for the time being i only use my modular in the studio have a bloodcells Audio D.O.Mixx going into my studiolive 16.02 then i record seperat tracks into Reaper,where i have eq plugs on every track.

but came to think about what if i want to take the modular out of the studio sometimes,how do you avoid frequency clashing in the modular world?

EQ Modules could quickly take up alot of space i would think??

https://www.facebook.com/BrokenFormAudio

Got a Mantis Case and a Squarp Hermod for sale,PM Me


sound design, filtering and arrangement are the obvious ways to prevent clashing frequencies without eq

Utility modules are the inexpensive, dull polish that makes the expensive, shiny modules actually shine!!!


The Worng Soundstage and ALM Jumble Henge mixers seem to solve this problem with EQ and panning pre-set for each input. Every demo I have heard of each sound great for standard usage, and they can be used more creatively too.


I would like EQ capabilities in my rack and might think about adding it when I eventually upgrade to bigger rack space. But as noted, without it I have turned to more careful sound design, filtering, arranging, enveloping, panning and effects use to avoid sonic clashes in the final mix (with varying degrees of success).

That Jumble Henge looks pretty compelling, and definitely sounds effective, but I guess I could only use it on things I want to sub-mix prior to hitting my main rack mixer.


The Worng Soundstage and ALM Jumble Henge mixers seem to solve this problem with EQ and panning pre-set for each input. Every demo I have heard of each sound great for standard usage, and they can be used more creatively too.
-- farkas

would be cool to be able to use one of the above with my D.O.MIXX but dont know if thats possible?(Properly Not)

https://www.facebook.com/BrokenFormAudio

Got a Mantis Case and a Squarp Hermod for sale,PM Me


Looks like the D.O. MIXX has direct outs on each of the five channels, so you could set volume levels there and then send each channel to the Jumble Henge for EQ and panning. The Jumble Henge would allow 11 more inputs and be your main outs at that point. You might be able to do some interesting feedback patching too.


@Broken-Form, how many voices would you be running simultaneously?

I thought about this point a while back for my own rig. My conclusion was I would need to go into the DAW for EQ etc. if I was running enough voices; I thought doing a lot of EQ in modular, or having EQ hardware to run the modular into, just wasn't worth it for my uses.

I did get Mutable Shelves to be able to do a little EQing in modular. I don't use it too much, but it is helpful on occasions.


These are good fixes...but the REAL fix is this one book, probably one of the best books on electronic and/or studio mixing strategies of all time. And it's from 1913! Vide:

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Orchestration-Nikolay-Rimsky-Korsakov/dp/B09BGLY3V8/ref=sr16?crid=3GST0Q37CGQYW&dchild=1&keywords=rimsky+korsakov+principles+of+orchestration&qid=1629508971&sprefix=rimsky-korsakov+orchestration%2Caps%2C179&sr=8-6

No lie. This was the orchestration text we used for my instrumentation and orchestration classes in undergrad...but I noticed that Rimsky-Korsakov's concepts of how to keep various orchestration layers from clashing/overrunning each other also worked perfectly when mixing multitrack audio. No oboe or cor anglais? OK, there's some electronic signal that sounds like 'em, so why not deal with those the same way, albeit with faders and EQs? By doing this sort of "ab extensio" sort of approach to this book, you'll find that mixing and composition in electronic media gets WAY easier, and your mixes sound tighter.

One other caveat: if you're using EQ while multitracking, NEVER boost. Always cut. The only times you'd use boost on an EQ will either be to accentuate frequency bands within a sound, as an effect, or gentle and wide boosts on a mixbus program EQ during mixdown, and even there, you don't want to go bug-nutz on boosting. You can always pull levels up...but bringing them down can actually really mess with your ability to control the mix because you'll get a false perspective from the hotter signals.


Looks like the D.O. MIXX has direct outs on each of the five channels, so you could set volume levels there and then send each channel to the Jumble Henge for EQ and panning. The Jumble Henge would allow 11 more inputs and be your main outs at that point. You might be able to do some interesting feedback patching too.
-- farkas

might be worth getting a jumble henge to try it out,so my D.O.MIXX would be like a sub-mixer of some sorts?

https://www.facebook.com/BrokenFormAudio

Got a Mantis Case and a Squarp Hermod for sale,PM Me


might be worth getting a jumble henge to try it out,so my D.O.MIXX would be like a sub-mixer of some sorts?

