Dubstepforum.com

Hey guys, I just found out the wonders of Maximus on FL. I'm still kind of new to the whole mastering thing and I'm following my ears as much as I can, but I do know that there is a technical side I must learn. I know people set their highs and lows at different points.

What I want to know is where you guys set your points and why.

er dno i normally have like

20----[subbass]---90-----[low]------400-----[mid]-----2000-----[high]------15000


just the way i mix things. what i do is use an EQ on ur master (one with a visualiser on it), play instruments one at a time and see where all frequency ranges start and end. see where ur hi hats end, where ur midrange synths start and end, where the thumpy bit of ur kick is etc. and play them together and look at where the frequencies overlap n all that jazz. that'll help you decide where exactly are ur high points in low points. it'll be different for every track

also doesnt maximums just flab up the volume of everything and destroy dynamic range? its not a good thing to use? i never use it so i wuoldnt knwo

Well what I've learned with maximus so far is that you can seperate where the cutoffs of each frequency are, and you can set those cutoff points to whatever frequency you want. I could set my lows to go from 20hz-7.5khz. Or at least Maximus classifies it as Low. I also could do the same for the "Mids" and Highs". and yes you can boost here and there. But I've found out that I can use it with layering my drums, which is primarily what I will be doing with it unless people have a better way of creating drums *WHICH I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR, GIVE ME A CRASH COURSE*. Also I have a hypothetical idea that I haven't tried yet. I want to put maximus on my master and seperate what goes to low and what goes to high. Catch my drift? Lastly, thanks for the input Mr. Bennyfroobs.

why not try some kind of multiband comp, unless thats what maximus is?

Sinestepper wrote:why not try some kind of multiband comp, unless thats what maximus is?

I don't really understand multiband compression enough to use it yet. I've messed with it, but yea.

always on the ten and the six.

misk wrote:always on the ten and the six.

Does not compute.

I mostly use it for stereo imaging if anything, so I'll have the lows from ~200hz down, make them mono, and spread everything above ~7k

let me elaborate, because i was being a tnuc.

It's not where you "put" frequencies - that's something that happens as you add elements to a track (e.g. say your snare's "shimmer" around 4-6k). It's more a matter of what frequencies you choose to remove from a given element in the mix. think of your mixdown like tetris. only so many blocks fit in the box, and you've gotta take some away to add more, but the box can never be full or it's a box of shit. Along those same lines, you want the box to appear to be as full as possible.

maybe that doesn't make sense because it's 3am, and i've been staring at audiofinder all day.

regardless, where I (or anyone else) may choose to remove frequencies by way of subtractively EQing elements in a mix comes down to two major realities:

1. where do you want the element (say a kick drum) to sit in the mix? where does it naturally seem comfortable, and how can you accentuate that?. This is the "cold, hard, numerical data" aspect that just makes sense after a certain amount of experience mixing down tunes. For example, the reality is, if you want more sub frequencies on your kick, then you either layer it with a sub frequency kick, or accentuate the subharmonic frequencies by adjusting an eq band around 40-80(ish) hz.

in this case it would make more sense to layer it with a sub frequency kick, and then roll off the low end of your current kick (thus only allowing the transient attack to be perceived) - while at the same time, taking your sub kick element that you've layered with your original kick, and eqing it with a low-pass band curve so that nothing above say, 80hz gets through.

so here's some shitty art to demonstrate:



now these would be the eq curves for two different kicks, hitting at the same time, on different tracks, within a tune. if you choose quality samples, and they're eq'd subtractively, you'll find that ALL the elements in your tune become more clear within the context of the mix — even if they might sound thin or unfinished on their own —what matters is the MIX, and how it all comes together. This is why when you're scuplting the tonality of an element in your tune, it's best to not solo that part - because you'll naturally want to make it sound good on it's OWN, when what you need to be doing is making sure that element in your tune not only sounds better as a result of the mix, but accentuates the other elements of the mix with what it actually lacks.

Now, you're probably not going to find any "analog emulated" EQs with curves that steep. Hell, I can only think of a couple ridiculous plug-in EQs that even have curves that steep. Just because the curve looks steep or shallow, doesn't always mean it's an accurate representation of what it's actually doing - so always use your ears!

Last thing, and this has always struck me. I love typography - and I've studied it over the years in my spare time (yeah we're all weird). What makes letterforms work, is the same thing that makes ALL art work. it's not what you put on the page, but the NEGATIVE SPACE as well. it's what you choose to leave out that affects the overall composition of the painting, letter, photograph, tune, logo, clay pot, etc. always consider the negative space. What could you take away from your tune that would make it sound better?

The canvas is only so big - and i you fill it with every color you'll just end up with a solid black canvas.

apologies for the initial sarcasm - i'm a recovering hater, and sometimes it just slips out

EDIT: its late, i'm tired. i never mentioned the second major reality:

2. how does it all sound together to you? as your ears become more attuned to listening (not just hearing), you'll find bad mixdowns to become more blatantly obvious. you'll start hearing compression, and all sorts of other fun stuff that pretty much ruin listening to music for you - sorry, it seems to come with the territory.

Maximus is horrible IMO. I like to be precise with my values, and I don't like to draw the dynamic range curve myself. But that's my opinion, someone else might like it.

Misk is pretty spot on. Lately I've found that it's not really about processing to make things fit the mix, but rather finding elements that naturally add to the mix, filling out gaps without having to boost a shit tonne of frequencies. From there it's all about cutting, taking out anything that doesn't need to be there so other elements can reach their full potential.

There are no hard and fast rules tbh, but there's a good image around somewhere that shows you where certain instruments and sounds tend to sit. They're a guide, but they're by no means a rule you need to live by. Sometimes elements simply don't work at those frequencies due to the colour of their lower or higher frequencies.

It comes with time. Learn how to do your mixdowns before trying to master

Would anybody be willing to give an example of how a good mixdown would be done? Maybe a video or something. I'm still a tad confused. I mean I get the whole subtractive stuff but "finding elements that naturally add to the mix". I'm not really sure on what that means or how to achieve it. Unless you mean in the literal definition. "If you need a snare then get a snare" -__-. Sorry for the noobish questions. I'm so set on my dream its frustrating sometimes

it means finding elements that don't fight each other. It's a more complex version of sub bass doesn't fight with a hihat. The sub is in the sub region 0-100 hz, while the hats are in the top end, 1khz+ or whatever, so naturally, they don't take up each other's space. So when you add elements, pick out ones that don't fight what you already have. If one element is very present around 500hz, don't add other elements that are very present there, but instead around 1000hz etc...
Old analogy, but think of it as having alot of stuff you want to put in a drawer. Throw everything in there and it won't add up, but stack it nicely and it will.
Get my point?

ohhhhhh I gotchya now. That makes a ton of sense. But if I did stack upon a certain frequency would that be called layering? Or is layering a stacked sound with a bunch of different frequencies? Like lets say I make a snare at 900hz and "layer" it with other sounds at lets say 100hz. Would that be called layering? Or would be stacking only on the 900?

Yes, if it's done in a certain way, for example you wanna layer a few different bass sounds. Usually when you do that you also have to drop the volume on both, as they double up on each other - and that's the issue with multiple elements. When they double up, they add on in amplitude even though it may not sound like it, and means you hit the upper limit of zero, which causes all sorts of problems.

Awesome. Thanks guys for the help. I think I've got all the questions answered at the moment

I have a special box in my room where I put my frequencies.
I heard there's a company that produces lockers specifically designed to hold frequencies, I think its a tad gimmicky though.
Stick with a good old shoe box, never lets you down.

woa nice joke lel

Is this about multi-band compression or what? OP basically said it's not, but I have no idea
what it could be otherwise.

If it is, it doesn't make sense to have a set point for the different bands.