How to use spectrum analyser to find problem frequencies [closed]









up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I would like be able to identify problems in a mix by looking at the spectrum analyser, now I realize that mixing is done with the ears, not the eyes but I mix in a room with bad acoustics so I cannot rely only on what I hear. How do problems in a mix look in a spectrum analyser? (by problems I mean things like resonances, mud or anything that can make a song sound bad)










share|improve this question













closed as too broad by Carl Witthoft, Richard, Tim, Doktor Mayhem Nov 16 at 9:11


Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.










  • 2




    Sadly, if there were reasonably simple algorithms which could process the output of a complex FFT and give you the info you want, everyone would be using them. There aren't.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Nov 8 at 14:00










  • Carl is right. If such algorithms existed, they would not be simple- in fact, they would probably qualify as near-human AI.
    – Scott Wallace
    Nov 15 at 14:08














up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I would like be able to identify problems in a mix by looking at the spectrum analyser, now I realize that mixing is done with the ears, not the eyes but I mix in a room with bad acoustics so I cannot rely only on what I hear. How do problems in a mix look in a spectrum analyser? (by problems I mean things like resonances, mud or anything that can make a song sound bad)










share|improve this question













closed as too broad by Carl Witthoft, Richard, Tim, Doktor Mayhem Nov 16 at 9:11


Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.










  • 2




    Sadly, if there were reasonably simple algorithms which could process the output of a complex FFT and give you the info you want, everyone would be using them. There aren't.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Nov 8 at 14:00










  • Carl is right. If such algorithms existed, they would not be simple- in fact, they would probably qualify as near-human AI.
    – Scott Wallace
    Nov 15 at 14:08












up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











I would like be able to identify problems in a mix by looking at the spectrum analyser, now I realize that mixing is done with the ears, not the eyes but I mix in a room with bad acoustics so I cannot rely only on what I hear. How do problems in a mix look in a spectrum analyser? (by problems I mean things like resonances, mud or anything that can make a song sound bad)










share|improve this question













I would like be able to identify problems in a mix by looking at the spectrum analyser, now I realize that mixing is done with the ears, not the eyes but I mix in a room with bad acoustics so I cannot rely only on what I hear. How do problems in a mix look in a spectrum analyser? (by problems I mean things like resonances, mud or anything that can make a song sound bad)







software mixing






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 8 at 12:37









lost-mid

111




111




closed as too broad by Carl Witthoft, Richard, Tim, Doktor Mayhem Nov 16 at 9:11


Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.






closed as too broad by Carl Witthoft, Richard, Tim, Doktor Mayhem Nov 16 at 9:11


Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 2




    Sadly, if there were reasonably simple algorithms which could process the output of a complex FFT and give you the info you want, everyone would be using them. There aren't.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Nov 8 at 14:00










  • Carl is right. If such algorithms existed, they would not be simple- in fact, they would probably qualify as near-human AI.
    – Scott Wallace
    Nov 15 at 14:08












  • 2




    Sadly, if there were reasonably simple algorithms which could process the output of a complex FFT and give you the info you want, everyone would be using them. There aren't.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Nov 8 at 14:00










  • Carl is right. If such algorithms existed, they would not be simple- in fact, they would probably qualify as near-human AI.
    – Scott Wallace
    Nov 15 at 14:08







2




2




Sadly, if there were reasonably simple algorithms which could process the output of a complex FFT and give you the info you want, everyone would be using them. There aren't.
– Carl Witthoft
Nov 8 at 14:00




Sadly, if there were reasonably simple algorithms which could process the output of a complex FFT and give you the info you want, everyone would be using them. There aren't.
– Carl Witthoft
Nov 8 at 14:00












Carl is right. If such algorithms existed, they would not be simple- in fact, they would probably qualify as near-human AI.
– Scott Wallace
Nov 15 at 14:08




Carl is right. If such algorithms existed, they would not be simple- in fact, they would probably qualify as near-human AI.
– Scott Wallace
Nov 15 at 14:08










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













We ALL mix in a room with bad acoustics (and using imperfect monitors)! That's why we get nice and close to our monitor speakers - more direct sound, less room sound - and why we take our mixes to different playback systems - car stereo, home hi-fi, phone and earbuds, boom-box - to check what a range of listners will hear. With experience, we get to know how a mix needs to sound on our studio monitors.



