Dang Chris! I was mixing my attempt at Don Henley's Boys of Summer where I am using a piano that I couldn't get tonally right. This idea was just what I needed. A huge improvement. Very natural sounding. Thanks.
Hey Chris, I'm seeing this more and more but it's important to note that a parallel EQ is not the same as a regular EQ mixed in parallel with the dry signal. In an equalizer, parallel refers to the internal topology of the filters. In most equalizers the signal passes through each band sequentially, and each band has an effect on both the phase and magnitude of the signal (at least for minimum phase EQs). In a parallel EQ the signal passes through all bands in parallel, and the phase response of all bands are then summed. It is this combined phase response that creates the final magnitude response of the equalizer, and for this reason parallel equalizers have slightly different band interactions than do series equalizers. You cannot take a standard minimum phase EQ and blend it in parallel with a dry signal to achieve the same result; the combined phase and magnitude response blended with the dry signal will cause all sorts of unintended consequences which can be difficult to predict. In this case if you were to run white noise or a sine sweep through the piano channel I think you would see that the overall frequency response is actually quite different than you may think. Hope that helps clarify.
Hey Ian, to be honest with you, I don't focus much on all the technical geeky stuff. For me, if it sound's good, it's good even if the technique used is technically "not accurate". With that said, I want to thank you for your comment and for taking the time to provide us with very good info on the issue that can be useful for many :-) Very cool stuff!
My pleasure Chris. I totally get the "if it sounds good, it is good" mentality. In my opinion though, where the technical geeky stuff is useful is when it doesn't sound good and you can't figure out why. In a lot of cases blending a standard minimum phase EQ in parallel with a dry signal won't have quite the result you expect if you don't understand that a parallel equalizer is different than a minimum phase equalizer blended in parallel with a dry signal. It's just something I've seen popping up more and more, and people seem not to realize that parallel EQs such as the Massive Passive, Clariphonic, TDR Nova, and TDR Slick EQ M (to name a few) are different beasts than other minimum phase EQs, so this is just me trying to stem the spread of disinformation. :)
"In my opinion though, where the technical geeky stuff is useful is when it doesn't sound good and you can't figure out why. " You're right about Ian! Thanks again for your input :-)
great tutorial, I find that in every mix your vocal sounds special, I hope you can do tutorial for the vocal and vocal verb, that would be great. as when I add verb to the vocal it starts to collapse. and the vocal sound is lovely btw
Hi Chris, as a pianist, I will definitely try this out when I have issues with muddiness (which happens quite often with virtual instruments). As a question: what about panning differently the duplicated piano track (or the bus/send)? For instance, does it make sense to send the secondary track (with high end boosted) to the extremes, using M/S panning? Or would it be too artificial?
If you want to work on mudiness start by cutting the low mids (250Hz - 500Hz)... I'm not a big M-S fan for this type of stuff but try it out, maybe you'll like it :-)
@@mixdownonline I am actually trying this in my current solo piano recording. As for the m/s... is not as noticeable as it could be, if you want the sound to stay "believable"
Brilliant tutorial! Thanks for sharing this knowledge. I wanted to ask a question if that's ok ..... How would you go about "mixing" for just solo piano? Without the vocals? In this video, you clear a space in the centre of the mix for the vocals, but what would you do if it was just a solo piano piece? With regards to EQ, reverb, panning, etc. Many thanks in advance.
Very helpful though I didn't completely understand the routing as I do not use Steinberg. Starting with the Imager helped quite a bit as phasing on virtual pianos seems to be up and down the whole frequency range lots of times.
Firstly, fabulous channel. I subscribed only last week and I have already learned a great deal. Thank you for sharing your knowledge! So it appears that you're boosting the top end on that piano to give it some additional presence and sparkle. My question is, would an exciter on the piano track achieve roughly the same effect? Or is an exciter more assertive, perhaps too much for piano?
Good question. I never ran into phase issues doing so and I don't use linear eq. Now if it was to happen, the phase issue would result in a darker sound with no top frequencies. From what I understand, high frequencies are less susceptible to frequency cancellation than low frequencies due to their wavelength.
Very great video I am trying to mix a piano , did you convert your piano into waves or you left it as it is in piano roll , if so did you use the plugins and panning before converting it into waves or after??
@@mixdownonline tHANK YOU alot man your videos so helpful any advice to me about mixing the piano and vocals because they sound like each one of them playing in different planet
Hey Chris. Great video. I do notice that when I bring the parallel EQ channel into the mix it pulls the piano towards the center more. In fact, if I put it all the way up the piano pulls completely into the center. Because my parallel EQ FX channel is centered I presume? Should the parallel EQ FX Channel be panned the same as the piano track itself to keep the center clear for the vocal? I have the piano panned 100% Left. Reverb send panned 100% Right. The parallel send on the piano channel is in the center. I do understand that I will never have the Parallel EQ at 100% but it's something I am noticing. I want to keep that middle clean but I also don't want to run into other issues if I start panning the parallel EQ FX channel. Thx.
Yes, I love sends... Use them all the time... But "sending" a signal on an Aux (Group or FX track) or duplicating that same signal (pre-fader) is basically the same thing.
I play real or synth pianos on my tracks and always have to double them by playing twice otherwise it never sounds anything full or impressive, now i see you here trying to downsize the piano,, hmm maybe a virtual instruments is better after all
I don't think one is better than the other, it depends on your needs. A lot of virtual pianos are pretty wide and sometimes it's not what I need, so I tweak them at this point
I'm sorry but parallel EQ is just plain silly. Applying EQ on a send (or copied track) is *exactly* the same as applying (a little less) EQ on the track itself. Unless there are other processes at work in the EQ you use (transformer, tube, op-amps, ...) there is a zero difference.
No its not...Theres a difference between having a single edited dry signal and a completely dry signal mixed in with another one. They Sum together differently than one single channel can do by itself.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Dang Chris! I was mixing my attempt at Don Henley's Boys of Summer where I am using a piano that I couldn't get tonally right. This
idea was just what I needed. A huge improvement. Very natural sounding. Thanks.
You're welcome, Joe!
Very cool. I've used parallel compression many times but never tried parallel EQ. I can't wait to try it!
You're gonna like it!
That trick with the stereo plug made my day! I have had issues with both my piano VST as well as Session Horns, now I know how to fix that!
That's so cool :-)
Hey Chris, I'm seeing this more and more but it's important to note that a parallel EQ is not the same as a regular EQ mixed in parallel with the dry signal. In an equalizer, parallel refers to the internal topology of the filters. In most equalizers the signal passes through each band sequentially, and each band has an effect on both the phase and magnitude of the signal (at least for minimum phase EQs). In a parallel EQ the signal passes through all bands in parallel, and the phase response of all bands are then summed. It is this combined phase response that creates the final magnitude response of the equalizer, and for this reason parallel equalizers have slightly different band interactions than do series equalizers. You cannot take a standard minimum phase EQ and blend it in parallel with a dry signal to achieve the same result; the combined phase and magnitude response blended with the dry signal will cause all sorts of unintended consequences which can be difficult to predict. In this case if you were to run white noise or a sine sweep through the piano channel I think you would see that the overall frequency response is actually quite different than you may think. Hope that helps clarify.
Hey Ian, to be honest with you, I don't focus much on all the technical geeky stuff. For me, if it sound's good, it's good even if the technique used is technically "not accurate". With that said, I want to thank you for your comment and for taking the time to provide us with very good info on the issue that can be useful for many :-) Very cool stuff!
My pleasure Chris. I totally get the "if it sounds good, it is good" mentality. In my opinion though, where the technical geeky stuff is useful is when it doesn't sound good and you can't figure out why. In a lot of cases blending a standard minimum phase EQ in parallel with a dry signal won't have quite the result you expect if you don't understand that a parallel equalizer is different than a minimum phase equalizer blended in parallel with a dry signal.
It's just something I've seen popping up more and more, and people seem not to realize that parallel EQs such as the Massive Passive, Clariphonic, TDR Nova, and TDR Slick EQ M (to name a few) are different beasts than other minimum phase EQs, so this is just me trying to stem the spread of disinformation. :)
"In my opinion though, where the technical geeky stuff is useful is when it doesn't sound good and you can't figure out why. " You're right about Ian! Thanks again for your input :-)
great tutorial, I find that in every mix your vocal sounds special, I hope you can do tutorial for the vocal and vocal verb, that would be great. as when I add verb to the vocal it starts to collapse. and the vocal sound is lovely btw
I actually have a new vid coming up soon about a cool reverb trick that works very well on vocals...stay tuned!
Hi Chris, as a pianist, I will definitely try this out when I have issues with muddiness (which happens quite often with virtual instruments). As a question: what about panning differently the duplicated piano track (or the bus/send)? For instance, does it make sense to send the secondary track (with high end boosted) to the extremes, using M/S panning? Or would it be too artificial?
If you want to work on mudiness start by cutting the low mids (250Hz - 500Hz)... I'm not a big M-S fan for this type of stuff but try it out, maybe you'll like it :-)
@@mixdownonline I am actually trying this in my current solo piano recording. As for the m/s... is not as noticeable as it could be, if you want the sound to stay "believable"
Brilliant tutorial! Thanks for sharing this knowledge.
I wanted to ask a question if that's ok ..... How would you go about "mixing" for just solo piano? Without the vocals? In this video, you clear a space in the centre of the mix for the vocals, but what would you do if it was just a solo piano piece? With regards to EQ, reverb, panning, etc. Many thanks in advance.
Very helpful though I didn't completely understand the routing as I do not use Steinberg. Starting with the Imager helped quite a bit as phasing on virtual pianos seems to be up and down the whole frequency range lots of times.
Happy it was helpful, You can do the same in any DAW!
Thank you! 👍
Love this! :D Thanks a lot, for making this!!
You're welcome!
Great tips, Chris, thanks ever so much!!!
You're welcome bro!
Firstly, fabulous channel. I subscribed only last week and I have already learned a great deal. Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
So it appears that you're boosting the top end on that piano to give it some additional presence and sparkle. My question is, would an exciter on the piano track achieve roughly the same effect? Or is an exciter more assertive, perhaps too much for piano?
an exciter will do a similar thing by working on the harmonics of the signal...
thank you. Very useful
subscribed ! you are amazing as usual!
Thank you so much!!
liked this a lot. I use cubase. do u have a series of instructions? for say intermediates and up?
tnx!!!
What I have concerning Cubase on my channel can be found here ruclips.net/p/PLHfS_0liDLIORaRDT6Za8ywKSVsNxlNn8
Feel free to send me whatever questions or suggestions you might have by email on my website mixdown.online/en/any-questions/
Very helpful thank you, Can you please give us the name of the Piano VST ?
There you go www.native-instruments.com/en/products/komplete/keys/alicias-keys/
Neat. Can you run into phase issues with this technique or do you just restrict this to linear type EQs?
Good question. I never ran into phase issues doing so and I don't use linear eq. Now if it was to happen, the phase issue would result in a darker sound with no top frequencies. From what I understand, high frequencies are less susceptible to frequency cancellation than low frequencies due to their wavelength.
Thank you Chris :-) is there any plug in similar to Clariphonic?
Not sure, I don't know any on my side. The parallel approach is the best way to get close to the Clariphonic.
Very great video I am trying to mix a piano , did you convert your piano into waves or you left it as it is in piano roll , if so did you use the plugins and panning before converting it into waves or after??
When I use a VST to record a piano, I usually bounce the midi into wav and then I work my mix with plugns and so on.
@@mixdownonline tHANK YOU alot man your videos so helpful any advice to me about mixing the piano and vocals because they sound like each one of them playing in different planet
How put my piano and Fx
Realy informative., How could someone dislike??
Thanks :-)
What’s your say on using this technique on huge synth like in future bass drops, for example?
I would probably not...not to enhanced the top end of a bass sound anyways
Clariphonic demo from Kush sadly does not show up in either Cubase pro 9.5 or Cubase pro 10.0 so...
Probably just an installation problem, make sure the the plugin is installed in the correct VST folder
Could anyone please tell me how to master solo piano samples? Do I need to gain stage my piano samples?
Subscribed my friend Merci
Merci à toi :-)
Como hago para que suene como killer Queen?
Hey Chris. Great video. I do notice that when I bring the parallel EQ channel into the mix it pulls the piano towards the center more. In fact, if I put it all the way up the piano pulls completely into the center. Because my parallel EQ FX channel is centered I presume? Should the parallel EQ FX Channel be panned the same as the piano track itself to keep the center clear for the vocal? I have the piano panned 100% Left. Reverb send panned 100% Right. The parallel send on the piano channel is in the center. I do understand that I will never have the Parallel EQ at 100% but it's something I am noticing. I want to keep that middle clean but I also don't want to run into other issues if I start panning the parallel EQ FX channel. Thx.
Is not the same to duplicate the track and add EQ and mult....using a send is way better!
Yes, I love sends... Use them all the time... But "sending" a signal on an Aux (Group or FX track) or duplicating that same signal (pre-fader) is basically the same thing.
can you please give me this file,
I can't share the multitracks but here's the RUclips clip of this song if you want to listen to the song... ruclips.net/video/M5y717O5YLE/видео.html
I play real or synth pianos on my tracks and always have to double them by playing twice otherwise it never sounds anything full or impressive, now i see you here trying to downsize the piano,, hmm maybe a virtual instruments is better after all
I don't think one is better than the other, it depends on your needs. A lot of virtual pianos are pretty wide and sometimes it's not what I need, so I tweak them at this point
I'm sorry but parallel EQ is just plain silly. Applying EQ on a send (or copied track) is *exactly* the same as applying (a little less) EQ on the track itself. Unless there are other processes at work in the EQ you use (transformer, tube, op-amps, ...) there is a zero difference.
No its not...Theres a difference between having a single edited dry signal and a completely dry signal mixed in with another one. They Sum together differently than one single channel can do by itself.
Says no engineer ever
Quebec spotted
#poutine