-- Broken-Form

That's probably how I would use them. I have a few smaller "character" sub-mixers that lead into the Toppobrillo Stereomix, which I like, but I've considered both the Jumble Henge and Soundstage for my end-of-chain mixer. I've also looked at the SSF Vortices for a completely different flavor. I just like to experiment with creative mixing in the rack. Ultimately, you will have way more control with volume, EQ, and panning in your DAW, but these fixed EQ mixers seem like a good solution for live situations and capturing an acceptable quick studio mix.


@Lugia, is there a specific part of the Rimsky-Korsakov you find most relevant for the topics at hand here?

That text is one I’ve had for a while but not spent much time with yet. I picked it off the shelf this evening and on a quick browse don’t immediately see a section most relevant to mixing (+arrangement etc). Yes I’ll study the whole thing in depth if that’s advisable. Thanks!!


Most all of it, but you have to remember that Rimsky-Korsakov wasn't around by the time that electronic instruments were coming up. The only thing we'd sort of recognize that fits his timeline would've been the Telharmonium, and there was only one of those and it was more of an experiment than anything else. So what's necessary is to translate our sound production methods to how he would work with acoustic instruments. Fortunately, much of the timbral spectra you find in an orchestra often has parallels in electronic sound generation.

Rimsky-Korsakov was very familiar with Helmholtz's "On the Sensation of Tone", clearly...so his orchestration techniques were informed by Helmholtz's concepts regarding timbre and "clearing space" for the partials from the orchestral instruments so that everything sounds "clearer". In his time, he would work this out on paper in a score...but we would be more likely to view this process as being closer in character to mixing. So, if you pay attention to that aspect as well as his methods for grouping timbres, then yeah...this book's pretty useful. And if you side-by-side it with Helmholtz's book (https://www.amazon.com/Sensations-Tone-Dover-Books-Music/dp/0486607534), you then get a VERY clear picture of how/why Rimsky-Korsakov dealt with orchestration as he did. So, unlike prior treatises on orchestration, his actually takes cues from the emergent science of acoustics as a partial basis...which is why, once "retranslated" into our present-day electronic and electroacoustic lingo, that orchestration text "translates" very well to how we produce.


@Lugia, thanks, I'll read the whole thing! Curiously well timed reference to that book -- lately I've been trying starting compositions by getting strongly complementary ensemble sounds first, and notes later vs. the other order. Makes a big difference.

@Broken-Form and others, regarding your potential in-modular EQ needs:
-- suggest you check out Ladik EQs/Filters (https://ladik.ladik.eu/?page_id=7) these are small and cheap enough you could potentially handle several channels of EQ/filtering needs without a crushing HP or $ cost
-- also what comes to mind is Intellijel Mutamix for its ability to set levels and select among 3 bus outs. THAT would let you do some leveling and grouping before EQ/filtering. In the DAW I usually try to do as much group (vs channel) processing as possible as that often leads to a faster and better result. The group (stem) mixing approach in modular might have similar benefits. Not sure Mutamix is a great fit for you as you already have D.O.MIXX, but I wanted to at least mention the grouping/busing idea.


@Lugia, thanks, I'll read the whole thing! Curiously well timed reference to that book -- lately I've been trying starting compositions by getting strongly complementary ensemble sounds first, and notes later vs. the other order. Makes a big difference.
-- nickgreenberg

And that's exactly what I did when, while still at MTSU, I sat down at their big Harrison desk and opted to try setting up the mix based on ensemble organization and NOT the then-in-vogue method of total track isolation. Each ensemble had their own FX parameters, along with the few needed for global "stitching" of the mix itself. My session slot was scheduled to end at 6 AM; I actually got done at 4:30 AM because that trick of "orchestral conducting with faders" sped things up while mixing. By the time I had the ensembles set, all it took was a couple of passes to balance between them, and voila! Thank you, Nikolai!