There's one thing a spectrum analyser CAN be invaluable for. It's easy to over-do the low bass. YOU may not have a playback system that goes (audibly) down to 20Hz... (The flip-side of this is that sometimes 'compatibility' isn't the way to go. If you're making EDM aimed at club systems, do a 'Club mix' with room-shaking bass, a 'Radio mix' without.)






share|improve this answer




















  • I agree. Plus there are few DIY inexpensive tricks to improve acoustic for mixing. I've heard that putting behind you books on the shelves improves much the clarity, but haven't tried that yet.
    – Wookie88
    Nov 8 at 14:53










  • Yes, a full bookshelf is certainly non-reflective, and might even be a pretty good bass trap! Studio clutter is GOOD!
    – Laurence Payne
    Nov 8 at 19:20

















up vote
2
down vote













Welcome to our Q&A board! :-)



Long story short: resonances are frequencies with especially high amplitude (so look at especially bright stripes on spectrum analyser), mud is too much lower frequencies (and that is not so obvious to tell by only looking at the spectrum).



But in my opinion it is impossible to make a good mix just by looking, you REALLY need to HEAR it. If the acoustics of the room is a problem no worries - just equip yourself with proper headphones. Better mix on the headphones than on monitors in room with bad acoustics. I recommend for example Sennheiser HD600, they have lot of detail and do not enhance the sound (the characteristic is flat as possible). Of course it's not the only model, you should browse more audio engineering-related forums to find other recommended models.



Also, please use search function, there was quite similar question recently - How to identify mud and resonance in a mix






share|improve this answer
















  • 3




    Can't quite agree with the advice of mixing with headphones. In particular “mud” will generally not be as obvious on headphones as it is on speakers. Good as supplementary aid, yes, but dangerous if you rely solely on them.
    – leftaroundabout
    Nov 8 at 14:27










  • @leftaroundabout: I heard it described as "a headphone is a microscope".
    – Jörg W Mittag
    Nov 9 at 1:48

















up vote
1
down vote













I use a spectrum analyzer to equalize the sound in the room, the monitors and the room will have their own resonances which can be identified with the analyzer. When the peaks are attenuated and the weak frequencies boosted to achieve flat response in the room then the listener/engineer has the most ideal possibility of adjusting the mix to accurately represent the original sound as it was recorded. That said, spectrum analyzers and equalizers have their limitations, well designed rooms and flat responding monitors are also very important.






share|improve this answer




















  • You can't 'eq out' a bad room. Fix the room, and play as accurate a signal as possible into it.
    – Laurence Payne
    Nov 8 at 19:22










  • @Laurence Payne- I agree with you 100%, Perhaps my last sentence wasn't clear enough.
    – skinny peacock
    Nov 9 at 2:33

















3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
5
down vote













We ALL mix in a room with bad acoustics (and using imperfect monitors)! That's why we get nice and close to our monitor speakers - more direct sound, less room sound - and why we take our mixes to different playback systems - car stereo, home hi-fi, phone and earbuds, boom-box - to check what a range of listners will hear. With experience, we get to know how a mix needs to sound on our studio monitors.



There's one thing a spectrum analyser CAN be invaluable for. It's easy to over-do the low bass. YOU may not have a playback system that goes (audibly) down to 20Hz... (The flip-side of this is that sometimes 'compatibility' isn't the way to go. If you're making EDM aimed at club systems, do a 'Club mix' with room-shaking bass, a 'Radio mix' without.)






share|improve this answer




















  • I agree. Plus there are few DIY inexpensive tricks to improve acoustic for mixing. I've heard that putting behind you books on the shelves improves much the clarity, but haven't tried that yet.
    – Wookie88
    Nov 8 at 14:53










  • Yes, a full bookshelf is certainly non-reflective, and might even be a pretty good bass trap! Studio clutter is GOOD!
    – Laurence Payne
    Nov 8 at 19:20














up vote
5
down vote













We ALL mix in a room with bad acoustics (and using imperfect monitors)! That's why we get nice and close to our monitor speakers - more direct sound, less room sound - and why we take our mixes to different playback systems - car stereo, home hi-fi, phone and earbuds, boom-box - to check what a range of listners will hear. With experience, we get to know how a mix needs to sound on our studio monitors.



