Dubstepforum.com

Ive been listening to alot of filthzilla, nero and skrillex recently and Ive noticed what sounds like 'soft' highs. It almost sounds like a totaly eq cut/dip at around 5 or 6k. The highs are bright and sizzle but sound 'soft' like the harsh freqs in the highs have been totally cut out. Ive found I can't really get this effect in the mix as much as I can get it in mastering by adding a multicompressor and making a very tight band around this freqency range and dipping it slightly.

Anyway I like it sounds. Any Ideas on this?

lol just PM danny/filthzila and ask what he does since he is the FIRST artist in your list.

where do peoples mixes generally peak/ where do you roll off your hi frequencies?

CD only only plays at 1600 Hz, vinyl is a bit higher if im not mistaken, so is it good practise to have a slope somewhere above this range?

I have a feeling about what's going to happen to this thread....

You were totally wrong, but I'll make you right.

It is common knowledge that CD's have a very steep hi cut starting at 800hz. So steep that by 1600hz the signal is attenuated by 96dbs.

Vinyl thankfully has a much larger dynamic range with frequencies going all the way up to 130khz. Notice the k. That's a hundred times the dynamic range.

Interesting, so with that in mind, how do you aproach your hi-end from a production perspective?

its common to roll off highs around 15k when mastering in digital (this happens naturally in the analogue world)..waves renaissance eq with a high q will clean the top end up very well. a lot of times hip hop mixtapes will sound like sh*t because they didn't get them mastered and didn't roll off the highs in their studio.

it's also quite common to boost 15k on a dark mix that lacks brilliance, or just needs a lift.

de-essing around 3-4k so that you can boost above it is also quite common, especially on mixes that are both too harsh and not bright enough.

Some great posts here, thanks for you replys.

I already roll off my frequencies at around 16hz on most things in the mix stage so I have more head room. I use a spectrum analyzer and the roll off responce I can see on the master channel is about the same as the tracks I am referencing.

Ill look into it some more but its not really what I am hearing.

thanks for your comment Sharmaji. Will give that a try

But seriously, if you're really curious just PM filthzilla. Seems like a nice guy.

Yo. Only just seen this. Can you elaborate a little more about what you're on about?

I'd be happy to help.

Dan.

Cut your highs at 17k no matter what. I personally roll them at 14-16k because i like a warmer more vintage sound. Anything over 17 will feel like youre being stabbed in between the eyes when its played on a system. If you need more "brilliance" or definition in the highs you can do a soft hill from 14-16k to bring them out more.

Lectric wrote:Cut your highs at 17k no matter what. I personally roll them at 14-16k because i like a warmer more vintage sound. Anything over 17 will feel like youre being stabbed in between the eyes when its played on a system. If you need more "brilliance" or definition in the highs you can do a soft hill from 14-16k to bring them out more.

yeah, most people can't hear above 17k anyways.

what's this shit about cds rolling off at 800hz? troll or not?

drake89 wrote:what's this shit about cds rolling off at 800hz? troll or not?

Sharmaji wrote:it's also quite common to boost 15k on a dark mix that lacks brilliance, or just needs a lift.

de-essing around 3-4k so that you can boost above it is also quite common, especially on mixes that are both too harsh and not bright enough.

In case anyone (including myself) doesn't know what de-essing is (taken from Wikipedia):

"De-essing can be achieved in the following ways, all perform the same function, temporarily reducing the level of high frequency content in the signal when a sibilant sound is present [1]:
Side-chain compression or broadband de-essing: With this technique, the signal feeding the side-chain of a compressor is equalized or filtered so that the sibilant frequencies are most prominent. As a result the compressor only reduces the level of the signal when there is a high level of sibilance. This reduces the level over the entire frequency range. As such, attack and release times are extremely important, and threshold settings cannot be placed as low as with other types of de-essing techniques without experiencing more blatant artifacts.
Split-band compression: Here, the signal is split into two frequency ranges, a range that contains the sibilant frequencies, and a range that does not. The signal containing the sibilant frequencies is sent to a compressor. The other frequency range is not processed. Finally the two frequency ranges are combined back into one signal. The original signal can be split into high(sibilant) and low frequencies, or, split so that the frequencies below AND above the sibilance are untouched. This technique is similar to multi-band compression.
Dynamic equalization: The gain of a parametric equalizer is reduced as the level of the sibilance increases. The frequency range of the equalizer is centered on the sibilant frequencies.
De-essing with automation: A more recent method of de-essing involves automating the level of the vocal in a DAW. Whenever problematic sibilance occurs the level can be set to follow automation curves that are manually drawn in by the user. This method is not feasible without automation, as an audio engineer would not be able to react fast enough to reduce and restore vocal levels for only the split-second duration of the sibilant 's' or 't' sounds."

I never even knew about that concept. Is this what you were talking about Sharmaji? I mean, obviously we're not talking about removing sounds from voice, but you mean just as a way to remove harsh frequencies?

Or am I totally off...

if i'm mixing a project, sure, quite often i'll dupe the lead vocal, cut out the "s"'s, and do a low-passed channel w/ them on it.

mastering-wise, and to control stuff like 2k buildup on a female singer or lots of vocals tracked w/ a 57, i'd rather just use multiband compression-- select the range that gets ugly and push it down a bit.

Sharmaji wrote:if i'm mixing a project, sure, quite often i'll dupe the lead vocal, cut out the "s"'s, and do a low-passed channel w/ them on it.

mastering-wise, and to control stuff like 2k buildup on a female singer or lots of vocals tracked w/ a 57, i'd rather just use multiband compression-- select the range that gets ugly and push it down a bit.

Fuck I never even thought of that. I really need to start playing with multiband compression and parallel, if only to get a feel for them.

look into mid/side eq'ing. it basically means you can eq the mono and stereo channels independently. best way to widen the stereo image (or turn it mono, good to have a stereo low cut on the master) without phasing.