Question about EQing

[longloststar]

Ive been taught that, as a rule of thumb, you should cut the frequencies of the kick from all other sounds so that the kick stays clear throughout the song. Now, is it generally a good idea to do this with the bass frequencies as well?

[Otto Matta]

Theoretically, every sound should have its own slot in the frequency spectrum.

[Mike A]

Ive been taught that, as a rule of thumb, you should cut the frequencies of the kick from all other sounds so that the kick stays clear throughout the song. Now, is it generally a good idea to do this with the bass frequencies as well?

since a kick is a sine wave sweeping from high to low frequencies, that would leave you with nothing.

i generally high pass most of my sounds from 100hz to 200hz depends on the sound.

the bass is compressed, so it won't interfere with the kick.

[Veracohr]

Ive been taught that, as a rule of thumb, you should cut the frequencies of the kick from all other sounds so that the kick stays clear throughout the song. Now, is it generally a good idea to do this with the bass frequencies as well?

There shouldn't really be any "rules of thumb" in mixing, but it can help to cut a hole in other low-frequency sounds for the kick drum. Find the 'fundamental' frequency of the kick first, then cut a narrow range from the other sounds around that frequency. But pay attention to how it sounds. It may not sound good. If you having too much low end from various sources, something needs to be done about it, but there are different ways. Your kick may not really need all that much low end if the bass provides most of it. Or you can have the bass duck the kick (compressor on the bass triggered from the sidechain input, which has the kick drum applied to it, so that the compressor reduces the bass level when the kick drum hits).

 

As Otto Matta said, it's good for every instrument to occupy a unique frequency range, so that multiple instruments aren't fighting for the same range. It's best to take this into consideration during the writing and arranging.

[Colin OOOD]

As Otto Matta said, it's good for every instrument to occupy a unique frequency range, so that multiple instruments aren't fighting for the same range. It's best to take this into consideration during the writing and arranging.

I strongly disagree with this. The frequency ranges of many instruments overlap and to make them all occupy 'a unique frequency range' would result in a very wierd sounding mix. If you think of EQ in terms of separate volume controls for different areas of a sound's frequency range then the idea of 'balance' between different aspects of different sounds becomes a very useful tool for getting a good mix. Don't forget that in times gone by the job of the final mix was often done by the 'balancing engineer'.

[Otto Matta]

I strongly disagree with this. The frequency ranges of many instruments overlap and to make them all occupy 'a unique frequency range' would result in a very wierd sounding mix. If you think of EQ in terms of separate volume controls for different areas of a sound's frequency range then the idea of 'balance' between different aspects of different sounds becomes a very useful tool for getting a good mix. Don't forget that in times gone by the job of the final mix was often done by the 'balancing engineer'.

Is it possible that it's necessary to state that at least the major sounds, as opposed to general atmosphere and some minor rhythmic elements, should have their own frequency lane? Thing is, I've looked into it a little and I've encountered the same thing said by many well-known sound engineers and producers. I mean, I know there's some gray area regarding this rule, but it sure is mentioned a lot for it to not be a standard method. One also hears that the sounds in the upper frequency are not as vital in this respect, and that panning can solve a lot of crowding issues up top. Can't one also use these lanes creatively to achieve the "balance" you mentioned? I'm actually really curious, Colin, since as you know I'm trying to mix an album for the first time.

[Veracohr]

I strongly disagree with this. The frequency ranges of many instruments overlap and to make them all occupy 'a unique frequency range' would result in a very wierd sounding mix.

I didn't intend to suggest drastic measures so that each instrument is separate in frequency range. You're right, that would sound weird. What I meant is, for instance, you if you had a kick drum, bass sound and a big pad all with a lot of information around 80Hz, you would end up with a big floppy mess. In this case, as I mentioned about the writing and arranging, it would be best to remedy this problem by choosing different sounds so they didn't all fight for the same frequency range. Or you could change your arrangement so that those sounds aren't all going at once.