There's one thing a spectrum analyser CAN be invaluable for. It's easy to over-do the low bass. YOU may not have a playback system that goes (audibly) down to 20Hz... (The flip-side of this is that sometimes 'compatibility' isn't the way to go. If you're making EDM aimed at club systems, do a 'Club mix' with room-shaking bass, a 'Radio mix' without.)






share|improve this answer




















  • I agree. Plus there are few DIY inexpensive tricks to improve acoustic for mixing. I've heard that putting behind you books on the shelves improves much the clarity, but haven't tried that yet.
    – Wookie88
    Nov 8 at 14:53










  • Yes, a full bookshelf is certainly non-reflective, and might even be a pretty good bass trap! Studio clutter is GOOD!
    – Laurence Payne
    Nov 8 at 19:20












up vote
5
down vote










up vote
5
down vote









We ALL mix in a room with bad acoustics (and using imperfect monitors)! That's why we get nice and close to our monitor speakers - more direct sound, less room sound - and why we take our mixes to different playback systems - car stereo, home hi-fi, phone and earbuds, boom-box - to check what a range of listners will hear. With experience, we get to know how a mix needs to sound on our studio monitors.



There's one thing a spectrum analyser CAN be invaluable for. It's easy to over-do the low bass. YOU may not have a playback system that goes (audibly) down to 20Hz... (The flip-side of this is that sometimes 'compatibility' isn't the way to go. If you're making EDM aimed at club systems, do a 'Club mix' with room-shaking bass, a 'Radio mix' without.)






share|improve this answer












We ALL mix in a room with bad acoustics (and using imperfect monitors)! That's why we get nice and close to our monitor speakers - more direct sound, less room sound - and why we take our mixes to different playback systems - car stereo, home hi-fi, phone and earbuds, boom-box - to check what a range of listners will hear. With experience, we get to know how a mix needs to sound on our studio monitors.



There's one thing a spectrum analyser CAN be invaluable for. It's easy to over-do the low bass. YOU may not have a playback system that goes (audibly) down to 20Hz... (The flip-side of this is that sometimes 'compatibility' isn't the way to go. If you're making EDM aimed at club systems, do a 'Club mix' with room-shaking bass, a 'Radio mix' without.)







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Nov 8 at 14:01









Laurence Payne

30k1451




30k1451











  • I agree. Plus there are few DIY inexpensive tricks to improve acoustic for mixing. I've heard that putting behind you books on the shelves improves much the clarity, but haven't tried that yet.
    – Wookie88
    Nov 8 at 14:53










  • Yes, a full bookshelf is certainly non-reflective, and might even be a pretty good bass trap! Studio clutter is GOOD!
    – Laurence Payne
    Nov 8 at 19:20
















  • I agree. Plus there are few DIY inexpensive tricks to improve acoustic for mixing. I've heard that putting behind you books on the shelves improves much the clarity, but haven't tried that yet.
    – Wookie88
    Nov 8 at 14:53










  • Yes, a full bookshelf is certainly non-reflective, and might even be a pretty good bass trap! Studio clutter is GOOD!
    – Laurence Payne
    Nov 8 at 19:20















I agree. Plus there are few DIY inexpensive tricks to improve acoustic for mixing. I've heard that putting behind you books on the shelves improves much the clarity, but haven't tried that yet.
– Wookie88
Nov 8 at 14:53




I agree. Plus there are few DIY inexpensive tricks to improve acoustic for mixing. I've heard that putting behind you books on the shelves improves much the clarity, but haven't tried that yet.
– Wookie88
Nov 8 at 14:53












Yes, a full bookshelf is certainly non-reflective, and might even be a pretty good bass trap! Studio clutter is GOOD!
– Laurence Payne
Nov 8 at 19:20




Yes, a full bookshelf is certainly non-reflective, and might even be a pretty good bass trap! Studio clutter is GOOD!
– Laurence Payne
Nov 8 at 19:20










up vote
2
down vote













Welcome to our Q&A board! :-)



Long story short: resonances are frequencies with especially high amplitude (so look at especially bright stripes on spectrum analyser), mud is too much lower frequencies (and that is not so obvious to tell by only looking at the spectrum).



But in my opinion it is impossible to make a good mix just by looking, you REALLY need to HEAR it. If the acoustics of the room is a problem no worries - just equip yourself with proper headphones. Better mix on the headphones than on monitors in room with bad acoustics. I recommend for example Sennheiser HD600, they have lot of detail and do not enhance the sound (the characteristic is flat as possible). Of course it's not the only model, you should browse more audio engineering-related forums to find other recommended models.



