Audio Quality...

[Bitfiend]

I have to say I'm extremely frustrated/disappointed with the audio quality of what I'm doing. :mad:
I'm reading, re-reading, trying different technique's etc. and seemingly getting no where fast!
couple of things I'd like to ask:

I've been reading it is better to record in mono; some say to control phase cancellation, if you have two or more sounds at the same freq you can always pan a little to separate them when all else fails. Others say you can get everything to sit in the mix much better. Also almost all sound systems run mono anyway.
-sidebar- If I'm doing MIDI, when i export it to an audio file change it to mono. Got that part but wasn't it created in stereo? :confused:-end of sidebar-
Ok, no problem, can do, BUT aren't most effects in stereo? Reverb, delay, all the cool audio damage stuff, the PSP Nitro, etc.... so, if they are, what issues, if any, are going to arise applying a stereo effect to a mono track (that tie right back into the afore mentioned reason to run mono)?

Another thing, compression. Do it this way, do it that way??? So, do you just put a light compression on the master (which I thought was a no-no until the pre-mastering phase), do you set up a group - run all the percussion to it and run it thru the same compressor setting and do the same with all your back ground keyboard lines, etc. (a different group channel of course), do you brickwall it or just lightly limit it, should every channel be compressed whether heavy or light?

EQ'ing, so if really, below 30-50 Hz and above 20-25 kHz is in audible, shouldn't we just put a HP and LP filter on and null anything below and above (respectively) so energy isn't sent thru the speaker system and eating up the movement it could better allocate to bandwidth/freq's we can hear? And WHY do I seem to suck so badly at EQ'ing???? Hell I've been making one form or another of music since childhood not including listening to it every damn day! You'd think I'd at least be able to pick the right kick sample and EQ it just the way I like. Alas, this is not so.

I mean for fuks' sake! I A/B what I'm working on with another track and it's just night and day. The production quality, the stereo imaging, the sound stage - it has this dry yet airy quality to it. Still, you can ever so lightly hear the reverb; WHICH seems to be sitting on top and in the back of the sound, line, riff, whatever it's on. Not to mention, I'm using basically the same kick yet, it no where near has the same mid bitch-slap punch and the subtle sub that seems to be floating just beneath and behind. On mine it is kinda lacking, almost "tubular". I've only spent 15 of the last 48 hours re-doing the sample, re-EQ'ing, re-compressing, blah, blah, blah THE KICK. And seriously, if i read or hear one more time that "....well, you're comparing a mastered track to an unmastered track so it'll never sound the same...." I may just hang up the gloves for good. That is such bollocks! We're supposed to get it sounding that good BEFORE it hits the pre-mastering phase, so the ME has to do as little as possible! Just FINITE touches, polish, whatever you want to call it.

Anti-Phase, this one I just discovered on my own, joy! So i insert the PAZ Analyzer on the master buss; just for my own curiosity as to what the stereo image looks like and the overall EQ. Well, surprisingly the EQ (imaging mind you) looks pretty good, consistent, even, with peaks where you'd expect them, etc. (although still I think it sounds like a bag of cats beat with a 2x4...)
Come now the stereo image. Well, looks pretty good, POW! BLAM! KAZOWEE! I've got a spike here, a spike there, everywhere a spike spike, WHAT THE DEUCE!! What the hell is anti-phase, how do i figure out which channel is causing it (if what's on the channel is the cause), and if/when i do how do i fix it?

.......sigh..... maybe I should try writting/recording ThrashGospelPolka instead.....

[admin]

I can see the argument for mono, if you have too much stereo then it all just mushes the stereo field. Best to reserve the perception of stereo to a few elements so they stand out. Phasewise you don't want to cancel out obviously so use a correlation meter.

If you check some productions you'll hear a wide range of mono sounding stuff and wider. I generally produce a bit wider so it sounds nice at home/headphones. But listen to something like Pryda and most of his mix is mono except for a few hats and synth here and there. I agree though that getting real crazy on the stereo effects might not amount to much in most clubs. The low end is really what matters there...

I only compress when needed, no real rule. I do run my buss compression pretty much from the start though. A lot of times I get stuff for mastering where too much compression was applied. So in that case I just ask for it without. Then during mastering I'll try to achieve the same sound they were going for but more controlled.

