resonance and mixing

[mwerden]

A lot of times when you cut low-mids you can pull things back together with compression afterwards. You can cut aggressively to make sure the woof is gone and then thicken things back up with a gooey compressor.

In the case of the "expensive vintage mic" vocal a lot of times that muck disappears completely when you give a broad upper mid lift to bring things to life a bit.

You can also cut higher than you think you should. 400-800 range instead of 200-400.

[joninc]

what kind of comp do you like to add back some thickness? like a tube opto?

[mwerden]

You got it. LA2A, ELOP, LA3A. If you don't have that sort of thing around just use what you've got with slowest attack and fastest release. Sometimes that can add some body back even if the comp isn't what you'd normally consider thick and gooey.

[Nick Sevilla]

TWIRL THE KNOBS UNTIL THE MIX SOUNDS GREAT.

IGNORE THE NUMBERS OUTSIDE THEM KNOBS. THEY ARE EVIL.

[drumsound]

I'm with you, Nick. I often have no idea what frequency I'm screwing with.

[SpencerMartin]

TWIRL THE KNOBS UNTIL THE MIX SOUNDS GREAT.

IGNORE THE NUMBERS OUTSIDE THEM KNOBS. THEY ARE EVIL.

Yes! Amen. Although I will say that this is the approach to take about 90% of the time. Oftentimes when dealing with resonance (much more specific than general tone), what we're hearing is actually a specific frequency/pitch (down to the exact Hz if we're talking about bass) that's sticking out. In that 10% type scenario it's helpful to know the exact frequency/pitch that we're trying to address. It saves a ton of time spent guessing and second guessing. While a lot of shaping can be done with a shotgun, sometimes a scalpel is better suited for the task.

That being said, this should be 90% music and 10% science. Engineers stopped wearing the white lab coats a long time ago! Although that is the era that tends to stir up the most nostalgia, so who knows... Just make it sound good! That's it!