 

Without such changes, you are then left with EQ to fix it. Maybe that pad doesn't really need all that low end. Most likely either the kick or the bass could have some low end cut--many songs rely on either or for the low end drive, not both. There's always going to be overlap, of course, but every instrument and sound has a dominant frequency range, and it's good not to have too many going at once that all share the same range.

 

It's just an idea, there's no hard and fast rules for engineering. As Otto Matta said, many engineers and producers have said the same. I'm just regurgitating what I learned years ago.

[Colin OOOD]

It was the use of the phrases "unique frequency range" and "every sound should have its own slot in the frequency spectrum" (which have a very specific meaning to me) that got me going The thing about being a geek is that you need to use exact terminology when communicating with other geeks

 

Otto - the way I see it, each sound has its own multiple 'lanes', the volumes of which can be adjusted with EQ.

[Otto Matta]

It was the use of the phrases "unique frequency range" and "every sound should have its own slot in the frequency spectrum" (which have a very specific meaning to me) that got me going The thing about being a geek is that you need to use exact terminology when communicating with other geeks

 

Otto - the way I see it, each sound has its own multiple 'lanes', the volumes of which can be adjusted with EQ.

I see, like harmonics or something? Or like the spectral analysis of an astronomical object? (How's that for geeky?) And depending on where those harmonics are peaking, one can cut or boost them? Or even move them?

 

Damn, whenever I feel I'm finally starting to really get it, I realize that there are just more levels to attain. Where does it stop, I wonder? Hehe. :drama:

[Colin OOOD]

I see, like harmonics or something? Or like the spectral analysis of an astronomical object? (How's that for geeky?) And depending on where those harmonics are peaking, one can cut or boost them? Or even move them?

 

Damn, whenever I feel I'm finally starting to really get it, I realize that there are just more levels to attain. Where does it stop, I wonder? Hehe. :drama:

It doesn't stop. Ever.

 

To me the 'lanes' can also be though of as aspects of the sound, each aspect being mainly located in an approximately-defined area within the spectrum of each sound. So a pad's 'muddiness' resides between 250 and 400Hz, a kickdrum's 'weight' between 80-120Hz, and a vocal's 'air' above about 10KHz. You can reduce the muddiness of a pad by cutting (with an appropriately wide Q) around 300Hz... and so on. There are many lists of this kind around the net, but the terminology is fairly subjective and I'd recommend taking a few of them and combining them into your own little map of sounds.

[Otto Matta]

It doesn't stop. Ever.

 

To me the 'lanes' can also be though of as aspects of the sound, each aspect being mainly located in an approximately-defined area within the spectrum of each sound. So a pad's 'muddiness' resides between 250 and 400Hz, a kickdrum's 'weight' between 80-120Hz, and a vocal's 'air' above about 10KHz. You can reduce the muddiness of a pad by cutting (with an appropriately wide Q) around 300Hz... and so on. There are many lists of this kind around the net, but the terminology is fairly subjective and I'd recommend taking a few of them and combining them into your own little map of sounds.

Okay, that description is pretty much what I had in mind when I mentioned the "slots in the frequency spectrum". Yes, it is subjective, isn't it? Same thing with opinions on compression usage, I find. It all adds up to the ol' "learn the rules so you know how to break them" adage.

[Colin OOOD]

Okay, that description is pretty much what I had in mind when I mentioned the "slots in the frequency spectrum".

Cool... but then remember that sounds each occupy multiple overlapping 'slots'

[acidkills]

I have some e-book which shows the frequency ranges of different parts of the song e.g. guitar, vocal, bass and such and what happens when you apply different kinds of eq on them.. That would probably be usefull.. Search the net for frequency ranges.pdf..

 

I see Coolin is the one for mastering questions so Coolin, this is not the topic but, btw which monitors are better those richard allen u have or Fostex PM-2 ? But no, wait.. I`m thinking of Adam`s A7 or P11A? Im in a doubt so if u can englighten me please.. I to need to mix and master my album so any help is gratefull

What is better for u personal, compression before eg or after?

[cronodevir]

What are tips for EQing when you can only EQ and master when you render the file to mp3? [my songs get rather cpu intensive]

[frozen dream]

it's important that it sounds good!

 

for that, get good reference material!