I do use filters basically how you are describing. Be careful to check your level though when applying a low cut. Many eqs will create a peak around the cutoff and you'll end up with more level than you started, which is counter productive to your intentions.

I'd say making music and mixing are two different disciplines. Unless you focus on nothing but eqing and compression daily (which is something I do since I hardly have time for making music now) the learning curve is pretty steep.

I too have spent days trying to get a good kick drum, sometimes it just takes a lot of time. You can always cheat and sample one off a record if you get really stuck and then leave it for another day. You're right about the mastering comment, you should have it pretty much ballpark prior to mastering. I do have to beef up kick drums quite often though but theoretically it's not a given.

Just solo out the tracks one by one to find the problem.

[pk1]

ThrashGospelPolka

Wow would i love to hear that!


As for stereo/mono - i generally have drums, kick, snare, and bass as mono and pads, synths, effects as stereo. Does that sound ok?

As for eqing - most of the time i just cut lows and his that arent needed and sometimes add a little gain to make a sound stand out or a cut if it interferes with another sound. CAnt say i really use more than a 3band eq. Should i be taking a lot more time with this and using a 10band eq with loads of little adjustments?

[Bitfiend]

Initially i was doing drums and bass mono. under the assumption that the reason it was done like this was due to acetate/vinyl pressings. plus stereo kicks could potentially cancel each other out while mixing.

In theory, going mono totally makes sense to me. the control you'd have over creating the stereo field and the 3d sound stage has got to be so much better. you'd have real precision as to where each sound went and how it "sat" in the mix and any movement it generated. plus you'd hear real quick any phase issues( which apparently i have some issues with). I mean all music is recorded (and i'm speaking in the sense of playing an instrument and running it via mic or line into some recording system) mono. i don't go into the studio and set up a stereo buss with stereo mic's on my drums.
i suppose i'll find out in practice now.

i understand the idea what you're doing on the EQ and that's the way i've been doing it, which is just general EQ'ing. Cut when you can vs. adding, etc. this is in addition to that, or at least that's the way i've come to understand it:
in a given track just about all the freq's are going to be hit all the way down to 10-20 and all the way up to 40-50 (give or take). now the human ear, in general can not hear anything below 80-ish (well trained 50-ish), nor above 20k-ish (well trained 30-ish).
so although we can not hear, because there is movement in the wave form it is still sending energy in the non-audible freq's to your speakers or the club system, etc. Speakers although, especially in the lower ranges, are not designed to and cannot play those freq's still try to; which in turns eats up the bandwidth and "room" the speakers have to move to re-create the audible freq's. so we end up wasting the speakers energy while giving it less room to make the best sound representation of the song.
so the idea is you roll off anything below 50 (allot of what i have read talks about working on this and setting it on a per song basis with that being the starting point which you never go lower than) and everything above 18k.
therefore no wasted energy, giving the speakers a lot more room to move, giving a more accurate representation of the actual song.
This isn't just cutting them, bringing them down; you'd be using the HP or LF to completely take them out, null them. If you're lowest EQ setting were, say 80hz, on your kick EQ - with this theory applied - that would be the lowest freq There would be nothing anywhere, audible or not, below 80Hz.

i don't know if you need more than 3 bands or not. I've started using sonalksis and it's only 5 with HPF and LPF. I guess what ever works for you and you are getting good results with.

Oh and just waiting on getting a tuba player, then, it's go time!

[admin]

It's true that using mono sources means you can use pans to have more control. In C4 though you have also the dual panner which lets you take a stereo sound and selectively pan the left and right to something else.

With drums though people do mic stereo for the overheads.

As far as the hp and lp stuff...

You don't need to be trained to hear below 80, it's more a matter of whether or not the system can handle it. You feel it more than hear it anyways. The only area I completely take down is just below 30hz. I agree that if there is just wasteful low end then sure take it off. Eqing in generaly is about getting rid of as much as you can to make room for the good stuff.

On the top end you're not really cutting to make room for bandwidth so much as it takes very little energy for high freqs, low freqs are the ones that take a logarithmically proportional amount of energy. I cut the highs to warm the mix up and get rid of the spikey transients that would normally get lopped off in an analog system.