| Author
|
eq question!
|
Adi-Quantize
Quantize
Started Topics :
27
Posts :
216
Posted : May 15, 2004 03:05
|
i reely want to be sure on that subject so i was wondering if any of u guys cut freq below 50 40 in your bass line?
and similiar to the kick.
another question is:
how much will it efffect if i wont put several leads with quite the same freq?
i heared it will reely space things out but
isnt it a problem since all leads r pretty much in the same range of freq?
that means i reely cant use several stuff togther so from now on should i reely pick my leads by their frequence?
does it have that srious effect?
pls explain
thanx |
|
|
saxopholus
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
79
Posted : May 15, 2004 12:36
|
|
Amygdala
Amygdala
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
175
Posted : May 15, 2004 12:43
|
I don't know how this misunderstanding came into existence, but it's a pesky one. PLEASE don't cut frequencies from 50 Hz and downwards! The human auditory perception system handles frequencies down to 20 Hz nicely, so why rob your track of the nice sweet thumbin' bass...?
Even though humans don't percieve frequencies below 20 Hz as "sound", that doesn't mean we don't percieve it at all. If your tracks are ever played on a full-range PA with huge speakers, the energy in sub-audible frequencies (< 20 Hz) will be felt instead of heard. Low-cutting makes no sense.
About overlapping leads. Yes, their fundamental frequencies are quite similar (if you play the same notes), but the overtone content is different if you use different leads. These overtones may overlap here and there in frequency, but that doesn't mean the lead disappears. Don't be afraid to use more than one lead - I mean, listen for god's sake: play two leads together, and notice that you can hear them both... It's as easy as that 
If you think you have two nice leads, but one overlaps the other a little bit, how about panning them out? Or maybe lowering some frequency area on the overlapping lead, to make the other stand out more...? That seems to me like a much better sollution
I'm not saying this is easy, and can be learned in an afternoon - but the best advice is the good-ol' trust your ears, and don't do too much EQing (unless you have been doing nothing else for 30 years, and know EXACTLY what you are doing)...
- Amygdala |
|
|
|
Amygdala
Amygdala
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
175
Posted : May 15, 2004 18:33
|
Yes, low frequencies can cloud your mix, if they're tuned wrong - the same way badly tuned analog synthesizers sound awfull when playing with tuned ones... Apart from that - if you think you want to be safe and cut them, you should really consider the phase-distortion you introduce. It's better to not create the clouding bass frequencies in the first place. Unless they are tuned nicely, then they work wonders, and shouldn't cloud anything on decent speakers
I don't know what you mean about overvolume sample Das Fung, but yes, one should avoid undesired harmonics in the mix - that's obvious. The best way is to have a decent input. GIGO - garbage in, garbage out... Putting whatever in, and then trying to weed out the bad stuff never works.
-Amygdala |
|
|
|
Adi-Quantize
Quantize
Started Topics :
27
Posts :
216
Posted : May 15, 2004 18:51
|
thanx allot!
cheers amyaglda it seems that evry question i ask u respond in a pro way.
i also thaught like u that cutting the low is quite dumb since we have to feel the base n not just here its low mid.
cheers |
|
|
|
saxopholus
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
79
Posted : May 16, 2004 00:17
|
Amygdala: I guess I was thinking of a different type of master since most speakers can't handle below a certain frequency. I would imagine that most car stereos couldn't handle much lower than 20hz, so why have it there so strong?
You're very right though to say to include the low freqs that if you have some nice subwoofers in a PA systems that can handle the low freqs. When I learn how to do them well, and have tunes for clubs then maybe I'll have a different policy with mastering. It will depend on the tune to a great extent also, I guess.
Any tips though? Is it a question of having a good clear low sound in the first place, similar to a pure sine wave?
In any case I meant 'roll off' the bottom end, not 'cut', which is usually more severe. Sorry sometimes us English make our language difficult to understand.
Sax James.
www.dartrecordings.co.uk |
|
|
|
Amygdala
Amygdala
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
175
Posted : May 16, 2004 11:42
|
Acidkof>
Thanks, always a pleasure
Saxophulos>
Hmm, tips - that's harder - First of all, you should have some speakers, that doesn't affect the sound too much. You need to HEAR what's actually going on down there. It's not like flying an airplane, where you can just go fly by altitude and bearings...
You're right, rolling off is a much better idea But I think it would be best not to be forced to postprocess everything with filters and EQs. A pure sinewave for bass is often used, but to me, that's a bit dull. It's the harmonics that create the timbre of the sound, but as you say, they can also wreak havoc if not done nicely.
The only postproccesing I have ever done is to run the mix through a TC finalizer, and letting the wizzard handle everything, but for some reason, on a big PA, the unmastered mix is always more juicey. On a regular stereo, or car-stereo, the mastered one stands out more clear, so what should one do? I guess this is why mastering engineers get huge salaries, because it's really HARD to get it right.
I like to think the GIGO-principle is the best to follow, and make sure that all individual sounds and clear and snappy - and then constructively fit them together. If something clouds or messes up the mix, the sound that causes it doesn't belong in the track, and I usually either scrap it, or process that sound alone (and not the entire mix) to fit in.
I shouldn't be preaching too much though, because my own speakers are not very good for these kinds of problems - but for some reason, I never have big problems with a rumbling bass, that destroys the mix...
-Amygdala |
|
|
|
Amygdala
Amygdala
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
175
Posted : May 16, 2004 13:32
|
It would be best to have a set of "true" speakers, that emit all frequencies, and without colouring the sound too much. I really don't know which ones are better. Try looking for the several monitor threads - there should be some hints here and there.
The cool thing about the Ns10m, though, is that if something sounds gooood on those - it will sound good everywhere (not aking the subbass into account  ). I wish I could say "do this, and everything will work out fine", but I can't. I use some pretty standard B&W Hi-Fi speakers, and I know them quite well - they play in all areas, and a good mix on those, is generally a good mix most places... I would like a set of Ns10m mind you
- Amygdala |
|
|
|
saxopholus
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
79
Posted : May 16, 2004 13:34
|
Cheers Amygdala, that's good advice. My speakers have a very good bass response (partly why I chose them), so I can hear ok. Will keep experimenting with the lower frequencies to get them sounding good and not woolly.
The NS10's are for reference to check the mix esp in the mid range i though, not as monitoring speakers. As in if the mix sounds good on NS10's then it's good. I use cheap game speakers like the Creative ones for the same purpose since I don't have the NS10's.
Sax.
|
|
|
|
saxopholus
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
79
Posted : May 16, 2004 13:37
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-05-16 13:32, Amygdala wrote:
I would like a set of Ns10m mind you
|
|
I just read they are not made any more, better be quick!
Sax James. |
|
|
|
|
