EM, available online at
www.emusician.com.)

page18
Insufficient Detail
When a mix is lacking in detail, boosting high-frequency EQ is often the wrong approach.
When that just creates a glassy mix without solving the problem, try cutting the upper-bass
and low-midrange frequencies instead. Too much energy in these bands can create a
blanket of mud that obscures a mix’s underlying transients, so try cutting between 200 and
500 Hz before boosting highs. Just be sure not to overdo it, or else you’ll end up with a thin
mix and too much detail.
Another thing to consider on a cloudy-sounding mix is whether sustained sounds such as
string or synth pads are too loud. By simply lowering some or all of the tracks that exhibit
minimal transients and loud average levels (sustain), percussive elements will more readily
punch through. The end result will be a mix with plenty of detail that nevertheless retains
its warmth because of minimal use of EQ.

Not Enough Punch

A mix lacking detail will also often lack punch, or transient elements married to tightly
focused bass-frequency content. When a mix’s spectral balance is already great, it can be
a mistake to boost both bass and high frequencies to achieve more punch. The added
highs might just make the mix sound glassy, whereas the extra bass boost could make it
boomy.
Instead, use a dynamics processor to emphasize the attack portion of the low-frequency
elements from which you want more punch (for example, trap drums and electric bass
guitar). A solid-state, VCA-based compressor set to relatively slow attack and fast release
times (start with 60 ms for each) will often do the trick.
FIG. 3: The SPL Transient Designer can be used to increase the amplitude of the attack portion of drum tracks to create a punchier mix. The 2-
channel TD2 is shown here.

The SPL Transient Designer, available in both 2- and 4-channel models, is an outstanding
solution for increasing punch on individual tracks (see Fig. 3). This amazing analog
processor uses an envelope follower to change the amplitude of the attack and release
portions of an audio signal. With the twist of a single knob, the Transient Designer can
greatly enhance the beater slap of a kick drum or the crack of a snare drum, and it can
make a bass guitar track pop like balloons.
FIG. 4: The Waves TransX Wide plug-in, part of the company’s Transform bundle, is set up here to deliver extra punch to a kick drum track.

For reshaping transients inside the box, I often turn to the Waves TransX Wide plug-in,
which is part of the Transform bundle (see Fig. 4). It offers much greater control over the
attack portion of sounds than the Transient Designer but gives you no control over the
release phase. TransX Wide is a surefire ticket to slammin’ drum tracks.

Too Much Compression

These days, many mixes are so overcompressed that they become irritating and fatiguing
to listen to after only one or two minutes. Overcompression is like a plague contaminating
our industry. Make no mistake — I love stereo-bus compression, and I like my mixes loud,
but there’s a big difference between pumped-up, exciting dynamics and just plain annoying
noise and distortion.
The old saw about using your ears when determining how far to push mix-bus
compression is all well and good, but I have a more practical suggestion: watch the crest
factor on your stereo-bus meters. The crest factor is essentially the difference between
page19
peak and average levels, and keeping tabs on it is a good reality check against what ears
addicted to volume might otherwise be pushing to accomplish.
Spend time listening to your favorite records — particularly those that have dynamics
you’d like to emulate in your mixes — patched through the 2-track return of your mixing
console or DAW, and keep a close eye on the meters. (Make sure that the meters are
peak reading and set to prefader listen, and that all processing is disabled.) Note how
much the meters rise above average levels during transient peaks throughout various
sections of each song. Then shoot for roughly the same crest factor in your mixes. You
can learn a lot by being a good meter reader.

The Chorus Doesn’t Climax

You had high hopes for your new power-pop ballad, but something is holding it back. Your
tracks were all captured with plenty of dynamic range, the performances were killer, and
the arrangement positively soars during the hook. Yet for some reason, the chorus just
doesn’t deliver the big payoff it should in your mix. It’s time to look at your mix-bus
compressor settings again.
Sometimes an engineer will set up the mix-bus compressor for a big, in-your-face sound at
the beginning of mixdown, when working on relatively quiet verses, and will just assume
it’s going to sound even bigger during the choruses and other climaxes. A compressor with
too low of a threshold and too high of a ratio will suck the life out of the hook when it hits —
sometimes the chorus will actually sound lower than the verses. Raise the compressor’s
threshold and lower its ratio to no more than 2:1 to give the hooks room to explode. You
might also need to back off the compressor’s attack time a bit.

