Login

Q: "mud" approach?

Tips & tricks, working results, technical support

Q: "mud" approach?

Postby beingmf3 » Mon Feb 29, 2016 9:10 pm

I've recently tried a new (to me) approach towards treating "mud" frequencies. I'd be interested if someone does a similar thing?
So basically I try to "equalize" - in the true meaning of the word - the source with an algo eq, mostly cutting with a parametric around 200Hz or lower, sometimes also the 1k area. In order to bring the fullness back I'd use a Nebula EQ, Calrec, N**e, Gyrator etc.

It sounds really really good to me, anyone want to comment?
User avatar
beingmf3
Member
Member
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Q: "mud" approach?

Postby Avgatzeblouz » Mon Feb 29, 2016 9:56 pm

I do the same thing, but I cut with a dynamic Eq from McDSP. After that, boost a tad with 31102 Eq from TimP. Not muddy anymore, but nice body !
Avgatzeblouz
Vip Member
Vip Member
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:13 pm

Re: Q: "mud" approach?

Postby beingmf3 » Mon Feb 29, 2016 10:03 pm

Avgatzeblouz wrote:I do the same thing, but I cut with a dynamic Eq from McDSP. After that, boost a tad with 31102 Eq from TimP. Not muddy anymore, but nice body !

Alright, thanks. So I'm not alone :) btw TDR Nova is my go-to dynamic EQ in case I need one (there are some candidates ...) :lol:
User avatar
beingmf3
Member
Member
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Q: "mud" approach?

Postby botus99 » Mon Feb 29, 2016 10:16 pm

This approach makes a lot of sense to me. I like to use algo eq's (usually ReaEQ) early in the chain to "sanitize" tracks (clean up muddyness, notch out annoying/ringing resonances, etc), and THEN add Nebula programs after. I feel like this approach gives you a nice clean start and only makes the Nebula side of things work even better!

You're definitely not alone :lol:
Win10 Pro 64 / i7 6700K / 16gb RAM / Reaper | Allen&Heath ZED-R16 / Echo AudiofirePre8
Nebula Ultimate - Ochre, Red, Charly, Tan, Orange, Blue, Navy, Purple, Amethyst, Lime, Sand, Pink, 2412, 7236, Titanium, Aquamarine, Coral
User avatar
botus99
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:59 pm

Re: Q: "mud" approach?

Postby dpclarkson » Mon Feb 29, 2016 10:31 pm

For what it's worth; I like to set up an easy traditional chain, for instance:
N**e/A*I line/mic input-compressor-studer/ampex-ssl line input.
This generates a curve/vibe, and it also acts like an equalizer.
To clean up muddy frequencies totally depends on the source and style.
For instance, when dealing with muddy vocals, I like to use N**e 1073/81/84.
Every eq has it's own vibe. If you like that vibe, then start eq'ing.
There are tons of ways to clean up muddy sources, this is
just one out of many. But the chain starting from the source is important.
dpclarkson
Member
Member
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Q: "mud" approach?

Postby darren » Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:38 am

How does this approach differ from your previous?

Using EQ to reduce mud seems quite conventional, am I missing a detail?
User avatar
darren
User Level X
User Level X
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: Q: "mud" approach?

Postby beingmf3 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:12 pm

darren wrote:How does this approach differ from your previous?

Using EQ to reduce mud seems quite conventional, am I missing a detail?

The point is to cut with algos and boost the same frequency give or take with a "coloured" Nebula EQ.

Before I took it for granted that "cutting mud" equaled "thinner sound" - which isn't necessarily the case.
User avatar
beingmf3
Member
Member
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Q: "mud" approach?

Postby Brian » Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:08 am

Try it with Nova since you have that already. It's a great combination. Especially useful is dynamically taming resonances or mud with 1 or 2 bells, then boosting lows with a Nebula eq using a broad q bell or shelf. The shape and harmonics restore a lot of weight and fullness.

Indeed cutting mud shouldn't always equal thinner sound...it should result in a cleaner, tighter, or more open sounding frequency range (whether it's the low end or the mids).
Official dealer of Acustica Audio products in Taiwan.
Acustica Audio台灣授權經銷商
AcusticaSalesTW@gmail.com

Lynx Hilo | Win7 x64 | Reaper5 | PT12 | Ableton Live 9
Brian
Member
Member
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:10 pm
Location: Taipei, Taiwan / San Francisco, CA

Re: Q: "mud" approach?

Postby Sheikyearbouti » Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:29 am

What you describe is something I do a lot. Except that I still find HW or Nebula/Acqua EQs being better also for the cutting part. But often I need higher Q factor and fully variable frequency control for the cuts. I have this problem when working on an S*L G+ console. The Q goes only to 3 and it is very difficult to remove stuff. But even there with some gentle boost in the lows (shelf) and very gentle hi-Q peak cut in the mud region you could get good results. But it is just that some EQs are better for this duty. Some favs are the N**e VR (Q up to 9) and 88R EQs. I love how you can scoop out so much and still retain the integrity of the track. Other EQs like a Pultec or a 1073 are better for boosting the low end, not cutting, imho.
--
Nikolay Georgiev
http://georgievsound.com/
User avatar
Sheikyearbouti
Member
Member
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:49 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Q: "mud" approach?

Postby Sheikyearbouti » Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:31 am

So yeah, that is to say I like having a couple of EQs in series for different jobs.
--
Nikolay Georgiev
http://georgievsound.com/
User avatar
Sheikyearbouti
Member
Member
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:49 pm
Location: London, UK

Next

Return to Working with Nebula

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests