I seem to always use the visual of a spectrum anazlyer to help me hear what I am missing as oppossed to listening harder. I use gaps in my signal shown on the anazlyer to make boosts and cuts to help distribute the signal more evenly. I of course never just fill in a signal if it sounds bad but by using this technique I can find what works best.

Of course it’s all dependant on how good of an FFT algorithm I’ve got on my analyzer.

Am I the only one that works this way?

I play a Shponge or Ott track and notice the beatiful flush waveform filled in at every nook and cranny. Just wonder how they get the wave looking so nice.

About fifteen years ago I was working in a studio in London mixing an album for a band. The studio had a lovely G-Series SSL console with a Klark Teknik DN60 spectrum analyser on the meter bridge.

My mixes were sounding great and I was perfectly happy with them.

Then the studio assistant offered to play me some mixes done by world famous mixer Bob Clearmountain, done in the very same studio just the week before. I was blown away - they sounded incredible and they made my mixes sound weak and flabby by comparison.

The other thing I noticed was that, when my mixes were playing, the spectrum analyser reproduced a kind of “n” shape, rolling off at the top end at about 12khz and at the bottom end at around 100hz.

During Bob Clearmountain’s mixes, however, it showed an almost perfect straight line except for a slight dip around 1 - 2khz - which promptly disappeared as soon as the vocal came in. His kik drum went down to 20hz and his hi-hats went up to 20khz. It was astonishing.

So, I decided to go head-to-head with the great man and started filling in the gaps, wodging on great peaks of EQ down the bottom and up the top with a close eye on the spectrum analyser. After a few hours of intense work and concentration I’d done it - my mix looked exactly the same as his.

Unfortunately, it sounded fucking terrible.

I discovered shortly after that Clearmountain had actually asked to have the spectrum analyser disconnected while he was working because it distracted him - his tracks only looked good because they sounded good. I learned my lesson and vowed to mix with only my ears from then on.

I’m not saying they don’t have their uses - finding out the exact problem frequency in a sound so you can dial in a precise notch filter for example - but I think if you come to rely too heavily upon them whilst mixing they have the potential to do more harm than good.

Ott - 18 November 2009 08:46 PM

About fifteen years ago I was working in a studio in London mixing an album for a band. The studio had a lovely G-Series SSL console with a Klark Teknik DN60 spectrum analyser on the meter bridge.

My mixes were sounding great and I was perfectly happy with them.

Then the studio assistant offered to play me some mixes done by world famous mixer Bob Clearmountain, done in the very same studio just the week before. I was blown away - they sounded incredible and they made my mixes sound weak and flabby by comparison.

The other thing I noticed was that, when my mixes were playing, the spectrum analyser reproduced a kind of “n” shape, rolling off at the top end at about 12khz and at the bottom end at around 100hz.

During Bob Clearmountain’s mixes, however, it showed an almost perfect straight line except for a slight dip around 1 - 2khz - which promptly disappeared as soon as the vocal came in. His kik drum went down to 20hz and his hi-hats went up to 20khz. It was astonishing.

So, I decided to go head-to-head with the great man and started filling in the gaps, wodging on great peaks of EQ down the bottom and up the top with a close eye on the spectrum analyser. After a few hours of intense work and concentration I’d done it - my mix looked exactly the same as his.

Unfortunately, it sounded fucking terrible.

I discovered shortly after that Clearmountain had actually asked to have the spectrum analyser disconnected while he was working because it distracted him - his tracks only looked good because they sounded good. I learned my lesson and vowed to mix with only my ears from then on.

I’m not saying they don’t have their uses - finding out the exact problem frequency in a sound so you can dial in a precise notch filter for example - but I think if you come to rely too heavily upon them whilst mixing they have the potential to do more harm than good.

Great story!

Sadly I am lacking room treatment and while my Dynaudios sound good I know they arent being used to their fullest potential. Someday when I’ve got the cashflow I will create an actual professional studio but until that point it seems I am destined to continue learning the lesson you learned 15 years ago.

You can ‘treat’ a room for under

Ott - 18 November 2009 09:54 PM

You can ‘treat’ a room for under

just use your ears…
They’re the best tools for the job.

I have to agree.

...when I mix, I hear things fine until I check the analyzer…

I suggest you stop confusing yourself with the spectrum analyser and just use your ears.

As long as the mix is balanced within itself any tonal adjustments can be made by the mastering engineer.

By the way, ‘Smoked Glass and Chrome’ was mixed in a completely untreated room.

I

Cloudwalker - 19 November 2009 04:36 AM

just use your ears…
They’re the best tools for the job.

Well of course they are but they can be deceiving sometimes.

For example….have you ever yawned half way thru the day and all of a sudden your ears openned up? All of a sudden you can hear details you werent hearing before. Everything seemed fine up until you yawned.

I usually keep this in mind. No matter how good it might sound at the time I always try and remember I might be missing something. This is why I always compare to other recordings so I dont lose referance.

Ott - 19 November 2009 04:46 AM

By the way, ‘Smoked Glass and Chrome’ was mixed in a completely untreated room.

That is insane man. Seriously I guess my ears need more training.

jono - 19 November 2009 04:57 AM

Well of course they are but they can be deceiving sometimes.

Nah.
Your ears are never wrong.  They just change throughout the day and over time.

I guess my ears need more training.

This is the answer to the above.

Cloudwalker - 19 November 2009 05:48 AM

jono - 19 November 2009 04:57 AM

Well of course they are but they can be deceiving sometimes.

Nah.
Your ears are never wrong.  They just change throughout the day and over time.

I guess my ears need more training.

This is the answer to the above.

The very fact that hearing can change over time definitely shows how our hearing can vary. I was trusting my ears with my mediocre mixes until I compared them against a better mix. It’s all subjective.

Yeah,just a good tool for job

i think that by training your ears you eventually start to get grip on what ever is your style of mixing - of course listening artists that have that “magical mixing” is helpfull, gives you a hint of direction.

I had some years that my musical touch almost disappeared completely, because i was just trying to get the technical side mastered - it was a long and huge trip to sound it self.

Finally i asked my self to let loose - go back to the musical aspects.

Actually, many, many of my fellows likes the tracks i think i have mixed shittier, good.
Avarage listener does not care about every little adjustment and technical tweak here and there - “supricely”, most of them only care about the music itself, as a story. not as a waveforms. And after that long trip to the basics of the sound, i came to conclusion that there is nothing more important in the music but the content of it - you cant make shitty story work even if you give it shiny covers.

Only thing that im now carefull with, is that nothing is clipping, otherwise - if it sounds good, im happy with it. ^^ I have actually never used spectrum analyzers.

The best analyzer one could have, is between the ears.