Washy Sound with No Depth

Adding reverb to a mix is a great way to make it sound bigger. The larger the implied
acoustic space, the more depth and width the production takes on. But running virtually
everything through reverb in an attempt to make the mix sound huge is a common mistake
of neophyte mix engineers.
Something can sound big only if something else sounds small. In part, it’s the contrast
between close-up and far away that gives a mix depth. (The nuance captured by superior
mics and mic preamps is another contributing factor, but that’s a discussion best left for
another article.)
When many tracks are drowning in reverb, everything begins to sound indeterminately far
away, and there is not enough of an anchor for the brain to get a picture of what is
psychoacoustically up-close. Not only has depth gone out the window at that point, but the
mix also takes on a washy character dominated by diffuse echoes that blanket any
semblance of detail and punch.
One solution, of course, is to make some tracks very dry. You might even need to make a
lot of tracks completely dry in order to attain the depth you desire. Instruments that
produce inherently sustained or reverberant sounds, like cymbals and strummed acoustic
guitars, often benefit by turning their reverb sends way down or completely off. That’s
especially true of dense arrangements that are prone to drown in ambient soup. The
acoustic guitar already supplies built-in reverb from the resonating chamber that is its
body. Piling on a bunch of additional reverb makes little sense, unless that instrument is
being played in short, percussive bursts such as during a largely monophonic introduction
or solo.
Despite the foregoing, there are instances where a healthy dose of time-based effects is
needed to create the desired sonic landscape. In such cases, try adding predelay to some
page20
of your reverbs, or try substituting single echoes or multitap delays for reverb effects.
These alternatives allow the dry signal to voice before the effect kicks in, giving a front-to-
back effect in the soundstage that can really enhance perceived depth while preserving
detail.
Another remedy for a washy mix is to eliminate one of the channels of a stereo track,
thereby reducing that track to mono. Converting most of your stereo tracks to mono will
help provide the pinpoint imaging that is a remedy for a washy mix. Conversely, using a lot
of tracks that were recorded with spaced-pair stereo-miking is a recipe for mud soup. Each
of those tracks is a rendering of an instrument playing in an acoustic space, and simply
panning them differently to separate them won’t necessarily lend focus and depth to your
mix.
Panning a few stereo tracks across the stereo field is a common strategy. But if you pan
one stereo track hard left and at ten o’clock (for left and right channels, respectively),
another at ten and two o’clock, and a third at two o’clock and hard right, what have you
accomplished? You now have three small rooms in a left-center-right arrangement
superimposed over whatever other acoustic spaces are implied by added reverb on other
tracks. No wonder the mix sounds washy!
In summary, to clean up a washy mix: Keep a number of your tracks mostly or completely
dry. Mute one side of one or more stereo tracks. And use discrete delays and reverb
predelays to create depth without sacrificing detail.