Also, please use search function, there was quite similar question recently - How to identify mud and resonance in a mix






share|improve this answer
















  • 3




    Can't quite agree with the advice of mixing with headphones. In particular “mud” will generally not be as obvious on headphones as it is on speakers. Good as supplementary aid, yes, but dangerous if you rely solely on them.
    – leftaroundabout
    Nov 8 at 14:27










  • @leftaroundabout: I heard it described as "a headphone is a microscope".
    – Jörg W Mittag
    Nov 9 at 1:48














up vote
2
down vote













Welcome to our Q&A board! :-)



Long story short: resonances are frequencies with especially high amplitude (so look at especially bright stripes on spectrum analyser), mud is too much lower frequencies (and that is not so obvious to tell by only looking at the spectrum).



But in my opinion it is impossible to make a good mix just by looking, you REALLY need to HEAR it. If the acoustics of the room is a problem no worries - just equip yourself with proper headphones. Better mix on the headphones than on monitors in room with bad acoustics. I recommend for example Sennheiser HD600, they have lot of detail and do not enhance the sound (the characteristic is flat as possible). Of course it's not the only model, you should browse more audio engineering-related forums to find other recommended models.



Also, please use search function, there was quite similar question recently - How to identify mud and resonance in a mix






share|improve this answer
















  • 3




    Can't quite agree with the advice of mixing with headphones. In particular “mud” will generally not be as obvious on headphones as it is on speakers. Good as supplementary aid, yes, but dangerous if you rely solely on them.
    – leftaroundabout
    Nov 8 at 14:27










  • @leftaroundabout: I heard it described as "a headphone is a microscope".
    – Jörg W Mittag
    Nov 9 at 1:48












up vote
2
down vote










up vote
2
down vote









Welcome to our Q&A board! :-)



Long story short: resonances are frequencies with especially high amplitude (so look at especially bright stripes on spectrum analyser), mud is too much lower frequencies (and that is not so obvious to tell by only looking at the spectrum).



But in my opinion it is impossible to make a good mix just by looking, you REALLY need to HEAR it. If the acoustics of the room is a problem no worries - just equip yourself with proper headphones. Better mix on the headphones than on monitors in room with bad acoustics. I recommend for example Sennheiser HD600, they have lot of detail and do not enhance the sound (the characteristic is flat as possible). Of course it's not the only model, you should browse more audio engineering-related forums to find other recommended models.



Also, please use search function, there was quite similar question recently - How to identify mud and resonance in a mix






share|improve this answer












Welcome to our Q&A board! :-)



Long story short: resonances are frequencies with especially high amplitude (so look at especially bright stripes on spectrum analyser), mud is too much lower frequencies (and that is not so obvious to tell by only looking at the spectrum).



But in my opinion it is impossible to make a good mix just by looking, you REALLY need to HEAR it. If the acoustics of the room is a problem no worries - just equip yourself with proper headphones. Better mix on the headphones than on monitors in room with bad acoustics. I recommend for example Sennheiser HD600, they have lot of detail and do not enhance the sound (the characteristic is flat as possible). Of course it's not the only model, you should browse more audio engineering-related forums to find other recommended models.



Also, please use search function, there was quite similar question recently - How to identify mud and resonance in a mix







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Nov 8 at 13:21









Wookie88

29728




29728







  • 3




    Can't quite agree with the advice of mixing with headphones. In particular “mud” will generally not be as obvious on headphones as it is on speakers. Good as supplementary aid, yes, but dangerous if you rely solely on them.
    – leftaroundabout
    Nov 8 at 14:27










  • @leftaroundabout: I heard it described as "a headphone is a microscope".
    – Jörg W Mittag
    Nov 9 at 1:48












  • 3




    Can't quite agree with the advice of mixing with headphones. In particular “mud” will generally not be as obvious on headphones as it is on speakers. Good as supplementary aid, yes, but dangerous if you rely solely on them.
    – leftaroundabout
    Nov 8 at 14:27










  • @leftaroundabout: I heard it described as "a headphone is a microscope".
    – Jörg W Mittag
    Nov 9 at 1:48







3




3




Can't quite agree with the advice of mixing with headphones. In particular “mud” will generally not be as obvious on headphones as it is on speakers. Good as supplementary aid, yes, but dangerous if you rely solely on them.
– leftaroundabout
Nov 8 at 14:27




Can't quite agree with the advice of mixing with headphones. In particular “mud” will generally not be as obvious on headphones as it is on speakers. Good as supplementary aid, yes, but dangerous if you rely solely on them.
– leftaroundabout
Nov 8 at 14:27












@leftaroundabout: I heard it described as "a headphone is a microscope".
– Jörg W Mittag
Nov 9 at 1:48




@leftaroundabout: I heard it described as "a headphone is a microscope".
– Jörg W Mittag
Nov 9 at 1:48










up vote
1
down vote













I use a spectrum analyzer to equalize the sound in the room, the monitors and the room will have their own resonances which can be identified with the analyzer. When the peaks are attenuated and the weak frequencies boosted to achieve flat response in the room then the listener/engineer has the most ideal possibility of adjusting the mix to accurately represent the original sound as it was recorded. That said, spectrum analyzers and equalizers have their limitations, well designed rooms and flat responding monitors are also very important.






share|improve this answer




















  • You can't 'eq out' a bad room. Fix the room, and play as accurate a signal as possible into it.
    – Laurence Payne
    Nov 8 at 19:22










  • @Laurence Payne- I agree with you 100%, Perhaps my last sentence wasn't clear enough.
    – skinny peacock
    Nov 9 at 2:33














up vote
1
down vote













I use a spectrum analyzer to equalize the sound in the room, the monitors and the room will have their own resonances which can be identified with the analyzer. When the peaks are attenuated and the weak frequencies boosted to achieve flat response in the room then the listener/engineer has the most ideal possibility of adjusting the mix to accurately represent the original sound as it was recorded. That said, spectrum analyzers and equalizers have their limitations, well designed rooms and flat responding monitors are also very important.






share|improve this answer




















  • You can't 'eq out' a bad room. Fix the room, and play as accurate a signal as possible into it.
    – Laurence Payne
    Nov 8 at 19:22










  • @Laurence Payne- I agree with you 100%, Perhaps my last sentence wasn't clear enough.
    – skinny peacock
    Nov 9 at 2:33












up vote
1
down vote










up vote
1
down vote









I use a spectrum analyzer to equalize the sound in the room, the monitors and the room will have their own resonances which can be identified with the analyzer. When the peaks are attenuated and the weak frequencies boosted to achieve flat response in the room then the listener/engineer has the most ideal possibility of adjusting the mix to accurately represent the original sound as it was recorded. That said, spectrum analyzers and equalizers have their limitations, well designed rooms and flat responding monitors are also very important.






share|improve this answer












I use a spectrum analyzer to equalize the sound in the room, the monitors and the room will have their own resonances which can be identified with the analyzer. When the peaks are attenuated and the weak frequencies boosted to achieve flat response in the room then the listener/engineer has the most ideal possibility of adjusting the mix to accurately represent the original sound as it was recorded. That said, spectrum analyzers and equalizers have their limitations, well designed rooms and flat responding monitors are also very important.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Nov 8 at 15:22









skinny peacock

1,8222321




1,8222321











  • You can't 'eq out' a bad room. Fix the room, and play as accurate a signal as possible into it.
    – Laurence Payne
    Nov 8 at 19:22










  • @Laurence Payne- I agree with you 100%, Perhaps my last sentence wasn't clear enough.
    – skinny peacock
    Nov 9 at 2:33
















  • You can't 'eq out' a bad room. Fix the room, and play as accurate a signal as possible into it.
    – Laurence Payne
    Nov 8 at 19:22










  • @Laurence Payne- I agree with you 100%, Perhaps my last sentence wasn't clear enough.
    – skinny peacock
    Nov 9 at 2:33















You can't 'eq out' a bad room. Fix the room, and play as accurate a signal as possible into it.
– Laurence Payne
Nov 8 at 19:22




You can't 'eq out' a bad room. Fix the room, and play as accurate a signal as possible into it.
– Laurence Payne
Nov 8 at 19:22












@Laurence Payne- I agree with you 100%, Perhaps my last sentence wasn't clear enough.
– skinny peacock
Nov 9 at 2:33




@Laurence Payne- I agree with you 100%, Perhaps my last sentence wasn't clear enough.
– skinny peacock
Nov 9 at 2:33



Popular posts from this blog

𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

Edmonton

Crossroads (UK TV series)