Collapsed Stereo Image

Suppose you’ve hard-panned a number of tracks, but your mix still doesn’t sound as wide
as you’d like. What’s wrong with this psychoacoustic picture?
Your hard-panned tracks might have too much bottom end. Bass frequencies are
inherently omnidirectional, meaning it’s hard for the human ear to determine where they
originate. That’s because bass frequencies have long wavelengths, and easily wrap
around the listener’s head to either ear with minimal phase difference.
From a stereo-field perspective, tracks that are panned hard left and hard right are
potentially the most directional elements of a mix, whereas center-panned tracks are the
least directional. The more the prominent omnidirectional bass frequencies are in hard-
panned tracks, the more the hard-panned tracks’ perceived positions in the stereo field get
pulled toward the center. Conversely, rolling off bass frequencies on hard-panned tracks
will move them farther from the center.
There is no magic frequency at which omnidirectionality occurs. Sound becomes
progressively more omnidirectional as its frequency gets lower. So the lower in frequency
the bass content of a panned track, the more it will move toward the center (assuming that
the high frequencies also present in the track don’t compensate). Even hard-panned tracks
with a lot of low-midrange frequency content will move slightly toward the center image.
To make a mix sound wider, try rolling off the bass and possibly some low-midrange
frequencies on hard-panned tracks. Also, hard-pan tracks with lots of high-frequency
content — such as cymbals, shaker, and piccolos — to gain more apparent width. If you
still need more width in your production, running a single stereo track through a stereo-
imaging plug-in such as Waves S1 Stereo Shuffler or iZotope Multiband Stereo Imaging
(which is part of the Ozone 3 multicomponent plug-in bundle) will do the trick nicely. Be
judicious, however; using this kind of processing on multiple tracks or on an entire mix can
quickly make your production swim in a washy, diffuse soup (see Figs. 5 and 6).

FIG. 5: A previously rendered track of a Sonic Implants Symphonic Strings ensemble section is patched through the Waves S1 Stereo Shuffler
plug-in to increase its stereo width and create a dreamier sound.

page21
FIG. 6: The iZotope Ozone 3 plug-in bundle includes a Multiband Stereo Imaging component that can independently widen the stereo image of
up to four frequency bands of a track.

Vocals Consistently Too Loud or Too Low

We’ve all been there. You thought you had the perfect mix, but then you hear it on a
friend’s stereo system, and the lead vocal suddenly sounds too loud, in front of and
divorced from the backing music. Or it’s buried underneath an onslaught of guitars, making
your clever lyrics lost to all ears. What went wrong?
FIG. 7: The Avant Electronics Avantone MixCubes are outstanding passive monitors to reference how well lead vocals are sitting in a mix.

Setting the perfect vocal level can be difficult. The vocal’s balance with respect to other
tracks will always sound different on different monitors. What works for me is listening on
bass-challenged monitors such as the Avant Electronics Avantone MixCubes (see Fig. 7)
or the discontinued Yamaha NS-10M Studio. Without prominent bass frequencies masking
the lead vocal, I can more accurately gauge how loud the money track is with respect to
the other tracks.
If you have only one set of reference monitors and use a subwoofer, turn off the subwoofer
when setting the level of the lead vocal. Also, listen to the mix at very low volume to let the
Fletcher-Munson effect decrease your perception of bass and high frequencies. That will
leave you with an unobstructed window into the midrange, where the lead vocal primarily
sits.
Slowly turning down your close-field monitors to the point of almost dead silence is another
effective technique. If the lead vocal is the last track to become inaudible, you’ll know it’s
loud enough to be easily heard on most if not all systems. If it’s still relatively loud when all
the instruments are practically mute, the lead vocal probably needs to be turned down.
Of course, some styles of music call for louder vocals than others. For example, the vocal
should generally be mixed louder on a country song than on a rock production. But these
guidelines should give you the needed perspective to make the right judgment call for your
chosen format.

Vocals Alternately Dip and Stick Out

Lead vocals typically benefit from compression. That helps them sit at the proper level
throughout a mix. Compression limits the dynamic range of the track so that it becomes
neither too low nor too loud in the mix on any given phrase. But with a very dynamic vocal,
it may be impossible to compress aggressively enough to accomplish this goal without
completely squashing the track, ruining its timbre, and destroying any depth and nuance.
If, after you push the compression as far as you dare, the vocal still dips too much on
some phrases and sticks out too much on others, here are some alternatives.
FIG. 8: A lead vocal track is compressed by two Waves Renaissance Compressor plug-ins chained in series.

Try chaining two or more compressors together in series, with each adjusted to more
moderate control settings so that no single one is going to squash the track (see Fig. 8).
For instance, the first compressor could have fast attack and release times and a high
threshold setting so that it kicks in with its high compression ratio only during peaks. The
second compressor might be set to a relatively low threshold and ratio and moderate
attack and release times so that it is processing average levels pretty much all the time,
but with kid gloves. Here, the second compressor isn’t expected to clamp down on

page22
transient peaks, so it can be set for more moderate action on average levels that will
preserve the track’s timbre and nuance. Meanwhile, the first compressor needn’t have its
threshold set so low that it will rein in the average levels of the vocal track — that’s the
second compressor’s job, and it will do it more gently.
FIG. 9: Roger Nichols Digital’s superb Dynam-izer plug-in divides a track’s dynamic range into as many as four different zones for independent
dynamics processing.

Despite the time-tested procedure of chaining compressors together in series, Roger

Nichols Digital offers a far more powerful and elegant solution to reining in extremely
dynamic vocals. The company’s groundbreaking Dynam-izer plug-in divides a track’s
unprocessed dynamic range into as many as four mutually exclusive and contiguous
zones (see Fig. 9). It can then independently compress or upwardly expand the track
across each zone using different ratio, attack, and release settings. The key point here is
that each compressor or expander applies processing only across the input-level range to
which it is assigned. You can, for example, optimize the zone settings to upwardly expand
the quietest vocal phrases, gently compress moderately loud sections, and smash
transient peaks forcefully.
After using the foregoing techniques, the lead vocal still might fluctuate too much in level
on a few remaining phrases. Don’t be afraid to ride the track’s fader to even out those
sections of the vocal, and record your fader moves with your DAW or mixer’s automation.
Also, some buried lyrics may be brought out more effectively by boosting upper-midrange
or high frequencies rather than riding the fader (remember to undo the EQ boost
immediately afterward). In some of my mixes, the lead vocal’s track will have dozens of
fader and EQ moves over the course of a three-minute song, depending on how even the
singer’s performance was. Don’t be afraid to do whatever is necessary to make the vocal
track perfect.

The Perfect Mix

None of the techniques discussed in this article will lead you to a great mix on their own.
They must all be taken into consideration at once and balanced against one another. For
instance, striving for too much detail and clarity can result in a thin, icy mix that will sound
even more fatiguing if brickwall limiting is applied to achieve competitive loudness. And a
mix with too wide of a stereo image and key tracks panned hard left and right might lose
needed center focus and punch.

Keep your original vision for the song in mind while you mix, asking yourself along the way
if any of these 12 problems are beginning to creep in. Note if any corrective tweaks you
perform introduce their own problems, but be aware that effective mixing usually entails a
series of smart trade-offs. Putting these compromises into perfect balance is the key to an
outstanding mix.
- See more at: http://blog.indabamusic.com/2011/01/12785-tutorial-12-common-mixing-
mistakes/#sthash.iyT1GEGp.dpuf

page23
 7 pro mixing tips you would never think to use

Most of the time the simplest answer is best. Need more midrange? Grab an EQ, boost
the midrange. Need to control the source more? Volume automation or compression.
Easy. But sometimes we face strange challenges - like how to get more bass in the kick
without running out of headroom, or how to make something sound bright that doesn't
have anything above 7k except hiss. Well, where there's a will there's a way.
Sometimes the way is just a little less predictable. So with that said, here are 7 counter
intuitive mixing techniques pros regularly use to solve unconventional problems.

Low Passing A Sound To Make It Brighter

What? How can using a low pass filter make something brighter? Well, let's say you have
a distorted guitar. It's power goes up to about 5-6Khz, but after that it's just noise. A treble
boost will bring that noise out, clog up your mix, make the guitar harsh. Instead, use a low-
pass filter with a very steep slope. This does two things - first it cuts out the noise and
distortion. Second, it actually accentuates the tone at the corner frequency - so while you
might be attenuating everything above say 6k (for example), you're actually boosting the
6k region. This happens because the EQ generates resonance right at the corner of the
pass band - and it's actually pretty clean and clear!

Adding Mid Range To Get More Bass

When we want to hear more bass in a bass, or kick drum, or other low endy element, the
obvious solution is to gain the low end up. However, sometimes what we really want to do
is just draw more attention to the bass element. We can do this by adding midrange in -
pulling up the thud of a kick or the gnarly overtones in a bass. This pulls our ear to the
element, telling us that there's more of it there in it's entirety - even if it's only just more
midrange. This can be very valuable when you don't have much headroom, or there's
something else competing for attention in the low end.

Using Compression To Make Something More Dynamic

But wait, doesn't a compressor restrict dynamic range? No, it doesn't. It attenuates a
signal that exceeds an amplitude threshold. In most cases that will restrict the dynamic
range. However, if the attack is long enough, and the threshold is low enough, a
compressor can actually exaggerate the attack. This happens because the compressor
allows the front of the signal to pass almost unaltered, but still pulls down the sustain of the
signal, making the attack more prominent relative to the sustain. This can be very useful
when trying to bring life to an already over compressed signal (over compressed...
compress it some more!) - or for getting some serious snap into a dull drum sound.
page24
Sharpening Transients Before A Limiter On The Master Buss
If you are using a brick wall limiter on your master buss, chances are you are doing so to
make something loud. And to do that you want the maximum amount of headroom
available. So why on earth would you use a transient designer in front of a limiter. Wouldn't
exaggerating the attacks run out your headroom faster? Well, yes and no. Technically yes,
but remember that these things aren't perfectly mathematical. Sharpening the transients
can do two things - first you can legitimately get more transient through the limiter and still
retain loudness just because a transient designer is a boosting in a different way than the
limiter is cutting. Second, the limiter is pulling down everything in the mix. That means
while your kick hits harder for that 10ms, your bass gets attenuated for that 10ms as well.
The attacks will poke out clearer in the mix, thus exaggerating the dynamic perception.
Warning: sometimes this sounds like crap, so use it when it works, don't use it when it
doesn't.

Using Distortion To Make Something Sound Cleaner

Now that really doesn't make sense. In what way could distortion possibly make something
sound "cleaner"? If we define clean by clarity of tone rather than by purity of the original
sound, we can use harmonic distortion to make something sound more "polished." Light
amounts of harmonic distortion will exaggerate the overtones in a source. Our brain uses
these harmonics to tell us what exactly we are hearing. It's kind of like saying we are going
to make this clarinet more "clarinet-y" by emphasizing its partials.

Using Reverb To Make Something Sound Closer

Remember that reverb is used to create a sense of space. Without reverb, it's hard to
define the front to back relationship of elements in a mix. Contrasting elements that are
wet with room sound to elements that are almost entirely dry can actually create a more "in
your face effect" than simply leaving a sound 100% dry. The key to doing this is to keep
your forward elements sent to a reverb that is 1) Primarily Early Reflections and (2) Has a
high pre-delay. The other effect of using this kind of an "ambiance" reverb is that it
reinforces the tone of the dry signal a little, which often makes it pop a bit forward as well.

Mixing Quietly To Get A Louder Record

Not that I feel loudness is absolutely paramount to a successful mix, but in todays climate
of iPods, noise ridden listening environments, and DJ controlled play lists, it's important
that the record lives within the same general vicinity of apparent loudness. Or to say it
another way, the record shouldn't sound out of place amongst the other records being
played shoulder to shoulder with it. Getting a mix to sound loud without losing tone,
dimension, or punch can be very daunting - especially when the references of todays
mixes are as loud as they are. So I'll say two things - first - trends are showing that the
loudness wars are easing off in pretty much every genre except EDM - so aim to make
your mix maybe a little quieter than your references. You'll have a much easier time getting
the mix to hang together. Second, mix your record at low monitoring levels. The reason
this works is because it forces you to create energy and excitement when loudness is not
an option. This will force you to be more selective about EQ and compression settings, as
well as general levels and imaging. When all said is done you'll find that a record that
creates the impression of a big sound at low levels will sound absolutely huge when it's
cranked.
Now it's your turn! Drop a couple of your own unexpected / counter intuitive mixing
techniques in the comments.

page25